Fallen Stop Sign, Vandals Face

¶ … Fallen Stop Sign, Vandals Face Life, the defendants in this case went out one night for some fun of stealing road signs. Miller and his housemate Nissa Baillie, and Christopher Cole, admitted to taking about 20 road signs during a late night spree sometime before the fatal crash that killed three-18-year-olds. Although Miller and his housemates were not present the night that the fatal crash happened, their actions in the days that preceded it played a very big part in the fate of that night (Clary, 802).

In the case of Revelry and Mischief in Utah, another group of young adults set out one night for an evening of fun knocking down road signs. Again this group of young people was nowhere near the site of the fatal crash that killed Betty Jean Carley, but their actions the night before played a very big part in the outcome of the accident (Revelry and Mischief in Utah, 805).

The first question that needs to be addressed in both of these cases is, are the defendants responsible in any way for the deaths that occurred, and if they are responsible, to what degree? There are two sides that can be argued surrounding these cases. The first is that both groups of young people were only engaging in some harmless pranks. The other side of the argument is that even if their actions started out as harmless pranks they did not end up that way.

If you use the IRAC (Issues, Rule, Application, and Conclusion) method of analyzing these two cases the first thing that needs to be looked at is the (I)ssue at hand. The issue in these cases consists of whether the defendants are guilty of Criminal Homicide, Murder, Manslaughter or some lesser charge.

The next step in the analysis is to apply the (R)ule to each of these Issues. "A person commits Criminal Homicide if he intentionally, knowingly, recklessly, with criminal negligence, or acting with a mental state otherwise specified in the statute defining the offense, causes the death of another human being, including an unborn child" (The Law on Homicide, 806). Applying the facts of both of these cases, one can rule out the defendants being guilty of criminal homicide since one of the elements is the act has to be intentional. The facts of these cases clearly stated that there was no intent on the part of either one of these groups of young people. So the (C)onclusion that can be drawn is that none of the defendants are guilty of criminal Homicide, because there was no intent.

The second issue to be looked at is that of Murder. "Criminal Homicide constitutes murder if the actor:

(a) intentionally or knowingly causes the death of another;

(b) intending to cause serious bodily injury to another commits an act clearly dangerous to human life that causes the death of another;

(c) acting under circumstances evidencing a depraved indifference to human life engages in conduct which creates a grave risk of death to another and thereby causes the death of another;

(d) while in the commission, attempted commission, or immediate flight from the commission or attempted commission of aggravated robbery, robbery, rape, object rape, forcible sodomy, or aggravated sexual assault, aggravated arson, arson, aggravated burglary, burglary, aggravated kidnapping, kidnapping, child kidnapping, rape of child, object rape of a child, sodomy of a child, forcible sexual abuse, sexual abuse of a child, aggravated sexual abuse of a child, or child abuse….., when the victim is younger than 14

years of age, causes the death of another person…, or (e) recklessly causes the death of a peace officer while in the commission or attempted commission of:

(i) an assault against a peace officer; or (ii) interference with a peace officer if the actor uses force against a peace officer (The Law

on Homicide, 806). Again the facts of the cases stated that there was no intent involved in either case. Since the Rule states that in order for Murder to have occurred there had to be intent, the conclusion that can be drawn is that none of the defendants are guilty of murder.

"Criminal homicide constitutes manslaughter if the actor:

(a) recklessly causes the death of another; or (b) causes the death of another under the influence of extreme emotional disturbance for which there is a reasonable explanation or excuse; or (c) causes the death of another under the circumstances where the actor reasonably believes the circumstances provides a legal justification or excuse" (The Law on Homicide, 806). The rule for manslaughter requires that there be an element of recklessness. The facts to these cases do not show that there was any recklessness involved in any of the actions that took place. In both cases the actions were both calculated and deliberate, because both groups were just out having fun. Both groups were merely out pulling nothing more than pranks in their eyes. They had no criminal intentions in mind when they set out for the evening.

According to the Utah Criminal Code criminal homicide can constitute negligent homicide if the actor, acting with criminal negligence, causes the death of another (The Law on Homicide, 807). Basically what this means is that a person who falls below the act of a reasonable person and acts negligently in the commission of a crime can be held liable for such acts. If it so happens that the criminally negligent acts leads to the death of someone then those acts constitute negligent homicide (The Law on Homicide, 807).

The Utah statue says that a person if guilty of negligent homicide if he causes the death of another person with criminal negligence or is criminally negligent with respect to circumstances surrounding his conduct or the result of his conduct when he ought to be aware of a substantial and unjustifiable risk that the circumstances exist or the result will occur. The risk must be of such a nature and degree that the failure to perceive it constitutes a gross deviation from the standard of care that a reasonable person would exercise (The Law on Homicide, 809).

In both of these cases, the actions of the defendants, being the stealing and knocking over of road signs, directly related to both traffic accidents and the deaths of innocent people. When applying the rule to this issue you can quickly see that both groups of young adults were acting with criminal negligence. Their actions of knocking down and bending over of road signs are clearly criminal and also negligent in the fact that they had no regard for the consequences of their actions. The second element of the rule is that the acts have to cause the death of another. The facts in both cases clearly show that the acts of both groups of young people directly contributed to the deaths of another. The conclusion that has to be drawn based upon all of these facts in these two cases is that all of defendants are guilty of negligent homicide. The actions that they committed directly affected the outcomes of both of the traffic accidents that occurred.

The argument can be made that if the defendants had not gone out committing pranks for the evening that the traffic accidents would probably not have happened and all four of the victims would still be alive. If you look at the definition of a prank it is a mischievous trick played by one upon another. If you apply this definition to the two cases at hand, there is a very strong argument that can be made that the actions of these groups of young people were nothing more than mischievous tricks. There is no evidence to show that either group set out with any intention of hurting anybody. They were simply out looking to have fun for the evening. But just because they had no intent to hurt anyone does not mean that their actions did not contribute to the hurting of another.