 |
 |
 |
| |
|
|
State v Howard
S. Ct. UT, 1979
Author:- Sam Biers
Relevant Facts: Animosity developed between two friends, Rust and Johnson, involving Df. Rust found two notes threatening her on her car. Rust slashed the tires of Johnson, and then Rust’s tires were slashed by Johnson. Df then brought a rifle and a pistol to Rust’s apartment, fully loaded. Df later brought a friend and a shotgun to Rust’s. That evening Johnson appeared with 3 others and an argument ensued. Df stood visible holding the shotgun. Johnson made a gesture and Df replied obscenely. Johnson’s husband then stated Df either come out and fight or he would come in. Johnson lurched inside and as df fired his friend jumped in between, and was hit by the blast in the back. Johnson veered for the rifle and he was shot. Both died.
Legal Issue(s): Whether defendant was unaware, but should have been aware, of a substantial risk that Johnson, the intended victim, would be killed?
Court’s Holding: No, df was aware and no evidence to the contrary was provided.
Procedure: Trial ct conviction jury, second degree murder and manslaughter. Affirmed.
Law or Rule(s): The difference between the minimum required mens rea of recklessness and criminal negligence for negligent homicide is whether the df was aware, but consciously disregarded a substantial risk the result would happen, or was unaware but ought to have been aware.
Court Rationale: Df presented no evidence that he was unaware of a substantial and unjustifiable risk that the death of Johnson would occur when he fired the shotgun at him. He claimed he usually hit what he aimed at. He claimed he was aiming for Johnson to protect his own life.
The jury reasonably concluded that df was at least reckless in shooting Johnson and hitting Stan, o that df intentionally or knowingly shot at Johnson and hit Stan in a mistaken belief he was justified under the manslaughter statute.
Plaintiff’s Argument: It does not matter whether Stan was shot mistakenly or not, df intended and knowingly shot at Johnson disregarding a substantial and unjustifiable risk that death would occur.
Defendant’s Argument: The df was unaware of a substantial and unjustifiable risk that Stan would have jumped in the line of fire and been killed.