How do these options relate to the facts about the Kim potter…

Question Answered step-by-step How do these options relate to the facts about the Kim potter… How do these options relate to the facts about the Kim potter killing Daunte wright case.Express Malice Murder is the intentional killing of another. Element 1 is, Did the D specifically intend to kill another person? 2. The deadly weapon doctrine is the inference of intent to kill or do serious bodily harm. 3. Did the D use a “deadly weapon” to kill? 4. Presumption/inference that they “intended” to kill. 4. Not mandatory/conclusive proof of intent to kill. From what i was able to read in the articles about2. The second option is implied malice Murder. Implied malice definition: is a mental state and form of Malice aforethought.1. D intentionally committed an act or failed to commit an act + duty. 2. The natural and probable consequences of the act/failure were dangerous to human/fetal life. Natural and probable consequence= act that a reasonable person would know is likely to happen if nothing unusual intervenes. 3. When they acted/failed, D knew that the act/failure was dangerous to human/fetal life. 4. D acted with a conscious disregard for human/fetal life.The third option is felony murder. Felony murder is a legal rule that elaborates the true definition of murder. 1. The D committed/attempted required felony. It includes arson, rape, carjacking, robbery, burglary, mayhem, false imprisonment, kidnapping, train wrecking, and child molestation. 2. The D intended to commit the required felony. Just like solicitation and conspiracy, the d must specifically intend to commit the underlying felony, i.e., meet all of those elements. 3. While committing/attempting the required felony, the D caused the death of another person. Death can be entirely accidental. And lastly, it was not required that the person killed the victim/intended victim of the underlying felony. 4a. D must have specifically intended that the victim be killed; Or 4b. D was a major participant in the crime + reckless indifference to human life.4. The fourth option/possible charge is Voluntary Manslaughter. Voluntary Manslaughter is defined as the unlawful killing of someone during a sudden quarrel or heat of passion. 1. The D was provoked. 2. As a result of provocation, D acted rashly and under the influence of intense emotion that obscured D’s reasoning or judgment (subjective). 3. The provocation would have caused a person of average disposition to act rashly and without due deliberation. (objective) 4. No cooling off (objective). The time between provocation and killing is enough that a person of average disposition would regain their clear reasoning and judgment. It can’t be a slight provocation. For the objective test, jurors can step into the D’s shoes.5. The fifth and last option is involuntary manslaughter. Involuntary Manslaughter is defined as an unintentional killing that results from criminal negligence or recklessness or from committing an offense such as a DUI. 1. D committed a crime/act (Actus Reus) 2. The D committed the crime/act with criminal negligence (Mens Rea). 3. The D’s acts caused the death of another person. Criminal Negligence: A. D acts recklessly, creating a high risk of death or G.B.I. And B. A reasonable person would have known that acting in that way would create such a risk.  Law Social Science Criminal Justice CRJU 310A Share QuestionEmailCopy link Comments (0)