CRIME SCENE LIABILITY

Crime Scene Liability

Essential elements of a Crime - Crime scene liability

Referring to the scenario Stephen is liable for manslaughter rather than murder. As when a defendant is found to have killed as a result of provocation by the deceased, then he will be guilty of manslaughter and not murder. Where on an ascribe of killing there are clues on which the committee can find that the individual ascribed was provoked (whether by things finished or by things said or by both together) to misplace his self command, the question if the annoyance was sufficient to make a reasonable man do as he did shall be left to be determined by the committee; and in working out that question the jury will take into account everything both finished and said according to the effect which in their attitude, it would have on a sensible man.

Under section 3, the courts apply a two-fold test of provocation drawn from the common law: (1) the provocation must have caused the accused to lose his self-control, and (2) it must be such as might because a reasonable man to react to it as the accused did. Once there is evidence that the defendant lost his or her self-control and killed, and then provocation must be left to the jury however minimal the provocation might be. (Barker, 1998 Pp 67)

At common law, the question whether or not the conduct of the deceased was capable of constituting provocation was an issue of law. In Weller 24 the defendant was possessive and jealous, and killed his girlfriend during an argument over her conduct with other men. The trial judge gave a general direction to the jury which required them to consider all the circumstances. He concluded with a direction that they should consider what society expects of a man like the defendant with his characteristics.(Eisenmenger, W 2003 p. 19 - 20)

In dismissing the defendant's appeal against his conviction for murder, the Court of Appeal stated that since Smith (Morgan) the question whether the defendant should reasonably have controlled himself was to be answered by the jury taking all the circumstances into account. The judge should not tell the jury that as a matter of law they should ignore any particular aspect of the defendant. In R v pointed [1987] 1 QB 353, the defendant was a party to a conspiracy to consign robberies who said that ...