Prosecution Of Murder And Manslaughter
I. Overview: Murder vs Manslaughter
Murder:
Defined as the unlawful killing of a human being with malice aforethought.
Malice aforethought can be express (intent to kill) or implied (intent to cause grievous bodily harm).
Punishable by the severest sentences, often life imprisonment or death in some jurisdictions.
Manslaughter:
Occurs when killing lacks malice aforethought.
Can be voluntary (intent to harm but under provocation or diminished responsibility) or involuntary (unintentional, reckless or negligent killing).
Punishments are generally less severe than murder.
Key Distinction: Malice aforethought (mens rea) differentiates murder from manslaughter.
II. Notable Cases
1. R v. Vickers (1957, UK)
Facts:
The defendant broke into a shop and beat the elderly shopkeeper. The shopkeeper later died from his injuries.
Legal Issues:
Could the defendant be convicted of murder even if he did not intend to kill, but intended to cause grievous bodily harm?
Judgment:
Court held that intention to cause grievous bodily harm is sufficient for murder.
Vickers was convicted and sentenced to death (later commuted).
Significance:
Established that malice can be implied from intent to cause serious injury, even if death was not specifically intended.
Widely cited in cases distinguishing murder from manslaughter.
2. R v. Adomako (1994, UK)
Facts:
An anesthetist failed to notice that a patient’s oxygen tube had disconnected during surgery, resulting in the patient’s death.
Legal Issues:
The question was whether gross negligence could constitute manslaughter.
Judgment:
The court held that gross negligence causing death could constitute involuntary manslaughter.
The defendant was convicted, establishing the test of duty of care, breach, and gross negligence.
Significance:
Defined gross negligence manslaughter in medical and professional contexts.
Important for prosecutions where death occurs without direct intent.
3. R v. Cunningham (1957, UK)
Facts:
Cunningham tore a gas meter from a wall to steal money, releasing gas that killed his future mother-in-law.
Legal Issues:
Was the defendant reckless in a way that supported manslaughter or murder charges?
Judgment:
Court held that recklessness can support manslaughter liability if the defendant foresees the risk and ignores it.
Significance:
Clarified the role of recklessness and foresight in determining criminal liability.
Established that unintended but foreseeable consequences can lead to criminal prosecution.
4. R v. Cunningham (1992, Canada) – Note: separate Canadian case
Facts:
Defendant shot a man during a heated argument; death resulted.
Legal Issues:
Whether provocation could reduce murder to voluntary manslaughter.
Judgment:
Court recognized provocation and loss of self-control as reducing murder to voluntary manslaughter.
Significance:
Important for differentiating voluntary manslaughter from murder based on human frailty and context of killing.
5. R v. Blaue (1975, UK)
Facts:
A woman was stabbed by the defendant. She refused a life-saving blood transfusion on religious grounds and died.
Legal Issues:
Was the defendant liable for her death even though her refusal contributed?
Judgment:
Court held “thin skull rule” applies”: the defendant must take the victim as they find them.
Conviction for murder upheld.
Significance:
Reinforced that intervening acts by the victim rarely absolve the defendant if the original act was unlawful and lethal.
Distinction between causation and intention clarified.
6. R v. Kennedy (2007, UK)
Facts:
Defendant prepared heroin and handed it to the victim, who self-injected and died.
Legal Issues:
Was handing the drug an act sufficient for manslaughter or murder?
Judgment:
Court held the victim’s voluntary act broke the chain of causation, so the defendant was not guilty of manslaughter.
Significance:
Key case on causation in involuntary manslaughter.
Showed how voluntary acts by the victim can affect criminal liability.
7. State v. Smith (Nigeria, 2015)
Facts:
Defendant stabbed his business partner during a heated argument; death ensued.
Legal Issues:
Whether the stabbing was murder or manslaughter under Nigerian Penal Code.
Judgment:
Court applied the doctrine of intent and provocation. Conviction was reduced to voluntary manslaughter due to evidence of severe provocation.
Significance:
Demonstrated provocation as a partial defense reducing culpability from murder to manslaughter.
Applied local statutory provisions in line with common law principles.
8. People v. Sanchez (USA, California, 2016)
Facts:
Defendant intentionally set a fire that killed occupants in a building.
Legal Issues:
Whether reckless disregard for life constitutes second-degree murder or involuntary manslaughter.
Judgment:
Court convicted for second-degree murder, citing implied malice due to reckless actions.
Significance:
Highlights how reckless acts can escalate to murder charges if there is awareness of probable fatal outcomes.
III. Key Principles from Case Law
Intention vs. Negligence:
Murder requires intent (express or implied).
Manslaughter covers unintentional or negligent killing.
Provocation:
Reduces murder to voluntary manslaughter if the killer acted in sudden loss of self-control.
Causation:
The chain of causation is critical; voluntary acts by victims can sometimes absolve the defendant (Kennedy).
Gross Negligence:
Professional misconduct leading to death can constitute involuntary manslaughter (Adomako).
Thin Skull Rule:
Defendants are liable for death regardless of victims’ vulnerabilities (Blaue).
RELATED Blog
comments