Criminal Liability in Homicide - Essay Example

?Homicide Perhaps before interpreting the legal position regarding homicide liability of the persons involved in the presented cases, it is appropriate to describe homicide and the generally applicable practices. Homicide is a category of crimes that involve the unlawful termination of a life of a human being. The category includes criminal acts of killings namely; murder (usually classified as first and second degrees), manslaughter (classified into voluntary and involuntary), infanticide as well as other statutory forms of homicide. Statutory homicide forms are those that are designated by the state through statutes, some of which include; vehicular homicide and negligent homicide. This category in criminal law is characterized by some similarities in the description of the homicide. Characteristics of Homicide Categories There are common characteristics that are displayed in all categories of homicide as discussed. Unlawful killing must be established in al cases of homicide. In some instances, killing may be lawful for instance if the killer was acting in self defense. The other principle characteristic of homicide is that the killing must be committed to a human being, implying that the killing of any other creature cannot amount to a homicide. Controversy has marred the debate in abortion mainly on the fact of establishing if a fetus is a human being and at what age. Homicide is also governed by the “year and a day rule” where the death in question has to be established if it was caused by bodily harm committed within a certain duration of time. Another characteristic depicting a homicide case is causation where evidence must be adduced to ascertain that the death actually occurred as a result of a certain commission or omission by the defendant. This is as directed by the element of actus reus (death actually caused by the commission or omission of the defendant). Causation can be established through two ways namely; causation in fact and causation in law. Among these characteristics, causation is the most delicate Facts and Criminal Liability in the Presenting Cases To ascertain the criminal liability against the defendants, I will use the approach of exemption and implication by virtue of the defendants’ involvement in the death of the diseased. In this explanation, the obvious elements of homicide are assumed, for instance corpus delecti (showing of actual death of the victim). The facts of each case are accompanied by explained criminal liability of the defendants. i) Vince vs. Ann In the first case, Ann who is eighteen years old visits Vince who is sixteen years old at his place of residence. In this case, Vince gets unwell while in the company of Ann who does nothing to assist him apart from putting him to bed. Several hours later, Vince decides to jump out of the window from the third floor and dies from the impact of the fall. First, due to the fact that the diseased died upon impact after jumping out of the window from the third floor, the defendant can be exempted from omission. If the death of the diseased occurred from the initial sickness where the defendant failed to alert rescuers, the blame can squarely be placed on her hands. However, if it can be established that the act of jumping through the window was as a result of the progression of the disease, the defendant can have a case to answer. The element of actus reus is not clearly established in this case hence the defendant appears exempt. Secondly, the diseased could have committed suicide which is not a liability in the hands of the defendant. Alternatively, it is difficult to ascertain if the defendant knew or aided in the commission of the crime. Alternatively, the defendant in this case will escape liability due to the fact that the initial crime she intended to participate in together with the defendant is not the same crime with what caused the death of the diseased; in this case suicide. Thirdly, according to a common legal position, the failure of the defendant to intervene in the criminal act of suicide that the diseased could have committed does not constitute implication of the defendant as an accomplice (Emanuel, 60). In this case, the defendant could have been in the company of the diseased watching as he committed suicide by jumping out of his third floor room’s window. Her failure to intervene is apparently out of an affirmative legal duty in consideration of their relationship. Brian, Ann and Dr. Con In the second case, the defendant lived with the diseased person, who apparent has turned violent towards her. Ann has a clinical condition which makes her susceptible to excessive uneasiness and depression. During a game of cards, the diseased accuses the defendant of cheating, upon which she reacts by pointing a sharpened kitchen knife to him. The diseased throws insults at the defendant accusing her of lack of self control and threatens her too that he would hit her on the head with a nearby pan. The defendant reacts by plunging the sharp kitchen knife into throat of the diseased. The defendant then calls ambulance which rushes the diseased to the North London Hospital. Upon arrival, the diseased is received by Dr. Con who gives him an incompatible blood transfusion. As it is established, Dr. Con has overworked for being on duty for 60 hours during that week. The victim dies later in the night. ii) Brian vs. Ann First, in the light of the medical circumstances that the defendant is in, it can be established that the condition could have caused the apparent negative reaction causing the stabbing. Apparently, this instance occurred in the morning when normal hormonal reactions increase stress since cortisol (stress hormone) is usually high in the morning. Secondly, it is admissible that the diseased provoked the nervousness that could have triggered the stabbing. In the circumstances surrounding the stabbing, the diseased had accused the defendant of cheating. Being in his right senses, the diseased could have reacted differently despite the defendant’s aggressive reaction which could have ended without further provocation through threats of hitting her with a pan. Thirdly, due to the fact that the actual death of the victim was occasioned by a faulty medical treatment, the criminal liability of the defendant is waived. According Law Teacher.net (2011), similar to observations made in R v Jordan (1956) 40 Cr App R 152, a different cause of death of a patient different from that which the defendant purportedly inflicted on the victim shifts the criminal liability away from the defendant. In this case, the diseased had been stabbed by the defendant and subsequently died in a hospital eight days later. In a court of appeal, further evidence was adduced to the effect that the actual death of the victim was not as a result of the stab wound since it was healed at the time of death. Further evidence proved that an antibiotic to which the victim was allergic was administered to him. Alternatively, it was established that a large dose of the drug could induce immediate death. In fact, the victim died of pneumonia as induced by the treatment. It was held that the criminal liability of the defendant had been shifted to the doctor. iii) Brian vs. Dr. Con The ultimate burden lied with the doctor who negligently transfused the victim with incompatible blood type. It is a professional requirement that doctors act in due care of their patients which is clearly flouted by Dr. Con. However, in further revelations, the doctor could shift the criminal liability on to his employer for having overworked him in that week. Since the doctor was acting on behalf of the hospital, it is clear that the hospital was squarely responsible for the death of the victim. A similar case to above involves a physician who misdiagnosed and gave the wrong prescription to a patient, which led to the death of the patient as a result of over toxication produced by the prescribed drugs. In the Horner V. Spalitto (1999) Mo. App. LEXIS 925, the pharmacist was sued for negligence of duty since, as per their training, the physicist is required to guide and prescribe the correct dosage of medication to a patient. The physician on the other hand defended himself by blaming the pharmacist company for not indicating clearly that the drug was toxic if taken in large amounts by the patient. However, on the ruling, the judge stressed that, as a matter of legal jurisdiction, a physicin duty might be limited to filling the prescription form only but the pharmacists as the OBRA standard requires has a duty to indicate all the proscriptions necessary to a physician. The judge therefore found the physician guilty of negligence of duty. It therefore means that, the hospital might be guilty of the negligence of duty by allowing the doctor to work beyond his required time, a situation that might have tired the doctor beyond making a sound judgment. However, in Novak v. Bond (1999)1 S.C.R. 808, a physician misdiagnosed a cancer patient to report a benign condition, a situation that made the cancer to spread to other tissues in the plaintiff’s breast, while it could have been arrested if proper diagnosis and treatment were taken by the physician. The physician was found guilty and responsible for the misery of the patient and the necessary compensation given to the plaintiff. In this case, the judges made it clear that, the physicist having been trained on the line of duty had all the responsibilities to make the proper diagnosis on the plaintiff. The defendant was obliged to offer correct examination procedures that could have saved the situation by containing the spread of cancer. It therefore follows, that the doctor as per his responsibilities and training, was qualified and obliged to properly diagnose the right blood group to Brian, a situation that could have saved his life. The doctor was therefore guilty of omission and negligence and responsible for the death of Brian. The homicide case against Ann might be considered to be more intriguing and would require a deeper exploration on the issue of intent in the murder. In Woollin [1998] 3 WLR 382, [1999] AC 82, Woollin was charged with murder after throwing his child in the room over a disagreement with his wife. The child suffered a cracked skull and eventually died. The defendant later defended himself that, the action was out of aggravation after a quarrel with his wife but did not intend to kill the child. The jury quoted the mens rea principle and found the defendant guilty of murder. However on appeal, the judge further invoked deeper intention on the meaning and application of intent in determining the case. Although, Woolin did not intend to kill child, the mens rea principle provides that, he could have anticipated the result from the action sine it was clear to foresee the result. Arguing from the case above, Ann went to offer some drugs to Vince, which as Ann proved was a routine since she also took the same dosage of the drug. After the administration Vince developed complications and throws himself out of the window. The intent in Ann’s action could not be taken as intending to cause the death of Vince. Furthermore, after the complication, Ann tries to offer the necessary care to Vince, with the intent of making him well again. Vince later jumped out of the window and suffered serious injuries tat eventually killed him. Ann could not have prevented this since she was not in the room at the time. Therefore, as per the case, it was not the intention of Ann to cause the death of Vince. It is not also foreseeable that, the drug administration could have caused the complication to Vince. On the other hand the action of serious injury to Brain might follow the same explanation. In Hancock & Shankland (1986) 1 All ER 641, HL, the jury ruled that, there might be a degree of desirability when the action taken could be argued to naturally result to no different result than the death of the other party. Ann could have desired the death of Brain, since she went ahead to sharpen the knife which she used on Brian. However, intent requires that, one has to be mentally fit in planning such an action, for the desirability and intent to correspond. Ann at the time was not mentally stable since she was under the influence of drugs. Mentally, the drugs could be responsible for aggravation resulting into violent and unexpected behavior. Ann could therefore be a victim of drugs and could not be said to have intended the action since she was not mentally stable at the time. In addition, she could not have called the ambulance after Vince fell in fear of being caught with the drugs. The influence of drugs might therefore exonerate her from the responsibility. Further she realized her mistakes and calls the ambulance to save Brian. The report further indicated that, had Brian received the required care at that time, he could have survived. The doctor and the hospital might therefore be considered to shoulder the responsibility in Brian’s death. References Emanuel, B. S. (2007) Criminal law. New York, NY: Aspen Publishers Online “ Homicide- Preliminary Issues.” Law Teacher http://www.lawteacher.net/criminal-law/cases/homicide-intro.php Hall, J. (2005) General principles of criminal law. Clark, NJ: The Lawbook Exchange, Ltd., Read More