From an episode of Cold Case:
A young retarded man, Colin, lives with his mother. Colin has an occasional caretaker, Nathan, who is 19. Colin appears to be in his late teens, but they never specifically say.
Colin’s mother is dying of cancer.
Nathan takes Colin to the movies. After the movies, they go walking along a railroad track. Colin is on the track. Nathan suggests that Colin make a wish for his mother to get better. Colin does so while still standing on the track. A train comes and strikes and kills Colin. Nathan makes no attempt to save Colin from the train.
13 years pass and police reopen the case. They discover Nathan’s involvement. At the end of the show, he’s led away in handcuffs.
I was watching the episode with some friends, and one of them raised the same question…IANAL, but without any hard evidence of premeditation (the episode was (deliberately?) unclear about whether Nathan intended to take Charlie down to the tracks for the express purpose of getting him run over by a train, or for some other reason (like leaving him to fend for himself in the woods or something) and just used the train as an opportunity to get rid of an unwanted burden), I would think the most he MIGHT be charged with would be second-degree murder or voluntary manslaughter (again, as IANAL, are those two generally equivalent charges?). Without a confession, though, I don’t think they had good enough evidence to win, regardless of the charges brought about.
They are not. Homicide (illegal killing of a human being) is, of course, covered by criminal law, which is different in every state, but, in general, plain “murder” is the same as “second-degree murder”.
First-degree murder or aggravated murder is a “special” crime that doesn’t exist in all state statutes. Usually first-degree murder is defined as being the same as regular (second-degree) murder, but has some “aggravating” circumstances, such as pre-meditation or through the use of particular methods (poisoning) or accompanied by other heinous acts (rape, torture, etc.)
Second-degree murder is plain murder and the key difference between murder and manslaughter is that it requires specific intent. It has to be shown that you intended to kill.
Usually, manslaughter or “voluntary manslaughter” or “intentional manslaughter” is a type of homicide that doesn’t require specific intent. It usually requires only a showing of general intent – that is, you intentionally did the thing that led to the killing, but you didn’t necessarily intend that it would result in a death.
“Involuntary manslaughter” or “negligent manslaughter” or “felony manslaughter” is usually a homicide that is proximately caused by the commission of some other felony (battery or robbery, for example).
People may be assumed to intend the ordinary consequences of their behavior. If the jury saw the event happen as described, they could certainly find Nathan guilty of premeditated murder. Premeditation need not occur over days or even hours. If Nathan had thirty seconds to contemplate the train hitting Colin, and deliberately failed to warn him after deliberately placing him in the path of the train, then that’s premeditated murder.
If the train came as a surprise to Nathan after he placed Colin on the tracks, but he still deliberately failed to warn Colin, that’s manslaughter, since as a caretaker he owed Colin a duty of care which he criminally neglects.
Having not seen the episode, I agree with the post above that suggests there’d be a real problem of proof here.
I think this is pretty much it. If Nathan wanted to get Charlie killed, then it’s murder. But unless Nathan confesses, I don’t see how they could ever prove intent. (I’m assuming that Nathan isn’t stupid enough to leave a note in his day planner saying “March 8th: take Charlie down to railroad tracks. Get him killed.”)
They could probably get him on negligent homicide, however. He was Charlie’s caretaker, and it’s not unreasonable to say that he shouldn’t put Charlie in a situation where he could get run over by a train.
You may be right, Bricker, but in my mind, this definition entirely conflates “murder” and “premeditated murder.” In that case, all murders are premeditated. I should think that they would at least have to prove that Nathan took Charlie to the tracks in order to get him killed.
I was wondering about this same issue. The best I can come up with (on preview, I see that Diceman beat me to it) was that, because of his caretaker status with respect to Colin, Nathun had assumed a duty of care for him, which would include “don’t let him get hit by a train”.
And, of course, “breach of a duty of care” is the definition of “negligence.” So we go at least as far as “criminal negligence” and perhaps we get to “negligent manslaughter.” It depends on the state law.
Did anyone else find it slightly ridiculous that he would up and confess to murder after thirteen years, with a wife and a baby on the way?
As for the ep., Colin suggested that his wish would come true if he made it while standing on the tracks. He asked Nathan if that would work, and Nathan said it would. Basically, he said “Yeah, stand on the tracks and make your wish!” when he knew a train was coming.
I agree, and this has always bothered me about the “premeditated” part of first degree murder. If there’s no time requirement (i.e. the forethought can be matter of seconds) how is any murder not premeditated? How do you ever intentionally do something meant to kill someone without deciding to do it beforehand, even if “beforehand” is one second earlier?
Hmm. I remember it slightly differently. I thought Colin said something about a wish, and Nathan said Colin should wish for her to get strong. Colin said “Like a train?” or something similar, and Nathan agreed that wishing on the train would work. I don’t remember Nathan suggesting that Colin stand on the tracks. Colin was already standing on the tracks, I thought.
But, I don’t have it on TiVo any longer, and it’s probably not very important. I’d be curious if the differences in our recollections change the nature of the crime(s).
When I served on the jury on a murder case a few months ago, the judge instructed us that premeditiation can occur in a very short period of time, but the salient point was that there must have been an act of reflection or some type of turning it over the intended act in one’s mind.
The way I take this is that if someone is in a rage and intends to kill someone, even if that rage lasts for a significant period of time, it can be reasonably argued that a person was so engrossed in his anger that he did not have the opportunity to reflect or give reconsideration to his intention to kill someone. Thus, such an example would not premeditated. However, back to the issue at hand, if someone sat there, watching the train come down the tracks while the boy was sitting there with his eyes closed, the person could well have thought, “Should I really kill this kid? I could get in trouble, but yes, it’s worth it; I will not rouse him or get him out of the way of the train.” From what the judge explained to the jury I was on, that would be premeditation.
Under some state stautes, perhaps, but not at common law; at common law (and under some state statutes) an unintended homicide can be murder, and an intentional homicide can be manslaughter. At common law, murder can be either intent to kill, intent to inflict grievous bodily injury, a death resulting from a reckless indifference to human life (“depraved heart muder”), or a death resulting from the commission of an inherently dangerous felony. Voluntary manslaughter is a homicide that would be murder were it not mitigated by reasonable provocation. Involuntary manslaughter is an unintended homicide like depraved heart murder, but the culpabilty only rises to the level of criminal negligence.
The key is whether you have the opportunity for reflection and deliberation, sufficient time to allow a second look. That can be mere seconds, or, depending on the circumstances, minutes upon minutes may be insufficient.