CRIMINAL LAW ESSAY TWO Module 15
CRIMINAL LAW ESSAY TWO ANSWER
Deft’s murder charge: A murder charge against Deft is proper if the facts show that Deft committed a homicide with malice. It is clear that Deft committed a homicide (unlawful killing of another) because Deft shot and killed Kyle. The issue is whether the killing was committed with malice.
Malice: Is the mental state required for murder. Malice can be established in any one of four ways, one of which is by facts demonstrating the defendant acted with the intent to kill. This intent can be established either through the use of a statement made by the defendant demonstrating this intent, or by the defendant’s conduct. In particular, if the defendant uses a deadly weapon in a manner suggesting the defendant intended to kill the victim, the law will infer the defendant acted with the intent to kill. Here, Deft drew a gun and shot Kyle in the chest. This provides adequate support to establish Deft intended to kill Kyle and the required malice is present.
Justification: If evidence exists to justify the defendant’s acts, the killing will not be considered murder or any crime at all. An intentional killing can be justified if the defendant acts in self-defense.
Self-defense: To assert this doctrine, the use of self-defense must be both necessary to avoid an imminent deadly attack and the force used must be both necessary and reasonable to avoid that deadly attack. No force can be used merely in retaliation or for revenge.
Was it necessary and reasonable the use of deadly force? Deft shot Kyle after confronting Kyle and accusing him of killing Deft’s son. Deft then saw Kyle reach into his jacket pocket. In fact, there was no deadly attack on Deft that was imminent. However, it could have reasonably appeared to Deft that Kyle was about to pull out a gun and shoot him. A party claiming self-defense is entitled to make a reasonable mistake as to the need to use deadly force. Alternatively, Deft may not have feared an attack but
Deft’s murder charge: A murder charge against Deft is proper if the facts show that Deft committed a homicide with malice. It is clear that Deft committed a homicide (unlawful killing of another) because Deft shot and killed Kyle. The issue is whether the killing was committed with malice.
Malice: Is the mental state required for murder. Malice can be established in any one of four ways, one of which is by facts demonstrating the defendant acted with the intent to kill. This intent can be established either through the use of a statement made by the defendant demonstrating this intent, or by the defendant’s conduct. In particular, if the defendant uses a deadly weapon in a manner suggesting the defendant intended to kill the victim, the law will infer the defendant acted with the intent to kill. Here, Deft drew a gun and shot Kyle in the chest. This provides adequate support to establish Deft intended to kill Kyle and the required malice is present.
Justification: If evidence exists to justify the defendant’s acts, the killing will not be considered murder or any crime at all. An intentional killing can be justified if the defendant acts in self-defense.
Self-defense: To assert this doctrine, the use of self-defense must be both necessary to avoid an imminent deadly attack and the force used must be both necessary and reasonable to avoid that deadly attack. No force can be used merely in retaliation or for revenge.
Was it necessary and reasonable the use of deadly force? Deft shot Kyle after confronting Kyle and accusing him of killing Deft’s son. Deft then saw Kyle reach into his jacket pocket. In fact, there was no deadly attack on Deft that was imminent. However, it could have reasonably appeared to Deft that Kyle was about to pull out a gun and shoot him. A party claiming self-defense is entitled to make a reasonable mistake as to the need to use deadly force. Alternatively, Deft may not have feared an attack but