Let’s say Jones shoots Smith in an attempt to kill him. Smith doesn’t immediately die, but dies a week later from the wounds. Smith is then charged with murder.
Okay, that seems right.
Now say Jackson shoots Williams in an attempt to kill him. Williams doesn’t immediately die, but dies ten years later as a result of the wounds sustained. Can Jackson now be charged with murder?
Yes, if the death can be shown to be a direct result of an attack. Here is a recent example.
At common law, the rule was that you couldn’t be prosecuted for murder if the death occurred more than a year and a day after your act or omission occurred.
Wikipedia link
In the US there’s currently a hodgepodge of rules about how long the period has to be. I guess in England now there isn’t a time limit at all, although there are apparently hoops to jump through if it’s been more than three years.
In the UK until fairly recently (last decade or so) there was a law that explicitly set a limit of one year on such things (i.e. if someone took longer than a year to die you could not be prosecuted for murder). Sensibly given advances in medicine since Anglo Saxon days (where that particular law had its origins) the law was changed to remove such time limits.
One of the guys shot from the Texas clock tower by Charles Whitman died decades later and was still counted as a murder victim, yes.
In 2008, a gunamn shot up a City Council meetinging in my hometown. Six people died at the scene. Seven months later another person died as a result of the shooting, and that’s now the official count (plus the shooter, who was killed by police.)
Here is a recent case in New York where a man was charged with murder 30 years later after the victim died.
Smith is charged with murder? Talk about blaming the victim…