Jury Instructions and Reasonable Doubt

[Themis]

The following are the circumstances that must be proved before [FONT=TimesNewRoman,Italic](defendant)
[/FONT]may be found guilty of First Degree Premeditated Murder or any lesser included crime.1
Florida Statute 782.04(1)(a) defines First Degree Premeditated Murder. Before
you can find the defendant guilty of First Degree Premeditated Murder, the government must prove the following three elements beyond a reasonable doubt:
1. [FONT=TimesNewRoman,Italic](Victim) [/FONT]is dead.
2. The death was caused by the criminal act of [FONT=TimesNewRoman,Italic](defendant)[/FONT].
3. There was a premeditated killing of [FONT=TimesNewRoman,Italic](victim)[/FONT].
An “act” includes a series of related actions arising from and performed pursuant
to a single design or purpose.
2Florida Standard Criminal Jury Instruction 7.2 (2003)
“Killing with premeditation” is killing after consciously deciding to do so. The
decision must be present in the mind at the time of the killing. The law does not fix the exact period of time that must pass between the formation of the premeditated intent to kill and the killing. The period of time must be long enough to allow reflection by the defendant. The premeditated intent to kill must be formed before the killing.
The question of premeditation is a question of fact to be determined by you from
the evidence. It will be sufficient proof of premeditation if the circumstances of the killing and the conduct of the accused convince you beyond a reasonable doubt of the existence of premeditation at the time of the killing.
If a person has a premeditated design to kill one person and in attempting to kill
that person actually kills another person, the killing is premeditated.2

 

[Themis]

Florida Statute 782.04(2) defines Second Degree Murder. Before you can find the defendant guilty of Second Degree Murder, the government must prove the following three elements beyond a reasonable doubt:
1. [FONT=TimesNewRoman,Italic](Victim) [/FONT]is dead.
2. The death was caused by the criminal act of [FONT=TimesNewRoman,Italic](defendant)[/FONT].
3. There was an unlawful killing of [FONT=TimesNewRoman,Italic](victim) [/FONT]by an act imminently dangerous
to another and demonstrating a depraved mind without regard for human
life.
An “act” includes a series of related actions arising from and performed pursuant
to a single design or purpose.
3Florida Standard Criminal Jury Instruction 7.4 (2003)
An act is “imminently” dangerous to another and demonstrating a depraved mind” if it is an act or series of acts that:
1. A person of ordinary judgment would know is reasonably certain to kill or do serious bodily injury to another, and
2. Is done from ill will, hatred, spite or an evil intent, and
3. Is of such a nature that the act itself indicates an indifference to human
life.
In order to convict the defendant of Second Degree Murder, it is not necessary for the State to prove the defendant had an intent to cause death.3

 

[Themis]

IMHO, it appears that leaving a 2 year old unattended in a hot car or with access to a swimming pool would not meet the elements of justifiable homicide (basically self defense) or excusable homicide. Therefore, those two scenarios would still be a form of culpable homicide.

 

[lin]

IMHO, it appears that leaving a 2 year old unattended in a hot car or with access to a swimming pool would not meet the elements of justifiable homicide (basically self defense) or excusable homicide. Therefore, those two scenarios would still be a form of culpable homicide.

Great posts, thanks. I'm trying to add to the info but two things are slowing me down. One, I charge extra for research on Sunday, , and two, I hope none of you can imagine the sheer ugliness and evil that are there in black and white, reading some of the cases on a broad query. I'm glad you started this line, Themis; it's just difficult to read some of this stuff and I recommend no one else do it. Nothing on point yet but I did find this:

Washington v. State, 737 So. 2d 1208, 1217 (Fla. 1st DCA 1999). Intent is usually a jury question. See id. In Washington, an infant sustained extensive internal and external injuries and died. The state presented evidence that the defendant was the victim's sole custodian during the playground visit and that the injuries could have been inflicted in anywhere from 10 seconds to 45 minutes. The evidence suggested that a change in technique and position of the defendant's hands would have been required to inflict the different types of injuries and that pauses necessary to make the changes would have allowed the defendant time to reflect. The court held that "[g]iven the varied and extensive nature of the brutal injuries to the 11-month-old victim, we find ample support for sending the question to the jury under the State's felony murder theory." Id.

(emphasis added)

So, what I'm seeing here is that if the jury infers the duct tape was the mechanism of death, as has been argued repeatedly by many posters there is legally a sufficient amount of time between strips of tape to sustain a charge of premeditation.

I also found it interesting that the court noted the defendant was the sole custodian of the child during the time in question, not unlike "Caylee was with her mother," according to CA.

Just some things to ponder. I'll keep looking.

 

[lin]

PS: On the top page of the Caylee forum there is a small sub-forum menu containing old webcam and general discussion threads. Below the sub-forum is what I think of as the 'main menu' of the Caylee forum. Between the two, on the left side is a button that reads "new thread." That's how to start one. It's a really good idea to check with a mod before starting a new thread because very often there are already multiple threads on a given topic. There are also subjects that are taboo or only discussed in the Jury Room forum. Even though the topic may seem totally innocent, completely benign to the poster, there may be a backstory that would explain to their understanding and even embarrassment for bringing the subject up, once they learn of it.

 

[JBean]

Please do a search before starting new threads. That's what the mods have to do
So, if each of us would take a few minutes to use the search function before starting a new thread it would be oh so helpful. Finding a thread that already has discussion about your topic is the best way to add new information.
It is almost always better to add to an existing thread than start a new one. but if the topic is new then certainly starting a thread is appropriate.

This thread is 40 pages so I will start a new one.

[ame="http://www.websleuths.com/forums/showthread.php?p=3990132#post3990132"]Reasonable doubt-Jury instructions and More #2 - Websleuths Crime Sleuthing Community[/ame]