For those of you watching, CNN just showed the Dog-mauling trial verdict. All 5 counts were guilty: Wife for owning animal that killed, involuntary manslaughter, and 2nd degree murder Husband for owning animal that killed and involuntary manslaughter I didn't follow the trial too closely, but two things: (1) Murder (15 yrs to life) seems excessive (2) Why wasn't the husband up for murder?
bobrek -- thanks for that info. Murder seems a bit excessive though. I understand that someone was killed due to her neglect, but it seems Murder (and the accompanying 15 years to life in prison) should be reserved for people with some intent of some sort. Maybe not the intent to kill, but the intent to harm at least. I don't think there's any question that this woman didn't WANT her dog to kill someone. She was just guilty of being stupid. It seems more like a manslaughter thing would be appropriate.
Second Degree Murder -- unlawful killing of another with malice aforethought but without deliberation and premeditation. Such malice may be in the form of express malice as the actual intention to kill, or of implied malice where there is no intent, but where death is caused by an act that discloses such a reckless state of mind as to be equivalent to an actual intent to kill, such as where the accused shoots into a crowd... Involuntary Manslaughter - criminally negligent homicide...example is where a death results from the negligent operation of an automobile. The standard form of this offense exists where the defendant has killed someone as the consequence of his or her own gross negligence or recklessness. The conduct of the defendant under the circumstances must have involved an unreasonable and high degree of risk of death or serious bodily injury. I guess the jury decided that the way she ignored her dog's history disclosed such a reckless state of mind as to be equivalent to an actual intent to kill...i don't know a lot of the facts, but i understand that there were 30 alleged incidents with the dog. if the jury believed even half of those, it's easy to see a real concious indifference for life.
Any lawyers out there (or other knowledgeable folks) who can explain the reasoning to get convicted on both 2nd degree murder AND manslaughter? It seems one or the other would be appopriate and both are overkill (pun intended).
usually lesser offenses are called "lesser included offenses"...if you prove all the elements of the greater crime, you usually end up proving all the elements of the lesser crime. i don't work with criminal law, but i think different states treat this differently.
