Inspired by the Pit thread Self-absorbed Jerk:
What constitutes Murder, as opposed to Negligent Homicide or Manslaughter?
Specifically, does Murder requires the intent to kill, or at least the intent to cause physical harm to the victim?
MURDER
Murder usually means you had an intent to kill (shot out of cold blood, planned a murder, etc).
NEGLIGENT HOMOCIDE
Negligent Homocide usually means you killed because of your neglect (did not feed your children and they starved to death).
MANSLAUGHTER
Manslaughter usually means you did not have an intent to kill someone, but still legally caused their death by illegal actions (driving drunk and hitting someone causing death is when I hear this the most).
I am sure we will get in more detail with stories etc. as this thread moves on.
In each US State, the criminal offences are defined in that state’s penal laws, and each state had different levels of homicide crimes for with different elements that must be proved by the prosecution. Each homicide crime, and most other crimes, require that the prosecution prove that the defendant have a particular culpable mental state (mens rea). One mental state is “intentional”, such as where someone intends to kill a person. I presume that your question refers to non-intentional homicides, such as the street racing death described in the linked thread.
New York’s homicide crimes are defined in Penal Law art. 125. Three non-intentional homicide crimes are defined, in relevant part, as follows:
To properly interpret these definitions, we must refer to the definitions of culpable mental states in Penal Law art. 15. The two mental states at issue are defined as follows:
Under these definitions:
For criminally negligent homicide, the defendant must have “fail[ed] to perceive a substantial and unjustifiable risk” of death occuring.
For manslaughter, the defendant must have been “aware of and consciously disregard[ed] a substantial and unjustifiable risk” of death occuring.
For murder (depraved indifference murder), the defendant must acted “under circumstances evincing a depraved indifference to human life,” where the defendant was “aware of and consciously disregard[ed]” “a grave [not merely substantial and unjustifiable] risk of death” occurring.
Though these definitions are not immediately entirely clear, they they provide some guidance on when a crime might be differing levels of homicide. Hundreds of judicial opinions have been issued differentiating between the levels and culpable mental states.
In the street racing context, if a death results, it is almost certianly at least criminally negligent homicide (an unperceived risk of death occurring), and probably reckless manslaughter (a known and disregarded risk of death occurring). In the linked thread, the prosecutor (in New York) decided that street racing at 139 mph could be considered so serious a degree of recklessness that it could be considered acting with a depraved indifference to human life causing a grave risk of death, so the prosecutor charged the racers with murder.
Contrary to common belief, murder does not necessarily involve an intent to kill; that’s only one of several crimes that fall under the general rubric of murder. At common law, a death will be murder if the defendant had the intent to kill, had the intent to cause serious bodily injury, disregarded an extremely high risk that death would result (acted with a “depraved heart”), or caused someone’s death unintentionally while committing an inherently dangerous felony (felony murder). Voluntary manslaughter is “intent to kill” murder mitigated by reasonable provoacation, while involuntary manslaughter is a death caused by criminal negligence that doesn’t quite rise to the level of depraved heart murder.
The link and info that Billdo provided shows that New York appears to have codified their own version of common law depraved heart murder, followed by lesser included homicides with Model Penal Code standards of culpability. If the fact finder finder finds that the person acted with a depraved indifference to human life, he is guilty of second degree murder; if he was acting recklessly ( a lower standard of culpability), he is guilty of manslaughter; if he was acting with criminal negligence (a lower standard still), he is guilty of criminally negligent homicide. The prosecutor gets three bites at the apple in the jury charge.
The laws in California are complicated, but the main difference between manslaughter and murder is malice, not intent. That is, it’s murder if one’s malicious actions result in someone’s death. Malice can be express or implied - “express” meaning there is an intent to kill, and “implied” can mean either that there was “no considerable provocation”, or that “the circumstances attending the killing show an abandoned and malignant heart.”
You can read California’s definition of murder here .