Case Study: Roadmapretation

In accordance to the Penal Law, Murder in the first degree is defined “With intent to cause the death of another person, he causes the death of such person… the victim was killed while the defendant was in the course of committing / attempting to commit in furtherance of robbery [or other such felonies.]{§125.27(1)(a)(vii)}” This is also known as

The prosecution reduced the charge from murder to manslaughter as they did not believe the requisite degree of reckless indifference or lack of mens rea were sufficient evidence to support the charge of murder. The use of discretion is outlined in the

The three basic limitations to the felony murder rule are, “Limited to inherently dangerous felony, felony must be independent of the homicide, and the homicide must occur during the res gestae of the felony” (Moore & Worrall, 133). These limitations set the parameters for which a suspect may be charged under the felony murder rule. In the event one of these exemptions is present, there may be additional charges lesser than murder that could

v. Pickton would be R. v. Ranger and R. v. Suzack. R. v. Ranger is a case that demonstrates the theories of liability. In Ranger’s case, the accused was charged with the murder of his ex-girlfriend and sister, in which the accused claims that his cousin was the one who committed the crime. The Crown relied on two theories that: either the accused killed both the victims himself with the help from his cousin, or the accused’s cousin murdered the victims with the help of the accused. The trial judge also told the jury that they would still find the accused guilty even if they were not present at the event as an aider or abettor (para. 89). The accused was convicted of first degree murder. The different theories of liability in this case is not whether or not the accused was physically present at the scene, but the fact that the accused could have had the evil intention as an aider or abettor to the crime; those who are associated is guilty of the attempt to commit the crime. Similarly, in R. v. Suzack, the appellants were charged with the murder of an officer on duty. Both testified against each other, claiming that the other person was the one who pulled the fatal shot on the officer. Both appellants claimed that they had no actual intention of killing the officer; the Crown took the position of convicting both appellants with the same crime, as co-perpetrators (para. 1). In the case of Suzack, there was not a need to conclusively determine which

I presented Esteban’s case during case consultation because I noticed that I had countertransference when doing his intake. My expectation when presenting this case was to receive feedback that would help me to provide effective treatment to Esteban without my countertransference affecting his treatment. This section of the paper will talk about the feedback I received about my countertransference and how to support Esteban.

The definition of murder can be found at s 302 of the Criminal Code Act 1899 (Qld) (‘the Code’), and the provisions as relevant to this case are as follows:

8. Florida Stat. Ann. § 728.08 – Every person deliberately assisting another in the commission of self-murder shall be guilty of manslaughter . . ..;

Attorney-General's Reference (No.3 of 1994) [1997] HL D stabbed his pregnant girlfriend V in the abdomen; she gave birth prematurely, and the baby B died some four months later as a result of its immaturity. This is transferred malice as D did not want to harm the baby but through his actions the baby came to harm

Based on the definition of murder is, The killing of another human being under conditions specifically covered law. In the U.S., special statutory definitions include murder committed with malice aforethought, characterized by deliberation or premeditation or occurring during the

RATIONALE: The court found that without proving premeditation, the prosecution could have proven intent to kill, with malice aforethought. The court

Murder, in the eyes of the law, comes in all shapes and forms. Murder could not just come in the form of the 3rd, 2nd or 1st degree, but identifying the factor behind the charge could determine whether the defendant will be acquitted or receive a reduction (“First Degree Murder Defenses,” 2013). When it comes to the Texas City disaster, there was clearly an act of negligence in their part that resulted in mass casualties. Before law enforcement begin to point fingers, an investigation must be conducted and sufficient evidence has to be obtained (“The Criminal Process, “ 2015). In order to prosecute an individual in the Texas City disaster successful, the proof of general intent has to be present. That being said, if the Texas City explosions occurred in the State of Florida, the evidence obtained must

(c) A person also commits the offense of murder when, in the commission of a felony, he causes the death of another human being irrespective of malice. (d) A person convicted of the offense of murder shall be punished by death, by imprisonment for life without parole, or by imprisonment for life” (Justia, n.d., p. 1).

To be found guilty of first degree murder, it must be proven that killed someone with malice aforethought, meaning it was planned, premeditated. First degree murder is to kill malevolence, to kill either intentionally and deliberately or recklessly with the utmost disregard for human life. Premeditation may be fashioned immediately and does not require a lengthy period of contemplation. The death penalty is recognized in Thirty-eight states. Capital first-degree murder or aggravated first-degree murder is categorized in killings viewed as deserving of capital punishment. Life imprisonment or death penalty is the punishment resulted in a conviction. States who do not recognized the death penalty, aggravated murder carries life imprisonment.

For example, in a case of 1st degree murder PC190(a), murderers must have specific intent of ending someone's life. As a prosecutor they must prove to the jury the defendant unlawfully killed a human being, or fetus with malice aforethought. Note, this does not apply to abortions, child labor, or the risk of harming the mother's life. Types of specific crimes consist of; 1st degree murder, assault (attempted battery) burglary robbery, larceny and embezzlement.

Murder has not always been defined by degrees by which the act took place, before the separation began, murder of any type was a capital offense punishable by death. The state of Pennsylvania in 1793 was the first state to legally distinguish different degrees of murder, possibly to reduce the amount of murders that resulted in capital punishment (Levinson, 2002). In most states today, first degree murder is commonly defined as the unlawful, willing, and premeditated murder of another human being committed with malice aforethought, which is used to indicate a person intended to kill another person (Berman, n.d.). All states approach murder charges with variations on the same basic principle, intent.