Cases, and Tests Proving the Elementsfrom the NOTES

Test: Manslaughter 1> There must have been adequate provacations 2> The killin must have been in the heat of passion 3> It must have been a sudden heat of passion 4> There must have been a causal connection between the provocation, the passion, and the fatal act Ewing v. California a. Length of Prison term b. Conduct triggering c. Criminal history City of Chicago a. Fail to provide of notice to inform what it prohibits b. Authorizes and encourage arbitrary enforcement People v. Conley a. Whether a disability is permanent because it impairs no specific task, as long as the body part no longer serves the function it did b. Because of the circ, use f a bottle, absence of warning and force of blow Causal(MPC2.03) a. But for b. Any other reqs i. Must be in contempletation, unless scholar result is in contemplation Self-Defence a. i. Immediacy ii. Serious bodily injury iii. MPC allows for kidnappint, MO allows felonies iv. Subjective belief youre in danger b. S i. Threatproportionality ii. Unlawful iii. Actual belief imminence and necessity iv. Objective reas. United States v. Contento Packon a. Duress is an excuse, not a justification i. Immediate threat of death or serious bodily injury compels behavior ii. Wellgrounded fear that threat will be carried out iii. No reasonable opportunity iv. Does not extend to Murder Patterson v. NY a. NY elements i. Intent to cause death

1.

2.

3.

4.

5.

6.

ii. Causing death 7. Vague Rule: Commonwealth v. Mochan a. Notice b. Circumstances c. Uniformity 8. Coker test a. No contribution to acceptable goals of punishment b. Grossly out of proportion 9. Alston a. False accusations b. Defendant is given notice 10. . a. Adequage Provocation b. In Heat of Passion c. No Time to Coll d. Causal Connection 11. Something a. Subjective: Concious disregard for human life b. Objective: act involves a high probability of death 12. Actus Reas a. Voluntary act & attentive circ b. Result 13. Mens rea 14. Causation a. Actual b. Legal 15. ALL ELEMENTS OF SOMETHING MUST BE PRESENT SILMULTANEOUSLY 16. Specific Intent a. Statute Indicates ass intent b. Intent or knowledge-specific; general=recklessness, negligence c. Mens rea applies to future erants aware of attendant circumstances 17. Something a. De minimis contribution b. Intended consequences c. Omissions d. Foreseeability e. Apparent safety f. Voluntary human intervention 18. Legal aid duty a. Voluntarily assumed care and excluding others b. Statute c. Relationships d. Contract e. Risk of harm created 19. State v. forrest a. Lack of provocation towards 1st defendant b. Conduct and statement of defendant c. Threats and declarations by defendant

d. e. f. g.

Ill will Lethal blows Brutal Nature and of

CASES AND TESTS

I. Introduction to Criminal Law A. Background and Process (1-9) B. Proof of Guilt at Trial (9-19) A. Owens v. State A. Drunk found in driveway B. Totality of circumstances, when inconsistent with a reasonable hypothesis of innocence, proves guilt II. General Principles of Punishment A. Theories of Punishment (30-48) (MPC 1.02) A. nothing B. Who Should We Punish (48-51) A. Queen v. Dudley A. Open-seas cannibals found guilty of murder C. How Much Punishment (51-69) A. People v. Du A. Where a woman running a convenience store had her sentence of manslaughter commuted B. United States v. Gementera A. Mail thief obliged to hold sign B. Three letimiate statutory purposes, which sentences must be reasonably related to: A. Deterrence B. Protection of the public C. Rehabilitation D. Constitutional Proportionality (69-91) A. Coker v. Georgia A. Death penalty is unconstitutional if A. No measurable contribution to acceptable goals of punishment B. OR C. Grossly disproportionate to the severity of the crime B. Ewing v. California A. Factors determining whether a sentence is so disproportionate that it violates 8th amendment A. Length of sentence and severity of the penalty B. Sentences of other criminals in the same jurisdiction C. The sentences imposed for the same crime in other jurisdictions III. Statutory Role and Rules A. Legality Principle (92-119) (MPC 1.02 & 1.05)

B. C.

D.

E.

a. MPC 1.02 i. I wouldn't have expected them to outline in MPC. There are five basic reasons: stop harmful behavior, confine people inclined to such behavior, safeguard acceptable conduct, warn of consequences, categorize as minor and serious crimes b. MPC 1.05 i. To be a crime, it must be defined as such by the state, but the court still has the authority to do necessary things. Commonwealth v. Mochan . A person can be convicted under common law for acts that are not outlawed by statute Keeler v. Superior Court . Killing an unborn fetus is not murder because i. Settled meaning of human being is person born alive ii. There are no common law crimes in CA iii. The process prevents retroactive application of a penal statute even if the court had the power to rule a fetus a human being Values of Statutory Clairty . In re Banks i. Peeping Tom statute that survived because it used the word secretly ii. If the statute is clear and unambiguous A. Court must give the statute its plain and definite meaning iii. If the statute is ambiguous or unclear A. The court must interpret the language to give effect to the legislative intent City of Chicago . Vagueness will invalidate a law if i. It fails to provide notice that would be understood by ordinary citicans ii. It is susceptible to arbitrary and discriminatory enforcement

F. IV. Elements of Crimes A. Actus Reus a. Acts (127-135) (MPC 1.13 & 2.01) i. 127 martin v. state 1. Martin v. State a. A drunk man brought onto a highway by officers cannot be convicted of being drunk on a public highway because his presence was not voluntary. b. Voluntary appearance in public is necessary 2. Q's starting 128 ii. 130 state v. utter 1. State v. Utter a. Where no one was present to witness the stabbing of a son by a father, and the only other evidence that existed was circumstantial, the evidence presented was insufficient to present the question of whether or not a drunk, Vietnam veteran was in a mitigating automatic or unconscious state at the time of the death. b. Elements c. A theory of automatism must be supported by substantial evidence d.

B.

2. Q's starting at 133 a. The MPC defines a voluntary act in 1.13 as something that satisfies 2.01, which precludes sleep acts, reflex acts, and two other kinds of acts (convulsions and acts while hypnotised) b. For the first part, I think it was because there was no direct evidence, and something of this nature cannot be inferred from the fact that there was a potential for it/tendency toward this kind of event. Per the second part, the drunkness of the father was important, because he was aware of the fact that he could do involuntary acts while drunk, and therefore responsible for preventing himself from becoming drunk if he did not wish those involuntary acts to occur c. Because if you seek acquittal on the basis of insanity, you don't retain your freedom necessarily. d. No, they actually aren't. And they aren't involuntary in the sense described in the MPC either. In fact, there are few senses in which they are voluntary. Cherry. e. Words f. His conduct was reckless because he knew he was liable to seizures and still drove. Thus, even though his unconsciousness was involuntary, his placement of himself in a position of responsibility that required constant care and supervision and presence of mind knowing that his presence of mind could disappear sudden;ly, without warning, and without control, was the same as voluntarily going unconscious. iii. MPC 1.13 1. "Unless a different meaning is plainly required" a. Seems to open up a lot of options. Then subjectivity is argued 2. Act is any bodily movement 3. Omission, then, is a failure to do a bodily movement 4. Conduct include omission, and state of mind; since it says "or," does that mean that a series of acts and omissions requires no state of mind? 5. An actor can be someone who has done nothing; so can acted iv. MPC 2.01 1. These are not voluntary acts: convulsions, reflexive acts, bodily movements while unconscious, acts while hypnotised. b. Omissions (136-146) (MPC 2.01) . People v. Beardsley 0. Where a woman died in the basement of a married man she was fucking after taking morphine against his wishes 1. There is no legal obligation of a host for his guests i. Barber v. Superior Court 0. Doctors do not inherently have a legal duty to administer mechanical life-support. c. Attendant Circumstances & Social Harms (146-148) . chit Mens Rea a. Generally (149-153) b. United States v. Cordoba-Hincapie i. exceprt

c. Regina v. Cunningham i. Malicious A. Recklessly acted with foresight of actual consequences B. OR C. actual intent to do particular harm done ii. Recklessness A. Foresees that a harm might occur but does so anyway d. b. Proving Culpability/Mens Rea (153-159) i. People v. Conley A. In the course of committing a battery, intentionally or knowingly causing great bodily harm or permanent disability or disfigurement, commits aggravated battery A. It is enough that the defendant intentionally struck the victim B. State must prove beyond reasonable doubt that D had either conscious objective or that D was consciously aware that the harm defined was practically certain to be caused by his conduct C. Presumption one intends the antural and probable cause of his actions D. Intent can be inferred from surrounding circumstances A. The offenders words B. The weapon used C. The force of the blow E. . c. MPC Approach to Mens Rea (159-163) (MPC 2.02 & 2.03) i. Model Penal Code approach according to legalines A. 4 levels of culpability A. Purposely B. Knowingly C. Recklessly D. Negligently ii. Unless otherwise stated, a person has cupability if they acted purposefully, knowingly, or recklessly d. Special Issues Regarding Mens Rea i. Interpreting Mens Rea in Statutes (170-175) A. Flores-Figueroa v. United States A. ii. Strict Liability (175-186) (MPC 2.05) A. United States v. Cordoba-Hincapie A. Criminal liability may be found without regard to fault when there is A. Relatively small fine B. No imprisonment B. Staples v. United States A. Gun owner whose gun had been modified to fire automatically claimed not to know B. Strict Liability not available for gun laws

C.

C. Silence on a Mens Rea requirement does not necessarily mean strict liability, since Mens rea is the rule rather than the exception D. Factors on Strict Liability A. Length of prison term-longer prefers mens rea B. Would have spoken clearly to the effect of strict liability if intented C. Garnett v. State A. iii. Willful Blindness (164-170) (MPC 2.02) A. State v. Nations A. Knowingly is defined as actual knowledge by the statute in question, so that is the burden iv. Mistake and Mens Rea (194-213) (MPC 2.04) A. People v. Navarro A. Guy walked off with unclaimed lumber. Thought it was abandoned. It wasnt B. Because there is a specific intent to steal, there is no such thing as larceny by negligence C. An honest mistake of fact or law is a defense when it negates a required mental element of a crime D. Negating Specific Intent A. Off duty federal corrections officer thought law applied to him B. Misinterpretation of a law is no defense B. People v. Marrero A. Corrections officer with a gun didnt qualify as law enforcement B. Mistake of law applies when you rely on an official interpretation of the statute C. Cheek v. United States A. A guy who believed taxing was unconstitutional got picked up B. A good faith belief that a law does not apply to you need not be objectively reasonable. C. Willfulness in criminal tax cases requires: A. Law imposed a duty on the defendant B. Defendant knew of his duyt C. The defendant intentionally and voluntarily violated that duty D. Causation (for Result Crimes) (MPC 2.03) a. Cause in Fact (214-219) A. Oxendine v. State A. Where a father beat his son after his girlfriend pushed the boy into a bathtub, which caused the microscopic tears in his intestines that killed him. He was accused under the acceleration theory B. To convict a defendant for manslaughter, an assertion of acceleration must demonstrate that but-for his beating(accelerating), the victim would not have died.

C. A doctors testimony can only be considered evidence if his conclusions are based on medical certainty. b. Proximate Cause (219-232) A. People v. Rideout A. Drunkard pulls out into traffic, then K gets out of the car into the danger of the highway to talk about the accident and gets killed. B. Irrelevant factors A. De minimis contribution to social harm factor B. Intended-consequences doctrine C. Omissions factor C. Foreseeability D. Establish proximate cause A. Responsive intervening cause B. Foreseeable coincidental intervening cause E. Apparent-saftey doctrine A. When a defendants action force has come to rest in a position of apparent safety, the court will follow it no longer B. Velazquez v. State A. Illegal drag racer B. Even though cause-in-fact, factors of criminal liability, criminal liability should not be imposed A. Where the prohibited result of the defendants conduct is beyond the scope of any fair assessment of the danger created by the defendants conduct B. Where it would be unjust, based on fairness and policy considerations C. Recklessness causing death A. If people knowingly and voluntarily join in reckless conduct, it is not worthwhile to hold the survivor guilty of manslaughter C. D. Concurrence of the Elements (232-234) A. State v Rose A. Drove a car with a guy wedged under, got off scot free B. The intent has to coincide with the crime A. Actus reas and mens rea must be present simultaneously V. Specific Crimes and Offenses A. Homicide (MPC 210.0-210.5) a. Overview (235-247) b. Intentional Killings (253-285) i. Murder/Premeditated Killings A. State v. Guthrie A. First degree murder definition A. Premeditation requires any interval between the forming of the idea to kill and its execution in which the accused becomes conscious of their actions B. Midgett v. State A. Intentional abuse is not sufficient to reach premeditated murder

ii.

C. State v. Forrest A. Even the intentional killing of a dying person reaches premeditation and first degree B. Factors A. Want of provocation B. Defendants conduct and statements before and after the killing C. Defendants threats and declarations before and during the occurrence giving rise to the killing D. Ill-will or previous difficulty between the parties E. The dealing of lethal blows after the deceased has been felled and rendered helpless F. Evidence that the killing was done in a brutal manner G. Manslaughter/Killing in the Heat of Passion A. Girouard v. State A. Murder should not be mitigated to manslaughter unless A. There was adequate provocation B. The killing was done in the heat of passion C. The killing followed the provocation before there was a reasonable opportunity for the person to cool D. There was a causal connection between the provocation, the passion, and the fatal act B. Another consideration A. Is there adequate provocation? A. Must be such that it would inflame the passion of a reasonable man so that he acts out of passion rather than reason. B. Mental frailties of defendant are not important C. Words alone do not constitute provocation adequate to reduce the crime of murder to manslaughter B. Attorney general for Jersey v. Holley A. Ax murdering after taunted he didnt have the guts B. Extenuating Circumstances require murder be reduced to manslaughter C. Defense of provocation A. Subjective or factual ingredient that the defendant is provoked into losing his self-control A. Includes evidence of mental or other abnormality making it more or less likely that the defendant lost his self control, including alcohol B. Objective or evaluative ingredient of whether provocation was enough to make reasonable person C. Alcoholism should not be taken into account C. People v. Casassa A. Crazy dude breaking into girls house kills a girl for saying no

B.

A. Extreme emotional disturbance is broader than heat of passion, because it need not be spontaneous B. EED elements A. Act done under the invluence of extreme emotional disturbance (subjective) B. A reasonable explanation for the disturbance as viewed by a person in the defendants circumstances as the defendant believed them to be(objective) C. c. Unintentional Killings - Risks (295-315) . People v. Knoller A. Implied Malice A. Requires a defendants awareness of the risk of death to another B. Acting with an awareness fo endangering human life C. high probability of death is an objective component i. State v. Hernandez A. A man in a careening van with bumper stickers B. Evidence in court A. Evidence must logically support a fact or issue. A. Must support or establish either or both of the elements of manslaughter A. Acted with criminal negligence B. Caused decedents death ii. State v. Williams A. Poor native Americans refused to take their kid to the doctor to keep from losing him B. Ordinary negligence, with the proximate result of death, is in Washington able to bring you to involuntary manslaughter d. Unintentional Killings - Unlawful Conduct (315-342) . People v. Fuller A. An high-speed chase led to a deadly car crash. The felony was burglary B. Felony murde rule: felony+ death = murder i. People v. Howard A. Car chase, ran a red light, wrong side of road B. Going over a point count that makes it a felony is not enough to activate the felony-murder rule ii. People v. Smith A. You cannot use the felony murder rule where the purpose of the conduct was the very assult which resulted in death iii. State v. Sophophone A. If the person who directly causes the death is a non-felon, then his acts cannot be imputed to the actor. Rape (MPC 213.0-213.2, 213.6) a. Overview (385-404) b. Forcible Rape (411-447, 453-464) c. Rape Shield Laws (470-475)

Inchoate And Accessorial Crimes a. Attempt (MPC 5.01) i. Generally (732-738) ii. Mens Rea (738-745) iii. Actus Reus (745-762)e iv. United States v. Mandujano v. Commonwealth v. Peaslee vi. People v. Rizzo vii. People v. Miller viii. State v. Reeves b. MPC Approach (762-764)) iii. b. Conspiracy (MPC 5.03) i. Mens Rea (806-816) ii. People v. Swain iii. People v. Lauria iv. iii. Actus Reus (816-824) iv. Commonwealth v. Azim v. Commonwealth v. Cook vi. vii. Agreement & Defenses (824-847) viii. People v. Foster ix. Kilgore v. State x. xi. Braverman v. United Stated xii. Iannelli v. United States xiii. Geobargi v. Unite States xiv. People v. Sconce c. Accomplice Liability (MPC 2.06) i. Elements (851-854) ii. State v. Hoselton iii. ii. Mental State (855-868) iii. People v. Lauria iv. Riley v. State v. State v. Linscott iii. Act (868-879) iv. State v. V.T. v. Wilcocoz vi. People v genoa iv. Limits (890-894) v. In Re Meagan R vi. State v. Formella VI. Defenses A. Introduction and Role of Defense Counsel (480-486) A. B. Burdens (486-497) (MPC 1.12 & 1.13)

C.

a. Patterson v. new york A. Where a man charged with second degree murder raised the affirmative defense of extreme emotional disturbance and argued that he did not have the burden of proof with his defense because it is a violation of due process C. Justifications (MPC 3.01, 3.02 & 3.11) a. Self-Defense (500-548) (MPC 3.04 & 3.09) A. United Stateves v. Peterson B. People v. Goetz C. State v. Wanrow D. State v. Norman b. Defense of Others (549-553) (MPC 3.05 & 3.09) A. People v. Kurr D. Excuses a. Duress (583-603) (MPC 2.09) A. United States v. Contento-Pachon B. People v. Unger C. People v. Anderson b. Insanity (and incompetence) (611-642) (MPC 4.01-4.04) A. United States v. Freeman B. State v. Johnson C. State v. Wilson D. c. Infancy (672-679) (MPC 4.10) A. In Re Devon T. B.