HOMICIDE

• Parents kept kid at home, praying to their god that kid will get better. May be charged
with manslaughter b/c of reckless action OR depraved heart murder (intent to do
serious bodily harm)
• Defense
• they did not intend to kill or harm kid, this also negates elements for depraved
heart murder
• CANʼT use constitutional protection of religious belief for actions or failure
to take action when a duty exists (parent/kid) which then results in death.
•
• Common-law murder DOES NOT require premeditation or deliberation UNLIKE that
of 1st degree murder under applicable statutes which provide these divisions.
• But, malice elements (a) intent to kill, (b) cause serious bodily harm, (c) serious
disregard for human life are required under common law murder
•
• Intentional killing, UNLESS its voluntary manslaughter, IS murder.
• Murder may be reduced to voluntary manslaughter if there is enough provocation
& the killing is in the heat of passion & D had no time to cool off
• Shoving a hot dog into Dʼs face may be seen as adequate provocation. If D
immediately shot victim, may be voluntary manslaughter b/c did not cool off before
acting, OR may be imperfect-defense-- D using excessive force (shooting victim)
to an unprivileged use of non-deadly force (pushing hot dog in Dʼs face) by victim
•
• Under Redline Theory--D NOT guilty of felony murder if death of co-felon caused by
cop OR other party trying to stop felony
• If killing done to stop felonʼs escape then it is justifiable homicide under the law
• Co-felon also liable for any murder committed by accomplice during felony OR in
trying to escape from felony. Plus, co-felon DOES NOT have to be present during
actual felon to be liable.
•
• When death occurs accidentally or intentionally during the commission or attempted
commission of a felony, the felons are liable for felony murder.
•
• Playing russian roullette creates a high risk of death for NO socially acceptable
reasons. Jurors in Dʼs case may be instructed on both murder (reckless disregard for
human life--depraved heart murder) and involuntary manslaughter (if killing was
unintentional but conduct was grossly negligent).
• The most serious offense D could be charged with is Murder
• Retreat doctrine ONLY applies in cases where D resorts to deadly force to defend
himself against victimʼs attack.
• Rule DOES NOT apply if D is in his home and attacked by victim
•
CONSTITUTIONAL PROTECTIONS

• The accused constitutional right to a speedy trial starts to run from (a) the time of
indictment or (b) from the time of arrest, and (c) NOT upon commission of the crime.
• Prosecution DOES NOT have to show good cause for delay in seeking an
indictment
• If D acquiesced to continuances, ultimately leading to trial delays, then there is
NO right to speedy trial issue.
• The ONLY time when prejudice is relevant to the Dʼs right to a speedy trial is b/w
the indictment and the trial. If Dʼs alibi witness dies b/w that time it may be an issue.
•
• For the state to conduct a search w/o individualized suspicion, the state MUST show
special need.
• E.g. if there is NO history of drug abuse by state officials, then NO special need for
State to require candidates for state office take a urine drug test.
• Such a test = a search even if done at the office of a candidateʼs doctor
• Court may consider a
• prior conviction obtained;
• w/o assistance of counsel;
• where no prison sentence was imposed, and
• where D was not warned, that earlier conviction could have effect on future conviction
• in determining and increasing the sentence in a later case
• Cops are allowed to search entire car, w/o a warrant if there is probably cause to
believe car contains the fruits, evidence or instrumentalities of a crime
• Cop also allowed to search closed container of car if he has probable cause to
believe it has drugs or evidence of crime
• Indigent criminals have the right to have counsel appointed for them, BUT NOT
necessarily the attorney of his choice.
• By refusing a court appointed lawyer, D waived his right to counsel and allowed to
proceed pro se
• Waiver is effective if (a) D fully informed of risks of self-representation, (b) D
made a knowing and intelligent waiver of right to attorney.
• D may raise issue of effective assistance of counsel on appeal where he was in
fact represented by counsel.
• If D waived right to counsel, & counsel still aids him, D bears the risk, & the
presence & quality of any service rendered by standy counsel is irrelevant to the
fact that counsel was waived.
• Statements made during a custodial interrogation is excluded UNLESS D is
mirandized
• Questioning someone at a crime scene is NOT ʻcustodyʼ for Miranda purposes as
has right to leave the presence of the questioning cop
• Cop at routine traffic stop (e.g. D running red light) may order driver & passenger out
the car
• Dʼs criminal record is admissible at the sentencing stage.
• In determining the appropriate sentence, the judge is allowed to access all
relevant info on D as long as it is reliable.
• Dʼs criminal record admitted during trial MAY cause bias, but ok if presented after
conviction for the purpose of determining appropriate sentence
• The right of confrontation is a trial right, and NOT one that may be raised at the
sentencing stage.
• Warrant is invalid if statements in the application are false, ONLY if cop knew it was
false at the time he presented the affidavit.
• The public & press have a 1st and 14th Amend right to attend a criminal trial
UNLESS there is a compelling state interest in closing the trial.
• 5th Amend against self-incrimination protects ONLY testimonial evidence, NOT
physical evidence like
• fingerprints,
• handwriting &
• exhibition of bodily characteristics (walking to show limp) in court
• NO need to be Mirandized BEFORE taking a fingerprint.
• There is NO right to refuse to be finger printed
• The accusedʼs right to confront a witness requires that the witnessʼ testimony
against him be stricken if witness invoked right against self-incrimination
• The privilege against self incrimination permits:
• D from testifying against himself at a criminal trial where he is a D, or
• Permits him to refuse to answer any question that may incriminate him in
future trials.
• If D consents to search, it may be conducted w/o a warrant or probable cause as D
waived his 4th Amend rights
• BUT consent MUST be (i) voluntary, (ii) given under no threat or compulsion
• In a criminal case b/w A and B and a civil case b/w C and B, the collateral estoppel
doctrine which bars re-litigation b/w the same parties on issues actually determined
at a previous trial does not work as a bar here, & so both trials are allowed.
• If D swallowed capsules believed to be narcotics & given a solution to induce
vomiting, may be seen as an egregious intrusion & a violation of fundamental
fairness.
• A post-charge line up is a critical stag of the prosecution at which D has the right to
counsel.
• The right attaches as soon as D is within sight of a potential identification
witness
• So if lawyer not in room when lineup commenced, Dʼs rights were affected
• 4th Amend does NOT allow searches by private persons but reserved for state actors
• A private company conducting surveillance with cops, the latter being state actors
triggers the 4th Amend
• A search occurs when govʼt violates Dʼs reasonable expectation of privacy
• Court holds that electronic surveillance of Dʼs conversation in a public phone
booth violates Dʼs reasonable expectation of privacy
• Also, electronic surveillance in an employeeʼs changing room violates Dʼs
reasonable expectation of privacy
• So any evidence gained from such searches is inadmissible
• Cops MAY seize objects in plain view if:
• they were validly on premises (changing room offers reasonable expectation
of privacy and so does not offer cop validity on premises), and
• probable cause to seize the item is immediately apparent
• 8th Amend which proscribes against cruel & unusual punishment is violated if:
• death penalty imposed to execute kid under age 18 for a crime
• D during felony murder (a) did not kill victim, (b) or intend for killing to occur, or
(c) did not attempt to take a life.
• State kills D who is insane, OR drugs D so state can execute him.
• If there is only reasonable cause that a crime was committed, cops can ONLY stop
and question suspect.
 • If cops have probable cause (which includes description of suspect & car) then a
full scale search may occur
• Under fixed-check point analysis, cops can only stop cars and ask questions
•
•
GENERAL PRINCIPLES

• Selling rum to underage kid, statutory rape = strict liability offenses. Mistake of fact
NOT a defense. Intoxication is NO defense.
• Assault/ battery = specific intent offense. Mistake of fact IS a defense.
• Rape = general intent offense. Mistake of fact IS a defense, if reasonable
• Person not knowing action is illegal = general intent offense. Mistake of law NOT a
defense.
• Mistake of law IS defense if it negates a required element of the crime
• E.g. the intent required for burglary is the intent to commit a felony in the
dwelling place of another at night. It does not require that D know that act is a
felony, & so canʼt argue he did not know the elements of burglary and so did not
know it was a felony
• If D sincerely believes he has claim to property, then CANʼT be charged with burglary as
he lacks the specific intent
• There is NO actus reus w/o a voluntary act, & so mere reflex is NOT a voluntary act.
• If D lacks motor control of arms b/c of brain tumor = an involuntary act.
• Dʼs actions while sleeping = involuntary act, BUT if failure to take meds to prevent
dangerous sleepwalking behavior is voluntary and so liable to acts resulting.
• A necessity to break the law exists where an illegal act MUST be committed to
prevent a greater evil.
• e.g. driving into house and kill one person rather than 5 pedestrians
• Duress is unable as a matter of law for homicide crimes
• If question notes that statute involving selling rum to kids should NOT be construed
as a strict liability statute, then it is a general intent offense.
• So a mistake of fact, may be a defense, as long as it is reasonable
•
• Factual impossibility = D intending to commit acts that would be a crime if
successfully executed, but circumstances make it impossible for D to commit those
acts.
•
INCHOATE CRIMES

• An accomplice = commits, aids, agrees or attempts to aid the principal in planning or

committing a crime.
• Telling D to flee the crime scene is NOT assisting or encouraging the D to commit
the crime
• Expressing desire to help D, but been unable to help is NOT assisting or
encouraging the D to commit the crime
• Even if D is NOT convicted of a crime, his accomplices may be convicted
• Conspirators DO NOT have to know each otherʼs identity
• A citizen is under NO legal obligation to tell cop or anyone else that D intends to
commit crime against that person, UNLESS there is a special relationship, e.g. mother/
kid
• Mere solicitation of gunman is NOT substantial steps towards an attempted murder.
• Solicited gunman MUST take action towards actually completing crime to be
attempted murder
OTHER CRIMES

• Cashier get $20 from a customer as payment & puts it in register then takes it out when
going home, cashier committed larceny.
• By putting $20 in the register, employer gained possession, & the cashierʼs rights
was reduced to custody.
• By taking bottle of wine from case, D broke bulk & merely had control of bottle. By
taking bottle outside of trailer, D committed larceny as D intended to
permanently deprive owner of wine
• Breaking of a closed off area of a dwelling like a closet = burglary
• Larceny occurs is when for e.g. shopper takes purse off shelf & hides it in her coat
with intent to steal, even if in the end she put it back on the shelf.
• Burglary = breaking & entering of the dwelling of another to commit a felony therein.
There is NO breaking when one enters a store open to the public.
•