Homicide Flashcards
Criminal Homicide
The killing of another human being without justification or excuse.
Murder (C/L)
The unlawful killing of another human being with malice aforethought
Malice Aforethought Meanings
Intent to Kill
Intent to Cause Grievous Bodily Harm
Depraved-Heart Murder
Felony-Murder Rule (Intent to Commit a Felony)
FIRST DEGREE MURDER
In jurisdictions that grade murder by degrees, first-degree murder typically includes “willful, deliberate, premeditated” killings within its definition.
“[W]illful, deliberate, premeditated” does NOT mean intentional (otherwise there would be no difference between first and second degree murder).
DELIBERATE
To evaluate and reflect on (e.g. weigh the pros and cons of) one’s choice with a cool, calm, mind.
PREMEDITATE
To think about before hand (but for how long?)
See, e.g. Guthrie vs. Morrin (There needs to be enough time for the actor to consider and be fully conscious of what they’re intending to do (that is, to kill))).
INTENT TO KILL
Includes the awareness that the death of another would result from one’s actions, even if that actor had no particular desire to achieve such a consequence.
Intentional or knowing homicide is murder unless the actor killed in the heat of passion engendered by adequate provocation (manslaughter).
DEADLY WEAPON RULE
INTENT TO CAUSE GRIEVOUS BODILY HARM
Knowledge that conduct would cause serious bodily injury is generally assimilated to intent and deemed sufficient for murder if death of another actually results.
DEPRAVED-HEART MURDER
Extreme recklessness regarding homicidal risk.
A person might be liable for murder absent of any intent to kill or injure if he caused the death in a manner exhibiting a “wickedness of disposition, hardness of heart, cruelty, recklessness of consequences, and a mind regardless of social duty.”
FELONY-MURDER RULE (INTENT TO COMMIT A FELONY)
If a death results from an actor’s conduct while he is committing or attempting to commit a felony, the actor is guilty of murder. Essentially imposes strict liability for deaths occurring in the course of felony commission/attempt.
AGENCY APPROACH
Majority approach.
The felony-murder doctrine does not apply if the person who directly causes the death is a non-felon.
PROXIMATE CAUSE APPROACH
Minority approach.
A felon may be held responsible under the felony-murder rule for a killing committed by a non-felon if the felon set in motion the acts which resulted in the victim’s death.
F-MR JUSTIFICATIONS
Deterrence
Transferred Intent
Retribution (general culpability grounds (life is valuable. Felonies that result in death deserve harsher punishment)
Denunciation
Efficiency
Simplicity
Easing prosecutorial burden
F-MR CRITIQUES
Unfairness (retributivism)
Skepticism of deterrence claims
Gap in logic re: transferred intent
Outdated
F-MR LIMITATIONS
Inherently Dangerous Felony
Independent Felony/Merger
Killings “in the Perpetration” or “in Furtherance” of a Felony
Res Gestae Requirement
FACTS-OF-THE-CASE TEST
Where jurisdicitons that limit the felony-murder rule to dangerous felonies consider the manner in which the felony was perpetuated in the case at bar.
INHERENTLY DANGEROUS FELONY
Felony-murder rule only applies to inherently dangerous felonies.
In-the-abstract vs. facts-of-the-case tests.
IN-THE-ABSTRACT TEST
Where jurisdictions that limit the felony-murder rule to dangerous felonies solely look at the elements of the offense as defined.
A felony is inherently dangerous if the felony CANNOT be committed without creating a substantial risk that someone will be killed.
INDEPENDENT FELONY/MERGER
Where felony-murder rule does NOT apply.
(1) Is the felony an integral part of and included in fact within the homicide (Ireland) (is the felony part and parcel of what homicide is; can you [insert felony] them to death)? If not, no merger.
If yes, proceed to (2)
(2) Did the homicide result from conduct with an independent felonious purpose (as opposed to a single course of conduct with a single purpose) (Burton)? If yes, no merger. In no, merger.
PERPETRATION/FURTHERANCE OF A FELONY
Felony-murder rule applies when homicide is the proximate result of the predicate felony under the Proximate Causation Approach (regardless of who engaged in the homicidal conduct).
RES GESTAE
The homicide must be in relative proximity to the underlying felony for the felony-murder rule to apply.
Requirements are generally satisfied if predicate felony and homicide are part of “one continuous transaction.”
Actual and proximate causation.
MANSLAUGHTER
Killings committed in the “heat of passion,” engendered by adequate provocation. The unlawful killing of another human being without malice aforethought.
MISDEMEANOR MANSLAUGHTER
A principle that stipulates that death occurring during the commission of a misdemeanor or sometimes a non-dangerous felony is involuntary manslaughter.
Thiis principle has been abolished by some states and the MPC.
INVOLUNTARY MANSLAUGHTER / NEGLIGENT HOMICIDE
Unintentional killings. Homicide committed with criminal negligence (i.e. a GROSS deviation from the standard of care a reasonable person would exercise if they were in the actors situation).
Focus on actor’s lack of awareness of risk of death, degree of risk, how reasonable person would have acted in actor’s situation with respect to risk, when a reasonable person would have been put on notice about risk.
RECKLESS HOMICIDE
Focus on actor’s subjective awareness of risk of death, degree of risk, reasons for taking risk despite this awareness, how reasonable person would have acted in the actor’s situation with respect to risk of death.
IMPLIED MALICE
When the killing is proximately caused by “an act, the natural consequences of which are dangerous to life, which act was deliberately performed by a person who knows that his conduct endangers the life of another and who acts with conscious disregard for life.”
EXPRESS MALICE
When there is manifested a deliberate intention to take away the life of a fellow creature (human).
PROVOCATION DEFENSE
Murder is mitigated to voluntary manslaughter if there existed adequate provocation, defendant acted in sudden heat of passion, did not have an opportunity to “cool off,” and causal link existed between provocation, passion, and killing (see Girouard).
WORDS ALONE DOCTRINE
Words alone are not sufficient (common law rule, NOT MPC rule).
Words can constitute adequate provocation if they are accompanied by conduct indicating a present INTENTION and ABILITY to cause the defendant bodily harm.
EXTREME MENTAL OR EMOTIONAL DISTURBANCE DEFENSE (EMED)
From MPC, not common law.
Much broader than common law provocation defense (permits manslaughter instruction in larger number of circumstances)
Allows words alone
Standard allows for more “subjectivization”
No cooling off rule (timing implications)
No specific provocative event needed
No “misdirected retaliation” rule
EMED: QUESTIONS FOR THE FACTFINDER
(1) Did the defendant act under the influence of an extreme emotional disturbance? (subjective inquiry—assess solely from the defendant’s viewpoint)
* If yes, proceed to question (2)
(2) Is there a reasonable explanation or excuse for the extreme emotional disturbance? (objective-subjective inquiry)
PENNSYLVANIA MODEL
Murder in Degrees
FIRST DEGREE MURDER
- Intent (purpose) to kill + specifiifd manner of killing
- Intent to kill + willful, deliberate, and premeditated
- Felony murder with enumerated (specifically mentioned) felony
SECOND DEGREE MURDER
- Felony murder
MANSLAUGHTER
- Voluntary (heat of passion)
- Involuntary (criminal negligence)
