Discussion: Homicide

 

SCENERIO:

On May 5, Mark and Sam, who had been neighbors for three years, argued over Sam’s construction of a ditch, which diverted water onto Mark’s property. Mark told Sam to stop construction of the ditch or he “would pay with his life.”

The following day, Mark and Sam met again in Sam’s garage. Within minutes Mark became very angry and cut Sam’s leg with an ax he found in Sam’s garage. After cutting Sam he panicked and ran home. Sam attempted to reach a telephone to call for help, but the cut proved fatal. Mark has been charged with first-degree murder. He claims that he had no intent to kill Sam; rather, he only intended to hit him on the leg with the dull, flat side of the axe in an effort to scare Sam.

Discuss the facts and explain what crimes could be proved and why. Answer the question in full utilizing legal themes from the textbook, article, and presentation.

DISCUSSION:

Given what we know about the scenario, I'm convinced that charging Mark with first-degree murder is an accurate judgment. To begin my analysis, regardless of the prior quarrels between Sam and Mark in the past and other minute details, the most important fact of this case is that Mark is responsible for murdering Sam.

This murder claim can be substantiated by proving the corpus delicti, also known as "the body of the crime". Daniel E. Hall, Criminal Law and Procedure 4-2g (7th ed. 2015). Since we know that Sam had been confirmed deceased, and assuming that the autopsy proves the axe strike is what killed Sam, then we can confirm that Mark is indeed responsible for homicide.

We can continue to analyze the facts and determine whether this homicide should be considered murder to the first or second degree, or whether this homicide should be considered voluntary or involuntary manslaughter. Manslaughter, whether voluntary or involuntary, can be defined as "the wrongful but nonmalicious killing of another person." Id. at 4-2c. Manslaughter is considered a less severe crime than murder, and oftentimes, manslaughter is charged under the context of provocation, self-defense, or negligence. Id. However, in this case no evidence of provocation by Sam is present, no evidence of the need for self-defense by Mark is present, and no evidence of negligence is present. On the contrary, we have murder. First-degree murder is defined as "The killing of another person with malice and premeditation, cruelty, or done during the commission of a major felony." Id. at 4-2b. Second-degree murder is defined as "murder without premeditation." By these definitions, as well as further examination of the facts, it is safe to conclude that first-degree murder is an accurate charge for Mark.

For a murder to be considered "first-degree", it must be proven that the murder was willful, deliberate, and premeditated. Id. There are several facts about this case that should be taken into account: (1) Assuming that Mark's comment to Sam stating that he "would pay with his life" is admitted fact and not hearsay, then we could infer premeditation as a provable element in this case. (2) The original altercation between Mark and Sam occurred one day before the murder, therefore allowing appreciable time to pass, which is evidence that infers premeditation. (3) Mark met Sam in Sam's garage. In other words, Mark willingly stepped foot on Sam's property to meet him even after previous conflicts, which points toward deliberation (4) There were several minutes that passed between Mark and Sam meeting in the garage and the use of the axe, which also points toward deliberation since Mark was not operating under immediate passion, fear, or rage. In other words, Mark must have been operating under a deliberate mindset if it took several minutes for Mark to finally act in a violent manner. (5) Mark's use of an axe to inflict harm on Sam could easily be considered use of a deadly weapon with the intent to murder, thus proves the act to murder was willful.

In conclusion, these facts can be used to prove the elements needed to charge Mark with first-degree murder. Willfulness can be proved by the type of weapon Mark decided to use against Sam. Sure, Mark claims that he only intended on "scaring" Sam, but this cannot be proven since the facts suggest otherwise. There are countless ways Mark could have "scared" Sam, but out of everything, Mark used an axe. Deliberation can be proved by the way Mark willingly walked over to Sam's garage, had several minutes of contact with Sam, and then decided to attack him. Why would it take minutes, and not seconds, before Mark decided to attack? Its because Mark was calculating the perfect time to strike. Its not as if this was a random altercation somewhere; this was a deliberate and calculated act. Finally, premeditation can be proved by the comment that Mark made to Sam the day before, as well as the time that lapsed between the threat and the murder. Mark had an entire day to plan his attack. This was not a heat-of-the-moment type of homicide; this was premeditated.