Kyle V. Deft

530 Words3 Pages
The first issue is whether or not there is sufficient evidence to sustain the charges of murder or manslaughter against Deft. Murder is a homicide committed with malice aforethought. Malice can be found by (1) specific intent to kill, premeditation and deliberation, (2) intent to cause grave bodily injury, (3) wanton and willful disregard for human life (“depraved heart”), or (4) felony murder. The defendant’s acts must be the actual and proximate cause of the victim’s death. Manslaughter is defined as the unlawful killing of another human being without malice aforethought. I. Discuss the evidence to sustain a charge of murder against Deft: To be liable for murder, the element of malice aforethought must be present. The evidence shows specific intent to kill, premeditation and deliberation in several ways. The facts tell us that Deft searched for several months but was unable to find the killer, Deft went to the 38th street pier in search of the killer, and that Deft pulled out a handgun and shot Kyle in the chest. He intended to kill because he took the gun; the search for several months and the act of going to the pier to find the killer were deliberate and planned acts. Deft’s actions are the actual and proximate cause of Kyle’s death. Deft’s act of shooting Kyle in the chest is the actual cause. Furthermore, Deft’s acts meet the “but for” rule: but for Deft’s actions, Kyle would still be alive. Defenses to this charge could be mitigating circumstances or provocation. The mitigating circumstances result from Kyle’s sadness over the death of his daughter. The provocation defense could be asserted as the two men engaged in a heated exchange of words and Kyle admitted he had killed Deft's child and then began moving toward Deft and reaching his hand into his jacket. Deft could argue he was provoked by the exchange. The evidence will sustain a charge of
Open Document