Baby bar June 2020

Q3: Criminal Law

=============

Crime of D

Murder of B

In order to be charged with murder of Bob, the State must first prove that a homicide occurred. A homicide is the unlawful killing of a human being. Here, since D did not have the lawful right to kill Bob(discussed later), and because Bob is a person (since he falsely accused D reasonable to assume) and Bob died (killed Bob by shooting him twice) the State will have proven a homicide occurred.

Next the State will have to prove that D was in fact the cause of Bob's death. Here, the State can prove that Doug killed Bob by shooting him twice with a handgun. Therefore, the State will have satisfied the causation element.

Finally, the State will have to determine whether D committed Murder or involuntary manslaughter by showing malice/intent. Intent can be proven by 1) a conscious objective to achieve the act 2) in intent to create a serious bodily injury or 3) by a depraved heart reflected by gross and wanton recklessness the action did happen. Failing to be able to prove malice/intent will cause the State to consider Involuntary Manslaughter.

Here, the State will be able to prove that D consciously intended Bob to die. The facts state that D was upset about Bob falsely accusing D of shoplifting on two occasions. The State will be able to further prove that D decided to kill Bob and that he went to Bob's store to kill him. Therefore the State has satisfied the malice/intent element.

Murder 1 or Murder 2 or Voluntary Manslaughter

To be charged with Murder 1 the State will have to show that D murder Bob with premeditation and deliberation, that he did so with arson, bomb or lying in wait, or that the act occurred during the commission of an inherently dangerous felony. For Murder 2, the State will need to show intent to inflict significant bodily harm or wanton recklessness and for Voluntary Manslaughter that the killing occurred during the heat of passion or as a failed defense.

Here, the State will likely charge D with Murder 1 and he will likely be convicted.

Robbery/Larceny of B

In order to prove that D committed robbery of Bob's store when he took all the money out, the State will have to show that D used force or the threat of imminent force in order to deprive B of his rightful dominion over the money. Since D went to the store to kill Bob, not take the money, the state will likely resort to charging D with larceny - defined as the taking of another's possessions with the intent to permanently deprive.

Here, the State can show that Bob was dead, and that at that point, D decided to take the money( noticed the cash register, went over and opened it and took all the money out), depriving Bob's store of all the money.

The State will likely charge D and get a conviction on larceny of Bob's money.

Robbery of Sally

As discussed above,