Questions of law illustrate why getting definitions correct matters. Crimes are carefully defined so what a prosecutor must show is clear and what the range of punishments is fitting. The distinction in US law between first-degree murder and voluntary manslaughter is likely familiar. The difference in punishment is significant: Potentially life imprisonment (or in Georgia possible execution) for first-degree murder but less severe for manslaughter--in Georgia, “not less than one nor more than 20 years” OCGA 16-5-2 (2010), sec. b.

Consider the following legal case hinging on a definition of murder. Murder here is defined as “the unlawful killing of a human person with malice aforethought.” As defined, there are no legal murders. Here’s how one state explains ‘malice aforethought’:

"The mental state constituting malice aforethought does not presuppose or require any ill will or hatred of the particular victim.  When a defendant 'with wanton disregard for human life, does an act that involves a high degree of probability that it will result in death,' he acts with malice aforethought."

Under California murder law, Penal Code 187 (a), malice may be express or implied.

Express malice means that you specifically intend to kill the victim. Malice is implied when: (a) The killing resulted from an intentional act; (b) The natural consequences of the act are dangerous to human life; and (c) The act was deliberately performed with knowledge of the danger to, and with conscious disregard for, human life. (findlaw.com; viewed 13 Jan 2018)

An act of murder requires malice, either express or implied (necessary condition). Even if an act did not intend the person’s death (express malice), it is still murder when it meets conditions (a), (b), and (c). A common instance of implied malice is built into the felony-murder rule: a person is guilty of murder if she or he, or a fellow perpetrator, kills another person while committing certain serious felonies, even if the killing was completely accidental. Example: While Andy and Bob are robbing a convenience store, Bob points a gun at a customer who has a fatal heart attack from the fright. Bob is guilty of murder. But by the felony murder rule, so is Andy.

If an act resulting in death does not show malice, it might be involuntary manslaughter: killing another person without malice, without an intent to kill, but with conscious disregard for human life, while involved either in an unlawful act (less than a felony) or an ordinarily lawful act, which involves a high degree of risk of death or grave bodily harm, without due caution and circumspection. Examples: firing a gun in the air while celebrating but a bullet accidentally hits and kills someone; driving under the influence and causing a deadly car crash.



A recent case is testing these legal definitions. The case involves a 25-year-old man in Los Angeles, Tyler Barris, accused of making a hoax emergency call with the intention to draw a large police presence to an address—a practice called ‘swatting’—that set into motion a series of events where police killed a man, Andrew Finch, in Wichita, Kansas, unknown to Barris, not the intended victim, and not even party to the online quarrel that precipitating the hoax call. More details here https://upi.com/6700588 .

Several horrible things happened here. The facts available suggest the police officer who shot Finch acted wrongly. But I’d like to focus on to Barris’ actions and use the questions raised to talk about definitions.

Prior to being arrested, Barris defended himself when he heard about Finch’s death by saying, in effect, he’s not guilty because he didn’t pull the trigger. But there are times a person is legally responsible for a death even when he didn’t commit or intend to commit the killing.

Some persons expressed a conviction that Barris must be guilty of murder by the felony murder rule. One problem: Making a hoax emergency call is not a felony in Kansas (or in most states).

Barris is currently charged not with murder but with involuntary manslaughter (in addition to giving false information in notifying emergency services and falsely reporting a felony). Given the facts available and the definitions given, discuss one or more of the following:

Did Barris’ action meet the necessary conditions for murder including the three conditions above for acting with implied malice?
Did Barris’ action meet the necessary conditions for involuntary manslaughter?
Does the Barris case suggest any needed modifications to a definition here (perhaps broaden the felony murder rule or the definition of manslaughter)?