Court Cases

State v. Snowden (1957)
Question 1
The court defines the term “willful” as a calculated desire to kill. The term “deliberate” is defined as express or implied intent or purpose to kill. The term “premeditated” means that the defendant actually planned to kill the victim. In other words, the court is convinced that the defendant rationally, purposely, and specifically intended to kill the victim (Leagle). The defendant took steps that led to the victim’s death, thereby evidencing first degree murder.
Question 2
The defendant in the case of State v. Snowden, Raymond Allen Snowden, killed the victim Cora Lucyle Dean by cutting her throat. The murder was preceded by the victim’s request for cab fare from the defendant to go back to Boise. The defendant refused to grant the request as he did not feel he had to pay her fare. An argument ensued, eventually leading to the defendant’s murder of the victim. The defendant deliberately pulled out his pocket knife and cut the defendant’s throat; after which he took the victim’s wallet, rode back to Boise, changed his clothes, dropped the knife into a sewer, discarded the wallet, and placed the attire he had that evening into a trash bin (Leagle). In a calculative fashion, the defendant cut the victim’s throat and made attempts to conceal any evidence that would tie him to the murder. At the time of the murder, the defendant was not intoxicated: he was in his right state of mind, meaning he had the intention to cause death.
Question 3
Statutorily, first degree murder is murder that is committed in a willful, deliberate, and premeditated manner. Based on the facts of the case, it is evident beyond doubt that the defendant committed first degree murder. A common argument is that the word “premeditated” means that there must be sufficient or a reasonable amount of time to plan murder. In other words, it is argued that first degree murder does not just occur instantaneously – it takes time to plan. This is not necessarily true. The truth of the matter is that premeditation can occur a few minutes prior to the actual murder. Preconceiving murder does not require an extended period of time or a substantial time lapse between intent formation and the actual murder. Further proof of first degree murder is evident in the defendant’s choice to cut the victim’s throat. This makes it clear that the defendant intended to kill. Moreover, the defendant’s actions that followed the murder clearly indicate that he was not intoxicated or mentally disturbed to the extent of causing murder involuntarily. In essence, it can be said without an iota of doubt that Snowden committed first degree murder.
Question 4
Being found guilty of first degree murder may often lead to a death sentence. However, the court must consider a number of aggravating and mitigating circumstances before awarding a death penalty. Generally, such factors often relate to the character, background, and/or history of the defendant (e.g. mental illness, previous criminal record), as well as circumstances surrounding the murder (e.g. rape, robbery, or kidnapping) (Reinhart). The court must prove these circumstances beyond reasonable doubt. Based on the facts of the case, there are no aggravating factors as the defendant did not commit the murder while committing unlawful acts such as arson, burglary, kidnapping, and rape. On this premise, the court may consider a lesser penalty. Moreover, the defendant does not have a previous record of criminal activity. However, the defendant was not extremely mentally or emotionally disturbed at the time of the murder, which somewhat diminishes the appropriateness of considering a lesser penalty.
People v. Thomas (1978)
Question 1
It is crucial to consider the mental element when prosecuting murder cases. Essentially, the mental element denotes the intention to cause death or severe injury. In the case of People v. Thomas, proving the defendant’s mental attitude would require proof that the defendant had the intention to kill or cause severe bodily harm. Two facts are important in this case. First, the defendant took the decedent to a proximate location, took his pants down, tied his hands with a rope, and brutally beat him, causing severe bruises on the decedent’s waist, thighs, and legs. Second, even when the decedent became sick following the beating, the defendant failed to seek any medical care for the decedent, leading to the decedent’s death (Leagle). These two facts sufficiently prove the mental element in this case.
Question 2
As per the court, the mental element required for second-degree murder does not necessarily have to be express malice or intent to kill (Leagle). The defendant’s behavior (brutal beating of the decedent and failure to seek medical care for the decedent) imply that the defendant had the intention to kill or cause severe bodily harm. His behavior, according to the court, amounted to aforethought malice.
Question 3
Thomas is evidently guilty of second degree murder. Evidence clearly linked his brutal beating of the decedent to the decedent’s death. Even though the death was planned or premeditated, the evidence presented before the court demonstrated beyond a reasonable doubt that the element of malice was present. The severe harm the defendant inflicted on the decedent, coupled with the defendant’s neglect of the decedent’s physical condition after the brutal beating, without a doubt demonstrate malice. More strikingly, the defendant beat the decedent twice. In the two occasions, the defendant caused severe bodily harm on the decedent. Clearly, the defendant’s behavior was malicious.
Question 4
As mentioned earlier, the defendant is guilty of second-degree murder. Therefore, exploring the defendant’s guiltiness for some lesser degree of criminal homicide is out of the question.
Commonwealth v. Schnopps (1983)
Question 1
As per the tenets of voluntary manslaughter, provocation can reasonably cause a person to kill another person, even though the killer did not have the intention to kill before the actual murder. In other words, a reasonable person would under the heat of the moment be provoked to cause murder. Based on the facts of the Commonwealth v. Schnopps case, however, the provocation principle is not applicable. The meticulousness portrayed by the defendant in planning the murder of the victim evidently shows that the defendant was not adequately provoked. If the defendant had been adequately provoked, he would have acted at the moment of the provocation. Indeed, there was a reasonable lapse of time between the time the victim uttered the provocative words and the actual murder. The defendant carefully planned how he would kill his wife: he threatened to kill her on several occasions, arranged the purchase of a firearm, told his co-worker he was going to kill her, and even lured her into his apartment where he was going to kill her (Commonwealth of Massachusetts). These events undoubtedly prove that the murder was deliberately premeditated, and not a case of provocation. Accordingly, a juror in their good conscience would not claim Schnopps was adequately provoked.
Question 2
As mentioned earlier, the principle of provocation does not apply in this case. As per the evidence presented in court, the defendant was provoked neither by the adultery of his wife nor the words his wife used to describe her adulterous relationship.
Question 3
Whether the prohibition against provocative makes sense or not can be viewed from two perspectives. On one hand, it would be reasonable to say the prohibition does not make sense. It cannot be denied that the provocative words the victim used caused the defendant to premeditate and plan the murder. The victim uttered provocative words in a situation that was already tense, consequently worsening it. The defendant perhaps may not have planned to kill her had she not uttered the words. Nonetheless, provocation is a subjective phenomenon in the sense that what is provocative to one person may not be provocative to another. Even if the words used by the victim provoked the defendant, this does not necessarily mean every other person would find the words provocative. It is difficult to ascertain whether the words would be universally provocative. This raises a fundamental question: who gets to decide what is provocative and what is not?
Question 4
Voluntary manslaughter law remains a subject of intense debate, in large part due to lack of consensus over the conditions that should be met for voluntary manslaughter to be established. If I were to write a voluntary manslaughter law, I would focus on three elements which I believe are fundamental to establishing voluntary manslaughter: 1) intention to kill; 2) self defense; and 3) mental state at the time of murder. For me, voluntary manslaughter would be established if the defendant did not have the intention to kill, acted in self-defense, and was undergoing a mental or emotional state that may have reasonably led the defendant to commit murder. I believe these three conditions would be enough to prove voluntary manslaughter even in the absence of provocation.


Works Cited
Commonwealth of Massachusetts. Commonwealth vs. George A. Schnopps. Masscases.com, n.d. Web. Web. 27 Oct. 2017.
Leagle. People v. Thomas. Leagle, 2017. Web. 27 Oct. 2017.
Leagle. State v. Snowden (1957). Leagle, 2017. Web. 27 Oct. 2017.
Reinhart, Christopher. Weighting aggravating and mitigating circumstances. Connecticut General Assembly, 22 May 2001. Web. 27 Oct. 2017.