CRIMINAL LAW OUTLINE – LEVINE I. Punishment Theories a. Retribution – D deserves to be punished (must have intent) b. Deterrence – Utilitarian (can’t punish involuntary or mistakenly committed acts, b/c then will not act as deterrent), Goals: a. Rehabilitation – Correct criminal behavior b. Incapacitation – Prevent D from causing further harm ACTUS REUS (ACT) → MENS REA (INTENT) → CAUSATION
II.
-
Actus Reus
PERSON MUST VOLUNTARILY COMMIT THE CRIME o Involuntary act cannot induce guilt
a. Voluntary act
i. Model Penal Code 1. A person is not guilty of an offense unless his conduct includes a voluntary act or the omission to perform an act which he is physically capable ii. Conditioned Response: act so rapid, it’s automatic - involuntary 1. Valid defense, but requires sufficient evidence 2. Does not apply to voluntarily induced unconsciousness a. Elimination of culpability only if volitional 3. Moral condemnation for involuntary act does not deter. b.
Omissions (“Negative acts”)
i. Under some circumstances, omission (failure to act) can be considered a crime ii. Omission is NOT AN ACT 1. Omission = withholding a benefit iii. Duty + breach of duty thru omission + causation = conviction. iv. Must be a legal duty imposed by law or contract – not a moral obligation 1. Morally wrong, but not legal criminal culpability
Instances where FAILURE TO ACT CONSTITUTES BREACH OF LEGAL DUTY: o statute imposes duty o certain status relationship o contractual duty to care for another o voluntarily assumed care for another o create risk of harm to another (crash into someone else’s car) III.
Mens Rea (mental state of mind necessary in accompaniment of the act)
1
a. GUILTY MIND, CRIMINAL INTENT, GUILTY PURPOSE b. An act does not make the doer guilty, unless the mind is guilty, that is, unless the intent is criminal i. Broad Meaning 1. Actus rea + morally culpable state of mind = guilt ii. Narrow Meaning 1. Mental state expressly required in the definition of the offense a. D is not guilty of an offense, even if she has a culpable state of mind, if she lacks the mental state specified in the definition of the crime c. State of mind under MPC (4 culpability terms) i. Purposely/Intentionally/Willfully (Desire) 1. conscious objective to engage in conduct and cause such a result 2. wrongful motive, bad faith, violation of a known legal duty ii. Knowingly/ Aware (Substantial Certainty – Depraved indifference) 1. Consciously aware that such a result is practically certain to be cause by his conduct iii. Recklessly 1. Substantial and unjustifiable risk known to the D iv. Negligently 1. A reasonable person would be aware of… 2. Conduct is a gross deviation from standard of care d. Intent i. One intends the natural and probable consequences of his actions
ii. Mental state: doesn’t necessarily want it to happen, but they know if they commit the act the result is more than just a possibility
e. Knowledge i. Willfully shutting one’s eyes vs. actual knowledge ii. Knowledge of Attendant Circumstances 1. Condition that must be present, in conjunction w/ prohibited conduct or result, in order to constitute a crime - TRANSFERRED INTENT D intends to kill X, but kills Y instead o if proven that D killed human being, actus reus of offense has occurred, and D possessed required mens rea (intent to kill); therefore, D guilty – intent transferred o Mens rea + Actus rea = guilt f. Mistake of Fact is an excuse i. mistake of fact or ignorance is a defense when it shows that D did not have mens rea for material element of crime 1. i.e. Larceny = intent to steal a. Negated by honest mistake b/c you can’t steal something you in good faith think is your own. i. D needs good faith belief, no matter how unreasonable 2
g. Mistake of Law is not an excuse i. Exception: where an individual demonstrates an effort to learn what the law is, relies on the validity of that law, and later, it is determined that there was a mistake in the law itself, or where the government affirmatively misled an individual. ii. Public Policy Consideration 1. mistake of law as defense would encourage ignorance/abuse 2. responsibility of citizens to go out & learns laws – utilitarian principle IV. CAUSATION – Crime requires actual and proximate causation a. Actual Cause (Cause in Fact) i. Antecedent but for which harm would not have occurred 1. BUT-FOR TEST – if not for D’s actions, harm would not have occurred at that specific time ii. Substantial Factor – Simultaneous stabbing. iii. Acceleration = Causation 1. Depraving victim of period of time because the time of actual death and the time he would have died is different. b. Proximate (Legal) Cause i. General Rule: Intervening causes can break chain of legal causation from being applied to the act of the D.
ii. Intervening Cause: Come into play after D’s action but before the social harm occurs. Question of Law: 1. If the intervening act was a coincidence, and the result was unforeseeable and abnormal, then it was a material intervening act that can break the chain of the D’s culpability. 2. If the intervening act was in response to the D’s actions, and the response was foreseeable and normal, then the intervening act was not material and the D remains culpable for his actions.
V.
CRIMINAL HOMICIDE - killing of a human being #1 thing to consider: intentional or unintentional 1. murder; 1 or 2 2. manslaughter; vol. or invol. 3. excusable homicide; 4. justifiable homicide a. Elements a. Actus Reus (Killing) b. Mens Rea (See statute i.e.) i. Malice aforethought – murder ii. Gross negligence – manslaughter c. Result (Death) b. Malice Aforethought a. Express Malice: deliberate intention of unlawful homicide = Intentional Killing b. Implied Malice: action done with an abandoned and malignant heart state of mind i. No intent to kill.
3
ii. Elements of Abandoned/Malignant Heart 1. High P(x) that the act done will result in death 2. D must have subjective appreciation of risk 3. A base anti-social purpose or motive VI. Intentional Killings: Knowing, premeditated, malice aforethought, deliberate a. Felony Murder b. Murder 1 – See Statute i. The mental process necessary to constitute “willful, deliberate and premeditated” murder can be accomplished instantly, in the twinkling of an eye. Vs. ii. There must be some period between the formation of the intent to kill and the actual killing 1. Must be an opportunity for reflection iii. Premeditation & Deliberation Evidence for Murder 1 (All offer insight into state of mind of D) c. Felony Murder 2 d. Murder 2 – See statute i. Must have purpose of causing serious physical injury ii. Need actus reus (firing a gun) that would cause serious bodily injury/death iii. Need appropriate mens rea (intent to kill) when intentionally commit act e. Voluntary Manslaughter i. See statutory definition ii. intentional homicide done in sudden heat of passion w/out malice, caused by ADEQUATE PROVOCATION iii. Taking conduct that should be intentional murder but finding because addition to facts there is adequate provocation to mitigate murder to manslaughter 1.Words alone are not adequate provocation – unless accompanied by certain conduct indicating a present intention and ability to cause defendant bodily harm iv. Rule of Provocation: 1.There must have been adequate provocation. a. Calculated to inflame the passion of a reasonable man and tend to cause him to act for the moment from passion rather than reason 2.The killing must have been in the sudden heat of passion 3.Causal connection b/n provocation, passion and fatal act v. Heat of Passion Killing 1.Unlawful arrest 2.Assault and Battery 3.Mutual Combat 4.Spouse in bed Unintentional Killings: Unjustified Risk-Taking a. Felony Murder (1 and 2) – See statute
VII.
4
b. Murder (1 and 2) – See statute c. Involuntary Manslaughter - Negligence i. Gross Negligence: Failure to exercise a minimum level of caution = Involuntary Manslaughter 1. High likelihood of harm 2. Little or no social utility 3. Unreasonable risk to human life ii. Ordinary Negligence: Failure to exercise the ordinary caution and prudence measured by what TARP would do. 1. If negligence is the proximate cause of death = Involuntary Manslaughter (WA)
VIII.
FELONY-MURDER:
[felony + killing + Causation = murder 1]
a. Any homicide which occurs in perpetration or in furtherance of a felony is considered to be felony murder! i. The intent in FM is removed if the underlying felony exists. Thus, FM is depending on proof pf the underlying crime. (Actus Reus) If the jury finds that the underlying felony was committed, then likely FM conviction. b. Controversial in USA i. Punishes D for murder even though death may have been accidental ii. Most cts. do not like it and limit its application iii. But adopted by legislatures, so cts. must apply it c. Rationale: i. Deter people from committing felonies in a dangerous way that could accidentally result in death d. Statute for permitting charge of Murder 1 for D in perpetration of committing an enumerated felony, removes from the jury the requirement to find malice on part of D. i. Mens rea of Felony + Death + Causation = FM e. LIMITATIONS ON FM RULE – Non enumerated felonies
i. Inherently Dangerous Felony 1. If you can commit the felony without creating substantial risk that someone will be killed – not ID 2. Cts attempt to limit FM application – its intended application to to apply only to those felonies that are ID 3. #1 – look at elements of the felony in the abstract rather than looking at the facts of the case ii. Independent Felony - Merger Doctrine 1. FM instruction may not be given when it is based upon a felony which is an integral part of the homicide and which the evidence produced by the prosecution shows to be an offense included in the fact within the offense charged 2. Deterrence: Once D is engaged in a willful felony that’s an integral part of the homicide, the D will not be deterred from going any further iii. In Perpetration or in Furtherance of a Felony 1. There must be causation b/n the felony and the death. a. Death must be a consequence of, as opposed to coincidence of, felony. (causal connection) 2. Actions before and after F completed are all part of furtherance of F. 5
f. Proximate Cause and FM i. A person may not be held criminally responsible for a killing unless the homicide were either actually or constructively committed by him. ii. Accomplice Liability: co-defendants can be responsible for actions of another defendant 1. Exception: unanticipated actions by co-felon, not in furtherance of felony, may not be charged under felony-murder doctrine iii. Adversary Liability: D cannot be held criminally responsible for adversaries actions 1. ***Was the factual killer acting in concert with or as agent of D? - Homicide Standards First Degree mens rea: malice + premeditation (premeditation proves malice) {premeditation: motive, planning activity, manner of killing} Second Degree mens rea: malice intent to kill intent to cause grave bodily harm gross disregard for human life [felony-murder] Voluntary Manslaughter provocation {heat of passion, legally adequate provocation, no cooling time} words alone ≠ provocation TARP standard extreme mental or emotional disturbance
6