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.
An example of an excusable homicide is “a death caused by a vehicular accident in which the driver was not negligent, for example, would probably be excusable” (Schmalleger, 2010, p. 192). As mentioned earlier self-defense can be an excusable homicide as well, because it would be a killing which was carried out in away allowed under criminal law. Criminal homicide is a homicide that holds one criminally liable for the killing of another person. Criminal homicide is the knowing or negligent act of killing a human by another human being. There are three additional components of criminal homicide, “criminal homicide may be classified as murder, manslaughter, or negligent homicide” (Schmalleger, 2010, p. 192).
(Suggesting an impulsive, possibly psychotic killer) | Was the crime staged to mislead the police? | What motivations are revealed by details such as;a) Cause of death b) Location of wounds c) Position of body | What racial group did the killer belong to? | What was the gender of the offender? | What was the age range of the offender? | What was the marital status of the offender?
The threats must be directed at the commission of a particular offence: In R v Coles [1994] Crim LR 582, the defendant was charged with committing a number of robberies at building societies. At his trial he sought to adduce evidence that he had acted under duress. The basis for the defence was that he had owed money to money-lenders who had threatened him, his girlfriend, and their child with violence if the money was not repaid. The trial judge ruled that the facts did not give rise to the defence as the threats had not been directed at the commission of a particular offence, but
When someone premeditates the crime of murder and follows through that is called, first-degree murder. Mens rea refers to the intentional aspect of the crime, purposely or knowingly committing the murder. The punishment for first-degree murder is likely life without parole in prison or the death penalty. Felony murder is committed during the course of a felony that then results in someone’s death even though the death may have been unintentional. Felony murder is a strict liability crime and no mens rea is required.
This can be seen by the case of White (1910). in this case the defendant put cyanide into the victims drink how ever the defendant died from a heart attack before drinking the drink but the defendant was not the factual cause of death but still he was guilty of attempted murder. This is because the court held that the defendant had everything in motion to do his unlawful act. Another case illustrating factual causation is the case of Pegett (1983). In this case the defendant used his pregnant wife as a human shield.
It created trained killers and told them how to get away and not get caught. Under this court case, Paladin Press should be found guilty and pay for their crimes. A second precedent set in the case of Brandenburg v. Ohio said that the government cannot punish a person’s speech unless it is likely to incite imminent lawless action. Clarence Brandenburg, a KKK leader, had one of his rallies televised and was charged with advocating violence. Brandenburg said that he was protected by the first amendment under the right of free speech.
Gilbert W Johnson 03/21/2015 CRJU-2020 Columbus Technical College Furman v Georgia, 408 U.S. 238 (1972) Facts of the Case: Mr. Furman was burglarizing a private home when a family member discovered him, he tried to flee and when spotted tripped and fell the gun that was on him at the time went off and killed a resident of the home. “Burglary the criminal offense of breaking and entering a building illegally for the purpose of committing a crime”. “Murder, to kill (a person) in a deliberate and unlawful way”. Furman was convicted of murder but he did not intend to kill the resident during the burglary, but he killed someone during the commission of a felony. Furman intent to burglarize someone home was illegal conduct.
It was proved that the defendant was guilty of rape by his dna, also the fact that he was menacing people with a shotgun, which is how the taking of the DNA came about to prove him guilty of rape. Accomplice liability does not apply to this case; accomplice liability allows the courts to find a person criminally liable for acts committed by another person. If a person aids, assist or encourages another in the commission of a crime they are an accomplice to the crime, while the person who actually commits the act is called the” principal”. However, when determining what is accomplice liability and criminal liability a court needs to examine factors and intent of both the principal and the accomplice (www.legalmatch.com). The elements of crime are a series of components that must be present in order for it to be demonstrated that someone is guilty of a crime.
Q1a Mens Rea means a guilty mind and refers to the intention element of the crime. Each offence has its own mens rea e.g. the mens rea for murder is the ‘unlawful killing of a human being with malice aforethought, this means that contrary to common law the defendant must intend to kill or cause grievous bodily harm whilst the mens rea for theft is dishonesty with the intention of permanently depriving as cited in s1 Theft Act 1968. There are three different levels of mens rea, which may form the basis of criminal liability, these are Intention, Recklessness and Negligence. Intention is the highest level of mens rea.