Chap 10: homicide
Call Kai
Learn
Practice Test
Spaced Repetition
Match
Flashcards
Knowt Play1/159
There's no tags or description
Looks like no tags are added yet.
Name | Mastery | Learn | Test | Matching | Spaced | Call with Kai | Chat |
|---|
No analytics yet
Send a link to your students to track their progress
160 Terms
homicide
the killing of one human being by another
unlawful homicide
A killing that is legally justified or excused.
lawful homicide
A killing that does not fall within a recognized legal justification or excuse.
homicide is not always
criminal
homicide is divided
justifiable H (CL)
excusable
criminal (felonious)
justifiable homicide
intentional homicide committed under circumstances of necessity or duty w/o any evil intent AND w/o any fault or blame on the person who commits the homicide
justifiable homicide examples
state executions
homicides by police officers in performance of legal system
self defense when the person committing the H isnt at fault
Proportional self-defense against an imminent deadly threat.
The use of force must be legally justified by the circumstances. A person cannot automatically use deadly force simply because someone else has acted aggressively.
excusable homicide
the killing of a human being, either by manslaughter or in self defense, when there is some civil fault, error, or omission on the part of the person who commits the homicide
excusable homicide example
An unforeseeable accident occurring while someone is engaged in a lawful activity and exercising due care.
The actor may have some connection to the death, but the circumstances do not justify treating the act as a crime.
for excusable homicide, the degree of fault is
not enough to constitute a crime
Justifiable homicide is authorized by law; excusable homicide is treated as noncriminal
because of the circumstances.
criminal (felonious) homicide
person unlawfully and knowingly, recklessly, or negligently cases the death of another human being
criminal homicide include
murder
manslaughter
negligence II
4 elements of homicide
actus reus
mens rea
concurrence
harm
actus reus
The defendant must perform a voluntary physical act that contributes to the unlawful killing.
A mere thought is not enough.
A truly involuntary reflex is not treated as a voluntary act.
The prosecution must establish conduct that can legally be attributed to the defendant.
mens rea
The defendant must possess the mental state required for the offense.
Examples include:
Intent to kill.
Intent to cause serious bodily harm.
Recklessness.
Criminal negligence.
Different homicide offenses require different mental states.
A defendant who intentionally kills someone may face a different charge from a defendant whose criminal negligence causes a death.
concurrence
The required mental state and the criminal act must coincide.
The defendant must have the relevant mental state when performing the act that causes the death.
The intent must connect to the conduct; a thought unrelated to the act is insufficient.
harm
The required harm for homicide is the death of a human being.
The prosecution must establish that a human being died.
It must also establish the required connection between the defendant's conduct and the death.
corpus delicti
body or substance of the crime; proof that crime has been committed
Corpus delicti means the “body of the crime.” Despite the name, it does not require
the prosecution to produce the victim's physical body.
The general rule requires evidence supporting two things:
A specific loss, injury, or harm occurred.
The loss or injury resulted from criminal agency rather than an accident, suicide, or natural causes.
the prosecution must prove (in all crim cases)
that the crime charged has been committed
the pros cant convict someone of a crime based soley on
an out of court confession
the confessions needs to be
independent corroborating evidence showing crime actually occured
we do this with confessions because we want to avoid/prevent
false confessions
mistakes
coercion
convictions for crimes that never happened
The corpus delicti requirement helps prevent someone from being convicted of a crime that never actually occurred.
A person may falsely confess for psychological or other reasons.
A confession alone should not establish that a homicide happened if there is no independent evidence supporting the existence of the crime.
The prosecution must still establish the crime through legally sufficient evidence.
People v. Larosa — independent evidence rule
A defendant's confession cannot, by itself, establish that a crime occurred without independent corroborating evidence of the corpus delicti.
The prosecution needs evidence beyond the defendant's own words that supports the conclusion that a crime actually happened
A confession may be unreliable, so the prosecution must provide corroborating evidence that the crime occurred..
State v. Martinez — prima facie case before admission of an extrajudicial statement
Addresses the elements necessary to establish corpus delicti before a defendant's extrajudicial statement is admitted.
The prosecution must establish a prima facie case that a criminal act occurred before the jury hears the defendant's admission.
The case also appears in the lecture's discussion of proving that the victim was alive before the defendant's conduct.
Prima facie case
A claim supported by enough initial evidence to be accepted as sufficient to proceed unless opposing evidence undermines it.
A prima facie showing:
Establishes a minimum evidentiary threshold.
Does not mean the prosecution has proved guilt beyond a reasonable doubt.
Does not mean the defendant has automatically lost.
Allows the matter to proceed rather than being rejected at the initial stage.
civil and cim contexts
In a civil negligence case, the plaintiff must establish the required elements of the claim, such as duty, breach, and causation of injury.
In a criminal case, the prosecution must prove the elements of the charged offense and ultimately meet the criminal burden of proof.
The preliminary corpus delicti showing is not the same as proving guilt beyond a reasonable doubt
Opper v. United States — trustworthiness doctrine
Addresses the federal standard for corroborating a defendant's extrajudicial confession or admission.
The statement must be substantially corroborated by independent evidence to support its reliability.
The lecture describes the federal approach as focusing more on the trustworthiness of the confession than on independently proving every element of the crime.
no body murder cases (CD)
w/o a body, prosecuting a murder is harder b/c CD is usually proven using the victim’s remains or eye witness testimony
no body no crime is
FALSE
Homicide cases in which no body is found
A missing person cannot automatically be presumed murdered. The prosecution must establish death and criminal agency using admissible evidence.
The absence of a body creates significant evidentiary challenges, but it does not automatically prevent a murder prosecution.
Elleby v. State — circumstantial evidence without a recovered body
the prosecution as using circumstantial evidence to establish the victim's death and the defendant's criminal agency, even though the victim's body was never recovered.
Evidence discussed includes:
The victim's sudden disappearance.
The defendant's timeline.
Financial motives.
Forensic physical evidence found in a vehicle.
Physical evidence can help establish that a victim died even without recovery of the entire body. The lecture gives examples
of forensic evidence indicating a level of blood loss incompatible with survival or biological evidence showing that the person could not still be alive.
The prosecution may establish death and criminal agency through
circumstantial evidence, but it still carries the burden of proof.
State v. Burns — body found, but cause of death cannot be determined
Sometimes human remains are found, but the medical examiner cannot determine a definitive cause of death because the remains are too degraded, damaged, or otherwise unsuitable for conclusive examination.
The absence of a definitive medical finding does not necessarily prevent a homicide conviction.
The jury may consider the totality of the circumstantial evidence.
A finding of criminal agency may be supported where the evidence overwhelmingly points to homicide and excludes natural causes.
case distinction
Elleby v. State: The body was not recovered.
State v. Burns: Remains were discovered, but the medical cause of death could not be definitively established.
In both situations, circumstantial evidence may be essential. However, the prosecution must still prove the case rather than relying on speculation.
a defendant can still be convucted if there if strong
enough proof
if body is missing the pros must rely on alternative proof
circumstances evidence: strong indirect facts (ex. blood evidence, surveillance footage)
corroborated confessions: a defendant’s confession ONLY if its backed up and affirmed by independent evidence
NB murder cases requirements
the person is dead: convincing proof that missing individual has died (not just missing)
the defendant killed them: evidence of strong inferences that defendant caused death
body w/o proof of cause of death
body present but the medical expert must specifically testify that death resulted from an unlawful act
if body is heavily decomposed, expert sometimes
cant tell → threatens the proof of CD
The victim must be alive when the unlawful act occurs
A foundational requirement of criminal homicide is that the victim must be a living human being at the time of the defendant's unlawful conduct.
The timing matters because the defendant's conduct must cause the death for homicide liability to attach.
1. People v. Hunter — timing of the fatal act
Requires attention to whether the victim was alive when the defendant performed the act alleged to have caused the death.
The lecture's example is a defendant shooting someone who had already died of a heart attack five minutes earlier, without the defendant knowing it.
Because the person was already dead, the shooting did not cause that person's death and therefore would not constitute homicide of that victim.
State v. Jones — homicide versus other offenses involving a deceased person
Distinguishes criminal homicide from offenses such as desecration of a corpse or attempted murder of a person who was already dead.
A person cannot cause the death of someone who is already deceased.
However, the conduct may still constitute another criminal offense.
Failing to establish one particular offense does not mean that the defendant's conduct is necessarily lawful.
The conduct may satisfy the elements of a different offense.
State v. Martinez — proving the victim's living status
The outline also identifies State v. Martinez in connection with the evidentiary burden of proving that the victim was alive before the defendant's conduct.
This is related to, but distinct from, the case's role in the corpus delicti discussion.
attempts to identify and minimize violence against children
specific child death review teams
safe haven laws for unwanted babies
mandatory child abuse reporting laws
Beginning of life: the born-alive rule and fetal homicide
The legal question of when a human life begins for homicide purposes is complicated by the historical common law, modern feticide statutes, and changing state laws.
born alive requirements
to be able to charge H of a newborn baby, the prosecution must be able to prove that the child was living at the time it was killed (depends on def of H from state)
born alive requirements and
death of a fetus in a mother’s body a H
The common-law born-alive requirement
Under the traditional common-law rule described in the lecture, a fetus was not considered a homicide victim unless it was born alive, drew a breath, and was capable of independent existence.
This rule created a distinction between:
A fetus that had not been born alive.
A child who was born alive and subsequently died as a result of unlawful conduct.
Modern statutes and judicial interpretations have changed how this issue is treated in different jurisdictions.
Keeler v. Superior Court
A man violently assaulted his pregnant former wife with the stated intent of destroying the fetus.
The fetus died as a result of the attack.
The California Supreme Court held that the fetus did not qualify as a “human being” under the traditional common-law definition of murder being applied.
The decision prompted legislative changes intended to include fetuses within certain homicide statutes.
The case illustrates how courts may be constrained by the existing statutory or common-law definition of a homicide victim,
even where the defendant allegedly intended to cause fetal death.
State v. Lamy
The outline identifies this case in connection with manslaughter statutes and modern applications of the born-alive rule.
The lecture describes it as illustrating the difficulty of applying historical common-law definitions to modern medical circumstances.
The key topic is how courts interpret homicide statutes when the victim's status under the born-alive doctrine is disputed.
State v. Courchesne
The outline identifies this case in connection with modern departures from, or continued application of, the born-alive doctrine.
The lecture emphasizes that the applicable rule depends on the jurisdiction.
The treatment of fetal death under homicide law is not necessarily uniform across states.
Feticide after Dobbs v. Jackson Women's Health Organization
The decision in Dobbs v. Jackson Women's Health Organization overturned the federal constitutional protection for abortion previously recognized under Roe v. Wade.
The lecture emphasizes that the post-Dobbs legal landscape has affected debates concerning:
Feticide statutes.
Fetal personhood.
The definition of a homicide victim.
The civil and criminal consequences of reproductive healthcare decisions.
The lecture's central warning is that the law in this area is changing and varies significantly by jurisdiction. The applicable law depends on the particular state and the time the issue arises.
feticide
murder of an unborn child
protection of unborn children statue
no requirement that the fetus be born alive/viable
protection of unborn children statue is meant for
targeting 3rd parties
mothers are legally protecting under this
doesnt affect abortion
after dobbs (overruling roe v wade) allowed states to
create their own abortion laws
states criminalize abortion usually categorize it as a
separate crime from feticide
states BoP for homicide
state must prove the victim was alive the unlawful act occurred bc H required killing a living human being
law protects all human life equally regardless of
how much time person has left
LePage v. Center for Reproductive Rights, P.C.
The lecture identifies this case in connection with the civil and criminal implications of reproductive rights and fetal status in the post-Dobbs legal landscape.
SisterSong Women of Color Reproductive Justice Collective v. Governor of Georgia
Addresses state personhood laws, particularly Georgia's LIFE Act.
The lecture connects the case with the legal recognition of an unborn child as a natural person in constitutional and criminal contexts.
It illustrates how state laws may affect the legal status of an unborn child.
Do not assume the same fetal-homicide rule applies everywhere. The specific statutory language and relevant jurisdiction matter.
predicate crime
a defendant can be charged w murder of someone dies during the commission of another major crime
predicate crime pros BoP
state must prove they committed underlying pred crime
legally dead
brain death (permanent cessation of all brain function) (Brain death is the irreversible cessation of all functions of the entire brain, including the brainstem.) OR
irreversible cardio pulmonary cessation (Cardiopulmonary death is the irreversible cessation of circulatory and respiratory functions.)
Uniform Determination of Death Act
The lecture identifies the Uniform Determination of Death Act as an important legal framework governing the determination of death.
Key distinction: Brain death and cardiopulmonary death are different medical and legal standards for determining death.
End of life: determining when a person is legally dead
The law must determine not only when life begins for homicide purposes, but also when a person is legally considered dead.
end of life decision: pulling the plug requirements (competent)
can personally instruct doc to withdraw life support
right to refuse treatment
End-of-life decisions and homicide liability
Decisions about ending life-sustaining treatment can raise questions about homicide liability.
Medical professionals must follow established medical and legal protocols.
Properly withdrawing life-sustaining treatment may be recognized as allowing a natural death rather than committing unlawful homicide.
The legal treatment depends on the circumstances and applicable requirements.
The important issue is whether the conduct legally constitutes causing an unlawful death or permitting death under recognized medical and legal standards.
end of life decision: pulling the plug needs(comatose)
living will
medical power of attorney
court evidence
causation
Criminal homicide requires a legally sufficient connection between the defendant's conduct and the victim's death.
The lecture strongly emphasizes that both cause-in-fact and proximate cause must be established.
direct - cause in fact (but for)
proximate - legal cause
direct - cause in fact (but for)
Cause-in-fact examines the actual sequence of events leading to the death.
The test asks:
But for the defendant's actions, would the harm have occurred when it did?
If the harm would not have occurred when it did without the defendant's conduct, cause-in-fact is established.
If the death would have occurred in the same way and at the same time regardless of the defendant's conduct, factual causation may be absent.
Cause-in-fact focuses on whether the defendant's conduct actually contributed to producing the result.
proximate - legal cause
foreseeability
Proximate cause establishes the legal boundary of responsibility for a result.
It prevents a defendant from being held responsible for every consequence that can be traced back to an action, regardless of how remote or unforeseeable the consequence was.
The test asks:
Was the resulting harm a reasonably foreseeable consequence of the defendant's act?
If the general type of harm was reasonably foreseeable, proximate cause may be established.
If the result was too extraordinary or unforeseeable, the causal chain may be broken.
Intervening and superseding causes
An intervening cause is an event or action that occurs after the defendant's conduct and contributes to the result.
A superseding cause is an intervening cause that breaks the chain of legal causation, relieving the original defendant of liability for the resulting death.
According to the lecture, an intervening cause becomes superseding when it is highly extraordinary and completely unforeseeable.
The key question is whether the intervening event is sufficiently independent and unforeseeable to break the connection between the original conduct and the death.
Brown v. State — intervening medical or external causes
The case is discussed in connection with whether an independent intervening event breaks the chain of causation.
Example 1: Routine medical error
A defendant shoots someone.
The victim undergoes life-saving surgery.
A surgeon makes a routine medical error, and the victim dies.
Under the lecture's explanation, the defendant remains liable because a routine medical error during treatment is a foreseeable intervening event.
Example 2: Hospital fire
A defendant shoots someone.
The victim is recovering in a hospital.
The hospital unexpectedly burns down, causing the victim's death.
The lecture presents this as an example of an extraordinary, unforeseeable event that may break the chain of causation.
Main principle: Not every intervening event relieves the original defendant of liability. Foreseeability matters.
State v. Fairbanks — multiple actors and concurrent causes
The defendant's conduct does not have to be the sole cause of death.
It is sufficient for the defendant's conduct to be a substantial factor in causing the death, under the rule described in the lecture.
Other contributing factors or actors do not automatically eliminate the defendant's liability.
If a victim has multiple contributing injuries or circumstances, the defendant may still be responsible if their conduct was a substantial factor in the death.
The defendant need not be the only cause.
The question is whether their conduct sufficiently contributed to the death under the applicable causation standard.
a large time gap between an injury and a victim’s death can
complicate legal case (def may argue the original injury didnt cause death
when a state SC abolishes (abrogates) a CL rule, it must
decide is the charge applies to past cases (retroactive) or only future ones (prospective)
Year and a day rule
Depends on state
Year-and-a-day rule — State v. Peacock in the lecture; State v. Picotte in the outline
There is a discrepancy between the sources:
The lecture identifies State v. Peacock.
The outline identifies State v. Picotte.
Both associate the case with the historical year-and-a-day rule. The materials provided do not establish whether these are intended to be the same reference, so both names should remain in your notes until you verify the assigned case.
Year-and-a-day rule:
Historically, a defendant could not be convicted of murder if the victim survived for more than one year and one day after the defendant's act.
The rule reflected historical concerns about proving causation when a substantial amount of time passed between the injury and death.
Many modern courts have abolished the rule because medical advances can keep seriously injured victims alive for longer periods.
The lecture explains that modern life-sustaining technology makes a fixed one-year-and-one-day cutoff less suitable. The passage of that amount of time should not automatically prevent a murder prosecution where causation can otherwise be established.
People v. Moncada — foreseeability and proximate cause
Addresses complicated factual scenarios in which a defendant's conduct leads to a victim's death.
The lecture emphasizes that the exact manner of death does not have to be foreseeable.
Instead, the general type of harm must be reasonably foreseeable.
Main principle: A defendant does not necessarily escape liability just because the death occurred in an unexpected way, as long as the general type of harm was foreseeable and the other causation requirements are met.
Murder
Unlawful it w malice aforethought
Murder is an unlawful killing that satisfies the applicable legal requirements for murder.
mens: w/o legal excuse or justification
The lecture identifies malice aforethought as the central concept associated with murder.
Different forms of murder involve different mental states and circumstances.
Murder has a degree system which affects
sentencing
Plea bargaining
Which depends on the state
1st degree
Killing someone wo a legal reason
intent/knowledge: knows action will cause death
Strong probability of death or severe injury
Attempting to commit forcible felony other then 2nd degree murder
First-degree murder: intent to kill, premeditation, and deliberation
The lecture explains that intent to kill combined with premeditation and deliberation can establish first-degree murder.
specific intent to kill
The defendant must possess the specific intent to cause the victim's death for an intentional-killing theory of this kind.
premeditation
Premeditation means thinking about the killing beforehand.
It does not necessarily require months of planning.
The lecture emphasizes that premeditation may form in a short period, potentially even a few seconds before the act, depending on the jurisdiction's law.
The prosecution may rely on circumstantial evidence to establish that the defendant formed the intent before acting.
Deliberation
Deliberation means weighing or considering the decision rather than acting without any consideration.
Evidence of deliberation may include conduct suggesting that the defendant considered the decision, its consequences, or whether to proceed.
The lecture gives examples of potentially relevant conduct, such as investigating the consequences of the act or taking steps connected with the decision.
Distinction:
Premeditation: The defendant thought about the killing beforehand.
Deliberation: The defendant considered or weighed the decision.
State v. Cheeks — premeditation
The outline and lecture identify this case in connection with:
The timeline required for premeditation.
Circumstantial evidence.
The nature of premeditation.
The lecture stresses that premeditation does not necessarily require extensive planning. The evidence must be considered in light of the applicable legal standard.