Can two people be charged with the same murder?

[diggleblop]

I know there are thousands of cases of two people teaming up and murdering someone and this is probably an easy question to answer, but usually one person is charge with aiding in the murder, or accessory to murder.

What if police find a body, the body has two different bullets in the heart and the bullets are traced back to two different people/guns and they admit to both shooting the man dead two weeks prior.

Are they both charged with the same murder?

[Sage_Rat]

I suspect that this would fall under “misfortune” on the part of the two murderers.

For instance, if you intend to kill someone but your aim sucks so when you shoot at him it only hits his foot (which wouldn’t be lethal), but then the man trips and falls through the window, plummeting 100 feet to his death–the misfortune of his fall still makes you a murderer since what you did was potentially murderous to begin with, so regardless of whether you’re skilled at murdering or not, you’re still a murderer. Being incompetent doesn’t lessen your crime.

(On the other hand, if you are “fortunate” and the person lives then you would only be convicted for assault or whatever.)

So I would imagine that for both murderers, the misfortune of having two bullets increase the probability that the man would die, or the uncertainty of which bullet was the murdering bullet is irrelevant. They did something potentially murderous, and a person was murdered. In sum total they’re both murderers.

I am not a lawyer, but so goes my understanding of how things work.

[Colibri]

@diggleblop

I know there are thousands of cases of two people teaming up and murdering someone and this is probably an easy question to answer, but usually one person is charge with aiding in the murder, or accessory to murder.

I doubt this is really the case. Often several people are charged with murder for the same crime.

What if police find a body, the body has two different bullets in the heart and the bullets are traced back to two different people/guns and they admit to both shooting the man dead two weeks prior.

Are they both charged with the same murder?

I can’t see any reason why they both wouldn’t be. You can be charged with murder if you participated in the commission of a felony in the course of which someone dies, even if you did not commit the fatal act yourself. If you intended to kill the victim, committed a violent act with that intent, and the victim ends up dead, a murder charge is likely to apply.

[Gfactor]

Here’s an example: http://writ.news.findlaw.com/colb/20020910.html

[Santo_Rugger]

@Sage Rat

I suspect that this would fall under “misfortune” on the part of the two murderers.

For instance, if you intend to kill someone but your aim sucks so when you shoot at him it only hits his foot (which wouldn’t be lethal), but then the man trips and falls through the window, plummeting 100 feet to his death–the misfortune of his fall still makes you a murderer since what you did was potentially murderous to begin with, so regardless of whether you’re skilled at murdering or not, you’re still a murderer. Being incompetent doesn’t lessen your crime.
<snip>

This is what’s known as “but for”. “But for” you hadn’t shot him, he wouldn’t have fallen out the window. There is a limit as to how far the “but for” extends, somebody more knowledgeable should come by (and correct my spelling of “but for” while they’re at it.

[Gfactor]

@Pygmy Rugger

This is what’s known as “but for”. “But for” you hadn’t shot him, he wouldn’t have fallen out the window. There is a limit as to how far the “but for” extends, somebody more knowledgeable should come by (and correct my spelling of “but for” while they’re at it.

There are a few causation-related concepts at work here:

1. Moral luck. If you shoot at someone and miss, it’s attempt–if you hit them, it’s murder. Moral luck describes the philosophical issues raised by imposing criminal consequences based on chance events. Moral Luck (Stanford Encyclopedia of Philosophy); http://www.econ.brown.edu/fac/Glenn_Loury/louryhomepage/teaching/Ec%20222/Eisikovits%20Moral%20Luck.pdf

2. “But for” causation. If you hadn’t shot, he wouldn’t have fallen out the window. This can cause problems by itself–if the consequence seems absurdly remote–or because the statute is not well-drafted; courts handle this problem with:

3. Proximate cause. E.g.,

The state must prove beyond a reasonable doubt that the defendant caused [the result]. Proximate cause does not necessarily mean the last act of cause, or the act in point of time nearest to [the result]. The concept of proximate cause incorporates the notion that an accused may be charged with a criminal offense even though his acts were not the immediate cause of [the result].

An act or omission to act is a proximate cause of [the result] when it substantially and materially contributes, in a natural and continuous sequence, unbroken by an efficient, intervening cause,2 to [the result]. It is a cause without which [the result] would not have occurred and a predominating cause, a substantial factor, from which [the result] follows as a natural, direct and immediate consequence.3

It does not matter whether this particular kind of harm that results from the defendant’s act be intended by the defendant. When [the result] caused by the defendant’s conduct is a foreseeable and natural result of that conduct, the law considers the chain of legal causation unbroken and holds the defendant criminally responsible.

http://www.jud.ct.gov/CriminalJury/2-9.html

We’ve done some threads on aspects of proximate cause, but I don’t have time to search right now.

[Gfactor]

Thread on but-for cause and proximate cause: "Proximate Cause" vs "Standar of Proof"?? - Factual Questions - Straight Dope Message Board

[tomndebb]

Actually, depending on the mindset of the prosecutor, any number of people can be charged for the same crime. (He has to be able to get it past a jury, of course.) Rep. Steven LaTourette of Ohio, pulled this off when he was the Lake County prosecutor. A girl was killed in what was probably either a stupid prank gone wrong or a date rape, (or, possibly, a premeditated rape attempt). He found two guys whom he could place at the scene, but not enough eveidence to indicate exactly what happened during the crime. So he tried each guy individually, trying each case using a different scenario (because if he had tried them together, the scenario that would convict one would exonerate the other and vice versa). He got convictions in both trials. (I do not recall what happened in the appeals process; I don’t live in Lake County and he went on to run for Congress before the appeals process would have been concluded.)