## Facts

- The tanker *Exxon Valdez*, captained by Joseph J. Hazelwood, ran aground on Bligh Reef in Prince William Sound, Alaska, releasing a large oil spill.
- Hazelwood reported the spill to the U.S. Coast Guard.
- The State charged Hazelwood with negligent discharge of oil under former AS 46.03.790(a), which prohibited discharging petroleum into state waters except as authorized by regulation.
- The statute provided misdemeanor liability for a person who “negligently” violated the discharge prohibition.
- At trial, the jury was instructed on ordinary civil negligence (failure to perceive a substantial and unjustifiable risk amounting to a deviation from reasonable care), not criminal negligence (gross deviation from reasonable care).
- The jury convicted Hazelwood of negligent discharge of oil.

## Issues

1. Whether Alaska due process requires proof of criminal negligence (gross deviation) rather than ordinary civil negligence to sustain a criminal conviction for negligent discharge of oil under former AS 46.03.790(a).
2. Whether the legislature’s use of the unqualified term “negligently” in the statute may be construed to impose criminal liability on an ordinary negligence standard.

## Decision

- The Alaska Supreme Court reversed the Court of Appeals and reinstated Hazelwood’s conviction.
- The court held that due process under the Alaska Constitution did not require a showing of criminal negligence for this offense.
- The court construed the statute’s use of “negligently,” without qualification, to permit an ordinary civil negligence mens rea.
- The court rejected a categorical rule limiting ordinary-negligence crimes to “heavily regulated” commercial activity.
- A dissent would have required more than civil negligence, particularly where imprisonment is authorized.

## Legal Principles

- A legislature may constitutionally define some crimes to require only ordinary civil negligence; due process does not impose a universal requirement of criminal negligence or recklessness.
- Civil negligence and criminal negligence both involve failure to perceive a substantial and unjustifiable risk; criminal negligence requires a gross deviation from reasonable care, while civil negligence requires a lesser deviation.
- Statutory use of the unmodified term “negligently” may be interpreted to require ordinary negligence when the text provides no basis for a heightened mental state.
- Due process analysis considers whether the chosen mens rea threshold is fundamentally unfair in light of the conduct regulated and the state interests at stake, including deterrence of serious public harms.

## Conclusion

The Alaska Supreme Court held that former AS 46.03.790(a) permissibly imposed misdemeanor criminal liability for negligent oil discharge on proof of ordinary civil negligence, and that applying that mens rea standard did not violate Alaska due process; the court therefore reinstated Hazelwood’s conviction.


State v. Hazelwood, 946 P.2d 875 (Alaska 1997)