Define Me
What is the definition of "murder" under the MPC?
Under the MPC "murder" = when a person unjustifiably and inexcusably kills another human being:
1) purposely or knowingly; OR
2) recklessly "under circumstances manifesting extreme indifference to the value of life"
True or False.
In determining if a killing was premeditated, any interval of time between the forming of the intent to kill and the execution of that intent will be enough if that interval is of sufficient duration for the accused to be fully conscious of what he intended.
True.
State v. Guthrie (∆ stabbed co-worker in neck case) - Court adopts "sufficient duration standard" which requires sufficient duration (or reasonable time) to be fully conscious of his actions
True or False.
Mere words alone can serve as adequate provocation
FALSE
Words alone are not adequate provocation. However, words accompanied by conduct indicating present intent to inflict bodily harm on another can be enough, if the conduct causes reasonable fear for bodily safety in another. (Girouard v. State - married couple where taunts turned into stabbing case)
For Depraved Heart Murder, how big of a risk does it need to be to become depraved?
To be depraved the human conduct must involve risk-taking that it would be shocking to disregard.
Depraved Heart Murder: Death caused by extreme recklessness (callous disregard of risk of death)
A defendant is charged with murder in a jurisdiction that follows the modern common law approach to malice. The case does not involve the intended commission of any separate felony.
Which of the following best states the prosecutor's burden related to the defendant's state of mind?
A. The prosecutor MUST prove that the defendant knew that death or grievous bodily harm was likely to occur.
B. The prosecutor MUST prove that the defendant intended to cause death or grievous bodily harm.
C. The prosecutor must prove EITHER that the defendant knew that death or grievous bodily harm was likely to occur, OR that the defendant intended to cause death or grievous bodily harm.
D. The prosecutor must prove BOTH that the defendant knew that death or grievous bodily harm was likely to occur, AND that the defendant intended to cause death or grievous bodily harm.
C. The prosecutor must prove EITHER that the defendant knew that death or grievous bodily harm was likely to occur, OR that the defendant intended to cause death or grievous bodily harm.
What is the definition of an "intentional" killing under CL?
Intentional Killing = willful, deliberate, and premeditated killing
"Willful" = intent to kill
What are the three main approaches to "murder" today?
1) Pennsylvania Model (murder divided into first degree & second degree) (37 states follow this*)
2) Murder is divided into three degrees (4 states)
3) Model Penal Code Approach (no degrees; 3 homicide crimes: murder, manslaughter, & negligent homicide)
What are the two (2) parts of extreme emotional disturbance (EED/EMED) defense?
1) individual must actually be under the influence of an extreme mental/emotional disturbance (subjective)
2) there must be a reasonable explanation or excuse for disturbance, with reasonableness determined by viewing the situation from the perspective of defendant as he/she perceived the situation (objective/subjective)
For negligent homicide under the MPC, what is taken into account when looking at the "actor's situation?"
Clearly taken into account: physical traits/limits of defendant
Not taken into account: history, intellect, temperament, beliefs
NOTE: Leave the rest to the trier of fact*
While driving on a highway, a prankster spontaneously discharged a firearm out of the car's window and into the air, intending to scare nearby motorists. One of the prankster's rounds entered a nearby car's passenger compartment, killing an occupant.
Under the Model Penal Code (MPC), could the prankster's act satisfy the requirements for murder?
A. No, because the prankster acted spontaneously.
B. No, because the prankster did not intend to kill the victim.
C. Yes, because the prankster's act required premeditation.
D. Yes, because the prankster acted with reckless indifference to human life.
D. Yes, because the prankster acted with reckless indifference to human life.
What is the definition of "manslaughter" under the MPC?
"Manslaughter" = when person unjustifiably and inexcusably kills another human being:
1) recklessly (but circumstances NOT suggestive of extreme indifference to life) [MPC § 210.3(1)(a)); OR
2) with mental culpability but "under the influence of extreme mental or emotional disturbance for which there is reasonable explanation or excuse" ; "reasonableness" of explanation/excuse is evaluated from "the viewpoint of a person in the actor's situation under the circumstances as he believes them to be"
NOTE: Under this definition, provocation by the victim is NOT required
What is the definition of "criminal homicide" under the MPC?
And what are the three types of MPC "criminal homicide"
MPC "criminal homicide" = when a person unjustifiably and inexcusably "purposely, knowingly, recklessly, or negligently causes the death of another human being" (MPC § 210.1(1))
Three Types of MPC "Criminal Homicide"
1. Murder (MPC § 210.2)
2. Manslaughter (MPC § 210.3)
3. Negligent Homicide (MPC § 210.1)
What are the two types of traditional common law "manslaughter"
1) voluntary manslaughter = intentional homicide committed in a "sudden heat of passion" as a result of "adequate provocation" and committed before an adequate opportunity to "cool off"
2) involuntary manslaughter = gross negligence or recklessness leads to death of another; act causing the death is lawful, but not done with adequate care [i.e. gross deviation from the standard of care, but not extreme enough to constitute "depraved heart"]; unintentional killing
Under the MPC, what are the four (4) types of unintentional killings?
1) civil liability: death caused by negligence
2) negligent homicide: death caused by gross negligence
3) manslaughter" death caused by recklessness
4) murder: death caused by extreme recklessness
A wife phoned her husband and told him that she was leaving him for another man with whom she had been having an affair. The wife told the husband, who was clinically depressed, that she would be stopping by the marital home the next day at 3 o'clock to pick up some of her belongings. The wife told her husband that it would be best for both of them if he were not there when she arrived. The husband agreed. However, when the wife arrived at their house the next day at 3 o'clock, the husband was home and hiding in their bedroom. When the wife went into their bedroom, the husband grabbed her and manually strangled her until she lost consciousness. The wife died as a result of the attack. Prosecutors charged the husband with murder. The husband argued that, at most, he was guilty of voluntary manslaughter. The jurisdiction had not adopted the Model Penal Code. Therefore, the husband's voluntary manslaughter claim is subject to the jurisdiction's common-law rules.
Under the common-law rules, which of the following facts most undermines the husband's voluntary-manslaughter argument?
A) That a day had passed between the wife's phone call and the strangling.
B) That the wife was having an affair
C) That the wife planned to leave the husband
D) That the husband was clinically depressed
A. That a day had passed between the wife's phone call and the strangling.
When is "malice" implied?
Malice is implied when the killing is proximately caused by "an act, the natural consequences of which are dangerous to life, which act was deliberately performed by a person who knows that his conduct endangers the life of another and who acts with conscious disregard for life.
In People v. Knoller (San Fran vicious dog case), CA S.Ct. said "implied malice requires awareness of the risk of death of another from one's behavior"
Implied Malice Aforethought --> Depraved Heart, Felony Murder, Intent to cause GBH
Express Malice Aforethought --> Intent to kill
What are some major differences between "murder" under the Common Law versus under the MPC?
1. Under the MPC, premeditation and deliberation are not required.
2. There are no "degrees" of murder under the MPC. Some state statutes have been enacted which divide CL "murder" into "degrees" (i.e. First Degree Murder, Second Degree Murder)
3. Under the CL, for malice murder you are looking to see if the defendant acted intentionally to kill or inflict GBH. Additionally, under the CL intentionally includes both MPC concepts of purposely and knowingly. Additionally, there is no special significance to GBH under MPC, it fits under the reckless and extreme indifference standard
What are the elements of Common Law "Heat of Passion" Manslaughter?
1) Defendant acted in sudden "heat of passion,"
2) Passion was result of "adequate provocation,"
3) No adequate opportunity to "cool off," AND
4) Causal link between the provocation, the passion, and the killing
NOTE: "passion" must still be impacting defendant at time of killing (i.e. causing killing) AND defendant must NOT have adequate time to "cool off" (objective standard for "adequate" time to cool off)
Under the common law, what are the four (4) types of unintentional killings?
1) Civil liability: death caused by negligence (wrongful death lawsuit)
2) involuntary manslaughter: death due to gross negligence or recklessness ("criminal negligence)
3) depraved heart: death caused by extreme recklessness (callous disregard of risk of death)
4) felony murder: death caused in connection with certain felonies
On a train platform, a man shoved a woman onto the tracks as a train was audibly approaching. The man and woman had had no interactions prior to the shove. The approaching train struck the woman, killing her. The controlling jurisdiction had adopted the Model Penal Code (MPC).
Is the man likely guilty of murder?
A) Yes, because the man acted purposely
B) Yes, because the man's actions resulted in the woman's death
C) No, because first-degree murder under the MPC requires malice aforethought
D) No, because first-degree murder under the MPC requires malice aforethought
A) Yes, because the man acted purposely
Define the following under the MPC:
- Extreme Recklessness
- Recklessness
- Gross Negligence
- Extreme Recklessness (murder): where a person is acting recklessly so as to manifest "conscious disregard" of a "substantial and unjustifiable risk" that death will result from conduct, under circumstances that show "extreme indifference to the value of human life"
- Recklessness (manslaughter): "conscious disregard" of "substantial and unjustifiable risk" that death will result from conduct & "gross deviation" from standard of care that "law-abiding person" would observe in the actor's situation
- Gross Negligence (negligent homicide): The individual should be aware of substantial and unjustifiable risk that death will result from conduct; this involves a "gross deviation" from standard of care that a reasonable person would observe in the actor's situation
What are the four traditional ways of establishing "malice?"
1. defendant acted with intent to kill (either purposeful or knowing)
2. defendant acted with intent to inflict great bodily harm (either purposeful or knowing)
3. defendant acted with a "depraved heart" (extreme recklessness regarding risk of death)
4. defendant killed during the commission of another felony (felony murder)
What is the test for "adequate provocation?" (Maher)
Was provocation such that it might render ordinary men, of fair average disposition, liable to act rashly or without due deliberation or reflection, and from passion rather than judgment?
Objective test: the focus of the adequacy of provocation analysis is "reasonable man/person" of "ordinary sensibilities" in the situation that the defendant was in
Put another way: For provocation to be adequate it must be calculated to inflame the passion of a reasonable man and tend to cause him to act for the moment from passion rather than reason
A driver was passing a car that was stalled on the side of a country road, and while glancing at the stalled car, the driver failed to notice a pedestrian step into the road. The driver hit and killed the pedestrian.
Which of the following is the most serious supportable charge against the driver?
A) Voluntary manslaughter under the common law.
B) Voluntary manslaughter under the Model Penal Code.
C) Involuntary manslaughter under the Model Penal Code.
D) Negligent homicide under the Model Penal Code.
D. Negligent homicide under the Model Penal Code.
A state statute provided that "it is unlawful for any person to operate a motor vehicle without traction devices, tire chains, or snow tires upon any street or highway, under icy or snowy conditions, when the highway is marked or posted with signs for the retirement of traction devices, chains, or snow tires." A package-delivery truck driver, operating a truck without any inclement-weather equipment was delivering packages when an ice storm enveloped the region, reducing visibility and covering the roads with ice. While on route to a delivery, the driver skidded into an icy intersection, striking and killing a motorist. The road was marked with signs requiring traction devices, tire chains, or snow tires.
Under the common law, what offense, if any, did the driver most likely commit?
A) involuntary manslaughter
B) Voluntary manslaughter
C) Reckless homicide
D) No offense
A) Involuntary manslaughter