Legal three

[Student Name] 1L [student email address] Criminal Law [date] Midterm Mini Thesis Paper

The Crime of Murder and the Hillside Strangler Case

In the City of Los Angeles, countless crimes are committed on any given day. To date,

121, 241 crimes have been reported with in the Los Angeles city limits. These reported crimes

include 25,608 crimes that have been classified as “violent” and 95,633 crimes that have been

classified as “property” related. Of the violent classified crimes reported in 2016, 283 crimes

were that of the crime of murder (Location Inc., 2016). It can be noted that this data only

encompasses crimes that have been reported and it can be rationalized that there are countless

additional crimes that have been committed in the large city of close to 4 million residents that

have gone unreported. Many people, including residents of Los Angeles, do not realize how

common crime is.

Crime comes in many forms and the term can include various definitions depending on

the individual you ask. The Merriam- Webster dictionary defines crime as “an act or the

commission of an act that is forbidden or the omission of a duty that is commanded by a public

law and that makes the offender liable to punishment by that law” (Merriam-Webster, 2016).

Crime is further defined by the jurisdiction, which includes jurisdictions on a local, federal, or

state level that apply criminal law. The Merriam- Webster dictionary defines criminal law as

“the law of crimes and their punishments” (Merriam-Webster, 2016). Criminal law is used to

define crime and outlines the legal procedures that will occur when a crime is committed. In Los

Angeles, there have been multiple landmark cases that became known to the world for their

severity and outrageous nature. The City of Los Angeles has hosted landmark and infamous cases

Page 1

of murder including the Elizabeth Short case in 1947, the Hillside Strangler case in 1977, the

O.J. Simpson case in 1995, and the Robert Blake case in 2002. Although each case involves

various surrounding facts, these facts all lead up to the crime of murder. This paper will attempt

to use one of these landmark cases to illustrate the various aspects and factors of criminal law, to

include the application of criminal law inside the justice system. The Hillside Strangler case

involved two men, Kenneth Bianchi and his cousin Angelo Buono, and proved to be one of the

most controversial cases in Los Angeles history. This essay will analyze this case and apply

various aspects of criminal law. Additionally, this essay will focus on how this particular case

impacted an entire community in the Los Angeles area and the entire nation

Overview of the Hillside Strangler Case

The Hillside Strangler case involved two serial killers, Kenneth Bianchi and his cousin

Angelo Buono. Between October 1977 through February 1978, ten young women were brutally

raped and killed in the hills of Los Angeles. Additionally, Bianchi moved to Washington state,

where he was confirmed as the killer of an additional two young female college students. After

being identified by law enforcement in Washington as the killer, Bianchi was then tied to the

murders in Los Angeles that occurred a few years prior. Bianchi was convicted of all of the

murders, where Buono was convicted of nine of the murders. These murders were horrific, where

the young girls were tortured and raped prior to their brutal deaths. Bianchi claimed that he

suffered from Dissociative Identity Disorder and that he did not have the mental capacity to have

knowingly committing the murders (“The Hillside Strangler,” 2016). Psychologists were able to

disprove Bianchi’s claimed mental disorder during his trial. Both men were convicted on all

crimes that they were charged with and ordered to serve life imprisonment in Washington State

Page 2

Prison. Buono passed away in prison in 2002 due to a heart attack prior to the completion of his

sentence, while Bianchi is currently still serving his life sentence. Today, the Hillside Strangler

case is coined as one of the most horrific murder cases in Los Angeles history.

Actus Reus

Actus Reus, or “the guilty act,” is defined and known in the legal community as the

voluntary act that causes social harm or a criminal act. Actus Reus is satisfied through either a

volitional act or an omission to act. Defenses to actus reus element include involuntary, reflexive,

unconscious, involuntary intoxication, asleep, or convulsive actions. Additionally, the physical

movement constituting the act must be a conscious and volitional one (State v. Mercer, 1969). In

the case of the Hillside Strangler, the acts itself involved in the crimes of murders, rape, and

kidnapping satisfy the actus reus requirement for crime. The acts included in these crimes are the

acts of killing another person, the act of forced sexual intercourse, and the physical movement of

an individual from one place to another. In addition to actus reus, mens rea is required to hold an

offender accountable for the crime that they committed.

Mens Rea

Mens rea, or “the guilty mind,” is defined by Merriam- Webster Dictionary as simply

“criminal intent” (Merriam-Webster, 2016). In addition to the act itself committed in the crime,

the mental state of the offender is examined for the intent to commit the act. Intent is

distinguished into two categories; specific intent and general intent. It is essential to identify the

intent of the offender in order to identify the potential defenses available. It can be noted that

there is now single state of mind, or mens rea, that suffices for the purpose of criminal liability

and is defined separately for each specific crime (Regina v. Tolson, 1889). In the case of the

Page 3

Hillside Strangler, the crimes committed included mens rea that involved both general and

specific intent.

Specific Intent

Specific intent is defined as “the mental purpose, aim, or design to accomplish a specific

harm or result by acting in a manner prohibited by law” (West's Encyclopedia of American Law,

2008). Specific intent holds certain requirements to include the offender having general intent to

complete the act, the specific intent to achieve a consequence of the crime, and that both the

actus reus and specific intent occur simultaneously. Simply speaking, specific intent requires the

offender to intentionally commit an act and intend to cause a particular result stemming from that

act (United States. v. Blair, 1995). Common law specific intent crimes include 1st degree murder,

attempt, solicitation, conspiracy, assault, robbery, larceny, forgery, false pretenses, and

embezzlement. In the case of the Hillside Strangler, one crime that held multiple counts was

committed by the offenders that involved a specific intent crime. This crime was that of the

multiple 1st degree murders of the young women in Los Angles and Washington state. The crime

of 1st degree murder falls under a specific intent crime due to the elements including

premeditation and deliberation. The serial killing committed by Bianchi and Buono were deemed

both premeditated and deliberate by the court, which led to their convictions of the crimes. The

convictions ultimately provided a positive impact on two communities, who sought comfort and

reassurance that their communities were rid of dangerous murderers.

General Intent

General intent is defined as “a mental plan to do that which is forbidden by the law”

(West's Encyclopedia of American Law, 2008). General intent is a requirement for all crimes,

Page 4

where the general intent to commit the crime occurs at the same time as the actus reus. General

intent does not require that the offender intended to cause a specific result, but rather the intent to

commit the act that results in harm to the victim. Common law general intent crimes include

rape, battery, involuntary manslaughter, and kidnapping. The Hillside Strangler case involves

multiple general intent crimes. The general intent crimes seen in the Hillside Strangler case

include the multiple rapes and kidnapping of the female victims by both Bianchi and Buono.

These crimes can be considered as general intent due to the fact that it can be proven that the

defendants in this case had the intention to commit an act prohibited by law, regardless of the

result of their crimes. Additionally, all crimes committed would be classified as felony crimes

and the merger rule will apply in this case.

Merger

In terms of criminal law, if a defendant pursues a single act that simultaneously fulfills

the definition of two separate offenses, a merger will occur. Simply put, if a defendant commits

an act that constitutes multiple crimes, then the lesser offense will merge into the larger offense.

Under common law, a merger will occur for a misdemeanor into a felony if the act establishes

both. The current rule states that there is no merger unless there requires proof that the lesser

offense has that the larger offense does not, solicitation or attempt merges into the complete

crime, or conspiracy. In other words, under modern law, the doctrine of merger is no longer

applied in American Jurisdictions (Dix, 2010). Under common law, no merger would apply in

the crime of conspiracy. However, the Model Penal Code §1.07 (1)(b) states that conspiracy

merges with underlying completed crime. The merger doctrine was applied in common law to

Page 5

avoid double jeopardy, where two punishments may not be imposed where the two statutory

provisions proscribe to the same offense (Rutledge v. United States, 1996).

In the case of the Hillside Strangler, after determining there were two offenders involved

in the case, the crime of conspiracy was present. Under common law, conspiracy was categorized

as a misdemeanor involving tow or more persons to agree to accomplish an unlawful purpose or

a lawful act by unlawful means (Rex v. Jones, 1832). In modern law, the crime of conspiracy is

defined by the statutes withheld in the jurisdiction in which the crime occurred. However,

conspiracy is as an agreement between two or more persons with the specific intent to commit an

unlawful act. In the case of the Hillside strangler, Bianchi and Buono were proven to have

conspired to murder at least nine of the murder victims. Although no merger would apply for the

multiple crimes of conspiracy in this case, Bianchi was convicted on one count of conspiracy to

commit murder that held one life sentence in itself (McClary, 2008). This conspiracy conviction

stemmed from Bianchi’s efforts have another person help him kill a victim while he was in

prison. It can be noted that for the trial proceedings for both Bianchi and Buono, the serial

murders were facing either multiple life sentences or the death penalty. Ultimately, the serial

murders were given multiple life sentences for their crimes and permanently removed from the

society in which they terrorized.

Rape

In the case of the Hillside Strangler, the crime of rape was proven to have occurred prior

to the commission of the murders of the twelve female victims. Under common law, rape

consists of unlawful carnal knowledge of a woman against her will (State in Interest of M.T.S.,

1992). Under modern statutes, the common law definition has been altered to include certain

Page 6

circumstances where a rape occurs by a husband upon his wife and that consent was not given for

the intercourse. In the Hillside Strangler case, the victims were tortured, raped, and violently

strangled (McClary, 2008). As investigators examined the multiple cases and facts surrounding

the victims, they found that Bianchi had a history of sexual violence. It was proven in this case

that after Bianchi and Buono captured their victims, they forced sexual intercourse with them

before strangling them. Although forensic evidence was elementary from what it is today, the

forensic evidence assisted in solidifying the crime occurrences in this case. Although Bianchi and

Buono were not convicted of rape, rather the focus remained on the multiple counts of first

degree murder, it is important to note that this crime did occur in this case and provided a huge

impact on the severity of the case to the community of Los Angeles during this time.

Murder

In the case of the Hillside Strangler, the crime of murder was present on multiple counts

and brought a sense of terror to the Los Angeles area. Murder is defined as the unlawful killing

of another with malice aforethought. Malice aforethought exists when there is an intent to kill,

intent to commit great bodily harm, extreme recklessness or disregard for human life, or intent to

commit an inherently dangerous felony. Additionally, the intent to kill is actual, where the

defendant consciously desired to cause death (People v. Morrin, 1971). It was proven that

Bianchi and Buono had the intent to strangle and then kill their victims in all twelve instances.

Bianchi and Buono’s actions met the elements and standard for murder, where they killed

another person and had the malice aforethought to carry out this unlawful act. Additionally, it

was proven that Bianchi and Buono deliberated and premediated all of the murders, which

classifies the crimes as murder in the first degree.

Page 7

First Degree Murder

The Hillside Strangler case further impacted and terrorized the Los Angeles community

when it discovered that the murders were both premediated and deliberate, where the killers

sought out their victims with the intent to rape and murder them. Premeditated killings are those

in which the intent to kill is formed with some reflection, deliberation, reasoning, or weighing,

rather than simply on a sudden impulse (State v. Snowden, 1957). The murders committed by

Bianchi and Buono fall under the murder classification of first degree murder. First degree

murder is one committed with the specific intent to kill along with premeditation and

deliberation. Bianchi and Buono preyed upon prostitutes and women in Bianchi’s neighborhood,

while impersonating police officers in some instances (McClary, 2008). Bianchi and Buono acted

under the premise of thrill seekers and enjoyed the suffer or torment they inflicted on their

victims. Bianchi and Buono were both convicted of all murders that each of them were involved

in as first degree murder that held punishment for either a life sentence with no chance of parole

or the death penalty. These convictions gave the Los Angeles community both a sense of justice

and peace that these men would no longer be terrorizing their community.

Other Crimes/ Kidnapping/ Mayhem/Sodomy

Although these crimes are not the focus of this paper, it can be noted that the crimes of

kidnapping and mayhem occurred during the commission of the Hillside Strangler murders.

Kidnapping is defined as unlawfully seizing and carrying away a person by force or fraud, or

seizing and detaining a person against his or her will with an intent to carry that person away at a

later time (West's Encyclopedia of American Law, 2008) In this case, all of the victims were

Page 8

carried away against their will to the crime scene to which they were murdered. The crime of

kidnapping is present in this case due to all of the stated elements being met.

Additionally, the crime of mayhem is present in the Hillside Strangler cases. Mayhem is

defined as the criminal act of disabling, disfiguring, or cutting off or making useless one of the

members, to include an arm, foot, hand, or eye (West's Encyclopedia of American Law, 2008). In

the Hillside Strangler cases, Bianchi and Buono mutilated their victims. Although it could not be

proven whether the mutilation occurred prior or after the victim’s death, it can be reasonably

assumed that some or all of the mutilations could have occurred prior to the victim’s death and

gives substantive evidence that mayhem occurred. Although Bianchi and Buono were not

charged with these crimes, the crimes of kidnapping and mayhem further add to the severity of

the Hillside Strangler murders and the heavy impact these crimes had on the communities in

which they occurred.

It can also be noted that the crime of sodomy was present in the Hillside Strangler case.

Sodomy is defined as the “anal or oral intercourse between human beings, or any sexual relations

between a human being and an animal, the act of which may be punishable as a criminal offense”

(West's Encyclopedia of American Law, 2008). The crime of sodomy holds various levels of

punishment dependent on the jurisdiction in which the crime occurred and the severity of the

case. During the course of the criminal proceeding for Bianchi in Los Angeles, evidence was

presented against Bianchi and demonstrating that he had engaged in oral intercourse with at least

one of the deceased victims. The Los Angeles Superior Court further found Bianchi guilty of one

count of sodomy, which held a five-year prison sentence. Despite the smaller prison sentence,

Page 9

Bianchi’s five-year prison sentence was in addition to the multiple life sentences for the murders

and warranted Bianchi to present a potential defense to his crimes.

Defenses

In any criminal proceeding, a defendant will attempt to raise defenses that gives cause

that the act committed was justified and that criminal sanctions are not appropriate. In the case of

the Hillside Strangler killings, Bianchi raised the defense that he lacked the capacity to commit

the crimes to which he was charged and this was a result of insanity. In terms of criminal

capacity and the insanity defense, a defendant must provide a burden of proof or evidence

sufficient to raise a reasonable doubt to the defendant’s sanity. Bianchi’s defense attorney had

brought forth testimony from three psychiatrists who examined Bianchi and stated he suffered

from multiple personality disorder. Bianchi was then put under hypnosis, where he created an

alter ego, “Steve Walker.” Multiple personality disorder can serve as the basis for an insanity

defense, but different jurisdictions determine how to evaluate whether the defendant was in fact

insane (United States v. Denny-Shaffer, 1993). The court ordered psychiatrists could not come to

a conclusion on whether Bianchi was fit to stand trial and Bianchi’s capacity became an issue.

Bianchi was offered a plea deal, where if he pleaded guilty to two murders, he would

serve life sentences rather than the death penalty for all of the murders. Bianchi is still serving

this sentence today at Washington State Penitentiary in Walla Walla. It was later determined

during Buono’s trial by psychiatrists that Bianchi was found competent to testify in the criminal

proceeding. Although Bianchi had tried to sabotage Buonos’s case and tried to influence his

testimony being thrown out of the proceeding, his efforts failed and he was found mentally

competent or sane to testify in Buono’s trial. Buono and his defense attorney did not present any

Page 10

defenses except proclaiming Buono’s innocence to committing the crimes charged against him

and further affirming that Bianchi was the sole offender that committed the murders. Buono’s

trial was the longest criminal trial in American history, with over two years and costing Los

Angeles County taxpayers $2 million (McClary, 2008). Buono was found guilty of nine of the ten

Los Angeles murders and sentence to consecutive life sentences in prison, where he later died

while serving his sentence.

Conclusion

The crimes committed during the course of the Hillside Strangler case shocked Los

Angeles and the nation. The crimes and murders committed by Kenneth Bianchi and Angelo

Buono will always be remembered and this case has been coined as one of the most horrific

serial murder cases in United States history. The Hillside Strangler case provides a practical

application of criminal law and shows different aspects of the criminal law system. This case

included different types of crimes, where this essay examined how these different crimes played

a role and their application in a monumental case. The case also demonstrates how crime and the

different types of crime, no matter how severe, impact a community on multiple levels.

Analyzing a case such as the Hillside Strangler case forces a community, such as Los Angeles, to

become more aware of the crime that takes place within the city limits and provides an insight to

citizens on becoming familiar with their surroundings. The Hillside Strangler case is a landmark

case that demonstrated to two communities that no matter how much or little time passes, justice

will always prevail and offender’s will be held liable for the crimes in which they commit.

Page 11

References

Crime. (n.d.). Retrieved December 20, 2016, from https://www.merriam-

webster.com/dictionary/crime

Crime Museum, LLC. (2016) The Hillside Strangler. Retrieved December 21, 2016, from

http://www.crimemuseum.org/crime-library/the-hillside-strangler/

Dix, G. E. (2010). Gilbert Law Summaries Criminal Law. Page 17. Chicago, IL: Thomson/West.

General Intent. (n.d.) West's Encyclopedia of American Law, edition 2. (2008). Retrieved January

1 2017 from http://legal-dictionary.thefreedictionary.com/general+Intent

Kidnapping. (n.d.) West's Encyclopedia of American Law, edition 2. (2008). Retrieved January 1

2017 from http://legal-dictionary.thefreedictionary.com/kidnapping

Location Inc. (Ed.). (2016). Crime rates for Los Angeles, CA. Retrieved December 20, 2016,

from https://www.neighborhoodscout.com/ca/los-angeles/crime/

McClary, D. (2008, July 26). After he murders two Bellingham women, police arrest serial killer

Kenneth A. Bianchi on January 12, 1979. Retrieved December 15, 2016, from

http://historylink.org/File/8613

mayhem. (n.d.) Collins Dictionary of Law. (2006). Retrieved January 1 2017 from http://legal-

dictionary.thefreedictionary.com/mayhem

Mens rea. (n.d.). Retrieved December 20, 2016, from https://www.merriam-

webster.com/dictionary/mensrea

People v. Morrin, 187 N.W.2d 434 (Mich.1971)

Regina v. Tolson, 23 Q.B.D. 168 (1889)

Rex v. Jones, 110 Eng. Rep. 485 (1832)

Page 12

Rutledge v. United States. (94-8769), 517 U.S. 292 (1996)

sodomy. (n.d.) West's Encyclopedia of American Law, edition 2. (2008). Retrieved January 1

2017 from http://legal-dictionary.thefreedictionary.com/sodomy

Specific Intent. (n.d.) West's Encyclopedia of American Law, edition 2. (2008). Retrieved January

1 2017 from http://legal-dictionary.thefreedictionary.com/Specific+Intent

State in Interest of M.T.S., 609 A.2d 1266 (N.J. 1992)

State v. Mercer, 165 S.E.2d 328 (N.C. 1969)

State v. Snowden, 313 P.2d 706 (Idaho 1957)

United States. v. Blair, 54 F.3d 639 (10th Cir. 1995)

United States v. Denny-Shaffer, 2 F.3d 999 (10th Cir. 1993)

Page 13