Rape is a felony in the 3rd degree if: (a) he compels her to submit by any threat that would prevent resistance by a women of ordinary resolution (b) he knows she suffers from a mental disease or defect which renders her incapable of appraising the nature of her conduct b. Rape Mens Rea Most common standard = negligence Mistake of Fact: can make defense of honest and reasonable mistake. Negligence standard: if reasonably believed that there was consent, can put that to a jury. Force has been redefined over the years—most states have “at least negligence” standard—allows defense of reasonable and honest mistake to be raised Most common form of resistance is verbal Differences in Statutes: Only 15 states have eliminated the marital exemption for rape, some states treat marital rape as a less serious crime and some extend the exemption to couples living together. Rape shield laws are information shields for victims—balancing process. History of victim generally not allowed in; However, past relationship with defendant is allowed in History of defendant generally: if there’s a signature element/pattern—can usually bring it in. But just to show propensity (he’s been charged or even convicted before), most jurisdictions wouldn’t let it in, b/c want jury to only focus on this specific incident. But if accused testifies, then can bring it in. Policy: Consider rights of victims/complainant v. rights of accused Issues of victim’s mental state/actions—difficult or impossible to totally remove victim from determination Changes to conception of rape law and proof standards (elimination of corroboration, resistance requirement) 8. SEE CHEAT SHEET Evidence Showing Possible of Homicide If evidence shows… Intentional Killing 1 murder Premeditation and deliberation (remember also felony murder)
2 murder upheld Intent to do serious bodily harm (extreme recklessness) proxy for intent to do fatal injury (intent to kill)—lowest standard of implied malice Here, fists treated as ‘deadly weapons’ People v. Watson (CA 1981) Drunk driver who got into one accident and then killed someone, convicted of 2 murder. CA amended their statute to permit 2 murder charge when circumstances show an implied malice. Court upheld 2 murder Evidence confirmed implied malice (disregard for risk of his actions had) C. 1. First Degree Different than 2, 1 must reveal some evidence of planning, reflection, deliberation State must prove a heightened mental state—not only formed intent to kill, but engaged in premeditation and deliberation Planning and Deliberation (P&D): bringing weapon, method of killing (actual act goes to deliberation), planning, time lapse, motive, hostility before the act P&D can be formed within seconds—only need some appreciable time. (This can collapse the difference between 1 and 2 - and the MPC distinguish between the two). For 1° murder, must show: premeditation plus deliberation plus express malice resulting in deaths Some jurisdictions have proxies that take the place of premeditation and deliberation—poison, explosives, torture, or lying in wait United States v. Watson (DC 1985) sited by police for stolen car, runs into apt., waits in kitchen; followed by PO shortly, fight between PO and ; gets gun, shoots cop. Court upholds 1 murder conviction, finding there was sufficient premeditation decided to kill, had time before cop arrived, when reached for gun, and when cop pled for his life—not done in moment of passion Some appreciable time must elapse (to form intent to kill) Had a motive (escape) Austin v. United States (DC 1967) Development of “hot-blooded” v. “cold-blooded” Healy (Mercy Killing) old woman killing dying husband Court dropped to manslaughter for sympathy reasons, even though it is classic 1
Justifications and Excuses Standard Used Most Other Standard: Deadly to Protect Self (La Voie, Leidholm, Goetz) Subjective Reasonableness- must show: Sincere belief she had to use force? Was the belief reasonable given her circumstances and characteristics? (e.g. gender and psychology) Objective Reasonableness- must show: Did she believe she was in danger of imminent harm? Was this belief reasonable? Deadly Force by Law Enforcement ( v. ) Was there a probable cause to think that there was a harm to officer or others? Used to prevent crimes like kidnapping, murder, or rape Non deadly force: Must be reasonable and necessary for the reason it was used Deadly to Protect Another Was the person they were defending in danger of imminent harm? Was the force necessary/reasonable to protect the other person? Deadly Force to Protect Property (People v. Ceballos) Is the property for your habitation? Non deadly force: During a trespass to an area like a garage/fence where there is an imminent danger of harm Necessity (Queen v. Dudley & Stephens) Is the conduct justified? Was there something socially desirable about it? If not, is it nonetheless excusable? Did he honestly believe harm was necessary to avoid worse harm? Did the def create the necessitous situation? Duress MPC: 1. Coerced by threat of force against person or person of another that a person of reasonable firmness would be unable to resist 2. Not available if person put his/her self in that situation or was negligent 3. Not a defense for a wife to act on husbands command.