Criminal Law: What Constitutes an Attempt to Commit Murder - Essay Example

CRIMINAL LAW Criminal Law: What Constitutes An Attempt to Commit Murder Word Count 055 (4 pages) MEMO To whom it may concern: Here, the elements of murder will be explained, including what is required to convict someone of attempt to commit murder. It will also be explained whether or not Mr. Assin attempted to commit the murder of Sally’s husband. Additionally, it will be explained whether or not he has committed the crime and why. What are the elements of murder? Also, what is required to convict someone of attempted murder? These are questions to which any good criminal trial lawyer should know the answer. Murder is basically the taking of another person’s life. Attempted murder is a different animal entirely altogether. According to Singer and LaFond (2010), “To be convicted of attempting a crime that has a result element, the defendant must intend the result” (pp. 311). So, it must be decided whether the defendant intended the result of what happened in the case with this woman Sally. He says he was just “single at the time,” and states that he was just following along with what she suggested to him. Of course, it’s entirely possible here, too, that Sally set him up. Obviously, Mr. Assin having committed the actions he did all point to evidence that he knew beforehand about what was going to happen. The story just does not “add up,” as one might say. Now it will be explained whether or not Mr. Assin attempted to commit the murder of Sallys husband. First of all, the fact that so many similar actions happened to a different person and that this person (Mr. Assin) read her cues perfectly, points to a faulty alibi. Mr. Assin claims that he knew nothing of the attempt on her husband’s life. But, upon closer inspection, it seems that he must have known something about this entire operation. 
So, hierarchy of culpability is important. According to Ramadan (2005), “First, the hierarchy of culpability, intentionality and quasi-intentionality (purpose, knowledge), recklessness, and negligence becomes confused and indistinct” (pp. 61). Obviously, Sally has committed attempted murder by trying to have her husband killed by a hit man. She is at the top of the hierarchy of culpability. Here it will be explained why or why not Mr. Assin has committed the crime. This depends on a few factors. If there are indeed people who can vouch for the fact that Mr. Assin was single and looking, saying hello to Sally after she introduced herself and ordering a similar drink might not seem too far askance as a circumstance that could happen to anyone. For, according to Champion (2005), a defendant might be able to “append…his appeal with written statements from his alibi witnesses” (pp. 363). What becomes interesting is if Mr. Assin had a purpose to commit the crime, or if he had taken steps to carry it out. According to Samaha (2010), “Each inchoate offense has some of its own elements, but they all share two elements: the mens rea of purpose or specific intent…and the actus reus of taking some steps toward accomplishing the criminal purpose—but not enough enough steps to complete the intended crime” (pp. 236). As far as we know, Mr. Assin—however unwittingly he accepted Sally into his ‘circle of trust’—must certainly have had to know something about this plot. It is obvious he was following signals that were adhered to prior to this incident. So, in some way, he must have been sure that Sally was not completely appropriate in the way she approached Mr. Assin. This was quite unusual. How Mr. Assin would be in the same place as an undercover officer winking and ordering a drink—just like Sally—seems almost too premeditated, as if Sally knew that she were being followed, which is possibly the case. By slipping Mr. Assin the envelope, she basically implicated him in the crime of attempted murder, whether or not he asked for such involvement or not. The point is, although the purpose of their meeting is a bit fuzzy (and we’re not quite sure why he did this)—all signs point to the fact that Mr. Assin had some prior knowledge about what to say and do exactly before he was arrested. It might be to his benefit to plead nolo contendere, or “no contest,” but that might make him look guilty of attempted murder. So it is just good for Mr. Assin to tell his lawyer everything that is a legitimate concern, and what (if any) involvement he had with Sally. Because, that is going to be the major crux of the entire case, is what his purpose was. Obviously, he did not seem to intend to murder Sally’s husband. But, if authorities were to get a subpoena to be able to raid his house and then found incriminating evidence lying around, such as a lot of guns, ammunition, or plans documenting a hit to be carried out—then that might alter the bench trial or jury trial, however the case is to be decided. It is in Mr. Assin’s best interest, therefore, to allow his competent lawyer to take care of all matters dealing with the case, and to be silent while he does his work. As is oft-stated once having been arrested during a part of the Miranda rights being read, “Anything [one says] can and will be used against [one] in a court of law.” Thus, it makes the most sense for Mr. Assin to trust his attorney, Attorney Cheatham, and do the best to stay out of the spotlight until his attorney can clear him of all charges, assuming he did not have any evidence pointing to the contrary regarding his level of involvement—as he certainly did not seem like he had specific intent in this case. Here it has been explained: what are the components of murder and attempted murder; whether Mr. Assin could be indicted with attempted murder; and whether or not he actually committed the crime of murder. While various issues in association must be resolved, for the most part, Mr. Assin might be able to be freed if his lawyer engages in various tactics that will prove that he was indeed the wrong person that they were looking for who would have indeed tried to commit attempted murder on Sally’s behalf to have her husband killed. Sincerely, Lawyer XYZ. REFERENCES Champion, D.J. (2005). The American dictionary of criminal justice: key terms and major cases. US: Scarecrow Press. Ramadan, H.M. (2005). Reconstructing jury instructions in homicide offenses: rethinking homicide law. US: University Press of America. Samaha, J. (2010). Criminal law. US: Cengage Learning. Singer, R.G. & LaFond, J.Q. (2010). Criminal law. US: Aspen Publishers Online. Read More