Free Republic
Browse · Search
General/Chat
Topics · Post Article

Skip to comments.

Legal Analysis: Alec Baldwin Situation Beginning to Look a Lot Like Manslaughter
Legal Insurrection ^ | 10-25-2021 | Andrew Branca

Posted on 10/25/2021 6:40:34 PM PDT by servo1969

The more we learn about the facts of this case, within the context of New Mexico criminal law, the more this shooting looks increasingly like a crime—specifically, felony involuntary manslaughter.

Welcome to today’s Law of Self Defense content! I am, of course, Attorney Andrew Branca, for Law of Self Defense LLC.

Today I’d like to share with some updated legal analysis of the Alec Baldwin on-set shooting of Halyna Hutchins, a 42-year-old mother and the director of cinematography for Baldwin’s in-production Western movie “Rust.” Ms. Hutchins, tragically, died as a result. (Also injured by the shot was director Joel Souza, who survived.)

Spoiler: The more we learn about the facts of this case, within the context of New Mexico criminal law, the more this shooting looks increasingly like a crime—specifically, felony involuntary manslaughter. So, today let’s explore that possibility in further detail.

Last Friday we shared some analysis immediately after this tragic event just the day prior, and during which there remained considerable uncertainty and speculation regarding relevant facts surrounding what happened. Given the “fog of war” circumstances on Friday, rather than advance towards a “right answer” as to the likely legal consequences of the shooting, we instead framed our analysis in terms of at least asking the “right questions.”

Accordingly, we explored last Friday whether this tragic shooting might best be characterized as an accident, in the technical legal sense, or mere negligence giving rise to only civil liability, or perhaps recklessness giving rise to criminal culpability—specifically, involuntary manslaughter.

Since last Friday, however, it appears that certain facts have been established that have moved us hard towards the right side of that continuum and towards a conclusion that this tragic event looks increasingly like felony involuntary manslaughter.

Relevant Facts Assumed to Be Established

The relevant facts we’re presuming to be established for purposes of this analysis include:

Separately, we are assuming for purposes of today’s analysis that Baldwin did not intend to injure Ms. Hutchins. If such intent to harm were established, we’d obviously be looking at a much more serious criminal charge than mere involuntary manslaughter.

Assuming, as we are, these facts to be established, it would certainly appear that they are more than sufficient to justify a criminal charge of involuntary manslaughter under New Mexico law and to support a conviction beyond a reasonable doubt on that charge.

New Mexico Involuntary Manslaughter Statute: § 30-2-3. Manslaughter.

The relevant New Mexico statute on involuntary manslaughter is § 30-2-3. Manslaughter, which addresses both voluntary and involuntary manslaughter. Our focus here, of course, is on involuntary manslaughter.

In the context of involuntary manslaughter, § 30-2-3 reads in relevant part:

Manslaughter is the unlawful killing of a human being without malice. … B. Involuntary manslaughter consists of manslaughter committed in the … commission of a lawful act that might produce death … without due caution and circumspection.

Ms. Hutchins is obviously killed. We have stipulated that the killing of Ms. Hutchins was not justified (e.g., it was “unlawful”) and without malice (without intent to cause harm), so that meets the conditions of the first sentence of the manslaughter statute, and satisfies the definition of manslaughter under New Mexico law.

The possibility of voluntary manslaughter appears to be off the table here, given the lack of evidence of a “sudden quarrel” or “heat of passion” required for that crime by § 30-2-3. So that leaves us to consider the possibility of involuntary manslaughter.

The key, then, is to determine whether Baldwin’s pointing of the gun at Ms. Hutchins and pressing the trigger without first ensuring that the gun did not contain live ammo, was the commission of a lawful act which might produce death and that was done “without due caution and circumspection.”

Inherently Dangerous Instruments: Yep, Including Guns

That means we have to understand what “due caution and circumspection” means—and particularly in the context of an inherently dangerous instrument, such as a firearm.

It is common knowledge that firearms are dangerous instruments, so the law presumes that we all possess such knowledge. In the case of Baldwin, he actually sits on the board of a gun-control organization whose existence is premised on the fact that guns are dangerous, so he can certainly be presumed to possess this knowledge.

Items are inherently dangerous when they can readily cause death or serious bodily injury to people if used carelessly. Guns clearly qualify, as already noted. Also in this category of inherently dangerous instruments would be explosives, heavy equipment, and dangerous drugs or chemicals. Use of these items takes particular and specialized care if death or serious bodily injury is to be avoided.

It happens that inherently dangerous instruments are often exceptionally useful. Guns, for example, are exceptionally useful, compared to the available alternatives, for purposes of defense and hunting. Explosives are exceptionally useful for mining and road construction and demolition. Dangerous drugs are exceptionally useful for human health and dangerous chemicals for various industries.

Balancing Inherent Danger with Social Utility: Strict Liability

So, society wants to realize the value of these various inherently dangerous instruments—but also wants to balance that value against the considerable risk of harm these inherently dangerous instruments might cause.

That balance is achieved by imposing the following rule—anyone making use of an inherently dangerous instrument is strictly liable for any unnecessary harm that they cause, no excuses, period. The burden is placed on the person using the inherently dangerous instrument to ensure that they take whatever steps are required in order to not cause unnecessary harm—and if they do cause unnecessary harm, they bear absolute responsibility for that harm, no excuses.

What this all boils down to is that for any category of inherently dangerous instrument there will have been rules developed for the safe use of that instrument—follow the rules, and the value of the instrument can be realized without much risk of serious harm. Fail to follow the rules, and serious harm becomes quite likely—and, again, the user then bears absolute responsibility for having caused that harm, no excuses. (If safe use of an inherently dangerous instrument would not be possible even if safety rules were followed, that instrument would simply be prohibited from general use.)

Four Rules of Gun Safety, or “Due caution and circumspection”

What this means in the context of firearms, a particular class of inherently dangerous instruments with a considerable potential for causing unnecessary death and serious harm to others, is that there exists a series of safety rules for their responsible operation. These rules are well established and widely recognized—and there are only four of them.

Phrased in the context most relevant to the facts of this case, the four rules for safe gun handling are:

  1. All guns are presumed to be loaded until the gun handler personally verifies otherwise—and that verification becomes invalid the moment the gun leaves the handler’s control.
  2. Never point the muzzle of a firearm at anything you are not willing to kill or destroy.
  3. Never press the trigger of a firearm unless you intend for it to fire a bullet from the barrel.
  4. Know your target, and what is beyond your target.

That last safety rule is intended to recognize the dangers presented by bullets that can penetrate objects and proceed onward to strike unintended people and things, as well as to help prevent hunters from shooting each other because of mistaken identification as game, so that one isn’t particularly relevant to our analysis here.

The first three safety rules, however, are intensely relevant to the facts of this case. As the safety rules for safe gun handling, they define what is meant by the statutory element of “due caution and circumspection” in the context of handling firearms.

The Beautiful Redundancy of Gun Safety Rules

One interesting facet of the gun safety rules is that they are redundant, in the technical sense of meaning that violating any single one of them will not necessarily have a bad outcome. Indeed, a bad outcome in the sense of death or serious bodily injury can really only happen not if one of those three safety rules are violated, or even two of them, but instead requires that the gun handler manage to violate all three of those gun handling safety rules.

Merely mistakenly believe a gun does not contain live ammo (e.g., in fact it is loaded), but neither point it at anyone nor press the trigger, and no harm results.

Merely point the muzzle at someone, but first ensure the gun does not contain live ammo and do not depress the trigger, and no harm results.

Merely press the trigger, but first ensure the gun does not contain live ammo and don’t point the muzzle at anyone, and no harm results.

Break all three of the safety rules, however—mistakenly believe your gun containing live ammo is unloaded, point the muzzle at another person, and press the trigger—and you have a very bad outcome, indeed.

That’s precisely why the safety rules exist—so when handling an inherently dangerous instrument in the form of a gun, bad outcomes—death and serious bodily injury—can be avoided.

So how does one handle a firearm “with due caution and circumspection”? By adhering to those safety rules when handling the firearm.

When is a person handling a firearm failing to do so “with due caution and circumspection”? When they are handling that firearm in a manner that violates one or more of those safety rules.

Based on the apparent facts of this case, it appears incontestable that Alec Baldwin violated all three of those primary gun handling safety rules when he engaged in the conduct that killed Ms. Hutchins.

First, he pointed the muzzle in her direction—presumably directly at her.

Second, he pressed the trigger in the manner designed to fire the weapon.

Third, he failed to first ensure that the weapon did not contain a live round.

The result: the unintended discharge of the bullet into Ms. Hutchins, killing her.

That, in a nutshell, certainly appears to be the “commission of a lawful act which might produce death … without due caution and circumspection.”

And that, as we’ve already seen, is the statutory definition of involuntary manslaughter under § 30-2-3.

NM Jury Instruction 14-231 Involuntary Manslaughter

Another angle from which we can inspect this question of whether Baldwin’s conduct qualifies as involuntary manslaughter under New Mexico law is to take a look at the relevant New Mexico jury instruction: 14-231 Involuntary Manslaughter.

While jury instructions are not, technically speaking, authoritative sources of law themselves (those are statutes and court decisions, or case law), jury instructions are a useful amalgamation of the statutory language and how the courts want that language applied to real people in real cases. Because they are instructions intended for a jury of laypeople, and not legal experts, they also tend to be written in plain English.

Indeed, they are often written in a “fill-in-the-blanks” kind of format to make them easy to use consistently from trial to trial, and that’s precisely how New Mexico structures its uniform jury instructions.

Here’s how jury instruction 14-231 on involuntary manslaughter would be read to the jury if the blanks were filled in with relevant facts from Baldwin’s shooting of Ms. Hutchins [that content placed within brackets]:

For you to find the defendant guilty of involuntary manslaughter, the state must prove to your satisfaction beyond a reasonable doubt each of the following elements of the crime:

  1. [Alec Baldwin] [pointed a loaded firearm at Ms. Hutchins and depressed the trigger, firing a bullet into her] ;
  2. [Alec Baldwin] should have known of the danger involved by [Alec Baldwin’s] actions;
  3. [Alec Baldwin] acted with a willful disregard for the safety of others;
  4. [Alec Baldwin’s] act caused the death of [Ms. Hutchins];
  5. This happened in New Mexico on or about the 21st day of October, 2021.

The “know of the danger” and “willful disregard” portions of the jury instruction correspond to the “due caution and circumspection” language of § 30-2-3. The matter of “willful” merely refers to the fact that whether to first inspect the gun to ensure it did not contain a live round was within Baldwin’s control—there was no outside force compelling him to not safety check the firearm before he pointed it at Ms. Hutchins and fired it.

So, again, it seems incontestable, based on the evidence as it appears to be, that Baldwin’s conduct meets the legal conditions for the crime of felony involuntary manslaughter.

“Hey, Andrew, Any Case Law On This?”

But wait, we’re not done yet. Having looked at the relevant New Mexico statute and jury instruction on involuntary manslaughter, we ought also to consider whether there’s any New Mexico case law (appellate court decisions) that would seem to apply to this question of whether handling a loaded gun in such an unsafe manner that you unintentionally kill someone meets the legal standard for the crime of felony involuntary manslaughter.

And, as it happens, there is indeed New Mexico case law precisely on this point.

That case law is a decision out of the New Mexico Supreme Court itself, State v. Gilliam, 288 P.2d 675 (NM Sup. Ct. 1955). For any of you who may be concerned that Gilliam, a decision handed down in 1955, is “out of date,” be not afraid—case law is perfectly valid law until there is a Constitutional, statutory, or later court decision that modifies or reverses the applied legal standard. Valid case law does not simply “expire”—and I used my office’s professional legal database resource, Lexis, to ensure that Gilliam remains good law in New Mexico.

The decision was an appeal of a criminal conviction at a jury trial, in which the defendant had been found guilty of involuntary manslaughter by the act of unsafely handling a gun with the result that it discharged and killed the victim.

The NM Supreme Court ruled in that decision, in relevant part that:

It could have made no difference to the trial of a charge of involuntary manslaughter as to who loaded the gun … . All that it is necessary to establish for involuntary manslaughter by the use of a loaded firearm is that a defendant had in his hands a gun which at some time had been loaded and that he handled it … without due caution and circumspection and that death resulted.

So, it doesn’t matter who loaded the gun—meaning, all this talk about whether the live round in the gun came from this source or that source or some other source is largely irrelevant for purposes of determining whether Baldwin’s shooting of Ms. Hutchins was involuntary manslaughter under New Mexico law.

All that matters in the context of involuntary manslaughter through unsafe handling of a firearm is that “the defendant had in his hands a gun which at some time had been loaded and that he handled it without due caution and circumspection and that death resulted.”

Clearly Baldwin “had in his hands a gun, which at some time had been loaded.” And as we’ve already demonstrated, by so thoroughly violating the well-established, and mandatory, rules of gun safety he also “handled it without due caution and circumspection.” And, finally, we all know for certain the tragic outcome of this conduct that Ms.Hutchins’ “death resulted.”

Again, it’s hard to see how Baldwin’s fatal shooting of Ms. Hutchins, based on the facts as we believe them to have been established, could fail to qualify as involuntary manslaughter under New Mexico law.

What About Things Other People May Have Done Wrong?

I see a lot of hand-wringing attempting to assign blame for this tragedy to, it seems, everybody other than Baldwin. Frankly, the intensity of these efforts suggests to me that they are part of an orchestrated crisis management initiative put into play on Baldwin’s behalf—and that’s a smart move by Baldwin if, in fact, that’s what he’s done. It’s why such crisis management firms exist.

It is, indeed, possible that other people also bear some responsibility, perhaps even criminal responsibility, for this tragedy. Perhaps safety rules were broken, professional duties were failed, or adequate resources to ensure safety were not provided.

None of that, however, at all diminishes the responsibility, under law, for Baldwin to handle that inherently dangerous instrument, the gun, with due caution and circumspection—and that he failed to do when he pointed the gun at Ms. Hutchins and pressed the trigger, without first personally ensuring that the weapon did not contain a live round.

Whatever mistakes others might have made previously, had Baldwin broken even one less of the fundamental gun safety rules—had he not pointed the gun at Ms. Hutchins, or had he not pressed the trigger, or had he assumed the gun contained live ammo until he personally determined otherwise—Ms. Hutchins would not have died from that bullet on that day. Her fate ultimately rested entirely in the hands of Baldwin. And, it appears, he failed her and failed the law of New Mexico.

But He’s an Actor!

Another bit of handwringing I’m seeing a lot of is the notion that the rules should be different for Baldwin because he’s an actor, and actors often point guns at each other in various roles, it’s what they do. They’re … different.

First, the reality that actors do often point guns at each other in various roles, and that they do it almost invariably without unintentionally shooting someone, is a credit generally to Hollywood’s safety practices, and only highlights to an even greater degree why adhering to “due caution and circumspection” are so vital when handling firearms.

When the safety rules are followed, no harm results. When Baldwin willfully violates the safety rules, Ms. Hutchins dies.

The death of Ms. Hutchins is not a “Hollywood problem.” Hollywood has a pretty darned good safety record in gun handling. It’s an “Alec Baldwin problem.

From more of a legal perspective, however, there’s nothing about being an actor that entitles someone to create an unjustified risk of killing someone, disregarding that risk, and then killing that person. There’s no involuntary manslaughter “freebie” for actors. If they kill someone recklessly, they are as guilty of involuntary manslaughter as is the fellow down the street who drunkenly runs over the nun in the crosswalk. There’s no special “actor” court.

So, WILL Baldwin Be Charged with Involuntary Manslaughter?

Having said that there’s no special “actor” court, any charging decision is ultimately at the sole discretion of the local prosecutor. And while such charging decisions should always be—but sometimes aren’t—based on adequate legal merit to believe guilt can be proven beyond a reasonable doubt, in high-profile cases such as this one charging decisions often become political in nature as well.

Should the local prosecutor choose to not charge Baldwin, then he’ll likely never face a trial on the felony charge of involuntary manslaughter. That would be a lucky break, indeed, for Alec Baldwin.

If, on the other hand, the prosecutor decides to charge Baldwin with involuntary manslaughter, on the evidence as we believe it to have been established, it looks like a walk-away conviction to me, at least on the actual legal merits—juries are, as always, dangerous and unpredictable creatures.

OK, folks, that’s all I have for you on this topic.

Until next time:

Remember

You carry a gun so you’re hard to kill.

Know the law so you’re hard to convict.

Stay safe!

–Andrew

Attorney Andrew F. Branca
Law of Self Defense LLC

Nothing in this content constitutes legal advice. Nothing in this content establishes an attorney-client relationship, nor confidentiality. If you are in immediate need of legal advice, retain a licensed, competent attorney in the relevant jurisdiction.


TOPICS:
KEYWORDS: alecbaldwin; baldwin; banglist; halynahutchins; hutchins; joelsouza; rust
Navigation: use the links below to view more comments.
first previous 1-2021-4041-6061-8081-83 next last
To: Jim W N

Intelligent post.

As obnoxious a personality as Baldwin is, and as ignorant as his political opinions are, the legalities of this will wind up being far more complicated than some here suggest.


41 posted on 10/25/2021 7:34:25 PM PDT by Jamestown1630 ("A Republic, if you can keep it.")
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 27 | View Replies]

To: AnthonySoprano
DA is concerned with Politics, not crime.

Cover-up in progress.

I would think that a politically ambitious D.A. might want a celebrity head in his trophy cabinet.

42 posted on 10/25/2021 7:35:48 PM PDT by Angelino97
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 21 | View Replies]

To: servo1969

He’ll not face any state charges. His biggest worry is lawsuits unless the family get a big payoff behind the scenes. End result: He walks after about a $20 mil payoff to the husband.


43 posted on 10/25/2021 7:39:33 PM PDT by damper99
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: servo1969

I done told y’all already.


44 posted on 10/25/2021 7:42:33 PM PDT by Tommy Revolts
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: Fido969

“If the gun was supposed to contain inert rounds, his negligence is limited to not checking it by dry-firing or observing the gun dry-fired cycling the action over each chamber. That he could walk from.”

Pointing a firearm at another.

Handling a firearm in unsafe manner resulting in discharge.


45 posted on 10/25/2021 7:43:27 PM PDT by TexasGator (UF)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 35 | View Replies]

To: Fido969
You can’t conclude he pulled the trigger. The gun “went off by itself” before that. That may be indicative of a bad sear.

OK, sure, whatever you say; poor Alec is just the victim of unfortunate circumstances and poor craftmanship by the evil gun makers.

Just as likely, some union worker wanted to make a point about safety problems on the set so they loaded the gun with live rounds. No-one in the chain caught it because they were as negligent as accused and some poor person paid the price. End of the day, the number one firearms safety rule is treat every gun like it's loaded. Faulty sear, or not Baldwin violated that rule. He then violated the other three and one person ended up dead and another seriously hurt. His hypocritical anti-gun a$$ is to blame.

46 posted on 10/25/2021 7:46:54 PM PDT by Turbo Pig ('to close with and destroy the enemy")
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 36 | View Replies]

To: Fido969

“You can’t conclude he pulled the trigger. The gun “went off by itself” before that. That may be indicative of a bad sear.”

You have to agree. that he cocked the hammer and recklessly pointed it at a person.


47 posted on 10/25/2021 7:49:52 PM PDT by TexasGator (UF)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 36 | View Replies]

To: servo1969

New holiday Christmas song for Arrec Barwdrin

“Its beginning to look a lot like Manslaughter”


48 posted on 10/25/2021 7:53:46 PM PDT by Secret Agent Man (Gone Galt; not averse to Going Bronson.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: Turbo Pig

At least something has taken everyone’s mind off of Brian Laundrie and his family.

(The North Port police admitted today that they were mistaken when they said that they had seen Brian ‘return to the house’ on Sept. 15. They mistook the mother for Laundrie!)


49 posted on 10/25/2021 7:54:22 PM PDT by Jamestown1630 ("A Republic, if you can keep it.")
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 46 | View Replies]

To: servo1969

Frankly, I was amazed that he wasn’t arrested at the scene. Anyone other than a celebrity, public official, or cop would have been.


50 posted on 10/25/2021 7:55:49 PM PDT by GaryCrow
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: Veto!

So what did he “ mean” to do to her?
Scare her?
Annoy her?
Show anger or contempt toward her?
Make her smile?

What would you think if someone…possibly an angry or annoyed someone, or a condescending bully…pointed a gun directly at you? Even a “ prop”?
Feel easy with that?


51 posted on 10/25/2021 8:08:25 PM PDT by silverleaf (“Freedom ultimately means the right of other people to do things that you disagree with”. T. Sowell )
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 16 | View Replies]

To: Fido969

“You can’t conclude he pulled the trigger.”

This is probably is only and best defense but still would not totally absolve him.

The gun is presently in evidence and will almost certainly be scrutinized for defects.


52 posted on 10/25/2021 8:09:13 PM PDT by unlearner (Be ready for war.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 36 | View Replies]

To: freedumb2003

“he is a C lister”

Uh, no. Baldwin is a very big celebrity. Definitely an a-lister. Or, at least he was before killing his cinematographer.

Worth $65M. Makes several million per year as an actor.


53 posted on 10/25/2021 8:10:00 PM PDT by unlearner (Be ready for war.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 13 | View Replies]

To: servo1969

My best friend who is more of a conspiracy theorist then I am messaged me an item that said Halyna Hutchins had tweeted that she knew information on Hillary Clinton would send her to jail.

Anyone else hear of this? Politifact said it was a false rumor but then again that’s all Poltifact deals with, false rumors directed against conservatives.

My assumption is it’s false.


54 posted on 10/25/2021 8:15:51 PM PDT by KamperKen
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: TexasGator

they weren’t even shooting a scene. he was practicing his draw and got carried away


55 posted on 10/25/2021 8:32:23 PM PDT by blackberry1
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 47 | View Replies]

To: silverleaf

good analysis. Thanks


56 posted on 10/25/2021 8:33:11 PM PDT by Veto! (Political Correctness Offends Me)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 51 | View Replies]

To: Veto!

Too bad. That has nothing to do with his behavior...if i drive drunk and kill someone i certainly didnt mean to


57 posted on 10/25/2021 8:36:30 PM PDT by Recovering Ex-hippie (The 2020 election Trump victory determines the fate f America and Freedom.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 16 | View Replies]

To: Jim W N

What side of story..he pointed the gun at her and pulled the trigger


58 posted on 10/25/2021 8:39:13 PM PDT by Recovering Ex-hippie (The 2020 election Trump victory determines the fate f America and Freedom.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 27 | View Replies]

To: Sacajaweau
I'm still trying to figure out why he pointed the gun at her in the first place. It was NOT part of any scene.

I read elsewhere that he was rehearsing a scene where he draws the gun and points it at the camera. He was doing this while the cameras were being set up for the shot.

I read in another article that the shot is common, and so there are protocols for it:

None of this was happening. Baldwin was distracted by the camera setup and was filling the time by practicing pulling the gun out of his holster and and pointing it towards the camera.

He shouldn't have even been given the gun until the cameras were set, the people were away from the scene, and the cameras were about to roll.

-PJ

59 posted on 10/25/2021 8:41:38 PM PDT by Political Junkie Too ( * LAAP = Left-wing Activist Agitprop Press (formerly known as the MSM))
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 30 | View Replies]

To: Turbo Pig

He did hire union staff to save money

This was union payback


60 posted on 10/25/2021 8:43:59 PM PDT by Recovering Ex-hippie (The 2020 election Trump victory determines the fate f America and Freedom.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 46 | View Replies]


Navigation: use the links below to view more comments.
first previous 1-2021-4041-6061-8081-83 next last

Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.

Free Republic
Browse · Search
General/Chat
Topics · Post Article

FreeRepublic, LLC, PO BOX 9771, FRESNO, CA 93794
FreeRepublic.com is powered by software copyright 2000-2008 John Robinson