R V. Buzizi Case Analysis

This happens when there are parties to a crime which includes: Principal in the first degree (The killer), principal in the second degree (The gun supplier), accesory before the fact (Friend that helped plan the killing) and accesory after the fact (Helped drive getaway vehicle).

Despite recent reforms on the law of murder and voluntary manslaughter; including the special defence of diminished responsibility and loss of control, there are still inconsistencies present making the law unsatisfactory. This area of the law is in ‘dire need of reform’; as pointed out by the Law Commission in their 2006 report; Murder, Manslaughter and infanticide. The report stated how ‘The Law governing homicide in England and Wales is a rickety structure built upon shaky foundations.’

Application: In this case, the defendant Hal, upon witnessing what he believed was a crime of passion between his wife and Norm, intentionally killed Norm with a gun. Norm is dead as a result of the defendant's actions. The cause is the misapprehension of Hal that a crime of passion was occurring between Wanda and Norm. There is no vicarious liability as the victim is not dead because of the act of a third party so this would be a case of direct homicide.

However, it could be argued that offenders may abuse this defence as a means of having their sentence reduced. A problem with the use of this defence by offenders is that their victim is not present to dispute their version of events. Unless there are witnesses to the events that take place it is difficult to refute the statements of the offender that they were provoked. The defence may also (in the absence of the victim) denigrate the character of the victim in their attempts to paint him/her as someone who is highly likely to cause a loss of control by an ordinary person. In criminal cases the burden of proof lies with the prosecution and in the absence of a witness to the crime it is difficult to prove that the offender was not provoked such that an ordinary person would lose control and in turn form the intent to kill or cause really serious bodily harm.

The recently passed ‘Sentencing Amendment (Coward’s Punch Manslaughter and Other Matters)’ arose within a highly politicized context and has led to controversy. The amendment was introduced in response to a perceived increase need to legislate on deaths caused by king hit punches or “coward’s punch”. It amends both the Crimes Act 1958 (Vic) and the Sentencing Act 1991 (Vic), by defining a punch to head or neck as dangerous act, introducing a mandatory minimum sentence of 10 years for manslaughter by one punch, and increases the mandatory minimum sentence for manslaughter by gross violence to 10 years . However, there is likely little need for this legislation, as pre-existing law was already capable of dealing with the offence, and the implementation of this legislation will likely fail to effectively achieve its purpose. Moreover, the introduction, or increase, of a mandatory sentence will be unlikely to effectively deter individuals, and will remove the courts discretion regarding sentencing. In this essay I will argue that the legislation is unneeded to prosecute those who king hit others, and that it will likely fail to have its intended effect.

The Appellate Division also concluded that the evidence was legally enough to establish the defendant’s attempt to kill one of the persons in the victim’s group. The defendant was convicted of second-degree murder. “The doctrine of transferred intent serves to ensure that a person will be prosecuted for the crime he or she intended to commit even when because of bad aim or some other “lucky mistake” the intended target was not the actual victim.”(People V. Birreuta, 162 Cal.App.3d 454, 460, 208, Cal.Rptr. 635, 639) The fact that the transferred intent provisions of Penal Law 125.25 (1) permit prosecution for causing the death of an unintended

After being told the details of a supposed getaway car from a robbery, the police saw the car and began to drive after it (Rakas V. Illinois 439 U.S. 128 (1978)). The officers then took off after the car to conduct a search passed on probable cause. After completing the search the officers found a shot gun and shells within the car (Rakas V. Illinois 439 U.S. 128 (1978)). The owner of the vehicle had no correlations to the robbery, so the passengers took responsibility of the gun and ammo (Rakas V. Illinois 439 U.S. 128 (1978)). Upon their court date, the men that were incarcerated decided they wanted to motion to suppress the gun. However due to a lack of standing, the motion to suppress was denied (Rakas V. Illinois 439 U.S. 128 (1978)).

Under this act the defence of Provocation has been abolished (s.54). The requirement of the loss of control needing to be ‘sudden’ has been removed (s.54(2)) this change will make the defence more available to abused partners who kill in self-defence. This was an issue in the Ahluwalia case where eventually a diminished responsibility plea was accepted after a lengthy appeal and retrial. The new defence has also tightened the law (under s.55(6))so the loss of control defence can not be used in cases where someone has killed for revenge – as in the case of Ibrams and Gregory or for marital unfaithfulness as in the case of Davies. This may now have dealt with the long term suggestion that, due to its historical background and the nature of men as more likely to “snap” in anger, that provocation was a male orientated defence. Another major criticism of the previous defence of provocation was the reasonable person test (objective test). Prior to the new defence this part of the provocation defence was left in confusion with the House of Lords decision in Smith(Morgan) conflicting with the Privy Council decision in Holley and then the Court of Appeal following Holley rather than Smith(Morgan) thus departing from precedent. This may now be resolved because the new defence of loss of control under s.54(1)(c) seems to confirm the legal principle set out in Holley and Camplin.

There are two factors which affect the sentencing decision. They are called migitating and aggravating factors. In this case, there are no facts migitating the objective seriousness of the murders.The aggravating factors in Gonzales’s case submitted by the crown were that Sef committed multiple murders who were his own family members. The murders were planned and premeditated. The prisoner has had it in mind to kill his parents from the time he began researching poisons on the internet some months before 10 July 2001. They were brutal and violent. Sef had also attempted to poison his mother. Gonzales showed no remorse. He gave the police false alibis and tried to frame others for the murders. Other false trails were the fabrication of an e-mail that implicated a business rival of Teddy in the murders, the fabrication of threatening e-mails, and the staging of an attempted burglary and an abduction. Sef also put a deposit on a $173,000 Lexus, telling the dealership he would be using his inheritance to pay for the vehicle, traded in his parent's car and pawned

The key difference between the two potential verdicts is that 3rd degree murder is unintentional murder meant only to hurt the victim, while 2nd degree murder is intentional murder done in the heat of the moment. Thus the deciding factor between second degree or third degree, involuntary manslaughter, was if the Filipino meant to murder the Drunkard or slightly harm him and escape. While the Filipino was stuck in a bathroom stall with the drunkard pounding on the door, he drew out his knife and explicitly stated “I will kill you.” This shows that the Filipino had thoughts of murder well in his head before committing the actual murder. Furthermore, after an initial stab to the drunkard, the Filipino thrust the knife into the side of the man many times. This continues to prove that the Filipino meant to kill the drunkard as he could have easily pushed the drunkard aside after the initial stab. Therefore, it is clear that the verdict of the case is 2nd degree murder due to the fact that it was an intentional murder done in the heat of the

Legal impossibility is the idea the individual should not be held legally liable for their actions because they did not know their actions were illegal (Lippman, 2012). This would not hold up due to the fact it is common knowledge that the planning, discharging a gun in public place and, murder are all against the law. The attorney would not be able to use factual impossibility to dismiss the charge of attempted murder because this is not a defense it simply states I intended to commit this crime but could not complete it, so a lesser charge is deserved (Lippman, 2012). The last impossibility defense is inherent impossibility, which states it was impossible for the defendant to achieve the intended result (Lippman, 2012). This defense would not be possible to use because there is evidence the gun was functional. Patrice would have killed Kayla if she were a better shot instead she killed Angela, and attempted to fire again. Patrice did not know the gun would jam and took two attempts to complete her desired

In the United States the degrees by which a person can be charged with killing another person vary; the degrees of murder include first, second, and third degree murder, the definitions of which can vary in legal terms from state to state. These charges are considered to be legally separate from voluntary manslaughter, involuntary manslaughter, and justifiable homicide which each have their own definitions (Cole, Smith, & DeJong, 2014). Each type of murder, manslaughter and homicide is determined by intent and negligible behavior and each will be examined in this paper (Cole et al., 2014).

Also “Von Hentig criticised the traditional offender-oriented nature of criminology proposing a new dynamic approach to the study of crime that incorporated clear recognition of the victim’s role in the crime” Victim precipitation has its advantages, as today it can be used as a case of defence where by the defendant can plead man slaughter/self-defence due to the victim provoking the defendant which led to the murder/attack being committed. (Brookman, F2005)

“Manslaughter - Recklessness or gross negligence - Assumption of duty of care for infirm person - Breach of duty amounting to recklessness - Negligence - Assumption of duty to care.”

A. Attention Getter: Thou shall not kill, only one of the ten commandments that some individuals unfortunately can not seem to uphold. What would the world look like if we did not have an “eye for an eye” mentality? The debate about whether or not capital punishment is ethical or immoral is significant because our country is spending unnecessary amounts on death penalty executions, in which citizens do not know enough about the subject matter to disagree or protest its use. While tax payers are paying for this procedure, the death penalty poses many moral insurrections.