51A
.docx
School
United States International University (USIU - Africa)**We aren't endorsed by this school
Course
BUSINESS 306
Subject
Law
Date
Dec 19, 2024
Pages
4
Uploaded by MateOtterMaster1049
Running head: MURDER1Murder Name Institution
MURDER2Murder According to the case, two people survived the violence, but they are still guilty based on the penal code. Stacey should be charged with homicide. Stacey came to the room when Steve was attacking her friend Michelle. She acted promptly to stop Steve from committing a crime – stubbing Michele. Fortunately, she succeeded, given that she prevented Steve from killing Michelle. Still, she had a rage inside her, given that she disliked Steve. She pulled a gun and fatally shot Steve. In her defense, Stacey’s attorney can argue that she was acting in self-defense and defending other people (Quong, 2009). Michelle was Stacey’s roommate; therefore, she felt obliged to act in her defense, given that she was under attack. The crime was happening in a room inhabited by Stacey and Michelle. In this case, the attorney might introduce the issue of habitation. Arguably, charges against Stacey might go down from homicide to manslaughter (Cunningham, 2016). Also, there is a possibility of dismissing the charges against Stacey, given that there was no prior determination to commit a crime. The defense attorney could argue that Stacey found herself in a threatening situation. She had to act impulsively or risk losing her friend to an attacker. The fact that Steve was attacking Michelle with a knife means that he was determined to cause serious bodily harm or even kill her. Stacey turned the situation around because her action prevented Steve from carrying on withthe attack on Michelle. Stacey’s main aim in committing a crime was to save Michelle and herself. The prosecution team might explore the relationship between the three to determine a motive for murder. The explanation given is that Stacey hated Steve. Given an opportunity, she could have harmed Steve. However, such an argument can hardly seem the light in court, given that she did not create the situation. There is no direct remark or indication that Stacey planned toharm Steve. Such an observation could alter events in court. As the case stands, Stacey acted promptly to protect her friend who was in danger. Her lack of action could have resulted in a
MURDER3possible murder (Legal Information Institute, n.d). There was a crime in progress; however, an even bigger crime would have occurred if Stacey did not intervene. Based on the explanation, Michelle was defenseless and could have died. `There is another twist where Michelle attacked Stacey after she fatally shot Steve. Michelle attacked Stacey, lamenting that she had killed her lover. The intent or Mens rea is important here (Legal Information Institute, n.d). Unlike Stacey’s case, where it is hard to prove intent, Michelle’s case has all intent signs. Stacey found a friend under attack and applied all means possible to neutralize it. For Michelle, evidence suggests that she took her time to react, making her crime a purposeful act. She acted out of rage, meaning that she was not protecting anyone, but she aimed to harm Stacey, accusing her of killing Steve. Some people might term Stacey’s move as a crime of passion. She was revenging, thus, premeditation. There is a direct link between crimes – Michelle stabbed Stacey after she shot and killed her boyfriend, Steve. Therefore, the principle of premeditation applies here. Michelle has the mens rea in Stacey’s attempted murder. Also, it is easy to establish a motive based on the sentiments made by Michelle while stabbing Stacey in the chest. The attempted murder charge against Michelle can stand.
MURDER4ReferencesCunningham, S. (2016). Criminal liability for non-aggressive death. Routledge.Legal Information Institute. (n.d). Mens Rea. https://www.law.cornell.edu/wex/mens_rea#:~:text=Mens%20Rea%20refers%20to%20criminal,See%2C%20e.g.%20Staples%20v.Quong, J. (2009). Killing in self-defense. Ethics, 119(3), 507-537.