Description
4 case’s will be presented and you must explain your reasoning and principles of law you used to arrive at your answer, while citing cases from the slides. 250 words per answer
QUESTION EXAMPLE
Billy Rover is a 20-year-old Rutgers student who has been dating his 17-year-old girlfriend, Sarah Faithful, for 2 years. One night, at a fraternity party, he meets Farrah Friendly. Farrah tells Billy that she is a sophomore.
She left out the fact that she was a sophomore in high school, not college, and was 15. Billy and Farrah go to his bedroom, where they begin kissing.
Sarah, having decided to surprise Billy that night, arrives and walks in his room to see him and Farrah together on the bed, under the covers.
Enraged, Sarah grabs a knife that had been laying on the table and starts stabbing Farrah, who dies from her injuries.
Sarah is charged with Murder, which is defined as “Intentionally causing the death of another person.” Murder can be reduced to Manslaughter if a defendant can show that the death was caused “in the heat of passion resulting from a reasonable provocation.” Billy testifies for the prosecution that he and Sarah had an agreement that while he was at college, they could “hook up” with other people, so he was surprised that Sarah got so upset.
Would Sarah more likely be convicted of Murder, or Manslaughter? Why? Cite cases and principles of law.
AN EXAMPLE OF WHAT THE ANSWERS SHOULD LOOK LIKE.
For the State to convict Sarah of Murder, they would have to prove beyond a reasonable doubt that she caused Farrah’s death, and she did so intentionally. They can easily prove both of these elements, because it is undisputed that she purposely stabbed Farrah, and that Farrah’s death was the direct result from the stabbing.
Model Answer continued
To determine whether the “heat of passion” defense can reduce the Murder charge to Manslaughter, the first question is who has the burden of proving it. In a statute like in Patterson v. New York, a defendant can have the burden of proving the “extreme emotional disturbance” defense because the Murder statute only requires an intentional killing, not the absence of provocation. In a statute like in Mullaney v. Wilbur, where the State must prove “Malice aforethought” to prove Murder, the State must disprove the existence of a reasonable provocation.
Model Answer continued
This statute appears to be more like the statute in Patterson v. New York, because malice aforethought is not required in order to prove Murder. Therefore, Sarah would likely have the burden of proving her “heat of passion” defense.
Model Answer continued
The facts in favor of the defense are:
1.She walked in on her long-term boyfriend with another girl, which would cause a reasonable person to get upset.
2.She picked the knife up off the table, instead of bringing it with her, indicating that her actions were not premeditated.
The facts against the defense are:
3.Sarah surprised Billy at school when she knew he might be with another girl, because that was their agreement, indicating that the provocation was not “reasonable.”
4.Farrah was blameless with regard to Sarah, and did nothing to provoke her.
Model Answer continued
I believe the jury would reject her defense and find her guilty of murder
