The presence or absence of murderous intent is an important fact during criminal trials. To verify autopsy findings that were considered as evidence of murderous intent, we compared autopsy findings in homicide cases committed with and without murderous intent (n = 12 and n = 11, respectively). Although the number of wounds may only be limited to one or two, stab wounds on the trunk of the body from a sharp instrument can be a significant evidence of murderous intent. Bruise or petechial haemorrhage at the back or limbs caused by blunt instruments or without any weapons do not indicate the presence of murderous intent. Although results in this study should be carefully interpreted in other jurisdictions, statistical analysis comparing cases with and without murderous intents might be a valuable methodology to understand autopsy findings involving murderous intent in Japan

Ezaki, Jiro

Kitaguchi, Masaaki

Murata, Kazuhiro

Nagao, Masataka

Namera, Akira

Tajima, Takashi

Name not available

Hiroshima J. Med. Sci.Vol. 66, No. 4, 123~127, December, 2017HIJM 66–21123Autopsy Findings Involving Murderous Intent: Comparison between Positive and Negative Murderous Intent Cases in JapanJiro EZAKI1)*, Masataka NAGAO1), Masaaki KITAGUCHI1), Akira NAMERA1), Kazuhiro MURATA1), and Takashi TAJIMA1)1) Department of Forensic Medicine, Graduate School of Biomedical & Health Sciences, Hiroshima University, 1-2-3 Kasumi, Minami-ku, HIROSHIMA 734-8553, Japan *Corresponding authorABSTRACTThe presence or absence of murderous intent is an important fact during criminal trials.  To verify autopsy findings that were considered as evidence of murderous intent, we compared au-topsy findings in homicide cases committed with and without murderous intent (n = 12 and n = 11, respectively).  Although the number of wounds may only be limited to one or two, stab wounds on the trunk of the body from a sharp instrument can be a significant evidence of murderous in-tent.  Bruise or petechial haemorrhage at the back or limbs caused by blunt instruments or with-out any weapons do not indicate the presence of murderous intent.  Although results in this study should be carefully interpreted in other jurisdictions, statistical analysis comparing cases with and without murderous intents might be a valuable methodology to understand autopsy findings involving murderous intent in Japan.Key words: Autopsy findings, murderous intentMurderous intent is the mental state of the ac-cused.  When giving impartial decisions, judges should consider objective evidences (i.e., autopsy findings) as more significant than verbal evidences. However, only a few studies have examined autopsy findings considered as evidence of murderous intent during criminal trials.In Japan, judges obtain facts that involve mur-derous intent by considering circumstantial evi-dence: injury site, severity of the injury, and type of weapon1,2).  However, previous studies did not consider data from forensic autopsy reports but only judgements in criminal trials1,2).  Because the exact number, sites, or severity of injuries are not always described in judgements, forensic autopsy reports should also be used as a reference to deter-mine autopsy findings involving murderous intent.Although criminal law and tribunal procedures differ between countries, the presence of murder-ous intent is a significant concern during criminal trials involving homicide cases.  To verify autopsy findings that have been considered as evidence of murderous intent, we conducted a statistical anal-ysis, and autopsy findings between homicide cases with and without murderous intent were com-pared.MATERIALS AND METHODSCase selectionWe performed a retrospective case study of foren-sic autopsies performed by the Department of Legal Medicine of Hiroshima University between June 2009 and May 2011.  Cases that meet these two cri-teria were included in this study: (i) homicide case that has been prosecuted and (ii) available data on the criminal trial and autopsy report.  Therefore, non-homicide (i.e., manner of death is suicide or ac-cident) or non-prosecuted cases (i.e., cases without sufficient evidence for prosecution) were excluded.We divided the cases into two groups: positive murderous intent and negative murderous intent. The presence or absence of murderous intent was defined based on the judgements during the crimi-nal trial.  Murder cases (article 199 in the Japanese criminal law, the same shall apply hereinafter) were classified under the positive murderous intent group.  Cases involving injury causing death (article 205) or abandonment by a person responsible for protection (article 218) were classified under the negative murderous intent group.  When the ac-cused committed homicidal crimes against two or more people, each victim was assessed for the pres-ence or absence of murderous intent.Briefly, murder in Japan roughly corresponds to first- and second-degree murder in the United 124 J. Ezaki et althe femoral vein due to central venous catheterisa-tion in the emergency room or bilateral rib frac-tures due to cardiopulmonary resuscitation were excluded from the list of injuries in this study. Moreover, the type of injuries is categorised into six: petechial haemorrhage, bruise, open wound (excluding superficial incised wound), abrasion, superficial incised wound, and old injury.For example, we substitute ‘two abrasions exist on the body trunk’ for the phrase ‘a couple of abra-sions exist on right lateral thoracic regions’ in the forensic autopsy report.  Because a single action from an external force can cause two or more inju-ries, the total number of injuries in this study does not represent the number of actions from an external force.Ethical considerationThe procedures were approved by the Ethical Committee of Hiroshima University (approval number E-533).RESULTS AND DISCUSSIONA total of 123 autopsy cases from our department between June 2009 and May 2011 were included in the present study.  Among themy 23 homicide cases had available judgements during criminal trials: 11 positive murderous intent cases (murder cases) and 12 negative murderous intent cases (11 injury causing death cases and 1 abandonment by a per-son responsible for protection case) were included (Table 2).A total of 10 cases used a weapon in positive murderous intent cases, whereas only 1 case used a weapon in negative murderous intent cases (p = 0.0001, Table 3).  All six cases that used sharp in-struments were considered as positive murderous intent (Table 3), and a higher number of open wounds in the trunk of the body were observed in murderous intent positive cases (1.3 ± 1.9) than that of negative cases (0.1 ± 0.3) (p = 0.004, Table 4).  These results were included, although the number of wounds may only be one or two, and States.  Injury causing death, causing death through negligence and abandonment by a person responsible for protection in Japan corresponds to involuntary and voluntary manslaughter in the United States (Table 1).  In the United States, a rule exists that when an offender kills (regardless of the intent to kill) in the commission of felony, a dangerous or enumerated crime, he/she is guilty of murder, the so called felony-murder rule3,4).  How-ever, no felony-murder rule exists in Japan.Statistical analysisPleas, confessions to murderous intent, and types of weapons were defined based on the judge-ments of criminal trials.  Autopsy findings (types, location, and number of injuries), basic character-istics of the victim (sex, body weight and height, and cause of death) were defined based on forensic autopsy reports.To evaluate the autopsy findings involving mur-derous intent, we compared the demographics and autopsy findings of positive and negative murder-ous intent cases.  Two-tailed Student’s t-test was used in continuous variables, and the Fisher’s ex-act test or chi-square test was used in categorical variables with a significance level of p < 0.05.  All statistical analyses were performed using SPSS statistical software version 20 (IBM, Japan).Counting injuriesWe categorised the sites of injuries into seven anatomical areas: the head, face, neck, trunk of the body (chest or abdomen), back, upper limb, and lower limb.  These categories are based on ana-tomical areas that a perpetrator could recognise easily even during the commission of homicide.  In some cases, the exact number of injuries cannot be easily identified.  Therefore, forensic pathologists express the number of injuries using terms that include ‘a couple of’, ‘several’, or ‘numbers of’.  To objectively assess the number of injuries, we sub-stitute specific numbers for these terms: two for ‘a couple of’, 10 for ‘several’, and 30 for ‘numbers of’. Iatrogenic injuries, for example, injection scars on Table 1. Comparison of the criminal  law in the United States and JapanCriminal law in the United States Criminal law in JapanCase No.(see Table 2)Malice aforethought ConditionsCrime [article no. in the U.S. code tytle 18]Intention of homicide Crime [article no. in Japanese climinal law]YesWillful and premeditated First-degree murder   [1111]Yes Murder [199]1, 4, 5, 10, 11, 12, 14, 15, 16, 18, 22 Not premeditated or planned Second-degree murder [1111]NoUpon a sudden quarrel or heat of passionVoluntary manslaughter  [1112] (third-degree homicide)NoInjury causing death [205]3, 6, 7, 8, 9, 13, 17, 19, 20, 21In the commission of an unlawful act not amounting to a felony / In the commission in an unlawful manner.Involuntary manslaughter [1112] (fourth-degree homicide)Causing death through negligence [210]Abandonment by person responsible for protection [218]2125Autopsy findings involving murderous intentTable 2. Cases in the present studyCaseNo.Sex of victim* Plea†Confession of murderous intent†Weapon*, † Cause of death*, †Decision of criminal courtMurderous intent†Intention of Injuryt† Crime†1 F No No None Throttling Yes No Murder2 F No No None Unknown No No Abandonment by person responsible fore protection3 F No No None Traumatic shock No Yes Injury causing death4 M No No Sharp instrument Exsanguination Yes No Murder5 F No No Sharp instrument Exsanguination Yes No Murder6 F No No None Diffuse cerebral swelling No Yes Injury causing death7 F No No None Exsanguination No Yes Injury causing death8 M No No None Haemorrhagic shock No Yes Injury causing death9 M Yes No None Haemorrhagic shock No Yes Injury causing death10 M No Yes AutomobileMedulla oblongata dissectionYes No Murder11 F No No Ligature Ligature strangulation Yes No Murder12 M No No Ligature Ligature strangulation Yes No Murder13 F No No None Diffuse cerebral swelling No Yes Injury causing death14 F No Yes Sharp instrument Haemorrhagic shock Yes No Murder15 F No Yes Sharp instrument Exsanguination Yes No Murder16 M No No Blunt instrument Traumatic shock Yes No Murder17 F No No None Tarumatic pneumothorax No Yes Injury resulting in death18 M No No Sharp instrument Haemorrhagic shock Yes No Murder19 M No No Blunt instrument Haemorrhagic shock No Yes Injury resulting in death20 M No No None Traumatic shock No Yes Injury resulting in death21 M No No None Traumatic shock No Yes Injury resulting in death22 M No No Sharp instrument Haemorrhagic shock Yes No Murder23 M Yes No None Haemorrhagic shock No Yes Injury causing death* Data based on forensic autosy report.† Data based on judgments of criminal trial.Table 3. Basic characteristics of casesMurderous intentp-value*Positive (n = 11)Negative(n = 12)Sex (n)Male 6 6 1.000Female 5 6Height and weight†Height (cm) 151 ± 33 144 ± 34 0.621Weight (kg) 54 ± 25 42 ± 22 0.248Plea (n)Innocent 0 2 0.156Guilty 11 10Confession of murderous intent (n)Yes 3 0 0.052No 8 12Weapon (n)Sharp instrument 6 0 <0.0001Other instrument 4 1No weapon 1 11Type of cause of death (n)Injury 7 7 0.619Asphyxiation 2 4Unknown 2 1* Student’s T-test for continuous variables; chi-square test or Fisher’s exact test for categorical variables†Mean ± Standard deviation (S.D.)126 J. Ezaki et alTable 4. Number of physical findings in cases (n = 23)Murderous intent*p-value†Positive(n = 11)Negative(n = 12)Whole bodyPetechial haemorrhage 35.7 ± 36.9 57.8 ± 54.4 0.273Bruise 3.4 ± 3.1 8.8 ± 5.5 0.009**Open wound 6.6 ± 8.6 3.5 ± 4.4 0.291Abrasion 26.7 ± 45.4 38.2 ± 38.3 0.519Superficial incised wound 1.0 ± 2.0 0.3 ± 0.8 0.296Old injury 89.6 ± 73.8 148.2 ± 88.4 0.101HeadPetechial haemorrhage 8.7 ± 16.4 4.0 ± 11.1 0.424Bruise 0.4 ± 0.9 0.0 ± 0.0 0.187Open wound 1.1 ± 2.1 1.1 ± 2.3 0.994Abrasion 2.6 ± 8.1 8.4 ± 14.0 0.244Superficial incised wound 0.0 ± 0.0 0.2 ± 0.4 0.171Old injury 0.0 ± 0.0 2.6 ± 5.4 0.126FacePetechial haemorrhage 23.3 ± 27.9 18.8 ± 25.9 0.691Bruise 0.6 ± 1.2 2.1 ± 1.6 0.018*Open wound 2.0 ± 5.3 2.2 ± 3.8 0.932Abrasion 12.6 ± 25.9 10.8 ± 21.3 0.857Superficial incised wound 0.0 ± 0.0 0.2 ± 0.4 0.171Old injury 0.0 ± 0.0 3.2 ± 5.6 0.075NeckPetechial haemorrhage 0.1 ± 0.3 0.0 ± 0.0 0.307Bruise 0.1 ± 0.3 0.0 ± 0.0 0.307Open wound 1.0 ± 1.9 0.0 ± 0.0 0.082Abrasion 1.6 ± 1.9 1.5 ± 3.8 0.971Superficial incised wound 0.1 ± 0.3 0.0 ± 0.0 0.307Old injury 0.0 ± 0.0 0.0 ± 0.0 n.aTrunkPetechial haemorrhage 3.6 ± 6.0 6.1 ± 10.2 0.481Bruise 0.1 ± 0.3 0.1 ± 0.3 0.952Open wound 1.3 ± 1.9 0.1 ± 0.3 0.044*Abrasion 1.8 ± 4.9 3.3 ± 6.5 0.536Superficial incised wound 0.6 ± 1.5 0.0 ± 0.0 0.223Old injury 0.0 ± 0.0 0.2 ± 0.4 0.171BackPetechial haemorrhage 0.1 ± 0.3 6.1 ± 7.6 0.017*Bruise 1.6 ± 2.0 4.6 ± 5.3 0.098Open wound 0.6 ± 1.3 0.0 ± 0.0 0.158Abrasion 0.3 ± 0.5 0.7 ± 0.7 0.113Superficial incised wound 0.1 ± 0.3 0.0 ± 0.0 0.307Old injury 0.0 ± 0.0 0.0 ± 0.0 n.aUpper limbPetechial haemorrhage 0.0 ± 0.0 11.4 ± 17.6 0.043*Bruise 0.4 ± 0.7 0.6 ± 0.9 0.518Open wound 0.4 ± 0.8 0.2 ± 0.4 0.459Abrasion 6.6 ± 13.8 9.3 ± 13.6 0.631Superficial incised wound 0.2 ± 0.4 0.0 ± 0.0 0.134Old injury 0.0 ± 0.0 0.6 ± 1.1 0.089Lower limbPetechial haemorrhage 0.0 ± 0.0 11.4 ± 17.6 0.043*Bruise 0.3 ± 0.9 1.5 ± 1.7 0.043*Open wound 0.3 ± 0.9 0.0 ± 0.0 0.307Abrasion 1.3 ± 2.7 4.1 ± 6.3 0.184Superficial incised wound 0.1 ± 0.3 0.0 ± 0.0 0.307Old injury 0.0 ± 0.0 0.9 ± 2.0 0.139* Mean ± Standard deviation (S.D.)† Student’s T-test for continuous variables (* p < 0.05, ** p < 0.001).127Autopsy findings involving murderous intentlaw, a ‘crime’ is defined as the illegal and culpable act that fits the actus reus.  Actus reus means the presence of act, result, causality, and intention of committing a crime.  For example, man A killed man B with a knife: the fact that man A stabbed man B with the knife is the ‘act’, the fact that man B died is the ‘result’, and the relationship between man A’s insertion of the knife and man B’s fatality is the ‘causality’.  To apply article 199 (murder), prosecutors must prove the presence of intent to commit a murder by man A in addition to the presence of act, result, and causality.  If the prose-cutor cannot prove the murderous intent of man A, but the intent to cause injury, negligence, or aban-donment, article 205 (injury causing death), article 210 (causing death through negligench), or article 218 habandonment by person responsible for pro-tection) might be applied, respectively (Table 1). Therefore, the methodology in the present study might be valuable to understand autopsy findings involving murderous intent in Japan.LimitationsFirst, the number of target cases is relatively small (n = 23).  However, the sample size is large enough to detect statistically significant differences in autopsy findings between positive and negative murderous intent cases.Second, autopsy findings might differ from pa-thologist to pathologist.  However, only one forensic pathologist conducts autopsies in Hiroshima pre-fecture, Japan.  A single pathologist has worked on all 23 forensic autopsy cases in this study.Third, because criminal law and tribunal proce-dures differ between countries, careful consider-ation is required when applying our method to cases from other jurisdictions.(Received January October 13, 2017)(Accepted November 29, 2017)REFERENCES1. Kidani, A., 2010. Keiji Jijitsu Nintei No Kihon Mondai [Basic Issues In Japanese Criminal Law], 2nd ed (In Japanse)., Seibundo Publishing, Co., Ltd.2. Kobayashi, M., 1992. Keiji Jijitsu Nintei, Saiban-nrei No Sougouteki Kenkyu, jyo [Analysis of Ja-panse Criminal Court Judgments] (in Japanese)., HANREI TIMES Co.,Ltd.3. Dressler, J., 2008. America Keihou, Understanding Criminal Law (In Japanese)., Lexis Nexis.4. Glenn v. State, 511 A.2d 1110, 1126-1128 (Md.Ct. Spec. App.1986).stab wounds on the trunk of the body from a sharp instrument can be a strong evidence of mur-derous intent.  A stab wound in the trunk of the body is one of the typical autopsy findings that in-dicate the presence of murderous intent because people can easily understand that it contains vital organs (i.e., the heart, liver, and lungs).This result supports the previous study assess-ing the circumstantial evidence that includes au-topsy findings involving murderous intent based on 79 judgements during criminal trials2).  Wound location and severity of injuries were used as bases for determining murderous intent in 38 out of 79 cases2).  In 19 cases, judges found murderous in-tent based on the location of the injury: the chest (n = 7), heart (n = 4), abdomen (n = 7), and neck (n = 52).  In two cases, judges found murderous intent based on the severity of injuries: one case with 38 bruises and another case with a 15-cm-deep stab wound2).  Although wound location and severity of injuries are important factors, judges identified murderous intent based on several components of circumstantial evidences in other cases2).  In many common law countries, if a defendant inten-tionally used a deadly weapon or instrument against a victim, such use authorises a permissive inference of intent to kill (deadly weapon rule). Although a ‘deadly weapon rule’ does not exist in Japan, results of the present study indicate that the use of weapon lead judges to infer the presence of murderous intent.On the other hand, the total number of bruises in negative murderous intent cases was higher than that in positive cases (p = 0.009, Table 4).  A significant difference in the number of bruises at the face and lower limb (p = 0.018 and p = 0.043, respectively, Table 4) and petechial haemorrhage at the back and upper and lower limbs (p = 0.017, p = 0.043, and p = 0.043, respectively, Table 4) was observed.  Bruise or petechial haemorrhage at the back or limbs that is formed with blunt instru-ment or without any weapons does not indicate the presence of murderous intent.No significant difference was noted in the basic characteristics of the victim (sex, body weight and height, and cause of death), plea of the accused (guilty or not guilty), or confession to murderous intent between positive and negative murderous intent cases (p > 0.05, Table 3).  Judges might consider autopsy findings as more significant than verbal evidence.This is the first statistical analysis comparing autopsy findings in positive and negative murder-ous intent cases.  Under the Japanese criminal 

Autopsy Findings Involving Murderous Intent: Comparison between Positive and Negative Murderous Intent Cases in Japan

Hiroshima University Institutional Repository

http://ir.lib.hiroshima-u.ac.jp/files/public/4/45405/20180330114841143906/HiroshimaJMedSci_66_123.pdf

Autopsy Findings Involving Murderous Intent: Comparison between Positive and Negative Murderous Intent Cases in Japan

Abstract

Similar works

Full text

Available Versions

Name not available

Hiroshima University Institutional Repository