Documents
Resources
Learning Center
Upload
Plans & pricing Sign in
Sign Out
Your Federal Quarterly Tax Payments are due April 15th Get Help Now >>

Word document

VIEWS: 3 PAGES: 38

									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:
    http://www.dumbcriminals.com/assaults/a-poetic-lesson-in-self-control/#more-2286
    and http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/41427345/ns/local_news-hartford_ct/)
   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 seattle.gov
    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

                                                  1
             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.


                                             2
               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

                                            3
          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.

                                              4
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?




                                                   5
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?




                                                   6
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?




                                                     7
News story 4:

A.     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?



                                                 8
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.



                                                 9
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?




                                                  10
                              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.




                                             11
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)
                                               12
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.
                                                13
       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.


                                                14
       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.

                                                15
       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:



                                                16
      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


                                                17
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.

                                                   18
       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


                                               19
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?



                                                20
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.




                                                21
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.


                                                22
      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?

                                                23
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?




                                              24
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?




                                                  25
   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?




                                                 26
                            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.




                                                27
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
                                                28
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
                                                 29
       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.




                                               30
                               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@seattle.gov.

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

                                                31
http://www.seattle.gov/humanservices/domesticviolence/forabusers/default.htm

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




                                               32
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.




                                                33
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



                                                 34
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.



                                                 35
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.




                                                36
                               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@seattle.gov.

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

                                                37
http://www.seattle.gov/humanservices/domesticviolence/forabusers/default.htm

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




                                               38

								
To top