Aaron and Alex agree to a duel. Aaron wins coin toss and has first shot. He states
that he just wanted to scare Alex and so he aims and hits Alex in the balls. He
thought there was a chance he might miss. Hamilton dies two days later.
Issue: Was the act lawful.
If the laws of New Jersey permit duels as a way of settling a dispute then the
act was lawful.
-
If New Jersey does not permit duels then the act was unlawful.
Issue: Was it a killing of a human being.
Yes it was a killing of a human being. Alex, a human being, died as the result
of a gun shot from Aaron.
Issue: Committed with malice afterthought
- Intent to kill could be argued either way. Aaron could argue that he had second
thoughts and intentionally aimed at Alex balls to avoid killing him. The prosecution
could argue that Aaron asked for a duel in order to kill Alex and that Aaron knew
that the guns were not accurate and aiming for his balls could very well hit Alex in
the head.
- Intent to inflict severe bodily harm could be argued either way but the
prosecution’s position is stronger. Aaron could argue that he only wanted to scare
Alex and he knew the guns were inaccurate and that he’d miss anyway. The
prosecution could argue that by aiming and firing the gun at Alex, Aaron intended to
inflict severe bodily harm.
- Reckless indifference to an unjustifiably high risk to human life could be argued
either way but the stronger argument is on the prosecution’s side. Aaron could
argue that he didn’t really want to hurt Alex and even though he aimed at his balls
he would probably miss anyway. The prosecution could argue that even if he didn’t
want to hurt Alex and thought he might miss, he should have known that he might
actually hit where he was aiming or another part of Alex’ body that would risk his
life.
Two elements are indisputable, that a human being was killed. At a minimum,
reckless indifference could be proven, and therefore if it is unlawful to duel in New
Jersey, Alex is guilty of murder.