Home | UW School of Law



NAME: Genevieve Norwood

LESSON: Criminal law Trivia Olympics and Valentine’s Day Lesson (recommended: do before or around Valentine’s Day)

TIME & DAY TAUGHT: 120 minutes, Feb. 15, 2011

(This lesson plan takes much longer, especially if it includes Dane McCartney’s lesson as described below. For American Indian Heritage, it took up about 200 minutes of teaching, with the initial thought being it is better to include back-up activities in case any of them did not work well with our students.)

SOURCES:

• Original - Intro to criminal law trivia matching game (news stories sources: and )

• Original - Elements of a Crime (Actus Reus & Mens Rea) – adapted from Criminal Law – Gilbert’s.

• Original – Crime of passion exercise on provocation defense (plus info from website on domestic abuse). Content was adapted from Criminal Law - Gilberts.

• Not included, but please note that after the break, as mentioned below, we used Dane McCartney’s lesson plan. Handout #2 from David Crump, Criminal Law: Cases, Statutes, And Lawyering Strategies, Lexis Nexis 2005 pg. 117-18, which taught the students the differences between the WA murder statutes. I highly recommend incorporating this into the lesson.

MATERIALS NEEDED:

• candy bars as rewards for Olympic winners

• folders with “do now” to return last week’s submissions with comments on them

• handouts

• spreadsheet chart on murder

• 3 lesson plans printed out

• candy hearts as reward for trivia round

• blank hearts for students

• additional folders for new students

I. Goals: By the end of this class, students should be able to differentiate similar crimes and apply defenses. If doing Dane McCartney’s exercise as well, they should also have a foundation for reading criminal statutes.

II. Objectives

a. Knowledge objectives: as a result of this class students will be better able to:

i. define “Actus Reus” and “Mens Rea”

ii. understand the different gradations of Mens Rea

iii. understand the differences between Washington’s homicide statutes (if also using Dane McCartney’s lesson plan) and how defenses work to reduce charges

b. Skills objectives: as a result of this class students will be better able to:

i. read a statute carefully and apply it to fact patterns (if also using Dane McCartney’s lesson plan)

ii. present and defend their interpretations of the law

iii. courtroom etiquette: not talk out of turn and silence phones

c. Attitude objectives:

i. Students should understand that the severity of criminal punishments can vary greatly depending on the defendant’s mental state in a manner that is largely consistent with the general societal belief that intentionally wrongful acts are worse than unintentional, but still wrongful acts.

III. Methods

1) Greet each student at the door and hand him/her a folder with feedback from the last class in it. Let them know their Do Now exercise (Handout #1) is inside.

a. Note: we intentionally have additional activities planned for this class in case any don’t work out well. This way we have a back-up plan.

2) Do Now - (10 minutes) Give them 10 minutes for their Do Now exercise.

Briefly discuss: Ask them about the purpose of punishment in criminal law (trying to pull out retribution, deterrence, etc) and remind them that the severity of criminal punishments can vary greatly depending on the defendant’s mental state in a manner that is largely consistent with the general societal belief that intentionally wrongful acts are worse than unintentional, but still wrongful acts. Then have them place it in their folders to turn in at the end of class.

3) Event # 1 of Criminal Law Olympics - Intro to criminal law with news stories– (20 -30 minutes) First write the possible answers on the board (as listed below) and go over the definitions of the less commonly used words. Break the class into teams for the day by having the students count off and let them know these are the criminal law Olympics consisting of two rounds. Announce what the prize will be! Alternatives: you could also expand this exercise to cover the difference between felonies and misdemeanors.

a. Here are the correct answers. Write on the board: “Possible crimes” and then list the underlined words below in a DIFFERENT order – these will be the possible answers for the students to choose from when matching the news article to the crime. This exercise’s purpose is to get their interest and attention.

i. News story 1: possession of drugs

ii. News story 2: driving under the influence

iii. News story 3: fraud: any act, expression, omission, or concealment calculated to deceive another to his or her disadvantage

iv. News story 4: theft: a criminal taking of the property or services of another without consent. Theft commonly encompasses by statute a variety of forms of stealing formerly treated as distinct crimes.

v. News story 5: grand theft: theft of property or services whose value exceeds a specified amount or of a specified kind of property (such as an automobile).

vi. News story 6: aggravated battery.

Mention how there are different degrees of crimes that correspond with different punishments, depending upon how culpable, or mean and harmful the crime was. If this was murder, there would have been a way more serious charge.

vii. News story 7: embezzling: Embezzlement is defined in most states as theft/larceny of assets (money or property) by a person in a position of trust or responsibility over those assets. Embezzlement typically occurs in the employment and corporate settings.

viii. News story 8: arson: the act or crime of willfully, wrongfully, and unjustifiably setting property on fire

b. Distribute Handout #2.

Explain: “These are real news stories that have been edited. They are somewhat ridiculous, so hopefully they will be entertaining and useful in learning about a few of the different types of crimes we’ll be encountering. Look at the possible crimes on the board. Each group will take a turn reading each news story out loud or silently (we gave our class the choice, and they preferred to read to themselves). Then each group will have one minute - we will time you – to discuss your answer with your group and the group recorder will write down which crime you think the person has committed (the possible answers are listed on the board). Also nominate a group reporter. We will then ask each team for an answer and will keep a tally on the board. Move onto the next question only when you are told to do so. We’ll announce scores at end of game and they are cumulative for the day, so they will carry over to the next round and anyone can win.”

4) Event # 2 of Criminal Law Olympics: Learning the elements of crimes. (45 minutes)

Remain in your groups/teams.

a. Distribute Handout #3 (Elements of a Crime) –

i. Handout #3 Walk through the Elements of a Crime handout. Write “Elements of a Crime”: “actus reus”, “mens rea”, “causation”, and “concurrence of mens rea and actus reus” on the board, and then exaplain each one to give them a quick overview, since that is how each round is broken up and those are the elements of a crime. Be careful to explain that: “Not all of the elements are always present in statutes. For example, attempted murder doesn’t have a harm element and parking violations don’t have a mens rea element, e.g. one can receive a parking citation for parking in a handicapped spot even if it was unintentional or an accident. Furthermore, the elements aren’t perfectly discrete and there is some overlap.”

b. Distribute Handout #4 - Explain the subject matter of each round and reference the terms already on the board: mens rea, actus reus, concurrence of mens rea and actus reus, and causation. “Remain in your groups, but choose a different recorder and a different reporter than the last round. Do the questions for each round and write down your answers, working together as a group. After each round, stop and we’ll go through each group’s answer out loud, asking the recorder why they chose that particular answer, and we’ll note on the board what each team put down. Then we’ll read you the rule and go around to see if any of you want to change your answer. At the end of each round, we’ll read out the correct answers before moving onto the next round. Points: one for getting it right each time, so two if you get it right before and after the rule is read. These points are cumulative from the last round.

c. Teacher’s Handout: See teachers’ version of handout #4 for rules and answers.

5) Announce winners of Criminal Law Olympics – they get extra candy. Distribute candy to all students.

6) Break – 15 minutes

Please note that at this point, we used Dane McCartney’s lesson plan. Handout #2 from David Crump, Criminal Law: Cases, Statutes, And Lawyering Strategies, Lexis Nexis 2005 pg. 117-18, which taught the students the differences between the WA murder statutes. I highly recommend incorporating this into the lesson.

7) Do Now – when students return, have them take 5-10 minutes to complete the Do now that is on their desk, handout # 5. Explain that in honor of Valentine’s Day, the second half of class will have that as a theme. Discuss briefly for about 5 minutes.

8) Crimes of Passion Exercise – Defense of Provocation

a. Distribute handout #6. Also reference the excel spreadsheet with the different degrees of murder on it. Note, for handout #6, there is also a teacher’s version with the answers on it. Have them read the first section and then stop. Explain the instructions of the activity:

i. Speed dating instructions:

Have each student write his/her name on the heart in front of him/her. The teacher will then collect the hearts and put them in a jar. The students will count off by 1’s and 2’s. The 1’s remain seated. All of the 2’s stand up and move to the next open seat to their left. Sit down. You will do the first example with this partner. The teachers will then pull one of the hearts out of a jar, read that student’s name, and that student will state the answer he/she and his/her partner came up with. The 2’s will then stand up and move to the next available seat to their left, sit down, and do the next example.

b. Alternatively: If it is difficult for the students to move around your classroom, maybe have them switch partners every round instead of after each question, and then review the answers after each round in the same fashion as described above.

9) Domestic Violence Resources

After going through the exercises on handout #6, let the students know that the domestic violence resources that are available to them and anyone they know in need of help can refer to the services listed at the end of handout #6. Walk them through these if time permits.

Hand out #1 DO NOW start of class exercise

Class: Social Studies – Street Law

Date: Tuesday, February 8, 2011

Name:__________________________________________________ __

Please answer this question. You will turn this in.

Intentionally taking the life of another is considered a crime. Do you think the government should ever be able to take the life of another? Or do you think because murder is illegal, the government should be held to the same standard as the rest of society and that the death penalty should no longer exist?

Assuming the death penalty exists, put a star next to the two crimes you would sentence the underlined person to receive the death penalty for committing. If you do not believe the death penalty should exist, you can write what their punishment, if any, should be.

• A son murders his father. The son is 23 years old. Should the son get the death penalty?

• A daughter murders her father because he frequently beats her and was about to again. The daughter is sixteen years old. Should the daughter get the death penalty?

• A man robs a store, and the shop owner later goes to the man’s house and shoots him at night to get revenge. Should the shop owner get the death penalty?

• A man drives drunk, runs into a car, and kills three people while injuring another. The surviving person is a seventeen year old student who lost both of his legs in the car accident. He will no longer receive a basketball scholarship for college, and his girlfriend broke up with him. Should the drunk driver get the death penalty?

Handout #2

Criminal Law - News Story Matching Game

Instructions: Look at the possible crimes on the board. Nominate a group recorder. Each group will read each news story. Then you will have one minute - we will time you – to discuss your answer with your group. Have your group reporter write down which crime you think the person has committed (the possible answers are listed on the board). We will then ask each team for an answer and will keep a tally on the board. Only when you are told to move onto the next question should you do so. These are real news stories that have been edited.

News story 1:

911: 'Active crime in progress?' Caller: 'Possibly'

The problem started when Robert Michelson called 911 at 8 p.m. on Thursday and asked how much trouble he could get into by growing one marijuana plant, police said.

The dispatcher said he could get arrested.

Michelson replied “thank you” and hung up, police said.

But, he’d made the call from his own home — 192 Waterville Road in Farmington — so it did not take long for police to find him and discover for themselves that the 21-year-old man was growing marijuana, police said.

Michelson admitted to spending a lot of money online to buy everything he needed to grow marijuana, including the seeds, police said.

Narcotics officers found a small amount of marijuana and drug paraphernalia designed for growing and smoking marijuana.

Michelson was released on $5,000 bond. As he left the police station, he gave the dispatchers two middle fingers.

“Presumably for doing such a good job,” police said.

What was the crime committed in this news story?

News story 2:

Salem man to 9-1-1: someone stole my "weed" and gets a D

A 21-year-old man who called 9-1-1 to report that his marijuana stash had been stolen was arrested earlier this week in Salem, the Marion County Sheriff's Office announced.

Emergency dispatchers received a call from Calvin Hoover of Salem about 12:52 a.m. Tuesday.

Hoover was angry, he told the 9-1-1 operator, because someone had broken into his truck -- parked at the Free Loader Tavern in Salem -- and stolen his Carhartt jacket, $400 in cash and less than an ounce of marijuana,.

Sheriff's deputies responded to the tavern and to Hoover's home, but he could not be found.

About an hour later, Hoover called 9-1-1 again. This time he was driving, upset that authorities were not working harder to recover his stuff. The dispatcher had trouble understanding Hoover, who stopped several times to throw up.

Hoover was arrested on accusations of driving and took him to the Marion County Jail.

Deputies took a theft report, then warned Hoover, who does not have a medical marijuana card, that reporting the pot theft might not have been such a smart idea. If he had been caught with the pot, they said, he could have been charged with possession of a controlled substance.

What was the crime committed in this news story?

News story 3:

In Charlottesville, VA, 2009, after a man lost his wallet, someone used his credit cards to make just less than $400 in purchases from a gas station and the Kroger grocery store. Using surveillance videos, they figured out who it was. This woman committed credit and got snagged because she used her grocery discount card at the same time.

What was the crime committed in this news story?

News story 4:

Suspect's phone found charging at a home where stuff is now missing

Police in Maryland arrested a man, Wilkins, after finding his cell phone charging at the scene of a burglary.

It began when a homeowner's son arrived as a man was going through rooms in the home Friday. Startled, the man jumped out a window and fled.

The son called police, who searched the home and found a cell phone charging in an electric socket. The phone led police to Wilkins.

Police say Wilkins' home was among those in the area that lost power last week when a snowstorm moved through, so his phone would have been dead and likely needed to have been charged. He's been linked to other break-ins.

What was the crime committed in this news story?

News story 5:

Man drives another car that he stole from someone to his trial for theft.

Monday, October 27th, 2008

If you’re being tried for auto theft, the last thing you should do is give prosecutors the evidence they need to convict you and even though driving another stolen car to court isn’t inadmissible, it doesn’t help.

He was already charged with stealing a $125,000 Porsche, so when he showed up to court in a fancy, expensive Lexus, police were naturally suspicious.

I guess he figured a Lexus was a less conspicuous way of arriving at the courthouse.

What was the crime committed in this news story?

News story 6:

Walgreens employees – use kitchen knife to stab during argument over who gets to use the microwave

Sunday, October 16th, 2005

A Walgreens employee allegedly stabbed a co-worker in an argument over who could microwave her soup first, authorities said.

Both women wanted to use the microwave in the employee break room Wednesday afternoon, according to the Broward County Sheriff’s Office.

While they were fighting over who could use the microwave first, Mellesia Grant grabbed a large kitchen knife off the counter and stabbed Merloze Tilme in the abdomen, the sheriff’s office said.

Grant was arrested for aggravated battery with a deadly weapon and held on a $50,000 bond.

What was the crime committed in this news story?

News story 7:

Fry's VP was busted after leaving spreadsheets outlining his scheme on his desk. Fry's is one of the larger retail sellers of electronics and computer hardware.

Fry's VP has allegedly embezzled over $65 million from the retailer to fund a lavish lifestyle that included massive gambling and a penchant for driving a Ferrari. The VP is accused by the IRS of cutting deals with some of Fry's largest suppliers to buy larger orders of goods from them in return for free stuff and money and higher than normal commissions.

The VP’s gambling habits were so massive that the casino would charter private jets to fly him to Las Vegas to gamble. The man was arrested at Fry's headquarters and a judge ordered him held on a $300,000 bond.

The elaborate and lucrative scheme toppled when the VP left spreadsheets on his desk outlining the payments and alleged kickbacks. The spreadsheets were discovered by another Fry's executive while the VP was away from the office.

What was the crime committed in this news story?

News story 8:

Portland police: Taunting texter burns woman's things

August 8, 2009

PORTLAND —A man angry at his girlfriend taunted her by text message as he burned her belongings, Portland police said. Fire investigators said they found three piles of belongings that had been set ablaze on the coffee table, kitchen table and in the bedroom.

"He he fire," one message reads. "Smoky in here."

It continues: "Really shouldn't leave someone who hates YOU alone with stuff. … Don't worry it's just stuff. … It's wet, burned and ripped, but it's just stuff. … Yeah, fire trucks and police."

In the calls, he said:

"Hope nothing important is in your bag cause your table is on fire. It's pretty."

"The Bible you've been using? It's a little singed."

What was the crime committed in this news story?

Handout #3: Elements of a Crime

1. Mens Rea. Mens Rea is often characterized as the mental requirement in a criminal law. Modern statutes often use four categories of mens rea: intentionally (or purposefully or willfully), knowingly, recklessly, and with criminal negligence.

2. Actus Reus. Actus reus is often characterized as the physical part of a crime. In most cases, it describes what the offender must do. A murder statute will require the offender to “kill,” an arson law will punish people who “set fire to” a structure, and theft may require someone to “take” something

a. Voluntary Act: The defendant’s act must be voluntary.

b. Circumstances: Many crimes occur only in a specifically described situation. For example, bribery of a juror requires that the person bribed have been a juror (not another official).

c. Harm or result: Many criminal laws require a specific harm to have occurred before the statute applies. In murder, there must be a person killed, and in arson, there must be a burned structure.

d. Causation: Often a statute requiring harm (such as death or an explosion) also requires that the defendant cause that harm. Causation links the defendant’s conduct to the result.

i. “But for,” “Cause in Fact,” or “Actual” causation is the simplest form of causation. It simply provides that a particular result (such as death) would not have occurred without the defendant’s action.

ii. Proximate causation is narrower than “but for” causation. Proximate causation is limited to the foreseeable consequences of the defendant’s actions.

Handout #4 (Teachers version)

You be the judge!

Remain in your groups and choose a new reporter and recorder if possible. Do the questions for each round and write down your answers, working together as a group. Then stop at the end of that round and we’ll go through each group’s answer out loud, asking why they chose that particular answer, and noting on the board what each team put down. Then we’ll read the rule and see if any groups want to change their answers. At the end of each round, we’ll read out the correct answers before moving onto the next round. Points: one for getting it right each time, so two points if you get it right before and after the rule is read.

ROUND 1 – Learning element # 1 of every crime: Actus Reus = a Voluntary Act

It must be a Voluntary act (actus reus), so if you knowingly put yourself in a position where you will do something wrong beyond your control, you might be held liable.

Explanation of why “voluntary act” is a necessary element: If no act was necessary, then people would be punished for mere intent to commit crimes. Not every thought you do becomes an action. Imagine a world where there are thought police and you are punished for every bad thought you have. Then for each bad thought you have, you might as well commit the bad action if you are going to be punished anyway, which increase crime. Our society’s laws are hoping to decrease and deter criminal activity.

Scenario 1: A man was arguing with a police officer and was shot in the stomach. Though he lost consciousness, he continued struggling with the officer while unconscious, causing the policeman’s gun to discharge. The police officer’s gun shot the police officer and he died right away. (adapted from a real case, People v. Newton)

Questions: Would the unconscious man’s actions be considered voluntary (action under his control) or involuntary (action not under his control)? Why?

Will he be convicted of homicide?

Rule: If the man’s actions were voluntary, he will be convicted of criminal homicide.

Answer: Involuntary (action not under his control). Because his actions were while he was unconscious, he will not be convicted of homicide.

Scenario 2: A man was diagnosed with epilepsy. He frequently has seizures and becomes unconscious. He does not want to stop driving, even though he knows he could lose consciousness and cause car accidents. He decides to drive anyway. While driving, he has a seizure, becomes unconscious, and drives over a girl who is crossing the street. She dies. (adapted from People v. Decina)

Questions: Will the man who killed someone from having a seizure while driving be held criminally responsible for homicide?

If he had not yet been diagnosed and had his first seizure ever, would he still be criminally responsible for homicide?

Rule: If your actions are involuntary, you will not be convicted of homicide. However, there is an exception to that rule. If you know that you might lose consciousness, then you will be held accountable and convicted of homicide if you put yourself in a position where you might harm others if you become unconscious.

Answer: If you know that you might have a seizure and place yourself in a situation where your unconsciousness could cause someone else harm, then you will be criminally liable for homicide. If you had no way of suspecting you might lose consciousness, as in you have never before had a seizure, then you will not be convicted of homicide.

Scenario 3:

A grandmother and mother drank too much while at a bar with the mother’s baby. The grandmother offered to take the baby home with her. She did and put the baby to bed, but she was too drunk to notice that the baby was suffocating from the blankets. The baby died. The grandmother was charged with manslaughter due to her negligent behavior, or her lack of taking reasonable care of the child. (adapted from the Cornell v. State case)

Question: Is the grandmother guilty of manslaughter?

Rule: If you have a legal duty to act, have the necessary knowledge to act, and it is possible to act, then your lack of action can support a finding of criminal liability. Parents and legal guardians have a legal duty to protect their children from harm. If the grandmother’s lack of care for the baby caused the baby’s death, she is guilty of manslaughter.

However, a random bystander does not have a duty to act, unless he created the dangerous situation for someone. If someone wrongfully creates a dangerous situation for a person, then his failure to help that person will make him criminally liable. For example, if you beat a person up in the street and he can’t move, and then you leave him there and he gets hit by a car and dies, you will be guilty of murder. If you just happened to see a person beating up another person and didn’t do anything when he was hit by the car, you are not criminally liable.

Answer: Yes, the grandmother had a duty to take care of the child, she had the necessary knowledge to act, and it was possible for her to have prevented the child’s death, so she was guilty of manslaughter.

Stop working until told to start the next round.

Round 2: Mens Rea – a criminal state of mind

Mens rea – looks at what the criminal was thinking at the time of committing the crime. Most crimes require a criminal intent. This is to punish those who are most dangerous, with the rationale being that they will be more likely to do bad things again rather than the person who does so accidentally. However, sometimes you can be responsible even when mens rea doesn’t exist in order to protect other people, as you’ll see in some of the scenarios below.

Note: there are exceptions and not all crimes require mens rea.

Scenario 1: A man’s wife had an incurable and very painful disease. To put her out of her misery, he killed her.

Question: Did the man commit murder?

Rule: A murderer desires his victim’s death, or he at least knows that his actions could result in the victim’s death (e.g. beating him up so much that he could die). The person’s motives or good intentions are not considered.

Answer: Yes, even though his motive was of good intentions because he wanted to end his wife’s pain and misery, he still had the intent to kill her, which is murder. Therefore, he had a criminal state of mind and mens rea was present.

Scenario 2: A man was given something and asked to sell it for $100 dollars to someone. It ends up that what he was selling was opium (adapted from US v. Balint).

Question: Is he guilty of selling drugs?

Rule: To be charged with selling opium, you do not have to know that you are selling opium.

Answer: Yes, even though he did not intend to be selling opium, he was. This law exists because drugs are dangerous and if you are selling something, it is on you to investigate it to protect consumers.

Scenario 3: A man left his wife when he found out she had cancer and just assumed she had died, so he married another without getting a divorce. Years later, he discovers his wife was alive all this time.

Question: Is he guilty of bigamy? Bigamy is the act or condition of any person marrying another person while still being lawfully married.

Rule: Bigamy is the act or condition of any person marrying another person while still being lawfully married.

Answer: Yes, he is guilty of bigamy. You can generally convict someone of bigamy even if he/she did not know that his/her spouse was alive or that their divorce was invalid.

Scenario 4: A girl who is 19 has sex with a boy who is 15, though he looks to be about 20, and his age never came up.

Question: Is she guilty of statutory rape?

Rule: Statutory rape occurs when someone has sex with someone younger than the age of 16. In WA, the only defense against rape for the perpetrator if his/her responsibility depends on the victim’s age is if the victim claimed to be over the age of 16 or less than 48 months (4 years) apart from the age of the perpetrator (e.g. Victim claims to be 15 and half when perpetrator is 18 and a half. The perpetrator reasonably believed the 13 year old victim, so has a defense.) So even if the perpetrator doesn’t know the victim’s age because it was never mentioned, that is not a defense.

Answer: Yes, she is guilty of statutory rape. It does not matter that she thought he was over 16. Unless he said he was over 16 and she reasonably believed it, or they were within 48 months of each other in age, she will be found guilty.

Stop working until told to start the next round.

Round 3: Concurrence between Actus Reus and Mens Rea (must both exist at the same time)

Concurrence between the mens rea and the actus reus: there must be concurrence between the mental state and the act. So the act or result must be attributable to the “criminal state of mind”, meaning the criminal must have had intent while committing the criminal act.

Scenario 1: A woman enters a home because she wants to steal all of the jewelry. While on her way there, she changes her mind about stealing the jewelry, but it starts pouring, so she decides to go in and trespass into the house anyway until it stops raining (adapted from Jackson v. State).

Question: Did she commit burglary?

Rule: Burglary requires a person to have a trespassory entry with intent to steal while in the dwelling.

Answer: No, at the time of entry, she had already decided not to steal on the way there, so it can’t be said that she had the intent to steal while she was entering.

Scenario 2: It is pouring outside, so a woman enters a home to seek shelter from the rain. While in there, she sees some awesome jewelry. She decides she wants to steal all of the jewelry, so she does.

Question: Did she commit burglary?

Rule: Burglary requires a person to have a trespassory entry with intent to steal while in the dwelling.

Answer: No, at the time of entry, she had not yet known she would see something she wanted to steal and was just seeking shelter. However, she can be charged with theft (this was a trick question).

Scenario 3: Scott is really angry at his friend Rob for having a higher score at playing Angry Birds on their phones. He has always been the best at that game. He sees Rob walking down the street, and he decides to hit him with his car so he can’t play Angry Birds anymore. At the last minute, he changes his mind, but he can’t stop the car in time and it hits Rob, and Rob ends up getting injured. (very different facts, but same car crash concept as in People v. Claborn - angry birds didn’t exist in 1964, which is when this case was)

Question: Can Scott be convicted of battery? Battery is contact with another in a manner likely to cause bodily harm.

Rule: Battery is contact with another in a manner likely to cause bodily harm.

Answer: Yes, Scott can be convicted of battery. This is because the harm caused to Rob was due to Scott driving the car at Rob, and when Scott chose to do that, he had the required intent to harm Rob. It does not matter that when the car finally hit Rob, Scott no longer had that intent.

Stop working until told to start the next round.

Round 4: Causation

Causation: The criminal’s mental state must cause the harm. So if you intend to shoot someone but while you were thinking about it, you accidently run the person over, you’re not guilty of murder.

Two types of causation are required:

• Factual Causation: Prosecution must show that the criminal’s actions were the factual result. If the criminal didn’t act so that result wouldn’t have happened as and when it did, then the criminal did not cause the crime and he is not a criminal.

• Proximate causation: Asks if the criminal should actually be held liable, or if there was an intervening factor that caused the harm so that he should not be responsible. If what the defendant did led to the natural and probable consequence, even if something else happened in between, he will still be held responsible.

Factual Causation Questions:

Scenario 1: Betty cut Anna when she slapped her. Anna suffered just a slight cut and a few drops of blood fell. Tom then got mad at Anna and shot her, and Anna lost a lot more blood, worth about as much fits into a 2 liter of sprite. Anna bled to death.

Question: Did Betty cause Anna’s death?

Rule: Factual causation requires that the criminal’s action is a substantial factor in bringing about the result.

Answer: No, Betty did not cause Anna’s death. Though it was a “but for” cause in that had Betty caused Anna to lose some blood and she might have died a few minutes later from the gun wound had that blood not already been missing, she was not the substantial cause of Anna’s death. Tom’s action intervened, and without his action, Anna wouldn’t have died, so he is responsible.

Scenario 2: Nancy and Adam both shot Andrew at the same time. Andrew dies. Medical doctors found that he would have died from either one of their shots, even if the other hadn’t also shot him.

Question: Is Nancy responsible for Andrew’s death?

Rule: Factual causation requires that the criminal’s action is a substantial factor in bringing about the result.

Answer: Yes, they both are. Both of their shots are regarded as “but for” causes, even though the results would have occurred had either of them not fired because the other still would have shot him.

Proximate Causation Questions:

Scenario 3: Claire shoots Donovan and injures him. Donovan goes to the hospital. Unfortunately, his doctor is pretty sick with bird flu because he was just travelling somewhere that had it, and bird flu is contagious. It is the first case of bird flu ever in the state of Washington. Donovan gets bird flu and dies. (adapted from Bush v. Commonwealth)

Question: Can Claire be convicted for the death of Donovan?

Rule: If the thing that causes the harm is unforeseeable, then the criminal is not responsible for the harm. It must be unforeseeable to break the chain of causation.

Answer: No, Claire is not responsible for the death of Donovan. She is responsible for battery though. Donovan’s getting meningitis was unforeseeable, so that is an intervening factor that broke the chain of causation. If there was an outbreak of bird flu, the result might be different because Claire would know that by sending Donovan to the hospital, he could get bird flu and die, but that still seems like a stretch…

Scenario 4: Sally is a world champion boxer. She got mad at Cathy and hit her, knowing she might die from being hit that hard. Cathy did not die and was instead knocked unconscious. While unconscious, Cathy threw up and choked to death. (adapted from People v. Ginger, which was not about boxers)

Question: Can Sally be convicted for the death of Cathy?

Rule: If death is a “natural and probable consequence” of Sally’s actions, then she is responsible for the death. Look at what the “natural and probable consequences” are of the criminal’s actions, and if this is one of them, then the criminal is still responsible.

Answer: Yes, even though she didn’t know that Cathy would die, Cathy’s death was a “natural and probable consequence” from Sally hitting her. There were no intervening factors, so Sally caused Cathy’s death.

Scenario 5: Marty stabs Chris’s hand while playing poker because he is mad he is losing. Ordinarily, a person could just wrap a wound like this and be fine. However, Chris has hemophelia, but he hasn’t told anyone even though he’s had it for years, which means he bleeds more than most people and can die from even minor injuries. He bleeds to death.

Question: Can Marty be charged for the death of Chris?

Rule: The intervening factor must happen after the criminal’s actions for it to mean that the criminal’s action is no longer the cause of the harm. So there must be an intervening factor or interruption to break the chain of causation.

Answer: Yes, even though Marty didn’t know about Chris’s condition, only intervening factors after the action can break the chain of causation. Chris has had this condition for years, so it existed before Marty stabbed him. Marty can be charged with Chris’s death.

Handout #4 (Students’ version)

You be the judge!

Remain in your groups and choose a new reporter and recorder if possible. Do the questions for each round and write down your answers, working together as a group. Then stop at the end of that round and we’ll go through each group’s answer out loud, asking why they chose that particular answer, and noting on the board what each team put down. Then we’ll read the rule and see if any groups want to change their answers. At the end of each round, we’ll read out the correct answers before moving onto the next round. Points: one for getting it right each time, so two points if you get it right before and after the rule is read.

ROUND 1 – Learning element # 1 of every crime: Voluntary Act

It must be a Voluntary act (actus reus) : if you knowingly put yourself in a position where you will do something wrong beyond your control, you might be held liable.

Explanation of why “voluntary act” is a necessary element: If no act was necessary, then people would be punished for mere intent to commit crimes. Not every thought you do becomes an action. Imagine a world where there are thought police and you are punished for every bad thought you have. Then for each bad thought you have, you might as well commit the bad action if you are going to be punished anyway, which increase crime. Our society’s laws are hoping to decrease and deter criminal activity.

Scenario 1: A man was arguing with a police officer and was shot in the stomach. Though he lost consciousness, he continued struggling with the officer while unconscious, causing the policeman’s gun to discharge. The police officer’s gun shot the police officer who died right away. (adapted from a real case, People v. Newton)

Questions: Would the unconscious man’s actions be considered voluntary (action under his control) or involuntary (action not under his control)? Why?

Will he be convicted of homicide?

Scenario 2: A man was diagnosed with epilepsy. He frequently has seizures and becomes unconscious. He does not want to stop driving, even though he knows he could lose consciousness and cause car accidents. He decides to drive anyway. While driving, he has a seizure, becomes unconscious, and drives over a girl who is crossing the street. She dies. (adapted from People v. Decina)

Questions: Will the man who killed someone from having a seizure while driving be held criminally responsible for homicide?

If he had not yet been diagnosed and had his first seizure ever, would he still be criminally responsible for homicide?

Scenario 3:

A grandmother and mother drank too much while at a bar with the mother’s baby. The grandmother offered to take the baby home with her. The grandmother put the baby to bed, but she was too drunk to notice that the baby was suffocating from the blankets. The baby died. The grandmother was charged with manslaughter due to her negligent behavior, or her lack of taking reasonable care of the child. (adapted from the Cornell v. State case)

Question: Is the grandmother guilty of manslaughter?

Stop working until told to start the next round.

Round 2: Mens Rea – a criminal state of mind

Mens rea – looks at what the criminal was thinking at the time of committing the crime. Most crimes require a criminal intent. This is to punish those who are most dangerous, with the rationale being that they will be more likely to do bad things again rather than the person who does so accidentally. However, sometimes you can be responsible even when mens rea doesn’t exist in order to protect other people, as you’ll see in some of the scenarios below.

Note: there are exceptions and not all crimes require mens rea.

Scenario 1: A man’s wife had an incurable and very painful disease. To put her out of her misery, he killed her.

Question: Did the man commit murder?

Scenario 2: A man was given something and asked to sell it for $100 dollars to someone. It ends up that he was selling was opium (adapted from US v. Balint).

Question: Is he guilty of selling drugs?

Scenario 3: A man left his wife when he found out she had cancer and just assumed she had died, so he married another without getting a divorce. Years later, he discovers his wife was live all this time.

Question: Is he guilty of bigamy? Bigamy is the act or condition of any person marrying yet another person while still being lawfully married.

Scenario 4: A girl who is 19 has sex with a boy who is 15, though he looks to be about 20, and his age never came up.

Question: Is she guilty of statutory rape?

Stop working until told to start the next round.

Round 3: Concurrence between Actus Reus and Mens Rea (must both exist at the same time)

Concurrence between the mens rea and the actus reus: there must be concurrence between the mental state and the act. So the act or result must be attributable to the “criminal state of mind”, meaning the criminal must have had intent while committing the criminal act.

Scenario 1: A woman enters a home because she wants to steal all of the jewelry. While on her way there, she changes her mind about stealing the jewelry, but it starts pouring, so she decides to go in and trespass into the house anyway until it stops raining (adapted from Jackson v. State).

Question: Did she commit burglary?

Scenario 2: It is pouring outside, so a woman enters a home to seek shelter from the rain. While in there, she sees some awesome jewelry. She decides she wants to steal all of the jewelry, so she does.

Question: Did she commit burglary?

Scenario 3: Scott is really angry at his friend Rob for having a higher score at playing Angry Birds on their phones. He has always been the best at that game. He sees Rob walking down the street, and he decides to hit him with his car so he can’t play Angry Birds anymore. At the last minute, he changes his mind, but he can’t stop the car in time and it hits Rob, and Rob ends up getting injured. (Very different facts, but same car crash concept as in People v. Claborn - Angry Birds didn’t exist in 1964, which is when this case was.)

Question: Can Scott be convicted of battery? Battery is contact with another in a manner likely to cause bodily harm.

Stop working until told to start the next round.

Round 4: Causation

Causation: The criminal’s mental state must cause the harm. So if you intend to shoot someone but while you were thinking about it, you accidently run the person over, you’re not guilty of murder.

Two types of causation are required:

• Factual Causation: Prosecution must show that the criminal’s actions were the factual result. So if the criminal didn’t act, then that result wouldn’t have happened as and when it did, then the criminal did not cause the crime and is not a criminal.

• Proximate causation: Asks if the criminal should actually be held liable, or if there was an intervening factor that caused the harm so that he should not be responsible. If what the defendant did led to the natural and probable consequence, even if something else happened in between, he will still be held responsible.

Factual Causation Questions:

Scenario 1: Betty cut Anna when she slapped her. Anna suffered just a slight cut and a few drops of blood fell. Tom then got mad at Anna and shot her, and Anna lost a lot more blood, worth about as much fits into a 2 liter of sprite. Anna bled to death.

Question: Did Betty cause Anna’s death?

Scenario 2: Nancy and Adam both shot Andrew at the same time. Andrew dies. Medical doctors found that he would have died from either one of their shots, even if the other hadn’t also shot him.

Question: Is Nancy responsible for Andrew’s death?

Proximate Causation Questions:

Scenario 3: Claire shoots Donovan and injures him. Donovan goes to the hospital. Unfortunately, his doctor is pretty sick with bird flu because he was just travelling somewhere that had it, and bird flu is contagious. It is the first case of bird flu ever in the state of Washington. Donovan gets bird flu and dies. (adapted from Bush v. Commonwealth)

Question: Can Claire be convicted for the death of Donovan?

Scenario 4: Sally is world champion boxer. She got mad at Cathy and hit her, knowing she might die from being hit that hard. Cathy did not die and was instead knocked unconscious. While unconscious, Cathy threw up and choked to death. (adapted from People v. Ginger, which was not about boxers)

Question: Can Sally be convicted for the death of Cathy?

Scenario 5: Marty stabs Chris’s hand while playing poker because he is mad he is losing. Ordinarily, a person could just wrap a wound like this and be fine. However, Chris has hemophelia, but he hasn’t told anyone even though he’s had it for years, which means he bleeds more than most people and can die from even minor injuries. He bleeds to death.

Question: Can Marty be charged for the death of Chris?

Hand out #5

DO NOW after-break class exercise

Class: Social Studies – Street Law

Date:

Name:__________________________________________________ __

Please answer this question. You will turn this in.

The National Museum of Crime and Punishment is currently holding a special exhibit in their museum that invites couples to "delight their dark side" this Valentine's Day weekend. The Crimes of Passion exhibit features stories of violence against romantic partners. Do you think this exhibit should exist so that people can learn about the crimes of others? Is it insensitive to the families of the victims?

In most states, it is illegal to profit from a crime one has committed, but it's okay for third parties to profit from them. This law is called the “Son of Sam” law and it’s named after the 1970s NY serial killer who claimed his neighbor’s dog was possessed and making him kill people. The law was made so that if “Son of Sam” and any other criminal offenders were getting paid for telling the story about their crimes, they would not get to keep the money and instead would have to give that money to the state. The state then uses this money to help crime victims. What about the First Amendment right to free speech? Do you think this law should exist, or should the criminals be able to keep the money?

Name:__________________________________________________ __

The tickets for the Crimes of Passion Exhibit are $30.00 per couple. Again, in most states, it is illegal to profit from a crime one has committed, but it's okay for third parties to profit off them. Some people think that no one should be able to profit from the illegal acts of others. Do you think the museum should be allowed to keep the money they earn by showcasing the crimes of others, or should they be held to the same standard as those who commit the crimes and be forced to turn the money over to the government to benefit the victims?

Teacher’s version with answers

Hand out #6 Class: Social Studies – Street Law Date: Name:__________________________________________________

Speed dating Valentine’s Day Lesson on Crimes of Passion: Provocation as a defense

Voluntary Manslaughter

***If your client kills someone after being provoked, your goal is to get your client’s charges reduced from first or second degree murder to manslaughter!***

We hear about crimes of passion all the time. When a person becomes very jealous or disappointed, it can produce such strong emotions that he cannot think rationally and may act on impulse without thinking about the consequences. For example, when a man walks in on his wife and her lover, and shoots them both in the head out of anger, he might not be thinking rationally. A crime of passion is usually a murder or an assault where one lover is jealous, angry, or heartbroken and has an emotional outburst and acts on impulse without thinking or planning ahead of time (so there is no premeditation). When you are charged with first or second degree murder, you can claim Provocation as a defense. The purpose of this defense is to get your sentence lowered from first or second degree murder down to the lesser crime of manslaughter.

Both first and second degree murder typically require intent. Intent means that the criminal decided that he wanted to kill the victim, planned to do it, and then executed his plan. Without intent, charges need to be dropped to manslaughter or some other lesser degree charge (unless the crime falls into the “extreme indifference” category of first degree murder, as explained on the WA statute handout you will also receive).

Juries are often sympathetic when a person commits a crime out of rage or jealousy, perhaps because they know how they would feel if they walked in on their boyfriends or girlfriends being involved with another person.

Murder isn't a crime of passion unless the murder was committed immediately following the discovery of whatever prompted the attack. For example, if a man walks into a bedroom and finds his wife in bed with another man, he might be able to claim a crime of passion if he shoots them right away, and his charges will be dropped to manslaughter. But, if he leaves them room and then comes back five hours later and shoots them, it could be considered premeditated and indicate intent. He will most likely be charged with first or second degree murder then.

Speed dating instructions:

Have each student write his/her name on the heart in front of him/her. The teacher will then collect the hearts and put them in a jar. The students will count off by 1’s and 2’s. The 1’s remain seated. All of the 2’s stand up and move to the next open seat to their left. Sit down. You will do the first example with this partner. The teachers will then pull one of the hearts out of a jar, read that student’s name, and that student will state the answer he/she and his/her partner came up with. The 2’s will then stand up and move to the next available seat to their left, sit down, and do the next example.

3-PART TEST

To get your charges reduced from first or second degree murder to manslaughter, you need to pass all of these tests (as shown on the board) to show that your crime was not premeditated, so it lacked intent:

• reasonable person provoked

• actual provocation

• AND no cooling off period

1. “Reasonable person” provoked?

You look to see if the “reasonable person” would have been provoked, so this means that the average person would act rashly or on impulse from passion instead of thinking logically. A good example of this is adultery. Write below if the reasonable person would be provoked to kill the other person.

Example 1: Discovering one’s spouse committing adultery

• Answer: YES. This is usually found to be adequate provocation. This includes walking in on the act or sometimes even just being told about it.

Example 2: Insulting words - The checkout guy at the grocery store is having a bad day and he takes it out on you. He tells you your jacket is ugly and that he is glad he doesn’t look like you.

• Answer: No. Words are not usually found to be reasonable provocation for killing someone.

Example 3: Battery – here your friend punches you in the face and gives you a black eye. You are mad, but it will heal.

• Answer: NO. This not adequate provocation because it shouldn’t provoke you to kill the person, unless the person hit you incredibly violently such that it was very painful and serious harm was inflicted. Even then, if you caused the fight, it might not be reduced to manslaughter.

Example 4: Mutual combat where you are both voluntarily fighting and are punching each other to the point of almost being unconscious.

• Answer: PROBABLY. This will likely be reduced to manslaughter, unless at the beginning of the fight you took unfair advantage of the other person. Then it will remain as first or second degree murder.

2. Actual provocation

Even if the reasonable person would be provoked, if the killer wasn’t, the charge won’t be reduced. Write below if there is actual provocation.

Example 1: Mary walks in on her husband Jeff having an affair with her younger sister. She and her sister share everything, so she doesn’t mind. However, she is mad that her sister forgot to pick her up from the airport this morning, so she shoots her.

• Answer: NO actual provocation. Her charges will not be dropped because even though the reasonable person would be provoked by walking in on her husband and sister having an affair, this is not what provoked her. The reasonable person would not be provoked to the point of murder because someone forgot her at the airport. She will be charged with first or second degree murder and it won’t be reduced to manslaughter.

Example 2: Mary walks in on her husband Jeff having an affair with her younger sister. She is furious, panics, and throws a TV over her sister’s head. Her sister dies.

• Answer: YES, actual provocation. Her actions here were in response to the adultery, which is actual provocation so it could be manslaughter.

3. No cooling off period

There must not have been any time between the killing and the experience that prompted the killing. If there was, it will be said that the criminal had a cooling off period, so it was premeditated and can no longer be called manslaughter because there was intent. The murderer will now be convicted of the more serious crime of murder, either first or second degree murder. While there is not an exact time limit, they look to see if a reasonable person would have had time to cool off.

Decide if the reasonable person would have cooled off by the time the murder occurred. If she would have had time to cool off, then the provocation defense won’t apply and she will be charged with first or second degree murder. Note, cooling off does not mean that the reasonable person would no longer be angry. Rather, that the reasonable person should once again be in control of his or her actions.

Example 1: Mary walks in on her husband Jeff having an affair with her younger sister. She is furious, so she leaves town. She comes back a week later, goes to his house, and kills him with a kitchen knife.

• Answer: YES, she had time to cool off. The provocation defense does not apply, so first or second degree murder applies.

Example 2: Mary walks in on her husband Jeff having an affair with her younger sister. She is furious, so she leaves town. She has completely calmed down, so she comes back a week later. She goes to see him and get her stuff back, and they are having a calm discussion when she spots a picture of her husband and her sister kissing. She is furious, freaks out all over again, and kills him with a kitchen knife.

• Answer: NO, probably was not cooled off when this crime occurred. Although the cooling off period may have passed, an event occurred that re-inflamed her passions. Courts have been mixed with whether this resets the cooling off period, though most agree that it does and she would not have missed her manslaughter time window and can still be convicted of that instead of the more serious first or second degree murder.

Example 3: A father unexpectedly encounters the murderer of his child. He is suddenly and uncontrollably enraged by the situation, so he stabs the rapist with his envelope opener, and the rapist bleeds to death.

• Answer: NO, he was not cooled off when the crime was committed. Although the cooling off period may have passed, an event occurred that re-inflamed his passions.

Example 4: A husband unexpectedly bumps into the rapist of his wife. He is suddenly and uncontrollably enraged by the situation, so he stabs the rapist with his envelope opener, and the rapist bleeds to death.

• Answer: NO, he was not cooled off when the crime was committed. Although the cooling off period may have passed, an event occurred that re-inflamed his passions. He will most likely be charged with manslaughter because the cooling off period has been reset. This shows that even though he could have been said to be getting revenge and time had passed, and the crime he committed was harsher than the one he was seeking revenge against, his sentence can still be reduced.

Where to go if you need help:

Domestic Violence and Sexual Assault Prevention

Domestic Violence & Sexual Assault Prevention

Domestic violence is not a crime of passion but rather a social problem that requires serious attention from communities across the country. Here are just some of the statistics showing how widespread it is:

• approximately one in four women will experience intimate partner violence at some point in their lives.

• an estimated 1.3 million women are victims of physical assault by an intimate partner each year.

• about 3 women are killed every day in the U.S. by a current or former intimate partner.

• almost 1/3 of female homicide victims that are reported in police records are killed by an intimate partner

• every year in the U.S 240,000 pregnant women will experience abuse during her pregnancy

Phone Numbers to call if you or anyone you know is ever in need of help:

• If you or your family are in immediate danger, call 911.

• If you have been abused by an intimate partner, call the Washington State Domestic Violence Hotline: 1-800-562-6025.

• If you have been sexually assaulted, call the King County Sexual Assault Resource Center: 1-888-998-6423.

• Help is available for those suffering from abuse - physical, sexual, or emotional. If you are a victim, please call the National Domestic Violence Hotline at 1-800-799-7233 or TTY 1-800-787-3224.

• Non-English speakers: If the person needing help is a - The toll-free "Peace in the Home" Helpline, 1-888-847-7205 for help in non-English languages.

Phone numbers for if you are experiencing emotions that you fear could result in your abusing another or have already resulted in your abusing another.

Everyone experiences feelings of jealousy or extreme emotions from time to time. Sometimes these emotions become too powerful to control without help. If you feel you are having a hard time controlling these emotions, or know someone is, there is free help available.

Call the Seattle Human Services Department’s Domestic Violence and Sexual Assault Prevention program at 206-233-2774, or e-mail endviolence@.

Or you can seek counseling by calling the Community Hotline as mentioned below: 211 or 1-800-621-4636.



Community Hotline

211 Community Information Line by dialing 211 or 1-800-621-4636. This is the number that you call to find help within the community. It includes many free community resources that include:

• assistance with such needs as rent/mortgage payments

• in-home care services

• low-cost mental health

• chemical dependency counseling

• legal aid

Students’ Version of Hand out #6 Class: Social Studies – Street Law Date: Name:__________________________________________________

Speed Dating Valentine’s Day Lesson on Crimes of Passion: Provocation as a defense

***If your client kills someone after being provoked, your goal is to get your client’s charges reduced from first or second degree murder to manslaughter!***

Voluntary Manslaughter

We hear about crimes of passion all the time. When a person becomes very jealous or disappointed, it can produce such strong emotions that he cannot think rationally and may act on impulse without thinking about the consequences. For example, when a man walks in on his wife and her lover, and shoots them both in the head out of anger, he might not be thinking rationally. A crime of passion is usually a murder or an assault where one lover is jealous, angry, or heartbroken and has an emotional outburst and acts on impulse without thinking or planning ahead of time (so there is no premeditation). When you are charged with first or second degree murder, you can claim Provocation as a defense. The purpose of this defense is to get your sentence lowered from first or second degree murder down to the lesser crime of manslaughter.

Both first and second degree murder typically require intent. Intent means that the criminal decided that he wanted to kill the victim, planned to do it, and then executed his plan. Without intent, charges need to be dropped to manslaughter or some other lesser degree charge (unless the crime falls into the “extreme indifference” category of first degree murder, as explained on the WA statute handout and chart you will also receive).

Juries are often sympathetic when a person commits a crime out of rage or jealousy, perhaps because they know how they would feel if they walked in on their boyfriends or girlfriends being involved with another person.

Murder isn't a crime of passion unless the murder was committed immediately following the discovery of whatever prompted the attack. For example, if a man walks into a bedroom and finds his wife in bed with another man, he might be able to claim a crime of passion if he shoots them right away, and his charges will be dropped to manslaughter. But, if he leaves them room and then comes back five hours later and shoots them, it could be considered premeditated and indicate intent. He will most likely be charged with first or second degree murder then.

Speed dating instructions:

Have each student write his/her name on the heart in front of him/her. The teacher will then collect the hearts and put them in a jar. The students will count off by 1’s and 2’s. The 1’s remain seated. All of the 2’s stand up and move to the next open seat to their left. Sit down. You will do the first example with this partner. The teachers will then pull one of the hearts out of a jar, or a student will do so, read that student’s name, and that student will state the answer he/she and his/her partner came up with. The 2’s will then stand up and move to the next available seat to their left, sit down, and do the next example.

3-PART TEST

To get your charges reduced from first or second degree murder to manslaughter, you need to pass all of these tests (as shown on the board) to show that your crime was not premeditated, so it lacked intent:

• reasonable person provoked

• actual provocation

• AND no cooling off period

1. “Reasonable person” provoked?

You look to see if the “reasonable person” would have been provoked, so this means that the average person would act rashly or on impulse from passion instead of thinking logically. A good example of this is adultery. Write below if the reasonable person would be provoked to kill the other person.

Example 1: Discovering one’s spouse committing adultery

Example 2: Insulting words - The checkout guy at the grocery store is having a bad day and he takes it out on you. He tells you your jacket is ugly and that he is glad he doesn’t look like you.

Example 3: Battery – here your friend punches you in the face and gives you a black eye. You are mad, but it will heal.

Example 4: Mutual combat where you are both voluntarily fighting and are punching each other to the point of almost being unconscious.

2. Actual provocation

Even if the reasonable person would be provoked, if the killer wasn’t, the charge won’t be reduced to manslaughter because provocation won’t be found. Write below if there is actual provocation.

Example 1: Mary walks in on her husband Jeff having an affair with her younger sister. She and her sister share everything, so she doesn’t mind. However, she is mad that her sister forgot to pick her up from the airport this morning, so she shoots her.

Example 2: Mary walks in on her husband Jeff having an affair with her younger sister. She is furious, panics, and throws a TV over her sister’s head. Her sister dies.

3. No cooling off period

There must not have been any time between the killing and the experience that prompted the killing. If there was, it will be said that the criminal had a cooling off period, so it was premeditated and can no longer be called manslaughter because there was intent and is now pushed back up the more serious charges of first and second degree murder. While there is not an exact time limit, they look to see if a reasonable person would have had time to cool off.

Decide if the reasonable person would have cooled off by then. If she would have had time to cool off, then the provocation defense won’t apply and she will be charged with first or second degree murder. Note, cooling off does not mean that the reasonable person would no longer be angry. Rather, that the reasonable person should once again be in control of his or her actions.

Example 1: Mary walks in on her husband Jeff having an affair with her younger sister. She is furious, so she leaves town. She comes back a week later, goes to his house, and kills him with a kitchen knife.

Example 2: Mary walks in on her husband Jeff having an affair with her younger sister. She is furious, so she leaves town. She has completely calmed down, so she comes back a week later. She goes to see him and get her stuff back, and they are having a calm discussion when she spots a picture of her husband and her sister kissing. She is furious, freaks out all over again, and kills him with a kitchen knife.

Example 3: A father unexpectedly encounters the murderer of his child. He is suddenly and uncontrollably enraged by the situation, so he stabs the rapist with his envelope opener, and the rapist bleeds to death.

Example 4: A husband unexpectedly bumps into the rapist of his wife. He is suddenly and uncontrollably enraged by the situation, so he stabs the rapist with his envelope opener, and the rapist bleeds to death.

Where to go if you need help:

Domestic Violence and Sexual Assault Prevention

Domestic Violence & Sexual Assault Prevention

Domestic violence is not a crime of passion but rather a social problem that requires serious attention from communities across the country. Here are just some of the statistics showing how widespread it is:

• approximately one in four women will experience intimate partner violence at some point in their lives.

• an estimated 1.3 million women are victims of physical assault by an intimate partner each year.

• about 3 women are killed every day in the U.S. by a current or former intimate partner.

• almost 1/3 of female homicide victims that are reported in police records are killed by an intimate partner

• every year in the U.S 240,000 pregnant women will experience abuse during her pregnancy

Phone Numbers to call if you or anyone you know is ever in need of help:

• If you or your family are in immediate danger, call 911.

• If you have been abused by an intimate partner, call the Washington State Domestic Violence Hotline: 1-800-562-6025.

• If you have been sexually assaulted, call the King County Sexual Assault Resource Center: 1-888-998-6423.

• Help is available for those suffering from abuse - physical, sexual, or emotional. If you are a victim, please call the National Domestic Violence Hotline at 1-800-799-7233 or TTY 1-800-787-3224.

• Non-English speakers: If the person needing help is a - The toll-free "Peace in the Home" Helpline, 1-888-847-7205 for help in non-English languages.

Phone numbers for if you are experiencing emotions that you fear could result in your abusing another or have already resulted in your abusing another.

Everyone experiences feelings of jealousy or extreme emotions from time to time. Sometimes these emotions become too powerful to control without help. If you feel you are having a hard time controlling these emotions, or know someone is, there is free help available.

Call the Seattle Human Services Department’s Domestic Violence and Sexual Assault Prevention program at 206-233-2774, or e-mail endviolence@.

Or you can seek counseling by calling the Community Hotline as mentioned below: 211 or 1-800-621-4636.



Community Hotline

211 Community Information Line by dialing 211 or 1-800-621-4636. This is the number that you call to find help within the community. It includes many free community resources that include:

• assistance with such needs as rent/mortgage payments

• in-home care services

• low-cost mental health

• chemical dependency counseling

• legal aid

................
................

In order to avoid copyright disputes, this page is only a partial summary.

Google Online Preview   Download