Mark and Sam were neighbors for three years. Mark was angry that Sam was
constructing a ditch that diverted water onto Mark’s property. On May 5th, Mark told Sam if he
did not stop creating the ditch, he “would pay with his life.” On May 6th, Mark went to Sam’s
garage and began arguing over the construction of the ditch again. Mark became so enraged that
he picked up an ax that was in Sam’s garage and hit Sam’s leg with it, cutting him deeply. Mark
ran away after doing so, and Sam tried to call for help. The wound was fatal, and Sam died from
the cut. Mark claims he did not intend for Sam to die. He just wanted to scare him. Mark was
charged with first-degree murder.
“Traditionally, crimes are going to have two essential elements. The first is going to be
the act, the principal act that makes something criminal (actus reas). The second is going to be
criminal intent (mens rea).” Video: Dr. Stephen Parke, The Cornerstone: Components of a Crime,
(Liberty University 2023).
“Nearly every crime consists of two elements: the mental and the physical.” Daniel E.
Hall, J.D., Ed.D., Criminal Law and Procedure 57 (7th ed. 2015). Men’s rea is usually defined as
“a guilty mind” or possessing a criminal intent. Id. Many terms describe a guilty mind, such as
“Malicious, purposeful, intentional, with an evil purpose, negligent, and reckless.” Id. at 58. So,
the question is, did Mark possess criminal intent or have a guilty mind when the crime was
perpetrated? According to the law, it can be proven that Mark possessed criminal intent or had a
guilty mind because he acted negligently and recklessly. His intent doesn’t matter in this
situation, as the outcome of his actions can be proven as recklessness and negligence. “The
Model Penal Code recognizes four states of mind: purposeful, knowing, reckless, and negligent.
To act purposefully, the defendant must desire to cause the result. To act knowingly, a defendant
must be aware of the nature of the act and be practically certain that his or her conduct will cause
a particular result --- which is not the defendant's objective. To act recklessly, the individual must
consciously disregard a substantial and unjustifiable risk that the result will occur. Negligence is
similar to recklessness; the defendant must take a ‘substantial and unjustifiable risk.’” Id. at 72-
73.
Mark had a clear motive to harm Sam, even though there wasn’t any intent to do so. Mark
aimed to stop Sam from constructing the ditch, which he believed was ruining his property.
While proving motive isn’t a requirement in filing charges or convicting a person of a crime,
“…. Prosecutors do not have to prove motive to be successful in a prosecution. As a practical
matter, however, the trier of fact will want to know why the defendant committed the alleged
crime.” Id. at 75. The fact that Mark threatened Sam the day before and proceeded to get into a
physical altercation that led to Sam dying, Mark can be prosecuted with reckless or negligent
homicide. “Under circumstances manifesting extreme indifference to the value of human life.”
Id. at 114. Mark was careless and did not regard Sam’s life when he swung the ax at him. Mark
was charged with first-degree murder; the issue the prosecution would have is proving the intent.
Proof of intent is challenging to establish because subjective intent must be demonstrated.
“Subjective intent. Subjective intent refers to the motives, intentions, and desires that were in the
defendant’s mind at the time the act took place. Subjective intent is a defendant’s actual intent.”
Id. at 74. It would be easier for the prosecution to prove objective intent because “All that has to
be shown is that the defendant should have known that the harm would result.” Id. For the
prosecution to prove intent, they must use inferences when the defendant denies intent.
“Inference is a conclusion that a judge or jury is permitted to make after considering the facts of
the case.” Id. After hearing the conditions, it may be concluded that Mark acted with objective
intent, which confirms mens rea. If intent is established, then a charge of first-degree murder is
suitable. Mark also used a deadly weapon in the commission of his crime. “If a jury were to
conclude that a defendant’s use of a deadly weapon indicated that murder was intended, then a
first-degree murder conviction would be warranted.” Id. at 106. Regardless of whether Mark
brought the weapon with him, he chose to pick up the ax, swing it at Sam, and hit him with it,
which resulted in Sam’s death. Mark going to Sam’s property and striking his leg with the ax was
all voluntary, and this proves actus reus, “the physical part of the crime; it is the act engaged by
the accused.” Id. at 76. Under common law, Mark could be charged with murder, which is when
"the defendant created an unreasonably high risk of death that caused the victim's death,
regardless of the defendant's mens rea...known as depraved-heart murder." Mark committed
homicide under the common law statute due to using an ax against Sam, which established the
"unreasonably high risk of death." Id. at 100.
Mark could also be charged with second-degree murder instead of first-degree murder.
Going over the case, it can be argued that Mark only possessed a general intent instead of an
objective intent. “If the defendant intended only the act, and not the result of that act, then the
defendant possessed general intent.” Id. at 58. Mark admitted to harming Sam but asserted that
he was only trying to scare Sam, not cause his death. If Mark only possessed general intent, then
the charge of second-degree murder is appropriate. Mark’s actions could lack specific intent,
“the desire or purpose to cause the result of the act.” Id. Mark could be charged with voluntary or
involuntary manslaughter if the act was committed with no malice aforethought. This is
determined by a defendant's "culpability is the absence of a state of mind that society has decided
should be punished as murder." Id. at 110. Another crime Mark could be charged with is battery.
Battery is described as “intentional touching of another that is either offensive or harmful.” Id. at
118. The fact that Mark touched Sam is evidence of harm. Most states have two types of battery:
intentional and negligent. For negligent battery, there must be “disregard of high-risk injury to
another.” Id. If a defendant is convicted of murder, “the lesser offense merges into the greater
offense.” Id. at 97. This is called the merger doctrine; under this doctrine, both crimes can be
charged; however, “if the defendant is convicted of the more serious crime, the lesser is absorbed
by the greater, and the defendant is not punished for both.” Id.
When viewing this crime from a Christian worldview perspective, my answer wouldn’t
differ from the law. The fact is, Mark killed Sam whether it was intentional or not. “You have
heard that it was said to those of old, ‘You shall not murder; and whoever murders will be liable
to judgment.’” Matthew 5:21. God looks at a person's heart and intent. Regardless of intent, a
crime, murder, was committed. That isn’t to say that Mark isn’t beyond being forgiven, but he
should still be held accountable and punished by the law.
Powered by TCPDF (www.tcpdf.org)
