Module 9

Question 0

It’s two states had abandoned the felony murder rule by 1980?

Answer 0

Kentucky and Hawaii

Question 1

What is the purpose of the felony murder rule?

Answer 1

To create an added deterrent to the perpetration of felonies which, by their nature or circumstances, create a foreseeable risk of death

Question 2

When causing a particular result is an element of the crime, then what?

Answer 2

The defendants conduct must be the cause in fact of the forbidden results, and the results which actually occurs must be enough similar to, and occur in a manner enough similar to the result or manner which the defendant intended

Question 3

If the actual result of the defendant’s conduct varies from the result which the defendant intended, then when the defendant acts or fails to act:

Answer 3

With the intent to harm another person, but he instead harms the third person who he did not intend to harm, the law considers him just as guilty as if he had actually harmed the intended victim

Question 4

If a defendant intends to kill someone, but just injures them and that person dies as a result of a physician’s negligent treatment of the wound, who is responsible?

Answer 4

The defendant is guilty of murder

Question 5

How is the insanity defense very different from other defenses?

Answer 5

If it is successful there’ll be a verdict of not guilty by reason of insanity, and the defendant will be committed to a mental institution until his recovered his sanity. Other defenses exculpate the defendant from my ability

Question 6

What are the four things that insanity is used to determine?

Answer 6

1. Who is competent to stand trial
2. Who is incompetent for execution
3. Should be committed after an insanity finding
4. Who is in eligible for release after commitment

Question 7

What are all the different tests for insanity?

Answer 7

A) M’Naghten Rule
B) irresistible impulse test
C) Durham Rule
D) ALI/MPC approach

Question 8

What is another name for the M’Naugten rule?

Answer 8

The right wrong test

Question 9

How predominant is the M’Naugten rule?

Answer 9

Majority approach to insanity. Federal courts’ rule, minority of states use the MPC approach

Question 10

What is the M’Naugten rule?

Answer 10

The defendant cannot be convicted if, at the time he committed the act, he was laboring under such a defective reason, from a disease of the mind, as to not know the nature and quality of the activities doing, or, if he didn’t know it, as not to know he was doing what was wrong

Question 11

What was the result of the M’Naugten case of 1843?

Answer 11

D shot and killed someone thinking it was someone else that was heading a conspiracy against him. Defendant was not guilty by reason of insanity

Question 12

What are the two elements of the MN rule?

Answer 12

1. Disability: that the accused have suffered a defective reason, from a disease of the mind, and
2. Result: that consequently at the time of the act he did not know
   I) The nature and quality of the act, or
   II) that the act was wrong

Question 13

What is a disease of the mind under the MN rule?

Answer 13

Mental abnormality, be it psychosis, neurosis, organic brain disorder, congenital intellectual difficulty (Low IQ or feeblemindedness) will suffice if it has caused the consequences of the second part of the test of the MN rule

Question 14

If the defendant’s mental condition is marginal, will the Court hold that he is insane?

Answer 14

Generally no

Question 15

If you are in withdrawal from drugs or alcohol, can that be an insanity defense?

Answer 15

No

Question 16

Can the temporary insanity that comes from intoxication be a defense?

Answer 16

No, because you voluntarily drank the alcohol

Question 17

Can insane jealousy count as an insanity defense?

Answer 17

No

Question 18

Can PTSD count as an insanity defense?

Answer 18

Yes because PTSD constitutes a mental disease

Question 19

Can postpartum depression count as an insanity defense?

Answer 19

Yes because it prevents the defendant from understanding the nature and quality of her act, or knowing that her act is wrong

Question 20

Does multiple personality disorder count as an insanity defense?

Answer 20

Yes because it is a dissociative identity disorder that has been deemed a mental disease. Courts have applied three approaches to this disease

Question 21

What are the three approaches courts have applied to multiple personality disorder?

Answer 21

A) prevailing alter approach: considers the culpability of the personality that committed the crime
B) selfdom-used unified approach: focuses on the person as a whole without regarding which personality was in control
C) host approach: the most personality did not plan or participate in the offense (most likely category for defendant to prevail in)

Question 22

What is a homosexual panic?

Answer 22

The idea that a person can be so upset by a homosexual advance of the become temporarily insane

Question 23

Can homosexual panic work as a defense?

Answer 23

Generally no, but sometimes it has been allowed to go to jury and has succeeded

Question 24

Is PMS an insanity defense?

Answer 24

No because it is not a mental disease and it doesn’t affect the individual’s ability to appreciate the nature and quality of criminal conduct, or to understand whether it is right or wrong

Question 25

Does Munchhausen by proxy count as an insanity defense?

Answer 25

No because it is a form of behavior, not a true mental disease

Question 26

Can a psychopath use that as a defense?

Answer 26

No because they exhibit abnormality only in the repetitious performance of antisocial or criminal acts and differ from others only in the quantity or types of actions not by the quality of their mental facility

Question 27

The MN rule calls for severe mental disease or defect, why?

Answer 27

To emphasize the non-psychotic behavior disorders do not constitute a defense, and the voluntary use of drugs/alcohol to render the defendant unable to appreciate the nature and quality of his acts is not insanity

Question 28

What are the elements of the MN rule?

Answer 28

A. Disease of the mind
B. Knowledge
C. Nature and quality of the act
D. Wrongfulness

Question 29

What is the requirement for the knowledge element of the MN rule ?

Answer 29

Person must be able to grasp the underlying significance of what he did, and not just be able to register and repeat physical surroundings and the actions he took. A person must have the capacity to choose between acts in order to know what he is doing
*** often this word isn’t defined and the jury is free to determine its meaning based on expert testimony

Question 30

What is meant by the wrongfulness element of the MN rule?

Answer 30

If the defendant didn’t know the nature and quality of the act, of course he didn’t know that it was wrong
** lots of discussion about whether this means moral wrong or legal wrong (but they are often the same, so it often doesn’t matter)

Question 31

What is the irresistible impulse test?

Answer 31

Recognizes insanity as a defense when the defendant had a mental disease that kept him from controlling his conduct (even if you knew what he was doing, and that it was wrong, but still was unable to control his conduct)

Question 32

What are the jury instructions that should be given for every criminal trial with an insanity defense?

Answer 32

A) was the defendant at the time of the commission of the crime, afflicted with the disease of the mind, so as to be either idiotic or otherwise insane?
B) if so, did he know right from wrong regarding the act? No… No legal responsibility
C) if yes, he may still be legally responsible to conditions concur:
i) if by reason of the rest of the mental disease he had so far lost the power to choose between the right and wrong and to avoid the act, because it’s free agency at the time was destroyed
ii) if it the same time, the crime was so connected with such mental disease, in relation of cause-and-effect, as to have been the product of it solely

Question 33

What is the Durham rule? Aka product test? DC

Answer 33

The accused was not criminally responsible if it’s unlawful act was a product of mental disease or mental defect

Question 34

What is the definition of disease under the Durham rule?

Answer 34

A condition capable of either improving or deteriorating

Question 35

What is the definition of product in the Durham rule?

Answer 35

Intended as a butt for test of causation so the question would be whether the accused would’ve committed the criminal acts if you had not suffered from a mental disease/defect

Question 36

When was the Durham rule abandoned?

Answer 36

1972, and was only ever implemented in Washington DC

Question 37

What is the ALI substantial capacity test (aka MPC)?

Answer 37

Defendant is not responsible if at the time of his conduct, as a result of mental disease/defect he lacked substantial capacity either to appreciate the criminality of his conduct or to conform his conduct to the requirements of law

Question 38

What are the two elements of the ALI test?

Answer 38

A) A person isn’t responsible for criminal conduct if at the time of the conduct a result of mental disease/defect he lacks substantial capacity either to appreciate the criminality (wrongfulness) of his conduct or to conform his conduct to the requirements of the law
B) mental disease or defect does not include an abnormality manifested only by repeated criminal or otherwise antisocial conduct (aka - does not include psychopaths)

Question 39

What does the MPC approach say about capital cases regarding insanity?

Answer 39

A. Evidence that the defendant suffered from a mental disease/defect is admissible whenever it is relevant to prove that the defendant did/did not have a state of mind which is an element of the offense
B. Whenever the jury/court is authorized to handout a death sentence or imprisonment, evidence that the capacity of the defendant to appreciate the wrongfulness of his conduct or to conform his conduct of the requirements of law was impaired as a result of the disease is admissible in favor of a sentence instead of death

Question 40

What is the purpose of an insanity defense ?

Answer 40

Proving that the criminal law wouldn’t be served by convicting the defendant, because of the unusual circumstances

Question 41

What is the jury verdict if they find insanity?

Answer 41

Not guilty by reason of insanity

Question 42

Committing the insane act as an alternative to what?

Answer 42

Acquittal, which is what happens with other defenses

Question 43

How does the MPC define intent for insanity?

Answer 43

With the purpose of bringing about the harmful result

Question 44

How does the MPC define knowledge for insanity?

Answer 44

Awareness of the harmful result would follow

Question 45

How Does the MPC defined recklessness with regard to insanity?

Answer 45

Awareness of a substantial risk that the harmful risk will follow

Question 46

Which theories of punishment actually work for insane people?

Answer 46

Restraint, rehabilitation…. None of the others really apply

Question 47

What are the cons of an insanity defense?

Answer 47

• only rich people can afford a proper defense
• there’s a lot of speculation
• once you’re committed you have less rights than someone in jail

Question 48

What are the pros of an insanity defense?

Answer 48

• without it a lot of people would be prematurely labeled offenders
• creates a distinction between evil and illness

Question 49

what is the common-law definition of first-degree murder?

Answer 49

Homicide caused by the defendant with malice of forethought and P meditation and deliberation

Question 50

If you have a murder with malice aforethought and premeditation, but no deliberation, is that first degree?

Answer 50

No, it would be second-degree if you’re lacking any of those components of first-degree murder

Question 51

What is the common-law definition for second-degree murder?

Answer 51

All other kinds of murder that aren’t first-degree, second degree has no premeditation or deliberation

Question 52

What is the common-law definition of voluntary manslaughter?

Answer 52

Malice that is mitigated. The mental element required here is malice aforethought that has been mitigated for some reason and it’s turned into involuntary manslaughter based on some happening that gives us a reason to reduce the seriousness of the crime. Heat of passion provocation can mitigate what would normally be murder down to manslaughter

Question 53

What is the common-law definition of involuntary manslaughter?

Answer 53

Intent to cause slight injury, or recklessness, or gross negligent conduct, or the homicide occurred while involved in the participation of a non-dangerous felony crime

Question 54

What is an example of an intent to cause slight injury involuntary manslaughter?

Answer 54

The simple battery or assault the results in death

Question 55

What is the definition of the felony murder rule?

Answer 55

Substitute for mental state requirement. Any death during the perpetration of an inherently dangerous felon. Always first-degree murder, but it doesn’t have to be the death of an innocent person

Question 56

What are the two different philosophies on proving felony murder?

Answer 56

A) dangerous by definition: felonies should be limited to those that are defined as dangerous. BARRK
B) dangerous by manner of commission: a felony is dangerous in the context of the crime, and by the manner in which the felony was committed

Question 57

What is the definition of in the process of committing the felony?

Answer 57

Felony begins when the felons of gone far enough to be guilty of attempt when caught, and ends when the found some pizza place of apparent safety (this is objective, once the felons believe they are safe)
** OFTEN TESTED

Question 58

What are the rules about vicarious liability for felony murder?

Answer 58

I) modern rule: since the killing was caused by a third-party, non-felon, he is not responsible for the murder
II) traditional common-law rule: the surviving co-felon would be liable for felony murder

Question 59

What was the first state to abolish the insanity defense?

Answer 59

Idaho, saying that a mental condition some not be a defense to any charge of criminal conduct and that nothing there in is intended to prevent the admission of expert evidence on the issues of mens rea or any state of mind which is an element of the offense