Here’s the scenario:
I set out to kill someone. I arm myself in advance, break into their home and fire several shots into their sleeping body. I carelessly leave evidence all over the place.
I am arrested but it transpires that my victim had in fact died of a heart attack a few hours before I shot him. Can I be charged with murder? Can I be charged with attempted murder?
I ain’t a lawyer, but let me add a few possible crimes you theoretically committed:
Illegally firing a firearm.
Destruction of property.
Breaking and entering.
Obstruction of justice.
Good luck beating that rap.
Don’t forget using a firearm to commit a felony.
Arjuna34
This isn’t exactly the same as your scenario, but close.
About 10 years ago, a driver for the company I work for ran his tractor trailer over what he though was a deer. He stopped just to make sure, and found out it was a person. Autopsies confirmed that fact that the person was actually lying dead on the road when the truck hit him.
The family of the deceased sued my company and won several million dollars. A couple months ago, that verdict was overturned. The guy was never prosecuted criminally, though.
No. The definition of “murder” in all cases covers “the unlawful killing of a human being by another” (though the wording might vary, as might the other elements of the crime). Therefore, by definition, you cannot “murder” a person who is already dead, because you cannot kill him or her. (It is axiomatic in the law that if you cannot fulfill every element of a particular crime, you cannot be found guilty of that crime. There is no ‘almost did it’.)
You could, however, be charged with attempted murder, since you did intend to kill the person and you did try to kill the person.
As far as the other guesses . . .
“Illegally firing a firearm” presumes the firing of a firearm is in fact illegal under the circumstances. Maybe, maybe not. “Destruction of property” is probably not applicable since the body likely does not “belong” to anyone, and since shooting it probably doesn’t equal destroying it. “Breaking and entering” is presumed from the facts as given, but is a crime independent of shooting the body, and has nothing to do with that. “Obstruction of justice” is not applicable because at the time the crime (or attempted crime) is commited, there hasn’t been any “justice” (i.e., police or state action) to obstruct. “Use of firearm in the commission of a felony” again assumes that a crime has been commited and further assumes that the crime is a felony.
The more logical charges are burglary (the unauthorized entry into the property of another, with the intent to commit a felony therein) and attempted murder.
Matt,
murder - no, attempted murder - yes. After all you did attempt to kill him, didn’t you?
Neutron, I think that company had a lousy attorney.
What the company was sued for? And what the award was for?
Well, yeah, they can charge you all they want, I think your question is, am I guilty of murder or attempted murder?
Murder - No. Murder is the unlawful killing of another human being. You didn’t kill them, you have the mens rea but not the actus reus (the actual homocide is the actus reus for murder).
Attempted Murder - I say no. You can’t attempt to kill that which is already dead. Although, like Jodi said, you had the intent, and you made an attempt. I think if you can prove he was already dead, you get off on that charge though.
As mentioned above, there are several other crimes you may be guilty of.
Jodi and peace, you both hold out the possibility that the perp could be charged with attempted murder. I say no way. (Of course I’m no lawyer, but I can still type, can’t I?)
Attemped murder of who? The guy was dead, so there was no one to kill, thus no attemp. It’s like me saying I’m going to kill George Washington.
Hey Gazoo, you may have typed it first, but I thought of it first. (Smilie here.)
I’m thinking the bullet and bodily fluids may cause some damage here.
I think we can assume burglary has taken place, and a hand gun has been used.
And the more I think about it, there’s no way a charge of attempted murder of a now inatimate object could stick. I’m with ya here stuyguy!
This sounds like a bar exam question… No you haven’t committed murder or attempted murder. Although, it can be proven you had the necessary intent to commit great bodily injury against an individual, your actions like - breaking and entering, - shooting, etc. was not the immediate cause of death.
You may be charged with mutilating a corspe however.
Non-lawyer checking in with a vote that attempted murder would stick. After all, you didn’t know at the time he was already dead, so you were trying to kill him. For defense, you would have to prove that you knew he was dead already.
I am with msbrown on this one. I don’t think that you can be charged with murder or attempted murder on this one. However there are laws (which are very severe in some states) against mutilating corpses you could be charged with in addition to the burglary charges.
Okay, let’s say there is a very lifelike mannequin, which I think is a living person, and I shoot it with intent to kill. Am I guilty of attempted murder? Clearly no. So, why would I be guilty of attempted murder when I sneak up on a corpse and shoot it?
>> Okay, let’s say there is a very lifelike mannequin, which I think is a living person, and I shoot it with intent to kill. Am I guilty of attempted murder? Clearly no
Clearly? Clearly to who? To me the contrary is quite clear. Your intention, clearly, is to commit murder. Your lawyer’s job would be to keep me and people like me off the jury.
:rolleyes: I hope you’re kidding. I went out of my way to make an extreme example and you think this qualifies as attempted murder??
GAZOO says:
STUYGUY says:
MSBROWN says:
ZUMBA says:
Guys, keep in mind the difference between trying to do something and actually doing it. The fact that the oven is off may prevent me from actually baking a pie, but if I don’t know it’s off, I can still try to bake it.
The offense in “attempted murder” is not “murder” but “attempt.” Trying to do the act is a crime itself – and a different crime than murder. So, yes, you can certainly try to kill someone who is already dead, so long as you do not know the person is dead (because if you know, you’re obviously not really trying to kill him.)
Black’s Law Dictionary says “the requisite elements of an ‘attempt’ to commit a crime are: (1) an intent to commit it; (2) an overt act toward its commission; (3) failure of consummation; and (4) the apparent possibility of commission.” Black’s at 127 (citing State v. Stewart, Mo.App., 537 S.W.2d 579, 581) (emphasis added). None of these elements are excluded if the intended victim is dead.
In my jurisdiction, the law specifically says “It shall not be a defense to a charge of attempt that becasue of a misapprehension of the circumstances it would have been impossible for the accused to commit the offense attempted.” Translation: Yes, you can try to murder someone you didn’t know was dead.
“Clearly no”? Arguably yes. Although you are not likely to be so charged because the authorities would have difficulty proving that you did, in fact, intend to kill a particular living person. But the charge is still possible.
In The Adventure of the Empty House by A. Conan Doyle, Colonel Sebastian Moran attempts to shoot Sherlock Holmes but, because Holmes knows about the attempt and sets the scene, only succeeds in shooting a life-like wax bust of Holmes through Holmes’s open window. What charge did the police intend to press against him? Attempted murder.
Jodi, given your cites, I would suggest that your argument breaks down at the definition of “murder,” which you conveniently did not include. We are not arguing that an “attempt” wasn’t made; we are arguing that “murder” wasn’t attempted.
STUYGUY says:
First of all, do not accuse me of “conveniently” omitting to include anything, as if, at the end of the day, I truly care whether or not you understand the concept of attempted murder, and as if I would omit crucial information in order to pretend the definition is something it in fact is not. I am not given to committing acts of intellectual dishonesty and, on a message board, why would I bother? But, since you asked . . .
Murder is defined at the common law as “the unlawful killing of a human being by another with malice aforethought, either express or implied.” Black’s Law Dictionary at 1019. In my jurisdiction, homocide (a/k/a murder) is more simply defined as “to purposely or knowing cause the death of another human being.”
If you sneak up on a corpse, thinking the man is asleep, and shoot him, what, precisely, do you think you are attempting to do? You are attempting to “kill another human being” or to “purposely cause the death of another human being.” The fact that you cannot actually do so (because he is dead) does not in the least change what you are trying to do. A that’s attempted murder.
If you grant that an attempt was made (and you have), I ask you: an attempt at what, if not murder?
Frankly, I don’t see what’s so hard about this.
Having now had the time to look through some case books left over from law school (apparenlty the are good for something other than doorstops!), here’s what I have unearthed (a good word considering the amount of dust on this baby):
One of the main issues here is impossibility. I think we can all agree that it is impossible to kill a dead man (or a mannequin for that matter, and if someone brings up that stupid movie…). Impossibility breaks down into two categories, legal impossibility and impossibility in fact.
Cases which fall under legal impossiblity generally hold that it was legally impossible for the accused to have committed the crime contemplated. Like I said, I think we can all agree it is impossible to commit murder on a dead man or a mannequin. (See for example, State v. Guffey, 262 S.W.2d 152 (Mo.)(1953). Which held that a hunter who shot a stuffed deer believing it to be alive had not attempted to take a deer out of season.)
Contrast that with cases of impossiblity in fact, though and we get a different result. This occurs where, if but for a mistake in the alleged’s beliefs of the facts as they exist, the alleged would have sucessfully committed a crime. (See for example, State v. Mitchell, 173 Mo. 633, 71 S.W. 172 (1902). Holding that it is attempted murder to shoot into the intended victim’s bed believing he is there asleep when in fact he is some place else.)
The difference is a little ticky-tacky, but seems clear none the less. It is possible to kill a man who is still alive. It is not possible to kill a man who is already dead, or to kill a mannequin.
Having now gone through all of this, I must note that the Model Penal Code abolishes the impossibility defense. So, while under the common law it seems to me that you could have beat the attempted murder charge under a theory of legal impossibility, that defense, as noted by Jodi’s reference to her state statute, is no longer available to you.
I bow to Jodi and sailor as they clearly nailed this one. I will commence the eating of the humble pie.