Homicide and Law Enforcement

Homicide and Law Enforcement
Student’s Name
Institution Affiliation
Homicide and Law Enforcement
The state of Michigan homicide laws is contained in Chapter XLV of The Michigan Penal Code Act 328 of 1931. In this state, first-degree murder is the most severe conviction that carries the worst penalty allowed by Michigan legislature, mandatory life imprisonment without parole. The involved parties in a first-degree murder charge often face emotional devastation due to the heights of public abhorrence (Griffin, 1994).
According to Statute MCL 750.316, there are three instances where one can be charged with first-degree murder. The first case encompasses murder committed by lying in wait, using poison or any other deliberate, wilful and premeditated killing. The next case focuses on crime perpetrated to commit arson, substance abuse, carjacking, criminal sex conduct. The second instance also covers crime aimed at robbery, child abuse, breaking, any larceny, torture under section 85 and human invasion. However, involvement in extortion, kidnapping, aggravated stalking under section 411i or vulnerable adult abuse under section 145n may predispose one to be charged with first-degree murder (“THE MICHIGAN PENAL CODE (EXCERPT) Act 328 of 1931”, 2016). Lastly, the killing of a corrections officer while lawfully engaging in the duties and legal obligations is also considered first-degree murder.
The federal law has outlined several attributes associated with first-degree murder. To start with; the defendant may be tempted to culminate the life of a victim as per the uniform determination of death act against the state laws.

The defendant may also have murdered the victim with absolutely no regard for human life, and the act was deliberate and intentional (Griffin, 1994). The killing may be due to a result of premeditation even in a matter of seconds by the assailant depending on the circumstance and situation in question and that the action occurred in the location mentioned in the indictment. In Michigan, the murder of police officers and children is considered first-degree murder. However, those found in in connection with given felonies and possession of weapons such as guns may also be charged with first-degree murder.
In the case of the People versus Dakotah Wolfgang Eliason in the Court of Appeals of Michigan; Dakotah Eliason, the defendant, appealed his conviction for first-degree premeditated murder and for having a firearm while perpetrating a felony (“FindLaw’s Court of Appeals of Michigan case and opinions.”, 2016). Eliason took his grandfather’s gun and shot him in the head while he was sound asleep on the couch. He was a minor when he perpetrated both crimes being barely 14 but was imprisoned for life without chance of parole. The defendant appealed for resentencing regarding his first-degree murder conviction.
The facts of the case revealed a definite course of events. On 5th March 2010, the defendant alongside his sister visited their grandparents, Jean and Jesse Miles. The defendant and his grandfather had a good relationship as attested by Jean and they usually spent most weekends together. On 6th March 2010, the sister of the accused went back home leaving Eliason behind, while Jesse watched in the living room during the evening, Jean went to sleep (“FindLaw’s Court of Appeals of Michigan case and opinions.”, 2016). Eliason’s voice awoke her at around 3.00 am the following morning, and all she could remember was Jesse’s firearm in her hands and telling Eliason to call 911, and the paramedics responded, but Jesse did not make it.
State Trooper Brenda Kiefer responded to the call and was accompanied by Deputy Eugene Casto who arrested Eliason and questioned him. Kiefer initially read the Miranda rights to Eliason who willingly waivered them and thus Kiefer had to record their interview. Eliason admitted shooting Jesse. However, Eliason agreed that he had been thinking of homicide and suicide most of the night and it was because of rage and sadness towards his parents (“FindLaw’s Court of Appeals of Michigan case and opinions.”, 2016). The defendant also showed a lack of remorse from the conversation he had with Casto at the back of his patrol car. He was then later brought to the police station where he was interrogated by Detective Suarez, when he willingly accepted to waive the Miranda rights, making his statement admissible in a court of law.
In his defense, Eliason challenged his conviction by ineffective assistance of counsel whereby, the sentencing was based on how he was not remorseful of what he had just done. The jury did not involve an expert to explain his alleged lack of remorse. He also claimed the waiver of the fifth amendment was not voluntary. -9 The defendant lastly argued that his sentence was cruel and unusual as he was a juvenile when he committed the crimes. He wanted the jury to consider a case between Miller and Alabama as the circumstances were somewhat alike (Scott, 2012). The court realized that some factors of that were for the defendant, for example, the good relationship the victim and the defendant enjoyed. Also, there was no mitigating explanation to elucidate the murder. The court considered all these factors and ruled that Dakota is resentenced by a different judge.
Law enforcement officers play a critical role in the collection of evidence to convict a suspect. Proper knowledge on rights and admissibility of statements from suspects is the best shot at convicting suspects. In some cases, like criminal sex conduct of the first degree, which are usually hard to get physical evidence are supported by the confessions or utterances by the suspects. These revelations usually end up being used against the suspects in the courts of law (Spears & Spohn, 1997). This illustrates the significance of understanding the various statutes and collecting substantial evidence to prove the elements of statutes to the jury.
References
FindLaw’s Court of Appeals of Michigan case and opinions. (2016). Findlaw. Retrieved 5
November 2016, from http://caselaw.findlaw.com/mi-court-of-appeals/1627602.htmlGriffin, S. M. (1994). Criminal Law-Whether the Elements of Deliberation and Premeditation
Adequately Distinguish First Degree Murder from Second Degree Murder: State v. Garcia. NML Rev., 24, 437.
Scott, E. S. (2012). Miller v. Alabama and the (Past and) Future of Juvenile Crime Regulation.
Law & Ineq., 31, 535.
Spears, J. W., & Spohn, C. C. (1997). The effect of evidence factors and victim characteristics on
prosecutors’ charging decisions in sexual assault cases. Justice Quarterly, 14(3), 501-524.
THE MICHIGAN PENAL CODE (EXCERPT) Act 328 of 1931. (2016). Michigan Legislature.
Retrieved 5 November 2016, from http://www.legislature.mi.gov/(S(x1vp3lhrg1wzafj5s5z1ssoq))/mileg.aspx?page=getobject&objectname=mcl-750-316