Вы находитесь на странице: 1из 3

State v.

Doub 3
Notes
Following a party for his softball team at a club where he admitted drinking six beers,
Doub admitted that his pickup struck two parked vehicles and ultimately admitted that,
approximately 2 hours after striking the parked cars, he drove his pickup into the rear of a
Cadillac in which 9 year old Jamika Smith was a passenger. According to the State's accident
investigator, the collision occurred as Doub's pickup, "going tremendously faster" drove "up
on top of the Cadillac" initially driving it down into the pavement, and ultimately propelling it
off the street and into a tree. Doub offered no aid to the victims, left the scene of the accident,
and initially denied any involvement in the collision, Smith died as a result of blunt traumatic
injuries caused by the collision.
Approximately 6 months after these events, Doub admitted to a former girlfriend that
he had a confrontation with his second ex-wife the evening of the collision, had been drinking
alcohol and smoking crack, and had subsequently caused the collision. The girlfriend
approached the authorities with Doub's statements, which suggested that Doubt left the
softball party, caused the collisions with the parked vehicles, left the scene, subsequently
consumed the additional alcohol and crack cocaine, and then caused the collision resulting in
Smith's death, and all within a two to three hour period.
Issue
#1. Whether there is sufficient evidence to prove Defendant of second-degree depraved heart
murder beyond a reasonable doubt.
Reasoning
The evidence against Defendant is particularly damning considering that (1) he
admits that his driving was preceded by drinking, (b) he admits that he struck two parked cars
and ignored commands to stop because he was concernd that he had been drinking, (c) he
then consumed additional alcohol and used crack cocaine, (d) he then resumed driving and
caused a fatal collision, due in part to excessive speed, (e) he failed to render aid to the
vicitms, and (f) he feld the scene in order to avoid criminal liability. We conclude that these
facts clearly demonstrate an extreme indifference to human life.
Holding
Doub was charged with second-degree depraved heart (or abandoned and malignant)
murder, which is a special kind of extremely reckless killing that exhibits indifference to the
value of human life.
People v. Pouncey
Notes
The Defendant and his two friends, Mr. White and Mr. Johnson, were at Mr. White's
home. They let Mr. White's house, drove around the corner to the home of Mr. Bland and
accused him of stealing Mr. White's car. When Mr. Bland denied stealing the car, the
defendant and his friends returned to Mr. White's home. As they pulled into the driveway of
Mr. White's home, Mr. Bland, accompanied by his older brother and the victim, Steven
Powers, approached.
Mr. Bland repeatedly denied knowing anything about the theft. At this point, Mr.
White went into his house and did not come back outside until after the shooting. The
defendant, as well as Mr. Johnston, the two Bland brothers, and Mr. Powers remained outside.
As the argument continued, Mr. Powers, threatened to put the defendant "on his head"
and called the defendant names. The decedent walked towards the defendant, but Mr. Bland
held the decedent back. The defendant said, "don't walk up on me." There were no blows
stuck; indeed, there was no physical contact of any kind between the decedent, the defendant
or anyone else. The defendant testified that the decedent was not armed.
After this verbal exchange, the defendant walked into the house. he went to the back
of the house and retrieved a gun from the closet. He then came back outside, approximately

thirty seconds later, carrying a shotgun. As he was coming out, he instructed Mr. Johnston to
hit Mr. Powers with a monkey wrench. Mr. Johnston swung the wrench, but the decedent
ducked out of the way. At that point, the defendant fired one shot, hitting Mr. Powers in the
abdomen. Mr. Johnston ran home, as did the two Bland brothers, who called the police. The
defendant and Mr. White drove off in the defendant's car.
The defendant was charged with first-degree murder and possession of firearm during
the commission of the felony, but later the jury found the defendant guilty of second-degree
murder and felony firearm. The Court of Appeals reversed this decision of the trial court and
remanded for a new trial. The panel believed there was sufficient evidence of provocation and
passion in the record to support an instruction on voluntary manslaughter
Issue
#1. Whether the trial court's refusal to instruct on voluntary manslaughter was error.
#2. Whether there was evidence presented at the defendant's trial, which would support a
conviction of voluntary manslaughter.
Reasoning
Murder and manslaughter are both homicides and share the element of being
intentional killing. However, the element of provocation that characterizes the offense of
manslaughter separates it from murder.
The above definition of voluntary manslaughter encompasses several components
that comprise the test for voluntary manslaughter: first, the defendant must kill in the heat of
passion. Second, the passion must be caused by an adequate provocation. Finally, there cannot
be a lapse of time during which a reasonable person could control his passions. However, a
review of the evidence establishes that none of the three prongs necessary for a finding of
voluntary manslaughter are present. There is no adequate provocation, because it was a word
fight. And, sufficient time passed to constitute a "cooling-off period".
Adequate provocation does not excuse or justify murder, but rather designates one
guilty of manslaughter less culpable than one guilty of murder.
Holding
We reverse the decision of the Court of Appeals.

People v. White
Notes
As he testified, after he found his wife dead in their apartment, he washed her body,
wrapped it in a bedspread and placed it in a closet in their apartment where it remained,
decomposing, for one week, as he went about his daily activities of cleaning and cooking for
his step children. He contends that his posthomicide circumstantial evidence of highly
abnormal activity, considered in the light of the prior tumultuous relationship with the
deceased, is probative of his state of mind at the time of the killing such that the jury could
have inferred that he was acting under the influence of an extreme disturbance.
Issue
#1. Whether there is sufficient proof that the conduct was influenced by an extreme emotional
disturbance at the time the alleged crime was committed.
Reasoning
In order for defendant to be entitled to such an instruction, a court must determine
that sufficient credible evidence has been presented for the jury to find, by a preponderance of
the evidence, that the elements of the affirmative defense has been established.

The affirmative defense has two components: an objective element requiring


sufficient proof that there was a reasonable explanation or excuse for the emotional
disturbance, and a subjective element requiring sufficient proof that the conduct was
influenced by an extreme emotional disturbance at the time the alleged crime was committed.
Holding
The Appellate Division properly concluded, contrary to defendant's contention on this
appeal, that the trial court did not err in refusing to instruct the jury on the affirmative defense
of extreme emotional disturbance.
Case Problem #24
Terry clearly committed first degree murder because it was obviously premeditated.
The coroner's report stated that the shooter was approx. four feet away when firing the shots
at Robbie, and the victim did not have any marks indicating a struggle or any defensive
wounds, which means they did not necessarily get into a fight there and then, but Robbie new
Terry was coming. Terry took the body in the trunk and drove out of town to hide it. Then he
threw the murder weapon away and cleaned up all his fingerprints.
Terry committed second-degree murder because this was all committed in the heat of
passion. Robbie first threatened Terry and told Terry that he would shoot him, if the funds
weren't in. Then Robbie and Terry got into an altercation. When Robbie lunged at Terry, Terry
reached for the gun on a table, turned and shot Robbie who was on the floor. Terry did not
have reasonable time to cool down. Terry did not plan to kill Robbie, but rather just wanted to
run away, when the fight occurred.
Case Problem #25
No, because although the neighbor heard a car "burning rubber" there was no signs
that Tomi applied the breaks. There was no evidence that Tomi was speeding, and he just
simply miscalculated the U-turn. He didn't mean to kill a person, or a child.

Вам также может понравиться