Ysabelle Regis Gus’ Death Ana is most likely to be held criminally liable for the death of Gus. In this jurisdiction, Involuntary Manslaughter stems from those who recklessly cause the death of another. The definition of Involuntary Manslaughter best fits the scenario of Gus’ death, where the assailant lacked the awareness of the risk that the victim would die. Gus’ ingestion of the cocaine was reckless due to the lack of supervision and setting he was put in. However, involuntary manslaughter may not be sufficient liability to the reasonable person, since the scenario involves the very preventable death of a child. Murder in the first degree within this jurisdiction involves deliberate or premeditated malice, or attempting to commit another listed crime, including first degree cruelty to children. There is no evidence of premeditation or purpose in this scenario, but the elements of having unsecured drugs around two minors and allowing them to be in a setting where adults are intoxicated and openly using drugs is not appropriate and may be considered child endangerment or cruelty. More information regarding the events leading up to Gus’ overdose would be needed to determine whether first degree cruelty is an appropriate claim in this situation, however, the facts suggest that while Ana did not deliberately have Gus ingest the cocaine, she did very little to prevent the scenario from occurring, making her criminally liable. Even though Gus was being watched by Ana’s 16-year-old neighbor, Xavier, the duty to care still lies with Ana, making her liable and not Xavier. The duty to care falls between familial connections such as parent to child, contractual connections to care such as babysitting or schooling, or imminent duty to care, where someone is in immediate and dire need, and you can assist them. Xavier was supposed to be watching Gus, which would make him liable as well. However, given the fact that Xavier was a minor, and only agreed to babysit on a last-minute request, we can assume that Xavier is not capable of being fully liable for the duty to care for Gus, as he is not old enough himself to make fully informed decisions, and there is no record of discussion regarding drugs in the house Xavier should have been avoiding Gus from ingesting. Regardless, Ana invited a minor into her home where drugs were unsecure ,and was still in the same area as her child, making her liable for both Gus and Xavier at the time. There is a possibility that other partygoers could be criminally liable as they first noticed Gus’ seizure and may have seen him ingest the cocaine, however we would need more information regarding the moments before Gus’ overdose. Ana bears the responsibility of having the partygoers, Gus, and Xavier all invited within her home, and the unsecured drugs, therefore making her criminally liable for the death of her son. The MPC does not define Involuntary Manslaughter separately from Voluntary Manslaughter, stating that VM is murder under the influence of extreme mental or emotional disturbance. MPC defines Murder as a death caused that was purposeful, knowing, negligent or reckless. With the MPC, the scenario strays further from Involuntary Manslaughter and closer to Murder. There are no degrees of murder within the MPC, but the facts of the scenario show a clear recklessness and negligence for Gus’ wellbeing. Lucia’s Death Kevin is most likely to be held criminally liable for the death of Lucia. Voluntary Manslaughter best fits the description of the scenario between Kevin and Lucia. Kevin pushed Lucia, which caused her to fall and become unconscious. Kevin could not have reasonably foreseen that pushing Lucia would result in her death, as he had no prior knowledge of her preexisting aneurism. Kevin pushing Lucia was a reckless choice but was not intentional as voluntary manslaughter is partially defined as. However, the act of pushing Lucia and Kevin stating “I won’t let this b*tch get away with this” could be considered assault and battery, an unlawful act. The statements made by Kevin combined with the battery do show intent of harm, but not intent of murder, however the unlawful aspects of the scenario would best fit the voluntary manslaughter description. The other possible assailant could be Wayne, since he told Kevin about the kiss between him and Lucia and could reasonably assume that would instigate Kevin and make him upset. However, there is no way that Wayne could have known the way Kevin would react, or that it would result in the death of Lucia, making his criminal liability very unlikely. It could be argued that Kevin was under extreme emotional disturbance after hearing that someone kissed his partner, which is what made his aggressive towards Lucia in the first place, falling under voluntary manslaughter within the MPC. There could be purpose or recklessness by Kevin for hurting Lucia and stating so beforehand, but more would need to be revealed regarding the tone of Kevin’s voice when he made the statement to assess the gravity behind it, and how hard he pushed Lucia, showing if the force of the push could have reasonably injured her, or if the aneurism was the majority cause of death and truly could not have been foreseen. Brett’s Death Wayne is most likely to be held criminally liable for the death of Brett. Murder in the second degree is defined in the jurisdiction as when one with malice aforethought kills another. There was no plan or intention to kill Brett before the moment he charged at Kevin, which could be considered self-defense on behalf of Wayne’s partner. However, once Wayne is able to get the knife away from Brett and incapacitate him with the first stabbing, Brett is no longer an immediate threat and Wayne should have retreated from that point. Wayne then stabs Brett an additional three times, which shows malice aforethought and the intent to seriously harm and reasonably foresee Brett’s death. There are no other assailants except Brett himself in this scenario. Brett did charge towards Kevin with a weapon, where Wayne is acting in self-defense on behalf of him and his partner in order to defuse the potential harm. However, the first stab by Wayne landed on Brett’s left shoulder and was likely sufficient to incapacitate him without causing death. Brett’s cause of death was puncturing wounds to his internal organs, which would mean that Wayne stabbed Brett again multiple times after the fact near his vital organs, which goes beyond the scope of self-defense and into criminal liability for murder. However, we only know for a fact that Brett was stabbed twice by Wayne and had four stab wounds by the time he was in the ambulance. If there was no way to account for the other two stab wounds being Wayne, and that Brett’s stabs weren’t necessarily in his internal organs, Brett may not be found liable whatsoever. The MPC states that Involuntary Manslaughter can occur under the influence of extreme mental or emotional disturbance, which Wayne’s PTSD may be attributed to. It is known that Wayne does not react well in loud situations and has flashbacks and angry outbursts. It is likely that when Brett charged Kevin, Wayne’s PTSD was triggered, and he had an outburst in order to preserve his family and his loved ones. If Wayne’s PTSD can be used as an emotional disturbance offense, it is possible that Wayne could only be held criminally liable for involuntary manslaughter for the death of Brett.