In another thread on this subject, Ukelele Ike (Or maybe it was UncleBeer, I get those guys confused sometimes) recommended a great book called “A Perfect Murder”, edited by Jack Hitt.
The premise is this: The editor sends five popular mystery writers a scenario in which he wants to murder his wife and frame his best friend for the crime. He collects their solicitations and then allows them to critique each other’s plans.
The result is a fantastic look into the mind of a mystery writer and five entertaining murder scenarios from the practical to the fanciful. I found a copy for ten bucks at abebooks.com, and it was worth every penny.
Well, for example, in Wisconsin the Supreme Court has ruled (I believe as a jury instruction although my source is notes from a class for which the instructor did not include a cite; if you’re really interested I can look for it) that “reasonable doubt” means
I would imagine other jurisdictions have analogous definitions and judges are empowered to set aside guilty verdicts if the judge finds as a matter of law that no reasonable jury could have found a defendant guilty. I don’t know if judges are empowered to set aside not guilty verdicts if they find as a matter of law that a reasonable jury could not have found a defendant NG. Any attorneys or non-fanatics knowledgable about jury nullification know?
This is something that occured to me while reading the thread…
District Attorneys have traditionally gone for the “safe” verdict. Meaning, they THINK defendent A is guilty of 1st Degree but they KNOW they can get him convicted for 2nd Degree. And so on down the list.
Best example I can give is the jerk who killed John Lennon. (Yes I know his name…I chose not to use it) It was pretty obvious even to a casual observer that it was 1st Degree, but because he had mental problems, the D.A. succeeded in winning a lesser verdict, meaning he will get out this December after 20 years, rather then serving at least a life sentence (25 years or more)
I’m not a criminal attorney and it’s been well over 10 years since I’ve studied criminal law or procedure in law school. So, Jodih or Bricker may want to correct or clarify this.
But, as I recall, 1st degree murder requires specific intent. You have to intend for your actions to have the desired consequences in order to have the requisite intent.
For instance: I hate Mr. X and want to kill him. I make plans to do so. I plan to confront Mr. X on the street and shoot at him. I go forward with my plans.
If my bullets hit and kill Mr. X, I am guilty of 1st Degree Murder. If my bulletts hit and kill Mr. Y, (who just happens to be walking beside Mr. X) I am not guilty of 1st degree murder because I never had the specific intent to kill Mr. Y. At worst, I would be guilty of 2d degree murder if my actions were reckless. If I exercised a certain degree of care for the safety of passersby, I might only be guilty of manslaughter for the death of Mr. Y.
this may be a difference in the legal systems, but in Canada both 1st degree and 2nd degree murder are specific intent: in both cases, there must be a specific intention to kill, or recklessness as to the likelihood of death.
first degree is planned and deliberate; second degree is intentional killing, but without the planning and deliberation.
by my analysis, you’re talking about transferred intent: if I lie in wait and plan to shoot a particular person, and then miss and hit the person next to him, I could be liable for first degree - either way, I had the intention to kill, and there was the necessary element of planning and deliberation.
second degree is more a spur of the moment, intentional killing. I intend to kill the person, but it’s not the result of careful planning.
manslaughter, by contrast, is not specific intent - there was no intention to kill. (manslaughter is an assault that was just too effective.)
That’s what I mean about defining “reasonable doubt” (and also the equally vague “reasonable person” standard), it comes down to the individual making the decision. What you as a juror may consider reasonable (even with in the definition you gave) may not be reasonable to me. The other problem with most of the definitions for the term that I’ve seen is that they include the word “reasonable” within them.
This gem comes from my Barron’s Law Dictionary (the only one I have here at work): “It means simply that the proof must be so conclusive and complete that all reasonable doubts of the fact are removed from the mind of the ordinary person.” (it includes a cite to 25 F. 556, 558 – no case name given).
I remember hearing about this example once from a teacher who also went to law school, so I trusted his authority. But I don’t have a site for this or anything…
Two young men were convicted of 1st degree murder after they preformed a Halloween stunt. What they did was fake a death. One young man had a baloon of fake blood under his jacket. ANother young man pretended to shoot him with a shotgun loaded with blanks. The 1st young man popped the baloon and collapsed. They carried out their plan near by a little old lady who was frightened so badly she had a heart attack and died.
Because they had specific intent to pull that prank, they got convicted. It could have been overturned on a appeal, but I’m not sure.
It’s been awhile since i heard this example because we were having the same conversation in class, but I think I got all the facts straight.
They had intent, yes… intent to pull a prank. No intent to kill someone. First degree murder requires an intent to kill.
They may - may - have been guilty of some sort of reckless endangerment type of charge. Or of discharging a firearm within the city limits. The old lady’s family *may[/] have had grounds for a wrong death civil action.
But under the facts you present, there is no first degree murder, and no second degree murder. I suppose it’s barely possible that they were wrongfully convicted, and that conviction was overturned on appeal… but I find that highly doubtful. This isn’t a close call or an interpretation of law that could go either way. It’s black letter law. Under these facts, I would be quite surprised if a prosecutor even sought an indictment, much less a judge not quashing the indictment, much less a judge letting it go to a jury, and denying a defense motion for a directed verdict, a post-trial motion to set the verdict aside, and a post-trial motion for a new trial.
You think I made it up?
It IS possible I was misinformed by this teacher, but if that is the case, then HE was misinformed. Which is slightly possible, but that just doesn’t sound like him. Like I said, I don’t have a source other then him, and it’s very possible the decision was overturned on appeal, he never specified.
Actually, pepperlandgirl, this whole story doesn’t sound to me like a real case. It sounds like a law professor’s example from a lecture. Frequently a law professor will make up a somewhat contrived example and ask the students to tell him what the law would say in this case. Is it possible that your teacher misunderstood his law professor or that you misunderstood your teacher?
I will concede that it is possible I misunderstood my teacher’s example. Though, he never put any kind of disclaimer on it, saying whether or not he made it up.
No. I just think the case, as described, never happened - that is, never ended in a conviction in the first place. This means that someone made it up - if not the whole case, at least the specifics you relate. As to whether it was you, your professor, the person he heard it from, and so forth back to the origin of the story, I express no opinion.
In Virginia, Va. Code § 18.2-32 provides: "Murder, other than capital murder, by poison, lying in wait, imprisonment, starving, or by any willful, deliberate, and premeditated killing, or in the commission of, or attempt to commit, arson, rape, forcible sodomy, inanimate or animate object sexual penetration, robbery, burglary or abduction … is murder of the first degree, punishable as a Class 2 felony. "
We also have “capital murder”, a Class 1 felony. These offenses are punishable by death in Virginia:
The willful, deliberate, and premeditated killing of any person in the commission of abduction … when such abduction was committed with the intent to extort money…
The willful, deliberate, and premeditated killing of any person by another for hire;
The willful, deliberate, and premeditated killing of any person by a prisoner confined in a state or local correctional facility…;
The willful, deliberate, and premeditated killing of any person in the commission of robbery or attempted robbery;
The willful, deliberate, and premeditated killing of any person in the commission of, or subsequent to, rape or attempted rape, forcible sodomy or attempted forcible sodomy or object sexual penetration;
The willful, deliberate, and premeditated killing of a law-enforcement officer … when such killing is for the purpose of interfering with the performance of his official duties;
The willful, deliberate, and premeditated killing of more than one person as a part of the same act or transaction;
The willful, deliberate, and premeditated killing of more than one person within a three-year period;
The willful, deliberate, and premeditated killing of any person in the commission of or attempted commission of [an offense] … involving a Schedule I or II controlled substance, when such killing is for the purpose of furthering the commission or attempted commission of such violation;
The willful, deliberate, and premeditated killing of any person by another pursuant to the direction or order of one who is engaged in a continuing criminal enterprise …
The willful, deliberate and premeditated killing of a pregnant woman by one who knows that the woman is pregnant and has the intent to cause the involuntary termination of the woman’s pregnancy without a live birth; and
The willful, deliberate and premeditated killing of a person under the age of fourteen by a person age twenty-one or older.
Glad to see a post from ya, Rick! I was wondering where you had been recently… I leave all these crim law questions for you, since you actually know what you are doing with them and I just fake it
