QUESTION THREE (40 minutes) Darla Defendant was waiting at h…
QUESTION THREE (40 minutes) Darla Defendant was waiting at home for her spouse, Sam, to return from a bike ride. Suddenly, she heard from down the street the sound of screeching automobile tires, followed immediately by a loud metallic crash. She ran out and down the street to see what happened, arriving moments later to find Sam’s mangled bicycle next to a car that had apparently struck it, then jumped the curb and crashed into a tree. Sam, having been struck by the car, lay dead nearby. She then saw, emerging unsteadily from the car, a noticeably intoxicated man. Darla realized immediately that this was Ned Neighbor, who lived down at the other end of the street, and that the car smashed against the tree was one that she had often seen driven by Ned. Looking back at Sam, lying dead on the ground, and then at the bleary, drunken Ned, Darla screamed, “I’ll kill you!” She launched herself at Ned, knocking him to the ground. With her knees on Ned’s chest and one hand on his throat, she grabbed a nearby rock and smashed him repeatedly in the head. In a few seconds, it was all over – Ned was dead. A. Using the substantive provisions of Anhedonia law, and in light of the background principles of the common law, of what form of homicide, if any, is Defendant guilty? The manslaughter provisions of Anhedonia appeared in connection with Question 2A. In addition to those provisions, § 100 of the Anhedonia Criminal Code may be relevant to your analysis. It states: MURDER (10 A. S. A. § 100)Murder is the unlawful killing of another human being with malice aforethought. Willful, premeditated, and deliberate murder is murder in the first degree; all other murder is murder in the second degree. (12.5) B. How, if at all, would your analysis of Defendant’s homicide liability change if, instead of the Anhedonia provisions, Defendant’s charges were subject to the substantive homicide provisions of the Model Penal Code? Explain. (12.5) C. Assume the applicability of the same facts used in this Question, except that subsequent investigation revealed that Ned was merely a passenger in the car that struck Sam. Ned was asleep (passed out) in the passenger seat at the time of the crash. Although Defendant didn’t know this at the time, the car had actually been driven by Ned’s wife, Wanda, at the time of the accident. How, if at all, does this affect your analysis set out in Part A of this Question? How, if at all does it affect your analysis of Part B (under the Model Penal Code)? Putting aside the doctrinal content of the applicable legal rules, should this factual variation change the analysis of Defendant’s homicide liability? Explain. (15)
Read Details