Also known as: homicides by misadventure · excusable homicide · accidental homicide
Written by attorneys · grounded in primary & secondary sources — see below
An excusable homicide consisting of the unintentional killing of another while engaged in a lawful act without criminal negligence or intent. The classification removes criminal liability because the actor's conduct was authorized or permitted and the death resulted from pure accident rather than fault.
Select any source to read its text and confirm it supports the definition.
Hunter Hughes lawfully hunted deer on his own property with a valid license. While aiming at a buck, his arrow glanced off a tree and struck a hidden trespasser, killing the man instantly. Because Hughes engaged only in a permitted activity and harbored no intent or negligence toward the victim, the death qualified as homicide by misadventure and carried no criminal liability.
Holly Hayes practiced archery at an approved range on her farm. An arrow she released struck a concealed wild animal that bolted into the path of a neighboring child, causing fatal injury. The act of target practice was lawful and Hayes exercised due care, so the resulting death constituted homicide by misadventure rather than criminal homicide.
Homicide by misadventure occurs during a lawful act performed without negligence or intent to harm, placing it in the excusable category that eliminates criminal liability. Criminal homicide covers all other unlawful killings that lack justification or excuse. The distinction turns on whether the underlying act was lawful and whether fault contributed to the death.
Supporting sources
The actor must have been engaged in a lawful activity, the death must have been unintentional, and no criminal negligence or recklessness may have contributed to the result. Courts examine whether the conduct itself was permitted and whether the actor took reasonable precautions under the circumstances.
…in self-defense were only excusable. See, generally, authorities cited supra note 34. The distinction between justifiable and excusable homicide was important because in the latter case the slayer, considered to be not wholly free from blame, suffered a forfeiture of his goods. F. Wharton, Homicide § 3 at 211 (1855). However, with…
…of the park had shot at his own deer, and without any ill intent had killed the boy by the glance of his arrow, this had been homicide by misadventure
…the generality of the [felony murder] rule in the United States and the frequency with which it is deemed applicable to even accidental homicide
Supporting sources
An internal protocol alone does not supply the legal authorization or excuse required for excusable homicide. The common law looks to whether the underlying act was lawful under recognized legal standards rather than private rules, and whether the actor avoided negligence toward known risks.
Supporting sources
Knowledge of a specific person's location in the impact zone typically introduces a duty of care that, if breached by failure to warn or take precautions, removes the killing from the excusable category. Pure misadventure requires absence of fault toward foreseeable victims.
Supporting sources