Degree of murder
First Degree Murder is when the defendant acted with an intent to kill with premidetation and deliberation, or when the killing was done during the commision of an inherently dangerous felony.
Here, Alan acted with premeditation and deliberation to commit the felony, however he did not act with an intent to kill. Alan is liable for arson which is an inherently dangerous felony and a homeless man was killed by the fire. Therefore, Alan is liable for 1st degree murder.
Defenses
There is no justification or excuse for the actions taken by Alan, because he wanted to burn the shed as a school prank. There are no mitigating factors as well. Alan will try to raise the defense of intoxication.
Intoxication can be voluntary or involuntary. Voluntary intoxication can be potential defense for a specific intent crime only not for general intent crime. Here, Alan voluntarily consumed a few beers. He will argue that intoxication prevents him from forming a criminal intent. However, murder and arson are general intent crimes and is unnecessary for the processecution to prove a specific intent. Specific intent is required for solicitation and conspiracy. Thus, Alan may be able to raise successful defense on solicitation and conspiracy. He will not be able to use intoxication for the murder liability and arson.
Infancy or youth under the age of 7 at common law were irrefutable deemed not criminally responsible. Between ages 7 and 14 were presumed incapable of criminal responsibility, but the presumption was rebuttable.
Here, Alan is 18 which in most jurisdictions is the age of majority. Even if the jurisdiction has 21 as an age of majority, Alan is still not under 14 to be presumed incapable of criminal responsibility. Thus, infancy will be an unsuccessful defense for Alan.
Conclusion: Alan will be liable arson and first degree murder of the homeless man. He will likely have a successful defense for solicitation and conspiracy.
Crimes of Brian
Conspiracy
Defined above
Here, Brian impliedly agreed with Alan to burn the shed, as he drove him to the school and provided him with the lighter to burn the shed. Brian may argue that he did not agree with Alan to burn the shed. However, he agreed to drive him to the school knowingly what Alan intends to do so. Furthermore, he provided Alan with the lighter that he used to smolder the shed. Thus, Brain is liable for conspiracy with Alan to burn the shed.
Pinkerton rule/ Vicarious liability
A co-conspirator is guilty of the substantive crimes committed by any other co-conspirator during the course of the conspiracy and within the scope of the conspiracy.
Here, Brian will be vicariously liable for the arson committed by Alan and the murder of the homeless man, because Brian impliedly agreed to the burning and that made him a co-conspirator to Alan.
Share with your friends: |
