Analysis of a Case Fact Situation
Introduction
As Bill with his friends passed by a bar Paul who was leaving the bar uttered an atrocity that was directed to them due to their loud talks as they were a bit intoxicated. Even though Paul attempted to get away Bill caught up with him leading to a punch in the quest of trying to get answers from him as to why he decided to get swore to them. Bill’s friends encouraged him to fight which resulted in another punch that left him unconsciousness as he lay on the traffic road not moving. The group took off after panicking leaving him there where a truck ran him over and died instantly. It is evident that given that the action of Bill led to the death of Paul he committed a homicide crime. Manslaughter charges are applicable in the case. This is because from the facts the death of Paul was not an intentional one since the streets were poorly lighted and the truck driver did not see him while on the other hand, Paul left him in that state without intentions as his only motive was to get answers.
Would a charge of manslaughter be appropriate in this case?
Homicide refers to the death of an individual that results from unappropriated actions from another person (Allen, 2015). In this context, a manslaughter charge is only suitable in instances when homicide fails to fit within a murder level. On this ground even though manslaughter is a severe crime, the penalties are less than when equated to those of murder (Monaghan, 2016). This, therefore, shows that a manslaughter charge is suitable for this case because it was not the intention of the driver to kill Paul and Bill never aimed for Paul’s death as his actions were grounded on getting a response. The death of Paul resulted from the fact that Bill left him unconscious which implies that even when the car was approaching she was unable to respond. On the other hand, it is evident that the driver acted with no kind of motive as the street had poor lighting which prevented him from seeing Paul. This case best demonstrates a voluntary manslaughter. This is the case of an intentional killing derived from recklessness. In that Bill being the perpetrator participated in an illegal operation that involved beating up Paul that led to his death. The case demonstrates high levels of recklessness because even though Bill never intended to kill Paul he understood quite well that his actions were immoral and law infringing.
This is a voluntary manslaughter because it is a killing that reveals some levels of knowledge and intent but does not fit within murder charges because it was mitigated by the notion that it was conducted in the heat of desire (Monaghan, 2016). In that Bill was overcome by emotions of anger in the situation based on the sudden situation after Paul had been verbally offending thus losing his judgment ability thus leading to him punching Paul severally leaving him unconscious at the traffic lane where he met his unfortunate death. However, in order for Bill’s charges to be reduced to manslaughter he must fully demonstrate that he was strongly triggered by Paul in getting into the act as the victim had created a scenario that resulted in him being distressed and overcome to the level that it can be fully understood even though the offense is one that cannot be exempted, but would result in fair and informed judgment.
In making a case for manslaughter it is fundamental that the offender holds the Actus Reus for the killing but zero Mens Rea for the killing. This means that in terms of evidence it is obvious that they hold the responsibility of the victim’s death but held no intention that can be identified. In that, it is a voluntary manslaughter in the case when an individual killed with Mens Rea which is a motive to kill or cause harm. In other words, Mens Rea refers to an individual’s familiarity with the fact that their actions are not only dangerous but unjustified. From the facts of the case, both Mens Rea and Actus Reus can be established (Monaghan, 2016). This is because Bill acted because he was provoked by Paul who uttered some offensive terms and his intention when he confronted him was to understand why he got swore to him and his friends. In this case, the Mens Rea is that he wanted to get answers while on the other hand, it is evidentially obvious that his actions led to Paul’s death. It is possible to establish causation from the case. Causation offers ways through which actions can be equated with the resulting outcomes mainly an injury. In Criminal provisions, it is best described as an action or Actus Reus from which certain damages were created in a combination of Mens Rea in cooperating the component of responsibility (Monaghan, 2016).
There are some causation rules that are applicable in the case, to begin with, it is easy to demonstrate the association amid actions and outcomes. In that, Paul provoked Bill who acted in response leading to him punching the victim and leaving him on the ground which exposed him to his death. In addition, the rule human errors are associated with a receding effect are also applicable. This is because Bill was not sober and the fact that he had been provoked and was unable to control his reactions. He made the wrong decision of making aggressive confrontations which were influenced by the encouragements he acquired from his friends to fight Bill. He punched him so hard that he became motionless and after panicking they left him in the traffic lane. In this context, bill and his friends all failed to act and show responsibility for their actions by moving Paul from the road to act in the duty of care and ensure that he is not exposed to the risks of death. The fact that there were some major violations does not imply that that is the major cause of the offense but the fact that negligence played part makes it a felony (Crump, 2015).
Could Bill Raise Any Defenses?
Bill has the grounding of raising strong defenses even though he cannot avoid the fact that he is responsible for Paul’s death. To begin with, he can raise the argument that he acted on the influence of alcohol and the fact that Paul had provoked him. In this context, bill having not offended Paul in any form the victim created an undesirable situation that leads to emotional hurt which triggered the fight. On this ground, Bill never acted because he had the motive of causing any physical injury or death but on the ground that he sought to get responses on why Paul had decided on getting swore against them. The crime is not, however, relevant to a murder charge on the ground that it was driven by anger. Due to the provocation that Bill acquired from Paul’s utterances this di not only impair his judgment of the situation but also lost sensibility of the situation. On the ground that he was a bit intoxicated he had not reasonability which forced him to act in such a rush style after losing control of the situation. Even though he believed that causing him pain would force him to give him answers he had no intentions of killing him but the victim was overcome by the blows which left him motionless and scared the group.
From such defenses to be considered feasible, Bill must justify his actions beyond any hesitation that his actions were never intentional. On the other hand, this can best be demonstrated that the fact that he was drunk and angry hindered him from making reasonable choices and opted to confront the victim as the easiest method (Stubbs, 2016). These facts are relevant and easy to identify the case. This is because Paul came from the bar while bill and his friends were slightly intoxicated which is well indicated by the fact that they talked loudly and his friends encouraged him to engage in a fight which he did not resist because he was not reasonable. This means that he was not only unable to act reasonably but also failed to account for his actions and the associated threats which he was supposed to do. It is evident that a reasonable person would never turn blindly to killing another on the ground that they are verbally offensive (Stubbs, 2016). This is because most people when drunk can be unreasonable and such situations are expected. However, for Bill, he was unable to overcome these challenges since he was drunk as well which hindered his reasoning abilities.
Overall Discussion
In summing up, the case is associated with some controversies but the facts are rather clear. In my opinion, I believe that Bill is likely to get a conviction because the offense is one that cannot be exempted. Even though, he was not intending to kill Paul his actions and negligence resulted in death. However, the most probable charge is that of manslaughter on the ground that he never pursued to kill but caused severe injuries to the victim which in turn led to his death. I believe that the Mens Rea of the case is a traceable one along with the Actus Reus. This is because the defendant cannot deny that by attacking the victim he had exposed him to dangers even though his intention was to understand why Paul was bitter. Paul provoked the defendant thus forcing him to aggressively attack him due to anger. The defendant did not demonstrate any duty of care because the victim was left on the road which was dangerous and since he was in a critical condition he was run over by a passing truck. In paying for such an offense, Bill is likely to acquire a manslaughter conviction for the death of Paul on the account of negligence and law violation.
References
Allen, M. J. (2015). Textbook on criminal law. Oxford, United Kingdom: Oxford University Press.
Crump, D. (2015). Assaultive Felony Murder: Homicide with Intent to Cause Serious Injury. Santa Clara L. Rev., 55, 247.
Monaghan, N. (2016). Criminal law. Oxford University Press.
Stubbs, J. (2016). Murder, manslaughter and domestic violence. Homicide, Gender and Responsibility: An International Perspective, 25, 36.
