Criminal Law Outline
Causation: if there is a cause, then there is always a result.
Common Law
Cause-in“but for” causation
Fact
Substantial factor test/ accelerating death
ex: “but for X, would the victim have died?”
MPC
“but for”
causation
Substantial factor
test
ex: “but for X,
would the victim
have died?”
Proximate
Cause
“Year and a
Day Rule”
Satisfied when/if the intervening cause was
 Intended or reasonable foreseeable
Is Δ the direct cause and are there intervening
causes that don’t break the chain of causation?
 i.e. the intervening causes were foreseeable
Superseding Causes- breaks proximate cause
 Ex: X is unforeseeable because superseding
cause…
Intervening Cause:
 Dependent Intervening Cause: set in motion
by Δ
 Independent Intervening Cause: Something
out of Δ’s control. Ex: lighting striking was
not reasonable foreseeable.
- i.e. If the intervening cause is not
superseding then it is the sole substantial
cause of death.
“not too remote or
accidental”
Sole Substantial
Cause
there can be no prosecution for homicide if the
death of the victim does not occur within one year
and one day. – defendant is not the proximate
cause.
Accelerating a Result- two persons can be found to be the cause of death if the individual would have
died from the first injury and the second person merely accelerated that death.
Intervening Causes- "the general rule is that the intervening conduct of a third party will relieve a
defendant of culpability only if such an intervening response was not reasonably foreseeable
State v. Lane – Cause-in-fact
Facts
Issue
Rule
Holding
The defendant swung at the
man, and the man fell on the
cement on the edge of the
street. They continued to
walk home. Sergeant
Cruthirds responded to the
call of Linton being on the
side of the road, when he
realized there were no
external injuries, Linton was
taken to the jail on public
drunkenness. He was later
taken to the hospital where
he died from blunt force
injury to the head.
Was the State's
evidence
sufficient to show
that the
defendant's acts
of hitting Gregory
Linton was both
the actual and
legal cause of his
death?
Involuntary
Manslaughter: "the
unintentional killing of a
human being without
malice, proximately
caused by (1) an
unlawful act not
amounting to a felony
nor naturally dangerous
to human life, or (2) a
culpably negligent act of
omission."
The court holds
that there was
sufficient evidence
to prove proximate
cause of death.
State v. Lamprey- Proximate Cause
Facts
Issue
On September 14, 2000, the
defendant drove her truck
to the bus stop to pick up 6
children. They all climbed in
with no child seats or safety
belts. On the drive home the
truck left the road and
struck a tree. All six children
suffered injuries, while one
of the children, Katie Silva,
died. There were
testimonies from three of
the children of Lamprey
doing "swervies", or driving
in a zig zag motion prior to
the accident. According to
the expert, there were no
mechanical problems to the
truck.
Did the jury
instruction fail to
include legal
causation in
accordance with
State v. Seymour and
should the legal
causation standard
be instructed towards
an coincidental
intervening cause
such as this case?
The court found
that the medical
examiner testified
that the
decedent's swollen
brain could have
been a response to
either a blow to
the head or a
response to the
head striking
another object
Rule
Holding
A legal cause
(proximate cause)
of death and/or
serious bodily
injuries is a cause
that is direct and
substantial factor
in bringing about
that death and/or
injuries.
In regards to the
"sole substantial
cause" dispute, the
court ruled that
there was no
foreseeability test in
which the defendant
tried to use as her
argument.
The State must
prove that the
victim's death
and/or injuries
were a direct result
of the defendant's
actions
State v. Pelham- intervening causes
Facts
Issue
Did the trial court
Sonney Pelham was
make an error
drunk driving and hit
when instructing
victim, William Patrick,
the jury to not
from the back. Patrick's
condition was critical on consider the
victim being taken
arrival to the hospital. He
off the ventilator
was placed on a
as an independent
ventilator. He was
intervening cause
transferred to an
in this case?
rehabilitation institute
where the doctors
determined he was
significantly brain
injured. His condition has
worsened and Patrick
made clear that he did
not want to be put on a
ventilator. Because of his
brain damage, his lack of
improvement, and his
severe infections
Patrick's family decided
to act in accordance with
his wishes and took him
off the ventilator. Within
two hours of being
removed from the
ventilator, Patrick was
pronounced dead.
Rule
Holding
MPC causation
requirement- a "but
for" test, under
which the
defendant's conduct
is "deemed a cause
of the event if the
event would not
have occurred
without that
conduct" and a
culpability
assessment. State v.
Martin
The court holds that
there was no error in
instructing the jury that
a victim's decision to
invoke his right to
terminate life support
may not, as a matter of
law, be considered an
independent
intervening cause
capable of breaking the
chain of causation
triggered by
defendant's wrongful
actions.
Homicide:
a) Actus Reus= act or omission of some sort that leads to death
b) Attendant Circumstance = of another human being
c) Result= death
d) Mens Rea= varies based on the category
Since it is foreseeable
that a victim may
exercise his or her right
not to be placed on, or
to be removed from ,
life support systems, it
does not break the
unexpected chain of
causation that a
defendant initiated and
that led to the need for
life support. It is not an
intervening cause that
may be advanced by the
defendant.
Common Law:
Murder 1: unlawful killing of another human being with malice aforethought
Willful, Deliberate,
Premeditated
(malice aforethought)
Expressed Intent
Intent to kill
Intent to inflict GBH
Felony Murder
Engaged in a felony and there is a death that occurs,
(violent felonies)
you can be responsible.
Ex: burglary, arson, rape, robbery, and kidnapping
Poison/ WATT
Deliberate and Premeditated Killing:
o deliberate means made the decision to kill in a cool and dispassionate manner
o premeditated means actually reflecting on the idea of killing, if only for a very brief
period.
 Premeditation is often proven by circumstantial evidence.
Murder 2:
Intent to Kill
With intent but without premeditation.
Intent to cause
GBH
Implied intent- “knew with substantial certainty”
Implied Intent
(malice
Consciously desires to kill another person- constitutes an intent
aforethought)
to kill.
Intent to cause SBH- Conscious desire or substantial certainty
that the defendant’s actions will result in the victim’s injury
Proved by circumstantial evidence or the use of a deadly weapon
(Deadly Weapons Doctrine)
Depraved Heart
Recklessness (under circumstances manifesting extreme
(unintentional
indifference to human life and a conscious disregard of an
killing)
unreasonable risk of death or SBH
Felony Murder
The intent to commit the underlying felony such as burglary,
(less violent
arson, robbery, rape, or kidnapping.
felony)
Adopts MR of underlying felony
Voluntary Manslaughter:
Heat of Passion
Without intent but with extreme emotional or mental
(no malice
disturbance (HOP)
aforethought)
Provocation Test:
1) Reasonably provoked into suddenly heat of passion
2) Reasonable person would have been provoked
3) D had not cooled off by the time of the killing
4) Reasonable person would not have cooled off
5) acting in the heat of passion
Ex: “Provocation is adequate when D is provoked and a
reasonable person would be provoked by the circumstances”
Adequate Provocation:
o Being subjective to a serious battery or a threat of deadly force; and
o Discovering one’s spouse in bed with another person
Inadequate Provocation:
o “mere words” does not constitute as adequate provocation.
Imperfect Self Defense Doctrine: where a murder may be reduced down to a
manslaughter even though:
o the defendant was at fault; or
o the defendant unreasonable but honestly believed in the necessity of responding
with deadly force
Involuntary Manslaughter:
Reckless Culpable/gross deviation
Negligent Requires a greater deviation from the “reasonable person” standard than
is required for civil liability.
Ex: driving while intoxicated
MPC:
Murder:
Purposely
Knowingly
Felony
Murder
Conscious object to Kill/ Result in death
Practically certain that death will result
Recklessly manifesting extreme indifference to the value of life are
inferred during the commission of robbery, rape, etc.
M/R is rebuttable: rebuttal why you are not liable
Reckless +
Extreme reckless under the circumstances manifesting extreme
indifferences
Manslaughter
Reckless
Extreme Emotional
Disturbance
Consciously disregarded the risk w/ a gross deviation +
Mitigate from murder to manslaughter (even if the intent to
cause death was present)
Test:
Δ must have acted under the influence of extreme emotional
disturbance (subjective), and
There must have been a reasonable explanation or excuse for
such extreme emotional disturbance (objective).
Negligent Homicide:
Negligent Killing caused by Gross deviation
-reasonableness standard and apply the “reasonable person” under the
circumstances.
State v. Thompson- Premeditation
Facts
Issues
Is the first degree
Thompson shot and
killed his wife. Several statute, under
which the D was
days before the
convicted of,
shooting, Palma had
unconstitutional
filed for divorce, and
based on the
Thompson had
definition of
discovered that she
premeditated?
was seeing someone
else. Just a week
before the shooting,
Thompson moved out
of the couple's home.
As he did so,
Thompson threatened
Palma that, "if you
divorce me, I will kill
you." He returned to
Rule
A.R.S. § 13-1101(1):
Premeditation means
that the defendant acts
with either the
intention or the
knowledge that he will
kill another human
being, when such
intention or knowledge
precedes the killing by
any length of time to
permit reflection. Proof
of actual reflection is
not required, but an act
is not done with
premeditation if it is
the instant effect of a
sudden quarrel or heat
of passion.
Holding
The court held that
the instruction was
erroneous.
The court held that
flawed jury
instruction and the
State's reliance on
that instruction did
not affect the jury's
verdict, and that the
statute was not
unconstitutional.
the couple's
neighborhood that
morning and was seen
walking the sidewalk
near the home and his
car was spotted in a
nearby alley. Two
witnesses reported
that a man dragged a
women by the hair
from the front porch
into the home. There
was also a recorder 91-1 call of a women's
screams and four
gunshots. The gunshot
span was nearly 27
seconds. 9 second
between the first and
third shot. 18 seconds
between the third and
fourth.
Coolen v. State: Premeditation
Facts
Issue
Is there
Coolen then suddenly
sufficient
appeared and pulled
Kellar away and began to evidence to
prove a
stab him. Barbara threw
conviction of
her body over him to
first-degree
protect him. Jamie came
murder?
outside during the knife
fight. Coolen admitted to
stabbing Kellar. He stated
he has been playing board
games with Kellar copped
an attitude. He saw
something silver in
Kellar's hand and attacked
first to protect himself.
Rule
More than a mere intent
to kill; it is fully formed
conscious purpose to
kill. This purpose to kill
may be formed a
moment before the act
but must exist for a
sufficient length of time
to permit reflection as to
the nature of the act to
be committed and the
probable result of that
act.
Holding
he court holds that
the evidence is
insufficient to charge
Coolen with firstdegree murder
because there was
no evidence showing
premeditation.
State v. Doub, III: Depraved Heart
Facts
Issue
Doub admitted to drinking Is there
sufficient
6 beers prior to leaving a
evidence to
softball team party, he
charge Doub
also admitted to hitting
with second
two parked vehicles and
degree
left the scene concerned
depraved
about drinking and driving. heart
He also admitted to two
murder?
hours after hitting the
pared cars, he rear ended
a Cadillac in which a 9 year
was a passenger.
According to the State's
accident investigator, the
collision occurred as
Doub's pickup, "going
tremendously faster,"
drove "up on top of the
Cadillac," initially driving it
down into the pavement
and propelling it off the
street and into a tree.
Doubt offered no aid and
left the scene of the
accident, denied any
involvement in the
collision. Smith died of
blunt traumatic injuries
caused by the collision.
Rule
K.S.A 2003 Supp. 213402
Murder in the
Second Degree
"unintentionally but
recklessly under
circumstances
manifesting
extreme
indifference to the
value of human
life."
People v. Pouncey: Voluntary Manslaughter
Facts
Issue
Was there an
There was an argument
about Mr. Bland stealing error when the
trial court refused
a vehicle. When the
to instruct the
returned back to Mr.
White's house, Powers
Rule
The test for
voluntary
manslaughter:
Holding
The court held that
under the
circumstances the facts
demonstrate an
extreme indifference to
human life.
(1) driving was preceded
by drinking (2) admits to
striking to cars and
keeps going (3)
consumed more alcohol
and cocaine (4)resumed
driving, causing a fatal
accident due in part of
speeding (5) failed to
render aid to the victims
(6) fled the scene
Holding
The provocation to
mitigate homicide
from murder rather
than manslaughter
is that which causes
jury on voluntary
got into the argument.
He threatened to put the manslaughter?
defendant "in his head"
and called the Defendant
names. HE walked up on
the Defendant but was
held back by Mr. Bland.
Defendant told him
"don’t walk up on me."
There were no blows
stuck, there was no
physical contact with any
of the witnesses. The D
testified that Powers was
not armed. Defendant
walked inside after the
verbal exchange. HE was
not angry. He came back
out with a shotgun and
then told Mr. Johnston to
hit Powers with a
wrench. Mr. Johnston
proceeded to do so and
Powers dodged it. This is
when the D shot Powers
in the abdominal area.
Mr. Johnston ran home
as did the two Bland
brothers who called the
police. And Defendant
and Mr. White drove off
in the defendant's car.
1. Defendant
must kill in the
HOP
2. The passion
must be caused
by an adequate
provocation
3. There cannot
be a lapse of
time during
which a
reasonable
person could
control his
passions
the defendant to
act out passion
rather than reason.
The provocation
must be adequate,
namely, that which
would cause the
reasonable person
to lose control.
There was sufficient
time passed before
the shooting, hence
there was a lapse of
time in which a
reasonable person
could control his
passions.
State v. Williams: Unintentional Killings/ Involuntary Manslaughter
Facts
Issue
Rule
Holding
They were both aware
that William was ill from
September 1 to
September 12. They were
ignorant and did not know
how sick the baby was.
Is the existence of
the duty to furnish
medical aid
violated resulting
in the charge of
manslaughter?
The information
charged the
violation of "the
legal duty of
providing
necessary…
The court holds that the
violation of the parental
duty to furnish medical care
to a minor dependent child
is a sufficient basis on which
to rest a conviction of the
They assumed it was a
toothache and had no
layman regards a
toothache as dangerous
to life. They loved and
gave the baby aspirin in
hopes of improving its
condition. They did not
want Welfare to take the
baby away from them and
was in fear if they took the
baby to the doctor such
would happen. They knew
of medical help and had
no excuse that the law will
recognize for not taking
the baby to a doctor.
medical
attention to
said… minor
child…."
crime of manslaughter
under RCW 9.48.060 and
9.48.150.
"Ordinary Caution is the
kind of caution that a man
of reasonable prudence
would exercise under the
same or similar condition.
Therefore, if the conduct of
a D fails to measure up to
the conduct required of a
man of reasonable
prudence, he is guilty of
ordinary negligence
because of his failure to use
"ordinary caution."
Felony Murder:
o Scope- all members of the conspiracy are liable for murder if the death was caused
in furtherance of the conspiracy and was a foreseeable consequence of the
conspiracy.
o Limitations1) inherently dangerous felony (MERGE)- burglary, robbery, arson, rape, or
kidnapping
2) independent felony-(DO NOT MERGE) the underlying felony must be
independent of the homicide so that every felonious attack upon a victim which is
ultimately fatal does not become escalated to murder by the rule.
3) causation/ co-felon
4) non-felon killing: not involved in the situation
-victim or law enforcement
o Agency Theory- provides that for a felon to be held liable for felony murder, the
killing must have been committed by the felon or his accomplice
o Proximate Cause Theory- felons are liable for the deaths of innocent victims
caused by someone other than a co-felon, since they put into operation a series of
events that caused the death of the innocent party
o
Hines v State: Inherently Dangerous FM
Facts
Issue
Hines mistook his friends
Is convicted felon's
Steven Wood for a turkey
possession of a
and shot him dead while
firearm while
hunting. Hines intentionally
turkey hunting
shot his firearm to hit his
considered an
Rule
Holding
A felony is
"inherently
dangerous" when it
is "dangerous per
se" or "by its
The court held that
Hine's violation of
the prohibition
against convicted
felons possessing
target. He had been drinking
before and while hunting. He
knew other hunters were in
the area, but was unaware of
their exact location. He took
his shot through the dusk at
80 feet away.
inherently
dangerous felony
required to
support a
conviction for
felony murder?
State v. Contreras: Merging Doctrine FM
Facts
Issue
Respondent was involved in a
separate altercation at the
motel. The police arrived and
investigated that incident. Later
that evening the respondent
gathered the other respondents
and they proceeded back to the
motel with metal and wooden
clubs. They knocked on the metal
room door, and when the door
opened, rushed into the room
and proceeded to beat Resendiz
and Lainez. Resendiz died as a
result of his injuries.
Did the
district court
error when
dismissing
the felonymurder
charge?
circumstances
create[s] a
foreseeable risk of
death."
Rule
Holding
NRS 200.030(1)(b)
defines first degree
felony murder as a
murder that is
committed in the
perpetration or
attempted perpetration
of certain enumerated
crimes, including
burglary.
The court held that
the district court
was incorrect in
dismissing the
felony-murder
charge against the
respondents.
State v. Sophophone: FM/ Agency and Proximate Cause Theory
Facts
Issue
Rule
Sophophone and three others broke Should the
Agency and
into a house. The resident reported
Defendant be
Proximate
the break in to the police. The police convicted of
cause theory.
responded and saw four individuals
felony murder
Defined
leaving the back of the house. The
for the death of
above ˆˆ
cops flashed their lights at them, told his co-felon?
them they were cops, and ordered
them to stop. They started to run.
One police officer caught up to
Sophophone and was able to hand
cuff him and put him in the cop car.
Another officer chased down an
individual who eventually stopped
and laid faced down on the ground.
The officer had his gun drawn when
the suspect raised up and fired at the
officer, who then returned fire and
killed him.
firearms was an
inherently
dangerous felony
that could support a
felony murder
conviction.
Holding
The court held that
Sophophone cannot
be criminally liable for
the resulting death of
the co-felon, and the
felony murder
conviction must be
reversed.
Defenses:
Affirmative Defense: “I did this, but I had a good reason.” rf
Justification: Conduct that is otherwise criminal, but that here is either “right” or “not
wrong” under the circumstances. Ex: self-defense; necessity “Action is acceptable”
-Public Policy: society has decided D no longer should be punished
- Action is outweighing the cost
Excuse: Actor shouldn’t be punished ex: insanity, lacks full capacity
SELF-DEFENSE:
Common Law:
Necessity
Proportionate
Reasonable
(Objective)
Not too speculative or too far fetched
There must be imminent danger to be instantly met.
“Reasonably believed that the conduct was necessary to avoid some
harm to society that would exceed the harm caused by the
conduct”
Deadly force v Deadly force
What would this person do to protect his/herself?
Honest and reasonable belief actor is being threatened w/
imminent use or threatened of force.
Reasonable person would be believe force was necessary and
amount of force used was appropriate.
The common law rule is that self-defense must be proven by the defendant under the preponderance
standard (when all the evidence favors one side rather than the other). **the defendant to meet the
initial burden of producing evidence to establish self-defense, and then the prosecution must
demonstrate the lack of self-defense beyond a reasonable doubt for the jury to convict***
Retreat (common law): impose a duty to retreat only necessary when:
(1) when it can be made completely safely
(2) no need to retreat when the attack is in the one’s own home
(3) no need to retreat when the attack occurs while the victim is making a lawful arrest
(4) no need to retreat when the assailant is in the process of robbing the victim
MPC:
Necessity
“Immediately” necessary
“D must have a good faith belief that the use of force to protect self or
others is necessary”
Proportionality
Subjective +
Defendant had a subjective good-faith in necessity and
proportionality.
Honest belief
The Model Penal Code only places the burden of production of the defendant, not the burden of
persuasion, for both most failure of proof and most affirmative defenses, unless the provision on the
particular defense expressly states otherwise.
Deadly Force:
Allowed:
(a) actor is without fault
(b) is confronted with unlawful force
(c ) reasonably believes that she is faced with imminent death or GBH
NOT justifiable when
(a) the actor is the aggressor; or
(b) there is possibility to retreat
"Alter ego" rule: held that a defendant using deadly force to defend a person who was not entitled to
use deadly force would be held criminally liable.
Retreat Rule:
(a) a person may not use deadly force if he knows he can avoid force with complete safety
by retreating
(b) only required when the aggressor uses deadly force
(c ) do NOT need to retreat if you’re in your own home.
Right of the Aggressor: to “regain” the right to use self-defense:
1. withdrawal or retreat: in good faith, attempts to remove herself from the fight, and
communicates her desire to remove herself.
2. Sudden escalation: if the victim of the initial aggression suddenly escalates a minor
fights into one involving deadly force without given the aggressor the chance to retreat or
withdrawal, the aggressor may use deadly force in her own defense.
Defense of Others:
Common Law: You can only use the amount of force that the victim could have used;
Ex: Victim has to honestly and reasonable believe the force was necessary.
MPC: must reasonably believe it is necessary to protect the victim
MPC: does not have to be a special relationship between the defendant and the person in
whose defense she acted.
Defense of Other Property:
Non-deadly force is the only response
Deadly force can be used when in conjunction with another privileged use of force. E.g.,
self-defense, defense of others, or to effectuate an arrest.
Crime Prevention:
Deadly Force: may be used only if it appears reasonable necessary to prevent a “dangerous
felony” involving risk to human life. Includes: robbery, arson, burglary of a dwelling, etc.
Use of Force to Effectuate Arrest:
a. Police Officer: cannot use deadly force to apprehend an unarmed, nondangerous felon;
but an officer may use deadly force to prevent a felon from escaping if the police officer
has probable cause to believe that the felon poses a threat of SBH to officer or others.
b. by a private person: Can only use deadly force if the person harmed was actually guilty
of the offense for which the arrest was made. –NOT enough that it “reasonably appeared”
that the person was guilty.
Mistake of fact:
-Will affect the criminal liability only if it shows the defendant did not have the state of
mind required for murder. Ex: thought it was a deer, but it was a human.
> required that mistake be reasonable under the circumstances (malic and general intent)
> specific intent crimes, reasonableness is not required.
NO DEFENSE to Strict Liability Crimes
Mistake of Law: there is no defense to a crime that the D was unaware that her acts were
illegal; however, it may negate the intent:
 ignorance of some aspects of the elements of a crime rather than the existence of
the statute making the act criminal.
State v. Deffebaugh: Alibi Defense
Facts
Issue
Should the testimony
D was convicted of
given by Shobe be
selling cocaine
when he was said to prohibited based on
the appearance as an
be identified at the
alibi witness?
drug deal by a
woman whom the
cops set up to go
buy drugs. Witness
testified that the D
was not at the drug
deal that day.
Rule
K.S.A 22-3218: "…the
defendant proposes
to offer evidence to
the effect that he was
at some other place at
the time of the crime
charged, he shall give
notice in writing of
fact to the
prosecuting attorney
except that no such
notice shall be
required to allow
testimony as to alibi,
by the defendant
himself, in his own
defense…"
People v. Romero: Cultural Differences
Facts
Issue
Rule
Did the court err when Policy:
D testified that he
stabbed V trying to not allowing the
1. Whether D
expert testimony of
protect his little
actually
Martin
Sanchez
brother. He testified
believed he
Jankowski?
that he was not
was in
angry at any point.
imminent
He also testified
danger of
that he was armed
death or great
with a knife while V
bodily injury
had no weapon.
2. Whether such
belief was
objectively
reasonable.
People v. Goetz: Self-Defense
Holding
The court held that
Shobe was an
eyewitness to the
crime thus his
identity and
testimony did not
have to be disclosed
prior to trial.
does not require a
defendant to provide
notice when he or she
intends to introduce
eyewitness testimony
regarding his or her
presence at the scene
of the crime.
Holding
The court held that
the evidence was
irrelevant to 1)
whether defendant
actually believed he
was in imminent
danger of death or
great bodily injury; 2)
whether such a belief
was objectively
reasonable.
Facts
D shot 4 black
males on a
subway station. D
testified that he
was sure the boys
did not have any
weapons on him
when one of the
boys came up and
asked for $5. D
also testified that
he was giving
them what they
deserve. He even
targeted one of
the victim’s who
was only with the
other three boys.
Issue
Rule
IS the evidence
sufficient, under
the
circumstances,
to charge the
Defendant of
such offenses.
Penal Law § 35.15 (2): A
person may not use
deadly physical force
upon another person
under circumstances
specified in subdivision
one unless (a) He
reasonable believe that
such other person is
using or about to use
deadly physical force**
(b) He reasonable
believes that such other
person is committing or
attempting to commit a
kidnapping, forcible
rape, forcible sodomy or
robbery.
Holding
The court held that Penal
Law recognizing defense
of justification and
permitting use of deadly
force where actor
“reasonably” believes
use of such force is
necessary does not
establish subjective
standard rather
determination of
reasonableness
encompasses
determination that
defendant has requisite
belief that deadly force is
necessary and that such
beliefs are reasonable
"based on the
circumstances facing a
defendant or his
"situation""
State v. Cook: Defense of Others
Facts
Issue
A neighbor, Mr. Buckler, began
throwing rocks from the fence
at Mr. Cook and the two began
to argue. Mrs. Cook saw them
arguing and came outside with
a shot gun, which she then
discharged once into the air.
Buckler than began beating up
Mr. Cook, who was unable to
resist. Mrs. Cook tried to pull
Buckler off of her husband, and
when Buckle pushed her away,
she shot him once. Buckler died
a short time later.
Is there
sufficient
evidence to
support the
jury's
verdict?
Rule
Policy: "the basic
premise underlying
the doctrine of
defense of another is
that a person is
justified in using
force to protect a
third party from
unlawful force by an
aggressor."
Holding
The court held that
there was insufficient
evidence to support
the charge that the
Defendant did not act
in defense of another,
her husband, in causing
the death of Mr.
Buckler.
Burden of proof,
amount of force,
reasonable belief
that intervention was
lawful, and level of
danger was all
presented to facts in
this case.
State v. Johnson: Justifiable Homicide
Facts
Issue
Did the court
That's when Johnson
and Haddox pulled out err when
refusing a jury
their guns and began
shooting the car while instruction on
the defense of
it was driving away.
justifiable
They shot 11 shots into
homicide when
the car fatally
stopping a
wounding the victim.
fleeing felon?
The two officers sya no
guns in the car of the
victim. There was a
bullet through the
victims heart and one
lodged in the car.
Haddox and johnson
gave their guns to the
cops and told them
about the shooting.
Neither asserted to
acting in self defense.
The bullet that killed
Gallegos was by
Johnson's gun.
Rule
NM statute on justifiable
homicide, "provides that
homicide by a private
citizen is justifiable when
necessarily committed in
attempting, by lawful
ways and means, to
apprehend any person
for any felony
committed in his
presence, or in lawfully
suppressing any riot, or
in necessarily and
lawfully keeping and
preserving the peace."
Holding
The court held that
the deadly force by a
private citizen in
apprehending a
suspected fleeing
felon is subject to
standards of
reasonableness that
were not present in
this case.
"reasonable" means
that the actor be in
fear of proportionate
harm or force against
him
Buzz Words:
Common law:
MR element:
Substantial certainty
Natural probable cause/ outcome
Causation:
Proximate cause of a social harm when the social harm is foreseeable.
In homicide the death is foreseeable
D is the sole substantial cause when there are no intervening causes to supersede and
break the chain of causation.
Defenses:
“D would be entitled to a defense because it is not too speculative or too far fetched “
CL:
would argue it is reasonable because …
Reasonable person would believe force was necessary/ amount of force used was
appropriate…
Self Defense/ of others:
“Reasonably believed that the conduct was necessary to avoid some harm to society that
would exceed the harm caused by the conduct”
MPC:
Would argue D had a subjective good-faith belief in …
3.09: mistake but was negligent or reckless:
“state would argue that the D was mistaken but was negligent to the use of force against a
law enforcement officer.”