1. adequate provocation (matter of law)
2. done in the "heat of passion"
3. no time to cool off (fairly factual)
4. causal link
adequate provocation.
old common law
1. adultery
2. mutual combat
3. serious assault
4. serious injury to a close relative 5. unlawful arrest
modern common law
D's passion must be reasonable given the provocation
OBJ SUB
"reasonable to ordinary" "reasonable for D"
words alone are not enough
MPC manslaughter -
EED (extreme emo disturbance, culpability)
2. for which there was a "reasonable
explanation or excuse," determined
MPC has a more friendly "post-freudian"
approach to D's decision making
and words alone may satisfy provocation under MPC
approach to D's decision making
and words alone may satisfy provocation under MPC
NYS homicide laws
murder - 1 intent to kill, premeditated grade A+
murder - 2 intent to kill, not premed grade A
ask at murder - 2 "is there a factor that would make this murder - 1, or is there a
mitigating factor that would make this man - 1 (such as EED)?"
unintentional killings.
if the D kills someone by accident:
the first thing to ask is "was the D acting with criminal negligence? was this a substantial risk, and should the D have known about that risk?"
if so, criminally negligent homicide.
if not, then no crim neg, and ask "was the D reckless? was there a risk and did D know of the risk?"
if yes, then manslaughter - 2.
then ask, "is this killing so bad, that it is as bad as murder? does it fall doctrinally under 'deprave indifference/ extreme/ abandoned heart?"
common law approach:
malice aforethought
1. intent to kill
second degree murder
1. intent to kill, not premeditated
2. intent to inflict g.b.h.
3. depraved heart
voluntary manslaughter = intent to kill/ heat of passion
involuntary manslaughter = reckless/negligent
people v. knoller
if you're the prosecutor, did knoller intend to kill whipple? no.
step 1: reckless
a. keeping two combat dogs in an apt building was a substantial and unjustifiable risk (memorize this!).
best evidence: the vet's letter
what if the D was to say, "i think that the vet is wrong?"
supporting evidence: 30 incidents of the dogs threatening people
it's not easy to set the standard
(be sure to review the full case on LN)
trial court says the difference is between the knowledge of
"high probablity of death"
and the court of appeal says that
"conscious disregard of the risk of serious bodily injury"
if consciousness is just about bodily injury, it will be very low, objectively.
supreme court says that it's a
"conscious disregard of the danger of human life."
so the court says not guilty of murder, unless the defendant was aware that she created the high probability of death (n.b., because the CA court considers the standards of 'base antisocial purpose' and 'high probability of harm' are the same).... and it makes sense, because there are people who are making the conscious choice to kill appearing before the court all the time. on the other hand, this is pretty bad. the death was awful. the victim was appealing and the defendants are weird and unsympathetic.
what if she were a dog whisperer? would knoller still fit the bill for a reckless regard for human life, for keeping dogs but with motives for doing good for the animals? the higher the degree of risk and the more despicable the reasons, the more it reflects badly on the defendant's motives.
NYPL 125.25 (2)
* under circumstances evincing a depraved indifference to human life,
* recklessly (recklessly = substantial)
* engages in conduct which creates a grave risk of death to another person (grave = more than
substantial)
* and thereby causes the death of another person
people v. heidgen
russian roulette of drunk driving.
getting drunk instigates possibility of recklessness which you know or should have known could ensue if you chose to drink.
but depravedness? can you prove that he intentionally drove the wrong way on the parkway?
