Involuntary Manslaughter Case Summary

In the case discussing Jim Aikens when discussing the charges he should face in regards to the mailman he could be charged with voluntary manslaughter. Voluntary manslaughter is commonly defined as an intentional killing in which the offender had no prior intent to kill. The situations leading to the killing must be one that would cause a reasonable person to become emotionally or mentally disturbed; otherwise, the killing may be charged as a first-degree or second-degree murder. On the spectrum of homicides, this offense lies somewhere in between the killing of another with malice aforethought such as murder and the excusable, justified, or privileged taking of life that does not constitute a crime, such as some instances of self-defense.

3. Arkansas Code Ann. § 5-10-104 – (a) A person commits manslaughter if: . . . (2) The person purposely causes or aids another person to commit suicide[.];

This paper is being submitted August 11, 2013 for Professor Sheryl Prichard’s Criminal Law and Procedure course at Devry University by Jonah Colombo.

Involuntary Manslaughter consists of the actus reus with the absence of mens rea or causing grievous bodily harm. Involuntary manslaughter consists of three categories which are unlawful act, gross negligence and reckless manslaughter.

In the end, the creature was convicted for 2 out of the 3 charges it was being prosecuted for. Personally, I do not believe that the creature was guilty for 2 of the charges but I was overruled by the other members of the jury for the manslaughter charge. In my head, as the creature grew in intelligence, the more guilty the creature became because at that point the creature should know what is considered morally right and wrong.

Many law makers do not fully grasp the inherent problems with these laws. Instead, they place the responsibility on the defense lawyers to present the case well enough in hopes that a battered woman will be found not guilty of child abuse by omission (Askins). Beyond the legislature, the court system must also be held accountable for its part in the process. The prosecution in the Lindley case could not recall an instance in which a father was tried under these laws. In such cases, prosecutors essentially blame the victims for the abuse wrought upon them and their children. They continually beg the question, “why did she not leave” but fail to remember the abuser maintains power by threatening to take the woman’s life or that of her children. In the unlikely case a father is tried, he is rarely held responsible. A court found a father whose wife murdered their child to not have responsibility to protect their child and also found the sympathy of the

"I went through so much with these kids. I'm just ready to call it quits," said Patricia Holdaway, the first parent charged under the curfew law of Roanoke, Virginia. Her 16-year-old son was arrested at 5 a.m. for his fifth curfew violation and for driving without a license. "I just left. It's not her fault. She shouldn't be held responsible. I know right from wrong," replied her son (Leo). So who should be held responsible, the parent or the child ? As cases similar to Patricia's continue to increase, states are starting to hold the parents responsible for the crimes of their children. As a result of this matter, John Leo presented the benefits of

Unlawful Act Manslaughter (UAM) and Gross Negligence Manslaughter (GNM) are two types of Involuntary Manslaughter. Manslaughter occurs in many cases in relation to death where a defendant may be liable for manslaughter as a lesser sentence as an alternative to murder. There are elements to each type of manslaughter where they can be assessed in accordance to each case. This project will explore, whether the law is satisfactory in regards to a drug user who has either merely supplied drugs to a user or assisted in administering the drugs. The project will also take into consideration whether the law draws distinctions in relation to the level of assistance given and whether a duty exists between such parties of a drug user.

From the essay, The Dead Baby Mystery, Gawade starts with a court case that involves the murders of eight children of Marie Noe that no one could explain what happened. As Gawande writes, “some of the most respected pathologists of the time, could find no explanation for the crib deaths” (202) and “Foul play was strongly considered, but no evidence for was found” (202). What Gawande has written is that at the time, cases like these, child murder or accident, determines not easily. Even three decades later — the case reopened and she was charged — one of the officials that wrote back to Gawande stating “that there was no direct evidence to support the charges” (Gawande 204). That quote Gawande wrote to show that the charge came from indirect or circumstantial evidence. With what has happened to Noe and the children, Gawande postulates that charging people in the child abuse case is difficult to do because it uses circumstantial evidence. Thus, what I write for this paper will be a summary of Gawande's points in the essay The Dead Baby Mystery of how it is difficult to convict a Marie Noe in a child abuse case.

Every year, countless person on foot mischances happen. They happen to individuals crossing occupied lanes or roadways, individuals taking a shot at separated vehicles at the edge of the street, youngsters playing in private neighborhoods and to individuals even on walkways in towns. Now and again the driver stops. In some cases they are attempt at manslaughter mishaps. Basically these occasions can be stayed away from with somewhat more alert.

In the case of a crime assault and suspicion of rape of a 14 year-old girl; Jones, Walsh and Bert were arrested. During the investigation, the police obtain statement from a man name Bland providing additional information that suspect Jones was involved in three separate assaults and rapes of juveniles over three days. The prosecution filed charges against Jones, Walsh and Bert for their involvement in the crime. The suspect, Bert then hired an attorney to defend him and explains to his lawyer that he did not participate in any acts of raping these girls and that he was only present one time with Jones and all he did was hit one of the girls. Bert also goes on to say that he can prove this because at the times the other rapes are alleged to have occurred, he was with Mook, who is currently out of the country on a mountain climbing trip and will not return for 2 months. Bland also contacts the prosecutor’s office and provides a written statement to the prosecutor that Walsh was not present during any of the rapes. (Case Study, n.d.)

It has become evident that the first step towards a safer Queensland nightlife is the reduction of alcohol and drug related violence. On 6 June 2014, Premier Campbell Newman announced the Safe Night Out Legislation Amendment Bill 2014 (Qld) , which introduces a new offence in the Criminal Code 1899 (Qld) , section 314A Unlawful Striking Causing Death . This new insertion stipulates that, “a person who unlawfully strikes another person to the head or neck and causes the death of the other person is guilty of a crime .” The term “strike” has been defined under s 314A (7) as directly applying force to the person by, “punching, kicking, or by otherwise hitting using any part of the body, with or without the use of a dangerous or offensive weapon

We, the Jury, find the defendant, Delia Jones, guilty of voluntary manslaughter; the defendant proves guilty of many aspects of this murder charge. The defendant claims to have been provoked prior to her actions, telling of how her merciless husband traumatized her through the vicious rattle snake attacking her after being staged, by her husband, in her laundry basket for her to return to. The murder of her husband, Sykes Jones, involves an extended period of time between the initial provocation, Delia discovering the snake that was intended to kill her, and his death. She had many reasons to murder her husband, but none of them justify or rationalize intentionally taking another human life.

(Ca. Penal Code section 272.) Now what, you may ask, is one’s “parental duty?” The question was raised in a lawsuit, predictably, and the California Supreme Court concluded that the term was not unconstitutionally vague or overbroad. Instead, the court noted that the duty to exercise reasonable care, supervision, protection, and control over minor children could be understood by referring to “common experiences of mankind.” (Williams v. Garcetti 5 Cal. 4th 561, 573 (1993).

The crime on which the paper will focus involved a couple that was arrested for causing injury to their child aged thirteen. Christi Howell and Casey Shackleford were both accused of tying their son’s genitals with a rope and waterboarding the boy (Boroff, 2016). According to the case, the couple was charged with injury to a child. Shackleford had additional charges for violating parole regulations that required him not to harm a family member or engage in violence (Boroff, 2016). The boy said that the reason for the punishment was that the boy inappropriately touched a dog. The boy said that Shackleford told his mother to pour water over the boy’s head while he held a towel to the kid’s face. He then told the boy’s mother to tie the