Charlottesville man acquitted of attempted capital murder calls for further convictions to be dismissed | Crime News

In the motion, Lamson argues that the court did not explain to the jury the meaning of criminal negligence, but rather told the jury that malice must simply be absent for the “illegal” standard to be met and the jury must assert that “the act was committed unlawfully and not maliciously”.

It is not enough that there is the mere absence of malice regardless of any other mental state, argues Lamson.

“His Honour’s announced decision that ‘illegal’ are simply the first two elements of malicious discharge and absence of maliciousness contradicts not only his implied decision in offering the said instruction, but the position of the Commonwealth and the accused in the trial “, reads the petition. .

Lamson further argues that Miles’ trial attorney and Charlottesville Commonwealth Deputy Senior Attorney Nina-Alice Antony sought an illegal definition that meant passionate passion, which led “not only to failure of the court to give instructions, but also to erroneous instructions as to the mental state required for an illegal discharge.

In an effort to substantiate his arguments, Lamson presents several hypothetical situations.

“If an armed man sees another stabbing his wife to death, pulls out a gun and shoots, knocking the assailant out of action, the first element has been satisfied (the accused shot the assailant ) and the second item has been satisfied. (the shooting was with the intention of mutilating, etc.), there is a reasonable doubt as to the malice, but it is also not an unlawful injury, as there is no “passion fire”, Lamson writes. “There is just no crime. There has to be a mental element, aside from wickedness, in addition to the first two elements to make it an “illegal wound”, and that element is the heat of passion. “