1 Bobby’s Criminal Law Outline (Mid-Term) I. INTRODUCTION – PUNISHMENT THEORIES A. Retribution – D deserves to be punished (D had intent to do something bad) B. Deterrence – (Utilitarian) Can’t involuntary or mistakenly committed acts, because these acts cannot be deterred. C. Rehabilitation – Correct criminal behavior D. Incapacitation – Prevent D from causing further harm II. ACTUS REUS (Act) A. Voluntary Act 1. Model Penal Code: 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 2. Conditioned Response a. It is a valid defense because we can’t morally condemn for an involuntary act. This does not help deter. b. Does not apply to voluntarily induced unconsciousness (getting drunk and killing someone) B. Omissions 1. Under some circumstances, an omission (failure to act) can satisfy the element of actus reus. 2. Doctor has no duty to use life support if there is no chance for recovery, so there was no omission. 3. Omission = breach of a duty through a failure to act 4. Duty is created by law or contract. Not a moral obligation. 5. Instances where a failure to act constitutes breach of legal duty: a. Statute imposes duty b. Certain status relationship c. Contractual duty to care for another d. Voluntarily assume care for another e. 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) A. Basically it means INTENT. A person intends the natural causes of his actions. All statutes have a level of mens rea that must be met. B. An Act alone does not make someone guilty unless the mind is guilty, that is unless there is criminal intent. 1. Broad Meaning: Act = Morally culpable state of mind = guilt 2. Narrow Meaning: Mental state expressly required in the definition of the offense, or statute. D is not guilty unless she satisfies the specific mental state established in the statute. C. State of mind under the MPC 1. Purposefully/Intentionally,/Willfully (Desire) a. Conscious objective to engage in the conduct and cause such a result b. Wrongful motive, bad faith, violation of a known legal duty 2 2. Knowingly/Aware (Substantial Certainty – Depraved Indifference) a. Consciously aware that such a result is practically certain to be caused by his conduct. 3. Recklessly a. Substantial and unjustifiable risk known to the D 4. Negligently a. Failure to use ordinary caution D. Intent 1. One intends the natural and probable causes of his actions 2. Mental State: does not require that you want the crime to happen so long as you know that your act is likely to cause it the crime E. Knowledge 1. Willfully shutting ones eyes v. actual knowledge: a. MPC: Knowledge = Awareness of high probability of the fact = Willful ignorance b. State statutes may differ -Nations case with underage stripper where knowledge is actual knowledge. Interpret knowledge on an exam as actual knowledge just like this case. F. Transferred Intent 1. D intends to kill X, but kills Y instead • 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 • Mens rea + Actus rea = guilt G. Mistake of Fact 1. mistake of fact or ignorance is a defense when it shows that D did not have the mens rea element of the crime statute 2. Must be a good faith mistake of fact regardless of how unreasonable a. Example: Larceny = intent to steal • Negated by the honest mistake because you can’t steal something you think is yours. H. Mistake if Law: Not a defense 1. Exception: When an individual tries to learn the law, acts accordingly to that law, but later it is determined that there was a mistake in the law itself, or where the government affirmatively misled the individual 2. Public Policy Issues a. Mistake of law as a defense would encourage ignorance/abuse. b. Responsibility of citizens to go out and learn the law – Utilitarian Principle III. CAUSATION – Crime requires actual and proximate causation. A. Actual Cause – (Cause in fact) 1. Antecedent but for harm would not have occurred 2. BUT-FOR Test – If not for D’s actions, harm would not have occurred at that specific time 3 3. Simultaneous Stabbing: the BUT-FOR test does not work, so we use the substantial factor test 4. Acceleration = Causation (Oxendine case where the father beats the son and accelerates death) B. Proximate Cause – (Legal Cause) 1. Intervening Cause can break the chain of liability 2. IV. Criminal Homicide: #1 thing to consider is if the killing is intentional or unintentional A. Types of Murder 1. Murder, 1 or 2 2. Manslaughter, Involuntary or Voluntary B. Elements 1. Actus Reus (Killing) 2. Mens Rea (look at statute, i.e.) a. Premeditation (M1) b. Expressed Malice (Intentional M2) c. In response to provocation (Voluntary M2) d. Implied Malice (Unintentional M2) e. Negligence/Gross negligence (Involuntary Manslaughter) 3. Death V. Intentional Killings: knowing, premeditated, malice aforethought, deliberate A. Murder 1: requires premeditation and deliberation 1. Can be accomplished instantaneously in “the twinkling of an eye” 2. Other jurisdictions say that premeditation requires that there be some period between the formation of the intent to kill and the actual killing. There must be an opportunity for reflection. a. Factors to consider premeditation i. lack of provocation ii. conduct of D before and after iii. threats by D iv. ill will v. lethal blows after death vi. brutal manner of killing B. Murder 2: expressed malice 1. Deliberate intention to take away the life of another Nature of Intervening Cause Coincidence A Response to an Act Unforseeable Unforseeable and Abnormal 4 C. Voluntary Manslaughter 1. Intentional homicide done in a sudden heat of passion with adequate provocation without malice 2. Sudden Heat of Passion a. Factors to consider i. Unlawful arrest ii. Assault and Battery iii. Mutual Combat iv. Spouse in bed 3. Adequate Provocation a. Words alone are not adequate provocation unless accompanied by a certain conduct indicating the present intention and ability to cause bodily harm b. Provocation must be calculated to inflame the passion of reasonable man and tend to cause him to act for the moment out of passion rather than reason VI. Unintentional Killings A. Murder 1 – tough to get this unless it is through a felony murder, or maybe throwing a bomb. B. Murder 2: Implied Malice-killing with an abandoned and malignant heart 1. High probability/risk of death 2. Subjective appreciation of that risk 3. Base antisocial motive C. Involuntary Manslaughter: 1. Ordinary Negligence a. Failure to use ordinary caution b. Ordinary caution is caution a reasonable person would exercise under the same or similar circumstances 2. Gross Negligence: common law requirement VII. Felony Murder (felony + killing + causation = FM) A. Any homicide that occurs in perpetration or in furtherance of a felony is considered to be a felony murder. B. A FM makes it so the Mens Rea of the actual killing is not an issue. Mens Rea of the felony is all that needs to be proved. This makes it easier to prove. C. Rationale is to make felons act more carefully in committing felonies. 1. FM 1 – the statute enumerates a list of felonies such that if in the commission of one of those, some is killed – FM 1 2. FM 2 – if someone is killed while committing any other felony not enumerated in the statute. a. Many courts dislike the FM statute and try to limit its application whenever possible – such as in California D. Limiting FM 2 by the courts a. Inherently Dangerous Felony i. Look at the elements of the felony in the abstract rather. If there is any way the felony can be committed without endangering the life of anyone, then no FM 2. 5 ii. Look at the elements of the felony in the abstract rather. If there is any way the felony can be committed in a way that would endanger the life of anyone, then YES FM 2. iii. Look at the specific facts of the and decide if D committed the felony in an inherently dangerous manner. b. Independent Felony – Merger Doctrine i. When the underlying felony is a direct cause of the homicide, FM 2 does not apply. ii. Rationale: FM is supposed to make felons be more careful while committing felonies. This objective can’t be met if the felony itself is the direct cause of the homicide. c. In perpetration or in furtherance of the felony(causation) i. Killing must be a consequence of not a mere coincidence to the felony ii. NJ Statute: a cofelon is responsible for FM when any person causes the death of any person other than one of the cofelons DEFENSES: We have the Actus Reus and Mens Rea, but we say there is an additional element that justifies the crime. A. Self Defense is a law of necessity – The only grounds for a self-defense claim is that there was necessity for such action. Elements are: 1. Unlawful and immediate threat of deadly force; and 2. Defendants reasonable belief that: a. There is imminent peril; b. Reasonable belief that the response is necessary 3. Other points a. Aggressor can’t use the SD claim unless i. he communicates to his adversary his attempt to withdraw ii. makes a good faith effort to do so 4. MPC has a purely subjective view of SD 5. NY has a subjective and objective view 4. Battered Wife syndrome: 2views a. some jurisdictions sat that a battered wife as a result of a continuous reign of terror. Suffers from and abused spouse syndrome, so she can kill a passive person because it is reasonable for her to perceive that she is always under continuous attack. b. other jurisdictions say no, that SD is not necessary if there are other alternatives at that moment. Threat must be imminent. B. Defense of Others: always permitted but we have two views regarding mistakes A. Majority: D may reasonably use force to protect another person if he reasonably believes the use of force is justified. B. Minority: (Stand in Shoes) Justified only if the person being defended had the right to use self defense C. Defense of Property (Spring Gun Case) A. Justified in order to repel an attempted felony 6 i. CA Statute: Felony must be forcible and atrocious due to the increase in the # of crimes considered felonies. ii. Another Rule: allow any force to be used regardless of any consideration of danger iii. Another Rule: Deadly force allowed only when they believe a felony will be committed inside the house iv. Another Rule: Deadly force allowed in apparent threat to the personal safety of the occupant. D. Law Enforcement Defenses (shot kid fleeing from robbing a house as he was climbing fence) 1. Deadly force can be used: a. If a suspect threatens officer or there is probable cause that the suspect has committed a crime that involves a threat or the infliction of serious physical harm to others; and b. Necessary to prevent escape; and c. Where it is feasible there must be a warning. E. Necessity Defense (joyriding case) 1. Prevent greater evil 2. No alternative 3. Harm caused must not be greater than harm avoided F. Duress (Coke balloons) 1. Immediate threat of death or serious injury 2. Well grounded fear that the threat will be carried out 3. No reasonable opportunity to escape the threatened harm G. Voluntary Intoxication (Takes LSD and commits a robbery and someone is killed – FM1) A. Tarver Court: Evidence of voluntary intoxication is admissible only to reduce the degree of the crime, but cannot change the nature of or negate the crime. M1 M2 is ok. But since robbery has no degree, changing Robbery Nothing would be changing the nature of the crime. B. Graves Court: For all crimes, if a state of mind is part of the crime, evidence of voluntary intoxication can be used to prove a lack of mens rea for the crime. If we can reduce the degree of the worst crime possible (M1 M2), then we should also be able to reduce Robbery Nothing. H. Insanity 1. Goals of the Insanity Defense 1. Reflect underlying principles of substantive law and community values 2. Comport with scientific understanding 3. Scientific information comprehensible to judge, jury, lawyers 4. Preserve to trier of fact the ultimate authority to render final decision 2. M’Naughten Rule 1. Cognitive: D did not know: (a) the nature/quality of acts; or (b) what he was doing was wrong a. Fails to paint (2) an accurate scientific picture. Paints things in black and white where there are lots of shades of grey. Deals in all or nothings. 3. Irresistible Impulse 1. Volitional: D may or may not know that act was wrong, but he could not control himself 7 a. Fails to meet 3 – because impulses do not develop in an instant; they develop over time b. Fails to meet 2 – because it also deals in all or nothings 4. Durham/Product Test 1. Not responsible if unlawful act is the product of mental disease or mental defect. a. Fails to meet 4 – puts too much stock experts and usurps power of trier of fact 5. ALI/MPC (dual defense) 1. Cognitive – D cannot appreciate the nature of his conduct OR 2. Volitional – D lacks the ability to conform conduct to requirements of the law 6. Almost all jurisdictions adopted the MPC, but after Hinkley tried to kill Reagan, states reverted back to the stricter M’Naughten Rule. Inchoate Crimes: (Missing the harm) A. Attempts 1. Elements a. Intent to commit the substantive crime (Mens Rea) b. Substantial Step (Actus Reus) 1. Mens Rea: (lights wife on fire; and FM) a. Intent to commit the substantive crime, NOT have the mens rea of the sumstantive crime b.Specific intent can be the only way to satisfy the intent element. Cannot use knowledge, reckelessness, or negligence. c. Cannot have an attempt of and unintentional murderNo Attempted FM 2. Actus Reus: a. Dangerous Proximity Test (Preparation v. Perpertration) (Looking to rob) 1. The defendants are so near the result that there is a dangerous proximity of success. 2. But for the interference, they would have been successful b. Tennessee Statute 1. Intentionally engage in conduct that would constitute a crime if the circumstances were as the D believed them to be; OR a. Ex. If reach into a pocket to pick-pocket, but there is no wallet there 2. Acts with intent to cause a result that is an element of the offense and believes the conduct will cause the result; OR a. Ex. IF one starts a fire with intent to commit arson, but somehow it goes out before doing damage 3. Acts with intent to complete the crime and the conduct constitutes a substantial step towards the commission of the offense. (Act corroborative on intent) a. MPC defines substantial step as i. possession of materials at ore near place of crime 8 ii. possession of materials which serve no lawful use under the circumstances. 3. Abandonment of Attempts 1. Traditional View -Abandonment is not a defense 2. MPC -Voluntary abandonment is an affirmative defense B. Assault: Attempt to commit battery 1. Vermont 1. A person attempts to cause or purposely, knowingly, or recklessly causes bodily injury to another 2. They are far enough towards the desire result to amount to commencement of the consummation 2. MPC – attempt to put fear in another C. Solicitation – Attempt to conspire 1. Asking, enticing, inducing, recruiting, encouraging, promoting, directing, counseling another to commit a crime 2. Merges with conspiracy: Solicitation is an attempted conspiracy, so when on succeeds, the proper charge is conspiracy. D. Conspiracy (Does not merge with the crime) 1. A partnership in criminal purposes. A mutual agreement or understanding, expressed or implicit, between two or more persons to commit a criminal act or to accomplish a legal act by unlawful means 2. Actus Reus a. Agree to commit a crime completed upon formation of agreeement b. Sometimes an overt act in furtherance of crime will suffice if no agreement 3. Mens Rea a. Intent to combine with others b. Intent to accomplish the crime 4. Indirect evidence of conspiracy (taxi driver): factors a. association with alleged conspirators b. knowledge of the commission of the crime c. presence at the scene of the crime d. participation in the object of conspiracy 5. Pinkerton Liability (tax fraud brothers): once a conspiracy has been proven, each conspirator will be held liable for acts of all other conspirators as long as agreement continues. If wish to withdaw, you must make an affirmative act to prevent the activity. a. Limitations 1. If the substantive crime is not in furtherance of the conspiracy 2. If the substantive crime does not fall within the scope of the unlawful project 3. If the substantive crime is merely a part of the ramifications of the plan which could not be reasonably foreseen as a necessary or natural consequence of the unlawful agreement. E. Accomplice Liability: (Not Pinkerton Liability because there was no agreement to commit that specific crime) 1. Gerenal Points 9 a. Pinkerton liability is broader and more difficult to prove because we need to prove an agreement. b. Accomplice liability – we already have action on the part of the defendant 2. Aiding and Abetting a. There must be intention to commit a crime (Mens Rea) (Boy on Barge) b. There must be participation in some way (Actus Rea) (Watched Crime) 3. Liability for a 2nd unintended crime (Killing during Burglary) a. Actor intends to commit a 1° crime AND b. 2° crime was a foreseeable consequence of the primary crime F. Theft 1. Larceny a. Common Law: Trespassory taking and carrying away of personal property of another with intent to steal the same. Courts have broadened misappropriation by bailee to take into account a bailee who decides he wants to keep your stuff. b. Statutory Elements 1. Take possession 2. Of personal property 3. Owned or possessed by another 4. by means of trespass 5. with intent to steal the property 6. carry property away c. Intent to steal property (permanently deprive owner of property): 3 Exceptions 1. D intends to sell property back to the true owner 2. D intends to claim a reward for finding property 3. D intends to return it for a refunf 2. Robbery: Larceny with violence or intimidation 3. Theft by false pretenses a. D made a false representation b. Representations made with intent to defraud the owner of his property c. Owner was defrauded when he parted with his property in reliance of the false pretense 1. False pretense can be done expressly or impliedly 2. The false representation need not be the only factor the owner relied upon. As long as the false pretense was materially relied upon by the owner, that will satisfy the 3rd element.