Criminal Law Outline GIO

8/17/2019 Criminal Law Outline GIO

1/23

Saarman

Criminal Law Outline

1. Elements of Criminal Conduct

a. Common Law and MPCi. Sources of criminal law:

1. Common Law: body of law developed by Englis courts at te time adopted in !S". State and federal statutes #as interpreted by courts$%. Model Penal Code: adopted binding& not adopted persuasive ' influential

ii. (ypes of elements: §1.13(9): an element of an offense means suc conduct or sucattendant circumstances or suc a result of conduct

1. Conduct: wat ) does or ow ) actsa. Enters& restrains& ta*es& ma*es

". Circumstances: bac*ground facts+ conte,t+ state of affairs static facts

a. - dwelling& belonging to anoter& at nigt& under 1& not open to public%. /esults: effects of wat ) does

a. Causes deat& causes bodily in0ury& brings about. §1.13(10): Material element. Element tat does not relate e,clusively to te

statute of limitations+ 0urisdiction+ venue or to any oter matter unconnected wit#i$ te arm or evil+ incident to conduct+ sougt to be prevented by te law definingte offense or #ii$ te e,istence of a 0ustification or e,cuse for suc conduct

iii. (ypes of crime:1. Malum in se: crime tat is bad in and of itself #morally wrong$". Malum prohibitum: crime tat is bad because it is proibited

iv. 2efenses:1. 3egative an element of te crime #traverse$". -ffirmative defense: 0ustification or e,cuse

b. Actus Reus

i. Voluntar Act Re!uirement

1. Rule: -ctus /eus re4uires commission of some "oluntar act tat is proibited

by lawa. 5oluntary act must be #art of te definition of te crime b. $%&: all acts part of te crime must be voluntaryc. Martin v. State+ p. "67

i. ) arrested at ome+ brougt to igway+ public drun*ennessii. 8appears in public place9 voluntary appearance is re4uired

iii. 2rin*ing is not culpable act not proibitedd. ypos:

i. ;lip switc tat detonates bomb voluntaryii. allucination: s4ueeconscious even later at ospital

ii. Convicted of voluntary manslaugter+ no unconsciousness instruc.iii. !nconsciousness is complete defense.

1. /easonable 0ury could ave inferred ) was unconscious

1


2/23

Saarman

b. !nconscious: still aware+ able to grab gun and soot+ soc* refle,es+ etc.c. Cogdon+ p. "1" #somnambulism$

i. -,ed daugter wile asleep to protect from ?orean war ii. Rule: acts committed wile sleepwal*ing are involuntary

d. People v. Decina+ p. "1i. ) *new e was epileptic+ consciously cose to drive

ii. Rule: acts committed during epileptic sei


3/23

Saarman

iv. 2angers of interventionsv. Privacy of te victim

d. Gurisdictions: HB+ /B+ 5( ave criminal law dutiese. Misprision: no duty to report

i. 2uties imposed on professions #doctors+ teacers+ etc.$". Status /elationsips

a. People v. Beardsley+ p. ""i. 3o duty wen married )Ds lover too* morpine b. Commonwealth v. Cardwell + p. "%1

i. Moter convicted of cild abuse. Stepfater abused daugter.ii. Rule: person wit duty of care must ta*e steps tat are reasonably

calculated to acieve successc. Hy creating ris* is necessary@ 3ote + p. "%"

i. 5oluntary act created ris* but tis was not necessarilyaccompanied by te re4uisite mens rea

ii. Bmposing duty could account for more culpable state of mindiii. (reats innocent and grossly negligent ris* creation as te same

%. 2istinguising Omissions from -ctsa. Possession: omission or act@

i. MPC ".61#1$ possession can satisfy actus reus re4uirement onlywen te accused was aware of is control for a sufficient periodto ave been able to terminate is possession

ii. State v. Bradshaw+ p. "%71. (ruc* in H- from Canada+ == lbs of mari0uana.". -wareness is inerent in concept of possession

b. Barber v. Superior Court + p. "%Ii. 5ictim ad surgery+ on life support+ in a comatose state. ;amily

re4uests all life>support macines be turned off.ii. Murder and conspiracy carges against doctors. 8Murder is

unlawul *illing of a uman being wit malice aforetougt9iii. Rule: witdrawal of life support is an omission

1. Li*e witolding manually administered medicationiv. Rule: pysician as duty in immediate aftermat of a medical

event to treat. 3o duty to continue treatment once it as proved to be ineffective and futile in opinion of 4ualified medical personnel

v. Rule: unlawful *illing means not 0ustifiable or e,cusable1. 3ot: self>defense+ solider in war+ prisoner e,ecution+ etc.

vi. legislative solution for modern tecnology

c. Line: patients interests and desiresi. Hen is treatment futile@

ii. Ho decides ' directs terminationd. ypo: macine tat needs restarting once a wee* omission

i. Macine tat is indefinitely self>propelling acte. ypo 1: Smit is dying+ as*ed for e,pensive life support+ live for " more

days. 2octor refuses Omission #but not futile$. Legal duty@f. ypo ": Smit is already attaced to macine+ anoter doctor wants to use

it for different patient muc more li*e an act murder g. ypo %: 3ew patient will fully recover if attaced now act maybe

necessity defense@. ypo : anoter patient is ric and willing to pay more@

. 2ifficulties:a. Jeneral statutes proibiting te causing of a particular arm

%


4/23

Saarman

i. Line drawing problems: doctor wo wonDt travel+ ric person wowonDt give aid

b. Specific duty to act: narrowly circumscribed+ alleviates line drawingc. Mens Rea

i. Jeneraliabiding person would observein situation

d. (d): $e*li*entl obecti"ei. Sould be aware of a substantial and un0ustifiable ris* of suc a

nature and degree tat actorDs failure to perceive it #consideringnature ' purpose of conduct and circumstances *nown to im$+involves gross deviation from standard of care tat a reasonable person would observe in te situation

e. E,ception: §.04(1): "iolations& absolute liabilit specified ' intendedf. P+ ? sub0ective& 3 ob0ective& / ybrid


5/23

Saarman

". §.0(3): Bf not prescribed+ suc element is establis if a person acts purposely+*nowingly+ or rec*lessly recless is minimum

%. §.0(5): Bf mens rea is specified applies to all material elements of te offensea. unless contrary purpose is manifested

. §.0(4): P+ ?+ / satisfy 3& P+ ? satisfy /& P satisfies ?.7. ypo+ p. "7=: ) rides troug woods on snowmobile+ *ills a plant.

a. 2idnDt reali


6/23

Saarman

a. 3O( an affirmative defense but a traverse #negates element$". Common Law:

a. eneral 8ntent: a reasonable mista*e of fact tat negates mens rea prevents liability

i. lowers mens rea to negligenceii. E,. unreasonable belief tat substance is not poison. Even if

statute re4uires rec*lessness+ no defense since belief unreasonable b. +#ecific 8ntent: a mista*e of fact tat negates te specific intent preventsliability

i. E,. burglary: even if mista*e is unreasonable+ no liabilityii. E,. assault *nowing it is federal officer: even an unreasonable

mista*e prevents liabilityc. !egina v. Prince+ p. "II

i. ) convicted of ta*ing unmarried girl R 1I away from er parentsand against teir will. ) onestly ' reasonably believed se was 1

ii. Moral 6ron* &,eor: Aramwell #upolds conviction$1. Rule: if te act is morally wrong+ mista*e of fact is no

defense". (a*ing unmarried girl from parents is morally wrong%. /roblems:

a. -ssumed ig degree of moral consensus b. 2eters conduct legislature as not criminali


7/23

Saarman

iii. Rule: age related element sould be treated as any oter element1. onest mista*e of fact is a defense

iv. Prosecution must sow absence of genuine belief girl K1c. $arnett v. State+ p. "=

i. ) #B 7"+ "6$ ad se, wit ;ra


8/23

Saarman

d. (raditional criminal offenses: retain re4uirement of intent #evil mind'and$e. Rule: public welfare offenses are SL if no intent element

i. Larceny type crimes re4uire intent if not specifiedii. statute


9/23

Saarman

%. -n administrative order or grant of permission. -n official interpretation by te public officer or body

carged to interpret+ administer or enforcec. §.0(9): *nowledge'rec*lessness'negligence in *nowing your conduct is

illegal is not an element unless e,plicit in statutei. Caseboo*: if statute itself is source no defense

ii. Jreenberg: suc a narrow reading is not re4uired7. 2istinguis:a. ?new wat B was doing+ didnDt *now tere was law against it

i. E,. ;orget youDre married+ get married again b. 2idnDt *now te nature of my conduct

i. E,. (in* 35 divorce decree is valid+ get marriedI. People v. Marrero+ p. %6

a. ;ed. Peace Officer tougt e was e,empted from law under peace officere,emption.

i. e was not unreasonable in is reading of statute

b. Rule: mista*e of law is a viable e,emption in tose instances were anindividual relies on te validity of a law and+ later+ it is determined tattere was a mista*e in te law itself

i. Bf government misleads public+ no liabilityii. E,. pollution statute e,empts non>profit+ e,emption found invalid

c. 2issent: sould allow for reasonable mista*e of law+ not wen completelyunaware (isn=t t,is #recisel 'ron*>)

=. State v. ,arsegi+ p. %11a. LL bro*e in+ too* computers and sold to satisfy debt. (ougt e was

entitled under lease agreement. b. 3o intent to steal ' deprive anoter of propertyc. Rule: mista*e of law tat negates mens rea is a defense

i. 3eed not be reasonable but must be onest. !egina v. Smith+ p. %11

a. (enant put in floorboards'wall panels. /emoved and damaged. b. Mista*e of law: wo te property belonged toc. onestly believed it belonged to imd. Rule: onest belief tat circumstance is not wat is re4uired by te offense

negates mens reaF. People v. /eiss+ p. %6+ fn. b.

a. )s believed officer ad autori


10/23

Saarman

b. Statute re4uires no'in*l. Oterwise criminali


11/23

Saarman

I. 2egrees: not C but &+ origin in P- statute in 1=Fa. 1st deg.: premeditated+ poison+ lying in wait+ willful+ deliberate+ etc. b. "nd deg.: all oter murder c. oal: isolate te worst murders for deat penaltyd. Rationale:

i. 2eterrence: premeditation easier to deter wit punisment

ii. Someting more culpable about premeditation #reflection+ etc.$iii. 7e*rees of Murder: /remeditation1. Rule: no time is too sort but it must be some amount of time

a. Courts sometimes sloppy and e4uate intention wit premeditationi. Bn effect T intention #conflates te two$

ii. Some reflection on te intention b. Eiter way: little control over te 0ury

". Commonwealth v. Carroll + p. "=a. ) sot is wife " times in te bac* of te ead. ) plead guilty+ convicted

of 1st deg. murder in benc trial. b. Rule: lapse of time between formation and *illing is immaterial no time

is too sorti. Commonwealth v. (0Searo+ p. %": re4uirement of premeditation

and deliberation is met wenever tere is a conscious purpose to bring about deat

c. E4uating premeditation and intention: 1st deg #intentional$+ "nd deg.#e,tremely rec*less+ ;M$

%. State v. $uthrie+ p. %"a. ) stabbed co>wor*er in te nec* #moc*ed im+ snapped distowel tat it

is nose+ ) as psyciatric disorder related to is nose$. Convicted of 1st deg. murder+ life sentence. Callenges 0ury instruction #first timeV$

b. Rule: altoug premeditation and deliberation are not measured by any particular period of time+ ) must *ill purposely after contem#latin* teintent to *ill some appreciable time elapse

i. (ere must be some evidence tat ) considered and 'ei*,ed isdecision to *ill in order to establis premeditation and deliberation

. People v. -nderson+ p. %7a. &est: evidentiary standard

i. Aeavior prior to te act tat could indicate #lannin*ii. Prior relationsip to victim tat could indicate moti"e

iii. Manner of *illing could indicate #reconcei"ed desi*n b. Standard: evidence of all %& strong evidence of 1& evidence of " in

con0unction wit eiter 1 or %.7. Premeditation is not a good way to distinguis severity of te murder

a. -nderson: KI6 stab wounds of 16 year old girl+ no evidence of planning+motive+ etc. SCOC- reversed 1st deg. conviction: no planning+ motive

b. State v. "orrest : ) sot is terminally ill fater. 1st deg. Premeditationc. misses t,e moral im#ortance of t,e moti"e

i. Joal is to distinguis einous murders #rules vs. standards$i". Murder to Manslau*,ter: /ro"ocation

1. Voluntar Manslau*,ter: intent to *ill wit legally ade4uate provocationa. Rule:

i. Legally ade4uate provocation #ob0ective$ii. 3o time to cool off

iii. Bn te eat of passion #sub0ective$ b. &: 7 categories of recogni


12/23

Saarman

i. E,treme assault or battery on )ii. Mutual combat

iii. )Ds illegal arrestiv. Bn0ury or serious abuse of )Ds close relativev. Sudden discovery of a spouseDs adultery #no in0ury$

viewed as partial 0ustification'e,cuse

c. $irouard v. State+ p. %= #conviction affirmed$i. Married for " mos+ bot in te -rmy+ H ad resumed relationsipwit old A;+ verbal figt were H treatened court martial. )stabbed er 1F times+ slit is own wrists. Aenc trial: "nd deg.

ii. Rule: provocation must be calculated to inflame te passion of areasonable man and tend to cause im to act for te moment from passion rater tan reason

1. Hords alone are not enoug. Must be accompanied byconduct indicating present intention and ability to arm

iii. H didnDt ave si


13/23

Saarman

c. Dennis v. State+ p. Fi. ) saw H wit dress raised+ embrace wit anoter. Sot te man.

ii. Rule: provocation only if e saw se,ual intercoursed. State v. &urner + p. F #no provocation$

i. ) sot er unfaitful usband'partner #not legally married$3. Coolin* off

a. Rule: a significant lapse of time between provocation and act of *illingrender provocation defense inade4uate as a matter of lawi. Prior suspicions provide ade4uate cooling off N )eClair

ii. (ime could serve to aggravate passions > Berryb. US v. Bordeau*+ p. 76

i. -ll>day drin*ing party+ ) learned HA raped moter "6 yrs ago+ beat HA up+ ten returned and slit is troat

ii. /evelation ad occurred muc earlier+ *illed after beatingiii. 3o rational basis for 0ury to find eat of passion

c. State v. $ounagias+ p. 76 #ade4uate cooling off period$i. ) raped by victim+ victim bragged about it+ and ) taunted

persistently. ?illed victim " wee*s later d. Commonwealth v. )eClair + p. 76 #ade4uate cooling off period$

i. Suspected HDs infidelity for a couple wee*s+ once confirmed+strangled er. Prior suspicions provided ade4uate cooling off time

e. People v. Berry+ p. 71 #sufficient to go to 0ury$i. ) waited for victim for "6 ours in apartment before *illing er.

ii. Gury could find smoldering passion aggravated by passing time. MPC /eplacement and /easonableness /e4uirement

a. §10.3(b): Manslaugter includes a omicide wic would oterwise bemurder but is committed under te influence of e,treme mental oremotional disturbance for wic tere is reasonable e,planation or e,cuse.

i. /easonableness of e,cuse is determined from view of person inactorDs situation under circumstances as e believes tem to be

ii. e: eliminates provocation+ allows for oter mitigating factors besides 0ust te actions of te victim

b. many more cases go to 0ury #goal: broaden+ retain ob0ective element$c. 7octrine:

i. EE2 #sub0ective$+ reasonable e,cuse #ob0ective$+ from viewpointof actor #sub0ective ob0ective$

d. People v. Casassa+ p. 7%i. ) and victim date casually+ se told im se wasnDt falling in love.

e bro*e into apt+ lay in er bed. Eiter commit suicide or urter. Arougt gifts+ se refused+ stabbed er+ submerged in tub

ii. Rule: EE2 need not be spontaneous& prolonged disturbanceiii. Rule: reasonableness is determined by sub0ective #internal

situation$ and ob0ective #e,ternal circumstances as perceived$e. Culture:

i. 1ueen v. 2hang + p. 7F #culture not relevant$1. ) from Cina+ no Englis+ *illed girlfriend wen se

admitted to prostitution.ii. Masciantonio v. !+ p. 76 #no age+ race+ culture+ etc.$

1. One law of provocation for allf. @attered +#ouse:

i. State v. McClain+ p. I6 #status as battered spouse irrelevant$1. ) sot man se ad lived wit for F years > abusive

1%


14/23

Saarman

ii. State v. "elton+ p. I1 #proper to consider battered spouse status$g. Mental 7isorder:

i. State v. 3limas+ p. I1 #psyciatric evidence irrelevant 'inadmissible$

ii. People v. Steele+ p. I1 #inadmissible tat ) was traumaticontrol of a reasonable person of li*e

age and se, as )b. -nintentional illin*

i. inds of liabilit:

1. 3o liability. Civil Liability3. Bnvoluntary Manslaugter 5. 2eprave eart Murder

ii. 8n"oluntar Manslau*,ter

1. &raditional Rule: no clear distinction between rec*lessness and crim. negligencea. Court loo*s to factors to determine culpability of conduct

. MPC §10.3: Criminal omicide constitutes manslaugter wen committedrec*lessly.

a. ".6"#c$: Consciously disregard a substantial and un0ustifiable ris* of suca nature and degree #considering nature ' purpose of conduct andcircumstances *nown to im$+ its disregard is *ross de"iation fromstandard of conduct tat a law>abiding person would observe in situation

%. M/C Rule: to determine weter it was a rec*less ' gross deviation+ consider a. Substantial ris*: probability and magnitude of arm b. !n0ustifiable ris* c. -wareness of te ris*

5. Commonwealth v. /elans#y+ p. Ia. ) owned nigt club+ over capacity+ emergency e,its obscure and loc*ed

i. Omission legal duty under ordinance. -ppeals instruction.b. Rule: criminal liability re4uires more tan mere ' civil negligencec. Probability of in0ury from fire probability and magnitude relevantd. 3o 0ustification+ awareness of te ris* e. no distinction between gross ' criminal negligence and rec*lessness

4. People v. 4all + p. IF #sufficient to go to te 0ury$a. ) was s*iing+ flew of *noll and *illed anoter s*ier. 8consciously

disregard a substantial and un0ustifiable ris* tat deat could result9b. Substantial ris* #speed+ out of control$& un0ustified #fun'en0oyment$& gross

deviation #trained+ e,pert+ crim. neg. statute$& awareness #infer+ e,pert$;. State v. /illiams+ p. =" #doesnDt account for education or culture$

a. Parents convicted of involuntary manslaugter. 2idnDt give daugtermedical attention+ gangrenous toot+ feared CPS would remove cild

b. H- statute: negligence standard convicted #gross neg. std. too$

c. 2egree of ris*: low probability but ig seriousness ' magnitude #deat$d. Gustification: babyDs interest in remaining w'parentse. -wareness: education and cultural bac*groundf. 2eterrence@ Specific vs. general

1


15/23

Saarman

*. MPC commentary: donDt account for education+ intelligence+ culture2. /al#er v. Superior Court + p. 6

a. 2augter ad flu symptoms+ developed stiff nec*. Parents decided to treatwit prayer and not medicine and se died.

b. Many state: treatment wit prayer defense to cild neglecti. 3ot if condition is life>treatening

c. 2id parents truly believe prayer would wor*@d. Parents canDt impose religious beliefs on cild #not old enoug to ma*e itsown decisions$

iii. Manslau*,ter Versus Murder: 7e#ra"ed ?eart Murder

1. C: mens rea: abandoned and malignant eart". &: Consider #same factors$

a. Magnitude of ris*: probability and magnitude of arm b. !n0ustifiability of ris* c. -wareness of te ris* d. Aalancing te factors: degree of deviation from reasonableness

%. MPC §10.: Criminal omicide constitutes murder wen it isa. Committed rec*lessly under circumstances manifesting eBtreme

indifference to te value of uman life. Presumed if robbery+ rape+ arson+ burglary+ *idnapping or felonious escape.

b. Reclessness /lus

i. Substantial ris*: probability and magnitude of armii. !n0ustifiable ris*

iii. -ware of te ris* iv. Circumstances manifesting e,treme indifference

1. Souter: obecti"el measures deviation

c. E,. /ussian /oulette+ firing into a crowd+ etc.. Commonwealth v. Malone+ p. "

a. 1= yr old and 1% yr old get gun and bullet+ play /ussian Po*er b. Rule: wen ) commits an act of gross rec*lessness for wic e must

reasonably anticipate tat deat to anoter is li*ely to result+ e e,ibitsmalice aforetougt

c. Overall 0udgment about conduct: no social benefit ' 0ustificationd. Probability@ I6X if viewed from % pulls+ %%.%X on %rd pull

7. People v. Delinger + p. a. Rule: malice aforetougt is implied wen te *illing results as te natural

conse4uences of an intentional act committed by ) wo *nows conductendangers te life of anoter and acts wit conscious disregard for tat life

I. US v. "leming + p. Ia. ) driving into,icated+ rec*less driving+ car accident *illed anoter driver. b. Convicted of "nd deg. murder c. -wareness@ 2ifference between malice and gross neg. is deg. not *indd. )Ds conduct indicates disregard for uman life no awareness re4uired

e. Practical effect@ 3ot muc #0uries infer+ special rule for impairment$i. MPC ".6#"$: unawareness is immaterial for rec*lessness if )

wasnDt aware because of self>induced into,ication1. still argue unaware even if not into,icated

=. People v. /atson+ p. #aware of ris* because ) drove to bar+ *new e wouldave to drive again$

i". elon Murder

1. Aasic ;M 2octrine

17


16/23

Saarman

a. Rule: *illing tat is te result of an attempt to commit a felony or in tecommission of a felony constitutes murder

i. &: re4uires conduct be butpilot transporting 766 lbs mari0uana+ plane crased. )convicted of ;M for co>pilotDs deat

ii. Rule: deat must be a foreseeable result of te felonyiii. 2eat not made more li*ely by felony #flying low to avoid det.$

g. ypo: robbing (imDs ouse. eart attac* from coming ome vs. par*ing. !egina v. Sern5+ p. F6 #no ;M limiting ;M rule$

i. ) too* out insurance on son and property+ ouse was lit+ son diedii. Rule: any act *nown to be dangerous to life and li*ely in itself to

cause deat+ done for te purpose of committing a felony wiccauses deat+ is murder

1. Bf sub0ective: no need for ;M #depraved eart$". Bf ob0ective: gross neg. standard #inerently dangerous$

i. People v. -aron+ p. 761 #MB outlawed ;M rule+ only in caselaw$

1I


17/23

Saarman

0. People v. Dillon+ p. 761 #C- refused to do te same+ reenactments bylegislature demonstrated intent to codify ;M rule$

*. Misdemeanoract doctrine$i. Rule: a misdemeanor resulting in deat can provide a basis for an

involuntary manslaugter conviction witout proof of rec*lessnessor negligence

1. /e4uires pro,imate cause. Commonwealth v. /illiams+#failure to renew license+ no causal connection to accident$. 8n,erentl 7an*erous and Mer*er imitations

a. Rule: ;M only applies to felonies tat are inerently dangerous to lifei. Abstract: categories of felonies tat classify as inerently

dangerous #burglary+ etc.$ii. As A##lied: inerent dangerousness depends on te facts of te

case not on te category of te felony1. uestion for 0ury or court

b. People v. Phillips+ p. 76" #abstract+ not inerently dangerous$i. ) convinced parents of cild wit eye cancer e could cure er for

=66 witout surgery. Convicted of "nd deg. murder ii. Rule: ;M rule only applies to felonies inerently dangerous to life

iii. Jrand teft fraud is not inerently dangerous+ based onclassification not actual commission abstract a##roac,

iv. State argues: armless error to instruct on ;M #0ury must avefound ) didnDt believe is treatment would wor*+ tis e,ibitse,treme rec*lessness for 2 murder$ A!( could ave believed

se would die anywayc. People v. 4enderson+ p. 76 #abstract+ not inerently dangerous$

i. /eversed "nd deg. murder conviction on false imprisonmentii. ;alse imprisonment not inerently dangerous #specifies violence+

menace+ fraud or deceit N not all dangerous ' violent$d. People v. 4oward + p. 76 #abstract+ not inerently dangerous$

i. Convicted of ;M for fleeing from officer wile 8driving in willfulor wanton disregard for safety of persons or oters9 #satisfied by %or more violations of traffic code$

ii. 3ot inerently dangerous #suspended license+ e,pired registration$iii. goes out of way to limit ;M rule

e. People v. Stewart + p. 76= #as applied+ 4uestion for 0ury$i. Moter on crac* binge+ neglects feeding cild

ii. Rule: inerent dangerousness is 4uestion for te 0uryf. 4ines v. State+ p. 767 #as applied+ 4uestion for court+ ;M$

i. Out unting+ mistoo* friend for a tur*ey+ ) is felon wit firearmii. Rule: a felony is inerently dangerous wen it is dangerous per se

or by its circumstances creates a foreseeable ris* of deatiii. Out unting+ *new oter were around+ too* unsafe sot at dus*

g. Mer*er imitations:i. Rule: ;M only applies to felonies e,ternal to omicide

ii. -ssault and assault wit a deadly weapon cannot form basis of ;Mconviction obliterate murder N manslaugter distinction

%. Restrictions: Bn ;urterance /e4uirement+ -gency and Pro,imate Causea. C Rule: ;M only applies wen *illing is done in furterance of felony

i. A*enc &,eor: ;M applies only to *illings committed by co>felon or agent of )

1=


18/23


19/23

Saarman

%. iger mens rea for a crime tat is punised less severely. Gurisdictions ave re0ected attem#ted felon murder

b. Mens Rea

i. Rule: specific intent #purpose$ to commit te underlying crimeii. Smallwood v. State+ p. I11

1. ) raped women+ is B5 and *new e would infect oter if unprotected

". Magnitude of te ris*: deat by -B2S not probable conse4uence of )Ds actionsa. #point gun and pull trigger infer purpose+ natural'probable result$

%. Rule: purpose to commit te underlying crimea. ow can you prove purpose if ris* of deat is low@

iii. Rule: parity #same mens rea as te underlying crime$1. CO only 0urisdiction wit tis rule+ see People v. &homas+ p. I1". Converts any rec*less beavior into attempted involuntary manslaugter

iv. MPC §4.01:1. Conduct: purpose". /esult:

a. Complete attempt: purpose or belief b. Bncomplete attempt: unclear #could be purpose$

%. Circumstances: parity #same as te offensec. Actus Reus

i. & Rule: pro,imity or e4uivocality test for conduct1. /roBimit: acts must be pro,imate and near to te consummation

a. ard to apply& ignores elaborate planning& callenging for police. E!ui"ocalit: acts must une4uivocally sow criminal intent

a. Bf strict+ not muc of a test& pragmatic #evidentiary corroboration$ii. Considerations:

1. Ma*e police able to intervene before crime is actually committed. Provide ) an opportunity to cange is mind ' repent3. Evidentiary concerns for finding criminal liability

iii. MPC §4.01(4): abandonment'renunciation is an affirmative defense #complete voluntary$1. 3ot voluntary if motivated in party by circumstances not present at inception

#more difficult to commit$ or simply postponing until later i". M/C &: accomplice liability for attempt even if underlying crime is not attempted

1. MPC: guilty of attempt. (L: no attempt committed so no crime

". Mc1uirter v. State+ p. I"" #pro,imity test+ attempted rape$1. ) found guilty of attempted rape+ seriffDs testimony is only evidence

a. confession to police officer is sufficient to go to a 0ury. Problems:

a. Aenign conduct can be te basis of pro,imity testb. ard to distinguis actual intention ' purposec. Convicted on testimony of oter people

"i. People v. !io+ p. I1 #pro,imity+ no attempted robbery$1. )s *new Carles would ta*e 1"66 for payroll from a ban*. 2rove around loo*ing

for Carles but never found im. Rule: te acts must be pro,imate and near to te consummation

a. dangerous pro,imity to success3. ad not found Carles yet+ could ave canged teir minds

"ii. &he 3ing v. Bar#er + p. I"7 #e4uivocality$1. Man buys matces to ligt aystac*+ guilty only once e ligts one but blows it out

because someone is watcing.

1F


20/23

Saarman

. Rule: overt acts wic are sufficient in temselves to declare and proclaim teguilty purpose wit wic tey are done

a. video witout sound #life impossible for police$

viii. -nti>Stal*ing Statutes:1. 2esigned to address te line drawing problem in attempt law. 3arrowly crafted to

deal wit arassment

iB. MPC §4.01(): conduct must be a substantial ste# tat is stron*l corroborati"e ofcriminal purpose1. Enumerates types of conduct tat are legally sufficient for 0ury #p. 1""6$. confession is not relevant under tis formulation #ob0ective$

3. Small step tat is strongly corroborative is insufficient5. Bncorporates elements of pro,imity and e4uivocality #less strict e4uivocality$

,. US v. Jac#son+ p. I%1 #attempted robbery$1. )s gatered supplies and two attempted to rob a ban* ". Substantial step: two reconnoitered+ ad parapernalia%. Strongly corroborative: could serve no oter lawful purpose

,i. US v. 4arper + p. I% #no attempted robbery$1. )s par*ed by ban*+ in buses by car ad guns+ gloves+ ammunition #-(M bill trap$". -ct was e4uivocal+ robbery still in te future%. ?ey difference between causing a bill trap and approacing victims wit guns

,ii. US v. Joyce+ p. I%71. ) flew to purcase cocaine from operative+ refused to pay witout seeing drugs". /efusing to sow te money and ma*e te purcase not a substantial step%. 3ot an abandonment case

d. Bmpossible -ttemptsi. & rule: #not li*e legal vs. factual mista*eZ$

1. Legal impossibility is a good defensea. Circumstance element is not satisfied

". ;actual impossibility is no defensea. /esult or conduct element is not satisfied

ii. MPC §4.01(1)(a): purposely engages in conduct wic would constitute te crime if teattendant circumstances were as e believes tem to be

1. eliminates im#ossibilit defense #factual or legal$ #about "'% states followed$iii. &rue le*al im#ossibilit: tere is no statute under wic to be convicted

1. e,. *etcup in guacamole no crime for convictioniv. /roblem: two uses of intent in common Englis #Oedipus e,.: intent to marry moter$v. People v. Jae+ p. I1

1. ) bougt clot e believed to be stolen but in fact ad been recovered. Cargedwit receiving stolen goods.

". Rule: not guilty of an attempt wit te immediate act in contemplation of ) wouldnot ave been a crime #legal impossibility$

a. manipulable #pic* poc*et wants watever is in tis specific poc*et$

%. ?nowledge is re4uired by statute #but e as beliefZ red erring$

vi. People v. Dlugash+ p. I%1. ) sot J after A ad already sot J. ) convicted of murder.". Rule: legal or factual impossibility is not a defense if te crime would ave been

committed ad te attendant circumstances been as ) believed tem to bea. Even if J was already dead+ if ) tougt e was alive wen e sot im

guilty of attempted murder vii. US v. Berrigan+ p. I=

1. A smuggled letters in and out of prison but warden *new of activity". ;actual: e,traneous circ. un*nown to te actor prevent consummation of crime

"6


21/23

Saarman

%. Legal: intended acts+ even if completed+ could not amount to a crimea. 2efines intent as wat results from conduct #not motive+ desire+ etc.$

. Rules: a. motive+ desire and e,pectation is to perform an act in violation of te law b. tere is intention to perform a pysical actc. tere is a performance of te intended pysical act

d. conse4uences resulting from te intended act do not amount to a crime7. manipulable

viii. ypo: Lady EldonDs attempt to smuggle ;renc lacei,. MPC §4.04(): 8n,erentl unliel attem#ts

1. if te attempt is so inerently unli*ely to result or culminate in te commission of acrime tat neiter suc conduct nor te actor presents a public danger+ court maylower grade or degree or dismiss entirely

". E,. Bvy broters convicted of attempted murder since tey used voodoo to try to*ill a 0udge.

,. US v. (viedo+ p. I1. ) arrested for selling eroin wic in fact was procaine ydrocloride". Convicting ) would eliminate ob0ective element wit ma0or evidentiary

significance increase convictions on mista*en inference tat ) believed goods

to be narcotics ' conduct to be illegal%. Rule: for a criminal attempt+ ob0ective acts performed witout any reliance on te

accompanying mens rea+ must mar* )Ds conduct as criminala. e: analog to MPCDs strongly corroborative re4uirement

5. Com#licit canDt be guilty of complicity

a. Common Law:i. Principal in first degree& principal in second degree& accessory before te fact

1. all mean complicitya. accessory after te fact #minor punisment$

ii. Complicity is not its own crime but a way to be found guilty of committing anoter crime1. Bmpute conduct of anoter person #wat oter e,amples of tis are tere@$

b. Mens Rea

i. /rinci#al=s Conduct:1. Rule: #ur#ose to aid or encourage". MPC §4.0(1): purpose of promotion or facilitating commission or attempted

commission of a crime+ encourages or re4uests anoter person%. Specific intent to furter te criminal action of te principal. 4ic#s v. US + p. II1 #purpose or *nowledge to aid and abet$

a. 8(a*e off your at and die li*e a man9 ten rides off wit /owe b. Gury instruction: if words ave effect+ intent presumedc. Rule: if an accomplice is present for te purpose of aiding and abetting but

refrains because it is not necessary+ ) is e4ually guiltyi. Prior encouragement suffices for te actus reus

7. ypos+ p. II%:a. Joes along to en0oy te spectacle no actus reus or mens rea

b. Souts words of encouragement no mens rea@ unclear c. /esolves to elp /owe succeed if necessary no actus reus

d. (ells /owe e will elp if needed actus reus and mens rea

I. State v. $ladstone+ p. IIa. Sting operation+ tries to buy mari0uana from J+ J refers to (+ draws map b. Rule: tere must be a ne,us between te evidence and purpose to aid and

abet commission of te crimec. Evidence isnDt corroborative of JDs purpose to furter (Ds sale

"1


22/23

Saarman

i. does corroborate sting operation to buy toug@@=. a# in t,e la': severe cases were ) *nows e is aiding or encouraging

a. E,. Osama bin LadenDs driver b. MPC proposal: *nowledge sufficient if substantially facilitates crimec. =t Cir. caselaw: US v. "ountain

i. *nowledge is sufficient for ma0or crimes

d. 3: substantive crime of criminal facilitation #misdemeanor or felony$e. Specific facilitation crimes:i. Money laundering

ii. Material support of terrorism #*nowledge+ material contribution$ii. Results

1. Maorit rule: #arit mens rea of te underlying offense for results

". Minorit rule: #ur#ose for results%. State v. Mc,ay+ p. I= #go to 0ury$

a. ) is boss of steam sip+ boiler e,ploded *illing passengers. ) directedcaptain and engineer #certified 4uestion of law$

b. Rule: purpose wit respect to conduct #aid and abet$+ mens rea of teunderlying offense wit respect to results

c. Gury could find is conduct was rec*less wit respect to te results. Commonwealth v. !oebuc# + p. I=7

a. 2M conviction. 5ictim lured to apt comple,+ ambused and sot. ) participated in orcestrating te events #no way to aid unintentional act$

7. MPC §.0;(3): - person is an accomplice of anoter in commission of an offensea. Hit purpose of promoting or facilitating its commission

i. Solicits suc oter person to commit itii. -id or agrees or attempts to aid in planning or committing

iii. Hit legal duty to prevent commission+ fails to ma*e proper effort b. (5): Hen causing a particular result is an element of an offense+ an

accomplice in te conduct causing suc result is an accomplice in tecommission of tat offense+ if e acts wit te *ind of culpability witrespect to tat result tat is sufficient for te commission of te offense

i. tries to endorse McVa rule

I. People v. !ussell + p. I6 #complicity for 2M$a. % )s battle in sootout on te central mall of ousing pro0ect #planned$.

Scool principal was sot wile loo*ing for a cild b. -ll ad purpose to engage in rec*less conduct+ inerently dangerous and

unlawful activityc. Bntentionally aided and encouraged eac oter to create crossfire

=. ypo: H and G are roommates+ after drin*ing G as*ed for HDs *eys+ *ills pedestriana. 2id H ave purpose tat G engage in te conduct@

iii. Attendant Circumstances not enoug caselaw1. C: for strict liability offenses+ a'areness no'led*e is re4uired

a. Options: #arit or #ur#ose". M/C: mens rea for circumstances left to interpretation%. ypos: accomplice in driving wit e,pired registration@ Parmacist an accomplice

by anding out contaminated drug@i". EBce#tion: $atural and /robable Conse!uences

1. Rule: liable as accomplice for any reasonably foreseeable offense committed byte person aided or abetted

a. negligence standard for te underlying offense

". People v. )uparello+ p. I" #accomplice+ natural and probable conse4uence$

""


23/23

Saarman

a. ) as*ed friend to find out were is e, was #at any cost$ by tal*ing tofriend of er new partner. )Ds friends *illed im.

b. ) did not ave purpose or *nowledge wit respect to *illingc. Rule: ) is guilty not only of te offense e intended to facilitate or

encourage but also of any reasonably foreseeable offense committed by te person e aid or abets

i. Crime need not be convicted but tat ) satisfied elements%. !oy v. US + p. I #not accomplice+ not natural and probable conse4uence$a. Bnformant tried to buy andgun from )+ ) set im up wit seller wo

ended up robbing informant. ) carged as accomplice to armed robbery b. (wo competing policies:

i. 3ot old responsible for tings not intendedii. old responsible for natural and probable conse4uences of a crime

even if tey go beyond wat was put in motionc. /obbery was not natural and probable conse4uences

. MPC §.0;: re0ects natural and probable conse4uence by aving no e,ception tomens rea re4uirement

v. Compared to ;M: broader #more applicable tan ;M$ but less deep #lower punisment$1. ;M: inerently dangerous+ merger+ in furterance+ pro,imate cause". Complicity: natural and probable conse4uence

c. -ctus /eus: -iding+ Encouragingi. C rule: actually aid or agree to aid in planning or in te commission

ii. MPC §.0;(3): - person is an accomplice of anoter in commission of an offense1. Hit purpose of promoting or facilitating its commission

a. Solicits suc oter person to commit it b. Aid or a*rees or attem#ts to aid in planning or committingc. Hit legal duty to prevent commission+ fails to ma*e proper effort

". applies to attempts

iii. /ilco* v. Jerey+ p. I= #accomplice$1. #!S citifor cause of te commission of te crime%. ?ey: 2id ) succeed in aiding or abetting@ vs. Has te crime committed@

v. ypos p. IF1:1. 4ic#s deliberately encourages but /owe is deaf #(L: no actus reus& MPC: guilty$". 4ic#s part of group of 166 ceering #no need to be but>for cause+ (L'MPC: guilty$%. a

Criminal Law Outline GIO

Documents

Transcript of Criminal Law Outline GIO