Desperate David has undertaken a dangerous desert trek rather than marry either of his current girlfriends. So each girlfriend (unaware of the others actions) sabotaged his reserve water supply.
Debra added a quick-acting poison while Dana punctured the barrel, allowing all of the poisoned water to run away.
One week later David died from dehydration.
When arrested Debra claimed she was innocent because even though she poisoned the water David did not drink any.
Dana claimed she was not guilty because puncturing the barrel had stopped David from dying sooner from the poison. Her action made him live longer.
They cannot be charged jointly since they acted independently
Who, if anyone, should be charged with what crime?
There is lack of proof of intent that Dana committed a murder, yet she can be convicted of manslaughter. It can be shown that there was intent on the deprivation of water that lead to Desperate David's demise, yet there is no proof that
Dana's intent was his death. She may claim that it was her intent that David, seeing he had no water, would return from his trek. Of course she can still be charged with murder, but it will be more difficult to prosecute without Dana's admission or other indication of her intent.
On the other hand, Debra's actions of adding poison to the water is proof of her intention to kill Desperate David. Though David did not die from the poison, Debra can be charged with attempted murder.
The answer to the question "Who, if anyone, should be charged with what crime?" is Dana with 'manslaughter' and Debra with 'attempted murder'.
Posted by Dej Mar
on 2007-04-12 13:00:35