What crime is this character guilty of?

[mazinger_z]

@Number

If poisoning the dog in the first place were a felony then couldn’t Julia’s character be charged with first degree murder?

@Bear_Nenno

I’m gonna go with NO on this one.
For Felony Murder to work, the lady would had to have committed an “intentional act that is not an essential element” of the original Felony.
Placing the Poison in the dog dish would have been an essential element in the “Cruelty to Animals” or “Attempted Cruelty to an Animal” felony we’d have to stick her with to get Felony Murder.
So, unfortunately, Felony Murder is out of the question.

This is not legal advice. There is no legal relationship created or given by this message, all other standard disclaimers apply.

Felony murder, traditionally, is when a death occurs during the commission or attempted commission of a felony that is inherently dangerous, and the accused actually killed the victim (feel free to insert the appropriate transferred intent doctrine at your leisure). Number’s scenario only specifies a felony. Is this felony considered inherently dangerous? One must look at the legislative notes or comments or history.

It is not clear if the proposed felony of poisoning a dog is an inherently dangerous felony. It looks like conversion of property, not necessarily burglary. Or, depending on if you’re talking to a dog lover, it might even be battery. Battery seems a little too far fetched b/c dogs are not humans and they don’t seem to enjoy the rights that even a corporation might possess, so I’ll ignore battery. Conversion (dominion over property, essentially), on its face, is not inherently dangerous.

Of course, the state could have on its books, some type of second degree murder felony, which I would argue would be more appropriate for Julia Duffy.

[Sengkelat]

@Gfactor

No. Spraying bullets is a depraved heart theory.

Transferred intent is when you intended to injure one person but wound up injuring someone else.

My fault; what ltfire originally said was “firing shots into a crowd, and hitting everyone but your intended victim.” In that case, transferrence of intent does apply. I accidentally substituted “spraying” for “firing” and left off the bit about the intended victim. Hey, I knew what I meant; couldn’t you just read my mind?

As for the cop/bad guy example, I guess a little knowledge is a dangerous thing Bricker; the cop/bad guy example is pretty much exactly as explained to me by a lawyer who ought to have known – but just because she ought to have known doesn’t mean she was right. Your explanation sounds much more reasonable and likely. I’ll have to ask her about that and see what she has to say for herself.

[Bear_Nenno]

@mazinger_z

It is not clear if the proposed felony of poisoning a dog is an inherently dangerous felony.

It’s not on Florida’s list.

However, I did just notice a clause about any controlled substances being the cause of death. Does anyone know what the poison was? If it’s listed in the statute, then Felony Murder would stick.

[Gfactor]

@Bear_Nenno

It’s not on Florida’s list.

However, I did just notice a clause about any controlled substances being the cause of death. Does anyone know what the poison was? If it’s listed in the statute, then Felony Murder would stick.

Murder committed in the perpetration of, or attempt to perpetrate, arson, criminal sexual conduct in the first, second, or third degree, child abuse in the first degree, a major controlled substance offense, robbery, carjacking, breaking and entering of a dwelling, home invasion in the first or second degree, larceny of any kind, extortion, kidnapping, or vulnerable adult abuse in the first and second degree under section 145n.

http://www.michiganlegislature.org/mileg.asp?page=getObject&objName=mcl-750-316&queryid=9097226

I get the same result under the Michigan Statute.

[Little_Nemo]

Transferred intent is like the scene in The Godfather where they wired up Michael Corleone’s car but his wife ended up getting killed instead. Assuming the matter had ever come to court, the killer could have been tried for premeditated murder even though he didn’t kill the person he intended.