Site Content

---

Dear Interested Party, 

After an input of the indictment , jury instructions, and other verifiably factual information, then asking questions, ChatGPT has pointed out some very serious issues concerning the conviction of Jason Green (accused and tried for murder/convicted of causing a suicide). As for the questions, ChatGPT was asked to answer "as if" it were a law professor answering questions from law students and to take in consideration the Alabama Rules of Criminal Procedure, Case law precedent, and Constitutional guarantees/ constraints. Read in their entirety, the results speak for themselves, quite loudly, I might add. Key points being: pretrial notice, State's trial theory, State's inconsistent positions, the difference in proper procedure regarding necessarily included offenses as opposed to other lesser included offenses, and jury instructions. This demonstration of ChatGPT's ability to comprehend and analyze the law and its language is astounding and could very well prove itself crucial to anyone who finds themselves in a courtroom. Attached are portions of the questions and answers. Feel free to (please do) make the same inputs and ask the same and or other related questions. NOTE: BE CAREFUL NOT TO "SUGGEST" THE ANSWER YOU "WANT", OR THE AI WILL JUST AGREE WITH YOU! Thank You, Jason Green THISHAPPENEDINALABAMA.COM  contact greenp53@yahoo.com

Indictment submitted to chatgpt

October Term. 2011 The Grand Jury of Franklin County charges, before the finding of this indictment Jason Dewayne Green, whose name is otherwise unknown to the Grand Jury than as stated, did intentionually cause the death of another person, to-wit'. Shay Nicole Ledlow, by shooting the said victim through the mouth, in violation of 13A-6-2 of the Code of Alabama, against the peace and 16 Count 1: MURDER 000 dignity of the State of Alabama. of the Code of Alabama, against the peace and dignity of the State of Alabama. s Joseph S. Rushing District Attorney Witness: Rodney Knight INDICTIVENT JURY NO. 26 STATE OF ALABAMA CIRCUIT COURT FRANILIN COUNTY Thirty-Fourth Judicial Circuit Comt 2; UNLAWFUL POSSESSION OF MARIJUANA, 2ND DEGREE The Grand Jury of Franklin County charges, before the finding of this indictment, Jason Dewayne Green, whose name is unknown to the Grand Jury than as stated, did unlaqfully possess marijuana for his personal use only, in of 13A-12-214 of the Code of Alabama, against the peace and dignity of the State of Alabama. Count 3: POSSESSION OF DRUG PARAPHERNALIA The Grand Jury of Franklin County charges, before the finding of this indictment, Jason Dewayne Green, whose name is otherwise unknown to the Grand Jury than as stated* did unlawfully use or possess with intent to use, or to use to inject. ingest, inhale or otherwise introduce into the human body, drug paraphernalia, to-wit: a glass pipe, which was used to. to- wit: inhale and/or ingest, a controlled substance, to-wit: marijuana in  violaton of 13A-12-26

Answer from chatgpt

It appears you are providing a legal document related to three charges against an individual named Jason Dewayne Green in Franklin County, Alabama, according to the Alabama Penal Code. I'll summarize it for you:

1. Count 1: Murder: Jason Dewayne Green is accused of intentionally      causing the death of Shay Nicole Ledlow by shooting her through the mouth.      This act is in violation of Code 13A-6-2 of the Alabama Penal Code.
2. Count 2:      Unlawful Possession of Marijuana, 2nd Degree: Jason Dewayne Green is accused of unlawfully      possessing marijuana for personal use. This act is in violation of Code      13A-12-214 of the Alabama Penal Code.
3. Count 3:      Possession of Drug Paraphernalia:      Jason Dewayne Green is accused of unlawfully using or possessing with      intent to use drug paraphernalia, specifically a glass pipe, to inhale      and/or ingest marijuana. This act is in violation of Code 13A-12-260 of      the Alabama Penal Code.

Each of these charges is brought by the Grand Jury of Franklin County and is presented by the District Attorney, Joseph S. Rushing, with Rodney Knight as a witness. The charges are brought in the Thirty-Fourth Judicial Circuit Court of the State of Alabama.

Question to chatgpt

As to the indictment, this was in Alabama, and I know your not a lawyer but I'd like for you to answer AS IF you were a law professor thoroughly explaining your answers to questions asked by law students. Support all answers with State case law precedent, Alabama Rules of Criminal Procedure, Constitutional guarantees and constraints, and any other applicable legal principles. Based on this indictment, what must the State prove to get a conviction on the murder charge including any lesser or necessarily included offense, that is to say, what elements of crime in this accusation are not interchangeable and can not be modified without amending the indictment? And why? 

Answer from chatgpt

In the State of Alabama, to obtain a conviction on the murder charge, the State must prove beyond a reasonable doubt that the defendant, Jason Dewayne Green, intentionally caused the death of Shay Nicole Ledlow by shooting her through the mouth. This requirement comes from the Alabama Penal Code Section 13A-6-2, which states that a person commits the crime of murder if "With intent to cause the death of another person, he or she causes the death of that person or of another person."

As a result, there are two primary elements to this crime that are non-interchangeable and cannot be modified without amending the indictment:

1. Intent: The prosecution must prove that the defendant had the      specific intent to cause death. This distinguishes murder from other types      of homicide such as manslaughter, which involves recklessness rather than      intent.
2. Causation: The prosecution must prove that the defendant's      actions directly led to the death of the victim. This means showing that      the victim would not have died but for the defendant's actions.

In addition to these, the State must also prove the identity of the defendant, that the act occurred within the jurisdiction of Alabama, and that the victim was indeed dead.

As for lesser or necessarily included offenses, these are crimes that require proof of the same or fewer elements as the charged offense. In Alabama, a lesser included offense of murder could be manslaughter, as defined in Section 13A-6-3 of the Alabama Penal Code. Manslaughter requires proof of recklessness rather than intent, which is a lower mens rea standard.

In proving a case of murder, every element must be satisfied beyond a reasonable doubt. A failure to establish any one of these elements would mean the prosecution has not met its burden, and the defendant should be acquitted of that charge. If the prosecution cannot prove intent but can prove recklessness, then the defendant might be found guilty of manslaughter instead of murder.

These principles are grounded in several areas of law. For instance, the standard of proof beyond a reasonable doubt comes from the Due Process Clauses of the Fifth and Fourteenth Amendments to the U.S. Constitution. Additionally, the requirement to prove every element of the crime comes from the Alabama Rules of Criminal Procedure, specifically Rule 13.5(a), which states that the indictment must include "a plain, concise statement of the claim, showing that the pleader is entitled to relief." The principles of lesser included offenses are derived from both state law (the Alabama Penal Code) and case law, such as Ex parte Jordan, 486 So.2d 485 (Ala. 1986).

Finally, it's worth noting that the indictment should also comport with the Sixth Amendment's Confrontation Clause, which gives the defendant the right to be informed of the charges against him. This means that the indictment should clearly state all the elements of the crime so that the defendant can adequately prepare a defense.

Question to chatgpt

As to the indictment, what must remain the same (actus reus, mens rea, etc.) for an alternative offense to be considered a lawful lesser included offense and what would exclude any alternative offense from being a legitimate lesser included offense? And why?

Answer from Chatgpt

To understand what makes an offense a lawful lesser included offense, we must first understand the concept of a lesser included offense. A lesser included offense is a crime for which all of the elements necessary to secure a conviction are also elements found in a more serious crime. This means that if the prosecution proves the elements of the more serious crime, it has also, by default, proved the elements of the lesser included offense.

In the context of your question, for an alternative offense to be considered a lawful lesser included offense, it must share the same actus reus (the physical act of the crime) with the greater offense. However, the mens rea (the mental state or intent of the accused) may be different, typically less severe for the lesser included offense.

For example, in Alabama, under the murder statute (13A-6-2), the actus reus is the causing of the death of another person, and the mens rea is the intent to cause that death. A lesser included offense could be manslaughter (13A-6-3), which shares the same actus reus—causing the death of another person—but has a less severe mens rea, namely recklessness rather than intent.

What would exclude an alternative offense from being a legitimate lesser included offense is if that offense includes an element that is not included in the greater offense. If there is an additional requirement to prove the lesser offense, it cannot be a lesser included offense, because it is theoretically possible to commit the greater offense without having committed the lesser offense.

This principle is laid out in the Blockburger test from the U.S. Supreme Court case Blockburger v. United States, 284 U.S. 299 (1932), which has been adopted by many states including Alabama. According to the Blockburger test, one offense is not a lesser included offense of another if each offense requires proof of an additional fact which the other does not.

The reason for these rules is to ensure fairness and to prevent double jeopardy. The defendant should be able to anticipate the potential charges based on the indictment, and not be convicted of a crime that requires proof of facts not necessary for the charged offense. Further, the defendant should not be subjected to multiple prosecutions or punishments for the same offense, as protected by the Double Jeopardy Clause of the Fifth Amendment to the U.S. Constitution.

Question to Chatgpt

Could it be said in this case, based on this indictment, that the accused is on proper notice of an accusation that includes "causing a suicide" by handing the alleged murder weapon away to the victim, who shot herself? And why? 

Answer from chatgpt

From the information provided in the indictment, it does not appear that the defendant, Jason Dewayne Green, is on notice that he is being accused of "causing a suicide" by handing the alleged murder weapon to the victim, who then shot herself.

The specific language of the indictment accuses the defendant of "intentionally causing the death of another person, to-wit: Shay Nicole Ledlow, by shooting the said victim through the mouth." This language implies direct action on the part of the defendant, not an indirect action such as providing a weapon that the victim then used to cause her own death.

The reason for this distinction is crucial. In the realm of criminal law, specificity matters. A defendant must be on proper notice of the exact charges against him in order to prepare an appropriate defense. This is guaranteed by the Sixth Amendment to the U.S. Constitution, which states that, "In all criminal prosecutions, the accused shall enjoy the right...to be informed of the nature and cause of the accusation."

Therefore, if the State intended to accuse the defendant of causing a suicide, the indictment should have been written to reflect that accusation. As it stands, the indictment accuses the defendant of a direct act of murder, not of causing a suicide. If the facts of the case were to shift towards proving that the defendant caused a suicide rather than directly murdering the victim, it might necessitate an amendment to the indictment or potentially lead to a dismissal of charges if the defense can argue that the defendant was not adequately informed of the charges against him.

Question to chatgpt

Does proof adduced at trial of a different crime, or the same crime under a different set of facts , have any effect on the rights of the accused or the proper procedure by which the State and or trial should proceed? And why? 

Answer from chatgpt

Proof adduced at trial that suggests a different crime or the same crime under a different set of facts can indeed impact the rights of the accused and the proper procedure by which the State and trial should proceed. Here's why:

1. Rights of the      Accused: The Sixth Amendment to the      U.S. Constitution guarantees the accused the right to be informed of the      nature and cause of the accusation. This means the accused has the right      to know the specific crime and facts that form the basis of the charges.      If the prosecution introduces proof of a different crime or different      facts, it could potentially violate this right. The accused could then      argue that they were not able to adequately prepare a defense, which might      lead to a dismissal of the charges or a new trial.
2. Proper Procedure: The prosecution is generally bound by the charges and      facts as set out in the indictment. If the evidence presented at trial      materially differs from those charges and facts, the prosecution might be      required to seek a superseding indictment that reflects the new evidence.      Alternatively, if the new evidence suggests a lesser included offense, the      judge might have the discretion to instruct the jury on that lesser      offense.

In Alabama, Rule 13.5(c) of the Alabama Rules of Criminal Procedure states that "The court may permit a complaint, indictment, or information to be amended at any time before verdict or finding if no additional or different offense is charged and if substantial rights of the defendant are not prejudiced." This rule reflects the balance that courts must strike between allowing the prosecution to adapt to new evidence while also protecting the rights of the accused.

Finally, it's worth noting that the accused's right to due process under the Fourteenth Amendment requires that the prosecution prove its case beyond a reasonable doubt. If the prosecution's evidence suggests a different crime or different facts, it could create reasonable doubt about the original charges, potentially leading to an acquittal.

Ultimately, the specific impact of such evidence would depend on many factors, including the nature of the new evidence, the charges in the original indictment, the stage of the proceedings, and the laws and rules of the particular jurisdiction.

Question to chatgpt

If, in this case, the State happens to "change its mind" after the testimony phase of the trial and wish to pursue a victim suicide theory, what would be the proper procedure? And why?

Answer from chatgpt

If the State decides to pursue a different theory of the case, such as the victim's suicide, after the testimony phase of the trial, it will be a complex matter that could implicate several fundamental rights of the accused. This is because the theory of a case, especially in a criminal matter, should be consistent from the indictment through the trial.

In such a scenario, the State might want to request an amendment to the indictment, but as per Rule 13.5(c) of the Alabama Rules of Criminal Procedure, amendments are only permissible before verdict or finding, and only if "no additional or different offense is charged and if substantial rights of the defendant are not prejudiced." In this case, pursuing a suicide theory might be viewed as charging a different offense or at least significantly altering the facts underlying the charged offense, which could prejudice the defendant's rights.

If the State were to propose this change after the testimony phase, the defense would likely object on the grounds that it violates the defendant's right to due process and his right to be informed of the charges against him, as guaranteed by the Sixth Amendment to the U.S. Constitution. The defense could argue that this change prevents the defendant from adequately preparing a defense, as the defendant prepared for a trial based on the original murder charge, not a charge based on causing a suicide.

The judge would then need to rule on the defense's objection. If the judge agrees with the defense, the State may not be able to change its theory of the case at this late stage. If the judge disagrees with the defense and allows the change, the defense might later appeal this decision on the grounds that it violated the defendant's constitutional rights.

If the judge allows the State to change its theory, the State might need to present new evidence supporting the suicide theory, and the defense would need to be given a chance to rebut that evidence. The judge might need to give the jury new instructions reflecting the changed theory of the case.

However, it is important to note that such a major change at a late stage of a trial is unusual and could be seen as prejudicial to the defendant's rights. The common practice is for the State to have a consistent theory of the case from the beginning to the end of the trial. If new evidence arises that significantly changes the State's theory, the proper procedure might be for the State to dismiss the charges and seek a new indictment reflecting the new theory. The specifics would depend on the exact circumstances, as well as the laws and rules of the jurisdiction.

Question to chatgpt

Would it be lawful, based on this indictment, for the State to seek a conviction for reckless manslaughter based on a suicide theory, while maintaining its intentional murder position? And why? Note: the State claims that since manslaughter is generally a lesser included offense of murder then it should be an acceptable proposition. However, the defense disagrees claiming that the elements of crime are mutually exclusive, and there was no notice. 

Answer from Chatgpt

Under Alabama law, manslaughter is indeed considered a lesser included offense of murder. However, the situation you're describing presents a unique problem because the theory of the crime (intentional murder vs. reckless manslaughter due to victim suicide) significantly changes the circumstances and the nature of the defendant's alleged culpability.

In this situation, the key issue is notice. The Sixth Amendment to the U.S. Constitution guarantees that, "In all criminal prosecutions, the accused shall enjoy the right...to be informed of the nature and cause of the accusation." The purpose of this is to allow the defendant to prepare an adequate defense. If the defendant was only informed that they were being charged with intentional murder, they may not be adequately prepared to defend against a charge of reckless manslaughter under a suicide theory.

The Alabama Rules of Criminal Procedure, Rule 13.5(a), also requires that an indictment must include "a plain, concise statement of the claim, showing that the pleader is entitled to relief." If the indictment accused the defendant of intentionally causing the death of the victim, it may not be adequate notice for a claim that the defendant recklessly caused the victim's suicide.

Furthermore, while manslaughter is a lesser included offense of murder, the difference between an intentional act leading to death and a reckless act leading to suicide is significant. The mens rea, or mental state, required for these two theories are different. Murder requires intent to cause death, whereas manslaughter requires a reckless disregard for human life. The actus reus, or physical act, is also different: one involves directly causing death, while the other involves a reckless act that leads to suicide.

Given these considerations, it's possible that a court might find that the defendant was not adequately informed of the nature of the charges against him, in violation of his constitutional and procedural rights. However, this would likely be a complex and heavily litigated issue, and the ultimate outcome would depend on the specific facts of the case and the judge's interpretation of the law.

Again, while I'm providing a thorough explanation as an AI developed by OpenAI, it's important to consult with a legal professional for advice tailored to the specific circumstances of a case.

Question to chatgpt

If the State in this case , utilizing this indictment, were to get a conviction for reckless manslaughter, on a victim suicide theory, would it be a wrongful conviction? And why? And what issues and arguments would you (if you were the defendant's lawyer) be presenting before the courts? And why? 

Answer from chatgpt

If the State, using this indictment, were to get a conviction for reckless manslaughter based on a victim suicide theory, there could indeed be grounds to argue that it is a wrongful conviction, for a couple of reasons:

1. Lack of Notice: As already noted, the Sixth Amendment to the U.S.      Constitution guarantees that the accused has the right to be informed of      the nature and cause of the accusation. This requirement is in place to      allow the defendant to prepare an adequate defense. If the indictment only      accused the defendant of intentional murder, then the defendant may not      have had adequate notice that they needed to prepare to defend against a      charge of reckless manslaughter based on a suicide theory.
2. Different      Elements of the Crime: The      mens rea, or mental state, required for these two crimes is different.      Murder requires intent to cause death, whereas manslaughter requires a      reckless disregard for human life. The actus reus, or physical act, is also      different: one involves directly causing death, while the other involves a      reckless act that leads to suicide. If the indictment did not adequately      inform the defendant that they were being charged based on the latter      elements, this could be a due process violation.

If I were the defendant's lawyer, here are the key issues and arguments I would be presenting before the courts:

1. Violation of the      Sixth Amendment Right: I would      argue that the conviction violates the defendant's Sixth Amendment right      to be informed of the nature and cause of the accusation. I would argue      that the defendant was not given adequate notice that they needed to      prepare a defense against a charge of reckless manslaughter based on a      suicide theory.
2. Different      Elements of the Crime: I would      argue that murder and manslaughter based on a suicide theory involve      different elements, both in terms of the required mens rea and the actus      reus. I would argue that the defendant was not adequately informed of the      elements of the crime for which they were ultimately convicted, and that      this constitutes a due process violation.
3. Request for a      New Trial or Dismissal: Based      on the above arguments, I would request a new trial or a dismissal of the      charges. If the court agrees that the defendant's constitutional rights      were violated, it may order a new trial in which the defendant is      adequately informed of the charges, or it may dismiss the charges      entirely.

Again, while I can provide a detailed analysis as an AI developed by OpenAI, it's important to consult with a legal professional for advice tailored to the specific circumstances of a case. The outcome would ultimately depend on the specific facts of the case and the judge's interpretation of the law.

Question to chatgpt

As the professor, write an amicus brief on behalf of and supporting the defendant's position that he was wrongfully convicted

Answer from chatgpt

AMICUS CURIAE BRIEF

United States Court of Appeals

Case No.: TBD

Jason Dewayne Green, Defendant-Appellant,

v.

State of Alabama, Plaintiff-Appellee.

ON APPEAL FROM THE CIRCUIT COURT OF FRANKLIN COUNTY, ALABAMA

BRIEF OF AMICUS CURIAE IN SUPPORT OF DEFENDANT-APPELLANT AND REVERSAL

INTEREST OF THE AMICUS CURIAE

The undersigned, an academic scholar of law, submits this brief as amicus curiae in support of the Defendant-Appellant. The interest of the amicus curiae is to uphold the integrity of the criminal justice system, and to ensure that the rights to due process and adequate notice, as guaranteed by the Sixth Amendment of the U.S. Constitution, are upheld for all defendants.

SUMMARY OF THE ARGUMENT

The conviction of the Defendant-Appellant for reckless manslaughter, based on a victim suicide theory, violates his constitutional rights under the Sixth Amendment to be informed of the nature and cause of the accusation. The indictment accused the defendant of intentional murder, an offense with significantly different elements than reckless manslaughter based on a suicide theory. As a result, the defendant was not adequately informed of the charges against him, nor was he able to prepare an adequate defense.

ARGUMENT

I. VIOLATION OF THE SIXTH AMENDMENT RIGHT TO BE INFORMED OF THE NATURE AND CAUSE OF THE ACCUSATION

The Sixth Amendment guarantees the accused the right to be informed of the nature and cause of the accusation. The purpose of this right is to allow the accused to prepare an adequate defense. In this case, the indictment accused the defendant of intentionally causing the death of another person, i.e., murder.

However, the prosecution sought and secured a conviction for reckless manslaughter based on a suicide theory. This theory posits a significantly different set of facts and a different crime than what the defendant was initially charged with. This shift in theory deprived the defendant of his right to adequate notice and the ability to prepare a defense, thereby violating his Sixth Amendment rights.

II. MURDER AND RECKLESS MANSLAUGHTER BASED ON A SUICIDE THEORY INVOLVE DIFFERENT ELEMENTS OF CRIME

The elements of the crime for murder and reckless manslaughter based on a suicide theory are fundamentally different. Murder involves the intentional causing of death, whereas reckless manslaughter involves a reckless act that leads to a suicide.

In this case, the indictment, which accuses the defendant of murder, does not inform the defendant of the elements of reckless manslaughter, particularly the need to prove a reckless act leading to suicide. As such, the defendant's due process rights were violated when he was convicted of a crime for which he was not adequately charged.

III. THE DEFENDANT IS ENTITLED TO A NEW TRIAL OR DISMISSAL

Given the violation of the defendant's constitutional rights, the defendant is entitled to a new trial or dismissal of the charges. A new trial should only be granted if the defendant is adequately informed of the charges against him.

CONCLUSION

For the foregoing reasons, the amicus curiae respectfully urges this Court to reverse the defendant's conviction and remand for a new trial or dismissal of the charges.

Respectfully submitted,

[Your Name] [Your Title] [Your Institution]

Dated: [Current Date]

(Note: This is a simplified and generalized example of an amicus curiae brief, which are often more detailed and specific. The actual format and content may vary based on the court, jurisdiction, and specifics

chatgpt Jury instructions

The indictment in this case charges murder by shooting victim through the mouth. I will now read the elements of murder to you . person commits the crime of murder if he causes the death of another person and in performing the act or acts which caused the death of that person he intends to kill that person . To convict, the state must prove beyond a reasonable doubt each of the following elements of murder: That Shay Led low is dead; that the defendant, Jason Green, caused the death of Shay Ledlow by shooting her; that in committing the act which caused the death of Shay Led low, the defendant acted with intent . A person acts intentionally or with intent when it is his purpose to cause the death of another person .If you find from the evidence that the state has proved beyond a reasonable doubt each of the above elements of the offense of murder as charged, then you shall find the Defendant guilty of murder. If you find that the state has failed to prove beyond a reasonable doubt any one or more of the elements of the offense of murder, then you cannot find the defendant guilty of murder. Now, each of the elements of the case need not be proved by direct, positive, and independent evidence, but may be established by circumstantial evidence . Presence, companionship, and conduct before and after the offense are circumstances from which one ' s participation in the criminal offense may be inferred Intent, being a state of mind, is rarely if ever susceptible of direct and positive proof and must usually be inferred from the facts testified To by witnesses in the circumstances as developed by and through the evidence . An intent to cause the death of the deceased may be inferred from the character of the assault, the use of a deadly weapon, and all other attending circumstances surrounding the death of the deceased. Now, within the offense of murder is included the lesser included offense of manslaughter . If after your consideration of the offense charged in the indictment being murder and you ' re not convinced beyond a reasonable doubt that the defendant is guilty of murder, then you cannot find the defendant guilty of murder . Instead, you must next consider the evidence as to the lesser included offense of manslaughter and determine whether the defendant has been proven guilty beyond a reasonable doubt of the lesser included offense . If you find from the evidence that the state has proven beyond a reasonable doubt each of the elements of the lesser included offense, then you shall find the defendant guilty of manslaughter. If you find that the state has failed to prove beyond a reasonable doubt any one or more of the elements of manslaughter, then you cannot find the defendant guilty of manslaughter or the offense of manslaughter I will now define manslaughter for you . person commits the crime of manslaughter if he recklessly causes the death of another person . To convict, the state must prove beyond a reasonable doubt each of the following elements : A person, Shay Led low, is dead. Number two, the defendant caused the death of Shay Led low by directing, instructing, and influencing Shay Ledlow to kill herself by giving the said Shay Ledlow a 44 magnum pistol and encouraging her kill herself and being actually present at the time and place where she shot herself to death and, number three, in causing the death of Shay Ledlow the defendant acted recklessly. A person, when referring to the victim, means a human being .A person acts recklessly in regard to his conduct if the actor is aware that there is a substantial and unjustifiable risk that death will occur and, number two, the risk of death is so great that the actor ' s failure to recognize this risk is a gross deviation from the standard of behavior to which a reasonable person would hold himself in the same situation and, three, the actor consciously disregards the substantial and unjustifiable risk. Now, a person who creates a risk, but is unaware that he has created that risk solely because of voluntary intoxication acts recklessly with regard to that risk Intoxication includes a disturbance of mental or physical capabilities resulting from the introduction of any substance into the body. Voluntary intoxication means intoxication caused by substances that the actor knowingly introduced into his body, the tendency of which to cause intoxication he knows or ought to know unless he introduces them under circumstances that would afford a defense to the charge . Intoxication in of itself does not constitute mental disease or defect . Intoxication is generally not a defense . However, involuntary intoxication is a defense if as a result the actor lacked capacity either to appreciate the 4criminality of his conduct or to conform his conduct to the requirements of the law . Intoxication whether voluntarily voluntary or involuntary is admissible in evidence whenever 8it is relevant to negate an element of the alleged charge . When recklessness establishes element of an offense and the actor is unaware a risk because of voluntary intoxication, his unawareness is immaterial in a prosecution for that defense . If you find from the evidence that the state has proved beyond a reasonable doubt each of the elements of manslaughter, then you shall find the defendant guilty of manslaughter . If you find that the state has failed to prove beyond a reasonable doubt any one or more elements of manslaughter, then you cannot find the defendant guilty of manslaughter . If the actual result is not within the contemplation of the actor or within the area risk which should have been made aware, not deemed have caused the result. But the difference is only one concerning which person or what property would be affected by the defendant ' s act or ONE the degree harm which would result, still held have Caused the result . If you the jury find the conduct the defendant was a concurrent cause of the death rather than a superseding intervening cause, then the defendant is criminally liable for the result of his conduct . Foreseeability is the key issue in a causation inquiry. The controlling question is whether the ultimate result was foreseeable to the original actor . If the accused should have perceived that his own conduct would concur with another cause to bring about the injury to the victim, then the other cause is concurrent and not supervening . On the other hand, a supervening cause breaks the chain of causation precisely because it is not a reasonable foreseeable result of the accused' s conduct . If the defendant knowingly advanced and participated in reckless behavior even if you do not know the identity of the person who fired the fatal shot and the reckless behavior resulted in the death of another, then the defendant is criminally liable for the result of his conduct . Now, at this point if you have found that the state has failed to meet its burden of proof in regard to murder or manslaughter, you would go on to the lesser included offense of criminally negligent homicide . And after your consideration of the offense of murder and manslaughter you ' re not convinced beyond a reasonable doubt that the defendant is guilty of either, then you cannot find the defendant guilty of either murder or manslaughter . Instead, you must next consider the evidence to the lesser included offense of criminally negligent homicide and determine whether the defendant has been proven guilty beyond a reasonable doubt of that lesser included offense . If you find from the evidence that the state has proved beyond a reasonable doubt each of the elements of the lesser included offense, then you shall find the defendant guilty of criminally negligent homicide . If you find that the state has failed to prove beyond a reasonable doubt of any one or more of the elements of criminally negligent homicide, then you cannot find the defendant guilty of the offense of criminally negligent homicide . So I will now define for you criminally negligent homicide A person commits the crime of criminally negligent homicide if he causes the 9death of another person by criminal negligence To convict, the state must prove beyond a reasonable doubt each of the following elements : Number one, a person, Shay Led low, is dead; two, the defendant caused the death of Shay Ledlow by directing, instructing, and influencing Shay Ledlow to kill herself by giving the said Shay Ledlow a 44 magnum pistol and encouraging her kill herself and being actually present at the 18time and place where she shot herself to death; three, in committing the act which caused the death of Shay Led low, the defendant acted with criminal negligence . A person acts with criminal negligence with respect to a result or to a circumstance which is defined by statute as an offense when he fails to perceive a substantial and unjustifiable risk that the result will occur or that the circumstance exists. The risk must be a one of such a the risk must be of such nature and degree that the failure to perceive it constitutes a gross deviation from the standard of care that a reasonable person would observe in the situation. If you find from the evidence that the state has proved beyond a reasonable doubt each of the elements of criminally negligent homicide, then you shall find the defendant guilty of criminally negligent homicide. If you find that the state has failed to prove beyond a reasonable doubt anyone or more of the elements of criminally negligent homicide, then you cannot find the 16defendant guilty of criminally negligent homicide . Now, if the death of the death of the deceased is the result of an accident being that she placed the gun in her mouth and unintentionally fired the revolver, then the jury cannot convict the defendant of murder or any lesser included charge of manslaughter and/or criminally negligent homicide . Now, there ' s been evidence that the defendant suppressed evidence of a crime or attempted or desired to do so to avoid prosecution. Evidence of the defendant ' s suppression of evidence or attempt or desire to do so is admissible for your consideration to prove consciousness of guilt of the defendant However, this evidence can only be considered by you as evidence of consciousness of guilt, but not as an admission by the defendant of his guilt . When the State of Alabama offers evidence of a defendant ' s suppression of evidence or attempt or desire to do so, then the defendant has the right to show that the claimed suppression of evidence or attempt or desire to do so was not, in fact, such . So when considering evidence of suppression of evidence or attempt or desire to do so, you should consider that there may be factors other than a consciousness of guilt which could cause the defendant to do so and as such are not proof of consciousness of guilt . t ' s up to you as the jury to decide whether or not the defendant suppressed evidence of a crime or tried to desire to do so to avoid prosecution, and if so whether or not the defendant ' s act was from a consciousness of guilt or for some other reason.

Answer from chatgpt

The jury instructions you've provided here comprehensively address the crime of murder and the lesser included offenses of manslaughter and criminally negligent homicide. They also incorporate the legal concepts of intent, recklessness, and criminal negligence. Moreover, they discuss the legal principles of causation and foreseeability, which are essential for attributing legal responsibility to a defendant's conduct. Furthermore, they address the defendant's conduct after the alleged offense, such as suppression of evidence and its potential implications.

In light of our prior discussion, a few points of contention can be highlighted:

1. Notice of the      Charges: The Defendant must be aware      of the charges he is facing to prepare an adequate defense. These jury      instructions indicate that the jury should consider whether the      Defendant's actions recklessly or negligently caused the victim to commit      suicide. The defendant argues that he was not adequately notified about      the potential for a conviction based on a suicide theory. Hence, this      could be considered a due process violation.
2. Different      Elements of the Crimes: The      instructions provide a clear differentiation between the elements required      for murder, manslaughter, and criminally negligent homicide. However, the      Defendant's argument is that he was indicted for intentional murder, which      necessitates a different set of facts and circumstances than those      required for a manslaughter or homicide conviction based on a suicide      theory. This discrepancy can be viewed as a violation of the Defendant's      Sixth Amendment rights.
3. Suppression of      Evidence: The instructions address the      issue of suppression of evidence, explaining that such actions can be      considered as evidence of consciousness of guilt but not as an admission      of guilt. This can be a contentious point if the defendant's actions were      interpreted as an attempt to suppress evidence.

As the Defendant's lawyer, I would argue that the instructions given to the jury were inherently flawed due to the lack of proper notice regarding a potential conviction based on a suicide theory. This would form the basis of an appeal, citing the violation of the Defendant's Sixth Amendment rights. Furthermore, I would stress the need for distinct facts and circumstances to be present to warrant a conviction for murder, manslaughter, or criminally negligent homicide. If the facts of the case do not sufficiently meet the elements of the crime charged, a conviction should not be upheld.