Homicide

Front 1

4 states of mind to consitute malice

Back 1

(i) Intention to kill (purpose + knowledge)

(ii) Intent toinflict GBI (purpose of knowledge)(iii) “Depravedheart murder” (extreme recklessness)

(iv) Intent tocommit a felony with death occurring (SL)

Front 2

First degreemurder (3 types)

Back 2

Intent(purpose) to kill + statutorilyspecified manner (ex.poison, lying in wait)

Intent(purpose) to kill + willful, deliberate,and premeditated [Schrader v. Morrin]

Felonymurder with enumerated felony

Front 3

Second Degree Murder

Back 3

Intent to kill w/ out premeditationor deliberation

Intent tocommit GBI (malice)

DepravedHeart Murder (malice)

Felonymurder without enumerated felony

Front 4

Tests to determine premeditation, if its 1stor 2nd degree?

Back 4

Schrader standard [minority]: Intent (purpose) tokill + “unstructured discretion”

Morrin standard [majority]: Intent (purpose) tokill + deliberation (qualitative) + premeditation/time to think (quantitative)

Forrest case 6 factor test for whencircumstantial evidence can establish premeditation: (1) lack of provocationfrom the victim, (2) conduct and statements of D before and after the killing,(3) threats and declarations of D before and during the killing, (4) ill willor previous difficulty between parties, (5) dealing of lethal blows afterdeceased has been felled and rendered helpless, (6) evidence killing was brutal

Front 5

State v. Forrest

Back 5

Father killing- first degree murder under Morrin standard because it was premeditated and deliberate as proven by circumstantialevidence.

Front 6

State v. Guthrie

Back 6

Nose senstivity, lash out- Held 2nd degree intentioanl killing w/out premeditation or deliberation

Front 7

Midgett v. State

Back 7

Child beating--> Held 2nd degree because no premeditation

Front 8

Depraved Heart Murder (5 elements)

Back 8

1. Act/ omission was knowingly performed by D 2. Substantial + unjustfied risk that human life would be threatened by Dsconduct

3. D was aware that his conduct would threaten death (notjust serious injury) to others

4. D acted anyways and

5. Another person’s death was proximately caused by act/ omissionof D

Front 9

Assessing recklessness

Back 9

o What did the actor believeregarding the probability that her conduct would cause the result? (objective)

o Why did she take thatrisk? (subjective)

o Do her reasons fortaking the risk as she saw it justify her taking the risk she saw? (objective)

o If not, then the actoris reckless

Front 10

Berry v.Superior Court

Back 10

Unfenced dogs mauling child--> Depraved Heart Murder

Front 11

People v. Moore

Back 11

Speedy driver who doesnt stop--> Depraved Heart Murder

Front 12

A defendant is liable for felony murder if she:

Back 12

1. Intentionally (purposefullyor knowingly) performs an act/ omission

2. Constituting anattempted felony, a felony, or flight from a felony

3. That actually and proximately causes the death of anotherhuman being

Front 13

People v. Fuller

Back 13

Stealing spare tires--> car chase-->FMR applies b/c burglary- enumerated felony

Front 14

4 FMR limitations (1)

Back 14

1. Inherently dangerous felony limitation- An unenumerated felonymust be “inherently dangerous” in order to support a charge of 2nddegree felony murder in jurisdictions that adopt the PA scheme, or malicemurder in CL jurisdictions (abstract v. on the facts approach to determine if felony creates a substantial risk of death)

Front 15

4 FMR limitations (2)

Back 15

2. Independent Felony Merger Limitation- ask did the actor have an independent felonious purpose? If felony has an assaultive aspect--> not independent, merges FMR not applies. If felony has no assaultive aspect--> independent, no merger FMR apply

Front 16

People v. Howard

Back 16

Car theif got pulled over and then bolted and killed a motorist--> NOT FM applicable since the driving was not inherently dangerous (abstract approach--> there is a scenario when the driver could be driving slower)

Front 17

People v.Robertson

Back 17

V stealing hubcaps off of D's car. D came out and shot over V'shead, but accidentally hit and killed him. Charged with discharging weapon in agrossly negligent manner. Held: FMRapplies b/c D's intention in firing weapon was to scare, thus his purposewas independent to the homicide.

Front 18

People v. Smith

Back 18

D was disciplining/abusing child and child dies--> FMR doesn’t apply and mergerlimitation applies b/c child abuse is assaultive in nature and has no other independent feloniouspurpose

Front 19

4 FMR limitations (3)

Back 19

Res Gestae- In order for the rule tooperate, the homicide must occur within the res gestae of things done to committhe underlying felony (time, distance, causal)

Front 20

4 FMR limitations (4)

Back 20

Killings by a Non Felon- MAJORITY- Agency Approach: FM DOES NOT apply ifkiller is a non-felon. MINORITY- Proximate Causation Approach: A felon may be held responsible under FM for a killingcommitted by a non-felon if the felon set in motion the acts that resulted inV's death.

Front 21

State v.Sophophone

Back 21

Police caught D and his co felon was shot by police--> D not responsible under FM since killing by a non felon

Front 22

Manslaughter: Heat of Passion (4 elements)

Back 22

1. There must have been an adequate provocation

2. The killing must have been while the actor was in the heat of passion

3. No reasonable time to cool off

4. Causal link between the provocation, passion, and homicide

Front 23

Early CL categories for Manslaughter (5)

Back 23

1. Assault or battery 2. mutual combat 3. Injury to close relative 4. Illegal arrest 5. observation of spousal adultery

Front 24

Modern variation for Manslaughter

Back 24

Jury decides if provocation was "reasonable" unless the judge decides "unreasonable" as a matter of law

Front 25

Girouard v. State

Back 25

Wife taunted D, he went to the kitch, got a knife and stabbed her--> Held: 2nd degree murder b/c words arenot enough provocation (no mitigation)

Front 26

Misdirectedretaliation rule

Back 26

Defense may only beasserted if the D attempts to kill the person who performed the provocativeact rather than an innocent bystander. Exception: mitigates murder to voluntary manslaughter IF you killed the 3rd party negligently oraccidentally (if its intentionally you do not benefitfrom defense)

Front 27

Regina v. Scriva

Back 27

Ds son gets run over and D kills V2 to get to V1--> Murder b/c he threw knife intentionally at 3rdparty (cant take advantage of misdirected retaliation

Front 28

Reasonable Man Standard (US majority rule)

Back 28

Consider the Ds personal characteristics inmeasuring the gravity of the provocation to the reasonable/ ordinaryperson, but NOT in assessing the level of self control to be expected ofthe reasonable/ ordinary person (subjective/ objective)

Front 29

Director ofPublic Prosecutions v. Camplin

Back 29

15 year old boy hits abuser with pan--> Any relevant characteristic for gravity of provocation, and onlyage/ sex for reasonable person loss of self control (subjective, objective)

Front 30

Commonwealth v.Carr

Back 30

D watched lesbians, had bad history, killed one of the women and wounded the other--> Held: Limit on subjectivism--> cannot bring infamily trauma to mitigate (focus on the ordinary person)

Front 31

CriminalNegligence (involuntary manslaughter) (5 elements)

Back 31

1. An act/ omission was knowingly performed by the D

2. The natural & probable consequences of Ds act/ omission aredangerous to human life

3. D was either ordinarily reckless or unaware thathis conduct would (unjustifiably) endanger the life of others

4. A reasonable person in Ds situation would have known that thisconduct was very dangerous

5. Another person’s death is proximately caused by the culpableact/ omission of D

Front 32

MPC: murder

Back 32

1. Purposely or knowingly OR 2. Recklessly under circumstances the manifest extreme indifference (FM provision)

Front 33

MPC: manslaughter

Back 33

1. Reckless or 2. EMED (kills another person as a result of extreme mental or emotional distress for which there is a reasonable explanation or excuse

Front 34

State v. Cassassa

Back 34

D obsessive neighbor--> Held: NO EMED Defense, while D was subjectively emotionally disturbed,it was not due to a reasonable explanation or excuse/ it was peculiar to thespecific D

Front 35

MPC v. CL (Manslaughter)

Back 35

-MPC much broader (no provocation required, words alone may be enough, no rigid cool off rule, response doesnt have to be proportional)

Front 36

MPC negligent homicide

Back 36

A killing as a result of agross deviation from the standard of care that reasonable people would exercisein the same situation (objective- liability based on actors failure to live up to the standard of care of the reasonable person BUT subjective component because there must be actual present knowledge by D of the present facts which make Ds act dangerous--> just hs to know the facts that could lead a reasonable person to infer danger)

Front 37

State v.Williams

Back 37

Baby toothache--> negligent homicide b/c Ds could have realized there was a matter of concern