CL Murder Flashcards
including depraved heart
Early CL Categorical Approach
To have murder reduced to voluntary manslaughter, must fit into one of 5 categories:
1) Defending against aggravated assault or battery
2) observing a serious crime against a close relative
3) illegal arrest
4) mutual combat
5) catching one’s wife in the act of adultery (wasn’t made sex neutral until 1946)
Mere words rule: words are never enough to constitute adequate provocation (but there are exceptions)
People v Ambro (1987)
Facts: Victim wife told D husband she was divorcing him at group counseling session. At home, wife said the kids were not D’s, she was taking them, she was having an affair. D stabbed wife. Said he couldn’t remember stabbing. Asked for voluntary manslaughter jury instruction.
Rule: Mere words are sufficient if they are the culmination of a series of events. Adequate provocation means it would incite HoP in RP. IL has carveout for mere words doctrine if there is a) series of statements, and b) revelation of adultery (informational words). Up to jury to decide if they believe that the victim said these words and they were adequate provocation.
Holding: Judge must give voluntary manslaughter instruction if there is evidence of HoP SAP
State v Brown (1992)
Facts: Shaken baby case. D killed his kid with I/DD. Surgeon testified kid’s injuries caused by severe shaking, and that he had injuries consistent with a pattern of abuse and neglect. D charged with first degree murder
Rule: Intent to harm ≠ intent to kill. Pattern of abuse shows that D’s abuse on the night of the killing was not in premeditation of killing his child.
Holding: Conviction reduced to 2nd degree murder for lack of evidence of premeditation
State v Bingham (1996)
Facts: D strangled victim for 3-5 minutes. P argued that murder can be premeditated if the D formed the intent to kill when he began strangling and thought about it for 3-5 minutes.
Rule: Amount of time D could deliberate is not evidence of deliberation. Must show specific intent to kill (otherwise, could have had intent to silence). Not obvious that someone has the ability to deliberate while having sex.
Holding: Evidence of chance to deliberate is not evidence of deliberation. Must provide evidence of intent. Reduced to 2nd degree murder.
Gilbert v State (1986)
Facts: Mercy killing case. D husband killed wife after long bout with alzheimer’s when she said she needed help. He wanted to end her suffering. Sentenced to mandatory minimum.
Rule: Mercy killing is not a defense to premeditated murder. If there is premeditation and deliberation, that’s 1st degree murder.
Holding: No considering mitigating factors for mandatory minimum sentences.
People v Berry (1976)
Facts: D killed wife (and confessed) after she took an Israeli lover and told him a) she was leaving D for the lover, b) she was maybe pregnant with lover’s baby, and c) she was sexually taunting him. Psychiatrist said he was in HoP and wife was suicidal.
Rule: It is up to the jury to say if the provocation was R (obj.). No specific requirement for R provocation - words are enough. Cooling off period doesn’t defeat HoP if the provocation is ongoing.
Holding: Judge must give voluntary manslaughter instruction if there is evidence of HoP SAP
Commonwealth v Carr (1990)
Facts: D convicted of first degree murder for killing lesbian campers. Claims that seeing gay sex was SAP for HoP because of rejection by women and his (maybe) gay mom.
Rule: First as if R person (obj.) would be provoked. Only if yes, then ask about D’s history and character. Also ask if HoP is what led to the killing, or would an RP have had time to cool off.
Holding: Seeing gay sex is not adequate provocation, so evidence of D’s history and character are not relevant.
Commonwealth v. Malone (1946)
Facts: D (Teen) convinces younger teen to play Russian roulette. D pulls the trigger and younger teen dies.
Rule: If an individual commits an act of gross recklessness for which he must reasonably anticipate that death to another is likely to result, he fulfills the malice requirement for murder.
Holding: D convicted of murder under depraved heart because his gross recklessness and disregard for human life fulfills malice requirement.
People v. Knoller (2007)
Facts: D buys dogs she knows are dangerous. The dogs kill victim. D convicted of 2d murder and appeals.
Rule: A finding of implied malice requires that one act with a conscious disregard to human life.
Holding: D wins the consideration of a retrial because the trial court set the bar for malice too high (awareness of a high probability of death). The appeals court set the bar too low (disregard of serious bodily injury).
Commonwealth v Welansky (1994)
Facts: Nightclub fire case. D runs a nightclub. D was in the hospital when a busboy accidentally started a fire. Because of flammable materials, locked doors, and overcrowding, hundreds die.
Rule: Involuntary manslaughter requries wanton or reckless conduct. This can result from an omission where there is a duty of care - intentional failure to take care in disregard of the probable harmful consequences. Two ways to find wanton or reckless conduct: (1) subjective - D was in fact aware of risk, whether or not RP would have been; (2) objective - D was not aware of risk but RP in the same circumstances would have been.
Holding: Conviction affirmed. D failed to act to make the club safer, he owed a duty of care to patrons, and RP would have been aware of the risk.
State v Williams (1971)
Facts: Two young native Indians had a baby with a toothache that developed into a gangrenous infection. The baby died of pneumonia. Parents didn’t go to the dr. due to fear of CPS. If the baby had seen a dr. he would have lived.
Rule: In WA, simple negligence is sufficient for a finding of involuntary manslaughter. Parents must provide the level of medical care that a RP would believe is necessary. Obj. standard - parents’ ignorance or good intentions are not a defense. Bc a doctor could have saved the baby, there is proximate causation.
Holding: The parents are guilty of involuntary manslaughter for failing to provide R medical care.
