imported post
cynicist wrote:
The mental state can be argued at court and MAY get him off, but frankly...shooting yourself in the leg is pretty negligent. I'd say that satisfies the culpability test.
I would argue that it was an inchoate crime for homicide, and was an accident. The bullet could have killed him or others, and in that case would have not been a crime.
Wow...this is wrong on so many levels...
The defendant in this case was not charged with attempted murder or reckless endangerment. Had he been charged with that, we'd be arguing a different case. You can't go to court and argue that he didn't commit a crime he wasn't charged with, and expect that to be a defense for what he was charged for.
If you did that, you'd be fired as my lawyer so fast...
What you are arguing is "Yes, he did shoot the gun in the city, but he was actually about to kill someone accidently, so since he didn't mean to do that, he's innocent of all crimes." That's not how our RCW is set up. Further, this is a logical fallacy.
Because the defendant in this case was not charged with a crime that specifies "intent" as the test for culpability, any of the other tests are in play. Which goes back to "Negligence" being a mental state for culpability.
The New Hampshire Supreme Court has reversed convictions for attempted murder in one case, and second degree assault in another finding REPLY BRIEF OF APPELLANT-9 that the court committed error by failing to give a defense instruction on the defense of accident even though it is not contained as a defense in the criminal code. State v. Gamarsh, 126 N.H. 228,489 A. 2d 157 (1985), State v. Aubert, 120 N.H. 634,42 1 H. 2d 124 (1 980), both cases involved accidental shootings.
FYI, precendent from other states is valid in WA.[/quote][/quote]
Negative. Precedence from other states is only valid when the courts take it into consideration into establishing precedence for WA. There have been multiple times when WA has gone against other states.
Almost every other state in the Union allows a "pretext" stop, but WA does not. I can't think of any other state that doesn't allow it. Hell, the US Supreme court has said that pretext stops are valid, but WA doesn't allow it. This is just one example of WA going against other states precedence. We have our own Supreme Court to establish our own precedence.
From the same source (the PDF I linked to earlier in this thread)
Washington courts have recognized defenses not enumerated in RCW 9A16.
Anything in the Common Law about defense of accident?
Absolutely. Case law in WA has stated that an accident is a valid defense when the crime specifies intent. Here's one example:
http://www.courts.wa.gov/content/Briefs/A02/342073 reply appellent.pdf
You keep arguing tossing out more serious crimes as if it matters. The more serious crimes, Homicide, Manslaughter...they all have specific culpability's necessary to convict. As I demonstrated above, there are other crimes that do not require "intent" or "recklessness" to be the culpability.
None of that matters, because there is no "intent" portion of the Port Angeles law of which the defendant was charged. So since there is no "intent" written in this law, Washington case law states has established that there is no burden of proof to establish mental state.
The PA law specifically states what the defenses to discharging a firearm in the city of PA are.
Oh, and FYI...you can be charged with murder, sans Mens Rea. If you are committing a felony, and accidently kill someone during the commission of that felony, you will be charged (and convicted) of Murder 2 or 1, depending on the felony you are committing. No mental state is required for that.
My advice to the OP is to listen to the advice that makes logical sense, not emotional, and then hire an attorney. Or just have your friend pay the fine and accept the misdemeanor conviction.
