Homicide Flashcards
Types of Homicide in Descending Order of Punishment
1st Degree Murder 2nd Degree Murder Voluntary Manslaughter Involuntary Manslaughter Negligent Homicide
1st Degree Murder
Premeditation + Deliberation + Intent (to kill or cause great bodily harm) + Malice
1st Degree Felony Murder
Felony murder (strict liability) ● Predicate felonies in the statute the legislature enumerated (usually robbery, rape, burglary, kidnapping) ● Prove actus reus and mens rea for predicate felonies
2nd Degree Murder
Intent (to kill or cause great bodily harm) + Malice
2nd Degree Depraved Indifference Murder
Depraved Indifference Murder (reckless, gross-negligence)
● Under circumstances evincing depraved indifference to life, recklessly engages in conduct that is imminently dangerous and creates a grave risk of death
Step 1: Establish reckless mens rea
Step 2: Objective assessment of whether conduct is imminently dangerous and poses grave risk of death
See People v. Roe
2nd Degree Felony Murder
Residual judge-made category
Predicate felonies not outlined under 1st degree murder that are inherently dangerous to human life and don’t merge with the murder itself
Involuntary Manslaughter
recklessnessly, maybe negligently, cause death of another (also no malice)
Involuntary Manslaughter
reckless disregard of a substantial risk of death in the circumstances (also no malice)
Negligent Homicide
Simple negligence (based on tort negligence) that leads to death of another
Pretty much the same under MPC and common law (see Robertson)
Many states require culpable negligence (almost like recklessness)
Premeditation and Deliberation Formula
P&D separates 1st and 2nd degree murder
Premeditation: design to kill, knowing what steps are to kill someone
Deliberation: period of time for cool reflection - requires some period of reflection during which the mind is free from the influence of excitement/passion
Premeditation and deliberation cannot both be formed in an instant
Multiple blows theory: Some courts treat it as evidence for deliberation, because the repeated blows (or shots) means you have time to reflect. State v Brown does not
State v. Brown
- Charged D (father) with first-degree murder, son soiled himself late at night, he went blank and beat him, child killed, had repeated blows to head and other parts of body
- Elements of 1st degree murder in state of Tennessee
• Intent – willfully, of purpose, with intent
• Malice – malice aforethought
• Deliberately – cool purpose, with coolness and reflection, requires some period of reflection during which the mind is free from the influence of excitement/passion
• Premeditation – design to kill - What separates 1st degree from 2nd is the premeditation/deliberation
- Brown rejects previous case law including:
• There are cases where multiple blows is circumstantial evidence of premeditation
• Premeditation and deliberation can be formed at that moment in an instant
• Treat premeditation and deliberation as the same thing - No proof D acted with premeditation and deliberation, guilty of second degree murder
- *After Brown, TN got rid of deliberation requirement and added aggravated child abuse to list of predicate felonies in first degree murder
Catapulting element from manslaughter to 2nd degree depraved indifference murder
Reckless engaging in conduct that is imminently dangerous and poses a grave risk of death
People v. Roe
- 3 boys at D’s house (15 yo), he’s interested in guns, showed them father’s shotgun, loaded a mix of live and dummy shells, pointed it at victim and asked who wanted to play Polish roulette, pulled trigger, killed other boy. 3rd boy witnessed.
- Recklessness charge can get catapulted from manslaughter to murder when conduct is imminently dangerous and creates a grave risk of death
- Jury first has subjective inquiry to find that he was reckless (consciously aware of risk of death). Then goes into objective assessment – look at conduct and ask if it is imminently dangerous and poses a grave risk of death
- Roulette does create an imminent risk of danger and grave risk of death
- Dissent: Concerned that majority is eviscerating difference b/w involuntary manslaughter and second degree depraved heart murder. Wants to look at depravity of the mind, must manifest level of callousness and extreme cruelty as to be equal in blameworthiness to intentional murder. Kid was clearly violently upset and regretful about what he’d done.
MPC Murder
FIRST DEGREE FELONY
It is murder if a homicide is committed purposefully or knowingly
OR
recklessly under circumstances manifesting extreme indifference to the value of human life
FELONY MURDER SECTION
That recklessness is presumed if actor engaged in (or was accomplice to) commission or attempt to commit, or flight after committing or attempting to commit + [list of predicate felonies]
MPC Manslaughter
SECOND DEGREE FELONY
Manslaughter if homicide committed recklessly
OR
What would otherwise be murder, but committed under influence of extreme emotional disturbance for which there is reasonable explanation or excuse
Reasonableness to be determined from viewpoint of person in actor’s situation under the circumstances as he believes them to be (totally subjective)
Provocation doctrine (common law)
- Highly provoking event
- Legally adequate
• 1. Angry words followed by assault
• 2. Words that describe a highly provoking event (person tells you about someone beating your child)
• 3. The sight of a citizen being unlawfully deprive of his liberty
• 4. The sight of a man in adultery with the accused’s wife
• Legally insufficient: words alone, affronting gestures, trespass to property, misconduct by a child or servant, breach of contract - Defendant is in fact enraged
- Reasonable person would be too (reasonable person doesn’t kill, but would be tempted)
- Defendant kills before expiration (no cooling off period)
- *Purposeful murder can get downgraded because of provocation
Freddo v. State (words alone are not adequate)
- Freddo and deceased were coworkers, deceased use phrased son of a bitch, which Freddo didn’t like b/c he’s orphaned, asked him to stop using but he didn’t, after someone spilled oil on deceased’s tool box he called Freddo a son of a bitch, Freddo grabbed steel bar and struck him, killed
- Not sufficient to show he killed under impulse of sudden passion
- Not legally adequate – words alone are not legally adequate provocation
- Not reasonable – court used objective standard of reasonableness
• Freddo is peculiar – “morally well trained” because he respects women
State v. Gougnagias (cooling period)
- D got very drunk, deceased insulted D and then sodomized him while he was helpless, deceased told a lot of people about it over several weeks who made fun him, one day he went home to grab gun and killed deceased while he was sleeping
- Didn’t allow evidence of provocation because it was a period of time, sudden anger cannot be cumulative, must be sudden anger and resentment, but evidence showed brooding and thought resulting in a design to kill
People v. Berry (no cooling period, words)
- D killed wife after a 10 day period where she told him she had an affair and loved another man, strangled her with telephone cord
- Court said there was enough evidence to show he killed in a state of uncontrollable rage caused by provocation, verbal provocation enough in cases of infidelity and taunting, long course of provocatory conduct reached final culmination (no cooling off period)
Bedder v. Director of Public Prosecutions (objective standard)
- Sexually impotent man approached prostitute, tried to have sex with her and couldn’t, she jeered at him, he stabbed her
- Objective standard – reasonable person, not sexually impotent man
- Reasonable person would not have been provoked, conviction for murder affirmed
MPC Extreme Emotional Disturbance
Allows murder to be downgraded to a manslaughter
- Committed under the influence of extreme mental or emotional disturbance
- EED be based on reasonable explanation or excuse
• Determined from viewpoint of person in the actor’s situation under the circumstances as he believes them to be - *Idiosyncratic moral values are not take into account
- *Anything highly provoking can count as long as it invokes in the person extreme emotional distress that has a reasonable explanation/excuse
• *Slow-boiling can go to jury, words can go to jury - Mistake: Don’t have to be right, just have to be reasonable
- Burden of persuasion is on defendant
US v. Robertson
Kid losing weight and dying case
Covers involuntary manslaughter and negligent homicide
Felony Murder Justifications
- Retributive
i. Someone who goes out to commit a felony and then kills someone deserves a higher level of punishment
ii. They don’t deserve the tailored approach we take to homicide - Benefits to criminal justice system
- Deterrence
i. Adds extra penalty for underlying felony
ii. Argument against: we already have a penalty for the underlying felony, so if the goal is to enhance deterrence for it, then ratchet up the punishment for the underlying felony or prosecute it more
iii. So it is to deter criminals from committing their felonies dangerously?—“be careful in committing your crime” –> stupid
Second Degree Felony Murder Steps
- Is the felony inherently dangerous to human life?
• Abstract approach: look at the elements of the abstract crime (not considering facts of the particular case) and you can tell that it’s inherently dangerous and ask if there is a high probability of causing death (used in Hansen)
• Contextual approach: facts and circumstances should be considered in deciding which felonies qualify for felony murder - Is it independent of the homicide? (Merger Rule)
• Felony must be of collateral and independent felonious design
• If purpose is to inflict harm or death, then it is not independent, e.g. assaults are not independent
• Otherwise any type of lower-level homicide would automatically qualify one for second degree FM - Causation!
Hansen
- Felony – discharging a weapon at an inhabited building
- Inherently dangerous to human life?
• Court could look to if it is inherently dangerous in the abstract, or inherently dangerous in the context as it was carried out
• Court chooses abstract – look at statutory definition – decide it is inherently dangerous in the abstract - Is it independent of the homicide? (If not it merges into the homicide)
• Look to if the act causing death was committed with a collateral and independent felonious design separate from intent to inflict the injury that caused death
• Decided here it was, shot at house to leave calling card = independent felonious purpose, not doing it to commit assault/murder, doing it to send a message
