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