MO - Elizabeth Olten, 9, St Martin's, 21 Oct 2009 #12

[tlcya]

Premeditation is a legal term, requiring "malice aforethought". Specific intent requires more than just "wanting to kill someone". For premeditated murder, you would have to have a specific intent to end the life of the specific victim.
"digging a grave" isn't necessarily legal premeditation, there has to be specific intent to kill the person. However, digging a grave is indicative of intent. It would require specific evidence to prove intent.

Understand what I'm saying? Let me illustrate my point. P and A go into a back yard and "dig a grave". P then goes out, without A's knowledge, and kills someone and burried them in the "grave". A does not have the specific intent for premeditated murder.

Respectfully snipped and BBM

What if there is intent to kill a living victim but no real preference or decision to kill a specific victim? In other words, IYO, would there need to be intent to kill a specific person for there to be premeditated murder in the first? Or would it be some other form of murder if there was intent to kill someone/anyone based on availability/convenience but not a specific victim in mind?

TYIA for your thoughts on this.

 

[gliving]

For all intents and purposes, it IS a rumor.

Yes, a rumor about a minor. I"d tread very carefully here. LE has not given us any reason to assume the BF's involved in any way.

Mixologist, can I ask how you came upon this rumor? Thanks!!

 

[AndresEscobar]

Respectfully snipped and BBM

What if there is intent to kill a living victim but no real preference or decision to kill a specific victim? In other words, IYO, would there need to be intent to kill a specific person for there to be premeditated murder in the first? Or would it be some other form of murder if there was intent to kill someone/anyone based on availability/convenience but not a specific victim in mind?

TYIA for your thoughts on this.

If you point a gun at a random person and shoot, you have specific intent to harm/ kill that person.

If you shoot a gun into a crowd with an intent to kill someone, you have specific intent.

If you try to shoot someone with intent to kill them, miss, but kill someone else, the intent to kill transfers from the intended victim to the actual victim.

Does this help?

However, second degree murder would apply if you end someones life with "reckless indifference to human life".

 

[Prof]

It's a local's statement, which hasn't been released in media, thus it COULD be rumor.

Yes, and Thank you! and I did have "(rumor)" when I first typed, but somehow deleted it --most comments to news stories are what I consider rumor, unless they are citing published facts

Yes, I think that is all we have so far on the bf-- rumor --no?

 

[tlcya]

If you point a gun at a random person and shoot, you have specific intent to harm/ kill that person.

If you shoot a gun into a crowd with an intent to kill someone, you have specific intent.

If you try to shoot someone with intent to kill them, miss, but kill someone else, the intent to kill transfers from the intended victim to the actual victim.

Does this help?

However, second degree murder would apply if you end someones life with "reckless indifference to human life".

This actually helps immensely. I wondered whether it would make a diference in the determination of what sort of charges LE filed depending on whether the victim was an intended one or just the one that was handy.

I thought I knew the answer but as you seem more versed in criminal law figured you might be able to shed some light. TY

 

[AndresEscobar]

This actually helps immensely. I wondered whether it would make a diference in the determination of what sort of charges LE filed depending on whether the victim was an intended one or just the one that was handy.

I thought I knew the answer but as you seem more versed in criminal law figured you might be able to shed some light. TY

If the victim was just handy, it would still probably be a premeditated murder. It all of course depends on the totality of the circumstances. If P decides to kill V, but goes to V's house and only X is home, so P kills X, with the intent to kill X, that's still a premeditated murder.

 

[danni]

If the victim was just handy, it would still probably be a premeditated murder. It all of course depends on the totality of the circumstances. If P decides to kill V, but goes to V's house and only X is home, so P kills X, with the intent to kill X, that's still a premeditated murder.

So pretty much what you are saying is that because P thought even for a nanosecond before killing X "Hey I am going to kill X instead because V is not here." Beucase he THOUGHT about doing it and could have thought about NOT doing it, it can be considered premeditation?

right? yes? no? :waitasec:

 

[AndresEscobar]

So pretty much what you are saying is that because P thought even for a nanosecond before killing X "Hey I am going to kill X instead because V is not here." Beucase he THOUGHT about doing it and could have thought about NOT doing it, it can be considered premeditation?

right? yes? no? :waitasec:

Yes. That is the essence of premeditation. Of course, there are defenses to premeditation that can "wipe" premeditation away, but that gets even muddier.

 

[vjlaw]

The death penalty is taken off the table for someone under 18. My question is how does murder 1 for AB differ than say murder 2 for an adult. Both can get life without parole?

 

[tlcya]

Clear as mud, LOL. Actually, I think we all have a firmer grasp on exactly what is necessary to prove out murder (1st) charges so thank you

 

[AndresEscobar]

The death penalty is taken off the table for someone under 18. My question is how does murder 1 for AB differ than say murder 2 for an adult. Both can get life without parole?

Depends on the statutes in Missouri . Each legislature also includes sentencing guidelines for a specific crime. So, in some states, first degree murder is 20 years to life. Second degree murder might be 10-25 years. There are of course exacerbating circumstances.

Many things come into play, including the brutality of the crime, the age of the victim, the age of perpetrator when committing the crime. Other things include the mental capacity or mental illness the perpetrator might have, past history for abuse, even remorse.

Sentencing is a second part of the trial and basically acts like a second trial. What happens is the Prosecution pursues a particular punishment, and the defense may suggest a different one, and then testimony is given on each side. Therefore, doctors, AB's parents, AB's grandparents, and other relatives and perhaps AB herself may testify for the defense as to AB's "case", whereas other doctors, and other people (maybe the victim's family) would testify for the harsher punishment, and in the end a jury or judge decides on the sentencing.

ETA: the main difference is Murder 2 for an adult probably wouldn't include life in prison. So, for Murder 1, she'd face harsher penalties.

 

[AndresEscobar]

Clear as mud, LOL. Actually, I think we all have a firmer grasp on exactly what is necessary to prove out murder (1st) charges so thank you

Well, its more of a thumbnail sketch, but there are many defenses.

There was a comment somewhere that the BF "drugged" AB. Well, involuntary intoxication is a defense and can wipe away intent in certain instances. Notice I said "involuntary". Voluntarily doing drugs or getting drunk does not give you a free pass to commit crimes (see: drunk driving).

 

[vjlaw]

Depends on the statutes in Missouri . Each legislature also includes sentencing guidelines for a specific crime. So, in some states, first degree murder is 20 years to life. There are of course exacerbating circumstances.

Many things come into play, including the brutality of the crime, the age of the victim, the age of perpetrator when committing the crime. Other things include the mental capacity or mental illness the perpetrator might have, past history for abuse, even remorse.

Sentencing is a second part of the trial and basically acts like a second trial. What happens is the Prosecution pursues a particular punishment, and the defense may suggest a different one, and then testimony is given on each side. Therefore, doctors, AB's parents, AB's grandparents, and other relatives and perhaps AB herself may testify for the defense as to AB's "case", whereas other doctors, and other people (maybe the victim's family) would testify for the harsher punishment, and in the end a jury or judge decides on the sentencing.

ETA: the main difference is Murder 2 for an adult probably wouldn't include life in prison. So, for Murder 1, she'd face harsher penalties.

I am just wondering if premeditation in someone AB's age is harder to prove to go with the murder 1 charge. I realize this all depends on the evidence of premeditation. It just seems to me that with the death penalty taken off the table, it leaves no choice in this case to go for murder 1 even tho the premeditation would possibly be harder to prove. Even though she is going to be tried as an adult, she is still covered by law in the sentencing. This causing LE to want to get the strongest sentence and that would be with the murder 1 charge. If she was an adult they may just charge her with murder 2 so not to have to prove premeditation. I don't think anyone really knows what the proof actually is for premeditation. I was thinking murder 2 for an adult would be life without parole. I do have a local case in mind but don't want to bring it up here because it is a different case. It involved a 20yr old.

 

[mixologist74]

The death penalty is taken off the table for someone under 18. My question is how does murder 1 for AB differ than say murder 2 for an adult. Both can get life without parole?

In the state of Missouri, the death penalty is taken off the table for someone under 16, not 18.

 

[vjlaw]

In the state of Missouri, the death penalty is taken off the table for someone under 16, not 18.

I think the Supreme Court changed that in 2005

 

[AndresEscobar]

In the state of Missouri, the death penalty is taken off the table for someone under 16, not 18.

Yes, but the US supreme court has held that you cannot execute someone under 18. This means that the Missouri Statute will probably struck down, it just hasn't been challenged yet.

 

[Jodibug]

Re the boyfriend rumor.... I probably posted it.... and it is a RUMOR.

Soon after Alyssa was arrested, 99% of the kids at JC (my daughter included) got a forwarded (probably 100 times over) text message stating something about (paraphrasing) "shooting up the school if people don't quit talking about Alyssa".

Most kids at JC got this text mesage= FACT
Msg originated from AB's boyfriend = NOT SUBSTANTIATED

I very rarely text, but I don't think you get a "header" of forwarding info the way you do in an email (correct me if I am wrong, I really have no idea). Of course email "headers" are faked all the time, so even if the info is there I have no idea if it was actually from the bf or not.

 

[AndresEscobar]

I am just wondering if premeditation in someone AB's age is harder to prove to go with the murder 1 charge. I realize this all depends on the evidence of premeditation. It just seems to me that with the death penalty taken off the table, it leaves no choice in this case to go for murder 1 even tho the premeditation would possibly be harder to prove. Even though she is going to be tried as an adult, she is still covered by law in the sentencing. This causing LE to want to get the strongest sentence and that would be with the murder 1 charge. If she was an adult they may just charge her with murder 2 so not to have to prove premeditation. I don't think anyone really knows what the proof actually is for premeditation. I was thinking murder 2 for an adult would be life without parole. I do have a local case in mind but don't want to bring it up here because it is a different case. It involved a 20yr old.

Sure, murder 2 can warrant lwop. It's all about the circumstances of the case. Grant, in my opinion and in my experience LWOP for Murder 2 is a harsh judgment, I don't know the facts of the case (nor are they relevant) so, I'll presume the court got the case right.

Generally, the DA will charge with the highest charge they can possibly indict someone on, so they have lesser charges to fall back on. So, for instance, if they charge someone with murder 1, but fail to prove intent, that person may be found guilty for murder 2.

However, if they charge someone with murder 2, unless there is some sort of exacerbating circumstance, murder 1 is probably off the table.

 

[mixologist74]

I think the Supreme Court changed that in 2005

Here is a link stating that the age is 16.

http://www.internationaljusticeproject.org/juvConst.cfm

 

[AndresEscobar]

Re the boyfriend rumor.... I probably posted it.... and it is a RUMOR.

(respectfully snipped)

Also, you have to keep in mind the collective shock and outrage this case has caused. A type of community panic, combined with a prankster, could cause this.