Homicide

Question 1

INTENT TO KILL + MALICE

Answer 1

Express Malice Murder (1st degree M)

Question 2

NO INTENT TO KILL + MALICE

Answer 2

Implied Malice Murder (2nd degree M)

Question 3

NO INTENT TO KILL + NO MALICE

Answer 3

Involuntary Manslaughter

Question 4

INTENT TO KILL + NO MALICE

Answer 4

Voluntary Manslaughter

Question 5

MPC § 210.1 Criminal Homicide

Answer 5

(1) Purposely, knowingly, recklessly or negligently causing the death of another human being.

(2) Murder, manslaughter or negligent homicide.

Question 6

MPC § 210.2 Murder

Answer 6

(1) committed purposely or knowingly; or
(2) committed recklessly under circumstances manifesting extreme indifference to the value of human life.

PURPOSELY/KNOWINGLY; RECKLESSLY IF EXTREME INDIFFERENCE TO VALUE OF LIFE.

Question 7

MPC § 210.3 Manslaughter

Answer 7

(a) it is committed recklessly; or
(b) would otherwise be murder, but is committed under extreme emotional disturbance with a reasonable explanation
RECKLESSLY or EED.

(c) The reasonableness of such explanation or excuse shall be determined from the viewpoint of a person in the actor’s situation under the circumstances as he believes them to be.

Question 8

MPC § 210.4 Negligent Homicide

Answer 8

NEGLIGENTLY

Question 9

Midgett v. State “Child abusing alcoholic beats son to death”

Answer 9

-Rule: No matter how heinous, if the intent is to harm, but not to kill, then the murder is of the second degree, not the first.
(TAKEAWAY) Under MPC: DEF probably would be convicted of murder, because extreme indifference to the value of human life.

Question 10

State v. Forrest “Son mercy kills terminally ill father” [6 FACTORS OF PREMEDITATION]

Answer 10

1. Lack of provocation by V
2. Conduct/statements of DEF
3. Threats/Declarations of DEF
4. Previous ill-will
5. Dealing of lethal blow after VIC has been felled and rendered helpless
6. Brutality of the killing

Question 11

MPC § 210.3 Test for mitigating Murder to Voluntary Manslaughter:

Answer 11

(a) committed under the influence of extreme mental or emotional disturbance
(i) for which there is reasonable explanation or excuse.
determined from the viewpoint of a person in the actor’s situation under the circumstances as he believes them to be.

EED; REASONABLE PERSON UNDER CIRCUMSTANCES WOULD SUFFER EED

Question 12

State v. Ott “Man chases down ex-wife in truck and shoots her with a rifle.” Standard for EED?

Answer 12

Mitigating Murder to vMS

1. Whether a reasonable person would’ve suffered EED
   not whether EED was reasonable
2. Whether EED resulted from DEF’s criminal conduct

Question 13

[State v. Guthrie “Dishwasher stabs over bullying”] Three categories that support evidence for M1 rather than M2 for “Premeditated/Deliberate”

Answer 13

(1) PLANNING: Facts regarding DEFs behavior that indicates a design to take life
(2) RELATIONSHIP or behavior between DEF and VIC
(3) NATURE or manner OF THE KILLING, indicating deliberate intent to kill

Question 14

[Steven Saunders Girouard v. State of Maryland “Husband stabs wife 19 times over saying she wanted a divorce.”]

Answer 14

(1) Words alone are not adequate provocation to mitigate murder to manslaughter
(2) Unless accompanied by VIC who has present intent and ability to cause GBH
(3) Calculated to inflame the passion of a reasonable man

WORDS NOT ENOUGH; UNLESS VIC HAS INTENT AND ABILITY FOR GBH

Question 15

[People v. Knoller “Pitmommy seethe”]
Implied Malice

Answer 15

(1) no considerable provocation,
(2) or circumstances attending the killing show an abandoned and malignant heart.

NO PROVOCATION; or ABANDONED/MALIGNANT HEART

Question 16

[People v. Philips] Defining “malignant heart”

Answer 16

(1) an act,
(2) the natural consequences of which are dangerous to life
(3) deliberately performed by a person
who knows that his conduct endangers the life of another
and who acts with conscious disregard for life.

NATURAL CONSEQUENCES; KNOWINGLY ENDANGERING AND CONSCIOUS DISREGARD

Question 17

Proximate Cause (Involuntary Manslaughter)

Answer 17

(“Cause in Fact”– D’s act must be the “but-for cause” of the social harm done)

Question 18

Concurrence of the Elements

Answer 18

Mens Rea and Actus Reus must occur at the same time
Can’t make plans to murder someone one year, and then accidentally kill them the next, and be guilty of murder.

Question 19

Walker v. Superior Court “Prayer over Penicillin.”

Answer 19

Negligent Homicide (iMS) doesn’t require an intent to harm, as the standard is that of a reasonable person under the circumstances as they are, not as they believe them to be.

Question 20

State of Maryland v. Morrison “Mother rolls onto baby while drunk-sleeping.”

Answer 20

For iMS, Negligence [must] be criminally culpable, not just civilly culpable. Negligence is criminally culpable if it rises to the level of wanton and reckless conduct—i.e., gross negligence.

Question 21

Noakes v. Commonwealth “Daycare employee leaves 33lb crate on top of crib.”

Answer 21

Protecting from some risks inherent in the danger doesn’t absolve one if another foreseeable risk causes harm.

DEF affirmatively and knowingly created the danger.

Question 22

State v. Sophophone
“Cop kills accomplice, burglar charged with murder.”

Answer 22

Commonwealth v. Redline: Felony-Murder imputes malice to a felon, not the act of killing. Mere coincidence of homicide and a felony doesn’t alone satisfy felony murder. Interp: Fel-Mur simply removes MR, but not the AR.

Question 23

Felony-Murder (MPC)

Answer 23

Mens Rea of “Recklessly” for Murder can be presumed if the actor is perpetrator or accomplice in committing or in flight from committing, rape, arson, burglary, kidnapping, or felonious escape.