US Crim 2023 Flashcards
Due Process (Class 1)
Safeguards the presumption of innocence
The government proves every element of the crime beyond a reasonable doubt (T or F)
True
Owen v State
Prove beyond a reasonable doubt.
Owens was found sitting in a car in private driveway intoxicated and was charged with driving while intoxicated under Maryland Transportation Code
Owens was not driving on a highway when charged
The inferences were made that Owens had drove on the highway or he was about to and didn’t – Based on the circumstances, it was found that it was possible to prove this beyond a reasonable doubt
The burden of proof is composed of two specific categories:
* Burden of Production = obligation to introduce sufficient evidence
* Burden of Persuasion = enough evidence to satisfy the fact finder
- The evidence that Owen drove to his friends house to drop him off is not admitted to the court.
- The driver’s licence was not admitted at all. And therefore, the crown can not use it to show that his home address is different from his friend’s address.
- Three beer cans in the car. It is not a reasonable hypothesis that one would leave the house get in the car and turn on the lights turn on the motor and then before putting the car in gear and driving off consume enough alcohol to pass out on the steering wheel.
Jury Nullification
Jury nullification is the idea that even if the government has proven the case beyond a reasonable doubt, the jury can still nullify the judge’s decision.
What are some reasons that jury would choose to acquit the accused?
So the jury may not like the law, they might think that the law under which the prosecution occurred was an unjust law.
They might believe that the prosecution is unfairly targeting a defendant for some reason. And so they may exercise nullification on the grounds that they that they think that the defendant is being victimized by the government in some way. They might even acquit as a matter of mercy. They may sort of understand that if the defendant is convicted, he or she will face a very serious punishment as a matter of law and they may want to avoid that and show some mercy. So those might all be reasons why the jury would exercise its power.
Actus reus (Act Requirements)
- Physical Component of a crime.
- Act or Failure to act.
- Voluntary Act
Voluntariness of Act
- This mean that the act has to be willed.
- They willed movement by the body of some kind.
- Criminal law requires a “quilty act”
- Actus reus serves the functions of the criminal law
- problems: people who have automated responses (see utter)
State v Utter
The defendant stabbed his son in the chest after the son entered the appellant’s apartment
* The appellant testified that on the date of his son’s death he began drinking during the morning hours – and after remembering drinking with his friend, he has no recollection of any intervening events
* ** The appellant introduced evidence on “conditioned response” during the trial – this is defined as “an act or a pattern of activity occurring so rapidly, so uniformly as to be automatic in response to a certain stimulus”
* The defendant testified that as a result of his military training and experiences in WW II, he had on two occasions reacted violently towards people approaching him unexpectedly from the rear
Utter claimed automation and it wasn’t a voluntary action. It was due to his warfare experience and training. Therefore, no actus reus.
The Court: Voluntary intoxication is not a defence. VI makes you more culpable.
However, Utter didn’t provide enough evidence to prove that he was acting under automation.
The two occasions in the 1950 are not enough to prove that you were acting under automation.
Cases that prove that there was no actus reus (no voluntary act)
o ** Sleepwalking: (Focus on voluntariness)
Sleepwalking is permitted to be argued by a defendant if there is sufficient factual evidence to support the claim – must be sufficient factual evidence
The claim can be viewed as a denial of the voluntary act requirement implicit in almost any criminal offense
The claim can be couched as a form of mental illness or insanity and judged under the regular standards for insanity as an excuse
The claim can also be viewed as its own defense based on a state of somnambulism or automatism
** The mere fact that someone does not remember the incident is not dispositive of their state of consciousness when they committed the act
* (Rogers Case) = lack of memory does not amount to lack of awareness in the moment
o ** Hypnosis and Seizures: usually allow these defences with sufficient evidence
Deer Case:
* “Sleep sex” – treated as an affirmative defense with the burden of proof resting with the defense
* The conviction for rape in the third degree was upheld
Parks Case:
* In contrast, Parks was acquitted by a jury after attacking his father-in-law and killing his mother-in law
* SCC held that this was a case of non-insane automatism, entitling him to the acquittal
** Important Question = Does the entire course of conduct include a voluntary act?
When should the court time frame the voluntary act?
Whatever the timeframe is, it has to be the cause of the social harm.
Omission
- There is no legal duty to act.
- I may have a moral obligation to do so, but there is no legal obligation to do anything.
- Legal obligation only in a few narrowly circumscribed situations.
ex. a special relationship between the person who causes the harm and the person who is the victim.
ex. parents and children. husband wife relationship, physician patient relationship.
Could be stipulated in the statues. or contract. such as filing a tax return, registering as a sex offender or registering a firearm.
ex. Creators of risk, have duties as do those who voluntarily assumed the care of another.
Are spouses responsible for providing assistance to each other? – Yes, if married
* Duty of care extends to spouses but not paramours (i.e.: lovers)
Sick or injured spouses can also be vulnerable
- the formality of relationship is important.
Commonwealth v. Pestinikas
The contract between Pestinikas and the elderly woman imposed the contractual obligation to act. Pestinikas is deemed guilty.
However, it opens the question of whether their act was malicious?
Bystanders
Bystanders, in order to make them guilty, have to be treated as accomplices.
There is no duty to a bystander to aid another unless they otherwise have a legal obligation to act right through the combination by omission standards.
State v Davis (Bystander)
The defendant aided and abetted his son in committing the crimes
* For the defendant’s role in the crimes, the conviction of second-degree sexual assault was valid
* The day of the incident, the defendant’s son tried to force the victim to come with him to the bedroom and in an attempt to get away, she ran to the living room and pleaded with the defendant to help her, to which he responded that he could not help her
* She tried to keep the defendant between her and the son, but the defendant moved, and the son then dragged her down the hall into the bedroom
* The defendant followed his son and victim into the bedroom and lay next to them on the bed while the son raped her
Richmond High School Case (Bystander)
Gang rape of a 15-year-old on school property
Bystanders could be liable if they exhibited concerted action OR aided in any way
People stood there and watched the attack. They are not criminally charged at because they are deemed mere bystanders.
Mens Rea (Class 2)
The act is not guilty unless the mind also is guilty.
o Mens rea is the particular mental state that accompanied the defendant’s action – mental attitudes – acted intentionally or recklessly
- To distinguish culpable actions and unculpable actions.
- Holding People accountable for their actions.
- THe court looks at very specific mental state.
Common Law Standard of Mens Rea
Malice, (very different in the context of murder.)
Intent,
Knowledge
Recklessness
Negligence.
Model Penal Code does not recognize malie (T or F)
T
Intentional conduct (Common Law)
It is done with a conscious object. to cause a particular result.
another way that you could prove intent under the common wall was if a result was practically certain to occur, even if it was not the conscious object of the debate.
Follow the rule of practical certainty: A throws a grenade to kill B but killed C as well. A is said to have intentionally killed B and C. due to practical certainty.
MPC, instead of using Intent, used Purpose. MPC: The defendant is guilty of purposely killing A, but not purposely killing victim B.
Purpose (MPC)
The same as intent but more narrowly.
A throws a grenade to kill B but kills C as well. A is said to have intentionally killed B and C under Common Law.
MPC, instead of using Intent, used Purpose. MPC: The defendant is guilty of purposely killing B but not purposely killing victim C.
Mental States under MPC
Purpose
Knowledge
Recklessness
Negligence
Knowledge (Common Law)
Typically requires awareness, awareness of fact or awareness that a particular result will occur.
A person is said to have knowledge if they are aware of a particular fact or if they correctly believe that the fact exists.
But a person might also be guilty of acting knowingly if they suspect that the fact exists, and consciously avoid learning whether that fact does exist and whether their belief is correct. (Willful blindness)
Knowledge (MPC)
This is acting with awareness that the result is practically certain to occur.
Grenade Example: the defendant is guilty of knowing about killing victim B and purposely killing C
Killing Victim B is the conscious object. Killing Victim C is practically certain.
by using practical certainty and awareness standards
Recklessness (Common Law and MPC)
Very similar
Recklessness means conscious disregard of a substantial and unjustifiable risk that your conduct will cause a particular result.
Conscious disregard of a substantial and unjustifiable
Gross deviation from the standard of care of a reasonable person.
Negligence (Common Law and MPC)
Involves disregarding a risk that you’ll cause a particular result but not being aware of it.
Gross deviation from the standard of care of a reasonable person.
Difference between Recklessness and Negligence (Common Law and MPC)
Awareness of the risk that will cause a particular result.
Recklessness - aware of it
Negligence - not aware of it
What is not in MPC
No malice and willfulness
Strict Criminal Liability
No mens rea is required only actus reus.
Young v State (Malice)
Facts: The appellant is appealing her conviction of aggravated child abuse.
Decision: Reversed and remanded for a new trial
Reasoning: The charge to the jury included a prejudicially erroneous definition of the word “maliciously” – Here, you can punish a child but NOT maliciously
* To prove that the defendant overstepped the legal limits in this case, the State must have proved beyond a reasonable doubt that the punishment allegedly imposed upon the child was motivated by malice (trial court)
* ** Failure correctly to instruct a jury on a disputed element of a crime is a fundamental error
* Differences between actual malice or malice in fact and legal malice
o Actual Malice = wickedness and evil intent, (old understanding of mailce, ultimately adopted by the florida court)
The court needs to prove “malice.”
Bailey’s case (Intent and purpose)
Facts: The case is concerned with federal prisoners who escaped from custody. Upon their recapture, they were charged with violating 18 U.S.C. s751(a), which governs escape from federal custody—the COA after the defendant’s testimony reversed the conviction and remanded for new trial. The reasoning for this was that the trial court should have allowed the jury to consider the evidence of coercive conditions in determining whether the respondents had formulated the requisite intent to sustain a conviction under the statute.
The Court: some level of culpability is required.
Lower court interpreted the statute to require specific intent.
Higher court said no, knowledge and awareness are enough for conviction.
The court does not need to prove that they also intended to avoid confinement.
Although they said, well, the only reason we left was to avoid the fires and the beatings, but its not like they left and then turn themselves in. It’s not like they said, all right, we’re gonna turn ourselves into like the US marshals or something like that.
Specific Intent v General Intent.(Common Law Only, MPC does not recognize this)
- Anytime you see that uses “with the intent to” this denotes specific intent. ex. burglary.
Two levels of intent: intent to break in and intent to commit crime inside.
Anything that is not specific intent is general intent.
Under Common law crimes the most well known general intent crime was rape.
Rape - Carnal knowledge by a man of a woman, not his wife, forcibly and against her will.
And it matters because if a specific intent crime is charged. The prosecution has to independently prove the specific intent element, beyond a reasonable doubt.
Transferred Intent (Common Law)
A aims to kill B with a grenade but throws to C. Bad aim.
Under doctrine of transferred intent, you are said to have intentionally killed C.
Now, on rare occasions, you may have a statute with a specific victim identified, say the President of the United States presidential assassination statute makes it a crime to assassinate the president. Okay, well, that’s a specific victim. So if you intend to kill the president, and you end up killing some bystander who isn’t the President or you can’t be convicted of assassinating the president, right.
Willful Blindness (Common Law)
In criminal law, Wilful Blindness or ignorance of law refers to the ‘deliberate avoidance of knowledge of the facts’; that is, a person avoids gaining knowledge as a means of avoiding self-incrimination.
Classic example: transporting drugs to the country.
Positive knowledge is not required.
Where willful blindness applies it replaces positive knowledge.
Treat willful blindness as knowledge.
Willful Blindness (MPC)
the Model Penal Code has provision for this. It says awareness of a high probability of the existence of an attendant circumstance unless the person actually believes that it does not exist.
Treat willful blindness as knowledge.
Willful blindness in Federal Court
subjective awareness of a high probability of the existence of a fact and deliberate action to avoid learning that the fact exists.
State v. Olsen
- Defendant was driving a tractor on the highway, and pulled over to the side of the road to allow a car to pass him. Olsen then turned left to cross the highway. As he was crossing, Olsen collided with a car traveling eastbound on the highway, killing the driver of the car. The State of South Dakota charged Olsen with second-degree manslaughter under South Dakota Codified Law § 22-16-20 for the reckless killing of the driver.
- South Dakota law provides that a person acts recklessly when he consciously and unjustifiably disregards a substantial risk. At the preliminary hearing, the highway patrol trooper who interviewed Olsen after the accident testified that Olsen said he did not see the vehicle before attempting the turn despite looking both ways.
An important factor in determining reckless intent is whether the actor is actually aware of the high degree of risk he has created as a result of his conduct. Such awareness is what separates a reckless actor from a negligent one.
* A person who acts carelessly or inadvertently in regard to a substantial risk, but remains unaware of such risk, acts negligently, even where he should have known of the risk
* In a case where a defendant has violated a law while operating a motor vehicle, he will be criminally liable for any deaths resulting from such violation only if he acted in reckless disregard for the safety of others. Mere negligence does not suffice for liability.
* In this case, Olsen failed to yield to the right of way while driving his tractor on the highway. Although Olsen may have acted carelessly or inadvertently when he turned his tractor to cross the highway, there is no evidence to suggest that Olsen’s conduct rises above negligence to the level of recklessness.
Strict Liability (Only Common Law)
Some offences do not require mens rea.
And to the scope of the punishment, strict liability crimes, tend to be public welfare offenses and Malam prohibitive offenses. Regulatory offences, like mishandling toxic materials or transporting toxic materials.
Strict Liability crime tends to have lighter punishment. The lighter the punishment, the more likely we are to say it not strict liability.
Staples v. United States Supreme Court of the United States (Strict Liability)
Was mens rea required to commit the crime?
The court noted that the silence as to the mens rea requirement in § 5861(d) did not suggest a congressional intent that such requirement be eliminated. The court noted that the potentially harsh penalty attached to a violation of § 5861(d) provided further support for the proposition that a mens rea requirement existed.
The court said no this should not be interpreted as strict liability offence. So if staples really was ignorant of the automatic firing function of the firearm. He can’t be convicted.
The court prefer the proof of mens rea.
U.S. v. Jewell
Facts: The appellant contends that he cannot be convicted if he did not have a positive knowledge that a controlled substance was concealed in the automobile he drove over the border
willful blindness applies it replaces positive knowledge
- The defendant deliberately avoided positive knowledge of the presence of the contraband to avoid responsibility in the event of discovery
- Deliberate ignorance and positive knowledge are equally culpable
- To act “knowingly” is not necessarily to act only with positive knowledge but also to act with an awareness of the high probability of the existence of the fact in question – take steps to avoid the truth
- In this case, the government must prove “beyond a reasonable doubt, that if the defendant was not actually aware…his ignorance in that regard was solely and entirely a result of … a conscious purpose to avoid learning the truth”
If a statute of a crime didn’t specify mens rea should the court interpret this as strict liability?
No. See Staples v. US Supreme Court.
Mistake of Fact Doctrine (Common Law)
A mistake of fact is a defense to a specific intent crime if it negates the specific mens rea, whether the mistake is reasonable or unreasonable.
A mistake of fact is a defense to a general intent crime if the mistake is reasonable; no defense if the mistake is unreasonable.
A mistake of fact is never a defense to a strict liability crime (No mens rea to negate)
Mistake of Fact Doctrine (MPC)
Any mistake of fact is a defence if it negates any element of the offence.
Umbrella Example (Specific Intent Crime)
Applying Common Law Mistake of Fact:
I walk into a restaurant it’s a rainy day I’m carrying an umbrella.
I put my umbrella down and like a little umbrella holder with a bunch of other umbrellas.
Then when I leave the restaurant, I grabbed the umbrella and I’m walking.
Turns out I’ve grabbed the wrong number doesn’t belong to me belong somebody else.
But I thought it was mine. Honestly, and I thought the Umbrella was mine. They look the same, roughly the same size and same color. Just made a mistake.
Can I be prosecuted for larceny taking and carrying away the property of another with the intent to permanently deprive the owner of the property? No.
My mistake that this umbrella was mine, negates my intent to permanently deprive. I didn’t intend to permanently deprive the owner of the property I thought it was
that applies even if my mistake was unreasonable.
I you know, I go in with a you know, big golf umbrella it’s multicolor. I ended up walking out with a smaller umbrella. it’s a single customer It’s probably an unreasonable mistake on those facts but as long as I made it in good faith, You know, I say oh gosh, I you know, I forgot what kind of umbrella I forgot the color size, whatever. honest mistake. Right, that’s still a defense.
Apply Mistake of Fact to Specific Intent Crime
Common Law Standard: See if mistake of fact negates the specific mens rea. Reasonableness does not matter.
MPC: See if it negates any element of the offence.
Apply Mistake of Fact to General Intent Crime
Common Law: See if the mistake is reasonable or unreasonable. If reasonable, yes. If not, no.
MPC: See if it negates any element of the offence.
Apply Mistake of Fact to Strict Liability Crime
Common Law: No defense
MPC: See if the mistake negates any element of the offence.
Apply Mistake of Fact Doctrine to Cocain and Heroin example.
Now let’s say I take I take heroin from x in a drug transaction, believing it to be cocaine.So I’m here to buy cocaine. I think he’s selling me cocaine is up these turns out he’s selling me heroin.
So I get prosecuted for knowingly receiving a controlled substance.
Well, I claim I made a mistake. I thought it was okay.
So my mistake under those circumstances does not negate the mental element. It does not relieve me of my culpability as it would in the previous examples
Even if you can get away with a crime that requires knowledge with mistake of fact but you could still get charge with a crime of recklessness. (T or F)
Yes
MPC does not distinguish Specific Intent and General Intent crimes
Yes
Any mistake of fact is a defence if it negates any element of that offense. (T of F)
T
A mistake of fact is a defense if and only if it negates the required mental element of the offense: “purpose, knowledge, belief, recklessness, or negligence
MPC
Sexton (Specific Intent Crime + Mistake of Fact)
Sexton held a gun he was in an argument with Matthews. A witness Jones heard Matthew say there are no bullets in that gun.
sextant and says you think there are no bullets in this gun? Matthew said yeah.
And then the gun went off and killed Matthews.
Sexton says can’t be convicted of reckless manslaughter in New Jersey.
That New Jersey follows the Model Penal Code approach on this so the question is whether Sexton was reckless in his mistake about the gun.
Court says the culpable mental state is recklessness, conscious disregard of a substantial and unjustified risk that death will result in the conduct, what mistaken believe will negate the state of mind. A faultless or merely careless mistake may negate the reckless state of mind and provide a defense right but if he is reckless as to his mistake, he has to be convicted.
Sexton is being prosecuted not in spite of his mistake, but because of his mistake.
his mistake did not negate his recklessness because his mistake constituted his recklessness. So the question for the jury is whether Sexton’s jumping to an erroneous conclusion about the gun was reckless or not.
Mistake of Fact Procedure
look at your crime, See whether it’s specific or general intent under the common law. ask whether the mistake relates to the specific mens rea of the crime and if so, the mistake is a defense or a general intent crime asked whether the mistake was reasonable or unreasonable. And if it was terrible, then you get the defense.
Under the Model Penal Code, Simply ask whether there is ask what the underlying culpability is required by the crime and then ask what level of, of culpability. The mistake was made under what level of culpability the mistake was made.
Mistake of Law
General Rule: ignorance of law is NO excuse
Model Penal Code – legal mistakes might be relevant if knowledge or awareness of the law is a material element of the offense
Exception:
1) As a failure of proof, negating the mens rea. This occurs when the law requires legal knowledge and awareness, and the defendant makes a mistake that would negate proof of such knowledge
ex. When we say legal knowledge that means knowledge, that what you are doing is a crime. That’s unlawful. (rare).
- 2) As an affirmative defense. Same jurisdictions allow this where the defendant acts in reasonable reliance on an official and authoritative interpretation of the law that turns out to be wrong or invalid
ex. We allow the defendants if the person acts in reasonable reliance on an official interpretation of the law, even if that interpretation turns out to be wrong or invalid
reasonable reliance on the official interpretation of the law and official interpretation. Ex. president or any other official authority.
People v Weiss (Mistake of Law)
Facts: Appellants seized an individual suspected of committing murder in order to bring him to justice. As a result of this action, appellants were convicted of kidnapping under N.Y. Penal Law § 1250. In an effort to overturn their convictions, appellants argued that the trial court impermissibly ruled against the introduction of evidence which supported their innocence. Specifically, appellants contended that they acted with the mental state of believing they were under the authority of law.
The Court of Appeals agreed and set aside the verdict requiring a new trial.
* The Court held that if appellants could prove they acted in good faith, such evidence might bar penal liability for kidnapping
o The Court of Appeals set aside the verdict convicting appellants of kidnapping where they were entitled to the production of evidence showing that they seized a suspect with the authority of law. Essentially, they were entitled to proof regarding their good faith intent.
(The act required legal knowledge and they did not have the knowledge - mistake of law)
People v Marrero (Mistake of Law)
the reasonable Reliance based approach, Marrero, focuses on New York’s statutory mistake defense for reasonable Reliance, Marrero had brought a an unlicensed firearm into like a nightclub or social club in New York, which is against the law, but the law provides an exception for peace officers and Marrero is a federal prison guard.
But he is a federal prison. guard in Connecticut. Well, that’s okay. because the statute says that the exception includes guards in any Correctional Institution. and Marrero says, well, any Correctional Institution means any Correctional Institution right turns out no, even though he wins at the lower court level on appeal, the appellate court says oh no that statute only applies to New York prison guards. Not just any old prison guard but just New York prison doors and he’s not a New York prison guard he’s prison guard Connecticut.
I mistakenly thought that the statute apply to any prison guard, and apparently applies only to New York ones. Oops. my fault, I made a mistake.
But I reasonably relied on an official interpretation of the law, which was the law itself.
and the New York Court of Appeals says no no you didn’t really rely on the law Moraira, what did you rely upon you relied upon your interpretation of the law and it’s not the same thing. You are not an official interpreter of the law in New York.
(He based on his own interpretation of the law while he is not the authority and he relied on no other authority)
Federal Statute that stated “willfulness” means it required legal knowledge
Anytime you see a federal statute enacted by Congress that uses the phrase willfully, that statute requires legal knowledge and requires knowledge that what you did was unlawful.
True
Cheek v US (Mistake of Law - Federal Level)
Cheek went to a seminar and seminar told him not to file tax returns because the federal income tax is unconstitutional. So he believed this apparently and said, Well, okay, I don’t have to file tax returns. I don’t have to claim my income.
He was prosecuted, but the federal tax statute requires willfulness.
But you willfully failed file a tax return. So cheek says, Well, I willfully failed to file a tax return because I didn’t think I was legally obligated to do so.
If the jury believed that she in good faith believed that his wages did not constitute income that would have to be reported on a income tax return, then the government will have failed to establish the mens rea of wills
Causation (Class 2)
Two kinds of Causation:
Actual Causation (But-for causation, Causation-in-fact)
Proximate Causation
The accused must satisfy both elements. Must be both Actual Cause and Proximate Cause.
Cause-in-fact
But for cause, Actual Cause.
The result would not have occurred but-for the defendant’s voluntary conduct
The problem of Over Determination
Multiple but-for-causes
We look at whether the causes made the person die faster.
Too many causes. We cannot figure out which one is the but-for causes.
Two approaches: substantial factor test, and Acceleration Test
Proximate Cause (legal cause)
Even if the the defendant is the cause-in-fact, at common law, the defendant is not guilty unless she is also the proximate (legal) cause.
Proximate cause focuses on reasonable foreseeability: if the result was foreseeable, then the defendant is the proximate cause.
Substantial Factor Test and Acceleration Test (Causation)
If the cause is not the main cause of death but is one of the substantial cause of the death, i.e sped up the death or was a huge factor in the chain of the causes. Although the victim will die, but the factor was either substantial or accelerate the death of the victim. Then under this test, the offender could still be charged.
Intervening Causes
Usually when there are multiple forces act on the victim, such that those forces intervene in the original chain of causation. The legal question is whether the intervening force actually supersedes the acts of the original actor, breaking the chain.
If the intervening cause is responsive, original actor D is still the proximate cause unless the intervening cause of both freakish and unforseeable.
If the intervening cause is coincidental (and thus not responsive), the defendant is generally no longer the proximate cause. However, D is still the proximate cause ONLY if the intervening cause was reasonably foreseeable (in other words, if the intervention is coincidental, the chain of causation is broken if the intervening cause is unforeseeable).
However, if the victim reaches a place of apparent safety, then D is no longer the cause even if victim died later. This will break the chain.
If the victim has engaged in a free-deliberate-informed intervention, then D is no longer the cause even if victim died later. This will break the chain.
Foreseeability Factor (Factor in Causation)
The factor that determined whether intevening cause will break the chain or not.
Intended Consequences Doctrine (Causation)
Consequences happened as the defendent intended to have it but without being a cause to that consequence, if D a cause now?
Yes.
Criminal Homicide (Class 3)
Killing of a human being by another.
Murder and Manslaughter.
Homicide by itself is not always a crime; for example, self-defence or killing in war are justified.
Murder (Common Law)
The Killing of a human being by another human being with malice aforethought.
Malice in Criminal Law
Malice:
Intent to kill
Intent to inflict grievous bodily injury resulting in death.
Reckless indifference to human life (the depraved heart)
Felony murder (death resulting from commission or attempted commission of underlying felony)
Why do we divide murder into degrees
To distinguish among levels of culpability.
Murder (MPC)
Something is murder and killing is murder if it is done purposely or knowingly because malice is not a mens rea a term under the code don’t have to worry about proving malice for purposes of MPC.
Defines murder as purposely or knowingly killing another, or killing with extreme recklessness.
Premeditation.
Premeditation (Common Law)
- aka Malice aforethought
Intentional murder in many jurisdictions requires premeditation.
Three primary views:
Twinkling of an eye: Premeditation can arise instantly, almost simultaneously with the killing. (see carroll) (Pen)
Cool Reflection: other jurisdictions require some time to elapse between contemplating the killing and carrying it out. (see Guthrie) (Vir)
Modern days: In the form of the intent to kill, and the execution of that intent is of sufficient duration.
Premeditation (prior calculation and design) (Common Law)
Further explicit way of saying we had to think about and even plan the killing.
Walker case where the court said it must be a plan beforehand. Since walker didn’t know the victim, it can only be said that the situation got out of control too quickly.
Manslaughter v Murder (Common Law)
The difference is Malice.
Manslaughter (Common Law)
Voluntary and Involuntary
Manslaughter can be intentional killing.
Manslaughter is a reduction from murder. It is not really a defense of manslaughter.
Manslaughter is still a serious crime. It is more of a mitigation from murder.
Voluntary Manslaughter
Intentional killing as well.
A killing done in the sudden heat of passion (No time to cool off), as a result of adequate provocation, is voluntary manslaughter.
Requirement:
- Adequate provocation
- Sudden heat of passion
- No time to cool
- Nexus between passion, provocation and killing.
Adequate Provocation(Common Law)
It is calculated to inflame the passions of a reasonable person such that he would be driven to kill.
- Not just any provocation will do. It must be the kind of provocation the law deems adequate for justifying a reduction to manslaughter: “Calculated to inflame the passion of a reasonable man and tend to cause him to act for the moment from passion rather than reason.”
- Words alone are not legally adequate provocation.
- Verbal threat is an exception and is treated differently
Manslaughter (MPC)
Is a killing with ordinary recklessness, or a killing that would otherwise be murder but is committed under the influence of extreme emotional disturbance for which there is reasonable explanation of excuse.
Words alone are not legally adequate provocation (Common Law Standard)
True.
Express Malice (Common Law)
the intent to kill was a form of express malice. first degree murder
