Murder, but not really

June 10, 2009 7:32 PM

What would you be charged with if you made an accidental death look like a murder?

I'm watching NCIS reruns, and the episode Heartbreak got me wondering. SPOILER ALERT if you care about 5 year old episodes of NCIS.

Basically a doctor doesn't perform a surgery on a patient which results in the patient's death. Rather than admit her mistake, she sets it up so it looks like he was murdered (she filled him up with pure O2 and set him on fire).

My hypothetical scenario:
-Person A dies a purely accidental death.
-Person B makes A's death look like a murder (for no malicious reason- not trying to set someone else up to take the fall).
-The cops bring in NCIS and CSI and SVU and it becomes clear that while Person B did not kill Person A, Person B tried to make it look like someone did.

What is Person B charged with? I guess in the case of the NCIS episode, arson, but what else?

posted by dogmom to law & government (12 comments total)

Tampering with evidence?
posted by mynameisluka at 7:39 PM on June 10

yeah & conspiracy
posted by patnok at 7:40 PM on June 10

Off the top: Despoiling a Corpse, Evidence Tampering, Obstruction of Justice, Fleeing the Scene of a Crime, Accessory After the Fact (assuming person B knows of A's criminal negligence)... Mrs. EnsignLunchmeat admonishes I use the disclaimer: IANAL...
posted by EnsignLunchmeat at 7:40 PM on June 10 [1 favorite]

This would probably annoy the police office/DA so much that they would figure out something to charge you with.
posted by Electrius at 7:40 PM on June 10 [2 favorites]

obstruction and tampering would be the big ones. in the NCIS episode i'd guess there'd be an extra crime for doing it in a hospital, though i'm at a loss as to what that would be - maybe attempted murder for filling the airducts with the smoke and that being passed on to the other patients?

also, tampering with the scene due to your negligence might find you in manslaughter territory where the original accident wouldn't. it shows malicious intent...
posted by nadawi at 7:44 PM on June 10

As I recall from that episode, the doctor's attempt was originally to make it look like an accident, rather than murder.

(Byers, ~15:25 , "Ironic though, isn't it, we saved his life only to have him die in a freak accident")

Why yes, I am a huge NCIS nerd/fan. Why do you ask? :-)
posted by Nice Guy Mike at 8:02 PM on June 10

Obstruction and tampering, yes. Desecration of a corpse.

Not conspiracy, since there was no agreement. Not arson, since the thing set afire was not a structure (or forest) — unless the burning body then set the hospital on fire. Not manslaughter, unless the original denial of the surgery is determined to have been recklessly negligent. Not accessory after the fact, since A committed no crime.
posted by nicwolff at 8:08 PM on June 10 [1 favorite]

Ok, I didn't phrase this very well, and I'm sorry. The NCIS episode just made me wonder what would happen if there was no negligence. Say person A doesn't tie their shoes and falls down a flight of stairs and dies. B ties A's shoes at the bottom of the flight of stairs so now it looks like maybe A was pushed. B has no reason to tie the shoes. Maybe B is just a little OCD or something. But since the cops have put considerable time into finding out that B made this death look like murder, they want to charge B with something. What is that charge?
posted by dogmom at 8:11 PM on June 10

Although if I previewed before I clarified, I would have seen that the main charegs would be Obstruction, tampering and desecration of a corpse.
posted by dogmom at 8:13 PM on June 10

Where I live the Summary Offences Act provides as follows:

s 24 False allegation or report to Police
Every person is liable to imprisonment for a term not exceeding 3 months or a fine not exceeding $2,000 who,—
(a) Contrary to the fact and without a belief in the truth of the statement, makes or causes to be made to any constable any written or verbal statement alleging that an offence has been committed; or
(b) With the intention of causing wasteful deployment, or of diverting deployment, of Police personnel or resources, or being reckless as to that result,—
(i) Makes a statement to any person that gives rise to serious apprehension for his own safety or the safety of any person or property, knowing that the statement is false; or
(ii) Behaves in a manner that is likely to give rise to such apprehension, knowing that such apprehension would be groundless.

I think the examples given would fall under s24.b.ii.

This is usually described in the newpapers as a charge of "wasting police time."
posted by i_am_joe's_spleen at 8:39 PM on June 10

"Wasting Police Time" is not, in the UK and some Commonwealth countries, a euphemism or short-hand term, as i-a-j-s seems to believe. It's a specific offence.

I'm not sure if tying the shoelaces would come under it, as it seems to require the making of a "false report". If you tie the dead guy's shoelaces and the police assume foul play, that's very different to you calling them anonymously with a fake assertion that he was murdered.
posted by AmbroseChapel at 10:13 PM on June 10

AmbroseChapel: my comments are confined to New Zealand, where I live. I didn't intend to make a claim about elsewhere.

Where I live, there is no crime called "wasting police time" on the statute books. Our Crimes Act supersedes the criminal parts of common law (ref), but the newspapers sometimes use the familiar names for crimes that they would have had in common law. I was just being careful to confine my answer to things I know about. Exhibit A, exhibit B.
posted by i_am_joe's_spleen at 10:49 PM on June 10