murder homicide
Where and how does intent factor in to murder?
<p>Given a fentanyl related death &amp; murder charge:  <a href="https://abcnews.go.com/US/suspect-arrested-connection-deaths-2-men-drugged-beaten/story?id=98308800" rel="nofollow noreferrer">https://abcnews.go.com/US/suspect-arrested-connection-deaths-2-men-drugged-beaten/story?id=98308800</a></p>
<p>Given that the suspect had beaten and robbed the victims, I would think it reasonable that the courts would &quot;throw the book&quot; at the suspect, when he is found guilty.</p>
<p>If on the other, hand he was a friendly (no beating, robbery &amp; not a drug dealer) and the suspect merely gifted deadly narcotics to the victims, would the courts view this scenario no differently? Or would the suspect receive lesser charges / sentences if found guilty?</p>
<p>To facilitate the question, please assume any applicable NY / NYC / Federal statute.</p>

<p><a href="/questions/tagged/canada" class="post-tag" title="show questions tagged &#39;canada&#39;" aria-label="show questions tagged &#39;canada&#39;" rel="tag" aria-labelledby="tag-canada-tooltip-container">canada</a></p>
<p>The constitutional minimum <em>mens rea</em> for murder in Canada (no matter which avenue is pursued; there are three) requires the <strong>subjective foresight that death was likely to result</strong>. See <em><a href="https://scc-csc.lexum.com/scc-csc/scc-csc/en/item/646/index.do" rel="nofollow noreferrer">R. v. Martineau</a></em>, [1990] 2 S.C.R. 633.</p>
<p>This is factored in by constraining the permissible definitions that Parliament can give to &quot;murder.&quot; It also then factors in as a required element that the Crown must prove at trial. Without proving this element, there can be no conviction. It therefore also factors in at the charge-assessment stage, where charges will not be laid unless there is a reasonable prospect or substantial likelihood of conviction.</p>

<p>There are different ways intent can be relevant to murder and related crimes.  Different jurisdictions define them differently, but in general there are different degrees of culpability for</p>
<ul>
<li>an act intended to cause someone's death</li>
<li>an act intended to harm someone that unintentionally causes death</li>
<li>a criminal act intended to harm nobody (for example a burglary) that causes someone's death</li>
<li>an act that wouldn't necessarily harm anyone but could reasonably be expected to create a risk of harm</li>
<li>an act that is entirely unintentional that causes death</li>
</ul>
<p>Which of these applies to any given fact pattern will depend on the specific facts.  Of the two examples in the question, it should be easy to see that the first is far more likely to result in greater culpability, but the second would nonetheless expose the friend to the possibility of a good deal of prison time.</p>
<p>Related New York statutes are found in <a href="https://www.nysenate.gov/legislation/laws/PEN/P3THA125" rel="nofollow noreferrer">Article 125 of the New York Penal Law, Homicide and Related Offenses</a>.</p>
