Homicide and Felony Murder Flashcards
Commonwealth v. Carrol
Whether the premeditation and the actual act are within a brief space of time ot a long space of time is immaterial if the killing was intentional, deliberate and premeditated. No time is to short in order to formulate premeditation.
-
Premeditation = Intent to kill,
- And premeditation could occur as you are pulling the trigger. If it is a concious and deliberate act it is premeditated.
Variations of Carrol’s Premeditation Standard
Commonwealth v. Osearo. Premeditation = Conscious purpose to kill.
State v. Thompson. Premeditation requires proof of reflection, there must be some amount of time to reflect on the crime before you commit it.
People v. Anderson
Evidence sufficient to sustain a finding of premeditation, generally falls into three-categories: (circumstantial evidence)
- Facts regarding the defendants behaviour prior to the killing that might indicate a design to take life. (PLANNING ACTIVITY),
- Facts regarding the defendants prior relationship with the victim that might indicate a reason to kill. (MOTIVE),
- Evidence that the manner of the killing was so particular and exacting that the defendant must have intentionally killed according to a preconceived designs. (MANNER OF KILLING).
State v. Guthrie
Although premeditation and deliberation are not measured by any particular period of time, there must be some period between the formulation of the intent to kill and the actual killing that indicates an opportunity for some reflection on the intention to kill after it is formed.
- THE RULE IS, Premeditation = Actual reflection + Intent to kill.
- There must be actual reflection before the murder for it to be premeditated,
- The period of time necessary is not particular, 15-seconds could be enough,
- Impulsive murders ARE STILL INTENTIONAL,
- Mens rea here was purposeful because it was the defendant’s conscious object to kill his victim.
Premeditation Rules
- Carrol. Premeditation is the intent to kill.
- No amount of time is too short in formulating premeditation,
- Guthrie Rule.
- Premeditation = Actual reflection + Intent to kill
- Consider the Anderson factors.
- Premeditation = Actual reflection + Intent to kill
MPC 210.2
Murder
a. Excepts as provided in 210.3(EED), criminal homicide constitutes murder when:
- It is committed PURPOSELY or KNOWINGLY, or
- It is committed RECKLESSLY under circumstances manifesting EXTREME INDIFFERENCE to human life.
Note. The MPC has no premeditation requirement. It doesn’t distinguish between premediated or impulsive because some premeditated murders are less culpable (mercy killing).
Maher v. People
Flexible Approach to provocation
For provocation to be reasonible it must lead an ORDINARILY REASONABLE man to have committed the homicide.
- Objective standard. Reasonable person under similar circumstances.
- No categories,
- Words are enough if they would cause a reasonable man to be provoked into commiting a homicide,
- Judge serves as a gatekeeper as to whether the jury gets the instruction or not.
Girouard v. State
Categorical Provocation
Categorical approach; words are never enough (words + threat to bodily harm)
Traditional categories
- Extreme assault or battery,
- Mutual combat,
- Defendants illegal arrest,
- Injury or serious abuse of a close relative of the defendant’s, or
- The sudden discovery of a spouse’s adultery
PREDOMINATE COMMON LAW APPROACH
Cooling Time
If this is a significant time lapse between the provocation and the act of killing, this cooling period RENDERS THE PROVOCATION INADEQUATE, so there would be no mitigation to manslaugher.
U.S. v. Bordeaux
Denied provocation because he learned of the rape early in the day and the killing took place later in the evening. No rational basis for finding that he killed in the heat of the moment.
State v. Gouagias
Court REFUSES to allow rekindling of past provocation.
- Victim raped defendant, then made fun of him about it later, defendant killed him.
Commonwealth v. LeClair
Prior suspicions can provide adequate cooling time such that final confirmation of the prior suspicions does not give rise to provocation.
People v. Berry
Victim provoked defendant who then waited in her apartment for 20-hours before killing her.
- Court ALLOWED the provocation instruction and found that
- The heat of passion resulted from a long smoldering prior course of provocation and the passage of time AGGRAVATED rather than cooled the defendants agitation.
Two people, one provokes you and the other laughs, you shoot the provoker but hit the other by accident, provocation?
No, generally you cannot get a provocation defence for the murder of a non-provoking victim.
MPC 210.3
Manslaughter
- Criminal homicide constitutes manslaugher when:
- It is commited recklessly, or
- A homicide which would otherwise be murder is committed under the influence of EXTREME MENTAL or EMOTIONAL DISTURBANCE (EED)
Adopted in 19 states,
Majority use provocation
People v. Casassa
Test for EED, subjective and objective
- Acted under the influence of extreme emotional disturbance.
- Subjective.
- Reasonable excuse determined from the point of view of a person in the defendants circumstances as the defendant perceived them to be.
- Objective - Reasonable person,
- Subjective - Defendants point of view and circumstances
Words Alone
Provocation
Words alone are ONLY ENOUGH IN A SMALL NUMBER OF STATES.
Note. Likely never enough when there is male on female violence. In modern times, male on female violence is only mitigated under special circumstances.
State v. White
Divorce. Defendant gets house but has trouble with the mortgage, claims victim has not paid her alimony, lots of financial stress on her shoulders, she drives to his place of work and runs him over.
- Provocation, no
- EED, Yes
- Was she acting under emotional disturbance?
- Yes
- Would a reasonable person under these circumstances from the defendants point ot view and in the circumstances as he believed them to be?
- Yes
- Was she acting under emotional disturbance?
State v. Elliot
Defendant had long standing fear of his brother. One day when they were in their 40’s he killed him for no apparent reason.
- EED
Commonwealth v. Welansky
Nightclub owner case
When there is a duty of care for the safety of business visitors invited on to the premises controlled by the defendant, wanton or reckless conduct may consist of intentional failure to take such care in disregard of the probably harmful consequences to them or of their right to care.
Involuntary manslaughter: conduct has to be intentional but results have to be reckless
People v. Hall
When a persons conduct constitutes a gross deviation from the standard of care and when he consciously disregards a substantial and unjustifiable risk of harm to another, and death results, that person may be charged with reckless murder.
- Ski instructor flew off the slope after travelling at high speed and with poor technique, killing someone.
Criminal negligence
Gross negligence. High likelihood of substantial and unjustifiable risk of harm.
Ordinary negligence. Failure to exercise the kind of caution that a man of reasonable prudence would exercise.
Criminal negligence MUST be a GROSS DEVIATION under the MPC.
State v. Williams
Native American parents that failed to take their sick child to a hospital; thought he had toothache but he eventually died from an infection.
- Charged with criminal negligence,
- Docters say by day 7, there was nothing he could do,
- Parent had notice on day 4 (baby turned blue) DUTY ATTACHES ONCE THEY HAVE NOTICE.
- actus reus = omission: legal duty to obtain medical assistance; statute criminalized ordinary negligence
MPC Individualizations
MPC rejects a fully individualized standard when defining negligence; however, some degree of individualization IS invited “the care that would be exercised by a reasonable person IN THE ACTOR’S SITUATION.”
- Court would take into consideration a defendant’s blindness,
- DOES NOT take into consideration:
- Temperament, or
- Intelligence of the actor
