State of Georgia v. Patty

Re: Insatiable (2018)/Murder

What is murder? What is the difference between murder and manslaughter?  What defenses are there for murder and what is self-defense?

Sources:

Official Code of Georgia Annotated, 16-5-1, 2, 3, 21, 23.1, 40; 16-2-2; 16-3-21, 23; 16-4-1, 5; 16-7-22, 23, 60, 61; 16-10-31, 94.

Bright v. State, 265 Ga. 265 (1995).

Davis v. State, 269 Ga. 276, 496 S.E.2d 699 (1998).

Gregg v. Georgia, 428 U.S. 153 (1976).

Hall v. Lewis, 286 Ga. 767 (2010).

White v State, 287 Ga. 713, 699 S.E.2d 291 (2010).

Wilson v. State, 630 S.E.2d 640, 279 Ga. App. 136 (Ga. App. 2006). 

Written, Researched, and Recorded by Céleste Young, 2023-2025.
Music: Out On My Skateboard - Mini Vandals

Waitisthatlegal@gmail.com

Transcript

This episode will be discussing major plot points from all three seasons of the Netflix show, Insatiable.  Listening to this episode will spoil the entire show, you have been warned.

            Today’s episode focuses on the Netflix show Insatiable starring Debby Ryan.  Obviously this show is ridiculous and is not meant to reflect reality; I mean tampons with tassels, hot dogs in taco shells… However, the sheer volume of murders that take place mean that this is a great opportunity to dive into the topic of murder, manslaughter, and justifiable homicide, with a little sprinkling of felony murder.

            The first person that dies in the series is the homeless man that breaks main character Patty’s jaw.  In a plot to get her revenge, Patty attempts to seduce the homeless guy at his motel but he passes out before they get very far.  Patty then decides to kill him and she dumps alcohol all over the man and the bed before lighting a match.  She ultimately decides not to light the homeless man on fire, gets drunk and leaves.  The next day she finds out that there was a fire at the motel and it turns out the homeless man is in the hospital.  When Bob Armstrong, a lawyer and pageant coach, presents his theory of the case in defense of Patty, the homeless guy confesses that he tampered with the fire alarm in order to have a cigarette and accidentally started the fire.  Patty confronts the guy about who she really is and wishes he were dead; he dies of a heart attack right in front of her.

            This is a perfect opening for the topic of murder.  Leaving aside, for a moment, the lead up to Patty’s confrontation with the homeless guy; let’s look at Patty’s desire for him to die and then his actual death.  It is not a crime to wish death on someone, especially if you only think about it.  The legal theory underpinning most criminal law is that there are two essential elements to all crimes, mens rea and actus reus.  Mens rea (Latin for guilty mind) is the necessary mental state needed to commit a specific crime and actus reus (Latin for guilty act) is the physical act that carries out the crime.  There are no crimes that can be committed only with the mens rea element, which would essentially be a thought crime.  But there are crimes that you can commit with only the actus reus element (like statutory rape and other strict liability offenses).  The distinction between the mens rea and actus reus also highlights the difference between the terms homicide and murder.  A homicide refers to the act of someone killing another person; it does not confer any guilt or justification to the act.  Murder and manslaughter are the legal terms that define the crime of killing someone and require the mental state of the actor to be considered.  So, because Patty merely wishes that the homeless guy were dead, she only has the mens rea element and cannot be guilty of a crime because she does not act on the thought.

            Now let’s go back to the events that put the homeless guy in the hospital, and that may have contributed to his death.  When Patty decided to light the homeless guy on fire, she had the necessary mens rea to commit a crime, but did she act on that thought?  Is Patty guilty of murder or attempted murder of the homeless guy or was his ultimate death from natural causes stemming from an accident?

Murder

            Let’s start by defining murder and all its sub-classifications.  In English common law (which is the foundation of American law, except in Louisiana), murder was defined as: the unlawful killing of another person with malice aforethought and without justification, excuse, or mitigation.  All three elements of murder must be present in order for the defendant to have committed the crime.  So, to start there must be a dead person who was killed in an unlawful manner (so not natural causes, or a lawful execution).  The person who did the killing must have had malice aforethought, which despite sounding like needing to be a comic book villain planning the demise of a superhero, is legal terminology for having the intention of killing someone or the intention of causing great bodily harm that would likely result in death and not having any just cause or provocation.  Finally, the killer cannot have any justification, excuse, or mitigation for the killing.  Justification includes situations of self-defense, defense of others or a home; it is considered a complete defense to murder.  Excuse and mitigation are defenses that limit the severity of the murder charge, usually downgrading the crime from murder to manslaughter.  Excuse includes defenses of infancy, insanity, or intoxication.  Mitigation includes imperfect self-defense, diminished capacity, and mistake.  If all three elements were met, then the killer would be guilty of murder.

            Murder with malice aforethought, or malice murder, had the highest level of culpability in common law.  Modernly, many jurisdictions have codified a higher degree of culpability with 1st degree murder usually requiring premeditation and the specific intent to kill.  In common law, one step down from malice murder was murder committed with a depraved heart (which again sounds like the state of existence for a Disney villain).  Where malice aforethought requires the intention to kill or cause harm that has a high probability of death, depraved heart refers to acting with reckless indifference of an action’s unjustifiably high risk to human life.  An example of depraved heart would be firing a gun into a crowded area, where malice aforethought would be firing a gun directly at someone.  It is important to note that when using a deadly weapon like a firearm there doesn’t need to be actual intent to kill, because firing a gun always carries the risk of great bodily harm and death and this risk escalates based on the proximity to the victim and where the gun is pointed when fired.

            After murder, common law had voluntary and involuntary manslaughter.  Voluntary manslaughter encompassed deaths caused in the heat of passion, where there is actual and reasonable provocation that would cause an intense and sudden passion in a reasonable person.  It also included mitigated forms of murder, like imperfect self-defense.  Involuntary manslaughter was for when the death was unintentional but the perpetrator’s conduct created an unreasonable risk of significant bodily injury or death, essentially criminal negligence.  An example of voluntary manslaughter is killing someone after finding them in bed with your spouse.  An example of involuntary manslaughter would be firing a gun into an abandoned building not knowing there was someone in there.

Georgia Statutes

            Insatiable takes place in the State of Georgia, so I looked up the Georgia Criminal Code in order to determine if Patty’s actions were criminal; Georgia’s murder laws are pretty close to the common law definitions.  Both forms of common-law murder are included in the statute.  The State of Georgia defines murder as: when a person unlawfully and with malice aforethought, either express or implied, causes the death of another human being.  Express malice being the deliberate intention to unlawfully take the life of another human being and implied malice is when no considerable provocation appears and where all the circumstances of the killing show an abandoned and malignant heart.  Murder is a capital crime in Georgia, punishable by death.

            Voluntary manslaughter in Georgia is defined as causing the death of another human being under circumstances which would otherwise be murder but the action is the result of a sudden, violent, and irresistible passion due to serious provocation.  The time between the provocation and the killing has to be less than the time needed to allow for the voice of reason and humanity to be heard.              

            Involuntary manslaughter in Georgia occurs either when a death is caused unintentionally during the commission of an unlawful act that is not a felony, or when death is caused unintentionally during the commission of a lawful act in an unlawful manner that is likely to cause death or great bodily harm.  An example of a lawful act performed in an unlawful manner that unintentionally results in death would be recklessly driving a car and hitting a pedestrian, because the act of driving a car is lawful, provided you have a valid driver’s license, but speeding or breaking traffic laws is operating the vehicle in an unlawful manner and it is this unlawful operation that results in someone’s death.

            For a quick recap on murder:  the main elements are 1) a person is unlawfully killed, 2) the killer has some level of intent to kill or harm the dead person, and 3) there is no defense for the killer’s actions or mental state.  In order from highest level of intent and culpability to lowest there is: 1st Degree Premeditated Murder, Malice Murder or in GA Murder with Express Malice, Depraved Heart Murder or GA’s Murder with Implied Malice, Voluntary Manslaughter, and Involuntary Manslaughter.

            Ultimately, for someone to be convicted of murder in the United States they have to either: voluntarily plead guilty or each element of the crime has to be proven beyond a reasonable doubt to a jury and that jury must unanimously decide the defendant is guilty of the crime.  Georgia, like most death penalty states, divides the decisions on whether the defendant is guilty of murder and if they should be sentenced to death between two separate juries.  This is supposed to be a means of protecting a defendant’s Constitutional rights.

            Throughout the show Patty is involved in the death of 7 people: the homeless guy, Stella Rose (twice), Christian, her fake dad, and the 3 cartel guys. So let’s discuss each of the people who Patty believes she killed and determine if she was guilty or not.

1) Homeless Guy

            First up is the homeless guy.  The homeless guy dies from a heart attack in the hospital after he is injured in a fire at the motel he is staying at.  Patty believes she is responsible because she was going to kill him but couldn’t go through with it.  Then at the hospital she wished he were dead and then he died.  Patty initially has the intent to kill, abandons her plan, and then has the intent for him to die again.  While she still has the intent to kill the homeless guy she acts on the intent by pouring alcohol on him and even attempts to light him on fire.  She changes her mind and then leaves the motel.  She is drinking during the whole ordeal.  The next day she actually believes she committed murder until she finds out the guy is in the hospital.  Instead of staying away, Patty goes to the hospital and right before the homeless guy dies of a heart attack Patty tells him that she wishes he were dead. 

            Has Patty committed murder?  The homeless guy is dead, whether his death was the result of Patty’s actions (unlawful) or his own (accidental) is up for debate.  We know Patty’s intentions because the show narrates the main characters’ inner thoughts, but even without the narrations the Georgia Courts have stated that criminal intent can be inferred by a jury based on the accused’s actions before, during, and after the commission of the crime.  The main issue here is causation, or whether Patty’s actions caused the homeless guy’s death.

            Causation        

            In order for someone to be guilty of committing murder there must be a connection between the actions of the defendant and the death of the victim.  This means Patty’s actions must be either the actual cause or the proximate cause of the homeless guy’s death.  Actual causation is a direct link between the action and the outcome, it is sometimes phrased as the but for cause ie. but for Patty pouring alcohol on him and later wishing him dead in the hospital he would not have died.  Proximate causation allows for a little more wiggle room in getting to the outcome but it relies on determining whether any other factors present are intervening causes that break the causal chain.

            Here, the homeless guy’s own actions and his medical history may be the ultimate reason for his death.  Patty’s actions of pouring alcohol on him definitely set the homeless guy up for his eventual fate, but his disabling the fire alarm and lighting a cigarette also contributed to his being badly burned.  His history of alcoholism also likely contributed to his weak heart making him more susceptible to a fatal heart attack.  The homeless guy’s actions alone would not have likely lead to his death, his disabling the smoke detector and lighting a cigarette are not particularly dangerous activities, but doing them while covered in alcohol is.  And the homeless guy’s alcoholism was likely to lead to bad medical outcomes eventually, but he probably wouldn’t have been hospitalized that night and died when he did without Patty’s intervention.  He is also likely dead because of Patty’s inaction after she decides not to light him on fire.  By using an accelerant that she intended to spread the fire Patty created the danger that caused the homeless guy to end up in the hospital and she could be guilty of his death because she caused the danger and did nothing to remove the victim from that danger.

            Criminal Attempt

            Patty’s action of not going through with her plan to light the homeless guy on fire muddies the causal connection between the intent and the outcome for murder, but she may still be guilty of attempted murder if she had the intent to kill the homeless guy and took a substantial step towards committing that crime.  Georgia defines an attempt to commit a crime as requiring: 1) intent to commit the crime; 2) performance of an overt act towards committing the crime; and 3) the failure to complete the commission of the crime.  By definition, attempted murder would require that Patty had the intent to commit murder (which she did), that she performed an overt act towards committing murder (pouring alcohol on the guy is an overt act), and that the murder was not complete because the homeless guy didn’t die.  The last element is the difficult one in this case because Patty meets the first two parts, but it is unclear whether the crime was completed by the homeless guy’s later death in the hospital.  This essentially means that a jury would have to decide whether Patty is responsible for the guy’s death, or if she is only guilty of attempting to kill him and he succeeded where she failed.

            Abandonment

            A defense to criminal attempt is abandonment.  Abandonment requires the defendant to show that they abandoned the effort to commit or prevented the commission of the crime with voluntary and complete renunciation of the criminal process.  Abandonment is an affirmative defense so even if the defendant is otherwise guilty of attempting to commit a crime, by proving abandonment they can have their liability wiped away.  The key here is whether there has been a voluntary and complete renunciation of the criminal attempt.  The Georgia Statute is clear that postponing the attempt or abandoning the attempt because of a change that makes it more likely to get caught are not enough.

            Patty just leaves the homeless guy passed out, soaked in alcohol.  She may have thought she no longer wished to kill him, but she did not really do anything to completely abandon the attempt to kill him.  It does not help her argument that she spends the day after the incident trying to erase evidence she was in the motel room.  I would argue she is not acting like someone who had a complete and voluntary renunciation of her attempt to murder the homeless guy.  Ultimately, it would be up to a jury to decide what is actually enough and if Patty did abandon her attempt.

            Felony Murder

            Beyond Patty’s actions potentially being murder or attempted murder, she is likely also guilty of committing several other crimes in the motel room.  If any of those crimes are felonies (which are crimes that carry a punishment of a year or more in prison, misdemeanors are punishable by less than a year in prison, in jurisdictions that add gross misdemeanor charges those are punishable by 6 months to a year in prison and misdemeanors are less than 6 months; actual sentencing for the crime may vary) then Patty could be guilty of felony murder.  Generally, felony murder is defined as a death that occurs during the commission of a felony.  In common law, felony murder was when a death occurred during the commission of an inherently dangerous felony (specifically: Burglary, Arson, Rape, Robbery, or Kidnapping).  In some jurisdictions, first degree murder will include felony murder with the inherently dangerous felonies of common law, or their own enumerated list of felonies and second degree murder will include felony murder with all other felonies.  

            In contrast, Georgia’s murder statute includes felony murder but does not elaborate on the type of felony.  Case law in Georgia makes it explicitly clear that the State intended for all felonies that result in death to be included in the definition of murder.  This is significant because Georgia is a death penalty state and technically anyone convicted of felony murder could be executed, regardless of whether it is a violent or non-violent felony.  Although, along with the bifurcated trials, constitutional protections usually limit the types of murder that are subject to capital punishment. With Patty we don’t have to face this particular existential crisis because she can be charged with arson, criminal damage to property, and aggravated assault, which are all felonies and have elements that involve threats to human life.  In the interest of time and in sticking to the topic of murder I will not be going into the analysis of the underlying felonies.  What is relevant here is that if Patty is charged with a felony and it is determined that the homeless guy’s death was a result of Patty’s committing the felony, she could be tried for murder.  This means the State would not have to prove that Patty committed murder, they would only have to prove that Patty committed a felony and the homeless guy died as a result of that felony.

            Defenses

            Beyond the defense of abandonment, which is only a defense to attempt, Patty might be able to use the defense of intoxication.  Patty blacks out in the motel room, which is why she is convinced she killed the homeless guy until she visits the hospital.  Voluntary intoxication is considered an excuse to murder, but is not a complete defense.  Intoxication can only negate the intent of a specific-intent crime, so any crime that requires the defendant to intend to commit the crime instead of only intending the action that then becomes a crime.  Intentional murder (1st degree, premeditated; express malice in GA) is a specific-intent crime because it requires the intent to kill in addition to the unlawful act which results in the death of another.  Common law murder (2nd degree, malice or depraved heart murder; implied malice in GA) is a general-intent crime because it only requires the defendant to act intentionally in a way that causes the death of another but without the actual intent to kill.  Attempt is also a specific-intent crime because it requires the intent to commit a crime plus the action towards committing the crime.  By being black out drunk, Patty can use intoxication as an excuse against express malice murder, but not other forms of murder because the intoxication only excuses the specific intent to kill and not the unlawful act that results in death.  Intoxication would be a defense against attempted murder because without the specific intent to commit murder there cannot be an attempt to commit murder.  Patty would not have a defense for the actions made to further the attempt if they are crimes by themselves, like destruction of property and arson.

            Verdict:  Patty’s actions before, during, and after pouring alcohol on the homeless guy definitely points to her intent to kill him.  A jury could have found Patty’s actions were the cause of the homeless guy’s death the next day.  Even if a jury felt the causation wasn’t clear enough, Patty is at least guilty of attempted murder because she didn’t do anything to abandon her attempt to kill the guy, she just left.  She also made things worse by visiting the homeless guy in the hospital and telling him inflammatory things right before he died.  She could also be guilty of felony murder if it can be proved beyond a reasonable doubt that Patty committed a felony and the homeless guy died as a foreseeable result of the commission of the felony.

2) Christian

            Now let’s move on to Patty’s killing of Christian, her creepy ex-boyfriend and son of the local pastor.  Unlike with the homeless guy, here there is no question that Patty killed Christian.  He’s alive, Patty beats him to death with a tire iron, and then Patty disposes of the dead body.  The question is what level of homicide is Patty guilty of or was she justified in attacking Christian because he wanted her to kill Magnolia.

            On the question of homicide, Christian solicits Patty to kill Magnolia.  If Patty had agreed and killed Magnolia, then they both would have been guilty of murder with explicit malice because they would be co-conspirators.  However, Patty rejects Christian’s attempt to solicit her and instead decides to defend Magnolia.  She takes the tire iron from Christian and tells Magnolia to run.  Patty does not have the intent to kill necessary to be guilty of murder with explicit malice, but she may be acting with implied malice.  Implied Malice murder in Georgia requires the defendant to have acted without provocation but with an abandoned and malignant heart.  Arguably, Patty uses a heavy metal bar as a deadly weapon by hitting Christian with it until he is unconscious, then dead.  She is acting with a complete disregard for human life because it was foreseeable that a weapon the victim gave to Patty for the express purpose of killing someone else would have the same effect on Christian.

            The key fact in this scenario is that Patty tells Magnolia to run and starts hitting Christian in order for her to get away.  If Patty is charged with murder, she could claim defense of others.  In Georgia, a person is justified in the use of force against another when there is a reasonable belief the use of force is necessary to protect themselves or a third party from an imminent threat of unlawful force.  In general, the amount of force used must be proportional to the threat and it is only justified if the defendant is not the initial aggressor.  The Georgia statute specifically outlines that the use of deadly force or force that is likely to cause great bodily injury is justified only when it is reasonably believed that the use of that force would be necessary to prevent death or great bodily injury.  In Patty’s case, Christian has not necessarily threatened Patty’s life, but he has threatened Magnolia’s life.  Patty is basically given the choice to kill Magnolia or to give her a chance to escape.  In that situation is it reasonable for Patty to believe she needs to defend Magnolia, and herself once she turns on Christian, and she does so by using the same weapon Christian intended Patty to use to kill Magnolia.  The part where this gets tricky is when Magnolia is gone and Patty briefly realizes that Christian is not going to be able to pursue either of the girls.  Instead of walking away and calling the police, Patty continues beating Christian with the tire iron while stating that she is “not a bad person”.  Her defense of Magnolia and herself gets even less justified when she decides to not call the cops or an ambulance when it is clear Christian is dead.  Instead she decides she needs to dispose of the body (concealing the death of another person is its own crime in Georgia punishable by 1 to 10 years in prison; tampering with evidence is classified as a felony when the crime the defendant is interfering in is a felony, when it is a murder it carries a 1 to 10 year sentence).  So where she might have been able to argue she was justified in killing Christian, dumping the body not only looks bad to a jury it also adds additional punishments on top of the original crime.  She also drags her attorney into the cover-up, making him an accessory-after-the-fact and potentially guilty of concealing the death and tampering with evidence.  He might also be in trouble for aiding and abetting murder, but that is less certain.  It also means that he is now a co-defendant and can no longer represent Patty.

            Ignoring the cover-up, Patty’s escalation of her attack once Magnolia is safe could put her into Manslaughter territory.  The attack starts out as a justified defense of others, but when it escalates Patty is no longer justified in the defense of Magnolia which would make her actions imperfect defense of self or others which is sometimes seen as Voluntary Manslaughter.  She also is acting out of a sudden, violent, and irresistible passion brought on by the provocation of Christian telling her she is capable of murder and all her fear from his stalking her.  The fact that she is screaming “I am not a bad person” while beating his unconscious body shows she just lost it in that moment.  In common law this was called killing in the heat of passion and the Model Penal Code uses the term Extreme Mental and Emotional Distress.  Really when Patty called Bob, her lawyer/pageant coach, he should have insisted she call the police or he should have called the police for her because at that point she was maybe guilty of voluntary manslaughter at the worst and potentially justified in her defense of others.  Of course, because it is a ridiculous TV show Patty gets away with it.

Verdict: Patty started off justified in her use of deadly force against Christian and she has a witness, Magnolia, who believed that Patty saved her life.  However, Patty’s excessive use of force beyond the point that Christian was incapacitated and her later actions to cover-up his death would make it very difficult to argue defense of others to a jury and have them acquit Patty of the killing.  Patty is more likely guilty of Voluntary Manslaughter and she would also be guilty of concealing the death of Christian and tampering with evidence.

            Patty’s actions in Christian’s death can be contrasted with her later involvement in killing Stella Rose (the second time).  Where Christian is likely to be an imperfect claim of defense of others, Stella Rose is a near perfect example of justified self-defense.

3) Stella Rose

            In the show Patty believes she killed Stella Rose when she escapes Stella’s attempt to make Patty kill herself.  Roxy (Stella Rose’s pageant prodigy and daughter) was also involved in the kidnapping of Patty and holding her captive.  Roxy is murdered by the pageant serial killer and Stella Rose gets killed by Patty later, so I’m just going to skip that whole insane scenario.

            Instead let’s jump to when Stella Rose is killed.  Stella Rose breaks into Patty’s house and surprises her in her room.  Stella attacks Patty and announces her intention to kill Patty.  Patty fights back, but pulls back from making any finishing moves.  Stella finally dies when she hits her head on Patty’s treadmill.  In this scenario Stella Rose is the only one with the stated intent to kill, she is also the instigator of the violence.  She has also attacked Patty in her own home.  Patty cannot be guilty of murder if she can prove she acted in self-defense.

            Again, in Georgia a person is justified in using force when they reasonably believe the use of force is necessary to defend their self against an imminent and unlawful threat of force.  The key to all self-defense arguments is whether the belief of the defendant was honest and reasonable, meaning they actually believed they faced imminent harm or death and that it was reasonable to fear for their safety.  If the use of force by the defendant is not honest or not reasonable then it is not justified.  

            For a real world example of this we can look at the recent murder of Ahmaud Arbery which happened in 2020 in Georgia.  Arbery was cornered by three men in a suburban neighbourhood and shot.  The men claimed they believed Arbery was stealing from a construction site and that they were performing a citizen’s arrest, but shot Arbery in self-defense.  With the Arbery case, the jury did not find the defendants’ actions justified.  The men did not see a crime being committed (because Arbery committed no crimes) or have any actual knowledge that Arbery was a threat and they could not have reasonably believed they or others were in danger because they had the upper hand throughout the whole thing.  Arbery was a skinny, young kid out on a jog with any potential weapon fitting in his pockets (there was no weapon).  The 3 grown men though had guns, big trucks, and connections to law enforcement; they did not need to engage, they had already called 911, they could have left it to law enforcement to deal with it.  Instead they pursued Arbery, cornered him with their trucks, harassed him, threatened him, then tried to claim they felt threatened.  Even if Arbery had fought back, or had a weapon (which he didn’t); Arbery would have been the justified party because the other men instigated the violence.  Even in a citizen’s arrest scenario the defendants were not justified in detaining Arbery because they did not witness a crime and they did not tell Arbery why they were pursuing him.  Notably, Georgia changed its citizen’s arrest law after this case to narrow who can use it.

            In Patty’s case, it was both honest and reasonable for her to believe that Stella Rose posed an imminent threat and Patty was justified in her use of force against that threat.  Patty had a perfect self-defense argument, even with no witnesses to corroborate that Stella Rose instigated the violence.  Stella Rose’s very presence in Patty’s house uninvited is actually instigation enough.  Of course, after Patty realizes Stella Rose is dead, instead of doing the right, and really the easier, thing by calling the cops, she instead decides she will dispose of the body.  Then she stuffs Stella Rose’s body in a suitcase and takes it with her to the pageant.  Again, this is concealing the death of Stella Rose and tampering with evidence.

Verdict: Patty was justified under Georgia law to use force against Stella Rose, even to the point of Stella Rose being killed.  She would not have been guilty of murder, but her attempt to cover-up Stella Rose’s death would not help make this case for her.  She is guilty of concealing Stella Rose’s death and tampering with evidence.

4) Drug Cartel

            While on the topic of self-defense in one’s own home we can talk about Patty’s involvement in the death of the 3 cartel guys holding Patty’s mom hostage in their house.  Patty’s mom got a cheap boob job in Brazil after she leaves Patty on her 18th birthday.  It turns out it was so cheap because the implants are actually full of cocaine and the drug cartel was using Patty’s mom as an unwitting drug mule.  Patty’s mom doesn’t want to involve the police because she believes she would be put in jail for drug trafficking, which I don’t think would happen because she didn’t know about the cocaine.  There is evidence she didn’t know about the cocaine because she shows off her new, bigger breasts after she gets home which she would not have done if she knew they would have to be removed.  There are actually real cases where women have been used by cartels to traffic drugs, but in those cases the women were usually paid to do it.

            Anyway, back to the deaths.  Patty comes home to find her mom tied up and decides to attack the cartel guys, instead of calling the police.  A fight ensues and the cartel guys are all killed.  Again Patty’s mom is worried that she will be arrested so Patty and her dispose of the bodies.  Aside from the cover up, Patty is actually justified in going after the intruders and killing them, even if it would have been safer if she had called 911 when she realized her house was broken into.  In common law a person had an absolute right to defend their property with deadly force if it was inhabited.  This is known as the Castle Doctrine.  Georgia has a statutory defense that justifies the threat or use of force against another when the person believes it is necessary to prevent or stop that other person’s unlawful entry or attack on a habitation.  The Georgia law also states the use of force that is intended or likely to cause death or great bodily injury is justified when the entry is made in a violent manner and it is reasonably believed that the person entering intends to cause injury to someone living in the dwelling; when the force is used against someone who is not a resident of the dwelling and the person using the force knows or reasonably believes an unlawful and forcible entry has occurred; or when the person using force reasonably believes the entry was made for the purpose of committing a felony (burglary).  Basically, Patty is justified in using deadly force, or force likely to cause great bodily harm, if the cartel guys have violently broken in, if Patty knows or believes there has been an unlawful and forcible entry, or if Patty believes the cartel guys broke in for the purpose of committing a felony.

            Patty can see that her mother is tied up and being held by the cartel guys, so she knows that they entered the house in order to harm someone that lives there.  She can also reasonably believe that they intend to commit a felony and they actually already have by falsely imprisoning Patty’s mom.  Patty is justified in her use of force to defend her mom and her home from the cartel guys.

Verdict:  Patty would not be guilty of murdering the cartel guys because she was justified in defending her mom and her habitation.  However, Patty and her mom are not justified in covering up the deaths of the three cartel guys and again could be charged with concealing their deaths and tampering with evidence.

5) Fake Dad

            Finally, we have the Fake Dad’s death.  In this killing Patty meets up with the man who she believes is her dad to learn to ride a bike.  In fact, he is not her dad and is only there to get money from Patty because Patty’s mom ran off with his car.  Patty confronts him about how he groomed her mom while he dated Patty’s grandma and that he is a terrible person.  As she is telling him off he is slowly backing away for her until he reaches the edge of a really steep dropoff.  He falls down the slope, hitting rocks along the way, and appears to be dead when he gets to the bottom of the hill.  Patty believes she has killed him and quickly leaves the scene.

            Despite the fact that Patty is yelling at him and then he dies, I don’t believe there is even a crime here.  Patty did not intend to kill him or cause him injury, nor was she aware there was a hill he was backing towards.  At most there could potentially be Misdemeanor Manslaughter, where Patty is charged with Assault (a misdemeanor that is defined as an attempt to violently injure another or an act that places another in reasonable apprehension of immediate violent injury) and that assault results in a death.  Misdemeanor manslaughter is classified as Involuntary Manslaughter in Georgia.  The problem here is that Patty’s actions don’t really meet the requirements for assault.  Patty is only venting her feelings to the Fake Dad, she has no intention of hurting him and does not even hint at using any violence.  She doesn’t push him off the cliff; she does not even know the cliff is there.  It wouldn’t have been reasonable for the Fake Dad to think he was in danger of Patty injuring him, she wasn’t threatening him and she didn’t have a weapon.  Also the Fake Dad is twice Patty’s size so her very presence is not by itself threatening.  He is backing away from her, but I think that is a normal response when someone is yelling at you.  Patty cannot be guilty of involuntary manslaughter if she is not guilty of assault.

            If the State chose to charge Patty with the Fake Dad’s death Patty could claim it was an accident.  In Georgia, accident is an affirmative defense when the defendant can prove that they acted without criminal intent or while engaged in a criminal scheme, and the defendant’s actions did not show a complete disregard for the safety of others.  Patty does not have criminal intent nor is she involved in any other criminal behavior, and she was not acting with complete disregard for others safety.

Verdict: The fake Dad’s death is an accident.  Sure Patty might feel guilty or responsible after the fact, but in this case she never intended for the Fake Dad to get hurt and she did not act in any way that would have foreseeably caused his death.  Patty has not committed a crime.

Conclusion

            In conclusion, Patty is a dangerous person who has some serious issues to deal with.  The sheer number of people who seem to die, disappear, or become seriously injured in her presence should have attracted a whole lot more attention than it did in the show.  Patty is also selfish and manages to drag everyone else in her circle down too.  Admittedly, this does make for a humorous TV show with Patty acting without thinking and then trying to cover her tracks with hilarious hijinks and laughably incompetent law enforcement.  Realistically, in the real world it would only take a few instances of people dying or disappearing in Patty’s vicinity before people would start seriously asking questions.  Even if the actual murders couldn’t be tied to Patty the actions she has taken to cover up the deaths would definitely get her in trouble eventually.  I mean, her ex-boyfriend has gone missing, she is the last one anyone saw him with and she has his cellphone and had been sending messages as him; that is enough evidence to show that even if Christian had run away, Patty interfered in the ability of his parents and law enforcement to find a missing person.  Then there was the whole Stella Rose in the suitcase situation, where Patty transported human remains across state lines at an absolute minimum.  It also should have been easy for the police to figure out Patty and her friend had tampered with evidence in the very first episode when Patty is able to get into the motel room which is an active crime scene, and her friend breaks into the evidence room.  At some point the criminal behavior would have caught up with her, and someone would have talked.

            Overall the take away here should be that Patty is extremely lucky and has some serious plot armor that would not exist in real life.  Patty’s actions after the deaths in the shows are often just as horrible as the ones that lead to the death in the first place, which in real life is all considered evidence of the defendant’s state of mind and can be used by a jury to find the defendant guilty of a crime.  So even in the situations where Patty was completely justified in her use of deadly force she manages to negate that justification by hiding or disposing of the bodies.  Of course because it is a TV Show it works out, but in real life it would have been better if she had called 911 after killing Christian and Stella Rose, and even after killing the cartel guys, although it would have been better to call before she even entered the house.  And most importantly, I think if it hadn’t been for the cover up in those murders a jury would probably have sided in Patty’s favor.  We saw her work her charm in court in episode one and her looks and her slightly ditzy manner would probably play well for a jury.  And with Christian, Stella Rose, and the cartel guys, she really was justified, if a bit excessive, where it falls apart is after they are dead.  And because this is Georgia, with the number of bodies and the fact that Patty consistently covers up her crimes she could be a candidate for the death penalty if she was found guilty of multiple murders.

            Thank you for listening.  This show is researched, written, and recorded by me, Céleste Young.  None of the legal advice or opinions expressed in this episode are intended as specific or individualized legal advice.  Please like, subscribe, rate, or review this podcast if you enjoyed it.  If you have any questions or comments, please e-mail them to Waitisthatlegal@gmail.com.  You can find the Podcast on Twitter, Facebook, and Instagram.

            Don’t kill people, but if you do and it’s an accident or in self-defense call 911.