criminal law outline.doc
TRANSCRIPT
-
7/21/2019 Criminal Law Outline.doc
1/21
Criminal Law Outline
Justification of Punishment
Retributivism: Punishment is justified because people deserve it for acting immorally/past-
lookingI. Retribution
a. Degrees of culpability based on circumstance
i. Regina v. Dudley and Stephens: murder of shipmate for food !as it lessmorally !rong b/c of circumstance"
II. Idea of proportionality of punishment
#tilitarianism: Punishment is justified because it serves a purpose/for!ard-lookingI. Deterrence: Reduction of future crime
a. $pecific deterrence: D decides not to commit future crimes
b. %eneral deterrence: &ther people see punishment' decide not to commit crime
i. Regina v. DudleyII. Incapacitation: prevention from re-offending
a. Punish every offender e(ually orb. )ttempt to identify potential re-offenders and incapacitate them
i. *uestion of fairness
ii. $entences based on individual characteristicsc. Does not have to be in traditional form of jail
III. Rehabilitation: offenders can be changed/treated
a. Idea that crime is psychological disturbance
b. IndividualityI+. %eneral ,riti(ues of #tilitarianism:
a. ot fair to use defendants for greater purpose
Related Ideas:
I. ustification v. 01cuse
a. ustification: sometimes !/ justification it is said that no crime has beencommitted
i. $elf-defense
b. 01cuse: crime !as committed' but person is e1cused circumstances of
compulsion can e1cuse a personi. Insanity' mental illness
II. $hould punishment consider individual factor such as age/race"
III. Public shamingI+. 01traordinary 2amily ,ircumstances
a. U.S. v. Johnson: mother !/ four young childrens sentence reduced b/c of
3e1traordinary4 family responsibilitiesb. #tilitarian: looking at family situations 5 greater good of society
c. Retribution: less culpability !hen there is good e1cuse
Criminal Conduct: Culpability
-
7/21/2019 Criminal Law Outline.doc
2/21
)ctus reus plus mens rea
Actus Reus6objective 5 voluntary act7+oluntary ,onduct 5 !illed by actor
0lements 68P, 9.;7:I. ,onduct: physical behavior of D
a. )ll crimes must have conduct element 6act or omission7
b. 8P,: 9abit: voluntary
ypnosis: involuntary
?. $leep!alking: involuntary
c. Martin v. State: police brought drunk man to high!ay court ruled act must be
voluntary to be crimed. People v.Newton: man kills police officer !hen unconscious not voluntary so
not culpablee. People v.Decina: man kills another b/c he has epileptic sei@ure !hile driving
a!are of condition and voluntarily drove so culpable
II. ,ircumstance: objective fact or conditionIII. Result: conse(uence/outcome of conduct
&mission
I. 8P, 9
-
7/21/2019 Criminal Law Outline.doc
3/21
Must look at mens rea for each element of the crime must ha!e mens rea for
each element to be con!icted"
#!ery statute does not always ha!e circumstance$ conduct and result" %n an e&am$
identify which apply$ then fi'ure out which mens rea is re(uired for each element"
)ou can do this without lookin' at facts" #lement analysis is not related to facts$ but
what is written into the statute" Once you look at the statute$ you 'o to facts andfi'ure out if had the mens rea re(uired in each element of the crime
,ulpable if you had a choice in conduct
Difficult to prove state of mind' but criminal la! is about subjective blame!orthiness'
e1cept in case of negligence
o 8ust infer
,ulpable 8ental $tate 68P, 9
-
7/21/2019 Criminal Law Outline.doc
4/21
f. Risks unacceptable if social good out!eighs harm
g. Remember to distinguish bet!een reckless conduct and reckless result
I+. egligence: not a!are of risk but should have beena. 8P,: objective standard
i. 9
-
7/21/2019 Criminal Law Outline.doc
5/21
i. Different from saying you !erent a!are there !as a la!' deals !ith
misinterpreting facts 5 D kno!s actions may be governed by la! but
concludes that they are not illegalc. 8istake of 2act: 8istake over !hat
d. 9
-
7/21/2019 Criminal Law Outline.doc
6/21
i. U.S. v. Staples: D una!are gun !as automatic silence by statute does not
mean strict liability do not assume strict liability if it !ould criminali@e
broad range of seemingly innocent conduct 6talks about tradition of guno!nership7
c. $trict liability crimes have lo!er penalties 6fines7
i. 01ceptions: statutory rape' some felony murder
Rape
Rape la!s historically !ere about protecting !omens virginity regarded !omen more as
property
,urrently' rape la! is more about se1ual relations bet!een men and !omen and !hat the
criminal la!s role is in those relationships
o 8ore focus on rape as crime of violence
o +iolating rights
o ,an be against male or female
8odel Penal ,odeI. 8P, 9
-
7/21/2019 Criminal Law Outline.doc
7/21
ii. 8en have to use force if !omen resist
b. Lhreat of force
i. Chose point of vie!" D or P"ii. &ften victims fear must be reasonable to count
iii. onphysical threat:
. State v. $hopson: 68L7 principal threatens not to let studentgraduate ruling that intimidation is not 3force4 for purposes of
rape statute did not say anything about consent so you could not
argue that she did not give consent
-
7/21/2019 Criminal Law Outline.doc
8/21
II. Fook to statute
a. #nder 8P,' default is recklessness' but many states have negligence standard
6lo!er than recklessness7 !hich means D !ould be liable if he did not kno! butshould have
b. ,onse(uence of negligence standard: maybe men do not get to have as much
se1 as they !ould like' but a higher standard might have a higher price 5 morevictimi@ation of !omen
c. $trict liability standard" 8istake of fact 6consent7 not a defense in 8)
""". Casesa. Coonwealth v. Sherry:
b. Coonwealth v. (ischer: 6P)7 enacts strict liability and does not allo! D to
defend on basis that he made a reasonable mistake
I+. ,onduct 2orce:a. Did he purposely force her"
b. Did he force her !ith reckless mens rea"
*omicide
8urder
$tatutory approach 6degrees7 and 8P, approach 6no degrees7
8ainly looking at result element of death 6circumstance is that the victim !as alive
before the act7
Premeditation can be used to separate out degrees
o )ppraoch M: Premeditated murder more culpable b/c of the time of planning
o )pproach M
-
7/21/2019 Criminal Law Outline.doc
9/21
?. State v. (orrest: man helps terminally ill father die has all mens
rea re(uirements but is seemingly less morally culpable' but meets
stdegree murder re(uirementsc. $econd Degree
i. Intentional killing 6malice aforethou'ht7 that is not premeditated
ii. ot premeditated' deliberate' and !illful. )nderson case: murder reduced from stto
-
7/21/2019 Criminal Law Outline.doc
10/21
vie!point of a person in the actors situation under the circumstances as
he believes them to be.4
#nintended Billings 68anslaughter7
I. ,ommon la!:
a. #nla!ful homicide !ithout malice aforethought 6no intent or kno!ledge actionmight cause death or reckless disregard for life7
i. Difficult distinction
ii. 8ens rea of reckless 6!anton7 conduct or negligenceb. +oluntary v. Involuntary
i. +oluntary: intentional killing mitigated by heat of passion' provocation 5
!ant to cause death but you dont have control of emotions
ii. Involuntary: unintentional killing 6reckless' negligent7 !ithout malicec. ,ivil v. ,riminal Fiability
i. Coonwealth v. +elans%y: fire at nightclub manslaughter based on
omissions and affirmative acts reasonable person should have been a!are
of risk. mens rea !anton or reckless conduct for manslaughter
d. &bjective v. $ubjective $tandards of Fiabilityi. State v. +illias: negligent parents and child dies ordinary negligence
enough to convict of involuntary manslaughter 6usually need gross
negligence7 did parents e1ercise reasonable care" &bjective standard 5 !/subjective parents may not have been convicted
e. Fine bet!een 8urder and 8anslaughter
i. Chen recklessness sho!s !anton disregard for life' it is murder
6considered malice aforethought7. ury decision' consider factors such as
a. 8agnitude of risk
b. Ds a!areness of riskc. ustification of risk
ii. Coonwealth v. Malone: boy shoots friend playing Russian roulette
second degree murder rather than manslaughter even though there !as nointent it !as gross recklessness and enough to be murder b/c it sho!ed
disregard for human life 5 although no intent' gross negligence sho!ed
reckless !anton disregard
iii. U.S. v. (leing: drunk driver s!erves and kills second degree murder didnot necessitate intent to kill !anton and gross deviation from reasonable
conduct !as enough 5 constitutes malice aforethought
. self-induced into1ication not a defense 68P, agrees7II. 8P, 9omicide is manslaughter !hen committed recklessly 6consciously disregards
a substantial and unjustifiable risk that his conduct !ill cause the result7b. #nder 8P,' mens rea of recklessness 6
-
7/21/2019 Criminal Law Outline.doc
11/21
c. o provocation rule 6see 8P, above7 5 6c7 replaced !ith e1treme emotional
disturbance standard for !hich there is reasonable e1planation or e1cuse to
change to manslaughteri. I think victim must be the person that harmed you for reduction of crime
in this instance' !hich is also the majority rule
d. Joth subjective and objective: 6c7 determining from the vie!point of a person inthe Ds situation 6objective7 in the circumstances as D believed them to be
6subjective7
i. Issue: >o! much do info you allo! in !hen you are subjective"e. o Distinction bet!een voluntary and involuntary
2elony 8urder Rule
I. Death occurring during course of felony or fleeing the felony is murder 5 strictliability
a. 8ust be inherently dangerous felony to (ualify
i. %enerally' the doctrine is too broad
b. Lransferred intent 5 culpable mens rea for felony gets transferred to murder6imputation of mens rea that does not actually e1ist7
c. Regina v. Serne: D set house on fire and son dies guilty of murder b/c hecommitted felony
II. Pro1imate ,ause Lheory
a. ot just the 3but for4 cause but a pro1imate cause of the deathIII. 3In furtherance4 or 3agency4 theory
a. killing must be in furtherance of the crime
b. person responsible for his actions or the actions of his accomplice
I+. Ideas behind 2elony 8urder Rule:a. Deters people from engaging in felonies or engaging in risky behavior !hile
committing a felony
b. ,ausal theory: ) D that engages in risky behavior should be responsible for anyresult of that behavior' even if unintended
c. 2oreseeability: D should kno! this could happen
+. 8P, : limits felony murder rule to cases of robbery' rape' arson' burglary'kidnapping' felonious escape
a. 8P, is very limiting on the rule
b. )ssumes reckless disregard for human life
c. Jurden of proof falls to defendant to sho! he is not brutal' malicious killer+I. ,o-2elons
a. &nce you accept felony murder rule' complicity theory !ill make co-felons
accountableb. State v. Canola: 6 GEE7 D not guilty of murder !hen co-felon !as killed by the
victim of their robbery
i. majority rule: only guilty if co-felon is killed as a result of Ds actionsduring felony
ii. agency theory
c. $aylor v. Superior Court: 6,) GE=7: D !as guilty !hen victim of robbery killed
co-felon
-
7/21/2019 Criminal Law Outline.doc
12/21
i. co-felons !ere responsible for provoking resistance had mens rea of
conscious disregard for human life and thus malice
+II. ,an be different from complicity because in complicity you might not have there(uisite intent to be convicted' but you could be convicted under felony murder
+he ,i'nificance of Resultin' *arm
Causation
Prosecutor must prove cause in fact and pro1imate cause
,ommon la! approach 6more accepted7
o Jut for cause
o Pro1imate ,ause
Is there an intervening cause"
If so' is it superseding 6breaks connection and D is not liable7
Remoteness and foreseeability are factors
8P, 9
-
7/21/2019 Criminal Law Outline.doc
13/21
b. 8echanical or scientific
c. People v. )costa: helicopter crash !hile follo!ing police chase' debate over
foreseeability' found him to be pro1imate cause 6events foreseeable7 but notconvicted b/c of lack of malice 6no mens rea7
d. People v. )r,on: t!o fires' fireman dies b/c of uman )ctions that Recklessly Risk the Result
a. Drag racing/Russian Roulette casesi. 8anslaughter
b. )sk about foreseeability' superseding cause
c. Jring in moral argumentsd. Coonwealth v. Root: involuntary manslaughter" Drag racing' one racer
s!erved and killed self' other driver not found guilty' victims action a
superseding cause b/c he recklessly chose to s!erve into a head-on collisioni. 8ajority rejects foreseeability but dissent says D helped create the
dangerous situation and should be guilty
e. State v. Mc(adden: involuntary manslaughter" Drag racing' victim killed self and
innocent people !hen he !ent into oncoming traffic' court looks more atforeseeability and convicts D
f. Coonwealth v.)ttencio: Russian roulette' D guilty of manslaughter' inherent
difference bet!een Russian roulette and drag racing b/c purpose of Russianroulette is for someone to die
Attempt
8ens rea:
o the mens rea re(uired for the substantive crime
-
7/21/2019 Criminal Law Outline.doc
14/21
o 8ust also intend the act' !hich' if carried out' !ould have resulted in commission
of the crime
,ommon la! dra!s later line for actus reus than 8P, 6makes it harder to convict but
less likely to arrest someone that !ould change mind7
Idea that you do not !ant to punish for thought
o ,ompetes !ith ideas that thought/intent speaks to culpability and you !ant to beable to prevent crimes
8ens ReaI. ,ommon Fa!
a. D must have the same mens rea re(uired for acts !hich' if they had been carried
out' !ould have resulted in the commission of the crime
b. D must intendi. Lo do the act 6conduct7
ii. Lo accomplish the result
iii. #nder the same circumstances 6must kno! the circumstance of target
offense7II. 8P, 9K.=67
a. $ame mens rea as re(uired for commission of the crimeb. Did D have
i. ,onduct: Purpose
ii. Result: Bno!ledge or Purpose 6this makes it easier to convict for attempt7iii. ,ircumstance : !hatever mens rea is re(uired for commission of
completed crime 62irst' you !ould look at the statute7
III. Sallwood v. State: >I+N man rapes ; !omen' attempted murder" o b/c he did not
intend that they !ould be killed' only recklessly disregarded the possibility 6resultelement7
I+. %enerally' there is no crime of attempted manslaughter b/c manslaughter has areckless or result and not intended
)ctus Reus: Preparation v. )ttempt
I. Do not !ant to punish for thought !hen there is the chance the person !ill changemind
II. Lests: Pro1imity' 8P,
III. ,ommon Fa! 6Pro1imity Lest7: 8ere preparation is not enough' must !ait until last
step before crime is committed to be an attempt crimea. *uestion is !hat is yet to be done"
b. People v. Ri,,o: bank robbery plan' Ds not guilty b/c they !ere not far enough
along in the robbery under the pro1imity testc. o abandonment
I+. 8P, )pproach: 9K.=676c7 5 substantial step to!ard commission of crime test
increases ability to move in before crime 6more follo!ed7a. *uestion is !hat has been done 5 is it enough to sho! firm intent"
b. U.S. v. Jac%son: follo!ed 8P, in attempted robbery case' said there !as
substantial step
-
7/21/2019 Criminal Law Outline.doc
15/21
c. )bandonment: allo!ed under 8P, as affirmative defense for people !ho truly
voluntarily abandon the crimes
-roup Criminality: Complicity
>olding accomplice accountable for actions of another during a crime
D must intend to aid in the principal act
If accomplice has the re(uisite mens rea' you impute the act of the principal actor 5 you
do not impute mens rea
6Different from felony murder' !here if the D has the re(uisite mens rea' you impute the
mens rea for murder7
Jroad doctrine
Jalances holding people accountable for the risk they caused and the level of
involvement in creating the risky situation
Re(uirements
I. Lhe D aided or abetted 6actus reus7
a. D must have directly or indirectly encouraged or facilitated the commission of theoffense
b. #nder 8P,' attempt to aid is enough' !hereas under common la! you actually
have to aid the person 6most states follo! common la! here7c. Remember' there is no 3but for4 element 5 no need the prove the crime !ould not
have been committed 3but for4 the aid
II. D >ad the re(uisite mens reaa. 8ens rea for the crime re(uired
i. Result: kind of culpability sufficient for the commission of the offense as
provided in the definition of the substantive crime. as long as you intend to aid' there is no purpose/intent for the result
6can be troublesome7
ad Purpose 6Intent to aid7 5 act !ith an affirmative desire that his acts
have an encouraging or assisting effect. Lhis promotes or facilitates the
crime/ purpose to promote commission of crime/ assist party to engage inconduct that forms the basis of the offense
. once you aid' you can impute the conduct of the principal actor
III. Lhe person abetted or incited actually committed the offense
8ens Rea
I. )ctions of the Principal
a. ic%s v. U.S.: one man kills another' D used encouraging !ords if D intended toencourage murder' the action is imputed to him
b. State v. *ladstone: D told other person !here he could buy marijuana' had no
purpose to aid the principal in selling marijuana 6the crime7 even though kne! itcould happen' so not guilty
-
7/21/2019 Criminal Law Outline.doc
16/21
i. Bno!ledge not enough' need purpose
c. People v./uparello: D looking for e1-girlfriend' henchmen kill the guy !ho
might be able to locate heri. Lhey convicted him based on imputing the purpose of the henchmen but
this D&0$ &L follo! the 8P, b/c he did not have purpose in relation to
the commission of the crime 6murder7II. )ttendant ,ircumstances
III. Result
a. People v. Mc0ay' convicted of aiding manslaughter based on aiding incommission of grossly negligent act
b. People v. Russell: ; kids shooting guns' no proof as to !hich killed the principal 5
all convicted b/c all had the necessary mens rea for murder
I+. Drag racing and complicitya. )ccomplice has to intend to aid the principal actor in the activity (uestion
becomes !hich activity 5 in drag racing the accomplice intends to aid the drag
racing' but not the murder/manslaughter
+. Dangerous activitya. State v. )yers: no complicity for involuntary manslaughter !hen selling gun to A
year old !ithout permitb. State v. $ravis: complicity for involuntary manslaughter !hen D let K-yr. old
drive defective motorcycle in area !/ lots of kids around
c. Lhe theory for holding an accomplice liable in dangerous activity is that theyaided the principal actor in the dangerous activity. Lhey risked the death of
someone by aiding in the dangerous activity
d. Lhere is also an element of closeness to the actual activity that distinguishes these
cases 6idea of fairness7 court seems to raise the aid re(uirement in instances ofrecklessness and negligence
)ctus ReusI. +ilco1 v. Je##ery: convicted for aiding !hen man !ent to !atch a man illegally play
instrument even though he did not encourage him
a. 8ost states !ill rule differently than here b/c there !as no actual aidII. State v. $ally' telegram case' telegram aided the brothers in committing murder' so he
is guilty of murder as !ell
Conspiracy
8P,:
o
) person is guilty of conspiracy if he a'reesto:,ommit an offense)ttempt to commit an offense
$olicit another person to commit an offense
)id someone in the planning or commission of the offense
&vert )ct: if its a lesser offense 6misdemeanor' ;rddegree felony7' under the 8P, there
must be an overt act and many states re(uire overt act for any crime
8ens Rea:
-
7/21/2019 Criminal Law Outline.doc
17/21
o Purpose for the actus reus of agreeing' intent for crime
Purpose can be sho!n by monetary gains
o $et 8R for ),s and result to !here they need to be for policy reasons
,ommon Fa!
o )t common la!' a conspiracy need not be based on an e1press
agreement. 2urthermore' an agreement can e1ist although not all of the parties toit have kno!ledge of every detail of the arrangement' as long as each party isa!are of its essential nature. It is enough that each person a'rees' at a minimum'
to commit or facilitate some of the acts leading to the substantive crime.
o InPin%ertonjurisdictions' conspiracy liability also produces liability for the
substantive offenses of any other co-conspirator !hen those offenses arecommitted in furtherance of the conspiracy' even if the particular conspirator isnt
a!are of the acts or even of the actor.
o InBridgesjurisdictions' this is taken even further' and conspiracy provides
liability for any criminal acts of co-conspirators' even !hen &L in furtherance
of the conspiratorial objective' !hen those actions are natural and probable
conse(uences of the nature of the conspiracy. Defense to ,onspiracy
o Renuciation: D th!arts the success of the conspiracy !ith the purpose of
renuciating $ome jurisdictions allo! for a substantial step' but doesnt have to be
th!arts
o Cithdra!al: D tells his co-conspirators that hes out or he tells the police
everything #nder common la! 6Pinkerton7 he is still liable for everything that
happened up to the !ithdra!al
o
)bandonment: allco-conspirators abandon the project
#&culpation
)ll elements of the crime are there' but D not held accountable
ustification v. 01cuse
I. ustification: admit that D did something but say that it !as a good or sensible action
5 morally right to commit the crime' better that D committed the crime
a. $elf defense
II. 01cuse: admit action !as bad but D does not accept full 6or any7 responsibilitya. Insanity' forced to commit crime
$elf Defense
I. 8P, 9;.=?a. 67: 3use of force upon or to!ard another person is justifiable !hen the actor
believes that such force is immediately necessary for the purpose of protecting
-
7/21/2019 Criminal Law Outline.doc
18/21
himself against he use of unla!ful force by such other person on the present
occasion4
b. 6
-
7/21/2019 Criminal Law Outline.doc
19/21
complaints' 6;7 no time or opportunity to resort to courts' 6?7 no
evidence of violence to!ard personnel or innocents in escape and 6K7
prisoner reports self once danger gone.e. United States v. Schoon6GG
-
7/21/2019 Criminal Law Outline.doc
20/21
ii. Rape- asks !hat kinds of threats ought someone to submit to vs. !hat
kinds of threats ought a person to resist although talking about
perpetrator not victimiii. $elf-defense- !hat can one do to save self !hen harms innocent rather
than aggressor
f. 8P, 9 !ill be inflictedh. Imminence and Duress: United States v. (leing
i. 2acts- charged !/ helping Boreans do propaganda he claims duress
b/c had been threatened that eh !ould be forced to sleep in caves and!alk thru cold' probably to death.
ii. Rule- Danger of death or %J> not immediate. Resistance must have
brought you to last ditch. 017 started !alking thru sno! and reali@ed!ould die soon.
Insanity 601cuse7
7 8P,: at time of criminal conduct because of mental disease/defect defendant lacks
substantial capacity either to appreciate the criminality of his conduct or to conform his
conduct to the re(uirements of la!
-
7/21/2019 Criminal Law Outline.doc
21/21
Into1ication
7 +oluntary Into1icationa. %enerally not an e1cuse unless used for specific intent crimes