- Published on
KembaraXtra-Case Law-Moloney (1985)
I. Case Summary:
In the rare instances where foresight needs to be considered, the judge should direct the jury to consider these two questions:
I. Case Summary:
- Facts: Defendant (D) and Victim (V) were engaged in a late-night drinking contest involving loading and firing a shotgun. Following V's taunting, D shot V without aiming.
- Issue: Was D guilty of murder?
- Holding: D was not guilty of murder.
- Foresight of consequences relates to evidence of intention, not the substantive law of intention itself (especially in crimes of specific intent, like murder).
In the rare instances where foresight needs to be considered, the judge should direct the jury to consider these two questions:
- Natural Consequence: Was death or really serious injury (in a murder case) a natural consequence of the defendant's voluntary act?
- Foresight of Natural Consequence: Did the defendant foresee that consequence as being a natural consequence of their act?
- If the jury answers "yes" to both questions above, it is a proper inference (but not a mandatory one) for them to draw that the defendant intended that consequence.
- This case emphasizes that foresight of consequences is evidence that can lead to an inference of intention.
- The jury must still determine whether the defendant actually intended the consequence, based on all the evidence. Foresight is not a substitute for intention.
0 Comments