Wellar v. People
30 Mich. 16, 1874 Mich. LEXIS 126 (1874)
Premium Feature
Subscribe to Lexplug to listen to the Case Podcast.
Rule of Law:
An unintentional killing resulting from an assault without a deadly weapon constitutes manslaughter, not murder, unless the defendant intended to inflict an injury of a very serious character that is likely to cause death or grievous bodily harm.
Facts:
- Wellar and Margaret Campbell lived together.
- On July 25, 1873, Campbell entered the bar-room of their shared residence.
- Upon entering, Campbell fell or was knocked to the floor.
- While Campbell was on the floor, Wellar ordered her to get up and kicked her.
- Wellar then dragged Campbell from the bar-room into a bedroom, where she subsequently died.
- The cause of death was an injury to Campbell's left temple.
- It was unclear whether the fatal injury was caused by a blow from Wellar's fist, a kick, or an accidental fall.
- No weapon was used during the altercation.
Procedural Posture:
- The People prosecuted Wellar in the trial court for the murder of Margaret Campbell.
- The trial court instructed the jury that if Wellar committed the homicide, it was murder unless there was extreme provocation sufficient to mitigate a killing done with a deadly weapon.
- A jury found Wellar guilty of murder.
- Wellar (as plaintiff in error) appealed his conviction to the Supreme Court of Michigan, arguing the jury instruction was erroneous.
Premium Content
Subscribe to Lexplug to view the complete brief
You're viewing a preview with Rule of Law, Facts, and Procedural Posture
Issue:
Does an act of violence that results in death constitute murder, rather than manslaughter, when the act was committed without a deadly weapon and without a specific intent to kill, solely because the defendant intended to cause some bodily harm?
Opinions:
Majority - Campbell, J.
No. An act of violence resulting in death does not automatically constitute murder simply because some bodily harm was intended; it is murder only if the intended injury was of such a serious nature that it could be expected to peril life. The court reasoned that the distinction between murder and manslaughter rests on the degree of disregard for human life. To convict a person of murder for an unintentional killing, the defendant's intent must be 'equivalent in legal character to a criminal purpose aimed against life.' This requires that the intended injury be one of a very serious character that might naturally and commonly involve loss of life or grievous bodily harm. While the use of a deadly weapon may imply such an intent, when no weapon is used, the deadly intent is not presumed and must be proven. The trial court erred by giving a jury instruction that effectively eliminated the possibility of a manslaughter verdict, thereby taking the crucial question of the defendant's intent and the severity of the intended harm away from the jury.
Analysis:
This case establishes a critical distinction between murder and manslaughter based on the defendant's mental state (mens rea) when death is an unintended consequence of an assault. It clarifies that for an act to rise to the level of murder without a specific intent to kill, the defendant must have intended to cause a type of harm so severe that death is a natural and probable consequence. This precedent prevents the automatic escalation of all fatal assaults to murder, requiring a nuanced inquiry into the foreseeability of death and the nature of the intended violence, particularly in cases not involving a deadly weapon.
Unlock the full brief for Wellar v. People