Tate V. The King Case

The article does not address what, exactly, Tate is charged with. He may be responsible for involuntary manslaughter, if it can be proven that he did not intend to kill the little girl. If she had not died Tate probably would have been charged with battery, which may constitute the unlawful act not amounting to a felony.
The first and most obvious defense in the Tate case would be infancy. Tate was 12 when he killed the girl and 14 when he stood trial and was convicted. As such, it would be presumed that he was unable to form the necessary intent, although evidence may be presented towards the contrary. Mistake of fact could be a possibility as the article clearly states: “the defense argued that the… boy did not mean to kill the… girl and thought he could body-slam people and they would walk away unhurt, just

However, neither article goes into great detail on the evidence available. It is possible that Chavis could have been charged with solicitation, or that Chavis and the King brothers could all be charged with conspiracy.
Although not discussed in the textbook, one thing that raises major concerns is the fact that Florida courts were charging Chavis separately for the same crime that they were charging the King brothers with. This calls into question the amount of evidence the prosecution possessed and casts reasonable doubt on both cases. Age is also an issue; at 14 Derek King would barely be presumed old enough to have the mental capacity to commit a crime, and at 13 Alex King would be assumed incapable unless proven otherwise. It is important to note that these were their ages at the time of the trial and that Derek King was 13 and Alex King was 12 when they committed the crime. If the Florida courts allowed it, Alex King may be able to claim diminished responsibility due to his claims that he “loves” Chavis, the 40-year-old man who is said to be “sexually obsessed” with