As a result of what could best be described as a street gun battle, two young men are set to stand trial separately for second degree murder for the death of a bystander. Two other people were also shot, but none of the two shooters was wounded.

The first trial is to begin next week, the other to follow in March.

The ballistic tests were inconclusive as to which gun fired the fatal shot.

I'm wondering how the state can contend that both men are guilty of murder when the victim died of a single gunshot to the chest. If the first defendant is found guilty, will that not aid in the defense of the second since they could contend that another was already found guilty of the crime?

It must be legal - it just seems illogical.

 

I believe it would be similar to a situation where two people are involved in robbing a store. One is the driver and waits in the car. The gunman goes inside and in the process of robbing the stores kills the clerk. Both can be held culpable for the same level of murder. YMMV from state to state however.

 

I thought of that too. But in this case, the two were not in collusion but were trying to shoot one another. I don't think I can remember another case quite like this. Since Bill doesn't seem to want to weigh in, anybody else ?

 

I believe that the legal rationale is that their illegal actions - attempting to kill each other - led directly to the death of another individual, so they both can be charged with second degree murder. There was a similar case here in FL not too long ago.

 

It is called the felony murder rule. If, in the engagement of a felony, your acts result in the death of another, you can be charged with murder. Engaging in a gun fight is a felony. If the death was a result of the gunfight, the non-shooter can be charged with felony murder.

There are defenses. Here, both shooters will likely claim they were acting in self defense. As self defense is not a felony, the death of the bystander would not be murder.

 

In Washington, the State Supreme Court recently made a cotroversial ruling about the Felony Murder law. Essentially they ruled that it does not apply to assault cases. They decided that if a person was charged with assault, then they must have specifically NOT been charged with murder or attempted murder. So they threw out all Felony Murder sentences in assault cases.

I guess this makes sense, in that it prevents a prosecutor from getting a murder conviction while only having to prove the lesser charge of assault. However, on the face of it, it is strange that if you commit some felony like (for instance) armed robbery and someone gets killed you can be sentenced for murder even if you didn't intend for anyone to be hurt, but if you get into a fight with someone and whack them upside the head and then they die, you need to be convicted of murder outright.

 

The defense strategy you suggest seems likely. I recall plea bargains being offered to both parties but there were no takers. None of the witnesses seems sure of who fired at whom first.

I don't know how they're going to explain having a handgun in their possession in the first place during a festival.