You have been emailed the transcript and case summary for Colorado v Sandoval.
please read and review.
then, acting as a juror make a decision on what verdict you would impose. please discuss your thought processes, and generally reflect on the experience.
your verdict options are:
700.1 Murder In The First Degree - Premeditation, Willfulness, Deliberation - Elements. The State must prove all of the following elements of Murder In The First Degree:
(Victim) died as a result of being stabbed.
The defendant acted with malice aforethought.
The defendant acted willfully, deliberately, premeditatedly and with a specific intent to kill (victim).
"Willful" means intentional or by fixed design or purpose and not accidental.
"To deliberate" is to weigh in one's mind, to consider, to contemplate, or to reflect.
"Premeditate" is to think or ponder upon a matter before acting.
Deliberation and premeditation need not exist for any particular length of time before the act.
"Malice" is a state of mind which leads one to intentionally do a wrongful act [to the injury of another] [in disregard of the rights of another] out of actual hatred, or with an evil or unlawful purpose. It may be established by evidence of actual hatred, or by proof of a deliberate or fixed intent to do injury. It may be found from the acts and conduct of the defendant, and the means used in doing the wrongful and injurious act. Malice requires only such deliberation that would make a person appreciate and understand the nature of the act and its consequences, as distinguished from an act done in the heat of passion.
"Malice aforethought" is a fixed purpose or design to do some physical harm to another which exists before the act is committed. It does not have to exist for any particular length of time.
If the State has proved all of the elements, the defendant is guilty of Murder In The First Degree. If the State has failed to prove any one of the elements, the defendant is not guilty of Murder In The First Degree.
700.13 Murder In The Second Degree - Elements. The State must prove all of the following elements of Murder In The Second Degree:
(Victim) died as a result of being stabbed.
3. The defendant acted with malice aforethought.
If the State has proved all of the elements, the defendant is guilty of Murder In The Second Degree.
700.15 Voluntary Manslaughter - Elements. The State must prove all of the following elements of Voluntary Manslaughter:
(Victim) died as a result of being stabbed
The stabbing was done solely by reason of sudden, violent and irresistible passion resulting from serious provocation.
If the State has proved all of the elements, the defendant is guilty of Voluntary Manslaughter.
a "serious provocation" is conduct that would cause a reasonable person to have a sudden, violent and irresistible passion.
Passion is not sudden, violent, and irresistible if there is an interval of time during which a reasonable person would, under the circumstances, have time to reflect and bring [his] [her] passion under control and suppress the impulse to kill.
Words alone, however abusive or insulting, cannot be serious provocation.
If i were a jury member i would convict on murder in the second degree. I feel that the defendant definetley showed a malice aforethought by getting in several arguements both at the bar and at the crime scene. I think that getting the chainsaw out of his truck or from where ever(which the state was unable to prove in my mind) shows that there was a malice aforethought.
Also, the act that is the most obvious, both because of the physical evidence as well as the confession, is the fact that the victim died from the stabbing done by the defendant.
Finally, and most importantly, i dont feel that the defendant fills the third requirement for first degree murder. I dont think there was a premeditated thought in this case. i felt the defense attorney was rather convincing about where the defendant got the knife. I think, that the knife could have very well be in the livingroom with other dirty dishes. This would show that the defendant would not have to go and get the weapon but that it would be at his disposal. I think the fact that the defense also pointed out the difference in time between interviews of suspects could very well show a coroborated story. Making their testimonies less valid.
All in all i feel that the state was not able to prove beyond a resonable doubt that the defendant fulfilled all the requirements under the first degree murder.
I do not think the defendant is guilty of murder in the first degree. I think the defendant did not act willfully nor deliberately nor was there premeditated thinking to kill the victim. I think this was an accident on the defendants part, although I cannot deny the fact that the defendant DID kill the victim, I do not think it was willful or deliberate. I think the stabbing was done as an action and the victim was in the wrong place at the wrong time. I think the defendant premeditated his actions to bring a knife into the house to scare the witnesses. I do not think the defendant premeditated on the action to kill the victim. The victim has shown to do nothing wrong or be malicious in any way, I think that if the defendant was to deliberately kill someone, it would be someone he has or had problems with previous to the stabbing. I think that the malice aforethought would have happened in the seconds before the stabbing, and the stabbing wound would be more direct and punctual than it was. I believe the stab was due to a movement or swiping motion in which the victim was standing in the direction of. I do not think the state proved all of the points for the defendant to be sentenced with Murder in the First Degree.
I do not think that the state proved murder in the second degree either. Once again, malice aforethought was not intended toward the victim. In the police report there was no mention of a chainsaw being attained, I believe this was made up on the part of the witnesses and not part of the story. I believe the defendant was acting out in rage (as most people would in his circumstance ---well maybe not with a knife) and not acting outraged toward the victim.
I do believe the defendant is guilty of Voluntary Manslaughter. I do believe the victim died as a result of being stabbed and I also believe that the stabbing was by reason of a sudden outrage. The defendant was stabbed due to a “serious provocation” given the details of the defendants, witnesses, and victims past (making special note on the defendant and witnesses past). The defendant had no chance to reflect the time between his outrage (at the location of the stabbing) and the actual time the stabbing occurred.
Unfortunately for the victim, I believe he was standing in the wrong place during a heated argument.
As a member of the jury I could not convict on murder in the first degree. There are too many unanswered scenarios, so I feel as though there is not enough evidence to rule this way.
Although the victim died as a result of being stabbed, the defendant did not act with malice. There were too many variables that night, and many of the witnesses were lying because their stories were not matching up. I do not believe the defendant acted willfully, or deliberately. He was not ever planning to kill. There was no specific intent. In the heat of the moment things happened, perhaps in self-defense even. I do not believe there was ever any deliberation in the defendant's mind to kill. There is no evidence that the knife was retrieved in the kitchen which cancels out the deliberateness. I do not believe there was any premeditate to think or ponder about the action. It was a scare tactic gone wrong I believe.
I believe murder in the 2nd degree also not a way I as a jury member would vote. Malice and aforethought were not at the forefront.
I as a jury member would say the murder was voluntary manslaughter. The (Victim) died as a result of being stabbed. The stabbing was done by the reason of sudden violent and irresistible passion resulting from serious provocation. The defendant was clearly upset that people simply were not taking credit for their actions. A serious provocation was at hand here. This fight got out of control. There was however, no intent or action to kill before reaching the house. To rule murder in the first degree, there in not enough solid evidence to prove this way.
After listening to the trial in class and reviewing the transcript/summary, I as a jury member would say that the defendant is guilty of voluntary manslaughter. I say this because i definitely do not believe that the stabbing was planned or that the defendant had any prior intentions of killing the victim, or anyone, upon arriving to Thanksgiving dinner at his friends house. I say voluntary manslaughter over second degree murder because I believe, after hearing the testimonies, that the defendant stabbed the victim due to serious provocation. I feel as though the defendant was truly heated after a long night of being teased and in the center of several arguments, especially mad about his car being shot. I feel as though the rest of the men sort of preplanned Thanksgiving dinner just to tease and strike up emotions with the defendant. I truly believe that if the defendant had given himself time to cool down after the nights' events that he would have never psychically harmed anyone. I also feel as though the defendant felt instant remorse for his actions in the way that he admitted to the arriving officer that he had stabbed the victim. Almost as if the realization of the cops showing up brought the defendant back to reality and to his proper state of mind, making him aware of the crime he just committed.
It is crazy to know that trials like these happen every day. With this mock trial alone, each classmate will have a different stand point concerning the verdict, and there was virtually no pressure on us in choosing the verdict. I can only imagine what it is like for real jurors, in a real trial. I can't see how it is possible for, after such a short time, that 12 people agree on the verdict. Also, during the mock trial, even though everything and everyone was acting, I began to feel sympathy for the witnesses on stand. I feel as though if I was a juror, I would feel sorry for people, there for I might over look crucial evidence-think with my heart and not my brain. It is crazy to think that such psychological pressures/emotions are put on jurors everyday within our legal system.
I would vote to convict him of murder in the second degree. It is clear that Sandoval was the murderer and that the victim died as a result of Sandoval stabbing him. The prosecution also did establish that there was malice aforethought, based on the fact that he left and then returned with a weapon. However, I don’t think that the prosecution had strong enough evidence to prove all of the elements involved in a first degree murder. I do think that this man acted with malice aforethought because he did leave and return with a weapon, a chain saw. I think the prosecution showed that he acted with a purpose to do some physical harm to another person; however, I don’t think the prosecution had enough evidence to prove that it was entirely premeditated murder. The defense did a good job of pointing out that the wound was only 3-4 inches deep and that this wound was not consistent with a thrust or a lunge, like the prosecution was trying to prove. I think this takes away from the prosecution’s case of first degree murder because it allows the defense to say that Sandoval was not acting premeditatedly, because he did not thrust at the victim. I would also have to convict him of second degree murder because he dropped the knife right away and remained there until the police showed up. I believe that the defense showed that if he had premeditated this murder, he would have ran or tried to escape. Instead, he was acting in the heat of the moment and was angered at the time because of the shots fired at his van earlier in the night. I did not choose to vote voluntary manslaughter because I do not believe that Sandoval acted “suddenly” because he left and then returned. Over all, I think the prosecution had a somewhat weak case. While I would still convict of second degree murder, I think the prosecution could have done a better job to prove that the murder was in fact, first degree. I think that in this case, the defense did do a particularly good job, considering their defendant had already confessed to the crime. They succeeded in that they (in my vote) were able to obtain a lesser charge.
I would convict Bobby Sandoval of second degree murder. There are a couple different reasons I chose this conviction. With this case there is no argument that Sandoval stabbed the victim, Arnold Botella. The trial is to decide what consequences Sandoval should receive for such acts. What this case lacks to obtain a first degree murder charge is proof Sandoval acted out a premeditated actions. There is no proof that Sandoval had thought or planned out the murder of Botella before the actions happened. It was mentioned by the eyewitness that they seemed to be "butting heads" but the witnesses went on to say they were just goofing around. I also could not convict Sandoval of voluntary manslaughter because I did not feel the evidence presented showed him acting out suddenly, violently or passionately.
With this being said, I would charge Sandoval with second degree murder. Again, it is no argument that Botella died from a stab wound from Sandoval and I feel the evidence proves he had a fixed purpose to do some physical harm to Botella which existed before the act was committed. I think this is proved by the concept of him attempting to use a chainsaw first. What became complicated for me was the idea of Sandoval being intoxicated. But I would stick with my decision.
As a jury member in this case I would come to the verdict of: second-degree murder!
I see that Sandoval was highly upset with the damage that he had sustained to his van, but he left the premise and later continued to come back. After all of the altercations are set aside the main fact is that the victim did die, regardless of the approach, so Bobby Sandoval is up against the devils odds. I do not see him guilty of first-degree murder because I do not think the prosecution made a viable claim to prove that his intentions were to "kill" he may have meant to injure but not kill. The corner added to this stating that the wound was only so short and did not reach the vertebrae. If it was a malicious killing intention I would believe the stab wound to be much more damaging and severe in a way to ensure death. I also do not believe it voluntary manslaughter for the sole fact that yes, he may have acted in the heat of passion but he left the place had time to regroup himself and personally decided to go back, not voluntary manslaughter. I argue Second-degree in that the victim died, malice afterthought was apparent in that he had intentions to do some physical harm (not necessarily murder and why I don't see first-degree) by going back into the residence to settle the score. The day seemed to be a drunken party and arguments were all over the place but Sandoval didn't have these thoughts until action got way out of hand. I may see that he had premeditated to further argue the topic until he recieved gratification on who shot is car and who was going to fix it. He used the chainsaw as a scare tactic I believe and I could not see him going inside and going Ed Gein on the place, reason being he took a knife and penetrated it half staff into an individual which unfortunatley hit a wrong artery and resulted in death. He was in the heat of passion and rightfully upset about his van, but did kill the victim, exhibited malice after thought, but intended to physically harm at most and not necessarily kill. Him staying at the residence until the cops came showed that he now realized what he did was wrong, it shouldn't have ended that way, but it did and he was a murderer. If it was first-degree I would see the defendant killing and leaving right away as to have no mental drawbacks about his actions due to his premeditated killing action. His demeanor displayed that yes he was pissed, acted in the heat, and dreadfully it ended fatally. Second-degree murder which gives our defendant a minimum of 15 years- life imprisonment.
Prior to class which portrayed the case and after reading over the transcript and summary, as a juror, I would most likely convict Sandoval on voluntary manslaughter. This is because it seems as though this is more of a crime of drunken passion rather than premeditated murder.
The first factor in which I have considered is the fact that the group of men participated in heavy drinking all throughout the day. From the testimony given by Glen Hudgins, it did not seem as though any of the men were in sober and rational states of mind. Given this, I do not think that Sandoval actually thought out and planned the murder given his drunkenness.
The second factor would be that Sandoval was seriously provoked. From his testimony and also from Hudgins' Sandoval was enduring much teasing and name calling. In the requirements for voluntary manslaughter it says that name calling alone could not be seen as a legitimate provoking, but given the fact that his van was shot up, I think Sandoval just snapped.
This case was a bit hard because of the whole situation surrounding the stabbing. These men were acting in maladaptive ways and honestly I'm surprised that only one person was left dead or wounded. Shooting inside the house while excessively drinking is not a good start to a good night. Sandoval's actions were wrong, but given the case he should not be convicted of first or second degree murder.
In the case of Colorado vs. Sandoval, my verdict as a member of the jury would have been murder in the second degree. I would have said voluntary manslaughter had the defendant not left and returned. The witnesses are all very confusing with their testimony and both the prosecution and defense make valid points throughout the trial. The defendant himself testified that he had had problems with witness Hutchens before and that the entire night of the stabbing was full of provocations and arguments. He was angry and he left and had he stayed gone, the entire fiasco could have been prevented. He testified that he was going to return the next day with a clear, sober mentality, but he continued to think and decided to return, showing revengeful attitude.
Elements of second degree murder include: the victim dying as a result of the incident, the defendant acting with malice aforethought. The victim, Arnold Petello, was made to be a nice, easy-going guy the entire night, yet he was fatally wounded. The defendant, Robert Sandoval, had a terrible night and wanted to ‘get back at them’ by means of destroying property; this just shows me he had in his mind to do harm of some kind, and knowing how violent the other parties were, he was able to understand the consequences.
Overall, I think multiple parties should have to face the consequences but only one is on trial currently, and he admitted that he did stab the victim. He needs to face punishment for what he did, but I do not see willfulness or deliberation by Sandoval to kill Petello, but I could see it for Sandoval vs. other parties. Therefore, my conviction remains at second degree murder due to the evidence and testimonies that were proven and valid to my knowledge.
This is my free pass for the attendance of april 5th. thanks!
Useing my free pass on this one from April 5th.
As a jury member I would convict Mr. Sandoval of Voluntary Manslaughter, the victim did in fact die as a result of being stabbed, because of the facts in the case, it was a crime of passion in a drunken state, where a stable person snapped and was involved in a confrontation that escalated into something it shouldn’t have. The men involved in this case had been heavily drinking all day Thanksgiving and emotions and tensions were high, it seemed as though they’re plan was to drink together all day and celebrate the Holiday together, but turned total opposite. The men had been shooting guns on all day in the house, outside of the house, at random objects while still consuming alcohol. From both men’s testimony’s it seemed like this was a regular day for them, just messing around, which lead to his van being hit by some of the bullets, flaring into an argument, then off to the bar for more drinks, and back the apartment where things got even more heated, a fight took place, and a murder happened. Mr. Sandoval didn’t plan to kill victim and his testimony made me think of what kind of person he was like that day and how the drinking played a role in his actions. I do not think 1st or 2nd degree murder was be the correct conviction, just because the crime was not planned and didn’t seem to be intentional at all.
As a member of the jury, based on the evidence and testimony in the case, I would return with a verdict of Voluntary Manslaughter. When we read the trial in class, I definitely was left with reasonable doubt about Mr. Sandoval’s intent. Reading through the case now, I do not see that Mr. Sandoval acted with specific intent to kill; therefore it is not first-degree murder.
While it is obvious that the victim died because of the stab wound Mr. Sandoval inflicted, I do not believe that Mr. Sandoval acted with malice aforethought. Yes, he did return after leaving, but I do not think that he came back with the intent to physically harm anyone. I can see that he might leave with the bullet holes in the van, the van is still functional, and when he discovered that his van’s radiator has been messed with, making it nonfunctional, he drove back to confront them. With this, I do not believe he is guilty of second-degree murder.
The police officer’s report and statements also made me have reasonable doubt. I agree that if Sandoval said he would “cut them up” with his chainsaw, that the officer would have noted that and that he would have noted the chainsaw. As stated, his notes were sketchy and he based his report on memory, which is something that an officer should not do. The fact that he would not testify also worked against his credibility in my mind.
When Mr. Sandoval returned and went inside, I do believe that the blood stains prove that the stabbing occurred in front of the door, thus making it more likely that he was being blocked. If he had intent to harm anyone, why would he harm the one person who was silent out of all this? Wouldn’t he stab the person he has had the problems with or the person who was more physically threatening? Being blocked, in a small room, is very threatening, whether or not that person(s) has a weapon or object in their hand. I know this personally. I can definitely see how this could happen. I think the prosecutor’s inability to prove that the knife was in the kitchen makes a stronger case that it was most likely still with the other dirty dishes. With all of these conditions, I do believe that a “serious provocation” did occur just prior to the stabbing. While words alone do not constitute a serious provocation, I believe the fact that John McClean had told Mr. Sandoval that he is the one who beat Mr. Raye bloody and took a step towards Sandoval, that this is the serious provocation, beyond words, that lead to the crime of passion. It is understandable that Mr. Sandoval would have turned toward the door to get out and if the victim was standing in his way, he very well could have panicked and grabbed the knife trying to defend himself and get out, leading to the stabbing. Also the fact that the wound was not deeper and was at an angle leads me to believe that it was more consistent with a swiping, defensive action than a deliberate thrust. The combination of all of these facts leads me to the verdict of Voluntary Manslaughter.
As a member of the jury on this case, I would find Mr. Sandoval guilty of murder in the second degree. Mr. Sandoval admitted to stabbing the victim, Arnold Botello, so that fact is cut and dry, he did it. A conviction of murder in the second degree also requires that there malice aforethought. I believe that Mr. Sandoval left and came back, with a chainsaw, came ack knowing that somebody was going to get hurt for what was done to his van. The reason I came to the decision to convict him of second degree murder rather than first, was because the prosecution lacked the evidence to adequately prove premeditation. I do believe that Mr. Sandoval wanted to hurt either Mr. Botello or one of the other witnesses, however, I am not sure his intentions were to kill somebody. Another fact that sticks out in my mind, was how shallow the cuts to Mr. Botello were, 3-4 inches, not necessarily a stab that was meant to kill a man. The reason I went with second degree murder rather than voluntary manslaughter, was because Mr. Sandoval left and then came back.
I didn't think this would be as hard as it turned out to be. Especially during class, it was so hard keeping track of everything that was being said. Reading the transcript helped a ton. Reading the summary was even more helpful. However, my opinion of Sandoval has not changed.
I think he is guilty. I just didn't know there were degrees of guiltiness. I decided that Sandoval is guilty of first degree murder.
His case fits all of it. As the prosecutor said, the fact that Sandoval went away and then returned means that he had enough time to premeditate and deliberate. The fact that he switched weapons shows that he has Malice aforethought. And he certainly did do willful harm, in that the murder was intentional.
Throughout all of this, he was driven by revenge for the material damage he received. If he would have responded with material damage, I would have had to let that go. However, he responded with damage to life. I don't think that's a fair exchange. Definitely, he is guilty of first degree murder.
After reading the transcript to this case I definitely would not convict Mr. Sandoval of first degree murder. I do not think there was any premeditation on the part of Mr. Sandoval, nor do I think Mr. Sandoval intended to kill anyone. I also do not think he weighed what he was about to do in his mind; I think the stabbing happened pretty quickly. As for second degree murder or voluntary manslaughter I think it is pretty close. However, I think I would convict him of second degree murder. It is stated above that second degree murder requires malice aforethought, which I think Mr. Sandoval had. He left the house in a rage, became even angrier on his way home, and eventually returned back to the house with the sole purpose of hurting someone, though he probably still wasn't planning to deliberately kill someone. I didn't choose involuntary manslaughter because of the malice aforethought mentioned above and because it also states that hurtful words can not be considered serious provocation, which was the only reason I was leaning towards voluntary manslaughter at first. Even though I decided upon second degree murder I'm still not quite sure if I made the right choice. I can understand how jurors in real cases may not completely understand the choices given to them or the accurate usage of certain terms. I think it is hard to differentiate between what actions fall under what terms and what constitutes a certain conviction and what doesn't. Especially if you have absolutely no previous knowledge in this subject area.
As a juror I would convict Robert Sandoval of murder in the second degree. There is no question in everyone's minds that Arnold Botello was killed because Sandoval stabbed him. I definitely would not have chosen murder in the first degree because the crime did not appear to be premeditated in any sense. Also, the amount of evidence that was provided by the prosecution seemed to be lacking quite a bit. If anything, I was leaning more along the lines of manslaughter because it appeared that Sandoval along with everyone else had been drinking and had been in multiple arguments, causing heightened senses of anger. However, intense moments of anger and passion do not excuse the fact that he stabbed an innocent man (Arnold Botello). The fact that Sandoval left to go back to his house and came back to the scene of the crime really helped me in my decision of going from manslaughter to murder in the second degree.
As a member of the jury, I would charge the defendant, Robert Sandoval with Murder in the Second Degree. I came to this verdict after careful consideration of the facts, hard evidence, and testimonies given by the witnesses.
There is no doubt in my mind that Robert Sandoval was provoked the night of the Thanksgiving dinner. Shots were fired at his van intentionally and he had reason to be angry. I have decided not to charge Mr. Sandoval with Voluntary manslaughter. Although he was acting in a fit of rage he had time, when he left Mr. Hudgins house, to reflect on his anger and it was no longer a ‘crime of passion’. He now had malice aforethought, and intended to inflict physical harm on another person His threat, “…I’m gonna get a shotgun and blow you all away,” was nothing more than a threat until he proceeded to go back to Mr. Hudgins home with a chainsaw. He intended to inflict physical harm on another person.
When determining to charge Mr. Sandoval with first or second degree murder it was crucial that I was able to decide if he willfully, deliberately, and premeditatedly had the intent to kill the victim. It had already been established that Mr. Sandoval stabbed the victim, Arnold Petello; he admitted to it. Also, the defendant clearly showed malice aforethought by returning to Mr. Hudgins after being provoked with the intent to physically harm someone. With that being said my conclusion of Second Degree Murder was due to the fact that there is no proof that Mr. Sandoval premeditated stabbing the victim. Also, there is question to the deliberateness of his acts. There is a possibility, that because he was in possession of such a lengthy carving knife he accidentally stabbed Mr. Petello as he was putting a log on the fire, as Mr. Hudgins testified. I also took into account another part of Mr. Hudgins testimony. He admitted that all of this occurred after they had been to the bar and he and others in the house were intoxicated. Also, Mr. Hudgins admitted to having a somewhat small house. These truths give me a reasonable doubt about Mr. Sandoval’s guilt, of murder in the first degree. Resulting in Mr. Sandoval's gulity verdict of Murder in the the degree.
**Last paragraph got cut off…
When determining, what I believed Mr. Sandoval was guilty of was a difficult process. The hardest part was deciphering the meaning of the charges and what each entailed. Without the definitions before me and all the details to constantly refer back to I may have charged Mr. Sandoval differently had I actually been a member of the jury.
First off I would like to say I did not do this trial justice when I read it aloud in class. With that said, after rereading the trial transcripts and the case summary, I think it is obvious that the stabbing fulfills all of the elements of voluntary manslaughter. It is evident from the testimony of Sandoval and the eyewitnesses that Sandoval did some way shape or form kill the victim with a knife. Sandoval actually admitted to it. It is also clear that the stabbing happened solely by reason of sudden, violent, and irresistible passion resulting from serious provocation. Sudden, because as Hutchens stated, it just happened, and as Sandoval stated it was boom boom. The violent and irresistible passion resulting from serious provocation arose from the culmination of events during the day, followed by the other drunken men particularly John, surrounding him in the room, and in an effort to leave abruptly he somehow stabbed Arnold. Mr. Sandoval was set off by John stating that he (Sandoval) did that to his face, and was under the impression that he (Sandoval) was next. Although, there was time between the events that occurred during the day, they directly effected and controlled the moods and actions of the men surrounding Sandoval. It is clear that Mr. Sandoval cannot be charged with even second-degree murder, because he did not act with malice aforethought. He really didn’t know Mr. Potello very well, and had actually been getting along with him that day, on top of that he was actually described as the mild one from the group, therefore providing no malice aforethought, and eliminating the option of second or first degree murder.
Finally, there are also some other elements to the crime that show remorse and shock from the victim Mr. Sandoval. For instance, Mr. Hutchens stated that they did not have to do anything to make Sandoval stay after the stabbing, expressing remorse for what he did. Mr. Sandoval also stated in his examination that he sat down and waited for the police, which possibly shows signs of shock.
Following my conclusion, I did some research and found that Robert Sandoval was accused of stabbing a friend to death after a day of drinking at a Thanksgiving Day party. The original defendant was convicted of manslaughter, and studies using the trial tape or transcript have reliably produced the manslaughter conviction (McCoy, Nunez, & Dammeyer, 1999 ;). By the way, although, not directly related to this trial, interesting study Ms. MacLin.
This is my free pass for attending class on april 5th
Thanks
After listening to the testimony and reading the script, if I were a jury member in this case I find Mr. Sandoval guilty of second degree murder. In fact, Mr. Sandoval admitted to stabbing Arnold Botello. With this being said, I believe Mr. Sandoval only intended to gain revenge on the persons he thought shot bullet holes into the side of his van. He left very angry. He came back to the house with a chainsaw, seemingly wanting to hurt someone; however, I don’t think his intention was to kill a person. When the chainsaw did not work, he changed his mind and grabbed a knife to use as a weapon instead. In an angry rage, Mr. Sandoval stabbed Mr. Botello. After confronting the men with a verbal threat and confronting them with a chainsaw and then a knife, Mr. Sandoval exhibited aforethought. At this time, his intention was to hurt someone. Because the punctures not very deep, I believe Mr. Sandoval did not intend to kill him, however. Therefore, I would not charge Mr. Sandoval of voluntary manslaughter in this case. He had not set out to commit a crime of passion as persons who commit manslaughter do in the intention to kill a person. Another point to consider in this case was that the men had just left the bar when this incident took place. Mr. Hudgins stated that the men had all gotten along well during the day. This incident seemed to stir due to rage and anger. It was interesting to learn that after Mr. Sandoval committed the crime, stayed in the home until the police came. This act exhibits that Mr. Sandoval was in a state of shock and remorse. Overall, the fact that he left the house and came back with a weapon with the intention to harm someone, I conclude that Mr. Sandoval is guilty of murder of the second degree. Before taking this class, I had no previous knowledge of this information about degrees of murder and manslaughter. Therefore, if I would have been a jury member in this case, I don’t know if I would have made this decision. This was a very interesting case to learn about.
I would vote murder in the second degree. From what I gathered, Sandoval was enraged and had a history of a hot temper, however he lacked the intent necessary for first degree. He had been set off by some events at the bar, but between pulling up on someone's lawn, taking out a chainsaw, and attempting to start it I would have hoped he would have found time to slow down. When the chainsaw didn't start and Sandoval went for a knife, well, that's where the question of intent looms large. Clearly, he wanted to hurt this other person, using a chainsaw and a knife demonstrates the extent to which he wanted to hurt this person. It would be more difficult to prove first degree here, establishing premeditation beyond a state of passion. I am convinced there had been malice aforethought and enough opportunity for Sandoval not to have done the stabbing to convict murder in the second degree.
If I were a jury member on this case I would find Mr. Sandoval guilty of 2nd degree murder. I do not believe that Mr. Sandoval premeditated his plan of killing Mr. Botello. It seems like it just kinda happened. While it is suspicious that he left to get a chainsaw, there's no mention of it in the police report, so whether that really happened or not cannot be known except to the people that were there. Because there is no proof that he had planned beforehand to kill Botello. It seems like it just happened in the heat of the argument. I do believe that there was malice aforethought. He grabbed a knife and used it to stab Botello. According to testimony, there seemed to be no need for a knife, or reason for self defense. Even if he did feel threatened, according to testimony Botello wasn't the one threatening him so there should have be no reason to kill him in self defense. Mr. Sandoval was very upset that someone shot up his car and he wanted revenge, he didn't plan ahead of time to kill whoever was responsible for it, which is why I wouldn't convict him of first degree murder. He did intend to do damage of some kind to those responsible and with the knife being readily available, he used that.
I found this to be very difficult. I kept going back and forth about whether it was second degree murder or voluntary manslaughter. It was a difficult decision and I'm glad that I didn't have to actually be on the jury for this case. Even though I read in class it was still very hard to hear something (or resd something) for the first time and try to absorb all the information at that point! I found it much easier to retain things after reading it several time and giving myself time to process what was actually being said. The conflicting testimony between the defendant and the witnesses made it hard to make a decision because I really wondered what happened. This was a very difficult decision to make and I have sympathy for people who have to make those decisions!!!
I am using my free pass from April 5th on this assignment :)
If I was a jury member at this trial I would not think the defendant is guilty in first degree or second degree murder. I would choose voluntary manslaughter. I definitely do not think the murder was premeditated. I believe that he brought the knife to scare the victim but did not bring the knife to kill the victim. I think everyone was just in a bad situation and alcohol was involved as well which just led to bad actions. I do not think the defendant acted willfully, but there is no question that he did kill the victim. It was a night that got out of hand. I think if it had been pre-mediated that there would have been more stab wounds and it would have been more violent. Malice aforethought was not intended toward the victim. I do not think there is enough evidence to prove first degree murder. I think that the defendant was really mad after a night of being bullied and his car being shot. I think the defendant was very remorseful for what he did right when it happened.
As a juror, I would convict Sandoval of Murder in the 2nd degree. While Sandoval did stab Botello, it was not intentional or by any means pre-meditated. I feel that Sandoval was provoked by Botello and Botello's friends. And with this provocation he became extremely angry. He did have an opportunity to cool off when he left the home. However, his mistake was to return. Based on the depth of the stab wound and the length of the knife, it seems quite plausible to me that wound would not be consistent with the type of wound somebody would receive if the act had been intentional.
I found it very hard to classify this crime into one category by looking at whether it fulfilled the requirements mentioned above. However, I found it easier to determine which classification the case would fall under by looking at which elements did not apply. For example, first degree murder was ruled out because the murder was not planned at all. This would eliminate the pre-meditation part. On the other, voluntary manslaughter would have been another good choice because I do feel the events that happened prior to the murder were extremely provoking and I truly believe he did not intend to kill Botello. Realistically, the man committed murder and rather then run and hide, he stayed until the police arrived to explain himself. That to me says he truly felt remorse and that it was accidental. Unfortunately, what eliminated the voluntary manslaughter verdict is that he had left the seen when things were heated only to return a short time later with a chain saw. To me, this turned the provokee into the provoker. What transpired after his return, is the result of him provoking Botello and the others in the home. Thus, I felt murder in the 2nd degree made a better fit for the case.
I believe that the victim did die as a result of being stabbed but I do not believe that Sandoval committed premeditated murder or acted with malice aforethought. There was not enough evidence to prove that Sandoval had planned out killing the victim before it occurred. Especially when you think, he could have easily grabbed a knife from his place of residence instead of a chainsaw which is large, bulky, and can be hard to maintain control of if someone is flinging it around attempting to kill someone. I don’t think Sandoval deliberated the pros and cons of his actions or the consequences of stabbing the victim. It could have been self defense, especially if everyone was about ready to come down on him and the victim was standing in the doorway. Too many things did not add up with the witnesses stories and the actual evidence. I have reasonable doubt that Sandoval did not willingly, deliberately, and premeditatedly commit first-degree murder. I would find the defendant guilty of Voluntary Manslaughter.