💕
Criminal Law • Murder
CRIMLAW#001
Legal Definition
Murder is the unlawful killing of a human being with malice aforethought. All murder is second degree unless it is the result of premeditation and deliberation, or if the killing occurs during the commission of an enumerated felony, both of which render it first-degree murder.
Plain English Explanation
This is a super important rule statement to know, and you will use it any time someone kills someone else. Let's break it down:
(1) - Murder is the unlawful killing of a person because there are plenty of lawful, justified reasons to kill someone which are not crimes (for example, defending yourself against an armed home intruder, or even killing an enemy combatant during war).
(2) - "Malice aforethought" is the mental state of the killer. We'll cover it in another card more deeply, but it simply means that someone intended to kill someone else or completely disregarded the value of another human life. In other words, if you purposefully drop an anvil off of a tall building above a crowd of people to see if you can hit one, then "malice aforethought" is satisfied. In contrast, if you accidentally knock the anvil off the ledge of the tall building, then "malice aforethought" is not present.
(3) - When assessing a homicide (a person killing another person), you will always want to start with determining whether or not it is second degree murder. Why? Because if it isn't second degree murder, there is no point in assessing whether or not it was first degree murder. In contrast, if it is second degree murder, then you move on to assess whether or not additional element are present to make it first degree murder.
(4) - Facts that will make it first degree murder are: (a) premeditation (i.e., the killer has thought about killing ahead of time), (b) deliberation (i.e., the killing was in cold blood and not during the passion of a moment, like an argument or fight), or (c) if the killing happens during certain specific felonies (discussed later), which elevate the killing from second degree to first degree murder (i.e., killing someone accidentally during an armed robbery).
(1) - Murder is the unlawful killing of a person because there are plenty of lawful, justified reasons to kill someone which are not crimes (for example, defending yourself against an armed home intruder, or even killing an enemy combatant during war).
(2) - "Malice aforethought" is the mental state of the killer. We'll cover it in another card more deeply, but it simply means that someone intended to kill someone else or completely disregarded the value of another human life. In other words, if you purposefully drop an anvil off of a tall building above a crowd of people to see if you can hit one, then "malice aforethought" is satisfied. In contrast, if you accidentally knock the anvil off the ledge of the tall building, then "malice aforethought" is not present.
(3) - When assessing a homicide (a person killing another person), you will always want to start with determining whether or not it is second degree murder. Why? Because if it isn't second degree murder, there is no point in assessing whether or not it was first degree murder. In contrast, if it is second degree murder, then you move on to assess whether or not additional element are present to make it first degree murder.
(4) - Facts that will make it first degree murder are: (a) premeditation (i.e., the killer has thought about killing ahead of time), (b) deliberation (i.e., the killing was in cold blood and not during the passion of a moment, like an argument or fight), or (c) if the killing happens during certain specific felonies (discussed later), which elevate the killing from second degree to first degree murder (i.e., killing someone accidentally during an armed robbery).
Hypothetical
Hypo 1: Bob hates Sam. Bob knows that Sam is deathly allergic to peanuts. Bob makes Sam a sandwich and hides a smear of peanut butter in it. Sam eats it and dies. Result: Bob has unlawfully and intentionally killed Sam. His actions qualify as second degree murder, so we look to see if it is bad enough to qualify for first degree murder. Here, first degree murder would be appropriate because Bob's actions were premeditated and deliberate.
Hypo 2: Bob hates Sam. Bob knows that Sam is deathly allergic to peanuts. One night, while Bob is sleeping, Sam breaks into his house with a gun and threatens Bob's life. Sam demands Bob's money. Bob tells Sam he keeps it in a jar. While reaching into a cupboard, Bob grabs a peanut butter jar, opens it up, and throws it at Sam's face. Sam has an immediate allergic reaction and dies. Result: Bob was defending himself here. You'd still need to do a full murder analysis, but the fact that it was a justifiable act of self-defense means that the killing is not unlawful.
Hypo 3: Bob hates Sam. Bob knows that Sam is deathly allergic to peanuts. One day Bob is hanging out with friends who invite Sam over. Bob offers to make everyone a sandwich. Bob makes himself and his friends peanut butter and jelly sandwiches, but makes Sam a turkey sandwich. When cutting the sandwiches, Bob, without thinking, cuts them all with the same knife. A small amount of peanut butter from the knife gets into Sam's sandwich, killing him. Result: This one would require quite a bit of reasoning in your answer. Ultimately, whether or not it satisfies second degree murder depends if there are enough facts to argue that Bob's actions were malicious (perhaps he was knowingly less careful than he should have been). Likewise, whether you could reach to argue first degree murder would require more facts that show some sort of planning or awareness from Bob and not mere absent mindedness or even ignorance about the risks of cross contamination. But here, the facts likely point to Bob being innocent.
Hypo 2: Bob hates Sam. Bob knows that Sam is deathly allergic to peanuts. One night, while Bob is sleeping, Sam breaks into his house with a gun and threatens Bob's life. Sam demands Bob's money. Bob tells Sam he keeps it in a jar. While reaching into a cupboard, Bob grabs a peanut butter jar, opens it up, and throws it at Sam's face. Sam has an immediate allergic reaction and dies. Result: Bob was defending himself here. You'd still need to do a full murder analysis, but the fact that it was a justifiable act of self-defense means that the killing is not unlawful.
Hypo 3: Bob hates Sam. Bob knows that Sam is deathly allergic to peanuts. One day Bob is hanging out with friends who invite Sam over. Bob offers to make everyone a sandwich. Bob makes himself and his friends peanut butter and jelly sandwiches, but makes Sam a turkey sandwich. When cutting the sandwiches, Bob, without thinking, cuts them all with the same knife. A small amount of peanut butter from the knife gets into Sam's sandwich, killing him. Result: This one would require quite a bit of reasoning in your answer. Ultimately, whether or not it satisfies second degree murder depends if there are enough facts to argue that Bob's actions were malicious (perhaps he was knowingly less careful than he should have been). Likewise, whether you could reach to argue first degree murder would require more facts that show some sort of planning or awareness from Bob and not mere absent mindedness or even ignorance about the risks of cross contamination. But here, the facts likely point to Bob being innocent.
Related Concepts
What are the five inherently dangerous felonies that trigger the Felony Murder Rule?
What is a homicide?
What is deliberation?
What is imperfect self-defense?
What is involuntary manslaughter?
What is malice aforethought?
What is premeditation?
What is the agency theory of the Felony Murder Rule?
What is the Felony Murder Rule?
What is the proximate cause theory of the Felony Murder Rule?
What is voluntary manslaughter and what is the test used to determine it?
