Question 1
When determining whether this is a first degree murder conviction we need to look at whether
Ricky’s choice to attack Ben was willful, deliberate and premeditated. If we are looking at this
through the lense of seeing if Ricky’s actions were willful, deliberate and premeditated we can
employ 2 methods, the Anderson and Michigan test. The Anderson test determines sufficient
evidence when it comes to determining if the actions were deliberate or not. The Anderson tests
look at the persons behavior, relationship, and the killing itself. Here we see Ricky had been
struck by Ben previously, and left the club for seven seconds before returning to confront and
kill Ben. This indicates that he had an instance between the initial incident and the next attack,
this is important as it is time that could be used to deliberate the shooting. We know from Carrol
that a few seconds is sufficient enough time to deliberate. Second we look at the relationship
between the Ricky and Ben, which from all before had been confrontational, having them get
into arguments, ricky having pushed Ben and Ben having struck Ricky with a bottle. This would
be reasonable motive for Ricky to return and kill Ben. And finally, we look to the killing itself,
which was Ben carrying a loaded handgun on his person, and when security attemped to
prevent him he broke free and attacked Ricky. This in my eyes is sufficient enough behavior,
motive and method to constitute first degree murder when perceived through the Anderson test.
The Michigan test is brief and calls for the allowance of a chance to second guess
oneself. Ben did have 7 seconds of down time between the 2 occurrences, however this should
not be held as the standard as there is a significant issue regarding the Michigan standard, as a
person may HAVE time to second guess, that does not mean they DID second guess their
actions. Using this standard is disfavored, even if in this case it could “fit the bill.”
There are not significant detractors to this outcome. The largest being that it could be
argued that Ricky’s actions were done in the heat of passion. We know from Ricky’s
background he was significantly bullied, had instances of psychological harm and symptoms of
some significant paranoia. There is an argument that this could be seen as a Manslaughter as it
was done in the heat of passion. We know that from the case Girourard, that to be
manslaughter the provaction must inflame the passions of a reasonable man to act via passion
as opposed to reason, and words alone are often not enough alone. Here we could argue that
words were not alone as Ricky did strike him with a bottle prior to his egress. We know that it is
up to me the judge to decide if that could be seen under a protected class that could be
considered through manslaughter, particularly mutual combat. Here I would not say that it was
enough, as mentioned previously, there was seven seconds between the first strike and the
gunshot, and we know heat of passion is often quick. I do not believe that sufficient to constitute
mutual combat and so I will not consider it
Second we can look to extreme emotional disturbance in the MPC section 210.3(b),
looking at 2 factors, whether the influence acted under extreme emotional dithe particular
defendant must have “acted under the influence of extreme emotional disturbance,” and if there
was “a reasonable explanation or excuse” for such extreme emotional disturbance. Here it is
easy to see he was under extreme emotional disturbance, but the reasonableness of Rickies
action are determined at the viewpoint of a person in the situation the defendant believed they
were in. We know that the MPC is for individualization of the plaintiff, and we know that Ricky
has severe issues with bullying and paranoia so in his situation he could see Ben was singling
him out. However it is also known that we are looking for inherent traits of a defendant, and this
behavior had been instilled in him previously, and besides this a reasonable person in this
situation holding those facts would not have likely returned to the club, pushed away security to
shoot another man who had just already hurt him. As well there is the factor of firing into a
nightclub with a gun, which could contribute.
When determining whether this is a case of first degree murder, I find that he had
premeditated the killing previously after leaving the club based on his actions and beliefs. I
would.
Question 2
We are looking to the legitimacy of giving this man a class A felony. The basis for
dismissing this motion is one of gross disproportionality. We know that from the statute itself it
ascribes a immediate sentencing of 7 and a half to 15 years. When it comes to this rule we look
to the inherent dangerousness of the action itself, citing Phillips, its not how the legislature
defines it it’s the how the elements are dangerous, and if it is not inherently dangerous they will
look to limit this. Here the statue is intent on protecting minors from sexual assault, the statute
seeking those who have assaulted minors before and citing to limit those people from taking
position that would care, instructor guide minors. The statute itself states many instances and
occupations that could be working with minors as we have seen with other statutes(the murder
statute in California), and we know the defendant does not fall into any of those neatly. As well
we are looking at a statute specifically aimed at defending MINORs, and to conflate our
defendant into that area is not only bad faith but stretching the statutory interpretation thin. We
do not know if the Defendant was inherently dangerous, as it is unclear if he acted against
minors and this statute is specific in protecting that class, so under phillps this would be
construed too far
Question 3: C
Question 4: C