#17097 - Intentional Killings Non Mpc - Criminal Law

Homicide

Intentional Killings in Non-MPC Jurisdictions

Intentional killing

• CL: murder mitigated through adequate prov to vol manslaughter

• MPC: murder mitigated through EMED to vol manslaughter

"t-Premeditation, willfulness, and deliberation"

• Required element in first degree murder

• Two approaches to premeditation

  • Majority approach/ Carroll

    • P, W, D satisfied by showing intent to kill

      • No time is too short for premeditation

    • Problems with this

      • Three different terms should mean different things; under this approach they are redundant

      • This eliminates the distinction between first and second degree murder

      • Impulsive killing (second degree) should be considered less culpable than carefully planned killings (first degree), where D had time to think and not continue to kill

      • Can deter premeditated killings by imposing more serious punishments than that for impulsive killings, but cannot deter impulsive killings by imposing punishment as serious as that for premeditated killing

  • Minority approach/ Guthrie

    • Premeditation satisfied by showing intent to kill + opportunity for reflection (indicated by lapse of time between formation of intent to kill and actually killing)

• Three types of evidence to show premeditation (from with t-Anderson, CA)

  • (1) planning activity

    • Length of interaction (ex. Long argument between parties) before the actual killing, allowing time to plan/reflection

    • Availability/possession of murder weapon

    • Surreptitious approach of victim

    • Taking victim to a place where others are unlikely to intrude

    • ALSO look at behavior after killing indicating presence or lack of planning

      • Calm, swift, and careful clean up (with supplies like corrosive fluids to dissolve body), attempt to flee > planning

      • Frantic, leave traces of DNA, show helplessness, shock, and remorse > no planning

  • (2) motive

    • Prior relationships between the parties indicating reason to kill

    • Prior threats to do harm to the victim

    • Plans or desires of defendant that would be facilitated by the death of the victim

    • Prior conduct of victim known to have angered the defendant

  • (3) manner of killing

    • Vulnerable body part(s) targeted

    • Particular manner of killing unusual for an impassioned act

    • Number of stabbings (can argue both ways)

• Problems with these premeditation standards -

  • Can be over-inclusive (both C and G): including mercy killings of a frail parent if premed satisfied under the approach (Forrest - son plans dad's death)

  • Can be under-inclusive (G): do not cover heinous killings considered not to be premeditated because of impassioned manner of killing - Anderson case w/ 60 stabs)

  • Premediated murders not always the worst murders

    • Anderson - 60 stabs, not premeditated but impassioned murder; argument that it is worse than one deliberate deep stab

CL MITIGATION TO INVOL MANSLAUGHTER- Adequate Provocation

• Allows for mitigation from murder to manslaughter

  • *note the sentencing differences between murder and manslaughter are not great enough to create deterrence effect (because people don't know about the difference), but (1) definitely creates important incapacitation effect and (2) sends societal message that some crimes are considered more wrong than others (unprovoked v. provoked)

• Policy for AP defense:

  • Provocation makes killing less culpable (R)

  • Provocation cannot be controlled or deterred (U) OR this deters provocation

• Voluntary Manslaughter def: "intentional killing done in the heat of passion produced by adequate provocation, before the defendant has had adequate time to cool off"

• 3 requirements for mitigation"

  • 1) There is adequate provocation

    • Objective standard - Adequate provocation means something that leads reasonable person to lose control

  • 2) Killing must occur in the heat of passion

  • 3) There was no reasonable opportunity for the passion to cool

• What does adequate provocation mean - 2 approaches:

  • Majority/ Girouard

    • 5 traditional common law categories of adequate provocation

      1. Extreme assault or battery on D

         Mutual combat

         Injury or serious abuse of close relative of D

         Illegal arrest of D

         Sudden discovery of spouse's adultery

    • Words alone do not satisfy adequate provocation, ONLY WHEN accompanied by conduct

      • Don't want to expand adequate provocation too broadly

      • Proof problem: if just words, probably only defendant can testify to the victims' provoking words; but provoking conduct may be supposed by witness testimony and physical evidence

      • Response: words can be just as upsetting as conduct and elicit the same visceral response

  • Minority/ Maher

    • Broader approach - allow more mitigation

    • Adequate provocation is anything that renders a reasonable person to act rashly and out of passion (jury question)

      • Ex. In Maher, heard about affair > adequately provoked

    • Requires there was no reasonable opportunity for the passion to cool

    • PROBLEM: What is a reasonable person and what traits of the defendant does the reasonable person incorporate?

      • In Maher, used person of average mind and disposition

      • Other courts may take into account defendant's dispositional or cultural traits

      • Generally incorporated: physical uncontrollable traits, sensory deficiencies (blindness/visual impairment), extreme grief, shock from traumatic injury

      • Not incorporated: idiosyncratic moral values, mental issues (anger issues, abandon issues, manic), psychopathic tendencies, cultural upbringing

      • Disagreement: age, intellectual ability, gender, traumatic experience

      • Make arguments for incorporation or not based on utilitarian and retributive theories

• Rationales for mitigation using the provocation defense

  • Killing after provocation is less culpable than killing without provocation

  • Two common rationales are grounded in the notions of :

    • Mitigation as partial justification: behavior was right

      • punishment of wrongdoers who provoke is justifiable, the complicity of the victim cannot or should not be ignored

    • Mitigation as partial excuse: behavior was wrong but understandable

      • reasonable person is a law-abiding individual who does not kill even when provoked, but killing due to provocation is understandable in light of the frail human nature

  • Common law uses both partial justification and excuse

    • If view mitigation as partial justification, the person killed must be the person who provoked to get mitigation (not 3rd party)

    • If view mitigation as partial excuse, the person killed does not have to be person who provoked, only focus on defendant's mental state

  • MPC views mitigation as partially excusing (see below)

• Problems with provocation defense

  • Reasonable people do not kill no matter how much they are provoked; even enraged people can control

  • Cheapens life, values sympathy for defendant's response over value of human life

  • Defense is anti-woman, licenses masculine violence at women's expense

  • Can mitigate punishment in sentencing, not in the charge

Summary