Case Pg Issue Holding Law The Queen v. Dudley and Stephens

48 Whether two men who murdered Richard Parker out of necessity to stay alive should be held accountable

Yes, murder out of necessity is still murder.

Would cause slippery slope

murder out of necessity is still murder.

People v. Superior Court, People v. Du

50 Was D’s conduct sufficient to incur imprisonment without probation?

What utility is there in imprisonment?

Probation was sufficient

Little utility

It may be appropriate to sentence a non-violent D in exceptional circumstances to a minimal sentence of probation

Chicago v. Morales 109 Does Chicago's Gang Congregation Ordinance, which prohibits "criminal street gang members" from loitering in public places, violate the Due Process Clause of the Fourteenth Amendment to the U.S. Constitution?

It’s unconstitutionally too vague. Failure for fair notice and proper enforcement

It did not provide sufficiently specific limits on the enforcement discretion of the police, nor did it provide sufficient notice to citizens who wish to use the public streets.

Acteus ReusMartin v. State Cops drug him out

to the highway and claimed he was drunk in public

Can P convicted for drunk in public when he had no choice in the matter

It is inherent to the crime that it must be done voluntarily

It is inherent to the crime that it must be done voluntarily

State v. Utter P claims to have killed his son out of irrisistable impulse from having been trained in WWII

Was P’s claim to be in unconscious or automatistic state should be considered by jury

Evidence was insufficient to present the P’s state, unconscious or automatistic, to jury.

There must be substantial evidence to bring to the jury certain facts

Bodily movement that is conscious or habitual are voluntary

People v. Beardsley P parties with a girl and she takes morphine and dies.

Does D have a legal obligation to act

P did not play an active role in victim’s death.

Those with a special relationship have a legal duty to protect their compatriot.

D had none to PMens ReaUnited States v. Cordoba-Hincapie

Common Law – Consideration = Bargained for exchangeDissent: (D) benefitted by removing additional liability to herself when the house was sold

Regina v. Cunningham

P removed gas pipes. Gas leaked. Person died.

the meaning of the word “maliciously” – the interpretation of the statute

Maliciously means intentionally or recklessly.

People v. Conley D swings a bottle of wine at X and misses but hits P.

Whether D intended to inflict any permanent disability beyond a reasonable doubt?

Did D intentionally hit P

Although D did not act purposefully it can be inferred his intent

Intent can be inferred by conduct-

Failure to give warning, Acting with purpose, Offender’s words,Weapon of choice,Force of Blow

United States v. Morris

Nerd sets worm loose on internet and it breaks a bunch of computers

Does the statute require the prosecution to prove that the defendant intentionally caused damage to federal computers, or only that the defendant intentionally accessed federal computers and in doing so caused damage (in this case unintentionally)?

By way of a review of legislative history, the statute is interpreted to only require intent to access and not intent to damage. In particular, the court cites a change that was made which added the intent requirement in order to prevent convicting people of accidentally accessing someone else’s computer.

One may be punished for damaging federal computers unintentionally if the damage resulted from intentional access to the computers.

Staples v. United States

The statue under which the defendant was convicted, did not

Did the defendant need actual knowledge about the nature of his weapon in order for him to be convicted?

Some "public welfare" and "regulatory" crimes where intent is not needed. Furthermore, there are situations where the

mention anything about "knowingly" possessing automatic weapon.

defendant knows that what he is dealing with is really dangerous and intent is not needed (e.g. U.S. v. Freed involving gernades). But in this case, the actions of the defendant were innocent and the crime he is being charged with does not fit the category of crimes in which the congress would not require intent. The court decided that this crime was a felony and the court was not ready to drop the requirement of mens rea in serious felony cases. Reversed and Remanded.

HomicideKeeler v. Superior Court

Man kicks lady in baby. Baby is born stillborn

Whether an unborn but viable fetus is a “human being” w/i the meaning of the CA statute defining murder.

State’s arg: today there is a change in the definition of human being/fetus. So we should not be bound by the common law.

Under common law, a human being is someone who is born alive.

the leg did NOT intend such a meaning; to construe the statute to the contrary and apply it to this petitioner would exceed judicial power and deny petitioner due process of law.

Rationale: cannot hold petitioner to answer for murder by reason of his alleged act of killing an unborn – even though viable – fetus.

Principle of lenity: ct will construe every reasonable doubt for the D. p. 91. this rule only comes into play when there is an ambiguity that cannot be resolved. here, the ct finds other reasons – interpretation of the statute.

People v. Eulo D’s arg: a causation argument -- that it was the removal of life support that caused the death; not the shots to the head.

Did the trial judge adequately instruct the jury for what constitutes death and what time criminal liability for a homicide would attach.

Under CL approach dr. participated in death – they stopped the heart and lung.Under brain-dead approach, dr’s had no role. already brain dead.

Ordinarily, death will be determined according to the traditional criteria of irreversible cardio-respiratory repose. When, however, the respiratory and circulatory functions are maintained by mechanical means…when they were removed from artificial resp. they were already dead – lung and heart were already gone.

The D’s set a ball in motion – they are responsible for where that ball ends up.The only thing that could prevent them from being liable is something that is gross neg – superseding cause.

Dr. themselves not guilty of murder – no mens rea -- not acting unlawfully.

State v. Schrader Argument over authenticity of a sword. D stabs vic 51 times with a hunting knife. D claims he acted in self defense since he knew that the vic was known to carry a weapon and that vic had reached into his pocket. Vic never produced any gun.

Whether the ct’s jury instruction was proper with regards to the requirement of deliberate and premeditated where the ct said this element was satisfied if the intention to murder was there at any time during or before the murder.

WV Legislature – 1st degree murder is “willful, deliberate, and premeditated” – for premeditated to be satisfied, intent needs exist only for an instant.

King v. Commonwealth

no time is too short for a wicked man to frame in his mind a scheme for murder, and to contrive the means of accomplishing it.

State v. Guthrie Guthrie stabbed a co worker who had been making fun of him, while in a bad mood

In order to prove deliberation and premeditation must there be evidence that the D weighed his options ad considered the result of his actions under a 1st Degree murder charge

There must be some evidence that D considered and weighed his decision to kill in order for the state to establish premeditation and deliberation

There must be time between the formation of intent to murder and the actual killing, to prove that the murder was calculated and designed

Midgett v. State Autopsy of child shows that he died due to being punched by father.

Is there evidence of premeditation or deliberation

It must be shown by substantial evidence that the killing was premeditated and deliberate for 1st degree murder.

Father did not intend to kill him, just beat him.

State v. Forrest D’s father was Whether the court committed the court did not commit error; circumstantial evidence

terminally ill. While D was alone with his father, he pulled out a gun and fired four times at father. D never denied shooting his father.

error by denying D’s motion for directed verdict to the first degree murder charge (no premeditation or deliberation) where D shot his father multiple times in the head and then openly admitted that he shot his father.

First degree murder – intentional and unlawful killing of a human being with malice and premeditation and deliberation.showed that there was premeditation and deliberation.

actions of D were premeditated and deliberate since vic did nothing to provoke; vic was helpless when he was shot; vic was shot multiple times; and D was carrying a gun when he wouldn’t normally under the circumstances.

People v. Anderson the CA Supreme Court ruled that a single shot is more evidence of premeditation and deliberation than multiple shots.

ManslaughterGiroud v. State Army man convicted of

murdering his wife appeals to mitigate charges based on her abuse and taunts.

Are words enough to constitute provocation without conduct indicating a present intention and ability to cause physical harm?

No, D trying to include a new standard for provocation, but court finds words not sufficient

Words w/ conduct indicating a present intention and ability to cause physical harm would be sufficient

the ct says there should be some kind of proportionality b/t the provocation and the response. Enraging words do not equate to being stabbed 19 times.

People v. Casassa Stalker gets rejected so he stabs and drowns a the woman

Does the question of whether or not the defendant was so emotionally disturbed as to lessen murder to manslaughter involve both an objective and subjective analysis.

yes, ct says that the statute was properly applied because the trial judge, as the finder of fact, made an effort to empathize and be understanding of the D’s situation.

Berry v. Superior Court

D, had a fighting pit bull chained to a fence near some marijuana plants.

Whether “a person of ordinary caution or prudence would be led to

the test of implied malice is actual appreciation of a high degree of risk that is objectively present. In CA, the D must be shown to have had a knowledge of the

The dog killed a toddler.The D was charged with murder. He sought to have the charge dismissed on the basis that the evidence presented fell short of “implied malice” sufficient to prosecute him for murder.

believe and conscientiously entertain a strong suspicion that the D committed the crime of murder.”

Is the evidence in the case sufficient to justify a murder charge against the D?

In particular, does the evidence show that the D exhibited an extreme indifference to the value of human life?

“high degree of risk”, or in other words, they must be shown to be extremely reckless, in order to be charged with murder as opposed to manslaughter.

The court concludes that there is sufficient evidence that the D knew the dog could harm human beings; allows the murder case to go to trial.

People v. Nieto Benitez

Victim and friend accidentally hit D with a plate of food, soiling his shirt. D returned with a firearm; ensuing argument took out the firearm, which went off and killed victim.

To convict D of murder 2 with implied malice, does the act of brandishing a firearm have to be considered in the abstract to meet the act part of the implied malice rule?

Since brandishing a firearm is a misdemeanor, does Sec 192 mean that D can only be charged with manslaughter?

No, the act in this specific instance should be considered, unlike in the felony murder rule

No, Sec 192 doesn't say that all homicides in the commission of a misdemeanor are manslaughter, but only those that are committed without malice

murder 2 w/ implied malice has been committed “when a person does an act, the natural consequences of which are dangerous to life, which act was deliberately performed by a person who knows that his conduct endangers the life of another and who acts w/ conscious disregard for life.i.e.: malice may be implied when D does an act w/ a high probability that it will result in death and does it w/ a base antisocial motive and w/ a wanton disregard for human life.

State v. Hernandez D driving drunk; got into an accident that resulted in the death of someone.

Was the evidence of the drinking slogans relevant to prove one or both the

The evidence is admissible so long as it goes to show that the D was criminally negligent – must logically tend to support or

At trial, stickers and pins with pro-drinking slogans were presented as evidence over D’s objection. D convicted of involuntary manslaughter. D appealed on the basis that the pins and stickers should not have been admitted into evidence; irrelevant to the criminal charges against him; were used to try to show him to be the “type” of person who would commit the crime

elements of the offense of involuntary manslaughter?

establish a fact or issue b/t the parties.

State argued: the slogans would prove that the D had knowledge of the risks of driving drunk; and that he did not accidentally or mistakenly drink alcohol, in that his display of such items indicated that he approved of excessive drinking.

State v. Williams D parents found guilty of manslaughter based on their negligence regarding the care of their ill child who died of an infection they failed to treat.

PH: ct found Ds were neg in not seeking medical attention; that as a proximate result of their neg, child died; D’s guilty of manslaughter. D’s appealed on the basis that the findings do not support the conclusions that the D’s

Under WA law, do the facts prove the elements of manslaughter?

In WA, manslaughter is any homicide that is not murder but is neither justifiable nor excusable and is committed with simple (as opposed to gross) negligence.

Homicide is excusable if it is committed accidentally while “doing any lawful act by lawful means, with ordinary caution”.

are guilty of manslaughter as charged

Felony Murder

People v. Fuller D steals some tires and then gets involved in high speed chase. Runs stop sign and kills someone.

 Whether this D who committed a nonviolent daytime burglary is accountable under CA’s felony murder rule?

CA statute: All murder, whether committed intentionally, negligently, or accidentally, which is committed in the perpetration of, or attempt to perpetrate a felony crime is murder 1.

People v. Stamp Person dies of heart attack for being scared during bank robbery

D ‘s were convicted of Murder 1

People v. Burroughs D was a “healer” who tried to heal a guy with leukemia. The guy died.

Is the unlicensed practice of medicine an “inherently dangerous felony” such that it will support a conviction of murder 2?

Rule: To determine whether the felony-murder rule should apply in CA, use a two step process:1. Does the primary element of the offense necessarily

involve danger to human life?2. Do the factors elevating the offense to a felony render

that offense dangerous to human life?Holding: inappropriate to apply felony murder rule under these facts. The elements involved in the offense of practicing medicine without license does not meet the standards of “inherently dangerous to human life” doctrine. D’s murder 2 conviction reversed.

People v. Smith The D violently disciplined her daughter and she died.

Was the offense of child abuse such an integral part of the homicide that it merges into the homicide?

In CA, the felony murder rule is “inapplicable to felonies that are an integral part of…the homicide”. In such cases, the latter felony must be “merged” into the homicide and murder must be proven by one of the other three types of “malice”.

the homicide was the result of child abuse. Ct finds that the child abuse was an “integral part of” the homicide. No independent purpose for the conduct. To apply the felony murder rule in this situation would extend it beyond any rational

function designed to serve.

State v. Sophophone Man in robbery gets arrested and charged for felony murder where a police officer lawfully killed his co-robber

Can D be held guilty of felony murder where a police officer killed his partner in crime.

Where the killing resulted from the lawful acts of a law enforcement officer in attempting to apprehend a co-felon, D is not criminally responsible for the resulting death of co-felon. Felony murder conviction is reversed.

It is not enough to prove felony murder that the killing occurs, as a temporal matter, during the commission of the offense. There must be a causal relationship b/t the felony and the killing.

Missing Assignents for Week 7Forcible Rape

State of New Jersey in the interest of M.T.S.

Two teenagers had intercourse. Their testimony differed on many facts. It generally appeared, however, that the intercourse was non-consensual and was accomplished without the use of force as “traditionally” defined.

The D was tried

Whether ev is sufficient enough beyond reasonable doubt to conclude guilt of rape

The crime of rape is a forcible assault upon a person’s privacy and body control.  Permission to engage in sexual penetration must be affirmative and it must be freely given.  That permission may be inferred from the surrounding circumstances. Physical force in excess of the act of sexual penetration fulfills the element of force.  The trial court concluded that the victim had not expressly consented to the act of intercourse, either through words or actions.

No. Force is an essential element of the crime of rape and to justify a conviction; the evidence must warrant a conclusion either that the victim resisted and her resistance was overcome by force or that

and found delinquent for second-degree sexual assault. The delinquency was reversed on appeal. State appealed.

she prevented from resisting by threats to her safety.RATIONALE: It is legally insufficient to warrant a conclusion that D's words or actions created in the mind of the victim a reasonable fear that if she resisted, he would have harmed her, or that faced with such resistance, he would have used force to overcome it. And the “light choking” that victim alluded to was brought out at oral argument that it could have been a heavy caress.

Rusk v. State Defendant met the victim at a bar, the victim gave the defendant a ride how, when they got to defendant's house, defendant asked the victim to come in with him...She said no, defendant confiscate her car key, then victim went inside the tenement of defendant with him. When inside the apartment,

Whether evidence is sufficient enough beyond reasonable doubt to conclude quilt of rape.

Force is an essential element of the crime of rape and to justify a conviction, the evidence must warrant a conclusion either that the victim resisted and her resistance was overcome by force or that she prevented from resisting by threats to her safety.

It is legally insufficient to warrant a conclusion that defendant's words or actions created in the mind of the victim a reasonable fear that if she resisted, he would have harmed her, or that faced with such resistance, he would have used force to overcome it. And the 'LIGHT CHOKING' that victim alluded to was brought out at oral argument that it could have been a heavy caress

defendant went to the bathroom but victim did not try to escape, he came back, turned off the light and asked victim to take off her clothes, she refused, defendant insisted, and the victim later took of her clothes...she then again asked him to let her go, he refused....and she finally said "if i do what you want would you let me go"...he said yes, she then proceeded to have oral and sexual intercourse with him.

efendant was convicted of rape in the second degree

and of assault....he appealed NOT the assault conviction but the RAPE conviction. He contended that there weren’t enough evidence to prove he is guilty beyond reasonable doubt.

State v. Rusk Was the Court of Special Appeals correct in reversing Rusk’s conviction? In particular, was the reasonableness of the victim’s apprehension of fear a question of fact or a question of law?

The court concluded that the jury could have rationally found that the essential elements of second degree rape had been established.

Theft Larceny

Lee v. State Larceny is the trespassery taking or carrying away of persona property by another with intent to steal

CL Larceny has been broadened to include misappropriation of property by a bailee in such a manner inconsistent with owner’s wishes.

that is, a person who has control over the property with the owner’s consent

Rex v. Chisser Asked to see cravats offered and paid half price and took possession without owner’s agreement

The taking of goods away from a shop, without the owner’s permission and without full payment, constitutes larceny

United States v. Mafnas

Armored car service employer stole money from money bags in his charge

If a person receives property with any instructions to deliver it to the owner, that person only acquires custody, and any subsequent decision to keep the property constitutes larceny

Topolowski v. State Meat vendor leaves meat out to catch thief. but since he voluntarily left meat out the thief’s actions were not trespassery.

Where the owner of property, aids in the commission of the offense of larceny of such property, then the accused is not guilty of that crime

Rex v. Pear Man rents horse for a day and then sells it

Whether the delivery of the horse had changed the possession of the property as to render the subsequent conversion of it a mere breach of trust, or whether the conversion was larceny?

If a horse is leased for the particular portion of time and after that time is expired the hiring party sells the horse, converting the money to his own use, it is felony because there is no privity of contract between the parties.

Lund v. Commonwealth

Goods and time do not equate to time and services.

Labor and services and the unauthorized use of a computer cannot be construed as subjects to larceny

Larceny: Mens Rea

People v. Brown 17 yr old boy takes bike. boy was convicted of burglary and grand larceny.

Did boy intend to permanently deprive?

did the boy have the requisite intent to steal so as to satisfy all elements of larceny?

the party taking must have, in all cases, have the intent to wholly and permanently deprive the owner of the property.

People v. Davis D entered store with Whether this is larceny. Ct says at initial picking up, store does not consent if your

shopping bag. He took a shirt off the rack and went to the refund counter to exchange it for cash. Surveillance personal saw the transaction and ordered down to the cashier to give him a exchange credit voucher. D was arrested as he walked away from the counter.

the question is the initial taking control of the shirt was consensual – taking it off the rack.

intent is to pull a scam.

While in a store you have custody of the items you carry them, while they have actual possession

Embezzlement

Rex v. Bazeley The D, as a bank teller, received bank-notes from a customer for deposit. He deposited some, and placed some in his pocket.

Why not larceny? The bank never had possession of the notes. the teller had rightful possession. so, we are not dealing w/ an employer-employee relationship teller was given consensual possession by the customer. since consensual, not larceny.

A breach of trust cannot, a rule of the common law, be converted into a felonious taking.

Larceny by trick or false pretenses

People v. Ingram None

People v. Whight

On Wednesday, March 19, complete our study of Theft Offenses, discussing the mens rea issues related to Larceny and also discussing the crimes of Embezzlement and False Pretenses.

From the Casebook, please read pages 945-62