Common Law Intentional Killings - CRIM

First degree murder

intent to kill with premeditation AND deliberation

• premeditation = thinking about the killing ahead of time (“Should I kill X?)

• EX: D waits behind victim’s house with a gun

• Deliberation = reflecting, weighing consequences, making a choice

• EX: D decides it is “best” to kill V to collect insurance money

Premeditation/Deliberation Case Rules

Schrader - premeditation can occur in the “twinkling of an eye” - very minimal time

• Criticism: makes 1st vs 2nd degree meaningless

Clifford Rule - intent needs only to exist for an instant

Morrin Rule - premeditation & deliberation is a thought process undisturbed by hot blood, time period depends, enough time for a “second look”

Hatfield - killing after a period of prior consideration long enough to be fully conscious of what he intended

Dodds - deliberation = reflect to make a choice; premeditation = something more, forming a plan in advance

Forrest factors for premeditation and deliberation (How to distinguish first and second degree murder)

• provocation by deceased

• conduct and statements by D before accident

• Threat and declarations made before and during the occurence

• Ill-will or previous bad history

• dealing of lethal blows after killing

• evidence that killing was done in a brutal manner, including nature and number of victim’s wounds

2nd degree murder

intent to kill without premeditation or deliberation

EX: heat-of-the-moment intentional killing without cooling time

Guthrie case

D stabbed and killed coworker after he had been making fun of him and hitting with dishtowel. D claims psychiatric problems made him do it.

Court said any amount of time is sufficient for deliberation, as long as D was fully conscious of what he intended

Midgett Case

D abused son over a substantial period of time, resulting in son’s death.

Only second degree because the abuse suggested intent to HARM not intent to kill; no evidence of P&D

Forrest Case

D shot and killed father, who was terminally ill in hospital. D said he promised his father he would not let him suffer.

Was there premeditation?

Yes. D was not provoked and D carried gun into hospital, shot him 4 times, and statements after incident

Voluntary Manslaughter

intent to kill while in the heat of passion AND upon adequate provocation

• for provocation to be adequate, it must be calculated to inflame the passions of a reasonable person and to cause that person to act from passion, rather than reason

(VM) Heat of Passion

1. Was D in a heat of passion?

2. Would a reasonable person have been in a heat of passion?

3. Was there cooling off time?

(VM) Adequate Provocation

1. Was D provoked?

2. Would a reasonable person have been provoked?

3. Was the provocation legally adequate?

Words alone are NOT enough, generally, UNLESS:

• accompanied by conduct indicating intention and ability to cause bodily harm (Girouard)

• this is NOT a hard rule, and some courts differ in varying ways

Girouard Provocation Rules

1. there must have been adequate provocation;

2. the killing must have been in the heat of passion;

3. it must have been a sudden heat of passion - the killing happened before there had been a reasonable opportunity for the passion to cool

4. There must have been a causal connection between the provocation, the passion, and the fatal act

The LEGISLATURE has the ability to outline specific provisions that constitute adequate provocation (EX: finding your spouse amid act of adultery)

(VM) Reasonable Person Standard

Objective standard, but takes into account subjective characteristics 

• Courts are more willing to allow consideration of those characteristics affecting gravity/impact of provocation (cultural background, trauma)

• do NOT like to take into account self-control factors (temper, mental illness)

  • only characteristics court looks at that could go to self-control are gender and age

Girouard Case

o   D stabbed and killed wife after verbal altercation

Court said words are not enough to mitigate second-degree murder to voluntary manslaughter, without conduct indicating intention and ability to cause bodily harm

• reasonable man of his size compared to his wife’s size = no real threat

Difference between Degrees

• act of killing same in first-degree murder and second-degree murder

  • the mental state is different—>

    • Second-degree murder = defendant acted impulsively, and without premeditation, but with an intent and understanding of his actions.

      • This is distinguished from voluntary manslaughter, which is reserved for crimes committed in a “heat of passion” where the defendant may not have fully understood what he or she was doing.

      • Additionally, second-degree murder may result from impulsive actions of the defendant, voluntary manslaughter is typically reserved for impulsive killings that are provoked

The jury asks:

1. Did D act with extreme recklessness?

   • If yes → Murder

   • If no → go to step 2

2. Was D at least reckless?

   • If yes → Manslaughter

   • If no → go to step 3

3. Was D negligent?

   • If yes → Negligent homicide

   • If no → no homicide conviction