Crim Law Cases

F: Police arrest man who is drunk at home, and take him out to a highway to "dry-out". Convicted of being drunk in public
H: Reversed because he was forced into public.

- Defendant was convicted of voluntary manslaughter because he shot a cop after being shot in the stomach
- Said he was not conscious because he didn't remember it happening/ was in shock.
- Rule: unconsciousness is a complete defense to criminal homicide

- Stole gas meter, but didn't turn off gas. people died.
- There has to be actual intent or recklessness for the actual harm.
- mens rea for lesser offense cannot be used as mens rea for bigger offense.

- sailor went to steal rum, lite match, and burned down ship.
- Mens rea for stealing doesn't satisfy for burning down ship.

- Man had weed in compartment in his car. Tried to say he didn't know
- Positive knowledge is required to convict.
- Consciously avoiding learning the truth can be positive knowledge.

- Mistake of fact as to age is not a defense
- Man took 14 yr old girl who he thought was 18. The statute said that it was illegal to take under 16 girl
- belief that she was over 16 does not negate mens rea b/c he ran the risk she would be underage.

- Mistake as to consent. Honest belief is a defense
- Man brought home three men to have sex with his wife. The men thought that the sex with the wife was consensual.
- The court held that even if the belief was unreasonable, that doesn’t matter as long as it was HONEST.

- Man was arrested after speeding, when cruise control malfunctioned. - Speeding is a strict liability offense.
- Court says it does not allow involuntary act defense because the driver voluntary turned over some control to the cruise system, which constituted the actus reus.

- Mistake is ok for non-feasance
- Woman did not register as a felony when she entered LA.
- There is a statute that said she was supposed to.
- The court held that the statute was unconstitutional on due process grounds

- If you are aware of the law, good faith won't save you
- Reverend asked the state attorney if he could advertise with a sign, even though there was a statute that said you couldn’t advertise marriage.
- He was still found guilty.
- The mistake here was a mistake of law, and he was aware of the penal code.

- Permission to specifically do something makes it ok. (but cf Hopkins)
- Defendant was convicted of picketing in or near a court with intent to interfere with administration of justice.
- The police chief and sheriff both gave the D permission.
- The court held that because he had permission, and because there was a lack of specificity, it would be entrapment.

- Helping government official in good faith can be a defense.
- Two men were indicted for going into a shrink's office and rummaging through his stuff.
- They were told it was a gov. operation by a gov guy.
- The majority reversed the conviction because the good faith reliance negated the intent necessary for a conviction of conspiracy.

Man (defendant), threatens and then stomps his pregnant wife (pregnant with another man’s baby).
- Baby is born with fractured skull. - The defendant seeks a writ of prohibition, challenging that it wasn’t murder within the meaning of the statute.
- Court held that the unborn fetus did not fit within the statute because of the legislative history (written in 1850), and due process (wouldn’t have notice he would be charged with homicide)

- It is immaterial the length of time between when the intention was formed, and when the killing took place.
- No time is too short to form intent.
- Defendant shot his wife in the back of the head after a long argument.
- The court held that society would be almost completely unprotected from criminals if the law permitted am impulse to excuse or justify murder or to reduce it.

- There must be some amount of time between the intent to kill and the killing.
- Dishwasher stabbed co-worker after teasing.
- The court reasoned that there has to be some amount of deliberation, otherwise there is no difference in the degrees of intentional killing.

- The standard for provocation is objective reasonableness
- Husband killed his wife by stabbing her 19 times, because of a heated argument.
- Mere words are not enough
- Second degree murder conviction was affirmed.
- The court held that it is an objective and a subjective test.

- Closer to MPC and more modern.
- This is the minority view.
- Man shot another man in the ear after seeing his wife go to the woods with him, and heresay that they were having an affair.
- The court held that the standard is men of average mind and disposition.
- The question of whether the defendant was sufficiently provoked is decided by the jury. Also, mitigated it crime down.
- Dissent: cause of provocation should have occurred in Maher’s presence.

- Follows MPC
- Defendant dated victim casually and when she broke up with him he became obsessed and broke into her apartment. He knew he was either going to hurt her or commit suicide. He stabbed her and drowned her in the bathtub. Argued extreme emotional distress.
- Court held that for there to be extreme emotional disturbance:
1) Defendant must have acted under the influence of extreme emotional disturbance; AND
2) There must have been a reasonable explanation or excuse for such extreme emotional disturbance. The reasonableness is determined from the viewpoint of the defendant.
- Court here held that it didn’t meet this.

- Recklessness is the conscious disregard of a substantial and unjustifiable risk for a reasonable person.
- Skier was going to fast, flew over a knoll and crashed with another skier, killing them.
- The court held that the skier’s action was a high enough level of dangerousness to constitute manslaughter.
- The court reasoned that recklessness is the conscious disregard of a substantial and unjustifiable risk that death could result from.
- Based on reasonable person.

The conduct of D, regardless of ignorance, good intentions and good faith, fails to measure up to the conduct required of reasonable prudence they are negligent enough to support a conviction of manslaughter.
- Couple did not get their sick baby to a doctor in time, and he died from a tooth infection. The were not very educated, and they didn’t want to get in trouble.
- The court held that a reasonable person in their place should have known better.

- Negligence standard should be evaluated objectively.
- Four year old was sick with flu symptoms, the defendant tried to pray it away b/c they were a Christian Scientist. Kid dies of meningitis.
- Court upheld, and said that criminal negligence should be evaluated objectively

- Malice can be made out by wanton disregard for human life/consequence of actions.
- Friends are playing russian roulette. One friend pulls the trigger three times against the other persons head (not traditional RR BTW). D showed remorse.
- The court held that the conviction stood and intentional killing is not required to find malice.
- Malice exists when there is an “act of gross recklessness for which the actor must reasonably anticipate that the death of another is likely to result.”

- Being drunk is no defense when act shows a deviation from established standards of regard for life and the safety of others.
- Man was drunk driving down the wrong side of GW parkway.
- The court held that because his driving showed a disregard for human life, he was guilty of murder not manslaughter.

- Felony murder doctrine is not limited to deaths that are foreseeable.
- Felons are strictly liable for all killings during the commission of a felony.
- A man suffered a heart attack during a burglary.
- The court upheld the first degree murder conviction.
- A felon takes their victim as they find them.

- A man took out insurance on his home and then burned it down, resulting in the death of his two sons.
- The court held that it doesn’t matter whether the defendant had the intent of killing his sons, only that he committed an act that was known to be dangerous to life and likely to cause death, for the purpose of committing a felony.

- To trigger felony murder, the felony must be inherently dangerous to life.
- 8 yr old had cancer of the eye, which parents were advised to remove.
- Defendant was a chiropractor who told them he could fix it without surgery, and the kid died.
- The court held that because the felony of fraud was not inherently dangerous to life, and therefore felony murder wasn’t applicable.

- Armed robber not within merger.
- Defendant killed a person in the course of committing an armed robbery.
- The court held that armed robbery is an offense which can trigger felony murder because there is an independent felonious intent of robbery.

- Assault with a deadly weapon is within merger.
- Teacher drank a lot of wine, and killed his wife in front of daughter.
- The court held that assault with a deadly weapon could not be used as the predicate felony for felony murder because all of the elements are completely within the elements of murder.

- Burglary can be merged.
- Man entered ex-wife’s and assaulted her during burglary.
- Court held that he entered with the intent to commit assault so there was merger.
- But cf People v. Miller

- Burglary can’t be merged
- Man barged into apartment and when roommate came to help, he killed the roommate.
- The court held that the unlawful entry was enough for the predicate felony
- But cf People v. Miller

- Victim of an armed robbery shot and killed one of the robbers.
- The court held that because the killing was not done by the felon or one of their agents they couldn’t use felony murder.

- Two robbers robbed a liquor store. Wife shot robber, and other robber and getaway driver were charged with murder under felony murder.
- The court held that under vicarious liability they could be liable because the gun battle was initiated by criminals provocation of muttering.

- Two criminals were carrying stolen goods to their car. One guy left, and the other initiated a shootout with the cops, which he died in.
- Vicarious liability here is not relevant because the shootout was started by the dead criminal, so the other guy couldn’t be held liable for the suicide.

- Driver sped up and tried to hit the officer.
- The only mens rea required was purpose or knowledge.

- Defendant did not use a condom even though he knew that he had HIV, when he raped women.
- The court held that this was not sufficient to infer the intent to kill because there had to be specific intent to kill at the time of the assault.
- May be proved by circumstantial evidence.

- Defendants planned to rob a man who was carrying payroll. The were driving around looking for him when they were arrested.
- The court held that they were only preparing, and acts of preparation are too remote to be attempt.

- No abandonment at common law.
- Man who was a mathematician wanted to become a bankrobber so he rented property above a bank, drilled a hole, hid his tools in the closet, and went home. Never actually did it, and left his stuff there.
- Court upheld conviction for attempt. Reasoned that he went far enough to satisfy the actus reus for attempt.

- Defendant went into field to kill X, X was with the local constable. Defendant was carrying the rifle, and he loaded it in front of them, but didn’t raise or aim it. Constable disarmed him.
- Court held that there was no attempt because the acts weren’t unequivocally demonstrative that the intent to commit the act was formed.

- Jury must find beyond a reasonable doubt that actions show unequivocally intent to commit the crime.
- Defendant was a black man, who followed a white woman and kids. Sheriff said he stated he was going to find the first woman he saw and rape her.
- Court upheld the attempt to rape conviction because they said the jury must be satisfied beyond a reasonable doubt that, considering the facts and social conditions, the intent to rape and assault was unequivocal.

- police were running a sting operation, and sold defendant goods that had one time been stolen but had since been recovered.
- The court held that it was impossibility of law (even though it was really impossibility of fact), and therefore overturned the conviction.

- Lawyer was smuggling out letters. Law said that smuggling letters without the warden’s knowledge was illegal.
- The warden knew about it though, therefore it was a legal impossibility for him to do the crime.

- Man shot a dead man he thought was alive. Shot him with the intent to kill him.
- Even though he was already dead there was still the attempt to kill him.

- Hicks and Rowe were at a party with Colvard. Witnesses saw them together on the main road. They were talking, Rowe twice raised his rifle and aimed it at colvert. Hicks told Colvert to “take off his hat and die like a man” Rowe then killed colvert. They rode away together. - The court held ?????

- Welch attacked Anderson’s wife. So Anderson got his buddy morris and went out to find welch. Anderson killed wlech with a knife. Morris was convicted of manslaughter.
- The court squashed the conviction holding that if you don’t know that the other person is going to go past the “common design” of the action, then you don’t know what is going to happen, and you can’t have the requisite mens rea for the crime.

- Defendant was asked by an undercover cop if he could buy some weed. The defendant said he didn’t but gave directions and drew a map to a dealer that sold to him. He was them charged as an accomplice in the sale of drugs.
- The court overturned, reasoning that there was no NEXUS btwn the accused and the party he is charged with aiding and abetting. There must be a purpose or intent to assist in the crime, being helpful is not enough.

- A judge (D) brothers in law were trying to find a man who had seduced his sister. Friends of the man telegrammed him to warn him. The judge knew the telegram operator, and send him a telegram telling him to not send the warning. The operator didn’t, and they killed the man.
- The judge was liable as an accomplice to murder because he made their act easier. It didn’t matter that they would have been able to kill him anyways.