Criminal liability is a tricky concept, especially when you get into consequences of criminal activity that defendants swear they did not foresee, and that nobody in their situation could have foreseen. In People v. Acosta 232 Cal. App. 3d 1375 (1991), the defendant led police on a 48-mile high speed chase through Orange County. When police helicopters got involved, two of them collided in midair, and three people died. Acosta was charged with, and convicted of, three counts of second-degree murder, in part because the chase was both the actual (if not for it, the accident wouldn't have happened) and proximate (it was a substantial factor) cause of the helicopter crash.
Acosta's appeal centered on the issue of whether a mid-air helicopter crash was something that he could have foreseen when the day began. Injuries to pedestrians or other automobile drivers? Yes. Injuries to helicopter pilots? No. The court disagreed with him, and held that while this sort of thing had never happened before, it wasn't a "highly extraordinary" result. His appeal was denied.
Why am I telling you all this? Well, I don't remember seeing this on the evening news, but it sure reminds me of the movies. Might've been in the background of this scene or this one.
I think that I may have just found a way to enjoy Michael Bay and Jerry Bruckheimer's movies again. My idea of a practice exam for Crim and/or Torts: watch The Rock, Con Air, or Gone in Sixty Seconds, and note every act with possible criminal and civil liability.
Showing posts with label crim. Show all posts
Showing posts with label crim. Show all posts
Tuesday, September 27, 2011
Saturday, September 24, 2011
What's Attempted Murder, Anyway?
A little bit more on attempted crimes, yesterday's crim law topic.
Our readings included State v. Smallwood, where the question at issue was whether someone who engaged in unprotected sex while knowingly HIV positive could be charged with attempted murder. In its analysis of circumstantial evidence, the court cited State v. Raines (326 Md. 582), where they reasoned that "under the proper circumstances, an intent to kill may be inferred from the use of a deadly weapon directed at a vital part of the human body." Putting a gun through the window of a tractor-trailer and shooting: attempted murder.
What isn't attempted murder, then? Well, shooting someone in the fleshy part of the thigh isn't. In fact, it might even help them sell more records.
What else isn't? The charge on Omar Little's record (04:58 onwards, language NSFW). While evidence of intent is tricky, it's clear to Omar that he didn't intend to kill Mike-Mike. He shot him in the hind parts, not in a vital organ. It's worth noting that this is the only one of the charges against him that he objects to. Omar knows that that charge isn't legit (and that's before we even start to talk about intent - his aim was to take drugs, not to take life).
Our readings included State v. Smallwood, where the question at issue was whether someone who engaged in unprotected sex while knowingly HIV positive could be charged with attempted murder. In its analysis of circumstantial evidence, the court cited State v. Raines (326 Md. 582), where they reasoned that "under the proper circumstances, an intent to kill may be inferred from the use of a deadly weapon directed at a vital part of the human body." Putting a gun through the window of a tractor-trailer and shooting: attempted murder.
What isn't attempted murder, then? Well, shooting someone in the fleshy part of the thigh isn't. In fact, it might even help them sell more records.
What else isn't? The charge on Omar Little's record (04:58 onwards, language NSFW). While evidence of intent is tricky, it's clear to Omar that he didn't intend to kill Mike-Mike. He shot him in the hind parts, not in a vital organ. It's worth noting that this is the only one of the charges against him that he objects to. Omar knows that that charge isn't legit (and that's before we even start to talk about intent - his aim was to take drugs, not to take life).
Repenting After The Fact
In Crim this week, we talked about what constitutes an attempted crime. What if someone goes to great lengths to plan a criminal act, has a change of heart, and doesn't go through with the deed? There are a few competing theories about this, and the question of what constitutes movement beyond preparation can spark classroom discussion.
What's the law? The model penal code recognizes the possibility of renunciation (5.03), although not all courts do. Where renunciation is allowed, it has to be voluntary and complete, that is, not compelled by the appearance of law enforcement officers on the scene, forcing you to postpone the attempt until a later date.
Well, what if you suspect that your wife is cheating on you with your boss, and your plan for revenge involves breaking into the company vault and stealing a large sum of cash? What if you go so far as to carry out that plan, only to learn that your suspicions were mistaken, and that the worst thing that your boss has done is simply having bad taste in statues? What do you do?
If you answered, "break in again, return the money, and hope that somehow the security tape showing your face will get erased," you've got an ending to your movie, but you don't have freedom from criminal liability. The abandonment defense doesn't apply to completed crimes. So as I understand it, breaking back in to return the money would expose you to another count of B&E. You'd be better off turning yourself in and hoping for leniency, or setting your feet on fire (some NSFW language).
What's the law? The model penal code recognizes the possibility of renunciation (5.03), although not all courts do. Where renunciation is allowed, it has to be voluntary and complete, that is, not compelled by the appearance of law enforcement officers on the scene, forcing you to postpone the attempt until a later date.
Well, what if you suspect that your wife is cheating on you with your boss, and your plan for revenge involves breaking into the company vault and stealing a large sum of cash? What if you go so far as to carry out that plan, only to learn that your suspicions were mistaken, and that the worst thing that your boss has done is simply having bad taste in statues? What do you do?
If you answered, "break in again, return the money, and hope that somehow the security tape showing your face will get erased," you've got an ending to your movie, but you don't have freedom from criminal liability. The abandonment defense doesn't apply to completed crimes. So as I understand it, breaking back in to return the money would expose you to another count of B&E. You'd be better off turning yourself in and hoping for leniency, or setting your feet on fire (some NSFW language).
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)