Does it constitute murder if the attempted murder fails but the victim dies anyway as a side effect of the attacker's actions?

Question

For example, suppose an attacker is chasing a victim with a knife and the intention to kill. While running away, the victim falls, hitting their head, and dies.

Assuming there is clear evidence for the the attacker's intentions and how the victim died, can the attacker be charged with or convicted of murder?

I could see them being charged with murder because their actions led to the person's death. But I could also see the charges being limited to attempted murder since the attacker didn't directly cause the victim to fall. Or maybe they would be charged with both attempted murder and manslaughter?

If it varies by state, I will limit this to whether this would constitute murder in Utah or California.

Answer 1

california

You intended to kill them, you killed them, that's murder

California Penal Code Section 187(a):

Murder is the unlawful killing of a human being, or a fetus, with malice aforethought.

California Penal Code Section 188(a)(1):

Malice is express when there is manifested a deliberate intention to unlawfully take away the life of a fellow creature.

---

If this weren't the case, one could nitpick the cause of death almost endlessly. For instance, what if you stabbed them nearly to death, they were almost saved by a surgeon, but then they died of an infection that they acquired in the hospital? The law's solution is simple: if you not only killed them, but you also intended to kill them before doing so, that's murder.

Answer 2

That’s murder

new-south-wales

Crimes Act 1900 s18:

Murder shall be taken to have been committed where the act of the accused, or thing by him or her omitted to be done, causing the death charged, was done or omitted with reckless indifference to human life, or with intent to kill or inflict grievous bodily harm upon some person, or done in an attempt to commit, or during or immediately after the commission, by the accused, or some accomplice with him or her, of a crime punishable by imprisonment for life or for 25 years.

The act of chasing the victim with intent to kill caused the death. QED.

Answer 3

england-and-wales

You're describing a murder

In English Law, the act of running from an attacker would be entirely within the realms of 'causation' (e.g. the attack caused them to escape) and is explicitly called out in case law as one of the things that an attacker would expect their victim to do in self-defence, hence remaining part of the attacker's responsibility.

Per the CPS (Crown Prosecution Service) guidance on Homicide;

To break the "chain of causation" an intervening act must be such that it becomes the sole cause of the victim's death so as to relieve the defendant of liability - see R v Wallace (Berlinah) [2018] EWCA Crim 690; R v Kennedy (Simon) [2008] Crim. L.R. 222. Examples of intervening acts are:
...
An act of the victim if not within the range of response which might be anticipated from a victim in his situation: R v Roberts (1972) 56 Cr App R 95 and R v Williams Davis 1992 CLR 198.

In both the cases cited above, the victim of a violent assault attempted to flee and were injured during their attempt to escape. The aggressor was deemed to be accountable as this was a predictable chain of causation.

Answer 4

This will depend upon the legality of your actions so far, and how closely they are related to the death.

For instance, if you were chasing that person with the intent to kidnap them, torture and then kill them, it’s going to be murder because you are committing a crime and they die because of that.

If instead, you called and invited them to your house with the intent to do the same thing, and they get hit by a bus on the way, you haven’t yet committed an illegal act and you are free and clear (albeit disappointed that you didn’t get to torture them first).

So, the key question is going to be did they die as a result of a crime you committed, and how closely that crime was related to their death.

Answer 5

What you describe could be construed as felony murder in it is a death that happened during the committing of a felony. You were in the process of assaulting the victim and then he slipped and hit his head against a rock and died from that. In some states felony murder carries the death penalty like Nevada for instance. Intentions are pretty clear, you don't chase a person with a knife if you intend to do no harm.

Answer 6

Also in English Law, the rule is, if you intended serious harm to a person, and a person dies because of it, that's murder. This definition means that:

1. You didnt need to intend their death. Its enough to prove you intended to do them serious harm, and they died as a result of what you did. That's murder.
2. It doesnt have to be the same person. If you intended serious harm to person A, but because of your actions a different person B died, thats murder as well.

So if you punch someone hard enough, and they fall and die, the question will be whether you knew or should have known it was likely to do "serious harm", or would do it, or whether you intended "serious harm". (Sometimes the courts emphasise the criterion by describing it as "really serious harm" when talking to a jury.)

Also if you mean to kill, or even "seriously harm", one person, and a different person dies - a bystander, or wrong victim - dies, thats murder too.

In both cases, the "chain of causation" in Richard's answer is used to decide if the death was, or was not, a result of your actions, or resulted legally from some other cause.

Answer 7

Also applies to injuries and in tort law. See the eggshell skull rule.

Which says that if you intend to do a harm, "the unexpected frailty of the injured person is not a valid defense to the seriousness of any injury caused to them."

So even if you manage to escape the murder charge, O.J. Simpson style, the victim's family gets another bite at the apple, in civil court. And there, they get to use all the evidence from the criminal trial, but the standard of proof is only "more likely than not" i.e. 51% likely. Since all the evidence has already been vetted by the criminal court, it is "shooting fish in a barrel" for the civil plaintiffs.

So you will end up bankrupt and a pauper for the rest of your life, and even worse, you will have to live in Florida if you want to accumulate wealth via home equity, it being the only state that protects unlimited equity in a homestead. That is why OJ lives there.

"Rest of your life" because bankruptcy doesn't clear liabilities from intentional crimes.

Think about that. You get in a quarrel with someone and push them against the wall and yell at them, and they have a record of being extremely prudent about COVID precautions so it 51% more likely than not their fatal case came from you... boom, wrongful death. You could not have imagined they were not vaccinated, nor that you even had COVID.

Answer 8

In the USA, if you commit a felony, and someone dies as a result, that’s murder.

It doesn’t matter whether you intended to kill them (although you said they did). But it must happen as a foreseeable result. Foreseeable is for example two armed bank robbers committing a felony by robbing a bank, and police shooting one of them, the other is guilty of murder. Foreseeable is if you stab someone with a knife, they are taken to hospital, and they die because of a stupid and negligent act in the hospital. Not foreseeable is if you stab someone, they are taken to hospital in an ambulance, and that ambulance gets hit by a truck and your victim killed. It would be foreseeable if the victim tries to run away, runs into the street without looking or falls over their own feet and gets killed.

It would not be murder if the death was not an intended or unintended result of your felony of attempted murder. Still attempted murder, of course.