Class 3: Homicide, Murder, Manslaughter.

Question 1

Define Homicide

Does homicide always entail legal culpability?

What has common law divided criminal homicide into? (two things)

Answer 1

At early common law, homicide was the killing of a human being by a human being.

Homicide by itself is a legally neutral term. Without more, it is not a crime. there are numerous killings that are lawful, like killing at war, self defense etc.

Common law divided criminal homicide into murder and manslaughter.

Question 2

What does first degree murder require?

Do all jurisdictions require this?

Answer 2

Many jurisdictions reserve first degree murder for cases of

1) premeditation and 2) deliberation

No. Some have changed this to other things. For example, some jurisdictions require prior calculation and design.

Question 3

Define premeditation and planning

What are the two views to determine whether there is pre-mediation?

Answer 3

Common sense notion suggests a murder planned perhaps with careful or elaborate design. Many jurisdictions require both of the following, both prior planning and consideration of whether to commit the crime

Courts generally focus on pre in premeditation and look for evidence that the defendant deliberated and then formed intention to kill prior to the act of killing.

Two primary views:

1. Twinkling of an eye – premeditation can arise in an instant, almost simultaneously with the killing
2. Cool reflection – other jurisdictions require some time to elapse between contemplating the killing and carrying it out

Question 4

Is a sudden killing first degree murder?

Answer 4

No.

Question 5

At common law, what does murder require?

What does “malice aforethought” mean?

Answer 5

At common law, murder required the killing of another human being by another human being with malice aforethought. Malice is what separates murder from other forms of killing.

“aforethought” means thinking about something before. Modern criminal law has developed aforethought into the term “premeditation” which is below.

Question 6

What role does malice play in common law murder?

What are the four main things malice means in murder? (Think CAN law, what are some ways the mens rea can be proven for murder)

For common law murder, if a killing is accompanied by the four things malice means, is it a murder?

Answer 6

Malice has a very unique meaning for common law murder.

Malice meant IN MURDER:

1) Intent to kill

2) Intent to inflict grievous bodily injury, resulting in death

3) Reckless indifference to human life (the depraved heart)

4) Felony murder (death resulting from commission or attempted commission of an underlying felony)

If any given killing is accompanied by any of the above, IT IS MURDER. You do not need all of them, but you need at least one of them.

Question 7

True or False: At common law, all murders were considered the same

( Did not take into account First or second degree murder)

Answer 7

TRUE

Question 8

Why do they divide murders into degrees?

Answer 8

We divide murders into degrees to distinguish between levels of culpability. The more culpable killers are first degree murderers, and when we go down the list of degrees, we are reducing the level of culpability accordingly.

Question 9

If a murder is not first degree, then what it is?

Answer 9

Any other form of murder is, often, second-degree murder (or, in some States, third-degree murder).

Question 10

Under the MPC does murder require malice?

Answer 10

No as the MPC does not recognize malice

Question 11

Under the MPC, what do they require for murder?

Answer 11

Under the MPC a killing is murder if it is done purposely or knowingly.

We do not need to prove malice under the MPC.

Question 12

What is implied malice under common law for murder?

Answer 12

Malice is implied if the defendant intends to inflict grievous injury, acts with a depraved heart, or commits felony murder.

Question 13

What is express malice under common law for murder?

Answer 13

At common law, the intent to kill was a form of express malice.

Question 14

Under common law, what is premeditation?

What are the two competing views?

Answer 14

Premeditation is developed through common law “aforethought”

1) Twinkling of an eye – premeditation can arise in an instant, almost simultaneously with the killing

2) Cool reflection – other jurisdictions require some time to elapse between contemplating the killing and carrying it out

Question 15

State v. Carrol

Facts: Got mad at girlfriend and became very angry. He reached up and grabbed the gun and shot her twice in the back of the head. Convicted of first-degree murder. Carroll argues there was no pre-meditation.

Issue: Was there sufficient premeditation for first degree murder?

1) Use the “twinkling of an eye” rule. What does this mean?

2) Apply the above rule to this.

Answer 15

Holding/Analysis:

Court said yes using the twinkling of an eye rule. The law fixes no length of time, and there was deliberation in mere seconds. Regardless of how short it was, there was deliberation.

Ratio: Under the “twinkling of an eye” approach, deliberation and execution can be of mere seconds and can be claimed premeditation.

Question 16

State v. Guthrie

Facts: Victim and defendant were working together. Victim annoyed Guthrie, and Guthrie becomes enraged and kills victim. He was convicted of first-degree murder which requires premeditation.

Jury was told the premeditation only needed to be there for an instant (twinkling of an eye approach)

Issue: Holding irrelevant

1) Explain the “twinkling of an eye approach”
2) Explain the “cool reflection” approach
3) If the MPC applied, what would be needed?

Answer 16

Holding/Analysis:

1) Twinkling of an eye – premeditation can arise in an instant, almost simultaneously with the killing

2) Cool reflection – other jurisdictions require some time to elapse between contemplating the killing and carrying it out

3) If MPC applied, just intent to kill (aka killing done purposely or knowingly)

Question 17

What is prior calculation and design?

Is it a bigger burden than deliberation and premeditation?

What are the factors to determine if there was prior calculation or design?

Answer 17

1) Some states abandoned deliberation and premeditation and replaced it with a different definition of first-degree murder as a killing preformed with prior calculation and design.

2) It is an even bigger burden than the above.

3) Three factors to determine whether a defendant acted with prior calculation and design:

1. Did the accused and victim know each other, and if so, was that relationship strained?
2. Did the accused give thought or preparation to choosing the murder weapon or murder site?
3. Was the act drawn out or an almost instantaneous eruption of events?

Question 18

State v. Walker:

Facts: Victim was killed during bar fight by being shot by W. Under the aggravated murder statute, state was required to prove BRD that W purposely and with prior calculation and design, caused the death of the victim

Issue:

1) What are the three factors to determine if someone acted with prior calculation and design?

Answer 18

Holding/Analysis

Three factors to determine whether a defendant acted with prior calculation and design:

1. Did the accused and victim know each other, and if so, was that relationship strained?
2. Did the accused give thought or preparation to choosing the murder weapon or murder site?
3. AND was the act drawn out or an almost instantaneous eruption of events?

In this case Walker did not pre-plan at all, and thus, his conviction was not for aggravated murder.

Question 19

What is manslaughter under the common law?

What is the difference between common law murder or manslaughter?

Answer 19

Manslaughter is a killing without malice.

Malice is the difference between common law murder and manslaughter.

Question 20

What is voluntary manslaughter?

Answer 20

Voluntary manslaughter is an intentional killing with provocation.

Question 21

What is involuntary manslaughter?

Answer 21

Involuntary manslaughter is a negligent or reckless killing

Question 22

Is manslaughter typically a reduction from murder?

Answer 22

YES.

Typically, manslaughter is a reduction from murder. It is viewed as a kind of partial justification-partial excuse, where culpability is sufficiently reduced to permit punishment for something less than murder. It is basically a partial excuse

Question 23

A killing done in a sudden heat of passion because of adequate provocation is what type of offence?

What if there was time to cool off?

Does the MPC acknowledge this?

Answer 23

Voluntary manslaughter (passionate killing)

If you have a time to cool off, it is not a passionate killing.

Voluntary manslaughter is not a thing in the MPC

Question 24

What are the requirements for a passionate killing?

(4 things)

Answer 24

The killing therefore must meet the following requirements:

1) Adequate provocation

2) Sudden heat of passion

3) No time to cool

4) Casual Connection between the passion, provocation and the killing. (provocation doctrine)

Question 25

Does the MPC recognize involuntary manslaughter?

Answer 25

The Model Penal Code does not have a separate category of “involuntary manslaughter.

Question 26

What is adequate provocation for a passionate killing? Give an example

Answer 26

It must be the kind of provocation the law deems adequate for justifying a reduction to manslaughter: Acts that are “calculated to inflame the passion of a reasonable man and tend to cause him to act for the moment from passion rather than reason and kill” Acting out of passion rather than reason. Finding your wife fucking your friend when you come home from work

Question 27

Can a killing be a passionate killing if get told my wife fucked my best friend?

Answer 27

No. you must actually witness the act and not merely hear about it.

Question 28

Girouard v. State Facts: Husband and wife had a downhill marriage. Evidence that wife was being unfaithful. Husband overheard wife say she hated him and did not love him. She verbally abused him, and he killed her due to the verbal abuse. Issue: 1) What is the four part test for provocation? 2) Can words count as adequate provocation?

Answer 28

1. Provocation 2. Heat of Passion 3. No time to cool off 4. Casual connection between killing and passion. State counters that although no finite list of legally adequate provocations, words spoken by the victim no matter how taunting, should not be accepted as adequate provocation. Nearly all domestic argument leading to death could be mitigated to manslaughter. Thus, court found words are not provocation. Ratio: Words are not provocation.

Question 29

State v. Castagna Facts: Defendants were tried together as a mob that chased down and killed Grant. Morales contends they did not charge the jury on passion/provocation manslaughter. Issue: 1) What are the four requirements for provocation manslaughter? 2) What is provocation manslaughter also called?

Answer 29

Holding/Analysis: Provocation manslaughter has four specific elements 1 Reasonable and adequate provocation 2 Heat of Passion 3 Nexus between killing and passion. 4 No actual cooling off Reasonable jury said that Morales was under adequate provocation without time to “cool off” 2) Voluntary Manslaughter

Question 30

How does the MPC define murder?

Answer 30

The MPC defines murder as purposely or knowingly killing another or killing with extreme recklessness.

Question 31

How does the MPC define manslaughter?

Answer 31

Manslaughter is a killing with ordinary recklessness, or a killing that would otherwise be murder but is committed “under the influence of extreme emotional disturbance for which there is reasonable explanation of excuse

Question 32

State v. White Facts: White was charged with attempted murder of her ex-husband. This is a MPC jurisdiction. Issue: 1) Explain what EED is as a defence. 2) What fault standard does the court use when thinking of EED?

Answer 32

Holding/Analysis: The extremely emotional distress defence is available only to defendants who have been subjected to stress that would cause the average reasonable person to have an extreme emotional reaction and experience a loss of self-control. Defendants’ loss of self-control should be in reaction to a highly provocative triggering event, and in this case, the loss of control was the husband using a cellphone he denied possessing. Court held that the EED defense must be looked at objectively and based on a reasonable person, seeing of the cellphone does not constitute an EED based on the reasonable person standard.

Question 33

What is a reckless killing? How is it prosecuted?

Answer 33

Reckless homicide is a crime in which the perpetrator was aware that their act creates significant risk of death or grievous bodily harm in the victim, but ignores the risk and continues to act, and a human death results Recklessness in homicide is often prosecuted as either involuntary manslaughter or murder (depraved heart, implied malice, extreme reckless indifference).

Question 34

When would a reckless killing be considered murder versus involuntary manslaughter?

Answer 34

The difference between the two is generally the nature of the defendant’s conduct – the more depraved the act (even though the killing be unintentional), or the more extreme the risk-taking, the more likely it is murder rather than involuntary manslaughter. So, these distinctions depend heavily upon specific facts of the case

Question 35

People v. Kolzow Facts: Kolzow left kid in her car and the kid died of heat stroke. Charged with involuntary manslaughter. Defendant challenges evidence supporting conviction, specifically she asserts evidence fails to prove she acted recklessly as she claims she had no idea her car would become so overheated that it was a danger to her baby Issue: 1) What is recklessness? 2) What is involuntary manslaughter?

Answer 35

Holding/Analysis: Recklessness is being aware of the risk and proceeding anyways. Involuntary manslaughter is a negligent or reckless killing We believe a reasonable person would be aware of the risks in leaving a three-month old child unattended in a parked car for four hours and find the evidence supports the trial courts finding that the defendant acted recklessly. She was aware of the risk.

Question 36

People v. Knoller: Facts: Husband and wife had two dogs. The dogs had a relationship with prisoners prior to getting them. The dogs are dangerous and killed a neighbour. no real rule to learn from- Freebie.

Answer 36

Holding/Analysis:

Question 37

People v. Snyder: Facts: Snyder deliberately suffocated kids to develop breathing problem so she can collect disability. Daughter died. Charged with murder. She admitted what she did, but she did not intend death. Issue: 1) Explain the "depraved heart" principle

Answer 37

Holding/Analysis: Reckless indifference to human life (the depraved heart) Court says this was sufficiently depraved. This murder requires callousness, cruelty and indifference to victims’ life and safety. Thus, she was guilty.

Question 38

What is the misdemeanour manslaughter rule? What mens rea element must be proven?

Answer 38

It is a way to establish manslaughter liability based on recklessness or negligence when a death occurs during a misdemeanour. Proof of the misdemeanour would constitute the recklessness. This permits a conviction for involuntary manslaughter if the defendant commits an underlying misdemeanour that results in death. Mental state is the means rea for the underlying misdemeanour, and the doctrine does not require that the prosecutor independently demonstrate the defendant acted with recklessness with respect to the death but rather, recklessness is presumed by state.

Question 39

State v. Biechele Facts: Defendant accidently killed 100 people by doing a bad job with the device and the defendant violated the statute. Issue: 1) Explain the misdemeanour manslaughter rule

Answer 39

Holding/Analysis Court held it was misdemeanor manslaughter. Ratio: Once the misdemeanor was proven, that’s all they needed to prove, and it was a manslaughter. Benefit to provocation is you don’t need to prove individual mens rea or recklessness in regards to the killing.

Question 40

Is felony murder considered a type of murder, or is it a seperate offence?

Answer 40

Felony murder is murder. It's simply one way of proving it. When someone commits a homicide under the circumstances that satisfy the felony murder rule, the crime is murder. "Felony murder" is not some distinct crime; it is a theory of proving murder.