Cases (HO-1) MT Flashcards
Decina and Flippo
People v. Decina (NY)
F: Was driving, had a seizure, killed 4/6 school girls.
Pro:
1) Charged by a grand jury
2) Demurred, LOST and convicted at trial
3) Appellate court ordered a new trial w/o a doctors testimony
4) P and D, appealed the appellate decision to the high court
Holding/Reasoning:
(Judge FROESSEL): Affirmed appellate court’s decision.
-Doctor communication is privileged and cannot testify
-Driving with epilepsy is CONSCIOUS, like drunk driving
(Judge DESMOND): Would have affirmed, but D’s demurrer should have been sustained (no need for a new trial)
-Cannot be RECKLESS while unconscious (anyone with an illness would be breaking a law)
P & D’s appeal:
(P) Doctors testimony was NOT privileged(not tainiting the conviction)
(D-cross appeal) Trail judge erred in not granting a demurrer for grand jury indictment (No re-trail b/c shouldn’t have been one in the first place)
Denaro v. Prudential Ins. Co.
If a random person overheard, the court would let that random person testify, but not the doctor (Decina: The guard could have testified(Guard probably did not pay attention/remember))
Civil Practice act Section 352
“a physician shall not be allowed to disclose any information which was necessary to enable jim to act in that capacity”
People v. Cooper
If the communication was INTENDED to be confidential, the facts that another person overheard it would NOT necessarily destroy the privilege.
EX)
-A person trying to hear the conversation cant testify
Griffen v. California
U.S. Supreme court ruled that prosecutors and judges MAY NOT tell jurors to made adverse inferences based on D’s refusal to testify
King v. Cogdon (comparing stages of Decina)
Knowledge producing event(T1): Cogdon knew of sleeping and wiping spiders off her face - Decina knew of his history of epileptic seizures
Prior action(T2): Cogdon did not lock her room while sleepwalking - Decina drove knowing he was subject to seizures
Event at issue(T3): Cogdon kills her daughter - Decina had a seizure and kills pedestrian
Takeaway(proportionality): Decina KNEW the risks were proportional to this risk materialized. Cogdon did not, no reason to believe that one would lead to the other.
Big Dan’s Bar
Women was raped on a pool table and witnesses did not intervene
-Witnesses did not have a “special relationship”
-Bartender (maybe) by contractual duty
(why the bartender become indicted?) Probably testified at trial
Warren v. District of Columbia
1) DC police repeatedly ignore the calls of a women who claimed their downstairs neighbor was being burglarized, beaten and raped.
2) After calling 911, they yelled that the police where coming and also got beaten and raped
3) Officers said help was coming but never dispatched the call
Principle: Government agents are under no general duty to provide services to any particular individual
Flippo v. State (Arkansas)
F) Dad and Son were hunting, son thought he shot a deer but was MR. SHARP. Ran to get help found Father Sharp, then drove to call an ambulance. Went on a frolic to their house to swap guns, driving past phones. Sharp dies while waiting for help.
P)
1) Jury found dad and son guilty of involuntary manslaughter during trial
2) Dad and son, appealed on Sufficiency of the evidence
3) straight to the supreme court (Arkansas did not have an appellate court at the time)
H/R)
(Judge HOLT): Affirm the trial courts verdict.
-Son: Criminally negligent b/c he was hunting out of season, acting W/O due caution + failed to discahrge his duty to aid Mr. Sharp
-Dad: Voluntarily assumed care. Said he would call an ambulance, stopping Father Sharp from doing it, then delayed the process to call for help, thus criminally negligent
-CANNOT be charged as “accessory after the fact” because he was not in his sons control.
Issue: Whether the sufficiency of evidence sustains the verdicts against Flippo’s for involuntary manslaughter
Conclusion: Son and Dad are criminally negligent thus involuntary manslaughter because they acted in omission with intent
Jackson v. Virginia
Appellates court’s hands are tied - Even if the jury error, the conviction should be UPHELD
Example of standard of review: Reversal only if there is not way a jury could find DEF guilty based on the evidence presented at the trial court
Arkansas Involuntary Manslaughter statute(at the time)
Two ways:
-killing of a human, in an unlawful act, W/O malice
OR
- in the prosecution of a lawful act
- Done W/O caution and circumspection (little flippo)
State v. Green
Acting without due caution, when the court affirmed a manslaughter conviction where a hunter shot at what he thought was a bear, unsure of his target.
(prosecution ) made a prima facie (first impression as correct) of criminal responsibility from which the jury could find appellant guilty
What if in Flippo
Same facts but Mr. Sharp would have died no regardless of help
- Dad is OFF the hook
- Duty. YES
- Breach. YUES
- Causation. NO
- Mens rea: YES
- Son still charged b/c he shot Mr. Sharp
Would Dad still be off the hook if they did help Sharp but died anyways?
- Dad is OFF the hook
- Duty. Yes
- Breach. No
- Causation. No.
- Mens rea. No
People v. Oliver
Oliver picked up the intoxicated Cornejo, drove him to her house, helped him shoot heroine-led to over dose. Oliver left then came back, moving Cornejo outside where he died.
Analysis: Oliver assumed voluntary assumption of care and was charged with involuntary manslaughter (recklessness)
What if: Oliver didn’t know he shot up heroine? = Not involuntary man slaughter (Risk was not known)
EX: Lifeguard does not see the drowning swimmer: NOT charged; had a duty and breach but not recklessly
Compare Decina and Flippo
-Both homicide cases with convictions for unjustified killings
(D and F charged with the same charge)
Decina: Charged with culpable negligent homicide
Flippos: Involuntary manslaughter
Both: Consciously disregards a substantial and unjustified risk, which would cause death
