Commonwealth v. Atencio
345 Mass. 627, 189 N.E.2d 223 (1963)
Rule of Law:
A person who voluntarily and cooperatively participates in a reckless activity, such as Russian roulette, may be found guilty of involuntary manslaughter if another participant dies as a result of the activity, even if the deceased took the final fatal action themselves.
Facts:
- Defendants Marshall and Atencio spent a day drinking wine with the deceased, Stewart Briteh, in Briteh's room.
- During the evening, the conversation turned to playing 'Russian roulette'.
- A revolver containing one cartridge was produced.
- First, Marshall spun the revolver's cylinder, pointed the gun at his own head, and pulled the trigger without effect.
- Marshall then handed the gun to Atencio, who repeated the same process, also without effect.
- Atencio then passed the gun to Briteh.
- Briteh spun the cylinder, put the gun to his head, and pulled the trigger, firing the single cartridge and causing his own death.
Procedural Posture:
- Defendants Atencio and Marshall were indicted for involuntary manslaughter and for illegally carrying a firearm.
- Following a trial in a Massachusetts trial court, a jury convicted both defendants on both indictments.
- The defendants appealed their convictions to the Supreme Judicial Court of Massachusetts, the state's highest court.
- On appeal, the defendants argued that the trial court erred in denying their motions for directed verdicts on all charges.
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 they engage in a 'game' of Russian roulette with others, and one of the participants subsequently dies after shooting themselves while playing?
Opinions:
Majority - Wilkins, C.J.
Yes, a person can be found guilty of involuntary manslaughter for participating in a 'game' of Russian roulette where another participant dies by their own hand. The defendants' participation constituted wanton or reckless conduct which caused the death. The court's reasoning is that involuntary manslaughter is predicated on wanton or reckless conduct, defined as intentional conduct involving a high degree of likelihood that substantial harm will result. The defendants' guilt is based on their 'concerted action and cooperation' in the 'joint enterprise' of playing the deadly game. The deceased's act of pulling the trigger was not an independent, intervening cause that would absolve the defendants of liability; rather, their participation and 'mutual encouragement' was a direct cause of the death. The court distinguished this from drag-racing cases by noting that Russian roulette is a matter of pure luck with a certain fatal outcome if the bullet is in the chamber, whereas drag racing involves some element of skill.
Analysis:
This decision establishes that criminal liability for manslaughter can extend to co-participants in a reckless joint enterprise, even when the victim is one of the willing participants who performs the final act. It broadens the concept of legal causation in criminal law, holding that mutual encouragement in an imminently dangerous activity can make one a principal cause of another's death. The case serves as a key precedent for situations involving group risk-taking, demonstrating that consent of the victim is not a defense when the conduct is deemed a breach of the state's interest in preserving life. It moves beyond a 'but for' causation analysis to find liability in the cooperative creation of a lethal risk.
Gunnerbot
AI-powered case assistant
Loaded: Commonwealth v. Atencio (1963)
Try: "What was the holding?" or "Explain the dissent"