Chapter 2 - Homicide
-Murder
-Manslaughter
-Negligent homicide
Homicide
•The killing of a human being by another human being
•Mens Rea
•Actus Reus
•Causation
Corpus Delicti Rule
•No criminal conviction can be based upon a D’s extrajudicial confession or admission,
although otherwise admissible, unless there is other evidence tending to establish the
corpus delicti or ‘body of the crime’ – which doesn’t refer to the actual body of the
deceased, although some early courts treated it as such.
Corpus Delicti Cases
•Downey v. People (1950) – page 39
•Hicks v. Sheriff (1970) – page 42
•Warmke v. Commonwealth (1944) – page 45
•State v. Pyle, (1975) – page 48
Infanticide
•Keeler v. Superior Court, (1970) – the court held that the actions of the D which caused
V’s unborn child to be born stillborn did not constitute murder since the fetus wasn’t
viable.
•State v. Merrill, (1990) – the Minnesota legislature enacted a statute to cover feticide in
response to the court’s earlier ruling that an 8 month old fetus was not ‘human’ for the
purposes of homicide. The court in the appeal upheld the conviction for 2nd degree
murder of a 27-28 week old fetus. The court rejected D’s argument that Roe prohibited
the statute.
Innocent Homicide
•Arresting a murderer or some felons to prevent escape
•Lawful self-defense against an assault which placed the slayer in danger of death or GBI
•Actual resistance of an attempt to commit a violent felony such as rape or robbery
•Justification or Excuse?
1st Degree Murder
Elements of 1st Degree Murder:
•Taking the life of another human being
•Premeditated intent to cause death of another live human being
•Actions that set in motion events that lead to the cause in fact and legal cause of death of
another
•Death results
People v. Perez, (1992)
•Page 101: see page 103 for the jury instruction regarding CA law on premeditation and
deliberation. The court held that the jury inference of premeditation and deliberation was
rational and upheld his conviction for 1st degree murder.
2nd Degree Murder
Elements of 2nd Degree Murder
•Killing another person
•Intent to kill (WITHOUT premeditation) another OR intent to commit the underlying
felony in a CA FMR case; wanton & willful disregard for human life can also satisfy this
requirement
•Actions that set in motion events that lead to the cause of death both in fact and law
•Death occurs
Malice Aforethought
•Implies planning or preparation, but doesn’t require a ‘well-laid’ plan – simply cannot
be an ‘after-thought’. Murder can occur at the spur of the moment. Unless there is
justification, excuse or mitigation, intent to kill shows malice; and intent to cause GBI is
sufficient.
Malice Cases
–Errington & Others, (1838) page 67
–R. v. Vickers, (1957) page 68
–Commonwealth v. McLaughlin, (1928) page 71
Wanton & Willful Disregard
•To be wanton a person’s actions must have an element of viciousness or an extreme
indifference to the value of human life.
•King v. State, (1987) page 74
•State v. Hokenson, (1974) page 79
Felony Murder Rule
•Unless changed by statute, the FMR states “homicide is murder if the death results from
the perpetration or attempted perpetration of an inherently dangerous felony.
•Creates a legal fiction assuming the intent to kill.
•Some states list the felonies, others require it to be ‘inherently dangerous’
•In California, PC § 189(i)(1-13) lists the offenses for which a killing during their
commission constitutes 1st Degree Murder. California's 2nd Degree Felony Murder
doctrine requires that the felony be inherently dangerous, and of course, not on the list in
PC § 189.
Elements of Felony Murder
•Taking the life of another human
•Intent to commit a felony
•Death occurs during the commission of the felony
•Act of committing the felony causes the death
•State v. Mayle, (1987) – page 90
2nd Degree FM Cases
•People v. Patterson, (1989) page 82 the court held that the test for determining whether a
felony is inherently dangerous is abstract – not case specific.
•People v. Hansen, (1994) page 93 the court held that discharging a firearm at an
inhabited dwelling is inherently dangerous and it doesn’t ‘merge’ with the resulting
homicide.
Burden of Proof
•Prosecution bears the ‘risk of non-persuasion’ or the risk of failing to convince the judge
or jury of all of the elements of the crime beyond a Rx doubt.
•It’s appropriate to require the D to prove certain affirmative defenses.
•Patterson v. New York, (1977) page 61 – the court held that it was appropriate to require
the D to prove the defense of extreme emotional disturbance by a preponderance of the
evidence.
Manslaughter
•Unlawful homicide committed without malice aforethought. It was designed at
common law to provide a penalty other than death for certain unlawful homicides – it’s
divided into voluntary and involuntary manslaughter.
Voluntary Manslaughter
Elements of VM
•Killing another human being
•Intent to kill
•Sudden heat of passion AND adequate provocation
•Acts set in motion a chain of events that lead to the death of another
•Death occurs
Rule of Provocation
•There must be adequate provocation
•The killing must be in the heat of passion
•It must be a sudden heat of passion - no cooling off period
•There must be a causal connection between the provocation, passion & fatal act
Adequate Provocation
•Words alone typically aren’t enough to satisfy the requirement. Mutual combat or
catching a spouse in the act of adultery typically does. The test under the MPC is
Rx’ness under the same or similar circ’s – it’s both objective & subjective.
Manslaughter Cases
•Comber v. U.S. , (1990) page 107
•State v. Grugin, (1898) page 118
•People v. Borchers, (1958) page 122
Heat of Passion
•Provocation alone isn’t enough to mitigate to manslaughter – it must result in actual
passion; any violent, intense, highly-wrought, or enthusiastic emotion.
•MPC basically replaces this doctrine with the doctrine of extreme emotional disturbance
which permits a cooling off period unlike the common law heat of passion.
Heat of Passion Cases
•State v. Guebara, (1985) page 113
•State v. Dumlao, (1986) page 125
•State v. Sety, (1979) page 144
Involuntary Manslaughter
Elements of IM
–Killing another person
–Reckless OR negligent creation of the risk of death or GBI OR death as the result of a
misdemeanor (misdemeanor manslaughter rule)
–Acts that set in motion events that lead t the death of another
–Death occurs
Murray v. State, (1993) page 131
Involuntary Mans. & CNH Cases
•People v. Rodriguez, (1960) page 135
•State v. Bier, (1979) page 137
•People v. Watkins, (1978) page 140
•Harris v. State, (1937) page 143
Vehicular Manslaughter
•People v. Ochoa, (1993) page 147
Review
•See page 152 for the MPC definitions of homicide.
•Murder
•Felony Murder
•Manslaughter
•Crim. Neg. Homicide