State v.

Williams
Facts
The defendant husband, Walter Williams, is a 24-year-old full-blooded
Sheshont Indian with a 6th grade education. His sole occupation is that of laborer. The
defendant wife, Bernice Williams, is a 20-year-old part Indian with an 11th grade
education. At the time of the marriage, the wife had two children, the younger of
whom was a 14-month son. Both parents worked and the 85-year-old mother of the
defendant husband cared for the children. The defendant husband assumed parental
responsibility with the defendant wife to provide clothing, care and medical attention
for the child. Both defendants possessed a great deal of love and affection for the
defendant's wife's young son.
Both defendants were aware that William Joseph Tabafunda was ill during the
period September 1, 1968 to September 12, 1968. The defendants were ignorant. They
did not realize how sick the baby was. They thought that the baby had a toothache and
no layman regards a toothache as dangerous to life. They loved the baby and gave it
aspirin in hopes of improving its condition. They did not take the baby to a doctor
because of fear that the Welfare Department would take the baby away from them.
They knew that medical help was available because of previous experience. They had
no excuse that the law will recognize for not taking the baby to a doctor.
Issue
#1. Whether this was murder or manslaughter?
Reasoning
The definition of involuntary manslaughter is reckless killing or a criminally
negligent killing. The defendants Walter L. Williams and Bernice J. Williams were
negligent in not seeking medical attention for the son, William Joseph Tabafunda.
Holding
Defendants, husband and wife, were charged by information filed October 3rd, 1968,
with the crime of manslaughter for negligently failing to supply their 17 month child
with necessary medical attention, as a result of which he died on September 12, 1968.
Upon entry findings, conclusions and judgment of guilty, sentences were imposed on
April 22, 1969.
Hines v. State
Notes
While hunting, Robert Lee Hines mistook his friend Steven Wood for a turkey
and shot him dead.
Hines intentionally fired his shotgun intending to his target. He had been
drinking before he went hunting, and there was evidence that he had been drinking
while hunting. He knew that other hunters were in the area and was unaware of their
exact location. He also knew that other people visited the area in which he was
hunting. He took an unsafe shot at dusk, through heavy foliage, at a target eighty feet
away that he had not positively identified as a turkey.
The firearm he used to hunt with, was also illegal possession.
Issues
#1. Whether this incident was equivalent to a felony murder.
Reasoning

Although the dissent believes Hines could be prosecuted and convicted of an

appropriate lesser crime, such as involuntary manslaughter or the misuse of a firearm
while hunting, there could be an argument for a charge for second-degree murder.
There was no premeditation, so it clearly wasn't first-degree murder, however
in some aspects this was done with a depraved heart or an indifference to human life.
First, he possessed a firearm illegally, was drinking while hunting, and was
completely aware of the fact that there were hunters and visitors around. That is
indifference to human life. That is depraved heart, and could essentially be what fits
the definition of second-degree murder with a depraved heart.
Holding
Robert Lee Hines was charged with illegal possession of a firearm, which
created a foreseeable risk of death, which led to a felony murder conviction.
Case Problem #27
Lou wouldn't be charged with first-degree murder because this murder was not
intended nor premeditated. Lou also wouldn't be charged with second-degree murder
because it wasn't done with a depraved heart, Lou and Jamie were having a fling,
which is an emotion, people with depraved hearts don't possess. This isn't a voluntary
manslaughter charge either since this wasn't done in the heat of passion. No one was
being provoked or hadn't have enough time to cool off. Loy would be charged with
involuntary manslaughter but with gross negligence. No body intended to injury or
serious cause bodily harm, but they were trying to flirt and have fun. The steak knife
was being used not as a weapon, but a utensil.
Case Problem #26
This seems like more than a "heat of passion" situation. This was obviously
premeditated, because Harper went to the house caring a loaded revolver, looking
specifically for Avery. If Avery and Harper were in a heated discussion, and Avery
started to bring up the past and continuously provoke Harper, then Harper would've
responded and maybe could bring up the "heat of passion" and "extreme emotional
disturbance" defenses, but this situation was clearly intended and premeditated.