Friday, September 14, 2012

People v. Caffero case brief

      • People v Caffero- (CA) ruled that felony child abuse was not inherently dangerous to human life (extreme neglect) breaking a kids bone is not inherently dangerous so there are kinds of abuse that do not endanger life
      • In RI instead of asking about the crime in the abstract they ask about ∆s actions in the concrete to determine the inherently dangerous requirement…
        • Is RI or CA better?
          • CA may be over-inclusive
          • RI get more at the individual who may need deterrence
            • Gets at individual characteristics

Proximate Cause” Limitation
    • Many cts require that the felony be a “proximate” cause of the death
      • The manner in which the death reasonably occurred is foreseeable from the manner in which the felony occurred
Independent Felony” Limitation (merger doctrine)
    • The felony must be “independent” of the homicide.
      • In must be independent of any acts which were necessary to the homicide
        • A lesser offense to murder (manslaughter or assault) can NOT trigger FM rule.
    • Why would the ∆ care if felony murder rule was attached?
      • The mens rea requirement is relaxed b/c only have to prove for the felony portion but not necessarily of the “homicide” portion

No comments:

Post a Comment

Exploring Career Paths: What Can You Do with a Juris Doctor Degree?

Earning a Juris Doctor (JD) degree is a significant accomplishment, opening a wide array of career paths beyond the traditional legal practi...