CL CH 10 Homicide

what is the most serious offense

homicide; only crime subject to the death penalty

william blackstone quote on murder

murder is a denial of human life and that human life is a gift from God

common law definition of murder

the unlawful killing of another human being with malice aforethought

• did not distinguish between types of criminal homicide

criminal homicide

all homicides that are neither justfified nor excused

• thought that the taking of a life was treated equally as serious whether committed intentionally, in the heat of passion, recklessly, or negligently

modern law of homicide can be traced to ___

15th century England

• offenders were subjected to imprisonment for a year, the branding of the thumb, and the forfeiture of goods

benefit of clergy

a legal exemption allowing certain offenders to be tried in ecclesiastical courts instead of royal courts, often resulting in more lenient sentences.

• clergy were outside the jurisdiction of royal courts and were tried in ecclesiastical courts under common law

royal courts began to distinguish between murder (malice aforethought) (not eligible for the benefit of clergy) and manslaughter (no malice aforethought) (eligible for benefit of clergy)

by the 18th century what were the four types of homicide the law recognized

• justifiable homicide

• excusable homicide

• murder

• manslaughter

justifiable homicide (18th cent)

killing is justified under the circumstances.

includes self-defense, police use of deadly force, and the death penalty, also defense of others and defense of the home

excusable homicide (18th cent)

individuals are relieved of criminal liability based on lack of criminal intent

insanity, infancy, intoxication

murder (18th cent)

killing of another with malice aforethought

• includes all homicides that are not excused or justified

manslaughter (18th cent)

includes all homicide without malice aforethought that are committed w/o justification or excuse

malice aforethought

an intent to kill with ill will and hatred

• required that the intent to kill is undertaken with a design to kill

MPC notes that as common law developed, malice aforethought was divided into several different mental states. What were they?

1. intent to kill or murder

2. knowingly causing serious bodily harm

3. depraved heart murder

4. intent to resist a lawful arrest

5. felony murder

depraved heart murder

killing as a result of extreme recklessness, wanton unconcern, and indifference to human life with malice aforethought

ex- firing into a crowd, opening a lion cage at a zoo, placing a time bomb in a public place (w/o an intent to kill)

• malice is implied and typically punished as 2nd degree

felony murder

a killing committed during the commission of a felony

• the intent to commit the felony is considered to provide the malice for the conviction of murder

• Ohio, Hawaii, and Michigan resist the rule

express malice

a killing committed with the intent to cause death or serious bodily harm

• clear deliberate intent to kill

implied malice

a homicide willfully committed with a conscious disregard for life without explicit intent

• involves extreme recklessness or disregard for life w/o explicit intent

voluntary manslaughter

instantanous killing of another in the heat of passion in response to adequate provocation without a “cooling of blood”

ex- finds partner cheating and kills them

Involunarty manslaughter

killing another as a result of gross negligence or recklessness, or during the commission of an unlawful act

ex- texting and driving leading to hitting a pedestrian and killing them

vehicular manslaughter

killing resulting from the grossly negligent operation of a motor vehicle or resulting from OWI.

also called vehicular homicide

In PA created a law dividing homicide into 2 levels __

1794

first degree murder (eligible for death penalty)

second degree murder (punishable by life imprisonment)

• this law became the model for many modern state laws

first degree murder

premeditated and deliberated murder with malice aforethought

• intentional

• most serious (can result in the death penalty)

  mens rea: required deliberation and premeditation as well as malice

premeditation and deliberation

the standard for 1st degree murder involving planning on a killing (premeditation may occur instantaneously)

prosecutor has the burden of establishing this

second degree murder

intentional killing of another with malice aforethought (no premeditation) can include death resulting from an intent to cause serious bodily harm, and reckless depraved heart murders

-most states specify that any murder committed w malice aforethought, that is not specially listed as 1st degree murder are considered 2nd degree murder

actus reus of criminal homicide

the unlawful killing of a human being causing the death of a person

can include:

• shooting

• stabbing

• poisoning

• choking

• beating

common law rule of 1384 on the beginning of human life

a defendant was only criminally responsible for killing a fetus in the mother’s womb if the fetus was subsequently “born alive”

1. fetus was completely expelled from the womb

2. fetus demonstrated the capacity for “independent vitality” (breathing, crying)

3. defendants’ acts were determined to be the proximate cause of the death of a newly born child

Reflected that the law punished the death of a human being and so a fetus was NOT considered a human until born

how many states continue to follow some form of the born alive rule

13

fetus viability

the stage of fetal development when the fetus can survive outside the womb

• imposes criminal liability when the prosecution is able to establish beyond a reasonable doubt that the fetus is was viable (capable of living separated and apart from the mother)

how many states have feticide laws that impose criminal liability for homicide when a fetus is in any stage of development

23

federal unborn victims of violence act 2004

protects an embryo or fetus in uetro if injured or killed during the commission of any of over 60 listen federal crimes of violence

roe v wade 1973

women have a right to abortion as part of their constitutional right to privacy

• state can limit in the last stage of pregnancy

the traditional definition of death

required the total stoppage of the circulation of the blood and the cessation of vital functions such as breathing

brain death test

the irreversible function of all brain functions is the point at which an individual is legally dead

• majority of state legislatures and courts have adopted this

uniform determination of death act

model law developed by the American Bar Association that provides a legal definition of death as either the irreversible cessation of all functions of the entire brain or the irreversible cessation of circulatory and respiratory functions

year and a day rule

prevents a defendant from being held liable for murder when the victim dies a year and a day more after the event that caused the injury

grading

the categorization of homicide in accordance with the “moral blameworthiness” of the perpetrator

• based on criminal intent

premeditation

the act was thought out prior to being committed

deliberation

entails an intent to kill that is carried out in a cool state of mind in furtherance of the design to kill

young v state (1st degree M)

defendant has a disagreement with 2 men in a card game

• the defendant fired and killed the 2 men

• an appellate court affirmed the defendants murder convictions, noting that “no appreciable space of time is required between the formation of the intention to kill and the act of killing

state v Guthrie (1st degree M)

the defendant fatally stabbed two coworkers after being tased

• court ruled that for a killing to be considered premeditated, there must be some evidence that the person thought about and weighted their decision to kill, even if its briefly

• requires more than just an immediate intent to kill, it involves some level of prior consideration

State v Bingham (1st degree M)

WA SC reversed a defendants conviction for agg first degree murder

• defendant strangled a woman for 3-5 minutes and the prosecution said this time alone was enough to prove premeditation

• court ruled that the length of time alone was enough to prove premeditation, it must also show deliberate thought and reflection before the act

how to prove premeditation and deliberation

judges typically need evidence of planning, a motive to kill, and actions indicating the killing was planned

ex- lying in wait or using methods such as a bomb or poison

people v morrin (1st degree M)

court addressed the requirements for first degree murder conviction

• ruled that premeditation requires a period of reflection, even if brief and that defendants actions did not meet this standard

  • was reduced to 2nd degree (doesn’t require premed)

capital murder (subset of 1st)

punishible by the death penalty or life imprisonment, and in non-capital punishment states, by life imprisonment

• includes aggravating factors

aggravated murder

a form of murder that involves severe aggravating factors such as the victim's status, method of killing, or prior intent to commit a violent crime, which can result in harsher penalties

aggravating factors

factors that permit enhancement of an offenders punishment

• prior record

• nature of the offense

• identity of the victim

in order to sentence a defendant to death, the jury must find 1 or more aggravating circumstances and is required to determine whether these outweigh any mitigating circumstances that may not be presented by the DA

specific aggravating factors

Victim: killing of a police officer, killing of a juvenile 13 years of age or younger, more than one victim

Offender: an escaped prison inmate or an individual previously convicted of aggravated murder

Criminal Act: terrorism, murder for hire, killing during a prison escape, preventing a witness from testifying

Felony murder: killing during a serious felony

mitigating circumstances

factors that may reduce or moderate the sentence of a defendant convicted at trial

• no prior criminal record

• remorse

• mental illness

• necessity

requirements of depraved heart murder

conduct: the defendants act must create a very high degree of risk or serious bodily injury

Intent: defendants must be aware of the danger created by their conduct (some courts merely require that a reasonable person would have been aware of the risk)

Danger: CL appeared to require that a number of individuals were placed in danger. Modern View is that it is sufficient that a single individual is at risk

people v Suarez (depraved)

defendant was convicted of 2nd degree murder after inflicting multiple knife wounds on his girlfriend during a struggle

• court determined that his actions showed a depraved indifference to human life even though there was no explicit intent to kill

people v Stamp (felony murder)

defendant and his accomplices robbed a business and the manager, who had a preexisting heart condition died of a heart attack shortly after the robbery

• court ruled that the stress caused by the robbery directly contributed to the managers death, making the defendants liable for felony muder

• BUT FOR the robbery, the manager wouldn’t have dfied

reasons for the felony murder rule

deterrence: individuals are deterred from committing felonies knowing that a killing will result in a murder conviction

protection of life: individuals are deterred from committing felonies in a violent fashion knowing that a killing will result in a murder conviction

punishment: individuals who commit violent felonies that result in death deserve to be harshly punished

prosecution: prosecutors don’t need to prove intent in felony murder cases. If someone dies during a felony, it’s enough to charge all involved w first degree murder. This ensures all the felons are held accountable and helps quickly incarcerate dangerous offenders

people v burroughs (felony murder)

defendant, who was an unlicensed healer, treated a lukemia patient using unconventional methods, which led to the patient’s death

• court ruled that practicing medicine w/o a license was not inherently dangerous to human life, so it couldn’t be felony murder

• clairified that only felonies inherently dangerous to life can support a felony murder charge

California state laws on felony murder

during arson, rape, carjacking, robbery, burglary, mayhem. kidnapping, train wrecking, or discharging a dire arm from a motor vehicle

1st degree felony murder= 25 yrs to life of prison

2nd degree felony murder= 15 yrs prison

The felony MUST have caused the victims death

lester v state (felony murder)

court held that although the defendant had stolen a car and believed that the police were following him, his reckless driving was too distant from the grand theft of the car the previous evening to support a felony murder conviction

agency theory of felony murder

legal doctrine that holds each participant in a felony responsible for any deaths that occur during the commission of the crime, even if they did not directly cause the death

• narrower

ex- if someone else like a victim or police officer causes the death, you are NOT held responsible under this theory

proximate cause theory of felony murder

legal doctrine that holds felons responsible for foreseeable deaths that are caused by the commission of a dangerous felony even if someone else kills them

ex- if the police kills them, you can still be held liable

MPC’s ideas on felony murder

• felony murder only applied to killings done recklessly during certain serious crimes (ex- robbery or arson)

• if someone shows reckless indifference to human life during these crimes, its treated as 1st degree murder (BRD)

• only followed by one state

• abolished felony murder rule in Hawaii and Kentucky

californias most recent revision of the felony murder law

FOCUS IS ON INDIVIDFUAL RESPONISBILITY

• felony murder only applies if someone was the actual killer, helped with the crime intending to kill, or played a major role in the crime with reckless disregard for life

• also applies if the victim was a police officer killed during their duties, and the person knew or should have known they were an officer

nolo contenere

a pleas that has the legal effect of a guilty plea, but does not constitute an admission of guilt in proceedings outside of the immediate trial

• In corporate cases, this plea might be used to avoid admitting liability, which could be used against the corporation in related civil lawsuits

corperate murder

a killing for which a business enterprise is held criminally liable

• can be held liable when conduct is preformed or approved by corporate managers or officials

• punished through fines

• both the corps and people within the corp can be punished

manslaughter

unlawful killing of another human being w/o malice aforethought

• a second category of homicide

voluntary manslaughter

the intentional killing of another person in the heat of passion or during an intense emotional state, often as a response to provocation

• emotions

• the defense of sudden heat of passion is unavailable if the person expirenced a cooling of the blood between the time of the provocation and the killing

heat of passion

acting in response to adequate provocation

• anger, fear, jealousy, panic

law of provocation

is based on the reaction of the reasonable person (a fictional balanced, sober, and fair-minded human being with no physical or mental imperfections

cooling of blood

the point at which an individual who has been provoked no longer is acting in response to that provocation

people v bridgehouse (vol man)

defendant claimed he acted out of intense emotional distresss because victim had been having an affair with his wife

• relates to voluntary manslaughter because its only when someone kills someone else in the heat of passion under extreme emotional disturbance rather than with premed

• the court ruled that the defendant's emotional state was not sufficient to warrant voluntary manslaughter, as the provocation did not meet the reasonable person standard.

voluntary manslaughter reconsidered

should the law recognize vol man?

an individual who loses control and impulsively kills clearly poses a threat to society and might be viewed as dangerous as an individual who intentionally and calmly kills

should the impulsive killer be subject to less severe punishment?

State v Flory (vol man reconsidered)

defendant killed his father-in-law after learning of allegations that the father-in-law had assaulted defendant’s wife.

• The court ruled that defendant acted under emotional provocation, which justified a retrial with the possibility of a lesser charge

involuntary manslaughter

the killing of another as a result of gross negligence or recklessness, or during the commission of an unlawful act

• no malice

• typically includes negligent and misdemeanor manslaughter

• some states include vehicular manslaughter

negligent manslaughter

arises when individuals commit an act that they are unaware creates a high risk of human injury or death under circumstances in which a reasonable person would have been aware of the threat

some courts require recklessness- defendants must have been personally aware that their conduct creates a substantial risk of death or serious bodily injury

• other courts don’t clearly state whether they require negligence or recklessness

people v ogg (invol manslaughter)

defendant was convicted of involuntary manslaughter after her 2 young children died of carbon monoxide poisoning from a fire

misdemeanor manslaughter

the unintentional killing of another during the commission of a criminal act that does NOT amount to a felony

• some states extend to nonviolent felonies that don’t trigger the felony-murder rule as well as to acts that are not criminal, but are considered unlawful

• MPC does not recognize this rule and instead focuses on the mental state of the defendant, requiring proof of recklessness or criminal negligence for a manslaughter charge

people v Datema (misdemeanor manslaughter)

defendant hit is wife intending to injure her, but she died afterwords

• court determined that if someone causes a death while committing a misdemeanor, they can still be held liable for manslaughter

malum in se offense

a crime that is wrong in itself

malum prohibitum offense

a crime that is prohibited by statute but not inherently wrong

• ex- social welfare offense regulating areas such as professional licenses, motor vehicles, food service, housing quality

vehicular manslaughter

occurs when someone causes the death of another person through reckless or negligent driving

• CA punishes where there is homicide that results in death of another stemming from the grossly negligent operation of a vehicle

• also that results from the operation of a vehicle while intoxicated