Glannon Guide: Homicide ---Murder

Question 1

In most jurisdictions malice can be proved by….

Answer 1

1) intent to kill
2) intent to cause serious bodily injury
3) Callous or wanton disregard for human life (gross recklessness)
4) Killing during the commission of a felony (felony murder)

Question 2

two types of evidence can be used to help determine intent…

Answer 2

direct evidence and circumstantial evidence

Question 3

direct evidence

Answer 3

eyewitness’s account, the defendant’s admission that she committed the killing, or a videotape.

Question 4

circumstantial evidence

Answer 4

used more often to show intent. Uses motive to kill, use of a dangerous weapon to commit the killing, and her bragging about the killing after.

Question 5

Hypo INTENT TO KILL: Andre hates to lose. For the last five years, he has enjoyed the spotlight as the world’s greatest chess player and a wonderful humanitarian and philanthropist. However, there is a new chess competitor coming up the ranks quickly. The new whiz kid is Nicolai. He is now the darling of the chess world and he has been bragging that he is better and smarter than Andre. Andre tells a friend that Nicolai’s days are numbered. The next day, he shoots Nicolai in the head during a tournament. As Nicolai collapses, Andre simply smiles and says, “checkmate game over.” Andre is charged with murder. He claims that he did not act with malice. He is likely found

A. guilty b/c he had the intent to kill Nicolai
B. guilty b/c he had a motive to kill Nicolai
C. not guilty b/c the prosecution’s case is based on circumstantial evidence
D.not guilty because Andre is a man with a good and generous heart.

Answer 5

The best answer is A b/c intent to kill is the first definition of malice.

Question 6

HYPO: INTENT TO CAUSE SBI: the enforcer. Bruno works as a collector for the local mafia. He has been given the assignment to collect on a loan made to Mr. Brando. Unfortunately for Brando, he doesn’t have the cash that Bruno wants. As a result, Bruno slams Brando against a wall, gives Brando a few strong punches to the gut, and then walks away while saying, “next time, you’ll remember to pay on time.” Brando staggers home. A few days later, he dies of ruptured spleen caused by Bruno’s blows. Is Bruno guilty of murder.

A. No, b/c he never intended to kill Brando, as evidenced by the fact that Bruno told Brando that he would be collecting from him in the future.
B. No, b/c a punch to the stomach is not necessarily a fatal blow.
C. No, b/c the killing was not permitted.
D. Yes, b/c he acted with malice
E. Yes, b/c he intended to kill Brando

Answer 6

D. is the right answer. Bruno has acted with implied malice b/c even though he did not intend to kill Brando, he still intended to cause SBI. That intent is enough to prove malice and, therefore, murder.

Question 7

Extreme recklessness Hypo 1: Brian owns a pitbull names “killer.” Brian received Killer as a gift from his parents. He has no idea why his parents named the dog “killer,” but Brian thinks it is a funny name for such a wonderful, gentle pet. Killer has always been very tame with Brian. At most, he has barked at the postal carrier, but Killer is usually very well tempered. One day, Brian takes killer to his local playground and lets him run loose among the small children. When one of the children, little sammy, decides to pet killer, the dog suddenly turns on Sammy and tears him to shreds. Brian is charged with murder.

A. Brian is guilty of murder b/c he should have known Killer was a dangerous dog.
B. Brian is guilty of murder b/c he knew his dog was likely to kill.
C. Brian is guilty of murder if he realized that Killer was a dangerous dog.
D. Brian is guilty of murder b/c he is strictly liable for the acts of his dog.
E. Brian is not guilty b/c he did not command the dog to kill the child.

Answer 7

C. is the correct answer . Brian needed to at least realize the risk that his dog would seriously hurt or kill someone. If he realizes that risk, he has malice and is guilty of murder; if he doesn’t realize that risk, he is not guilty of murder.

Question 8

Extreme recklessness Hypo 2: Russian Roulette. Bobby and Molly Malone decide to play a friendly game of Russian roulette. They play the game by placing one bullet in a five-chambered gun and spinning the cylinder. Then, they take turns pointing the gun at their temples, pulling the trigger, and seeing if the gun goes off. Bobby goes first. He spins the cylinder, pulls the trigger, but nothing happens. Molly then takes her turn. She spins the cylinder again. This time, the fun fires. Molly loses. She is killed instantly by the bullet and Bobby is charged with murder.

A. Bobby is guilty of murder b/c his participation in the game showed extreme disregard for human life.
B. Bobby is not guilty of murder b/c he didn’t intend for Molly to die.
C. Bobby is guilty of murder b/c he should have known Molly might die.
D. Bobby is not guilty of murder b/c he couldn’t know for sure whether the gun would fire.
E. Bobby is not guilty of murder b/c Molly consented to playing the dangerous game.

Answer 8

A is the correct answer. B/c Bobby’s actions showed extreme disregard of human life and is sufficient to prove malice for murder.

Question 9

Extreme recklessness Hypo 3: Danger below: Harry decides to clean off the top of a building that is cluttered with construction materials. He heads up to the roof during the rush hour. The crowd is streaming by the building below, but Harry starts cleaning the roof anyway by tossing large pieces of timber and cement over the side of the building. At first, he tries to throw the pieces off the side only when people are not walking below. Then, he decides, “What the heck? I’m in a hurry and I don’t know any of the people anyway.” Alexis is walking by the building on her way to work. Suddenly, she gets hit in the head by a piece of cement and is killed instantly.

A. Harry is not guilty of murder b/c he had no motive to harm Alexis.
B.Harry is not guilty of murder b/c he did not intend to kill or harm Alexis
C. Harry is guilty of murder b/c a reasonable person would have realized that there was an extreme risk in tossing debris off the building.
D. Harry is guilty of murder b/c he must have realized the risk that his actions would seriously injure to kill someone.
E. Harry is not guilty of murder because Alexis death was accidental.

Answer 9

D. is correct answer. After one considers all the facts of this problem, it becomes apparent that Harry must have known that there was a substantial risk that he would seriously hurt or kill the pedestrians near his building. In casually disregarding their safety, he acted with malice and is therefore guilty of murder for Alexis’s death.

Question 10

First-degree murder

Answer 10

1. specific types of intentional killings or intentional killings of certain types of victims
2. premeditation
3. Certain types of felony murder

Question 11

Most states grade murder as…

Answer 11

willful, deliberate, and premeditated

Question 12

Some courts any willful murder as premeditated….

Answer 12

As long as the defendant had a cool moment of thought, even for a second. and then purposely killed the victim, the defendant will be guilty of a premeditated killing.

e.g. Commonwealth v. Carroll husband shoots wife.

Question 13

other courts require more “purpose plus preconceived plan”

Answer 13

1) planning activity
2) motive
3) manner of the killing

People v. Anderson

Question 14

Premeditated murder Hypo 1: Punchy is serving 20 years in prison for violent felony. To put it mildly, he has not adjusted well to prison. He has repeatedly attempted to kill the correctional officer who guards him, and has lashed out at fellow inmates who don’t give him enough respect. One day, Punchy attacks the trustee who brings him the afternoon meal. A trustee is a prison inmate who works for the warden and receives extra benefits for his work. Typically, inmates become trustees by snitching on their fellow inmates. At the time Punchy attacks the trustee, Punchy is wearing a heavy jacket ( even though its mid-summer), tennis shoes (rather than prison flip-flops), and has a homemade prison knife under his jacket. He kills the trustee with one stab wound directly to the heart. After stabbing, Punchy hides the knife in the prison commode but it is found by the authorities. Punchy is charged with first-degree murder.

A. he is guilty of 1st degree murder b/c he acted with malice.
B. he is guilty of 1st degree murder under any standard for premeditation
C. he is guilty of 1st degree murder only in those jurisdictions that require purpose plus a preconceived plan.
D. he is guilty of 1st degree murder b/c he used a dangerous weapon.
E. he is not guilty of 1st degree murder.

Answer 14

B. is the right answer. This question presents a fairly straightforward set of facts demonstrating premeditation. Punchy is likely to be found guilty of 1st degree murder.

Question 15

Hypo 2:Wilma and Bernie have married for 50 years. Tragically, Wilma is dying a painful death from an incurable disease. Every day, she asks Bernie to help her die so that she can be relieved of her misery. Bernie can’t bear to see her suffer. He finally takes matters into his own hands and gives Wilma an overdose of sedatives. Wilma dies peacefully in her sleep.

A. Bernie is not guilty of murder b/c he killed Wilma out of mercy.
B.Bernie is not guilty of murder b/c he killed Wilma at her request
C. Bernie is guilty of murder, but not 1st degree premeditated murder.
D. Bernie is guilty of first degree murder

Answer 15

D. Bernie is guilty of first degree murder. Mercy killing can be considered as first degree murders.

Question 16

Hypo: Marlin and Paul work together in a restaurant. Although they are not enemies, they prefer not to have much to do with each other. Marlin serves the food and Paul proudly prepares it. One day, Paul saw Marlin snacking on a patron’s food before serving it to the patron. A stickler for proper health habits, Paul grabbed the nearest kitchen knife and started stabbing Marlin all over. One of the knife wounds hit Marlin’s jugular vein and Marlin died as a result of his wounds. Prosecutors charge first-degree murder. In this jurisdiction, the heightened standard of premeditation is used. Paul is likely to be found.

A. guilty of first-degree murder
B. guilty of murder
C. guilty of negligent homicide
D. not guilty of any crime

Answer 16

B is correct answer, if malice at least murder even if not first.

Question 17

Murder committed by specific statutory means Hypo: Aaron is charged with first-degree murder for killing a police officer during a scuffle on the streets. In that jurisdiction, first-degree murder includes “all intentional murders of police officers.” Aaron killed the officer by beating the officer’s head on the cement during an altercation over a speeding ticket. Would Aaron be guilty of first-degree murder?

A. Yes, if he acted with premeditation
B. Yes, if he intended to seriously hurt the officer during the altercation
C. yes if he even accidentally killed the officer
D. yes, if he intentionally killed the officer by beating his head on the pavement.

Answer 17

D is the correct answer

Question 18

first degree felony murder hypo: Sammy the Snake sneaks into the Jone’s house at night to steal their precious painting. He intentionally does not bring a gun so that he won’t hurt anyone in the house. Hearing a noise, Mr. Jones jumps out of bed and goes into the living room to investigate. He sees Sammy touch his irreplaceable Rembrandt. Jones has a heart attack and dies. Is Sammy guilty of first degree murder?

A. Yes, b/c he acted in a premeditated manner.
B.No, b/c he did not intent to kill jones.
C. Yes, b/c he acted in reckless disregard for human life.
D. No, b/c Jone’s death was accidental
E. Yes, if felony murder for burglary is considered a first-degree murder.

Answer 18

E. is the correct answer. Jurisdictions can designate even accidental deaths that occur during certain types of felonies, such as burglary, as first-degree murder. Sammy had better hope that he is not in such a jurisdiction.

Question 19

second degree murder / felony Hypo: Mack and Phil are the best friends who have some odd hobbies. When they get bored, they like to pretend that they are knife-throwers and throw steak knives at each other. The goal is to come closest to the other person w/o killing him. Mack throws first. He misses Phil by two feet. Phil, however, is off the mark and hits Mack in the chest. As Mark dies, Phil tells him, “I’m sorry, buddy. I didn’t mean to hit you, but you know how competitive I am.” Which of the following is true?

A. Phil is guilty of first degree murder b/c he acted in callous disregard of Mack’s life
B. Phil is guilty of first-degree murder b/c he acted in a premeditated manner
C. Phil is guilty of second degree murder b/c he acted with gross recklessness
D. Phil is not guilty of murder b.c he did not intend to kill his buddy.

Answer 19

C is correct it is right on the mark in describing the nature of Phil’s activities and why they qualify as second-degree murder.

Question 20

MPC Hypo: Steve is considered a neighborhood menace. He regularly leaves old junk in his front yard, including automobiles teetering on blocks, old refrigerators, and bins of sharp scrap metal. Several neighbors have complained to Steve that his junk could easily hurt children who play on the block in fact there have been several near misses when kids narrowly escaped being injured by one of the cars that fell off the its blocks. Steve just ignores the neighbor’s complaints.
One day tragedy strikes. Betty Sue, a young child who lives next to Steve, is killed when one of the cars fell off its block and onto her.
Steve is charged with Betty Sue’s murder. In MPC jurisdiction, Steve would be.

A. not guilty of homicide b/c the death was unavoidable tragedy
B. guilty of first-degree murder b/c Steve knew children could be killed
C. guilty of second-degree murder b/c Steve acted in a grossly reckless manner.
D. Guilty of murder

Answer 20

D. b/c of his extreme indifference he is guilty of murder.