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.
16. In a jurisdiction that follows the common law of homicide, could the man properly be convicted of attempted murder?
A man was angry at a coworker who had received a promotion. The man believed that the coworker had taken credit for the man's work and had bad-mouthed him to their boss. One day, as the man was leaving the company parking lot in his car, he saw the coworker walking through the lot. On a sudden impulse, the man pushed the accelerator pedal hard and veered toward the coworker with the intention of scaring him. The coworker tried to jump out of the way but slipped and fell and was run over. Although the coworker suffered life-threatening injuries, he 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
Attempt, however, is a specific intent crime. To be guilty of attempt, a defendant must take a substantial step that is more than mere preparation toward the perpetration of a crime, with the intent that the target crime takes place.
When a crime is defined to require not merely conduct but also a specified result of that conduct, the defendant's conduct must be both the actual and proximate cause of the victim's injury. The actual causation standard holds that, but for the defendant's acts, the victim would not have been harmed. To meet the proximate causation standard, the victim's harm must be foreseeable, or the natural and probable consequence of the defendant's conduct. An independent intervening cause is an unforeseeable event that destroys the causal chain between the defendant's acts and the victim's harm.
B is correct. The facts indicate that the man's intent was only to scare his co-worker, and not to actually run over and kill his co-worker. To be convicted of attempted murder, the defendant must have had the specific intent to kill. Because the man lacked this specific intent, he cannot be convicted of attempted murder.
A is incorrect. This answer reaches the correct answer with the wrong reasoning. A pedestrian attempting to move out of the path of an accelerating car that is aimed toward the pedestrian, and then falling and being run over, is a foreseeable result of aiming and accelerating that car toward that pedestrian. A natural and probable consequence of the defendant's conduct in accelerating his car toward his co-worker to scare him is that the co-worker would try to get out of the way, quite possibly falling and being run over. This is true even if the defendant's stated intent was to scare his co-worker, and not to actually run him over. The co-worker falling when trying to get out of the way and being run over is a foreseeable result of the defendant accelerating his car toward him, and would not constitute an independent intervening cause.
C is incorrect. As noted above, the defendant did not possess the required intent to be guilty of attempt. Although the defendant's conduct caused the co-worker to suffer life-threatening injuries, the defendant did not accelerate his car toward his co-worker with the specific intent to kill. Because the defendant did not take a substantial step toward killing his co-worker with the intent to commit murder, the defendant cannot be convicted of attempted murder.
D is incorrect. Although aiming and accelerating a car toward a pedestrian may constitute such a reckless disregard for human life, and therefore qualify as common law murder, here, the co-worker did not die and the man is being charged with attempted murder, not murder itself. As noted above, attempted murder requires the specific intent to kill because one cannot attempt to commit an unintentional result. Based on the given facts, the defendant did not have the intent to kill when he accelerated his car toward his co-worker in order to scare him, and therefore, cannot be convicted of attempted murder.