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.
7. The appellate court should
The marksman was convicted of murder. He appealed, contending that the evidence was not sufficient to support a conviction of murder.
A marksman bought a new rifle and wanted to try it out by doing some target shooting. He went out into the country to an area where he had previously hunted. Much to his surprise, he noticed that the area beyond a clearing contained several newly constructed houses that had not been there before. Between the houses there was a small playground where several children were playing. Nevertheless, the marksman nailed a paper target to a tree and went to a point where the tree was between himself and the playground. He then fired several shots at the target. One of the shots missed the target and the tree and hit and killed one of the children in the playground.
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
B is incorrect. The evidence was sufficient and because there was no «heat of passion» defense presented which might allow for a voluntary manslaughter charge.
C is incorrect. The evidence was sufficient to prove malice aforethought, and because the marksman's actions were more than just negligent; they were grossly reckless.
D is incorrect. The evidence was sufficient to sustain a conviction, and because criminal negligence can indeed support a criminal conviction. Because the appellate court considers only whether there is sufficient evidence to support the conviction, the jury could have found that the marksman's extreme recklessness was sufficient for a finding of malice aforethought necessary for a murder conviction. Therefore, his conviction should be affirmed.