So thinking about this one episode of a TV show made me wonder this:
A Killer wants to murder A, so he sets a bomb in, say, A’s car. Unknown to Killer, B asks to borrow A’s car. A lets him, and B gets in and sets off the bomb.
It seems clear to me that if B dies as a result, Killer could be prosecuted for both the murder of B and attempted murder of A. But does it necessarily follow from that (in a generalized sense, over the majority of jurisdictions in the U.S.) that if B doesn’t die, Killer could be prosecuted for the attempted murder of A and the attempted murder of B?
I assume yes, but for some reason, it just doesn’t feel right to me.
A rock-solid answer will have to wait on a Doper-at-Law responding, but here’s an educated guess:
It would depend on how the “attempted murder” statute is worded. He’s certainly culpable for the attempted murder of A. And his reckless and felonious actions led to the endangerment of B’s life. So there’s a possible charge there – but whether it would be attempted murder or attempted reckless homicide (however the particular state terms such a charge) would depend on whether intent to kill B or simply intent to murder someone is what’s chargeable. He didn’t attempt to murder B; he attempted to murder A, and B’s close brush with death was not something he intended. Still a crime, but missing the motive for murder, attempted or actual. A third possibility, which occurred to me as I was looking at how to phrase this answer, is the charge of attempted felony murder. A felony murder is the causing of someone;s death as the result of something one does in the course of a felony. It need not be actual killing with intent – if one is committing an armd robbery and someone panics and falls to their death or dies of a heart attack as a result, the robber has effectively caused their death and is guilty of felony murder. By the same token, B was put in danger of death by the attempted murder of A, so it may be that an attempted felony murder charge in contemplation of B’s close call may be legitimately laid. On that, I’d love to see what one of the criminal lawyers on the board have to say.
This is covered by something called the doctrine of transferred intent – or “intent follows the bullet.”
If, in intending to kill A, you miss and kill B by accident, your intent is transferred, and you’re just as guilty of intentional murder of B. Note that by this choice you cannot also be convicted of the attempted murder of A; your intent transfers to B. If the facts support it, you could be charged with both crimes, but two convictions would not stand.
Now, attempt. Attempt occurs when you have the intent to commit a crime, and your attempt is incomplete for some reason other than your abandonment of the crime. So if B is harmed in such a way that his death was possible, I think the attempted murder of B is a viable charge as well; I don’t remember any reason that makes the doctrine of transferred intent incompatible with inchoate (incomplete) crimes. Again, though, since the intent transfers, you could not secure a conviction for the attempted murder of A on those same facts as well as for B. Since in this case, you have a choice of two attempted murders, it’s hard to imagine what advantage would exist in choosing to charge B’s attempted murder instead of A’s, and placing the fact-finder in the position of understanding transferred intent.