Here's a law school exam question, have fun with it!
 

Here's a question from a hypothetical law exam that was given to me earlier this semester. We were told that a few months of school would skew our perception on things that seem common sense so, i figured i'd like to see the reaction from some people who aren't studying the law as compared to some people who are. K, here's the hypo...

John and Sandy have been married for six months and the relationship is already rocky. Sandy suspects John of cheating and vice versa. One day John arrived home early from work to find Sandy's car in the driveway along with one he had not seen before. Upon entering his bedroom he found his wifes clothes sprawled out on the bed and floor and a strange man asleep in his bed. His wife was not in the room. Upon seeing this John flew into a fit of rage, grabbed a gun from his dresser drawer and fired 4 shots at the man in the bed. All of the shots hit the man. 2 in the head, 2 in the chest. He had obviously killed the man.

Upon hearing the shots, a neighbor called the police, who arrived quickly to find the husband and wife in a heated argument in the room with the body. It turns out that while having her affair, the wifes sexual partner dropped dead of a heart attack in the middle of the act. John shot a man who was already dead!

The question is this. Will John be held liable for attempted murder and violent assault even though the body was already dead? Or, does the fact that it already was dead free him from any criminal wrongdoing?

I know my answer, but I ain't sharing yet...have fun figuring it out!:)

oh this is interesting...

umm, i'm not positive, but i'm going with my gut on this one, i think he can be held liable since he intended to hurt the guy and had no way of knowing he was dead or not. if it was his intent to do the man harm, he can be held liable? i don't know...

I think he would/could be held liable for attempted murder. His intent was to cause harm upon this man. He assumed the man was alive, otherwise why would he shoot him? However, since the man was already dead perhaps his punishment will not be so severe, i.e. less time served, a greater chance for probation, etc.

mansluaghter or murder 1? intent was there, for sure. but also crime of passion which get treated differently anyways-often assumed person not in right mind... but again, it was an already dead man and that coupled with the crime of passion could get him a lesser sentence.

I agree on the intent/liable issue. He fired four shots and wanted to hurt the man.

Intent or no intent, the man was already dead. For all he knows, this guy just broke into his house and raped his wife.

He would probably get some type of firearm charge, but I dont think it would be murder or attempted murder. You cant attempt to murder someone if they are already dead.

He's liable for criminal charges. Intent was clear. He made a concious decision to get the gun and fire it. Just because the guy was already dead doesn't mean there wasn't a crime commited.

Well it was a stranger in his house so under Texas law he was in his legal rights to shoot him.

He had criminal intent. He may not get convicted of manslaughter charges but possibly an intent to kill charge.

Don't you love Texas?:rolleyes:

The man was dead already so the husband cannot be charged with murder. IF he is in violation of other state laws, like firing a weapon within the city limits, or the weapon isn't properly registered, or there is law about acceptable treatment of a dead body he could be charged with something like that.

Intent only applies in specifically defined situations, such as the amount of drugs you have leading to an intent to distribute. The bottom line is that he no more killed the man than if he never walked into the room.

However, I am not a lawyer so I might be wrong ;)

This is how I see it. Murder implies that something is living and is killed by a person. In this case, Since the man was already dead, he can no longer be murdered, and you cant intend to kill someone thats no longern exists.

My guess was attempted murder. And he would be guilty.

Ok we need a lawyer to come in and tell us the truth now:)

Remember, its not so much what we believe to be true, its actually a matter of legal definitions.

It's so much more fun to read everyone's responses than to tell ya'll the answer.

For some reason I do think that he could be charged with Murder b/c there was Intent (also we dont know whether the man could have been saved, etc.) However, I dont think a jury would convict on it. They go for a firearms charge or lower manslaughter.

He had the requisite intent, and means motive and opportunity. I think they covered this one on law and order one time, and they mad the analogy of shooting a man as he was falling out of a window at 45 stories. They said it was an "old law school" quiz. I dont rememer what they said on the show the answer was, but its also TV, too.

As long as you dont go posting collateral estoppel questions, we OK. :)

It was a crime of passion, not a pre-meditated, so I believe the intent to kill is void. I don't think the man could be charged with anything.

Who cares? It all gonna come down to who has the best lawyer. If he is a white guy with $$$ he will get slapped on the wrist. Black guy with no money and he will hang.

Our legal system isn't exactly an exact science. One DA might charge the hubby with one crime and another DA might charge him with something else. One jury might think he is innocent and another might think he is guilty.

Good answers by everyone! How long to we have to wait for the real answer, I'm waiting in suspense :)

ya gonna have to wait a bit longer, i still want to hear from some of the honeys on the site that are already in law school and see what their take is.:)

Great question.
Well, I don't think the man could be brought up on any charges of intent to kill, attempted murder or anything in that area. Intent, maybe, but it was like others have said, a crime of passion, not thought out. Attempted murder of what? Someone that was already dead? I think the guy could be brought up on some kind of charges involving the gun, if it is registered or not, shooting it within city limits, or maybe some kind of domestic violence charge.

But, I don't think he could be brought up on any other chargers, how can you attemtp to kill something that is already dead, or have the intent to kill something that is no longer living.

Let's hear the real answer please?!?!!?


d

Well, I assume it isn't murder, but he cannot claim to assume the man was dead so he did try to kill him b/c all he knew was he was alive.

I would kill the neighbor for calling the police, it didn't give them time to get their story straight!

How do you prove the man was dead prior to being shot?

Criminal intent or not and it is a proven fact that he died before he was shot will in no way make it a murder conviction!
He could have been charged with destruction of private property, firing a weapon in city limits, having an unregistared weapon.

he may be charged with intent to do bodily harm!

One of the guys on my ex PD found a guy in his bed with his wife and shot him in the balls! The guy was a cadet or should I say an ex cadet!

Drew was the best butt shooter on the Department!

I would be very interested to hear what the decision was!!!!!;)

Do not hold onto us to long!:D

Okay, here's my answer...

Oh, never mind...I don't want to ruin the fun!

:)

RUIN IT BEFORE I RUIN YOU!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!
lol j/k
I'd just really like to know what would happen in this type of situation.


d

Okay, damasa, just for you...;)

This only applies to the question about whether someone can be charged with attempted murder when the victim is already dead. I'm not getting into the "crime of passion" stuff because I am still scarred from sitting through criminal law classes where we would read case after case where the guy kills the wife and her lover and gets acquitted or goes to jail for about 5 minutes, and case after case where a woman, after being tortured and abused by her husband for 20 years finally snaps and kills him and gets a life sentence. Ugh.

ANYWAY... according to the Illinois statute:

A person commits an attempt when, with intent to commit a specific offense, he does any act which constitutes a substantial step toward the commission of that offense.... It shall not be a defense to a charge of attempt that because of a misapprehension of the circumstances it would have been impossible for the accused to commit the offense intended.

So yes, you can be charged with attempted murder if the victim is already dead (i.e., murder was impossible), if you intened to commit murder. In the factual scenario presented, there may not be intent to commit murder, but the fact that the victim was already dead does not preclude such a charge. Of course, in other states the law may be different.

At least that's my understanding, based upon 2 minutes of research. Criminal law can be very odd, and common sense does not always prevail.

Shultzz -- the black guy with no money is likely to get a better defense attorney than the white guy with lots of money b/c public defenders TEND to be the best defense attorneys you can get in murder trials (they defend a whole lot more of them). My friend was murdered last year and we keep praying that the murderer's family will scrape together the cash to pay a private defense attorney b/c the PD she got is one of the toughest around.

Valkyrie is correct about the attempted murder answer. Whether he would be charged with attempted murder, manslaughter or some degree thereof would depend upon the state. The Illinois statute is (for the most part) a codification of the common law definition of attempt.

You cannot charge murder b/c you cannot murder someone who is already dead. There are other statutory crimes that he could be charged with as well, but those would also vary based on state, evidence and circumstances.

Lauradav, I'm really sorry to hear about your friend.

We have this law in Oklahoma too.

However, I don't think this is fully true. The wife did invite him in to the house. If this was the case I wouldn't visit someone in their home until I had met every member of the household.

Thanks, it's something no one should ever have to experience.

lauradav, I'm sorry about your friend :( Hope things work out.

In the hypothetical situation that was laid out, I guess it depends on specific state laws, what the guy could be charged with. I'd think/hope he could be charged with something... what he thought he saw, was his wife's lover lying asleep in their bed, and he acted "accordingly" - whether the victim was already dead should be irrelevant - he wanted to kill him. He might be given a lighter sentence since the victim (being already dead) didn't suffer, but he still should not be allowed to just walk away.

I know nothing about the law when it comes to this particular insident, so I'm going to just go with my gut reaction which is this...
Yes he could be jailed or whatever for intent to harm.
However he could also file for divorce and get most everything because he caught his wife cheating on him...now if he is tried and convicted (if that's what CAN happen), then I don't think he is entitled to his claims. OH WHAT A MESS!!!! I'm confusing myself.

Ask me something about libel and slander! LOL:p

In California, the man took a substantial step towards committing the murder. He had the proper mens rea (latin for the state of mind, if I remember correctly). But in CA, he would be charged with attempted voluntary manslaughter, because this would be considered a crime of passion.

i'm not studying to be a lawyer, but a similar scenario was presented in a criminal justice classi just happened to be taking. i honestly don't remember the answer and reasoning the professor gave to the class. however, my opinion was and still is that the husband can't murder something that's already dead. attempted murder is totally different, but not actual murder.

where's judge judy, judge milian or any of those other judges when you need them?

I believe...that while he could not be charged with murder itself...he COULD be charged with attempted murder, or an intent to do bodily harm, because he DID grab his gun, aim..and shoot, not just once, but four times. If that's not an intent to kill, I don't know what is.


Jess

First of all, everyone who said he committed an attempt...You're right.

"Attempt" of a crime requires two things...

1. Mens rea (the evil thought): To be convicted of attempt of a particular substantive crime (like murder here), the defendant must have had the intent to commit that crime.

Here, the guy had the intent to kill the man - shooting the victim 4 times that closely - it's highly likely that a jury would find that to be intent to murder.

2. Actus reus (the evil deed): The traditional view has been that the defendant cannot be convicted of an attempt to commit a substantive crime unless he performed acts which came very close to commission of the substantive crime itself. But the modern view is that almost any sort of overt act that represents a substantial step towards the offense, and that is strongly corroborative of the defendant's intent to commit the substantive crime, will suffice.

Again, shooting the guy four times is definitely a "substantial step" in committing the murder. Under another commonly used test, our unlucky defendant here has also committed the "last act" possible before he could withdraw. For example, if he had just put bullets in the gun, or even pulled it out, he could still "stop" before actually killing anyone. But once those bullets have been fired and have hit someone, he can't take them back.

Regarding impossibility, the real issue is not whether the deed is actually possible, it's whether it was possible from the viewpoint of the defendant.

Following the Model Penal Code (an example of criminal law statutes on which many states base their laws) approach:

Model Penal Code Section 5.01 Attempt

1) Definitions of Attempt. A person is guilty of an attempt to commit a crime if, acting with the kind of culpability otherwise required for the commission of the crime, he:

(a) purposely engages in conduct which would constitute the crime if the attendant circumstances were as he believes them to be; OR

(b) when causing a particular result is an element of the crime, does or omits to do anything with the purpose of causing or with the belief that it will cause such result without further conduct on his part; OR

(c) purposely does or omits to do anything which, under the circumstances as he believes them to be, is an act or omission constituting a substantial step in a course of conduct planned to culminate in his commission of the crime.

Also, since this was not a "premeditated" murder - i.e. he didn't have time to stop and think about it and plan the murder - it's most likely not first degree murder. In People v. Anderson (1968), the California Sup. Ct. listed three elements tending to show the requisite deliberation for first degree murder:
A) planning activity, occurring prior to the killing;
B) evidence of motive; and
C) a manner of killing “so particular and exacting that the defendant must have intentionally killed according to a preconceived design.

So then we're left with either second degree murder or voluntary manslaughter. To successfully plead manslaughter in this case, the defendant must successfully claim he acted in the "heat of passion." Under the common law, he must meet these four objective and subjective (personal to the defendant's circumstances) tests:

1) he acts in response to a provocation that would be sufficient to cause a reasonable man to lose his self-control; (objective)
2) he in fact acts in a heat of passion; (subjective)
3) the lapse of time between the provocation and the killing is not great enough that a reasonable man would have “cooled off” (objective); and,
4) he had not in fact cooled off by the time he kills. (subjective)

A spouse walking in on a scene of adultery is commonly accepted as providing the requisite "provocation" sufficient to cause a loss of control.

So basically our guy is liable for attempted voluntary manslaughter, barring other circumstances.

A better defense would be for the defendant to try and argue that he ALREADY KNEW the guy was dead and he was just taking out his frustrations. Then he's only liable for violating firearms laws (i.e. firing a gun inside a residence, etc.) and mutilating a body (gross, I know, sorry).

G8Ralphaxi
...guess who booked her Crim Law exam???? :D

Hee hee, I was right! Old girl's still got it! ;)

Damn, who is this masked man?:)

I bet he is the legal advisor on a TV legal show!!!!!!:D

If I could have written that good Dr. Riely would have given me a better grade in Law Class.
But he always said if HE graded on B S, He would have given me an A :D

I would say he could not be convicted as he lacks the necessary actus reus for murder. He could be charged with having messed with a dead corpse though.

I'm a law student too.