Homicide and Felony Murder

Question 1

Commonwealth v. Carrol

Answer 1

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.

Question 2

Variations of Carrol’s Premeditation Standard

Answer 2

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.

Question 3

People v. Anderson

Answer 3

Evidence sufficient to sustain a finding of premeditation, generally falls into three-categories: (circumstantial evidence)

1. Facts regarding the defendants behaviour prior to the killing that might indicate a design to take life. (PLANNING ACTIVITY),
2. Facts regarding the defendants prior relationship with the victim that might indicate a reason to kill. (MOTIVE),
3. 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).

Question 4

State v. Guthrie

Answer 4

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.

Question 5

Premeditation Rules

Answer 5

1. Carrol. Premeditation is the intent to kill.
   
   • No amount of time is too short in formulating premeditation,
2. Guthrie Rule.
   
   • Premeditation = Actual reflection + Intent to kill
     
     • Consider the Anderson factors.

Question 6

MPC 210.2

Murder

Answer 6

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).

Question 7

Maher v. People

Flexible Approach to provocation

Answer 7

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.

Question 8

Girouard v. State

Categorical Provocation

Answer 8

Categorical approach; words are never enough (words + threat to bodily harm)

Traditional categories

1. Extreme assault or battery,
2. Mutual combat,
3. Defendants illegal arrest,
4. Injury or serious abuse of a close relative of the defendant’s, or
5. The sudden discovery of a spouse’s adultery

PREDOMINATE COMMON LAW APPROACH

Question 9

Cooling Time

Answer 9

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.

Question 10

U.S. v. Bordeaux

Answer 10

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.

Question 11

State v. Gouagias

Answer 11

Court REFUSES to allow rekindling of past provocation.

• Victim raped defendant, then made fun of him about it later, defendant killed him.

Question 12

Commonwealth v. LeClair

Answer 12

Prior suspicions can provide adequate cooling time such that final confirmation of the prior suspicions does not give rise to provocation.

Question 13

People v. Berry

Answer 13

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.

Question 14

Two people, one provokes you and the other laughs, you shoot the provoker but hit the other by accident, provocation?

Answer 14

No, generally you cannot get a provocation defence for the murder of a non-provoking victim.

Question 15

MPC 210.3

Manslaughter

Answer 15

1. Criminal homicide constitutes manslaugher when:
   
   1. It is commited recklessly, or
   2. 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

Question 16

People v. Casassa

Answer 16

Test for EED, subjective and objective

1. Acted under the influence of extreme emotional disturbance.
   
   1. Subjective.
2. Reasonable excuse determined from the point of view of a person in the defendants circumstances as the defendant perceived them to be.
   
   1. Objective - Reasonable person,
   2. Subjective - Defendants point of view and circumstances

Question 17

Words Alone

Provocation

Answer 17

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.

Question 18

State v. White

Answer 18

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

Question 19

State v. Elliot

Answer 19

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

Question 20

Commonwealth v. Welansky

Answer 20

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

Question 21

People v. Hall

Answer 21

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.

Question 22

Criminal negligence

Answer 22

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.

Question 23

State v. Williams

Answer 23

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

Question 24

MPC Individualizations

Answer 24

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

Question 25

Commonwealth v. Malone

Answer 25

Russian poker

If an individual commits an act of gross recklessness for which he must reasonably anticipate that death to another is likely to result, he exhibits wickedness of disposition and cruelty which proves he possessed malice.

Question 26

Classic examples of unintentional murder

Answer 26

1. Russian poker
2. Throwing a heavy object down a busy street,
3. Shooting into an occupied building,
4. Beating someone to death

Doing an act and you don’t care who dies but you’re not doing action to kill someone but same culpability.

Question 27

People v. Taylor

Answer 27

MPC 210.2(1)(B) in New York = Depraved indifference.

Depraved indifference, requires a finding of UTTER DEPRAVITY, UNCOMMON BRUTALITY, and INHUMANE CRUELTY.

• Defendant hit his victim on the head and then put a plastic bag over her head to control the bleeding.
• Facts were legally insufficient to establish the depravity required

Question 28

United States v. Flemming

Answer 28

Drunk driving = Murder when there is egregiously dangerous driving and/or actual awareness of a great risk of fatal harm.

• Average v. Extreme reckless drunk driving,
  
  • Court noted that not only did the defendant drive whilst drunk BUT THE MANNER in which he chose to drive was SUFFICIENT to indicate DEPRAVED DISREGARD.
    
    • Excessive speeding,
    • Swerving around traffic and into other lanes.

Question 29

Pears v. State

Answer 29

Drunk driving = murder when “egregiously dangerous driving” and/or actual awareness of a great risk of fatal harm

Knowledge/awareness of a great risk of fatal harm found where the defendant had been warned by others that he was too drunk to drive but did it anyways.

Question 30

People v. Watson

Answer 30

Knowledge/awareness found when defendant drove to the bar knowing that he would have to drive back to get home.

• In NY death by dangerous driving is vehicular manslaughter not murder.

Question 31

Felony murder rule

Answer 31

If killing(s)/death(s) occur during the commission of a felony you are held liable for the death as if you committed it yourself.

• Theory of punishment = deterrence

Question 32

Regina v. Serene

Answer 32

Malice aforethought is pressumed when:

1. Engaged in the commission of a felonious act, and
2. The felonious act is known to be dangerous to life and likely to cause death.

∆ set fire to house for insurance money, son killed.

Question 33

People v. Stamp

Answer 33

Strict liability. If you are committing a felony and during its commission someone dies, then you are held liable under the felony murder rule.

• Obese man died of a heartattack whilst the defendant was committing a robbery in his store.
• Take victimm as you find him: a predisposing physical condition is not a problem as long as it is not the only substantial factor.

Question 34

People v. Phillips

Answer 34

Abstract felony murder rule (minority) - categorical approach

Only those felonies that are inherently dangerous to life may serve as underlying felonies to the felony murder rule. RULE, analyse in the abstract, look at the elements of the crime (not the facts of the case) and ask if there was a way that this crime could be committed non-dangerously.

• Underlying crime in Phillips was theft by deception, since in the abstract it can be committed in a non-dangerous way he cannot be convicted under the felony murder rule for the death that occurred.

Question 35

NY Felony Murder rule

Answer 35

Limits the rule to the commission of certain felonies by statute that are “inherently dangerous.”

Question 36

Hines v. State

Answer 36

As committed test: looks at actual facts in this case.

Ask, was this felony committed in an inherently dangerous way?

• If so, it can serve as the underlying felony in felony murder.

Question 37

Middle Ground for Provocation

Answer 37

Categories, but words are enough if they disclose facts that could be sufficient if observed.

e.g. “I killed your dog” and killing dog in front of you would provoke then just saying “I killed your dog” is enough.

Question 38

MPC Felony Murder in 210.2 Murder

Answer 38

No felony murder rule per se in the MPC but, recklessness exhibiting extreme indifference is presumed if you are committing certain crimes.

(1)(b) it is committed recklessly under circumstances manifesting extreme indifference to the value of human life. Such recklessness and indifference are presumed if the actor is engaged or is an accomplice in the commission of, or an attempt to commit, or flight after commiting or attempting to commit robbery, rape, or deviate sexual intercourse by force or threat of force, arson, burglary, kidnapping or felonious escape.