State v. Carpenter, 374 P.3d 744

On May 21, 2011, after drinking, Jess Carpenter shot and killed his friend Joe Darras; Carpenter called 911 and said the gun went off accidentally.
Carpenter was familiar with firearms, had a .116 BAC from blood drawn that morning, and testified he was handling a pistol when it discharged.
He was indicted for second-degree murder and negligent use of a deadly weapon; at trial the jury convicted him of negligent use and involuntary manslaughter (a lesser included offense).
The involuntary manslaughter jury instruction tracked the statutory UJI language but inserted an added fourth element—"committed an unlawful act not amounting to a felony"—which was not in the standard UJI; Carpenter did not object at trial.
On appeal Carpenter argued insufficient evidence supported that added element and that inclusion of the extra element violated his Sixth and Fourteenth Amendment jury-trial rights. The court affirmed his involuntary manslaughter conviction.

Issue	Plaintiff's Argument	Defendant's Argument	Held
Whether evidence supports the added jury-instruction element that Carpenter "committed an unlawful act not amounting to a felony"	State: The statutory elements of involuntary manslaughter were proved and the evidence (handling a loaded gun while intoxicated, discharge killing Darras) supports conviction	Carpenter: There was insufficient evidence for the extra, nonstatutory element	Court: Musacchio controls—sufficiency review follows the charged statutory elements; the added element was not essential under the statute and the evidence was sufficient for involuntary manslaughter
Whether the inclusion of the extra element without proof violates Carpenter’s right to a jury trial (Apprendi line)	State: Carpenter was charged on statutory elements, had meaningful opportunity to defend, and the jury was required to find those elements beyond a reasonable doubt	Carpenter: Failure to prove the extra element deprived him of a jury determination on every element beyond a reasonable doubt	Court: No violation—because the jury was instructed on the charged elements and the extra phrase did not create an essential element that triggers Apprendi protections

Musacchio v. United States, 136 S. Ct. 709 (U.S. 2016) (sufficiency review is measured against the elements of the charged offense, not against an extra, erroneous jury-instruction element)
Apprendi v. New Jersey, 530 U.S. 466 (U.S. 2000) (Sixth Amendment requires jury determination of every element that increases punishment beyond the statutory maximum)