Jules
Old Hand
Posts: 505
|
Post by Jules on Apr 12, 2005 7:05:26 GMT -6
Just got a quick question on Amercian law.
In America, if two people commit a crime, and one of them commits murder in the process, then it is my understanding that both can be tried with murder, even if it was clear that murder was not the original intent.
However what would be the situation if two friends went into a store with no intent of commiting an offence.
One gets into an argument, and attacks the store owner and kills him. Would both be charged?.
|
|
|
|
Post by josephdphillips on Apr 12, 2005 17:33:23 GMT -6
Just got a quick question on Amercian law. In America, if two people commit a crime, and one of them commits murder in the process, then it is my understanding that both can be tried with murder, even if it was clear that murder was not the original intent. However what would be the situation if two friends went into a store with no intent of commiting an offence. One gets into an argument, and attacks the store owner and kills him. Would both be charged?. If the friend didn't call police, yes. He would then be an accessory to manslaughter (or second-degree murder, depending), after the fact. |
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Apr 12, 2005 18:21:49 GMT -6
The first case they are both guilty of felony murder because of the doctrine of transferred intent. They had the intent to rob and someone died in the process. The intent is transferred from robbery to murder and both accomplices are equally liable.
The second case would usually be a no. You have to have the intent or guilty mind (mens rea) to commit a crime. The mens rea and guilty action (actus reus) have to both exist at the same time for a crime to have occurred. Simply being at the wrong place at the wrong time is insufficient to be guilty. Most jurisdictions do not place an affirmative duty on people to report a crime. Just as if a witness in the back of the store decided not to report what he or she saw, they wouldn't be tried for commiting a crime.
Some jurisdictions had "accessory after the fact" requirements that might have been stretched to fit these facts, but most jurisdictions have gone away from the levels of accessories and principals.
|
|
