Law Commons^™

Mens Rea, Criminal Responsibility, And The Death Of Freddie Gray, Michael Serota

Michigan Law Review First Impressions

Who (if anyone) is criminally responsible for the death of Freddie Gray, the 25-year-old African-American man who died from injuries suffered while in the custody of Baltimore police? This question has been at the forefront of the extensive coverage of Gray’s death, which has inspired a national discussion about law enforcement’s relationship with black communities. But it is also a question that may never be fairly resolved for reasons wholly unrelated to the topic of community policing, with which Gray’s death has become synonymous. What may ultimately hamper the administration of justice in the prosecution of the police officers involved …

Defending Juveniles Facing Life Without Parole In Michigan, Kimberly A. Thomas

Articles

In Graham v. Florida, the United State Supreme Court held that life without parole could not be imposed on a juvenile offender for a non-homicide crime. This article discusses the challenges, under the Eighth Amendment and the Michigan Constitution, to the sentence of life without parole imposed on someone 17 years old or less.

Adequate (Non)Provocation And Heat Of Passion As Excuse Not Justification, Reid Griffith Fontaine

University of Michigan Journal of Law Reform

For a number of reasons, including the complicated psychological makeup of reactive homicide, the heat of passion defense has remained subject to various points of confusion. One persistent issue of disagreement has been the justificatory versus excusatory nature of the defense. In this Article, I highlight and categorize a series of varied American homicide cases in which the applicability of heat of passion was supported although adequate provocation (or significant provocation by the victim) was absent. The cases are organized to illustrate how common law heat of passion may apply in instances in which there is no actual provocation or …

The Values Of Interdisciplinarity In Homicide Law Reform, Robert Weisberg

University of Michigan Journal of Law Reform

Professor Reid Fontaine's article, Adequate (Non)Provocation and Heat of Passion as Excuse Not Justification, makes a convincing case for treating heat of passion wholly as an excuse not a justification, as the only sensible way to comprehend its various forms. In doing so, Professor Fontaine stimulates further thinking about heat of passion doctrine, along two dimensions.

Unjustified: The Practical Irrelevance Of The Justification/Excuse Distinction, Gabriel J. Chin

University of Michigan Journal of Law Reform

In recent decades, the distinction between justification and excuse defenses has been a favorite topic of theorists of philosophy and criminal law. Notwithstanding the impressive intellectual efforts devoted to the task, no single scholar or viewpoint appears to be on the verge of generating practical consensus about the concepts of justification and excuse, categorization of the defenses, or categorization of difficult individual cases. This Essay suggests that none of these goals can be usefully advanced through the justification/excuse distinction.

Misunderstanding Provocation, Samuel H. Pillsbury

University of Michigan Journal of Law Reform

Provocation is and always has been a compromise rule whose success depends on its ability to appeal to all ideological constituencies, and therefore will always-as long as it lasts-resist the final categorization that this question seeks. As long as provocation involves an inquiry into reasonableness, it will include considerations of justification. As long as it provides for mitigation of punishment based on the difficulty of resisting temptations to violence inspired by strong emotion, it will speak to considerations of excuse.

How Not To Argue That Reasonable Provocation Is Not An Excuse, Peter K. Westen

University of Michigan Journal of Law Reform

Reid Fontaine draws two conclusions regarding the partial defense to murder of reasonable provocation-one regarding its substantive content, the other regarding its formal classification…. I agree with both of Fontaine's two conclusions, and, indeed, I have previously written to that effect. Unfortunately, while I agree with Fontaine's conclusions, I do not think he adequately supports them.

On Passion's Potential To Undermine Rationality: A Reply, Reid Griffith Fontaine

University of Michigan Journal of Law Reform

This Reply is organized into several sections. Following the Introduction, I respond to my six distinguished commentators. In Section II, I consider Professor Chin's concern that the distinction between justification and excuse bears no practical relevance for the criminal law. In Section III, I respond to Professor Baron's argument that reasonable mistake of fact is consistent with justification-a view, she observes, that is generally reflected in the criminal law. Building on the discussion of whether mistake and justification are compatible, Section IV addresses Professor Pillsbury's treatment of heat of passion as a hybrid defense that uniquely incorporates components of both …

The Provocation Defense And The Nature Of Justification, Marcia Baron

University of Michigan Journal of Law Reform

In this Essay, I evaluate the evidence of "adequate nonprovocation” that Fontaine puts forward to show that the heat of passion defense is decidedly an excuse (more precisely, a partial excuse). I will be focusing my remarks on the traditional heat of passion defense.

The Irreducibly Normative Nature Of Provocation/Passion, Stephen J. Morse

University of Michigan Journal of Law Reform

I agree with Professor Fontaine that provocation/passion is best interpreted as a partial excuse, but the ground for my conclusion is normative and not analytic. Indeed, I fear that he has not made the analytic case in large part because he begs a question about failed justifications that has only a normative and not an analytic answer. This Essay first briefly provides my own understanding of provocation/ passion. In the course of doing so, I address Professor Fontaine's argument that provocation/passion should also be applied to people with provocation interpretational bias. I then turn to why Fontaine's case for …

Defending Women, Susan Estrich

Michigan Law Review

A Review of Justifiable Homicide: Battered Women, Self-Defense and The Law by Cynthia Gillespie

The Jury And The English Law Of Homicide, 1200-1600, Thomas A. Green

Articles

The early English jury was self-informing and composed of persons supposed to have first-hand knowledge of the events and persons in question. The judge instructed the jury on the law, but was himself almost entirely dependent upon the jury for his knowledge of the case. By stating the evidence in a way that made the result it wanted a necessary conclusion, the medieval jury was able to alter the impact of formal rules of law to conform with prevailing social attitudes.

Review Of The King's Pardon For Homicide To A.D. 1307, Thomas A. Green

Reviews

NAOMI D. Hurnard's The King's Pardon for Homicide before AD 1307 is significant and instructive for both legal and social historians. The author has painstakingly pieced together the available evidence from a variety of classes of mediaeval English public records to achieve a clear statement of the law of excusable homicide, i.e., non-felonious but requiring a royal pardon. She has lucidly presented the procedure which marks out the legal life story of persons deserving pardon, from the pardonable slaying to the formal proclamation of the king's peace. But she has also accomplished much more. Through careful and generally sound use …

Societal Concepts Of Criminal Liability For Homicide In Medieval England, Thomas A. Green

Articles

THE early history of English criminal law lies hidden behind the laconic formulas of the rolls and law books. The rules of the law, as expounded by the judges, have been the subject of many studies; but their practical application in the courts, where the jury of the community was the final and unbridled arbiter, remains a mystery: in short, we know little of the social mores regarding crime and crimi- nals. This study represents an attempt to delineate one major aspect of these societal attitudes. Its thesis is that from late Anglo-Saxon times to the end of the middle …

Homicide And Succession To Property, William M. Mcgovern Jr.

Michigan Law Review

Today, most jurisdictions bar a killer from succeeding to his victim's property. The traditional rationale for that result is that a criminal should not be allowed to enrich himself by his crime. Assuming that this principle is sound, its application in individual cases often proves troublesome. What would happen, for example, if the crime were of a lesser degree than murder, and the killer had no intent to enrich himself? If the killer is barred, who should take what would have been his share under a will? Or, if the decedent and murderer held property jointly, should the killer forfeit …

Criminal Law - Felony - Murder-Guilt Of Robber For The Justifiable Killing Of His Accomplice By A Policeman, Nick E. Yocca S.Ed.

Michigan Law Review

The defendant was convicted of murder in the first degree for the death of his co-felon resulting from a wound inflicted by a policeman while the felons were fleeing the scene of a robbery. On appeal to the Supreme Court of Pennsylvania, held, reversed, one judge dissenting. For conviction in felony-murder, the killing must be done by the defendant or by one acting in furtherance of the felonious undertaking. One cannot be convicted for the consequences of lawful conduct of another person. Commonwealth v. Redline, 391 Pa. 486, 137 A. (2d) 472 (1958).

Criminal Law - Felony -Murder Rule - Application To The Justifiable Killing Of An Accomplice By The Intended Victim, Frank M. Lacey

Michigan Law Review

The defendant and an armed accomplice held up a grocery store, took money at gun point from the proprietor and fled in opposite directions. The proprietor pursued the accomplice and killed him in the gun battle that ensued. Defendant escaped, but later was apprehended and indicted on a charge of first degree murder. On appeal from a judgment sustaining defendant's demurrer to the evidence, held, reversed and new trial ordered, three judges dissenting. The defendant may be convicted of first degree murder under the Pennsylvania statute which provides that "all murder ... which shall be committed in the perpetration …

Criminal Law-Manslaughter-Effect Of Violation Of Statute Or Ordinance On Criminal Negligence, C. E. Becraft

Michigan Law Review

Defendant was convicted of the crime of negligent homicide and appealed, alleging that the Louisiana statute, making violation of a statute or ordinance presumptive evidence of criminal negligence, was repugnant to the due process clauses of the state and federal constitutions. Held, affirmed. The effect of the statute is merely to shift the burden of introducing evidence of one element of the crime charged: that of criminal negligence. The presumption does not operate as a prima facie presumption of guilt of the crime -and the state must still prove every element of the offense. State v. Nix, (La. …

Criminal Law And Procedure-Jury Trial- Directed Verdict Of Guilty- Michigan Rule, Michigan Law Review

Michigan Law Review

The defendant was convicted of negligent homicide as the result of a collision between his car and another, in which an occupant of the other car was killed. The trial court charged the jury, inter alia, "The court submits the case to you for your determination. The view of the court is that under the law there is only one verdict that can be found by the jury under the evidence in this case in its most favorable light." This was objected to by the defendant as error. Held, the instruction was in effect a direction of a verdict …

Cases On Criminal Law, Jerome C. Knowlton, John W. Dwyer

Books

This book of cases is prepared with the idea of assisting the student in his study of the substantive law of crimes. It is thought, however that the topical arrangement made, with an illustrative case under each topic may occasionally give the practitioner a leader over some troublesome path of investigation.

Coyle V. The Commonwealth, Henry W. Rogers

Articles

"Homicidal mania must be proved, not assumed, nor confounded with reckless frenzy; To instruct, however, that it must be proved by 'clearly preponderating evidence' is error. All the authorities require is that the evidence proving it should 'fairly' preponderate.

"An attempt at suicide is not of itself evidence of insanity, and raises no legal presumption thereof....

"It was clearly proved that Coyle killed Emily Myers. That fact is admitted. The only defence set up is that he was insane at the time."