Download - Crim Outline Branham
-
8/6/2019 Crim Outline Branham
1/25
Criminal Law Outline
I. What is Criminal Law
a. Definition of Crime
1. Offense by someone against the state
1. Shocks conscious
2. Right to security
3. Infringing others rights
2. Substantial harm or risk of harm
3. Culpable state of mind
4. Interest in individual autonomy
5. Basic values/Morality
6. (Crime what the legislature says it is subject to constitutional constraints)
1. Is is blameworthy enough?
b. Differences between civil and criminal lawsuits
1. Who brings the lawsuit (state v. injured)
2. Standard of proof
a. Preponderance of evidence v. Beyond a reasonable doubt
3. Constitutional Rights
4. Stigma conviction holds much greater stigma than being liable
c. Purposes of Criminal Justice System
1. Retribution (penalty to punish D for crime)
a. Crime is a violation of the state
b. Focus on establishing blame on guilt/past
c. Adversarial relationship and process normative
d. Imposition of pain to punish and deter/prevent
2. Incapacitation (while in jail, cant commit another crime on public)
-
8/6/2019 Crim Outline Branham
2/25
3. Deterrence
a. Specific penalty imposed on D so in future, theyll be
reluctant to commit in future
b. General punish bc want to deter OTHERS from same crime
4. Rehabilitation (receive treatment so will not repeat in the future bc
they know the crime is wrong)
2. Restorative Justice
1. Structure so criminal will give back to community to redress the
harm caused by his criminal conduct
2. Victim Offender Mediation Programs
3. Focus on Problem Solving, liabilities and obligations on future (what
should be done)
4. Restoring both parties goal of reconciliation/restoration
II. Actus Reus
a. Act Requirement (external manifestation of will)
1. Act required to commit crime
b. Court Cases
1. Sleepwalker guy killed mother in law, not guilty because did not actvoluntarily
2. Epilepsy guy voluntary act began when he went behind the wheel,
knowing he endangered others (there can be criminal culpablility if
someone starts or continues an activity knowing she may become
unconscious and engage in criminal behavior
3. Jones v. US was there sufficient evidence of conviction did she feed the
baby?
4. Queen v. Dudley (Cannibalism)
5. State v. Stark (knowingly transferred HIV)
6. Johnson v. State (Coke through umbilical cord)
7. People v. James (prostitution of 2 college girls)
-
8/6/2019 Crim Outline Branham
3/25
III. Mens Rea state of mind, acted intentionally, unless you have a guilty state of mind,
conduct isnt blameworthy enough to call someone a criminal
1. Least culpable
b. Cases
1. Vallegas v. US
1. Charged with violation of clean water act dumped vials of blood
containing hep b into water knowingly placed others in imminent
danger of death or bodily harm
a. Court concluded D didnt act knowingly he must have been
aware his actions would cause a high probability of causing a
certain result, no evidence understood how tides worked,
knew people walked in the area, no evidence would cause a
high probability infection
IV.Mistake of Fact/Mistake of Law
a. Mistake of Fact No intent to deprive
1. MPC
1. If purpose of knowledge is the state of mind requirement any
honest mistake suffices including a reckless or neg mistake
2. If reckless any mistake that is not reckless
a. Was not aware of substantial risk acted negligently, but
because of her mistake, is not reckless (gun, shot friend)
3. If negligence - if d unreasonably believed she consented, that is
guilty
4. Gordon v. State
a. Voted when he wasnt 21 thought he was 21
b. Gordon has reasonable mistake not guilty; Gordon has
unreasonable mistake - guilty
b. Mistake of Law Knowingly didnt pay taxes
1. Ignorance of the law is not a defense
2. He knowingly failed bc he knew he didnt pay
-
8/6/2019 Crim Outline Branham
4/25
3. IF he consulted an accountant guilty, if he consulted an actor of the state
interpreting administration of the law not guilty
4. Mistakes of Law that Do Not Negate Mens Rea
1. Law not published
2. When mistake arises from reasonable reliance on a statute that is
later determined to be invalid
3. When the mistake is based on reasonable reliance on a court
decision
4. When the mistake arises from reasonable reliance on a public
official who is in a position to interpret the relevant statute
5. EXAMPLES
a. Lambert v. California
- D with felony conviction didnt register in time
- Conviction unconstitutional under the
circumstances, the conviction violated due process of
the law
1. Unfair when activity was passive and she didnt
do something
2. No circumstances that she should enquire whatthe requirements are (didnt move, etc)
3. Needs to have actual knowledge or possibility of
knowledge
c. MPC Mistake of Fact s.2.04(1)(a) ignorance or mistake as to a matter of fact
constitutes defense if it negatives the purpose, knowledge, belief, recklessness or
negligence required to establish a material element of the offense
1. Crimes require purpose or knowledge honest mistake of fact is a defense,
even if the mistake was reckless
2. Crimes require recklessness, a mistake of fact is a defense as long as it
was not reckless
3. Crimes require negligence mistake of fact is a defense as long as the
mistake was not negligent (must be a reasonable mistake)
d. General/Specific Intent
-
8/6/2019 Crim Outline Branham
5/25
1. General Intent - Only a reasonable mistake can be a defense
2. Specific Intent - Reasonable or unreasonable mistake can be a defense
a. Pick up pink umbrella
b. Not only must D intend to commit the act, there must be extra state ofmind
i. 1st degree murder, solicitation, attempt, conspiracy, larceny,
robbery, burglary, false pretenses, embezzlement
e. MPC voluntary intoxication is defense to crimes whose mens rea requirement is
purpose or knowledge
Ex Drunk, did not enter home with the intent to commit a crime just
went to the wrong home, not burglary
- voluntary intox is not a defense to crimes of recklessness if a sober person
would have been aware of the risk
- Reckless discharge of a firearm (drunk and shoot someone) yes guilty in the
act of consuming alcohol, we are being reckless bc we know it will impair our
thought process
- Not a defense to general intent crimes (Battery - crimes committed so often
while drunk)
- Defense to specific intent crimes because dont meet mens rea requirement
f. Involuntary Intoxication
Two ways may lead to avoidance of criminal liability
1. Mens rea is not present
2. When requirements of insanity defense (other than mental disease or
defect) are met (doesnt understand wrongfulness or cant control actions)
V. Homicide
a. Common Law Murder
1. Acted with malice
a. D intendt to kill or knowledge with practical certainty of death
-
8/6/2019 Crim Outline Branham
6/25
b. Intent to cause serious bodily harm
c. If D acted with extreme recklessness
d. Intent to commit a felony
2. Premeditation
a. separate from intent to kill, can have intent to kill without
premeditation
i. Lapse of time between intent and killing
ii. Evidence of planning activity
iii. Motive (D took out $1 mil life insurance)
iv. Method of killing (Poison)
3. POLICY ARGUMENT - Should Premeditated Murder remain?
b. Voluntary Manslaughter Requirements (Common Law)
i. D was provoked
ii. Reasonable person would have been provoked to pt. of losing self-control
iii. D didnt cool off
iv. Reasonable person wouldnt have cooled off
1. Who is the reasonable person?
v. If on defense council want them to have as many of the same attributes
of the D as possible.
2. POLICY ARGUMENT - Should Murder be mitigated to manslaughter b/c intense
passion?
c. Involuntary Manslaughter
1. Mens rea - recklessness or negligence (split in jurisdictions)
d. MPC Murder, Manslaughter, Negligent Homicide
1. MPC Murder
a. Committed purposely or knowingly, or
-
8/6/2019 Crim Outline Branham
7/25
b. Committed recklessly under circumstances manifesting extreme
indifference to human life
2. MPC Manslaughter
a. Committed recklessly, or
b. Committed under influence of extreme mental or emotional disturbance
3. MPC Negligent Homicide
a. Committed negligently
Commonwealth v. Feinburg, sold Sterno to people to drink
Commonwealth v. Welansky, owned nightclub caught on fire
b. Felony Murder
1. Another form of malice bc intent to commit a felony
2. Limitations on scope
a. People v. Hansen Inherently Dangerous
i. Shooting into inhabitable dwelling
ii. States confine f-m rule to felonies that are inherently dangerous
iii. Look at the crime in the abstract nature of the shooting, pose a
high probability of risk
b. Merger Doctrine felony must have an independent felonious
purpose
i. People v. Dekens
c. Agency v. Proximate Cause approaches
i. Agency D only guilty of f-m when he killed the victim or his
accomplice killed the victim
ii. Proximate cause D responsible for deaths that are theproximate cause of the felony he is committing (killings are
reasonably foreseeable)
VI.Rape
a. Statutory Rape
-
8/6/2019 Crim Outline Branham
8/25
1. Rape is an act of sexual intercourse accomplished with a female not the
wife under age of consent defined by the statute (16 in most jurisdictions)
2. Strict Liability crime no need for mens rea
1. Girl does not understand the consequences
2. Has to be a line somewhere
3. Societal reasons
3. Honest mistake does not negate crime (in most jurisdictions)
4. POLICY ARGUMENT - Should SL continue to be the rule?
b. Rape
1. Penetration
2. Lack of consent
3. Mens Rea - recklessness will suffice - If he's aware there is a substantialrisk and he continues, the mens rea requirement is met
a. Negligence in most will sufficeb. POLICY ARGUMENT - Would a reasonable person believe nomeans no?
Arguments against Negligence Liability Arguments for negligably
Woman can fabricate complaints Harm is still the same/gravity of harm -harm is emotional and physical
Negligent conduct is not culpable enough for sucha serious crime
Shifts burden of communication to the man(by making it easier to prosecute men -
burden should be on man to make sureshe wants to)
Severity of the consequences of a conviction Proof argument - trying to prevent peoplewho did act recklessly from getting out(knew she didn't consent, and they pleadthey didn't know)
Severally punishing someone for their stupidity Deterrence - induce men to be careful andensure a woman wants to have intercourse- she has consented
Patronizing to women - saying we need to protectthem against unreasonable men, not strongenough to indicate what they really mean
Will change cultural norms
Standard should be recklessness, easier to proverape, cause heterosexual woman to be deprievedof sex
Other serious crimes for which negligencesuffices (Negligent Homicide)
-
8/6/2019 Crim Outline Branham
9/25
c. Forcible Compulsion Requirement
1. D must have used force or threat of force (To make her afraid of serious
bodily injury
d. Marital Exemption
1. Common Law - Man could not rape wife
a. POLICY ARGUMENT - should this still exist?
Arguments for the exemption for Marital RapeImplied consent between husband and wifePrivacy of marriage should be preservedImpair reconciliation and disrupt marriageDifficult to prove - already have a pre-established relationshipWives can fabricate complaintRape not as bad
D can be charged with other crimes (such as battery)Arguments against Marital Rape
Archaic notionMarried woman has the same interest as unmarried woman in controlling access toher body
Just as bad as regular rape, OR worse - sense of betrayal/commitmentSTD's if he has strayedLimits to privacy - if he beats his wife, he can be prosecutedNot a marriage to preserve when a husband is raping his wife - the rape will destroythe marriage, not her testimonyFabricated complaints applies to all crimesStigma will dissuade fabricated complaints
Procedural safeguards that help weed out false complaints - call witnesses, victims,etc.Other crimes don't reflect the full extent of the harm
2. Today most jurisdictions do not have marital exemption
VII. Larceny
a. MPC
1. that the intent existed at some point (Continuous taking - joyride and
decide to keep later - larceny)
2, Failure to take reasonable measures to restore the property to the
rightful owner
-MPC rewards change of heart for lost, mislaid or misdelivered property
-
8/6/2019 Crim Outline Branham
10/25
- When the person assumes control, the taking is not wrongful, or the taking is
ambiguous, the MPC provides a way for the person who had the intent to deprive
to get out of it
- Guilty of theft - culpability - returning the wallet is irrelevant - good thing to do,
taken account in sentencing - but he is culpable\
b. Common Law
wrongful, (trespassory)
taking,
and carrying away (Aspiration Requirement - Must physically move)
of the personal property of another person
with the intent to deprive the owner of the property permanently.
- Intent had to exist at the time of the taking
-Must be something tangible
Lund v. Commonwealth not larceny because took computer time
-Must intend at the time of the taking to permanently deprive owner
Brooks v. State
-Must know that the owner could be found (wad of cash found in mud)
c. Cases
5 dresses, but 6 were in the bag
Common law - must be aware of the mistake at the time, and must have the intent
to take.. Didn't know at the time of the sale - formed the intent later not guilty in
common law
MPC - guilty bc formed the intent to keep after you realized the mistake of the
employee intent at some time
-US v. Rogers case
Brother had a check - deposit part and bring back part of it; teller misread, and
deposited $80, and gave $1000
Under common law - intent at the moment
State v. Robington
-
8/6/2019 Crim Outline Branham
11/25
Robington took the sedan for two months, the car dealership turned it over to her for
the weekend, Monday she would return the car or pay the money. She kept.
Defense - she thought that the title had been transferred to her
Why relevant to larceny?
What happens when the title transfers - wouldn't be property of another (last
element of larceny)
Larceny by Trick- committed when one obtains the possession of another's personal
property by deception, fraud, or force with the intent to convert it to their own use and
permanently deprive owner.
VIII. False Pretenses
a. MPC
b. MPC follows the minority approach - recognizes that a misrepresentation of current
intention can suffice and it recognizes that people in commercial transactions make
a promise, in their mind they either plan on delivering or if they can't, they'll pay
damages
c. If a D makes the promise and intends to do neither, then there is culpability for false
pretenses
d. Min. Rule - misrepresentation regarding current intention suffices
1. Harm is great, conduct culpable2. Proof problems are in every crime3. Won't be onslaught of cases bc the prosecutor still must prove all theelements4. Deter false promises5. Reasonable measures are costly and time consuming6. Civil lawsuits costly, time consuming and traumatizing
1. Can have both criminal and civil remedies
e. Common Law
1. Misrepresentation by D
2. Past or present material fact
3. Intent to defraud (the D knows the statement is false, or act with reckless
disregard as to the falsity of the statement)
-Knew there was a risk it wasn't Magic Johnson's signature was not
his
-
8/6/2019 Crim Outline Branham
12/25
- Recognize that property not hers
4. Reliance
Does not have to be reasonable
(to protect people who are gullible, vulnerable or ignorant)
5. Title transferred
- Depends on victims intent
Maj. Rule - misrepresentation regarding current intention doesn't suffice1. Burdensome to courts2. If all intentions were held as statements of facts, harm business -sometimes its better business to break a contract
1. Inhibits commerce bc people afraid to act3. Provides incentive to change one's mind and do the right thing and deliver
on the promise4. Induce good business practice and in taking reasonable precautions topredict oneself5. Civil Remedies6. Proof problems - can be difficult to discern what is going on in her mind
False Pretenses did not exist at Common Law - not larceny, not a criminal - at common law thepenalty for larceny was death, so the law limited the circumstances larceny could be found
f. Cases
Chaplin v. US
Owned a liquor store, borrowed money to "purchase" liquor stamps and would pay
them back (this is the misrepresentation)
Majority said this would not be a false pretense since the mistatement was about
the future
A misstatement regarding one's current intention, does not suffice; a significant
minority rules that it does
IX.Embezzlement
a. Common Law
Elements of Embezzlement
1. Appropriation2. Of the property3. Of another4. By one entrusted with possession5. Converts to own use
-
8/6/2019 Crim Outline Branham
13/25
*** Must intend to deprive person of their property (most jurisdictions - permanently)b. Cases
People v. Talbot- had intent to repay the money
Returned all checks to the company No concealment, transactions out in the open Everyone was doing it (prevalent practice for corporate officers) Worth 5.5 mil - intent and capacity to repay Board of directors knew he was doing this
X. Consolidated Theft Statute
Consolidated theft statutes (MPC favors them)-set forth the different ways individuals can steal from others
XI.Robbery
a. Common LawSometimes describes as "larceny plus"
(trespassory, taking, carrying away, personal property, of another with intent topermanently deprive)+ 2 others
Force or caused the victim to fear imminent force Taking must be from the victim's self or the victim's immediatepresence to control
b. Cases
State v. Mejia
Illegal aliens gave money to garcia to hold, found out garcia was leaving thecountry, went to get it, garcia fled, mejia shot and killed him
even if it is your property, do not need to rob people (use force) to get the
money back peaceful ways to get the money back
Purse snatching - sometimes a robbery or sometimes just a theft Not robbery if just grab and run - no force, no threat of imminent force Robbery - if struggle
XII. Burglary
a. Common Law
1. Breaking (satisfied by actual breaking - creation of an opening into the areawhere D is going to window - opening a closed window; but did open a windowthat was already open - not breaking)
Constructive breaking - entry occurs as a result of disception or threats('meter man' intended to rob)
2. Entering3. Dwelling House4. Of Another
-
8/6/2019 Crim Outline Branham
14/25
5. Night6. Defendant had intent to commit a felony
1. How much is the TV worth?Modern Law1. Unauthorized entry (No breaking requirement)2. Building or structure
3. Intent to commit a crime (not necessarily a felony)Store - with the intent to commit a crime it is burglary - don't have authorized
entry to steal somethingIf they form that intent after they enter the story is it is theft
b. CasesPeople v. Gauze
Told roommate to go get your gun and Ill get mine Defendant had an absoluteright to enter the apartment as he resided there, as such the defendant cannot befound guilty of burglary
XIII. Attempt
a. MPC - Substantial Step Test
- backward looking approach - what the d has done
- Has she taken a substantial step toward the crime
- Must be strongly corroborative of the defendant's criminal purpose
Actions that can prove:
- Lying in wait
- Possession of materials to be employed in the commission of the crime can serve
no lawful purpose of the actor under the circumstances
- Reconnoitering place contemplated for the crime
- Unlawful entry of structure, vehicle or enclosure in which it is contemplated the
crime will occur
- Soliciting to engage in conduct constituting an element of the crime
- Enticing victim to area of crime
- Searching for or following contemplated victim
Under MPC conduct criminalized much earlier than under physical
proximity
b. Physical Proximity Test
- D must be physically close to completing the crime
- How much more will D have to do to commit the crime
-
8/6/2019 Crim Outline Branham
15/25
c. CasesUS v. JacksonCourt set forth a number of tests to determine whether it is a crime
Physical proximity test (only need to know this one and substantial step test) The act must be proximate to the completed crime or directlytending toward the completion of the crime
Lying in bushes - physically close to where the crime occurred If he's not there - she is not close enough to be committing thecrime, no guarantee he is going to go there
Physical prox - what more does the D have to do to commit the crime People v. Staples
Rented an apt over a bank, had various materials, drilled holes on the floor One of his arguments - I changed my mind - I'm not guilty of attemptedburglary Abandoned it - he didn't have a change of heart, he just didn't followthrough with it If he had a true change of heart - still no going back Once the point had based when mere preparation gone beyond point of no
return - it's attempted burglary
Renunciation of AttemptUnder MPC you have crossed the line, but can avoid criminal culpability (s. 4) of MPC,affirmative defense of voluntary abandonment
Must prove the abandonment is voluntary and completeYou can renunciate What if left because a dog discovered her - not voluntary
Under common law - no going back after mere preparation
Policy Argument for/against renunciationMPC1. Public safety still protected - if have genuine change of heart - no threat tosociety2. Not blameworthy enough3. Provides incentive for people not to follow through with the crimeCommon Law1. No renunciation to at least some crimes (Hazard to the public)2. Provides maximum deterrence3. Avoids proof problems4. No renunciation defense for most other crimes
Legal v. Factual ImpossibiltyMPC - (majority) - Guilty if purposely engaged in conduct that would be a crime if the
circumstances were as he believes them to be- Legal or factual impossibility not a defense under MPC
Common Law - (minority) factual impossibility is not a defense, but legal impossibilityis
-
8/6/2019 Crim Outline Branham
16/25
- If Moran intended to do what he did - shoot that thing in the window, this is a case oflegal impossibility because you can't murder a statue Defense to CL
- If he intended to do what he wanted to do - (kill Sherlock) but he couldn't becauseSherlock wasn't there, it's a case offactual impossibility
- Dluglash Case- Under MPC - doesn't matter if the person is dead - thought he was alive- Under the Common Law - even if he did everything he wanted to do, you can't murder a
corpse- LEGAL IMPOSSIBILITY
Hypo - D wants to kill someone, Thinks the gun is loaded, but the gun is unloaded, points it atP's head and pulls the trigger - guilty of attempted murder
Common Law - Factual Impossibility Can not prevail under this defense under the common law Factual Impossibility is not a defense Def'n - would have been a crime if the D had done everything he wanted todo.
D wanted to kill other individual - would have happened except thatthe bullets were not in the chamber
MPC - yes he is guilty Purposely engaged in conduct that would have constituted the crime ofmurder, if the surrounding circumstances were as he believed them to be
***** If you are the Prosecutor - shape facts so that factual impossibility is used
XIV. Solicitation
a. Common Law
1. All that is necessary is that the D encourage or advice that someone
commit a crime2. D must have the intent that the crime be committed
-Special danger of group activity
NO RENUNCIATION
b. Cases
SchleiferTelling Union members to rob, beat, kill 'scabs'This case should proceed to trial on the solicitation trial
QuintinCalling on people to be hippiesCrime of solicitation did not extend to this conduct
Consistent -
-
8/6/2019 Crim Outline Branham
17/25
Quintin case - they were indiscriminately handing out the pamplets to random # of youngpeople - large, indefinable group of peopleSchleifer - speaking directly to union members - definable group of people
Solicitation has nothing to do with the likelihood that it will occur (committed solicitationnonetheless)
Hypo - Osama calls on all Muslims to declare jihad and kill all American officials because theyare all corrupt and bad
Solicitation -If you can define the group - yes it is solicitation of people
What if he calls on every American citizen to kill govt officials - solicitation?Yes - definable set of people.Size or indefinability of the group? - what is important? - at issue
Comes down to advocacy - will get into policy concerns?*Renunciation
c. Contemporary Approach - MPC
IF she tried to persuade them not to - possible not guilty ifRequirements:
1. Renunciation must be voluntaryi. Not voluntary when something happens that makes it morelikely that the crime will be detected
2. Renunciation must be completei. If ask someone else not to do it, but have someone else inmind to do it, not complete
3(a) Must persuade solicited person not to commit the crime OR(b) Otherwise prevent it's commission
XV. Accomplice Liability
Aids or agrees to aid person in committing crime
Mens rea - intent to provide assistance and intent crime to be committed (Just being
aware of the crime is not enough
need to know whether that person is presentAccomplice -
1. Assistance
2. Intent to provide assistance and the intent that the crime be committedWithdrawl
1. Withdraw all the aid and the encouragement, OR2. Provide timely notice to the police, or makes some other proper effort toprevent the crime
(Crime may occur and can avoid criminal liability)CL - D is liable for crimes that are the natural and probable consequence of the initialcrime
-
8/6/2019 Crim Outline Branham
18/25
-
8/6/2019 Crim Outline Branham
19/25
Distinction between withdrawal and renunciationWithdrawal - he did withdrawal bc he informed all the people with whom herequired or tell the police of the plans so they can stop it in time
Once have a conspiracy (agreement, overt act, requisite state of mind) - canwithdrawal from conspiracy - Benefit - not guilty of crimes that occur after thewithdrawal so he is guilty of conspiracy to robbery, but not robbery
Two ways in which to withdrawal1. Notify all the persons with whom the Defendant conspired2. Providing timely notice to the police of the conspiracy and theD's role in it.
Under MPC - away to avoid liability for the conspiracy itself (Modern) (CL - does not allowthis)
Renunciation (what it takes to avoid liability for the conspiracy itself)1. Renunciation of conspiracy must be complete and voluntary2. Thwart conspiracy's success (not just notifying the police)
Pinkerton Doctrine - what if conspire to commit one crime but another occurs?1. Other crime must be in furtherance of conspiracy2. Other crime must be a reasonably foreseeable consequence of conspiracy
Even though that Gary didn't think she would steal the gun, a reasonable person wouldthink that it is a possibility because if she used her own gun, it would be traceable toMary, if it were stolen, it would not trace the crime back to them.MPC
Not responsible for other crimes unless the defendant is an accomplice to the other crime(go back and remember what it means to be an accomplice - D intend the crime to becommitted, and provide some assistance to aid)If use MPC on Gary hypo - he is not guilty because he is not an accompliceBerkley student who molested the girl in the bathroom - friend walked in the bathroom,saw molester harming the child, and went back out and stood guard.
D not a part of the conspiracy - no agreement to commit the crime between thetwo of themBut, D is an accomplice because he has provided affirmative assistance and the
jury can draw an inference that the crime will occur
In order for conspiracy to occur - must be an agreement and an overt act taken infurtherance of the agreementIf Gary withdrew before the theft - withdrawn before conspiracy because the theft (overtact) hasn't taken place ---- not guily of theft or conspiracry
XVII. Causation
a. Common Law
Sometimes the actions of someone else can break the causal link in criminal cases1. But for causation2. Reasonably foreseeable3. Sufficiently direct result ********** in criminal case will need this one for criminalcases!!!
b. Cases
-
8/6/2019 Crim Outline Branham
20/25
People v. KibbeDrunk, flashing money, guys plan to rob him, get him more drunk, rob him, take off his pantsand shoes ditch him in a rural hwy in zero degrees, gets hit by BlakeMurder, Larceny,
Ct. concluded that the D were the cause of the deathReasoning - "But For" causation
But for Defendant's actions, victim would be alive today, therefore they are thecause of his death.
Actual Cause, But For, Cause in factGenerally, Not sufficient to be considered the legal cause in a criminal case - mustbe something more than but for causation
What more is necessary is that the death of the victim was thedirectly forseeable consequence of the D's actions
Commonwealth v. Root But for the D's actions (drag racing), the deceased would be alive Reasonably foreseeable consequence - death And yet the court concludes that the D is not guilty How do you reconcile these two cases? The decedant's actions break the causal link, it was his decision to go in the left lane
right when a truck came - this specific action was a voluntary decision by the P, and thiswas a superceding cause of death - bc voluntary and reckless behavior breaks thecausal link.
XVIII. Self-Defense
a. MPCD believes that such force is immediately necessary for the purpose of protectinghimself against the use of unlawful force on the present occasion.
Subjective standardException if D is reckless or negligent in having such belief (that defensive
force is necessary or in acquiring or failing to acquire any material knowledge establishes culpability
Or if the D provoked the useThere is a duty to retreat before using deadly force only if effectuated with completesafetyb. Imperfect Self Defense
D who honestly but unreasonably believed that defensive force was necessaryare convicted of manslaughter rather than murder
c. Common Law
Objective standard - D must have reasonably believed (he must actuallyand honestly believed and those beliefs must be reasonable) --- MAJORITY RULE1. Deadly force was necessary2. To protect the defendant from an imminent infliction or application3. Of deadly force(force likely to cause death or serious bodily harm Reasonable person, or the shoes of the defendant
Initial Aggressor Rule if D starts hit and hits back in self-defense, he cannot prevailon self-defense
-
8/6/2019 Crim Outline Branham
21/25
If A renounced his intent after initial push and then B hits and A hits back A isonly guilty of the battery from the initial contact self defense was an offense forthe second punch though
Excessive ForceA pushes BB chokes A
A pulls out a knife and stabs BEven if someone reasonably believes that a threat is imminent - they will lose the
defense if they used excessive forceBy B using excessive force, A has a right to protect himself. A can still be charged
with battery, but not guilty of aggravated batteryDuty to retreat
MPC there is a duty to retreatMajority Rule - There is no duty to retreat before using deadly force
Castle Doctrine - Do not need to retreat from his or her own home even if you couldretreat
MPC need to retreat before using deadly force against a coworkerd. Cases
State v. Goetz (Subway shooter, give me $5 shot all four, if calmer put to heads
Reckless - D was aware there was a substantial risk he didn't need to use this force---- Guilty of Involuntary Manslaughter
Negligent - convicted of negligent homicideState v. Norman (Battered Wife)
XIX. Defense of Property
a. MPC
Defense of property - most courts prohibit the use of deadly force solely to protect
property - preservation of life
Can use nondeadly force to protect property - provided that you reasonably believe(actually and reasonably believe things) the force is necessary to protect propertyfrom imminent threat
b. Common Law
Common Law Approach - (Only followed in a few states) - Deadly force can be used -
if individual using the deadly force believes it is necessary to prevent an imminent
and unlawful entry
1. Deadly force can be used if it is necessary to prevent an imminent and unlawful
entry and Person must reasonably believe the force is necessary to prevent afelony (felony other than the burglary - theft, rape, etc.)2. Must reasonably believe that the force is necessary to prevent a forcible felony or
that the victim poses a risk of death or serious bodily harm
c. Cases
-
8/6/2019 Crim Outline Branham
22/25
Bishop v. State
Set up a spring gun towards the door of his trailer, person known to him came in torob it - hit and died
Can't use spring guns to defend your house(minority view - defense of habitation allowed if they could have used deadly forceat the time of unlawful entry if he was at home - this is what the defendant argues)
Argument against use of deadly force
Law enforcement, firemen, emergency services
Property not worth same as life
Arguments for use of deadly force
Levels playing field poor people dont have the money for more elaborate
security syst
XX. Necessity
a. MPC
Defendant honestly believes that committing a crime is necessary to avoid a
greater evil
Defense is unavailable when D charged with a crime requiring a mens rea of only
recklessness or negligence if the D was reckless or negligent either in bringing
about the situation requiring a choice of evils or in appraising the necessity for
his conduct.
b. Common Law
Necessity test - D must reasonably believe that the crime is necessary to avoid
harm greater than that caused by the crime itself (in addition, many jurisdictions
require that it be imminent).
Legislative Foreclosure exception - not up to you to do the balancing,
because it has already been determined by legislature.
Ex Abortion has been deemed legal, so kidnapping is the greater harm
c. Cases
US v. Kabat (ICBM + Priests damage missile facility)
State v. Reese (prisoner escapes to get away from imminent threat)
Lovercamp test
1. Prisoner faced with specific threat death, forcible sexual attack or substantial
bodily injury in immediate future
-
8/6/2019 Crim Outline Branham
23/25
2. No time for complaint to officials or history futile complaints
3. No time to resort to courts
4. No evidence of force/violence used in escape
5. Prisoner immediately reports to proper authorities when he has attained a safedistance from threat
Main impediment from going to jury - each of the requirements had to bemet before he could be aquitted
Must immediately report to authorities2 ways to test
Normal necessity testOr - Prisoner defense test
Concern with Lovercamp - have to get thrown right back in to the situation thattrying to escape from
Can use against natural forces fire coming down hill, necessary to set one house on
fire to save others
XXI. Duress
a. MPC (Section 2.09)
Elements
Affirmative defense when he is coerced to do something by use of or
threat of unlawful force against his person or the person of another that a person
of reasonable firmness in his situation would have been unable to resist.
o Duress is a defense to homicide
o Threat that a reasonable person would be unable to resist
Not required to be an imminent threat (but still must threat of physical injury)
If erroneously believe that they received threat lose the defense IF the mistake
was reckless (or negligent) and they are charged with a crime requiring a mens rea of
recklessness or negligence
b. Common Law
Duress is a defense to any offense BUT murder
1. Reasonably believes
2. That the crime is necessary
3. To protect self from imminent threat
-
8/6/2019 Crim Outline Branham
24/25
4. Of death or serious bodily harm
Reasoning for the defense
Was not the voluntary act of the accused
Negates intent because no time to formulate criminal intent
Variation on necessity
Majority
Do act with intent (know they will injure another)
Is voluntary act D makes a choice to violate the law
Crime need not be the lesser evil
At Fault Exception
Duress defense is unavailable in cases where D was at fault in bringing
about the situation that required them to commit the crime
If recklessly put themselves in a situation where coercion likely (Gang)
c. Cases
State v. Scott (gang member, cuts boy)
Ct. said not a defense bc of at fault exception
XXII. Insanity
a. MNaughton (Prevailing rule)
1. D must either not understand nature and quality of actions (cantaloupe -
head)
2. Or, as a result of his illness, he doesnt understand actions are wrong
Wrongfulness
D not aware actions illegal (some jurisdictions)
D knows actions illegal but doesnt know society perceives
actions immoral (God commanded him)
b. MPC
1. D must lack substantial capacity to appreciate wrongfulness of conduct
-
8/6/2019 Crim Outline Branham
25/25
Illegality or immorality
2. Lacked substantial capacity to conform to requirements of the law (volition)
c. Guilty but mentally ill (some jurisdictions)
1. Goes to mental hospital and gets well - goes to jail for rest of sentence
c. Policy Considerations - which is better?
MPC
If D could not control his actions because of his illness he is not blameworthy
enough
Ex - throws baby in river - realizes it is wrong, but because of her illnessshe can't help it - she just does it
If someone so sick, may not anticipate that they will lose control or get sicker
Resources may not be available (live in a rural area, and not available; homeless- hard to access the mental health)M'NaghtenMore narrow rule - great harm caused by criminal conductAvoid some or many fabricated claims of insanity - easier to lie and get away withthe volition requirementAre blameworthy enough
If aware of what they are thinking about doing is wrong (illegal or societalwrong) - it's on them to get help, so they do not take those actions
If mom has feelings that she needs to kill her kids and doesn't get help anddoes it ---- she is blameworthy if she has the cognition
Volitional component has the potential to greatly expand the insanity defense
Provides an incentive for people to get treatment