NCAAbbs

http://blog.al.com/spotnews/2009/09/alab..._says.html

Someone with legal knowledge help me out with this one. Can he charge someone for a crime that happened in another country?

To answer your first question- yes, Troy King is a dumb***.

As to the second, I'm just a lowly 3L law student, but I don't know of any possible way the AG can claim to have jurisdiciton over events that happened on the other side of the world. Looks to be yet another embarrasment for our great state.

Gomer

it looks like there's at least one thing we can all agree on, and that is the fact that troy king is an idiot.

If the AG can somehow prove that it was planned in Alabama (or at least a substantial part of it), then he might actually be able to exercise jurisdiction over it. I don't know much about specific Alabama criminal law, but the state would have personal jurisdiction over him, as he is an Alabama resident. If he planned a substantial part of the murder while in Alabama (which may be hard to prove), then there would be some substantive jurisdiction in relation to the crime.

It would be similar to me buying a gun in Alabama, driving to the Georgia state line and firing the gun into Georgia territory and killing someone. A substantial part of the murder (and its planning) would have been committed in both Georgia and Alabama. Although the actual murder was completed in Georgia, under criminal law, I could be tried in BOTH Alabama and Georgia state courts for murder (double jeopardy would not apply since Alabama and Georgia are separate sovereigns), and both states would have jurisdiction. I could also be tried in federal court for murder, as the crime crossed state lines, and double jeopardy would not attach because the federal government is a separate sovereign from both Georgia and Alabama.

This case will hinge upon how much the AG can prove that the murder was planned here in Alabama. This could give the AG enough to try him for murder. It will be interesting to see how this plays out.

Plus, as the victim's husband, on top of being a master diver and her diving buddy, he has a legal duty (at least here in the United States) to at least attempt to save her life.

Planning to murder someone is only a crime if it is a conspiracy to commit murder, and you can't have a conspiracy of 1. Even if prosecutors found a notebook detailing the plans he had to kill her, they still wouldn't have any jurisdiction as he would not have committed any crime.

(09-18-2009 05:05 PM)BatesUAB Wrote: [ -> ]Planning to murder someone is only a crime if it is a conspiracy to commit murder, and you can't have a conspiracy of 1. Even if prosecutors found a notebook detailing the plans he had to kill her, they still wouldn't have any jurisdiction as he would not have committed any crime.

Under Ala. Code § 13A-4-2(a), "A person is guilty of an attempt to commit a crime if, with the intent to commit a specific offense, he does any overt act towards the commission of such offense."

If the AG can show that the murder was planned in Alabama, it does not matter where the murder occurs judging from the wording of the law. The footnotes of treatises mention the situation I posted above (shooting across state lines) as well as a scenario where A mails poisoned candy from State X to B in State Y, killing her, as giving State X (Alabama in this case) jurisdiction even if the murder was completed in State Y. Since there is an issue surrounding the increase in life insurance of the victim and a change in its beneficiary from her parents to him just prior to the trip to Australia, it could be seen as an overt act in furtherance of the attempt to commit murder (it would definitely show malice aforethought if the changes were done with the murder in mind). Also, getting on the plane in Birmingham with the intent to commit the murder could also be an overt act. The AG could possibly get him for attempted murder if either is the case. Since there is a completed murder, there may be a way for the AG to merge the attempt with the completed crime under Alabama law (attempt merges with murder, but I am not sure how it would work in this specific case with the murder being completed out of country). Like I said, I do not know all of the specifics of the Alabama Criminal Code (I know the general, broader law that most states follow). Unfortunately, my Westlaw and LexisNexis student subscriptions have expired, as I have graduated from law school, so I cannot search more of the Alabama Criminal Code to see whether the AG will be able to merge the attempt with the completed murder.


Also, in a minority of states, there can be a conspiracy of 1. I also think the Model Penal Code has been amended to reflect this as well (but most states have not adopted it yet). Under the minority rule, if I meet with you and we discuss a plot to kill my friend, but you have absolutely no intention of ever participating in the plan, but I believe that you do (thus creating a conspiracy in my mind), then there can still be a conspiracy to commit murder. It is a newer concept, and more extreme, and as such has not been adopted by very many states.

Since the US recognizes Australian law through various treaties, would double jeopardy also come into play here?

And yes, Troy "Homecoming" King is a dumb***. Did Paige move back in? Is his little homecoming king still drawing a staff salary? Who needs the Guiding Light?

(09-18-2009 07:21 PM)58-56 Wrote: [ -> ]Since the US recognizes Australian law through various treaties, would double jeopardy also come into play here?

And yes, Troy "Homecoming" King is a dumb***. Did Paige move back in? Is his little homecoming king still drawing a staff salary? Who needs the Guiding Light?

No, double jeopardy does not attach here. Australia and Alabama are separate sovereigns. Double jeopardy only means that Alabama or a US Federal Court (or Australia if they follow the same double jeopardy rules) could not try him for the same offense twice. Like my example above, if I shoot a gun on the Alabama side of the state line into Georgia and kill someone, BOTH Alabama and Georgia could try me for murder, as a substantial part of the crime occurred in both states, and because Alabama and Georgia are separate sovereigns under the double jeopardy rules. I might also be tried in federal court, as the crime crossed state lines, if it is a crime under federal law, which it probably is.

States and countries are separate sovereigns from each other, but political subdivisions within a state (counties, parishes, cities, etc.) are not considered separate sovereigns from that state. Therefore, double jeopardy would apply if both Jefferson County and the State of Alabama tried him for murder. The county is considered the same sovereign as the state for purposes of double jeopardy. Thus, if Alabama has some kind of evidence to actually move forward on a murder charge, double jeopardy will not attach, even though he has already been convicted of murder in Australia.

Also, two offenses are not the "same offense" under double jeopardy if each has an element the other does not have. For example, "vehicular manslaughter" has the following elements:

1. causing the death of another
2. through the use of an automobile
3. operated negligently

"Hit-and-run" has the following elements:

1. Causing bodily injury to another
2. Through the use of an automobile
3. Operated negligently
4. And unlawfully leaving the scene of the accident

Here, if you hit someone with your car, killing the person, and then drive off, you can be tried for both vehicular manslaughter AND hit-and-run. Each has an element that the other does not.


In this case, it will be interesting to see whether the AG can get the evidence to prove attempted murder. If state law somehow allows the attempted murder to merge with the completed offense in spite of where it was completed, then the AG could pursue a murder charge as well. He can charge him with both attempted murder and murder, and try him for both, but he would not be able to punish him for both, because attempt is merged into the greater offense. It could be a long shot, but if the evidence plays out and ties together the right way, we could be looking at both an attempted murder and murder charge (possibly first degree murder, too).


A little long-winded I know, but what else would you expect from a lawyer?

All I can say is grab some popcorn and a coke, take a seat, and enjoy the show. There will either be a trial or the end of a career, or both. Either way, it should be interesting.

(09-18-2009 05:25 PM)blazeman21 Wrote: [ -> ]Also, getting on the plane in Birmingham with the intent to commit the murder could also be an overt act. The AG could possibly get him for attempted murder if either is the case. Since there is a completed murder, there may be a way for the AG to merge the attempt with the completed crime under Alabama law (attempt merges with murder, but I am not sure how it would work in this specific case with the murder being completed out of country).

Getting on a plane an overt act? That is unbelievably thin. And while changing life insurance right before the trip might be rock solid for showing motive, in no way is that an overt act in furthering the act of murder. And with the attempt merging with the murder (which I don't think you could make attempt charges stick), I don't see how Alabama could have any jurisdiction.

The only overt act here is Troy King pandering before an upcoming election

(09-19-2009 09:42 AM)mixduptransistor Wrote: [ -> ]The only overt act here is Troy King pandering before an upcoming election

DING DING DING! WE HAVE A WINNER!

(09-19-2009 09:36 AM)BatesUAB Wrote: [ -> ]

(09-18-2009 05:25 PM)blazeman21 Wrote: [ -> ]Also, getting on the plane in Birmingham with the intent to commit the murder could also be an overt act. The AG could possibly get him for attempted murder if either is the case. Since there is a completed murder, there may be a way for the AG to merge the attempt with the completed crime under Alabama law (attempt merges with murder, but I am not sure how it would work in this specific case with the murder being completed out of country).

Getting on a plane an overt act? That is unbelievably thin. And while changing life insurance right before the trip might be rock solid for showing motive, in no way is that an overt act in furthering the act of murder. And with the attempt merging with the murder (which I don't think you could make attempt charges stick), I don't see how Alabama could have any jurisdiction.

Yes, getting on the plane with her with the full intent to murder her at the destination could be an overt act in furtherance of the crime. If I decided I wanted to kill you, and decided to get my gun and drive to your house and sit in your driveway and wait on you to come home, but, right before you come home, I change my mind and leave before you get there, I could still be charged with attempted murder. Sitting in your driveway waiting on you to get home with the intent to kill you is the overt act. Like I said before, in this case it will depend on how the evidence plays out and ties together.

If the AG gets before a grand jury, things could get very interesting. There will be no end to the evidence he can present. There is no right of the defendant to cross-examine witnesses at grand jury proceedings. In fact, the defendant does not even have to be present.

(09-19-2009 11:43 AM)blazeman21 Wrote: [ -> ]

(09-19-2009 09:36 AM)BatesUAB Wrote: [ -> ]

(09-18-2009 05:25 PM)blazeman21 Wrote: [ -> ]Also, getting on the plane in Birmingham with the intent to commit the murder could also be an overt act. The AG could possibly get him for attempted murder if either is the case. Since there is a completed murder, there may be a way for the AG to merge the attempt with the completed crime under Alabama law (attempt merges with murder, but I am not sure how it would work in this specific case with the murder being completed out of country).

Getting on a plane an overt act? That is unbelievably thin. And while changing life insurance right before the trip might be rock solid for showing motive, in no way is that an overt act in furthering the act of murder. And with the attempt merging with the murder (which I don't think you could make attempt charges stick), I don't see how Alabama could have any jurisdiction.

Yes, getting on the plane with her with the full intent to murder her at the destination could be an overt act in furtherance of the crime. If I decided I wanted to kill you, and decided to get my gun and drive to your house and sit in your driveway and wait on you to come home, but, right before you come home, I change my mind and leave before you get there, I could still be charged with attempted murder. Sitting in your driveway waiting on you to get home with the intent to kill you is the overt act. Like I said before, in this case it will depend on how the evidence plays out and ties together.

That is ridiculous. I highly doubt that is the intent of the law, and I promise if I were on the jury I'd vote not guilty in that case. The overt act that applies to an attempt should be me pointing a gun at you and pulling a trigger. Me sitting in your driveway with a gun but not actually pointing it at you or shooting you can't be proven beyond reasonable doubt that I intended to actually commit the act, because you have to know what is in my head and what I intend.

Quote:If the AG gets before a grand jury, things could get very interesting. There will be no end to the evidence he can present. There is no right of the defendant to cross-examine witnesses at grand jury proceedings. In fact, the defendant does not even have to be present.

That's why we have trials and the protections of the constitution in the trial.

(09-19-2009 04:36 PM)mixduptransistor Wrote: [ -> ]

(09-19-2009 11:43 AM)blazeman21 Wrote: [ -> ]

(09-19-2009 09:36 AM)BatesUAB Wrote: [ -> ]

(09-18-2009 05:25 PM)blazeman21 Wrote: [ -> ]Also, getting on the plane in Birmingham with the intent to commit the murder could also be an overt act. The AG could possibly get him for attempted murder if either is the case. Since there is a completed murder, there may be a way for the AG to merge the attempt with the completed crime under Alabama law (attempt merges with murder, but I am not sure how it would work in this specific case with the murder being completed out of country).

Getting on a plane an overt act? That is unbelievably thin. And while changing life insurance right before the trip might be rock solid for showing motive, in no way is that an overt act in furthering the act of murder. And with the attempt merging with the murder (which I don't think you could make attempt charges stick), I don't see how Alabama could have any jurisdiction.

Yes, getting on the plane with her with the full intent to murder her at the destination could be an overt act in furtherance of the crime. If I decided I wanted to kill you, and decided to get my gun and drive to your house and sit in your driveway and wait on you to come home, but, right before you come home, I change my mind and leave before you get there, I could still be charged with attempted murder. Sitting in your driveway waiting on you to get home with the intent to kill you is the overt act. Like I said before, in this case it will depend on how the evidence plays out and ties together.

That is ridiculous. I highly doubt that is the intent of the law, and I promise if I were on the jury I'd vote not guilty in that case. The overt act that applies to an attempt should be me pointing a gun at you and pulling a trigger. Me sitting in your driveway with a gun but not actually pointing it at you or shooting you can't be proven beyond reasonable doubt that I intended to actually commit the act, because you have to know what is in my head and what I intend.

Quote:If the AG gets before a grand jury, things could get very interesting. There will be no end to the evidence he can present. There is no right of the defendant to cross-examine witnesses at grand jury proceedings. In fact, the defendant does not even have to be present.

That's why we have trials and the protections of the constitution in the trial.

As ridiculous as it may sound, it is the majority rule nationwide for attempt. Once you take a substantial step toward carrying out the crime, such as grabbing your gun and driving to someone's house and sitting in their driveway waiting on the person to get home, with the intent to kill that person, then you are in trouble. Once that substantial step is taken, you cannot withdraw from the attempt. It will be hard to explain why you were sitting in your car for a period of time in the person's driveway with a gun, if there was not an intent to do something. You had better be sure that there is some other reason for that situation. There will most likely be other evidence besides just you sitting in the driveway in your car with a gun. There will be evidence surrounding your relationship with the person, among other evidence. The burden is beyond a reasonable doubt, not beyond any conceivable explanation otherwise. If it is not a reasonable explanation, then it doesn't count.


I understand that the reason we have trials and constitutional criminal procedure protections in them. But, the AG has only said that he wants to get before a grand jury right now. If he is not able to convince a grand jury to hand down an indictment with the leniency of grand jury proceedings, then he has no chance to actually get to trial. Like I have said several times now, it will all depend on how the evidence plays out and ties together in this case, and even then, it may not be enough.

(09-19-2009 09:45 AM)BatesUAB Wrote: [ -> ]

(09-19-2009 09:42 AM)mixduptransistor Wrote: [ -> ]The only overt act here is Troy King pandering before an upcoming election

DING DING DING! WE HAVE A WINNER!

Funny, that's the exact reply I was going to enter. Well, not in all caps, but other than that...

Troy King is busy proving to his voters that he's tough on crime, even if it is not done in his jurisdiction, or indeed even in his country.

This thread makes me dislike lawyers even more (except Bates of course).

Neither here nor there, really, but King is a disaster as AG. This guy should be fixing parking tickets in Pike County.