DOCSLIB.ORG

Manual of Model Criminal Jury Instructions (“Manual”) Has Been Prepared to Help Judges Communicate More Effectively with Juries

Total Page：16

File Type：pdf, Size：1020Kb

Download full-text PDF Read full-text
Manual of Model Criminal Jury Instructions (“Manual”) Has Been Prepared to Help Judges Communicate More Effectively with Juries MANUAL OF MODEL CRIMINAL JURY INSTRUCTIONS FOR THE DISTRICT COURTS OF THE NINTH CIRCUIT Prepared by the Ninth Circuit Jury Instructions Committee _________ 2010 Edition NINTH CIRCUIT JURY INSTRUCTIONS COMMITTEE ____________ Members: District Judge Anna J. Brown, Chair Senior Circuit Judge A. Wallace Tashima District Judge David C. Bury District Judge John W. Sedwick District Judge Richard Seeborg Senior District Judge Robert H. Whaley Senior District Judge Thomas J. Whelan Magistrate Judge Alicia G. Rosenberg Reporter: Joseph Franaszek Staff: Debra Landis ii INTRODUCTION TO 2010 EDITION This Manual of Model Criminal Jury Instructions (“Manual”) has been prepared to help judges communicate more effectively with juries. The instructions in this Manual are models. They are not mandatory, and must be reviewed carefully before use in a particular case. They are not a substitute for the individual research and drafting that may be required in a particular case, nor are they intended to discourage judges from using their own forms and techniques for instructing juries. In addition to its ongoing consideration of legislative developments and appellate court decisions that may impact these model instructions, the Jury Instructions Committee (the Committee) welcomes suggestions from judges, staff and practitioners about possible revisions, additions and deletions. After careful assessment and research, the Committee updates and revises instructions from time to time as necessary. Revisions are available online. They are later compiled and published in the printed version of the Manual. The Committee strongly recommends that the online version of any instruction be consulted to be sure an up to date instruction is being considered. The Committee encourages users of this book to make suggestions for further revisions and updates. This 2010 edition incorporates new and modified instructions. However, the print publication of the Manual necessarily presents a snap-shot of an ongoing research and drafting process. Accordingly, even the most recently dated edition of the Manual does not guarantee that one is using instructions that are up to date. The entire publication and any later changes can be found at the Ninth Circuit’s website at this link: http://www.ce9.uscourts.gov/crim. This 2010 edition is current as to instructions approved as of July 2010. To assist users, the Committee has included a table listing the old instruction numbers in the 2003 edition and the corresponding numbers in the 2010 edition. These model instructions have been reviewed by various members of the federal bench and bar. The Committee extends its thanks to those who reviewed and commented on various parts of the book. The Committee also extends its thanks to former Committee members, Chief District Judge Roger L. Hunt and Judge Stephen G. Larson, for their contributions to this edition and to Ninth Circuit Office of the Circuit Executive staff member Debra Landis for her invaluable diligence, grace and expertise. In addition, the Committee acknowledges with gratitude the singular contributions of Joseph Franaszek, Esq. For many years, Mr. Franaszek has worked with the Committee on a voluntary basis, providing careful research and drafting assistance, as well as a unique “institutional memory” that enables the changing membership of the Committee to understand how existing instructions came to be formulated. Mr. Franaszek has performed an invaluable service to the bench and bar, and has earned the Committee’s enduring respect. iii CAVEAT These model jury instructions are written and organized by judges who are appointed to the Ninth Circuit Jury Instructions Committee by the Chief Circuit Judge. The Ninth Circuit Court of Appeals does not adopt these instructions as definitive. Indeed, occasionally the correctness of a given instruction may be the subject of a Ninth Circuit opinion. Ninth Circuit Jury Instructions Committee July 2010 iv JURY INSTRUCTION NUMBERS CONVERSION TABLE 2003 EDITION 2010 EDITION TITLE 1.1 1.1 Duty of Jury 1.2 1.2 The Charge—Presumption of Innocence 1.3 1.3 What Is Evidence 1.4 1.4 What Is Not Evidence 1.5 2.11 Evidence for Limited Purpose 1.6 1.5 Direct and Circumstantial Evidence 1.7 1.6 Ruling on Objections 1.8 1.7 Credibility of Witnesses 1.9 1.8 Conduct of the Jury 1.10 1.9 No Transcript Available to Jury 1.11 1.10 Taking Notes 1.12 1.11 Outline of Trial 1.13 1.12 Jury to Be Guided by Official English Translation/Interpretation 1.14 1.13 Separate Consideration for Each Defendant 2.1 2.1 Cautionary Instruction—First Recess 2.2 2.2 Bench Conferences and Recesses 2.3 2.3 Stipulated Testimony 2.4 2.4 Stipulations of Fact 2.5 2.5 Judicial Notice 2.6 2.6 Deposition as Substantive Evidence 2.7 2.7 Transcript of Recording in English 2.8 2.8 Transcript of Recording in Foreign Language 2.9 2.9 Foreign Language Testimony v 2.10 2.10 Other Crimes, Wrongs or Acts Evidence (retitled: Other Crimes, Wrongs or Acts of Defendant) 1.5 2.11 Evidence for Limited Purpose 2.11 2.12 Photographs of Defendant, “Mugshots” 2.12 2.13 Dismissal of Some Charges Against Defendant 2.13 2.14 Disposition of Charge Against Codefendant 2.15 2.15 Defendant’s Previous Trial 3.0 3.0 Cover Sheet 3.1 3.1 Duties of Jury to Find Facts and Follow Law 3.2 3.2 Charge Against Defendant Not Evidence—Presumption of Innocence—Burden of Proof 3.3 3.3 Defendant’s Decision Not to Testify 3.4 3.4 Defendant’s Decision to Testify 3.5 3.5 Reasonable Doubt—Defined 3.6 3.6 What Is Evidence 3.7 3.7 What Is Not Evidence 3.8 3.8 Direct and Circumstantial Evidence 3.9 3.9 Credibility of Witnesses 3.10 3.10 Evidence of Other Acts of Defendant or Acts and Statements of Others (retitled: Activities Not Charged) 3.11 3.10 Activities Not Charged 3.12 3.11 Separate Consideration of Multiple Counts—Single Defendant 3.13 3.12 Separate Consideration of Single Count—Multiple Defendants 3.14 3.13 Separate Consideration of Multiple Counts—Multiple Defendants vi 3.15 3.14 Lesser Included Offense 3.16 3.15 Corruptly—Defined 3.17 3.16 Intent to Defraud—Defined 3.18 3.17 Possession—Defined 3.19 3.18 Corporate Defendant 3.20 3.19 Jury to Be Guided by Official English Translation/Interpretation 4.1 4.1 Statements by Defendant 4.2 4.2 Silence in the Face of Accusation 4.3 4.3 Other Crimes, Wrongs or Acts of Defendant 4.4 4.4 Character of Defendant 4.5 4.5 Character of Victim 4.6 4.6 Impeachment, Prior Conviction of Defendant 4.7 4.7 Character of Witness for Truthfulness 4.8 4.8 Impeachment Evidence—Witness 4.9 [4.10-4.12 4.9 Testimony of Witnesses Involving Special reserved] Circumstances—Immunity, Benefits, Accomplice, Plea 4.13 4.10 Government’s Use of Undercover Agents and Informants 4.14 4.11 Eyewitness Identification 4.15 4.12 Child Witness 4.16 4.13 Missing Witness 4.17 4.14 Opinion Evidence, Expert Witness 4.18 4.15 Summaries Not Received in Evidence 4.19 4.16 Charts and Summaries in Evidence -- 4.17 Flight/Concealment of Identity vii 5.1 5.1 Aiding and Abetting 5.2 5.2 Accessory After the Fact 5.3 5.3 Attempt 5.4 5.4 Specific Intent—General Intent 5.5 5.5 Willfully 5.6 5.6 Knowingly—Defined 5.7 5.7 Deliberate Ignorance 5.8 5.8 Presumptions 5.9 5.9 Advice of Counsel 6.1 6.1 Alibi 6.2 6.2 Entrapment 6.3 6.3 Entrapment Defense—Whether Witness Acted as Government Agent (retitled: Entrapment Defense—Whether Person Acted as Government Agent) 6.4 6.4 Insanity 6.5 -- Duress, Coercion or Compulsion (to Refute Element of Offense 6.6 6.5 Duress, Coercion or Compulsion (Legal Excuse) -- 6.6 Necessity (Legal Excuse) -- 6.7 Justification (Legal Excuse) 6.7 6.8 Self–Defense 6.8 6.9 Intoxication—Diminished Capacity 6.9 6.10 Mere Presence 6.10 6.11 Public Authority or Government Authorization Defense 7.1 7.1 Duty to Deliberate viii 7.2 7.2 Consideration of Evidence (retitled: Consideration of Evidence—Conduct of the Jury) 7.3 7.3 Use of Notes 7.4 7.4 Jury Consideration of Punishment 7.5 7.5 Verdict Form 7.6 7.6 Communication With Court 7.7 7.7 Deadlocked Jury 7.8 7.8 Script for Post-Allen Charge Inquiry 7.9 7.9 Specific Issue Unanimity 8.1 8.1 Arson (retitled: Arson or Attempted Arson) (18 U.S.C. § 81) -- 8.2 Conspiracy to Commit Arson (18 U.S.C. § 81) -- 8.3 Assault on Federal Officer or Employee (18 U.S.C. § 111(a)) 8.2 8.4 Assault on Federal Officer or Employee [With a Deadly or Dangerous Weapon] [Which Inflicts Bodily Injury] (18 U.S.C. § 111(b)) 8.3 8.5 Assault on Federal Officer or Employee—Defenses 8.4 8.6 Assault With Intent to Commit Murder or Other Felony (18 U.S.C. § 113(a)(1) and (2)) 8.5 8.7 Assault With Dangerous Weapon (18 U.S.C. § 113(a)(3)) 8.6 -- Assault by Striking, Beating or Wounding (18 U.S.C. § 113(a)(4)) -- 8.8 Simple Assault of Person under Age 16 (18 U.S.C. § 113(a)(5)) 8.7 8.9 Assault Resulting in Serious Bodily Injury (18 U.S.C. § 113(a)(6)) -- 8.10 Assault of Person under Age 16 Resulting in Substantial Bodily Injury (18 U.S.C.
Load more

Recommended publications
  • Sufficiency of Provocation for Voluntary Manslaughter in New Mexico: Problems in Theory and Practice Leo M
    Volume 12 Issue 2 Summer 1982 Spring 1982 Sufficiency of oPr vocation for Voluntary Manslaughter in New Mexico: Problems in Theory and Practice Leo M. Romero Recommended Citation Leo M. Romero, Sufficiency of oPr vocation for Voluntary Manslaughter in New Mexico: Problems in Theory and Practice, 12 N.M. L. Rev. 747 (1982). Available at: https://digitalrepository.unm.edu/nmlr/vol12/iss2/5 This Article is brought to you for free and open access by The University of New Mexico School of Law. For more information, please visit the New Mexico Law Review website: www.lawschool.unm.edu/nmlr SUFFICIENCY OF PROVOCATION FOR VOLUNTARY MANSLAUGHTER IN NEW MEXICO: PROBLEMS IN THEORY AND PRACTICE LEO M. ROMERO* I. INTRODUCTION Jury instructions for the crime of voluntary manslaughter have become an important issue for New Mexico appellate courts.' Recent cases pre- sented the issue of what evidentiary showing at trial is necessary to require the uniform jury instruction on voluntary manslaughter. The answers the courts supplied show differing approaches to the problem and suggest the need to reexamine the function of voluntary manslaughter in the homicide law of New Mexico. This article will examine the standard used by recent cases to determine whether instructions on voluntary manslaughter should be presented to the jury in a murder prosecution and the application of this standard to evidence presented in each case. II. BACKGROUND Cases concerned with the relationship between murder and manslaugh- ter present significant and recurring issues in the criminal law of New Mexico. Before analyzing these issues, it is important to set forth the position of voluntary manslaughter in New Mexico homicide law, as it is understood in theory and used in practice.
    [Show full text]
  • Confession Admissibility Issues
    John E. Reid and Associates, Inc. Established 1947 209 W. Jackson Blvd., Suite 400 312-583- 0700 Chicago, Illinois 60606 800-255-5747 www.reid.com Fax 312-583-0701 Confession Admissibility Issues In the past several years the courts have become more concerned about the issue of false confessions. While the incidence of documented false confessions is rare, more and more jurisdictions are suggesting, if not requiring, interrogators to electronically record interviews and interrogations. With that in mind the courts are carefully examining the interrogator’s behavior and assessing the impact of that behavior on the voluntariness of the confession. The following represents a few court decisions regarding unacceptable interrogator behavior. California Court of Appeal Finds Confession Involuntary In the case of People v. Fuentes July, 2006 the Court of Appeal, Second District, California found the defendant's confession to be inadmissible because improper promises and threats were made during the interview, both express and implied, which rendered the confession involuntary as the product of coercive police activity. From the Appeal Court's decision: "In making this argument, defendant focuses on exhortations that even good people can do bad things while intoxicated and that defendant's not being in his “right state of mind” when the incident happened would “help” him. In addition, defendant was told that not confronting the situation would be “worse” for him, if defendant lied the case would go “very, very bad” for him, and if defendant kept quiet he could be charged “for something more serious, very ugly.” Conversely, if a person tells the truth “it goes much better for them” and “the charges are lowered - a little.” Finally, at least one and one-half hours after the interview started, defendant was given the alternative of spending either “the rest of [his] life” or “five or six years” in jail.
    [Show full text]
  • The History of the Special (Struck) Jury in the United States and Its Relation to Voir Dire Practices, the Reasonable Cross-Sect
    William & Mary Bill of Rights Journal Volume 6 (1997-1998) Issue 3 Article 2 May 1998 The History of the Special (Struck) Jury in the United States and Its Relation to Voir Dire Practices, the Reasonable Cross-Section Requirement, and Peremptory Challenges James Oldham Follow this and additional works at: https://scholarship.law.wm.edu/wmborj Part of the Criminal Procedure Commons Repository Citation James Oldham, The History of the Special (Struck) Jury in the United States and Its Relation to Voir Dire Practices, the Reasonable Cross-Section Requirement, and Peremptory Challenges, 6 Wm. & Mary Bill Rts. J. 623 (1998), https://scholarship.law.wm.edu/wmborj/vol6/iss3/2 Copyright c 1998 by the authors. This article is brought to you by the William & Mary Law School Scholarship Repository. https://scholarship.law.wm.edu/wmborj WILLIAM AND MARY BILL OF RIGHTS JOURNAL VOLUME 6 SUMMER 1998 ISSUE 3 THE HISTORY OF THE SPECIAL (STRUCK) JURY IN THE UNITED STATES AND ITS RELATION TO VOIR DIRE PRACTICES, THE REASONABLE CROSS-SECTION REQUIREMENT, AND PEREMPTORY CHALLENGES James Oldham* In this Article, Professor Oldham provides a unique historical study of the special, or struck, jury in the United States. First, Professor Oldham discusses the influence of the 1730 English statute on eigh- teenth-century American law and reviews the procedures of several states in which the struck jury remains valid, in addition to the once- authorized procedures that states have since declared invalid. He also analyzes the relationship between the struck jury and peremptory chal- lenges. Second, Professor Oldham analyzes the special qualifications of the jurors comprising special juries in the context of the "blue ribbon," or "high-class," jury, the jury of experts, and the juries for property condemnation and diking district assessment disputes.
    [Show full text]
  • Virginia Model Jury Instructions – Criminal
    Virginia Model Jury Instructions – Criminal Release 20, September 2019 NOTICE TO USERS: THE FOLLOWING SET OF UNANNOTATED MODEL JURY INSTRUCTIONS ARE BEING MADE AVAILABLE WITH THE PERMISSION OF THE PUBLISHER, MATTHEW BENDER & COMPANY, INC. PLEASE NOTE THAT THE FULL ANNOTATED VERSION OF THESE MODEL JURY INSTRUCTIONS IS AVAILABLE FOR PURCHASE FROM MATTHEW BENDER® BY WAY OF THE FOLLOWING LINK: https://store.lexisnexis.com/categories/area-of-practice/criminal-law-procedure- 161/virginia-model-jury-instructions-criminal-skuusSku6572 Matthew Bender is a registered trademark of Matthew Bender & Company, Inc. Instruction No. 2.050 Preliminary Instructions to Jury Members of the jury, the order of the trial of this case will be in four stages: 1. Opening statements 2. Presentation of the evidence 3. Instructions of law 4. Final argument After the conclusion of final argument, I will instruct you concerning your deliberations. You will then go to your room, select a foreperson, deliberate, and arrive at your verdict. Opening Statements First, the Commonwealth's attorney may make an opening statement outlining his or her case. Then the defendant's attorney also may make an opening statement. Neither side is required to do so. Presentation of the Evidence [Second, following the opening statements, the Commonwealth will introduce evidence, after which the defendant then has the right to introduce evidence (but is not required to do so). Rebuttal evidence may then be introduced if appropriate.] [Second, following the opening statements, the evidence will be presented.] Instructions of Law Third, at the conclusion of all evidence, I will instruct you on the law which is to be applied to this case.
    [Show full text]
  • Culture, Cloaked in Mens Rea
    Doriane Lambelet Coleman Culture, Cloaked in Mens Rea Proof beyond reasonable doubt of the mens rea or state of mind associated with a particu- lar crime is a requirement for the successful prosecution of all criminal defendants under our system of justice. In the legal jargon, it is part of the prosecution’s prima facie case. Concomitantly, criminal defendants may suc- cessfully challenge the case against them on the ground (among others) that the prosecution has failed to meet this requirement. In this con- text one of the essential remaining disputes is waged among legal scholars and practitioners about the propriety of the ‘‘cultural defense’’ in 1 cases involving immigrant crime. Specifically, there is disagreement about the admissibility of evidence about immigrant culture and cultural practices in support of the argument that the defendant suffered from a form of cultural ‘‘di- minished capacity’’ or ‘‘insanity’’ at the time of the crime. There also is ongoing debate about the admissibility of such evidence in support of the affirmative defense of provocation. While the latter is technically not directed at mens rea, like diminished capacity and insanity, it is intro- duced to explain the defendant’s loss of control in the face of an extreme emotional disturbance. The South Atlantic Quarterly :, Fall . Copyright © by Doriane Lambelet Coleman. 982 Doriane Lambelet Coleman In support of the position that evidence about immigrant culture can and should be permitted to explain an immigrant’s mental state or his or her loss of control, its proponents, especially practitioners, have suggested that cul- tural predispositions can and often do affect free will.
    [Show full text]
  • Criminal Assault Includes Both a Specific Intent to Commit a Battery, and a Battery That Is Otherwise Unprivileged Committed with Only General Intent
    QUESTION 5 Don has owned Don's Market in the central city for twelve years. He has been robbed and burglarized ten times in the past ten months. The police have never arrested anyone. At a neighborhood crime prevention meeting, apolice officer told Don of the state's new "shoot the burglar" law. That law reads: Any citizen may defend his or her place of residence against intrusion by a burglar, or other felon, by the use of deadly force. Don moved a cot and a hot plate into the back of the Market and began sleeping there, with a shotgun at the ready. After several weeks of waiting, one night Don heard noises. When he went to the door, he saw several young men running away. It then dawned on him that, even with the shotgun, he might be in a precarious position. He would likely only get one shot and any burglars would get the next ones. With this in mind, he loaded the shotgun and fastened it to the counter, facing the front door. He attached a string to the trigger so that the gun would fire when the door was opened. Next, thinking that when burglars enter it would be better if they damaged as little as possible, he unlocked the front door. He then went out the back window and down the block to sleep at his girlfriend's, where he had been staying for most of the past year. That same night a police officer, making his rounds, tried the door of the Market, found it open, poked his head in, and was severely wounded by the blast.
    [Show full text]
  • Product Liability in Maryland Revisited Edward S
    University of Baltimore Law Review Volume 7 Article 2 Issue 1 Fall 1977 1977 Product Liability in Maryland Revisited Edward S. Digges Jr. Piper and Marbury Follow this and additional works at: http://scholarworks.law.ubalt.edu/ublr Part of the Law Commons Recommended Citation Digges, Edward S. Jr. (1977) "Product Liability in Maryland Revisited," University of Baltimore Law Review: Vol. 7: Iss. 1, Article 2. Available at: http://scholarworks.law.ubalt.edu/ublr/vol7/iss1/2 This Article is brought to you for free and open access by ScholarWorks@University of Baltimore School of Law. It has been accepted for inclusion in University of Baltimore Law Review by an authorized administrator of ScholarWorks@University of Baltimore School of Law. For more information, please contact [email protected]. PRODUCT LIABILITY IN MARYLAND REVISITED Edward S. Digges, Jr.t The author discusses and compares the various theories of recovery available in a product liability case. He concludes that merger of the various theories into a single basic product cause of action might be procedurally beneficial. Various defenses available in product litigation, as well as procedures for invoking indemnity and contribution, are also discussed. I. INTRODUCTION Since the issue of this Law Review devoted to product liability,1 the Court of Appeals of Maryland has confirmed its previously intimated pro-consumer stance on the subject.2 Strict liability in tort has been added to the arsenal of recovery theories,3 and warranty has been stripped of some technical hurdles. 4 The recent product liability decisions5 bring Maryland into step with modern thought t B.A., 1968, Princeton University; J.D., 1971, University of Maryland; Partner, Piper and Marbury, Baltimore, Maryland; Member of Maryland Bar.
    [Show full text]
  • Anger and Intent for Murder: the Supreme Court Decisions in R. V
    Osgoode Hall Law Journal Article 2 Volume 41, Number 1 (Spring 2003) Anger and Intent for Murder: The uprS eme Court Decisions in R. v. Parent Joanne Klineberg Follow this and additional works at: http://digitalcommons.osgoode.yorku.ca/ohlj Part of the Criminal Law Commons, and the Criminal Procedure Commons Article This work is licensed under a Creative Commons Attribution-Noncommercial-No Derivative Works 4.0 License. Citation Information Klineberg, Joanne. "Anger and Intent for Murder: The uS preme Court Decisions in R. v. Parent." Osgoode Hall Law Journal 41.1 (2003) : 37-73. http://digitalcommons.osgoode.yorku.ca/ohlj/vol41/iss1/2 This Article is brought to you for free and open access by the Journals at Osgoode Digital Commons. It has been accepted for inclusion in Osgoode Hall Law Journal by an authorized editor of Osgoode Digital Commons. Anger and Intent for Murder: The uprS eme Court Decisions in R. v. Parent Abstract In R v. Parent, the Supreme Court of Canada recently held that intense anger alone is not, of itself, a defence to murder, although anger does play a role in reducing murder to manslaughter in connection with the defence of provocation. The ourC t's brief decision ignores twenty years of contrary jurisprudence and fails to provide detailed reasons for its conclusion, resulting in uncertainty about the scope and application of the decision. In this article, the author explores the relationship between anger and intent for murder, and outlines some possible arguments the Court could have relied on that would have provided valuable guidance to lower courts in future cases.
    [Show full text]
  • Manslaughter Adultery As Provocation Harry B
    Kentucky Law Journal Volume 37 | Issue 3 Article 7 1949 Manslaughter Adultery as Provocation Harry B. Miller Jr. University of Kentucky Follow this and additional works at: https://uknowledge.uky.edu/klj Part of the Criminal Law Commons Right click to open a feedback form in a new tab to let us know how this document benefits you. Recommended Citation Miller, Harry B. Jr. (1949) "Manslaughter Adultery as Provocation," Kentucky Law Journal: Vol. 37 : Iss. 3 , Article 7. Available at: https://uknowledge.uky.edu/klj/vol37/iss3/7 This Note is brought to you for free and open access by the Law Journals at UKnowledge. It has been accepted for inclusion in Kentucky Law Journal by an authorized editor of UKnowledge. For more information, please contact [email protected]. TMANSLAUGHTER ADULTERY AS PROVOCATION The sight of adultery as sufficient provocation to reduce an off ense which would otherwise be murder to .manslaughter is a precept which the law has long recogized.' Although the exact womb from which it sprang is a matter of speculation, the theory behind its inception is readily apparent. The reason for miti- gating a homicide on the basis of provocation is that man's nature is such when sufficiently aroused b heat of passion, that his mind is deaf to the voice of reason. 2 The sight of adultery upon the part of one's spouse, is such an act as will arouse great passion, therefore the common law judges in their wisdom recog- nized that the passion aroused was sulfficient to reduce an in- tentional homicide to manslaughter.
    [Show full text]
  • ~. Provocation As a Defence to Murder
    If you have issues viewing or accessing this file contact us at NCJRS.gov. LAW REFORM COMMISSIONER VICTORIA , r Working Paper No.6 : -­ I ~. PROVOCATION AS A DEFENCE "~I TO MURDER MELBOURNE 1979 '. NCJf:'~~S SEP 261979 ACQUISITIONS, LAW REFORM COMMISSIONER I VICTORIA . " ! . , ". ~. I :'! .~, . ' .. " \ .. ' , Working Paper No.6 _} " ",!, I .. 1:. : . : ~ , PROVOCATION AS A DEFENCE TO MUR'D'ER MELBOURNE 1979 / Views expressed in this Working Paper are provisional only and such suggestions as are made are tentative. Comment and criticism are invited and it would be greatly appreciated if these could be forwarded before 1st October, 1979. Law Reform Commissioner 155 Queen Street, Melbourne, Vic. 3000. I CONTENTS Paragraph Page Introduction 1 5 What is Provocation? 4 S 19th Century Views 5 6 The Emergence of "The Reasonable Man" and "The Ordinary Man" 9 7 "The Ordinary Man" in Legislation 13 9 "The Reasonable Man" and the Common Law 18 11 The Case of Holmes 20 11 More of "The Reasonable Person" 28 13 Legislative Change 32 15 The New Zealand Crimes Act 1961 37 16 The New Zealand Case 38 16 Victoria Today 41 18 Ever the Problem of "The Ordinary Man" 59 23 A Climate of Reform 64 24 (a) Eire 64 24 (b) England 65 24 (c) U.S.A.- The Model Penal Code . 68 25 (d) South Australia 72 26 Reform for Victoria 76 27 References 31 3 WORKING PAPER No.6 PROVOCATION AS A DEFENCE TO MURDER. Introduction 1. By letter dated the 13th day of March, 1979 The Honourable the Attorney-General acting pursuant to section 8 (b) of the Law Reform Act 1973 referred to the Law Reform Commissioner the following reference:- "To investigate and report upon the necessity for reform of the law relating to provocation as a defence to a charge of murder." 2.
    [Show full text]
  • Downloaded from Cmx.Sagepub.Com at UNIV of SOUTHERN CALIFORNIA on June 27, 2014 Article
    University of Southern California Law From the SelectedWorks of Thomas D. Lyon May 23, 2014 36. Evidence summarized in attorneys' closing arguments predicts acquittals in criminal trials of child sexual abuse. Stacia N. Stolzenberg, University of Southern California Thomas D. Lyon, University of Southern California Available at: https://works.bepress.com/thomaslyon/94/ Child Maltreatment http://cmx.sagepub.com/ Evidence Summarized in Attorneys' Closing Arguments Predicts Acquittals in Criminal Trials of Child Sexual Abuse Stacia N. Stolzenberg and Thomas D. Lyon Child Maltreat 2014 19: 119 originally published online 11 June 2014 DOI: 10.1177/1077559514539388 The online version of this article can be found at: http://cmx.sagepub.com/content/19/2/119 Published by: http://www.sagepublications.com On behalf of: American Professional Society on the Abuse of Children Additional services and information for Child Maltreatment can be found at: Email Alerts: http://cmx.sagepub.com/cgi/alerts Subscriptions: http://cmx.sagepub.com/subscriptions Reprints: http://www.sagepub.com/journalsReprints.nav Permissions: http://www.sagepub.com/journalsPermissions.nav Citations: http://cmx.sagepub.com/content/19/2/119.refs.html >> Version of Record - Jun 27, 2014 OnlineFirst Version of Record - Jun 11, 2014 What is This? Downloaded from cmx.sagepub.com at UNIV OF SOUTHERN CALIFORNIA on June 27, 2014 Article Child Maltreatment 2014, Vol. 19(2) 119-129 ª The Author(s) 2014 Evidence Summarized in Attorneys’ Reprints and permission: sagepub.com/journalsPermissions.nav Closing Arguments Predicts Acquittals DOI: 10.1177/1077559514539388 in Criminal Trials of Child Sexual Abuse cmx.sagepub.com Stacia N. Stolzenberg1 and Thomas D.
    [Show full text]
  • Summer 2021 Criminal Law Webinar Case
    Phil Dixon [email protected] Jonathan Holbrook [email protected] Brittany Williams [email protected] Summer Criminal Law Webinar June 4, 2021 Cases covered include reported decisions from the U.S. Supreme Court and the North Carolina appellate courts decided between December 15, 2020, and May 18, 2021. The summaries were prepared by School of Government faculty and staff. To view all of the summaries, go to the Criminal Case Compendium or the North Carolina Criminal Law Blog. To obtain the summaries automatically by email, sign up for the Criminal Law Listserv. Investigatory Stops and Seizures The application of physical force with intent to restrain a suspect, even if unsuccessful, is a Fourth Amendment seizure Torres v. Madrid, 592 U.S. ___, 141 S. Ct. 989 (Mar. 25, 2021) (Roberts, C.J.). Law enforcement officers were attempting to serve an arrest warrant early in the morning at an apartment complex in New Mexico. They noticed the plaintiff in the parking lot and realized she was not the subject of the warrant but wished to speak with her. As they approached, the plaintiff entered her car. According to the plaintiff, she did not immediately notice the police approaching (and was admittedly under the influence of methamphetamine). When an officer tried to open her car door to speak with her, she noticed armed men surrounding her car for the first time and drove off, fearing a carjacking. Although not in the path of the vehicle, the officers fired 13 rounds at the car as it drove away. The plaintiff was struck twice in her back but escaped, only to be apprehended the next day.
    [Show full text]