Article 210 — Criminal Homicide

MPC § 210.4: Negligent Homicide

Quick Answer

What does Negligent Homicide (Model Penal Code) provide?

Section 210.4 defines negligent homicide as criminal homicide committed negligently. It is graded as a felony of the third degree. Under the MPC, negligence means the actor should have been aware of a substantial and unjustifiable risk that their conduct would cause death, and the failure to perceive that risk represents a gross deviation from the standard of care that a reasonable person would observe in the actor's situation.

Source: Model Penal Code § 210.4

3-day free trial, then $9.99/month. Cancel anytime.

Summary

Section 210.4 defines negligent homicide as criminal homicide committed negligently. It is graded as a felony of the third degree. Under the MPC, negligence means the actor should have been aware of a substantial and unjustifiable risk that their conduct would cause death, and the failure to perceive that risk represents a gross deviation from the standard of care that a reasonable person would observe in the actor's situation.

Negligent homicide fills an important gap in the MPC's homicide framework. At common law, some jurisdictions recognized involuntary manslaughter for criminally negligent killings, while others required recklessness. The MPC creates a separate, lower-graded category for negligent killings, ensuring that the distinction between recklessness (conscious awareness of risk) and negligence (failure to perceive risk) is clearly reflected in the grading.

The key distinction between manslaughter and negligent homicide under the MPC is the defendant's subjective awareness of risk. If the defendant was consciously aware of the risk of death and disregarded it, the killing is reckless manslaughter. If the defendant should have been aware of the risk but was not, the killing is negligent homicide. This can be a difficult factual determination, and the line between the two often depends on the specific evidence about the defendant's state of mind. The "gross deviation" standard ensures that only serious negligence — not ordinary carelessness — gives rise to criminal liability.

Key Provisions

4 essential provisions of § 210.4

Negligent homicide is criminal homicide committed negligently — the actor should have been aware of a substantial and unjustifiable risk of death

Requires a gross deviation from the standard of care of a reasonable person in the actor's situation

Felony of the third degree (lower than manslaughter's second degree and murder's first degree)

Distinguished from manslaughter by the actor's subjective unawareness of the risk (negligence) vs. conscious disregard (recklessness)

MPC vs. Common Law

How the MPC approach to negligent homicide differs from common law

Common law involuntary manslaughter served a similar function but was treated as a species of manslaughter rather than a separate offense. Many common law jurisdictions did not clearly distinguish between reckless and negligent killings, lumping both under involuntary manslaughter. The MPC's separate negligent homicide category forces a clear analytical distinction between the reckless killer (who knew the risk) and the negligent killer (who should have known). This results in different grading and potentially different sentencing. Some modern statutes have created specific vehicular homicide offenses for negligent driving deaths; the MPC handles these under the general negligent homicide provision. The MPC's "gross deviation" standard is also important — it sets the bar for criminal negligence higher than ordinary tort negligence, requiring more than just failure to exercise reasonable care.

Exam Relevance

How § 210.4 appears on criminal law exams

Negligent homicide appears on exams primarily as the lowest tier in homicide grading analysis. The key analytical moment is distinguishing recklessness from negligence — was the defendant actually aware of the risk, or merely should have been? Common fact patterns: a driver who causes a fatal accident while texting (was the driver consciously aware of the death risk, or merely careless?); a parent who leaves a child unattended and the child dies (did the parent appreciate the danger?); an employer who fails to maintain safety equipment. Students should note that Section 3.09 connects to negligent homicide — an honest but negligently held belief in self-defense can result in a negligent homicide conviction rather than acquittal or murder conviction. Always identify and discuss negligent homicide as the floor of criminal homicide liability.

More from Article 210 — Criminal Homicide

Other sections in Article 210

Master Criminal Law with 20+ AI-Powered Tools

3-day free trial, then just $9.99/month.

No commitment. Cancel anytime.

  • AI case briefs
  • Practice exams
  • Flashcards
  • Attack sheets
  • Cold call drills