[Flipside]

I think the problem is with the 'murder' aspect of it, since it implies that pre-meditation is no longer a factor in deciding whether a killing is murder or not. In other words, for the partner to be guilty of murder, he would have had to have attacked the house with the specific purpose of getting his friend shot.

Edit: Or, to put it another way, if this guy is guilty of Murder then it would imply the young mother as an accomplice, since it would have to have been arranged with her.

[MP-Ryan]

I think the problem is with the 'murder' aspect of it, since it implies that pre-meditation is no longer a factor in deciding whether a killing is murder or not. In other words, for the partner to be guilty of murder, he would have had to have attacked the house with the specific purpose of getting his friend shot.

Edit: Or, to put it another way, if this guy is guilty of Murder then it would imply the young mother as an accomplice, since it would have to have been arranged with her.

Depends how Oklahoman law is written on the subject.  Common law principles anyone who assists (aids/abets) a crime is also culpable for the same crime as the person who committed it.  In point of fact, the woman in this case is liable for murder, but self-defence provides an exemption from prosecution and conviction in these cases.  The additional perpetrator who assisted in the crime is also liable for murder, and has not self-defence argument to fall back on.

EDIT:  Pre-meditation of the killing itself is not always necessary for a first-degree murder charge - pre-meditation of a criminal act from which a murder results is sufficient, in some jurisdictions.

[MP-Ryan]

Oklahoma's definition of murder in the first degree:

§21-701.7.  Murder in the first degree.
A.  A person commits murder in the first degree when that person unlawfully and with malice aforethought causes the death of another human being.  Malice is that deliberate intention unlawfully to take away the life of a human being, which is manifested by external circumstances capable of proof.
B.  A person also commits the crime of murder in the first degree, regardless of malice, when that person or any other person takes the life of a human being during, or if the death of a human being results from, the commission or attempted commission of murder of another person, shooting or discharge of a firearm or crossbow with intent to kill, intentional discharge of a firearm or other deadly weapon into any dwelling or building as provided in Section 1289.17A of this title, forcible rape, robbery with a dangerous weapon, kidnapping, escape from lawful custody, eluding an officer, first degree burglary, first degree arson, unlawful distributing or dispensing of controlled dangerous substances, or trafficking in illegal drugs.
C.  A person commits murder in the first degree when the death of a child results from the willful or malicious injuring, torturing, maiming or using of unreasonable force by said person or who shall willfully cause, procure or permit any of said acts to be done upon the child pursuant to Section 843.5 of this title.  It is sufficient for the crime of murder in the first degree that the person either willfully tortured or used unreasonable force upon the child or maliciously injured or maimed the child.
D.  A person commits murder in the first degree when that person unlawfully and with malice aforethought solicits another person or persons to cause the death of a human being in furtherance of unlawfully manufacturing, distributing or dispensing controlled dangerous substances, as defined in the Uniform Controlled Dangerous Substances Act, unlawfully possessing with intent to distribute or dispense controlled dangerous substances, or trafficking in illegal drugs.
E.  A person commits murder in the first degree when that person intentionally causes the death of a law enforcement officer or correctional officer while the officer is in the performance of official duties.

B. applies in this scenario.

Also, can I just say how much I hate the various formats and variations between states when it comes to American law?  Paging through a 597 page RTF document to find this sucked ass.  Contrast to the Canadian Criminal Code, which applies everywhere in our fine country and is easy to find and sort through:  http://laws-lois.justice.gc.ca/eng/acts/C-46/

[Flipside]

Yup, I see what you mean, this was certainly a robbery with a dangerous weapon, so I'll agree that under Oklahoma law, this guys liable for murder. I sort of see the point, but it does, to my mind, seem to be a bit of an over-use of the term murder, I suppose that's why 'causing death through misadventure' and similar pleas are used in Europe instead.

[BloodEagle]

Me thinks they're stretching the spirit of the law a bit, rather than the letter. But, eh. *shrugs*

By the way, I'm curious: What sort of weapons does Oklahoma state aren't dangerous? 

[NGTM-1R]

Yup, I see what you mean, this was certainly a robbery with a dangerous weapon, so I'll agree that under Oklahoma law, this guys liable for murder. I sort of see the point, but it does, to my mind, seem to be a bit of an over-use of the term murder, I suppose that's why 'causing death through misadventure' and similar pleas are used in Europe instead.

It's also related to a semi-common American thing called "Felony Murder" which states that if somebody dies in the course of committing a felony then the addition of a murder charge to the previous charges is automatic. What exactly a murder charge means varies. It's used to prosecute armed robbers for causing heart attacks, people who discharged their weapon into the ceiling and hit somebody on the floor above, and things where a death is a direct result of criminal action but lacks the necessary intent to kill that would upgrade it from manslaughter to murder.

This is certainly a creative but not an incorrect application.

[karajorma]

I know what it's based on but it's a pretty stupid application of the law. The criminal does deserve jail time for whatever the American version of agravated burglary is. i.e the only crime he committed.

[NGTM-1R]

I know what it's based on but it's a pretty stupid application of the law.

It's a quite erudite application of the law. They have a strong case for a violent felon who needs to be kept off the street, who demonstrated considerable forethought in his choice of targets (a recently widowed woman and her child in an area where police response was highly unlikely). They are going to throw the top count that will withstand the laugh test at him and hope he folds and pleads out so they can remove him from circulation quickly and without risking the only living witness' lives: aggravated burglary doesn't get you diddly for bail.

[karajorma]

I'll be incredibly surprised if it survives an appeal. Meaning the guy will be back on the streets all the sooner.

I won't deny he needs to be off the street for a very long time but a murder prosecution is ridiculous. The law exists to protect innocent members of the public from the actions of criminals. Not to protect the criminals themselves.

[Klaustrophobia]

how is this protecting criminals?

[NGTM-1R]

I'll be incredibly surprised if it survives an appeal.

You're making an assumption he'll be tried on that charge.

This does not have to happen. This is a tactic to ensure high bail/remand and a useful threat to force a plea. Though he was arraigned on this charge he does not have to be tried on it when it comes time for trial. Prosecutorial powers and discretion are quite wide in the United States, something that has been told to you before.

You always throw the top count you think you can sneak past a judge first and work downwards to a reasonable charge for trial. It's how the system works.

[Nuke]

the smart move on his part would be to plea guilty on all charges except murder so that the whole of the case is about whether or not he can be charged with murder. if he goes and tries to pretend it didnt happen or pin it all on his dead friend then he just looks like hes trying to get away with it. then they will probibly just throw the book at him. he needs to say he did wrong but didnt intend for anyone to get hurt, and if he rides that he might just get the murder charge reduced to manslaughter or less.

[karajorma]

Any smart lawyer is going to know that there is no way in hell the murder charge is going to stick. Hell, it's not even going to fly at manslaughter.

how is this protecting criminals?

They now know their accomplices are more likely to kill someone in their defence. Look at this case for instance. If the surviving criminal faces a murder charge regardless of whether his friend dies or he shoots the mother, which do you think he'll do given the choice?

The whole point of the law was to make sure that criminals didn't want their accomplices kill people during the commission of a crime because they wouldn't want to face a murder charge. If they face one either way, that goes away.

[Klaustrophobia]

or to look at it a different way, they should be less inclined to go break in at all if they think they will get slapped with a murder charge.  there's no way to predict how someone will react.  so forget about that and do what the original thought here is: punish the criminal.  i agree that it almost certainly won't stick, but it's still gratifying to see them try.

[MP-Ryan]

Any smart lawyer is going to know that there is no way in hell the murder charge is going to stick. Hell, it's not even going to fly at manslaughter.

Incorrect.  A smart lawyer is going to advise the accused plead for a sentencing deal.  Anyone who believes the charges won't stick or will be overturned on appeal is reading the statute incorrectly:

A person also commits the crime of murder in the first degree, regardless of malice

if the death of a human being results from

robbery with a dangerous weapon

Those are the elements of the offense.  Whether the human death is an accomplice, target, or bystander is irrelevant, as are the actions of the accused.  In Oklahoma, according to state law, if someone commits robbery with a weapon and a person dies in the process, the accused is guilty of first-degree murder.  Intent is not a necessary component, as indicated by the phrase "regardless of malice."  Intent is only necessary to establish the actus reus element of the robbery, not the murder.  To elaborate, the way the statute is written the prosecution will need to prove the following to ensure a first-degree murder conviction:

1.  Accused intended to commit robbery.
2.  Accused took action to attempt a robbery.
3.  Said action included the use of a dangerous weapon.
4.  A human death resulted from the robbery.

If those four conditions are met in the prosecution's case, the accused must be found guilty of first-degree murder under Oklahoman law.

In order for the charge to be found invalid or overturned on appeal, a challenge would have to be made against the statute itself to show it is inconsistent with the state or federal constitutions.

This isn't creativity on the part of the charging agency or DA, under state law it is a perfectly acceptable charge.

[karajorma]

As was stated before though, it is letter of the law used against spirit of the law.

If you want to prove it would work, find me a successful case of the prosecution for the self-defence killing of an accomplice.

[MP-Ryan]

As was stated before though, it is letter of the law used against spirit of the law.

If you want to prove it would work, find me a successful case of the prosecution for the self-defence killing of an accomplice.

How exactly is this letter versus spirit?  Do you have some knowledge we all lack on how Oklahoma's state legislators intended this to be applied?  The statute is pretty damn clear on the subject, as I've laid out.  If you'd like to argue the way this law works outside of what is written in the statute, the onus sits on you to find an appellate court decision that refutes this particular application.  That's how the law works - statutes are the final word until an appeals court (eventually the highest appeals court) agrees, adds nuance, or overturns them.  In the absence of an appellate court ruling, the statute applies.

So, the onus in this case falls on you to prove it won't work.  I don't need to find a precedent decision to show the law works as it is written de facto - convictions are established on the letter of the law. As I painfully explain all the time to the people who break the laws that I deal with:  what the law intended to say (spirit) is irrelevant.  What it does say (letter) is legally binding until an amendment, case law decision, or it is struck-down by the courts.

EDIT:  And once again, to be struck down the law would have to be found unconstitutional or in violation of a higher law, and I can't envision a situation where constitutional arguments would enter this case.

EDIT2:  In the event you actually do decide to look for an appellate decision that would prevent this statute from applying to the circumstances it explicitly describes, this appears to be a search engine for Oklahoman state case law decisions:  http://oklegal.onenet.net/sample.basic.html

[Flipside]

Personally, I think where the trouble lay with the law is when it is applied in less cut-and-dry situations than this, since threatening someone with a charge of murder in the hope that they'll cop some lesser charges instead is not, to my mind, a very good way of ensuring you are catching the right person, though I'll admit, this is far from the only instance, or police force, in which that has happened.

That said, this isn't really about what we think of the law and the way it works, it's about what the law states, which is that if someone is killed in the execution of a robbery whilst in possession of a weapon, that any accomplices are considered responsible for that death. I'm not certain I'm a massive fan of it, but in this particular case, it seems to be the standard path such cases take.

[karajorma]

That's how the law works - statutes are the final word until an appeals court (eventually the highest appeals court) agrees, adds nuance, or overturns them.  In the absence of an appellate court ruling, the statute applies.

And given that my entire point is that a appeals court would overturn any murder verdict, I fail to see how the onus isn't on you to prove it. You're attempting to claim that my opinion is incorrect, you can only do that by providing facts contrary to that opinion. So the onus is on you to prove that such a conviction has

1) Ever been secured.
2) Survived an appeal.

[NGTM-1R]

That's how the law works - statutes are the final word until an appeals court (eventually the highest appeals court) agrees, adds nuance, or overturns them.  In the absence of an appellate court ruling, the statute applies.

And given that my entire point is that a appeals court would overturn any murder verdict, I fail to see how the onus isn't on you to prove it. You're attempting to claim that my opinion is incorrect, you can only do that by providing facts contrary to that opinion. So the onus is on you to prove that such a conviction has

1) Ever been secured.
2) Survived an appeal.

This is fallacious, btw.