Pagotto v. State

Maryland Court of Special Appeals · Criminal Law

Criminal LawInvoluntary ManslaughterGross NegligenceReckless EndangermentPolice Use of ForceCausationgross negligenceinvoluntary manslaughter

Facts

While assigned to a Baltimore City Gun Recovery Unit, Sergeant Pagotto and his partner stopped Barnes's car for an improperly displayed license plate in a high-crime area while looking for guns. As Pagotto approached the driver's side with his handgun drawn, Barnes made suspicious movements, failed to comply with commands, and then attempted a planned vehicular getaway; during the ensuing brief confrontation, Pagotto's gun discharged and killed Barnes. The State's theory was that Pagotto acted with gross criminal negligence by approaching too closely with his gun drawn, keeping his trigger finger along the slide rather than under the trigger guard, and attempting to control or remove Barnes with one hand while holding the gun in the other.

Issue

Was the State's evidence legally sufficient to satisfy the burden of production for gross criminal negligence so that involuntary manslaughter and reckless endangerment could be submitted to the jury? Alternatively, was there legally sufficient evidence that any negligence by Pagotto was the proximate cause of Barnes's death rather than Barnes's own intervening criminal conduct?

Rule

Ordinary negligence, even if it contributes to a death, does not by itself permit submission of involuntary manslaughter to the jury. To establish gross-negligence manslaughter, the State must produce evidence that the defendant's conduct, measured here by the standard of a reasonable police officer similarly situated, was an extraordinary and outrageous departure from reasonable conduct amounting to a wanton or reckless disregard for human life; the same minimum mens rea is required for reckless endangerment in this case. In addition, the defendant's gross negligence must be the proximate cause of death, and an independent intervening criminal act by the decedent may break causation.

🔒

See the holding & full analysis

Create a free KwikCourt account to unlock the rest of this brief — and practice the case.

The court's holding and reasoning
Doctrine tests, pitfalls & exam hypotheticals
10 practice questions + 4 AI-graded essays on this case

Free sample · practice this case

Test yourself

One of 10 multiple-choice questions for this case. Pick an answer to see why.

In Cleveland, Officer Nora Kim stopped a sedan at night after seeing it roll through a stop sign in an area where her unit often investigated gun offenses. As she approached with her service pistol drawn, she kept her trigger finger along the frame rather than in the exact position required by her department's recent training bulletin; when the driver suddenly lurched the car forward and the gun discharged during the chaos, the driver died.

If the prosecution charges Officer Kim with involuntary manslaughter based only on her finger-placement deviation and close approach, which is the strongest argument for acquittal?

Explanation. The majority held that ordinary negligence is not enough. Before gross-negligence manslaughter may go to the jury, the State must produce evidence of conduct that is an extraordinary and outrageous departure from what a reasonable police officer similarly situated would do, showing a wanton or reckless disregard for human life. A mere departmental-guideline deviation in a tense stop, even if negligent, does not by itself meet that burden.