Darn, and after I went to all the trouble of looking up the Dlugash case, too.
Well, here it is, anyway (it’s about halfway down the page). Enjoy.
Stuyguy, I hope that the Secret Service doesn’t get wind of this ;
Also, I think that Sideshow Bob said it best
The problem Jodi is that you are relying on a very basic and generic definition to argue a case of attempting to murder a dead individual. The victim has to first be alive before s/he can be murdered. In my years of practice, I have yet to hear a case arising in a U.S. court where the defendant is accused and found guilty of attempted murder of a corpse or mannequin.
The definitions I have listed are probably as specific as they come; they are the definitions of the applicable terms under both the common law and the statutes in my jurisdiction.
But the victim does NOT have to be alive before you can TRY to murder him or her.
Well, me neither. But then, neither have I ever encountered a case where a man attempts to shoot one man and hits another or where a a crazy man kills a stranger thinking the stranger is Napoleon (both standbys from law school). I answered the OP as given, which contemplated a person attempting to kill a person whom the assailant thought was sleeping but who was in fact dead. Sure, it’s a hypothetical and an unlikely one at that, but the question wasn’t whether I’d ever personally encountered such a case.
Msbrown, I knew that you are a lawyer as soon as I read this: “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.”
What’s the difference between “…proven…intent to commit great bodily injury” and intent to commit murder? If he died at the scene, it’s murder and if he died next day from “great bodily insury”, it’s not?
<<<<<< The victim has to first be alive before s/he can be murdered. In my years of practice, I have yet to hear a case arising in a U.S. court where the defendant is accused and found guilty of attempted murder of a corpse or mannequin.>>>>>>>>>
First of all, even if you practiced 100 years, you haven’t seen everything. Secondly, nobody kills mannequeuins or corpses. But if a person is so evil that he wants to kill another and does not succeed only because somebody or something else was faster, s/he deserves to be punished.
After all, the cances are great thatr his next target will be alive.
Jodi, here the difference: you know that G. Washington is dead. Matt didn’t know that Mr. X was dead, he was sure that he was alive and that’s why he wanted to kill him.
If you say again that you want to kill G. Washington, they will put you away in a coo-coo house, not in jail.
I love GQ! Especially when people quote Sideshow Bob.
It’s the legal aspects of this which interested me. I fully accept that morally I’m as guilty as if I had killed the guy, and I should be dealt with appropriately before I really do kill someone.
Thanks everyone!
How about conspiracy to commit murder? Isn’t that a crime?
Also, defiling a corpse.
Conspiracy requires more than one person, AWB.
**Gazoo’s ** computer is faster than mine, I, too was going to point out that conspiracies need a minimum of two people.
and, naturally, I agree with ** Jodi ** the attempt is real and provable. the fact that it didn’t achieve the intended purpose (because the person was already dead), does not mean I was not guilty of the intent.
Just had to chime in as another lawyer in agreement with Jodi. Bottom line is the definition she gave - the OP fits that definition.
As peace said, this makes sense. It is to society’s benefit to punish someone who intends to murder and acts out that intention, whether or not they succeed.
I beg to differ. Jodi is relying on sound legal principles - them’s the things you apply to any given real world scenario. Especially in the absence of clear precedent.
As all the other pre-requisites are present in this example the issue (for attemped murder) boils down to ‘intention’, IMHO. What did matt intend to be the outcome when he fired those shots ? Answer: He intended those shots to kill. Guilty as charged, Mi’lord. Take him down.
Jodi <i>et al</i> have answered this perfectly, so this is just a “me, too” post: all the elements of attempted murder are present here. This is an old law schol hypo on the elements of <i>attempt</i>.
- Rick
One more thing, almost moot here: defiling a corpse. The poor guy was only trying to kill somebody. He did not know it was a corpse. Charging him with with a misdemeanor in addition to felony would be excessive.
Besides, if he is charge with defiling the corpse, he cannot be charged with attempted murder (of the same corpse?).
That’s true… of more interest is whether the accused could demand a lesser-included offense type instruction for the jury on the crime of defiling a corpse?
Certainly it’s not normally considered a lesser-included of attempted murder, but if all of the elements of defiling were also present in the attempted murder charge, then there’s a requirement that the jury be so instructed.
- Rick
It is amusing to see the lay people teaching the law to the lawyers. I feel like I am watching a 5 year old explaining to his parents how children are made 
I will repaet that the intent to commit murder does not depend (IMHO) on the fact that the murder cannot be commited due to other circumstances. You can also be found guilty of conspiring and attempting to rob a bank even though there was no money to rob at the time you planned to go in. You can be found guilty of attempting to buy drugs from an undercover cop even though he had no drugs to sell you and the white powder he gave you is just sneezing powder. You’re still going to jail because your intentions were clear.
And speaking of which:
A man slipped off the edge of a cliff but miraculously manages to grab a bush with one hand and is left dangling over a 500 ft vertical fall into the void. He starts yelling for help and a pastor nearby hears him and comes over. He looks over the edge and says “Oh, thank God!”
The hanging man says:“No, screw God, his intentions were very clear! Call 911!”
I heard this one on ‘Law and Order’, which gives you some idea of my legal background. The Sam Waterston character said they ask it in law school.
A guy falls off the top of a twenty story building. You are on the tenth story. As he falls past your floor, you recognize him as your worst enemy and whip out a gun and shoot him in the head. He is dead when he hits the ground.
Did you commit murder? He would have died anyway.
everyone will die sooner or later, so “he wouldda died anyhow” is generally not a defense. again, your intent is clear (what ** isn’t ** clear to me is why you’d bother shooting him on the way down anyhow…)
assuming there’s not enough left at the bottom to determine cause of death, you at least would be guilty of attempted murder, which is clearly your intention…
Sailor, I can’t resist: lawyers are very stupid in general. They must be explained by 5 yeat olds how children are made. They are accepted to law school based on good memory, and good memory they have. Recently I was visited by a layer who was in my office 5 years ago. She remembered, where I kept all my things in the office.
Wring and Shodan, you are right, of course. Besides, if a shooter was not prosectuted, what the lawyers would do? Perhaps, the shooter gets off easy, but with the trial, appeals, etc. many lawyers will have jobs for many years.
Shodan, you mean the story of Ronald Opus has made it to prime-time television?
You cannot be charged with murder because you did not actually kill the victim. However, you can be charged with attempted murder, because you formulated a plan to commit murder and executed substantial steps toward the completion of that plan, but were prevented from fulfilling that plan by events beyond your control. See People v. Dlugash, 363 N.E.2d 1155 (N.Y. App. 1977).