DOCSLIB.ORG

Case No. S192644 SUPREME COURT of the STATE OF

Total Page：16

File Type：pdf, Size：1020Kb

Download full-text PDF Read full-text
Case No. S192644 SUPREME COURT of the STATE OF Case No. S192644 SUPREME COURT OF THE STATE OF CALIFORNIA THE PEOPLE OF THE STATE OF CALIFORNIA, Plaintiff and Respondent, V. TARE NICHOLAS BELTRAN, Defendant and Appellant. First Appellate District, Division Four, Case No. A124392 San Francisco County Superior Court, Case Nos. 175503, 203443 The Honorable Robert L. Dondero, Judge APPLICATION OF SAN FRANCISCO DOMESTIC VIOLENCE CONSORTIUM, CALIFORMA WOMEN LAWYERS, CALIFORNIA PARTNERSHIP TO END DOMESTIC VIOLENCE, QUEEN’S BENCH BAR ASSOCIATION, AN]) WOMEN LAWYERS OF SACRAMENTO TO FILE AMICI CURIAE BRIEF IN SUPPORT OF THE PEOPLE OF THE STATE OF CALIFORNIA; AND AMICI BRIEF BAY AREA LEGAL AID GREINES, MARTIN, STEIN & Minouche Kandel (SBN 157098) RICRLAND LLP 1035 Market Street, 6th Floor Cynthia E. Tobisman (SBN 197983) SanFrancisco, California 94103 - KentJ.Bullard-(SBN 176194) Telephone: (415) 982-1300 Lara M. Krieger (SBN 218801) Facsimile: (415) 982-4243 5900 Wilshire Boulevard, 12th Floor E-Mail: mkandelbaylega1 .org Los Angeles, California 90036 Telephone: (310) 859-7811 Facsimile: (310) 276-5261 E-Mail: [email protected] E-Mail: kbullardgmsr.com E-Mail: [email protected] Attorneys for Prospective Amici Curiae SAN FRANCISCO DOMESTIC VIOLENCE CONSORTRJM, CALIFORNIA WOMEN LAWYERS, CALIFORNIA PARTNERSHIP TO END DOMESTIC VIOLENCE, QUEEN’S BENCH BAR ASSOCIATION, AND WOMEN LAWYERS OF SACRAMENTO TABLE OF CONTENTS Page APPLICATION OF SAN FRANCISCO DOMESTIC VIOLENCE CONSORTIUM, CALIFORNIA WOMEN LAWYERS, CALIFORNIA PARTNERSHIP TO END DOMESTIC VIOLENCE, QUEEN’S BENCH BAR ASSOCIATION, AND WOMEN LAWYERS OF SACRAMENTO TO FILE AMICI CURIAE BRIEF IN SUPPORT OF THE PEOPLE OF THE STATE OF CALIFORNIA xi AMICI CURIAE BRIEF 1 INTRODUCTION 1 ARGUMENT 3 I. THIS COURT SHOULD REEVALUATE AND REPUDIATE AUTHORITIES ALLOWING THE USE OF THE PROVOCATION DEFENSE TO PARTIALLY EXCUSE INTIMATE-PARTNER MURDERERS WITH A HISTORY OF HABITUAL DOMESTIC ABUSE. 3 A. California’s Provocation Defense Is Meant As A Concession To Ordinary “Human Weakness.” 4 1. The provocation defense evaluates whether the killer was subjectively provoked under circumstances that might objectively provoke a “reasonable man.” 4 2. The objective prong of the provocation defense reflects society’s normative conventions. 5 B. Since Its Inception Hundreds Of Years Ago And Continuing Up Until Today, The Provocation Defense Has Perpetuated Gender Biases And Sheltered Men Who Kill Their Intimate Partners. 6 1 TABLE OF CONTENTS Page 1. The early incarnation of the provocation defense partially justified killings “provoked” by a wife’s infidelity because courts deemed adultery to be the highest invasion of a man’s property. 7 2. Later, the provocation defense partially excused killings “provoked” by a wife’s infidelity because courts assumed that adultery might cause even “reasonable men” to lose control. 8 C. The Provocation Defense Has Been Misused To Sanction The Abhorrent, After-The-Fact Rationalization Offered By Those Who Kill Their Intimate Partners: “She Made Me Do It.” 9 1. California law continues to partially excuse killings “provoked” by an intimate partner’s withdrawal of affections. 9 2. California courts—led by this one—have historically embraced abusers’ “blame-the- victim” rationalization, as exemplified by People v. Berry. 10 3. Insulting or taunting words do not constitute legally adequate provocation—except when it • comestointimate=nartnermurders. 13 D. This Court Should Reevaluate And Repudiate The Aspects Of People v. Berry Legitimizing Gender Prejudices That No Longer Reflect California’s Prevailing Societal Values, Including Norms Regarding Intimate-Partner Violence. 15 1. Our conception of “reasonableness” necessarily evolves to conform to changing community norms. 15 11 TABLE OF CONTENTS Page 2. Our criminal justice system must account for the cultural paradigm shifts transforming our normative judgments about gender and violence. 17 3. The Court should explicitly repudiate the portions ofPeople v. Berry that perpetuate the notion that “ordinary human weakness” might cause a “reasonable man” to use lethal force in response to a perceived intimate-partner dispute. 18 II. THE COURT SHOULD REEVALUATE THE PROVOCATION DEFENSE iN LIGHT OF EMPIRICAL EVIDENCE DEMONSTRATING THAT INTIMATE-PARTNER HOMICIDE IS PRIMARILY THE CULMINATION OF A LONG-STANDING ABUSIVE PATTERN, NOT A MOMENTARY LOSS OF SELF-CONTROL. 21 A. Domestic Abusers Consciously Use Violence To Control Their Intimate Partners. 22 B. The Ultimate Form Of Domestic Abuse Is Murder. 24 C. The Provocation Defense Allows Abusive Murderers To Escape Full Criminal Culpability By Blaming The Victim. 26 D. This Case Vividly—And Tragically—Illustrates The Problem: Defendant Escaped Full Criminal Liability By Blaming The Victim For Her Own Murder. 27 CONCLUSION 30 CERTIFICATION 32 111 TABLE OF AUTHORITIES STATE CASES Page In reJavierA. (1984) 159 Cal.App.3d 913 18 Moradi-Shalal v. Fireman’s Fund Insurance Cos. (1988) 46Ca1.3d287 18 People v. Berry (1976) 18 CaL3d 509 xiii, 2-4, 10-15, 18-2 1, 26, 30 People v. Borchers (1958) 5OCal.2d321 12,14 People v. Bridgehouse (1956) 47 Cal.2d 406 12 People v. Brown (2011) 192 Cal.App.4th 1222 25 People v. Clayton (1967) 248 CaLApp.2d 345 29, 30 People v. Cole (2004) 33 Cal.4th 1158 19,20 People v. Czahara (1988) 203 Cal.App.3d 1468 15, 16, 17 I People v. Dixon (1961) 192 Cal.App.2d 88 14 People v. Enraca (2012) 53 Cal.4th 735 13 People v. Freel (1874) 48Ca1.436 9 iv TABLE OF AUTHORITIES STATE CASES Page People v. Gutierrez (2009) 45Cal.4th789 13 People v. Hach (2009) 176 Cal.App.4th 1450 19 People v. Holt (1944) 25 Cal.2d 59 14 People v. Hoover (2000) 77 Cal.App.4th 1020 24 People v. Hudgins (1967) 252 Cal.App.2d 174 19 People v. Hurtado (1883) 63 Cal. 288 5 People v. Hyde (1985) 166 Cal.App.3d 463 19 People v. King (1993) 5Cal.4th59 18 People v. Lasko (2000) 23 Cal.4th 101 9, 12 I People v. Le (2007) 158 Cal.App.4th 516 12, 14 People v. Lee (1999) 20 Cal.4th 47 5 People v. Letner (2010) 50 Cal.4th 99 20 People v. Logan (1917) 175 Cal. 45 5, 17 V TABLE OF AUTHORITIES STATE CASES Page People v. Lucas (1997) • 55Ca1.App.4th721 14 People v. Lujan (2001) 92 Cal.App.4th 1389 19 • People v. Manriquez (2005) 37 Cal.4th 547 13 People v. Najera (2006) l38CaLApp.4th212 13,14 People v. Ogen (1985) 168 Cal.App.3d611 16,17 • People v. Oropeza (2007) 151 Cal.App.4th 73 15 People v. Rich (1988) 45 CaL3d 1036 12 I People v. Rivera (2011) 201 Cal.App.4th 353 13 People v. Steele (2002) People v. Thomas (2012) 53 Cal.4th 771 13,22 People v. Thompkins (1987) 195 Cal.App.3d 244 10 People v. Valentine (1946) 28Ca1.2d121 13 vi TABLE OF AUTHORITIES STATE CASES Page People v. Verdugo (2010) 50 Cal.4th 263 26 People v. Wells (1938) lOCal.2d610 14,16 People v. White (1981) 117 CaLApp.3d 270 20 FEDERAL CASES Powell v. Texas (1968) 392U.S.514 16 FOREIGN CASES Manning’s Case (1617) 83 Eng.Rep. 112 7, 10 R v. Kelly (1848) 175 Eng.Rep. 342 8 R v. Mawgridge (1707) 84 Eng.Rep. 1107 7, 8 Rex v. Greening (1913) 3 K.B. 846 8 Rex v. Palmer (1913) 2 K.B. 29 8, 9 STATE STATUTES AND RULES California Rules of Court, rule 8.520 xi, xiv Evidence Code, § 1101 24 Evidence Code, § 1109 24 Family Code, § 6200 26 Penal Code, § 192 5 vii TABLE OF AUTHORITIES STATE STATUTES AND RULES Page Penal Code, § 243 26 Penal Code, § 273.5 26 ARTICLES Ashworth, The Doctrine ofProvocation (1976) 35 Cambridge L.J. 292 15 Barnard et al., Till Death Do Us Part: A Study ofSpouse Murder (1982) Bull. Am. Acad. Psychiatry & L. 271 23 Burke, Domestic Violence as a Crime ofPattern and Intent (2007) 75 Geo. Wash. L.Rev. 552 22 Coker, Heat ofPassion and Wife Killing: Men Who Batter/Men Who Kill (1992) 2 S. Cal. Rev. L. & Women’s Stud. 71 4, 22, 26 Comment, Killing One ‘s Abuser: Premeditation, Pathology, or Provocation? (2010) 59 Emory L.J. 769 21 Comment, Provoked Reason in Men and Women: Heat-of-Passion Manslaughter and Imperfect SefDefense (1986) 33 UCLA L.Rev. 1679 17 Donovan & Wildman, Is the Reasonable ManObsolete?A Critical Perspective on Se[Defense and Provocation (1981) 14 Loy. L.A. L.Rev. 435 15 Dressier, When “Heterosexual” Men Kill “Homosexual” Men: Reflections on Provocation Law, Sexual Advances, and the “Reasonable Man” Standard (1995) 85 J. Crim.L. & Criminology 726 6 viii TABLE OF AUTHORITIES ARTICLES Page Dressier, Rethinking Heat ofPassion: A Defense in Search of a Rationale (1982) 73 J. Crim.L. & Criminology 421 6, 9 Dutton & Waltz, Domestic Violence: Understanding Why it Happens and How to Recognize It (Winter 1995) 17 Fam. Advoc. 14 22 Felson & Messner, The Control Motive in Intimate Partner Violence (2000) 63 Soc. Psychol. Q. 86 23 Finkel, Achilles Fuming, Odysseus Stewing, and Hamlet Brooding: On the Story ofthe Murder/Manslaughter Distinction (1995) 74Neb. L.Rev. 742 15 Keiter, How Evolving Social Values have Shaped (and Reshaped) Ca4f’ornia Criminal Law (2009) 4 Cal. Legal Hist. 393 16 Kieck, Policy Lessonsfrom Recent Gun Control Research (1986) 49 Law & Contemp. Probs. 35 25 Lininger, The Sound ofSilence: Holding Batterers Accountablefor Silencing Their Victims (2009) 87 Tex. L.Rev. 857 23 Mahoney, Legal Images ofBattered Women: Redefining the Issue ofSeparation (1991) 90 Mich. L.Rev. 1 22, 23 Nourse,Passion’sProgress: ModernLawReformand the Provocation Defense (1997) 106 Yale L.J. 1331 4, 10 Raeder, The Admissibility ofPrior Acts ofDomestic Violence: Simpson and Beyond (1996) 69 S. Cal. L.Rev. 1463 23 Ramsey, Provoking Change: Comparative Insights on Feminist Homicide Law Reform (2010) 100 J. Crim.L. & Criminology 33 20 Wilson & Daly, Spousal Homicide Risk and Estrangement (1993) 8 Violence & Victims 3 23 ix TABLE OF AUTHORITIES TREATISES, BOOKS, AND ESSAYS Page Buzawa & Buzawa, Domestic Violence: The Criminal Justice Response (2003) 26 Campbell, IfI Can ‘t Have You, No One Can: Power and Control in Homicide ofFemale Partners in Femicide: The Politics of Woman Killing (Radford & Russell edits., 1992) 24 Dutton & Golant, The Batterer: A Psychological Profile (1995) 25 Horder, Provocation and Responsibility (1992) 7, 8 Jacobson & Gottrnan, When Men Batter Women (1998) 26 2 LaFave, Substantive Criminal Law (2d ed.
Load more

Recommended publications
  • Submission to the United Nations Special Rapporteur on Violence Against Women on Femicide Related Data and Information
    Submission to the United Nations Special Rapporteur on violence against women on femicide related data and information November 2020 The Human Rights Ombudsman of the Republic of Slovenia (National Human Rights Institution) submits the following information to the UN Special Rapporteur on Violence Against Women, its Causes and Consequences, Ms Dubravka in response to her call for femicide related data and information.1 Administrative data (by numbers and percentage) on homicide/femicide or gender-related killings of women for the last 3 years (2018-2020). The Human Rights Ombudsman of the Republic of Slovenia acquired the following data on the number of homicides/femicides in Slovenia from the Ministry of Interior of the Republic of Slovenia on 18th and 24th November 2020. 1. The total number of homicides of women and men As a homicide/femicide, we considered the following crimes under the Slovenian Criminal Code:2 manslaughter (Article 115),3 murder (Article 116),4 voluntary manslaughter (Article 117)5 and negligent homicide (Article 118).6 In 2018, the police dealt with 49 crimes of homicide. In 21 cases victims were women, in 28 victims were men. In 2019, the police dealt with 27 homicides; women were victims in 8 cases, men were victims in 19. From 1st January to 11th November 2020, the police dealt with 41 homicides, 18 committed against women, 23 against men. 1 Femicide Watch call 2020, www.ohchr.org/EN/Issues/Women/SRWomen/Pages/FemicideWatchCall2020.aspx 2 Kazenski zakonik (KZ-1), www.pisrs.si/Pis.web/pregledPredpisa?id=ZAKO5050.
    [Show full text]
  • Second Degree Murder, Malice, and Manslaughter in Nebraska: New Juice for an Old Cup John Rockwell Snowden University of Nebraska College of Law
    Nebraska Law Review Volume 76 | Issue 3 Article 2 1997 Second Degree Murder, Malice, and Manslaughter in Nebraska: New Juice for an Old Cup John Rockwell Snowden University of Nebraska College of Law Follow this and additional works at: https://digitalcommons.unl.edu/nlr Recommended Citation John Rockwell Snowden, Second Degree Murder, Malice, and Manslaughter in Nebraska: New Juice for an Old Cup, 76 Neb. L. Rev. (1997) Available at: https://digitalcommons.unl.edu/nlr/vol76/iss3/2 This Article is brought to you for free and open access by the Law, College of at DigitalCommons@University of Nebraska - Lincoln. It has been accepted for inclusion in Nebraska Law Review by an authorized administrator of DigitalCommons@University of Nebraska - Lincoln. John Rockwell Snowden* Second Degree Murder, Malice, and Manslaughter in Nebraska: New Juice for an Old Cup TABLE OF CONTENTS I. Introduction .......................................... 400 II. A Brief History of Murder and Malice ................. 401 A. Malice Emerges as a General Criminal Intent or Bad Attitude ...................................... 403 B. Malice Becomes Premeditation or Prior Planning... 404 C. Malice Matures as Particular States of Intention... 407 III. A History of Murder, Malice, and Manslaughter in Nebraska ............................................. 410 A. The Statutes ...................................... 410 B. The Cases ......................................... 418 IV. Puzzles of Nebraska Homicide Jurisprudence .......... 423 A. The Problem of State v. Dean: What is the Mens Rea for Second Degree Murder? ... 423 B. The Problem of State v. Jones: May an Intentional Homicide Be Manslaughter? ....................... 429 C. The Problem of State v. Cave: Must the State Prove Beyond a Reasonable Doubt that the Accused Did Not Act from an Adequate Provocation? .
    [Show full text]
  • A New Homicide Act for England and Wales?
    The Law Commission Consultation Paper No 177 (Overview) A NEW HOMICIDE ACT FOR ENGLAND AND WALES? An Overview The Law Commission was set up by section 1 of the Law Commissions Act 1965 for the purpose of promoting the reform of the law. The Law Commissioners are: The Honourable Mr Justice Toulson, Chairman Professor Hugh Beale QC, FBA Mr Stuart Bridge Dr Jeremy Horder Professor Martin Partington CBE The Chief Executive of the Law Commission is Steve Humphreys and its offices are at Conquest House, 37-38 John Street, Theobalds Road, London WC1N 2BQ. This overview, completed on 28 November 2005, is circulated for comment and criticism only. It does not represent the final views of the Law Commission. For those who are interested in a fuller discussion of the law and the Law Commission's proposals, our formal consultation paper is accessible from http://www.lawcom.gov.uk/murder.htm, or you can order a hard copy from TSO (www.tso.co.uk). The Law Commission would be grateful for comments on its proposals before 13 April 2006. Comments may be sent either – By post to: David Hughes Law Commission Conquest House 37-38 John Street Theobalds Road London WC1N 2BQ Tel: 020-7453-1212 Fax: 020-7453-1297 By email to: [email protected] It would be helpful if, where possible, comments sent by post could also be sent on disk, or by email to the above address, in any commonly used format. All responses will be treated as public documents in accordance with the Freedom of Information Act 2000, and may be made available to third parties.
    [Show full text]
  • Manslaughter Working Group Report to the Commission
    MANSLAUGHTER WORKING GROUP REPORT TO THE COMMISSION December 15, 1997 Pamela O. Barron, Chair Alan C. Dorhoffer Raymond L. Dummett Jerry E. Jones Arthur A. Meltzer Rachel S. Singer TABLE OF CONTENTS Page Purpose ..................................................................1 Procedure .................................................................1 Voluntary Manslaughter .....................................................2 A. Statutory and Guideline Penalties ....................................2 B. Primary Issues for Consideration ....................................3 C. Principal Findings ................................................3 1. Analysis of Commission Monitoring Data and Case Information .......3 2. Inter-jurisdictional Comparison ................................4 3. Comparison with Other Chapter Two Violent Offense Guidelines ......5 4. Comparison with Other Statutory Maximum Penalties ...............6 5. Probation Officers' Survey ....................................7 D. Public Hearing Testimony ..........................................7 E. Options .......................................................7 1. Increased Statutory Maximum Penalty ..........................7 2. Base Offense Level Increase ..................................8 3. Specific Offense Characteristics/Encouraged Upward Departure .......8 4. Supervised Release .........................................8 Involuntary Manslaughter ...................................................9 A. Statutory and Guideline Penalties ....................................9
    [Show full text]
  • ICCS Mapping Exercise
    ICCS Mapping Exercise Sarika Dewan Data Development and Dissemination Unit Consultant UNODC Recap • What is a correspondence table? o “A correspondence table systematically explains where, and to what extent, the categories in one classification may be found in other classifications” . • What does “mapping” to the ICCS mean? o Mapping means determining for each offence category in the national crime statistics the category in the ICCS that most closely matches its description The correspondence table template Example 1 from a National Penal Code 299. Culpable homicide “Whoever causes death by doing an act with the intention of causing death, or with the intention of causing such bodily injury as is likely to cause death, or with the knowledge that he is likely by such act to cause death, commits the offence of culpable homicide. “ Illustration: A lays sticks and turf over a pit, with the intention of thereby causing death, or with the knowledge that death is likely to be thereby caused. Z, believing the ground to be firm, treads on it, falls in and is killed. A has committed the offence of culpable homicide. 300. Murder “Except in the cases hereinafter excepted, culpable homicide is murder— (a) if the act by which the death is caused is done with the intention of causing death; (b) if it is done with the intention of causing such bodily injury as the offender knows to be likely to cause the death of the person to whom the harm is caused; (c) if it is done with the intention of causing bodily injury to any person, and the bodily injury intended to be inflicted is sufficient in the ordinary course of nature to cause death; or (d) if the person committing the act knows that it is so imminently dangerous that it must in all probability cause death, or such bodily injury as is likely to cause death, and commits such act without any excuse for incurring the risk of causing death, or such injury as aforesaid.” Illustration: A shoots Z with the intention of killing him.
    [Show full text]
  • Manslaughter by Motorists
    Maurer School of Law: Indiana University Digital Repository @ Maurer Law Articles by Maurer Faculty Faculty Scholarship 1938 Manslaughter by Motorists James J. Robinson Indiana University School of Law - Bloomington Follow this and additional works at: https://www.repository.law.indiana.edu/facpub Part of the Criminal Law Commons, and the Transportation Law Commons Recommended Citation Robinson, James J., "Manslaughter by Motorists" (1938). Articles by Maurer Faculty. 2218. https://www.repository.law.indiana.edu/facpub/2218 This Article is brought to you for free and open access by the Faculty Scholarship at Digital Repository @ Maurer Law. It has been accepted for inclusion in Articles by Maurer Faculty by an authorized administrator of Digital Repository @ Maurer Law. For more information, please contact [email protected]. MINNESOTA LAW REVIEW Journal of the State Bar Association VOLUME XXII MAY, 1938 No. 6 MANSLAUGHTER BY MOTORISTS- By JAMES J. RoBINsoN* W HILE a motorist, D, is driving an automobile on a city street or along a country highway, his car strikes another person, X, either directly or by collision with the vehicle in which X is riding, inflicting injuries from which X dies. Has D committed a homicide? If so, has he committed a homicide which is criminal? The guilt or the innocence of D, under the criminal law of almost all of the states, of the federal government, and of Eng- land, is to be determined by considering the facts of the case with relation to five classifications of homicide which have been made by the common law. By consideration of the cases possible under the facts stated above it will be seen that the killing may be: (I) an intended homicide,--case 1, murder; case 2, voluntary manslaughter; or case 3, justifiable homicide; or (II) no homi- cide,--case 4, killing by accident, not by D; or (III) an unin- tended homicide,-case 5, excusable homicide by negligence; or case 6, involuntary manslaughter.
    [Show full text]
  • Regional Training on Measuring Sdg16 in Africa Peace, Justice and Strong Institutions
    REGIONAL TRAINING ON MEASURING SDG16 IN AFRICA PEACE, JUSTICE AND STRONG INSTITUTIONS MEASURING SDG 16.1.1 ON INTENTIONAL HOMICIDE ENRICO BISOGNO, CHIEF DATA DEVELOPMENT AND DISSEMINATION SECTION UNODC Content SDG Indicator 16.1.1 The value of homicide data •Target 16.1: Significantly reduce all forms of violence and related death Data availability rates everywhere •Indicator 16.1.1: Number of victims Measuring gender-related killings of women and of intentional homicide per 100,000 girls population, by sex and age Intentional homicide vs. Conflict deaths Data quality Improving data on intentional homicide Challenges and future work SDG Indicator 16.1.1 Intentional Homicide Indicator definition Data source and methods o Intentional homicide (0101): Unlawful death inflicted upon a •Criminal justice administrative data Data source person with the intent to cause •Public health records death or serious injury. 푉푖푐푡푖푚푠 Computation 퐼푛푡푒푛푡푖표푛푎푙 퐻표푚푖푐푖푑푒 푅푎푡푒 = 푥 100,000 method 푃표푝푢푙푎푡푖표푛 Objective element Reference •Calendar year or 12 months Subjective element period The killing of a person Legal element by another person The intent of the •Sex and age perpetrator to kill or The unlawfulness of •Citizenship seriously injure the the killing, which Recommended victim means that the law disaggregations •Victim-perpetrator relationship considers the (according to •Situational context perpetrator liable for the ICCS) the unlawful death •Motive •Mechanism Inclusions: murder; honour killing; serious assault leading to death; death as a result of
    [Show full text]
  • Homicide – Common Law
    Homicide – Common Law Definition: The illegal, unjustified killing of another human being There are several different gradations of homicide under the common law: First Degree Murder: Intentional murder with aggravating factors (such as pre-meditation) Second Degree Murder: Murder with “malice aforethought” Voluntary Manslaughter: Intentional homicide with mitigating circumstances Involuntary Manslaughter: Homicide committed as a result of criminal recklessness or criminal negligence* • NOTE: Some states have developed a lesser crime called “criminally negligent homicide” • Under old British law, the differences between these four gradations of murder were not really clarified; today, however, the differences between these levels are, in deed, very important for sentencing purposes Second Degree Murder • Under the common law, any intentional homicide that is committed with malice aforethought that is not First Degree Murder is, by default, Second Degree Murder. “Malice Aforethought” (under common law): (1) intent to kill (2) intent to inflict serious bodily injury (some states reduce this to voluntary manslaughter) (3) intent to commit a felony from which a death results (felony-murder rule) (4) Acting in a manner that shows a “depraved indifference to human life” (i.e., extreme recklessness) that results in a death. • Penalty: Usually a long mandatory prison term or even life imprisonment (with possibility of parole after a certain number of years) First Degree Murder Requires intent to kill; not just “malice aforethought” Requires
    [Show full text]
  • The Problem of Double Jeopardy in Vehicular Manslaughter
    Fordham Law Review Volume 26 Issue 3 Article 5 1957 The Problem of Double Jeopardy in Vehicular Manslaughter Follow this and additional works at: https://ir.lawnet.fordham.edu/flr Part of the Law Commons Recommended Citation The Problem of Double Jeopardy in Vehicular Manslaughter, 26 Fordham L. Rev. 516 (1957). Available at: https://ir.lawnet.fordham.edu/flr/vol26/iss3/5 This Article is brought to you for free and open access by FLASH: The Fordham Law Archive of Scholarship and History. It has been accepted for inclusion in Fordham Law Review by an authorized editor of FLASH: The Fordham Law Archive of Scholarship and History. For more information, please contact [email protected]. FORDHAM LAW REVIEW [Vol. 26 THE PROBLEM OF DOUBLE JEOPARDY IN VEHICULAR MANSLAUGHTER Protection against twice being put in jeopardy for the same offense is found not only in the United States Constitution1 but also in most state constitutions.2 A plea of former jeopardy although a bar to a subsequent trial 3 must be based upon a former prosecution for the "same identical offense," 4 a term which is subject to divergent interpretation. The effect of these divergent views as to the meaning of the concept "same offense" is clearly focused when several persons are killed or injured by the culpably negligent operation of a motor vehicle. A conflict exists among the various jurisdictions as to whether a person who kills or injures two or more persons at the same time while operating an automobile in a reckless or culpably negligent manner has committed one or more offenses against the state.
    [Show full text]
  • Women's Defenses to Criminal Homicide and the Right to Effective Assistance of Counsel: the Need for Relocation of Difference
    WOMEN'S DEFENSES TO CRIMINAL HOMICIDE AND THE RIGHT TO EFFECTIVE ASSISTANCE OF COUNSEL: THE NEED FOR RELOCATION OF DIFFERENCE Laura E. Reece* The more the existing social reality of inequality is reflected in law - the more accurate the rule - the more the inequality is reinforced.I INTRODUCTION Women are marginalized in our criminal law, and the minimal attention women do receive focuses on women as victims. 2 Victimi- zation even colors the infrequent academic treatment of female criminal homicide defendants: 3 for example, battered women who * J.D., UCLA School of Law, 1991; B.A., Rice University, 1988. The author owes special gratitude to Christine A. Littleton, Alison Grey Anderson, Lisa Green, and Kara Andersen. 1. MacKinnon, Toward Feminist Jurisprudence, 34 STAN. L. REV. 703, 732 (1982) (Book Review) (footnote omitted). 2. Serving as a filtering device, gender roles have frequently obscured re- searchers' interpretations of women's behavior in relation to the field of criminal justice. Victimologists, for example, have sometimes referred to women's presumed physical and emotional weaknesses in their analyses of female victimization .... Portrayals of women involved with the criminal justice system ... frequently function to reinforce the view of women as dependant, emo- tional, and in need of manly support. Furthermore, they help determine how women will be perceived and treated by guards, judges, juries, po- lice, and (too often) analysts of the criminal justice system. Rafter & Sanko, Introduction, in JUDGE, LAWYER, VICTIM, THIEF: WOMEN, GENDER ROLES, AND CRIMINAL JUSTICE 1, 2 (1982). 3. "The academic literature on women and murder is suprisingly sparse ....The major treatises on women and crime devote little attention to homicide, and nowhere in UCLA WOMEN'S LAW JOURNAL [Vol.
    [Show full text]
  • Felony Murder, Transferred Intent, and the Palsgraf Doctrine in the Rc Iminal Law Wilfred J
    Washington and Lee Law Review Volume 16 | Issue 2 Article 2 Fall 9-1-1959 Felony Murder, Transferred Intent, And The Palsgraf Doctrine In The rC iminal Law Wilfred J. Ritz Follow this and additional works at: https://scholarlycommons.law.wlu.edu/wlulr Part of the Criminal Law Commons Recommended Citation Wilfred J. Ritz, Felony Murder, Transferred Intent, And The Palsgraf Doctrine In The Criminal Law, 16 Wash. & Lee L. Rev. 169 (1959), https://scholarlycommons.law.wlu.edu/wlulr/vol16/iss2/2 This Article is brought to you for free and open access by the Washington and Lee Law Review at Washington & Lee University School of Law Scholarly Commons. It has been accepted for inclusion in Washington and Lee Law Review by an authorized editor of Washington & Lee University School of Law Scholarly Commons. For more information, please contact [email protected]. 1959] PALSGRAF AND CRIMES FELONY MURDER, TRANSFERRED INTENT, AND THE PALSGRAF DOCTRINE IN THE CRIMINAL LAW WILFRED J. RITz* Transferred intent is a doctrine common to both tort and criminal law, but it is a fiction-tolerated without enthusiasm.' In torts the doctrine has lost favor, being replaced by the rule expressed by Car- dozo, C. J., in the well-known case of Palsgraf v. Long Island R.R.2 In criminal law, even though "there is some difficulty in rationalizing"3 transferred intent, the doctrine is still accepted as the basis for im- posing criminal liability on a defendant whose victim is a different person from the one he intended should suffer from his criminal act. In criminal law the doctrine of transferred intent had a com- mon origin with the felony murder rule, but in the course of time, two separate, and supposedly distinct, rules developed.
    [Show full text]
  • Criminal Law
    Criminal Law Prof. Totten Spring 2018 Chapter 1 Introduction ................................................................................................................................ 2 Chapter 2 Actus Reus ................................................................................................................................... 5 Chapter 3: Mens Rea .................................................................................................................................... 7 Chapter 4 Causation .................................................................................................................................. 14 Chapter 5 Homicide .................................................................................................................................... 17 Chapter 6 Rape ........................................................................................................................................... 27 Chapter 7 Theft .......................................................................................................................................... 31 Chapter 8 General Defense ........................................................................................................................ 36 Chapter 9 Inchoate Offense ....................................................................................................................... 45 Chapter 10 Accomplice Liability ..............................................................................................................
    [Show full text]