This site is 100% ad supported. Please add an exception to adblock for this site.

Case Law Rules - CrimLaw - Kadish


undefined, object
copy deck
Regina v. Dudley and Stephens
Queen's Bench Division
14 Q.B.D. 273 (1884)
It is not a defense to murder that the victim was likely to die soon.
United States v. Bergman
United States District Court, S.D.N.Y.
416 F. Supp. 496 (1976)
Even minimal sentences can provide a deterrent value and extol the seriousness of the crime.
State v. Chaney
Supreme Court of Alaska
477 P.2d. 441 (1970)
Serious crimes when given minimal sentences and/or verbal regret over minimal sentences, deemphasize the crime and the public condemnation of the crime.
United States v. Jackson
United States Court of Appeals, 7th Circuit
835 F.2d 1195 (1987)
Career criminals who persist in possessing weapons should be dealt with most severly.
United States v. Johnson
United States Court of Appeals, 2d Circuit
964 F.2d 124 (1992)
Extraordinary familial obligations are grounds for establishing reason for a downward departure from sentencing guidelines.
Bowers v. Hardwick
Supreme Court of the United States
478 U.S. 186 (1986)
There is no fundemental right to engage in consentual sodomy that is constitutionally protected via the 14th amendment.
Lawrence v. Texas
Supreme Court of the United States
539 U.S. 558 (2003)
Consentual homosexual acts, being inherent and fundemental to a homosexual lifestyle, are fundemental rights protected by the 14th amendment.
Martin v. State
Alabama Court of Appeals
31 Ala. App. 334, 17 So. 2d 427 (1994)
Appearance refers to a VOLUNTARY appearance due to an implied notion of Actus reus
People v. Newton
California District Court of Appeal
8 Cal. App. 3d 259, 87 Cal. Rptr. 394 (1970)
State of Shock is a justifiable form of unconsciousness according to California
Pope v. State
Maryland Court of Appeals
284 Md. 309, 396 A.2d 1054 (1979)
A person does not have the right to supercede the authority of a parent by making a judgement on the parent's mental state and cannot be held culpable to child abuse and resulting death through a failure to act if all they have provided is kindness without an assumed duty of care.
Jones v. United States
United States Court of Appeals, District of Columbia Circuit
308 F.2d 307 (1962)
A failure to act may make one culpable for death in the following cases: where a statute imposes a duty to care, where one stands in a certain status relation to another, where one has assumed contractual duty to care for another, and there one has voluntarily assumed care of another and so secluded the helpless person as to prevent others from rendering aid.
Barber v. Superior Court
California District Court of Appeal
147 Cal. App. 3d 1006, 195 Cal. Rptr. 484 (1983)
Cessation of life sustaining efforts do not amount to a breach of legal duty by a doctor when such effort are innefective and when a surrogate decision-maker for the patient has agreed to the cessation.
Regina v. Cunningham
Court of Criminal Appeal
[1957] 2 Q.B. 396
Mens rea must be that of the intended crime, not for a crime, which, when committed results in a crime that carries a higher degree of punishment
Regina v. Faulkner
13 Cox Crim. Case. 550, 555, 557 (1877)
If, in committing one willful act, a person accidentally commits (through no knowledge of the possibility of the result) a more serious act, the defendant cannot be held mentally culpable of more than the first act.
Holloway v. United States
Supreme Court of the United States
526 U.S. 1 (1999)
Conditional intent is enough to establish specific intent to a crime.
Scalia dissent to Halloway revises rule how (if applied)?
Conditional intent, with an action undertaken above thhe requirements of a lesser offense, is enough to establish a specific intent to the crime.
United States v. Jewell
United States Court of Appeals, 9th Circuit
532 F.2d 697 (1976)
Willful ignorance of a particular fact, where it can be shown that lack of positive knowledge was a direct result of deliberate avoidance, can be treated as knowingly culpable
Regina v. Prince
Court of Crown Cases Reserved
L.R. 2 Cr. Cas. Res. 154 (1875)
A mistake of fact relies on the defendant's being able to show that he has observed the community ethic
White v. State
Ohio Court of Appeals
44 Ohio App. 331, 185 N.E. 64 (1933)
When committing a wrongful act, the onus is on the actor to be sure that he is on solid ground as to any fact that may make him criminally culpable
People v. Olsen
Supreme Court of California
36 Cal. 3d 638, 685 P.2d 52 (1984)
When engaged in a criminally culpable act, it is no defense to say that you were unaware of facts which make you guilty to a greater degree of the offense
United States v. Balint
Supreme Court of the United States
258 U.S. 250 (1922)
Lack of knowledge to a fact, when engaged in an act known as likely to be regulated, is no defense to criminal culpability.
United States v. Dotterweich
Supreme Court of the United States
320 U.S. 277 (1943)
When relative hardships point to an inability or near inability for the victims to protect themselves, the onus is on the person who has the opportunity to prevent the hazard to be sure that the hazard doesn't occur.
Morissette v. United States
Supreme Court of the United States
342 U.S. 246 (1952)
Where a crime has common law origins, the common law intent is implied when not specifically written in to legislation
Staples v. United States
Supreme Court of the United States
511 U.S. 60 (1994)
In Public Welfare offenses, it is essential that the defendant could have been expected to know the probability of regulation is he is to be denied a mistake of fact defense
State v. Guminga
Supreme Court of Minnesota
395 N.W.2d 344 (1986)
No one can be convicted of a crime punishable by imprisonment for an act he did not commit, did not have knowledge of, or give express or implied consent to the commission thereof
State v. Baker
Kansas Court of Appeal
571 P.2d 65 (1977)
Use of equipment not an integral part of the machine, and whose use is optional, can make one strictly liable for any offense that is committed as a result of the use of said optional equipment.
People v. Marrero
New York Court of Appeals
69 N.Y.2d 382, 507 N.E.2d 1068 (1987)
Plain reading of a statute, even if it appears on the face to allow conduct, does not exculpate when that personal interpretation turns out to be wrong
Cheek v. United States
Supreme Court of the United States
498 U.S. 192 (1991)
A claimed good faith belief in a mistake of law need not be reasonable to be considered as a mistake of law defense.
United States v. Albertini
United States Court of Appeals, 9th Circuit
830 F.2d 985 (1987)
An action taken under the ruling of the controlling court is legal during a writ to a court of last resort, as long as that court has not granted certiorari
Lambert v. California
Supreme Court of the United States
355 U.S. 225 (1957)
The imposition of a duty where the defendant neither knew they had a duty or could reasonable be expected to know the duty is a violation of the constitutional right to due process.
Commonwealth v. Carroll
Supreme Court of the Pennsylvania
412 Pa. 525, 194 A.2d 911 (1963)
Premeditation can occur concurrently with the act of homicide.
State v. Guthrie
Supreme Court of Appeals of West Virginia
194 W.Va. 657, 461 S.E.2d 163 (1995)
Premeditation must occur sometime prior to the act of homicide. Need to show more than just the intentionality of the killing.
Girouard v. State
Court of Appeals of Maryland
321 Md. 532, 583 A.2d 718 (1991)
Verbal provocation is not sufficient to establish provocation.
Maher v. People
Supreme Court of the Michigan
10 Mich. 212, 81 Am. Dec. 781 (1862)
Provocation need only be that which would induce an ordinary man to act from passion, rather than judgement.
People v. Casassa
New York Court of Appeals
49 N.Y.2d 668, 404 N.E.2d 1310 (1980)
The reasonableness of the explanation or excuse must be looked at from the viewpoint of a reasonable person in the defendant's situation as the defendant believed them to be.
Commonwealth v. Welansky
Massachusetts Supreme Judicial Court
316 Mass. 383, 55 N.E.2d 902 (1944)
What must be intended is the conduct, not the resulting harm.
State v. Williams
Washington Court of Appeals
4 Wash. App. 908, 484 P.2d 1167 (1971)
Ordinary negligence is judged from the standard of a reasonably prudent person in the defendant's shoes.
Must obtain care in such cases where a reasonably prudent person would.
Commonwealth v. Malone
Supreme Court of Pennsylvania
354 Pa. 180, 47 A.2d 445 (1946)
Malice need not be specifically directed at the victim, but can be any evil design in general.
United States v. Fleming
United States Court of Appeals, 4th Circuit
729 F.2d 945 (1984)
Malice may be established by evidence of conduct which is "reckles and wanton and a gross deviation from a reasonable standard of care"
People v. Phillips
Supreme Court of California
64 Cal. 2d 574, 414 P.2d 353 (1966)
Conduct must be that which is inherently dangerous to human life and the actor must engage in that action with conscious disregard for life.
People v. Stewart
Supreme Court of Rhode Island
663 A.2d 912 (1995)
The proper procedure to determine whether a felony is inherently dangerous is to present the facts and circumstances of the particular case to the trier of fact.
People v. Smith
California Supreme Court
35 Cal. 3d 798, 678 P. 2d 886 (1984)
Where a lesser felony is the DIRECT cause of the death, it is merged and cannot be used seperately to induce a felony-murder rule conviction.
State v. Canola
Supreme Court of New Jersey
73 N.J. 206, 374 A.2d 20 (1977)
The felony-murder rule does not apply to the act of one other than the defendant or those associated with him in the unlawful enterprise when a co-felon is the victim
Taylor v. Superior Court
Supreme Court of California
3 Cal. 3d 578, 477 P.2d 131 (1970)
May be convicted of felony-murder if one of the co-felons initiated a killing through actions that brought forth the killing when those actions amount to more than just an implied threat.
People v. Berry
California Court of Appeals
556 P.2d 777 (1976)
Heat of passion may result from a long-smoldering course of provocative conduct by the victim, the passage of time serving to agitate, rather than cool the defendant's agitation.
Commonwealth v. LeClair
Massachussets Court of Appeal
708 N.E.2d 107 (1999)
A passage of time between the provoking event and the killing should serve as cooling time, the adequateness of which should be guages by the trier of fact.
State v. Gounagias
Washington Supreme Court
88 Wash. 304, 153 P.9 (1915)
Passage of time between initial provoking event and killing serve as cooling time.
People v. Anderson
California Court of Appeal
70 Cal.2d 15, 447 P.wd 942 (1968)
Anderson Rule to determine premediation: planning activity, prior relationship to or behavior towards victim, evidence regarding the nature of the killing
People v. Washington
Supreme Court of California
62 Cal. 2d 777, 402 P.2d 130, 133 (1965)
The purpose of the felony-murder rule is to deter felons from killing negligently or accidentally by holding them strictly responsible for killings they commit.

Deck Info