Table of contents criminal Law Outline

səhifə	3/6
tarix	25.06.2016
ölçüsü	472 Kb.

1 2 3 4 5 6

Held, if one man renounces his participation in an offense and his companion goes ahead with the offense, the man who renounced is not guilty of the substantive offense.

Held, if one of two men is guilty of an offense, they are both innocent if the court cannot determine which is which.

If one of two men, before the commission of the robbery by his companion, repents from the commission of the robbery, he is not guilty while the other man is guilty.
If it is impossible to identify which man is guilty and which man is innocent, the must both be acquitted.

MPC

MPC § 2.06
1. MPC recognizes an abandonment defense if the D terminates his or her complicity prior to the commission of the offense; and either
  1. Wholly deprives it of effectiveness; or
  2. Gives timely warning to law enforcement authorities or otherwise makes proper efforts to prevent the crime

Homicide

General
1. Definition
  1. “The killing of one person by another”
  2. This is an element of the crime, not the crime itself
2. Corpus Delecti
  1. Definition
    1. Death as a result
      1. This can be established w/o the body; insisting on a body incentivizes getting rid of the body.
    2. The criminal agency of another as the means.
      1. It needs not be the criminal agency of the ACCUSED
      2. You cannot proceed until you know that there was criminal agency, and this was not an accident
  2. Rules
    1. Must be established independent of extrinsic evidence, such as confessions or testimony, that attempt to prove the identity of a criminal agent to a crime
    2. Mere speculation that someone has died is insufficient
    3. Confessions
      1. Can be used to prove this is the criminal agent, but not that there was a crime
  3. Cases
    1. Downey v. People
      1. D and his wife climbing on rugged terrain. D had blood on his shirt, and his wife’s body was laid out very carefully nearby. Evidence of a scuffle. Cause of wife’s death found to be strangulation. D asked if his wife’s tongue was out b/c he had tried to remove it b/c he thought “she seemed to be strangling.” D appealed saying the corpus dilecti not established.
      2. Held, Corpus Dilecti is proven if the circumstantial evidence is consistent with a theory of accidental death.
      3. Rationale:
        
        CD requires death and criminal agency. Here the evidence was sufficient to establish criminal agency without reliance on D’s statement.
        
        D’s statements can be used to show he was the criminal agent
    2. Hicks v. Sheriff, Clark County
      1. P had been seen with a party, whose body was found in the desert. No evidence of criminal agency was every alleged or proven. P was indicted based on an alleged confession to his cellmate while being held pending investigation. P appeals denial of write of habeus corpus (“they have the body”)
      2. Held, there must be proof of criminal agency before murder charges may be filed.
      3. Rationale:
        
        Without proof of criminal agency, there is no corpus delecti. Only after the corpus delecti been proven can confessions be considered in establishing that “this is the criminal agent.”
        
        Here, only D’s alleged confessions are not enough to convict him.
    3. Warmke v. Commonwealth
      1. D, the mother of an illegitimate child, borrowed a coat for her child, then returned with the coat and not the child the next day. She did not mention the baby at a relatives house the next day. At trial, D said she accidentally dropped the baby off a bridge, repudiating an earlier statement that she had purposely thrown the baby off the bridge. The baby was never found, but her camp was found by he stream. D claims no corpus delecti.
      2. Held, the corpus delicti can be proven by inferences drawn from the accused’s in-court statements
      3. Rationale:
        
        D’s in-court statement that she accidentally dropped the baby, plus the other circumstantial evidence, allow an inference of criminal intent. There is no need for the body.
        
        D’s out of court statement cannot be used to establish the corpus delicti, but her in-court statements can be.
        
        A D who testifies is competent to establish the corpus delicti.
  4. Breaking down the Cases – Downey/Hicks/Warmke
    1. Similarities
      1. Homicide Charges
      2. Corpus Dilecti at issue
      3. Confessions are all a part of it
    2. Differences
      1. Body(Downey), Body(Hicks), No Body (Warmke)
      2. CD Dispute / No CD Dispute
        
        No Body needed for CD
3. Common Law
  1. Crimes against the person
    1. Msut be a living person, can’t be a fetus, even if viable [Guthrie]
  2. Death
    1. Common Law: cessation of blood flow and breathing
    2. Brain Death counts these days: A person who has lost all function of the brain, including the brain stem, is dead. [State of Arizona v. Fiero]
4. MPC
  1. Human being means being born and alive
  2. Bodily injury
    1. Pain, illness, or impairment
  3. Serious bodily injury
    1. That which creates a “substantial risk of death”
  4. Deadly Weapon
    1. Any firearm or other weapon that can cause death or great bodily harm
Murder
1. Common Law
  1. Definition
    1. Homocide with Malice Aforethought
  2. Malice Aforethought
    1. Intent to kill - unless justified, excused, or mitigated
    2. Intent to Inflict Great Bodily Injury - unless justified, excused, or mitigated
      1. Errington & Others Case
        
        D’s covered a drunk guy with straw and then threw hot cinders on his chest, killing him.
        
        Held, recklessness without intent to kill or seriously injure is not considered malice.
        
        If the jury found that D intended to seriously injure the victim, it was malice and murder. If they jury found he only intended to frighten the victim, it was manslaughter.
    3. Depraved Heart - Reckless Indifference to human life, not justified, excused or mitigated
      1. Recklessness
        
        conscious disregard that isn’t justifiable, is substantial, and grossly different than what the ordinary person would do
      2. Banks v. State
        
        D filed .38 pistol into a moving train for no reason, killing the brakeman.
        
        Held, one who evidences a reckless indifference for human life can be said to have malice sufficient for murder.
        
        A man who shoots coolly into a moving train is worse than the man who weighs the killing in his head and kills his personal enemy.
    4. Felony Murder Rule
  3. Malice Cases
    1. Commonwealth v. McGlaughlin
      1. D killed two people walking near the road. Evidence showed that D had hit the breaks, and that he went back and helped them. Evidence conflicted on whether he was drunk and his lights were on.
      2. Held, Malice must be proven beyond a reasonable doubt
        
        Malice can’t be found unless D intended to strike the victims or was conscious of the peril to human life, or his conduct was wanton and reckless. D’s attempt to help the victims shows his concern for them
        
        Their must be a “wanton and willful disregard of unreasonable human risk
        
        Wanton – extreme indifference to the value of human life.
  4. Malice Aforethought definitions
    1. Justification – Self-Defense: innocence
    2. Excused – Special circumstances, such as insanity
    3. Mitigated – Something reduces the punishment
  5. Crime must be committed in “one continuous transaction” – Look at Hokeson, below
    1. California Test
      1. Homicide is committed if the killing
2. MPC – 210.1 – Criminal Homicide
  1. Criminal Homicide that is either committed
    1. Purposely or Knowingly, or
    2. Recklessly under circumstances creating extreme indifference to human life.
      1. This recklessness is presumed if:
        
        Done during the commission of, in accomplice of, or in flight from:
        
        Robbery, Rape, Deviate Sexual Intercourse by force or threat, Arson, Burglary, Kidnapping, or Felonious rape
      2. Recklessness
        
        Looked at as consciously or gross deviation from standard of conduct. There must be an extreme indifference to human life.
        
        Subjective Test: Conscious awareness of the risk.
        
        Objective Test: Degree of risk, gross deviation
      3. MPC allows mitigation through the level of recklessness
  2. Cases
    1. State v. Hokeson
      1. D, armed with a knife and a bomb, was apprehended while attempting to rob a drugstore. After D was handcuffed, the bomb blew up and killed a Cop.
      2. Held, person is guilty if person commits homicide manifesting an extreme indifference to human life.
        
        D’s actions manifested reckless indifference
        
        A person is liable for the “natural and probable” consequences of his unlawful acts as well as unlawful forces set in motion during the commission of an unlawful act.
3. Felony Murder Rule
  1. General
    1. Death results from the commission of a felony that is inherently dangerous to human life
      1. Do NOT need to find the requisite mens rea necessary for murder. The intent to commit the felony substitutes for the intent to commit the grievous bodily harm.
      2. Prosecutor’s favor the Felony Murder Rule because it relieves them from having to prove the most difficult element – mens rea.
    2. The felony must be inherently dangerous and independent from the killing
    3. The Death must occur in furtherance and during the course of the felony.
  2. Modern Limitations on the Felony Murder Doctrine
    1. Inherently Dangerous felony limitation
      1. Only an underlying felony that is “inherently dangerous to human life” will trigger the felony murder rule. This ensures that the court will apply the doctrine only when the D has already caused a substantial risk to human life in the felony.
      2. Whether it is inherently dangerous:
        
        Dangerous in the abstract
        
        A felony that can frequently be committed without creating a risk to human life is not “inherently dangerous.”
        
        Dangerous as committed
        
        Few courts will examine the circumstances in which the felony was committed to determine whether it was “inherently dangerous.”
      3. People v. Phillips
        
        Chiropractor faced murder charge after he defrauded a child’s parents into paying him for her treatment instead of opting for potentially life saving surgery.
        
        Held, this is not applicable under the felony murder rule because grand theft is not a felony “inherently dangerous to human life.”
    2. Independent Felony limitation
      1. If the underlying felony is an “integral part” of the homicide itself, the felony murder doctrine does not apply
        
        If the underlying felony is merely a step toward causing death, it merges with the resulting homicide.
        
        To use the Felony Murder Rule, there must be a separate purpose for punishing the underlying felony.
      2. Determining independent purpose of felony
        
        If the aim of a felony is other than killing or gravely harming the victim, it is an independent felony and qualifies for the federal murder Doctrine
        
        E.g. Most jurisdictions: robbery, burglary, kidnapping, rape, arson, and lewd conduct.
        
        Burglary with attempt to assault is does not qualify for Felony Murder Rule in California.
      3. People v. Wilson
        
        D broke into his ex-wife’s apartment with intent to scare her and lover. He shot and killed his ex-wife and her lover and wounded another in the apartment. Jury was told that if D entered the apartment to commit assault with a deadly weapon, it was burglary, and if death resulted he was guilty of murder b/c of the Felony Murder Rule
        
        Held, the felony murder rule cannot apply when the homicide resulted from the actual felony committed.
        
        When a person enters a building with the intent to assault his victim with a deadly weapon, he is not deterred by the felony murder rule. The felony must be independent of the homicide
        
        Merger is the concept that felonies which are an integral part of the homicide are merged with the homicide.
    3. Killings during the course of the felony
      1. Some courts limit the scope of the felony murder doctrine by limiting which killings precipitated by the felon qualify for application of the rule:
        
        Agency:
        
        Majority of courts find that only deaths directly casue by the D or a Co-Felon qualify for prosecution under the Felony Murder Rule.
        
        Some courts allow any death that “proximately results from the unlawful activity.
        
        Timing:
        
        Typically a felony commences when the D begins preparation for the crim and doesn’t end until the D’s are in custody or have reached “temporary safety.
        
        Furthering the felony:
        
        Typically, acts committed by a co-felon not in furtherance of the felony may not be charged under Felony Murder Rule
    4. California approach
      1. If the felony is one that is inherently dangerous and a murder occurs during the commission of the crime, then he is guilty
    5. Pennsylvania Test
      1. Look to the design of the felony, and determine what the purpose of the conduct was and what resulted
  3. MPC approach – p. 152 – 210.2(1)(b)
    1. The MPC creates a rebuttable presumption that a D has acted with the recklessness necessary for murder if the death occurs while the actor is engaged or is an accomplice in the commission of, or attempt to commit, or flight after committing or attempting to commit certain felonies:
      1. Robbery, rape or deviate sexual intercourse by force or threat of force, arson, burglary, kidnapping or felonious escape
    2. Also, it creates a rebuttable presumption of extreme indifference to human life when a death occurs during the felony - §1.12(5)
  4. Rationale for Felony Murder Rule
    1. Deterring Felons from killing, even accidentally, during their crimes (Deterrence)
    2. Vindicating society’s loss when a felony results in death (retribution)
    3. Easing the prosecutional burden in cases where the D may have killed intentionally but claims the deaths were accidental (incapacitation)
  5. Criticisms of the Felony Murder Rule
    1. A person cannot, by definition, be deterred from committing an accidental act
    2. A harsher punishment levied against a D who accidentally causes a death is capricious and an unfair imposition of increased liability on the unlucky felon
    3. The felony murder rule does not reflect the D’s actual culpability since the D had no intent to cause the death
    4. Prosecutors do not need assistance in homicide prosecutions, especially since statistical evidence shows that homicides occur in felonies at a much lower rate than expected and, when a death occurs, there is usually evidence of a D’s reckless intent.
4. First Degree Murder
  1. Definition
    1. Murder which is willful, deliberate, or premeditated
      1. Willful
        
        There must be an intention to kill
      2. Deliberate
        
        The mind must be fully conscious of its own purpose
      3. Premeditated
        
        Sufficient time must have been available for the mind to fully frame the design to kill, and to select the instrument or form the plan to carry the design into execution
        
        In many jurisdictions, premeditation requires no specific amount of time. It can be formed in a matter of seconds.
        
        “Cool, Deliberate Thought”: D must kill with cool, deliberate thought
        
        Rationale
        
        D’s who are cold-blooded are more dangerous than others b/c they considered their actions and chose to do them
        
        Empirically, this assumption may not be true
        
        There must be reflection prior to the act of killing in order to determine whether the D premeditated the murder
        
        Defenses
        
        Because it requires the highest level of intent, you could argue:
        
        Intoxication (so much that you couldn’t form intent) or Diminished Capacity (Insanity, etc.)
    2. Felony Murder Rule
  2. At common law, there was no distinction between first and second degree murders.
  3. MPC Approach
    1. Does not differentiate between first and second degree; all intentional killings are murder (MPC § 210.2).
    2. The facts underlying the killing are used as aggravating and mitigating circumstances for sentencing (MPC § 210.6)
5. Second Degree Murder
  1. All other murder beside first degree murder
6. Affirmative Defenses
  1. Justification
    1. Self-Defense: You really did nothing wrong
  2. Excuse
    1. You did something you shouldn’t have done, but there is special circumstances present that will relieve your fault
    2. E.g. Insanity
  3. Mitigation
    1. Under certain circumstances you acted wrongfully, but we will reduce the severity of the crime; reducing murder down to manslaughter
Manslaughter
1. Definition
  1. General: Homicide without malice aforethought
  2. Two Types:
    1. Voluntary and Involuntary
    2. Some Jurisdictions: Vehicular Manslaughter
2. Voluntary Manslaughter
  1. General
    1. Even if someone acted with an intent to kill, voluntary manslaughter will apply if there was sufficient provocation.
    2. Today’s jurisdictions apply voluntary manslaughter when:
      1. Provocation
      2. Extreme Emotional Distress
      3. Imperfect Self-Defense
    3. Rationale
      1. The concept of “malice” assumes a depraved or wanton heart (no concern for human life). However, a D who is provoked or acts under extreme emotional distress has his reason obscured. The law is willing to mitigate punishment because the law recognizes “the frailty of human nature” – Glanville Williams
  2. Mitigation by Provocation
    1. Definition
      1. D was sufficiently provoked by conduct which aroused anger, rage, fear, sudden resentment, terror or some other extreme emotion, and the provocation was such that an ordinary person of average disposition would have lost self control and not yet cooled, the D is guilty of manslaughter
    2. Three elements at Common Law
      1. Actual Heat of Passion
        
        Must have arose a sudden and intense passion in the mind of an ordinary person such as to cause him to lose his self-control.
        
        D must have the sudden and intense passion
      2. Adequate Provocation
        
        Traditional Common Law
        
        Categorical Approach
        
        Extreme Assault of Battery upon the D
        
        Mutual Combat
        
        D’s illegal arrest
        
        Injury or serious abuse of a close relative
        
        Sudden discovery of a spouse’s adultery
        
        Modern Objective Standard
        
        A general objective standard is used, so the jury can determine whether the provocation might inflame a reasonable person, and whether D was inflamed
        
        This measures the D by societal norms
        
        Sufficient
        
        Assault insufficient to provide provocation may be sufficient if combined with words
        
        Ongoing provocation – (Guys wife seeing a pimp)
        
        Not all of the events have to occur in a short period of time before the killing, but a final substantial event may be enough to incite passion
        
        Insufficient
        
        Words on their face alone will not furnish adequate provocation
        
        However, if they are informing you about something that would cause adequate provocation, this would be sufficient.
        
        MPC Approach – 210.3(1)(b)
        
        The MPC provides the most subjective test for provocation.
        
        The jury must judge the reasonableness of a person under the circumstances as the D believes them to be.
        
        Mistake Concerning Provocation (Honest but Unreasonable Belief)
        
        A D may be entitled to the provocation defense even if he or she is mistaken as to the provocation if a reasonable person in D’s situation would have believed adequate provocation existed.
        
        If the D has an honest but unreasonable belief that someone will kill him or cause him great bodily harm, whether he formed that belief hastily or not, their can be a mitigation of the crime.
        
        People v. Farris
        
        D shot wife in family home; couple had been married for 20 years, but had fight about wife’s current boyfriend. D’s wife poked him in the chest and told him to leave her alone (and boyfriend). D claims he lost his head.
        
        Held, the poking of D in the chest and calling him names is insufficient provocation to get manslaughter.
        
        This is not sufficient to produce “anger, fear, rage, sudden resentment, or some other extreme emotion in the ordinary person of average disposition.
        
        Words alone are never enough.
        
        State v. Grugin
        
        D’s son-in-law had ravished D’s daughter. D approached him, and son-in-law said “I’ll do as I damn well please.” D killed him.

1 2 3 4 5 6