Sunday, December 20, 2009

Defendant Had No Duty to Prevent Her Sometime Boyfriend From Killing her Other Sometime Boyfriend.

image State v. Back, Minn.S.Ct., 12/10/2009.  Nicholas Super shot and killed Daniel Holliday.  Ms. Back had lived with Mr. Holliday for a time but then moved out, after which she took up with Mr. Super.  Apparently finding him not so super, she endeavored to reunite with Mr. Holliday.  To do this she needed wheels to get over to Mr. Holliday’s New Years Eve bash; she enlisted Mr. Super for a ride. 

Things didn’t go too well at the party.  Mr. Holliday and Ms. Back started arguing; Mr. Holliday repeatedly asked her to leave then commenced to escort her off the premises.  Mr. Super was lurking outside.  The two men then began to argue; Mr. Holliday tried to push Mr. Super off the stairs at which point Mr. Super shot Mr. Holliday.  Mr. Super fled; Ms. Back stayed to try to save Mr. Holliday’s life.

Amazingly, a grand jury indicted Ms. Back for first degree premeditated murder and various other lesser included intentional homicide offenses.  Things started to improve for Ms. Back, however, once trial commenced.  The state dismissed the first degree murder charge and the judge granted Ms. Back’s motions for judgments of acquittal on the remaining intentional homicide offenses.  As Ms. Back was headed for the door, however, the judge then granted the state’s motion to add second degree manslaughter to the mix, on which a jury convicted her.

Second degree manslaughter requires culpable negligence.  Negligent behavior, however defined, doesn’t matter unless that behavior breached some duty of the actor.  The appellate court couldn’t find one and so it threw out the conviction.  The appellate court said that Ms. Back had no duty to prevent Mr. Super from killing Mr. Holliday unless some special relationship between them created that duty.  The state introduced no evidence that Ms. Back had a relationship with Mr. Holliday suggesting either that she would protect him, or that Mr. Holliday assumed that she would protect him.  The state also introduced no evidence that Ms. Back had an obligation to control Mr. Super.

No comments:

Post a Comment