Reckless Killer There Is Not

¶ … Reckless Killer

There is not enough evidence to convict Dr. Young with manslaughter, or the reckless killing of another. To be guilty of manslaughter, one must unintentionally cause the death of another by committing an act in a manner likely to cause death or serious injury. Further, one must exhibit some form of recklessness in the culpable act. In other words, they must either willfully or wantonly disregard the safety of others. Finally, the wrongful but unintentional act's risk is one that should be known by others.

Although lack of intent is not an applicable defense against a charge of reckless murder, lack of reasonable knowledge of the risk is. The risk must be one that is generally known to others.

In the case at hand, Dr. Young's best defense against the charge is that it is accepted medical practice to prescribe Tuinal to treat conditions like those of the victim. Being able to point to medical evidence will give him an argument that the risk is one that is not known and, as he was acting in compliance with standard medical practice, his actions were not reckless. Without these two elements, the conviction will be overturned on appeal. However, Dr. Young will likely face a civil suit for medical malpractice.

Question Two: Was there a Burglary?

At common law, in order to be convicted of burglary, it had to be shown that the defendant 1) broke into the place using some amount of force (thus, opening in unlocked door is insufficient); 2) physically entered the location; 3) that the location was a dwelling (such as a house, not a business); 4) the dwelling was that of another person, not their own; 5) the act occurred at night; and 6)the person intended to commit a felony once inside.

At common law, Davis' best defense is that the prosecution has failed to establish all six elements. Specifically, it cannot be shown that he did not break and enter into a dwelling but a business and it was not committed at night, thus he is not guilty of common law burglary.

If charged under New York law, however, Davis would most likely be found guilty of burglary. Under New York statute, the elements of burglary include breaking and entering into an occupied structure not open to the public and which the defendant had no right to break and enter into and that the defendant had the intent of committing a felony, assault or theft once inside. Clearly, Davis' actions meet these elements.

Unless Davis can show that when he broke into the building he had no intention to take the typewriter (that he decided to do that before entering) he will be found guilty.

Question Three: Is there a Valid Defense?

In this case the defendants have numerous defenses against the common law elements of burglary. In order to be found guilty of burglary, it must be shown that they both broke into and entered the dwelling of another, at night and had the intention of committing a felony once inside.

In this instance, an argument can be made that the cabin is not a dwelling place. Under common law, a dwelling place is a location that the owners regularly slept. If the owners of the cabin did not regularly sleep here, then it is not a dwelling. Further, an argument could also be made that the act did not occur at night. Although "daylight was waning" it was not yet actually nighttime when it occurred. Finally, a defense can be made as to the intent to commit a felony element. From the facts given, their intent was to enter the cabin to dry off and warm up. Unless it can be proved that their intent was to steal the dry pasta, this element will fail. If all six of the elements of burglary are not proved, then the defendants are not guilty of the burglary charge.

Another possible defense available to the defendants is that of justification. If they can show that their actions were justified in light of their situation and that there was no other reasonable alternative to the breaking and entering, then they have a valid defense against the charge.

Question Four: Was Pierson the Rapist?

In order to be found guilty as an accomplice to the rape committed by Mercer, the prosecution must show that Pierson aided and abetted in Mercer's crime. Aiding and abetting is a theory of accomplice liability. An accomplice is a person who actively participates in the commission of a crime even though they do not take part in the actual criminal offense. According to the law, the accomplice has the same degree of guilt as the person they are assisting.

To be found guilty of aiding and abetting, one must show the following elements: 1) that an underlying violation by a principal occurred; 2) that the accomplice had knowledge of that violation and/or the intent to facilitate the violation; and 3) provided assistance to the principal in the violation. Withdrawing from the action is only a defense if the person clearly demonstrates they are withdrawing, such as by giving notice of the withdrawal to the principal.

In the case at hand, it is likely that Pierson will be held responsible for Mercer's rape of Susie. Clearly Pierson's actions meet the elements of accomplice liability. Further, his leaving of the field does not meet the standards necessary to have a valid defense because he did nothing to give notice of his withdrawal. More so, his agreement to leave Mercer with Susie helped facilitate the rape. Thus, Pierson should be found guilty.