# About the legality of poisoned donuts. **URL:** \ **Category:** Factual Questions\ **Created:** [April 15, 2009, 5:09pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/about-the-legality-of-poisoned-donuts/493189 "2009-04-15T17:09:47Z")\ **Posts on this page:** 20\ **Page:** 3
**Author:** ![Jodi](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/j/7feea3/32.png) [@Jodi](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Jodi)\ **Post date:** [April 16, 2009, 3:40pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/about-the-legality-of-poisoned-donuts/493189/41 "2009-04-16T15:40:46Z")
> [@JRDelirious](#): > > The prosecution will argue that a reasonable homeowner would place the pest-poison bait somewhere where it would not be casually accessible to humans, or would post a note “Don’t eat These! Rat Poison!”. Otherwise he’ll be accused of acting with reckless disregard for human life and safety. I’m pretty sure this is wrong. If the homeowner put out the poison bait, he already knows it’s poisoned. Presumably he also informed the rest of the household residents (if any) of that fact as well. (And assuming we’re dealing with adults, not leaving poisoned donuts out where four-year-olds can get them.) On what basis must he then post a note telling burglars not to eat them? On what basis does he even think (or know) burglars are going to even be in the house? To the contrary, the homeowner has a reasonable right to assume, as we all do, that on any given day, burglars will _not_ be in your house. You have a clear duty to warn invitees and licensees of the likelihood of harm on your premises; you have only a very limited duty to warn trespassers. > [@](#): > > Around here the lethal-poison donut would be at a minimum culpable manslaughter and the prosecutor could get the charge ratcheted up to murder if he can convince the court that you had reason to suspect or expect the break-in and deliberately set it out as bait with the intent to kill. I seriously doubt this, unless you live in a jurisdiction where “substantial step” is not a required element for attempted murder. > [@](#): > > It really boils down to that in most jurisdictions only the State has the power to take steps to kill someone for his/her crimes, absent an imminent self-defense situation. But – again – the homeowner has not killed the burglar; the homeowner has only left out and available the means by which the burglar may kill himself. That might lead to liability (even criminal liability) if we were talking about an invitee/licensee or a child trespasser, but we are not: we’re talking about a trespassing adult. ---
**Author:** ![Jodi](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/j/7feea3/32.png) [@Jodi](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Jodi)\ **Post date:** [April 16, 2009, 3:52pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/about-the-legality-of-poisoned-donuts/493189/42 "2009-04-16T15:52:04Z")
> [@JRDelirious](#): > > Well, the homeowner \*\*poisoned \*\*the donut. With a dose lethal to humans. That’s a pretty substantial step. May **not** rise to murder in the jurisdiction but it’s pretty culpable. Well, that’s arguable, depending on how broadly you want to define “substantial step.” If you’re searching for someone with the intent to beat him up, but you don’t find him, have you committed attempted assault? If you case a bank with the intent to rob it, but never get around to it, have you committed attempted bank-robbery? In some jurisdictions, under some tests, the answer would be “yes” to both those questions and in some jurisdictions the answer would be “no.” In all jurisdictions, those would be extremely hard cases to prosecute. As for the OP, I think the more defensible legal determination is to conclude that merely making available the means to self-harm, is not enough to constitute a “substantial step” taken towards an attempted murder. This is especially the case given that the burglar may or may not literally “take the bait,” and the homeowner has absolutely no control over whether or not he does. But at the end of the day, it would depend on your jurisdiction, your prosecutor, and your jury. ---
**Author:** ![Billdo](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/billdo/32/315_2.png) [@Billdo](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Billdo)\ **Post date:** [April 16, 2009, 3:53pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/about-the-legality-of-poisoned-donuts/493189/43 "2009-04-16T15:53:23Z")
> [@Jodi](#): > > You have a clear duty to warn invitees and licensees of the likelihood of harm on your premises; you have only a very limited duty to warn trespassers. Although this is the traditional formulation of the duty owed to others on your property a more modern trend in the law avoids characterizing the purpose of the person entering the property, but rather holds that a property owner has a duty of reasonable care under the circumstances (including the circumstances by which the injured person entered your property). Under this more flexible standard, particularly where the property owner put the poisoned food out with some expectation that it may be eaten by an intruder, I think there is a serious risk of civil liability. ---
**Author:** ![Gfactor](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/g/9de053/32.png) [@Gfactor](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Gfactor)\ **Post date:** [April 16, 2009, 3:57pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/about-the-legality-of-poisoned-donuts/493189/44 "2009-04-16T15:57:18Z")
> [@Billdo](#): > > Although this is the traditional formulation of the duty owed to others on your property a more modern trend in the law avoids characterizing the purpose of the person entering the property Indeed. I cited some stuff here: [http://boards.straightdope.com/sdmb/showthread.php?p=10080232#post10080232](http://boards.straightdope.com/sdmb/showthread.php?p=10080232#post10080232) ---
**Author:** ![Jodi](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/j/7feea3/32.png) [@Jodi](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Jodi)\ **Post date:** [April 16, 2009, 4:04pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/about-the-legality-of-poisoned-donuts/493189/45 "2009-04-16T16:04:12Z")
> [@Billdo](#): > > Although this is the traditional formulation of the duty owed to others on your property a more modern trend in the law avoids characterizing the purpose of the person entering the property, but rather holds that a property owner has a duty of reasonable care under the circumstances (including the circumstances by which the injured person entered your property). Under this more flexible standard, particularly where the property owner put the poisoned food out with some expectation that it may be eaten by an intruder, I think there is a serious risk of civil liability. I haven’t been talking about civil liability, I’ve been talking about attempted murder. Though as to civil liability, I think you run straight back into the issues of foreseeability and causation, not to mention contributory negligence. So I guess I don’t see a serious risk of civil liability, though the Donut of Death is not something I would ever recommend. My mileage varies, IOW. ---
**Author:** ![Jodi](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/j/7feea3/32.png) [@Jodi](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Jodi)\ **Post date:** [April 16, 2009, 4:06pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/about-the-legality-of-poisoned-donuts/493189/46 "2009-04-16T16:06:33Z")
> [@JRDelirious](#): > > Well, the homeowner \*\*poisoned \*\*the donut. With a dose lethal to humans. That’s a pretty substantial step. May **not** rise to murder in the jurisdiction but it’s pretty culpable. I’ve been thinking about this more, and would only point out that if this is a substantial step, then the homeowner is guilty of attempted murder even if the burglar never even enters the house. ---
**Author:** ![Sapo](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/s/ec9cab/32.png) [@Sapo](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Sapo)\ **Post date:** [April 16, 2009, 4:38pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/about-the-legality-of-poisoned-donuts/493189/47 "2009-04-16T16:38:48Z")
Keeping in mind the obvious differences, one does not put a sign saying “caution, sharp objects” in the kitchen drawer where the knives are. And I would hope I am not culpable if a thief enters and uses one to slash his wrists, or even cuts himself accidentally using one to force my safe. I am thinking you don’t need a sign on a donut piece left behind the stove, but one in a shiny new box fresh off the bakery might be harder to explain as pest control. ---
**Author:** ![justrob](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/j/a9adbd/32.png) [@justrob](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/justrob)\ **Post date:** [April 16, 2009, 5:20pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/about-the-legality-of-poisoned-donuts/493189/48 "2009-04-16T17:20:23Z")
[quote=“Sapo, post:23, topic:493189”] I normally had 5-6 bottles in my trunk at all times (along with a white shirt, a tie and a swimsuit). [QUOTE] Interesting discussion so far. I am trying to figure out what situation would call for a white shirt and tie to be worn with a swimsuit though. ---
**Author:** ![Little\_Nemo](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/little_nemo/32/3120_2.png) [@Little\_Nemo](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Little_Nemo)\ **Post date:** [April 16, 2009, 5:39pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/about-the-legality-of-poisoned-donuts/493189/49 "2009-04-16T17:39:41Z")
> [@](#): > > I am trying to figure out what situation would call for a white shirt and tie to be worn with a swimsuit though. It makes perfect sense if you’ve just drunk five or six bottles of rum. ---
**Author:** ![Little\_Nemo](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/little_nemo/32/3120_2.png) [@Little\_Nemo](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Little_Nemo)\ **Post date:** [April 16, 2009, 5:41pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/about-the-legality-of-poisoned-donuts/493189/50 "2009-04-16T17:41:14Z")
> [@](#): > > Keeping in mind the obvious differences, one does not put a sign saying “caution, sharp objects” in the kitchen drawer where the knives are. And I would hope I am not culpable if a thief enters and uses one to slash his wrists, or even cuts himself accidentally using one to force my safe. > > I am thinking you don’t need a sign on a donut piece left behind the stove, but one in a shiny new box fresh off the bakery might be harder to explain as pest control. There’s a reasonableness standard. A reasonable person would expect a knife to be sharp. But a reasonable person would not expect a donut to be poisonous. ---
**Author:** ![Sapo](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/s/ec9cab/32.png) [@Sapo](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Sapo)\ **Post date:** [April 16, 2009, 6:22pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/about-the-legality-of-poisoned-donuts/493189/51 "2009-04-16T18:22:43Z")
[quote=“justrob, post:48, topic:493189”] [quote=“Sapo, post:23, topic:493189”] I normally had 5-6 bottles in my trunk at all times (along with a white shirt, a tie and a swimsuit). > [@](#): > > Interesting discussion so far. I am trying to figure out what situation would call for a white shirt and tie to be worn with a swimsuit though. You need to be prepared for ALL circumstances, even if they don’t occur at the same time. Anyways, parties that went until sunrise (and they were common) almost always ended up in going to the beach for breakfast (plenty of streets vendors in that area). A quick swim to dispel the hangover was the logical next step. Although those almost always ended in even more drinking at the beach (where the aforementioned bottles came into play). ---
**Author:** ![BwanaBob](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/bwanabob/32/2985_2.png) [@BwanaBob](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/BwanaBob)\ **Post date:** [April 16, 2009, 7:34pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/about-the-legality-of-poisoned-donuts/493189/52 "2009-04-16T19:34:02Z")
> [@even\_sven](#): > > Our legal system is built on intent. So, what are your intentions in leaving out the poisoned donuts? Your intent is to hurt thieves, right? Well if you hurt someone and you intended to hurt them, you are going to be held responsible for it. Maybe you could convince a jury you had some other reason to leave out poisoned donuts. But I wouldn’t count on it. Count on a hung jury if I’m on it. ---
**Author:** ![BwanaBob](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/bwanabob/32/2985_2.png) [@BwanaBob](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/BwanaBob)\ **Post date:** [April 16, 2009, 7:36pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/about-the-legality-of-poisoned-donuts/493189/53 "2009-04-16T19:36:22Z")
> [@Jodi](#): > > I’m pretty sure this is wrong. If the homeowner put out the poison bait, he already knows it’s poisoned. Presumably he also informed the rest of the household residents (if any) of that fact as well. (And assuming we’re dealing with adults, not leaving poisoned donuts out where four-year-olds can get them.) On what basis must he then post a note telling burglars not to eat them? On what basis does he even think (or know) burglars are going to even be in the house? To the contrary, the homeowner has a reasonable right to assume, as we all do, that on any given day, burglars will _not_ be in your house. > > You have a clear duty to warn invitees and licensees of the likelihood of harm on your premises; you have only a very limited duty to warn trespassers. > > I seriously doubt this, unless you live in a jurisdiction where “substantial step” is not a required element for attempted murder. > > But – again – the homeowner has not killed the burglar; the homeowner has only left out and available the means by which the burglar may kill himself. That might lead to liability (even criminal liability) if we were talking about an invitee/licensee or a child trespasser, but we are not: we’re talking about a trespassing adult. What if I left some rope out and the criminal decides to hang himself in my bathroom. Should I be culpable for that too? ---
**Author:** ![Terraplane](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/t/74df32/32.png) [@Terraplane](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Terraplane)\ **Post date:** [April 16, 2009, 8:09pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/about-the-legality-of-poisoned-donuts/493189/54 "2009-04-16T20:09:05Z")
With a rope the criminal would then have been intentionally killing themselves, with the donut scenario they just think they’re eating a donut. It’s a reasonable assumption to assume that donuts on a counter aren’t poison. What if there’s a break in while you’re gone, the burglar leaves the donut, and when the police investigate they see the donut and, being cops, just can’t resist? Or your landlord, neighbor, or relative came by for some reason and figured “Oh they won’t care, it’s just a donut?” It’s just reckless to leave behind a trap that is completely indiscriminate and if I was on a jury for something like this I’d be inclined to convict. ---
**Author:** ![ivn1188](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/i/e480ec/32.png) [@ivn1188](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/ivn1188)\ **Post date:** [April 16, 2009, 8:28pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/about-the-legality-of-poisoned-donuts/493189/55 "2009-04-16T20:28:53Z")
> [@BwanaBob](#): > > Count on a hung jury if I’m on it. Are you suggesting you would ignore the judge’s instructions to the jury and act on your own beliefs regardless of the case presented, thus assigning yourself to be an unappointed and unelected replacement for the legislature, which, in the fullness of its wisdom has decided on the preferred rule of law and order in our society? Just askin’. ---
**Author:** ![HorseloverFat](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/h/8e8cbc/32.png) [@HorseloverFat](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/HorseloverFat)\ **Post date:** [April 16, 2009, 8:30pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/about-the-legality-of-poisoned-donuts/493189/56 "2009-04-16T20:30:44Z")
Its okay, we’d probably leave him a poison donut in the jury room and vote after he ate it. ---
**Author:** ![Sapo](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/s/ec9cab/32.png) [@Sapo](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Sapo)\ **Post date:** [April 16, 2009, 8:32pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/about-the-legality-of-poisoned-donuts/493189/57 "2009-04-16T20:32:24Z")
> [@omgzebras](#): > > With a rope the criminal would then have been intentionally killing themselves, with the donut scenario they just think they’re eating a donut. It’s a reasonable assumption to assume that donuts on a counter aren’t poison. > > What if there’s a break in while you’re gone, the burglar leaves the donut, and when the police investigate they see the donut and, being cops, just can’t resist? Or your landlord, neighbor, or relative came by for some reason and figured “Oh they won’t care, it’s just a donut?” It’s just reckless to leave behind a trap that is completely indiscriminate and if I was on a jury for something like this I’d be inclined to convict. This might be it. Cutting yourself with a knife or hanging yourself with a rope are decisions you make. Eating a donut is not a decision to kill yourself. Now what if you had a sign on the door that said “Warning: Deathly trap inside”? ---
**Author:** ![brazil84](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/b/8491ac/32.png) [@brazil84](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/brazil84)\ **Post date:** [April 16, 2009, 8:49pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/about-the-legality-of-poisoned-donuts/493189/58 "2009-04-16T20:49:53Z")
> [@Sapo](#): > > I know there are laws against booby traps, but those are designed to protect rescue workers, right? > > Is it legal to have poisoned treats around your house? Let’s assume the poison itself is legal. The intention being that the thief will want a snack and die. > > I am not asking about the wisdom of it (I think it’s very stupid and I know plenty of people who had poisoned bottles of rum in the trunks of their cars), just the legality. I also know it will vary by location. I just want a general feel for it (and interesting stories about the outliers). One can envision a situation where a stranger would be privileged to break into your house and eat your food. For example, if you have a summer house in the woods somewhere, and during the winter somebody gets lost in the woods during a blizzard; takes shelter in your house; and gets really hungry. ---
**Author:** ![Jodi](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/j/7feea3/32.png) [@Jodi](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Jodi)\ **Post date:** [April 16, 2009, 8:55pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/about-the-legality-of-poisoned-donuts/493189/59 "2009-04-16T20:55:06Z")
> [@BwanaBob](#): > > What if I left some rope out and the criminal decides to hang himself in my bathroom. Should I be culpable for that too? You quote my post, which leads me to believe this is directed at me. Yet you also ask “should I be culpable for that _too_,” when I’m the one arguing you shouldn’t be culpable in the first place. So I’m not sure why you’re directing your question to me, if in fact you are. ---
**Author:** ![Jodi](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/j/7feea3/32.png) [@Jodi](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Jodi)\ **Post date:** [April 16, 2009, 9:00pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/about-the-legality-of-poisoned-donuts/493189/60 "2009-04-16T21:00:39Z")
> [@Sapo](#): > > This might be it. Cutting yourself with a knife or hanging yourself with a rope are decisions you make. Eating a donut is not a decision to kill yourself. It is, however, a decision to eat the donut – an completely voluntary action without which you would not have died. Has the homeowner “lured” or “enticed” you into eating the donut just by leaving it out? I would say no. So, again, the question is whether poisoning the donut and leaving it out, without more, is a “substantial step” towards the commission of the crime of attempted murder. What if the Donuts of Death are in a box on the counter? What if they’re in a box in the cupboard? Do they have to by neatly arranged on a plate in the center of the table, with a note that says “HELP YOURSELF” or can they be wrapped in foil and shoved to the back of the counter? What if it’s a less attractive food, like broccoli, but it’s left out? What if it’s a really attractive food, like birthday cake, but it’s in the fridge? At what point does the homeowner become responsible for the _criminal’s_ decision to eat his food? I’m just not buying that leaving out food, intentionally adulterated or not, _without more_, is enough to support a charge of attempted murder. [Previous page](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/about-the-legality-of-poisoned-donuts/493189.md?page=2) [Next page](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/about-the-legality-of-poisoned-donuts/493189.md?page=4)