criminal law tutoring slides 6 (6 of 6)

7/29/2019 Criminal Law Tutoring Slides 6 (6 of 6)

1/27

Criminal Law Tutoring

Session 6April 20, 2011


2/27

Overview! Criminal law system! Trial procedure

! Evidence basics! Burden of proof

! Juries! Advantages! Disadvantages

! Issues in punishment! Blame! Justifications

! Retribution! Utilitarianism! Vengeance

! Sentencing

! Defining criminal conduct! Legality! Proportionality! Actus reus! Mens rea!

Mistake of fact! Strict liability! Mistake of Law

! Rape! Actus reus! Mens rea! Reform issues

! Homicide! Premeditation! Provocation

! Unintended killings! Felony-murder! Death penalty

! Significance of theresulting harm

! Causation! Attempt

! Group culpability! Complicity! Corporate liability! Conspiracy

! Principles of exculpation! Justifications! Excuses! Insanity


3/27

Where we are now! Criminal law system! Trial procedure

! Evidence basics! Burden of proof

! Juries! Advantages! Disadvantages

! Issues in punishment! Blame! Justifications

! Retribution! Utilitarianism! Vengeance

! Sentencing

! Defining criminal conduct! Legality! Proportionality! Actus reus! Mens rea!

Mistake of fact! Strict liability! Mistake of Law

! Rape! Actus reus! Mens rea! Reform issues

! Homicide! Premeditation! Provocation

! Unintended killings! Felony-murder! Death penalty

! Significance of theresulting harm

! Causation! Attempt

! Group culpability! Complicity! Corporate liability! Conspiracy

! Principles of exculpation! Justifications! Excuses! Insanity


4/27

Attempt

! Crime that need not be completed in order to bepunished

! Either criminal fails! Or police stop the attempt mid-crime! If the crimes completed, it merges. No charge for

attempt when theres a crime


5/27

Attempt

! Punishment! Historically, a misdemeanor! Typically now,! the sentence! Some j/ds (and MPC): Parity. Same sentence.

! Mens rea: Same as for the completed crime! Smallwood v. State: D had raped women knowing he was HIV-

positive. Question is whether thats an attempt to murder.Court said that D in this case did not show intent to kill.

!Minority rule of 1: Colorado allowed attempted recklessmanslaughter (People v. Thomas)


6/27

Attempt

! Preparation: How much is enough for attempt?! Last act/Last step test:!King v. Barker: Traditional view: Needs to be last step in

line. Currently, all thats known is that conduct must be

somewhere b/t the first step and the last in order toconstitute an attempt.

!People v. Rizzo: D and three others planned to rob guythey knew was carrying payroll. They were arrested

while driving around looking for him. Conduct was too

far up the line to be the last step in the chain.

! Physical proximity test: Actions must also be inphysical proximity to crime


7/27

Attempt

! Abandonment can be a defense! Victims convincing " to stop is not abandonment

! Equivocality test: How clearly the Ds acts bespeak hisintent.! McQuirter v. State, D, a black man, drove up street behind white woman,

then loitered outside her house. She was scared. He was arrested forattempted rape, and sheriff testified that D said that he had intended torape her. He was convicted based on that evidence.

! Substantive crimes of attempt! Burglary (entering a dwelling)! Stalking


8/27

Attempt

! The MPC substantial step test! MPC 5.01 formulation on CB p. 1099

! Intent to complete the crime is necessary (mens rea for completedcrime).

!5.01(1)(b): Purpose of causing or belief it will cause a result.

! 5.01(1)(c): Substantial step! 5.01(2) strongly corrborative of a criminal purpose.! United States v. Jackson, Ds convicted for attempted bank robbery,

court said that they took substantial steps toward the robbery thatwent beyond mere preparation J/d adopted MPC substantial step.

! United States v. Harper: Bill trap in the ATM: D seeded ATM and wasapparently lying in wait to rob someone. Conviction reversed: Courtof Appeals said that was not a substantial step.


9/27

Attempt

! Solicitation! When someone else asked to do the crime

! State v. Davis: D solicited person for murder of girlfriends husband,but the person he found was a cop. Cop appeared to be carrying outplans but had no intention of doing so. Attempt? Court said no. (Copdidnt have mens rea for the act).

! What if its impossible to actually commit crime?(Impossibility defense)

! Legal impossibility is a defense (Completed act is not unlawful.)! People v. Jaffe D bought cloth that he believed was stolen. It wasnt

actually stolen.


10/27

Attempt

! Hybrid legal impossibility: D intends to complete a crime,but because of a factual mistake, the crime never couldhave occurred.

! United States v. Berrigan: Anti-Vietnam priest convicted of smugglingletters outside of prison w/o wardens consent. Warden knew and wasOK with it. Ds mens rea was to commit a crime, but he didntactually commit one.

! Factual impossibility is not a defense! People v. Dlugash: D shot a man he thought was already dead. Friend

had shot man first. Victim very likely already dead (expert testimonyunclear). Court of Appeals says that factual mistake is not a defense. Dis properly convicted of attempted murder.


11/27

Group Culpability

! Complicity! Someone helps the person who commits the crime! At common law:

! Principals! Accessories! Before the fact: Counseled and/or commanded commission of crime but

not present

! At the fact: Counseled at the scene of the crime! After the fact: Aids felon in avoiding capture and/or prosecution


12/27

Group Culpability

! MPC 2.06 /Modern version! Both principals and accessories treated as accomplices! Can charge a bunch of people as accessories if not sure who

did it, and sentence them all equally

! Dont need conviction for principal to get accessory conviction


13/27

Group Culpability

! Mens rea of accomplice must rise to specific intent! State v. Gladstone: D drew map and sent customer to pot

dealer but didnt otherwise facilitate transaction. Court

said this wasnt intent to sell drugs.

! Hicks v. United States: D urged friend on to shoot victim.Court says he must have intended to actually encouragefriend, not just intend to say what he said.


14/27

Group Culpability

! Mens rea of attendant circumstances: Ambiguous. Bestleft to resolution by the courts.

! Causation can be pretty attenuated:! Wilcox v. Jeffery: Journalist aided illegal jazz performance

because he attended, applauded.


15/27

Corporate Liability

! Entities liable for the actions of agents! New York Central v. United States: RR was liable for the actions of

its agents, who were paying rebates to certain shippingcompanies.

! Taking it to extremes ! United States v. Sun-Diamond. Corporations conviction upheld even

though agent actually defrauding company. Court said co. must haveencouraged support of candidate.

! MPC approach: Corporation still liable if manager did duediligence to prevent the crimes commission. Notescritical of this in that it both over- and under-criminalizescorporate conduct.


16/27

Corporate Liability

! Employees can be held liable for their actions on behalf ofthe company

! Responsible corporate officer doctrine: CEO responsiblefor act committed by company even if employee really did

it. .! United States v. Park: Company charged with violating Food and

Drug Act. Food was held in bad warehouse and rats got in thefood. CEO said he wasnt responsible for decision. Convicted.

! Courts most comfortable with this when the crime isregulatory and the penalty not steep


17/27

Conspiracy

! People agree to commit crime together.! Can be convicted whether target crime took place or not! Prosecutors love it: Get a bunch of Ds with the same

evidence

! Krulewitch v. United States: Cant use testimony about theconspiracy to prove a past conspiracy


18/27

Conspiracy

! Actus reus: The agreement itself! United States v. McDermott: No agreement, no conspiracy! Majority of j/ds require an overt act as well.

! MPC requires it for felonies of third degree or less (MPC 5.03(5))! Mens rea:

! To achieve an object thats either unlawful as such (intent tocommit murder thats criminal) OR

! Intent to complete act that if done in the course of aconspiracy became unlawful. Example: conspiracy to evade a

regulatory obligation to the government


19/27

Conspiracy

! Purpose is normally required, but ! People v. Lauria. (Prostitution ring case). Knowledge was

enough mens rea to prove conspiracy. Minority rule.

! Pinkerton rule! Accomplice is on the hook for any reasonably foreseeable

crime committed by a co-conspirator in furtherance of theconspiracy

! Used by about ! of j/ds! Pinkerton v. United States: Walter and Daniel Pinkerton were brothers

in IRS fraud scheme Court says because the offenses were unlawfulacts committed in the furtherance of the conspiracy, Daniel is on thehook for the substantive crimes, too, even from prison.


20/27

Conspiracy

! MPC rejects the Pinkerton doctrine and only imposesliability when the conditions for accomplice liability aremet

! Abandonment is not a defense! Have to do something do affirmatively withdraw! Or (MPC and some j/ds) take action to thwart the conspiracy


21/27

Conspiracy

! Multiple conspiracies! Wheel and spoke: One person in the center knows

whats going on, but those on the outside (wheel) dont

know everything (Kotteakos)

! Ball and chain: Everyone knows the next link in thechain and knows there are other links, but doesnt knowthe whole chain. (Bruno)

! MPC approach: Would look at each co-conspirator as anindividual and charge for part of conspiracy he was involved with


22/27

Insanity

! Excuse: D didnt know that what D was doing was wrong! Defense has the burden of proving that D is legally insane! Must prove D competent to stand trial

! MPC definition (CB P. 867): no one who lacks capacity tounderstand the proceedings or assist in own defense shall betried.

! In case of execution, must prove D competent to beexecuted (not punishment if cant understand whats

happening)! Barred by 8th Amendment


23/27

Insanity

! Classic insanity test: MNaghten rule! MNaghtens Case: Man indicted for murder of prime minister.

He thought that the Tories were persecuting him and intended

to kill P.M.

! His defense raised an insanity excuse and was acquitted. Judgesmet to determine if this could be.

! Rule that came out of that meeting: To establish insanitydefense, prove that he was under such a defect of reason

that he didnt know what he was doing, or didnt know

that what he was doing was wrong.


24/27

Insanity

! Majority test.! For a while, went with MPC formulation below. Then after

Hinckleydecision (Reagans would-be assassin) districts startedgoing back

! MPC approach: Lacks substantial capacity either toappreciate the criminality of his conduct or to conform

his conduct to the requirements of law.

! Volitional as opposed to cognitive approach! Minority of j/ds have abolished insanity defensecompletely


25/27

Insanity

! Must suffer from mental defect to invoke insanitydefense

! State v. CrenshawD decided wife had been unfaithful andmurdered her, then went to great lengths to conceal her body.

He claimed that his religion made it mandatory to killadulterous wife and pled insanity. Court says issues is not his

faith, its whether he did not know act was wrong.

! Wrong in this case is societys moral standard, not Ds(majority rule)

! Its a legal definition of insane, not a medical definition


26/27

Coming up: The final

! Short answer! Multiple choice! One longer short answer! Some sort of word limit! Some sort of outline (longer than 2 pages)! *Maybe* your casebook! ALL SUBJECT TO CHANGE WHAT PROF. WHITE

SAYS SUPERSEDES THIS SLIDE!


27/27

Coming up: The final

! Prof. White will hold review session during finals period!Janna will take e-mailed questions

! [email protected]! My cutoff is 5 p.m. Sunday, May 1

criminal law tutoring slides 6 (6 of 6)

Documents