Horrific behavior--but is it murder?

[unicorn]

A local socialite was convicted of murder yesterday due to slamming her Mercedes into two children while engaging in a speed race on a public street. She'd had prior convictions for similar unsafe driving behavior. No question but that she should spend years in prison. But the law here in California states that murder must involve a planned intention to kill someone, so I would think the crime would be manslaughter, not murder. I can't understand how jurors could come to the conclusion that this constituted murder. I wonder if they were merely incensed by the defendant's contention that it wasn't her car which killed the kids, and that the defendant didn't show any contrition. As horrified I am of her behavior, I question whether this behavior constituted murder.

 https://abc7.com/rebecca-grossman-trial-boys-crash/14461388/

"Rebecca Grossman, co-founder of the Grossman Burn Foundation, was convicted of second-degree murder and other charges Friday for a 2020 crash in Westlake Village that left two young brothers dead. The nine-man, three-woman jury reached its verdict on the second day of deliberations, mulling the evidence for a total of about nine hours before rejecting a defense contention that Grossman's then-boyfriend, former Dodger Scott Erickson, was the one who fatally struck 11-year-old Mark Iskander and his 8-year-old brother, Jacob, on Sept. 29, 2020.

Grossman, 60, was convicted of two counts each of second-degree murder and vehicular manslaughter with gross negligence and hit-and-run resulting in death. She could face up to 34 years to life in state prison. She remained free throughout the trial on $2 million bond. Sentencing was scheduled for April 10...". 

This lawyer explains what's manslaughter and what's murder according to California law:

.https://bernal-law.com/the-difference-between-manslaughter-and-homicide/

Manslaughter is a criminal offense that involves the unlawful killing of another person. It is distinct from murder, primarily in terms of intent and circumstances. Manslaughter typically falls into two categories:

Voluntary Manslaughter: Voluntary manslaughter occurs when a person kills another individual without premeditation or intent to kill. Instead, it often results from a sudden emotional response, such as rage or fear. In some jurisdictions, this is sometimes referred to as a “heat of the moment” crime. An example might be a situation where a person discovers their spouse in the act of adultery and reacts with a deadly assault.
Involuntary Manslaughter: Involuntary manslaughter is the accidental killing of another person without intent. It is typically the result of recklessness, negligence, or criminal negligence. This can include actions like driving recklessly and causing a fatal accident, providing drugs that lead to an unintentional overdose, or failing to exercise proper care while handling a dangerous weapon.
Understanding these distinctions is crucial in criminal law, as they influence the charges, legal defenses, and potential penalties in cases involving loss of life. 

Homicide
Homicide, on the other hand, is a broader and more encompassing term that encapsulates the unlawful killing of another person. While all murders are homicides, not all homicides are murders. Homicide is divided into two main categories:

Murder: Murder is a form of homicide characterized by the presence of malice aforethought or premeditation. It is the intentional killing of another person with the purpose of causing death or serious bodily harm. Murder charges are generally categorized into first-degree and second-degree murder, with first-degree murder typically involving premeditation and a deliberate intent to kill.
Non-Criminal Homicide: Not all homicides result in criminal charges. Some homicides are deemed justifiable or excusable, such as cases of self-defense, defense of others, or using deadly force by law enforcement in specific circumstances. 

[vinapu]

3 hours ago, unicorn said:

As horrified I am of her behavior, I question whether this behavior constituted murder.

 

I'd ask mother of those two boys first

[reader]

1 hour ago, vinapu said:

I'd ask mother of those two boys first

+1

perp has prior record of similar behavior and knows well potential consequences of her actions. This was not accidental outcome by first-time offender.

[macaroni21]

See https://www.justia.com/criminal/offenses/homicide/second-degree-murder/#:~:text=Second-degree murder requires that,and understanding of his actions.

I quote from above "Second-degree murder requires that the defendant acted impulsively, and without premeditation, but with an intent and understanding of his actions"

The article makes clear that she was convicted of second degree murder. She might have acted impulsively in speeding, but she sped intentionally, and she would have an understanding of the risks and consequences of her decision to speed. Thus I think the verdict is justified.

[Keithambrose]

2 hours ago, macaroni21 said:

See https://www.justia.com/criminal/offenses/homicide/second-degree-murder/#:~:text=Second-degree murder requires that,and understanding of his actions.

I quote from above "Second-degree murder requires that the defendant acted impulsively, and without premeditation, but with an intent and understanding of his actions"

The article makes clear that she was convicted of second degree murder. She might have acted impulsively in speeding, but she sped intentionally, and she would have an understanding of the risks and consequences of her decision to speed. Thus I think the verdict is justified.

 

Sad case. I last did criminal  law a long time ago, but in England, mens rea, or intention, is required to prove murder. Appalling though the behaviour of this woman was, unless she deliberately drove at the children, it would not be murder. We do not have degrees of murder. But In England the situation is worse, in one sense, since there is a specific offence of causing death by dangerous driving. The maximum penalty is less than for manslaughter, manslaughter is unlimited. Drivers are always prosecuted for the offence of causing death by dangerous diving. I never understood why. For reasons which are unclear, therefore, drivers who kill usually get a fairly low sentence. 

[reader]

In US, every state and the federal government have their own unique laws. Fortunately for survivors it occurred in state where it was possible to bring the charges that resulted in conviction. Here’s the federal code.

From Cornell Law School

Murder is the unlawful killing of a human being with malice aforethought. Every murder perpetrated by poison, lying in wait, or any other kind of willful, deliberate, malicious, and premeditated killing; or committed in the perpetration of, or attempt to perpetrate, any arson, escape, murder, kidnapping, treason, espionage, sabotage, aggravated sexual abuse or sexual abuse, child abuse, burglary, or robbery; or perpetrated as part of a pattern or practice of assault or torture against a child or children; or perpetrated from a premeditated design unlawfully and maliciously to effect the death of any human being other than him who is killed, is murder in the first degree.

Any other murder is murder in the second degree.

[unicorn]

22 hours ago, macaroni21 said:

See https://www.justia.com/criminal/offenses/homicide/second-degree-murder/#:~:text=Second-degree murder requires that,and understanding of his actions.

I quote from above "Second-degree murder requires that the defendant acted impulsively, and without premeditation, but with an intent and understanding of his actions"

The article makes clear that she was convicted of second degree murder. She might have acted impulsively in speeding, but she sped intentionally, and she would have an understanding of the risks and consequences of her decision to speed. Thus I think the verdict is justified.

 

In my reading of those laws, the intention must be to kill someone, not to speed. Therefore, someone who reacts impulsively by killing someone upon discovering his spouse having sex with someone else is guilty of 2nd degree murder (the behavior was impulsive and without premeditation, but with the intent to kill the victim). In fact, that's the exact example given for 2nd degree murder. What the perpetrator did in this case was horrific and egregious, but she was not trying to kill the children, as wontonly reckless as her behavior was. One can make a case for voluntary manslaughter and/or vehicular manslaughter, but this did not meet the definition of murder. 

My sense is that the jury was incensed (as I am) of the defendant's refusal to accept responsibility for the deaths. I would have supported convictions for voluntary manslaughter, with maximal, consecutive sentences for each wrongful death. I understand (and share) the anger, but it seems the law was not followed here. We should not let our feelings get in the way with applying the law as it's written. 

[reader]

What we don’t know is the instructions the presiding judge gave the jury prior to sending them to deliberate.

I’m sure this and other derails will come out on appeal.

i still believe that she willfully decided to speed with the knowledge that the consequences could indeed be fatal. And I’m satisfied that qualifies as afore thought. 

 

[Riobard]

I think the jury was presented with the notion of culpable homicide, intentional and negligent without regard for serious risk of harm. What could qualify it as murder would be the position that while pursuing an unlawful goal the accused causes death that they know could conceivably occur notwithstanding a preference for not causing bodily harm or death. Not premeditated or planned but intentional, hence the default of 2nd degree. 

An adult would be expected to know that striking a child at a crosswalk at the accused’s gratuitous pursuit of unlawful pedal to the metal speed behind the wheel of a death machine and flinging him 250 feet away would extinguish him; that is almost the distance of a 100 metre athletics race and probably as fast. Naturally, she would be hoping for no such obstruction while behaving recklessly and selfishly. 

That said, holding to the lesser charges of manslaughter would not seem outrageous and one wonders if any single juror may have objected in his or her mind yet wished to circumvent a ‘hung jury’ stalemate. It’s not a stretch to assume that the case dynamics would downregulate any dissenting juror’s confidence in certitude regarding what may have seemed like splitting hairs. My sense is that the jury is instructed to transcend consideration of sentencing and obviously cannot influence or forecast satisfaction with the justice of a manslaughter penalty. 

 

[unicorn]

9 hours ago, reader said:

What we don’t know is the instructions the presiding judge gave the jury...

That's probably the crux of the problem. The judge probably wanted a certain outcome and got it. Jury trials can be a bit of a farce when the judge gives specious and misleading instructions, and/or filters the testimony in a certain way. As they're written, the laws in California seem clear that 2nd degree murder constitutes deliberately killing someone without planning, such as in the heat of passion or in a sudden fight like a bar-room brawl. Manslaughter happens when a person kills due to wanton disregard for the safety of others. The judge and jury were probably incensed (as I was) over the defendant's behavior and lack of remorse, so wanted to see her spend of her life in prison. While I understand the sentiment, I feel verdicts should be based on the letter of the law, not on emotions. 

[Lucky]

15 minutes ago, unicorn said:

That's probably the crux of the problem. The judge probably wanted a certain outcome and got it. Jury trials can be a bit of a farce when the judge gives specious and misleading instructions, and/or filters the testimony in a certain way. As they're written, the laws in California seem clear that 2nd degree murder constitutes deliberately killing someone without planning, such as in the heat of passion or in a sudden fight like a bar-room brawl. Manslaughter happens when a person kills due to wanton disregard for the safety of others. The judge and jury were probably incensed (as I was) over the defendant's behavior and lack of remorse, so wanted to see her spend of her life in prison. While I understand the sentiment, I feel verdicts should be based on the letter of the law, not on emotions. 

There is no evidence of judicial misbehavior, bad instructions, incensed judge and jury, or really any wrongdoing. If it should come out, then the defendant has grounds for appeal. But right now your view is pure cynicism.

[caeron]

 

Felony Murder is a common way for criminals to get murder convictions. If you kill someone while committing a felony, the charge is often higher even if you didn't mean to kill anyone. The law for this differs by state. I'd guess it had something to do with illegal street racing which caused the deaths and led to a higher charge.

 

 

[unicorn]

12 hours ago, Lucky said:

There is no evidence of judicial misbehavior, bad instructions, incensed judge and jury, or really any wrongdoing. If it should come out, then the defendant has grounds for appeal. But right now your view is pure cynicism.

I'm sure almost everyone, including myself, yourself, the judge, and the jury was incensed by the defendant's depraved behavior. Whether the judge or jury followed the law is something an appeals court will decide.  

[unicorn]

10 hours ago, caeron said:

 

...If you kill someone while committing a felony, the charge is often higher even if you didn't mean to kill anyone...

True, but not relevant to this discussion.