Performance Test: State v. Dalton Sample Answer & Question Pointers
July 2024 California Bar Examination · An original prosecution closing argument using the supplied file and library.
By Bar Exam Doctor · Published November 4, 2026
Practice first, compare second
This is an original, ungraded instructional response. It is not an official State Bar selected answer, a scored student submission, or a claim of attorney review. Use it to compare reasoning and organization after attempting the question. Alternative reasoned analyses may be possible.
Official source text with our added highlights and numbered notes. The PDF preserves the source layout. For the PT, the task, file, and substantive library pages appear below; the complete packet includes the instructions and dividers.
Read the marked-up question and teaching pointers
Official source page 12
Liam Paul
State’s Attorney
Coronado Hills, Columbia
TO: Applicant
FROM: Liam Paul
RE: State v. Dalton
DATE: July 30, 2024
The parties just finished presenting evidence in the non-jury trial of State v. Dalton. Adam
Dalton is charged with second degree murder and the lesser included offense of
involuntary manslaughter for killing Laura Vons. Because it was late, the judge has
scheduled closing argument1s for tomorrow. I will present the closing argument, but I want
you to prepare a draft of that closing argument for my review. I have attached relevant
portions of the trial transcript.
I want to argue that the state has proved the elements of second degree murder or in the
alternative at least involuntary manslaughter.
While in a jury trial you do not ordinarily discuss or make reference to the legal authorities,
in a bench trial you have more latitude in referring to the legal authority. Indeed, legal
authorities provide the framework for arguing that the facts prove the elements. But you
must not lose sight of the fact that a closing argument is not a legal memo or an essay.
The argument is based on the evidence presented, not histrionics or personal opinion.
Your job is to persuade the judge that the evidence presented by the state and the
defendant, and reasonable inferences from that evidence, establish that the state has
proven each of the required elements beyond a reasonable doubt. Address each of the
two offenses separately. Within each offense address each element separately. Do not
hold back any argument assuming you will have a second opportunity to make it in
rebuttal.
Official source page 13
TRIAL TRANSCRIPT
STATE v. DALTON
EXAMINATION OF ERIC HOBBS
Eric Hobbs, a witness called by the state, first being duly sworn, testified as follows:
DIRECT EXAMINATION BY STATE’S ATTORNEY LIAM PAUL
QUESTION: Would you tell us your name?
ANSWER: Eric Hobbs.
Q: Where do you work?
A: I am a Police Officer with the Coronado Hills Police Department.
Q: Did you have occasion to respond to an incident at the defendant’s home?
A: Yes. On November 30, 2023, at approximately 7:05 a.m., I responded along with my
partner, Officer Carlos Hernandez, to a report of a shooting at the defendant’s house.
Q: What did you observe when you got to defendant’s house?
A: When we arrived, we saw the defendant’s roommate, Brett Reed, leaning against the
fender of a white Cadillac holding Laura Vons in his arms. Vons had been shot in the
face. Shortly, after I placed Vons on the ground, defendant came running out of the house
with blood on his clothes and face, screaming for someone to call an ambulance for his
girlfriend. Officer Hernandez called for an ambulance, but was told one was already on
its way because of the earlier 911 call by Brett. We restrained both defendant and his
roommate and then we conducted a safety sweep of the house.
Q: What did you find?
A: Upon entering the bedroom where Vons was shot, we saw bloodstains on the bed
and pillow. We also saw some marijuana and marijuana paraphernalia in the room. I
followed a trail of blood that led from the bedroom to the kitchen. I saw water on the
Official source page 14
kitchen floor. In front of a kitchen cabinet, the water was a pale red, so I opened the
cabinet door. In the cabinet I found a revolver that appeared to be wet with water. The
revolver contained five live .38–caliber rounds, as well as one fired round.
Q: Did you find anything else?
A: We went back to the room where Vons was shot and found a box containing a
semiautomatic handgun, a box of .38–caliber bullets, a duffel bag containing a sawed-off
shotgun and a box of shotgun shells.
Q: Then what happened?
A: By then, detectives had arrived and I transported the defendant by car to the police
station.
Q: Did defendant say anything while in the car going to the station?
A: He expressed regret that he shot Vons and asked if Vons was okay.
CROSS-EXAMINATION BY DEFENSE ATTORNEY LUCIA WREN
Q: Now, Officer Hobbs, you testified on direct that Mr. Dalton expressed regret that he
shot Vons and asked if Vons was okay. Is that correct?
A: Yes.
Q: Isn’t it true that he also said, “I can’t lose her. I would do anything for her. How is
someone supposed to go on with their life when they see something like that?”
A: Yes.
Q: Isn’t it true that Mr. Dalton was crying for most of the trip.
A: Yes.
Official source page 15
EXAMINATION OF HAL AMES
Hal Ames, a witness called by the state, first being duly sworn, testified as follows:
DIRECT EXAMINATION BY STATE’S ATTORNEY LIAM PAUL
Q: Would you tell us your name?
A: Hal Ames.
Q: Where do you work?
A: I am a Detective with the Coronado Hills Police Department.
Q: Did you have occasion to question the defendant in this case?
A: Yes. I was assigned to lead the investigation of Ms. Vons death. At approximately
3:00 p.m. on the day the incident, I gave him his Miranda rights and he waived them. I
then interviewed the defendant.
Q: What did he say happened?
A: He said he shot Vons, but claimed the shooting was accidental. He said they were
sitting on the couch in the bedroom when Vons pointed the gun at him. He said he pushed
the gun away, and she pointed it at him again. He then took the gun, pointed it at her,
and accidentally shot her.
Q: Did he say whether he knew the gun was loaded1?
A: He said he knew the gun was loaded. It had to be loaded, he said, because he hadn’t
taken the bullets out from when he bought it.
Q: How would you describe the defendant’s demeanor during your questioning?
A: Calm, collected.
CROSS-EXAMINATION BY DEFENSE ATTORNEY LUCIA WREN
Q: As part of your investigation, you reviewed the recording of the 911 call. Correct?
Official source page 16
A: Yes.
Q: So, you heard Adam Dalton in the background of the telephone call crying and
repeatedly saying things like, “Noooo, baby,” and “Baby, are you alive, baby?”
A: Yes.
EXAMINATION OF TALIA TAMS
Talia Tams, a witness called by the state, first being duly sworn, testified as follows:
DIRECT EXAMINATION BY STATE’S ATTORNEY LIAM PAUL
Q: Please tell us your name.
A: Talia Tams.
Q: What was your relationship to Laura Vons?
A: Laura was my best friend.
Q: Did the two of you text the night before and the morning of her death?
A: Yes.
Q: Please tell us what the texts contained.
A: At 4:24 a.m., Laura texted me that, “Adam’s out.” Two minutes later she sent, “I
already wish he was locked back up. OMG, you have no clue.” At 7:02 a.m., Laura wrote:
“Just was fighting with him right now.”
CROSS-EXAMINATION BY DEFENSE ATTORNEY LUCIA WREN
BY MS. WREN: No questions, Your Honor.
BY MR. PAUL: The State rests its case-in-chief, Your Honor.
Official source page 17
EXAMINATION OF ADAM DALTON
Adam Dalton, a witness called by the Defendant, first being duly sworn, testified
as follows:
DIRECT EXAMINATION BY DEFENSE ATTORNEY LUCIA WREN
Q: Please tell us your name.
A: Adam Dalton.
….
Q: So, after you were released from jail on the day Ms. Vons was shot, what did you do?
A: I was released on bail around 3:30 a.m. and walked home. Along the way, I sent a
text message to Laura to tell her to meet at the house. I told her that Brett, my roommate,
would be there and we could party.
Q: What did you do when you got home?
A: After showering, I drank a few beers.
Q: Did Laura come to the house?
A: Laura arrived around 5:30 that morning
Q: What happened then?
A: After a bit, Laura and I went to my bedroom.
Q: Then what happened?
A: I went to my safe, which contained marijuana and money, and began weighing the
marijuana and counting the money.
Q: And, then?
A: Laura said, “Hey, baby,” and I saw Laura pointing a gun at me. She had found my
gun from underneath my pillow.
Official source page 18
Q: Did that worry you?
A: No, I trusted Laura. I just brushed the gun away and continued to weigh the marijuana.
Q: Then what happened?
A: A spider landed on Laura and she screamed a little bit. She jumped up, started waving
her hands. In order to tease her, I grabbed the spider, and brought it closer to her, and
she got even more upset. I felt bad about teasing her so I gave her a hug and a kiss,
then went back to weighing my marijuana.
Q: Did Laura do anything?
A: I turned around and Laura was sitting on the edge of the bed pointing the gun at me
again. I took the gun away from her and pointed it at her.
Q: Did you know the gun was loaded?
A: No.
Q: After you took the gun from her, what happened?
A: She slapped the gun and I cocked back the hammer1, just jokingly, and the hammer
slipped and like, pow, the gun went off. I mean I pulled the hammer on the gun back, but
it slipped. Like I didn’t get to pull it all the way back. I did not intend to threaten or shoot
her. I was just kind of being stupid.
Q: What were you thinking when you were doing all this?
A: It just happened so quick. It just happened. I didn’t think about it at all.
Q: What did you do then?
A: Immediately after the shot, I told Brett to call 911, which he did. I tried to give Laura
mouth-to-mouth resuscitation. When she told me she could not breathe, Brett and I took
her outside to the driveway in front of the house to get her help.
Q: Then what did you do?
Official source page 19
A: I went back into the house to get my keys. From inside the house, I heard sirens
and panicked. I grabbed the gun and rinsed it off in an attempt to wash off the
fingerprints. I tossed the gun into the bottom of a kitchen cabinet. Then I ran outside.
CROSS-EXAMINATION BY STATE’S ATTORNEY LIAM PAUL
Q: You’ve told two versions of what happened in the bedroom, haven’t you?
A: No.
Q: You heard Detective Ames testimony about what you told him on the day of the
shooting?
A: Yes.
Q: That story was different from your testimony today, right?
A: Not really.
Q: Didn’t you tell him, for example, that you knew the gun was loaded?
A: No, I never said that.
EXAMINATION OF BRETT REED
Brett Reed, a witness called by the Defendant, first being duly sworn, testified as
follows:
DIRECT EXAMINATION BY DEFENSE ATTORNEY LUCIA WREN
Q: Tell us your name, please.
A: Brett Reed.
Q: Where do you live?
A: With my roommate, Adam Dalton. We share the house.
Official source page 20
Q: How long had Adam been dating Laura Vons?
A: About one year.
Q: How would you describe their relationship?
A: They were great. They looked to be in love. He told me he was in love with her.
Q: Where were you at the time of the shooting?
A: I was in my room sleeping. My room shares a wall with the room where Laura was
shot.
Q: Did you hear anything?
A: I was awakened by loud talking in the room where Laura was. A couple of minutes
after hearing the loud talking, I heard a gunshot. Immediately afterward, I heard a
commotion and screaming. It seemed like someone was panicking like yelling or
screaming out of fear or grief.
CROSS-EXAMINATION BY STATE’S ATTORNEY LIAM PAUL
Q: You said the defendant and Vons were in love, right?
A: Yes.
Q: However, you have also previously stated that Adam had an ex-fiancée and was
conflicted about whom he wanted to be with. Correct?
A: Yes, but that doesn’t mean he didn’t love Laura.
Q: Isn’t it true you previously told Detective Ames, quote, “I was awakened by a loud
screaming argument between a guy and a girl for at least three minutes”?
A: I do not remember describing the sounds as loud screaming.
Q: Isn’t it also true you told Detective Ames that you did not know where the yelling was
coming from and that you could not tell what the loud screaming was about?
Official source page 21
A: No.
BY MS. WREN: We have no further witnesses, Your Honor.
BY MR. PAUL: The State calls one witness in rebuttal, Your Honor.
EXAMINATION OF ELLEN DONATO
Ellen Donato, a witness called by the state, first being duly sworn, testified as follows:
DIRECT EXAMINATION BY STATE’S ATTORNEY LIAM PAUL
Q: Would you tell us your name?
A: Ellen Donato.
Q: Where do you work?
A: I am a Criminalist with the Columbia State Police Department.
Q: Do you have a particular expertise?
A: Yes, I am a criminalist with an expertise in firearms.
Q: Now, by stipulation of the parties, you were in the courtroom and heard Detective
Ames testify that the defendant said, “I cocked back the hammer, just jokingly, and the
hammer slipped.” Defendant added, “I pulled the hammer on the gun back, but it slipped.
Like I didn’t get to pull it all the way back.” What is your professional opinion as to the
likelihood that this occurred?
A: It simply could not happen. Because of the multiple safeties on this particular gun,
the gun cannot be fired by pulling the hammer back and releasing it before it is fully
cocked.
BY MS. WREN: No cross-examination, Your Honor.
BY JUDGE JOHNSON: Okay, as I understand where we are, defendant is not presenting
evidence and will not be arguing an affirmative defense of justification or excuse.
Official source page 22
Correct?
BY MR. PAUL: That is correct, Your Honor. The defense rests.
BY JUDGE JOHNSON: Given the time, we will proceed with closing arguments
tomorrow at 9:00 a.m. Court is adjourned.
Official source page 25
State v. McNally
District Court of Appeal, Fourth District, Columbia (2015)
Defendant, a federal correctional officer, was convicted of second degree murder in the
death of a fellow correctional officer, Gary Bent. The trial court sentenced defendant to
prison for 15 years to life. Defendant contends the conviction is not supported by the
evidence. We affirm defendant’s conviction.
On the evening of March 8, 2012, defendant and his friend, Gary Bent, drank beer and
ingested drugs in a hotel room. Bent felt sick, sat on the edge of the bathtub, and said
he was about to throw up. Defendant called Bent a “sissy” and decided to play a joke.
He took his loaded pistol out of its holster and waved it at Bent. The pistol had a live
round in the chamber. The pistol had several safety features. All safeties had to be
released to fire the pistol. Holding the pistol like a TV gangster, defendant ordered Bent
to “Hurry up and puke.” Bent told him to “bug off” just before defendant shot him. The
bullet struck Bent in the neck, severing his jugular vein.
Rather than administer CPR or call for help, defendant smoked a cigarette, paced around
the room, and tossed the spent shell casing in the bathtub where Bent lay. Defendant
sent Sonia Reynolds the following text message: “Damn. I just shot my friend in the damn
neck. He's dead. Whoops.” Reynolds asked if defendant had called an ambulance.
Defendant texted: “No. He's dead. Why? Little late for that, don't you think?” Reynolds
reported the matter to the police department.
Defendant had served seven years in the United States Army, knew about firearms, and
was aware of all firearm safety rules. As a corrections officer at the federal prison,
defendant received monthly training in firearm use and safety.
Elpidio Garcia, a firearms instructor at the federal prison, testified that he trained
defendant in firearm use and safety. Defendant took an advanced shooting course that
Official source page 26
included firearm safety and live firearms training. Garcia stated that defendant was
trained to obey the following firearm safety rules on and off duty: “All guns are always
loaded. Never let your muzzle cover anything you don't want to destroy. Keep your finger
off the trigger until your sights are on the target.
Defendant defended on the theory that the shooting was accidental. As a corrections
officer, defendant carried a firearm for protection and usually had a round chambered in
the pistol when “out and about.” Defendant's ex-girlfriend stated that he carried a loaded
pistol at all times.
Second degree murder is the unlawful killing of a human being with malice aforethought,
but without the premeditation, deliberation and willfulness necessary to elevate the
offense to first degree murder. Columbia Penal Code (CPC) §§187, 189.
An unlawful killing is one that is not justified or excused. Under Columbia law, defendant
must raise the issue of justification or excuse but does not bear any burden of proof or
persuasion in a murder prosecution. State v. Frye (Col. Sup. Ct. 1990). If it is not raised,
it is waived. The defendant does not contest that there was an unlawful killing, nor does
he contest that his actions caused the death of Officer Bent.
Defendant contends, however, that the evidence does not support the finding that he
acted with malice aforethought. Malice, for the purpose of constituting murder of either
degree, may be express or implied. (CPC §188). It is express “when there is manifested
a deliberate intention unlawfully to take away the life of a fellow creature.” CPC
§188. There is no evidence of express malice on these facts.
Implied malice is present “when the circumstances attending the killing show an
abandoned and malignant heart.” CPC §188. Whether circumstances attending the
killing show an abandoned and malignant heart (implied malice) is a subjective test. If
defendant realized the risk and acted in total disregard of the danger, he is guilty of murder
based on implied malice. In other words, the mental component is established where the
Official source page 27
defendant knows that his conduct endangers the life of another and acts with conscious
disregard for life. State v. Olivas (Col. App. 1985) (“state of mind of a person who acts
with conscious disregard for life--i.e., implied malice--is, ‘I know my conduct is dangerous
to others, but I don't care if someone is hurt or killed’.”).
It is settled that brandishing a loaded firearm at a person is an act dangerous to human
life. For example, one who playfully fires a gun that he knows is loaded in the direction
of another person may be convicted of murder. If the same person performs the same
act incorrectly convinced that the gun is not loaded, he is guilty of manslaughter. In re
M., (Col. Sup. Ct. 1969). Here, defendant pointed the loaded pistol at Bent. He “overrode”
the safeties, and pulled the trigger. He has his extensive training in firearm safety.
Considering all the facts, the jury reasonably inferred that defendant knew it was a highly
dangerous act and acted in conscious disregard for life.
Defendant’s behavior following the shooting is also probative of implied malice.
Subsequent behavior such as hiding a weapon or even denying the shooting may by
themselves not show implied malice at the time of the shooting. In this case, however,
defendant’s continuing behavior, including a clear lack of remorse1, is so closely related
to the event that it is probative. We also reject defendant’s argument that a person does
not act with implied malice when he is under the influence of alcohol and/or drugs,
engages in joking or horseplay with a firearm, and causes the discharge of the firearm
killing another person.
Based on defendant's training and experience with firearms, the reckless manner in which
he pointed the pistol at Bent, his text messages, behavior following the shooting, and his
statement to the police, the jury could rationally find that he acted with implied malice.
Affirmed.
Official source page 28
State v. Freud
District Court of Appeal, Third District, Columbia (2014)
Defendant, Herman Freud, was convicted of involuntary manslaughter of his wife, Betty
Freud. Defendant was sentenced to three years in prison.
Following an afternoon of drinking, defendant and his wife met another couple for dinner.
During dinner all parties continued to drink and defendant and Betty began arguing about
domestic matters. Later, at home, defendant and Betty resumed their quarrel, and Betty
stated to defendant, “Well, why don’t you pack your bags and leave?”, to which defendant
replied, “Okay, I will.” Defendant then put on his shirt, tie and coat and went to the kitchen
to mix himself a drink. He found his wife already there having a drink. Defendant testified
that they then discussed how silly it was to quarrel over such trivial matters, reviewed
their happy married life together, conversed about matters in general, and embraced and
kissed each other several times. Betty stated to defendant, “Herman, sometimes you
make me so mad I could kill you.”
Defendant replied to the effect that, “Well, I could make it easy for you” or “I can help
that.” He then went to their bedroom, opened the bureau drawer and took out his .45
caliber army type semi-automatic pistol that he had retained from his military service. The
gun was not loaded, so defendant took out a loaded clip, which was also in the drawer,
and put it in the gun. He then placed a shell in the chamber and cocked the gun. Upon
entering the kitchen, defendant went up to Betty and said, “Here is the gun.” Defendant
handed it to her muzzle first. Defendant testified that, “I told her there was a safety catch
there on the grip handle. I showed her that and she took the gun with her left hand, and
about that time it went off.” Mrs. Freud died.
Defendant argues on appeal that his conviction must be reversed because: (1) there is
insufficient evidence to support causation and (2) there was insufficient evidence of mens
rea to support the conviction.
Official source page 29
To resolve these claims, we must determine whether the state provided sufficient
evidence for the jury to find that each of the elements of involuntary manslaughter was
proved beyond a reasonable doubt.
Actus Reus
The evidence is clear that the deceased died as a result of a bullet wound from the pistol
in evidence that belonged to the defendant.
Mens Rea
The theory of the prosecution was that defendant handled a dangerous weapon without
due caution and circumspection and the case was presented to the jury on that basis.
Defendant argues that he was charged with no other criminal act and must be presumed
to have been engaged in a lawful act and there was merely an unfortunate accident for
which no liability should attach because of his lack of intent. Defendant is wrong.
Involuntary manslaughter is a lesser offense of murder, distinguished by its mens rea.
The mens rea for murder is specific intent to kill or conscious disregard for life. Absent
either of these states of mind, the defendant may incur homicide culpability for involuntary
manslaughter.
Involuntary manslaughter is statutorily defined as a killing “in the commission of a lawful
act which might produce death, in an unlawful manner, or without due caution and
circumspection.” Columbia Penal Code (CPC) §192. This language, in turn, has been
defined as criminal negligence.
In State v. Penny (2005), the Columbia Supreme Court explained that criminal negligence
exists when the defendant engages in conduct that is “aggravated, culpable, gross, or
reckless. It is conduct that is such a departure from what would be the conduct of an
ordinarily prudent or careful person under the same circumstances as to be incompatible
with a proper regard for human life or, in other words, a disregard of human life or an
Official source page 30
indifference to consequences.” Courts have consistently stated that this is an objective1
test.
Firearms have been recognized as a dangerous instrumentality because of their great
potential harm and, in the interest of the preservation of human life and safety, a high
degree of care was demanded of those who use them. Defendant procured and loaded
the weapon as well as brought it back to the room where his wife was seated. It is fairly
inferable that the obtaining and handling of a loaded gun, as he admitted he had, showed
a lack of due caution and circumspection. Thus, even if the defendant had a subjective,
good faith belief that his or her actions posed no risk, his belief was objectively
unreasonable.
Causation
Defendant contends that the cause of death was his wife’s intervening and superseding
actions of her heavy drinking and taking the gun.
Involuntary manslaughter, like other forms of homicide, also requires a showing that the
defendant's conduct proximately caused the victim's death. When there are concurrent
causes of death, the defendant is criminally responsible if his or her conduct was a
substantial factor contributing to the result. As explained in State v. Sanchez (Col. S. Ct.
1999), there may be more than one proximate cause of the death. When the conduct of
two or more persons contributes concurrently as the proximate cause of the death, the
conduct of each is a proximate cause of the death if that conduct was also a substantial
factor contributing to the result. A cause is concurrent if it was operative at the time of
the death and acted with another cause to produce the death.
When there are multiple concurrent causes of death, the jury need not decide whether
the defendant's conduct was the primary cause of death, but need only decide whether
the defendant's conduct was a substantial factor in causing the death, which reaches
beyond the “but for” test. State v. Jennings (Col. S. Ct. 2010).
Official source page 31
Further, proximate causation requires that the death was a reasonably foreseeable,
natural and probable consequence of the defendant's act, rather than a remote
consequence that is so insignificant or theoretical that it cannot properly be regarded as
a substantial factor in bringing about the death. The death of the deceased could not be
attributed to any supervening or intervening cause, such as the victim’s taking hold of the
gun or being intoxicated, but was a proximate result of the negligence of the defendant.
Judgement affirmed.
Before you write: issue outline
Write the State’s closing argument to the judge, with separate elements for each offense.
Prove subjective conscious disregard for murder; use objective criminal negligence in the alternative.
Address remorse, conflicting accounts, the firearm expert, and concurrent causation directly.
Original sample closing argument
Your Honor, the evidence establishes that Adam Dalton killed Laura Vons by pointing a loaded revolver at her and causing it to fire. The central dispute is his mental state. The State has proved conscious disregard for life beyond a reasonable doubt. If the Court nevertheless has a reasonable doubt about that subjective element, the same evidence establishes at least involuntary manslaughter under the objective criminal-negligence standard.
I. Second degree murder
A. Dalton unlawfully killed Laura Vons
Under State v. McNally and Columbia Penal Code sections 187 and 189, second degree murder is an unlawful killing with malice, without the additional premeditation and deliberation required for first degree murder. Dalton admits he took the gun, pointed it at Laura, and caused the fatal discharge. Officer Hobbs found her shot in the face, blood in the bedroom, and the revolver containing five live rounds and one fired round. The evidence identifies both the fatal act and its perpetrator.
The defense has expressly declined to assert an affirmative justification or excuse. Under the supplied law, that issue is not in dispute. Laura’s earlier handling of the gun does not alter who held and manipulated it when Dalton describes it firing. The State does not ask the Court to shift its burden; the admitted conduct and physical evidence establish the unlawful killing.
B. Dalton acted with malice
Malice may be express or implied. Although the argument immediately before the shooting permits the Court to consider a purposeful act, the State need not establish a deliberate desire that Laura die. The stronger route is implied malice: Dalton knew his conduct endangered her life and consciously disregarded that danger.
Detective Ames testified that Dalton admitted knowing the gun was loaded because he had not removed the bullets after buying it. Dalton now denies making that statement. The Court should credit the earlier account, given within hours of the event, over the later denial that removes the fact most damaging to his defense. It is corroborated by the live ammunition remaining in the gun. Merely owning a loaded gun would not establish murder; deliberately pointing that known loaded weapon at Laura while manipulating its firing mechanism establishes the relevant dangerous choice.
Criminalist Donato supplied a decisive answer to the supposed slipping-hammer explanation. This particular revolver’s multiple safeties prevent firing by pulling the hammer only partway and releasing it. Dalton’s account of the precise accidental mechanism is incompatible with the unchallenged firearms evidence. The State does not ask the Court to invent a mechanical reconstruction beyond that testimony. It asks the Court to reject the explanation actually offered and assess the deliberate pointing and manipulation together with his admitted knowledge.
McNally confirms that joking or horseplay does not excuse conscious disregard with a loaded firearm. Dalton’s asserted lack of a purpose to threaten Laura is therefore not the end of the inquiry. A person can hope no one will die while consciously exposing another person to a lethal danger.
The surrounding evidence also undermines the benign account. Laura texted at 7:02 a.m. that she had just been fighting with him. Reed heard loud talking immediately before the shot and had previously described a screaming argument. His testimony is not that of an eyewitness inside the bedroom, and the State does not treat it as one. It nevertheless corroborates conflict at the relevant time rather than an entirely peaceful exchange after teasing about a spider.
The defense will properly emphasize Dalton’s tears, resuscitation efforts, request for an ambulance, and distress about losing Laura. Those facts distinguish McNally’s conspicuous indifference after the shooting. They show remorse and an effort to save her; they do not compel a finding that he lacked knowledge of the risk before the shot. McNally does not make later indifference a required element. Dalton also interrupted events to wash fingerprints from the revolver and hide it. As McNally cautions, concealment alone does not prove earlier malice. Here it is additional evidence to consider with the admission of a loaded weapon, the deliberate handling, and the discredited mechanical explanation.
C. Dalton’s conduct caused the death
Pointing and operating the revolver produced the fatal gunshot. There is no remote causal chain. Even on Dalton’s account that Laura slapped the gun, his conduct remained operative and substantial in producing the discharge. Her contact with a weapon he had pointed at her was not an extraordinary event that displaced his responsibility. The evidence therefore establishes causation beyond a reasonable doubt.
II. Alternatively, involuntary manslaughter
A. The fatal act occurred in dangerous firearm handling
Under section 192 and State v. Freud, involuntary manslaughter includes killing while performing an otherwise lawful act capable of causing death without due caution and circumspection. Possessing or handling the firearm need not be a separately charged crime. Dalton’s own testimony establishes that he took the gun, aimed it at Laura, and manipulated the hammer before it fired and killed her.
B. That conduct was criminally negligent
Freud applies an objective standard requiring a gross or aggravated departure from ordinary care, incompatible with proper regard for human life. It does not require proof that Dalton actually appreciated the danger. Even if the Court credits his trial claim that he did not know the gun was loaded, pointing it at another person and manipulating its firing mechanism without verifying safety was far beyond a minor lapse.
The high degree of care demanded in handling a firearm is directly relevant. Like the defendant in Freud who brought and handled a loaded pistol during a domestic exchange, Dalton cannot transform lethal mishandling into blameless conduct by calling it a joke or saying events happened quickly. His subjective claim that he did not think about the risk does not answer this objective alternative.
C. Criminal negligence proximately caused Laura’s death
Freud holds that conduct need not be the sole or primary cause if it was a substantial concurrent cause. Death from a gun pointed at a person while its firing mechanism is manipulated is a natural and reasonably foreseeable consequence. Laura’s alleged slap, earlier possession of the weapon, and any role she played do not make Dalton’s continuing handling insignificant or superseded. The State has proved both the factual connection and the legally sufficient causal relationship.
The Court should find Dalton guilty of second degree murder. If it has reasonable doubt about subjective awareness despite the admission and surrounding evidence, it should find the alternative lesser offense of involuntary manslaughter. The evidence does not support treating this death as an accident free of criminal responsibility.
Sources and further comparison
The official question controls its facts and jurisdiction. These responses address the exam scenario; subsequent legal changes and other fact patterns may require a different analysis. The PT uses the supplied fictional Columbia library, which must not be replaced with outside law.