Commonwealth v. Agnew
263 Pa. Super. 424, 398 A.2d 209, 1979 Pa. Super. LEXIS 1835 (1979)
Rule of Law:
To sustain a conviction for involuntary manslaughter resulting from a motor vehicle violation, the Commonwealth must prove a defendant's mens rea demonstrated by recklessness or gross negligence, which is a great departure from ordinary care evidencing a disregard for human life or an indifference to consequences, rather than merely committing an unlawful act or taking insufficient precautions.
Facts:
- On October 4, 1975, at approximately 11:30 p.m., Lowell Mehaffey Agnew, a farmer, was driving his tractor and a wide, dark green disk (17 feet, 4 inches) home on a rural, unlit Route 285 after disking a field.
- Agnew’s tractor was equipped with front headlights and flashing yellow lights on the cab, and both the tractor and disk displayed 'Slow Moving Vehicle' signs, but the disk itself had no lights or reflective devices.
- As Agnew drove at 15-20 mph, the 17-foot 4-inch wide disk encroached 1-2 feet over the center line of the two-lane, 33-foot wide highway, which had guard rails and no municipal lighting.
- Agnew observed an oncoming automobile traveling at about 55 mph in the eastbound lane.
- Agnew slowed his tractor, pulled it over to the right berm within a foot of the guard rails, and eventually stopped, taking every possible step to avoid a collision.
- The oncoming car, despite having room to pass safely and remaining close to the center line in its own lane, did not slow down or change direction.
- The car collided with the outside of the disk, spun, and was demolished, resulting in the deaths of the driver and passenger.
- A State Trooper later found that even with his headlights and emergency vehicle lights, he could not see the disk behind the tractor until within 30-40 feet.
Procedural Posture:
- Lowell Mehaffey Agnew was convicted of involuntary manslaughter in a trial court.
- Agnew appealed his conviction to the Pennsylvania Superior Court.
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 evidence demonstrating that a defendant committed motor vehicle code violations that caused a fatal accident, while also showing the defendant took positive, albeit tragically inadequate, steps to mitigate danger, constitute sufficient mens rea for a conviction of involuntary manslaughter?
Opinions:
Majority - Hoffman, Judge
No, the evidence was insufficient to prove the requisite mens rea for involuntary manslaughter. The court held that involuntary manslaughter requires 'recklessness or gross negligence: a great departure from the standard of ordinary care evidencing a disregard for human life or an indifference to the possible consequences of the actor’s conduct.' While Agnew committed summary motor vehicle offenses that were substantial factors in the accident, merely committing such violations is not sufficient for involuntary manslaughter. The Commonwealth argued that Agnew's awareness of the disk's encroachment at night established the mens rea. However, the record showed Agnew was aware of the risk and took positive steps to reduce it by placing flashing yellow lights on the tractor, warning signs on the tractor and disk, and driving slowly. When he perceived the oncoming car, he further attempted to avoid a collision by pulling over and stopping. These actions, even if 'tragically inadequate,' negate the 'disregard of human life and indifference to consequences' necessary for criminal liability, although they might support a finding of ordinary negligence for civil liability. The court cited precedents like Commonwealth v. Polimeni and Commonwealth v. Busier to reaffirm the high mens rea standard.
Dissenting - Wieand, Judge
Yes, the judgment of sentence should be affirmed. Judge Wieand dissented, stating that he would affirm the conviction for the reasons explained in the opinion of the lower court.
Analysis:
This case significantly clarifies the distinction between ordinary negligence, which may lead to civil liability, and the higher mental state (mens rea) required for criminal conviction of involuntary manslaughter. It establishes that even when an accident results from clear statutory violations, the prosecution must still demonstrate a 'disregard for human life or an indifference to consequences' beyond mere carelessness or inadequate precautions. The court's emphasis on a defendant's attempts to mitigate risk, however unsuccessful, as negating criminal intent sets a high bar for such prosecutions and is important for future cases involving accidental deaths where the actor took some, but insufficient, preventative measures.
