CRIMINAL LAW OUTLINE INTRO notes: A. 3 sources of law 1. Tx Penal Code 2. MPC 3. majority view (usually = Tx) I. REASONS FOR PUNISHMENT A. deterrence: the law must keep its promises B. incapacitation: it works but has price of prisons C. rehabilitation: we don't know how D. retribution: revenge or expiation; vengeance regulated by gvmt i. a limiting principle, we punish only offender and not family ii. allow for excuses and culpability E. denunciation: society's stake in punishment II. ACTUS REUS A. TPC §6.01 1. offense: voluntarily engaging in conduct (act or omission) 2. possession = voluntary act IF possessor a. knowingly obtains or receives or b. aware of his control for long enough to terminate possession 3. omission not an offense unless law says so (or says duty to perform) B. Voluntary: conscious control 1. voluntary act 2. not every act in sequence need be voluntary (how far back into conduct should we reach) i. don't want to deter potentially innocent ppl. ii. only punish once they pose a significant danger 3. the act that makes you cross the line into criminal behavior must be voluntary 4. P's PFC beyond a rzbl doubt C. Possession must be voluntary 1. how much is possession related to a legit. use (i.e. look at intent/mes rea) D. Omission - failure to act 1. legal duty a. statutory duty (file taxes) b. status relationship (parent-child; jt. venturer if inherently dangerous) c. contractual duty (babysitters, lifeguards) d. voluntary assumption of care of helpless (rescue doctrine) e. creation of the peril and 2. ability to perform the act III. STRICT LIABILITY A. TPC 6.02b: culpability required unless stated (not always followed) B. SL = acutus reus w/o mens rea C. Policy: 1. crime/punishment minor 2. ¢ for public welfare 3. D has untimate control 4. D is usually culpable anyway, but hard to prove
D. trying to prevent crime/be good is not a defense E. reverses the usual maxims: better to convict 10 innocent than let 1 guilty go free; judicial efficienty over liberty F. was there SL? is it in statute? does it meet policy reasons? G. malum prohibitum: bad b/c prohibited (i.e. law says so); more likely to be SL H. mala in se: bad in fact, morally wrong (seldom SL) IV. MENS REA A. the mental states (TPC 6.03) 1. strict liability 2. general mens rea: morally, legally or criminally wrong anything = mens rea for everything 3. purposefully/intentionally: conscious objective or desire to engage in conduct or cause result 4. knowingly: aware of nature of conduct or cirx is reasonably certain to cause result 5. recklessly: (gambler) aware but consciously disreagards a substantial and unjustifiable risk that the result will occur + gross deviation of ord. standard of care from actor's p.o.v. 6. criminally negligent: ought to be aware of substantial and unjustifiable risk that result will occur + the failure to perceive is a gross deviation from ord. standard of care B. TPC 6.02 a. must have mens rea unless statute says otherwise b. a higher mental state suffices for a lower c. c/L says must have mens rea for ea. element of crime; may be different degrees of culpability C. transferred intent: in crim. law intent may transfer when resultant harm is substantially similar to intended harm D. why is it good to have only 4 mental states? 1. more precise 2. omits confusion/allows law to be more predictable 3. recognizes diff. elements of a crime can have diff. levels of culpability E. Mistake of Fact (8.02) a. it is a defense that actor, through mistake, formed a rzbl belief IF mistaken belief negates culpability b. actor can still be convicted of lesser offense c. even if mistake unreasonalble, but honest, you can still prove mistake, but it's hard F. Maxim: Ingorance (or mistake) of the law is no defense. Rationale: 1) discourage ignorance/encourage ppl to educate selves as to what law is. 2) the Law must remain Paramount (and not be superceded by individual's mistaken impressions of what the law is) Exceptions: 1) mistake (or ignorance) of collateral law that negates mens rea of governing law. 2) reasonable reliance on mistaken official interp of governing law a) 8.03 requires a writing b) must be public official, not counsel 3) Lambert - due process notice concern; only applies if there is nothing to put D on notice that his conduct may be questionable G. Capacity: look at what mens rea is possible for D (Tex, majority)
1. diminshed capacity = no mens rea 2. insanity = mens rea, but you're crazy, so you go to mental insitutional H. Intoxication: 1. not a defense in Texas, minority 2. unless: temp. insanity can mitigate penalty 3. majority: if mens rea isn't there, no crime V. Killing A. Types of ciminal homicide TPC 19.01: intentionally (murder), knowingly (murder), recklessly (manslaughter) or w/ criminal negligence (crim. negligent homicide), causing the death of an individual B. misdemeanor manslaughter: TPC 49.08 Intoxication Manslaughter 1. operates motor vehicle, aircraft, watercraft, amusement ride and 2. intoxicated and cause death C. why distinguish btwn reckless and grossly negligent? 1. more deterrable 2. retribution: society wants to punish reckless more 3. rehabilitation: reckless easier to rehab D. why punish criminally negligent at all? 1. encourage caution 2. incappacitate stupid 3. retribution b/c they are blameworthy E. Involuntary Manslaughter (Recklessly causing death): purely subjective--were they aware or not 1. was D aware or not of the substantial & unjust risk (of death)? reckless or negligent (here, not ordinary standard of care but subjective standard) 2. given the nature of the risk, whether D's conscious disregard/failure to perceive constitutes a gross deviation from the standard of care that an ordinary person would exercise under all the cirx as viewed from D's standpoint. (here look for ord. standard of care) 3. ordinary person: ordinary standard of care/caution/prudence/common sense; all other subjective cirx are same 4. if you're aware, you're aware and it doesn't matter that most ppl wouldn't be aware 5. reckless and negligence culpability only relevant as long as you can stop the damage (when you can stop the death) F. Voluntary manslaughter 1. TPC 19.02(d) mitigated murder a. if under immediate influence of b. sudden passion: 1. passion directly caused by provocation 2. by individual killed or another acting with 3. and is not solely the result of the former provocation (cumulative effect + something sudden) c. from adequate cause 1. cause that would commonly produce a degree of 2. anger, rage, resentment, terror in a person of ordinary temper 3. sufficient to render the mind incapable of cool reflection d. rationale for mitigated murder 1. reasonble person never kills, but may be temporarily incapable of cool reflection/reasoned judgment, so we give them a little break
2. less deterrable, less dangerous, less culpable; jury can identify so less need for retribution 3. but still dangerous, so we do punish e. elements of mitigated murder 1. reasonable provocation (obj) 2. actually provoked (subj. - any cause, can even be words alone, jury Q) 3. before rzbl cooling time (obj) 4. before actual cooling (subj.) * D must prove at 2d stage (sentencing) by preponderance (good for society b/c leaves burden on D instead of P having to disprove elements) * reasonable person = ordinary temper (not care) G. Felony Murder TPC 19.02b3 1. F-M Rule: a. Felons are strictly liable (= murder) for deaths caused during commission of felony b. F-M: even if homicide is accidentally/neligently/reckless committed c. General Mens Rea: the culpable mental state is supplied by the intent to commit the underlying felony 2. Limitations: a. What Felonies i. Majority: limited to certain inherent dangerous felonies (by listing them: rape, robbery, kidnapping, arson, burglary, etc; or by trying to identify inherently dangerous felonies); decisions usually made by looking at the crime in the abstract, not under these factual cirx. (don't commit the felonies) ii. Texas: any felonies, as long as D commits/attempts to commit acts clearly dangerous to human life (commit felony carefully) 2. Merger doctrine: must be felonious conduct independent of the homicide; when felony so close to killing, we don't want to impute mens rea i. Texas: "other than manslaughter"; if wasn't for merger, there would be no manslgtr.; there's no place to 'borrow' the mens rea from, b/c there's just one crime - can't use general mens rea felony assault against an adult and crim. negligent homicide merge into F-M, too; felony assaults of children do not merge (not necessary b/c usually the mens rea for murder is easy to prove; Serr thinks it makes things too messed up) merger applies when the "two" acts are inextricably intertwined best not to use F-M doctrine if you can prove mens rea; if you don't need F-M for a conviction doesn't come up if 2 homicides, but judges prob. wouldn't see it 3. Prox. cause limitation: the death must be proximately (closely) caused by the felony (heart attack); an incidental, mere 'but for' is not prox. cause i. Texas: "that causes the death of an individual" 4. Homicide must occur during (at least part of) the felony: a jury q; certain factors: same location/how far interval of time had D reached a safe place do culprits possess the fruits of the crime
were police/watchment/citizens in close pursuit other factors (flexibility imp.) "escape" is part of the crime - "immediate flight = during" must also be in 'furtherance' of the commission - if you happen to be escaping from the robbery when you kill, that is not in furtherance 5. Special Situations a. felon kills co-felon (not guilty?) Cabaltero i. majority: F-M applies when felons kill felons ii. Texas: same as majority "an individual;" also depends on accomplice liability law; if the act is beyond the robbery (rape as an aside) then no accomplice liability b/c not in furtherance from the robbery iii. minority: F-M does not apply when a co-felon killed (usually says in statute) b. resistor kills innocent (guilty) Hickman i. Texas: felon must commit the act that is clearly dangerous to human life c. resistor kills (co-)felon (not guilty) Washington i. Texas: felon must commit the act clearly dangerous to human life of 'an individual' d. in Texas less arbitrary distinctions; why? armed felonies foreseeably cause acts dangerous to human life; resistance is foreseeable H. Extreme Recklessness Murder 1. TPC 19.02(b)2 Murder a) intends to cause SBI and b) commits and act clearly dangerous to human life c) that causes death note: if you use a deadly weapon, you're probably intending SBI and doing act clearly dangerous 2. Common Law view: "malice aforethought"; ways to commit murder intent/knowingly killing intent ---> SBI (serious bodily injury) [I want you to live & suffer] extreme recklessness "abandoned and malignant heart"; extreme disregard to value of life felony murder (general mens rea crime) 3. Model Penal code: ways to commit murder intent/knowingly killing extreme recklessness -intent to do SBI falls under -felony murder is prima facie evidence of an abandoned/malignant heart 4. Texas Penal Code: ways to commit murder intent/knowingly killing (19.02b1) intent to do SBI (19.02b2) --no extreme recklessness murder in Texas, just reckless mansl. (gross deviation) felony murder 19.02b3 5. how to prove intent to kill a) circumstantial evident b) motive not an element but supports intent c) burden of persuasion always on state, never shifts to D
VI. Causation A. but for B. proximate 1. foreseeable victim 2. foreseeable manner of harm 3. foreseeable degree of harm C. superseding cause? 1. if intervention was foreseeable, probably not superseding 2. commone sense and fairness D. strategy: 1. P strategy: to show everything about the result is a logical consequence of D's act 2. D strategy: blameshift, point to other causes (bad b/c there can be more than 1 prox cause E. medical negligence: if it was simple (not gross) negligence it's foreseeable and not superseding VII. Attempt A. actus reus: specific intent to commit the offense B. mens rea: specific intent to knowingly/intentionally commit; can't recklessly attempt C. punishment: 1. Texas--one degree less than crime 2. MPC -- same as crime committed D. line btwn preparation v. attempt 1. TPC: acts tending but failing, more than mere preparation 2. policies: 1) Why don't we want to draw the line btwn prep & attempt to soon to the idea? want to give ppl a chance to be deterred the initial prep. of a crime is ambiguous and possibly innocuous activity; we want to decrease the risk of the gvmt. depriving ppl of liberty based on ambiguous conduct why? we value freedom and self-determination 2) Why don't we want to draw the line too close to the attempt? don't want police to have to wait to apprehend until crime is committed until we can make him liable don't want to put the victim in that much peril we don't want police to have to decide btwn (1) protecting victim and (2) ensuring dangerous person will be convicted and off the street E. renunciation of attempt 1. not liable if you don't cross the line to attempt 2. after you cross the line voluntary and complete renunciation is an affirm. defense 3. voluntary: must be change of heart, not change of situation or postponement 4. multiple attempts: if you have a change of heart, you can only renunciate the last attempt (ex. shoot, miss; shoot, miss; going to shoot but change of heart = 2 attempts and one renunciation) F. factual and inherent impossibility 1. factual impossibility: gun was empty / missed / already dead doesn't matter, still could have killed him 2. inherent impossibility: could never possible happen; society does not believe this conduct could result in the crime (ex. voodoo doll) VIII. Solicitation
A. TPC 15.03 1. intent 2. that capital felony/first degree felony be committed 3. request, command, attempt to 4. induce another to commit crime that would be felony OR make other a party (accomplice) to commission B. renunciation 15.04 1. affirm defense to solicitation/conspiracy 2. a voluntary/complete renunciation by 3. countermanding solicitation/withdrawing from conspiracy 4. before commission of offense 5. and took affirm action that prevent commission C. punishment for solicitation is one degree lower D. policy for punishing solicitation 1. shows seriousness of intent + inability to retract forces you've set in motion 2. increases danger than crime will happen 3. group psychology E. must be more than solicited person's word; need corraborative evidence or person IX. Accomplice Liability (TPC §7.02) A. this is not a crime, it is vicarious liability; there must be a crime to attach the AccLia to B. (a.2) elements include mens rea and actus reus b/c it's so serious: 1. mens rea: intent to promote/assist the comission 2. actus reus: solicit/encourage/direct/aid/attempt to aid commission * the causation is in the crime by the perp., not the AccLiability C. presence alone is encourage only if communicated to principle (before or during) D. other types of AccLia: a1) cause innnocent to commit offense a3) legal duty to prevent commission + intent to promote commission + failure to make rzbl effort prevent E. punishment = same as commission F. renunciation: you cannot renunciate (but if you prevent the commission, there's nothing to attach the crime to; then the 'crime' has changed to attempt) then you are not charged w/ accomplice but attempt: [you can renunciate attempt: i) affirmative action showing ii) complete and voluntary renunciation] G. merger: there is no AccLia for conspiracy and solicitation F. does not matter if principle is convicted discrepant liability: principle can be convicted for lower crime than accomplice X. Conspiracy A. mens rea: intent (that felony be committed) 1. can be/usually is inferred from the cirx B. actus: agreement + overt act (to commit felony!) by any co-conspirator C. conspiracy v. accomplice liability 1. you can be an accomplice w/o being a conspirator 2. hard to be a conspirator w/o being an accomplice 3. you can be liable for conspiracy w/o being an accomplice if perp's don't cross attempt line
PROCEDURE AND TERMS information: charge by prosecutor w/o grand jury based on his own info. & belief
for less serious crime unilaterally by prosecutor 2. grand jury must believe there is a crime 3. citation: i.e. speeding tickets 4. demurrer: legal so what? even if you prove charge, no crime 5. legal insanity: term of art, not medical insanity 6. malum prohibitum: wrong b/c law says so 7. malum in se: inherently bad (almost always req's culpable mental state) 8. theft = theft, inentionally/knowingly 9. robbery = theft + assault 10. burglary = theft + breaking/entering + inent to commit theft/felony