Russian Roulette Case

Question

Husband and wife are playing Russian Roulette. Husband killed himself. His wife should be guilty of 1) First degree murder 2) Second degree murder or 3) Conspiracy to commit murder.

Answer 1

In the Massachussetts case of Commonwealth v. Atencio, Marshall, 189 N.E.2d 223, Atencio and Marshall were playing RR with Britch, and Britch lost the game, fatally. He was convicted of involuntary manslaughter. On appeal, the court reminds us that "Involuntary manslaughter may be predicated upon wanton or reckless conduct", citing well-established precedent that "The essence of wanton or reckless conduct is intentional conduct, by way either of commission or of omission where there is a duty to act, which conduct involves a high degree of likelihood that substantial harm will result to another". While Britch could not sue defendants (had he surviced) because of his voluntary contributory act, the Commonwealth's interest is that a person "should not be killed by the wanton or reckless conduct of himself and others".

The defendants argued that there is no necessary connection between their pulling a trigger and his pulling the trigger, i.e. there were three games of solitaire, and there is no causal connection between defendants pulling the trigger and the deceased doing so (the court rejects that contention), instead, "There could be found to be a mutual encouragement in a joint enterprise". And while "There may have been no duty on the defendants to prevent the deceased from playing" the court also said that "there was a duty on their part not to cooperate or join with him in the 'game.'"

In Washington, RCW 9A.32.070 has a different name for the same crime:

A person is guilty of manslaughter in the second degree when, with criminal negligence, he or she causes the death of another person.

In Arizona, ARS 13-1102(A)

A person commits negligent homicide if with criminal negligence the person causes the death of another person

In general, it could be argued that the act exhibited recklessness manifesting extreme indifference to the value of human life. Colorado's first degree murder statute includes the case where

Under circumstances evidencing an attitude of universal malice manifesting extreme indifference to the value of human life generally, he knowingly engages in conduct which creates a grave risk of death to a person, or persons, other than himself, and thereby causes the death of another

That said, it is not likely that prosecutors would seek to punish RR in this way. The point is, there is a range of possibilities, depending on the details of the local homicide statutes.