PastPaperHero | Homicide - Intended killings

Learning Outcomes

This article explains intended homicide offenses under MBE law, including:

Precisely defining common-law murder and distinguishing it from voluntary and involuntary manslaughter, focusing on intended killings and exam-relevant nuances in terminology and structure.
Identifying and differentiating the mental states that constitute malice aforethought—intent to kill, intent to cause serious bodily injury, and depraved heart—plus how they are proven with circumstantial evidence.
Applying the deadly weapon doctrine, transferred intent, and causation principles to fact patterns that test intended homicide theories of liability.
Distinguishing first- and second-degree murder in jurisdictions that recognize degrees by analyzing premeditation, deliberation, and statutory factors commonly emphasized on the MBE.
Recognizing when adequate provocation, heat of passion, or imperfect self-defense mitigates what would otherwise be murder down to voluntary manslaughter.
Evaluating complete and partial defenses to intended killings—self-defense, defense of others, insanity, and voluntary intoxication—and understanding how they interact with required mens rea.
Systematically approaching MBE-style homicide questions, spotting overlapping issues (malice, mitigation, defenses, degrees), and eliminating distractor answer choices that misclassify the offense or misstate doctrine.

MBE Syllabus

For the MBE, you are required to understand the law governing intended killings, with a focus on the following syllabus points:

Definition of murder and its distinction from other homicide offenses (voluntary and involuntary manslaughter).
Required mental states for murder, including intent to kill, intent to cause serious bodily harm, and depraved heart.
Operation of malice aforethought, including how it is inferred from conduct and use of deadly weapons.
Statutory degrees of murder: premeditation and deliberation versus second-degree murder.
Mitigation doctrines: adequate provocation and heat of passion; imperfect self-defense.
Defenses to intended homicide: self-defense, defense of others, insanity, intoxication, and mistake.
Related doctrines affecting liability: transferred intent, causation, and cooling-off periods.

Test Your Knowledge

Attempt these questions before reading this article. If you find some difficult or cannot remember the answers, remember to look more closely at that area during your revision.

Which of the following is required for a conviction of murder as an intended killing?
1. Intent to kill or cause grievous bodily harm.
2. Actual premeditation and deliberation in every case.
3. Negligent conduct causing death.
4. Killing during the commission of a misdemeanor.
Which mental state satisfies the "malice aforethought" requirement for murder?
1. Intent to kill only.
2. Intent to kill, intent to cause serious bodily harm, or reckless indifference to human life.
3. Accidental killing.
4. Heat of passion.
A defendant kills another after careful planning. Which is the most serious offense available under common law?
1. Involuntary manslaughter.
2. Voluntary manslaughter.
3. First-degree murder.
4. Second-degree murder.
Which of the following is a complete defense to a charge of intended murder?
1. Voluntary intoxication in a general intent crime.
2. Reasonable use of deadly force in self-defense.
3. Provocation causing loss of self-control.
4. Mistake of law.

Introduction

Intended killings are the most serious form of homicide tested on the MBE. The primary offense is murder, which requires a specific mental state and is distinguished from manslaughter and other killings. Understanding the elements of intent, malice aforethought, the role of premeditation, and the available defenses is essential for accurate issue spotting and precise exam analysis.

Key Term: Murder
The unlawful killing of another human being with malice aforethought.

At common law, murder is a malice crime. That means the prosecution must show a sufficiently blameworthy mental state—malice aforethought—at the time the defendant caused the victim’s death. Where the defendant intends to kill or to inflict serious bodily injury, the case falls within the category of intended killings, even if the defendant later claims to have acted in anger, under the influence, or without planning.

Elements of Murder

To prove murder as an intended killing, the prosecution must establish:

Unlawful killing – The defendant caused the death of another person, and the killing was neither justified (e.g., self-defense) nor excused (e.g., insanity).
Human being – The victim was a living human being at the time of the act.
Malice aforethought – The defendant acted with a qualifying mental state.

Key Term: Causation
The requirement that the defendant’s conduct be both the actual (but-for) and proximate (legal) cause of the victim’s death.

The unlawful killing element includes both an act and causation. The act may be an affirmative act (shooting, stabbing, poisoning) or an omission where the defendant had a legal duty to act (e.g., parent failing to feed a child, doctor abandoning a patient). Causation is often implicit on the MBE but can be tested where multiple actors or intervening events occur.

The human being requirement excludes some borderline cases (e.g., fetuses at common law), but the MBE rarely tests those edge issues. Assume modern law applies unless facts indicate otherwise.

Key Term: Malice Aforethought
The mental state required for murder, satisfied by intent to kill, intent to cause serious bodily injury, extremely reckless disregard for human life (depraved heart), or, in some jurisdictions, killing during certain felonies (felony murder).

Types of Malice for Intended Killings

Malice aforethought encompasses several mental states. For intended killings, focus on the first two:

Intent to kill – The defendant consciously desired to cause death or knew death was virtually certain to result.
Intent to inflict serious bodily harm – The defendant intended to cause serious injury likely to result in death, and death actually occurred.

Key Term: Intent to Kill
The conscious objective to cause the death of another person, or knowledge that death is a practically certain result of one’s conduct.

Key Term: Serious Bodily Injury
Bodily harm that creates a substantial risk of death, causes permanent disfigurement, or results in long-term loss or impairment of a bodily function.

Malice can also be based on depraved heart:

Key Term: Depraved Heart
An extremely reckless mental state in which the defendant consciously disregards a very high risk to human life, demonstrating a “depraved indifference” to human life.

Although depraved heart murder does not involve a purpose to kill, it is often tested alongside intended killings because it also satisfies the malice requirement for common law murder. However, this article primarily emphasizes cases where the defendant meant to kill or injure.

Proving Intent: Circumstantial Evidence and Deadly Weapons

Direct admissions of intent are rare. The prosecution typically relies on circumstantial evidence:

The nature of the weapon and how it was used.
The number and location of wounds.
Statements before, during, or after the event.
Prior threats or hostility.
The defendant’s conduct after the event (flight, concealment).

Key Term: Deadly Weapon Doctrine
A rule that allows the jury to infer an intent to kill when the defendant uses a deadly weapon directed at a critical part of the victim’s body.

A deadly weapon includes firearms and other instruments used in a manner capable of causing death or serious bodily injury (e.g., a hammer to the skull, a knife to the chest). On the MBE, when a defendant aims such a weapon at a critical area, assume the intent to kill can be inferred unless a fact pattern clearly suggests otherwise.

Transferred Intent

Key Term: Transferred Intent
A doctrine under which the defendant’s intent to kill one person is transferred when another person is actually killed instead.

If a defendant shoots at A intending to kill A but instead kills B, the intent “transfers” from A to B. The defendant is guilty of murder of B based on the transferred intent. The defendant can also be guilty of attempted murder of A (if A was not killed). Transferred intent generally applies within the same type of harm (e.g., intended murder of A, actual murder of B), not across different crimes.

Premeditation and Deliberation

Some jurisdictions, especially under statutes, distinguish degrees of murder:

First-degree murder – Killing with premeditation and deliberation (and often certain statutorily-enumerated methods such as lying in wait or poison).
Second-degree murder – All other killings with malice aforethought but without premeditation and deliberation.

Key Term: Premeditation
The process of thinking about and planning a killing before carrying it out, however briefly.

Key Term: First-Degree Murder
A willful, deliberate, and premeditated killing, or a killing done in certain enumerated ways or during specified felonies under statute.

Key Term: Second-Degree Murder
A killing committed with malice aforethought that does not meet the statutory requirements for first-degree murder (e.g., without premeditation).

Premeditation does not require a long planning period. Under modern law, it can occur in a very short time, as long as there is an opportunity for the defendant to reflect and form a conscious decision to kill. Courts look at:

Planning activity (e.g., obtaining a weapon, luring the victim).
Motive (e.g., financial gain, revenge).
Manner of killing (e.g., execution-style shooting).

Deliberation requires that the decision to kill be made in a cool and dispassionate manner, not in a sudden explosion of rage. On the MBE, a killing that follows calm planning or lies in wait usually signals first-degree murder; a killing occurring in the midst of a sudden argument commonly points to second-degree murder unless facts show reflection.

Defenses to Intended Killings

Several defenses may reduce or eliminate liability for intended murder:

Self-defense – Use of deadly force is justified if the defendant reasonably believed it was necessary to prevent imminent death or serious injury.
Defense of others – Same standard as self-defense, applied to protect another.
Insanity – If the defendant lacked capacity to understand the wrongfulness of the act or to conform conduct to the law, depending on the jurisdiction’s test.
Voluntary intoxication – May negate specific intent if the jurisdiction allows.
Provocation ("heat of passion") – May reduce murder to voluntary manslaughter if the defendant acted in response to adequate provocation.

Key Term: Self-Defense
A justification defense where the defendant reasonably believes that force is necessary to protect against an imminent unlawful attack; deadly force is limited to threats of death or serious bodily injury.

Key Term: Defense of Others
A justification defense allowing the use of force, including deadly force where appropriate, to protect another person from an imminent unlawful attack, under the same reasonableness standards as self-defense.

Key Term: Insanity
A mental condition that, under applicable legal tests (e.g., M’Naghten, irresistible impulse, MPC), excuses criminal liability because the defendant lacked the required capacity during the offense.

Key Term: Voluntary Intoxication
Intoxication resulting from the defendant’s intentional ingestion of alcohol or drugs, sometimes capable of negating specific intent but generally not a defense to crimes requiring only malice, recklessness, or negligence.

Key Term: Voluntary Manslaughter
An intentional killing committed in the heat of passion as a result of adequate provocation or, in some jurisdictions, an unreasonable but honest belief in the need for self-defense, reducing murder liability.

Heat of Passion and Adequate Provocation

Voluntary manslaughter is central to intended killings on the MBE because it takes a killing that would otherwise be murder (malice present) and mitigates it to manslaughter by negating malice.

Key Term: Heat of Passion
An emotional state of intense anger, fear, or other extreme emotion, caused by adequate provocation, that obscures a reasonable person’s ability to reflect before acting.

Key Term: Adequate Provocation
Conduct that would cause a reasonable person to lose self-control and act in the heat of passion, without time to cool off.

Common law required four elements for mitigation to voluntary manslaughter:

Adequate provocation.
Actual provocation—defendant was in heat of passion.
No reasonable cooling-off period between provocation and killing.
Defendant did not in fact cool off.

Classic examples of adequate provocation at common law include:

Serious physical assault or battery on the defendant.
Mutual combat.
Illegal arrest.
Catching one’s spouse in the act of adultery.

Key Term: Cooling-Off Period
The time between the provoking event and the killing; if a reasonable person would have cooled down in that time, the law does not allow mitigation to voluntary manslaughter.

Words alone were traditionally not adequate provocation, but modern trends sometimes treat information about a spouse’s adultery as sufficient. On the MBE, assume the traditional common law approach unless the question signals a modern rule.

Imperfect Self-Defense

Key Term: Imperfect Self-Defense
A partial defense where the defendant honestly but unreasonably believes deadly force is necessary; it does not justify the killing but may reduce murder to voluntary manslaughter in some jurisdictions.

Not all jurisdictions recognize imperfect self-defense, but the MBE commonly assumes that when explicitly mentioned, it negates malice and yields voluntary manslaughter rather than murder.

Worked Example 1.1

A, after careful planning, poisons B with the intent to kill. B dies. What offense has A committed?

Answer:
A is guilty of first-degree murder if the jurisdiction recognizes degrees, because the killing was intentional, premeditated, and deliberate. The use of poison, combined with planning, is classic first-degree murder. If degrees are not recognized, A is guilty of common law murder with malice aforethought based on intent to kill.

Worked Example 1.2

C discovers a spouse's affair and, in a sudden rage, immediately kills the spouse. What is the likely result?

Answer:
If the jury finds adequate provocation (discovering adultery) and no reasonable cooling-off period, C may be convicted of voluntary manslaughter rather than murder, as the killing occurred in the heat of passion. If facts show time to cool off or a calm, deliberate killing, the mitigation will fail and C will be liable for murder.

Worked Example 1.3

A man and his friend are watching a football game. The friend angrily throws a bottle at the man’s television, shattering the screen. Enraged, the man immediately grabs a hammer and strikes the friend on the head, killing him. In a common law jurisdiction, what is the most serious offense of which the man can properly be convicted?

Answer:
The man can be convicted of murder. Even if the jury views the conduct as an attempt to cause serious bodily injury rather than a conscious desire to kill, intent to cause serious bodily injury that results in death satisfies malice aforethought. While the broken television arguably provoked the man, a jury could reasonably reject mitigation to voluntary manslaughter and instead find murder. Because murder is available on these facts, it is the most serious offense for which he may properly be convicted.

Worked Example 1.4

D intends to kill A. D fires several shots at A in a crowded street, misses A entirely, and instead kills bystander B. What is D’s liability for B’s death?

Answer:
D is guilty of murder of B under transferred intent. D’s specific intent to kill A transfers to B, satisfying the intent-to-kill form of malice aforethought for B’s death. In addition, D is guilty of attempted murder of A because D took a substantial step toward killing A with intent to do so.

Worked Example 1.5

E, after an escalating argument with F at a bar, leaves, goes home, retrieves a gun, drives back, waits outside until F exits, and then shoots F once in the chest, killing F. The jurisdiction recognizes degrees of murder. What degree applies?

Answer:
E is guilty of first-degree murder. E left the scene, obtained a weapon, returned, and lay in wait for F. These facts show planning activity, a motive (revenge), and an execution-style killing, all indicating premeditation and deliberation. The passage of time between the argument and the killing also undercuts any heat-of-passion argument.

Worked Example 1.6

G is confronted in a parking lot by H, who angrily shoves G and shouts, “Next time I see you, I’ll kill you!” H turns and walks away. G, terrified, pulls a knife and fatally stabs H in the back. G claims self-defense. What is the likely result?

Answer:
G cannot successfully claim complete self-defense because there was no imminent threat of death or serious bodily harm at the moment of the stabbing—H was walking away. If the jurisdiction recognizes imperfect self-defense and the jury finds that G honestly, though unreasonably, believed deadly force was necessary, G’s liability may be reduced from murder to voluntary manslaughter.

Worked Example 1.7

J, heavily intoxicated after voluntarily consuming alcohol, gets into an argument, pulls a gun, and intentionally shoots at K’s head, killing K. J argues that he was too drunk to form the intent to kill. How should the court rule?

Answer:
Voluntary intoxication rarely negates the malice required for murder. Even if intoxication can negate specific intent in some crimes, malice for murder can be based on awareness of a high risk to life or intent to inflict serious bodily harm. By intentionally firing a gun at K’s head, J’s conduct supports an inference of intent to kill or at least depraved heart. The intoxication defense will fail; J is guilty of murder.

Exam Warning

On the MBE, do not confuse voluntary manslaughter (intentional killing with provocation or imperfect self-defense) with involuntary manslaughter (unintentional killing due to recklessness or criminal negligence). Also remember that intent to cause serious bodily injury, when death results, is murder, not manslaughter.

Revision Tip

Always check for evidence of provocation, self-defense, or imperfect self-defense in intended killing questions. These may reduce or eliminate murder liability, but only if all doctrinal requirements are satisfied (adequate provocation, no cooling-off, reasonable belief in imminent danger, etc.).

Key Point Checklist

This article has covered the following key knowledge points:

Murder is the unlawful killing of another human being with malice aforethought.
Malice aforethought includes intent to kill, intent to cause serious bodily harm, or reckless indifference to human life (depraved heart).
Intent can be inferred circumstantially, especially through the deadly weapon doctrine.
Transferred intent applies when the defendant intends to kill one person but kills another instead.
Premeditation and deliberation upgrade murder to first-degree in some jurisdictions; remaining malice killings are second-degree.
Adequate provocation and heat of passion, or imperfect self-defense where recognized, may reduce murder to voluntary manslaughter by negating malice.
Self-defense and defense of others provide complete justification if the defendant reasonably believes deadly force is necessary to prevent imminent death or serious bodily harm.
Insanity may excuse liability for intended killings if the defendant lacked the required mental capacity under the applicable test.
Voluntary intoxication at most may affect specific intent but generally does not defeat the malice required for murder.
Careful attention to timing (cooling-off period), the nature of the provocation, and the defendant’s belief about danger is important for correctly classifying intended killings on the MBE.

Key Terms and Concepts

Murder
Malice Aforethought
Intent to Kill
Serious Bodily Injury
Depraved Heart
Deadly Weapon Doctrine
Transferred Intent
Premeditation
First-Degree Murder
Second-Degree Murder
Heat of Passion
Adequate Provocation
Cooling-Off Period
Voluntary Manslaughter
Self-Defense
Defense of Others
Imperfect Self-Defense
Insanity
Voluntary Intoxication
Causation

Homicide - Intended killings