Criminal Intent
X is guilty of reckless. The laws governing reckless homicide and negligent homicide vary by jurisdiction. However, the general agreement of the state statutes point out that a person is guilty of reckless homicide if their behavior lawfully or unlawfully resulted in the harm or death of another person. X’s ignorance of the consequences of locking C in the car was caused by his lack of interest. Y had tried to tell him about it previously, but he ignored the information. Following the police investigation, he also mentions that he had a lot on his mind. This is not true as the primary reason for stopping was getting the concert cards, which was followed by other unnecessary prolonged delays.
Causality
In the defense attorney’s argument, X did not cause the injury of the firefighters because they were intervening on duty. The proximate cause of the injury was the failure to obey the stand down command and the unprecedented wind that blew in the cause of their intervention. If they had obeyed the directive not to enter the building, they would not have sustained the injuries.
Delegate your assignment to our experts and they will do the rest.
In the prosecutor’s argument, X caused the death of the resident through his act of arson. The primary reason why the resident entered to rescue his pig was that the building was on fire. In this case, both the actual and proximate cause of death are the arson. In the defense attorney’s argument, the proximate cause of death is entering a burning building. It is illegal for any individual to risk their lives by entering a building that is on fire.
Duty of Care
Being the co-parent, Y has a duty of care towards C. Y would be held criminally liable for the death of C. The duty of care law point out that an individual has to take reasonable care and act as it is deemed necessary to avoid actions or omissions that can be foreseen to result in injury or death. In this case, Y failed to sufficiently intervene by not reporting to the police X for physically assaulting C. Also, the failure to seek urgent medical care for C with the foreseen risk implies that X contravened the duty law. This is regardless of the inevitability of C’s death.
Criminal Intent and a Voluntary Act
By deciding to hold the graduation party for C, X should have known the mischief of teenagers and taken full responsibility to ensure that alcohol was not brought to the party. The New York social host law, for example, states that it is the responsibility of the host to be aware of all acts and indulgencies taking place within a social event on their property. ( N.Y. GOB Law section 11-110 ). X would also be liable for the death of the pedestrians following the car crash. Although the crash was the result of an involuntary act, seizures were caused by the act of fleeing from another crime scene. The prosecutor would thus argue that but for the act of fleeing, the crash would not have been caused.
