The correct answer is: (B) Second-degree murder.

In most states, murder is divided into two degrees for the purpose of imposing a more severe penalty for some murders than for others. First-degree murder includes intent-to-kill murder accompanied by premeditation, deliberation, and murder in the commission of any of several named serious or inherently dangerous felonies ("BARRK"--burglary, arson, rape, robbery, kidnapping). Murder not falling within any of the first-degree murder categories is considered second-degree murder. Here, the defendant's act is best described as depraved-heart murder, which falls into the category of second-degree murder. Depraved-heart murder is defined as an unintentional killing resulting from conduct involving a wanton indifference to human life and a conscious disregard of an unreasonable risk of death or serious bodily injury, absent any defense negating the defendant's awareness of the risk. Unlike involuntary manslaughter, depraved-heart murder involves extremely negligent conduct (or recklessness) that is of a higher degree than gross or criminal negligence (the standard for involuntary manslaughter). Here, there is little question that starting a fire in a dining room filled with guests created a great risk of death or serious bodily injury. As such, although the defendant did not intend to hurt anyone, he clearly committed an act that was extremely dangerous and exhibited a wanton and willful disregard for human life. Therefore, the defendant is guilty of murder despite the unintentional nature of the homicide. The question is only one of degree.

(A) Incorrect. First-degree murder.

First-degree murder includes intent-to-kill murder accompanied by premeditation, deliberation, and murder in the commission of any of several named serious or inherently dangerous felonies ("BARRK"--burglary, arson, rape, robbery, kidnapping). Here, the defendant did not intend to kill, but only to play a practical joke; as such, the defendant is not guilty of intent-to-kill murder. Neither does the defendant's act qualify as felony murder, because the woman's death did not occur in the course of the defendant's commission of an inherently dangerous felony. It is unlikely that the court would consider the fire arson, making it an inherently dangerous felony, because there is no evidence of malice. Because the defendant's act was neither premeditated intent-to-kill murder nor felony murder, the defendant cannot be found guilty of first-degree murder.

(C) Incorrect. Voluntary manslaughter.

Voluntary manslaughter is the intentional killing mitigated by adequate provocation or other circumstances negating malice aforethought. Voluntary manslaughter is commonly called a "heat-of-passion" killing. Adequate provocation must be such that a reasonable person would lose self-control. There must also be a causal connection between the provocation and the killing, and the time period between the provocation and the killing must not be too long that a reasonable person would have "cooled off." Here, there is no indication in the fact pattern of provocation causing the killing. Rather, the defendant was planning a practical joke. Thus, cannot be found of voluntary manslaughter

(D) Incorrect. No crime.

While the defendant may have not intended the harm resulting from his practical joke, the fact remains that the defendant's act exhibited a wanton and willful disregard for human life, and as such, the defendant is criminally liable for the woman's unintended death.