Simple Crim Question Forum

[motownsaint]

This is a fairly cheesy question, and I think I've simply managed to confuse myself on what is an easy part of the course.

Is the "willful, deliberate, and premeditated" formula for determining whether or not a murder is first-degree only referring to an intent to kill? In other words, would a willful, deliberate, and premeditated act to inflict grievous bodily injury (but not death) that results in death anyway be considered eligible for a first-degree conviction?

Straighten me out, please!

[270910]

This is a fairly cheesy question, and I think I've simply managed to confuse myself on what is an easy part of the course.

Is the "willful, deliberate, and premeditated" formula for determining whether or not a murder is first-degree only referring to an intent to kill? In other words, would a willful, deliberate, and premeditated act to inflict grievous bodily injury (but not death) that results in death anyway be considered eligible for a first-degree conviction?

Straighten me out, please!

The intent requirement for all intent-requiring homicides is to cause death or grievous bodily harm.

[motownsaint]

This is a fairly cheesy question, and I think I've simply managed to confuse myself on what is an easy part of the course.

Is the "willful, deliberate, and premeditated" formula for determining whether or not a murder is first-degree only referring to an intent to kill? In other words, would a willful, deliberate, and premeditated act to inflict grievous bodily injury (but not death) that results in death anyway be considered eligible for a first-degree conviction?

Straighten me out, please!

The intent requirement for all intent-requiring homicides is to cause death or grievous bodily harm.

Gah, of course you're right! I don't know how I confused myself on this. I think I was looking at the depraved heart rule too intensely and became convinced that inflicting grievous bodily injury on someone without an intent to kill would be considered reckless. Clearly, that's not the case at all. They have all the intent required. Recklessness would be if they didn't intend to cause death or injury.

Thanks!

[270910]

Gah, of course you're right! I don't know how I confused myself on this. I think I was looking at the depraved heart rule too intensely and became convinced that inflicting grievous bodily injury on someone without an intent to kill would be considered reckless. Clearly, that's not the case at all. They have all the intent required. Recklessness would be if they didn't intend to cause death or injury.

Thanks!

Bingo. Close intent questions often turn into causation questions. If I intend to cause minor harm by shooting you in the arm with a BB gun, and through a freak accident it kills you, there's a legitimate question BOTH about whether I intended to cause you grievous bodily harm AND whether my shooting you was a proximate cause of your death. If you get technical about it, greivous tends to have to pick up the rather circular definition of "could reasonably / foreseeably cause death."

Not really the ambit of most crim classes and would require a truly cooky fact pattern, but I always found it interesting none the less.

[solidsnake]

That doesn't answer his question. His question was about the distinction as to degrees of murder applied via statutory reform; you, on the other hand, answered only whether malice aforethought is satisfied.

"A person acts with malice aforethought if she intends to to inflict grievous bodily injury on another human being. Therefore, if a death results from her conduct, she is guilty of murder . . . In states that distinguish between degrees of murder . . . one who kills another person with this state of mind is usually guilty of second-degree murder. It constitutes malice aforethought (murder), but it is not a wilful, deliberate, premeditated killing (first-degree murder)." Dressler, Criminal Law, 303-04 (2005).

[270910]

That doesn't answer his question. His question was about the distinction as to degrees of murder applied via statutory reform; you, on the other hand, answered only whether malice aforethought is satisfied.

"A person acts with malice aforethought if she intends to to inflict grievous bodily injury on another human being. Therefore, if a death results from her conduct, she is guilty of murder . . . In states that distinguish between degrees of murder . . . one who kills another person with this state of mind is usually guilty of second-degree murder. It constitutes malice aforethought (murder), but it is not a wilful, deliberate, premeditated killing (first-degree murder)." Dressler, Criminal Law, 303-04 (2005).

RC fail.

[solidsnake]

This is a fairly cheesy question, and I think I've simply managed to confuse myself on what is an easy part of the course.

Is the "willful, deliberate, and premeditated" formula for determining whether or not a murder is first-degree only referring to an intent to kill? In other words, would a willful, deliberate, and premeditated act to inflict grievous bodily injury (but not death) that results in death anyway be considered eligible for a first-degree conviction?

Straighten me out, please!

If a jury believes that def did not intend to kill the victim, but only cause grievous harm, even though death resulted, then prosecution should only get a second-degree murder in states that follow the PA model that most texts reference. Every state, however, has their own statutory provisions so you need to read the statute you are prosecuting under or defending against. Since it is hard to prove that def intended merely serious harm, especially when prosecution is parading around a dead body, they will likely go for first-degree murder, assuming there is evidence to show premeditation et al. What the jury is likely to end up believing is fact-specific.




And as for you, retard:

This is a fairly cheesy question, and I think I've simply managed to confuse myself on what is an easy part of the course.

Is the "willful, deliberate, and premeditated" formula for determining whether or not a murder is first-degree only referring to an intent to kill? In other words, would a willful, deliberate, and premeditated act to inflict grievous bodily injury (but not death) that results in death anyway be considered eligible for a first-degree conviction?

Straighten me out, please!

The intent requirement for all intent-requiring homicides is to cause death or grievous bodily harm.

Eligibility of degree and intent requirement are two separate issues to analyze, albeit with some overlap.