Bill Wants To Kill Charlie. Bill Is In State A, Charlie In State B. Bill Shoots Across State Line. Who Has Jurisdiction?

[pierrepont88]

Which state has jurisdiction? Why? What charges?

[Conner]

Even if Bill fails he could be charged attempted murder, b/c he had intent.

[teyrnon72]

Both states could be involved in the legality. It did sound like an nearly unlikely crime, but upon closer examination, it is most likely to happen providing the state line is clearly marked with witnesses to the crime(CSI witnessing the evidence indicative of this cross-state-line-crime and others who were present at the time of the crime) in existence who can ascertain that certainly the crime had taken place across the state line. Then also, any variety of gun would do if the crime involved a firearm as a murder weapon. Making it more difficult and unlikely for the crime to be ascertained as having been committed across the state line, is the use of a sniper rifle and a extended distance among the shooter and the victim. Now with all that assumed, the state in which the victim was killed may possibly charge the other state with an extradition. The other state getting the killer's location of committing the crime. The killer's state may also deport the killer to the victim's state for trial. If none of this occurs, then murder is still illegal below national laws. Then the nation will possibly try the killer for the crime.

[Jamilah]

luv2read said: 2 Even if Bill fails he could be charged attempted murder, b/c he had intent. 69 months ago

[Fairlie]

If Bill hits Charlie, then it's murder.  If not, it's a bad shot.

[Arndell]

Both have jurisdiction over some crime. This is an old, old law school hypothetical case that was probably around when Learned Hand was a law student at Harvard.   For purposes of this discussion, I am going to assume that Bill kills Charlie.   State A would be able to charge Bill with attempted murder, breach of the peace and assault with a deadly weapon. This would be proper because all of the actions needed to complete the crime occurred in State A.   State B would have jurisdiction over the murder charge, since Charlie was killed in State B.  The murder occurred in State B, it has jurisdiction over that crime since it occurred in State B.         http://www.erichall.eu/images/USA2002/sw2021.jpg   Sources: going to law school   Snow_Leopard's Recommendations Criminal Law in a Nutshell(Nutshell Series) Amazon List Price: $27.00 Used from: $18.16 Average Customer Rating: 3.5 out of 5(based on 2 reviews) Snow_Leopard 69 months ago Please sign in to give a compliment. Please verify your account to give a compliment. Please sign in to send a message. Please verify your account to send a message.

[Langford]

I 'm guessing with logic. Both states may be involved in the legality. It did sound like an almost unlikely crime, but upon closer examination, it is likely to happen providing the state line is clearly marked with witnesses to the crime(CSI witnessing the evidence indicative of this cross-state-line-crime and others who were present at the time of the crime) in existence who can ascertain that indeed the crime had taken place across the state line. Then also, any type of gun would do if the crime involved a firearm as a murder weapon. Making it more difficult and unlikely for the crime to be ascertained as having been committed across the state line, is the use of a sniper rifle and a long distance between the shooter and the victim. Now with all that assumed, the state in which the victim was killed may charge the other state with an extradition. The other state being the killer's place of committing the crime. The killer's state may also deport the killer to the victim's state for trial. If none of this happens, then murder is still illegal under national laws. Then the nation will probably try the killer for the crime. Sources: logical guesses pseudonymous 69 months ago Please sign in to give a compliment. Please verify your account to give a compliment. Please sign in to send a message. Please verify your account to send a message.

[caraidland]

This is an old, old law school hypothetical case that was probably around when Learned Hand was a law student at Harvard.   For purposes of this discussion, I am going to assume that Bill kills Charlie.   State A would be able to charge Bill with attempted murder, breach of the peace and assault with a deadly weapon. This would be proper because all of the actions needed to complete the crime occurred in State A.   State B would have jurisdiction over the murder charge, since Charlie was killed in State B.  The murder occurred in State B, it has jurisdiction over that crime since it occurred in State B.         http://www.erichall.eu/images/USA2002/sw2021.jpg  

[Kelyn]

does he succeed? If Bill hits Charlie, then it's murder.  If not, it's a bad shot. RedBeardThePirate 69 months ago Please sign in to give a compliment. Please verify your account to give a compliment. Please sign in to send a message. Please verify your account to send a message.

[Evelyn]

luv2read said: 1 As RedBeard says, if he succeeds then state B charges him with murder. Although theoretically, if it is against the law to shoot a firearm in area of state A Bill is in both states could charge Bill. State B would have priority though. 69 months ago