3 escape murder charges in carjacking death of toddler (Update)

Houston Chronicle ^ | June 17, 2006, 1:12AM | ARMANDO VILLAFRANCA

[WV Mountain Mama]

Should have edited my terminology after finding the article, but not sure the difference legally between capital murder, involuntary manslaughter... I do know the kid was charged in the death of his friend, which was the point I was trying to make...

[suijuris]

Though the toddler was killed in the commission of a crime, Harris County District Attorney Chuck Rosenthal said, a capital murder charge would have been hard to prove.

"it would require proving the specific intent to kill," he said. Rosenthal said he had his best prosecutors working on the case and that "if they could have done something more serious they would have."

Bull$hit! Unless you are a police officer killed in the commission of a crime, whether intentional or not; in which case you would definitely be facing murder in the commission of a crime

[cbkaty]

No wonder Texas is not at the top of the list when it comes to the rate at which the death penalty is applied!

Sadly....the inner cities of Texas resemble those of any other state and are generally run by democrats...along with the ACLU, LA RAZA, NAACP, the Quanell Xs, corrupt officials, and such....

[cbkaty]

I wonder what the prosecutor & community reaction would be if the perps were white and the victims were black? Just wondering......

[Xenalyte]

Aggravated robbery isn't going to go over very well here.

[Surtur]

The Satanist Crowley was prophetic when he declared, "Do what thou wilt shall be the whole of the Law." America is sinking closer to the Satanist utopia every day.

[Tax-chick]

Maybe they'll vote out the DA at the next opportunity?

[Wurlitzer]

"Aggravated robbery"

I always thought this was a very poor term at best and stupid at worse.

I can understand "Aggravated assault", using the common meaning of the word "Aggravated" but, how to you Aggravate someone to commit robbery? Man you pi$$ed me off so much I am going to rob you!

I don't expect anything from lawyers to make sense to the average individual as the more confusing they can make something the more you need lawyers.

[OldCorps]

sure looks like felony murder to me.

[hoosierham]

Legally,aggravated does NOT mean the victim did something to incite the crime;it means the crime itself is in degree worse than ordinary.Probably aggravated robbery because the gun was displayed unlike robbery in which the threat is implied but no physical assault takes place.

The prosecutor is a chicken***t b*****d for letting vicous killers go uncharged.

At the absolute minimum they are guilty of involuntary manslaughter if they indeed meant no harm.Since they threatened use of deadly force in the carjacking itself they demonstrated violent intent;therefore I say they are guilty of murder in the first degree.The first degree because they planned the crime in which an innocent died.

And I would grant conditional amnesty to the possibly illegal immigrants in order to get the killers .Conditional to the extent of waiving fines and jail time for past immigration violations and requiring full compliance beginning today.

[Libertina]

Calm yourself... If they had run down a protected species such as a gray ground squirrel or someone's puppy it would have been life for sure!

/sarcasm BIG time

[mockingbyrd]

I would think that the law would allow for prosecution of murder because they undertook actions which could lead to murder i.e. carjacking. They knew the risks of the actions they took, they threw the children out of the "safety" of their car and then ran over one. That's got to qualify as murder.

[madprof98]

This was in California, right? No . . . well, New York? Massachusetts? Surely not . . . TEXAS!

[BeHoldAPaleHorse]

Harris County prosecutors decided to file aggravated robbery charges in a deadly carjacking because the evidence did not show the attackers intended to kill a little girl, a key element for a murder charge, officials said.

Perhaps Pennsylvania does not have a "felony murder" law?

[jpp113]

You can disagree, but thats the state of the fed law - We had a case under that statute here in Federal District Court - the perp got it dismissed because the judge adopted the view of most federal courts, that is, that the purpose of the carjacking had to be murder or serious bodily harm. Our State AG had let the feds take the case because we have a super limited death penalty here and felony murder wasn't eligible under our lousy state law - luckily our AG was waiting in the courtroom to take the perp into custody when the Fed case got dismissed. BTW, the guy had participatedin the execution style murder of 2 teenagers after he and his friends carjacked them. Perps name was Kenneth Day and he's rotting in prison now. And, yes, i am an attorney (please, no flames - i am a conservative - no aclu or aba for me lol)

[philetus]

I thought if someone is killed in the commission of a felony, it's automatic murder.

[RebekahT]

From what the article says, Texas doesn't have a felony murder statute. It also says that first degree murder & aggravated robbery carry the same penalty. Quit jumping all over the prosecutor and read the article.

[RebekahT]

"I thought if someone is killed in the commission of a felony, it's automatic murder."

Only if the state employs the felony murder rule.

[NonValueAdded]

See post 53 ... that is the Texas Statute for murder and it sure as heck sounds like it has a felony murder provision. Perhaps it doesn't carry that exact title, but it sure follows the intent that if someone is killed during the commission of a felony, it is murder.

[NonValueAdded]

I see what you are saying and a search through Thomas shows that Congress is none too happy with how the courts are interpreting Congress' intent. Whether or not this case will prompt Congress to once again clarify their intent remains to be seen, but if this one doesn't, nothing will. Actually, if you want to hoist me on my own petard, question the constitutionality of this law under the Commerce Clause. The DOJ Criminal Resource Manual leaves open the possibility that the law will some day be successfully challenged. Personally, I believe it is an unconstitutional stretch of that clause. But why wouldn't Holloway v United States support my contention that the act of pointing the gun was sufficient?