Criminal Law
Kaye
Spring 2014
Minimum Requirements for Culpability (Mental State)
A person is not guilty of an offense unless he acted:
(a) purposefully: conscious, aware
(b) knowingly: aware, practically certain—99.9% sure—high level of certainty
(c) recklessly: conscious disregard a substantial and unjustifiable risk
(d) negligently: knew or should have known a substantial and unjustifiable risk
3 kinds of common law homicide:
1. Murder:
Intentional: ITK Unintentional: extreme recklessness, FM, ITISBI
2. Voluntary manslaughter: same as murder but also
MPC: EMED: extreme mental emotional disturbance & REE: reasonable explanation or excuse
Common law: AP, HOP, NO cooling
*Manslaughter is murder but needs the extra element of heat of passion
3. Involuntary manslaughter
MPC: Common Law:
InVMS= recklessness & NH = neg InVMS = negligence
Murder
1. Homicide: Murder
Common law approach: (1) A killing of a human being by another (2) with malice aforethought (intent)
Intentional Homicide (expressed malice) a. Murder: ITK
Act: an act / result: death / ms: ITK
§ What is ITK?—It was their purpose to kill ex: through confession
o Can infer if the only rsbly plausible explanation is ITK than murder can be satisfied
§ How do you prove ITK?
o Tells person what he was thinking, can infer w high level of confidence ITK through circumstances
§ Premeditation
o D acts either w intention/ knowledge to kill another —reflection is shown
o Premeditation w ITK = “first degree” murder à If no premeditation, “second degree” murder
§ 2 Approaches analyze degrees 1st or 2 degree Murder w ITK:
1. Guthrie approach
o Premeditated: had time to think/ weigh options before killing
o Need more than ITK, need to reflect/consideration upon killing before actually killing—some time must pass between ITK and actual killing
§ Distinguishes between ITK and intent + premeditation
o MS—willful (intentionally), deliberate, premeditated killing
§ Deadly weapon rule: find intent based on deadly weapon on vital body part
1. Carroll approach
o Premeditation/deliberation is ITK
§ Premed is required and no time is too short for premeditation to occur
o Doesn’t require anything, once its determined D had a conscious purpose/ ITK= can establish premed
§ No distinction between first and second degree murder
Unintentional Homicide (all have the mental state of malice aforethought—murder—except FMR)
b. Murder: Extreme recklessness—“depraved heart”
Act: an act / result: death / ms: ER
§ Rule: A person is guilty of murder by ER if he causes another person’s death by ER.
o Recklessness is extreme when: truly egregious, reflecting “callous disregard” or extreme indifference to value of human life
*anything w reckless you need to look at IVMS & murder depending on MS/continuum of reckless
§ Ex: shooting in to a crowd, throwing a brick off a buildingà take into account the probability
c. Murder: Felony-Murder
Act: an act / result: death / ms: none / ac: in the course of a felony
Common law:
§ An unintentional killing that causes death of a person during commission or attempted commission of any felony
§ Killed in the course of a felony, killed while attempting to commit a felony, actually committing a felony or in flight after the felony (in flight until the D reaches a point of temporary safety)
o SL murder— can be convicted of FMR even w/o MS
§ killing must be done by D or by an accomplice acting in furtherance of the felony
A. Limitations
§ Inherently dangerous felony requirement (Hines):
o Cannot be convicted FMR unless their predicate felony (felony they were committing when death occurred) was inherently dangerous
§ Approaches to inherently dangerous felony:
1) Abstract approach (CA)
§ To whether a felon is inherently dangerous
§ Do not look at particular facts/circumstances of the case, look at what felony committed
o Ex: he committed fraud. Don’t look conduct or how crime was committed but—ask does committing that felony cause a substantial risk of death for the victim?
§ Ex: fraud never leaves to death, so not substantial riskàtricking someone out of their money so not inherently dangerous
2) As-Committed approach
§ Looking at particular facts/circumstances of case, how D actually committed felony, & ask whether the way he committed felony was inherently dangerous—did he do it in a way that he created a substantial (risk of death) that others would be killed?
3) Independent felony approach (merger rule)
a. Saves us from turning lesser killings into murder
§ Least dangerous felonies—No FM bc not inherently dangerous Ex: tax evasion, fraud
§ Dangerous felonies—Can support FM ex: Robbery arson, rape, kidnapping
§ Most dangerous felonies—No FM bc of independent rule ex: Murder, manslaughter, battery
b. Rule: D cannot be convicted of FMR unless predicate felony was independent of the death
§ Hypo: I go for a drive, drive negligently, and hit and kill victor. Guilty of FM?
o Felony of negligent homicide and killed someone—requirements satisfied
§ Not right though bc already a homicide—negligent homicide
§ Independent FR: stops lesser homicide from turning into FM automatically
c. Test: independent bc predicate felony had a independent felonious (criminal) purpose—meaning criminal purpose was something other than inflicting the injury that led to death
§ Ex: VMS: purpose is death, so no independent felonious purpose bc the end result =death
§ Ex: robbery: purpose is taking someone’s $, so independent felonious purpose bc its something other than killing or injuring the victim—so can be convicted of FMR
4. 3rd Party Killing Rule
§ Issue: when 1 person commits a felony & as a result another person commits a death
§ Ask: will person committing the felony be responsible for the death the 3rd party committed
a) Agency Approach—was 3rd party committing killing, accomplice of the felon? If yes, guilty
§ Not as easy to convict person of murder so limited
b) Proximate cause—felon is guilty of FM for any 3rd party killing that is rsb
a RP would have cooled down btw provocation and cooling then no prov defense
o look @: how long actually passed, what would take a RP to cool down, all the reasons it was provoking, and determine how long a RP would remain in a state of passion
g. Involuntary manslaughter
act: an act / result: death / ms: recklessness & negligent homicide (MPC) or negligence (CL)
involuntary: Doesn’t not require ITK
MPC InVMS (recklessness)
§ A person is guilty of InVMS if he causes another person’s death recklessly
§ Recklessness—D consciously disregarding a substantial and unjustifiable risk to human life
§ Recklessness is a higher degree of MS crim from negligence—separation
§ To prove recklessness:
1. Was there a substantial and unjustifiable risk?—Was it justifiable? Was there gross deviation?
2. Was there conscious disregard the risk?—What was his mental competence? Was he in fact aware?
§ If the evidence does not definitively establish that the person was aware there is room for weakness- it makes it only likely/should have known
h. InVMS—Negligent Homicide
Act: an act / result: death / ms: negligence
MPC
§ MPC approach to negligence for InVMS—is a lesser defense
§ To prove negligence
1. A person is neg if he should have been aware that his conduct involved a substantial & unjustifiable risk, and his failure to recognize risk was a gross deviation from what a rsble person would have recognized.
2. A person who causes another’s death w criminal negligence commits negligent homicide
o criminal homicide is negligent homicide when its committed negligently!!
Common Law InVMS (negligence)
§ A person is guilty of involuntary manslaughter if he causes another person’s death negligently
§ Negligence: A person is criminally negl if he should know that conduct presents a substantial & unjustifiable risk, and his failure to recognize the risk is a gross deviation from what a reasonable person would recognize
o Implied malice is lacking – thus, manslaughter
Elemental Analysis—Act Element
1) Act required (conduct/result)
§ for every crime a person must have to do some criminal act & for someone to be guilty of a crime:
o you have to commit a crime & you have to commit it voluntary
§ if you are unconscious & unaware of what’s around you—not voluntary act so no crime
§ voluntary vs. involuntary—if exercise choice making activity = volunary
o Voluntary is not the same as intentionally—can have intent if unconscious
