from that required to be shown under our guest statute”); and City of Raton v. Rice, 52 N.M. 363, 365, 199 P.2d 986, 987 (1948) (stating that “[njegligence, not amounting to wilful or wanton disregard of consequences [,] cannot be made the basis of a criminal action”). 14.The misdemeanor-manslaughter rule, without the qualification of criminal negligence, has fallen into disfavor in many jurisdictions. See Torcia, supra, § 168 (“The misdemeanor-manslaughter rule has been abandoned in England, the Model Penal Code, and in a growing number of states. Manslaughter is now committed in such jurisdiction, whether the act be lawful or unlawful, only if the death is caused recklessly or with criminal negligence.”) (footnotes omitted). Several jurisdictions have found fault wi 371, 376 (1994) (<HOLDING>), cert. granted, 340 Md. 649, 667 A.2d 897
holding that battery is an inherently included offense of aggravated battery recognizing that two prior first offense dui convictions were sufficient predicate for third offense dui conviction holding that the evidence is sufficient to sustain a conviction for aggravated battery when the bodily member that is lost or rendered useless in the battery is a tooth holding the intentional use of a dangerous instrumentality does not support the allegation of mere criminal negligence holding that the malum in se commonlaw misdemeanor of intentional battery was a sufficient predicate offense even though not inherently dangerous to support a misdemeanormanslaughter conviction