Full access allows:
- Solve all tests online without limits;
- Remove all advertisements on website;
- Adding questions to favorite list;
- Save learning progress;
- Save results of practice exams;
- Watching all wrong answered questions.
6. The court should
At the end of the case, the defendant moves for a judgment of acquittal or, in the alternative, for an instruction on the elements of voluntary manslaughter.
A defendant and a sports fan were engaged in a heated discussion over the relative merits of their favorite professional football teams when the defendant said, «You have to be one of the dumbest people around.» The sports fan slapped the defendant. The defendant drew a knife and stabbed the sports fan in the stomach. Other people then stepped in and stopped any further fighting. Despite the pleas of the other people, the sports fan refused to go to a hospital or to seek medical treatment. About two hours later, he died as the result of a loss of blood. The defendant was charged with the murder of the sports fan. At trial, medical evidence established that if the sports fan had been taken to a hospital, he would have survived.
Comments (0)
There are no comments at the moment. If you found an error or think question is incorrect, tell everyone about it
Only signed in users can write comments
Signin
For a homicide conviction, the defendant's act must have been the proximate cause of the death of a victim. A proximate cause is an act that produces foreseeable consequences. It is foreseeable that an injured person may refuse to get medical attention, and a victim's refusal to seek medical attention will not break the chain of causation.
Whether an intervening act is sufficient to break the chain of causality in a homicide case rests on the foreseeability of the intervening act. A defendant will be held criminally responsible for the foreseeable consequences of his actions; however, if an unforeseeable act intervenes, a defendant will not be deemed responsible for the death.
Voluntary manslaughter is a killing resulting from an adequate provocation (heat of passion killing) or imperfect self-defense. Adequate provocation requires that provocation would cause sudden and intense passion in an ordinary person, causing him to lose self-control, that the defendant was in fact provoked, there was insufficient time for an ordinary person to cool off, and the defendant did not cool off.
Imperfect self-defense refers to a situation where a defendant murders someone while acting in self-defense and his criminal liability can be reduced to voluntary manslaughter if the defendant either: (i) provoked the initial altercation that required the self-defense; or (ii) unreasonably believed deadly force was necessary.
A jury should be instructed as to voluntary manslaughter if there is at least some evidence that the murder was done in the «heat of passion.»
B is correct. The defendant's motion for acquittal should be denied because there is sufficient evidence for the jury to find the defendant guilty of murder. The defendant can be found to have committed an unlawful killing with malice aforethought, in this case at least the intent to inflict great bodily harm or depraved heart (reckless indifference to an unjustified risk of human life). The sports fan's refusal to seek medical treatment is an insufficient intervening act to allow the defendant to escape criminal liability for stabbing the sports fan. The defendant stabbed the sports fan in the stomach, and the sports fan died as a result of the injury. Because the victim's refusal to seek medical treatment is foreseeable, it is insufficient to allow the defendant to escape criminal responsibility for his actions. As such, the motion for judgment of acquittal should be denied.
Furthermore, a jury should be instructed as to voluntary manslaughter if there is at least some evidence that the murder was done in the «heat of passion.» Here, the sports fan slapped the defendant and this could be considered adequate provocation, and, as such, a reasonable jury could find that the defendant was acting in the «heat of passion» when he stabbed the sports fan. Because there is some evidence such that a reasonable jury could find the defendant guilty of voluntary manslaughter, the jury should be instructed on that issue.
A is incorrect. The sport's fan refusal to seek medical attention will not break the chain of causality because a refusal of medical care is a foreseeable consequence. There is also sufficient evidence that the man can be found guilty of murder (committing an unlawful killing of another human with malice aforethought, in this case, intent to inflict great bodily harm or depraved heart).
C is incorrect. The defendant, even if he did not retreat, could still be found to have acted in the «heat of passion» as a result of adequate provocation. Here, the sports fan slapped the defendant and this could be considered adequate provocation, and, as such, a reasonable jury could find that the defendant was acting in the «heat of passion» when he stabbed the sports fan. Because there is some evidence of adequate provocation, the jury should be instructed on that issue.
D is incorrect. Although malice may be proved by the intentional use of a deadly weapon on a vital part of the body, there was still some evidence presented that the defendant did so in the «heat of passion.» Because it is possible for a reasonable jury to find the defendant guilty of voluntary manslaughter, the jury should be so instructed.