The Dean Posted August 12, 2010 Share Posted August 12, 2010 Not normally, no. I hadn't realized that he was up for capital murder. Dunno if he is, but that seems to be part of the discussion in this thread. Hard to believe it would be Murder 1. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
ExiledInIllinois Posted August 12, 2010 Share Posted August 12, 2010 Dunno if he is, but that seems to be part of the discussion in this thread. Hard to believe it would be Murder 1. Exactly! It is murder 2 at the very best. NOW... Unless somebody overheard him say something prior to the brick throwing... Hmmmm??? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Arkady Renko Posted August 12, 2010 Share Posted August 12, 2010 Dunno if he is, but that seems to be part of the discussion in this thread. Hard to believe it would be Murder 1. I looked at the original article, which indicates that he could face death. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
ExiledInIllinois Posted August 12, 2010 Share Posted August 12, 2010 I looked at the original article, which indicates that he could face death. That is crazy... Even know the guy is a scumbag. Again... Did he tell somebody at the party he was going to kill her? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Arkady Renko Posted August 12, 2010 Share Posted August 12, 2010 That is crazy... Even know the guy is a scumbag. Again... Did he tell somebody at the party he was going to kill her? Why does he need to tell people of his plans? Let's say he waited outside the party for her to come out. He then throws the brick at her. She dies. Lying in wait to do this would have been enough to get it to murder 1. I doubt many would have much doubt about his intent here. The car just complicates this because it may have seemed that he was trying to damage the car only. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Rob's House Posted August 12, 2010 Share Posted August 12, 2010 From a legal standpoint murder 1 might be hard to proove, but from a personal standpoint, I don't care whether he thought she would die or not. Any guy who's willing to chuck a 12 x 12 cinder block at a 17 yr old girl like that deserves to be taken out in the woods, shot in the gut, and left to bleed out. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Jerry Christ Posted August 12, 2010 Share Posted August 12, 2010 throwing a brick..........is intent think about it if I killed someone driving and I'm drunk.........then I intentionally knew their is a possibility that I could kill someone or myself...........same reasoning goes with this story....... Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
SageAgainstTheMachine Posted August 12, 2010 Share Posted August 12, 2010 throwing a brick..........is intent think about it if I killed someone driving and I'm drunk.........then I intentionally knew their is a possibility that I could kill someone or myself...........same reasoning goes with this story....... Uhhh no. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
HopsGuy Posted August 12, 2010 Share Posted August 12, 2010 throwing a brick..........is intent think about it if I killed someone driving and I'm drunk.........then I intentionally knew their is a possibility that I could kill someone or myself...........same reasoning goes with this story....... It seems as though I remember Jack McCoy arguing with one of those hottie assistants that "intent follows the bullet". I'm not sure what that means here, not having any legal expertise other than TNT Dramas. You know, unlike the rest of you lawyers. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Arkady Renko Posted August 12, 2010 Share Posted August 12, 2010 It seems as though I remember Jack McCoy arguing with one of those hottie assistants that "intent follows the bullet". I'm not sure what that means here, not having any legal expertise other than TNT Dramas. You know, unlike the rest of you lawyers. I think that was referring to the idea of transferred intent. For example, if A intends to shoot B, but hits C instead who then dies, then A can still be convicted of murdering C though A actually intended to murder B. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Alaska Darin Posted August 12, 2010 Share Posted August 12, 2010 Frankly the whole nuance thing bugs the crap out of me. I don't care what the guy's "intent" was. An innocent person is dead for no good reason. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
bartshan-83 Posted August 13, 2010 Share Posted August 13, 2010 johnnyb has nailed it throughout the thread. I think the NC statute is kind of vague and I think objectively, this is 2nd degree murder (closer to manslaughter than 1st degree). In some states, it would probably be voluntary man. If I were defending him, I'd argue that he was just trying to damage her car and scare her. Of course, if I were really defending him, I'd tell him to take a plea. If I were prosecuting him, I'd definitely push for 1st Degree. He's either going to fold and plead out to life, or he is going to take his chances with a pretty unsympathetic jury. Because as a juror, while I'd feel uncomfortable about 1st degree, I'd probably sign up for 2nd degree. No way he'd walk out with manslaughter. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
DC Tom Posted August 13, 2010 Share Posted August 13, 2010 throwing a brick..........is intent think about it if I killed someone driving and I'm drunk.........then I intentionally knew their is a possibility that I could kill someone or myself...........same reasoning goes with this story....... No, it's not. And if you're driving drunk and kill someone, in most states you'll get charged with some variation of "manslaughter", not "murder", precisely because there was no intent to kill. Your example supports exactly what I'm explaining. You have to prove intent to kill in a murder case - throwing a brick or driving drunk does not constitute intent to kill unless you specifically aim said brick or car at a person with the expectation said person will die from it. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
bartshan-83 Posted August 13, 2010 Share Posted August 13, 2010 No, it's not. And if you're driving drunk and kill someone, in most states you'll get charged with some variation of "manslaughter", not "murder", precisely because there was no intent to kill. Your example supports exactly what I'm explaining. You have to prove intent to kill in a murder case - throwing a brick or driving drunk does not constitute intent to kill unless you specifically aim said brick or car at a person with the expectation said person will die from it. That's not entirely true. You're right that in this case, would need intent to kill for 1st Degree murder, but not for 2nd degree. Murder does not require intent to kill, it requires some sort of malice aforethought. Generally, there are four classifications of that (1) intent to kill, (2) intent to inflict great bodily harm, (3) reckless indifference to human life, and (4) intent to commit a felony. So intent to kill is one of the ways to get murder, but it is not the only way. Now this obviously varies state to state. Those 4 categories are common law definitions. That is why I said I thought the NC statute was vague. Actually, I misspoke. It is not vague, it is just not detailed. Some states parse murder into the different degrees by specifically defining them. Other states, like NC, just define 1st degree, and say the rest is 2nd degree. So, IMO, in this case, there is no 1st degree murder. NC statute requires "by means of a nuclear, biological, or chemical weapon of mass destruction as defined in G.S. 14‑288.21, poison, lying in wait, imprisonment, starving, torture, or by any other kind of willful, deliberate, and premeditated killing, or which shall be committed in the perpetration or attempted perpetration of any arson, rape or a sex offense, robbery, kidnapping, burglary, or other felony committed or attempted with the use of a deadly weapon." So you must make the argument that the guy INTENDED for her to die when the paver left his hand. I think that is a stretch. BUT, if NC follows the other common law definitions of malice aforethought, then I could much more reasonably buy intent to inflict great bodily harm or depraved indifference. Hence, 2nd degree murder. The only other way to get Murder 1 would be to consider the paver a deadly weapon (check) and show that he was committing a felony (don't think so). I couldn't find any felony that match up with damaging her car. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
DC Tom Posted August 13, 2010 Share Posted August 13, 2010 That's not entirely true. You're right that in this case, would need intent to kill for 1st Degree murder, but not for 2nd degree. Murder does not require intent to kill, it requires some sort of malice aforethought. Generally, there are four classifications of that (1) intent to kill, (2) intent to inflict great bodily harm, (3) reckless indifference to human life, and (4) intent to commit a felony. So intent to kill is one of the ways to get murder, but it is not the only way. Now this obviously varies state to state. Those 4 categories are common law definitions. That is why I said I thought the NC statute was vague. Actually, I misspoke. It is not vague, it is just not detailed. Some states parse murder into the different degrees by specifically defining them. Other states, like NC, just define 1st degree, and say the rest is 2nd degree. So, IMO, in this case, there is no 1st degree murder. NC statute requires "by means of a nuclear, biological, or chemical weapon of mass destruction as defined in G.S. 14‑288.21, poison, lying in wait, imprisonment, starving, torture, or by any other kind of willful, deliberate, and premeditated killing, or which shall be committed in the perpetration or attempted perpetration of any arson, rape or a sex offense, robbery, kidnapping, burglary, or other felony committed or attempted with the use of a deadly weapon." So you must make the argument that the guy INTENDED for her to die when the paver left his hand. I think that is a stretch. BUT, if NC follows the other common law definitions of malice aforethought, then I could much more reasonably buy intent to inflict great bodily harm or depraved indifference. Hence, 2nd degree murder. The only other way to get Murder 1 would be to consider the paver a deadly weapon (check) and show that he was committing a felony (don't think so). I couldn't find any felony that match up with damaging her car. What's the NC definition for manslaughter? Serious question...I can't find it. I can find the penalty, but no actual definition of the crime. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
bartshan-83 Posted August 13, 2010 Share Posted August 13, 2010 What's the NC definition for manslaughter? Serious question...I can't find it. I can find the penalty, but no actual definition of the crime. I know...the NCGA provides no help. As far as I understand it, North Carolina follows the common law definition of manslaughter which is an intentional killing with the existence of adequate provocation (heat of passion). Here's an example: North Carolina, heat of passion voluntary manslaughter is essentially a first-degree murder, where the defendant's reason is temporarily suspended by legally adequate provocation. The specific intent to kill does [***15] exist in the mind of such a defendant; however, the defendant is only legally culpable for the general intent because the "specific intent" is not based on "cool reflection." The specific intent is based on an "adequate provocation" that would cause an individual with an ordinary firmness of mind to become provoked, and which did, in fact, provoke the defendant to commit an act spawned by provocation rather than malice. State v. Rainey, 154 N.C. App. 282, 289 (N.C. Ct. App. 2002) So basically, you can't have voluntary manslaughter w/o 1st degree murder. So if you don't believe the first is possible, than neither is the second. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
DC Tom Posted August 13, 2010 Share Posted August 13, 2010 I know...the NCGA provides no help. As far as I understand it, North Carolina follows the common law definition of manslaughter which is an intentional killing with the existence of adequate provocation (heat of passion). Here's an example: North Carolina, heat of passion voluntary manslaughter is essentially a first-degree murder, where the defendant's reason is temporarily suspended by legally adequate provocation. The specific intent to kill does [***15] exist in the mind of such a defendant; however, the defendant is only legally culpable for the general intent because the "specific intent" is not based on "cool reflection." The specific intent is based on an "adequate provocation" that would cause an individual with an ordinary firmness of mind to become provoked, and which did, in fact, provoke the defendant to commit an act spawned by provocation rather than malice. State v. Rainey, 154 N.C. App. 282, 289 (N.C. Ct. App. 2002) So basically, you can't have voluntary manslaughter w/o 1st degree murder. So if you don't believe the first is possible, than neither is the second. So under the literal NC law...it's murder 2 or involuntary manslaughter? How about criminally negligent homocide (which I couldn't find the NC definition for either)? That just seems screwed up...I always thought "murder" was essentially the act based on a formulated intent to kill, premeditated or impulsive, and "manslaughter" was an act NOT based on an intent to kill but resulting in death anyhow. NC's "manslaughter" and "murder" seem to be backwards from what I always thought. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Arkady Renko Posted August 14, 2010 Share Posted August 14, 2010 So under the literal NC law...it's murder 2 or involuntary manslaughter? How about criminally negligent homocide (which I couldn't find the NC definition for either)? That just seems screwed up...I always thought "murder" was essentially the act based on a formulated intent to kill, premeditated or impulsive, and "manslaughter" was an act NOT based on an intent to kill but resulting in death anyhow. NC's "manslaughter" and "murder" seem to be backwards from what I always thought. Your impression is generally right. But the law views intent as just part of the story. Randomly shooting into a crowd or dropping cinder blocks over overpasses at cars (likely second degree murder) can be viewed as worse crimes than killing someone in the heat of passion (you caught your wife having sex with another dude, you went into a rage after a rough fight), for example, which would lead to a charge of voluntary manslaughter. Arguably, a person in the former situations had a lot more control over what they were doing than the person in the latter situations despite the fact that the intent is stronger in the latter situations. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
The Dean Posted August 14, 2010 Share Posted August 14, 2010 Your impression is generally right. But the law views intent as just part of the story. Randomly shooting into a crowd or dropping cinder blocks over overpasses at cars (likely second degree murder) can be viewed as worse crimes than killing someone in the heat of passion (you caught your wife having sex with another dude, you went into a rage after a rough fight), for example, which would lead to a charge of voluntary manslaughter. It was a crime of passion! Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
ExiledInIllinois Posted August 14, 2010 Share Posted August 14, 2010 It was a crime of passion! How does it work (passion) with the cuz? Can he claim it? Could he say: "She did my cousin wrong!... I am really close to my cousin! Family honor thing." I don't agree... But there has been stranger things out there... Maybe they were "blood cuz's?" Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts