Home Non Criminal Homicide

Non Criminal Homicide

Reckless Homicide Important Facts

Reckless Homicide Important Facts

Reckless homicide laws cover incidents of homicide which result from a defendant acting in a reckless manner. Recklessness is a moderate state of liability for one’s actions. Recklessness is less severe a charge than intentional action, but is a more serious category of action than one which is considered negligent.
Reckless homicide cases include a homicide where the defendant did not intend to cause the death of another person, but a homicide still occurred during which the defendant foresaw the possibility that another person may die but elects to pursue the action anyway.
Reckless homicide also includes any homicide which would be considered involuntary manslaughter if not for the fact that it involved the use of a car. Reckless homicide laws also include cases in which a homicide was committed by a person under the influence of drugs or alcohol. In cases involving alcohol, the accused must usually have a blood alcohol content level equivalent to that which would render them prone to prosecution under drunk driving convictions.
A homicide characterized by a reckless indifference to the harm that might befall another person is also referred to as a murder committed with an “abandoned or malignant heart.”
In some jurisdictions a reckless homicide is considered to be manslaughter, although this is not always the case. Reckless homicides are not usually considered to be first degree murder, although if the level of recklessness is considered especially egregious it may result in charges more serious than the normal understanding of liability.
For a homicide to be considered a reckless homicide, the defendant must act in violation of normal understanding of what constitutes an acceptable risk. It is subject to the reasonable person test of what actions would be determined to be unreasonable.

Defense of Property Explained

Defense of Property Explained

A homicide investigation may result in a finding that the homicide was a justified and non-criminal killing if the homicide investigation finds that the murder was committed in defense of property. A defendant who argues that they were acting in defense of property claims that this exonerates them from the otherwise criminal findings of a homicide investigation. Although this implementation of force has generally been deemed permissible in most cases, few courts have allowed the force applied in defense of property to rise to the level of lethal force. Texas is the only jurisdiction that routinely allows lethal force to be used in defense of property.

If a homicide investigation finds that a property owner employs booby-traps or dangerous dogs in defense of property in their possession, then they may be subject to prosecution under charges that they engaged in a reckless disregard for the consequences of their actions. Homicide charges may not be filed if the dogs or bobby-traps used in defense of property are accompanied by prominent signs warning possible trespassers of their existence. If you need legal advice and assistance, contact defense lawyers.

Most states adhere to the position that the life of a thief should not be lost at the whim of a property owner undertaking an act of vigilante justice. Texas has broadened the legal events in which a property owner is allowed to employ deadly force in defense of property to the point that it is the rare investigation into the defense of property by owners in Texas that is considered a homicide investigation. The legal justification for the law's passage is from the concept that "a man's home is his castle" and that, as a result, an individual is allowed to utilize any level of force they deem appropriate in defense of property.

A Full Guide to the Insanity Claim

A Full Guide to the Insanity Claim

An insanity claim is a specific affirmative defense which a defendant may attempt to make use of in order to avoid conviction on a more serious charge. The definition of legal insanity is not the same as a ruling of mental illness in a psychiatric or medical setting. 
The legal definition of insanity merely implies that the defendant was not in possession of the mental facilities required to come to a reasonable conclusion.
 
The exact definition of what constitutes an acceptable legal claim of insanity has gone through many changes. Its current definition is significantly different from the first modern definition laid out in English common law beginning in the early 19th Century. The current definition of the legal basis for an insanity plea was established in the Model Penal Code in 1982.
 
The ability to enter a plea of insanity came under heavy criticism after an attempted assassination of President Ronald Reagan in 1981 by John Hinkley Jr., who suffered from several mental disorders. In response to calls to abolish the plea of not guilty by reason of insanity, Congress passed the Insanity Defense Reform Act of 1984, which restricted the circumstances under which an insanity plea could be entered.
Background
How to Claim Legal Issues and Pertinent Laws
The legal rights of defendants who have pursued acquittal due to insanity have taken a long time to develop. Frendak v. United States was a 1972 Supreme Court ruling which stated that a defendant could not be forced to use an insanity defense against his or her will because the same standards which must be met to declare a person incapable of assisting in his or her own defense are nearly identical to those standards which establish mental competency.
 
The Criminal Lunatics Act of 1800 was an English law which allowed the insane to be detained if they posed a credible threat to themselves or others. A 1992 U.S. Supreme Court decision restricted the ability to retain individuals against their will in mental institutions solely on the basis that they might one day prove dangerous.
Abolishing The Insanity Plea
There has been a movement to abolish the insanity plea from criminal law proceedings.  The movement gained its strongest point after the attempted assassination of President Ronald Reagan in 1981 by John Hinkley Jr. Hinkley suffered from several mental disorders, which contributed to his acquittal on all charges by reason of mental defect. Hinkley was sentenced to a mental institution instead of a penal institute.
 
Critics supported a more conservative jurisprudence which would return to findings which found the insane guilty but recommended clemency as a result of their mental state. This would be a return to the original rulings of insanity as provided in English common law before the first insanity tests were developed. 
Insanity After Crime Has Been Committed
As the appeals process in death row cases has become more lengthy, the courts have begun to confront the issue of criminals who were not insane when they were convicted but have suffered a decline in mental facility by the time they are facing execution. As a result, the Supreme Court has interpreted the Eighth Amendment to prevent the execution of individuals suffering from mental disability when facing execution. 
Due to this interpretation of the Eighth Amendment a suspect may be required to pass three different competency hearings: a competency hearing to determine if they understand the charges, a competency hearing to determine if the defendant can participate in their own defense, and a competency hearing before being executed. 
Temporary Insanity


A plea of temporary insanity may be entered if the defendant claims to have undertaken the crime as a result of extreme emotional distress or other extenuating circumstances. A criminal court case when a plea of temporary insanity is entered may include crimes of passion or where the crime was committed by a schizophrenic who was not taking medication at the time but has since resumed taking their medication. 
Temporary insanity involves instances when the accused was acting in an insane manner at the time of the crime but has since regained their sanity.
Tests
The current test for insanity was developed in 1982 by the American Law Institute and is known as the Model Penal Code. It considers the defendant’s ability to know what they are doing, the legality of their action, their ability to restrain their action, and any preexisting mental disabilities. 
It developed from the M’Naghten Rule developed in 1843, the Irresistible Impulse Test created in 1887, and the Product or Durham Test developed in 1954.

Read This for Prevention of a Crime

Read This for Prevention of a Crime

Homicide is occasionally considered justified when it is found to have occurred in murder cases when the killing was committed to prevent or stop a violent crime. Serious crimes in which deadly force is sometimes considered justified under the statutes of most jurisdictions include rape, burglary, armed robbery, or murder. In murder cases where it is determined that the homicide happened to prevent one of these felonies, it is rare that charges would be filed in the first place.
 
 
It is not legally permissible in many states for an individual to choose to end another crime by using homicide to arrest the efforts of the perpetrator if the option to escape the threat of a violent crime exists. When a person does not utilize their duty to retreat, the claim that the killing occurred in order to prevent the commission of another crime is not usually permitted as an affirmative defense.
 
 
Murder cases in thirty-one states allow for homicide to be utilized by private citizens against other citizens in an attempt to stop the commission of a crime based upon certain extenuating circumstances related to where the crime and corresponding homicide occur. These states are known as Castle Doctrine states.
 
 
The Castle Doctrine states that individuals are exempt from a duty to retreat if the homicide is committed in defense of a space the accused has a legal right to occupy. Locations protected by the Castle Doctrine include homes, businesses, or automobiles owned by the killer. The Castle Doctrine usually does not apply to a homicide utilized to prevent the commission of a rape, armed robbery, or homicide which happens in a public space.
 
 
For a homicide to be justified to prevent a crime, there must be a clear and present danger that the crime either is currently in progress or is about to begin. A defendant may not claim that the homicide was meant to prevent the occurrence of a crime which was expected to happen at some point in the far future no matter how likely it is that the crime would occur. A preemptive self-defense homicide is always considered as some of the more egregious murder charges.