Criminal Law And Procedure Learning Questions - Set 4 Flashcards
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 defendant acted “with a depraved heart”
B
deliberation and premeditation can be shown, or the killing occurred during an enumerated felony
C
the killing occurred during an enumerated felony, or the defendant acted “with a depraved heart”
D
“a depraved heart” can be shown
B
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.
Felony murder generally requires that:
A
The killing be committed during the course of the felony, the death must have been a foreseeable result of the felony, and the defendant must be convicted of the underlying felony
B
The killing be committed during the course of the felony, the felony must be independent of the killing, and the death must have been a foreseeable result of the felony
C
The killing be committed during the course of the felony, the felony must be independent of the killing, and the defendant must be convicted of the underlying felony
D
The death must have been a foreseeable result of the felony, the felony must be independent of the killing, and the defendant must have been convicted of the underlying felony
B
To convict a defendant of felony murder, the prosecution must prove, beyond a reasonable doubt, that the defendant committed a felony (i.e., he is factually guilty of the felony). However, the defendant need not actually be convicted of the underlying felony if the statute of limitations for the felony has expired.
The killing must take place while the felony is being committed. When the defendant reaches “a place of temporary safety,” the felony is deemed terminated.
The felony must be independent of the killing (e.g., the felony of manslaughter cannot be the underlying felony for felony murder).
Finally, most states require that the death must be a foreseeable result of the commission of the felony.
Voluntary manslaughter is a killing committed:
A
During the course of a crime not amounting to a felony
B
Under adequate provocation
C
During the course of a felony
D
Without express malice
B
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.
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 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
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, who has hemophilia; the victim bleeds to death as a result of the stabbing.
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.”
A motorist drove home from work late one night, and fell asleep behind the wheel of his car. His car drifted across the middle of the road and struck another car. The other driver was killed instantly in the collision. Angered by the noise of the collision, a homeowner fired a gun out the window of his house at the car. The bullet struck and killed a bystander. Both the motorist and the homeowner were arrested and charged with common law murder.
Which of the defendants likely would be found guilty?
A Both the motorist and the homeowner.
B The motorist.
C Neither the motorist nor the homeowner.
D The homeowner.
D
The homeowner likely would be found guilty. At common law, murder was the unlawful killing of a human being with malice aforethought. Malice aforethought could be established with any one of the following states of mind: intent to kill; intent to cause serious bodily harm; the depraved heart killing (a reckless indifference to an unjustifiably high risk to human life); or the commission of a felony. The homeowner would be guilty of murder. Firing a gun out of his window at a car would demonstrate a reckless indifference to a high risk to human life. Thus, (B) and (C) are incorrect. It is unlikely that the motorist would be guilty of murder. While his action might be classified as negligent or even reckless, it would not represent a depraved heart (reckless indifference to life) state of mind. Thus, (A) and (B) are incorrect.
The statutes of a state define the following crimes (with the most serious listed first):
First degree murder—Premeditated or intentional killing.
Felony murder—Killing while in the act of committing a common law felony.
Second degree murder—Killing with reckless disregard for the safety of others.
Manslaughter—Killing with adequate provocation or through criminal negligence.
A competitive camp counselor who was determined to have her team win a relay race decided to put a colorless and odorless drug into the other teams’ water bottles. The counselor wanted the other teams to become sick to their stomachs so that they could not run as fast in the race. The counselor knew that people could become very ill, or even die, if they consumed too large a quantity of the drug but she only intended to place a small amount in each water bottle. The day before the race, the counselor went into the nurse’s office and took a bottle of the drug. The next day she woke up early and went to the cafeteria to put small quantities of the drug into the other teams’ water bottles. She unintentionally put a large amount in a few of the water bottles. Several campers became extremely ill and one eventually died.
What is the most serious crime for which the counselor may be convicted?
A First degree murder.
B Felony murder.
C Second degree murder.
D Manslaughter.
C
The counselor may be convicted of second degree murder. Under the statute provided in the question, second degree murder is a killing committed with a reckless disregard for the safety of others. Here, the counselor consciously disregarded a substantial and unjustifiable risk that the drug she was placing in the water bottles could be seriously harmful or even fatal. Thus, the counselor may be convicted of second degree murder. (A) is wrong. The counselor could not be convicted of first degree murder because she lacked the necessary intent to kill; the counselor’s only intent was to make the other team’s members sick. (B) is wrong. The counselor cannot be convicted of felony murder because she did not commit a felony; a majority of jurisdictions would consider simple battery to be a misdemeanor. Furthermore, the felony generally must be independent of the killing. A battery (or aggravated battery) would not be considered independent of the conduct which kills (although it might be considered to be a valid basis for a manslaughter conviction). (D) is not as good an answer as (C). Although a jury could find that her actions were criminally negligent, resulting in manslaughter, a jury could also find that she acted with reckless disregard, resulting in second degree murder. Thus, given that the call of the question asks for the most serious crime for which the counselor could be convicted, (C) is correct.
A wife suffered from a particularly virulent form of cancer, and had lapsed into a nearly comatose state. Because the doctors had indicated that any treatment they could prescribe would be of little value, her husband decided to administer various poisons to his wife, thinking that they might stimulate her natural body defenses, or kill the cancer cells, resulting in her recovery. He tried doses of many different types of poison. Despite his ministrations, his wife died three days later. An autopsy performed by the county coroner established the cause of death as cancer.
If the husband is prosecuted for the murder of his wife, which of these is the best reason why he would be acquitted?
A He was trying to save her life.
B He did not have the necessary malice for his actions to constitute murder.
C Medical science had given her up for dead.
D He did not cause her death.
D
The husband cannot be convicted because he did not cause his wife’s death. Murder is defined as the unlawful killing of another human being with malice aforethought. To be guilty of murder, the defendant’s action must be both the cause in fact and the proximate cause of the victim’s death. The defendant’s act will be a cause in fact of death if, but for the defendant’s action, the victim would not have died as and when she did. Here, the victim would have died when she did even if the husband had not administered the poison, because she died not from the poison, but only from her cancer. Thus, the husband’s actions were not the cause in fact of death, and (D) is correct. (A) and (B) are incorrect because if the other elements of murder are established, administering poison might be sufficient to establish malice aforethought. Malice aforethought for murder can be established by conduct done with the awareness of an unjustifiably high risk to human life, and the husband knew that the poisons were dangerous and could kill. (C) is incorrect because the law forbids shortening a life even for one second, so it is not a defense that medical science had given the victim up for dead. If the defendant’s action in any way shortened the victim’s life, he can be held liable for murder.
The victim owned a cottage in an ocean resort area. He stayed there only during the summer months, and left the cottage unoccupied during the balance of the year. The defendant, a resident of a neighboring cottage, was aware of this practice. For a change in his routine, however, the victim decided to spend a week at the cabin in the off-season. Unaware that the victim was occupying the cottage, the defendant decided to borrow a portable television set that he knew the victim kept in the cottage. To avoid being seen, he entered the cottage late at night, using a key under the front doormat. He found the television set, disconnected it, and headed for the rear of the house to leave. He opened the kitchen door and found the victim seated there in the dark, having a late night snack. Both men were startled and neither man recognized the other in the dark. The defendant assumed that the victim was a burglar, and was afraid that he might be armed. Trying to flee the kitchen as quickly as possible, the defendant dropped the television set in the middle of the kitchen floor. As the set hit the floor, the picture tube exploded with a loud noise. The noise so frightened the victim that he had an immediate heart attack and died.
If the defendant is charged with felony murder as the result of the victim’s death, what is his best defense?
A He did not intend to kill the victim.
B His only intent was to borrow the television set for a few days.
C Larceny is not an inherently dangerous crime, and it was not being committed in an inherently dangerous manner.
D The victim’s heart attack was an unforeseeable consequence of the defendant’s acts.
B
The defendant’s best defense to felony murder is that he only intended to borrow the television set for a few days. By establishing this intent, the defendant will show that he did not have the intent to commit a felony and therefore cannot be guilty of felony murder. A killing (even if accidental) committed during the course of a felony is murder. Malice is implied from the intent to commit the underlying felony. To convict a defendant of felony murder, the prosecution must prove that he committed or attempted to commit the underlying felony. Here, the possible felonies being committed by the defendant, during which the victim’s death occurred, would be larceny and burglary. Burglary requires the intent to commit a felony within the dwelling, and larceny requires the intent to permanently deprive a person of his interest in property. If the defendant’s only intent was to borrow the victim’s television set for a few days, then the defendant lacked the intent to permanently deprive the victim of his interest in the set; i.e., the requisite intent for larceny is missing. Likewise, the absence of intent to steal the set would mean that, at the time of breaking and entering the cottage, the defendant did not intend to commit a felony therein. Consequently, the defendant is not guilty of burglary. Because under these circumstances no felony would have been attempted or committed, it cannot be shown that the death of the victim occurred during the commission of a felony. Therefore, the defendant would not be guilty of felony murder. (D) is tempting, because generally a conviction of felony murder requires that the death must have been a foreseeable result of commission of the felony. However, some courts do not apply a foreseeability requirement and require only that the underlying felony be malum in se. Furthermore, even those courts applying a foreseeability requirement have been willing to find most deaths occurring during the commission of a felony to be foreseeable. Here, the defendant believed that the cottage was unoccupied for the winter. Thus, it was arguably unforeseeable that the defendant’s entering the cottage and taking a television set would result in the death of an occupant, but it is by no means certain that a court would agree. Furthermore, in those jurisdictions that do not require foreseeability of death, the defendant could be convicted of felony murder if the death occurred during the commission of a burglary, because burglary is always classified as a malum in se felony. Because the circumstances in choice (B) would assure the defendant of avoiding conviction in all jurisdictions, (B) is a better answer than (D). (A) incorrectly focuses on intent to kill. Intent to kill is one of the states of mind by which a defendant is deemed to have malice aforethought, which is necessary for a killing to constitute murder. However, this question refers to felony murder, wherein malice aforethought exists in the form of intent to commit a felony. Thus, it is irrelevant whether the defendant intended to kill the victim. Regarding (C), it is true that most courts limit the felony murder doctrine to felonies that are inherently dangerous, and that larceny generally is not considered to be inherently dangerous. However, assuming the existence of the requisite intent, the defendant may have committed burglary, which is deemed to be inherently dangerous. Thus, (C) might provide no defense at all to a charge of felony murder.
