Drunk and hot girls
Anthony loves a cheeky bump every now and again. He also loves Snoop wine and figures the two would pair well. However, after mixing the substances and becoming intoxicated he overhears Gian denigrate Lady Gaga and kills him in a blind rage. If the jury could find SHOP or EED, could Anthony's murder charge be dropped to manslaughter?
No, with voluntary intoxication you can never drop murder down to manslaughter.
(CL) Walk through how to get to involuntary manslaughter
Unexpected > no wanton disregard for human life > involuntary manslaughter
(MPC) Defendant was convicted of negligent homicide, what was the mens rea?
Gross/criminal negligence
Do both MPC and CL recognize the egg shell victim concept?
Yes
A husband had lived with his wife and MIL for ten years. During those ten years, his MIL had undermined his authority in all aspects of his life and continually created problems in his marriage and with his children. The husband became convinced that his family could not survive as long as his MIL was in the picture and so he started putting a small amount of poison in the tea he made for her every evening. His plan was for her to become sufficiently ill that she would end up in a long-term care facility, although he did not want to kill her. The husband studied poisons on the internet and purchased one he thought would achieve his objective, but he miscalculated the amount, and the MIL became very ill after only two doses. She was rushed to the hospital and doctors were able to save her life although she was permanently disabled as a result. The MIL died four months later from a cancer discovered after she was admitted to the hospital.
Based on this evidence what is the most serious crime the husband committed?
A. Murder
B. Involuntary manslaughter
C. Attempted murder
D. Attempted involuntary manslaughter
E. Aggravated battery
E. Aggravated battery
Here the evidence does not prove D was the legal cause of victim's death. Although he did make her very sick from his criminal act the cause of her death was cancer. The problem also indicates he did not act with a purpose to kill his victim, as a result the evidence is insufficient to establish the mens rea for attempted murder. Attempted involuntary manslaughter is not a valid option because a defendant cannot have the purpose to commit a reckless or grossly negligent act. His criminal act did inflict harmful bodily contact on his victim and that contact was made with a means likely to cause death or GBH and also resulted in GBH. Therefore, all elements of aggravated battery are established.
Jayda, who does not partake in drugs, sees a tray of chocolate chip cookies at a party and helps herself to one. However, unbeknownst to her, her degenerate friends put THC oil in the cookies. Jayda starts to feel unwell and decides to drive home before her friends realize she has eaten a cookie. On the drive home she gets into an accident that results in one death. Would she be found guilty of a homicide crime?
No, involuntary intoxication would likely protect Jayda from any criminal culpability.
(CL) Walk through how to get to voluntary manslaughter
Expected outcome > SHOP > voluntary manslaughter
(MPC) Defendant was convicted of murder through extreme indifference to human life, what was the mens rea?
Recklessness
Which system has degrees of murder?
CL (first and second degree).
(CL) D is a member of a motorcycle gang, who is convinced that another member of the gang murdered his father two weeks ago. D's anger has been building for two weeks as he gathered more and more information that convinces him that his father was murdered. D decided to take revenge by ambushing his victim at the gang clubhouse alone. At that point, D jumps out of the closet and confronts his victim. D says, "I know you are responsible for killing my old man, and now you are going to pay!" D then fires four shots into his victim at point blank range, who is badly wounded but survives. At that moment, two other members of the club burst into the room and see what happened. D says, "Get out of my way or I'll have to shoot you!" The two members try and block the door and D then fires one shot into one member's leg. The other member then goes for his gun and D points his pistol at his head at point blank range and pulls the trigger. Fortunately, the gun jams and does not fire. D is then able to run past the uninjured member and get out of the building. Based on these facts:
I. D committed 2 counts of attempted murder
II. D committed 2 counts of attempted murder and 1 count of attempted voluntary manslaughter
III. D committed 1 count of aggravated battery
IV. D committed 3 counts of attempted murder
V. D committed 1 count of attempted voluntary manslaughter and 2 counts of attempted murder
A. I and III
B. II only
C. IV only
D. V only
A. I and III
Attempt requires proof D took the last act or a substantial step toward committing a target offense with the intent/purpose to commit that offense. That means for attempted murder, the evidence must prove D acted with the purpose to kill the victim. Here, when D shot his first victim, the proof establishes he was doing so to kill him: his motive and his planning, along with his statement all point to this finding. His victim survives, but D did the last act to kill him. This was a failed attempted murder. When D put the gun to the third victim's head at point blank range and pulled the trigger believing the gun would fire, he also committed attempted murder: his conduct supports an inference he must have had the purpose to kill, and he did the last act to achieve that purpose. Because the gun jammed, it was "impossible" for him to kill the last victim. This is an example of "pure factual" impossibility: It was impossible to complete the crime because of a fact D erroneously assumed was different (the gun was functional); had the fact been as D believed it to be he would have killed his victim. Factual impossibility is no defense to attempt. Accordingly, that failed effort to kill is also attempted murder. However, for the second victim, the evidence will not prove beyond a reasonable doubt that D acted with purpose to kill. He certainly knew where to shoot when he wanted to kill (torso or head). For this victim, he shot in the leg. This was inconsistent with a purpose to kill and therefore will not support an attempted murder conviction. However, D certainly intentionally battered the victim and because he used a deadly weapon, he is guilty of aggravated battery. Finally, D will not be able to raise SHOP to "block" the malice required for attempted murder convictions and reduce them to attempted voluntary manslaughter. Although what happened to his father may have been an adequate provocation, D had plenty of time to cool off, and the calculated nature of his attack indicates he was not in a homicidal rage but thinking quite rationally.
(MPC) Cody has one long island iced tea too many and is playing with a gun which he assumes is unloaded. He points it at Anthony and pulls the trigger. However, the gun had a bullet in the chamber and Cody shoots and kills Antony.
What is the most serious crime Cody can be convicted of? What catchy rule did we learn that deals with situations like this?
Manslaughter. He cannot get negligent homicide because drunk negligence = recklessness and recklessness bumps the crime up from what would ordinarily be negligent homicide.
(CL) Walk through how to find an accident (no crime).
Unexpected outcome > no gross or criminal negligence > no crime
(MPC) Defendant was convicted of manslaughter through EED, what mens rea must they have acted with?
Purpose or knowledge to kill
Which system differentiates types of manslaughter.
Common law (voluntary and involuntary). All manslaughter is manslaughter under the MPC.
D is washing his car one Sunday afternoon, while his only son, who is eight years old, is riding his new bike up and down the road on a residential street in The Woodlands. Suddenly D hears the sound of screeching tires and a collision. He jumps up and sees the son lying motionless in front of a car. He starts running to the end of the street where the son was hit by the car and notices the driver stumble out of the car. D can tell that the driver is obviously intoxicated. D checks on his son and although unconscious and badly injured the son seems to be alive. The driver then says, "Why was the kid riding a bike in the road?" D loses control and attacks the driver. D knocks him to the ground and starts pounding his head onto the road. Other neighbors pull D off the driver, who is so severely injured that he is unconscious. An ambulance arrives and transports both the driver and the child to the hospital. Both are severely injured but both survive.
Based on these facts what is the most serious offense D should be convicted of?
A. Attempted murder
B. Attempted voluntary manslaughter
C. Attempted involuntary manslaughter
D. Aggravated battery by use of a deadly weapon
E. Aggravated battery based on intent to inflict serious injury
B. Attempted voluntary manslaughter
Ana attempt requires proof D took a failed or substantial step towards committing a target offense with the purpose to commit that offense. Here, the evidence supports the finding D was trying to kill the driver: the severity of the beating and the fact that he was pounding his head on the pavement, coupled with his motive, infers a purpose to kill. D's efforts failed, so there is no homicide. Normally, this would prove attempted murder. However, here, D's purpose to kill was formed during a SHOP triggered by seeing the severe injury to his child: an adequate provocation. This negates the malice normally established by intent to kill. Had the victim died, this would result in a conviction for voluntary manslaughter: an unlawful intentional killing without malice committed during a SHOP. But because the driver did not die, this supports a conviction for attempted voluntary manslaughter. D had the purpose to kill, went beyond preparation, but acted in a SHOP. C is wrong because you cannot have a purpose to do a reckless or grossly negligent act. D is wrong because it is not the most serious offense and because D cannot control the pavement so it does not qualify as a deadly weapon.
Hannah decides to take an edible with her friends but gets scared and runs out of the apartment they were hanging out in. Super zooted, she tries to get back into the apartment but instead opens the door of another apartment and walks into a stranger's place. Once inside she grabs a backpack she thinks is hers and then walks out. The DA is trying to make an anti-weed statement and charges her with burglary. Would this stick?
Burglary is a specific intent crime where voluntary intoxication could be considered to disprove the mens rea element. Would likely not stick.
(MPC) Walk through how to find manslaughter.
Bonus: get to manslaughter through a different expected outcome
Expected outcome > EED > manslaughter
Unexpected outcome > reckless > no extreme indifference to human life > manslaughter
(CL) Defendant was convicted of voluntary manslaughter through SHOP, what was the mens rea?
Intent
What is the MPC equivalent of SHOP?
Bonus: explain the differences.
Extreme emotional disturbance. Allows the emotion to percolate and grow, doesn't have to be immediate. Is more inclusive. EED = subjective and objective (reasonable) standards. SHOP = purely objective (reasonable) standard.
(CL) Now assume moments after the impact from Toby's car, Mike, severely injured, is transported by an ambulance to the hospital. The EMT crew had just started duty and this was their first call. During the trip one of the EMTs accidentally administers the wrong medicine to Mike, an obvious mistake which the other EMT notices immediately and tries to correct. But by the time he removes the IV, the medication has already been administered. As a result, Mike goes into cardiac arrest and dies before he reaches the hospital. The ME concludes the cardiac arrest was the immediate cause of death and it resulted from the administration of the wrong medicine. Additional investigation of the incident established the EMT who made the mistake had been out partying all night before his shift and was still intoxicated while he was on duty and had coke in his system. At the close of the evidence, the jury concludes that Toby intended to severely injure Mike, but that he did not intend to kill him. The jury also concludes that Toby carefully planned his attack in the days prior. Based on this evidence, what is the most serious offense Toby will most likely be convicted of?
A. Voluntary manslaughter
B. Involuntary manslaughter
C. First degree murder
D. Second degree murder
E. Aggravated battery
E. Aggravated battery.
The evidence in this case points to an intervening superseding case that will relieve Toby of liability for Mike's death. The actions of the EMT were certainly abnormal and no reasonable person would foresee and EMT would go on duty while still drunk and high on coke. The mistake the EMT made was blatant and catastrophic, noticed immediately by the other EMT. But for that mistake Mike would be alive. Accordingly, this is likely to create reasonable doubt that Toby was the legal cause of Toby's death and the fact Toby intended to injure and not kill Mike will make the jury more sympathetic to this argument. However, inability to prove legal cause of death has no relevance to the underlying and lesser included offense of aggravated battery, which is established by the evidence Toby battered the victim with a means likely to case GBH, caused serious physical injury, and intended to cause GBH.
Don smokes some good good but it has the unexpected effect of making him super aggressive. To get out his weed rage he punches Cody in the face and breaks his nose. Battery is a general intent crime under the MPC and Don willingly partook of marijuana. Coul Don's voluntary intoxication be considered during ANY phase of the trial?
Yes, but only sentencing. Not guily.
(CL) Walk through how to get to second degree murder.
Bonus: walk through it using a different expected outcome.
Expected outcome > no SHOP > express malice murder > not premeditated and deliberated > second degree murder
Unexpected outcome > wanton disregard for the value of human life > implied malice murder > second degree murder
(MPC) Defendant was convicted of second-degree murder, what is the mens rea?
Bonus: is it the same as first degree?
Malice.
Yes.
Which homicide mens reas are the same between MPC and CL?
Bonus: which are different for MPC? Which are different for CL?
Same: recklessness or gross/criminal negligence
Different (MPC): malice, intent
Different (CL): purpose, knowledge
Mike is a star athlete with a high prospect of a professional baseball career. Toby is jealous of Mike because he is dating a woman Toby has been in love with for years. Late one night, Toby drove his car into Mike while in their apartment parking lot. Mike's leg bones are shattered and he is informed he will never play baseball again. The next day, Mike, despondent, decides to take his own life by removing his IV pump with vital medication in the middle of the night. Mike disables the IV pump so it does not alarm and alert the nurse on duty. The nurse on duty is supposed to be monitoring patients but is so busy she just gives a cursory glance in Mike's room and assumes he's sleeping, losing the opportunity to intervene and save his life. Mike dies.
Toby is tried for murder. Based on this evidence:
A. The judge should grant a motion for acquittal when the prosecution rests because of insufficient evidence.
B. The judge should deny a motion for acquittal when the prosecution rests, but the jury should acquit Toby because of the nurse's carelessness.
C. The judge should deny a motion for acquittal when the prosecution rests, but the victim's actions may result in an acquittal by the jury.
D. The judge should deny a motion for acquittal when the prosecution rests and the jury will have to convict.
C. The judge should deny a motion for acquittal when the prosecution rests, but the victim's actions may result in an acquittal by the jury.
A motion for an acquittal should only be granted when the evidence produced by the prosecution in the case-in-chief (prima facie evidence) is insufficient to support a reasonable finding of guilt. Here the evidence raises the possibility that the jury will find Mike's own actions an intervening cause that supersedes Toby's liability for the death. But this is a question that must be submitted to the jury because the evidence offered by the prosecution is sufficient to find Toby is the legal cause of death (that Mike's suicidal response was not abnormal and therefore foreseeable under the circumstances). The nurse's negligence is an intervening cause but is not considered superseding because ordinary medical negligence is considered foreseeable. Whether Toby acted with malice when he ran his car into Mike is a question for the jury; his action was certainly sufficient to support a reasonable finding that he acted with intent to kill or intent to inflict GBH, either of which prove malice and would support a murder conviction.