Criminal Law AMP - Homicide Crimes Flashcards
Substandard medical care is an “intervening act” that relieves a defendant from homicide liability if the medical care is _______ or _______.
A Grossly negligent; intentional mistreatment
B Negligent; intentional mistreatment
C Refused by the victim for religious reasons; at least grossly negligent
D Refused by the victim for religious reasons; intentional mistreatment
A
As a general rule, an intervening act will shield the defendant from liability if the act is a mere coincidence or outside the foreseeable sphere of risk created by the defendant’s acts. Acts by a third party, such as the provision of substandard medical care, depend on how poor the medical care was. Negligent medical care is deemed to be within the foreseeable sphere of risk created by the defendant. However, grossly negligent or intentional mistreatment is not generally within the sphere of risk created by the defendant and would provide a potential basis for relieving a defendant from homicide liability. Most jurisdictions consider the victim’s refusal of medical care for religious reasons to be within the foreseeable sphere of risk created by the defendant. QUESTION ID: C0050B Additional Learning
Liability for felony murder ends when:
response - incorrect
A The victim dies
B The last act required to complete the felony is committed
C The felon reaches a place of temporary safety
D The defendant leaves the scene of the felony
C
Deaths caused while fleeing a felony may also give rise to felony murder liability. Such liability, however, is generally terminated when the defendant reaches a place of temporary safety. Although the death of the victim is obviously required for a charge of felony murder, the felony is deemed to continue as to a fleeing felon until the felon reaches a place of temporary safety. It is conceivable that the felon may kill other individuals and thus be liable for multiple counts of felony murder. The completion of the felony, and leaving the scene of the felony, do not terminate potential felony murder liability. The felon may also be liable for deaths resulting from flight from the felony. QUESTION ID: C0052B Additional Learning
In most states, murder is of the second degree unless __________, in which case the murder is of the first degree.
A deliberation and premeditation can be shown, or the killing occurred during an enumerated felony
B deliberation and premeditation can be shown, or the defendant acted “with a depraved heart”
Incorrect
C “a depraved heart” can be shown
D the killing occurred during an enumerated felony, or the defendant acted “with a depraved heart”
A
In most states, murder is of the second degree unless deliberation and premeditation can be shown, or the killing occurred during an enumerated felony, in which case the murder is of the first degree. If neither can be shown, the killing will usually be second degree murder (unless the killing is downgraded to manslaughter based on adequate provocation). Depraved heart murder would ordinarily be second degree murder in most states. QUESTION ID: C0046 Additional Learning
To reduce a charge of murder to voluntary manslaughter, the provocation _______ element(s), in that the provocation must _______.
A Has only an objective; have been such as to provoke an ordinary person
B Has either an objective or subjective; have either been such as to provoke an ordinary person or have actually provoked the defendant
C Has both objective and subjective; have been such as to provoke an ordinary person and have actually provoked the defendant
D Has only a subjective; have actually provoked the defendant
C
For reducing murder to manslaughter, the provocation must be such as to raise a sudden and intense passion in the mind of an ordinary person, and the defendant must have in fact been provoked. The provocation requirement for voluntary manslaughter has both objective and subjective elements. The provocation must be such that an ordinary person would have been provoked, and the defendant must have been so provoked. There are also objective and subjective elements as to the “cooling off” issue. If sufficient time elapsed between the provocation and the killing such that a reasonable person would have cooled off, or if the defendant in fact “cooled off,” a reduction to voluntary manslaughter is not available. QUESTION ID: C0056B Additional Learning
For the purposes of felony murder, the felony is deemed to terminate when:
A the defendant leaves the scene of the felony
B the last act required to complete the felony is committed
C the defendant reaches a place of temporary safety
D the victim dies
C
Deaths caused while fleeing a felony may also give rise to felony murder liability. Such liability, however, is generally terminated when the defendant reaches a place of temporary safety. Although the death of the victim is obviously required for a charge of felony murder, the felony is deemed to continue as to a fleeing felon until the felon reaches a place of temporary safety. It is conceivable that the felon may kill other individuals and thus be liable for multiple counts of felony murder. The completion of the felony, and leaving the scene of the felony, do not terminate potential felony murder liability. The felon may also be liable for deaths resulting from flight from the felony. QUESTION ID: C0052 Additional Learning
_______ and _______ separate first degree murder from second degree murder.
A Premeditation; malice
B Deliberation; adequate provocation
C Premeditation; deliberation
C
In most states, murder is of the second degree unless premeditation and deliberation can be shown (or the killing was committed during an enumerated felony). If there is premeditation and deliberation (or, in many states, if the killing was committed during the course of an enumerated felony), the crime is murder in the first degree. Malice is the state of mind required for common law murder, and can be shown by the intent to kill, the intent to inflict great bodily injury, a reckless indifference to an unjustifiably high risk to human life (“abandoned and malignant heart”), or the intent to commit a felony. Adequate provocation reduces a killing that would otherwise be murder to voluntary manslaughter. QUESTION ID: C0046C Additional Learning
“Adequate provocation” that reduces a killing that would otherwise be murder to manslaughter (i.e., a “heat of passion” killing) includes:
A Being subjected to a serious battery; being subjected to a threat of deadly force; and discovering one’s spouse in bed with another person
B Being subjected to a threat of deadly force; viciously taunted by the victim; actually discovering your spouse in bed with another person
C Being subjected to a serious battery; being subjected to a threat of deadly force; and having one’s spouse cruelly insulted
A
In most states, being subjected to “adequate provocation” is a basis for reducing a killing that would otherwise be murder to voluntary manslaughter. Most states hold that being subjected to a serious battery, being subjected to a threat of deadly force, and finding one’s spouse in bed with another are forms of “adequate provocation.” Words alone (insulting a spouse or taunting the defendant) are generally insufficient. QUESTION ID: C0047A Additional Learning
Assuming all other elements are met, in which of the following circumstances would the defendant most likely not be convicted of homicide?
A The defendant stabs the victim, who has hemophilia; the victim bleeds to death as a result of the stabbing.
Correct
B The defendant stabs the victim but does not kill him; due to construction at the hospital where the victim is admitted for treatment of the stab wound, the victim contracts asbestosis and dies from it one year later.
C The defendant stabs and kills a victim who has terminal cancer.
D The defendant stabs the victim in the heart; at exactly the same time, another person shoots the victim in the head. Either act would have independently caused the victim’s death, but it is unclear which act caused the victim’s death.
B
If the defendant stabs the victim but does not kill him, and due to construction at the hospital where the victim is admitted for treatment of the stab wound, the victim contracts asbestosis and dies as a result one year later, the defendant is not likely to be convicted of homicide. To be convicted of homicide, the defendant must have actually and proximately caused the death of the victim. An intervening act that presents a foreseeable risk will generally not break the chain of causation. However, an unforeseeable risk, such as an injury due to hospital construction, will most likely break the chain of causation. Stabbing and killing someone with terminal cancer is likely to be considered homicide. A defendant may be guilty of killing a victim who was going to die anyhow. Actual and proximate causation is not broken if the defendant ends the victim’s life prematurely, even by a short time. If a defendant stabs a victim while another person shoots the victim, the defendant is likely to be found guilty of homicide. Simultaneous acts by multiple persons may be considered independent, sufficient causes of a single result. Thus, multiple persons may be convicted of homicide even though there was only one death. A defendant who stabs a victim with hemophilia who bleeds to death is likely to be found guilty of homicide. Any preexisting conditions that make a person more susceptible to death are essentially disregarded. The defendant “takes the victim as he finds him.” QUESTION ID: C0049 Additional Learning
At common law, a defendant commits voluntary manslaughter when he:
A commits a felony, and a death results.
B commits a killing without express malice.
C commits a killing under adequate provocation.
D commits a crime not amounting to a felony, and a death results.
C
A killing committed under adequate provocation is voluntary manslaughter. A killing committed during the commission of an unlawful act not amounting to a felony is involuntary manslaughter. Committing a felony resulting in death is murder. The intent to commit a felony satisfies the malice requirement to classify a killing as murder. A killing committed without express malice may be murder if malice is implied. “Malice aforethought” for common law murder can be satisfied by (i) the intent to kill; (ii) the intent to inflict great bodily injury; (iii) a reckless indifference to an unjustifiably high risk to human life; or (iv) the intent to commit a felony. The intent to kill is deemed to be “express malice,” whereas in the other three, malice is implied. Although “implied,” those three states of mind also satisfy the malice requirement for common law murder. QUESTION ID: C0043 Additional Learning
Which of the following presents the strongest intervening event to relieve the defendant of homicide liability?
A The defendant stabs the victim, who is treated at a hospital. Due to negligent care, the victim contracts an infection and dies.
B The defendant stabs the victim; the victim commits suicide due to the resulting pain.
C The defendant stabs the victim; the victim refuses medical treatment and dies.
D The defendant stabs the victim, who is treated for two hours at a hospital. On his way home from the hospital, the victim is killed in an automobile accident.
D
The case where the defendant stabs the victim, who after being treated at the hospital, is killed in an automobile accident, is likely to present an intervening event sufficient to relieve the defendant of homicide liability. As a general rule, an intervening act will shield the defendant from liability if the act is a mere coincidence or is outside the foreseeable sphere of risk created by the defendant’s act. The automobile accident presents a case of a mere coincidence that is outside the foreseeable sphere of risk. It could be said that, but for the defendant’s act of stabbing the victim, the victim probably would not have been in an automobile accident. However, the connection between the stabbing and the automobile accident is too tenuous and unforeseeable to allow for homicide liability against the defendant. Acts by third parties that are within the foreseeable sphere of risk created by the defendant’s act will not be sufficient intervening acts to relieve the defendant of homicide. Unforeseeable risks, however, will be sufficient. Negligent medical care (as opposed to grossly negligent or intentional mistreatment) is not a sufficient intervening act to relieve the defendant of homicide liability. Acts by the victim, such as refusing medical care and committing suicide, generally will not be considered intervening acts. QUESTION ID: C0050 Additional Learning
Voluntary manslaughter is a killing committed:
A During the course of a crime not amounting to a felony
B Without express malice
C Under adequate provocation
D During the course of a felony
C
A killing committed under adequate provocation is voluntary manslaughter. A killing committed during the commission of an unlawful act not amounting to a felony is involuntary manslaughter. Committing a felony that results in death is murder. The intent to commit a felony satisfies the malice requirement to classify a killing as murder. A killing committed without express malice may be murder if malice is implied. “Malice aforethought” for common law murder can be satisfied by (i) the intent to kill; (ii) the intent to inflict great bodily injury; (iii) a reckless indifference to an unjustifiably high risk to human life; or (iv) the intent to commit a felony. The intent to kill is deemed to be “express malice,” whereas, in the latter three, malice is implied. Although “implied,” the latter three states of mind also satisfy the malice requirement for common law murder. QUESTION ID: C0043A Additional Learning
Which of the following is true regarding the provocation required to reduce murder to manslaughter?
A As long as the defendant was in fact provoked, it does not matter if an ordinary person would have been provoked under the circumstances.
B Whether the defendant had sufficient time to cool off is measured solely by an “ordinary person,” objective standard.
C As long as an ordinary person would have been provoked, it does not matter whether the defendant was in fact provoked.
D The provocation must be such as to raise a sudden and intense passion in the mind of an ordinary person, and the defendant must have in fact been provoked.
D
For reducing murder to manslaughter, the provocation must be such as to raise a sudden and intense passion in the mind of an ordinary person, and the defendant must have in fact been provoked. The provocation requirement for voluntary manslaughter has both objective and subjective elements. The provocation must be such that an ordinary person would have been provoked, and the defendant must have been so provoked. There are also objective and subjective elements as to the “cooling off” issue. If sufficient time elapsed between the provocation and the killing such that a reasonable person would have cooled off, or if the defendant in fact “cooled off,” a reduction to voluntary manslaughter is not available. QUESTION ID: C0056 Additional Learning
Under most modern statutes, the difference between first degree murder and second degree murder is that:
A For first degree murder, the defendant must have acted with intent, but under “adequate provocation”
B For first degree murder, the defendant must have intended to kill
C For first degree murder, the defendant must have acted with deliberation and premeditation
C
Under most modern statutory schemes, all murders are second degree murder (generally common law murder) unless the defendant acted with deliberation and premeditation. Acting with the intent to kill, but without deliberation and premeditation, would be second degree murder. Killing another while acting under “adequate provocation” is manslaughter. QUESTION ID: C0046A Additional Learning
In most states, which of the following is not considered to be “adequate provocation” to reduce a killing from murder to manslaughter?
A Being subjected to a serious battery
B Being subjected to a threat of deadly force
C Discovering one’s spouse in bed with another person
D Words alone
D
In most states, words alone are not considered to be “adequate provocation” to reduce a killing from murder to manslaughter. Voluntary manslaughter is a killing that would otherwise be murder but for the presence of “adequate provocation” for the killing. In such situations, the killing would be voluntary manslaughter. Most states recognize being subjected to a serious battery or a threat of deadly force as “adequate provocation.” Generally, finding one’s spouse in bed with another person is also “adequate provocation.” QUESTION ID: C0047 Additional Learning
To reduce a charge of murder to voluntary manslaughter, the time for the defendant to “cool off” has _______ element(s), in that the reduction would be available _______.
A Only a subjective; only if the defendant’s sudden and intense passions did not actually cool between the time of the provocation and the time of the killing
B Only an objective; only if the passions of a reasonable person would not have cooled off between the time of the provocation and the time of the killing
C Has either a subjective or objective; if the defendant’s sudden and intense passions did not actually cool or the passions of a reasonable person would not have cooled off between the time of the provocation and the time of the killing
D Both subjective and objective; if the defendant’s sudden and intense passions did not actually cool and the passions of a reasonable person would not have cooled between the time of the provocation and the time of the killing
D
To reduce a charge of murder to voluntary manslaughter, the time for the defendant to “cool off” has both subjective and objective elements. First, whether the defendant’s sudden and intense passions actually cooled is a subjective question. Second, whether the passions of a reasonable person would have cooled between the time of the provocation and the time of the killing is an objective question. QUESTION ID: C0056C Additional Learning
