Can a defendant be convicted of involuntary manslaughter for a death that occurred as a result of police action taken in response to the defendant's report, even though the defendant was not physically present at the time of the fatal incident?

On May 21, 1983, Joseph A. Bailey and Gordon E. Murdock, both intoxicated, engaged in a heated exchange over citizens' band radio. Bailey was aware of Murdock's legal blindness, intoxication, gun ownership, and tendency to become agitated, particularly regarding General Patton. During their conversation, Bailey insulted Murdock and General Patton, repeatedly urged Murdock to arm himself and wait on his porch, and threatened to harm or kill him.

Bailey then made two anonymous calls to the police, falsely reporting that Murdock was waving a gun and threatening to shoot up the neighborhood. He urged police intervention without revealing his identity. Three officers were dispatched to Murdock's home, unaware of his intoxicated and agitated state. When Murdock emerged with a gun, a confrontation occurred, resulting in Murdock firing at an officer and the police returning fire, killing Murdock. Bailey later admitted to instigating the incident, stating he was "the hoss that caused the loss."

Bailey was indicted for involuntary manslaughter. A jury trial was held, resulting in Bailey's conviction. The court sentenced Bailey to six months in jail and imposed a $1,000 fine. Following his conviction and sentencing, Bailey appealed the decision to the Supreme Court of Virginia.

(Carrico, C.J.)

Yes. A defendant can be convicted of involuntary manslaughter for a death resulting from police action in response to the defendant's report, even without being physically present at the fatal incident.

The innocent agent doctrine applies when a defendant orchestrates a scenario likely to result in harm and uses unwitting parties to accomplish that purpose. In this case, the defendant's actions in making a false report to police set in motion a foreseeable chain of events leading to the victim's death. The police response and the victim's actions do not constitute independent, intervening causes that break the chain of causation. Rather, they are reasonably foreseeable consequences of the defendant's reckless conduct in creating a dangerous situation through deception. The defendant's physical absence from the scene does not negate criminal liability when his actions were the proximate cause of the fatal outcome. For involuntary manslaughter, proof of malice is not required; reckless disregard for human life suffices. All essential elements for conviction are present when a defendant's deliberate false report foreseeably results in a fatal confrontation, regardless of the defendant's location at the time of death. The law recognizes that one who sets in motion a deadly chain of events through reckless conduct bears responsibility for the tragic consequences, even if not physically present for the final act. This principle ensures accountability for those who recklessly endanger others through deception or manipulation of law enforcement, regardless of their physical proximity to the resulting harm.