Commonwealth v. Levesque
766 N.E.2d 50, 436 Mass. 443 (2002)
Premium Feature
Subscribe to Lexplug to listen to the Case Podcast.
Rule of Law:
An individual who creates a life-threatening situation, even if done accidentally or negligently, has an affirmative legal duty to take reasonable steps to alleviate the risk. A reckless failure to fulfill this duty that results in death can constitute the basis for an involuntary manslaughter charge.
Facts:
- For several months, Thomas Levesque and Julie Barnes lived as squatters in a vacant, five-story cold storage warehouse.
- The windowless building was insulated with flammable materials like cork and styrofoam, and the defendants used candles for light.
- On the afternoon of December 3, 1999, Levesque and Barnes had a physical altercation that resulted in a lit candle being knocked over, starting a fire in their room.
- They unsuccessfully tried to extinguish the fire, which spread rapidly through their belongings.
- After the fire became uncontrollable, they abandoned their search for their pets, left the warehouse, and did not report the fire to authorities.
- Levesque and Barnes possessed an operable cellular telephone and passed several open businesses with public phones.
- Instead of reporting the fire, they spent the next few hours shopping at a mall, eating dinner, and seeking a job application.
- The fire was not reported until 6:13 p.m., nearly two hours after it started, and six firefighters died while fighting the much larger, more dangerous blaze.
Procedural Posture:
- A grand jury in Worcester County returned indictments against Thomas Levesque and Julie Barnes for involuntary manslaughter.
- The defendants filed a motion to dismiss the indictments in the Superior Court, arguing the evidence was insufficient because they had no legal duty to report the fire.
- A Superior Court judge allowed the defendants' motion and dismissed the indictments.
- The Commonwealth appealed the dismissal directly to the Supreme Judicial Court of Massachusetts.
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 an individual who accidentally starts a fire have a legal duty to take reasonable steps to report it, such that a reckless failure to do so resulting in death is sufficient to support an indictment for involuntary manslaughter?
Opinions:
Majority - Cowin, J.
Yes. Where one's actions create a life-threatening risk to another, there is a duty to take reasonable steps to alleviate the risk, and a reckless failure to do so can result in a charge of involuntary manslaughter. The court reasoned that while omissions generally do not create criminal liability, a duty to act arises when a person creates a dangerous situation. Drawing on civil tort principles, particularly Restatement (Second) of Torts § 321, the court held that one who realizes or should realize their act has created an unreasonable risk of physical harm to another is under a duty to exercise reasonable care to prevent that risk from taking effect. The defendants started the fire and then increased the risk of harm by allowing it to burn unreported, which constitutes an omission that can be the basis for wanton or reckless conduct. The evidence of their awareness of the fire's rapid spread, their possession of a cell phone, and their casual behavior after leaving the scene was sufficient for a grand jury to find probable cause that their failure to report was an intentional, reckless omission that caused the firefighters' deaths by allowing the fire to become more severe.
Analysis:
This decision significantly broadens the scope of criminal liability for omissions in Massachusetts by establishing a common law duty to act for those who create a dangerous situation, even if the initial creation of the danger was accidental or negligent. Prior to this case, such duties were typically limited to specific, pre-existing relationships (e.g., parent-child, carrier-passenger). By importing the tort law principle from the Restatement (Second) of Torts § 321 into criminal law, the court established that the act of creating peril itself gives rise to a duty to mitigate that peril. This precedent means that individuals can no longer simply 'walk away' from a dangerous situation they caused without facing potential homicide charges if their failure to act is deemed reckless and results in death.
