Keep in mind that most civil and criminal laws require showing that a particular mental state ("mens rea") existed in addition to an act (e.g. pulling the trigger) and a result (e.g. death) that was
caused by the act (first link below).
Laws that do not require showing a particular mental state are exceptions to the general rule, and these are referred to as "strict liability" laws (second link below). I'm not sure if there are any strict liability laws that might apply in the criminal or civil context in this case (the laws vary somewhat from state to state).
Off hand, I'd be surprised if any strict liability criminal laws would apply to the act of pulling the trigger (for purposes of discussion I'm leaving out the individuals involved in procuring the guns and ammunition, setting them up, Baldwin's possible role in this, etc.). Assuming this is correct, it boils down to his mental state at the time he pulled the trigger. We could argue about this until the cows, the sheep, and everything else comes home, but (in a criminal trial) the mental state of the defendant is ultimately a question of fact that goes to a jury. There is really no way to know right now what evidence might be presented to a future jury, or what that jury might decide.
As far as I know, no criminal charges were brought in the Brandon Lee case (last link below). The facts of every case are different, and it's unlikely that the laws in the two jurisdictions are identical. And, of course, prosecutors have at least some discretion with regards to bringing criminal charges. Nevertheless, it does suggest that criminal charges are not necessarily a slam dunk in cases such as this.
Potential civil liability is also unclear at this point. Civil liability is typically much less difficult to show (the OJ Simpson case comes to mind as an example)(last link below).
In the snip below, tort law refers to civil causes of action (i.e. a private individual can bring a lawsuit requesting monetary damages in a civil action, whereas only the government can bring criminal charges).
>>>
Overview
In both
tort and
criminal law, strict liability exists when a defendant is liable for committing an action, regardless of what his/her intent or mental state was when committing the action. In criminal law, possession crimes and statutory rape are both examples of strict liability offenses.
Strict Liability As Applied to Criminal Law
In criminal law, strict liability is generally limited to minor offenses. Criminal law classifies strict liability as one of five possible
mentes reae (mental states) that a defendant may have in pursuit of the crime. The other four are "acting knowingly," "acting purposely," "acting with recklessness," and "acting with negligence." The
mens rea of strict liability typically results in more lenient punishments than the other four
mentes reae. Typically in criminal law, the defendant's awareness of what he is doing would not negate a strict liability
mens rea (for example, being in possession of drugs will typically result in criminal liability, regardless of whether the defendant knows that he is in possession of the drugs).
Strict Liability As Applied to Tort Law
In tort law, there are two broad categories of activities for which a plaintiff may be held strictly liable - possession of certain animals and
abnormally dangerous activities. Additionally, in the area of torts known as
products liability, there is a sub-category known as strict products liability which applies when a defective product for which an appropriate defendant holds responsibility causes injury to an appropriate plaintiff.<<<
www.law.cornell.edu
www.law.cornell.edu
CORRECTION: An earlier version of this story misidentified the name of the Wilmington studio at which "The Crow" was filmed.
journalnow.com
O.J. Simpson was acquitted of murder but found liable in civil court for wrongful death. How can both be true?
www.nolo.com
