The Court’s Decision
The Court was not correct in dismissing the attempted murder case because Patrice attempted to kill her mother-in-law, Kayla when he fired both shots. The Court seems not to have made the decision based on the standard of law that requires the judge to take into consideration the type of attempt the crime would fall under and the elements of criminal act when making decisions. In addition, the Court failed to consider the fact that impossibility has never been a valid legal defense against attempted murder. The argument that she missed both times is irrelevant. A person is guilty of an attempt if they intentionally fail to do anything or do anything that is a significant step in the process of executing crime. Attempted murder is an act or omission that provides the defendant certain reason to commit the crime, which is charged as attempting murder ( Cassese, Acquaviva, Fan & Whiting, 2011).
Elements of the Criminal Act
The three elements that classify a crime of attempt include the offender must have the intent to commit crime, which is legally referred to as guilty mind. The second element is that there must be substantial act or omission that propels the offender solidly towards executing a crime, which is legally referred to as guilty act. With this element, the standards of the law requires that the criminal must be in the physical proximity of the crime, which allows the court to conclude that the perpetrator had the intention of commit a crime based on the actions that the offender has done already. The third element is that the criminal must have failed to commit the actual crime ( Cassese, Acquaviva, Fan & Whiting, 2011).
Delegate your assignment to our experts and they will do the rest.
In Patrice’s case, all the three elements of criminal act are present. When Patrice fired the gun, she had the intent of killing Kayla, but mistakenly killed Angela. The act of firing the weapon twice was a clear considerable act towards commission a crime of murder. The final requirement is that Patrice fails to kill Kayla because the gun jammed. The claim that the crime was an impossible attempt does not apply because if the gun had not malfunctioned, Kayla would have been killed. Therefore, this does not change the fact that Patrice intent was murder. This attempt could easily be classified with the physical proximity tests, because Patrice was in close firing range to the vehicle.
Type of Attempt
The tree types of attempts include a complete but imperfect attempt that involves a criminal completing every step of the crime but fails to complete the job. The second attempt is an incomplete attempt that occurs when an attempt is made but is interfered with or fails because of reasons that the criminal could not control. For example, in this case, Patrice failed to commit the crime because the gun malfunctioned. The third attempt is impossibility, whereby an attempt is incomplete because of gun malfunctioning signifies factual impossibility that has never been considered a valid defense against an attempt charge ( Cassese, Acquaviva, Fan & Whiting, 2011). Therefore, Patrice should have been charged because she had the intention of killing and the factual impossibility like gun jamming was out of her control.
Is it Ethical to Dismiss Charges on Impossibility?
The ethical or moralistic concern to dismiss a case on impossibility charges depends on the type of possibility the defense is using to dismiss the motion. In factual impossibility, the accused is not excused from the charges of criminality as well as the consequences of the actions due to the failure to complete the action is not associated with the intent of the offender to act. In the case of inherent impossibility, it would not have been possible to complete the charges. In the case of legal impossibility, there would have been no attempt or actual crime. In the case of Patrice, it was wrong for the court to dismiss the case because of factual impossibility, but ethically, there are various reasons for dismissal of some charges depending on the impossibility of the case ( Cassese, Acquaviva, Fan & Whiting, 2011).
Reference
Cassese, A., Acquaviva, G., Fan, M., & Whiting, A. (2011). International criminal law: cases and commentary . Oxford University Press.
