Deck 9: Crimes Against Persons I:criminal Homicide

Question 1

1.How does the court define the terms "willful," "deliberate," and "premeditated"?
2.Sort and arrange the facts of the case according to the definitions of the three terms in (1).
3.In your opinion, did Ray Snowden commit firstdegree murder?
4.Assuming Snowden is guilty of first-degree murder, should he be sentenced to death? Consider the lists of aggravating and mitigating circumstances in the "The Death Penalty" section (pp.309-310).Which items on the list might apply to him? Explain your answer, based on the facts in the case.

Answer 1

Brief summary of the case:
Mr.S and Ms.D went to a local pub and had a nice time together.After some time they both came out of the club and were standing on the road for a taxi.Suddenly, Mr.S and Ms.D started to have an argument.Mr.S was shouting at Ms.D.After some time, Ms.D moved away from Mr.S.
Mr.S pushed Ms.D over a standing truck and assaulted her.Then, Mr.S took a knife from his pocket and cut the throat of Ms.D.Mr.S stabbed Ms.D on her back and on her private parts.The police arrested Mr.S and he was given a death sentence by the court.
1)
Definition of the terms:
Willful:
The court defined the term willful as doing an act with a particular purpose.The act contains a particular intention.The intention and purpose is to cause harm to the life of the individual.
Deliberately:
Deliberately refers to doing an act in a conscious and in a willful manner.The doer of the act will be conscious while doing the act.
Premeditate:
Premeditate refers to making a perfect plan before committing a particular crime.
2)
The following acts show that Mr.S committed the murder willfully:
• Mr.S and Ms.D were having arguments outside the club and Mr.S pushed Ms.D over the truck.
• Mr.S's act of taking the knife and cutting the throat of Ms.D shows that the murder was done willfully.
The fact that he was drunk cannot be admitted in this case because a drunken man cannot commit murder in such a perfect manner.a
Mr.S cut the throat of Ms.D so that she cannot make any noise or outcry.He took her near to gas station where nobody was present.This was done by Mr.S as he wanted to ensure that nobody watches the murder committed by him.This act shows that Mr.S had premeditated the murder.
3)
According to the facts presented in the case, Mr.S had committed a first-degree murder.The medical report says that Ms.D had severe injuries on her body.The left nipple of her breast was cut.The parts of her vagina had cut injuries.Mr.S stabbed her many times on her face and on her back.
Hence, by considering these facts it is obvious that Mr.S had committed a first-degree murder.
4)
The death penalty list:
As per section 309 and 310, death penalty should be given to a convict if he had committed a serious felony causing death to the victim.The death penalty is not applicable if the defendant proves that he had not committed the crime willfully or deliberately.In such cases, the defendant is given a life sentence.
In the current case, Mr.S had committed the crime willfully and deliberately.The injury in the body of Ms.D was unbearable.The private part of Ms.D was cut by knife.This is considered as a serious crime and hence the defendant should be given a death penalty.
Conclusion:
The court proved that Mr.S is the culprit.The unlawful killing of a human being constitutes a serious felony and a first-degree murder.The death penalty is the most appropriate judgment which can be given by the court.This capital punishment will stop the other people from committing unlawful murder.

Question 2

1.How does the court define "heinous, atrocious, or cruel"?
2.List the facts in the case that are relevant to deciding whether this was a "heinous, atrocious, or cruel" murder.
3.Summarize the arguments in favor of and against classifying this as a "heinous, cruel, and atrocious" murder.

Answer 2

Brief summary of the case:
The police arrested Mr.L on the charges of first-degree murder for allegedly killing Mr.J.Mr.L and Mr.J left the gay bar together to Mr.J's room.The roommate of Mr.J came to the room and found that the room was opened, the stereo was playing loud, light was on, and some blood stains were found on the bed.
The roommate of Mr.J informed the police and subsequently the police found the body of Mr.J in the bathroom floor in a pool of blood.The police arrested Mr.L after proper investigation.
1)
Definition of the terms:
Heinous:
The court defines heinous as the hateful or indigestible act done by a person especially while committing a murder or any other crime.
Atrocious:
The court defines atrocious as the fierce, cruel, and unpleasant act done by a person while committing a murder.The atrocious act leaves a shock in the minds of the people.
2)
The following are the facts that prove the heinous and atrocious act of defendant:
The fact of the defendant in murdering his own gay friend after a gay party is heinous.The act of murdering a friend after a party is indigestible.The defendant murdered his friend in his room.These facts prove that the murder was heinous.
The defendant left the lights on, the stereo was loud, and the defendant stabbed the victim all over his body.This shows the act of cruelty done by the defendant.The court can use these facts and declare the murder as heinous and atrocious.
3)
Arguments in favor of classifying the act as heinous and atrocious:
The fact of the defendant in murdering his own gay friend after a gay party is heinous.The act of murdering a friend after a party is indigestible.The defendant murdered his friend in his room.These facts prove that the murder was heinous.
The defendant left the lights on, the stereo was loud, and the defendant stabbed the victim all over his body.This shows the act of cruelty done by the defendant.The court can use these facts and declare the murder as heinous and atrocious.
Arguments against classifying the act as heinous and atrocious:
The defendant committed the murder by stabbing the victim with his knife.Normally, many murders happen in a worse manner.The victim gets killed brutally by beating to death and cutting the private parts.In some cases, the victim gets gang raped by a group and then killed brutally.
However, in this case, the act of the defendant was not much ferocious when compared with the other brutal killing.The court should classify only the brutal and ferocious killing activities as heinous and atrocious.Mere stabbing should not be classified as heinous and atrocious.
Conclusion:
The murder committed by Mr.L is atrocious and heinous.The defendant killed his own gay partner using a knife in a brutal manner.The defendant killed the victim in his own house.The victim had faith in the defendant and took him to his house but he was killed by the defendant.Hence, Mr.L deserves punishment for the crime committed by him.

Question 3

1.List all the facts relevant to proving Daniel Thomas's mental attitude.
2.According to the court, what's the mental element required for second-degree murder?
3.In your opinion, is Thomas guilty of murder? If so, what degree-first or second degree? Explain your answer.
4.If he's not guilty, should he be guilty of some lesser degree of criminal homicide? Give a preliminary answer now; then, when we get to manslaughter, you can give a more informed answer.

Answer 3

Brief summary of the case:
Mr.T employed Mr.H, a 19-year old boy, in an oak tree business.The behavior and the performance of Mr.H were not satisfactory.Hence, Mr.T obtained permission from Mr.H's parents for taking disciplinary actions against him.After he obtained the permission, Mr.T took Mr.H nearby the edge of the campus, removed his pants, and beat him with a rubber hose for about 30 minutes.
After this disciplinary action, the behavior of Mr.H was good.Later on, the behavior of Mr.H worsened.Hence, once again Mr.T took Mr.H to the edge of the campus and beat him with rubber hose after removing his pants.Subsequently, Mr.H died after 10 days of the punishment.The police arrested Mr.H on grounds of second-degree murder.
1)
Facts to prove the mental attitude of Mr.T:
Mr.T had a cruel mental attitude towards Mr.H.The act of beating a 19-year old boy after removing his pants shows the ruthless attitude of Mr.T.In addition to that, Mr.T beat him with a rubber hose.Mr.T did this act twice without considering the fact that Mr.H was bleeding to death.This attitude proves that Mr.H had a cruel mental attitude.
2)
The elements required for a second-degree murder:
The second-degree murder refers to the act of killing without involving the willful consent and deliberation of the murderer.The following are the mental elements required for a second-degree murder:
• The offender performs the act of killing or murder without any meditation.The intent to cause harm to the other person was present.
• A killing or murder that involves an accidental death while causing harm to the other.The intention to kill exactly was not present.
3)
Mr.X's opinion on Mr.T's guilt:
According to Mr.X, Mr.T is guilty of murder.Mr.X took Mr.H to some remote place and beat him with rubber hose on his bare body.Mr.H started to bleed after that incident.Later on, Mr.T took Mr.H once again to a remote place and repeated the same cruel act.Mr.H was bleeding and he could barely walk.
Subsequently, Mr.T did not give any medical treatment to Mr.H.Some days later Mr.H died and the doctor identified that the harm caused by Mr.H is the primary reason for the death of Mr.H.Hence, Mr.H deserves appropriate punishment.
4)
Alternative punishment to Mr.T upon considering the fact that he did not fall under the category of second-degree murder:
As per the court, Mr.T is guilty for committing a second-degree crime.If he is not guilty for second-degree murder, then the court should punish Mr.T under criminal homicide.Mr.T has caused a serious harm to Mr.H twice.Mr.H was bleeding and he could barely walk.Therefore, the sentencing of Mr.T for criminal homicide is justifiable.
Conclusion:
The act of Mr.T constitutes a second-degree murder.He deserves appropriate punishment.The act of Mr.H had cost the life of an innocent boy.The court should find Mr.T guilty and punish him according to the law.

Question 4

1.List all the facts and circumstances relevant to decide whether Dr.Phillips was guilty of felony murder.
2.Summarize the court's arguments for concluding that Dr.Phillips's conduct caused the victim's death.
3.Summarize the court's arguments for adopting the "inherently dangerous felony" rule.
4.Summarize the court's arguments supporting its conclusion that the "inherently dangerous" rule doesn't apply to the facts and circumstances in this case.
5.Do you agree with the court's decision? Support your answer.

Question 5

1.List all the evidence for and against the corporations' and the individuals' liability for murder and involuntary manslaughter.
2.Why did the court reverse and remand the case?
3.On remand, would you find the defendants guilty of murder? Explain your answer.
4.Do you agree that it's inconsistent to find that the corporation had one state of mind and the individuals another?
5.Consider the following remarks made after the convictions in the original trial (Greenhouse 1985, 1):
a.Following the conviction in the original trial, then attorney Richard M.Daley said the verdicts meant that employers who knowingly expose their workers to dangerous conditions leading to injury or even death can be held criminally responsible for the results of their actions.
b.Ralph Nader, consumer advocate lawyer, said, "The public is pretty upset with dangerously defective products, bribery, toxic waste, and job hazards.The polls all show it.The verdict today will encourage other prosecutors and judges to take more seriously the need to have the criminal law catch up with corporate crime."
c.Professor John Coffee, Columbia Law School, said, "When you threaten the principal adequately, he will monitor the behavior of his agent."
d.A California deputy district attorney put it more bluntly: "A person facing a jail sentence is the best deterrent against wrongdoing."
e.Joseph E.Hadley Jr., a corporate lawyer who specializes in health and safety issues, said the decision would not send shockwaves through the corporate community: "I don't think corporate America should be viewed as in the ballpark with these folks.This was a highly unusual situation, but now people see that where the egregious situation occurs, there could be a criminal remedy."
f.Robert Stephenson, a lawyer defending another corporation, said, "I don't believe these statutes [murder and aggravated battery] were ever meant to be used in this way."
g.Utah's governor, Scott M.Matheson, refused to extradite Michael T.McKay, a former Film Recovery vice president then living in Utah, because he was an "exemplary citizen who should not be subjected to the sensational charges in Illinois."
Which of the statements best describes what you think is proper policy regarding prosecutions of corporate executives for murder? Defend your answer.

Question 6

1.If you were a juror, could you in good conscience say that Schnopps was adequately provoked? Explain your answer, relying on the facts in the case, the court's opinion, and the text prior to the excerpt.
2.If so, was it the adultery that provoked him or the provocative words his wife used to describe her adulterous relationship?
3.Do you think the prohibition against provocative words makes sense?
4.If you were writing a voluntary manslaughter law, state the elements of the offense as you believe they should be.

Question 7

1.List all of the relevant facts and circumstances that provoked Stephen Roy Carter to kill Rebecca Wight.
2.Summarize the reason why Carter claims he committed voluntary manslaughter.
3.State the court's definition of provocation.
4.Summarize the court's reasons for rejecting Carter's claim.
5.In your opinion, was Carter guilty of murder or voluntary manslaughter? Back up your answer with details and arguments from the excerpt.

Question 8

1.How does the Ohio statute define "vehicular homicide"?
2.Relying on the evidence in the case and referring to the Ohio provision, explain why Nicholas Mays was guilty of aggravated vehicular homicide.
3.How would you define "vehicular homicide"? Defend your definition.
4.Do you agree with the majority opinion's reasons for reversing the sentence? Or do the dissent and the trial court have the better arguments? Back up your answer.