From our private database of 37,500+ case briefs...
Commonwealth v. Kocher
Pennsylvania Supreme Court
602 A.2d 1308 (1992)
Facts
Nine-year-old Cameron Kocher shot and killed seven-year-old Jessica Carr. The two were playing Nintendo at a neighbor’s house with other children. The neighbor made them stop because the children made a mess. Children were outside riding snowmobiles when Kocher went home. Kocher took a key from its hiding spot to unlock his father’s gun cabinet, loaded a hunting rifle, opened a window, removed the screen, and aimed the gun outside. The gun discharged, hitting Carr, who was on a snowmobile with two other people. The scope hit Kocher in the forehead, leaving a visible wound. Kocher replaced the rifle, hid the shell casing, and concocted a story about the wound. While Carr lay dying in the neighbor’s home, Kocher allegedly told another child, “If you don’t think about it, you won’t be sad.” Kocher was charged with criminal homicide in adult criminal court and requested transfer to juvenile court. After a psychiatric evaluation, the judge held a hearing. One of four mental-health professionals testified that Kocher had the capacity to commit murder and was competent to stand trial. The others said Kocher was blocking the causal connection between his actions and Carr’s death, and two said he could not form intent to kill. The trial judge nonetheless concluded that Kocher was competent to stand trial and capable of murder. Kocher insisted that transfer remained appropriate because he was amenable to treatment and rehabilitation in the juvenile system because he had an anxiety disorder. But the judge found the shooting caused the disorder, not the other way around, and that Kocher would be amenable to rehabilitation in the juvenile system only if a defect or disorder had caused his actions. As a result, the judge refused to transfer the case. Kocher appealed, arguing the judge misapplied the Pennsylvania transfer standards.
Rule of Law
Issue
Holding and Reasoning (Nix, C.J.)
Concurrence (Papadakos, J.)
Concurrence (Flaherty, J.)
Dissent (Larsen, J.)
What to do next…
Here's why 631,000 law students have relied on our case briefs:
- Written by law professors and practitioners, not other law students. 37,500 briefs, keyed to 984 casebooks. Top-notch customer support.
- The right amount of information, includes the facts, issues, rule of law, holding and reasoning, and any concurrences and dissents.
- Access in your classes, works on your mobile and tablet. Massive library of related video lessons and high quality multiple-choice questions.
- Easy to use, uniform format for every case brief. Written in plain English, not in legalese. Our briefs summarize and simplify; they don’t just repeat the court’s language.