#11425 - Homicide - Criminal

Criminal Homicide

1. Premeditated Killings

   1. Intentional Murder

      1. First degree = premeditated

      2. Second degree = not premeditated, not provoked

      3. MPC and some states make no distinction

         1. 1963 PA Statute

            1. First degree = intentional, or committing arson, rape, robbery, or burglary

            2. Second degree

         2. Current PA Statute

            1. First degree = intentional killing

               1. Killing by means of poison, or lying in wait, or by any other kind of willful, deliberate, and premeditated killing

            2. Second degree = committed while D engaged as principal/accomplice in perpetration of felony

            3. Third degree = all other kinds

   2. MPC 210.2

(1) Except as provided in Section 210.3(1)(b) [EED], criminal homicide constitutes murder when:

(a) it is committed purposely or knowingly; or

(b) it is committed recklessly under circumstances manifesting extreme indifference to the value of human life.

(2) Murder is a felony of the first degree [but a person convicted of murder may be sentenced to death, as provided in Section 210.6]

3. Commonwealth v. Carroll (1963) – pg 381 – Nagging wife hits head and develops psychosis, at one point expressing to psychiatrist the desire to harm her children. Acted on that with corporal punishment with the kids. Husband shoots her while she is sleeping. Claims to have been thinking only of his hurt hildren and the gun, not actually aware of what he was doing when he shot her. Expert testimony from psychologist: he did act without reflection, that if he would have had to load the gun, he wouldn’t have pulled the trigger. (D wants 2nd degree, not premeditated)

   1. Held: There does not need to be a time-amount to determine a murder premeditated, as long as D is aware of actions at the time he does them. Killing is intentional, willfull, deliberate, premeditated. Premeditation can be inferred from the intentional use of deadly weapon on vital part of the body.

      1. “No time is too short for a wicked man to frame in his mind the scheme of murder”

      2. Law should not be blind to irresistible impulse/inability to control oneself. Every normal adult has moments/hours/days when he is depressed, disturbed, upset, subject to blind impulses.

      3. Jury question (whether or not to believe psychologist testimony)

4. State v. Guthrie (1995) – pg 386 – dishwasher that suffers 2 panic attacks a day, other emotional instabilities, attacks coworker who was teasing him and whipping with dishtowel. Stabs him in the neck after being whipped in the nose (over which he suffered severe body dysmorphia). Dad claims 50% of the time he sees defendant, he is looking in the mirror at his nose.

   1. Held: there must be some period of time between the formation of the intent to kill and the actual killing, which indicates the killing is prior calculation and design. Must be some opportunity for reflection on the intention to kill after it is formed. Premeditation necessarily takes some time.

      1. Carroll does not uphold policy behind distinction: premeditated murderer is more dangerous to society and less capable of reform than those that act out of impulse

5. People v. Anderson (1968) – pg 389 – Mom’s boyfriend stabs daughter out of sexual frustration. Blood everywhere. Nude body lying under boxes. 10 years old.

   1. Held: not premeditated because there is no evidence of 1) D’s behavior prior to killing which indicated a design to take life; 2) D’s prior relationship/behavior with V which might indicate a motive to kill; 3) evidence regarding the nature or manner of the killing which indicate a deliberate intention to kill according to a preconceived design

   2. Criticism: Shows why many courts are reluctant to take premeditation seriously. An unplanned killing such as this presents a more culpable offense than a reflective killing by a brooding, self doubting, self reflective offender. What premeditation misses is the moral importance of the motive for the homicide.

6. State v. Forrest (1987) – pg 390 – son visits hospitalized, terminally ill father. Sobbing with emotion – kills him with single shot to head.

   1. Held: Premeditated murder. Life in prison

2. Voluntary Manslaughter – common law

   1. Intentional killing

      1. “under the influence of passion or in heat of blood”

      2. “produced by an adequate or reasonable provocation”

      3. “Before reasonable time has elapsed for the blood to cool”

      4. And result of “temporary excitement” rather than “cruelty or recklessness of disposition”

   2. Common law (provocation)

      1. ELEMENTS

         1. D must actually be provoked and acting under heat of passion

         2. Provocation must be adequate and reasonable

            1. Strict: 1 of established categories

            2. Flexible: up to jury, so long as judge finds it could have a tendency to make reasonable person lose their cool (judge is gatekeeper)

            3. Courts divide on what reference point should be for RP

               1. Generally, mental disorders not considered

               2. Sex and age often considered in determining self-control ability

         3. Must have sense of immediacy (no time for blood to cool)

            1. Strict: judge determines as a matter of law

            2. Flexible: jury decides no matter what

            3. Issues: rekindling, smoldering, etc

      2. Err on side of sending to the jury. Flexible approach. Why?

         1. No such thing as expert moral knowledge

         2. 12 average people seem to have just as much ability as 1, and they represent more backgrounds and more dialogue

         3. Elitist? As a judge, I am upper class and educated and therefore less likely to be involved in a bar fight and losing control of emotions. Jurors are better equipped because of “their place in life” Maher

         4. Flexible jxns (CA) will allow ‘cumulative set of events’ to go to the jury to determine provocation

            1. People v. Berry (CA)– strangles wife after 2 week period of her tormenting him, saying she might be pregnant with another’s child.

               1. HELD: traditional conception of manslaughter should be stretched to include long periods of provocation:“smoldering”

3. MPC 210.3 Manslaughter (Extreme Emotional Disturbance)

   1. No provocation/cooling off period requirement

   2. Subjective: EED

   3. Pseudo Objective: Reasonable excuse for ED? Where RP is RP “in actor’s situation”

(1) Criminal homicide constitutes manslaughter when:

(a) it is committed recklessly; or

(b) a 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 a person in the actor's situation under the circumstances as he believes them to be.

1. NY Penal Law – Manslaughter in the First Degree “The fact that homicide was committed under the influence of EED constitutes a mitigating circumstance reducing murder to manslaughter in the first degree...”

2. Girouard v. State (1991) – pg 390 – domestic dispute with years of verbal abuse. Husband kills wife. She calls him a lousy fuck. Stabbed her 19 times.

   1. Held: verbal abuse not sufficient to qualify as provocation as a mitigating factor to reduce from murder to manslaughter.

      1. Per se rule: only certain instances qualify as reason to lessen to manslaughter = extreme assault or battery, mutual combat, D’s illegal arrest, injury or serious abuse of close relative of D, sudden discovery of spouse’s adultery (later reversed)

      2. D’s argument that manslaughter is murder minus malice fails

   2. Notes - some of the people that use “mere words” to solve their problems rather than violence – females and children – would be subjected to violence if through the law we send the message that words alone are enough to allow as a mitigation from murder to manslaughter

3. Maher v. People (1862) – pg 392 – D shoots wife’s lover after he follows them to the forest and hearing that they had intercourse in forest the day before. Enters bar, and shoots the guy.

   1. Held: Manslaughter when reason is disturbed or obscured by passion to an extent which might render ordinary men of fair average disposition liable to act rashly or without due deliberation or reflection, and from passion, rather than judgment

   2. Malice involves coolness, deliberation, aforethought (not necessarily premeditation)…control. Cannot occur when one lacks reason.

      1. Matter of law – to define what will constitute a reasonable or adequate provocation

      2. Matter for jury – whether the provocation proved in the particular case is sufficient or reasonable

   3. Sexual infidelity

      1. Some jurisdictions say you can allow “words as mitigation” only for intercourse itself, not other sexual activites – heterosexist?

      2. Others say you can only assert if you’re legally married

      3. Provocation has to happen in D’s presence – to avoid 3rd parties sharing inaccurate information and allowing someone to get out of murder because of it.

         1. Using law as reminder that rumors can be wrong

4. How far do we go in defining “reasonable person?”

   1. MPC: “In the end, the question is whether the actor’s loss of self-control can be understood in terms that arouse sympathy in the ordinary citizen.”

   2. What about when the excuse would be reasonable in a different culture, but not ours?

   3. Ordinary person who happens to be a long-battered spouse?

   4. Ordinary person suffering from severe depression?

   5. Ordinary person traumatized from Vietnam?

   6. Ordinary person that is addicted to drugs?

5. Commonwelath v. Welansky (1944) pg 411 – nightclub owner, insufficient exits, locked doors, lighting in flammable areas, lots of people die.

   1. Held: willfully, wantonly, and recklessly maintaining, managing, operating, and supervising the premises

      1. Wanton = maliciously or unjustifiably done

         1. Deliberate and without motive or provocation, uncalled for

         2. Without regard for what is right, careless

      2. Jury...