Murder
and its Lesser Brethren:
The (Fictitious)
Case of Woody Woodburner
© Michael
I. Smith, 2012
INSTRUCTOR SCENARIO
At approximately
8:30 p.m. on February 2, 1974, at Indian Gulch, Pennsylvania, Woody Woodburner,
his brother, and three friends visited a tavern several miles from Woody's
home. They had never been to the tavern and did not know any of the patrons.
Woody was carrying a pistol tucked under his belt when he entered the tavern.
At approximately
1:00 a.m., a fight broke out in the men's room between Woody's brother and
several other patrons of the tavern. Woody rushed towards the men's room. As he
entered the doorway to the men's room, Woody was pushed back by the victim,
"Roughhouse" Henry Lee.
There is
conflicting testimony concerning what happened next. The Commonwealth's
witnesses testified that Woody drew his pistol and shot Roughhouse while they
were a few feet apart. Woody testified that he went back into the men's room to
look for his brother, and that Roughhouse grabbed him by the hair and yanked
his head down. Woody claimed that he was hit several times as he struggled to
get free, and that the pistol fell out from under his belt. He testified that,
while Roughhouse still held him, he picked up the pistol and it accidentally
discharged. Woody stated that he did not intend to fire the pistol.
Woody has been
charged with murder, its lesser included offenses, and voluntary manslaughter.
Research these various crimes using the resources introduced throughout the
course. What are the elements of each crime? Are there any cases that support
your conclusions? You will need to find cases that Harvey can use to help
support Woody's defense. Explain how the
cases you selected will support the defense.
THE RESPONSE
It seems
unlikely that a jury will completely absolve Woody Woodburner in the shooting
death of “Roughhouse” Henry Lee, however that does not mean that defense
counsel should simply argue their case, hope for the best and place the matter
in the hands of the jury. Defense counsel
should focus on the elements of the crime for which Woodburner is charged;
namely murder and all of its lesser offenses.
The Pennsylvania Consolidated
Statutes, Title 18 defines criminal homicide as the act of intentionally,
knowingly, recklessly or negligently causing the death of another person. The statute sets out the classifications of
criminal homicide as murder, voluntary manslaughter or involuntary
manslaughter. With respect to the
Woodburner case, the three degrees of murder are off the table because in order
to sustain a conviction for 1st degree murder under Pennsylvania
statute, the Commonwealth must show that the killing was premeditated (Commonwealth v. Brown, 1998). To convict for 2nd degree murder,
the accused must have been engaged as a principal or accomplice in some other
felony act. Any other kind of murder is
categorized as 3rd degree murder (18 Pa. C.S. § 2502). Additionally, the charges against Mr.
Woodburner do not include a weapons violation, consequently we proceed with the
knowledge that he has not been charged with felony murder under 18 Pa. Con.
Stat. § 6106 and that he was in lawful possession of the firearm that was used
to kill Mr. Lee. A final consideration
that makes a murder conviction unlikely in the case of Woodburner is the concept
of mens rea; the prosecution must
prove that Woodburner had a “guilty mind” when he shot Roughhouse (Garner,
2001, pg. 445).
With a
conviction for the crime of murder outside the reach of statute, we are left to
consider the remaining included offenses, which are voluntary and involuntary
manslaughter. The case of Commonwealth v. Garcia (1977) is what
Garner refers to as a whitehorse
case, or a case that stands on all fours with the current case involving
Woodburner (Garner, 2001, pg. 766).
Bennie Garcia had his conviction for voluntary manslaughter reversed by
the Pennsylvania Supreme Court solely over the issue of included offenses under
the charge of murder and the requirement that a jury be given full instructions
regarding those included offenses. The
court ruled that in any case involving murder or voluntary manslaughter, “the
jury might conclude that the Commonwealth failed to meet its burden of proving
malice, intent, or knowledge, but has proven recklessness or negligence,” (Commonwealth, v. Garcia, 1977) in which
case it would be entirely appropriate to return a verdict of guilty on the
count of voluntary or involuntary manslaughter.
Having broached
the subject of included offenses and proper jury instruction in Garcia (1977), the court laid the matter
fully to rest three years later in Commonwealth
v. White (1980) and Commonwealth v.
Williams (1980). Noting on one hand
that charging a jury with “extraneous offenses in homicide trials” would
confuse jurors in a manner contrary to sound justice policy, the court went on
to admit that failure to fully inform a jury regarding pertinent lesser
included offenses would risk robbing a defendant of a fair trial (Commonwealth, v. White, 1980). In Commonwealth
v. Williams (1980) the court clarified its decision in Garcia (1977) - and by extension the likely line of reasoning to be
taken in the current case involving Mr. Woodburner – stating that in cases of
murder, the jury will only be charged with considering the lesser included
offense of involuntary manslaughter if
requested by counsel and only when the offense has been made an issue at
trial and the evidence would reasonably support such a verdict (Commonwealth v. Williams, 1980).
In the same way
that an arresting officer must consider the totality of circumstances in order
to assess reasonable suspicion, when a case comes to trial the opposing
counsel, the judge and the jury must be privy to the totality of circumstances
surrounding both the commission of the alleged crime as well as the totality of
the criminal act for which they are judging the accused. Nowhere is this more important than for the
jury, comprised as it is of individuals who are unlikely to be fully familiar
with every aspect of law. Consequently,
while it may be a fairly straight forward matter to show that Mr. Woodburner is
not guilty of murder under Pennsylvania’s rules of evidence, it is imperative
that at the very least the defense team make a sufficient case for involuntary
manslaughter at trial and that a formal request be submitted on the record to have the jury properly
instructed regarding the matter of involuntary manslaughter as a lesser
included offense under the charge of murder.
Precedent has shown that failure to do so will not be grounds for reversal
on appeal (Commonwealth v. Edwards a/k/a
Sanford, 1981).
References
18 Pa. Con. Stat. § 6106.
18 Pa. Con. Stat. § 2502.
Commonwealth v. Brown, 551 Pa. 465 (1998).
Commonwealth v. Edwards a/k/a Sanford, 493 Pa. 281 (1981).
Commonwealth v. Garcia, 474 Pa. 449 (1977).
Commonwealth v. White, 490 Pa. 179 (1980).
Commonwealth v. Williams, 490 Pa. 187 (1980).
Garner, B.A. (Ed.). (2001). Black’s Law Dictionary (2nd pocket edition). St. Paul: West Publishing.
No comments:
Post a Comment