About a week ago a girl was shot in a Maryland school. Soon after that, a police officer shot and killed the gunman. The girl was critically injured, and on life support. After a few days, the family decided to take her off life support and she died soon after. Suppose the killer didn't die. What crime would the killer be charged with? The girl has died, but technically she would probably still be alive if her parents didn't take here off life support. I think in some cases, a jury could be convinced that it would be extremely unlikely that a victim would ever regain consciousness. Many would regard this as worse than attempted murder. Do some states have a crime that is appropriate for that situation?

It may vary by jurisdiction, but there is precedent to charge that individual with murder. Although, it is doubtful it varies greatly because, of course, the victim was murdered.

Here's one example, from New York, where a guy was charged with numerous things including attempted murder. An assault took place on December 5. It was reported on December 13 that the victim was taken off life support and that the suspect would subsequently be charged with murder.

Here's the beginning of an article on the topic (the meat of it is behind a paywall, but the relevant point is included). The article deals with a death that happens years after the initial assault, but the opening paragraph states that a subsequent victim death can lead to a prosecutor subsequently charging the suspect with murder.

And here's a 1994 article in the NY Times where the State Court of Appeals clarifies the "delayed death" exception. This holds that, in an exception to the state's double jeopardy law,

the state's highest court ruled today that a person who has pleaded guilty to attempted murder may be charged with murder if the victim later dies.

So, to answer your question (without providing any sort of legal advice, of course), a murder charge can likely stick in the situation you described.

There is an old common law rule that if the victim survived for a year and a day, that was conclusive proof that the victim had not died of the injury and that a conviction of homicide could not be made.

However, in many jurisdictions this rule has been overturned, either by legislation or by more recent case law. In those jurisdictions, providing the death can be proved to be the result of the perpetrators acts or omissions there is no time limit.

There are cases where a charge of murder has been brought when the victim of a shooting died more than 20 years later. The new stories at the following links give two examples, easily found with a Google Search: victim dies 20 years later

https://foxbaltimore.com/news/local/1996-shooting-victim-dies-more-than-20-years-later-from-wound-complications

https://www.chicagotribune.com/suburbs/aurora-beacon-news/opinion/ct-abn-crosby-shooting-victim-st-0617-story.html

New contributor
user21699 is a new contributor to this site. Take care in asking for clarification, commenting, and answering. Check out our Code of Conduct.

Your Answer

 

By clicking "Post Your Answer", you acknowledge that you have read our updated terms of service, privacy policy and cookie policy, and that your continued use of the website is subject to these policies.

Not the answer you're looking for? Browse other questions tagged or ask your own question.