Accident
• The defense of accident excuses conduct that would otherwise be prohibited.
Chambliss v. State, 746 N.E.2d 73, 80 (Ind. 2001)
See Battles v. State, 688 N.E.2d 1230, 1233 (Ind. 1997)(“In general, prohibited conduct may be excused when it is a result of accident.”)
Elements
• A valid accident defense requires that: (1) The conduct must have been unintentional, or without unlawful intent or evil design on the part of the accused; (2) the act resulting in injury must not have been an unlawful act; and (3) the act must not have been done recklessly, carelessly or in wanton disregard of the consequences.
Chambliss v. State, 746 N.E.2d 73, 80 (Ind. 2001)
Battles v. State, 688 N.E.2d 1230, 1233-34 (Ind. 1997)(“The defense contains three elements . . . .”)
Overcoming the defense
• The State has the burden of disproving this defense beyond a reasonable doubt.
Battles v. State, 688 N.E.2d 1230, 1234 (Ind. 1997)
Wrinkles v. State, 690 N.E.2d 1156, 1161 (Ind. 1997), reh’g denied, cert. denied, 525 U.S. 861 (1998), superceded by statute on other grounds(citation to the record omitted)
As applied to homicide: In general
• In general, a homicide may be completely excusable when it is the result of accident or misadventure.
Gunn v. State, 365 N.E.2d 1234, 1238 (Ind. Ct. App. 1977)(citations omitted)
As applied to homicide: Elements
• From a review of decisions in Indiana and other jurisdictions, we determine that the defense of homicide by accident or misadventure includes three elements: 1. The killing must be unintentional, or without unlawful intent or evil design on the part of the accused, 2. the act resulting in death must not be an unlawful act, 3. nor an act done recklessly, carelessly or in wanton disregard of the consequences.
Gunn v. State, 365 N.E.2d 1234, 1238 (Ind. Ct. App. 1977)(citations omitted)
Southard v. State, 422 N.E.2d 325, 328 (Ind. Ct. App. 1981), reh’g denied, trans. denied(“The elements of the defense of homicide by accident or misadventure were first delineated in Indiana in Gunn, and are that . . . .”)
• Although proof of the first element of the accident defense will avert a finding of murder or voluntary manslaughter, it will not avoid a conviction for involuntary manslaughter. However, the second two elements of the defense may rebut the State’s proof, if any, of the unlawful act element of the crime of involuntary manslaughter.
Gunn v. State, 365 N.E.2d 1234, 1238 (Ind. Ct. App. 1977)
As applied to homicide: Relationship to self-defense
• The theories of self-defense and accidental homicide are not inconsistent as a matter of law, and may be raised simultaneously in several contexts.
Gunn v. State, 365 N.E.2d 1234, 1238 (Ind. Ct. App. 1977)
Southard v. State, 422 N.E.2d 325, 328 (Ind. Ct. App. 1981), reh’g denied, trans. denied(citing Gunn v. State, 365 N.E.2d 1234, 1238 (Ind. Ct. App. 1977))(“The theories of self-defense and accidental homicide are not inconsistent as a matter of law and may be raised simultaneously.”)
• The theory of self-defense embraces intentional as well as accidental killings. Thus self-defense is available to an accused who accidentally kills his assailant while asserting reasonable force to repel the assailant.
Southard v. State, 422 N.E.2d 325, 328 (Ind. Ct. App. 1981), reh’g denied, trans. denied
See Gunn v. State, 365 N.E.2d 1234, 1238-39 (Ind. Ct. App. 1977)(citation omitted)(“[T]he theory of self-defense itself embraces intentional as well as accidental killings. . . . Thus, self-defense is available to the accused who accidentally kills his assailant while properly exerting force to assure his own safety.”)
• For more information about self-defense, please review Self-Defense.