Causation
Is causation required for conduct crimes? Yes/No
NO
what is the year and a day rule?
At common law, this rule required that the victim die within a year and a day of the defendant's act for a homicide prosecution
what is premeditation vs deliberation and their requirements
Premeditation = the process of thinking about a proposed killing before engaging in the homicidal conduct.
about the quantity of time taken to form the intent to kill
ex. “Im gonna kill them”
Deliberation = the process of weighing/thinking about the decision to do the killing, how to do the killing, and/or potential consequences if one is caught.
Requires:
A cool mental state
Time to reflect and a lack of impulse
deliberation is about the quality
ex. “Im gonna kill them by shooting them and im gonna hide the body”
what is the reasonable person provocation test
Provocation mitigates an intentional killing from murder to voluntary manslaughter only if:
D acted in the heat of passion, AND
D was reasonably provoked into a heat of passion, AND
D did not have a reasonable sufficient time to cool off, AND
There is causal connection: provocation must have provoked the killing
What is an inchoate crime?
Inchoate crime = incomplete or unsuccessful criminal conduct which occurs After the formation of mens rea but short of completion of the criminal goal
What is actual cause?
Can there be multiple actual causes?
Must a cause be the primary cause to satisfy the but for prong?
but for D’s conduct would the harm have occurred when it did
Absent the D conduct, the outcome would not have occurred when it did, therefore D is an actual cause // Absent the D conduct, the outcome would still have occurred when it did so they are not an actual cause.
Does not need to be the primary cause to satisfy but for prong. Can be multiple
what is the deadly weapon rule
jury can infer intent to kill when a deadly weapon is used
what is criminal homicide
unlawful homicide committed without justification or excuse
what's the difference between involuntary manslaughter and depraved heart murder
IM v. DH
Degree of recklessness separates the two:
DH = gross recklessness
(extreme indifference to life)
IM = simple recklessness
(aware that conduct was dangerous [but not deadly), but proceed anyways)
Or gross negligence
what are the two types of criminal attempt? explain
Types of criminal attempt
Complete but imperfect: a person performs all the acts she set out to do, but fails to attain her criminal goal
Incomplete: a person does some acts to achieve the criminal goal, but for some reason fails to achieve the criminal goal (ex. Pointing a gun but being tackled before pulling the trigger)
What's the full proximate cause analysis?
involves an analysis to measure the closeness of the relationship between D’s conduct and the harm
An intervening cause is a cause that occurs after the D’s actus reus but before the harm AND contributes causally to the harm
Dependent IC: act that is dependent upon, reacts to, or is responsive to D actus reus
D is proximate cause unless intervening cause is extremely unusual or bizarre
Independent IC: cause that is independent or coincidental to D’s actus reus
D is not proximate cause unless the intervening cause is foreseeable
what is the defintion and the elements of murder?
Murder = unlawful killing of a human being by a human being with malice aforethought
Intent
Premeditation
Deliberation
what does inherently dangerous mean under the james test vs the hines test
james: Inherently dangerous = felony cannot be committed without creating a substantial risk/high probability that someone will be killed
hines:
defendant’s particular conduct created/carried with it a foreseeable risk of a killing/death
Define
the mere words principle.
misdirected retaliation rule
cumulative passion principle
Mere Words Rule
Words alone are not legally adequate provocation. Words communicating acts or facts that provoke can be sufficient provocation
Misdirected Retaliation Rule
A person killed must be the provoker for D to claim provocation/heat of passion defense
Cumulative Passion Principle
A series of events can constitute provocation, but the reasonable person test still applies so the question is whether a rp who has experienced those series of events could be provoked to kill
explain the self defense analysis
To establish self defense, must meet all 3 prongs
Imminence
D had good faith and reasonable belief that D was threatened with imminent threat of unlawful force
Subjective: d must have genuine belief (good faith)
Objective: d’s genuine belief must be one that a reasonable person in that situation would have (reasonable)
D does not have to be correct, just reasonable
No common standard/definition
The danger of force must be immediate
Necessity
Force D used was necessary to repel the threat
Deadly force can only be in response to deadly/SBI threat
Proportionality
D force was proportional to threatened force. Allowed to use force sufficient to repel threat, not excessive to threatened force
You cant use deadly force to repel a non-deadly threat
Carmen is a certified lifeguard working at a community pool. She’s texting on the job when she notices a child slipping beneath the water. The child struggles for over a minute while Carmen hesitates, falsely assuming someone else will intervene. Eventually, the child drowns.
An investigation reveals that, had Carmen jumped in immediately, she would have saved the child.
Question:
What type(s) of causation are present, if any? Is Carmen criminally liable as a cause of death?
Actual Cause (But-For Causation):
Yes — Carmen is an actual cause of the child’s death.
But-for her failure to act, the child would likely have survived.
Her omission counts as conduct because she had a legal duty to act as a lifeguard (duty by employment).
Omission can satisfy actus reus when there is a duty, and it can be the but-for cause of harm.
Proximate Cause:
Yes — Carmen is also the proximate cause of death.
There is no intervening cause that breaks the chain between her omission and the harm.
The child drowning is the natural and foreseeable result of a lifeguard failing to act.
The death is directly related to her omission — this is not a bizarre or independent event.
This type of malice exists when a person intends to cause serious bodily injury, but death results
explain the elements of the res gestae requirement
Temporal & geographical proximity: the felony and the homicide must be close in terms of time and distance
Homicide cannot precede the felony
Escape rule: FM liability extends until the felon reaches a place of temporary safety
One continuous transaction (Bodely) = fm liability reaches a homicide if the felony and the killing are parts of one continuos transaction
Rule extends fm liability beyond completion of crime
Causal Connection: there must be a causal connection between the felony and the homicide. (no consensus on causation standard)
But for is sufficient (stamp): FM applies as long as the felony contributes in any/some way to the death
D takes the victim as is; FM applies so long as the victims condition is not the sole reason for the death
Foreseeability of the death is not required
Killing must be in furtherance of the felony (King):
Acts causing death must be done by the felon
Acts causing death must have been done to further the felony
temporal/presence connection and but for are not enough of a causation nexus
what is gross recklessness? what perspective is it measured from
Gross recklessness = extreme indifference to life. d knew that the conduct created a substantial and unjustified risk of human death and proceeded with conduct anyway
Subjective standard (from the pov of D)
explain the actus reus tests for attempt
actus Reus Tests for Attempt CL (apply all)
Dangerous Proximity Test: Attempt only if the conduct is so near the intended result that the danger of success is very great (Rizzo).
Physical Proximity Test: To be guilty of attempt an act must go so far that it would result, or apparently result in the actual commission of the crime it was designed to effect if not hindered or frustrated by extraneous circumstances.
Unequivocal Test: A person is not guilty of criminal attempt until her conduct ceases to be equivocal, i.e. her conduct, standing alone, clearly demonstrates her criminal intent (Staples)
Probable Distance Test: Attempt if D has proceeded past the point of no return, i.e. the point past which an ordinary person is likely to abandon the criminal effort
Dana, protesting a billboard she finds offensive, sets fire to its base with a lighter. The fire begins to spread, but it’s quickly put out by fire services with minimal damage. However, the fire causes a local power line to short-circuit, creating a temporary blackout. At the nearby hospital, a patient on a ventilator dies when the backup generator malfunctions due to a previously unknown manufacturer defect. The hospital had skipped its last inspection, and the defect would have been caught.
Question:
Is Dana an actual and/or proximate cause of the patient’s death?
Actual Cause: Yes — but for Dana’s fire, the blackout wouldn’t have occurred when it did.
Proximate Cause: Arguably no — the backup generator’s defect, the hospital’s failure to inspect, and the rare chain of events may qualify as independent, unforeseeable intervening causes that break the chain.
Best Answer: Actual cause present; proximate cause likely broken.
elements of malice aforethought
Killing constitutes murder when one or more exists
1) an intent to kill
Express malice
2) an intent to commit serious bodily injury but death results
3) an “abandoned and malignant heart” aka “depraved heart
Extreme reckless disregard for the value of human life. When they know their conduct is so dangerous to human life and they disregard it and go about, resulting in someones death.
4) felony murder rule applies
2-4: implied malice
what is the difference between murder and manslaughter
Murder: criminal homicide with malice aforethought
Manslaughter: criminal homicide without malice aforethought
what is gross negligence vs simple negligence
gross negligence (a gross deviation from the standard of care that reasonable people exercise in the same situation) (POV: objective) no universal definition*
Simple negligence is failure to use ordinary caution which is the kind of caution that a man of reasonable prudence would exercise under the same/similar circumstance. D knew conduct was dangerous but proceeded anyways
explain limitations on self defense & duty to retreat rules
Non-Aggressor Limitation
> cannot claim self-defense if you are the initial aggressor of the situation/circumstance
Duty to Retreat Rules
Majority Rule: no duty/requirement to retreat before using deadly force in self-defense against threat of death/serious injury - Stand Your Ground Laws
Minority Rule: Duty to retreat if: (1) a safe retreat is available; and (2) the defendant knew the safe retreat option is available
Exception: castle doctrine = no duty to retreat if D is threatened in their own home