People v. Haack
Michigan Supreme Court
240 N.W.2d 704 (1976)
- Written by Angela Patrick, JD
Facts
A friend gave Arthur Haack (defendant) a loaded revolver to carry. Haack rearranged the bullets in the revolver’s cylinder, believing that the new arrangement meant that the next chamber was empty and that no bullet was ready to fire. At a party, a stranger gave Haack a hard time about carrying a gun. Haack claimed that he initially tried to walk away, but that the stranger kept talking to him. Haack then decided to scare the stranger by pointing the gun at him and firing the empty chamber. However, the revolver’s cylinder did not turn the way Haack thought it would, and Haack’s act of pulling the trigger shot a bullet at the stranger. The stranger died from the gunshot. Haack pleaded guilty to second-degree murder, and the court accepted his plea as supported by the evidence. On appeal, Haack claimed that his second-degree-murder conviction should be overturned because murder required intent and the evidence did not support a finding that he had intended to kill the stranger. Haack argued that because he had intended only to scare the stranger and did not believe that the gun would fire, the shooting was either accidental or, at worst, manslaughter. The appellate court affirmed Haack’s conviction of second-degree murder, and the Michigan Supreme Court agreed to review the matter.
Rule of Law
Issue
Holding and Reasoning (Levin, J.)
What to do next…
Here's why 816,000 law students have relied on our case briefs:
- Written by law professors and practitioners, not other law students. 46,300 briefs, keyed to 988 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.