It was no doubt a tragedy when, on a New Mexico movie set, Alec Baldwin aimed a gun at two crew members and fired, killing one and injuring the other. In the last few days, pundits and reporters have rushed to conclude Baldwin isn’t criminally liable or to falsely call the real gun a “prop” gun. As a prosecutor who’s handled numerous felonies and violent crimes, I’ve looked at the available facts and the law and it’s clear both Baldwin and the woman in charge of the guns should face criminal charges.
Many have sought to explain Baldwin’s culpability and I wonder how many of them have even looked at New Mexico’s relevant law. While I don’t practice there, I have done the research. The facts -- as released by the authorities to date -- support a criminal prosecution.
There are numerous levels of culpability when it comes to shootings, from first degree murder to involuntary manslaughter. Each offense level has its own requirement for what was in the mind of the shooter. If this was an accidental shooting, that fact alone doesn’t keep Baldwin or the woman handling the guns from criminal jeopardy.
New Mexico, like other states, doesn’t require a prosecutor to prove intent to convict someone of involuntary manslaughter. Thus, the much-circulating notion that Baldwin can’t be criminally culpable because “he didn’t intend” to kill the crew members falls is just blather. And if Baldwin committed involuntary manslaughter, the woman whose job it was to ensure the guns were safe can be charged as an accessory.
First, until a full investigation is complete, it’s unclear what Baldwin precisely did and why he did it. Media reports are poor substitutes for the work of professional criminal investigators. Baldwin’s recent press interviews are, by definition, self-serving, and not dispositive of what happened. Second – more importantly – Baldwin can be convicted even if he didn’t intend to kill.
To convict on involuntary manslaughter, state prosecutors would have to prove there was an unlawful killing committed “in the commission of a lawful act which might produce death … without due caution and circumspection.” I’ve prosecuted criminals using this type of standard and it’s a lot easier to prove than intent.
A key New Mexico case on accidental shootings, later discussed by the state’s highest court says only criminal negligence needs to be proven. That’s lawyer talk for being reckless – going forward in the face of a known risk, without regard to the consequences. Should the case go to court, witnesses would testify as to what Baldwin knew before pulling the trigger. From what has emerged so far, this could be dangerous water for Baldwin to navigate.
Baldwin was an actor and a producer of this film. A producer – particularly one on set – would know more about the mechanics of filming than an actor. Presumably, producer Baldwin knew the “armorer” (the crew member tasked with handling guns) was a 24-year-old woman with scant experience. Whether Baldwin was aware she’d previously told the press she “wasn’t sure” she was ready for this job remains to be seen. If he knew of that public statement, it increases his culpability. Making matters worse, the armorer reportedly mishandled a gun on the set, providing it to a child in an unsafe manner.
Baldwin’s state of mind would have also included the fact some crew members walked off the set days before the tragedy, unwilling to be part of what they said was a lax attitude about safety. Each would be called to testify.
Finally, there’s the unavoidable issue of gun safety. Even if Baldwin had no familiarity with firearms, given his many violent movies, he would’ve sat through countless lectures about how to safely handle weapons. A basic rule from such training is to never point a gun at someone you don’t intend to shoot. It applies even when the person holding the firearm believes it to be unloaded, as Baldwin claims in this case.
Investigators say some witnesses claim Baldwin was holding the gun toward the camera during the time before filming when the crew checks angles and lighting. The two people shot were next to the camera. Given there was no filming under way, there was no reason to pull the trigger during such a rehearsal. By doing so, Baldwin fell well short of the caution the statute requires. Under New Mexico law – that’s enough to convict him of involuntary manslaughter and send him to prison.
Every prosecutor has discretion about bringing charges. However, if local authorities choose not to prosecute Baldwin and the gun handler, many will suspect that the rich and powerful are not held accountable in the same way less renowned people are. Under legal ethics rules, New Mexico district attorneys are called “ministers of justice.” Such a minister must know that allowing a wealthy movie star to avoid responsibility for a death caused by his reckless behavior is certain to cause countless others to lose faith in the justice system.
###
Ohio attorney Mark R. Weaver has worked as a prosecutor for two decades and prosecuted numerous violent felonies, including prosecuting a serial killer and helping to send him to death row. He is the author of the book “A Wordsmith’s Work.” Twitter: @MarkRWeaver
