Law School Outlines - Crim_Law - Weibe

Criminal Law Outline Fall, 2001 Page 1 of 9 I. THEORIES OF PUNISHMENT A. Incapacitation: imprisonment prevents further harm to society. B. Deterrence 1. Specific: deter the criminal 2. General: deter persons other than the criminal C. Retribution: satisfies society’s outrage D. Rehabilitation: reform the criminal E. Education: educate public to distinguish good from bad conduct Sources of Criminal Law Common Law: created and enforced by the judiciary in the absence of a statute defining the offense. Statutory Crimes: state legislative statutes are the primary source of criminal law. Model Penal Code: a scholarly endeavor to compile a coherent body of law. Published in 1962 as a source for drafting state criminal statutes. II. ELEMENTS OF JUST PUNISHMENT Elements of a Crime 1. Actus Reus (guilty act) 2. Mens Rea (guilty mind) 3. Concurrence 4. Causation 5. Attendant Circumstances A. Actus Reus: A physical act or unlawful admission by the D. Guilty Act 1. D must have either performed a voluntary physical act or failed to act under circumstances imposing a legal duty to act. 2. Omission as an “Act”: must fulfill all 3 elements below for liability a. Legal Duty to Act i. Statute (filing tax return or reporting an accident) ii. Contract (lifeguard or nurse) iii. Relationship between D and victim (parent/child or spouse) iv. Voluntary assumption of care a) once act undertaken, must follow through v. D created the peril b. Knowledge of Facts giving rise to Duty c. Reasonably Able to Perform 3. Possession as an “Act” a. D must control the item long enough to have opportunity to terminate possession b. D must be aware of possession but need not be aware of illegality. B. Mens Rea: The state of mind or intent of the D at the time of act. Guilty Mind Needed to distinguish between inadvertent/accidental acts and ones performed by one with a guilty mind. In strict liability, mens rea is not required. Criminal Law Outline Fall, 2001 Page 2 of 9 1. Specific Intent: provides different proof standards for prosecution and is open to different defenses (intoxication, mistake of fact). a. Solicitation: intent to have the person solicited to commit the crime. i. Elements: inciting, counseling, advising, inducing or commanding another to commit a felony with the specific intent that the person solicited commit the crime. ii. Offense complete at time solicitation is made. iii. Defenses a) Impossibility or withdrawal is no defense . b. Attempt: intent to complete the crime i. Requires specific intent ii. Attempt to commit Strict Liability crimes also requires intent (because charge is for attempt) iii. D must have committed act beyond mere preparation for offense. iv. Attempt requires the act to be dangerously close to success. v. MPC: requires substantial step in course of conduct planned to culminate in the commission of crime. a) withdrawal is a defense only if (1) fully voluntary and (2) complete abandonment vi. Defenses a) Factual impossibility or abandonment – no defense; Legal impossibility -yes c. Conspiracy: {specific} intent to have the crime completed i. Elements a) agreement between 2 or more persons; b) intent to enter into an agreement; and c) intent to achieve the objective of agreement ii. No Merger: if the conspirators are successful, they can be convicted of both criminal conspiracy and the crime they committed pursuant to the conspiracy. iii. Liability: each conspirator may be liable for the crimes of all other conspirators if 2 requirements are met: a) crimes were committed in furtherance of the conspiracy; and b) The additional crimes were foreseeable. iv. Hub-and-Spoke Relationships – Multiple Conspiracies a) conspiracies are independent if the one common member (Hub) has subagreements with others (Spoke) which are unrelated to each other. v. Wharton Rule: example is adultery where there is no crime of conspiracy unless more parties participate in the agreement than are necessary for the crime (it takes 2 to tango!). Inchoate Offenses 1. Solicitation 2. Attempt 3. Conspiracy All are early stage offenses See also IV. Criminal Law Outline Fall, 2001 Page 3 of 9 vi. MPC Approach: conspiracy established by showing “agreement”, which does not have to be actual agreement vii. Defenses a) no defense for impossibility or withdrawal d. 1st Degree Murder: pre-meditated intent to kill e. Assault: intent to commit a battery f. Robbery: intent to permanently deprive another of his interest in the property taken g. Burglary: intent at time of entry to commit felony in the dwelling of another 2. Malice: Common Law Murder a. not open to specific intent defenses b. prosecution need only show reckless disregard that harmful result would occur 3. General Intent: Awareness of all factors constituting the crime and any attendant circumstances required by the crime are present. a. Inference of Intent: inferred by performance of act. b. Transferred Intent: A shoots at B and instead kills C. A still guilty for murder of C. If C is only injured, then A is not guilty of attempted murder of C, since B was the target. c. Motive distinguished: a good motive will not excuse a criminal act. 4. Strict Liability Offenses: doesn’t require awareness of all the factors constituting a crime. Certain defenses, such as mistake of fact, are unavailable under strict liability. a. generally doesn’t require mens rea b. generally regulatory offenses, such as possession of an unregistered firearm. 5. MPC: eliminates distinction between general and specific intent. Mental component (mens rea) is re-defined below. a. Purposely, Knowingly or Recklessly: uses a subjective standard. The question is what was actually going on in the defendant’s mind. i. Purposely: example is burglary. ii. Knowingly: knows conduct will necessarily or very likely cause such a result. iii. Recklessly: a gross deviation from the standard of care. Satisfies willful conduct. b. Negligence: uses an objective standard. i. he fails to be aware of a substantial and unjustifiable risk and such failure constitutes a substantial deviation from the standard of care. ii. not the reasonable person standard used in torts. iii. D must have taken a very unreasonable risk in ligh of the usefulness of his conduct. c. Analysis of Statutes using Fault Standards Criminal Law Outline Fall, 2001 Page 4 of 9 i. If not specified in the statute, the culpable state of mind must be applied for each element for there to be liability. ii. If the statute defining the offense omits a state of mind requirement, D must at least act recklessly. III. HOMICIDE A. Intentional Killing 1. Murder: the unlawful killing of a human being with malice aforethought (express or implied). a) Elements of Malice Aforethought i. Intent to kill (express malice) ii. Intent to inflict great bodily injury iii. Reckless indifference or iv. Intent to commit a felony ii, iii and iv are “implied” 2. Voluntary Manslaughter: an intentional killing distinguishable from murder by the existence of adequate provocation. No malice aforethought. a) Elements of Provocation i. arouse sudden and intense passion in the mind of the ordinary person such as to cause him to lose his selfconttrol ii. must have been provoked. iii. must not have been a sufficient time between the provocation and the killing for the passions of a reasonable person to cool. iv. D in fact did not cool between provocation and killing. b) When Provocation is adequate i. Being subjected to a serious battery or a threat of deadly force; and ii. Discovering one’s spouse in bed with another person. c) Mere words are not enough to provoke B. Unintended Killing 1. Involuntary Manslaughter a) Criminal Negligence: if death caused by criminal negligence, then the killing is involuntary manslaughter. b) “Unlawful Act” Manslaughter: killing by unlawful act 2. Felony Murder: killing in the course of a felony a) Malice is implied from the intent to commit the underlying felony. b) Scope of Liability i. If, in the course of a conspiracy to commit a felony, a death is caused, all members of the conspiracy are liable for murder if the death was caused in furtherance of the conspiracy and was a foreseeable consequence of the conspiracy. c) Limitations on Liability Criminal Law Outline Fall, 2001 Page 5 of 9 i. D must be guilty of felony to be guilty of felony murder ii. Felony must be independent of killing iii. Death must be a foreseeable result of the commission of the felony. iv. Death must be caused during commission or fleeing of/from felony. v. Not liable for murder of a co-felon by victim of felony or by pursuing police officers. Analytical Approach to Homicide 1. Did D have any of the states of mind sufficient to constitute malice aforethought? 2. If the answer to 1 is yes, is there proof of anything that will, under any applicable statute, raise the homicide to first degree murder? 3. If the answer to 1 is no, is there evidence to reduce the killing to voluntary manslaughter, i.e., adequate provocation? 4. If the answer to 1 is no, is there a sufficient basis for holding the crime to be involuntary manslaughter, i.e., criminal negligence or misdemeanor manslaughter? 5. Is there adequate causation between D’s acts and the victim’s death? Did the victim die within a year and a day? Was D’s act the factual cause of death? Is there anything to break the chain of proximate causation between D’s act and victim’s death? IV. RAPE A. Perspectives/Force 1. Rape only requires penetration 2. Absence of marital relationship (today, this is disregarded) 3. Lack of effective consent a) Intercourse accomplished by force i. Consent was never given b) Intercourse accomplished by threats i. Consent obtained by threats is not consent c) Woman is incapable of consenting d) Consent obtained by fraud i. If victim fraudulently caused to believe act is not sexual intercourse, the act of intercourse constitutes rape. ii. If victim fraudulently believes it is her husband, then not rape. B. Deception/Mens Rea V. HARM A. Causation 1. Defendant’s conduct must be both the cause-in-fact and the proximate cause of the specified result. a) Cause-in-fact: the result could not have occurred “but for” the defendant’s conduct. Criminal Law Outline Fall, 2001 Page 6 of 9 b) “Year and a Day Rule” Death of victim must occur within a year and a day from the infliction of injury or wound. c) Proximate Cause: D responsible for all results that occur as a “natural and probable” consequence of his conduct. Foreseeability not required. 2. Rules of Causation a) Hastening Inevitable Result (A kills B before imminent death of B) b) Simultaneous Acts c) Pre-existing condition no defense B. Attempts 1. Mens Rea: must have intent 2. Preparation 3. Impossibility VI. GROUP CRIMINALITY A. Conspiracy: Modern statutes abolish the four distinctions of actus reas below and lumps them all into one. 1. Actus Reus: There are 4 common law parties to a felony. Principals in the 1st degree (actually engage in the act); Principals in the 2nd degree (aid, command or encourage the act); Accessories before the fact (aid, abet or encourage but are not present at the crime); Accessories after the fact (assist the principal after the crime). 2. Mens Rea: intent to aid or encourage the principal is required. i. mere knowledge that a crime would result from the aid provided is insufficient for accomplice liability. ii. Exceptions are procuring an illegal item or selling at a higher price because the higher risk linked to the sale. 3. Scope of Liability i. responsible for the crimes aided and those that resulted as a result of the aid (as long as they were probable or foreseeable). ii. Mitigation can be a defense. Criminal Law Outline Fall, 2001 Page 7 of 9 Conspiracy as a Form of Accessorial Liability 1. Under the famous (and to some infamous) Pinkerton doctrine, a co-conspirator tried in federal court is criminally liable for all substantive offenses committed by other co-conspirators in furtherance of the conspiracy. Pinkerton v. United States. a. In some jurisdictions, a co-conspirator may be criminally liable under the Pinkerton doctrine for substantive offenses committed by other co-conspirators that are not even within the scope of the conspiracy and were originally unintended so long as they are reasonably foreseeable as the necessary or natural consequences of the conspiracy. State v. Bridges; United States v. Alvarez. 2. Generally, a newcomer to a particular conspiracy is not liable for the prior substantive offenses committed by co-conspirators before he or she joined the conspiracy. Pinkerton is not retroactive. United States v. Blackmon. 3. Contrary to Pinkerton, the MPC does not equate conspiracy with complicity. a. Under the MPC view, conspirators are only liable for substantive offenses that they intend as evidenced by whether or not the conspirator solicited the commission of the offense or aided, or agreed or attempted to aid, in its commission. Comment to MPC § 2.06(3). (1) According to the MPC, without such limitations there would be no end to the number of additional offenses that could be attributed to a defendant, even though the defendant did not intend or know of the offenses. In some courts, a defendant's intent is sometimes considered to be irrelevant, at least to some extent. (1) For example, some courts have held that a defendant is liable for the unplanned and unintended acts of co-conspirators that are the natural, probable, and foreseeable consequences of his assistance. People v. Luparello. BLACK LETTER RULE: A person is liable for the unplanned and unintended acts of coconspiirator that are the natural, probable, and foreseeable consequences of his assistance. VII. EXCULPATATION A. Justification: an affirmative defense 1. Self-Defense a) Nondeadly Force: may use such force as reasonably necessary i. may use such force as reasonably necessary ii. No duty to retreat b) Deadly Force i. May use deadly force if 1) she is without fault 2) she is confronted with unlawful force 3) threatened with imminent death or great bodily harm 4) no duty to retreat c) Right of Aggressor to use self-defense – there is none, unless i. Aggressor has withdrawn ii. Sudden escalation in use of force Criminal Law Outline Fall, 2001 Page 8 of 9 The initial aggressor rule (United States v. Peterson): The use of force in self-defense is justified (permitted) when the defender (i) faces a threat, actual or apparent, from (ii) unlawful and (iii) immediate force, with (iv) no reasonably-available alternative to avoid confrontation, and the defender has (iv) a good faith and (v) reasonable belief that the threat presents (v) imminent risk of (vi) death or serious bodily injury, plus (vii) a belief that the self-defense is necessary to prevent death/injury, and (viii) uses an amount of force proportional to the threat. But the right of self-defense arises only when the necessity begins and ends when the necessity ends. If you are the aggressor, you lose the right of self defense unless there is a retreat. 2. Necessity: an objective test a) Duress distinguished: involves pressure from physical or natural forces B. Excuse 1. Insanity i. M’Naghten Rule Elements a) A disease of the mind b) Which caused a defect of reason c) Such that D lacked ability at the time of actions to 1) know wrongfulness of actions; or 2) understand nature and quality of actions ii. MPC: D is entitled to acquittal if proof shows he suffered from a mental disease or defect and as a result lacked substantial capacity to either a) appreciate the criminality of his conduct; or b) conform his conduct to the law C. Other Defenses 1. Mistake of Fact: a defense only if it shows D did not have the mens rea 2. Mistake of Law: no defense 3. Consent: no defense unless it negates an element of the offense 4. Intoxication i. Voluntary: in specific intent crimes, intoxication prevents the D from formulating the requisite intent. It may be a good defense to specific intent crimes. ii. Involuntary: requires that it be without knowledge of its nature, under direct duress imposed by another and pursuant to medical advice while unaware of intoxicating effect. Assault & Battery Battery: an unlawful application of force to the person of another resulting in either bodily injury or an offensive touching. Mens reas, intent, not required. Assault: an attempt to commit a battery or an intentional creation of a reasonable apprehension in the mind of the victim of imminent bodily harm. Criminal Law Outline Fall, 2001 Page 9 of 9 Facts Law Verdict ’s Belief (as to facts) Reality (as to the facts) ’s Belief (as to what the law is) Reality (as to law on the books) SUGAR COCAINE ILLEGAL TO POSSESS COCAINE ILLEGAL TO POSSESS COCAINE NOT GUILTY Mistake of Fact COCAINE COCAINE LEGAL TO POSSESS COCAINE ILLEGAL TO POSSESS COCAINE GUILTY Mistake of Law COCAINE SUGAR ILLEGAL TO POSSESS COCAINE ILLEGAL TO POSSESS COCAINE GUILTY Of Attempt SUGAR SUGAR ILLEGAL TO POSSESS SUGAR LEGAL TO POSSESS SUGAR NOT GUILTY True Legal Impossibility Intentional Murder (Maryland – a common law state, no MPC) 1st degree Murder 2nd degree murder Manslaughter Malice Aforethought Malice Aforethought No Malice Aforethought Willful, premeditated and deliberate Provocation a. What counts? Extreme assault & battery, sudden discovery of a spouse’s infidelity, some discovery of spouses adultery, b. How to decide when it counts? (Tripp v. State) adequate and reasonable provocation; heat of passion crime; no cooling time between provocation and act; causation – the provocation lead to the passion that led to fatal act Model Penal Code Murder Manslaughter Negligent Homicide Purposely, knowingly, or reckelessly Recklessness Extreme Emotional Disturbance