criminal Law Flashcards
Common law murder
Murder is the unlawful killing of another human being with malice aforethought. Malice afforethought may be express or implied.
Common law malice aforethought
In the abcence of facts ecusing the homicide or reducing it to vol mansl., malice aforethought exists if D has any of following states of mind: (1) intent to kill (express malice); (2) intent to inflict great bodily injury; (3) reckless indiference to an unjustifiably high risk to human life (abandoned and malignent heart); or (4) intent to commit a felony murder
deadly weapon rule
Intentional use of a deadly weapon authorizes a permissive inference of intent to kill. A deadly weapon is any instrument or any part of the body used in a manner calculated or likely to produce death or serious bodily injury.
Voluntary manslaughter
Voluntary manslaughter is a killing that would otherwise be murder but has adequate provocation e.g. killing in the heat of passion.
Elements of vol. mansl. common law adequate provocation
At CL, provocation would reduce a killing to vol. mans. if: (1) provocation was one that would arouse sudden and intense passion in the mind of an ordinary person such as to cause him to lose his self-control; (2) D must have in fact been provoked; (3) must not have been a sufficient time between the provocation and killing for passions of a reasonable person to cool; and (4) D in fact did not cool off between provocation and killing.
Most frequently recognized where subject to a serious battery or threat of deadly force and discovering ones spouse in bed with another person.
Provocation inadequate as matter of law
mere words. Modern courts are more liekly to submit it to a jury to see whether mere words or similar matters constitute adequate provocation.
Imperfect self-defense
a murder may be reduced to manslaughter even though: (1) D was at fault in starting the altercation; or (2) D unreasonably but honestly beleived in the necessity of responding with deadly force.
Involuntary Manslaughter type 1
Criminal negligence (or recklessness) - if death caused by criminal negligence (or MPC recklessness). Criminal negligence requires a greater deviation from the reasonable person standard than civil liability. MPC recklessness require subjective awareness. MPC requires “substantial and unjustifiable risk”
Involuntary manslaughter type 2
Unlawful act manslaughter - killing caused by an unlawful act. (1) misdemeanor-manslaughter - killing in course of commission of a misdemeanor (most courts require misdo be malum en se); (2) felonies not included in felony murder - if felony doesn’t qualify for felony murder. Death also must be foreseeable consquence of the felony.
Modern 1st degree murder
Deliberate (made decision to kill in cool and dispasionate way)and premeditated killing (reflected on idea if only for brief period).; (2) first degree felony murder- murder committed during commission of enumerated felony. Burglary, arson, rape, robbery, and kidnapping mostly. (3) types of killing - lying in wait, poison, or torture
Second degree felony murder
separate statute may provide for criminal liability for a killing committed during the course of a felony that is not listed in first degree felony murder.
Felony murder + conspiracy
If in the course of a conspiracy to commit a felony, a death is caused, all members of the conspiracy are liable for murder if death was caused in furtherance of the conspiracy and was a forseeable consequence of the conspiracy.
Limitations on felony murder liability
(1) D committed or attempted to commit underlying felony. A substantive defense to the felony is defense to FM. (not procedural defenses); (2) felony must be indpendent of killing: manslaughter or aggravated battery don’t qualify. (3) forseeability of death - death must have been forseeable result of commission of felony. Most deaths are forseable. minority don’t require forseeability only that the felony be malum in se.) (4) during commission of felony - deahts caused while fleeing are still FM until felon has reached a place of temporary safety. (5) killing of co-felon by victims or pursuing police officers - cofelon not liable (redline view). Liability for murder cannot be based on death of a co-felon. (But, killing of innocent party by victim or police are FM under proximate cause theory, but killing of innocent party by victim or police are not FM through agency theory)
These limits apply to misdo murder.
Causation
Must be cause-in-fact and proximate cause. When crime defined to rquire conduct and specific result, D’s conduct must be both cause in fact and proximate cause of specified result.
Cause in fact
Result would not have occurred but for D’s conduct. CL year and a day rule - death must occur within one year and one day from the infliction of the injury or wound. (most modern courts abolished this rule)
Proximate causation
Death occurs becuase of D’s acts. If death occurs in manner not intended or anticipated by D: (1) all natural and probable results are proximately caused. Chain is only broken by a superseding factor.
Rules of causation Legal cause is
Hastening inevitable result - an act that hastens inevitable result is still legal cause of result; (2) simultaneous acts - by two or more persons may be independently sufficient to cause result; (3) preexisting condition making victim more suseptible does not break causation chain (take victim as he finds him - egg shell plaintiff)’ (4) negligent medical care is not a superseding intervening factor unless it is gross negligence or intentional malpractice.
Homocide analytical approach
Did D have any state of mind sufficient to constitute malice aforethought? (2) is there proof of anything that will raise it to first degree murder? (3) is there evidence to reduce the killing to vol. mansl e.g. adequate provacation? (4) is there a sufficient basis for holding crime to be involuntary mansl e.g. crim negl. or misdo mansl? (5) is there adequate causation between D’s acts and death? Was it factual cause of death? Is there anything to break chain of proximate causation?
Inchoate Offenses
solicitation, attempt, and conspiracy. At CL, under merger inchoate offenses wer misdos, if the principal offense was carried out they were considered felonies. Most jx only merge solicitaiton and attempt but not conspiracy now.
Solicitation
At CL, misdo to solicit another to commit a felony or an act that would breach the peace or obstruct justice. Modern - only solicitation of serous felonies.
Inciting, counseling, advising, inducing, urging, or commanding another to commit a crime with the specific intent that the person solicited commit the crime (general approval or agreement is insufficient). Person need not actually commit the crime.
Solicitation defense
Factual impossibility is not a defense. Culpability of solicitor is measured by the circumstances as they believed them to be.
Withdrawl or renunciation is no defense - MPC recognizes renunciation defense if D prevents the commision of the crime.
Exemption from intended crime is a defense - solicitor can’t be guilty of intended crime if legislative intent to exempt them. E.g. underage in statutory rape.
Conspiracy
(1) agreement between two or more persons; (2) intent to enter into an agreement; (3) intent to achieve the objective of the agreement.
Under CL: agreement was the culpable act (actus reus). Modern: requires an overt act in furtherance of the conspiracy, but mere preparation will usually suffice.
Agreement requiremwen
Parties must agree to accomplish same objective by mutual action. May be shown by a concert of action over period of time under circumstances showing they were aware of purpose and existence of conspiracy.
Conspiracy object of agreement
At CL, not necessary for agreement to commit a crime. OBject just had to be unlawful. Now, object must be some elony or achievement of a lawful object by criminal means.
Conspiracy multiple crimes
Where the same parties peform a number of crimes over extended period, each individual is liable if there is an initial agreement among the parties to engage in a course of criminal conduct constituting all the crimes, then only one conspiracy.
Multiple conspiracies and parties - chain relationship
Series of agreements all of which are regarded as single larch scheme, it is one large conspiracy involving all the participants. The subagreements will be characterized as links in the overall chain reslationship.
Conspiracy multiple parties and conspiracies Hub and Spoke
One participant may enter into a number of subagreements, each involving different persons. All agreements have one common member. If it is established that the subagreements are reasonably independent of each other, then it is numerous different and independent conspiracies. (Spoke members aren’t members of other spoke conspiracies)
Conspiracy requirement of two or more parties: unilateral v. bilateral
Unilateral approach -modern trend: only one party have genuine criminal intent. D can be convicted of conspiracy if conspire with undercover cop.husband and wife can be convicted.
Bilateral - traditional - At common law, a conspiracy requires at least two guilty minds. Husband and wife couldn’t be convicted of conspiracy together.
Corporatoin as agent - split on authority whether agents can be co-conspirators. Corps. can be co-consp. with other corps or individuals who are not agents.
Wharton Rule
Where two or more people are necessary for the commission of the substantive offense (e.g. dueling), there is no crime of conspiracy unless more parties participate in the agreement than are necessary for the crime.
Conspiracy agreement with person in protected class.
A person who commits a crime with a member of a protected class cannot be guilty of a conspiracy to commit a crime because the protected person can’t be guilty of hte conspiracy or the substantive crime.
Conspiracy - effect of acquittal of other conspirators
In most courts, acquittal of all persons with whom a D is alleged to have conspired precludes their conviction. Does not apply where the other parties are not aprehended, charged with lesser offenses, or no longer being prosecuted.
