DISCLAIMER: YOU ARE NOT MY ATTORNEY, I AM NOT YOUR CLIENT, BLAH BLAH BLAH.
HYPOTHETICAL: Jack and Jill are lovelorn teenagers, whose parents forbid them to see one another. In desperation, they enter a suicide pact.
Going for the tried-and-true method of suicide-by-carbon-monoxide poisoning, Jack runs a hose from the exhaust pipe to his car window. He and Jill take their seats, he starts the engine, and the two await sweet, sweet death. Before the CO kills them, a passing cop notices what’s going on and takes action, rescuing both before it’s too late.
Would Jack be liable for Attempted Murder (of Jill)?
If Jill had died, but Jack had lived, would Jack be liable for murder (of Jill)?
To take this out of the land of legal hypothetical navel-gazing (which has become a little endemic around here), why would you suppose that either (1) Jack’s own intention concurrently to do himself harm, or (2) Jill’s “consent” (noting that one cannot consent to one’s own untimely demise) to her assisted suicide would negate criminal liability here?
I agree with Kimmy about the conclusion, but extreme emotional distress may mitigate any death to manslaughter if all of the facts in the OP were proven..
It is true that provocation/emotional distress can indeed reduce a murder charge to voluntary manslaughter, although I think even if you proved up these facts, murder would still be the crime. The provocation/emotional distress is an objective one, and I don’t think being a teenager who has been forbidden to see one’s love-object by one’s parent counts as the kind of stressor that would lead a reasonable person to lose his/her self-control.
An insanity defense (per the MPC, that the accused “lack[ed] substantial capacity either to appreciate the criminality of his conduct or to conform his conduct to the requirements of the law”) could perhaps be available. But this is a fact-intensive defense, and relies mostly on past mental health treatment history and not merely the chronology of the crime, as given in the OP. In other words, there are far too few facts given to make even a surmise as to the likelihood of the defense’s success.
So how could they prove that Jack & not Jill actually attached the hose, started the car etc? If Jack lived couldn’t he simply claim that Jill was the one that did it all?
Sounds like the prosecution, lacking any evidence to the contrary would have a hard time proving the case without a confession from Jack that he was the instigator.
Well, yeah, but Jack’s probably not thinking about defending himself against a possible future murder charge when the cop comes up and says “What’s going on here?”
Possibly true. But a decent lawyer would probably be able to get a confession quashed. I suppose bottom line is that Jack could be held liable. Getting a conviction though certainly wouldn’t be a slam dunk.
What if each person performed an act that was required for the mutual suicide pact to occur, but each act would not, in itself, be sufficient to kill them? One runs the hose from the exhaust to the window, the other starts the car - if one survives, could you still charge them with murder?
Since Jack hasn’t forced Jill to sit in the car, is he really culpable for a murder charge? Reckless disregard and all that maybe, but it’s kind of like someone voluntarily jumping in front of a gun.
I recall some news article long long ago (National Lampoon’s “True Facts”, culled from newspapers. A sad teen couple came up with a suicide pact. They drove into the hills, and the girl first put the shotgun into her mouth and pulled the trigger. After watching her sufffer and writhe for several minutes before she finally died, he chickened out and drove to a local police station. According to the article, IIRC, they believed him and no charges were forthcoming.
I have trouble seeing how Jack could be charged with anything, other than maybe aiding a suicide. Jill got into the car, knowing what was there, ahd every opportunity to get out, and failed to, was not restrained.
The question is, would a jury convict? Could you imagine how the defence lawyer would spin the whole thing? Psychiatric evaluations… stick the guy in a facility for “recovery”, have a doctor testify about his brain damage from CO exposure…
This would more cleanly fit an assisted suicide than a murder. I don’t know how much that helps the defendant. I suppose it depends on the jurisdiction.
Possibly from Jack’s fingerprints on the hose? Teenagers in that emotional state are probably mot thinking about wearing gloves.
Did she have one shoe off?
Most people can’t reach the trigger of a shotgun that’s in their mouth with their arm, so they have to take off a shoe and press the trigger with a toe. If she still had both shoes on, it’s possible that he pulled the trigger for her.
"suffer and writhe for several minutes before she finally died’ – that’s rather unbelievable for a shotgun in the mouth. With the brain & spinal cord right there, a shotgun blast is likely to be nearly instantly fatal, not several minutes later. Unless she actually had the shotgun far enough sideways that it just blew off the side of her cheek & maybe her ear. But that’s survivable; she wouldn’t die several minutes later. Possibly several hours later, if nothing was done to stop her bleeding.
I agree, and after re-reading my post, I can’t understand why I believed manslaughter was proper. Something in the case law that someone who was obviously not in his right mind (though maybe not legally insane) couldn’t have the “malice” that would be required for a murder conviction.
Or, I should definitely bone up on Crim Law before taking the bar exam next August.
Take a bar review course. They are expensive, but well worth it. Think mine was done by Bar Bri. It covered all of the substantive areas of law, test format, multi-state, etc. Also had questions from previous exams available. I would not have passed without it.
