data:image/s3,"s3://crabby-images/d5e14/d5e149bdf5a30c98c258b00fff6dd3725cb471c9" alt="Law Self logo"
Murder
A homicide is a broad
class of crimes where an individual takes the life of another individual. At
common law, criminal homicide is divided into three categories: murder,
voluntary manslaughter, and involuntary manslaughter.
The purpose of this article
is to discuss murder. This article will define murder and its elements, differentiate
the two classifications of murder, present potential defenses, and provide the
regulations on sentencing for murder.
Murder
Classifications
The legal definition of
murder is “the unlawful taking of the life of
another human being, with malice aforethought.”[1] Malice
aforethought is a legal term of art meaning that the person acted with a
“reckless indifference to an unjustifiable high risk to human life” or had a
premeditated intent to kill.
State
law typically breaks murder down into two classifications: first-degree and
second-degree. Both are first-degree felonies, but the distinguishing feature
is the presence or absence of premeditation, or planning, on the part of the
murderer.[2]
First Degree Murder
Murder
in the first degree is murder committed with premeditation and deliberation. To
be guilty of first-degree murder, the defendant must INTEND to kill. Even
though an intention to kill is not necessary, first-degree murder implies that
the defendant had “an element of coolness, of calm reflection.”[3] First-degree
murder is not a universally recognized term. In some states, first-degree
murder is called “aggravated murder.”[4]
In
many states, a killing committed during the commission of an enumerated felony,
felony murder, is first-degree murder. In their statutes, states provide a non-exhaustive
list of the various felonies that can be charged as felony murder and these
felonies include arson, burglary, rape, and kidnapping.
Second-Degree Murder
Any
murder that is not first-degree murder is called second-degree murder. Murder
in the second-degree is an intentional killing that is not premeditated or
planned, but is committed by a person having a depraved heart or mind.[5]
Second-degree
murder can arise in the following scenarios: killing done in the heat of the
moment and a killing that results from an intent to cause serious bodily harm. In
both situations, the killer is not intending to kill his victim, but he knows
that death is a likely outcome of his actions.
Defenses to Murder: Excuses and Justifications
If
a defendant successfully asserts one the following defenses to a murder charge,
he can reduce the level of the crime, or be exonerated of the crime entirely.
Defenses
to a murder charge can either be a justification
or an excuse. Justification defenses
focus on the act and NOT the actor. This means that a justification absolves an
individual of criminal conduct because the individual’s conduct was judged to
be useful to society.[6]
On the other hand, an excuse absolves an individual of a homicide because he is
not blameworthy due to extenuating circumstances.[7]
Excuses
Insanity
The
most well-known excuse to both types of murder is insanity. There are several
different tests that are applied in different states to determine insanity, but
the reasoning behind undergirding each of the tests is that the defendant was
so mentally ill that he is entitled to acquittal. Under the first method, known
as the traditional M’Naghten Rule to
Insanity, a defendant is entitled to acquittal if:
(1) He
has a disease of the mind;
(2) The
disease caused a defect of reason; and
(3) The
defect of reason precluded the defendant from being able to understand the
nature and quality of his actions[8]
The second method of
determining a defendant’s insanity is the irresistible impulse test. A defendant
is excused and deemed to be insane if because of his mental illness, he was
unable to control his actions or confirm his conduct to the law when he killed
another person.
The third method of
determining insanity is called the Durham
Test. The Durham Test, broader than
both M’Naghten and the irresistible impulse test, excuses a defendant’s conduct
if the killing was the product of his mental illness.[9]
Intoxication
The second excuse used
to negate criminal capacity in a murder is intoxication. Intoxication can
either be voluntary or involuntary.
Voluntary intoxication
is the voluntary and intentional taking of a substance known to be
intoxicating, such as drugs or alcohol. Voluntary intoxication is a defense to
first-degree murder because it can prevent a defendant from formulating the
mental intent and premeditation required to purposely kill another individual. Involuntary
intoxication is when a defendant ingests an intoxicating substance without
knowledge of its nature, by mistake, under duress, or pursuant to medical
advice.[10]
Justifications
Self-Defense
Self-defense is the use
of force against another person to repel an unprovoked attack. A successful
self-defense claim requires the following elements:
(1) The defendant was a
victim of an unlawful attack;
(2) The defendant did not
provoke the attack;
(3) The defendant actually
and reasonably believed that he was in imminent danger of bodily harm;
(4) The defendant used only
the amount of force necessary to repel the attack
With the fourth
element, a person may use force as the person reasonably believes is necessary
to protect himself from the imminent use of unlawful force upon him. Deadly
force can only be used if the victim reasonably believes that he is threated
with imminent death or great bodily harm. The aggressor in a deadly
confrontation can use deadly force in self-defense if the victim of the initial
minor confrontation escalates it into a deadly altercation and the aggressor is
unable to withdraw from the fight.
Defense
of Others
A defendant can also
claim defense of others as a justification for murder. The defendant’s actions
are justified if he is defending others and he has a reasonable belief that the
person he is defending could use force in his own defense.
Defense
of Dwelling
Under the Castle
Doctrine, a person can use deadly force to prevent a violent entry and the
property owner reasonably believes that the use of force is necessary to
prevent a personal attack on himself or anybody else in the dwelling. This
justification is unlike the defense of property, other than one’s home, where
deadly force may NEVER be used to defend these other kinds of property.
Sentencing for Murder
In
the eighteen states that have adopted capital punishment, the death penalty can
only be imposed in cases where a defendant has been convicted of first-degree
murder.
Federal
sentencing guidelines require the death penalty or life without parole for
first-degree murder, and life without parole for second-degree murder. Different
states, of course, have a variety of penalties for murder. Aggravating
(increasing) and mitigating (decreasing) circumstances play a role in the
amount of time a person convicted of murder will be sentenced to. Mitigating
circumstances include the above-referenced defenses, as well as whatever other
concerns the sentencing judge wants to use. Aggravating circumstances comprise
a very long list by state, and include the death of a pregnant woman’s fetus, prior
convictions, cop killing, torture, ambush, and others.
Minimum sentences for second-degree murder vary widely throughout the states. For example, Arkansas has a six-year minimum, while Florida imposes a twenty-five-year sentence if a firearm is used during the killing.
Footnotes
[1] "Murder," Legal dictionary. Retrieved from http://dictionary.law.com/Defulat.aspx?selected=1303.
[2] Michael Mannheimer, Not the Crime but
the Cover-Up: A Deterrence-Based Rationale for the Premeditation-Deliberation
Formula+, 86 Ind. L.J. 879, (2011).
[3] Matthew A. Pauley, Murder by
Premeditation, 36 Am. Crim. L. Rev. 145, (1999).
[4] Ohio Revised Code § 2903.01
[5] John Scheb, Criminal Law, (2011).
[6] Joshua Dressler, Understanding Criminal
Law, (2001).
[7] Eugene Milhizer, Justification and
Excuse: What They Were, What They Are, And What They Ought To Be, 78 St. John's
L. Rev. 725, (2004).
[8] Charles Fischette, Psychopathy and
Responsibility, 90 Va. L. Rev. 1423 (2004).
[9] J.C. Oleson, Is Tyler Durden Insane?,
83 N.D. L. Rev. 579, (2007).
[10] David Levinson, Encyclopedia of Crime
and Punishment, (2002).