,
13 tweets,
3 min read
Read on Twitter
So the non-law-student answer might be “no one committed a crime, because neither Jalisa or Becky meant to do what they did, and nobody actually stole anything.” That’s also the answer under Barr’s analysis of Trump. But it’s wrong, wrong, WRONG.
Set aside “specific intent” (written into the statute). Let’s just analyze the common-law distinction between “Murder” (homicide with intent to kill), “Manslaughter” (homicide with criminal intent, but not to kill),
“Accident” (no crime at all, maybe civil damages).
“Accident” (no crime at all, maybe civil damages).
Jalisa feared for her life, shot a bum, didn’t kill him. Jalisa didn’t commit homicide, but MAY be chargeable with “assault with intent to commit grievous bodily harm.” She intended to kill, but depending whether she reasonably feared for her life, might have defense.
Becky’s in a different fix. Because she committed homicide, “felony murder” doctrine kicks in. We know Becky didn’t intend to kill her brunch pal, Jalisa. But she did intend to commit the felony of grand larceny - stealing a pair of $2500 leggings.
And Becky, though not intending to, killed Jalisa while their felony was in progress. That makes her chargeable with “felony murder,” only applicable to homicide, where any killing (even accidental or otherwise justified) during a felony becomes murder.
But Becky says: “I never actually stole the leggings! I never even found them!” Tough. “Attempted Grand Larceny” is also a felony, and Becky committed it by taking a substantial step (entering the closed store) toward stealing the leggings, which she intended to steal.
Becky argues: “But it wasn’t breaking and entering, because the door was unlocked.” True. She committed the crime of trespass, which prob was only a misdemeanor if committed without intent to steal something $2500. (Let’s pretend other brunch patrons overheard that intent.)
However, a misdemeanor crime like trespass can be part of a larger felony like grand larceny. Becky completed the attempt, even though she didn’t complete the crime. And the attempt at a felony is also a felony.
For felony murder, you would minimally need to show that the particular felony had risk of homicide. (Like, not computer fraud, usually.) But that’s present, because each lunch lady knew the other was armed during the felony.
(Even weirder? Let’s say Jalisa’s shots killed the bum, but Becky missed Jalisa entirely. BOTH would be chargeable with felony murder of the bum, even though Becky never shot AT the bum, and never hit ANYONE. So long as she knew she was committing felony with risk of homicide.)
So Becky is chargeable with felony murder, for killing her crime buddy Jalisa, even though she didn’t intend to kill that person. This is where we get into “mistake of fact” vs. “mistake of law.” Let’s explore that now.
“I didn’t mean to kill Jalisa. I thought I was killing someone else who was a threat to my life.”
That’s a mistake of fact.
“I didn’t know it was murder when you accidentally kill your friend while stealing expensive leggings.”
That’s a mistake of law.
That’s a mistake of fact.
“I didn’t know it was murder when you accidentally kill your friend while stealing expensive leggings.”
That’s a mistake of law.
Becky could assert other mistakes:
“I thought the leggings were only $200, not $2500.”
“I thought it was finders, keepers if they left the store unlocked - not even a crime!”
I’ll break those down in a new thread, where I make what you’ve just absorbed specific to Barr/Trump.
“I thought the leggings were only $200, not $2500.”
“I thought it was finders, keepers if they left the store unlocked - not even a crime!”
I’ll break those down in a new thread, where I make what you’ve just absorbed specific to Barr/Trump.
