90210: I Know What You Did Last Summer

90210: To New Beginnings
(originally aired Sept. 8, 2009)

Facts: At an end of the school year party, Naomi (wrongly) accuses Annie of sleeping with Naomi's boyfriend, Liam. Annie, who's been drinking, denies the allegation but Naomi continues to berate Annie in front of everyone. Annie calls the police on the party and runs out in tears.

While driving home, Annie is still emotionally distraught and driving erratically. Because of poor lighting, she does not see someone walking in the road and she runs him over. She knows she hit someone but does not stop. Instead, she heads home and hides in her bedroom all summer checking news stories about a comatose man (John Doe) who was the victim of a hit and run.

Right before the school year starts, Mr. Doe dies as a result of the accident.

Issue: Did Annie murder John Doe?

Law: Murder is the intentional killing of another person. Involuntary manslaughter---a lesser-included offense to murder---is the unintentional killing for another person due to the actor's reckless conduct.

Analysis: Looks like Annie might be graduating from high school into a correctional facility. While Annie likely did not intentionally hit Mr. Doe, her hitting him with her car was the proximate cause of his death, and her behavior that night was reckless: driving after drinking, swerving on the road, and in an extreme emotional state. This is a classic case of involuntary manslaughter.

There aren't enough facts to know if Annie was intoxicated but even if she were intoxicated, it's not a defense to manslaughter because manslaughter is not a specific intent offense. Recall that the defense of voluntary intoxication can only negate the intent in specific intent offenses, and voluntary intoxication is all Annie could argue because it appears she knowingly consumed alcohol before driving.

Bonus: Most states also make it a crime to leave the scene of an accident (i.e., a hit and run). According to California Vehicle Code § 20,000 (which applies in the 90210 zip code), a driver who leaves the scene of an accident that results in serious injury or death of another faces imprisonment "in the state prison for two, three, or four years, or in a county jail for not less than 90 days nor more than one year," as well as a possible fine of $1,000 to $10,000. But the judge can, "in the interests of justice," reduce or eliminate the confinement.

More..

Harry Potter (Part I): Transferrence

Harry Potter and the Half-Blood Prince (2009)

Facts: Romilda Vane slips some love potion into a box of chocolates and leaves them for Harry Potter to eat. Harry's roommate, Ron Weasley, eats some of the chocolates and falls into a trance. Harry finds Ron and takes him to Professor Slughorn, who's an expert in potions. Slughorn gives Ron a tonic and Ron recovers, without any physical damage. To celebrate, Slughorn opens up a bottle of mead and pours a glass for each of them. Ron drinks first, collapses, and starts foaming at the mouth. Harry acts fast and saves Ron. They later learn that Draco Malfoy, hoping to avoid Voldemort's command that he kill Albus Dumbledore or face his own death, switched Slughorn's mead for the poisoned bottle, hoping Slughorn would give the poisoned bottle to Dumbledore.

Issues: Assuming the common law extends to the magical world, did Romilda commit a
crime against Ron, Harry, both, or neither? Did Draco commit a crime against Ron even though he intended the poison for Dumbledore?

Law: Poisoning without the intent to kill (and without causing death) is a battery. Attempted murder is taking a substantial step to taking another's life with the intent to actually take another's life. Under the theory of transferred intent, a person transfers his intent to injure or kill one person if he accidentally injures or kills a different person by the same act.

Analysis: Romilda likely committed a battery against Ron and attempted battery against Harry. Although Romilda intended to poison Harry with the love potion, she actually committed a battery against Ron by poisoning. While Ron physically unharmed by the poisoning, it was an offensive touching that he did not want. In sending the chocolate to Harry, Romilda also took a substantial step toward committing a battery by poisoning against Harry.

Draco is also likely guilty under a transferred intent theory. He intended for Slughorn to give the poisoned mead to Dumbledore (and to kill Dumbledore in the process). Instead, Ron drank some of the mead and almost died. Since no murder took place, Draco is only guilty of the attempted murder of Ron since he had the intent to kill and took a substantial step in placing the poisoned mead in Slughorn's office. Similarly, Draco is also likely guilty of attempted murder of Dumbledore.

Now, Draco and his fancy lawyer will (and should) argue that Draco only did what he did because Voldemort threatened to kill Draco if he did not kill Dumbledore. This is the defense of duress, which excuses conduct done under the imminent threat of death or grievous bodily harm and the reasonable belief that the threat is real. However, duress does not extend to murder, so it is unlikely Draco could use this defense in the case of attempted murder.

For an additional post on Harry Potter and the Half-Blood Prince, click here.

More..

Pushing Daisies: Swimming With the Fishes (Almost)

Pushing Daisies: Kerplunk
(originally aired June 13, 2009)

Facts: Shane Trickle is having an affair with his sister-in-law Coral Ramona, who is one half of the Aquadolls---a synchronized swimming sister duo. After Shane arranges for Bubba the Shark to eat Coral's sister, Coral's bitter rivals---the Darling Mermaid Darlings---take her place as the headlining show. Shane is not pleased that Coral is not getting her moment in the water and, after a speech confessing to the initial murder and expressing his desire to kill the Darling Mermaid Darlings, Shane throws a wired microphone into the tank where the Darling Mermaid Darlings are swimming. But before the microphone hits the water, Olive catches the microphone in a net and saves the day.

Issue: Aside from murder, did Shane commit a crime?

Law: Murder is the intentional killing of another person. Attempted murder is an act that is a substantial step toward completing an underlying offense, with the intent to commit the underlying offense.

Analysis: Shane likely committed attempted murder. From his speech, Shane had the requisite intent to murder the Darling Sisters Darling. His substantial step was throwing the microphone into the water, believing it would electrocute (and kill) the swimming sisters. Because Shane had the intent to commit the underlying crime of murder and he took a substantial step toward committing that murder, he is likely guilty of attempted murder (even though Olive thwarted his efforts at the very last minute).

Bonus: For purposes of this analysis, I assumed the microphone in the water would produce a sufficient electrical current to kill the sisters. But what if the microphone was not that powerful or, unknown to Shane, was turned off? He'd still likely be guilty of attempted murder because he had the specific intent to murder at the time he took the step of throwing the microphone into the water.

More..

Lost: Shot in the Back

Lost: The Variable
(aired April 29, 2009)

***SPOILER ALERT***

Facts: Daniel sneaks into a hostile camp site. Daniel is holding a gun in his hand and starts shooting at the ground when one of the campers sees him. Daniel demands to speak with Ellie. Richard walks out to see Daniel and tells him that Ellie is not available. Daniel does not believe him, points his gun at Richard, and says Richard has until the count of three to produce Ellie. Before Daniel says "three" or Richard can calm Daniel down, someone shoots Daniel in the back. Daniel collapses, apparently dead. The shooter is Ellie.

Issue: Is Ellie guilty of murdering Daniel?

Law: A murder is the intentional, premeditated killing of another person, but a person may use deadly force in the defense of another if she reasonably believes such force is necessary to stop the imminent use of unlawful deadly force by the other person.

Analysis: Maybe. Based on her aiming the gun at Daniel, it appears that Ellie intended to kill (or at least inflict grievous bodily harm) on Daniel. And since you can't have murder without a dead person, let's assume Daniel is actually dead--with Lost, you never can be sure. So Ellie murdered Daniel. End of story, right?

Wrong! Ellie may be able to claim self-defense, which is a complete defense to murder (i.e., she's not guilty). Under common law, one could only use self-defense to protect another if the two were in a special relationship with each other: parent-child, master-servant, husband-wife. Some jurisdictions have eliminated the special relationship requirement, while others retain it. We don't know what laws (if any) apply to the Island so mark a question mark next to this element.

With the remaining elements, it looks like Ellie can prove self-defense. From her perspective (and anyone else watching), it was reasonable to believe that Daniel was threatening Richard with deadly force. (It does not matter if Daniel was never really going to shoot Richard, only that Ellie could reasonably believe he was going to do so.) And Daniel's countdown was probably enough to show the threat to Richard was imminent. So, it appears that by exercising self-defense Ellie could have gotten away with murdering her own son. No word on whether Smokey is as forgiving.

Bonus: If Ellie only proved only some of the self-defense elements, then no defense is available to her at common law. Some states, though, allow an "imperfect self-defense," meaning you can downgrade a murder to a manslaughter even if you can't establish all of the elements of self-defense. (See here for why that change matters.)

More..

30 Rock: The Black Widow

30 Rock: The Ones
(aired April 23, 2009)

Facts: Jack proposes to marry Elisa but Elisa has a secret. In confidence, she tells her friend Liz that years ago she killed her husband in a fit of rage after she caught him having an affair with another woman. Elisa was never convicted because they could not find an unbiased jury. After a night bundled up with her Slanket, Liz tells Jack about Elisa's past. Jack is concerned that he's marrying a murderess.

Issue: Did Elisa murder her first husband?

Law: Generally speaking, murder is the intentional killing (or intent to inflict grievous bodily harm that results in the death) of another person. Voluntary manslaughter is an intentional killing, committed in the "heat of passion" based on sufficient provocation.

Analysis: Likely not. Although she could not find an unbiased jury to decide her guilt, Elisa is probably guilty only of voluntary manslaughter. Traditionally, finding your spouse in flagrante delicto with someone else can create sufficient passion to provoke the jilted spouse into murdering her husband, provided there is no "cooling off" period and there is a link between the provocation, emotion/passion, and killing.

Elisa's case is a good example of voluntary manslaughter brought on by a cheating husband. Note, though, that if Elisa knew about the affair and killed her husband at a later date, she would likely be guilty of murder as she would have had a sufficient period of time to "cool off." The gist of voluntary manslaughter is in a fit of passion you commit homicide.

Bonus: And before you think this means Elisa walks away, voluntary manslaughter is still a felony and can lead to a long period of confinement, albeit far less than in the case of murder. For example, if Elisa had committed the offense in Virginia, her voluntary manslaughter would lead to a Class 5 felony conviction, which carries a sentence of one to ten years. However, if a Virginia jury convicted her of first-degree murder, that is a Class 2 felony and carries a sentence of twenty years to life. And they don't let you wear "What the Frak" t-shirts in prison.

More..