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.
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.
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.
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.
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.
I normally had 5-6 bottles in my trunk at all times (along with a white shirt, a tie and a swimsuit).
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).
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.
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?
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”?
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.
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.
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.