Law School Discussion Forums
https://www.top-law-schools.com/forums/
https://www.top-law-schools.com/forums/viewtopic.php?f=3&t=184643
This.AVBucks4239 wrote:Run through all the different possible murder charges that are plausible, say why they work or why they don't work, and get points.
But if I had to guess, first degree murder, because one intends the natural and probable consequences of his actions.
presidentk1 wrote:i'm only a 0L
The kidnapping thing works. You can't sneak murder into felony-murder on an assault claims. But the kidnapping idea is solid. Looks like Presidentk1 could make the curve if he tested tomorrow.presidentk1 wrote:in this case, the defendant committed many felonies, i.e. assault, kidnapping
+1JDcandidate wrote:The kidnapping thing works. You can't sneak murder into felony-murder on an assault claims. But the kidnapping idea is solid. Looks like Presidentk1 could make the curve if he tested tomorrow.presidentk1 wrote:in this case, the defendant committed many felonies, i.e. assault, kidnapping
Then you probably shouldn't be answering questions in the law student forum.presidentk1 wrote:i'm only a 0L
i appreciate the complimentJDcandidate wrote:The kidnapping thing works. You can't sneak murder into felony-murder on an assault claims. But the kidnapping idea is solid. Looks like Presidentk1 could make the curve if he tested tomorrow.presidentk1 wrote:in this case, the defendant committed many felonies, i.e. assault, kidnapping
You stated this better than I did.clint4law wrote:Actus Reus + Mens Rea + Causation need to coincide.
Yes, you can use a mistake of fact to mitigate to negligent homicide.
I'd say: attempt for the first act, and negligent homicide for the second act.
ajaxconstructions wrote:You stated this better than I did.clint4law wrote:Actus Reus + Mens Rea + Causation need to coincide.
Yes, you can use a mistake of fact to mitigate to negligent homicide.
I'd say: attempt for the first act, and negligent homicide for the second act.
This is what I thought, but wasn't sure on it.
^Agree with this. There is a concurrence requirement between Actus Reus and Mens Rea, which doesn't exist in this instance. I think it should be attempted murder and negligent homicide (or even felony murder, depending on jurisdictional rules).clint4law wrote:Actus Reus + Mens Rea + Causation need to coincide.
Yes, you can use a mistake of fact to mitigate to negligent homicide.
I'd say: attempt for the first act, and negligent homicide for the second act.
No big time difference between the actions. Would it really matter? Wouldn't the actus reus and mens rea be separate even if it was done consecutively with no time between the acts?JDcandidate wrote:ajaxconstructions wrote:You stated this better than I did.clint4law wrote:Actus Reus + Mens Rea + Causation need to coincide.
Yes, you can use a mistake of fact to mitigate to negligent homicide.
I'd say: attempt for the first act, and negligent homicide for the second act.
This is what I thought, but wasn't sure on it.
The timing here matters - if its a continuation of the same crime, and the facts don't demonstrate any time that A recollected himself / detached himself from attempted murder, the it would be tough to argue. As would be any of the defenses suggested here. Just something to watch for.
Thanks.Richie Tenenbaum wrote:^Agree with this. There is a concurrence requirement between Actus Reus and Mens Rea, which doesn't exist in this instance. I think it should be attempted murder and negligent homicide (or even felony murder, depending on jurisdictional rules).clint4law wrote:Actus Reus + Mens Rea + Causation need to coincide.
Yes, you can use a mistake of fact to mitigate to negligent homicide.
I'd say: attempt for the first act, and negligent homicide for the second act.
Courts have disagreed with this though b/c they "want justice." See Thabo case cited earlier and Jackson v. Commonwealth, 28 S.w. 422 (Ky. 1986).
Dressler (in Understanding Criminal Law) talks about this very issue on pg 201-02 (and cites those two cases). The outcomes in those cases: "the murder convictions in both cases were affirmed, presumably because the defendant's culpability was that of a murderer, and '[o]rdinary ideas of justice and common sense require that such [cases] . . . be treated as murder,' rather than attempted murder."
MPC analysis: These are distinct acts and separate state of minds are occurring for each act. When A drugs B, it is his conscious object to bring about the death of B. When A dumps B into lake, he is either reckless to the fact that B might still be living (if he was aware of a risk that she might still be alive), negligent (if he should have known), or strict liability. We usually only punish for crim neg. or recklessness, but it seems likely a jury will find at least crim neg.JDcandidate wrote:ajaxconstructions wrote:You stated this better than I did.clint4law wrote:Actus Reus + Mens Rea + Causation need to coincide.
Yes, you can use a mistake of fact to mitigate to negligent homicide.
I'd say: attempt for the first act, and negligent homicide for the second act.
This is what I thought, but wasn't sure on it.
The timing here matters - if its a continuation of the same crime, and the facts don't demonstrate any time that A recollected himself / detached himself from attempted murder, the it would be tough to argue. As would be any of the defenses suggested here. Just something to watch for.
Unless your professor is just awful, might be best to stick to what he or she wants to hear. If you didn't cover something in class, I would hope that it doesn't pop up on the test.ajaxconstructions wrote:Thanks.Richie Tenenbaum wrote:^Agree with this. There is a concurrence requirement between Actus Reus and Mens Rea, which doesn't exist in this instance. I think it should be attempted murder and negligent homicide (or even felony murder, depending on jurisdictional rules).clint4law wrote:Actus Reus + Mens Rea + Causation need to coincide.
Yes, you can use a mistake of fact to mitigate to negligent homicide.
I'd say: attempt for the first act, and negligent homicide for the second act.
Courts have disagreed with this though b/c they "want justice." See Thabo case cited earlier and Jackson v. Commonwealth, 28 S.w. 422 (Ky. 1986).
Dressler (in Understanding Criminal Law) talks about this very issue on pg 201-02 (and cites those two cases). The outcomes in those cases: "the murder convictions in both cases were affirmed, presumably because the defendant's culpability was that of a murderer, and '[o]rdinary ideas of justice and common sense require that such [cases] . . . be treated as murder,' rather than attempted murder."
That Thabo case really helps. Too bad in our class we didn't even cover that case (or anything similar) and didn't talk about the meeting of Actus Reus + Mens Rea requirement for murder. Learning more on TLS than I did in class.
Good point. Probably, yeah. Shoulda checked my outline. Sorry dude. Good heads up lawyering tho hahaRichie Tenenbaum wrote: No big time difference between the actions. Would it really matter? Wouldn't the actus reus and mens rea be separate even if it was done consecutively with no time between the acts?
Generally, this. But, sometimes professors don't cover a particularly esoteric area of law and then test it, reasoning that they've given you the skills to argue both sides of what should be novel to you. This could be one of those. In these situations its great to have read and thought about the actual case that the Q is based one, and have read the arguments for and against its holding, which Richie has pretty much done for you.Richie Tenenbaum wrote:Unless your professor is just awful, might be best to stick to what he or she wants to hear. If you didn't cover something in class, I would hope that it doesn't pop up on the test.
ETA: Requirement of concurrence between mens rea and actus reus applies to all of criminal law, not just murder.
Hey guys, I've got a game. Let's play Spot the Future Gunner! Pew pew pewMike12188 wrote:presidentk1 wrote:i'm only a 0L