Murder or Manslaughter?

Question

California Statue of Limitations Law?
A defendant claims she was attempting to shoot over the head of her boyfriend to scare him. She hit him in the head, and he remained in a coma for 11 years. He ultimately succumbed to the gunshot injury. Would she be tried for murder, manslaughter, both, or neither if it was past the statute of limitations for the crime.

Answer 1

Year and a day is common law. I am nearly certain that California statute is 3 years and a day to die from coma for it to be murder or manslaughter. Start with Penal Code 189 and work your way until you find it.

Edit: I seemed to have remembered this differently. Only shifts the burden, not a bar to prosecution.

“194. To make the killing either murder or manslaughter, it is not requisite that the party die within three years and a day after the stroke received or the cause of death administered. If death occurs beyond the time of three years and a day, there shall be a rebuttable presumption that the killing was not criminal. The prosecution shall bear the burden of overcoming this presumption. In the computation of time, the whole of the day on which the act was done shall be reckoned the first.”

*/End of Line.

Answer 2

There is no statute of limitations for either. Additionally, if there was, the statute would start when he died.I would think the DA would bring murder charges and manslaughter charges and allow for a plea bargain to manslaughter.

Answer 3

hello fellow law student! I have that final on Monday. First thing you do is go to the earliest event and evaluate the actus reus and mens rea and determine which acts were lawful. drunk guy: voluntary intoxication impute culpability recklessness, knowing, or purposeful recklessly endangering another person MPC 211.2 also look at terroristic threats 211.3 Steve: assault on drunk guy 211.1 defense of others justification defense 3.05 Steve reasonably believes that force is justified and that it is immediately necessary. It does not matter if it actually is, just from an objective standard a reasonable person in his cricumstances would have believed as he did. Steve is justified because the Drunk guy's act was unlawful Drunk guy: Assault on Steve 211.1 does not get self defense justification defense because Steve was justified. You only get it in response to unlawful force. Paul: manslaughter of steve 210.3 culpability = reckless, Paul was neither practically certain he would kill Steve nor did he intend to kill him. However he should have been aware of a risk of a substantial likleihood that it would have happened. defenses:none, there is no justification for killing Steve, nor one of the traditional excuses (invol tox, de minimis, entrapment, insanity etc.), Paul was reckless Paul attempted murder of drunk guy with shot that hits steve: intentional, does not succeed defenses: defense of others was it immediately necessary from an objective stand point? arguable jury question could go either way was deadly force justified? yes, he had a gun Paul 2nd shot murder or manslaughter culpability? he was intentional and purposeful, but also enraged enraged usually gets you manslaughter but. 210.2(b) reckless under circumstances manifesting extreme indifference to the value of human life. Firing at both people although first was not intentional is reckless disregard. Charge murder Defense: defense of others again ask was it immediately necessary after Steve was killed? maybe, now no one was going to stop the drunk guy, and Paul was only purposeful and knowing as to killing the drunk guy. Everything hinges on whether Paul was justified in the first shot that hit Steve. I think this is pretty reckless, and therefore unlawful, so this would not have been justified. The subsequent shots on the drunk guy were not in response to him as a threat but in response to killing steve. If you find otherwise, that's fine. If you found that Paul was guilty of murder above for having extreme indifference for human life, then that culpability carries over to the girl and you charge him with aggravated assault under 211.1 (2)(a). If you did not find him with extreme indifference then you can find him reckless in firing 5 shots with a deadly weapon, in a crowded area (he should have know that it was a reasonable likelihood that someone would be injured no defenses as to the girl I would not write the earliers stuff and explain the statutes, just mention them. It is important to characterize whose acts were lawful. Stick to the statutory analysis of Paul's actions and make conclusions for the others. You need those conclusions to do Paul, but the question asks you about Paul.

Answer 4

no statute of limitations on murder, and this is murder. they could try to argue for manslaughter, but it doesn't wash. simple: could have been avoided if she didn't point the gun at him.

Answer 5

acoma for 11 years!?!?!??!!?!??!!??!?!!??!?!?!?!?!?!