OUTLINE Criminal Law Fall 2008

8/7/2019 OUTLINE Criminal Law Fall 2008

1/25


2/25

Policy of punishment: moral reasons- we punish based on morality-and legislaturedecides out morality- judges cant create laws that will send people to jail onlylegislatures can bc we elect legislature

4 Sources of Law:1)Constitution2)Statutes- statutory law3) Administrative code-e x ec branch4) Cases- Common Law

II. W HY P UNISH

THEORIES OF PUNISHMENT

1. deterrence setting an e x ample = SCAR E D STRAIGHT

a) specific let me show you what happens when you commit a crime (deter the criminal)scared straight meant to deter the private individual

b) general see what happens when you do a crime: as a symbol to the rest

of society (deter persons other than the criminal)deters everyone(parisHilton)

o Ex ample: sending a message that you cannot kill someone to stay alive (Regina v.Dudley)

2. Incapacitation/Incarceration remove someone from society so he cantcommit the crime; also incarceration

y 3 strikes and youre out rule take you out of societyy whats the value? General deterrence(cant be

specific because you are not going to get out to do it)

3. retribution just deserves it; eye for an eye (death penalty); lets take somethingfrom them since they took it from us (imposes punishment to vent societysoutrage and need for revenge)


3/25

Ex ample: defendants should suffer because they committed a crime

Retribution: punishment imposed as payment or revenge for the offensecommitted

Retributivism legal theory by which criminal punishment is justified, as long asthe offender is morally accountable, regardless of whether deterrence or other good consequences would result

Venegance vengeance usually an individual seeking remorse

4. rehabilitation educate criminal to live within society = EDUCATION ;imprisonment provides opportunity to mold or reform criminal into a person who,upon return to society, will conform her behavior to societal norms- 2 purpose oneso they can return to streets and WE W ILL B E safer and 2 nd is that they will lead

better lives after rehabilitation

III. T HE E LEMENTS OF A C RIME E VE RY CRIM E HAS AN ACT , I NTE NT(4 LE VE LS), ATTE NDANT CIRCUMSTANC E & CAUSATION

1. Actus Reus (MPC 2 .01)- act 2.01-defines how to prove substantive act of any crime- read 2.01 in conjunctionw/statute-2.01 is read along w/every substantive crime

1) Model penal code 2.01 requires proof of A voluntary act2)The voluntary ACT is the one that supports the intent of the statute3)The defendant has to chose to commit the act that ultimately causes the harm4)The act is the one that fairly directly causes the harm or resulting crime

y An act is a voluntary movement; act is usually the verby Intent to commit the act, not intent to commit the crime- your act is not to intend to to

do the CRIM E act is the reckless act that you know may cause Damagey Ex : woman who smoked and dr said if you have 1 more cig youll have heart attack-

her vol act was smoking another cigarette she has heart attack drops cig burns building down she is liable for reckless act

y Question to ask is did def voluntarily chose to engage in the act that ultimatelyresulted in defendant committing a crime?

y Your act is the act that most directly causes the harmy Act Generally occurs at the moment of impact


4/25

ALL CRIM E S HAV E : ACT E LE ME NT, INTE NT E LE ME NT, ATT E NDANT CIRCUM , CAUSATION

A) the act must be VOLUNTARY

y V oluntary : a conscious e x ercise of the will; an involuntary act will not bedeterred by punishment

Example : going outside drunk and being convicted of a crime when being drunk in public is illegal- EXCEPTION- martin v state - being coerced or forced to go in public when drunk willnot make you liable for public into x ication bc you were forced to go into public- theACT here was appearing in public not voluntary

y

To figure out which act is voluntarily you need to look at the intent of the statute(legislative intent )

y Examples of involuntary acts include:a. Conduct that is not the product of the actors determination . Ex ample:

the police taking someone without his wish into the public and thencharging that person with a crime.)martin v state

b. Reflexive or convulsive behavior .c. Acts performed while D was unconscious or asleep unless D knew that

she might fall asleep or become unconscious and engaged in dangerous behavior. (MRS COGDON )

y Doing something unconsciously is not a voluntary act (People v. Newton where Dshot an officer ct said unconsciousness is complete defense to homicide).

y Or action in sleep is considered INVOLUNTARY (mrs cogdon in her sleep killed her daughter that she was a korean soldier) acquitted

y Somnambulism and insanity are not voluntary acts.y An epileptic person who got into a car, knowing that he was epileptic, is guilty even if

he commits a crime during an epileptic seizure, which was involuntary.(people vDecina )

y Decina was culpably negligent bc he counsciously undertook a risk knowing he

could lose consciousness- Person who drives vehicle in reckless manner & human being is killed is guilty of criminal neg.He disregarded consequences and is culpablynegligent

y NO one is punishable only for his thoughts- to punish must be W ill & ACT

B) Failure to perform an act: OMISSION(failure to act) In order to be guiltyof an omission you must have had a legal duty to act


5/25

Ex: Pope v state: pope not guilty bc no legal relationship to child therefore not duty eventhough she watched Childs mother beat and kill infant- no legal duty J ones v US -discusses 4 situations where you have legal duty to act :

1) Legal duty to act: D must have a legal duty to act under thecircumstances; a legal duty can arise when: (statutory, contractual, relationship)

i) statute W here a statute imposes a duty to care for another

ii) contract - W here one has assumed a contractual duty to care for another(nurse)

Ex ample: Jones did not have a legal duty to provide food for the baby, even though shetook the baby in to her house with its mom.

iii) relationship status relationship imposed by law (marriage certificate, birthcertificate, employee contract)status relationship

a) parent has a duty to prevent physical harm to his child b) spouse has a duty to prevent harm to the other spouse

iv) voluntary assumption of care W here one has voluntarily assumed the care of another and so secluded the helpless person as to prevent others from rendering aidalthough there is no common law duty to help someone in danger, once aid is rendered Dmay be liable for not satisfying reasonable standard of care; you also assume care to theex clusion of others (situation in which you pull over to help someone, so everyone else isex cluded from helping- assuming the care of others - lifeguard

v) creation of peril by D; if Ds act, even w/o knowledge, puts someone in danger, or affects his prop, liberty or any other interest, and D becomes aware of the eventscreating the danger, D has a duty to take reasonable steps to prevent the peril fromresulting in harm

Ex ample: Believing B could swim, A pushes B into pool; it becomes apparent B can'tswim, but A fails to help; B drowns; A failed to attempt to rescue, so he is guilty.

2) ability to perform (physically capable)

y Until you show the ability to perform, D is not guilty (People v. W ong)


6/25

y Ex ample: if a mother is not able to perform her duty to feed her children becauseshe has no way of getting food, she has no ability to perform

3) K nowledge of facts giving rise to duty

y Duty to act arises when D is aware of the facts creating the duty (e.g., parent mustknow child is drowning before his failure to rescue the child will make him liable);sometimes the law imposes a duty to learn the facts (e.g., lifeguard asleep at his postwould still have a legal duty to aid a drowning swimmer)

Possession as an Acty Criminal statutes that penalize possession of contraband generally require only that D

have control of the item for a long enough period to have had an opportunity to end possession; D must be aware of his possession of the object but need not be aware of

its illegality (contraband crimes tend to be strict liability crimes because people couldnot protect themselves from drugs; state wants to achieve social betterment of society.

y y SUM: actus reus y Look at statutey Find act elementy Voluntary or Omissiony Omission?y LE GAL DUTYy

Statutory, contractual, Special relationship, Assume care of another y Ability to Performy K nowledge of facts giving rise to duty

2 . Mens Rea, intent (state of mind ) (MPC 2 .02 )

MPC2.02- (1) INTENT- 2.02 (1)- says prosecution must prove intent w/respect to everyelement of the crime -2.02 says person not guilty of crime unless you can prove he acted

purposely, knowingly, recklessly or negligently w/respect to every material element of the crime.

y Intent is not a material element bc u cant be tried for guilty mind

1) Purpose to distinguish b/w inadvertent or accidental acts and acts performed by onewith a guilty mind; the latter type is more blameworthy, and can bedeterred


7/25

2) specific intent if the definition of a crime requires not only the doing of an act butthe doing of it with a specific intent or objective, it is a specificintent crime

y Common law: purposely and knowingly

3) general intent awareness of factors consisting crime: D must be aware that sheis acting in the proscribed way and that any attendantcircumstances required by the crime are present (D need not becertain that these circumstances e x ist; it is sufficient that she isaware of a high likelihood they e x ist

y Common law: recklessly and negligentlyy Note that MPC has 4 categories of intent, doesnt differentiate b/w specific

and generaly E vidence for general intent can be inferred from the doing of the act

y a) Transferred Intent

y I f D intended harmful result to one person or object and, in trying to carry out that intent, caused similar harmful result to another person or object, her intent istransferred from intended person or object to one actually harmed; all defenses that

D can raise are transferred; doctrine most commonly applies to homicide, batteryand arson; it does not apply to attempt .

Ex ample: A shoots at B, intending to kill him. Because of bad aim, she hits C, killinghim. A is guilty of Cs murder because her intent to kill B transferred to C. A may also beguilty of attempted murder of B.

Countere x ample: A shoots at B, intending to kill him. She hits C, only wounding him.W hile A may be guilty of attempted murder of B, she is not guilty of attempted murder of C because transferred intent doesnt apply to attempt.

b) motive distinguished from intent

y Motive is the reason or e x planation underlying the offense; its immaterial tosubstantive criminal law; a good motive will not e x cuse a criminal act; a lawful actdone with bad motive will not be punished.

y Telling one to kill himself (hope) and providing the means to do it is not grounds for homicide since there is no intent in hoping.


8/25

y Ex ample: A poor woman steals to feed her hungry children. Despite her noblemotiveto feed her childrenthe woman could be held criminally liable for her acts

because her intent was to steal.y

4. MPC proposes 4 categories of intent2.02(1)(purposely, know,reck,neg)

2.02(1) intent of either purposely, knowingly, recklessly or negligently must applyto every material element of the crime-apply intent level to e/material element.2.02(2) intent levels defined.2.02 (3) tells you what to do when statute does not have intent- if statute is silent w

respect to intent the prosecution must prove minimum of reckless butobv. can prove purposely, knowingly min. of reckless no negligence Only culpable if you can prove minimum of reckless

2.02 (4) says when law has more than one element of intent, look and see if

contrary purpose PLAINLY APP E ARS, that is how you should followstatute

When you have 2.02 3- no intent level- IS it traditional common law crime? Thenapply intent or is it strict liability

a. Purposely, knowingly, or recklessly y subjective standard is used; question is what was actually going on in Ds mind - in

these three, the actor is aware as opposed to negligence

i) Purposely person acts purposely with respect to his conduct when it is his consciou sobj ective t o engage in certain cond uct or cau se a certain res ult (same asINT E NTIONALLY)total personal awareness-

ex : RD J he would have to be aware of attendant circumstances that it was someone elsehome he went into

ii) knowingly person acts knowingly w/ respect to nature of his conduct when hes awarethat his conduct is of that nature or that certain circumstances e x ist; His goal is not tocommit a crime but is aware his conduct is of the nature of his act and aware of ACT andAC -- he acts knowingly when he knows that his conduct will necessarily or very likely

cause such result; same as W ILFULLY- know harm will result

Ex ample: Im speeding thru a school zone at 3pm; I know that someone could get hurt.

iii) recklessly person acts recklessly when he consciously disregards a substantial orunjustifiable risk that circumstances e x ist or that a prohibited result willfollow and this constitutes a gross deviation from the standard of care


9/25

that a reasonable person would e x ercise in his shoes; recklessness involves both objective (unjustifiable risk) and subjective (awareness)elements

ex : regina v cunnigham- stole money from gas meter- reasonable person would knowsomeone could breathe in fumes from gas meter and die

LINE BW NEGLIGENCE AND REC K LESS IS PERSONAL AWARENESS

b. Negligently-no personal awareness- should have been awareone acts negligently when he SHOULD be aware of a substantial andunjustifiable risk that circumstances e x ist or a result will follow, andsuch failure constitutes a substantial deviation from the standard of care that a reas ona ble pers on would e x ercise under the circumstances; todetermine if he acted negligently, an objective standard is used.

NOTE: TORT LAW V CRIM LAWIn tort- balance burden and only have duty when it is established

In crim law you have legal duty to everybody if you commit an act crim look we look at conduct and riskiness of conduct

CRIMINAL LAW NEGLIGENCE : a reasonable person is aware of a gross andsubstantial risk of harm

i) violation of statute or ordinance as evidence of negligence

y Violation of such, like in tort, is evidence of liabilityy Ex ample: A, driving in e x cess of speed limit, hits and kills B, a pedestrian. As

speeding violation may be admissible as evidence of his negligence in a prosecutionfor manslaughter

y y W HE N YOU G E T A STATUT E :y

Identify Act, Intent and attendant circumstancesy is act voluntary- omission?---Legal dutyy Can prosecution prove attendant circumstancesy Identify proper level of intent (2.02 )y Apply Intent to every material element

b. Analysis of Statutes Using Fault Standards (MPC)


10/25

1) State of mind applies to all material elements of offense--MPC 2.02(4)

y W hen statute indicates a state of mind but doesnt say if it is needed for all materialelements of the crime, this state of mind often applies to all material elements of theoffense unless a contrary purpose appears in statute--MPC 2.02(4).

y Point is to look at the intent of the legislature.

y Ex ample: Under a statute imposing criminal liability on anyone who knowinglymakes a sale of alcohol to a minor, the MPC would require knowledge of eachelement of the offense. So, if D didnt know a sale took place, she is not guilty.

2 ) General standardrecklessness -- MPC 2 .02(3 )

y If statute (other than a strict liability offense) doesnt include a mens rea, D must haveacted with at least recklessness with regard to each element of the crime.

y A higher state of mind automatically satisfies a lower state of mind; e.g., if you proveknowingly, you already proved recklessly and negligently

y If you see a statute that is silent, ask if it is a strict liability statute or a traditionalcommon law crime? Traditional common law crimes (theft, robbery, againstindividuals) require intent; public

4) Strict liability offenses

1) Strict Liability Statute interest in serving a certain group is more importantthan liberty it is regulatory like toxic waste dumping

Ex : US v Balint - ct here said whole statute us strict liability and prosecution justneeds to prove act and attendant circumstances- value of punishing here was generaldeterrence and to protect group who cant protect themselves- ct here says we can onlymake strict liability if punishment is small-like a fine for selling marijuana like in balint

Morrisette v US - sloppy drafting on statute and didnt know whether intent level

applied- 2.02 (4) ct decided that bc stealing is a traditional common law crime, it had tohave an intent level. Traditional common law crime not SL- 2.02 (4) sloppy drafting saysif contrary purpose plainly appears with regard to intent levels, then chg it- this notintended to be strict Liability

Staples v us Says the required mental state for a federal crime is determined bythe construction of the statute and inference of the intent of congress. STAPL E S limitsreach of strict Liability to items that were BOTH


11/25

1) Dangerous-drugs, grenades2) Highly regulated & by their nature would alert def to possibility of regulation

**F EL ONY can never be strict L iability so if no intent level in felony statute goto 2 .02 (3 ) must apply min reckless

2) Traditional common law crime w /strict liability ELEMENT -rape of minor Ex :G A RN E TT v State - no intent level in rape statute ct thinks should be strict liability

to protect minors from moral wrongs some jurisdictions allow mistake of fact in statutory rapehere they thought protecting minors more important

Ex: people v olsen - traditional common law crime- RAP E w/SL element ageThis was a mistake of fact- however ct said mistake of age not a defense bc age is strict

liabilityy Dont require awareness of all the factors constituting the crime; generally, the

requirement of a state of mind is not abandoned with respect to all elements of theoffense, but only with regard to one or some of the elements; MA JOR SIGNI FICANC E : mistake of fact is not available.

y Also known as public welfare offenses; regulatory offensesy Strict liability elementsy The crime is not strict liability but an element in the crime is, which doesnt require

proof of intent

y Ex ample: statutory rape: No person shall knowingly engage in intercourse with aminor under 16. W ith a minor under 16 is a strict liability element because children

can't protect themselves.

a) identification of strict liability offenses

i) Identify that there is no intent level specified.

ii) Is it a traditional common law crime that we would impose a minimum of reckless 2.02 (3) (e.g., larceny and stealing)--courts sometimes interpret the lowest level,especially if a statute appears to be a codification of a traditional common law offense.

iii) Is punishment of crime intended to protect public welfare strict liability crimesare not against a particular person but against the people and society; occurrence of theseoffenses impairs efficiency of society as a whole, who cannot protect itself.

iv) Ask if the penalty of violation is small or big --if violation is a felony (significant jailtime), you cannot e x clude the mens rea element of the crime; strict liability crimes


12/25

generally involve a relatively low penalty and are not regarded by the community asinvolving significant moral offensiveness.Example: Federal law prohibits transfer of firearms not registered under the law. Is it adefense that D was ignorant of the law? No, because this is a strict liability crime.Awareness is not an element.

Ex - like labeling food and drugs- gen population being protected- speeding they think stopping speeding more impt than liberty

y IF A STATUT E W ould fail in its effectiveness in protecting minors, then have tomake element re minors strict liability knowledge about age strict liability we dont care if you didnt know

y W HE N AG E (under 18) is part of statute, prosecution does not have to prove thatknowledge they are class of people who cant protect themselves so we will

prtotect them

Countere x ample: law requires registration of any full automatic machine gun. Statute issilent on mental state. Penalty is 10 years in prison. D can assert he wasnt aware that theweapon he had was a semiautomatic. It was a harsh statute and penalty was severe, whichwould require a mens rea element.

3 . Causation causal connection

A. General Requirement must be cause in fact and pro x imate cause

y W hen a crime is defined to require not only conduct but also a specified result of thatconduct, Ds conduct must be both a cause in fact and the pro x imate cause of thespecified result- Important for homicide cases.

y If P can't prove W HAT caused the accident, D is not liable (chewing gum companycase where P couldnt prove what caused e x plosion.

y People v Warner L ambert chewing gum factory e x plosion If P can't proveW HAT caused the accident, D is not liable (chewing gum company case where Pcouldnt prove what caused e x plosion. W e didnt have but-for cause here- so eventhough it is likely factory was negligent this is crim law we dont care we dont

know what def did or did not do and we can prove liability

y If the victim is subject to the dominion and control of the D, he is guilty of the crime(death) that results from such dominion and control.

1) Cause-in-fact-BUT-FOR(Lambert no but-for so nothing we can do)The result would not have occurred BUT FOR Ds conduct.


13/25

But for Ds act, the harm would not have occurred.

2) Proximate Causation- natural and probable consequence of actionsissues of pro x imate cause arise only when victims death occurs because of Ds acts, butin a manner not intended or anticipated by D; the main question here is whether the resultof Ds actions was foreseeable , which requires a reasonable person standard; if not,the chain of proximate cause is broken

a) Natural and probable results are proximately caused.

y D is responsible for all results that occur as foreseeable (natural and probable)consequences of Ds conduct, even if he didnt anticipate the precise manner in whichthey would occur; all such results are pro x imately caused by Ds act; chain is brokenonly by the intervention of a SUP E RSE DING factor

y Foreseeability and Coincidence:y Ex : People v Acosta- says we dont apply intent to causation 2 helicopters crashing

was not foreseeable from his act and no pro x imate cause

1) Hastening inevitable resultAn act that hastens an inevitable result is nevertheless a legal cause of that result:

Example: A terminated the life support of B, resulting in Bs death. B has only 24hours to live. A is liable even though he made Bs death quicker.

2) Simultaneous ActsSimultaneous acts by 2 or more people may be considered independently sufficientcauses of a single result.

y People v Arzon- D set fire and a 2 nd fire broke out d liable for harm - if thedefendant's act starts a chain of events which lead to the death of the victim, then thedefendant can be held liable

y Within Arzon: ( K ibbe & Stewart)

y K ibbe- left man on side of road hit by car- defendants liable for leaving him on sideof road even tho he died from car impact

y Stewart- stabbed a man doctor performed hernia operation and he died- stabber stillliable for stabbing but not for death bc act was a superserding intervening act


14/25

y Court says K ibbe & Stewart an individual in criminally liable if his conduct was asufficiently direct cause of the death and the ultimate harm is something which shouldhave been foreseen as being reasonably related to his acts

3) Preexisting ConditionA victims pree x isting condition that makes him more susceptible to death does not break the chain of causationD takes the victim as he finds him.

Ex ample: A shoots B in the leg, who bleeds to death because he is a hemophiliac. A isliable for Bs death despite the fact that had B not been a hemophiliac he wouldnthave died.

4) Intervening Acts

y

Coincidence or e x traordinary and R E MOT E breaks the chainy An unrelated unforeseen event also breaks the chainy Ex ample: airplane falling in middle of road on one who was shot

i) Act of Nature: A is driving negligently. To avoid As swerving car, B takes anunaccustomed route home and is hit by lightning. A cannot be charged withmanslaughter because lightning was a mere coincidence.

ii) Act of a 3 rd party: A, intending to kill B, merely wounds him. B receives negligentmedical treatment at a nearby hospital and dies. A CAN be held liable for Bs death

because negligent care in the hospital after one is shot to be treated is foreseeable. If B died due to gross negligence or intentional mistreatment, A would not be guilty.

Ex ample: people v Stewart doctor operates on victim for hernia after victim got into a car accident. The doctor made an independent choice to engage in this peripheral surgeryto the actual accident.

iii) SUBSEQUENT HUMAN ACTIONS -Acts by the victim:

y A, intending to kill B, merely wounds him. B refuses treatment for religious reasonsand dies. A can be held liable because his act created a risk of death and it wasforeseeable that D would refuse help.

y Another situation: B, in unbearable pain, commits suicide. A may also be found liable because suicide is a foreseeable consequence of As act.

y People v Campbell - Campbell not guilty for homicide for hoping P would use gun tokill himself Ps decision to kill himself was intervening cause


15/25

y Roberts case- gave wife poison- she drank it and died and hes guilty of murder- todaywifes conduct would probably be intervening cause

y K evorkian - basically ct says after theseif you do last act to kill someone itsmurder--- If person does very last act and you help then its assisted suicide

y Re x v V A L A D E - an act done in direct response to criminal conduct does not break chain and d is liable

y Coincidence and free will break the chain R E LIGIOUS B E LIE F Breaks chainy Stephenson- W hen suicide follows a wound inflicted by the defendant his act is

homicidal, if deceased was rendered irresponsible by the wound and as a naturalresult of it."

y Root- transferred intent-ds recklessness transferred to victims when he swerved outin front of a truck and was killed

y -W hen a victim acts recklessly, in his free will, he breaks the chain of causation, so Dis not guilty for the result (case where victim and D were racing and victimnegligently passed D and was killed).

y If Ps action are a direct response to criminal conduct and harm is caused D is liable

I V . DEFENSES TO A C RIME IGNORANCE OR MISTA K E 2.04

IGNORANCE OR MISTA K E AS TO MATTER OF FACT OR A LAW IS A DEFENSE IF :

A) THE IGNORANC E OR MISTA K E NE GATIV E S THE PURPOS E , K NOW LE DGE BE LIE F-

3.DEFENSES2.04- M ISTA K E SAYS DEF DID NOT POSSESS THE REQUISITE INTENT FOR ONE MATERIALELEMENT OF CRIME WITH WHICH HE WAS CHARGED TO WIN UNDER 2.04 (1) YOU HA V ETO SHOW HONEST BELIEF THAT NEGATED INTENT I know Im governed by law but Ididnt have intent for one element

1. 2.04 (1) M ISTA K E OF FACT -DID NOT K NO W ABOUT E LE ME NT O F CRIM E SAYSMISTA K E IS A D E FE NSE W HE N YOU HAV E AN HON E ST BE LIE F AS TO AN E LE ME NT O F

THE CRIM E (THE N W HY? FACTS ? OR CRIMINAL LA W ?2. 2.04 (1)M ISTA K E OF NON CRIMINAL LAW -NON CRIMINAL ELEMENT OF

CRIMINAL LAW 3. 2.04 (3) MISTA K E OF CRIM LAW - DID NOT K NO W COULD B E PROS E CUTE D FOR

THIS I K NOW THIS LA W BUT I DIDN T THIN K I W AS GOV E RNE D BY THIS LA W 4. 2.04(2)- YOU AR E GUILTY O F THE CRIM E THAT YOU THOUGHT YOU WE R E

COMMITTING


16/25

A. Mistake of F actMPC 2 .04 ( 1) (a )-says if defendant mistaken as to anelement of the crime-such that prosecution cant prove the intent def can beex cused from that crime but can be responsible for crime he thought he wascommitting

B. 2.04- says if defendant can show he did not have intent w/respect to everymaterial element of crime- he may be e x cused had to convince jury that he hadan honest mistake of fact-ON EX AM YOU SAY: not guilty b/c facts weredifferent than he thought

C. MPC approach to mistake - Ignorance or mistake is a defense when it negatesmens rea- negates the e x istence of a state of mind essential to the commission of an offense

D. IF you see words, HONEST BELIEF , it is 2.04 (1) Situation EX: Pe o ple v Weiss - honest belief he wasnt kidnapping/ Pe o ple v Olsen

EX C E PT: strict liability (MINOR)- mistaken as to age they dont care Ex :People v Olsen- claimed mistake of fact as to her age but age is strict liabilityelement and honest belief useless

Mistake of fact hypo ex : No personal shall destroy prop over $1000 I destroyed this desk but I didnt know it was over 1000 2.04(1) Defense--V ERSUS 2.04 (3) I didnt think this law applied to me Regina v smith-2.04(3) belief that conduct does not legally constitute an offense

a. Mistake must negate state of mindy I gnorance or mistake as to a matter of fact will affect criminal guilt if it shows that

D didnt have the state of mind required for the crimey To prove that there was no intent for at least one attendant circumstance, use the T

diagram to prove a mistake of fact for a particular element .

Ex ample: A, hunting in woods, shoots at what he reasonably thinks is a deer. In fact, hekills B. As mistake of mind establishes that he didnt have the required state of mindneeded for murder.

Compare: A, hunting in woods, shoots thru trees at a figure he believes to be his enemy,B, intending to kill him. In fact, that figure is C, who is killed. A is guilty despite hismistake of fact as to Cs identity because As mistake doesnt negate his intent to kill a

person


17/25

SO GET STATUTE:ACT voluntary or omission INTE NT 2.02 (1) prove intent wrespect to every material element if you cant 2.04 (1) is there mistake of fact or noncrim law?

b. Requirement that Mistake be reasonable- in order to prove mistake of fact mustshow the jury that person had a good faith reasonable honest belief

1) General intent crimes reasonableness required --if mistake or ignorance is offeredto negate e x istence of general intent, it must be a reasonable mistake or ignorance, i.e.,the type a reasonable person would have made under the circumstances.

2) Specific intent crimes reasonableness not required any mistake of fact,reasonable or not, is a defense to a specific intent crime.

Example: A, leaving caf, takes umbrella, believing it was the one she left there a week ago. In fact, it belongs to B. A is not guilty of larceny because A believed umbrella was

hers; she couldnt have intended to deprive B of her umbrellashe lacked necessarymens rea.- BUT Less reasonable the less likely theyll be believed.

c) Strict Liability Crimes since these require no intent, mistake of fact is NOT adefense; the fact that D committed crime is enough to convict him; e x amples includestatutes that protect minors.

Ex ample: Law says you cannot steal a person under 18 from someones parents. D cannot

argue that he didnt know she was 18.Policy: children cant protect themselves, so the legislature will protect them.

Mistake of non-criminal law MPC 2 .04 ( 1) (b ) 2 .04 ( 1)- an honest belief it was ok W hen you get your statute, figure out if mistake of fact or non criminal lawMake a T.If you prove D didnt know about the element of the crime, you ask: why was Dmistaken?Ex : Regina v Smith - ignorance of law case- court says this IS consistent with ignoranceof law doctrine because 2.04(1) says ignorance or mistake as to a matter of fact or law isa defense if it negatives the PURPOS E , Belief, recklessness or negligence required toestablish a material element of the offense. D destroyed property he believed to be his the law made it actually the landlords property, but he was mistaken in a law and he didnot intend to destroy prop of another and that is a mistake of law defense.


18/25

CHEE K v US - (mistake of law) --honest beliefs of the defendant do not have to beobjectively reasonable and as long as the defendant honestly does something without theguilty mind- ta x evasion he was guilty though bc he did know about ta x laws

B. Mistake of Criminal Law 2.04(3)- I know this criminal law but it doesnt apply to mey D says that this law doesnt apply to him. 2.04(3) I know law is out there and I know

it applies to most people but I dont think it applies to me. BUT, unless you areofficially told it doesnt apply to you Then its not a defense.

y y YOU CANNOT W IN ON 2.04(3) UNL E SSy 1)Rely on Official Statementy 2) Statute is not known to actor & has not been published or made available

a. General rule: IGNORANC E - no defense-

y 2.02 (9) ignorance of the law is no defensey It is not a defense to a crime that D was unaware that her acts were prohibited by

criminal law or that she mistakenly believed that her acts were not prohibited. This istrue even if her ignorance or mistake was reasonableMPC 2.02(9).

y Ex : PE OPL E V Marreroy Ds interpretation of a statute doesnt matter, even if it was the wrong interpretation.

Policy: we dont want every criminal to use this as a defense and get out of liability.y Ex : People v Marrero (people v weiss w/i) from this case says mistake of law defense

only if mistake came from:y Official Statement like the attorney generaly Law not published or readily availabley

b. Mistake of law may negate intent

y This situation involves ignorance of SOM E aspect of the law other than thee x istence of statute making the act criminal .

c. Mistake of Law is a defense when :

1) Statute Not Reasonably Available D has a defense if the statute proscribing her conduct was not published or madereasonably available prior to conduct.

2) Reasonable reliance on statute or judicial decision


19/25

D has a defense if she acted in reasonable reliance on a statute or judicial decision, eventhough statute is later de clared unconstit utional or de cision is overr uled . Defense isstrongest when decision relied on was made by the highest court in the jurisdiction (caseabout guy protesting on army base when lower court said it was ok).

3) Reasonable Reliance on official interpretation of advice

D has a defense if he relies on an erroneous official statement of the law obtained fromone charged by law with responsibility for interpretation, administration, or enforcementof law.

4) Compare (3) with reasonable reliance on advice of private counsel

Unlike reasonable reliance on an official interpretation of law, (e.g., opinion of the

Attorney General), relying on advi ce of ones cou nsel is normally NOT a defense to acrime. If, however the reliance on the attorney negates an otherwise necessary mentalstate element (e.g., knowingly violating the law), such reliance CAN demonstrate that the

prosecution has not proved its case.

V . H OMICIDE -SPECTRUM OF PUNISHMENT

Murder 1 st (intentional) -- Murder 2 nd(unintentional depraved heart)-- Voluntary manslaughter (HOP -EE D)involuntary manslaughter (reckless homicide) criminal negligent homicide(w/gross negligence causing death of another)

(A) MURDER


20/25

y Unlawful killing of another with malice aforethought; malice aforethought may bee x press or implied

Malice aforethought - in absence of facts e x cusing the homicide or reducing it tovoluntary manslaughter, malice aforethought e x ists if D has any of the following statesof mind:

(i) intent to kill ( express ) BELOW (ii) intent to inflict great bodily harm ( implied )(iii) reckless indifference to an unjustifiably high risk to

human life: depraved heart ( implied ) BELOW (iv) felony murdermalice is implied from the intent to

commit the underlying felony

(1) Intentional homicide MURDER 1- --deliberate and premeditated killingy Deliberate means that D made decision to kill in a cool and dispassionate manner

(there is intent). Objective is to K illy Premeditated means that D actually reflected on the idea of killing, if only for a

brief periody MPC SAYS Murder 1 is your conscious Objective to K illy Common v. Carroll It only takes a moment to think about the killing to be convicted

(a moment of reflection)case where D stabbed his wife after she was getting on hisnerves. Ct says any amt of time sufficient to establish premeditation

y Difference b/w impulsive killer vs. the one who premeditated: the one who isimpulsive gets a lesser conviction (e.g. from 1 st to 2 nd degree murder); Guthrie wasntconvicted b/c he was impulsive - must be weighing of options even for a second must be some opportunity for reflection or not murder 1.

y RUL E : lack of premeditated proof decreases the convictiony Premeditate means you evaluate and weigh your optionsy y AND E RSON CAS E : (stabbed girl like 60 times) when no evidence. To decide

whether someone commits murder:3 ways to prove circumstantial evidence:1) evidence of planning 2) evidence of manner in which you kill3) relationship b/w the partiesy By satisfying these factors, you can prove intentional murder .

(2) MURDER 2 -Depraved heart murder (Unintentional Felony Murder)REC K LESSNESS +


21/25

Ex : Malone - when you know harm is likely to result- here high probability of death like speeding through school zone at 3 is depraved heart murder

Ex : F leming -Hypo:guy who killed flower girl got depraved heart murder usually manslaughter

y The malice element is met when one intentionally does an uncalled for act in heartlessdisregard of its likely harmful effect on others

y Reckless and wanton disregard of the consequences and a gross deviation from areasonable standard of care

y Formula = reckless + ____ y NOT E : depraved heart murder doesnt work with specific intent (purposely or

knowingly) because here D has to be reckless; depraved heart is when Ds act islikely to cause death, but not when D is actually trying to kill.

y Purposely or knowingly imply intentionalthis is reckless and Unintentionaly Ex ample 1: case where boy shoots his friend in Russiany Ex ample 2: drunk guy drives 100 (total disregard for human life)

(B) MANSLAUGHTER

(1) V oluntary manslaughter(intentinal killing but in HOPE or EED)

y an intentional killing distinguishable from murder by the e x istence of adequate provocation

y basically: intentional homicide with an e x cuse (provocation )- HOP/ EE D

Question: W hen is it that D intends to kill but we wont send him to jail for life for murder?

Answer: W hen D under HOP EE D- Provocation

????NOTE - HOP & EE D Are ONLY D E FE NSE to HOMICID E not attemptedHomicide???

MISTA K E OF LAW/FACT V S. HOP/EED

IN HOP & EE D- you are not negating intent like in Mistake HOP & EE D are partialand A FFIRMATIV E Defenses

- Mistakes are general defenses negating elements of the crime- Hop must be e x treme provoking event jurisdictions are all different-


22/25

y E ach jurisdiction recognizes either (i) heat of passion or (ii) e x treme emotionaldisturbanceR E AD TH E STATUT E TO S EE W HAT APPLI E S

y Provocation is a partial affirmative defense (unlike self-defense) that reduces a killingto voluntary manslaughter, so D isnt sentenced for life.

y Policy for reducing crime: we dont want to send someone to jail for something wecan foresee ourselves doing (e x ample with husband catching wife in bed withanother)

y Provocation needs to be in the presence of the person committing the crimeif provocation occurs before the attempted murder, D may not have a defense. HOP is areally tight time frame.

y Self defense complete defense HOP is partial defense will lessen charge

(i ) HOP - F or D to use heat of passion(partial defense ) defense, he needs to show that: ELE M E NTS HOP:

(1) he was provoked & e x perienced rage or heat of passion so that D lost self-control +(subjective)(2) that a reasonable person would have been provoked- (objective)(3) D did not have sufficient time to cool off b/w the provocation and killing (subjective)(4) that a reasonable person would not have had time to cool off bw the two (objective)

- NEE D A PROV K ING E VE NT FOR HOP -Comments:y I n addition to the 4 prong test, heat of passion is also limited to the categorical

approach:ex treme assault or battery upon Dmutual combatDs illegal arrestinjury or serious abuse of a close relative of Dssudden discovery of a spouses adultery)

(ii)EED - For D to use extreme emotional disturbance defense , he needs to show that:

ELEMENTS EED:(1) he acted under influence of e x treme emotional disturbancey Ex treme emotional = irrational, e x tremely upset y I nsanity is NOT EE Dinsanity is when the aliens are telling you to kill (2) that a reasonable person would act in the same way or would have found defendantsconduct reasonable under the circumstances


23/25

- EE D- you know that you are killing but you do it out of rage and emotional

issues--- V E RSUS insanity where you dont even know what you are doing- EE D is INT E NTIONAL K ILLING w/e x cuse

Ex : People v Casassa - apt comple x lovers case - both subjective and objective elementwhen deciding whether to reduce from murder to manslaughter

y Heat of passion is at the moment while EE D is brooding (so crazed that you kill )

(iii ) PROVOC AT I ON - (HOP/ EE D )

y Provocation is adequate in cases of:a) being subjected to a serious battery or a threat of deadly force

b) discovering ones spouse in bed with another person- (maher v people- indetermining whether the provocation is sufficient, ordinary human nature, should

be taken as the standard words were enough here where words were that hiswife was having adulterous relationship

Provocation is inadequate as a matter of law: y mere words do not provoke as a matter of law: actions speak louder

than words(GIROUARD CAS E )

(1) Involuntary manslaughter (also reckless homicide)

(i) Criminally negligent homicide

y If death is caused by criminal negligence, the killing is involuntarymanslaughter

y Criminal negligence requires a greater deviation from the reasonable person standard than required in civil liability

y

I may not be aware but a reasonable person would

Ex ample 1: case where D failed to take baby to hospital, who died; they failed toex ercise their duty to take baby to the doctor

Ex ample 2: bar owner was charged with involuntary manslaughter because hedisregarded the safety of the people in the bar


24/25

(ii) Unlawful act manslaughter - a killing caused by an unlawful act

y A killing in the course of the commission of a misdemeanor (as opposed to a felonyfor murder)

y If a killing was caused during the commission of a felony, BUT DO E S NOT qualifyas a felony murder case.

Statutory change of common law classificationy modern statutes usually divide murder into degreesy Murder in 1 st degree and 2 nd degree is different in diff states

Analytical Approach to any homicide situationa) Did D have any state of mind sufficient to constitute malice afterthought?

b) If YE S, is there proof of anything that will, under any applicable statute, raise thehomicide to 1st degree murder (killed officer, etc)?

c) If YE S, is there evidence to reduce the killing to voluntary manslaughter (i.e.,

adequate provocation)?d) If NO, is there sufficient basis for holding the crime to be involuntarymanslaughter (i.e., involuntary manslaughter or misdemeanor manslaughter)?

e) Is there adequate causation b/w Ds acts and victims death? W as Ds act thefactual cause of death? Is there anything to break chain of proximate causation

b/w Ds act and victims death?


25/25

OUTLINE Criminal Law Fall 2008

Documents

Transcript of OUTLINE Criminal Law Fall 2008