Most people know that when someone commits murder that is willful, deliberate, and premeditated, that is murder in the first degree.  That is generally considered the worst kind of murder and carries the highest penalties.

But what exactly do "willfulness," "deliberation," and "premeditation" mean?  They each have distinct legal definitions that may not be exactly what you think.

Willful simply means on purpose.  Someone commits murder willfully when he or she intends to kill.  He or she kills on purpose.

Deliberate means to to carefully weigh the considerations for and against killing, and to choose to kill knowing the consequences.

Premedite means to decide to kill before taking action.  A murder is premeditated if the killer decides to kill before actually killing.

Most people think these words and definitions imply a lengthy and considered decision-making process.  However, a person can deliberate and premeditate in a very short amount of time. 

Depending on all the circumstances, mere seconds can suffice for someone to arrive at a thought-out -- premeditated and deliberate -- decision to kill.

As discussed in this article explaining states of mind, it can be very difficult to determine a defendant's state of mind (or mens rea).  It is almost always determined by circumstantial evidence. 

Things like the manner of killing, any planning activity, and motive, can be powerful circumstantial evidence of the killer's state of mind.

Check out this article exploring the difficulties of determining the defendant's state of mind in a case where a middle school student shot another student in the head during class.

To get information like this sent to your inbox, join the Criminal Law Community for free.

In honor of Valentine's Day, here are a few movies about lovers committing crimes together.  Who says love and crime don't mix?  Click on the pictures to check out the movies you may have missed!

Bonnie and Clyde (starring Warren Beatty and Faye Dunaway)

Natural Born Killers (starring Woody Harrelson and Juliette Lewis)

True Romance (starring Christian Slater and Patricia Arquette)

Love and a .45 (starring Gil Bellows and Renee Zellweger)

Badlands (starring Martin Sheen and Sissy Spacek)

Gun Crazy (starring John Dall and Peggy Cummins)

And an honorable mention goes out to Thelma and Louise (starring Susan Sarandon and Gina Davis).  Although it's not technically a lovers-on-a-killing-spree movie, there's no doubt those BFFs loved each other!

For fun crime and criminal law content like this delivered to your inbox, join the Criminal Law Community.

Are any of your favorites here?  Did I miss any good ones?

I'm not one to brag - at all - but I thought I'd share just a few of the nice things people have had to say about my criminal law information and advice recently:

* “Nothing beats going to the source for accurate information on any topic.” – Alex C., bestselling fiction writer

* “What wonderful ideas!  This is all very helpful.  I’m so glad you mentioned talking to attorneys in particular because I think that’s where one can get a realistic perspective on a trial.” – Margot K., mystery novelist

* “Excellent advice.” – Jack L., fiction writer

* “I really enjoy legal thrillers, but you are right – seems SO intimidating to think about writing them.” – Hart J., fiction writer

* “Finding a lawyer to consult and beta read, at the very least, is a great idea.” – Hart J., fiction writer

I love getting honest feedback.  Thanks to everyone who has commented and let me know what you think!  Fore more great reviews, check out my new testimonials page.

Get your free Writer's Guide, which reveals the Top 7 Mistakes Made by Writers of Crime, Mystery and Legal Drama. 

Or contact me for a free initial consultation on your project. 

I have previously discussed the general requirements to reduce an intentional killing from murder to voluntary manslaughter under a heat of passion theory. 

Yesterday, I set out  several examples of acts that may constitute sufficient provocation by the victim to justify a voluntary manslaughter conviction in lieu of murder.

To recap, a murder may be reduced to voluntary manslaughter under a heat of passion theory where:  1) the victim provoked the defendant, 2) the provocation caused the defendant to act rashly and under the influence of intense emotion, obscuring his judgment and reasoning, and 3) the provocation would have caused the average person to act rashly.

Some examples of acts by the victim that generally DO NOT constitute sufficient provocation (so the defendant will be on the hook for murder) include:

1.  A simple or slight assault.
2.  A simple trespass.  (However, a trespass combined with a physical attack or physical resistance to an eviction may suffice.)
3.  A victim's refusal to engage in sex.
4.  Molestation of a stranger.  In other words, where the defendant kills someone he believes sexually molested a child who was not related to or emotionally close to the defendant, the molestation is not sufficient provocation, and the defendant must be convicted of murder.
5.  Mere words or gestures, unless accompanied by something more.

 For more in-depth information about the differences between murder and voluntary manslaughter, check out this article.

For more information like this delivered to your email, along with my special offers, giveaways, and promotions, join the Criminal Law Community (I respect your privacy and will not give or sell your information to anyone).

When someone kills another in the heat of passion, the murder may be reduced to voluntary manslaughter. 

The elements, or requirements, necessary to find heat of passion voluntary manslaughter are:  1) the victim provoked the defendant, 2) the provocation caused the defendant to act rashly and under the influence of intense emotion, obscuring his judgment and reasoning, and 3) the provocation would have caused the average person to act rashly.

Not everything a victim does can be sufficiently provocative that it will support a voluntary manslaughter conviction (as opposed to murder).  Acts that may constitute adequate provocation (depending on the circumstances) include:

1.  A violent physical attack by the victim.
2.  Mutual combat or a fight between the defendant and victim, as long as the defendant did not start the fight.
3.  The victim's murder of a member of the defendant's family.
4.  A spouse's adultery.

Check out this post for examples of acts that will not justify reduction of murder to voluntary manslaughter.

For more in-depth information about the differences between murder and voluntary manslaughter, check out this article.

For more information like this delivered to your email, along with my special offers, giveaways, and promotions, join the Criminal Law Community (I respect your privacy and will not give or sell your information to anyone).

Corpus delicti is a latin phrase, which literally means, "body of crime."  In law, it is the principle that there must be evidence that a crime actually occurred before someone can be convicted of the crime.

The issue of a corpus delicti comes up when there is a confession to a crime.  If someone confesses to a crime, that person cannot simply be arrested and charged for that crime.  The police must first determine whether the crime actually occured.  (You might think this is a strange scenario, but people falsely confess all the time!)

Most states have a rule that a defendant's confession, standing alone, is not enough to prove him or her guilty beyond a reasonable doubt.  In fact, the defendant's statement may not even be admissible in court until the prosecution has first presented some other evidence that the crime occurred.  This is called corroborating evidence.

As an example, let's say someone walks in to the police station and confesses that he killed a prostitute ten years ago.  Based on the person's description of the crime (exactly when, where and how it occurred), the police would have to check old reports.  They would check if there were any prostitutes killed in the time, place and manner described. 

Or, if the body was never found, the police would have to look through missing person's reports from that time and place.  The confessing person may need to lead police to where the body was hidden or dumped or otherwise disposed of.  Although it is sometimes possible to convict someone of murder with no dead body, as discussed in a prior post, in a case like this, a body would almost certainly be needed.

For more interesting criminal law facts, news, and information, as well as special giveaways and promotions, delievered to your email, join the Criminal Law Community!

To aid and abet means to aid, help, facilitate, promote, instigate, or encourage another person to commit a crime.  The other person who commits the crime is called the direct perpetrator.

To be found guilty under a theory of aiding and abetting, the defendant generally must know of the direct perpetrator's criminal purpose, must intend to aid and abet the perpetrator, and must do or say something that in fact aids and abets the crime.

Someone who aids and abets a crime is generally just as guilty as the direct perpetrator.  This is true whether the aider and abettor had a minor role in the crime or was the most culpable person.

Examples of aiding and abetting include someone who is a lookout, who drives the getaway car, or who stays with the direct perpetrator during the crime as show of force or to help give the direct perpetrator courage to commit the crime. 

An aider and abettor can also be someone who orders the direct perpetrator to commit the crime (like a senior gang member directing a junior gang member to commit a crime).

The aider and abettor does not need to be present when the crime occurs.  On the flip side, mere presence at the scene of a crime, standing alone, is not enough to find someone guilty as an aider and abettor.

If someone only helps the direct perpetrator after the crime has been completed, such as by hiding the person, or destroying or disposing of evidence, that person is an accessory after the fact, not an aider and abettor.

If someone intends to aid and abet one crime, but a different crime occurs, the aider and abettor may still be guilty of that other crime, if the other crime was reasonably foreseeable under the circumstances.  This is called the natural and probable consequences doctrine.

For more interesting criminal law definitions, discussions, news stories and tidbits delivered to your inbox, join the Criminal Law Community.

Many writers who are not lawyers may be intimidated by courts and the law.  They may stray from writing stories or scenes that take them into the courtroom. 

I wrote an article with some easy tips to help overcome any fears or doubts about writing legal drama.  Check out What to Do When Your Character Goes to Court.

For more great tips, sign up for your free Writer's Guide:  Top 7 Mistakes Made by Writers of Crime, Mystery and Legal Drama.

Question from a reader:  If person A threatens person B with the loss of B's job if B does not cut the brake line of C's car, who can be held liable for the crime?

The short answer is that, if B actually cuts the brake line, both A and B can be convicted.  That would at least be a vandalism charge, and possibly attempted murder, depending on the specific circumstances. 

B would be liable as the direct perpetrator, since he did the criminal act of cutting the brake line.  A would be liable as an aider and abettor or an accesory because he got B to do it.  (Although we usually think of an accessory as being less culpable than the direct perpetrator, that is not necessarily so, as this example demonstrates.)

That leads to the question, if B was basically forced to commit the crime, why would he still be criminally liable? 

There are only limited circumstances where the law allows someone to "get away with" committing a crime.  Generally, if someone is being threatened or forced to commit a crime, they would be expected to report it to the police.  That's true even if reporting the crime would have dire consequences, such as the loss of a job.   

There are some defenses where a person is basically forgiven for committing a crime.  However, the crime must be committed to prevent something worse from happening, and it must be the only real option.  Self-defense  or defense of others would be such a defense.

There are also the defenses of duress and necessity.  These defenses have strict requirements, and generally only permit someone to commit a crime if the crime would help prevent some bigger wrong, and if there was no other reasonable alternative. 

For example, if someone has planted a bomb and threatens to blow up a school if you do not rob a bank, and you have no way to notify authorities or get away, you would probably not be liable for the bank robbery. 

Being threatened with losting one's job would not qualify under any defense.

Note that in teh scenario above, A did not commit blackmail or extortion by threatening B's job to force B commit a crime like cutting a brake line.  Extortion involves threatening someone to force them to give you money or property (or to get a public officer to perform an official act).

For more answers to your questions delivered to your inbox, join the Criminal Law Community!

We hear about this all the time.  Someone is accused of a crime or suspected of a crime or charged with a crime.  They are brought into court or before Congress or into a grand jury.  They refuse to answer questions, invoking the Fifth Amendment. 

This can be called, pleading the Fifth, taking the Fifth, or invoking the Fifth.  It may also be called invoking you right to remain silent.  The witness can use any of these phrases, or they can say, "I refuse to answer on the grounds that it may incriminate me."  If the witness is worried about public perception, they may also insert the phrase, "On the advice of my lawyer..."

The Fifth Amendment of the U.S. Constitution states that no person "shall be compelled in any criminal case to be a witness against himself."

What this means is that the government has to build a case against you, using evidence that does not come from your mouth.  Of course, you can waive this right and talk to the police, and give them a bunch of evidence to use against you if you want.  And many, many people do exactly that.  But you have a constitutional right not to do so if you don't want to.

Get more information like this sent to your inbox by joining the Criminal Law Community.