Cases for Final Exam Flashcards
(38 cards)
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
Oxendine v. State
(Cause-in-fact/Actual cause - intervening cause)
Facts: Girlfriend punches child to the point that he would die soon, dad then comes and punches the kid. Doctors couldn’t determine if the second round was an accelerant
Holding: Remand for assault instead of manslaughter since they could not determine if it was an accelerant
State v. Pelham
(Proximate cause - Dependant/intervening cause)
Facts: Car accident, where the passenger went into disabling condition and eventually removed life support. Was pulling life support a supervening cause?
Holding: Does not arise to be independent intervening which would cut off criminal liability. Everyone has the right to accept, reject, or continue medical treatment in form of life support – does not break the chain because this right is foreseeable – not an intervening cause
State v. Lamprey
(Proximate cause - Independant)
Facts: She was doing swervies with the kids in the bed of the truck, hit a tree and a child died. ∆ said it was a car defect.
Holding: Substantial factor test: have to find that the mechanical defect was the sole cause of death?; “contributed to” standard.Court says that the mechanical defect has to be the sole cause for her liability to be cut off
State v. Crossman
(Statutory Burglary)
Facts: The defendant, at night, removed exterior doors and windows from a vacant house
Holding: Even though he was not inside the house, he is guilty for entry because he had to reach inside to undo the hinges.
Commonwealth v. Powell
(Armed Robbery)
Facts: Defendant robs a store and told the cashier to give her cash otherwise he would shoot her. Victim could tell something was in his jacket; it turned out to be a wooden gun replica
Holding: If the fake gun was displaying in such a way that it reasonably appeared capable of causing death or serious injury, then it would constitute a dangerous weapon. Focus on the fact that the victim was just as terrified as if this had been a real gun and reasonably believed that it was capable of inflicting injury. Can’t just say you have a gun and not – wouldn’t be armed robbery.
Commonwealth v. Jones
(Timing of Use of Force for Robbery)
Facts: Defendant put boots in his pants and then exited the store (committed larceny) Manager followed him out into the parking lot and confronted him when the defendant pulled out a gun and threatened him
Holding: The defendant had custody of the items while within the store and the manager maintained constructive possession over the items; as the larceny was continuing but before his custody was converted into possession, the manager interposed himself to prevent the theft and that is when the defendant introduced force and when the crime was transformed into robbery
Baldwin v. Commonwealth
(Attempt - Sufficiency of the Evidence)
Facts: Pulled over; Cop was on the side of the vehicle and had to push off to avoid having his foot ran over; turned the wheel and sped off; at worse officer’s foot would have been run over; since he was on the side he could not aim the vehicle at the cop
Holding: Not enough evidence to prove intent to kill; just the intent to get away; reversed.
Some acts in furtherance of that intent
Evans v. State
(Attempt - Sufficiency of the Evidence)
Facts: Discussed the actual crime; possessed all the materials necessary to commit the crime; found with materials near the place of commission; drove around multiple parking lots for 45 minutes
Holding: Acts were already performed in pursuance of the intent; acts could not be interpreted to show lawful intent
People v. Saephanh
(Uncommunicated Solicitation - Sufficiency of Evidence - Actus Reus)
Fact: Sent a letter asking a companion to abort his child before it is due; letter was intercepted by guards and charged with solicitation. Def. claimed Crime cant be committed if the solicitation was never sent. Causation could never happen.
Holding: Court found attempted solicitation:
Must have specific intent to commit the crime and substantial step to commit the crime.
