Full access allows:
- Solve all tests online without limits;
- Remove all advertisements on website;
- Adding questions to favorite list;
- Save learning progress;
- Save results of practice exams;
- Watching all wrong answered questions.
19. What crime did the man commit?
A state statute defines first-degree murder as «knowingly causing the death of another person after deliberation upon the matter.» Deliberation is defined as «cool reflection for any length of time, no matter how brief.» Second-degree murder is defined as «knowingly causing the death of another person.» Manslaughter is defined as at common law.
A man, despondent and angry over losing his job, was contemplating suicide. With his revolver in his pocket, he went to a bar and drank until he was very intoxicated. He overheard a customer on the next barstool telling the bartender how it was necessary for companies to downsize in order to keep the economy strong. The man turned to the customer and said, «Why don't you shut the hell up.» The customer responded, «This is a free country, and I can say what I want,» all the while shaking his finger at the man. The man became enraged, snatched his revolver from his pocket, and shot the customer, killing him.
Comments (0)
There are no comments at the moment. If you found an error or think question is incorrect, tell everyone about it
Only signed in users can write comments
Signin
Under common law, voluntary manslaughter is a killing resulting from an adequate provocation (heat of passion killing) or imperfect self-defense. Adequate provocation requires that provocation would cause sudden and intense passion in an ordinary person, causing him to lose self-control; the defendant was in fact provoked; there was insufficient time for an ordinary person to cool off, and the defendant did not cool off.
D is correct. The facts tell us the man was very intoxicated. This suggests there was no «cool reflection» as required under the first degree murder statute. As such, the man did not commit first degree murder. However, even though the man did not have a 'cool reflection," he did commit second degree murder because all that is required for second degree murder is a mental state of «knowingly» causing the death of another. The man «knowingly» killed the customer by snatching his revolver from his pocket and shooting the customer. Because the man had the requisite mental state, he committed second degree murder.
A is incorrect. The facts here do not rise to the level of adequate provocation that would lead to manslaughter. Adequate provocation requires something to cause sudden and intense passion in an ordinary person. Here, there was no reasonable explanation for the man becoming enraged. Although, as mentioned above, his intoxication prevented the kind of «cool reflection» required for first degree murder, it did not preclude the mental state required for second degree murder.
B is incorrect. Deliberation, as defined by the statute, is «cool reflection for any length of time, no matter how brief.» So, even if deliberation is formed instantaneously, the man's intoxicated anger prevented the kind of «cool reflection» required for deliberation. Even though his intoxication prevented the mental state required for first degree murder, it did not preclude the mental state required for second degree murder because the man «knowingly» killed the customer by snatching his revolver from his pocket and shooting the customer.
C is incorrect. The man did not deliberate upon taking the life «of another person» (as required by the statute) before becoming intoxicated. The facts state that before becoming intoxicated, the man contemplated suicide. Suicide is the taking of one's own life, not the life of another. As such, the man did not commit first degree murder because he did not deliberate the killing of another person, nor did he have the requisite mental state for first degree murder.