Brainscape's Knowledge GenomeTM

Browse over 1 million classes created by top students, professors, publishers, and experts.


See full index

Criminal Law > Homicide > Flashcards

Homicide Flashcards

You may prefer our related Brainscape-certified flashcards:
Civil Procedure 1L flashcards MBE flashcards MPRE flashcards
1
Q

Homicide

A

The killing of a human being by another human being

How well did you know this?
1
Not at all
2
3
4
5
Perfectly
2
Q

Common Law

Fetus

A

Under common law a fetus had to be born alive to be a human being, Many states have rejected this.

How well did you know this?
1
Not at all
2
3
4
5
Perfectly
3
Q

Human Being

MPC 210.10(1)

A

A person who has been born and is alive

How well did you know this?
1
Not at all
2
3
4
5
Perfectly
4
Q

Brain Death

A

Death occurs when the entire brain stops functioning.

How well did you know this?
1
Not at all
2
3
4
5
Perfectly
5
Q

Year-and-a-Day Rule

A

The common law said a defedant could not be prosecuted for criminal homicide unless the victim died within a year and a day from the act off inflicting the fatal injury.

This is outdated.

How well did you know this?
1
Not at all
2
3
4
5
Perfectly
6
Q

Death

Traditional Rule

A

Death was defined as the cessation of the cardiopulmonary system

How well did you know this?
1
Not at all
2
3
4
5
Perfectly
7
Q

People v. Vercelletto

Rule of Legality

Prohabition Against Retroactive Criminalization

A

The principle of legality includes a recognition that the legislature (and judges) may not retroactively criminalize behavior.

The principle is grounded in the idea that advance notice of criminal liability is critical in a society grounded in individual liberty

How well did you know this?
1
Not at all
2
3
4
5
Perfectly
8
Q

People v. Vercelletto

Rule of Legality

Rule of Specificity

A

The rule of specificity requires that criminal laws be clear and unambiguous.

Specificity is required not only to give fair notice of what conduct is prohibited, but also to limit unfettered discretion being vested in law enforcement

How well did you know this?
1
Not at all
2
3
4
5
Perfectly
9
Q

People v. Vercelletto

Rule of Legality

Ambiguous Statutes

A

When a statute is unresolveably ambiguous, it should be interpreted in favor of the defendant. This is a last resort.

How well did you know this?
1
Not at all
2
3
4
5
Perfectly
10
Q

People v. Vercelletto

A

The defendant was charged with the negligent homicide of an unborn child who was about 28 weeks in gestation

The defendant challenged the indictment on the grounds that the death of the fetus did not fall within the social harm of the negligent homicide statute

How well did you know this?
1
Not at all
2
3
4
5
Perfectly
11
Q

People v. Vercelletto

Homicide

MPC 125.00

A
  • Homicide means conduct which causes
    • the death of a person or
    • the death of an unborn child with which a female has been pregnant for more than 24 weeks
  • under circumstances constituting murder, manslaughter in the first degree, manslaugher in the second degree, criminally negligent homicide, abortion in the first degree or self-abortion in the first degree.
How well did you know this?
1
Not at all
2
3
4
5
Perfectly
12
Q

People v. Vercelletto

Criminally Negligent Homicide

MPC 125.10

A

A person is guilty of criminally negligent homicide when, with ciminal negligence, he or she causes the death of another person

How well did you know this?
1
Not at all
2
3
4
5
Perfectly
13
Q

People v. Vercelletto

Person

MPC 125.05

A

Person, when referring to a victim, means a human being who has been born and is alive

How well did you know this?
1
Not at all
2
3
4
5
Perfectly
14
Q

People v. Vercelletto

Motion to Dismisssed Granted`

A

Since the negligent homicide and the vehicular manslaughter statutes only include the death of a human being who has been born alive, the court itself cannot expand the scope of the statute to cover the death of a fetus.

How well did you know this?
1
Not at all
2
3
4
5
Perfectly
15
Q

People v. Vercelletto

Vehicular Homicide

MPC 125.12

A

A person is guilty of vehicular manslaughter in the second degree when he or she negligently causes the death of another person while operating a motor vehicle while intoxicated

How well did you know this?
1
Not at all
2
3
4
5
Perfectly
16
Q

People v. Vercelletto

Rule of Legality

Role of Legislatures

A

The legality principle recognizes that the crime-creating function is the province of the legislature, not the judiciary

How well did you know this?
1
Not at all
2
3
4
5
Perfectly
17
Q

People v. Vercelletto

Rule of Legality

A

Criminal liability and punishment should be based only upon a prior, clearly expressed legislative prohibition

How well did you know this?
1
Not at all
2
3
4
5
Perfectly
18
Q

People v. Eulo

A

The defendant was convicted of manslaughter and appealed arguing that his causal responsibility for the death of the victim was terminated by the intervening action of the doctors.

To resolved the causation issue, the court had to decide when the victim died.

If the victim had died prior to the termination of life support machines, then the doctors’ actions would not have broken the causal chain.

How well did you know this?
1
Not at all
2
3
4
5
Perfectly
19
Q

People v. Eulo

Brain Death

A

Since the common law relied on the cessation of the cardio-respiratory system to define death and the legislatutre had not spoken about the issue, the court was free to interprete the statutes to include it.

How well did you know this?
1
Not at all
2
3
4
5
Perfectly
20
Q

People v. Eulo

Rule

A

The default definition of death remains the cessation of the cardio-respiratory system, but if that system is functioning via life support, death is to be measured by the cessation of neurological activitiy.

How well did you know this?
1
Not at all
2
3
4
5
Perfectly
21
Q

Murder

Common Law

A

The killing of a human being by another human being with malice aforethought

Sometimes, a killing that occurs during the commission of an unlawful act amounting to a felony.

How well did you know this?
1
Not at all
2
3
4
5
Perfectly
22
Q

Manslaughter

Common Law

A

An unlawful killing of a human being by another human being without malice aforethought

How well did you know this?
1
Not at all
2
3
4
5
Perfectly
23
Q

Malice

Mens Rea

A
  • The intention (purposely or knowingly) to kill a human being
  • The intention to inflict grievous bodily injury on another
  • Depraved heart murder or
  • The intention to commit a felony during the commision or attempted commision of which a death results (felony murder)
How well did you know this?
1
Not at all
2
3
4
5
Perfectly
24
Q

PA Sceme

Voluntary Manslaughter

A

An intentional killing committed in sudden heat of passion as the result of adequate provocation.

How well did you know this?
1
Not at all
2
3
4
5
Perfectly
25
Q

PA Scheme

Involuntary Manslaughter

A

An unintentional killing that is the result of an act that is lawful in itself, but done in an unlawfull manner, and without due causion and circumstances.

Homicide committed in a criminally negligent or reckless manner.

Sometimes, an unintentional killing that occurs during the commission or attempted commission of an unlawful act not amounting to a felony.

How well did you know this?
1
Not at all
2
3
4
5
Perfectly
26
Q

Pennsylvania Scheme

First Degree Murder

A
  • First degree murder primarly involved cold-blooded murder
  • Murders that are committed in a statutorily specified manner
  • A wilful, deliberate, and premeditated killing
  • Homicide that occurs during the perpetuation or attempted perpetuation of a statutorily enumerated crime.
  • Punishable by death

Any other murder is a lesser degree murder.

How well did you know this?
1
Not at all
2
3
4
5
Perfectly
27
Q

Proving Intent to Kill

Natural-and-Probably Consequences Rule

A
  • Ordinary people intent the nature and probable (or foreseeable) consequences of their actions
  • The defendant is an ordinary person
  • Therefore, she intended the natural and probable consequences of her actions

This logic lets the jury infer specific intent.

How well did you know this?
1
Not at all
2
3
4
5
Perfectly
28
Q

Proving Intent to Kill

Deadly-Weapon Rule

A

When a defendant intentional uses a deadly weapon directed at a vital part of the human anatomy, the intention to kill may be properly inferred

How well did you know this?
1
Not at all
2
3
4
5
Perfectly
29
Q

Wilfil

A

A specific intent to kill

How well did you know this?
1
Not at all
2
3
4
5
Perfectly
30
Q

Deliberate

A

To think about the pros and cons of deciding to kill free from the influence of excitement or passion. It is about the quality of the thought process.

How well did you know this?
1
Not at all
2
3
4
5
Perfectly
31
Q

Premeditated

A

To think beforehand. It is about the quanity of thought

How well did you know this?
1
Not at all
2
3
4
5
Perfectly
32
Q

Murder

MPC § 210.2(1)(a)-(b)

A

A criminal homicide is murder when the actor unjustifably, inexcusably, and in the absence of a mitigating circumstance kills another

  • Purposely or knowingly or
  • recklessly, under curcimstances showing extreme indifference to human life

It is a felony of the first degree and carries a maximum sentence of death or life imprisonment

How well did you know this?
1
Not at all
2
3
4
5
Perfectly
33
Q

Felony Murder

MPC § 210.2(1)(b)

A

Extreme recklessness murder may be, but need not be, inferred if the homicide occurs while the actor is

  • engaged in or an accomplice in
  • the commission or attempted commission of or flight from
  • one of the dangerous felonies specified in the statute
How well did you know this?
1
Not at all
2
3
4
5
Perfectly
34
Q

People v. Cahill

NY Penal Law § 125.25

Second Degree Murder

A

A person is guilty of second degree murder when

  • With intent to cause the death of another person, he causes the death of that person
How well did you know this?
1
Not at all
2
3
4
5
Perfectly
35
Q

People v. Cahill

New York Penal Law § 125.27

First Degree Murder

Victims

A

First degree murder occurs when the actor has an intent to kill and the victim is a

  • Police officer or
  • Peace officer or
  • Firefighter, EMT or medical first responder or
  • Correctional employee

Or there are multiple victims

How well did you know this?
1
Not at all
2
3
4
5
Perfectly
36
Q

People v. Cahill

New York Penal Law § 125.27

First Degree Murder

Defendants

A

First degree murder occurs when the defendant

  • has a prior murder conviction or
  • was in custody
How well did you know this?
1
Not at all
2
3
4
5
Perfectly
37
Q

People v. Cahill

New York Penal Law § 125.27

First Degree Murder

Crime

A

First degree murder occurs when the crime was

  • done to prevent a victim from testifying
  • done fore pecuniary gain
  • done during certain felonies
  • was especially cruel or wanton
  • terrorism
38
Q

People v. Cahill

Witness Murder

A

The motive must be substantially to prevent the witness from testifying for it to be first degree murder

39
Q

People v. Cahill

Defendant’s Claims

A
  • There was insufficient evidence that his motivation was to kill the victim to prevent her from testifying
  • The lower court’s finding was against the weight of the evidence
40
Q

Sufficiency of the Evidence

A

A court must determine whether there is any valid line of reasoning and permissible inferences which could lead a rational person to the conclusion reached by the jury on the basis of the evidence at trial.

41
Q

Weight of the Evidence

A
  • Weight of the evidence review recognizes that even if all the elements and necessary findings are supported by some credible evidence, the court must examine the evidence further.
  • An appellant court weighing the evidence must, like the trier of fact below, weigh the relative probative force of conflicting testimony and the relative strength of conflicting inferences that may be drawn from that testimony
  • If based on all the credible evidence a different finding would not have been unreasonable, and if the trier of fact has failed to give the evidence weight it should be accorded, the appellate court may set aside the verdict.
42
Q

Intentional Killings That are Manslaughter

Common Law & PA Scheme

A

Killings done

  • under the influence of sudden
  • heat of passion
  • caused by
  • an adequate provocation
  • before a reasonable time to cool down
43
Q

Intentional Killings That are Manslaughter

Common Law & PA Scheme

Sudden

A

The onset of emotion must be sudden. It can’t build up over time.

44
Q

Intentional Killings That are Manslaughter

Common Law & PA Scheme

Heat of Passion

A

This means any intense emotion.

45
Q

Intentional Killings That are Manslaughter

Common Law & PA Scheme

Caused By

A
  • There must be a causal link between the sudden heat of passion, the provocation and the killing.
    • Therefore, a killing is not in the heat of passion if the defendant kills someone other than the person who did the provoking.
46
Q

Intentional Killings That are Manslaughter

Common Law & PA Scheme

Adequate Provocation

A

Adequate provocation is an amount of provocation as would be excited by the circumstances in the mind of a reasonable/ordinary person

47
Q

Intentional Killings That are Manslaughter

Adequate Provocation

Common Law Categories

A
  • An aggravated assault or battery
  • Mutual combat
  • Commission of a serious crime against a close relative
  • Illegal arrest
  • Observation of spousal adultery
48
Q

Intentional Killings That are Manslaughter

Adequate Provocation

Modern Approach

A

In many jurisdictions, the jury is asked to determine whether the provocation might render an ordinary person, of fair average disposition, liable to act rashly or without due deliberation or reflectiion, and from passion, rather than judgment.

49
Q

Intentional Killings That are Manslaughter

Adequate Provocation

Words Alone

A
  • Even under the modern approach, most jurisdictions continue to hold that words alone don’t amount to adequate provocation.
  • Some jurisdictions are changing to say that informative words count as adequate provocation but insulting words don’t.
50
Q

Intentional Killings That are Manslaughter

Common Law & PA Scheme

Cooling Off Time

A
  • The killing has to happen before the defendant has time to cool off
  • There is not set time; the jury has to decide whether the passage of time was sufficient to allow an ordinary person to have cooled off
51
Q

Intentional Killings That are Manslaughter

MPC 210.3(1)(b)

EMED

A

Criminal homicide constitutes manslaughter when

  • A homicide which would otherwise be murder is committed under the influence of extreme mental or emotional disturbance for which there is a reasonable explanation or excuse.
52
Q

Intentional Killings That are Manslaughter

MPC 210.3(1)(b)

EMED

Reasonableness

A

Criminal homicide constitutes manslaughter when

  • 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
53
Q

EMED v. Heat of Passion

Sudden

A

Unlike heat of passion, EMED allows for a gradual build up of the disturbed mental or emotional state

54
Q

EMED v. Heat of Passion

Caused By

A

The use of EMED is not restricted to the person who may have caused the defendant to be in EMED. So, EMED can be used even with respect to the killing of entirely univolved persons.

55
Q

EMED v. Heat of Passion

Reasonable Provocation

A
  • EMED is not limited to particular types of provocation.
  • What matters is whether the defendant was acting in an extremely mental or emotional disturbed state, not what put him in that state.
  • The only requirement is that, in addition to the defendanmt subjectively being in EMED, a reasonable person too would have been in EMED had he been in those circumstances.
56
Q

EMED v. Heat of Passion

Cooling Off Time

A

While cooling off time is not formally present under EMED, a defendant cannot use EMED unless a reasonable person too would have continued being in EMED had he been in the same circumstances

57
Q

Intent to Cause Serious Bodily Injury

Common Law & PA Scheme

A

Even though the defendant only wanted to cause serious bodily harm, it was treated as muder because of the high chance of death.

Because of modern medicine, some jurisdictions no longer treat these as murder. In NY, it’s manslaughter in the first degree.

58
Q

Intent to Cause Serious Bodily Injury

MPC

A

If the jury finds the defendant acted recklesslessly, it’s manslaughter.

If the jury finds the defendant acted extremely recklessly, then it’s murder.

59
Q

NY Penal Law § 10.00(9)

Physical Injury

A

Phyisical injury means impairment of physical condiction or substantial pain

60
Q

New York Penal Law 10.00(10)

Serious Physical Injury

A

Serious phyiscal injury means physical injury which creates a substantial risk of death, or which causes death or…protracted loss or impairment of the function of any bodily organ.

61
Q

Extreme Recklessness Killings

Common Law

A

Unintentional killings were generally considered to be manslaughter under the common law.

However, three categories of unintentional killings were considered murder:

  • Depraved heart murder
  • Intent to cause serious bodily harm
  • Felony murder
62
Q

Extreme Recklessness Killings

PA Scheme

A

Under the PA scheme, unintentional murders are generally considered to be involuntary manslaugter.

However, common law depraved heart murder, intent to cause serious bodily harm, and felony murder are considered second degree murder.

Some felony murders are specified by the legislator as first degree murders.

63
Q

Extreme Recklessness Killings

MPC

A

Under the MPC, unintentional killings are generally considered to be manslaughter, but all extremely reckless killings are considered to be murder.

64
Q

Depraved Heart Murder

Common Law / PA Approach

A

Various terms have been used to describe this concept, such as abandoned heart, depraved heart and depravity of mind.

The concept generally applies to situations when the defendant, aware of the significant potential for loss of life, nevertheless acts because she does not care about the loss of live.

65
Q

Depraved Heart Murder

Modern Trend

A
  • States are still struggling to give a more concrete meaning to this concept
  • Some states focus on the amount of risk being taken
  • Others focus on the potential harm, limiting it to situations where there is a risk of death of more than one person
  • Others, including NY, focus on whether there was a purposeful taking of the risk.
66
Q

Depraved Heart Murder

People v. Feingold

A

Depraved indifference to human life means the same in both the second degree depraved indifference murder statute and the reckless endangerment in the first degree statute.

The NY Court of Appeals has struggled to give meaning to this phrase.

67
Q

Depraved Heart Murder

People v. Feingold

Mens Rea Requirements

A

The court finds that the depraved indifference has a meaning independent of the gravity of the risk and concludes that the statute has three mens rea requirements

  1. Recklessness
  2. Taking of a grave risk and
  3. under circumstances evincing a depraved indifference to human life
68
Q

Depraved Heart Murder

People v. Feingold

Meaning of Depraved Indifference

A

Depraved indifference reflects wickedness, evil or inhumanity, as manifested by brual, heinous and dispicable acts,

It is best understood as an utter disregard for the value of human life - a willingness to act not because one intends to harm, but because one simply doesn’t care whether grievous harm results or not

Like other mens rea, it can be proved by circumstantial evidence.

69
Q

Depraved Heart Murder

People v. Maldonado

Meaning of Depraved Indifference

A

Due to the wanton nature of this mens rea, “depraved indifference murder properly applies only to a small, and finite, category of cases where the conduct is at least as morally reprehensible as intentional murder.”

A defendant who knowingly pursues risky behavior that endangers others does not necessarily evince depraved indifference by engaging in that conduct.

A person who is depravely indifferent is not just willing to take a grossly unreasonable risk to human life - that person does not care how the risk turns out.

The element of depraved indifference to human life comprises of both depravity and indifference, and has meaning independent of recklessness and the gravity of the risk created.

70
Q

Felony Murder

Common Law

A

The felony murder rule originally provided that a defendant is guilty of murder when any person is killed during the defendant’s intentional commission or attempt of a felony, even if the killing was done by someone unconnected to the defendant

71
Q

Felony Murder

Common Law

Controversy

A

Felony murder seemed like strict liability because the only mens rea required was the intention to commit the underlying felony.

It seemed like vicarious liability because the only actus reus required is that the defendant commit, attempt to commit, or be complicit in the commission of the underlying felony

72
Q

Felony Murder

Common Law / PA Scheme

Limitations

A
  • Inherently-Dangerous-Felony Limitation
  • Independent Felony Limitation (Merger Doctrine)
  • Res Gestae Requirement
  • In-Furtherance-Of Limitation (Killings by Non-Felons)
73
Q

Felony Murder

PA Scheme

A

Felony murder, like other unintentional murders, was deemed second degree murder.

However, a legislature could designate some felonies as giving rise to first degree murder. Ex. kidnapping

74
Q

Felony Murder

PA Scheme

Specified Felony Murders

A

When the legislature expressly designates some felonies as giving rise to first degree murder, they are called specific felony murders because the legislature specified them in the statute

The inherently-dangerous limitation does not apply to specified felonies.

75
Q

Felony Murder

MPC

A

There is no felony murder but killings committed during a specified felony are presumed extremely reckless. In such cases, it is up to the defendant to prove it was not extremely reckless.

A defendant can do that by showing that the felony was not commited in a way that manifested an extreme indifference to the value of human life.

76
Q

Felony Murder

Inherently Dangerous Limitation

A

The felony murder rule is only applied if the felony is dangerous to human life in that there is a significant risk of death

77
Q

Felony Murder

Inherently Dangerous Limitation

Abstract Approach

A

Courts look solely at the elements listed in the statute to see if it is possible to commit the crime without posing a danger to human life. This is the majority approach.

78
Q

Felony Murder

Inherently Dangerous Limitation

As Applied Approach

A

Courts look to the specific facts of the case to determine whether the commission of the felony posed an inherent danger to life. This is the minority approach.

79
Q

Felony Murder

Independent Felony / Merger Doctrine

A

The felony muder rule is only applied if the felony is separate from the murder. If the felony is not independent of the murder, then the felony is said to merge with the homicide and cannot serve as the basis for a felony-murder conviction.

The most common approach is to merge assault felonies with the homicide.

The limitation only applies to unspecified felonies.

80
Q

Felony Murder

Res Gestae

A

The death must happen during the commission of the felony. The death must happen after the defendant has attempted the felony and before the felony or flight from it has ended.

There must be a causal relationship between the felony and the homicide.

81
Q

Felony Murder

In Furtherance Of / Killing by a Non-Felon

A

The killing must have been done in furtherance of the felony. There must be a causal connection between the felony and the death.

82
Q

Felony Murder

In Furtherance Of / Killing by a Non-Felon

Agency Approach

A

The person doing the killing must be the defendant or an accomplice.

This is the majority approach.

83
Q

Felony Murder

In Furtherance Of / Killing by a Non-Felon

Proximate Causation Approach

A

The defendant is liable for any death that is the proximate result of the felony, no matter who does the killing

84
Q

Felony Murder

People v. Hernandez

A

The statutory defense bars the use of felony murder against an accomplice who

  • Does not cause the death,
  • Is unarmed,
  • Has no reason to believe that the co-felon is armed and
  • Has no reason to believe that the co-felon will engage in conduct likely to result in death or serious physical injury.
85
Q

Misdemeanor Manslaughter

Common Law

A

Any death that occurred during the defendant’s commission of a non-felony crime was considered to be manslaughter

86
Q

Misdemeanor Manslaughter

PA Scheme

A

Killings that occured during the defendant’s commission of a non-felony crime was deemed to be involuntary manslaughter

87
Q

Misdemeanor Manslaughter

Differences Between Jurisdictions

A

Some jurisdictions used this doctrine no matter how minor the misdemeaner was.

Many jurisdictions applied some version of the limitations on felony murder, including the inherently dangerous limitation. In these jurisdictions the doctrine was only used if the misdemeaner offense was inherently dangerous to human life.

88
Q

Reckless / Negligent Killings

Common Law

A

Killings where the defendant acted recklessly or negliently were deamed to be manslaugher

89
Q

Reckless / Negligent Killings

PA Scheme

A

Killings where the defendant acted recklessly or negliently were deamed to be involuntary manslaugher

90
Q

Reckless / Negligent Killings

MPC

A

Reckless killings are manslaugher and negligent killings are negligent homicide

Criminal Law (10 decks)

Brainscape helps you reach your goals faster, through stronger study habits.
© 2024 Bold Learning Solutions. Terms and Conditions