Bailey v. Commonwealth
229 Va. 258, 329 S.E.2d 37 (1985)
Premium Feature
Subscribe to Lexplug to listen to the Case Podcast.
Rule of Law:
A person is guilty of involuntary manslaughter as a principal in the first degree when they, with gross negligence, use an innocent or unwitting agent to bring about a fatal confrontation, and the death is a reasonably foreseeable result of their actions.
Facts:
- Joseph A. Bailey and Gordon E. Murdock, both intoxicated, engaged in a heated and threatening argument over their citizens' band radios.
- Bailey knew Murdock was legally blind, intoxicated, easily agitated, and possessed a handgun.
- During the argument, Bailey taunted Murdock with insults, including calling his war hero a homosexual, and repeatedly dared Murdock to arm himself and wait on his front porch for Bailey to arrive and harm him.
- Bailey then made two anonymous telephone calls to the police.
- In the calls, Bailey falsely reported that Murdock was on his porch waving a gun and threatening to "shoot up the neighborhood," while concealing the facts that he had provoked Murdock and that Murdock was intoxicated and had severe vision impairment.
- Responding to Bailey's calls, police officers went to Murdock's home.
- Murdock came onto his porch with a handgun, fired at one of the officers, and was subsequently shot and killed when the officers returned fire.
Procedural Posture:
- Joseph A. Bailey was indicted for involuntary manslaughter.
- Following a trial in a Virginia trial court, a jury convicted Bailey of the charge.
- The trial court entered judgment on the verdict, sentencing Bailey to six months in jail and a $1,000 fine.
- Bailey (appellant) appealed his conviction to the Supreme Court of Virginia, arguing the evidence was insufficient to support a conviction for involuntary manslaughter.
Premium Content
Subscribe to Lexplug to view the complete brief
You're viewing a preview with Rule of Law, Facts, and Procedural Posture
Issue:
Does a person commit involuntary manslaughter when he, through grossly negligent and false reports to the police, instigates a fatal confrontation between the police and an agitated, intoxicated, and legally blind victim, even though the person was not physically present at the scene of the killing?
Opinions:
Majority - Carrico, C.J.
Yes. A person can be convicted of involuntary manslaughter when his grossly negligent conduct proximately causes another's death, even when acting through an innocent agent. The court found that Bailey used the police as his innocent or unwitting agents to effect a criminal act. By orchestrating a scenario he knew was dangerous—goading an armed, intoxicated, and nearly blind man and then sending the police to confront him based on false reports—Bailey set in motion a chain of events where a fatal outcome was reasonably foreseeable. The court reasoned that the victim's own actions and the police response were not unforeseeable, independent intervening acts that would break the chain of causation from Bailey's misconduct.
Analysis:
This case significantly clarifies the application of the 'innocent agent' doctrine to involuntary manslaughter, establishing that a defendant can be a principal in the first degree without being physically present. The decision broadens criminal liability for those who manipulate third parties, particularly law enforcement, to cause harm. It reinforces the principle that a victim's or a third party's reaction does not sever proximate cause if that reaction was a reasonably foreseeable consequence of the defendant's initial, grossly negligent actions. This precedent makes it easier to prosecute individuals who orchestrate dangerous situations from a distance by providing false information to authorities.
Unlock the full brief for Bailey v. Commonwealth