Legal Issues

The court was incorrect in dismissing the attempted murder charge.  While each state has a different statute, the basic tenet of each attempted murder statute is that the defendant intended the death of his or her target.  This forms the culpability level of the statute.  This level of culpability is imperative in the United States as well. The fact that the gun malfunctioned has no bearing because of Jacks intent to kill Bert. The fact that the gun had already been used to kill Pratt, shows the intent of a crime being committed.  The elements of a criminal act require the actus reus, which means the act itself (or lack thereof sometimes) and the mes rea, which means the requisite intent of a crime.  Here, Jack attempted to murder Bert by approaching the car, pointing the gun, and firing it at Bert.  The approach, point and fire constitute the act.  The mens rea is found in the acts that Jack committed.  Clearly, it was the intention of Jack to kill Bert as soon as he fired the gun.  His premeditation is demonstrated by the acts he did (walking and aiming) prior to firing the gun.  Here, there was a complete attempt to claim a life.  Impossibility is not an availing defense because a gun jamming is does not render the shot itself impossible.  Indeed, one could argue that the gun jamming was the accident.  Here, the prosecution should appeal the ruling of the court and the appellate division should reinstate the indictment.  Clearly, all of the elements of attempted murder have been met even in this scant fact pattern and the lower court erred in its ruling.