Homicide Flashcards
(19 cards)
How does the common law define Murder?
an unlawful killing with malice aforethought.
Malice: a) intent to kill,
b) intent to, or likely to, cause serious bodily injury resulting in death
c) extreme reckless disregard of human life
d) felony murder
Aforethought: willful, deliberate, and premeditated
How does the common law define manslaughter?
killing another human being without malice aforethought.
Voluntary: intentional homicide caused through passion and provocation
Involuntary: Acts negligently with gross deviation from standard
How does the MPC define Murder?
Murder: a killing done with purpose, knowledge or recklessness with extreme indifference for life.
How does the MPC define involuntary murder?
Under the MPC, there is no such thing as a culpable unintentional murder. The closest thing would be (involuntary) manslaughter through recklessness or negligent homicide.
How does the MPC define manslaughter?
Manslaughter: regular recklessness or under extreme emotional disturbance for which there is an objective and subjective reasonable excuse.
How does the MPC define a negligent homicide?
Negligent homicide: when it is committed negligently.
What is provocation?
Acting under the influence of passion as a result of provocation without time to cool;
MPC: Acting under influence of reasonable extreme mental or emotional disturbance.
Examples:
extreme assault or battery upon defendant
mutual combat
defendant’s illegal arrest
injury or serious abuse to close relative
the sudden observation of adultery.
In Girouard v. State, Girouard had an argument with his wife who provoked him and he killed her. He was convicted of 2nd degree murder. Why wasn’t provocation applied to downgrade the murder conviction?
For provocation to be adequate to mitigate murder to manslaughter, the provocation must be calculated to inflame the passion of a reasonable person and tend to cause him to act for the moment from passion rather than reason. Under the reasonable-person standard, the defendant’s individual mental issues may not be taken into account. In general, words alone are not adequate provocation, although words may be sufficient if accompanied by conduct that demonstrates the intention and ability to cause bodily harm to the defendant.
Will inciting words be sufficient to claim provocation in defense of a murder?
In Maher v. People, Maher believing that his wife and Hunt were having an affair, followed the pair as they entered the woods together. Maher later shot Hunt after hearing Hunt was having an affair with his wife.
The court ruled the facts indicate sufficient provocation that should have been sent to the jury to decide. Since the words were accompanied by conduct or observation than it may be considered a provocation.
How does the common law define unintentional murder?
Wantonly: intentional conduct thats highly likely harm
Recklessly: aware of substantial risk of harm but disregards with a deviation from the standard.
What constitutes provocation under common law?
acted under the influence of passion as a result of provocation without time to cool.
What constitutes provocation under the MPC?
under influence of reasonable extreme mental or emotional disturbance.
The disturbance must be reasonable.
In People v. Casassa, Cassasa brutally murdered a girl who had told him she wasn’t in love with him. Said he was acting under the influence of “extreme emotional disturbance”. Court ruled that the defendant was under extreme emotional distress, but it was not reasonable. Court says his actions were a result of malevolence, not understandable.
What are some examples of provocation provided by the MPC?
extreme assault or battery upon defendant
mutual combat
defendant’s illegal arrest
injury or serious abuse to close relative
the sudden observation of adultery
Girouard v. State, Girouard had a heated argument with his wife where she repeatedly insulted him and told him she did not love him. He killed her. Was there adequate provocation?
For provocation to be adequate to mitigate murder to manslaughter, the provocation must be calculated to inflame the passion of a reasonable person and tend to cause him to act for the moment from passion rather than reason. Under the reasonable-person standard, the defendant’s individual mental issues may not be taken into account. In general, words alone are not adequate provocation, although words may be sufficient if accompanied by conduct that demonstrates the intention and ability to cause bodily harm to the defendant.
Under the common law, what mental state is required for unintentional killing?
Involuntary Murder:
Wantonly: intentional conduct thats highly likely harm
Recklessly: aware of substantial risk of harm but disregards it which deviates from conduct of a reasonable person.
Involuntary Manslaughter: Acts negligently with gross deviation from standard care
In Commonwealth v. Welansky, Welansky operated a nightclub, which did not meet fire code with few exits. A fire broke out and 440 people died because they could not escape. Welanksy was not present at the time of the fire. Was Welansky guilty of involuntary manslaughter?
It was sufficient for the prosecution to prove that death resulted from Welansky’s wanton and reckless disregard of the safety of the patrons. A reasonable person in Welansky’s position would have foreseen the risk, even if the defendant did not subjectively foresee the risk posed by the unsafe conditions.
How do courts determine wether the conduct is justified against risk? In People v. Hall, Hall was skiing very fast down a mountain with his ski tips up and his arms out to his sides to maintain balance. Hall collided with Cobb and killed him. Was that an unjustifiable risk?
A substantial risk is not based on a “more likely than not” standard, rather the likelihood of the risk and the magnitude of the potential harm. Courts determine whether a risk is unjustifiable, by the nature of the actor’s conduct and the substantial risk. Hall’s skiing at high speeds without control created a substantial and unjustifiable risk of death to another. Hall consciously disregarded the present substantial and unjustifiable risk of death to another.
In United States v. Fleming, Fleming was drunk and recklessly speeding. Fleming lost control of his car on a sharp curve and it slid across oncoming traffic striking a car and killing its driver. Fleming was convicted of second-degree murder. What was the culpable mens rea?
Rule: A murder conviction requires malice aforethought which may be established by evidence of conduct which is reckless and wanton and a gross deviation from a reasonable standard of care warranting an inference that the defendant was aware of a serious risk of death or serious bodily harm. Here, Fleming not only exhibited reckless behavior by deciding to drive while drunk, but he further drove his car in a manner that disregarded human life thereby acting with malice aforethought.
What is felony murder?
A felon is held strictly liable for all killings directly caused and committed by him or his accomplices in the course of a felony.
In People v. Stamp, the defendant burglarized the business premises of Honeyman and robbed him at gunpoint. He later died from a heart attack. Doctors testified that the fright induced by the robbery was too much of a shock to Honeyman’s system. The court rules a felon is held strictly liable for all killings committed by him or his accomplices in the course of the felony. As long as the homicide is the direct causal result of the robbery the felony-murder rule applies whether or not the death was a natural or probable consequence of the robbery.
