Courses

Brief Fact Summary. A jury imposed the death sentence on Gregg (Defendant), after finding him guilty on charges of armed robbery and murder.

Synopsis of Rule of Law. Capital punishment does not violate the Eighth or Fourteenth amendments of the United States Constitution provided it is set forth in a carefully drafted statute that ensures the sentencing authority has adequate information and guidance in reaching its decision.
Continue reading “Gregg v. Georgia”

Brief Fact Summary. McCleskey (Defendant) was sentenced to death for his role in an armed robbery, which resulted in the murder of a police officer. He challenged his sentence on the ground that it was imposed because he was black. Defendant provided statistical evidence that blacks disproportionately received death sentences when the murder victim was white.

Synopsis of Rule of Law. Statistical evidence showing that one racial group receives a disproportionate amount of death sentences, as opposed to other groups, is not sufficient to challenge a state death penalty statute under the Equal Protection Clause of the Fourteenth Amendment. A defendant must prove the presence of racial discrimination in his own case. Discretion allows a jury to be influenced by racial prejudice, but it does not violate the Eighth Amendment since juror discretion frequently works to the defendant’s benefit.
Continue reading “McCleskey v. Kemp”

Brief Fact Summary. The defendant, along with three confederates, was in the process of robbing a store when a victim of the robbery, attempting to resist, fatally shot one of the defendant’s co-felons. The defendant was convicted of murder under a felony-murder theory.

Synopsis of Rule of Law. The Supreme Court of New Jersey holds that the doctrine of felony-murder does not extend to situations where someone is killed as a result of the commission of the felony, but not by an act directly attributed to the felon.
Continue reading “State v. Canola”

Brief Fact Summary. Petitioner Taylor was charged with the murder of his co-felon who was shot by the victim in the course of an attempted robbery

Synopsis of Rule of Law. An accomplice to a robbery is vicariously liable for any killing attributable to the intentional acts of his co-felons that are committed with a conscious disregard for life.
Continue reading “Taylor v. Superior Court”

Brief Fact Summary. The defendant is a mother of an infant who went on a crack binge and failed to care for her infant child who, as a result, died. Defendant was found guilty of second degree felony-murder and moves for an acquittal based on the argument that permitting a child to be a habitual sufferer is not an inherently dangerous felony.

Synopsis of Rule of Law. The Supreme Court of Rhode Island holds that, for the purpose of determining whether a felony is inherently dangerous and therefore subject to the felony-murder rule, the fact finder should look at the facts of the particular case based on should determine whether the felony was inherently dangerous in the manner and circumstances it was committed.
Continue reading “People v. Stewart”

Brief Fact Summary. Defendant Smith beat her child who, as a result, went into respiratory arrest and died. Defendant was convicted of second degree murder, felony child abuse and child beating and appeals the felony-murder jury instruction given.

Synopsis of Rule of Law. The merger doctrine bars the felony-murder rule in cases where the underlying felony is an integral part of the homicide, such as is the case with felony child abuse.
Continue reading “People v. Smith”

Brief Fact Summary. Defendant Fleming was charged and convicted of second-degree murder for killing someone while driving under the influence of alcohol. Defendant, on appeal, maintains that the facts are inadequate to establish the malice element of murder and that he therefore should only have been charged with manslaughter.

Synopsis of Rule of Law. Malice can be established by evidence that Defendant acted recklessly; it does not require proof that the defendant acted with ill will.
Continue reading “United States v. Fleming”

View this case and other resources at:

Brief Fact Summary. Co-defendants Leon Serne and John Henry Goldfinch were indicted for the murder of Serne’s sons, caused by a fire allegedly set by the willful acts of the co-defendants.

Synopsis of Rule of Law. Any act that is known to be dangerous and likely to cause death, if done for the purpose of committing a felony which causes death, amounts to murder.
Continue reading “Regina v. Serne”

Brief Fact Summary. The defendant is a chiropractor who was convicted of second degree felony-murder in connection with the death of one of his patients. The underlying felony was grand theft and the defendant appeals the felony-murder charge.

Synopsis of Rule of Law. The strict liability of the felony-murder rule is limited to those felonies that are inherently dangerous.
Continue reading “People v. Phillips”

Brief Fact Summary. Defendants Walter and Bernice Williams were found guilty of manslaughter for negligently failing to supply their infant child with necessary medical attention, as a result of which the child died. The basis of the conviction was ordinary negligence.

Synopsis of Rule of Law. Under the penal code of Washington, ordinary negligence is sufficient to support a manslaughter conviction.
Continue reading “State v. Williams”

Brief Fact Summary. Defendant Malone was convicted of murder for killing his friend while playing Russian roulette. Defendant argued that he did not intend to harm the victim and therefore the facts do not justify a conviction of murder.

Synopsis of Rule of Law. Malice, the state of mind required for murder, is evidenced where an individual performs an uncalled for act in disregard of its likely harmful effects on another even where the harmful result is not intended.
Continue reading “Commonwealth v. Malone”

Brief Fact Summary. The defendant, Victor Casassa, brutally murdered his victim after she rejected him and was charged with second-degree murder. The sole issue presented at trial was whether the defendant had acted under the influence of extreme emotional disturbance, thereby warranting a reduction of the charge from second degree murder to manslaughter.

Synopsis of Rule of Law. The reasonableness of extreme emotional disturbance must be determined from the point of view of a reasonable person in the defendant’s situation under the circumstances as the defendant believed them to be.
Continue reading “People v. Casassa”

Brief Fact Summary. Defendant Barnett Welansky owned and operated a nightclub in which a fire ensued and a number of people died. Defendant was charged and convicted with involuntary manslaughter based on overcrowding, installation of flammable decorations, absence of fire doors and failure to maintain proper methods to exit the building. The defendant appeals, arguing that he should not be held criminally liable under the circumstances.

Synopsis of Rule of Law. Where there is a duty of care for the safety of invitees onto the premises of a business, there is a duty of care for the safety those visitors by the person who maintains the premises. Intentional failure to take such care in disregard of the probable harmful consequences of that failure constitutes wanton or reckless conduct.
Continue reading “Commonwealth v. Welansky”

Brief Fact Summary. Defendant Guthrie was convicted of first-degree murder for stabbing his colleague upon becoming agitated by the colleague’s teasing. Defendant appeals the jury instruction on the ground that the term premeditated was equated with a mere intent to kill.

Synopsis of Rule of Law. In order to establish premeditation and deliberation under the first-degree murder statute, there must be some evidence that Defendant considered and weighed his decision to kill.
Continue reading “State v. Guthrie”

Brief Fact Summary. Defendant was convicted of second-degree murder for having ended a verbal domestic fight with his wife by stabbing her nineteen times. Defendant appeals, arguing that he was adequately provoked by his Wife’s words such that the provocation should mitigate the conviction to manslaughter.

Synopsis of Rule of Law. Words alone are not adequate provocation to reduce a second- degree murder charge to voluntary manslaughter.
Continue reading “Girouard v. State”

Brief Fact Summary. Defendant Maher was charged for assault with the intent to murder after entering a saloon and shooting Patrick Hunt, who he claimed had allegedly had an adulterous intercourse with the defendant’s wife less than an hour before the incident. Evidence offered by Defendant that his wife had had intercourse with the victim was held inadmissible and Defendant appeals.

Synopsis of Rule of Law. In determining whether the provocation is sufficient or reasonable, an objective standard should be used unless the person whose guilt is in question is shown to have some peculiar weakness of the mind that arises from something other than wickedness or cruelty.
Continue reading “Maher v. People”

Brief Fact Summary. Defendant Carroll was found guilty of first degree murder and sentenced to life imprisonment for shooting and killing his wife after the two had violent argument. Defendant appealed, arguing that he was could not be found guilty of more than second-degree murder because the killing was not premeditated.

Synopsis of Rule of Law. While premeditation is an element of first-degree murder, where a killing is willful, deliberate and intentional, no time is too short for the necessary premeditation to occur.
Continue reading “Commonwealth v. Carroll”