– Plaintiff is appealing a lower court decision of murder for a life sentence.
- Lower court did NOT err because the jury did not believe the daughter and mother-in-law.
– Plaintiff came home from a bar slightly intoxicated killed his wife.
– As deceased was leaving the room, he hit her with a beer bottle and a kerosene lamp exploded on her and burnt her – 5 days later she died from the burnings.
– Plaintiff argues:
- Pitch the beer out of the doors and not at her.
- Mother-in-law stated, “He threw at her with a vengeance and heavy tumbler.”
- Daughter stated, “He picked up the tumbler and threw it with such force that it struck the lamp.”
- ***Plaintiff argues that he did not have concurrence between his intentions of throwing the bottle and result of killing his wife***
- He appealed that the jury instructions were wrong because they did not have to show concurrence, but did have to show malice.
- He wanted full acquittal from the charges….I believe that he wanted in-voluntary manslaughter because he had no intention to kill…
- He essentially wanted non-criminal homicide.
– Did the plaintiff need to have specific intent in order to be charged with Murder?
– If you have general malicious recklessness, disregarding any and all consequences…It is sufficient that he manifested a reckless, murderous position….
– It was implied that by statute, when no considerable provocation appears, or when all the circumstances of the killing show an abandoned and malignant heart…it will be murder.
– If you do something that is so reckless and has no disregard for someone, and you cause death, you do not have to how concurrence…
– Hence, grievous bodily harm (Reckless or negligent)
- You don’t really need m/r for this category.
– Murder on an account of previous malice, even though did intend to kill his wife.