What do the facual allegations of the PCA prove, in your opinion? Is more evidence required to convict?
Here are the stock I
daho Criminal Jury Instruction for First Degree Murder with Malice Aforethought (edited by me, with original annotations included), with definition instructions added:
"In order for the defendant to be guilty of First Degree Murder with malice aforethought, the state must prove each of the following:
1. On or about [date]
2. in the state of Idaho
3. the defendant [name] engaged in conduct which caused the death of [name of decedent],
4. the defendant acted without justification or excuse,
5. with
malice aforethought,
and
6. [...]
[
the murder was a willful, deliberate, and premeditated killing. Premeditation means to consider beforehand whether to kill or not to kill, and then to decide to kill. There does not have to be any appreciable period of time during which the decision to kill was considered, as long as it was reflected upon before the decision was made. A mere unconsidered and rash impulse, even though it includes an intent to kill, is not premeditation];
[...}.
If you find that the state has failed to prove beyond a reasonable doubt any of the elements one(1) – five(5) above or failed to prove any of the circumstances listed in element six(6), you must find the defendant not guilty of First Degree Murder. If you find that elements one(1) – five(5) above have been proven beyond a reasonable doubt, and you unanimously agree that the state has proven any of the above circumstance under element six(6) beyond a reasonable doubt, you must find the defendant guilty of first degree murder. [You are not required to agree as to which circumstance under element six (6) you find to exist.]
If you find that the state has failed to prove any of the above, you must find the defendant not guilty of first degree murder. If you find that all of the above have been proven beyond a reasonable doubt, then you must find the defendant guilty of first degree murder.
Comment
Idaho Code §§ 18-4001, 18-4003.
ICJI 703 applies to cases in which the indictment or information charges that the defendant committed first degree murder with malice aforethought. ICJI 703A applies to cases where the defendant is charged with first degree torture murder. ICJI 703B applies to cases where the defendant is charged with felony murder under Idaho Code § 18-4003(d). The court should use the instruction or instructions that apply to the charges in the particular case.
In State v. Butcher, 137 Idaho 125, 44 P.3d 1180 (Ct. App. 2002), the court held the term “engaged in conduct” is neither confusing nor in need of clarification to the jury.
The phrase "without justification or excuse, and" should be deleted if that issue is not raised by the evidence, and paragraphs four and five should be modified accordingly.
If the court is going to instruct on the included offense of Voluntary Manslaughter, the transition instruction 225, and then the Voluntary Manslaughter instruction 708, should be given.
In order to avoid possible prejudicial effect from the introduction of evidence in the case in chief that the defendant has once been convicted of murder, the court may want to consider bifurcated proceedings where the crime is to be enhanced to first degree murder while under a sentence for murder, or on probation or parole for murder. If such a procedure is to be followed, the committee recommends that the jury deliberate first on the elements of murder, plus any other related enhancements to first degree murder, then, depending on the outcome of that deliberation, ICJI 706 be given.
-------
Murder Defined
Murder is the killing of a human being [without legal justification or excuse
and]
[with malice aforethought]
...
[or]
[
in the perpetration of, or attempt to perpetrate,... [
burglary] ... [
mayhem]...] .
[The killing of a human being is legally [justified] [or] [excused] when (describe the particular justification or excuse, such as "done in self-defense"). You will be instructed later on the elements of legal [justification] [and] [excuse.]
Comment
For legal justification see I.C. § 18–4009. For further instruction on legal justification see ICJI 1514 and ICJI 1515. Excusable homicide is defined in I.C. § 18–4012. For instructions on excusable homicide and self-defense see ICJI 1516 to ICJI 1521.
------
Malice Defined
Malice may be express or implied.
Malice is express when there is manifested a deliberate intention unlawfully to kill a human being.
Malice is implied when:
1. The killing resulted from an intentional act,
2. The natural consequences of the act are dangerous to human life, and
3. The act was deliberately performed with knowledge of the danger to, and with conscious disregard for, human life.
When it is shown that a killing resulted from the intentional doing of an act with express or implied malice, no other mental state need be shown to establish the mental state of malice aforethought. The mental state constituting malice aforethought does not necessarily require any ill will or hatred of the person killed.
The word "aforethought" does not imply deliberation or the lapse of time. It only means that the malice must precede rather than follow the act.
Comment
I.C. § 18–4002.
Do not use this instruction if the only murder charge is
felony murder or murder by the intentional application of torture because these crimes do not require proof of malice aforethought. Idaho Code § 18-4001; State v. Pratt, 125 Idaho 594, 873 P.2d 848 (1994); State v. Lankford, 116 Idaho 860, 781 P.2d 197 (1989).
There is no legal distinction between malice and malice aforethought. State v. Dunlap, 125 Idaho 530, 873 P.2d 784 (1993).
When the charge is attempted second degree murder, this instruction must be amended to delete any reference to implied malice. The intent to kill is required for attempted second degree murder. State v. Buckley, 131 Idaho 164, 953 P.2d 604 (1998).
www.dailymail.co.uk
) and be "important" through being talked about in the media.
