Depraved-heart murder

The Canadian Criminal Code categorises murder as first- and second-degree for sentencing purposes. However, the Supreme Court of Canada held that murder requires, at minimum, subjective knowledge that death is a likely consequence of the defendant's actions.[9]

Section 229(a)(ii) of the Canadian Criminal Code is most closely analogous to depraved-heart murder, applying where the defendant intended to cause bodily harm to the deceased that he subjectively knew was likely to cause death, and was reckless as to the risk of death.

Murder is not classified into degrees in England and Wales, unlike in Canada, but sentences are more severe (always life, but with a longer period when the offender is ineligible for parole) in cases where there are more aggravating than mitigating factors. Murder requires intent to kill or cause grievous bodily harm; recklessness as to harm will not suffice. In a case where death results from recklessness, the defendant will be guilty of manslaughter.

A similar concept is Eventualvorsatz , also called dolus eventualis or bedingter Vorsatz (literally: "conditional intent"). Under this concept, a court can treat the result of a criminal act as intentional if the defendant did not explicitly intend this result, but realized it was likely and knowingly accepted this risk.

While Eventualvorsatz can apply to any crime, it is usually only applied in cases involving bodily harm or murder. Typical cases where courts recognized Eventualvorsatz (in this case for murder) include setting fire to an inhabited house[10] and reckless speeding in an urban area.[11]

In the 1946 case, Commonwealth v. Malone,[1] the Supreme Court of Pennsylvania affirmed the conviction of a teenager on the charge of second degree murder using the depraved-heart doctrine. The teenager in question had set up a game of Russian roulette which ended in the death of another teenager, a friend of the defendant. When tried for the crime of murder, his defense argued that since he had no intent to kill, the defendant could not be convicted of murder. The prosecution successfully argued using the depraved-heart doctrine that his recklessness and carelessness amounted to a level of negligence sufficient to serve as evidence of criminally culpable intent.

Caesar Goodson, Jr., a Baltimore police officer, was charged on May 21, 2015, with second-degree depraved heart murder for his alleged involvement in the death of 25-year-old Freddie Gray while in police custody. Gray died several days after he was arrested and driven in a police van to jail. The van was shown on video during the trial to have been driven normally,[12] but was alleged to have been driven aggressively with no regard for the safety of the prisoner, who was not adequately secured for safety. Further, the prisoner was shackled, preventing him from protecting himself. The prosecution alleged that the injuries were inflicted during the ride and that pleas for medical attention were ignored. Officer Goodson was charged with second-degree depraved-heart murder before the internal investigation was completed.[13][14][15][16] He was found not guilty on June 23, 2016.[17] Of the six officers charged, three were acquitted, and charges were dropped against the remaining three.[18]