Crim Law

•Moral condemnation of society
•Rehabilitation
•There must be commands telling people what a crime is (what to do and what not to do)
•Deprivation of liberty (jail/prison/physical punishment)

No crime without law, no punishment without law

act of legislature; particular law enacted and established by the will of the legislative dept. of gov't, expressed with the requisite formalities

statutory

set of codes/ laws made up that states could adopt and use or use to make their own laws

o Person may not be punished unless her conduct was previously defined as criminal
o Understandable by ordinary person
o Should not delegate policy on an ad hoc/subjective basis (ex: give power of interpretation to police officers)
o Interpretation should be biased in favor of the accused (rule of lenity)

true intent of the legilature (law passed in 1872 so you have to look at their intent of making the law; what did they intent to cover/ or mean)

it will be construed in favor of the accused

NOTICE

be interpreted in a constitutional manner

intent of the legislature

reasonable

theoretical, entitled to be able to get information on what the law is
(they do not need it to be directly given to them, just have to have access to know it)

possible meaning
general usage

persuade person tempted to commit felony not to bring a gun

if there are two or more reasonable meanings due to imprecise statutes, the issue should be resolved in favor of the defendant

only applies when there is a grievous ambiguity or uncertainty
(when judges can only make a guess on what congress's intent was)

assume legislatures act rationally and in the good of the people
pass the law w/ the law at the time

used to give owed process
fair warning/ notice

Purpose
Language (start here)
Law before statute
Preamble
Title
Legislative History
Circumstance of adoptation

physical/ eternal part of the crime
action or ommission

volition

when one causes something from own free will

in order to establish the actus reus itself
wink = volition
blink = none

purpose
recklessness
knowledge
negligently

possession is an act in the aspect of actus reus, but you must know what you are possessing for it to be a voluntary act
(ex: heroin in bag you accept, but do not know what is in the bag = not a voluntary act)

Failure to act

Is there a duty to take care of someone?

legal relation of protector

criminal law prohibits actions that cause harm

a legal duty exists

1. Statutory duty (the law) (file tax returns)
2. Status relationship (spouse, parent, employer?)
3. Contractual duty (nursing home)
4. voluntary assumption of care + seclusion (start rescue then stop halfway)
5. Creat risk of harm to another (hit and run)

Act: doing/ performing something
Omission: stopped doing those acts/ did not perform

the killing is done intentionally to take a life

result needed
law charges unwanted outcome
(ex: murder)

no result needed
prohibits specific behavior
(ex: drunk driving)

guilty mind; guilty or wrongful purpose

mental state the defendant must have had w/ regard to the "social harm" elements set out in the definition of the offense

try and connect to other elements (sometimes too hard so goes to court)

to act with the conscious objective to accomplish the result (goal/ purpose)

a person is consciously aware that the results of his conduct are practically certain
(aware of expected outcome)

includes results that are conscious object or actor; or
results actors knows are virtually certain to occur

1. what level or intent is required (aka mens rea)
2. "intent" to mean trying to achieve a result
3. using "intenet" to mean either (2) or knowledge

can transfer intent to another person
intends to hit "x" but hits "y"
intent moves to y
use with like outcomes (person to person / object to object (yes) object to person or vice versa? (No)

purpose to do a future act, or purpsoe, knowledge, recklessness, or negligence about achieving a particular results; or
knowledge of an attendant circumstance

no particular mental state is set out by defintion of the crime, only need to prove social harm of offense was performed with morrally blameworthy state of mind
(ex: rape)

Purpose
Knowingly
Recklessly
Negligence

Want, goal, desire
Wants the end goal to occur
a. muder- wants the other person to die
b. must be aware, why he is acting (aware he is firing gun to kill)

(aware) acts knowlingly w/ respect to a material element of an offense
Practically certain that his conduct will cause a result
1. aware
2. aware that his conduct is practically certiain (do not have to absolutely know the otucome would occur)

acts with a conscious disregard of a substantial unjustifiable risk that the material element (murder) will result from his conduct
consciously disregards -- ignoring risk
(requires both) substantial unjustifiable risk --- huge/ great

subjective and objective aspect

should be aware of a substaintial and unjustifiable risk that the material element exists or will result from his conduct

what awareness does D have?
aware= reckless
not aware = negligence

substitute for knowledge when:
D has subjective awareness of a high propbability that X is true, and
D took deliberate actions to avoid learning whether X is true
jury may, from these facts, find that the D had knowledge of X

D cannot escape reach of statute that (require knowledge of attendant circumstance) by deliberatley shielding themselves of clear evidence of critical facts that are strongly suggestive from circumstances

only when a persons cupability turns on whether knowledge

when not specified in the law, courts will read in recklessness, knowingly, and purpose
but not negligence (must be expressly included in the text of the law)

public welfare offense

eliminates the mens rea requirment altogether and imposes strict liability upon those who violate the law

does not need a certain mens rea

punish even those who lack a guilty mindset

proved that the act was performed regardless of whatthe actor knew or did not know

the law is to exclude mens rea element

if you are doing something else immoral already, you can't use lack of knowledge as a defense
(shouldn't do it anyway)

subjective standard

honest belief (subjective standard)

belief that could be held by reasonable person (objective standard)

yes

honest mistake of law or fact is a defense when it negates a required mental element of the crime

"didn't happen"

Does the mistake relate to specific intent portion of offense?
if yes, acquit
if no, go to general intent steps

Was the intent reasonable?
reasonable, maybe defense
unreasonable, no defense

no defense for mistake ever

Is the offense general intent, specific intent, or strict liability?
SL= no defense
SI= does mistake relate to special intent portion of offense?
yes= acquit
no = go to general intent

ignorance of the law is no excuse

honest mistake of law that negates crime
misunderstanding of law

laws were wrong in themselves (ignorance of law makes sense here)

laws wrong b/c prohibited rule

looked at when result crimes
need to link result to cause

But-for cause
clearly defined
need preponderance of the evidence to convict (burden on prosecution)

But for the action of the D would the result still occur??
if so, then D's action is NOT the actual cause of the result
if not, then D's action IS actutal cause of result

less clearly defined
more about identifying those causes that can fairly be held accountable

YES

when 2 people separtely
commit 2 different acts each of whihc is sufficicent to cause result

both actions are actual causes

the thing that happened before

caused the death to occur sooner

but-for and proximate cause

victim's injury must be a "direct" and natural result" of the D's actions

actions between results (the time between)
causes that come between in a way we are about

replacing
did any intervening causes cause us to believe the earlier causes don't matter
BREAKS CHAIN of CAUSATION

First Test: reasonably foreseeable?
~ if forseen then do not supersede
But not end of test
~ 6 Dressler factors (not real legal factors; but courts will use)
use Dressler when reasonably foreseeable is not easy to use

1- Coincidental vs. Responsive
2- Apparent Safety Doctrine
3- Voluntary human interventionn/ free and informed
4- De minimis contribution/ cause
5- Omissions
6- Intended - consequences doctrine

responsive intervening causes will normally break chain
coincidental intervening causes will not break chain (not related to event; unless forseeable)

once D's force/ action (stops/ end) and victim is in a place of safety the cause terminates

when action of another human being had free and informed decision to do something
(ex: Keiser choose to walk into the road something he knew was dangerous)

law will generally not treat a very minor but-for cause as a proximate cause when responsibility can be attached to far more substainal cause

no matter how unforeseeable an omision may be a "negative act" will NOT supersede an earlier "positive act"
aka almost never breaks chain

are proximate causes
when the result is what the D wanted to happen, a superseding forces analysis is not necessary

can't make others responsible to fix your crime/ action

does not break chain of causation, but gross medical malpractice is not reasonably foreseeable and does break chain

if illegal plus at free-will
very strong argument for chain break (between conduct and result)

1. causing
2. death of another person
3. negligently

cause and negligence
the negligent conduct is cause of death

no negligence cause of death

unlawfull killing of another human being with malice aforethought

a- purpose or knowledge or
b- reckless

1. Intent to kill
2. Intent to cause grievous bodily harm
3. Depraved Heart Murder (upgraded manslaughter)
4. Intent to commit a felony

purpose or knowledge

causing significant harm

some crimes of extreme recklessness is so depraved want to punish it so amounts to murder

this becomes a felony murder

state's discretion

It is committed recklessly, OR
homicide which would otherwise be murder, that is being reduced b/c it was committed under extreme mental or emotional disturbance (heat of passion)

committed negligently (very sever)
GROSS negligence
crime of omission where a duty exists

any intended concesquences of an act is proximate

a D could not be prosecuted for murder unless the victim dies within a year and a day of the act inflicting injury (bright line test)

use expert testimony to determine casue of death

Yes
but cannot deliberate w/o premeditating first

no limit

consider implications and still go through (look at results of death)

b/c all murder is intentional

need some amount of time of contemplation prior to committing the murder

more of a thoughtful process than premeditation because one thinks deeper about it

may say premeditation and deliberation are not a good way to determine culpability

want of provocation on part of deceased
conduct and statments of D before and after killing
threats and declarations of D before and during giving rise to death
Ill-will or previous difficulty between the parties
dealing of lethal blows after deceased has been rendered helpless
evidence that the killing was done in a brutal manner

3 approaches
Common Law
Modern
MPC

provocation or heat or passion

provaction or heat of passoion
but
eliminates 5 categories of provocation and replaces w/ trying to make analysis to 5 elemnts (close to)

extreme emotional distress or heat of passion

killing in heat of passion
no reasonable opportunity to cool
causual connection: ~ passion ~ fatal act

Never enough; not adequate

to invoke a reasonable person

Age ALWAYS matters
gener is also accepted (depends on D; could be a problem b/c women may be judged harder)

burden is on D
downgrade crime b/c D did this for some reasonable reason (ex EDD; HOP)

viewpoint of a person in actor's situation under circumstances as he believes them to be
total subjective, interal look at D in this approach

1. extreme emotional disturbance
2. reasonable explanation or excuse
3. causation

is it understandable?
if you can prove D was under eed then let jury hear whole story and decide
take all that personas facts

malice can be expressed or implied

one act w/ a conscious disregard for human life (depraved heart)

thomas
phillips

awareness of engaging in conudct that endangers the life of another

D for base, antisocial motive and w/ wanton disregard for human life, does an act that involves a high degree of probability that will result in death

recklessness manifesting extreme indifference to human life

intentional felony + death = murder
(abondoned rule)

predicate felony + death = murder
underlying crime / felong involved

mens rea is replaced with the felony

starts on side in favor of prosecution and invite defense side to present evidence that will persuade jury/ judge not to convict D of murder

look at elements of the felony in the abstract not the "particular" facts of the case

categorical
case by case

(does not look at how was done in each case)
is there a way to commit the felony that does not pose substantial risk to others?
limits felony-murder

look at facts of the case and determines if the conduct was inherently dangerous
(generous to felony murder)

felony murder will not apply where the predicate felony is an "integral part of and included in fact within the homicide"
felonies that are not independent are said to merge

Courts are split in this
agency
proximate cause

3rd party is some sort of agency w/ D (3rd party did something that D can be held accountable
ask: are they on the same team?
working on same purpose/ goal?

if proximatly caused then held accountable
more broad

apply after guilt has been established (most time)
criminal has to be proven beyond reasonable doubt

failure of proof / absent element
justifications
excuses
non-exculpartory public policy

allies fit this
burden of proof
prove prosecution did not meet all elements
most common

defenses that exist in a specific crime

involves behavior where you look at conduct intself and judge the conduct is exceptable
b/c of circumstances
considers social harm of offense

conduct looked at and still find "bad"
but the person (something about them)
is looked at and accepts why it happened

exist b/c of some bigger policy decisions

necessity defense
hardwired in us / natural of us
baseline self preservation

at point of use of threat

one who is an aggressor in a conduct culminating in death cannot invoke necessity of self-defense

1. threat (real or apparant, unlawful, immediate)
2. reasonable belief (imminent peril)
3. reasonable belief (response was necessary to avoid
4. propotionate

Same as general but add below two
2. of death or SBH
3. to avoid death or SBH

must be in good faith
reasonable fear; reasonable person would have

one must retreat if one knows he can do so with complete safety
deadly force is not justifiable when one can escape

exception to duty to retreat
does not apply when attacked in home
"home{" extends beyond walls like yard, porch, ect

a person may only defend himself if he sibjectively believes that deadly force is required and a reasonable person would also believe it is appropriate under the circumstances

shoes / view of the D (knowledge, aware, the scene)

Yes take into consideration

light of the circumstances facing the D or his situation

reasonable person does not makejudgment based on race

law favors calling police if possible in these situations

right to defend others parrallels the other's right to self-defense

may use force to defend another to the extent that 3rd party would apparently be justified in using force in self-defense

MAJ: Would a reasonable person have believed the 3rd party had the right of self-defense? If so, you are justified in the defense of the 3rd person (If reasonable mistake, allowed)
MIN: You take your risk when using force. If the 3rd person didn’t have the right to use the defense, then you also didn’t and are not justified (Mistake not allowed)

1. immediate risk of harm to person or property
2. pose by natural forces
3. reasonable belief that committing offense is only way to avoid harm
4. harm caused < harm (sought ) to avoid

destroy property to save fire from spreading

flag necessity whenever you see someone committing a crime to prevent harm
then ask is it natural?

1. clear and imminent danger (natural)
2. subjective belief act will avert harm
3. no legal way to avert harm
4. harm caused must be less serious than that seeking to avoid
5. legislature must not have previously struck a balance between two evils
6. clean heands (did not start the problem)

1. never avalible to criminial homicide
2. economic nescessity is NOT recoginised by court

1. person threatens to kill/ SBI actor or 3rd party
2. reasonable belief threat is genuine
3. immediate threat (generally only required RB)
4. no reasonable opportunity to escape threatened harm
5. actor was not at fault in exposing herself to threat

distinguish voluntary from involuntary
voluntary CAN lead to acquittal but...
is voluntary intoxication actually a defense? (can they prove D did not have the mental state that was needed for the charge)

negates mens rea

Voluntary: disfavor
Involuntary: coerced or tricked
innoccent in a state
(if not involuntary then voluntary)

reaction to prescribed drug
unusual and unforeseen (has to be both) (normally only a defense once)

they didn't have guilty mindset
no judgement (not voluntary)

D commited civilly to treatment until determined not a danger to himself / or others

defense
only a defense if held pretrial assertion
this will change verdict options: not guilty by reason of insanity (is added to list) = treatment

unable to assist in defense
unable to understand trial and proceddings
low standard
can be raised at anytime

M'Naghten Rule
Irresistible Impluse
Product Test
Model Penal Code (Maj)

cognitive test
not criminally responsible if, at the time of committing the act:
D had defect of reason from disease of mind
1. did not know nature and quality of action (delusion) OR
2. did not know what doing was wrong

on where you are at and what rule they use

volitional
not criminally responsible if;
D suffers from an unsound mental condition causes
irresistible impluse to commit act; even though know wrong

cognitive / volitional
not criminally responsible if, act is product of mental illness
con: too empty; disfavored

as a result of mental disease or defect,
1. D lacked substantial capacity to appreciate criminality [wrongfulness] or conduct (cognitive)
OR
2. D lacked substantial capacity to conform conduct to requirments of law (volitional)

incomplete; unsuccessful; not finished

tried to complete; trying to make happen; missing an element so not complete
attempted [X] (formulation)

normally just as serious
except when not (for example: attempted murder is not as bad as murder)

D must intend to commit the ultimate crime

Requires 2 intents:
* intent to act
* intent to accomplish the crime

Spilt authority
some say intent means purpose OR knowledge
some say intent means purpose only

NOT a thing because felony murder does not require an intent to kill, so the second element of attempt (intent to cause death) does not exist

No; some crimes you can't put attempt in front of
see if it is acceptable to fit into the 2 intents required from the rule

No mere preparation is not enough to constitute attempt

a: physical proximity doctrine
b: dangerous proximity doctrine
c: indispensable element test
d: probable desistance test
e: res ipsa loquitur or unequivocality test

closer you are at completeing the crime = attempt
If too much is left to be done in the crime then = no attempt

recongizes how close a person will be permitted before committing crime
-greater gravity and probability of the offense and the nearer the act to the crime the stronger is the case for calling the act an attempt

does D lack control of critical element to be complete so not attempted

where natural course of events would go

speaks for itself: so far down track (so close to committing crime) that it was attempted (physical proximity)

Look at what has been done
strongly corroborative of the actor's criminal purpose

MPC
Mandujano (5 tools; CL)

no such thing as abandoning attempt

abandonment defense available

defense if:
abandon effort or prevent commission AND
circumstances manifesting complete and voluntary renunciations of criminal purpose

motivated by factors that made getting caught more likley, must truly have a change of heart (purity of motivation)
(ex: security guards, police, cameras)

involves the asking, enticing, and inducing of another to commit a crime

not used when actual crime occurs
not used when attempt occurs
only used when you solicit someone and they refuse

with purpose of
promoting or facilitating its commission
would constitute such crime or an attempt to commit such crime

A is guilty of solicitation

A and B guilty of murder
Both guilty of murder due to merger
cannot be charged of solicitation and attempted murder/ murder at same time

A and B are guilty of attempted murder

X not guilty of anything
D is guilty of solicitation

Maybe, solicitation is a substantial step. So good argument that D can be charged with attempted murder but cannot be charged with both (one or other)

mutual agreement (meeting of the minds) or understanding, express or implied, between 2 or more persons to commit criminal acts (specifif criminal act)

agreement; agreement is the act they are charged with

the above plus at least one overt act by a member of the conspiracy in furtherance of the agreement
ex: looking at the yellow pages to pick which bank to rob

(1) intent to combine with others
(2) intent to accomplish criminal objective
(all about the agreement)

agreeing to commit a crime is its own crime
ex: conspiring to rob bank--> charged with conspiracy and robbery

every conspirator will be liable for all acts committed by co-conspirators in furthance of the conspiracy

conspiracy requires intent; it is a specific intent crime
mens rea for conspiracy is purpose

CL majority: knowledge that instrument will be used in a crime is not sufficient to establish mens rea for conspiracy
Must show knowledge plus intent (purpose) to further the crime

(1) clear stake in venture (business is invested in it)
(2) no legit use for goods or services
(3) knowledge it will be used in crime (can be inferred) + volume beyond any legit use or if such sales constitute a high percentage of total business

deviates from the common law:
doesn't follow rule for more serious crimes--> CL is majority and largely used

before the crime occurs

Traditional CL (maj) bilateral rule (plurality required): at least 2 people must agree
Minority Rule unilateral rule: only one person must believe she is agreeing with another

someone who helps in a crime

knowing about someone's guilt (but not helping in crime itself) and giving them help to avoid jail, getting caught, etc.

some sort of assistance
D committing crime must know of assistance

intent to promot of facilitate the commission of the crime
sometimes described as a dual intent rule (attempt to act and attempt to accomplish)

always purpose, sometimes knowledge

Knows of crime AND
intends to participate (purpose) OR
has a stake in the crime
EX: D guilty as accomplice for selling tools used in a crime because he KNOWS OF CRIME and has a stake in crime meaning: charging more for product, deriving bulk of profit from supplying criminals, no legit purpose for goods supplied, no legit purpose for volume of goods supplied

Forseeable consequence rule:
is secondary crime foreseeable consequence of primary crime
accomplice liable for those crimes that were reasonably foreseeable consequences of the criminal enterprise (or crime)
Need only be an accomplice in primary crime

D is guilty as an accomplice to both crimes (Natural and Probable Consequence Doctrine)