With no explanation, chose the best option from "A", "B", "C" or "D". be made as to whether death was a probable consequence of the defendant’s conduct. Id. at 541. In other words, the Court apparently looked beyond the requirements of the underlying offense, ordinary negligence, to determine if the death was “a probable consequence” of this particular defendant’s action. As we note later, this view has been expressed by a few other jurisdictions, and it represents a minority view that has merit— as long as the jury is properly instructed that the probable consequences of the defendant’s actions were obvious. The Pennsylvania Supreme Court in Commonwealth v. Heck, 517 Pa. 192, 535 A.2d 575, 579 (1987), decided after Jumper, held the contrary view that a showing of criminal negligence is required for vehicular homicide. 11. —The misdemeanor -29 (1992) (<HOLDING>); but see United States v. Walker, 380 A.2d

A: holding that a careless driving statute could not be used as a predicate for vehicular homicide because careless driving can occur without criminal negligence
B: holding that vehicular homicide involving criminal negligence is not a crime of violence under begay
C: holding that under the particular facts alleged in the indictment vehicular homicide was a lesser offense included in the murder charge
D: holding that dwi manslaughter and vehicular homicide are different forms of the same offense
A.