On May 6 the defendant, Mark, injured and killed his neighbor of three years, Sam. This event
occurred after a disagreement the previous day about Sam building a ditch on his property which
diverted water onto Mark’s property. Mark did threaten Sam to stop the construction of the ditch
or he “would pay with his life.” On May 6, Mark and Sam met in Sam’s garage and in a short
time Mark became angry and cut Sam’s leg with an ax from Sam’s garage. Mark panicked and
ran home and attempted to reach a telephone to call for help but his efforts proved futile. Sam
died from his wound. Mark claimed that he only intended to hit Sam on the leg with the dull, flat
side of the axe in an effort to scare him. He claimed that he had no intent to kill Sam. Now
Mark has been charged with first-degree murder.
There are two essential elements to proving nearly every crime: mens rea and actus reus. “This
means that the criminal act has to coincide with criminal intent.” Video: Stephen Parke The
Cornerstone: Components of a Crime, (Liberty University 2011). Mens reas means “a guilty
mind” or “possessing a criminal intent…it is the state of mind required to be criminally liable for
a certain act.” Daniel E. Hall Criminal Law and Procedure 57 (7th ed. 2015). The Model Penal
Code recognizes four different states of mind for mens rea: “purposeful, knowing, reckless, and
negligent.” Id. at 72. Actus reus is the physical act of the crime. However, a person is not guilty
of a crime “unless his liability is based on conduct that includes a voluntary act.” Id. at 76.
Mark could be charged with first-degree murder with the only hurdle being proof of intent, mens
rea. Proof of intent is difficult to prove because subjective intent has to be proven. Subjective
intent is “the motives, intentions, and desires that were in the defendant’s mind at the time the act
took place.” Id. at 74. It is easier for the prosecution to prove objective intent because all that is
needed to be proven is that the “defendant should have known that the harm would result.” Id.
So, in order for the prosecution to show intent when the defendant denies any intent is by using
inferences. An inference is “a conclusion that a judge or jury is permitted to make after
considering the facts of the case.” Id. So, after hearing the facts of the case, a judge or jury may
find that there was objective intent and thereby mens rea was proven and a charge of first-degree
murder is warranted. Another inference that a judge or jury may make that would lead to a first-
degree murder charge is the deadly weapon doctrine. This rule “permits juries to infer that a
defendant intended to kill the victim if a deadly weapon was used.” Id. at 106. Mark’s crime
also possessed voluntariness. That is to say that “the act must occur as a result of the actor’s
conscious choice.” Id. at 76. Mark did voluntarily go and retrieve an axe in Sam’s garage and
strike him in the leg. This was his actus reus which is “the physical part of the crime; it is the act
engaged by the accused.” Id. at 76. All that is required to prove actus reus is that it is a choice
for the actor to act.
Under common law, Mark could be charged with murder which is recognized 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 murder under
the common law statute due to his use of an axe against Sam which created the “unreasonably
high risk of death.” Id. at 100.
Mark could also be charged with second-degree murder. In breaking down the case, it can be said
that he possessed only a general intent. That is, he “intended only the act, and not the result of
the act.” Id. at 58. Mark had stated that he only intended to scare Sam and not cause his death.
So, if he only possessed general intent, then Mark could be charged with second-degree murder.
This is because he lacked specific intent which is “a desire or purpose to cause the result of the
act.” Id. Second-degree murder differs from first-degree murder because it lacks the “specific
intent” to kill and/or “lacked the premeditation and deliberation element of first-degree murder.”
Id. at 106. If Mark had specific intent, premeditation, and deliberation then a charge of first-
degree murder instead of second-degree murder would be warranted.
Mark could also be charged with a form of reckless or negligent homicide. This is because a
reckless or negligent homicide, under the Model Penal Code, is committed “under circumstances
manifesting extreme indifference to the value of human life,” Id. at 114. Mark was reckless and
negligent in his actions with the axe, a deadly weapon, that he struck Sam with and thereby
showed “extreme indifference.”
Manslaughter, voluntary or involuntary, is another charge that Mark could be faced with. Under
common law, an unlawful killing is committed with no malice aforethought. This hinges on the
fact that a defendant’s “culpability is the absence of a state of mind that society has decided
should be punished as murder.” Id. at 110. Mark stated that he only meant to scare Sam and not
cause injury, so he lacked malice aforethought. In the culpability aspect of manslaughter, the
most common fact that mitigates is “the absence of a state of mind that society has decided
should be punished as murder.” Id. Even though there may be extenuating circumstances, society
still decided that some type of punishment be carried out.
Another crime that Mark could be charged with is battery. Battery is the “intentional touching of
another that is either offensive or harmful.” Id. at 118. Obviously, any physical injury is proof of
harm. Though states vary, most now have two types of battery: intentional and negligent. To be
negligent is a “disregard of high risk of injury to another.” Id. Mark used a deadly weapon, an
axe, which negligent use could be the basis of a negligent battery charge. However, if a
defendant is convicted of murdering someone, “the lesser offense merges into the greater
offense.” Id. at 97. This is known as the merger doctrine. Under this doctrine, both crimes may
be charged but “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.
My answer would not vary if answered from a Christian worldview perspective. The truth is that
Mark did kill Sam, whether intentional or not. This act violated one of the Ten Commandments,
“Thou shall not kill.” Exodus 20:13 (English Standard). The Commandment does not stipulate
conditions or extenuating circumstances. However, in Exodus 22:2 it states “If a thief is caught in
the act of breaking into a house and is struck and killed in the process, the person who killed the
thief is not guilty of murder.” The case at hand was not one of self-defense so Mark would be
guilty in the eyes of God. Matthew 5:21 states “You have heard that it was said to those of old,
‘You shall not murder; and whoever murders will be liable to judgment.”
