Involuntarily Manslaughter or First Degree Murder?

[LSN80]

These are the options being bantered about in the murder trial of George Huguely, the University of Virginia lacrosse player who killed his ex-girlfriend, Yeardly Love. The 22 year old Love herself was a was a female lacrosse player for the University.

http://www.cnn.com/2012/02/09/justice/virginia-student-trial/index.html?hpt=ju_c2

Huguely has been in jail for two years, and the difference between the two charges is tremendous. The maximum sentence for involuntary manslaughter in the state of Virginia is 10 years, while first-degree murder carries the penalty of 25 years to life.

The incident occurred after Huguely found out Love had slept with someone else. On the night of the fatal incident, Huguely went to Love's apartment to confront her. Finding the apartment she lived in to be open, he entered, and promptly kicked in the door of her bedroom when she refused to come out. According to his statement to police, he went there, drunk, to confront her about sleeping around. When she alledgedly laughed in his face, he stated that he cornered her on the ground, and began to shake her. The defense is arguing that there is no evidence that her head hit the wall as he was shaking her, but Huguely acknowledged in her statement that her head hit the wall "several times" during the altercation.

Charlottesville Police Detective Lisa Reeves said the following:

"George Huguely admitted on May 3, 2010, that he was involved in an altercation with Yeardley Love and, during the course of the altercation, he shook Love and her head repeatedly hit the wall. Accordingly, she had a large bruise on the right side of her face that appears to have been caused by blunt force trauma."

Huguely left the apartment minutes after shaking her, taking her computer with him. Her roommate found her hours later, and smelling alcohol on her, feared an alcohol overdose when she couldn't revive her. She apparently missed the large bruise on her face, and called the paramedics to report alcohol overdose. But she was pronounced dead quickly, and police were called to the scene. Charlottesville Police Chief Tim Longo said the following about the scene:

"It was quickly apparent to them this young lady was the victim of something far worse,"

Further damning evidence against Huguely are emails that were exchanged between himself and Love before the incident took place. Prosecution read emails exchanged between Huguely and Love in court. Huguely's first email told Love "I should have killed you", which he sent after finding out Love had slept with someone else. Love responded with "You should have killed me?", and Huguely responded with "We need to get together and talk." This was days before the incident took place. Prosecutor Warren Chapman also noted this, taken from the autopsy report:

"Love's death was slow and painful, and she could have remained alive for a couple of hours after Huguely left her apartment."

Interestingly enough, the defense is not only acknowledging this, but is using this in their defense. The basis of it is that Huguley went there to talk, not with the intention to kill her. The fact that he left with her alive, they argue, is evidence that this wasn't premeditated murder. Further, the police noted that Huguely was in "legitimate shock and disbelief" when he was told Yardley was dead. The fact that she was alive for hours, the defense alledges, shows that he obviously didn't go there to kill, but just to talk. When she refused, he snapped. He then freaked out when he realized he had hurt her, and fled.

I have absolutely no sympathy for George Huguely, as I see him as an entitled punk who threw a deadly temper tantrum when he didn't get his way. But if I'm to be honest, I don't see this as pre-meditated murder either. On the flip side, this isn't as simple as involuntary manslaughter either. He didn't accidentally hit her with his car when drunk.

Huguely had several choices in the situation, and he took the wrong ones. He got drunk, and kicked in her door. When he didn't get the response he wanted, he acted out of rage. As he noted, her head banged off the wall several times as he shook her, so he meant to hurt her. So, with that logic, this falls to me under Voluntary Manslaughter, where the person had no intent to kill initially, but did so in the "Heat of the Moment". moment. His intent may not have been to kill her, but it was to hurt, and she died as a result. Her fled, with her injured, essentially leaving her to die. Sound like Second Degree murder to me. But I want to hear from all of you.

Was this first degree murder, Involuntary Manslaughter, or something else? Why?

As a reference point, here is a simplification of the types of murder within the US. Some vary by state, but are essentially the same. Pick which one you think fits best.

First Degree Murder is murder that is willful and premeditated.

Second Degree Murder is a murder that is not premeditated or planned in advance. However, in the moment, the killing is intentional, and done with unreasonable intentions.

Voluntary Manslaughter sometimes called a "Heat of Passion" murder, is any intentional killing that involved no prior intent to kill, and which was committed under such circumstances that would "cause a reasonable person to become emotionally or mentally disturbed." Both this and second degree murder are committed on the spot, but the two differ in the magnitude of the circumstances surrounding the crime. For example, a bar fight that results in death would ordinarily constitute second degree murder. If that same bar fight stemmed from a discovery of infidelity, however, it may be mitigated to voluntary manslaughter.

Involuntary Manslaughter stems from unintentional, but criminally negligent behavior. A drunk driving-related death is typically involuntary manslaughter. Note that the "unintentional" element here refers to the lack of intent to bring about the death. All three crimes above feature an intent to kill, whereas involuntary manslaughter is "unintentional," because the killer did not intend for a death to result from his intentional actions.

 

[Dagger Dias]

It's so sad when things like this happen. Huguely was cheated on, so he had every right in the world to be angry. That doesn't excuse his actions though, that was the wrong way to handle the situation. The fact that he was drunk during the incident further complicates things. People cannot think clearly when under the influence, which could have led him to do what he did despite being there just to talk things out. I don't think he came there with the intent of killing her. The email comment of how he "should have killed her" was a bit foreshadowing and not a very smart thing to send.

It appeared as if he went there that evening to try to talk things out, then got angry when he did not get what he wanted. Even though he was under the influence and obviously upset, I doubt that it was intended murder because if it was then he would have killed her on the spot instead of fleeing the scene leaving her to die a slow death. Once he realized he had gone too far he ran off. That sounds more like voluntary manslaughter to me. Losing focus in the moment and inflicting too much damage without the intention of killing seems to be what happened. No matter what sentence he received it would not bring the woman back to life, so the severity of his sentence would really change little unless they had put him away for life but he doesn't deserve something THAT extreme without the intention for murder being there. He needs to have enough time to think about his actions while still eventually getting a chance to turn things around in the end. That's my two cents, anyway.

 

[Davi323]

Based on the limited information in the CNN article, I am inclined to agree that it's probably not 1st degree murder, however I am not quite sure about which lesser crime it would qualify under.

It is not 1st degree murder, there was no evidence at all that there was premeditation involved. Simply saying "I should have killed you" is not proof of anything at all. It could be argued that it was just a turn of phrase used out of anger, not out of any actual premeditation to murder. How often do we say things like "I would kill someone for a beer right now" or something similar? You wouldn't really kill anyone for a beer, you are simply expressing a desire for a beer, no murderous intent. If I were on the jury, the email alone would not be nearly conclusive enough proof that the actions were premeditated. Because of that, it fails the standard to make it 1st degree murder.

Because of the example given for voluntary manslaughter, in that the discovery of infidelity may cause someone to become emotionally or mental disturbed, as is the case here, 2nd degree murder doesn't fit either.

For me, the issue is primarily the differences between what constitutes voluntary manslaughter from involuntary manslaughter.

The roommate claims that when she got home, she thought Love had an alcohol overdose of some kind. IF the evidence shows that the alcohol was in her system, in her blood tests, and that she was intoxicated during her argument with Huguely, the defense would be able to claim that he merely thought she had passed out from the alcohol when he left, but that she was alive.

If however, it can be determined that the alcohol was poured on after her collapse, to disguise her passing out from the injuries or to hide the cause of death, I think it points towards voluntary manslaughter instead of involuntary. If it was a cover up attempt, either Huguely knew she was seriously injured and did nothing to help her, or that he knew she was dead already and was hoping that her cause of death would be determined to be alcohol related.

Essentially, if the bloodwork shows heavy amounts of alcohol was in her system at the time of death, it's probably involuntary manslaughter, if it was poured on her afterwards, it's probably voluntary manslaughter.

 

[Davi323]

Just as a follow-up, George Huguely was convicted of 2nd degree murder, and sentenced to 26 years (25 for the 2nd degree murder, plus an additional year for grand larceny, ie stealing her laptop). Apparently the jury did not buy that Love's apparent cheating constituted enough emotional stress that it would have "caused a reasonable person to become emotionally or mentally disturbed.", to render it Voluntary Manslaughter instead.

 

[Mustang Sally]

Apparently the jury did not buy that Love's apparent cheating constituted enough emotional stress that it would have "caused a reasonable person to become emotionally or mentally disturbed.", to render it Voluntary Manslaughter instead.

I'll buy that, especially when you consider that the judge instructs the jury before they retire to render judgment as to the definitions provided above by the OP. It's doubtful the defendant had any intention of killing the victim and, as much as we'd like to see the guy fry, it's not reasonable to sentence him as if he did.

I remember some of the crass comments being made after the killing, as some guys in the office were doing the "If she cheated on him, the bitch deserved to die" routine that was also being tossed around when O.J. Simpson's wife was murdered. Lovely, huh?

But when you consider the differences in intent involved when the action of one person results in the death of another, it always makes me think: If a person attempts to murder someone and fails, why is the penalty less than if he had succeeded? In other words, it was a First Degree Murder attempt, but he gets off easier just because he botched it?

Never made sense to me.