Not just multiple charges, but Murder 2, Murder 3 and Manslaughter.
Can the US judicial system list multiple charges, just so one (some) of them stick?
For reference, since the first hit I get is a footballer and very much not the right guy.
I first thought maybe the case involved more than one victim, but it’s not so: all three charges are for a single death. Noor was a police officer, responded to a call and ended up shooting and killing the person who’d called.
The exact details can vary by jurisdiction. Generally, the prosecution can charge a defendant on multiple theories (and therefore multiple charges), or, expressly charge a crime and its lesser included offenses. After the jury has rendered a verdict, typically, for any crimes that entirely overlap, so that one crime is subsumed in the other, the convictions will merge so that there are not separate convictions/punishments for what is really one offense. If they don’t fully overlap, though, then the defendant may have committed more than one crime. There still may be sentencing laws that require sentences on those offenses to run concurrently, if they were committed at the same time.
For any felony, DAs always bring multiple charges (e.g., littering and creating a nuisance). The gives them negotiating room for a plea bargain and also also allows a jury to convict on a lesser charge. You may not be able to convince a jury of premeditation, but they still might convict on manslaughter.
You’d be hard pressed to find cases where the defendant is only charged with one crime, and probably none of those involve murder/manslaughter.
This has nothing to do with plea bargaining. The concept at issue here is lesser included offenses.
When a defendant is charged this way, it’s up to the jury to decide if the prosecution has proven all of the elements of the most serious crime (in this case, second degree murder.) If they haven’t, then the defendant is not guilty of second degree murder, but may be guilty of the lesser included offense of third degree murder. If he isn’t, then he may be guilty of the lesser included offense of manslaughter.
Because the elements of each are generally a subset of the superior offenses, if you are guilty of the top one, that implies you are guilty of all of them. But you can only be convicted and sentenced for the most serious one that is proven; otherwise it would be a violation of double jeopardy.
The concept that someone can be considered guilty of a lesser offense also exists in the Spanish legal system, but only the highest charge is explicitly listed; the final offense is one or another depending on what is considered proven and on mitigating or aggravating circumstances. In the Minnesota legal system, would different narratives leading to different charges be listed?
Also, in the Spanish system the higher charge and the lower one do not necessarily include one another. Homicidio intencionado (intentional homicide) and its lesser sister homicidio no intencionado (non-intentional homicide) are opposites in intent: the intentional version doesn’t include the non-intentional one.
For those not familiar with Minnesota law, it should be noted that the jury’s verdict was obviously a compromise that doesn’t make any legal sense. In Minnesota 3rd degree murder is a death resulting from an action so depraved and dangerous (as opposed to “negligent” for 2nd degree manslaughter) that a reasonable person could foresee that a death is likely to result. Notably it’s been successfully used to prosecute drug dealers who lace their heroin with fentanyl. Other states would consider this a form of manslaughter. First degree manslaughter is heat of passion type scenarios.
All parties involved agree that he shot at a women that approached his squad car, and that there was some kind of noise, and he shot at her as a reaction. So either it should have either been 2nd degree murder or justified as self defense.
The same is generally true here for lesser included offenses. The defendant can be charged with just the highest offense, and then it becomes an issue of which instructions the jury gets – both sides can request that the jury be instructed on lesser-included offenses.
That’s why I mentioned different theories, or for some reason expressly charging the lesser-included offenses. There may be different possible factual scenarios that would lead to different charges. Here, it may be that the evidence could lead to different inferences about what the defendant intended. So, if the jury doesn’t think the officer intended to kill anyone, then that would support convictions based on either recklessness and/or extreme indifference. But if the jury believed that the defendant intended to kill, that could support convictions based on knowing or intentional states of mind.
I haven’t looked at the exact statutes at issue, so I don’t know to what degree they overlap elements. If some are lesser-included offenses of others, there can still be reasons to expressly plead them all. For example, it gives the defendant notice that all of the lesser-includeds are potentially in play.
Sorry for serial post.
Now that I’ve looked at the statutes, I don’t think you’ve characterized them accurately, at least based on their text, and I don’t think the verdicts seem necessarily inconsistent. Murder 3, MSA sec. 609.195(a), has a mental state of “without intent to effect the death of any person” acting in a way that is “eminently dangerous . . .” etc., which amounts to a depraved indifference to the value of human life standard. It is a kind of extreme recklessness. Negligence is often subsumed in recklessness.
Here, manslaughter 2, MSA sec 609.205(1), covers a person who causes a death by the person’s culpable negligence whereby the person creates an unreasonable risk, and consciously takes chances of causing death or great bodily harm to another.
By the way, drug dealers causing deaths are covered under murder 3’s other subsection, MSA sec 609.195(b), which addresses unintentional deaths caused directly or indirectly by unlawfully selling, distributing, administering (plus many more act variations) a schedule I or II controlled substance. Doesn’t seem to require evidence that it was laced with anything if it was a proximate cause of death.
I am not a Minnesota lawyer, nor any other kind. Maybe that’s why I don’t understand the third-degree verdict. Noor shot her deliberately - ISTM that shooting someone demonstrates an intent to effect her death.
Not quite a nitpick - there was considerable discussion at the trial as to whether there was actually any noise or not. The defendant and his partner both said they heard somebody slap, or something hit, the back of their squad car. The prosecution made much of the fact that there were no fingerprints on the back of the car.
Maybe that was the basis for the third-degree verdict - Noor panicked for no real reason, and that amounted to depraved indifference. I wasn’t a juror, so I didn’t hear all the evidence.
I was surprised by the third-degree verdict. I expect that shooting someone who comes up alongside your squad car, just because she was blonde and wearing a pink shirt, even if you heard a thump on the back of your car, could amount to recklessness, to say the least. But depraved indifference?
I don’t know if Noor is appealing the verdict, or if the third-degree conviction will be overturned, even if the manslaughter charge sticks.
Regards,
Shodan
I’m not familiar with the factual details. But could the jury have believed that he shot toward the sound, or toward the person, even, without specifically intending to kill? Shooting toward another person is probably almost always going to be sufficient evidence of an intent to kill, but the jury doesn’t have to be convinced that that was the defendant’s actual intent. The jury could be convinced it was panicky shooting toward a noise, or even toward a person, without an actual intent to kill. (Note: like I said, I’m not up on the facts here, and I’m not expressing my own opinion – just saying how a jury might in theory be able to return both verdicts without necessarily being inconsistent.)
AFAIK Noor testified that he heard a thump, saw a woman in a pink shirt and with blonde hair, and he shot her once. He testified that the thump came from the back of the squad car, and the woman came up alongside the car. So I don’t believe he fired at the noise.
Cite.
Regards,
Shodan
Slight addendum: there was also zero evidence of a noise in the aftermath of the murder. The first time it was even mentioned was days later.
I’m surprised charges weren’t filed for endangering his partner.
Noor shot directly across his partners body and through the drivers window. What if the bullet was deflected by the steering wheel? Where would it have gone?
I’m surprised both men didn’t get their ear drums blown out.
The death of the 911 caller, Justine Damond compounded the error.