Robbins - Criminal Law Final

retribution
restraint
rehabilitation
specific deterrence
general deterrence
public education

actus reus, mens rea, concurring in time

(1) voluntary, affirmative act
(2) act of omission where defendant had a legal duty to act

(1) statute imposes duty
(2) relationship (married or parent)
(3) contractual duty to care (doctors, lifeguards)
(4) voluntarily assumed the care of another (rescue)
(5) one creates the dangerous situation that imperils another

(1) person must have knowledge of facts giving rise to the duty (doesn't count in terms of duty to be vigilant, such as with a parent)
(2) not required to do something that is foolhardy or impossible

state of mind or the absence of a particular state of mind

(1) purposeful/intentional
(2) knowingly
(3) recklessly
(4) negligently
(5) strict liability

specific and general

the intent to do the forbidden act (recklessly or negligently)

breaking and entering, battery, trespass

intentionally causing a specific result (purposely or knowingly)

larceny, burglary, robbery

the intentional taking and carrying away of the property of another with intent to deprive the owner of that property permanently or for an unreasonably long period of time

breaking and entering the structure of another with intent to commit a crime once inside

larceny against a person by force, threat, fear, intimidation, or violence (larceny + assault against a person)

a way to negate mens rea

mistake of fact, mistake of law, mistake of legal status

mistake about circumstances, something you can tell with your five senses

hybrid of mistake of fact and mistake of law

mistake about what the law is or what it prohibits

No

No

(1) when defendant raises defense of mistake or
(2) defense of intoxication

a reasonable or unreasonable mistake is honestly held

a reasonable mistake is honestly held

only need actus reus if the crime is strict liability, no need for mens rea

(1) look at language of the statute for MR terms,
(2) look at legislative history,
(3) look at penalty or severity of the crime, or
(4) look at the reasons we have strict liability crimes in the first place (safety, health, well being of community)

(1) actus reus,
(2) mens rea,
(3) proportionality, and
(4) legality

death of a human being caused by another

intentional killing of another human being with premeditation and deliberation

act oriented standard (Commonwealth v. Carroll) and person oriented standard (California v. Anderson)

look for any element of choice or thought, even if thinking about it for a fraction of a second

(1) planning activity,
(2) motive, and
(3) nature or manner of the killing

(1) Intentional without premeditation and deliberation, (2) recklessness plus,
(3) intent to cause previous bodily harm,
(4) felony murder

no intent to kill, but conscious disregards of substantial and unjustified risk that a death would occur under circumstances manifesting extreme disregard to the value of human life

intentional killing without premeditation and deliberation, or provocation

voluntary and involuntary

(1) adequate provocation, killing must have been
(2) committed in heat of passion, and
(3) causal connection among the provocation, the passion, and the fatal act, and
(4) would cause a reasonable person to lose their self-control.

(1) legally sufficient provocation (question for judge alone),
(2) would the reasonable person have been provoked to heat of passion,
(3) was this defendant provoked to heat of passion,
(4) would the reasonable person have cooled off in the given time period, and
(5) did the actual defendant cool off in the given time period

(1) would the reasonable person have been provoked to heat of passion,
(2) was this defendant provoked to heat of passion,
(3) would the reasonable person have cooled off in the given time period, and
(4) did the actual defendant cool off in the given time period

(1) subjective,
(2) objective,
(3) hybrid

Reasonable person who has all of the defendant's characteristics

reasonable person and nothing further

reasonable person in the actor's situation; has some but not all of the defendant's characteristics

no intent to kill

(1) recklessness,
(2) inherently dangerous instrumentality,
(3) misdemeanor manslaughter,
(4) reasonable person standard

a step in the direction of committing a crime, coupled with an intention to commit that crime; merges in the consummated crime

(1) MPC "substantial step" test,
(2) NY "dangerous nearness" test,
(3) extent to which all acts have been completed,
(4) seriousness of the crime completed,
(5) equivocalness of the defendant's acts,
(6) proximity in time and space to crime committed,
(7) likelihood of crime being committed

acts need to be so near the accomplishment of the crime that but for timely interference, there is all probability the crime would have been committed

(1) impossibility and (2) abandonment

objective is criminal, but a factual circumstance (physical facts), unknown to the actor, prevents the objective from being carried out; never a good defense

attempting to do something that one thinks is illegal, but it's not; no law on the books that covers the act (ex. buying alcohol, thinking it's illegal, but it's not

Did he intend to do what he did in act do (Jaffe), or did he intend what he believed he was doing (MPC)? This is sometimes a good defense with major policy arguments in both directions? MPC says not good defense.

(1) Voluntary—doing it because of a change of heart
(2)Complete

(1) Target crime must not have occurred and defendant must have thwarted its commission or
(2) Defendant has to make the best efforts to avoid the completion of the target crime; he must make some reasonable effort to thwart its commission

asking someone to commit a crime; essentially an attempt to commit conspiracy, but lacking an overt act (once overt act happens, then solicitation merges with conspiracy)

less culpable—someone who only found out about the crime after it happened and did something to help the others

(1) Each spoke/chain knew that other spokes existed, even if not aware of their actual identities
(2) Each spoke/chain knew and realized that they had a common community of interest with the others

(1) intent to agree and
(2) intent that the target crime be carried out

A party to a conspiracy is responsible for any act associated with the conspiracy (vicarious liability) if:
(a) It falls within the scope of the conspiracy and is in furtherance of the target crime
(b) Or it is a foreseeable consequence

either an attempt to commit a battery or an intentional placing of another in apprehension of receiving an immediate battery; must have intent (MR intentional; specific intent crime)

unlawful application of force to the person of another; unauthorized touching caused by defendant (intentional) or recklessness/negligence (unintentional)

(1) self defense and
(2) necessity

(1) Defendant must have been resisting the present or imminent use of unlawful force (2) Defendant must have used no more force than was reasonably necessary to defend against the threatened harm (3) Force may not be deadly force unless the force being resisted was also deadly force (4) defendant must not have been the initial aggressor unless: (a) He was a non-deadly aggressor confronted with the unexpected use of deadly force, or (b) He withdrew after his initial aggression, and the other party continued to attack
(5) Defendant must not have been in a position from which he could retreat with complete safety

(1) The harm sought to be avoided must be greater than the harm committed (often comes down to this element)
(2) There is no third alternative that would also avoid the harm that would be non-criminal or less criminal
(3) The harm must be imminent, and not merely speculative, future harm
(4) The situation must not have been brought about by the defendant's carelessness or recklessness
(5) You cannot have a successful necessity defense if you take the life of an innocent person

(1) duress,
(2) intoxication, or
(3) insanity

(1) Threat by a third person
(2) That produces reasonable fear in the defendant
(3) That he will suffer immediate or imminent
(4) Death or serious bodily injury
(5) Even if all elements met, can't kill an innocent person

General rule: if defendant does not satisfy the mens rea requirement for the crime because of intoxication, he can't be convicted

(1) McNaughten test,
(2) irresistible impulse test,
(3) Durham products test, or
(4) MPC substantial capacity test

half of U.S. jurisdictions (30) have as their sole criterion for insanity; party accused was laboring under such a defect of reason from disease of the mind as not to know the nature and quality of the act he was doing, or if he did know it, that he did not know what he was doing was wrong

mental disease or defect that leads to an inability to control conduct; 5 M'N jurisdictions use this also

flexible, encompasses M'N and II; "an accused is not criminally responsible if his unlawful conduct was the product of mental disease or defect;" but for causation between the mental disease or defect and the act; only NH uses this test

most famous necessity case; set a limit on the defense of necessity--you can't take another person's life and plead necessity

necessity is not a defense to murder

Justifying defenses will negate a crime, excuses will make a lesser crime

Criminal liability may only be imposed when the unlawful conduct is committed voluntarily.

Martin (defendant) was arrested at his home by police officers and placed in a police vehicle where he was separately charged for being drunk and using loud and profane language on a public highway

the accused is taken involuntarily and forcibly carried to a public place by an arresting officer, a charge of being drunk in a public place cannot stand.

shot in abdomen, then unconsciously shot cop

Rule: Unconsciousness is a complete defense to criminal homicide. Unconsciousness may exist where the subject physically acts, but is not conscious of acting.

D failed to take care of the child, and the child died.

Rule: In order for a D to be convicted of a crime of omission, the prosecution must prove the D was under a legal duty to act.

Beyond a reasonable doubt in criminal
Cannot be quantified really
- Preponderance of evidence (enough to tip the scale) in civil
- Can be quantified; >50%

i. Mistake of Fact: discoverable by your 5 senses, physically observable
ii. Mistake of Law
iii. Mistake ofLegal Status:

Facts: D took away 14 year-old from her father, but D thought she was over 18 years old. (Defense= mistake of fact)

Statute didn't have "knowingly" element, thus it did not matter that the D thought she was over age

Facts: D convicted for not registering in felony registry. Ordinance required that you register yourself within 5 days.

mistake of law ---

Has to be crime of omission (failure to do something) and reasonable person would not have been on notice as to the existence of this crime

Has to be crime of omission (failure to do something) and reasonable person would not have been on notice as to the existence of this crime

(Lambert v California)

Intentional taking and carrying away of the property of another with intent to deprive the owner of that property permanently or for an unreasonable long period of time

breaking and entering the structure of another with intent to commit a crime therein

strict liability

i. Facts: D cruise control was stuck, and was convicted of speeding. D states that he did not have control of the vehicle, and thus it was an involuntary act. D also showed evidence that the cruise control had been broken in the past as well.

ii. Found guilty. D initiated cruise control, and thus the malfunction still stems from his voluntary act.

intentional killing of a human being with premeditation and deliberation

After a night of arguing, the D reached under the pillow and shot and killed his sleeping wife. D cleaned up, then attempted to hide the body.


Act Oriented Test for 1st degree murder

60 knife wounds inflicted on young girl. Reversed first-degree murder charge because D did not have control, and there was no sufficient evidence to prove the act of planning.


"Person Oriented Court", uses the Planning, Motive, Manner Test

conscious disregard of substantialnjustifiable risk that death will occur

i. Adequate provocation
ii. Committed in the sudden heat of passion
iii. Causal connection between provocation, passion, and fatal act

1. Was there a legally sufficient provocation?
a. Judge will determine whether the rest goes to the jury (matter of law)
b. 4 Part Jurisdictions don't ask this question
2. Would the reasonable person have been provoked?
3. Was this D actually provoked to the heat of passion?
4. Would the reasonable person have cooled off?
5. Did this D actually cool off?

Giroard: (Test)
i. Legally sufficient provocation (if yes continue)
ii. Would reasonable person have been provoked to heat of passion?
iii. Was the D provoked to heat of passion?
iv. Would reasonable person have cooled off?
v. Did the D cool off in the given time period?
vi. Rule: Mere verbal domestic altercation is not adequate provocation to mitigate murder to manslaughter.
vii. Policy argument: the enumerated list creates a justification where, in some cases, there shouldn't be

Maher (Test)
i. Would reasonable person be provoked to heat of passion?
ii. Was the D provoked to heat of passion?
iii. Would reasonable person have cooled off?
iv. Did the D cool off in the given time period?
v. More general rule, not a predetermined list of categories

(Misdemeanor Manslaughter): if in the course of commission of a misdemeanor someone is accidentally killed then you can charge with involuntary manslaughter
1. Little sister to felony murder

o Girouard jurisdiction
o 5 part test
i. do we have legally sufficient provocation?
ii. Would reasonable person be provoked to heat of passion?
iii. was this defendant provoked to heat of passion?
iv. Would reasonable person have cooled off in the given time period?
v. Did this defendant actually cool off in the given time period?

o Maher jurisdiction
o 4 part test
i. would reasonable person be provoked to heat of passion?
ii. Was this defendant provoked to heat of passion?
iii. Reasonable person have cooled off?
iv. Did this defendant cool off?

o so Girouard requires legally sufficient provocation, Maher does not

Burglary, Robbery, Escape from Custody, Arson, Kidnapping, Rape, Sodomy, Serious Sex Crimes

i. Facts: D set fire to his house to commit insurance fraud.
ii. Insurance fraud= underlying felonious act, but was not deemed an inherently dangerous act

iii. Rule: If a person commits a felonious act known to be dangerous to life and likely to cause death to another person, and death results, it is murder.

chiropractor fraud


ii. Rule: The underlying felony has to be inherently dangerous to attach to felony murder.

o Felony murder rule could be triggered only be felonies inherently dangerous to life,
• Felony of grand theft did not meet this requirement

recklessness

• common law - any death resulting from any death was murder- resulting in capital punishment
• modern history of felony murder - recognize the harshness of the common law; not get rid of felony murder, but sand it down around the edges by creating limitations

1) (100%) inherently dangerous to human life
o or BREAKRSS
2) (100%) Independent Felonious Purpose
o Felony must have had independent purpose other than to cause deathly injury
o So assault with deadly weapon wont be incorporated with felony murder
3) (100%) Proximate Cause
4) (50%) Agency Theory
• Killing has to be done at the hands of a felon
• In order to have felony murder, the murder must have been done by one of the felons; so in Canola, the killing was done by the jewelry store owner; so felons not guilty of murder of the co-felon who was shot and killed
5) (100%) Time period of the felony
6) (5%) Furtherance of the Felony
7) (50%) Other than one of the participants
8) Affirmative Defense

intent to commit the target crime

a. Factual: crime cannot be completed because of obstacles unbeknownst to the D (physical obstacles) - not a complete defense
b. Inherent: fits within the definition of factual but is so outlandish that there's no possible way to achieve the target crime, is a complete defense (shooting an arrow at the plane)
c. Legal: is a complete defense
d. Mixed: sometimes complete defense

Accomplice liability
Conspiracy

1. Permits punishment prior to commission of the actual crime
2. Permits increased punishment regarding defined offense
a. Doesn't merge with the commission of target crime
b. Sentencing can impose consecutive or concurrent
c. Conspiracy is a felony (even if the target crime was a misdemeanor)
3. Permits imposition of far reaching vicarious liability
4. Affords prosecutors procedural advantages (joinder, hearsay)

Attempt merges into the completion of the target crime

conspiracy does not merge with the completion of the target crime

• -permits punishment prior to the commission of an actual crime (inchoate crime)
• -increase and even can double punishment for a criminal transaction
o (unlike the law of attempt, where the crime of attempt cannot be found alongside the completed crime, you can be convicted of conspiracy AND the target crime - it doesn't merge)
o -conspiracy is a felony, even if the crime is a misdemeanor
• -conspiracy permits extremely far-reaching vicarious liability
• (once you are in a conspiracy - you are liable for the substantive crimes of any member in the conspiracy, as long as they were in furtherance of the conspiratorial agreement --- Pinkerton)
• -conspiracy affords the prosecutor procedural advantages
o Joinder, hearsay (hearsay is not admissible, except in conspiracy cases - the co conspirators exception), venue

o When the target crime has been committed
o Also over if no one commits an overt act in furtherance of the agreement during the period of statue of limitations (typically 5 years)
o As to particular individuals, over if/when they successfully exit

• justification: successful justification defense results in acquittal; wipes out the crime

• excuse: doesn't result in acquittal, but results in conviction of lesser crime

either an affirmative act (voluntary) or the failure to act when legal obligation to do so

so act during sleepwalking, epileptic spell, etc will not give rise to criminal liability because it is not voluntary
but if on notice of risk, lets say of epilepsy, there can be liability through negligence or recklessness for failing to take proper medication

1. must have knowledge of the facts giving rise to the legal duty
where a parent doesnt know the child is in peril, the parent cant be held liable for failing to rescue the child (unless the duty was not only to care for but also be vigilant for)

so for babysitters - the contractual duty is expected to cover vigilance, so no excuse to say i didnt know child was in peril when he wandered off


2. when the act is impossible
cant save child because cant swim