Criminal Law-52003 LaJuana Davis 1

I. Introduction to Criminal law and Statutory Interpretation

a. 1-6, 36-50, 59-66
b. MPC § 1.02(3)
II. Constitutional Limitations on the Power to Punish—Due Process
a. 67-77; 82-88
b. MPC §1.02(2)
III. The Actus Reus Requirement—What is an Act?
a. 140-160
b. MPC § 2.01(1)-(2)
IV. Omissions and Status Crimes
a. 161-180
b. MPC § 2.01(1); (3)
V. The Mens Rea Requirement—Statutory Interpretation and Intent
a. 189-204
b. MPC § 2.02(1)-(5); (7)-(8)
VI. The Mens Rea Requirement—Knowledge and Strict Liability
a. 204-224
b. MPC § 2.05(1)-(2)(a)
VII. Mistakes and Ignorance—Mistakes of Fact
a. 235-252
b. MPC § 2.04(1)
VIII. Ignorance or Mistake that Negates Culpability
a. 256-272
b. MPC § 2.04(1); 3(a) & (b)
IX. Causation and Concurrence
a. 280-296
b. MPC § 2.03
X. Homicide
a. 300-319
b. MPC § 210.2
XI. Manslaughter
a. 321-345
b. MPC § 210.3(1)(a) & (b)
XII. Depraved Heart Murder/ Extreme Indifference Murder
a. 346-363
b. MPC § 210.2(1)(b)
XIII. Involuntary Manslaughter/Negligent Homicide
a. 364-385
XIV. Felony Murder
a. 386-406
Criminal Law-52003 LaJuana Davis 2

CHAPTER 1
BASIC PRINCIPLES OF THE CRIMINAL LAW

INTRODUCTION
 Substantive criminal law answers these questions
o How do various jurisdictions define their criminal offenses?
o What are the basic elements common to every crime in the Anglo-American tradition?
o What does the prosecution have to prove in order for the fact-finder to find a person
guilty?
o What are the elements of particular crimes, like murder, rape, or burglary?
o What distinguishes first degree from second degree murder?
o What Level of Punishment does the person who has committed a crime deserve?
 The study of criminal law is both the study of what is and what ought to be
 What are the characteristics of the method of the criminal law?
o Operates by means of a series of directions. Or commands, formulated in general terms,
telling people what they must or must not do
o The commands are taken as valid and binding upon all those who fall within their terms
when the time comes for complying with them.
o The commands are subject to one or more sanctions for disobedience which the
community is prepared to enforce.
o What distinguishes a criminal from a civil sanction and all that distinguishes it is the
judgment of community condemnation which accompanies and justifies its imposition.
 It is conduct which, if duly shown to have taken place, will incur a formal and
solemn pronouncement of the moral condemnation of the community.
 No nationwide criminal code.
o All criminal laws of every jurisdiction of the U.S. are subject to the same constraints
imposed by the U.S. Constitution.
A. SOURCES OF CRIMINAL LAW
a. All criminal codes in the U.S. broadly recognize the crimes and defenses developed by
English judges over many centuries and then imported here
i. Common Law Jurisdiction-the code principally follows the common law
1. Judges continue to play an important role in shaping the criminal law.
They both definitively interpret the meaning of criminal statutes and
occasionally go beyond the statutes to announce new rules of their own.
ii. Model Penal Code Jurisdiction- the code has incorporated reforms taken from
the Model Penal Code.
1. MPC is a product of the American Law Institute
2. Instead of making a Restatement of criminal law ALI drafted its own
criminal code from scratch. In these jurisdictions, the language of the
statute is more important than prior decisions of judges in figuring out
“what the law is”
B. JUSTIFICATIONS FOR PUNISHMET
a. The arguments traditional used to justify criminal punishment come from moral
philosophy.Traditional moral reasoning is usually divided into two types:
i. Consequentialist- believes that actions are morally right if, and only if, they
result in desirable consequences.
1. Utilitarianism-primary consequentialist theory of punishment
a. Look forward at the predictable effects of punishment
ii. Nonconsequentialist- believes that actions are morally right or wrong in
themselves regardless of the consequences.
1. Retributivism- primary nonconsequentialist theory of punishment
C. THE PRESUMPTION OF INNOCENCE AND PROOF BEYOND A REASONABLE DOUBT
a. Reason why prosecution goes first
b. Prosecution bears the “burden of proof”
Criminal Law-52003 LaJuana Davis 3

c.
Standard of proof s “beyond a reasonable doubt.”
i. Required by Due Process Clause of the 5th and 14th Amend.
d. Defense Strategies:
i. Prima facie case defense or a case-in-chief defense- simply to create a
reasonable doubt about some element of the crime.
ii. Affirmative defense-Admitting the basic crime, but arguing for acquittal based
on extenuating circumstances. Defendant admits guilt as to the charged offense,
but claims he nevertheless should be acquitted of that offense either because he
was justified in acting the way he did or because he should be excused.
1. Defendant has the responsibility to prove the elements of any
justification or excuse defense he asserts. Usually required to prove the
affirmative defense by a preponderance of the evidence.
D. STANDARDS OF REVIEW
a. Directed verdict- judge directs the jury to acquit for lack of evidence.
b. Standard of review is complex and requires more than the reasonable doubt standard
i. Curley v. United States (39)
E. THE ROLE OF THE JURY
a. Judge is not permitted to punish the jury nor can the judge overturn the jury’s not guilty
verdict.
b. Jury nullification- act of returning a verdict contrary to law
c. People v. Williams
i. Calf. Supreme Court found a trial judge acted properly when he discharged a
juror who admitted that he was uncomfortable convicting the defendant.
F. STATUTORY INTERPRETATION
a. Judges have developed a body of informal rules over time to help them interpret statutes.
Collectively, the various sorts of interpretive rules are referred to as “canons of statutory
construction.”
i. Some rules address what values a judge should prioritize when reading a statute
1. Ex: rule that the interpreter should always begin with the text of the
statute itself
ii. Other rules concern efficiency in the administration of justice
1. Ex: rule that statutes should be interpreted in such a way as to avoid
constitutional problems.
iii. Other rules address grammar and syntax issues that frequently arise in textual
interpretation
1. Nosciture a sociis
2. Ejusdem generis
iv. Some rules, such as the “rule of lenity,” reflect basic principles of fairness.
1. Rule of lenity- all doubts when reading a criminal statute should be
resolved in favor of the defendant, in recognition of the important
liberty interests at stake and the presumption of innocence.
b. United States v. Dauray
i. Plain Meaning
ii. Canons of Construction
1. Lists and Other Associated Terms
2. Statutory Structure
3. Statutory Amendment
4. Avoiding Absurdity
iii. Legislative History
Criminal Law-52003 LaJuana Davis 4

CHAPTER 2
CONSTITUTIONAL LIMITATIONS ON THE POWER TO PUNISH

INTRODUCITON
 Three fundamental consitutiona limitations on punishment
o “void for vagueness” doctrine – Due Proce Clause of the 5th and 14th Amend
o Cruel and Unusual Punishment Clause – 8th Amend
o Equal Protection Clause – 14th Amend
A. Fourteenth Amendment Due Process: Void for Vagueness Doctrine
a. Imposes upon legislatures the duty to draft statutes that are clearly understandable. Two
purpose:
i. Providing fair notice to citizens of prohibited conduct
ii. Limiting police discretion
b. Papachristou v. Jacksonville (68)
c. Kolender v. Lawson (72)
d. Chicago v. Morales (82)

CHAPTER 3
THE ACTUS REUS REQUIREMENT

INTRODUCTION
 Actus Reus ties five loosely related doctrines and concepts
o Person should not be convicted solely on the basis of her thoughts, but also must have
done something that caused some sort of social harm
o Act must not have been compelled or committed by the government
o Act must be voluntary
o No criminal liability for an omission unless the person who failed to act had a legal duty
to act
o Status crimes are unconstitutional: people should only be criminally punished for their
conduct, not simply for being a certain type of person.
A. ACTING VERSUS THINKING: THE PROSCRIPTION AGAINST THOUGHT CRIMES
a. Basic Principle: State cannot punish a person merely because he has bad thoughts
b. Criminal law has so-called “inchoate” crimes which endeavor to criminalize conduct
leading up to the completed social harm, so police may apprehend a person before the
social harm occurs.
c. Wisconsin v. Mitchell (143)
i. Examines the subject of hate crimes.
B. ACTING ON ONE’S OWN VERSUS ACTING UNDER STATE COMPULSION:
“SITUATIONAL OFFENSES”
a. Martin v. State (146)
C. ACTING VOLUNTARILY VERSUS ACTING INVOLUNTARILY: THE
UNCONSCIOUSNESS DEFENCE.
a. Volitional act is a movement of the body willed by the actor.
b. State v. Decina (148)
D. ACTING VERSUS FAILING TO ACT: LIABILITY FOR OMISSIONS
a. It is the duty of the Criminal liability can be based upon an omission if the defendant had
a legal duty to act and was physically capable of acting. Omission, which replaces the
voluntary act, must also cause the social harm, and the defendant must act with the
requisite mens rea in order to be convicted of the offense.
b. Courts have recognized five situations in which individuals have a legal duty to act
i. Special relationship- ex husbands and wives
ii. Enters into a contract
iii. Statutory duty- such as the duty to pay federal taxes found in the IRS code
iv. If the defendant creates the risk of harm to the victim
Criminal Law-52003 LaJuana Davis 5

v. Voluntary assumes care of a person in need of help

c.
Defendant must have been physically capable of acting
d.
Defendant must have known of the facts giving rise to the need for action
e.
Establishing The Duty to Act- ways a person can be held criminally liable for a failure to
act
i. People v. Beardsley(156)
ii. Commonwealth v. Howard (161)
iii. Commonwealth v. Pestinikas(162)
f. No legal duty to rescue a stranger- See CB: 166-170
E. ACTING VERSUS HAVING A STATUS: “STATUS CRIMES”
a. One aspect of the act requirement has been constitutionalized: the idea that people should
be punished only for their conduct and not being a certain kind of person.
i. Robinson v. California (171)
1. Addressed if Calf. could punish a person for being a narcotics addict
ii. Powell v. Texas (174)
1. Court addressed if it could punish a chronic alcoholic for being drunk
in public
iii. Jones v. City of Los Angeles (181)

CHAPTER 4
THE MENS REA REQUIREMENT

INTRODUCTION
 Mens rea- in the criminal law context refers to “the particular mental state provided for in the
definition of the offense.
o Sometimes referred to as the scienter or intent requirement
 English common law produced a wide variety of terms used to describe a person’s mental state.
Within the common law system, these terms have no necessary relationship to one another, and
they do not even always mean the same thing from statute to statute.
o Also in common law judges have developed a distinction between:
 Specific intent
 General intent
 Model Penal Code recognizes only four mental states, these are precisely defined, have a logical
relationship to one another, and always mean the same thing. Under the MPC, if no mens rea
element is specified, the default rule is that recklessness is sufficient to prove the mental state
element.:
o Purposely
o Knowingly
o Recklessly
o Negligently
A. THE HISTORICAL DEVELOPMENT OF MENS REA
a. Regina v. Cunningham
B. POBLEMS OF STATUTORY INTERPRETATION
a. Court must utilize canons of statutory construction to figure out the legislature’s intent if
a statute expressly includes a mental state, but it is not clear which element or elements
that mental state modifies.
b. United States v. Yermian
c. Holloway v. United States
C. INTENT
a. Under modern common law, intent is defined in two ways
i. Conscious Object-One acts with the requisite intent if it is his conscious object
or purpose to cause a certain result or to engage in certain prohibited conduct
1. MPC-purposely
ii. Knowledge to a virtual certainty
Criminal Law-52003 LaJuana Davis 6

b.
Short cuts to prove intent
i. “Natural and probable consequences” doctrine, explained in
1. State v. Fugate
D. Knowledge
a. Under common law, person knows of a fact if he eiher is aware of that fact or correctly
believes the fact exists. Or equating positive or actual knowledge with willful blindness
or deliberate ignorance.
i. United States v. Jewell
1. Discusses willful blindness
E. SPECIAL PROBLEMS IN INTENT
a. Transferring Intent
i. Regina v. Pembliton
1. Intent to steal rum is not the same as an intent to burn down a ship.
ii. People v. Scott
1. Shooter can be held criminally liable for intentionally killing the other
person even if that other person was in fact an unintended victim.
b. Specific Intent/General Intent Distinction
i. People v. Atkins
F. STRICT LIABILITY CRIMES
a. Morissette v. United States
i. When a statute is silent as to mens rea, the ordinary presumption is that a mental
state is required for criminal liability.

CHAPTER 5
MISTAKE AND IGNORANCE

INTRODUCTION
 Whether the defendant’s ignorance or mistaken belief is a defense can usually be answered if one
understands what mental state the statute requires.
o Common law approach relies on the distinction between specific intent and general intent
crimes. Also incorporates the distinction between mistakes of fact and mistakes of law.
 MPC does not observed either of these distinctions.
A. MISTAKES OF FACT
a. If one is charged with a specific intent crime, an honest mistake that negates the specific
intent required for commission of the offense is a complete defense.
i. Mistake need not be reasonable as long as it is in good faith
b. If one is charged with a general intent crime, a mistake of fact that negates an element of
the crime must be both honest and reasonable to exculpate.
c. People v. Navarro
i. Clear explanation of the common law rules for mistakes of fact
d. Bell v. Sate
i. Examines whether a state legislature can consistent with due process, preclude a
mistake of age defense to a charge of promoting prostitution in the first degree.
B. MISTAKES OF LAW
a. Except in certain limited circumstance a person cannot defend against a crime by
claiming that he did not know what he was doing was unlawful
b. Three exceptions
i. Official Interpretation of the Law (“Entrapment by Estoppel”)
1. People v. Marrero
2. United States v. Clegg
ii. Ignorance or Mistake that Negates the Mens Rea
1. If one is charged with an offense which makes knowledge that the
prohibited conduct is unlawful an element of the crime, then one can
argue that one’s lack of knowledge as to the unlawfulness of one’s
Criminal Law-52003 LaJuana Davis 7

conduct negates an essential element of the crime. This type of mistake

is a complete defense.
2. Cheek v. United States
3. Bryan v. United States
iii. Fair Notice and Due Process (The Lambert Exception)
1. Lambert v. California

CHAPTER 6
CAUSATION AND CONCURRENCE

A. CAUSATION
a. Third basic element of a crime is the causation
b. Actus Reus consists of (1) a voluntary act (or omission when the defendant has a legal
duty to act) that (2) causes (3) the social harm.
c. Some courts expressly provide that a tort conception of causation is insufficient to
impose criminal responsibility. Instead, a stricter test, requiring a closer connection
between the defendant’s conduct and the resulting harm, may be applied.
d. Two types of causation must be proven to establish criminal liability
i. Defendant’s conduct must be an actual or but-for cause of the social harm
ii. Defendant’s conduct must be the proximate or legal cause of the social harm.

e.
Actual (Or “But For”) Causation
i. “But for” test
ii. Court asks, “But for D’s voluntary act (or omission where D had a duty to act),
would the social harm have occurred when it did?”
1. If “No” (without D’s conduct, the social harm would not have occurred
when it did), then D is an actual cause.
f. Proximate Causation
i. The proximate cause inquiry is an examination into the question whether it is
fair and just to hold the defendant criminally liable.
1. Direct conduct- usually yes
2. Intervening causes- many courts apply intervening cause analysis to
decide whether to hold the defendant criminally liable.
a. Dependent (or responsive) intervening cause is one that is
dependent upon or responsive to the defendant’s voluntary
action.
i. Generally if this then D is the proximate cause
b. Independent (or coincidental) intervening cause is one that is
independent of or coincidental to the defendant’s voluntary
act.
i. Generally if this then D is NOT the proximate cause
c. Sometimes courts simply focus on the foreseeability of the
social harm, as opposed to the foreseeability of the intervening
cause.
3. Other factors can come into play if the court is uncomfortable with the
result obtained through intervening cause analysis when deciding to
hold the defendant criminally liable.
ii. Commonwealth v. Rementer
iii. State v. Govan
iv. Henderson v. Kibbe
B. CONCURRENCE
a. Final basic element of a crime is the concurrence requirement, which mandates a
connection between the actus reus and the mens rea. Two types of concurrence must be
present:
Criminal Law-52003 LaJuana Davis 8

i. Temporal concurrence- the focus is on whether the required mens rea was
present at the same time that the defendant performed the actus reus.
ii. Motivational concurrence- the mens rea must be the motivating force behind the
actus reus.
b. Thabo Meli v. Reginam

CHAPTER 7
CRIMINAL HOMICIDE

INTRODUCTION
 Criminal homicide encompasses a host of different crimes, all involving the unlawful killing of a
human being by another human being. Divided into two categories:
o Murder- unlawful killing with malice aforethought
o Manslaughter- unlawful killing without malice aforethought.
A. DEFINITIONAL ISSUES
a. State may criminalize the killing of a fetus as long as the law contains exceptions that
protect the mother’s constitutional rights.
b. All fifty states and D.C. now interpret “death” to include “brain death.”
c. According to the Uniform Determination of Death Act- “an individual who has sustained
either (1) irreversible cessation of circulatory or respiratory functions, or (2) irreversible
cessation of all functions, including the brain stem, is dead.
i. Recognizing “brain death” means that the actions of physicians in turning off
life support or engaging in transplant surgery do not break the chain of
causation, and the person who originally caused the fatal injury can be
criminally prosecuted.
B. CATEGORIZING HOMICIDES
a. “Malice aforethought” should be understood as a legal term of art for the mens rea of
murder.
b. In penal codes that rely on common law, “malice aforethought” is when any of the four
conditions are present:
i. An intent to kill
ii. An intent to commit serious bodily injury
iii. An “abandoned and malignant heart” or “depraved heart”
iv. The felony murder rule applies
c. Deadly weapon rule- permits but does not require the jury to infer intent to kill when the
defendant has used a deadly weapon.
d. Most common law-based jurisdictions recognize two types of manslaughter:
i. Voluntary manslaughter- more serious, is an intentional killing that would
normally qualify as second degree murder, but is reduced to the lesser crime of
voluntary manslaughter through the application of a partial defense. (ex. Heat of
passion)
1. Typical sentence three to eleven years
ii. Involuntary manslaughter- least serious, generally a defendant may be charged if
he brought about the death of another human through “criminal negligence”
iii. Vehicular manslaughter- some states have this and it is less serious than
involuntary.
e. MPC does not recognize degrees of murder
f. MPC defines criminal homicide as the purposeful, knowing, reckless, or negligent death
of another human being.
i. Calls into play the four mens rea elements defined in § 2.02
g. §210.3 defines manslaughter as criminal homicide (1) when it is committed recklessly
(but without circumstances manifesting extreme indifference to the value of human life)
and (2) when a homicide that would otherwise be murder “is committed under the
influence of extreme mental or emotional disturbance for which there is reasonable
explanation or excuse.”
Criminal Law-52003 LaJuana Davis 9

C. DEGREES OF MURDER (FIRST DEGREE vs. SECOND DEGREE MURDER)

a. Common law murder into two degrees
i. First degree murder upon proof that (1) the murder involved “premeditation and
deliberation,” (2) the murder was committed using a means specified in the first
degree murder statute, such as lying in wait, poison, or torture, or (3) the murder
occurred during the commission or attempted commission of an enumerated
felony (namely rape, robbery, burglary, or arson).
1. Premeditation-killer must have reflected upon and thought about the
killing in advance.
2. Deliberation- refers to the quality of the accused’s thought process.
b. State v. Brown
c. State v. Bingham
d. Gilbert v. State
D. THE DOCTRINE OF PROVOCATION (VOLUNTARY MANSLAUGHTER
a. Provocation-heat of passion defense- way an intentional killing can be mitigated from
murder to voluntary manslaughter.
i. Considered a question of law, not a question of fact.
ii. One who kills in response to legally adequate provocation is treated as having
acted without malice aforethought, the mens rea required for murder.
1. Better way to think of it is defendants culpability is mitigated.
(Concession to human weakness.)
iii. Mere words are not enough to constitute legally adequate provocation
b. American jurisdictions have embraced three different approaches to determining whether
a defendant charged with murder is entitled to a voluntary manslaughter instruction:
i. The Early Common Law’s Categorical Approach to Provocation
1. One could claim the provocation mitigation if and only if one killed in
response to:
a. Aggravated assault or battery
b. The observation of a serious crime against a close relative
c. An illegal arrest
d. Mutual combat
e. Catching one’s wife in the act of adultery
2. People v. Ambro
a. Illustrates one long-standing exception to the mere words rule
ii. The Modern “Reasonable Person” Test
1. American jurisdictions began to abandon the categorical approach in
favor of a reasonableness approach. Under the modern test for
provocation in jurisdictions that have incorporated the common law,
the jury must find
a. Defendant actually acted in a heat of passion
b. The heat of passion was provoked by an act or event that
would have also provoked a reasonable person in the
defendant’s shoes to lose self control
c. The defendant did not have sufficient time to “cool off”
between the provocative act or event and the killing
d. A reasonable person in the defendant’s shoes would not have
had sufficient time to cool.
(Additionally, there must be a causal connection between the
provocation, the passion, and the killing, meaning both that the
provocation is what actually provoked the killing and that the
person killed is either the provoker or someone acting in concert
with the provoker.)
2. Modern approach gives more decision-making to the jury.
3. People v. Berry
a. Jury is given virtually free rein to hear the facts and decide
whether the alleged provocation was adequate.
Criminal Law-52003 LaJuana Davis 10

iii. Who is “The Reasonable Person”

1. Commonwealth v. Carr
iv. The Model Penal Code’s Extreme Emotional Disturbance Test
1. § 210.3(b) permits a homicide that would otherwise be murder to be
considered manslaughter when it is committed “under the influence of
extreme mental or emotional disturbance for which there is reasonable
explanation and excuse.” “The reasonableness of such explanation or
excuse shall be determined from the viewpoint of a person in the
actor’s situation under the circumstances as he believes them to be.”
a. More “subjective” than the common law approach.
2. State v. Dumlao
E. DEPRAVED HEART MURDER
a. Malice may be expressed or implied
i. Express- when there is manifested a deliberate intention unlawfully to take away
the life of a fellow creature.
ii. Implied- when no considerable provocation appears, or when the circumstances
attending the killing show an abandoned and malignant heart.”
b. Common law pproach has been fairly well settled- Malice will be implied in a homicide
case if it can be shown that the defendant acted with gross recklessness and an extreme
indifference to human life.
c. Homicides that involve a “depraved heart” can be punished as second-degree murder;
homicides that involve only gross negligence or simple recklessness can only be punished
as involuntary manslaughter.
d. Cases that explore the difference between the state of mind required for a depraved heart
murder conviction and the state of mind required for an involuntary manslaughter
conviction.
i. Commonwealth v. Malone
ii. People v. Knoller
F. INVOLUNTARY MANSLAUGHTER
a. Two ways a prosecutor can secure an involuntary manslaughter conviction:
i. Prove defendant had the requisite mens rea for involuntary manslaughter
1. “criminal negligence,” “gross negligence” “recklessness.”
ii. Through application of the misdemeanor manslaughter rule. Basically kind of a
mini-felony murder rule
b. Commonwealth v. Welansky
c. State v. Williams
G. THE FELONY MURDER RULE
a. Under common law felony murder rule, aka second degree felony murder rule, a person
who kills during the commission or attempted commission of a felony has committed
second degree murder.
i. Some CL also elevate, by statute, certain homicides to first-degree murder status
if the killing occurred during the perpetration or attempted perpetration of an
enumerated felony.
1. Typically; rape, robbery, arson, burglary, and kidnapping
ii. People v. Aaron
1. Squib case CB: 374
b. Felony murder is often described as a strict liability crime because under the felony
murder rule, a person may be convicted of murder even if she had no intent to kill and
was not reckless or negligent with respect to the risk of death. Because of its relative
indifference to mens rea, it is in tension with the rest of homicide law, which focuses on
the actor’s culpability as the primary way of meting out punishment.
c. People v. Stamp
d. The Inherently Dangerous Felony Limitation
i. People v. James
ii. Hines v. State
e. The Res Gestae Requirement
Criminal Law-52003 LaJuana Davis 11

i. Res Gestae Requirement has two parts:

1. Felony and homicide must be close in time. (Temporal and
geographical proximity)
a. People v. Bodely
i. Discusses the place of temporary safety rule. Courts
have expanded the time period during which the
felony is said to be occurring b holding that felony
murder liability continues until the felon reaches a
place of temporary safety.
2. Demands a causal connection between the felony and the homicide.
a. Some courts merely require a but-for causal connection
i. People v. Stamp (374)
b. Other courts require a greater causal connection between the
felonious conduct and the death.
i. King v. Commonwealth
f. The Merger Doctrine
i. People v. Smith
g. Third Party Killings: The Agency Rule
i. State v. Canola
H. THE MISDEMEANOR MANSLAUGHTER DOCTRINE
a. Def.- A homicide that occurs during the commission of a misdemeanor (an unlawful act
not amounting to a felony) constitutes involuntary manslaughter. Courts have placed
limitations on the it’s application.
b. Todd v. State
i. Discusses the requirements for an involuntary manslaughter conviction under
the misdemeanor manslaughter doctrine as it is applied in Florida.