Criminal

Front 1

Actus Reus

Back 1

A voluntary overt act which D has physical control
or a failure to act

Voluntary Affirmative Act: Any act over which defendant has physical control
What is not a voluntary act?
-reflex or convulsion
-act during unconsciousness or sleepwalking
-act during hypnosis (ca disagrees)
-not the effort or determination of the actor (physically forced by some other person

Front 2

Causation of Homicide

Back 2

Isolate Intervening Act.
Use the "but for" test to find the proximate cause

Proximate Cause when intervening act is foreseeable

Indirect Cause is when intervening act not foreseeable

Case Example:

Rideout: Intoxicated drive hit another car on the road. After the victim was in a place of apparent safety he was hit by another oncoming car. Defendant is not responsible once the victim is in place of apparent safety. Policy Reasons. Not foreseeable. Not proximate cause

Front 3

Murder One

Back 3

Any murder which is committed....

1. by means of destructive device, poison, lying in wait, torture
2. premeditation
3. in perpetration of named inherently dangerous felony (called FM1)
4. or discharging a weapon from a vehicle with intent to kill

Front 4

Premeditation

Back 4

Murder One

A cool and calculated reflection undergone by defendant on his intent to kill

requires intent to kill from m2 malice.

Anderson Factors:
1. planning activity prior to killing
2. motive to kill (prior relationshiP
3. Nature of the killing (so particular and exact, defendant must have had the intent to kill)

Case Examples:

Anderson case lacked evidence of premeditation. wounds didn't look deliberate and calculated to result in death. the cover up didn't show details of premeditation. man kills his 10 y/o step daughter in a particularly violent fashion. unable to prove premeditation beyond a reasonable doubt.

Bingham:
Where defendant strangled victim for 3-5 minutes but it was not sufficient to support a finding of premeditation. time to reflect doesn't necessarily mean you did reflect.

Frenzied killings- if a killing is done in a frenzy how can it have been cooly and calmy reflected on?

Front 5

Felony Murder 1 Rule

Back 5

A killing committed in either the perpetration of or attempt to perpetrate inherently dangerous felony (IDF) is murder of the first degree. The doctrine presumes malice aforethought on the basis of the commission of a felony inherently dangerous to human life.

Felony murder is a way to prove premeditation and still tracks even after actual crime committed. Continues until "seeming safety"

Front 6

Felony Murder Elements

Back 6

1. The underlying Felony has to be inherently dangerous (if it is in the middle paragraph of statute, the legislature already told us it's inherently dangerous
2. must intent felony - malice (rather than committed recklessly)
3.Death has to occur during the commission of the felony (the triggering event has to occur during the felony)
4. The death has to be independent and collateral to the felony-separate purpose for the felony from the death

Front 7

3rd Element for Felony Murder 1

Back 7

Death has to occur during the commission of the felony (the triggering act has to occur during the felony)

Sophophone case: defendant is detained in the car after robbery and policeman shoots the accomplice. The defendant is not responsible for the death of the homicide for two reasons.
1. justifiable homicide
2. majority jurisdiction: indirect killing

Front 8

4th element for Felony Murder 1

Back 8

The death has to be independent and collateral to the felony - separate purpose for the felony from the death

1. Ireland Doctrine/ Merger Doctrine: no independent collateral where the sole purpose is to kill or seriously injure, you can't use felony murder.

Sears case: Defendant enters home and hits head on the wife with a crow bar. Can't get felony murder because it was so close to the death that follows

Majority/ Minority:

Majority View/Agency View: (california) defendant must directly do the killing. indirect cause is not sufficient for felony murder

Minority: proximate cause is pretty good

Front 9

Murder 2

Back 9

The unlawful killing of a human being or fetus by the hands of another with malice aforethought

common law: the wrongful killing of a human being by another with malice

Front 10

Mens Rea of Murder 2

Back 10

Malice - can be satisfied by four separate ways.

1. Intent to kill
2. Intent to commit serious bodily harm
3. Conscious Disregard
4 Felony Murder 2

Front 11

Failure to Act

Back 11

1) where there is a legal duty to act,
2) that duty is breached,
3) and where that breach has a casual link with the criminal result

Analysis Steps
determine scope of duty
determine whether breach happened
determine link between breach and result.

Front 12

Legal Duty

Back 12

1) statute created duty - written law (teachers
2) status relationship - parent to pilot, employee/employer
3) contractual duty - babysitting, lifeguard
4) voluntary assumption of care to the exclusion of others

Front 13

Breach of duty

Back 13

Did the failure to act constitute a breach of duty?

Front 14

Causation

Back 14

did the breach cause the resulting harm?

Front 15

Mens Rea

Back 15

the mental state requirement of a crime that goes along with the Actus reus. Put simply, intent to cause the result of the crime.

Front 16

Recklessness

Back 16

disregard for substantial risks ex. drunk driving

Front 17

Strict Liability Crimes

Back 17

far and few between, SL crimes require no mens ra

Front 18

Statutory Rape

Back 18

Sex with a girl under 14 years of age and over four years younger than defendant.

Strict Liability crime

Garnett v. State if the case met the statute (age limitaiton) regardless of what the defendant though, he was guilty. (he honestly didn't know she was underage)

Front 19

Car Jacking

Back 19

MPC:
"Carjacking" is the felonious taking of a motor vehicle in the possession of another, from his or her person or immediate presence, or from the person or immediate presence of a passenger of the motor vehicle, against his or her will and with the intent to
either permanently or temporarily deprive the person in possession of the motor vehicle of his or her possession, accomplished by means of force or fear.

Front 20

Actus Reus of Homicide

Back 20

Voluntary affirmative act or failure to act that causes the death of another human being
-can also be coupled with knowledge of risk of involuntary act (decina) knowledge of seizures.

omission analysis (same as before)
-duty
-breach
-causation "but for test"
*important note: x brutally attacks y and beats him to near death. on the way to the hospital ambulance gets in an accident while speeding and Y dies. x has satisfied actus reus element.
-however, if ambulance driver was drunk the chain of causation is broken and there was no murder.

Front 21

intent to kill

Back 21

murder 2 malice element #1

-defendant knew or knew to a substantial certainty or (practically certain) that their actions would cause the death of their victim
- deadly weapon doctrine: the use of a deadly weapon on a vital organ of a human being infers an intent to kill. ex. d stabs v in the hear with scissors. intent to kill

Front 22

intent to commit serious bodily harm

Back 22

defendant knew or was practically certain that their actions would cause seriously bodily harm to the victim.
-autopsy result help for evidence

Front 23

conscious disregard

Back 23

1. Does conduct endanger human life?
objective test: would average person believe the conduct would endanger human life? ex. shooting guns in certain areas, handling explosive materials.
see Knoller - very big violent dogs

2. Does defendant exhibit a base anti social motive?
-no socially redeeming qualities to this behavior

3. Does defendant subjectively know the conduct endangers human life?
- a defendant need not know all potential victims. he just needs to know his conduct endangers some human life.

ex. defendant shooting bullets into an apartment building. the defendant need not know there are people in the rooms.

ex. Taylor: defendant shoots woman kill her and her fetus. Defendant argues he did not subjectively appreciate the risk of death to her fetus, but courts still holds him accountable for the murder since he knew his conduct endangered some human life.

Front 24

Felony Murder 2

Back 24

killing during the commission of inherently dangerous felony

Front 25

Voluntary Manslaughter

Back 25

an intentional homicide committed without malice

(intentional homicide done in a sudden heat of passion caused by adequate provocation before there has been a reasonable opportunity for the passion to cool.

"Heat of Passion killings" or "imperfect" self defense

Three Jurisdictional views

All require an intent to kill plus

Front 26

Common Law

Back 26

Elements:

1) Defendant was provoked into killing adequately by a reasonable person standard (objective)
-would a reasonable person have been moved to kill?
-adultery
-mutual combat
-severe assault and battery
-sudden realization or learning of relative being hurt

2. defendant killed while in a heat of passion
(subjective)

3. No reasonable time to cool off

4. Causal connection

Front 27

California Law

Back 27

Same as common law except

1. the objective element requires no particular type of provocation. reasonable person standard applies to all circumstances. Words alone can be enough. very arguable.

Berry: wife tells husband he is cheating on him. many times sufficient to invoke passion in an average man

2. cool down period
-ca recognizes that certain conduct can leave emotional distress that lasts a long time. allows for circumstantial evidence to sometimes dictate.

Front 28

Model Penal Code

Back 28

Uses Extreme Emotional Disturbance

1. subjective: d was operating under EED
2. Objective: is there a reasonable explanation or excuse for EED
- determined by a reasonable person standard. put a third person into the body of the defendant. does not ask if d was disturbed enough to kill, just asks if she was super disturbed.

ec. casassa: d kills woman after being rejected by he and stocking her. the disturbance is unreasonable because its so particular to him. his behavior was malevolence rather than understandable human response deserving mercy.

Front 29

imperfect self defense

Back 29

affirmative defense. (defendant speaks first)

1) honest but unreasonable belief of imminent and deadly attack
2) reasonable
3) honest but unreasonable belief that force used was necessary and proportional