Criminal Law

1. Volunt/Involuntary/Misfeasance act
2. Actual/Proximately Causing
3. Unlawful Killing of a
4. Human being with
5. Malice aforethought (this is mens rea) (= no facts to reduce to voluntary manslaughter/i.e. provocation OR excusing it/i.e. defenses)
6. With Intent:
1. To kill
2. To inflict great bodily injury
3. Reckless indifference to an unjustifiably high risk to human life
4. To commit a felony
5. Intentional use of deadly weapon creates an Inference of an intent to kill
A. Transferred Intent Doctrine: If D intends to harm one victim, but accidentally harms a different victim, the D's intent will transfer from the intended victim to the actual victim. (exception: transferred intent doctrine does not apply to Attempts - only to completed crimes).

Unintentional killing resulting from conduct involving
a wanton indifference to human life and
a conscious desregard of an unreasonable risk of death or serious bodily injury
absent any defense negating D's awareness of risk.
(CL Murder #3)

A. Involves extremely negligent conduct which is of higher degree that ordinary recklessness, and unlike involuntary manslaughter.

Would be CL Murder but for the existence of adequate provocation. "Adequate provocation" reduces killing from "Murder" to "Voluntary Manslaughter."

1. Unlawful killing of a Human Being with Malice aforethought with Intent to kill, serious injury, reckless diregard, commit felony, inference. AND

1. adequate provocation

2. D in-fact provoked

3. No sufficient time for passions of Reasonable Person to cool

4. D in-fact did not cool
A. "Adequacy" = arousing sudden and intense passions in the mind of an ordinary person causing to lose self-control (i.e. D lost control)

B. "heat of passion" questions reduce liability from CL Murder to Voluntary Manslaughter)

aroused sudden and intense passion
in the mind of an ordinary person
causing to lose self-control (i.e. D lost control)

1. Unintentional Killing ('D causes death of another')
2. By acting with Criminal Negligence
3. OR during commission of unlawful act (other misdemeanors and felonies)

A. Malum in se misdemeanor need not be independent from the cause of death (unlike felony murder)
B. Criminal Negligence - creates a high degree of risk of death or serious injury beyond Tort standard of ordinary negligence

Any killing ('even if accidental') actually and proximately caused during the attempt-commission, commission, or 'immediate flight therefrom, of Independent and Inherently Dangerous Felony. (BARRK)
A. D MUST be guilty of underlying felony.
B. Death MUST be foreseeable result of commission of felony or Malum in se) Courts willing to find most deaths occuring during commission of felony to be foreseeable.
C. Death MUST occur within 1yr 1day
D. Once "place of temporary safety" subsequent deaths are not felony murder.

Any Foreseeable Killing ('even if accidental)
Actually and Proximately caused during the
Attempted-commission, Commission or Immediate Flight from Indendent Felony.
A. BRAKES - Burglary, Robbery, Arson, Kidnapping, Escape, Sexual Assault
B. MUST HAVE sufficient evidence that D committed underlying felony (conviction of underlying felony not needed in NY)
C. Killing must be separate from underlying felony itself
D. Once 'Temporary safety', felony ends
E. Death MUST be foreseeable
F. VIctim MUST NOT be Co-Felon
G. Vicarious Liability - if one co-felon causes death, all co-felons guilty of FM, even if killing caused by third person (bystander, police) so long as one felon is 'proximate cause" of the death.
H. Non-Slayer (affirmative)Defense - (1) D did not kill the victim & (2) D didn't have deadly weapon & (3) D had no reason to believe co-felons had d. weapon & (4) D had no reason to beleive co-felons intended to act in anyway likely to cause death.

1. Any killing committed with
2. Premeditation (reflected on idea even if only for brief period)
3. and Deliberation (made decision to kill in cool and dispassionate manner)
4. Or Commission of Statutorily enumerated felonies (normally BARRK and inher. danger. fel.)

Prove each:

(1) intent to kill
(2) D is 18 or older
(3) one aggravating factor:
1. law enforcement engaged in official duties & D reasonably aware thereof
2. murder for hire
3. felony murder intentionally killed BRAKES/ & attempted murder in 2nd degree or during immediate flight therefrom
4. witness intimidation (or family member)
5. intentionally kills more than 1 during same crime transaction
6. if only 1 killed, involves torture
7. serial murders (24 month rule)
8. kills judge
9. D serving/escapes life sentence at time of killing
10.

(1) intentional killing (not 1st degree) - intending to cause death and causing death, OR
(2) Highly reckless Murder demonstrating
a. depraved indifference to human life by
b. engaging in conduct that
c. creates a grave risk of death
d. causes death - generally invovling more than 1 victim
(3) felony murder unintentionally killed and not co-felon or during immediate flight from; BARRK-SAE(Sodomy, aggravated sexual abuse, escape)

4.

1. Insanity
2. Infancy
3. Must have culpability relating to material element of underlying crime

1. unlawful application of force
2. to the person of another
3. resulting from D's (i) intentional (ii) reckless (iii) negligence (iv) careless contact (this is D's mens rea)
4. resulting in bodily harm or offensive contact
A. Defenses: Consent, Self-defense, defense of others, crime prevention
B. transferred intent doctrine applies

(1) attempted battery, OR
(2) Intentional Creation of
Reasonable Apprehension in victim's mind of
Imminent bodily harm

1. Intentionally (mens rea)
2. Causing
3. Physical Injury to another person

1. Intentionally
2. Causing
3. Serious injury
4. Weapon

1. Intentionally
2. Causing
3. Serious injury

1. Intentionally (intent to injure)
2. Causing
3. non-serious injury

A charge of Extreme & Emotional Distrubance Manslaughter acts as an Affirmative defense to NY 2nd Degree MURDER.

EED constitues a mitigating circumstance reducing murder to manslaughter in teh second degree.
Defendant MUST prove EEDM by a Preponderance Of the Evidence.

A persion is guilty of First Degree Manslaughter When:

1. With intent to kill or cause serious bodily harm to another person
2. s/he causes the death of such person or third person
4. b/c s/he acts
5. Under Influence of Reasonable & Extreme Emotional Disturbance resulting in lose of self-control
A. subjective reasonable explanation or excuse required for his emotional disturbance
B. the reasonableness of which is to be determined from the viewpoint of a person in the defendant's situation under the circumstances as the defendant believed them to be."
C. EEDM two components:
(1) acted under influence of extreme emotional disturbance. The first requirement is wholly subjective i. e., it involves a determination [p. 679] that the particular defendant did in fact act under extreme emotional disturbance, that the claimed explanation as to the cause of his action is not contrived or sham.
(2) there must have been a reasonable excuse. the determination whether there was reasonable explanation or excuse for a particular emotional disturbance should be made by viewing the subjective, internal situation in which the defendant found himself and the external circumstances as he perceived them at the time, however inaccurate that perception may have been, and assessing from that standpoint whether the explanation or excuse for his emotional disturbance was reasonable, so as to entitle him to a reduction of the crime charged from murder in the second degree to manslaughter in the first degree.[n. 2] We recognize that even such a description of the defense provides no precise guidelines and necessarily leaves room for the exercise of judgmental evaluation by the jury. This, however, appears to have been the intent of the draftsmen. "The purpose was explicitly to give full scope to what amounts to a plea in mitigation based upon a mental or emotional trauma of significant dimensions, with the jury asked to show whatever empathy it can."
B. "(a)n action influenced by an extreme emotional disturbance is not one that is necessarily so spontaneously undertaken. Rather, it may be that a significant mental trauma has affected a defendant's mind for a substantial period of time, simmering in the unknowing subconscious and then inexplicably coming to the fore."

also:
1. intent to kill/serious bodily injury b/c of REED
2. Abortional Act against female pregnant for more than 24 weeks
3. reckless conduct causes grave risk of physcial injury to child 11 or younger resulting in death of such person

1. EED Manslaughter
2. Intentionally causing serious boidly harm that results in death (MS Common Law Murder)
3. Unjustifiable Abortional Act - person performs abortional act (including drgs) upon female pregnant for more than 24 weeks and that act causes death of the female.

1.Reckless - D is aware of and consciously disregards a substantial and unjustifiable risk of DEATH that causes death. Intoxication not a defense.
2. Abortional Act - commits abortional act upon female that cuases death unless where allowed by statute.
3. Aiding Suicide - if D used duress or deception on the victim, then the crime qualifies as second degree murder.

1. Criminal Negligent mens rea
2. D should have been aware of a substantial and unjustificable risk of DEATH.

1. Serious bloameworthy conduct related to substantial/unjustifiable risk of death
2. foreseeable that act would cause death

where one causes the death of another due to criminal negligence. Failure to perceive a risk is not enough by itself for conviction; the D's conduct also must have been culpable or morally blameworthy and the death-producing eent foreseeable. to be morally blameworthy: conduct must constitute a gross deviation from the ordinary standard of car held by those who share the community's general sense of right and wrong. simple speeding alone usually not sufficient for conviction.

1. Person may be guilty of VEHICULAR ASSAULT or VEHICULAR HOMICIDE if driver
1. Causes Injury or Death while
2. Intoxicated - drivign intoxicated means:
A. impaired by alcohol
B. blood alcohol concerntration of .08
C. intoxicated (disorientation cused by drinking alcohol only - drug induced intoxication cannot be charged under #3)
4. drugs appearing on schedule of controlled substances otherwise unchargeable. In such cases, chargge of criminally negligent homicide may still be possible.

1. person who operates motor vehicle in violation of DWI laws
2. resulting in serious physical injury to another (rebuttable presumptino that unlawfully intoxicated person injured another as a result of being impaired)
3. person must
1) have BAC .18
2) known or have reason to know that his license was suspended/revoked for DQI or refusal to submit to chemical test
3) have previous DWI conviction w/in 10 years
4) cause serious injury to more than 1 person
5) previosuly convicted of vehicular arrault or vehicular homicide
6) commits such crime w/child 15 or younger and suffers serious injury
A. rebuttable presumption that caused injury b/c impaired.

when death occurs with elements of vehicular assault

1. police killed in line of duty, AND
2. D knew/should've known it was police officer, OR
2. defendant, 18, causes death of child, under 14, in expecially cruel and wanton manner. (like torture priot to victims death)

1. unlawful
2. confinement of person
3. w/o consent

1. unlawful
2. restraint of person
3. w/o consent
4. knowledge that restriction is unlawful
5. (First degree adds:) a risk of serious physical injury

1. (false imprisonment) unlawful confienment w/o consent with general intent
2. invovling Moving Victim or Concelaing Victim
3. General Intent

1. abducting someone
2. with:
(1) for ransom
(2) more than 12 hours w/intent to rape, injure, rob
(3) death

1. sexual intercourse (carnal knowledge of a woman by a man not her husband)
2. w/o consent
3. by:
1) force
2) threat of force
3) when victim in unconscious

possession of materials to be employed in crime
which are specially designed from such unlawful use or
which serve no lawful purpose of the actor under the circumstances.

Pursuatn to the Fifth Amendment, a criminal defendant may invoke the privilege against self-incrimintation by refusing to answer grand jury questions on the grounds that is may incriminate him. Once he testifies, he has waived his privilege.

The Fifth Amendment privilege against compelled self-incrimination forms the basis for ruling on the admissibility of a statement obtained while the defendant is in custody. A person in custody must , prior to interrogation, be clearly informed of his Miranda Rights (privilege against self-incrimination, right to attorney, right to remain silent, Use of Statements in Court,).

5 Amend. protects only (1) testimonial or communicative evidence. it DOES NOT protect real or physical evidence.
(thus the state can compel a person to give a handwriting exemplar without violating the Fifth Amendment even if the evidence is incriminating.

5 Amend. protects against being compelled to communicate information not against disclosure of communicatinos made in the past (e.g. documents made in the past that incriminate a person).

A person in custody must, prior to interrogation, be clearly informed of her/his Miranda Rights. Miranda warnings are a prerequisite to the ADMISSIBILITY OF ANY STATEMENT OBTAINED DURING CUSTODIAL INTERROGATION (WHILE DEFENDANT IS IN CUSTODY).

1. an act in furtherance of an intent to commit a crime that
2. although is done with the intention of committing that specific crime
3. falls short of a completed crime