Leader

Collapse

Announcement

Collapse
No announcement yet.

"simply firing a gun at somebody . . . is not attempted murder."

Collapse

300x250 Mobile

Collapse
X
 
  • Filter
  • Time
  • Show
Clear All
new posts

  • #46
    You are thinking rationally..........kid jumping out in front of your car, where's your criminal liability. The "intent" under discussion here is the "intent" that a judge must define to a jury. It is the People's burden to prove the "intent" beyond a "reasonable doubt". What you and I and everyone else on this forum may consider to be "intent" is not necessarily the "intent" that the judge must define to the jury. Your intuitive understanding of a perp's intent is not always the same as the pattern jury instructions. Real life and courtroom life only rarely run a parrallel course.

    Comment


    • #47
      Originally posted by Dinosaur32 View Post
      You are thinking rationally..........kid jumping out in front of your car, where's your criminal liability. The "intent" under discussion here is the "intent" that a judge must define to a jury. It is the People's burden to prove the "intent" beyond a "reasonable doubt". What you and I and everyone else on this forum may consider to be "intent" is not necessarily the "intent" that the judge must define to the jury. Your intuitive understanding of a perp's intent is not always the same as the pattern jury instructions. Real life and courtroom life only rarely run a parrallel course.
      Proof beyond a reasonable doubt isonly required at trial, not a bond hearing, probable cause hearing or preliminary hearing. You should know that from your experience as a court officer. Furthermore, inferences from the natural consequences of the defendant's acts can suffice as proof beyond a reasonable doubt.

      Here is an excerpt from a 2003 Penssylvania appellate opinion that I found:

      ¶ 12 Generally speaking, one is presumed to intend the normal
      consequences of one’s actions.6 When someone punches another, the
      common experience is that such a blow will deliver pain and discomfort, but,
      “[W]e know of no proposition more consistent with human experience than
      the conclusion that absent circumstance to the contrary, a person intends
      the natural and probable consequences of his act.” Commonwealth v.
      O’Searo, 352 A.2d 30, 36 (Pa. 1976). “A well-recognized and generally
      accepted inference to establish state of mind is that an actor intends the
      natural and probable consequences of his acts. … Where one does not
      verbalize the reasons for his actions, we are forced to look to the act itself to
      glean the intentions of the actor. Where the intention of the actor is obvious
      from the act itself, the finder of fact is justified in assigning the intention
      that is suggested by the conduct. If a deadly force is knowingly applied by
      the actor to the person of another, the intent to take life is as evident as if
      the actor stated the intent to kill at the time the force was applied.”
      Commonwealth v. Meredith, 416 A.2d 481, 485 (Pa. 1980). Unless the deliverer of the blow is a heavyweight champ striking a vital portion of the head, there is not an expectation that death or serious injury will ensue.7 This is not to say that serious bodily injury could not result from a punch. Under rare circumstances, death or serious injury can ensue, even when not intended. Nevertheless, while criminal liability might attach for the infliction of serious injury or death in this circumstance, it is based upon a negligent or reckless infliction of that injury, not upon intentional infliction.

      ¶ 13 Conversely, it is certainly understood that the firing of a gun at
      another is likely to inflict death or serious injury. Thus, when someone fires
      a handgun at another, it is assumed the intent was to inflict serious bodily
      injury or death. The shooter might miss the target, or the bullet might
      strike something between the muzzle and the intended target or the bullet
      might simply graze the intended victim causing only superficial injury. In
      these circumstances, even though serious injury or death was not actually
      inflicted, it can be safely presumed the intent to inflict such injury was
      present because it is a common consequence of taking that action.


      http://www.courts.state.pa.us/OpPost.../a18039_02.PDF
      Facts do not cease to exist because they are ignored. -- Aldous Huxley
      Two things are infinite: the universe and human stupidity. -- Albert Einstein

      Comment


      • #48
        Originally posted by DAL View Post
        Proof beyond a reasonable doubt isonly required at trial, not a bond hearing, probable cause hearing or preliminary hearing. You should know that from your experience as a court officer. Furthermore, inferences from the natural consequences of the defendant's acts can suffice as proof beyond a reasonable doubt.

        Here is an excerpt from a 2003 Penssylvania appellate opinion that I found:

        ¶ 12 Generally speaking, one is presumed to intend the normal
        consequences of one’s actions.6 When someone punches another, the
        common experience is that such a blow will deliver pain and discomfort, but,
        “[W]e know of no proposition more consistent with human experience than
        the conclusion that absent circumstance to the contrary, a person intends
        the natural and probable consequences of his act.” Commonwealth v.
        O’Searo, 352 A.2d 30, 36 (Pa. 1976). “A well-recognized and generally
        accepted inference to establish state of mind is that an actor intends the
        natural and probable consequences of his acts. … Where one does not
        verbalize the reasons for his actions, we are forced to look to the act itself to
        glean the intentions of the actor. Where the intention of the actor is obvious
        from the act itself, the finder of fact is justified in assigning the intention
        that is suggested by the conduct. If a deadly force is knowingly applied by
        the actor to the person of another, the intent to take life is as evident as if
        the actor stated the intent to kill at the time the force was applied.”
        Commonwealth v. Meredith, 416 A.2d 481, 485 (Pa. 1980). Unless the deliverer of the blow is a heavyweight champ striking a vital portion of the head, there is not an expectation that death or serious injury will ensue.7 This is not to say that serious bodily injury could not result from a punch. Under rare circumstances, death or serious injury can ensue, even when not intended. Nevertheless, while criminal liability might attach for the infliction of serious injury or death in this circumstance, it is based upon a negligent or reckless infliction of that injury, not upon intentional infliction.

        ¶ 13 Conversely, it is certainly understood that the firing of a gun at
        another is likely to inflict death or serious injury. Thus, when someone fires
        a handgun at another, it is assumed the intent was to inflict serious bodily
        injury or death. The shooter might miss the target, or the bullet might
        strike something between the muzzle and the intended target or the bullet
        might simply graze the intended victim causing only superficial injury. In
        these circumstances, even though serious injury or death was not actually
        inflicted, it can be safely presumed the intent to inflict such injury was
        present because it is a common consequence of taking that action.


        http://www.courts.state.pa.us/OpPost.../a18039_02.PDF
        Good lookup. This is what I was trying to point out earlier. There are consequences to certain actions even if they don't specifically cause what is normally caused.

        - V

        Comment


        • #49
          Notice the court wrote that if your action causes the death of a person an intent to kill can be inferred from your action.....at the end of the opinion the court only speaks of injury. The court omitted the word death.

          Comment


          • #50
            Another story: Prosecuted on attempted murder charges for shooting several times but only causing injuries

            Former Navy seaman facing attempted-murder charges

            By JULIE SHAW
            Philadelphia Daily News

            [email protected] 215-854-2592
            The former Navy seaman accused of fatally shooting 5-year-old Cashaé Rivers in Strawberry Mansion in 2006 faced another preliminary hearing in court yesterday - this time on attempted-murder charges.

            About six hours after Cashaé was shot, Noel "Pablo" Garcia, now 23, allegedly hunted down and fired multiple shots at a witness to a 2005 murder.

            The witness, Jason Couch, was not hit. Instead, two bystanders were injured.

            Garcia, of Frankford, faces three counts each of attempted murder and conspiracy in this other shooting, which occurred about 4:30 p.m. on Sept. 24, 2006.

            Yesterday in court, Garcia's buddy, Ronald Newton, 20, testified as a prosecution witness, which apparently did not please Garcia.

            At one point, Garcia cried aloud to his defense attorneys: "He's not the one facing the death penalty! He's the best witness they could get," referring to Newton.

            Garcia has already been held for trial on murder and weapons charges in the killing of Cashaé - who was hit as she sat in the back of her mother's car at about 10:30 a.m. at 34th and Huntingdon streets. Prosecutors are seeking the death penalty against him in Cashaé's slaying.

            Authorities had first charged Kevin Felder, a friend of Garcia's and Newton's, in the girl's murder. Those charges were later dropped when new information revealed that Garcia was the alleged shooter.

            Yesterday, Newton testified that:

            Sometime between 11 a.m. and noon that day, Garcia and other friends picked him up at his West Philadelphia apartment building in Garcia's out-of-state rental car.

            Later, when they were all at a house on Lesher Street in Frankford, they saw on TV that a little girl had been shot and killed.

            Garcia then spoke about getting rid of a gun, which he had in the car earlier. Newton said he then saw Garcia disassembling a semiautomatic handgun and putting it in a bag.

            About 1 p.m., Newton and Garcia called Felder, then met up with him at the Neshaminy Mall in Bensalem, Bucks County. At the mall, Garcia asked Felder if he knew who shot the little girl, to which Felder replied no.

            When asked by Assistant District Attorney Jennifer Selber why Garcia decided to ask Felder about Cashaé's shooting, Newton replied: "That was his neighborhood."

            Felder, 26, lived in the Strawberry Mansion neighborhood where Cashaé was shot.

            Newton testified that he and Garcia then returned to the Lesher Street house, and after "sitting around talking for a little while," Garcia decided he wanted to find Couch - the 2005 murder witness - and, if need be, "get rid of him."

            Felder, Garcia's friend, had been charged with intimidating Couch, a witness to a Dec. 23, 2005, shooting in which Habeeb Nolan, 22, was killed. Tyre "Wink" Tucker, 23, was charged with the murder. (Felder and Tucker were acquitted of those charges last year after a jury trial. Authorities could not find Couch for the trial.)

            Newton further testified yesterday:

            After Garcia spoke of finding Couch, they went to pick up another friend - Anthony Brown - because Brown had a gun.

            Garcia drove to Couch's North Philadelphia neighborhood, where they spotted him outside a store. Garcia then switched to the front-passenger seat "because [he] wanted to be the shooter," Newton testified.

            After circling around the block, with Brown driving, they again spotted Couch near his house on Colorado Street near Cumberland. Garcia then shot at Couch at least four times.

            They then drove away. Newton and Garcia later called Felder, then met up with him again at the Neshaminy Mall sometime after 5 p.m. At the mall, they told Felder "what happened to Jason Couch," Newton testified.

            Couch, however, was not hit in the shooting. Rather, two bystanders, Virginia Bing and Charles Ingram, were shot and injured, authorities said.

            Garcia's preliminary hearing before Common Pleas Judge Benjamin Lerner is scheduled for a second day, on April 9, when Bing and Ingram are expected to testify.
            Facts do not cease to exist because they are ignored. -- Aldous Huxley
            Two things are infinite: the universe and human stupidity. -- Albert Einstein

            Comment

            MR300x250 Tablet

            Collapse

            What's Going On

            Collapse

            There are currently 4229 users online. 255 members and 3974 guests.

            Most users ever online was 158,966 at 04:57 AM on 01-16-2021.

            Welcome Ad

            Collapse
            Working...
            X