Criminal Liability in Homicide: Premeditation, Self-Defense, and Degrees of Murder | Study notes Law

Criminal liability requires four elements be present to convict a person of a criminal offense:

1. The Actus Reus (Voluntary Act) – Actus reus is the wrongful ‘voluntary act’or

omission when a duty is present that causes harm to another person. Actus reus is

considered the guilty act of a crime.

oCommon Law – Requires either a voluntary physical act or an omission when

there is a legal duty to act. A movement of the human body that is, in some

minimal sense, willed or directed by the actor.

oMPC 2.01 – 1) A person is not guilty of an offense unless his liability is based on

conduct that includes a voluntary act or the omission to perform an act of which

he is physically capable.

oMPC 2.01 (2) – Acts that are not voluntary

Reflex or convulsion

Body movement during unconsciousness or sleep

Conduct during hypnosis or resulting from hypnotic suggestions

Bodily movement that other is not the product of the effort or

determination of the actor, either conscious or habitual.

oModel Penal code ss 2.01 (4) - Possession is an act, within the meaning of this

section, if the possessor knowing procured or recited the thing possessed or was

aware of his control thereof for a sufficient period to have been able to terminate

his possession.

oOMISSIONS - 5 instances to have a duty to act

Where a statute imposed a duty to care for another

Where one stands in a certain status relationship to another

Where one has assumed a contractual duty to care for another

Where one has voluntarily assumed the care of another and so secluded

the helpless person as to prevent others from rendering aid.

When you create the circumstances that cause the risk

2. A Mens Rea - Mens rea is the guilty state of mind that a criminal must have with his

actus reus to be charged with a criminal crime. There are two types of Mens Rea. NOTE:

The mental state and the defendant's motive are separate. Motive is immaterial to

substantive crime.

a. Common Law requires:

i. Specific-Intent—Specific-intent crimes require not only the commission

of an act but also the commission of it with a specific intent or objective.

ii. General Intent - General-intent crimes do not require any intention or

purpose to commit an unlawful act.

1. Crimes resulting from negligence or recklessness are generally

general intent crimes.

b. MPC 2.02 Culpability (Mens Rea) – The MPC advocated the elimination of the

ambiguous common law distinction between general and specific intent. Instead,

MPC proposes four categories for the mental component of a criminal offense (i.e.

the elements of fault)

Partial preview of the text

Download Criminal Liability in Homicide: Premeditation, Self-Defense, and Degrees of Murder and more Study notes Law in PDF only on Docsity!

Criminal liability requires four elements be present to convict a person of a criminal offense:

The Actus Reus (Voluntary Act) – Actus reus is the wrongful ‘voluntary act’ or omission when a duty is present that causes harm to another person. Actus reus is considered the guilty act of a crime. o Common Law – Requires either a voluntary physical act or an omission when there is a legal duty to act. A movement of the human body that is, in some minimal sense, willed or directed by the actor. o MPC 2.01 – 1) A person is not guilty of an offense unless his liability is based on conduct that includes a voluntary act or the omission to perform an act of which he is physically capable. o MPC 2.01 (2) – Acts that are not voluntary  Reflex or convulsion  Body movement during unconsciousness or sleep  Conduct during hypnosis or resulting from hypnotic suggestions  Bodily movement that other is not the product of the effort or determination of the actor, either conscious or habitual. o Model Penal code ss 2.01 (4) - Possession is an act, within the meaning of this section, if the possessor knowing procured or recited the thing possessed or was aware of his control thereof for a sufficient period to have been able to terminate his possession. o OMISSIONS - 5 instances to have a duty to act  Where a statute imposed a duty to care for another  Where one stands in a certain status relationship to another  Where one has assumed a contractual duty to care for another  Where one has voluntarily assumed the care of another and so secluded the helpless person as to prevent others from rendering aid.  When you c reate the circumstances that cause the risk 2. A Mens Rea - Mens rea is the guilty state of mind that a criminal must have with his actus reus to be charged with a criminal crime. There are two types of Mens Rea. NOTE: The mental state and the defendant's motive are separate. Motive is immaterial to substantive crime. a. Common Law requires: i. Specific-Intent— Specific-intent crimes require not only the commission of an act but also the commission of it with a specific intent or objective. ii. General Intent - General-intent crimes do not require any intention or purpose to commit an unlawful act.
Crimes resulting from negligence or recklessness are generally general intent crimes. b. MPC 2.02 Culpability (Mens Rea) – The MPC advocated the elimination of the ambiguous common law distinction between general and specific intent. Instead, MPC proposes four categories for the mental component of a criminal offense (i.e. the elements of fault)

i. Purposely – Conscious object to engage in certain conduct or cause a certain result, e.g., Burglary ii. Knowingly – When he is aware that his conduct is of that nature or that certain circumstances exist when he is aware of a high probability that they exist and deliberately avoids learning the truth. iii. Recklessly – Consciously disregards a substantial and unjustifiable risk. Gross deviation from the standard of care iv. Negligently - Fails to be aware of a substantial and unjustifiable risk that they should have known through an objective standard, which is a substantial deviation from the standard of care.

Concurrence of both an actus reus with a mens rea – The defendant must have had the intent necessary for the crime at the time he committed the act constituting the crime. In addition, the intent must have prompted the act.
Causation (Factual and Proximate) a. The Common Law i. Factual (or Direct) Cause – also known as Cause in Fact or and must show that the defendant's conduct was necessary or a substantial factor for the harm to occur. ii. Proximate – The defendant's conduct must be related to the result in a sufficiently strong way to be held culpable. iii. Intervening Cause – Actual cause that arises after the defendant's action but before the final result.
Dependent cause – normal response to a defendant's actions. Generally, do not relieve liability.
Independent cause – actions independent of the defendant's actions. Generally, it relieves the defendant of liability. b. MPC 2. i. Requires the prosecution to establish “but for” causation (cause-in-fact under Common Law) and any other specific causal requirements impose by the code or the law defining the offense. 1. The ‘but for’ test is commonly applied in this situation. ‘But for’ the defendant's conduct, this chain of events would never have begun, and the harm would not have occurred. ii. MPC SS 2.03 Causation
(1) Conduct is the cause of a result when: a. (a) it is an antecedent but for which the result in question would not have occurred (but for test); and b. (B) the relationship between the conduct and result satisfies and additional causal requirements imposed by the code or by the law defining the offense.
(2) When PURPOSELY OR KNOWINGLY causing a particular result is an element of an offense, the element is hot established if the actual result is not within the purpose or the contemplation of the actor unless: a. (a) the actual result differed from that designed or contemplated, as the case may be only in the respect that a

CRIMES

 CRIMINAL ATTEMPT (Specific Intent Crime) o A person is guilty of an attempt to commit a crime, acting with the kind of culpability otherwise required for the commission of the crime, he:  (a) purposely engages in conduct that would constitute the crime if the attendant circumstances were as he believes them to be or  (b) when causing a particular result is an element of the crime, does or omits to do anything with the purpose of causing or with the belief that it will cause such result without further conduct on his part; or  (c) purposely does or omits to do anything which, under the circumstances, as he believes them to be, is an act or omission constituting a substantial step in the course of conduct planned to culminate in his commission of the crime. o Steps that may constitute a substantial step in the course of conduct  Lying in wait  Enticing or seeking to entice  Reconnoitering the place  Unlawful entry of a structure  Possession of materials to be employed in the commission of the crime  Possession, collection or fabrication of materials to be employed in the commission of the crime  Soliciting an innocent agent to engage in conduct constituting an element of the crime.  SOLICITATION o Common Law – It was a misdemeanor to solicit another to commit a felony or an act that would breach the peace or obstruct justice. There were no defenses under common law.  Mens Rea – Specific Intent Crime. The defendant must intend that the individual solicited to commit a crime.  Actus Reus – Through words or other conduct, the D must entice, advise, incite, order, or otherwise encourage another person to commit a felony or serious misdemeanor. It could be as simple as being present and applauding or cheering o MPC 5.  Mens Rea - Must desire to encourage all conduct and result elements of the crime solicited and must know or believe that all circumstances elements will be satisfied.  Actus Reus – Must command, encourage, or request another to (a) commit a crime, (b) attempt to commit a crime, or (c) become an accomplice in the commission or attempted commission of a crime. o Defenses to Solicitation  Legal Impossibility

 CONSPIRACY

o Definitions of Conspiracy  A person is guilty of conspiracy with another person or persons to commit a crime if to promote or facilitate its commission, he:  (a) agrees with such other person or persons that they or one or more of them will engage in conduct that constitutes such crime or an attempt or solicitation to commit such crime; or  (b) agrees to aid such other person or persons in the planning or commission of such crime or of an attempt or solicitation to commit such crime.  (5) No person may be convicted of conspiracy to commit a crime other than a felony of the first or second degree unless an overt act in pursuance of such conspiracy is alleged and proved to have been done by him or by a person with whom he conspired. o COMMON LAW – No overt act required. Once an agreement is made, the conspiracy is complete.  CRIMINAL HOMICIDE o (1) A person is guilty of criminal homicide if he purposely, knowingly, recklessly, or negligently causes the death of another human being o (2) Criminal Homicide is MURDER, MANSLAUGHTER, or NEGLIGENT HOMICIDE o Murder  A person is guilty of murder when he kills another human being:  (a) purposely or knowingly; or  (b) it is committed recklessly under circumstances manifesting extreme indifference to the value of human life. Such recklessness and indifference are presumed if the actor is engaged or is an accomplice in the commission of, or attempt to commit, or flight after committing or attempting to commit robbery, rat, or deviate sexual intercourse by force or threat of force, arson, burglary, kidnapping or felonious escape.  (1) murder is a felony of the first degree (but a person convicted of murder may be sentenced to death, as provided in section 210.6) o Manslaughter  A person is guilty of manslaughter when he kills another human being:  (a) it is committed recklessly; or  (b) a homicide, which would otherwise be murder, is committed under the influence of extreme mental or emotional disturbance for which there is a reasonable explanation or excuse. The reasonableness of such explanation or excuse shall be determined from the viewpoint of a person in the actor’s situation under the circumstances as he believes them to be. OBJECTIVE STANDARD  (2) Manslaughter is a second-degree felony o Negligent Homicide  A person is guilty of negligent homicide when it is committed negligently:

Essay Prompt: Dan and Vic have a long-standing rivalry. One night, after a heated argument at a bar, Vic threatens Dan by saying, "You’re dead next time I see you." Feeling scared, Dan leaves the bar, but on his way home, he sees Vic approaching him. Dan, thinking Vic is about to attack, pulls out a gun and shoots Vic, killing him. Dan is charged with first-degree murder. Analyze Dan’s potential criminal liability for homicide and any applicable defenses. Model Answer: (Each Rule has its own IRAC) The main issue is whether Dan can be held criminally liable for homicide, specifically first-degree murder and whether any defenses (such as self-defense) apply. This essay will analyze the elements of homicide and relevant defenses to determine Dan’s potential liability.

First-Degree Murder

Actus Reus: First-degree murder requires an unlawful killing of a human being. In this case, Dan’s act of shooting Vic satisfies the actus reus element for homicide because Vic died as a direct result of Dan’s actions. Mens Rea (Premeditation and Deliberation): For first-degree murder, the prosecution must prove that the defendant acted with premeditation and deliberation. This means Dan must have made a conscious decision to kill Vic, and he must have had time to reflect on that decision, even if briefly. In this case, Dan's decision to shoot Vic occurred spontaneously after seeing Vic approach him. While Dan had time to think about the threat from earlier, there is no clear evidence of premeditation or deliberation at the moment of the shooting. Dan’s actions seem more reactionary, stemming from fear rather than a calculated decision to kill.

Defenses

Self-Defense

Dan may argue that he acted in self-defense to avoid criminal liability altogether. Elements of Self-Defense:

Imminent Threat : Self-defense requires that the defendant reasonably believed they were facing an imminent threat of death or serious bodily harm. Dan may argue that Vic’s earlier threat, combined with his approach, made Dan believe that he was in immediate danger of attack.
Proportionality : The force used in self-defense must be proportional to the threat faced. While Dan may have feared for his life, the use of deadly force (a gun) must be proportional to Vic's threat. Without evidence that Vic was armed or preparing to attack, the use of a gun may be seen as excessive.
Duty to Retreat : In some jurisdictions, there is a duty to retreat before using deadly force if it is safe to do so. If Dan had an opportunity to escape or avoid the confrontation but chose to shoot instead, his self-defense claim may fail. Conclusion on Self-Defense: While Dan may argue that he reasonably believed he was in danger, his use of deadly force appears disproportionate to Vic's threat. Therefore, self-defense is unlikely to succeed as a full defense, though it may mitigate his liability. In conclusion, Dan is unlikely to be convicted of first-degree murder due to the lack of premeditation and deliberation. However, he is likely liable for second-degree murder because his actions demonstrate intent to kill or extreme recklessness. Alternatively, Dan could be convicted of voluntary manslaughter if the court finds that his fear and provocation from Vic’s threats were sufficient to reduce the charge. While self-defense may offer a partial defense, it is unlikely to completely exonerate Dan, as his use of deadly force was disproportionate to the threat he faced.

Criminal Liability in Homicide: Premeditation, Self-Defense, and Degrees of Murder, Study notes of Law

Related documents