Legal Disclaimer: This article provides general legal information about the Uniform Code of Military Justice. It is not legal advice and does not create an attorney-client relationship. Every case involves unique facts and circumstances. If you are facing charges under the UCMJ, consult with a qualified military defense attorney immediately.
Both Article 114 and negligent homicide under Article 134 involve dangerous conduct, but they differ based on outcome. Article 114 addresses conduct that endangers others, regardless of whether harm actually occurs. Negligent homicide under Article 134 requires that the negligent conduct actually caused someone’s death. One punishes the risk created; the other punishes the fatal result. Understanding this distinction matters because the same reckless conduct might be endangerment if no one dies, or negligent homicide if someone does.
The Outcome Distinction
Article 114 Endangerment Offenses apply when:
The accused engaged in reckless or wanton conduct
That created substantial risk of death or serious bodily harm
To another person
No actual harm is required.
Article 134 Negligent Homicide applies when:
The accused’s conduct was negligent
The negligent conduct caused the death of another person
The death wouldn’t have occurred but for the negligence
Actual death must result.
Different Functions
Endangerment (Article 114) functions as:
Prevention: punishing dangerous conduct before tragedy occurs
Deterrence: discouraging reckless behavior
Risk-based punishment: holding people accountable for dangers they create
Negligent homicide (Article 134) functions as:
Accountability: responsibility for deaths caused by negligence
Result-based punishment: more severe because someone died
Justice for victims: recognizing that a life was lost
Article 114: Endangerment Elements
Endangerment offenses under Article 114 require:
Reckless or wanton conduct. Behavior showing disregard for foreseeable consequences.
Creating substantial risk. The danger must be significant, not trivial.
Of death or serious bodily harm. The risk must be of severe consequences.
To another person. Someone else must be endangered.
Different variations exist:
Reckless endangerment
Communicating threats (separate provision under Article 115)
Various dangerous conduct specifications
Article 134: Negligent Homicide Elements
Negligent homicide requires:
Death of a human being. Someone actually died.
Caused by the accused’s conduct. The accused’s actions were the legal cause.
The conduct was negligent. Simple negligence may suffice (failure to exercise ordinary care).
The negligence caused the death. But for the negligence, the death wouldn’t have occurred.
This is sometimes called “criminally negligent homicide” or treated as a form of involuntary manslaughter.
The Progression
The same conduct can progress through different offenses:
Stage 1: Reckless driving at high speed through a parking lot.
No one is hit. Result: Potential reckless endangerment (Article 114).
Stage 2: Same driving, pedestrian barely avoids being hit.
Still no injury. Result: Endangerment, possibly aggravated by proximity of harm.
Stage 3: Same driving, pedestrian is hit and killed.
Death results. Result: Negligent homicide (Article 134) or involuntary manslaughter (Article 119).
Same conduct, different outcomes, different charges.
Typical Fact Patterns
Clear endangerment (no death):
A service member fires a weapon negligently inside the barracks. The round goes through walls but hits no one. The reckless conduct created substantial risk of death; no death occurred. Article 114 endangerment.
A service member drives at excessive speed through a family housing area. Children are present but no one is struck. Reckless conduct creating risk. Endangerment.
Clear negligent homicide (death results):
A service member handling a weapon negligently causes a discharge that kills another person. The negligent handling caused the death. Negligent homicide under Article 134 (or involuntary manslaughter under Article 119).
A service member’s reckless driving strikes and kills a pedestrian. Negligent conduct causing death. Negligent homicide.
The line between them:
Both start with negligent or reckless conduct
If no one dies: endangerment charges are available
If someone dies: homicide charges apply
The outcome determines the charge category.
Causation in Negligent Homicide
For negligent homicide, proving causation is essential:
But-for causation. The death wouldn’t have occurred without the accused’s conduct.
Proximate causation. The death was a foreseeable result of the conduct.
No intervening cause. Nothing broke the chain between conduct and death.
Endangerment doesn’t require this analysis because no harm needs to be proven.
Punishment Comparison
Article 114 (Endangerment):
Varies based on specific offense
Generally less severe than homicide offenses
Bad-conduct discharge, forfeiture of pay, confinement for a period of months or years
Article 134 (Negligent Homicide):
Dishonorable discharge possible
Forfeiture of all pay and allowances
Confinement varies but can be substantial given that a death occurred
Negligent homicide carries more severe punishment because someone died. Endangerment, while serious, didn’t result in death.
The Negligence Standard
For endangerment, “reckless” or “wanton” conduct is typically required. This is more than ordinary negligence; it’s conscious disregard of known risks.
For negligent homicide, simple negligence may suffice: failure to exercise the care that a reasonable person would exercise.
This means:
Highly reckless conduct that kills: negligent homicide (and possibly manslaughter)
Mildly negligent conduct that kills: negligent homicide
Highly reckless conduct without death: endangerment
Mildly negligent conduct without harm: may not be criminal at all
Defenses
For endangerment:
The conduct wasn’t reckless or wanton
No substantial risk was created
No one else was endangered
The conduct was authorized or justified
For negligent homicide:
No negligence occurred (proper care was exercised)
The accused’s conduct didn’t cause the death
An intervening cause broke the chain of causation
The death was unforeseeable
Attempted Homicide vs Endangerment
If someone acts with intent to kill but fails:
Attempted murder (Article 80/118): Intended to kill, took substantial steps, victim survived.
Endangerment (Article 114): Reckless conduct creating risk, no intent to kill.
The distinction is intent. Attempting to kill is attempted murder. Acting recklessly without intent to kill is endangerment (if no death) or negligent homicide (if death results).
Charging Decisions
Prosecutors consider:
What happened? Did anyone die?
What was the mental state? Intentional, reckless, or merely negligent?
What can be proven? Is there evidence of the conduct and any required intent?
When death occurs, prosecutors typically charge the homicide offense. When no death occurs, endangerment captures the dangerous conduct.
Lesser Included Offenses
When someone is charged with negligent homicide:
Endangerment-type offenses may be lesser included offenses
If the panel finds negligence but has reasonable doubt about causation, they might convict on endangerment
The panel has flexibility to match the conviction to what the evidence proves
Practical Implications
For service members:
Reckless conduct is criminal even if no one gets hurt
If someone dies from your negligence, homicide charges follow
The difference between endangerment and homicide is often just luck
For victims’ families:
If negligent conduct killed your loved one, homicide charges are available
The military takes these deaths seriously
The accused faces significant accountability
Frequently Asked Questions
If I was just “messing around” and accidentally killed someone, can I be charged with homicide?
Yes. “Messing around” that involves dangerous conduct can be criminally negligent. If that negligent conduct causes someone’s death, you face negligent homicide (or involuntary manslaughter) charges. Your lack of intent to kill isn’t a defense; the crime is causing death through negligence, not through intent. The question is whether your conduct failed to meet the standard of care a reasonable person would exercise. Horseplay with weapons, reckless stunts, dangerous games, and similar “messing around” that kills someone can absolutely result in homicide charges. The casual mindset doesn’t reduce the seriousness of causing a death.
What’s the difference between negligent homicide under Article 134 and involuntary manslaughter under Article 119?
Both involve unintentional killing through negligence, and they overlap significantly. Involuntary manslaughter under Article 119 requires “culpable negligence,” which is a higher standard than simple negligence. Negligent homicide under Article 134 may apply to deaths caused by ordinary negligence. In practice, prosecutors choose based on the facts: more egregious negligence supports manslaughter charges, while less extreme negligence might be charged as negligent homicide. Both can result in serious punishment. The distinction is technical and often doesn’t change outcomes dramatically, but manslaughter is typically treated as the more serious offense.
If my reckless driving endangered someone but didn’t hurt them, and then months later I drove recklessly again and killed someone, can both incidents be charged?
Yes. Each incident is a separate offense. The first incident (no injury) could be charged as reckless endangerment. The second incident (death resulted) would be negligent homicide or manslaughter. The earlier endangerment charge isn’t replaced or absorbed by the later homicide; they’re distinct events. In fact, the first incident might be used as aggravating evidence during sentencing for the second, showing a pattern of reckless behavior. Multiple incidents of dangerous conduct can result in multiple charges, each addressed based on its own outcome.