Presentation on theme: "Crimes Against Persons: Homicide"— Presentation transcript:
1Crimes Against Persons: Homicide Chapter NineCrimes Against Persons:Homicide
2Chapter Nine: Learning Objectives Understand that criminal homicide is different from all other crimes because of the finality of its result: the death of the victim.Appreciate that most of the law of criminal homicide is about grading the seriousness of the offense. Grading murder into first and second degree is important because only first-degree murder qualifies for the death penalty.
3Learning Objectives (continued) Appreciate that the meaning of person is integral to homicide law and understand how that presents problems at both ends of the life cycle.Understand how degrees of murder developed through history and their relation to capital punishment.Understand how most criminal homicide statutes apply to corporations, but prosecutions are rare.
4Learning Objectives (continued) Understand that the heart of voluntary manslaughter is an intentional, sudden killing triggered by an adequate provocation.Know that provocation is not an excuse for criminal homicide; it only reduces the seriousness of the crime and the punishment to allow for human frailty.Know that the central elements in involuntary manslaughter are its actus reus, mens rea; causing the criminal harm of death.
5Learning Objectives (continued) Understand that criminal negligence homicide statutes cover a wide field, including the most common, unintentional deaths caused by operating vehicles and firearms, but also medicine, handling explosives, delivering dangerous drugs, allowing vicious animals to run free, failing to care for a sick child, and not providing fire exits in businesses.
6Homicide in Context Criminal Homicide is rare Much of the law discussed earlier grew out of criminal homicide casesmens rea issuesSelf defense issuesThree step analysis of criminal liability grew out of the work on criminal homicide:criminal conduct?Without justification?Without excuse?
7HomicideMost of homicide discussions deal with issues of grading the crime because the punishment for criminal homicide depends on the degree of murder or the type of manslaughter committedIssue of how much punishment should we inflict upon people who kill other people?Capital punishment?Lifetime incarceration?Fines?Tremendous variances among states and federal governments concerning classifying and punishing different types of criminal homicide
8Defining Human Being Criminal homicide involves killing a person Requires a definition of personWhen does life begin?When does life end?
9When does life begin? Common law followed the born alive rule To be a person (and thus to be capable of being a homicide victim) the baby had to be born aliveException: People v. Chavez (1947):Holding: viable child in the process of being born was a human being within the meaning of the homicide statute regardless of whether the process was completeKeeler v. Superior Court (1970):California court refused to extend the definition of person to include fetuses born before the birth process. Overturned conviction of Keeler who had caused death of wife’s unborn fetus by kicking her.
10State v. Cotton (2000) Summary of case holding Because baby was born alive, it didn’t matter that defendant had caused the injury leading to her death while she was still in utero.
11When does life begin?Some states have revised existing homicide statutes to include persons and fetuses as potential homicide victimsSome states have created the crime of feticide, directed at the killing of fetusesViability?Quickening?At conception?
12When Does Life End?Historically death occurred when the heart and breathing stoppedModern medicine makes this determination more complicated—organ transplants, artificial life supportAccelerating a persons death is criminal homicideExample: State v. Fiero (1979)…a doctor removing an organ too soon
13When does life end? Brain death Coma Complicates the criminal homicide determinationUniform Brain Death ActIndividual who has suffered irreversible cessation of all brain functions, including those of the brain stem, is deadComaTroubling cases
14Doctor Assisted Suicide Euthanasia = helping others dieHistorically assisting another to commit suicide was criminal homicide (and still is in most jurisdictions)Passive euthanasia = failing to take extraordinary measures to keep someone aliveActive euthanasia = deliberate acts to cause death
15Doctor Assisted Suicide Voluntary euthanasia = dying person makes rational requestInvoluntary euthanasia = no request by dying person, but decision by family/court forGood reasons = beneficentBad intentions = malevolent
16Doctor-Assisted Suicide Arguments Against:Intrinsically immoralSlippery SlopeMistakes, malevolent purposes, potential for wrong diagnosis, threat of non-mercy killings are too great to justify an exception.Societal interests at stake
17Doctor-Assisted Suicide Arguments in FavorNot an argument FOR euthanasia, its an argument against painCompassionConstitutional RightPresumption of bodily integrityliberty interest guaranteed in 5th and 14th Amendments include the right to die
18Constitutional Right to Doctor-Assisted Suicide Washington v. Glucksberg (1997)U.S. Supreme Court upheld Washington’s legislative ban on doctor assisted suicideGonzalez v. Oregon (2005)U.S. Supreme Court upheld Oregon’s Death with Dignity ActWashington Initiative (2008) voters enacted a death with dignity act modeled on Oregon’s law
19Doctor Assisted Suicide and Criminal Law Assisted suicide is difficult to distinguish from first degree murderBut, rationales for condemning murder are not presented in doctor assisted suicideDoesn’t violate a person’s interest in continuing to liveIsn’t necessarily a destructive force in societyOpposing viewpoints are irreconcilable
20Public Opinion Public opinion about doctor-assisted suicide is divided 2007 Gallup Poll:56% favor38% oppose
21Murder Homicide divided into Common Law divided criminal homicide into criminal homicide andnoncriminal homicide:Justifiable homicideExcusable homicideCommon Law divided criminal homicide intoMurderKilling a person with malice aforethoughtManslaughterKilling a person without malice aforethought
22Common Law Murder Blackstone 1769 “When a person Of sound memory and discretionUnlawfully killethAny reasonable creature in beingUnder the king’s peaceWith malice aforethought, either express or implied” (Sir Edward Coke)Note: At common law, the death had to occur within a year and a day of the offender’ acts
23Malice AforethoughtMalice = specific intent, killing on purpose with ill will, hate or spiteAforethought = acts planned in advanceExpress malice aforethought (early common law)Implied malice aforethought (as law developed)Intentional killings that weren’t premeditatedUnintended killings that occurred during a felonyExtreme reckless killings (depraved heart murder)Intent to create serious bodily injury murder
24Elements of Murder A Result Crime Actus reus – the act of killingMens rea – killing with purpose, knowledge or extreme recklessnessCausation-the act caused the deathDeathAttendant circumstances
25Kinds and Degrees of Murder Not formally divided under degree in English common law—all were feloniesBenefit of clergy—developed to mitigate the harshness of the punishment (Most crimes were capital felonies, and criminals were hanged)Dividing murders into degrees continuation of idea that not all felons, not even all murderers should be executedU.S. colonies/states, degrees of murder were created by legislatures
26Degrees of MurderMost states divide homicide into two degrees, some divide it into threeModel Penal Code doesn’t use degrees, but divides murders according to mental attitudes (Purpose, Knowing, and extreme recklessness)
27First Degree Murder Premeditated, deliberate, intent to kill murder Felony murderOnly crime for which death penalty can be imposed (capital cases)Death penalty issues complicate murder lawSupreme Court decisions have resulted in followingMandatory death sentences are bannedUnguided discretionary death penalty decisions are bannedMitigating factors are requiredAdditional aggravating factors are allowed
28First Degree Murder, death penalty Model Penal Code recommendations re: death penaltyBifurcation of the guilt determination phase and the sentencing phaseCriteria for decision is limited and announced before the decision to sentence the defendant to deathAggravating factors (see listing in text p-290)Mitigating factors (see listing in text p-290)Aggravating and Mitigating factors must be considered before making decision
29First Degree Murder Mens Rea Willful, deliberate, and premeditated murder (The “grand criterion of murder”Something more than the intent to killOften disagreement what deliberate and premeditated meanWillful = intent to killPremeditated = sufficient time to enable the mind to frame the design to killDeliberate = fully conscious of purpose and design
30First Degree MurderCase examples with definitions of willful, premeditated and deliberate:Commonwealth v. Drum (1868)People v. Anderson (1968)Specific intent plus real premeditation-deliberation definitionMacias v. State (1929)Willful, premeditated, deliberate = specific intent to kill
31Byford v. State (2000) Summary of case holding Court found sufficient evidence to establish deliberation and premeditation on defendant’s part.Distinguishes between premeditation and deliberationWillful = intent to killDeliberation = process of determining upon a course of action to kill as a result of thought, including weighing the reasons for and against the actionsPremeditation = design, determination to kill, distinctly formed in the mind by the time of the killingCourt found torture (aggravating circumstance) requires that murder intended to inflict pain beyond the killing itself….and that jury could find facts to support that
32State v. Snowden (1957) Summary of case holding Court determined that the time needed to remove the knife from his pocket, open it and cut the victim’s throat was sufficient time to show premeditation and deliberation. Thus, the court sustained the defendant’s murder conviction
33Actus Reus of First Degree Murder Voluntary act of killingmany forms of killingMany statutes require “heinous atrocious or cruel” acts to accomplish the actus reus of first degree murderExample: State v. Duest
34State v. Duest (1985) Summary of case holding Facts of case were sufficient to find that defendant engaged in atrocious heinous and cruel murderMultiple stab woundsStatements that he intended to roll gay guysStole victim’s jewelry
35Second Degree Murder Second Degree murder statutes include implied malice crimes created by common law judges (and retained by state statute)felony murdersintent to inflict serious bodily injury murdersdepraved heart murdersUnintentional but extremely reckless murders differ from reckless mansalughterKilling very very, very, very recklesslySome state statutes make second degree murder the “catch all” category
36People v. Thomas Summary of case holding Malice or intent to kill may be inferred from the acts of the defendant.The intent to kill may be implied where the actor actually intends to inflict great bodily harm or the natural tendency of his behavior is to cause death or great bodily harm.
37Felony MurderUnintentional deaths that occur during the commission of some feloniesStates vary as to what felonies are included—some list the feloniesSee Maryland’s Felony Murder StatuteVariation regarding whether co-defendant’s death can be basis for felony murderThird party exception; resisting victim exception - People v Hudson (2006)
38Felony MurderSome states say that felony murder applies to “inherently dangerous felonies.”Approach 1- Determine whether felony is inherently dangerous by looking at the crime in the abstractApproach 2-determine whether the felony is inherently dangerous by looking at the facts presented in the case. (case by case approach)
39Felony Murder Mens reaFelony murder does not require the intent to either kill or inflict serious bodily injuryIn that respect they are sometimes considered “strict liability” crimes….Remember that the actor must have the requisite mens rea to commit the underlying felony
40People v. Hudson (2006) Summary of case holding Court examined whether the defendant was guilty of proximate cause theory of felony murder, and spent a great deal of time discussing the causation element.The court stated, “It is immaterial whether the killing…Is intentional or accidental or committed by a confederate without the connivance of the defendant or even by a third person trying to prevent the commission of the felony. . . “ (as long as he is proximate cause).Jury was correctly instructed as to proximate cause.
41People v. Phillips (1966) Summary of case holding Applied the “inherently dangerous in the abstract” approach to felony murder and determined that fraud is not a crime which is inherently dangerous in the abstract (although in this case, defendant’s actions were probably inherently dangerous)
42Corporate MurderCorporations commit murder through the acts of their agentsFord PintoAutumn Hills Convalescent CenterConcerns about corporate murder stem from concerns about vicarious liability in general (imputing acts of one to another)
43People v. O’Neil (1990) Summary of case holding Court overturned appellate court’s decision ruling that corporate officers could not be guilty of involuntary murder.The supreme court looked at the actions of the officer’s and determined that the officers were responsible for running the plant the way they did, they knew of the dangers to their employees.“A corporation is criminally responsible whenever any of its high managerial agents possess the requisite mental state and is responsible for a criminal offense while acting within the scope of his employment.”
44Manslaughter Voluntary Manslaughter Intentional killing Done in the sudden heat of passionTiming of whether this was still in heat of passion is determined by the facts of the caseWithout a cooling off periodObjective test of cooling off time (would a reasonable person under the same circumstances had time to cool off)State v. Flory (1929)Informed his wife was raped by her father…walked all night directly to the father’s home and killed him…the court ruled Flory had not cooled off…the heinous combination of incest and rape was enough to keep a reasonable person in a murderous rage for at least several days.
45Manslaughter Voluntary Manslaughter - Continued Because of legally adequate provocationProvocation is both subjective (defendant himself was provoked) and objective (reasonable person would be provoked)“Adequate Provocation” means that which is “calculated to inflame the passion of a reasonable person and tend to cause that person to act for the moment from passion rather than reason”Types of provocation recognized as “adequate”Mutual combatassault and battery,trespass andadultery
46Manslaughter Voluntary Manslaughter Paramour rule: Common law rule that held that a man who found his wife in the arms of her lover was not guilty of murder but rather voluntary manslaughter (presumed that this would be adequate provocation which would cause sudden heat of passion)
47Manslaughter Voluntary Manslaughter Provocation by “Words” Words cannot be provocation (common law rule), but there may be statutes that allow words to suffice for provocationExample: Minnesota statute in text - neverLast straw rule, smoldering or slow burn resentment – words detonate a last straw rule: Dennis v. State (1995)Provocation had to cause the sudden heat of passion
48Model Penal Code Manslaughter Criminal homicide constitutes manslaughter when:It is committed recklessly; orA homicide which would otherwise be murder is committed under the influence of extreme mental or emotional disturbance for which there is reasonable explanation or excuse.The reasonableness of such explanation or excuse shall be determined from the viewpoint of the person in the actor’s situation under the circumstances he believes them to be.
49Commonwealth v. Schnopps (1983) Summary of case holding Schnopps argued that he acted in sudden heat of passion (wife’s adultery and words) and therefore should have been convicted of lesser degree of murder.Court concluded that the jury had sufficient evidence to find that defendant acted with deliberately, premeditated malice aforethought. (could have found that he lured his wife there, that he planned to kill her based upon statements made to co workers)
50Involuntary Manslaughter Actus reus –killingMens rea –unintentional killingCausationDeath
51Involuntary Manslaughter 2 Types: Criminal negligence manslaughterGenerally includes both recklessness and negligence (notwithstanding the name)Unlawful act manslaughter (aka misdemeanor manslaughter)Deaths that occur during the commission of unlawful acts
52Criminal Negligence/Vehicular/Firearms Manslaughter Criminal negligence manslaughterActus reus – defendant’s acts create a high (substantial and unjustifiable risk of death or serious bodily injury)Mens rea – defendant is aware the risk of death or serious bodily injury is high but commits the acts anywayMost of these crimes involve unintentional deaths caused by operating vehicles or firearms (aka vehicular homicide, or criminally negligent homicide)
53State v. Mays (2000) Summary of case holding Court held that although defendant did indeed commit vehicular homicide; it opined that defendant was not shown to have committed the worse form of vehicular homicide, so he couldn’t be receive the sentencing maximum.“the harm caused by the offense, while senseless and tragic, was not greater than the harm caused in every other aggravated-vehicular-homicide case.”
54Unlawful Act Manslaughter Death that occurs during the commission of an unlawful actSometimes referred to as misdemeanor homicideEncompasses any type of unlawful act (look at statutes)People v. Datema (1995)Husband slapped wife once, but she didn’t tense up her neck (alcohol and marijuana in her system) and had a torn artery which resulted in her death. Defendant’s conviction upheld (Sentence: 20 years!)