#17112 - Unintentional Killings In Non Mpc And Mpc Jurisdictions - Criminal Law

Unintentional Killings in Non-MPC and MPC Jurisdictions

Common Law 3 options

• Depraved heart killing (murder)

• Felony murder

• Involuntary manslaughter: unintentional killing that includes showing of criminal or civil negligence (argue for either)

MPC 4 options

• MPC 210.3(1)(a) involuntary manslaughter: committed recklessly (aware)

• MPC 210.2(1)(b) depraved heart murder: committed recklessly + with extreme indifference to human life)

• MPC 210.2(1)(b) felony murder equivalent (specific felonies): if commit one of the listed felonies, presume recklessness + extreme indifference to human life (rebuttable)

MPC 210.4 negligent homicide (criminal negligence)

Involuntary manslaughter (common law)

• Williams

  • Court - failure (omission) to provide child medical care amounts to negligence (the state's statute here only required civil negligence), culture not factor into objective standard

  • Arguments against negligence

    • View reasonable person includes the defendant's (1) education level and (2) cultural understanding (as Native Americans, worried that if they take the baby to the doctor, the government may take away the baby)

  • Argument for not charging them: death of baby is punishment enough; government is partly responsible for creating their fear and preventing them from seeking medical attention

• General arguments

  • Defense tries to incorporate defendant's traits into the reasonable person standard VS.

  • Gov argues against individualization because of the

    • Utilitarian purpose of encouraging people to exercise care

    • Utilitarian purpose of specific and general deterrence

    • retributive purpose of punishing harm caused

• Walker: court declined to incorporate religious beliefs into the reasonable person (mother prayed for sick baby and did not get medical attention, causing death)

Depraved heart killing (both CL/MPC)

• Unintentional killings that occur in the course of an activity that is not socially productive and with the only purpose of risking death (Malone) OR activity that is socially productive but done with very high degree of risk (Fleming)

• Acting with extreme recklessness and manifesting extreme indifference to human life, where someone dies as a result

• Ex. Malone - Russian Poker

• Killing that demonstrate malice aforethought as evidenced by (1) high degree of risk and (2) extreme indifference to human life > grossly reckless

• Ex. Fleming - drunk driving at high speeds and traveling in opposite sides of the road indicates extreme indifference to human life (even though normally drunk driving cannot be charged as murder and driving itself is socially productive)

• Ex. Throwing stones over highway overpass to see if you will hit a car

Felony Murder (Common Law)

• If one (1) commits a felony - AR and (2) a killing is caused during the felony - result (3) death is caused by the felon/defendant's action (4) killing is in furtherance of felony > felony murder charge

• Strict liability (not need MR), but require actus reus and causation

• Causation (1) but for felony death would not have happened (2) death foreseeable

• Justifications

  1. Deter commission of felonies (U)

  2. Deter careless behavior and killing (including intentional killing to complete felony) during the commission of felonies (U)

  3. Focus on harm caused (R)

  4. Felon's depraved purpose (committing felony) aggravates culpability for causing death carelessly (R)

     1. Creating risk of death in the context of criminal act is more culpable that creating risk of death in the context of an innocent or less culpable act

• Problems

  1. Cannot deter accidents from happening (U)

  2. Severe punishment of FM is disproportionate to the conscious wrongdoing (R)

  3. FM does not help rehabilitate defendant and allow them second chance/contribute to society (esp. young defendants who committed felony) (U)

Limitations on FM

1. FM limited to qualifying felonies

   1. Ex. Serne: FM available only with felonies that are inherently dangerous

   2. Policy: (a) there is limited foreseeability of death with felonies that are not inherently dangerous, should not punish if not foresee (b) since FM carries long punishment of FM, the list of qualifying felonies should be narrow

1. Grading of FM

   1. Ex. FM during dangerous felonies > 1st degree murder; non-dangerous felonies > 2nd degree

   2. Ex. FM charged as 2nd degree murder

1. Allow defendants to raise affirmative defense (like MPC)

2. Killing must be done in furtherance of the felony

   1. Temporal component: during commission or during escape

   2. Causal relationship between felony and death

1. Limitation on causation (who caused death)

** should surviving felon be charged with FM for killing of co-felon by victim of felon/police officer (NOT felon/co-felons)?

1. Canola - no; agency theory - FM rule applies only if killing is done by felon and accomplices (majority approach)

2. Other courts - yes; proximate causation theory - FM applies to killing may be done by anyone (co-felon, victim of felony, police office)

   1. Because killing is within foreseeable risks of the felony

1. Arguments of (1) statutory interpretation and (2) policy

** should co-felon be charged with FM for killing done by co-felon?

MPC 210.2(1)(b) Felony Murder equivalent:

• Killing occurring during the specified kinds of felony creates presumption of recklessness and extreme indifference to human life

  • robbery, rape, deviate sexual intercourse by force/threat of force, arson, burglary, kidnapping, or felonious escape

• Affirmative defense: presumption rebuttable by defendant (ex. "I was actually careful and acting in order to preserve human life!" "I was not indifferent or reckless!"

• ** note almost any FM charge could be filed as depraved heart murder or normal murder (but FM under MPC is easier because felony itself creates presumption of reckless and indifference to human life)