You are on page 1of 4

Criminal Law Exam Help Elements of Intentional Homicide To make a case for intentional homicide, the prosecution must

st prove each of the following elements beyond a reasonable doubt. 1. Conduct The D (a) did an act, or (b) omitted to act in circumstances in which there was an affirmative duty to act 2. Mens Rea That at the time the conduct took place, D had one of the following states of mind: a) Intent to kill the victim (or another person) = Intent and desire are separate thoughts a. Under the MPC, a criminal homicide constitutes murder or (voluntary) manslaughter if it is committed either purposefully or knowingly = The MPC divides the traditional concept of intent into two states of mind, purpose and knowledge, and either one satisfies the mens rea requirement for intentional homicide. i. Purpose A person has the purpose to cause a result (death) when it is his conscious objectto cause such a result. (wanting to kill) ii. Knowledge A person knowingly causes a result when he is aware that it is practically certain that his conduct will cause such a result. (high probability it will result in death) b. Likewise, under the traditional law, the prosecution can prove intent to kill by showing either purpose to kill or knowledge that it is practically certain that death will result from the D act. (Holmes throwing people overboard-even though it was too save the lifes of everyone else). c. Under both common law and MPC includes both purpose to kill and knowledge to practical certainty that ones act WILL kill not just to know someone could be killed but they WILL be. d. Under traditional law, there is a doctrine of transferred intent; intent-to-kill is satisfied where the D intends to kill one person but causes the death of another person instead. The MPC reaches the same result in its provisions of causation. (pg 325, Note 194). b) Extreme Recklessness = A person is guilty of murder when under circumstances evincing a depraved indifference to human life, he recklessly engages in conduct which creates a grave risk of death to another person, and thereby causes the death of another person. (Poplis) This is something more serious than mere recklessness alone which has had an incidental tragic result because it requires a depraved indifference. a. Under the traditional law, the mens rea requirement for murder can also be satisfied by showing that the D conduct evinced a depraved heartthat is, the conduct was extremely reckless

Cases that fall within the category of murder commonly involve the use of manifestly dangerous instrumentality in a manifestly dangerous way. (firing at trains; firing at moving vehicles; driving a car at high speeds directly at people). ii. Additionally, cts have generally been more willing to find such mens rea where a firearm is involved, at least when the D knows it is loaded, is (extreme) recklessness or worse. (Could be involuntary man/gross negligence. (Depends on facts: playing Russian roulette). iii. Evidence of intoxication is not a defense; cannot argue that you could not evince a depraved indifference because you could not appreciate the risk. Public Policy considerations No social purpose is served by allowing those who purposefully drink to be exonerated because they could not foresee a likely consequence of their conduct. Actually MORE dangerous because they are drunk. (though some cts have ruled that D must intentionally get drunk specifically to do an act to endanger life) b. Under the MPC, the mens rea requirement for murder can be satisfied by showing that the D acted recklessly under circumstances manifesting extreme indifference to the value of human life. i. Under the MPC, ordinary recklessness satisfies the mens rea requirement for (involuntary) manslaughter. Recklessness meets the mens rea requirement for murder only when it rises to the level of extreme indifference to value of human life. c) Intent to cause serious bodily harm a. Traditional Law - Applying the usual (rebuttable) presumption that a man intends the likely consequences of his conduct, cts have stated that the use of a deadly weaponor any weaponin a deadly manner is a fact from which malice can be inferred. b. The MPC does not recognize this as a separate category, but holds that such cases should be evaluated under the extreme recklessness standard. i. Their commentaries suggest that in a rare circumstance where [intent to cause bodily harm] does not involve recklessness, the actor should be prosecuted for aggravated assault, or perhaps, negligent homicide. d) Commission or attempt to commit a felony a. This requires not only a state of mindthe intent to commit a felonybut also actions that amount to the commission or attempt to the felony; and results in a death. If committed during a non-statutorily specified felony, its

i.

b. c.

d. e.

f.

2nd degree felony murder. (This doctrine presumes malice aforethought on the basis that a commission of a felony is inherently dangerous). Whether someone who sells or administers drugs to another person can be guilty of felony murder? Pg 176 Felony Murder and Accomplice Liability If murderer is guilty of felony murder are the others guilty of felony murder?Accomplice (1) one who assists or encourages another to commit a crime; (2) with the intent to promote the commission of a crime is guilty of the same crime as the principal. i. In order to hold an accomplice liable for the killing during the course of a felony the act of killing has to be within the scope of the crime they have agreed to commit. ii. Most cts dont require it to be in furtherance of the crime. (such as when stabbing a girl one is trying to rape) they say the D are liable for all reasonably foreseeable occurrences. iii. Something more than the mere coincidence of time and place between the wrongful act and the death is necessary. Must be an actual legal relationship between the killing and the crime committed or attempted that the killing can be said to have occurred as a part of the perpetuation of the crime. iv. D taking substantial measures insuring that no one would e hurt, is immaterial; if the mens rea requirement is met is he intended to commit the underlying felony. v. Affirmative Defense of self-Defense may properly be raised only as it pertains to the underlying felony, not the resulting death. vi. Attempted felony murder is a logical impossibility the murder was unintended by definition. vii. Further deterrence and but-for felony, the murder would not have been committed. Felony Murder and responsive Violence (cops, 3rd party) (smith v Myers) The MPC abolishes this category, but establishes (a rebuttable presumption) that the recklessness and extreme indifference which characterize a homicide as murder are presumed if the actor is engaged or is an accomplice in the commission of, or an attempt to commit, or flight after committing or attempting to commit robbery, rape or deviate sexual intercourse by force or threat of force, arson, burglary, kidnapping or felonious escape. (MAJORITY of states apply this and few have abolished FM altogether. D must present evidence that they werent recklesssuch as I was an accomplice and did not know the others had guns) Limitations (1) Felony must be of a kind involving violence or danger to life. Even if in the specific case the crime endangered life, the crime itself

must be inherently dangerous. In determining whether a felony is inherently dangerous for purposes of the felony-murder rule we assess that felony in the abstractwe do not look to the specific facts of the case before us (2) Must be at the time of the felony or police still in hot pursuit. (3) Felony must be another independent crime (rape, etc) NOT another form of homicide or assault/battery. Public policy (assess in abstract) this is used because there is a killing in every case where the rule might potentially be applied. If the court were to examine the particular facts prior to determining if the felony is inherently dangerous, it might apply the rule unfair. 3. Causation a). D conduct was both a. An actual cause: AND b. A proximate (legally responsible; near; forseeablility) cause 4. The death of a human being Keeler stomped pregnant lady--If the death of a human being is in question must discuss due process concerns. (He had no way of knowing that that would constitute a life because it hadnt in the past; essential element is fair warning of the act).

You might also like