Cases for Final Exam Flashcards
Martin v. State
(Actus Reus)
Facts: Appellant was drunk in his home and arrested and taken on a public highway
Holding: Specific elements of the statute all met, but the general element of actus reus missing because he was not voluntarily there
United States v. Hernandez-Hernandez
(Actus Reus - Involuntary Intoxication)
Facts: Defendant became intoxicated and woke up in US; claims illegal entry was not voluntary
Holding: Court ruled that intoxication was voluntary. Voluntary intoxication is not a defense as to the act being involuntary except for specific intent crimes
Watson v. State
(Possession as Actus Reus)
Facts: Police entered bedroom and observed the appellant sleeping on the bed and his cousin doing cocaine off a dresser
Holding: Because the appellant was asleep and did not have knowledge of the drugs he did not have the actus reus for the crime
State v. Winsor
(Possession as Actus Reus)
Facts: Defendant arrest and brought to county jail where they found he had marijuana on him; charged with possession of marijuana while in county jail
Holding: Even though his presence in jail was not a voluntary act, possession of the marijuana was voluntary and that was the main part of the crime
United States v. Cortes – Caban
(Specific Intent – Mens Rea)
Facts: Defendants claimed that the police hadn’t met quota so they planted controlled substances on people and then arrested them
Holding: Additional intent (specific intent) needed to be proven above the general intent of distributing drugs; needed to prove the they intended to distribute drugs AND intend to conduct a fraudulent police search
State v. Thompson
(First Degree Murder)
Facts: Defendant says to wife “if you divorce me I will kill you”. A week later defendant drags wife into home by hair and over a 911 call they heard 4 gun-shots
Holding: Need proof of actual reflection, not just proof of the time to permit reflection.For this statute, the only difference between first and second degree murder is the mere passage of time (instantaneous killing would be second degree because if it was instantaneous, it was not done with premeditation). There was overwhelming evidence of his reflection (evidence of threats, time elapsed between each gun shot, and victims screams as recorded) and therefore convicted for life sentence
Hines v. State
(Felony Murder)
Facts: Defendant was a convicted felon and was hunting with a friend and mistook him for a turkey and shot him. Charged with possession of a firearm by a convicted felon (a felony)
Holding: This felony was sufficient to convict for felony murder
State v. Sophophone
(Felony Murder)
Facts: Defendant charged with felony-murder charge when he was caught and put police car during aggravated burglary when his co-felon was shot and killed by a police officer
Holding: Felony-murder Doctrine did not apply because it was a lawful killing by the police officer. Using the agency theory which limits the doctrine to the homicide committed by the felon and the defendant nor his agent killed anyone
State v. Doub
(Depraved Heart - Second Degree Murder/ Extreme Indifference to Human Life)
Facts: Defendant had been drinking and drove into two parked vehicles. He drank more and smoked crack and was driving at a high speed on the wrong side of the road when drove up onto a vehicle, killing a child. Drove away and did not stop to help the victim.
Holding: Sufficient evidence to convict of depraved heart murder
People v. Pouncey
(Reducing to Voluntary Manslaughter)
Facts: Group of people gets into dispute; there was no physical action or threatening with weapons. Defendant goes into the house and gets a shotgun and shoots the victim. Charged with murder; tries to have it reduced to manslaughter
Holding: Court had 3 Conclusions: (1) words alone do not constitute adequate provocation, (2) there is no heat of passion if the defendant testifies that he was not angry, and(3) There was sufficient cooling time when he entered house to retrieve gun
State v. Williams
(Involuntary Manslaughter/Negligently)
Facts: American Indian couple charged with crime of manslaughter when child died from an infected abscessed tooth. Did not take him to the doctor because they did not know he was that sick and also other Indian couples had their children taken away by the Welfare Department when they took them to the doctors
Holding: Not providing medical care met the standard of ordinary negligence. Failure to take the child to the doctor was the proximate cause of death
People v. Hall
(Recklessly)
Facts: While sking, the Defendant, a ski instructor, speedily flew off a knoll and collided with the victim, killing him. Was an experienced skier and was speeding excessively
Holding: Consciously disregarded a substantial and unjustifiable risk that death could have occurred from his actions and therefore his actions were reckless
State v. Larson
(Negligently)
Facts: Defendant was drunk and driving at a high rate of speed and overcorrected his car, causing him to crash and kill his 3 passengers
Holding: Enough evidence to prove negligent homicide
State v. Fennell
(Doctrine of Transferred Intent)
Facts: Defendant gets in dispute with man and then shoots at him and kills him but also injures another man; defendant did not intend to injure the second victim
Holding: Imposed the doctrine of transferred intent to hold the defendant accountable for knowing actions could have injured the unintended
State v. Lane
(Cause-in-fact, Actual cause)
Facts: A man was drunk, ∆ punched him and he fell and hit the pavement, there for a while until the police came.
Holding: That the state reasonably infer that the punch was the cause in fact, Steve testified to seeing ∆ swing around the head and the medical examiner said that injury could have been from blow to the head or head hitting something - reasonable evidence