CRIM Outline PDF

THE BASICS ========== In criminal law the action is brought by the state, results in taking of someone's liberty (conviction) and crime is viewed as a harm to society as a whole. Burdens of Proof ---------------- ### In a criminal case, the prosecution has the burden of proof. ### The burden of proof in a criminal case is beyond a reasonable doubt and there is a presumption of innocence. ### Burden of Production: Allocating enough evidence to put a fact in issue, generally going to be on the prosecution but can shift in limited circumstances like affirmative defenses. ### Burden of Persuasion: persuading a jury of a fact ### Case: [In Re Winship]: Juvenile is charged with larceny, and the court utilized the preponderance of evidence as the burden of proof. {#case-in-re-winship-juvenile-is-charged-with-larceny-and-the-court-utilized-the-preponderance-of-evidence-as-the-burden-of-proof..ListParagraph} ### **Rule: Under the Due Process Clause, the standard in criminal cases is always beyond a reasonable doubt.** {#rule-under-the-due-process-clause-the-standard-in-criminal-cases-is-always-beyond-a-reasonable-doubt..ListParagraph} Affirmative Defenses -------------------- ### Affirmative Defenses: "Yes I did it, but for these reasons, I should face less harsh legal consequences". ### The burden of proof is on the defendant to prove an affirmative defense by a preponderance of evidence. ### When the defendant presents an affirmative defense, they are essentially presenting a new issue. The defendant is allocating the burden of proving that he was actually acting pursuant to emotional distress. The defendant is not allocated the proof that he did not meet the elements of the objective crime. ### Case: [Patterson v. New York:] The defendant killed his estranged wife's lover when he witnessed the two in the heat of passion. The defendant wanted to plead emotional distress as a mitigating factor that would reduce the burden to manslaughter. {#case-patterson-v.-new-york-the-defendant-killed-his-estranged-wifes-lover-when-he-witnessed-the-two-in-the-heat-of-passion.-the-defendant-wanted-to-plead-emotional-distress-as-a-mitigating-factor-that-would-reduce-the-burden-to-manslaughter..ListParagraph} ### **Rule: It is constitutional, under the 14^th^ Amendment (Due Process), to shift the burden of proof on the defendant, when establishing exculpatory or the nonexistence of an element in the statutory language that defines the crime.** {#rule-it-is-constitutional-under-the-14th-amendment-due-process-to-shift-the-burden-of-proof-on-the-defendant-when-establishing-exculpatory-or-the-nonexistence-of-an-element-in-the-statutory-language-that-defines-the-crime..ListParagraph} ### {#section.ListParagraph} ### {#section-1.ListParagraph} Punishment ---------- ### The goal is punishing defendants, and the goal is forbidding conduct that harms society and promoting correcting of the conduct. ### Legislative and Judicial make the criminal statutes. - ### Retribution: Focuses on the individual with the idea of blameworthiness (Culpability and Wild Justice) Considers proportionality - ### Punishment is justified because that person deserved to be punished. - ### Culpability: Punish in proportion to moral blameworthiness, putting things back in balance (they committed this crime, they get this punishment) - ### Wild Justice: An eye for an eye, vigilantism such as the death penalty - ### Utilitarian: Focuses on society punishment, us justified by whatever positive consequences that might result in the future (General and Specific Deterrence) - ### General Deterrence: Stopping other people who are similarly situated from committing a crime, requires a rational actor. - ### Specific Deterrence: You committed the crime, and the punishment specifically deters you from committing it again. - ### Denunciation (social cohesion): Punish to demonstrate that action is contrary to society's morals. - ### Rehabilitation: Battering the person so far society's sake, it is safer for everyone when they re-enter ### Case: Regina v. Dudley and Stephens: Four prisoners on a ship that becomes deserted for approximately two weeks. Two prisoners kill the youngest/weakest one on the boat. {#case-regina-v.-dudley-and-stephens-four-prisoners-on-a-ship-that-becomes-deserted-for-approximately-two-weeks.-two-prisoners-kill-the-youngestweakest-one-on-the-boat..ListParagraph} ### **Rule: Someone needs to be blamed for this terrible action, the idea of blameworthiness, have to punish society knows they can't do this.** {#rule-someone-needs-to-be-blamed-for-this-terrible-action-the-idea-of-blameworthiness-have-to-punish-society-knows-they-cant-do-this..ListParagraph} ### Case: United States v. Madoff: Madoff has a scheme that post people lots of money. He was sentenced to 150 years. This is an example of retribution and deterrence. {#case-united-states-v.-madoff-madoff-has-a-scheme-that-post-people-lots-of-money.-he-was-sentenced-to-150-years.-this-is-an-example-of-retribution-and-deterrence..ListParagraph} ### **Rule: When determining the appropriate sentence for a crime, the sentencing judge may consider when the punishment constitutes sufficient retribution for the gravity of the defendant's crime.** {#rule-when-determining-the-appropriate-sentence-for-a-crime-the-sentencing-judge-may-consider-when-the-punishment-constitutes-sufficient-retribution-for-the-gravity-of-the-defendants-crime..ListParagraph} ACTUS REUS ========== ### Criminal liability always requires an actus reus, the commission of some voluntary act or omission of an act that is prohibited by law. M.P.C. § 2.01 (1) ### The criminal act has to be physically "voluntary" i.e., has to be done not as a reflex act or a convulsion or some other kind of "automatism**"., IT CANNOT BE DONE AS THE PRODUCT OF THE PHYSICAL FORCE OF ANOTHER.** ### Justice Holmes definition of Actus Reus: a willing contraction of a muscle. - ### HYPO: If Z points a pistol at J, telling J to hit W, J hits W- there is still actus reus. The act is "willing because of the contraction of the muscle, although under the duress of the gun. ### Voluntary Acts. - ### Case: Martin v. Sate: The defendant was drunk in his home when officers came in and arrested him. Officers brought him to a public place and subsequently charged him with a statute prohibiting drunkenness in a public place. (no actus reaus) (The voluntariness requirement is not in the text of the statute, but is "read in" by the court as a requirement fundamental to a criminal law.) ### **Rule: Criminal liability may only be imposed when the unlawful conduct is committed voluntarily.** {#rule-criminal-liability-may-only-be-imposed-when-the-unlawful-conduct-is-committed-voluntarily..ListParagraph} ### Involuntary Acts. - ### Case: People v. Newton: During an altercation with the police, Newton was shot in the midsection. He then proceeded to shoot another officer three times. Newton claims to have no recollection of the night and provided an expert who testified that Newton was likely unconscious and in shock after being shot. (The judge erred for failing to instruct the jury on unconsciousness as a complete defense to a criminal homicide). ### **Rule: Where not self-induced, unconsciousness is a complete defense.** {#rule-where-not-self-induced-unconsciousness-is-a-complete-defense..ListParagraph} ### **Involuntary Acts under the MPC** ### -Unconscious or asleep (Somnambulism) {#unconscious-or-asleep-somnambulism.ListParagraph} ### -Reflex or convulsion (Epilepsy) (unless aware and unwilling to mitigate) {#reflex-or-convulsion-epilepsy-unless-aware-and-unwilling-to-mitigate.ListParagraph} ### -hypnosis (rare but included in the MPC) {#hypnosis-rare-but-included-in-the-mpc.ListParagraph} ### **Actions not Deemed Involuntary** ### -Habitual acts {#habitual-acts.ListParagraph} ### -Acts done on impulse {#acts-done-on-impulse.ListParagraph} ### -acts that are done under duress, (Duress is a separate defense). {#acts-that-are-done-under-duress-duress-is-a-separate-defense..ListParagraph} ### OMISSIONS In America, we generally do not have the free-floating duty to report a crime or help. The failure to act can support the actus reus requirement (and/or replace the actus reus requirement). An omission is culpable when the failure to act violates a legal duty to act**. A moral duty is not enough.** **MPC § 2.01(3)** \(3) Liability for the commission of an offense may not be based on an omission unaccompanied by action unless: \(a) the omission is expressly made sufficient by the law defining the offense; or \(b) a duty to perform the omitted act is otherwise imposed by law. +-----------------------------------+-----------------------------------+ | **Five Ways to Impose Legal | | | Duty ** | | +-----------------------------------+-----------------------------------+ | **Statutory Duty ** | i.e., Good Samaritan Laws | | | | | | Generally, courts have held that | | | mothers who are survivors of | | | domestic abuse, do have a legal | | | duty to get their children out | | | the house. | +-----------------------------------+-----------------------------------+ | **Status Relationships** | - - Courts usually have held | | | mothers who are survivors | | | of domestic abuse do have | | | a legal duty to get their | | | children out of the | | | house. Goes back to the | | | idea of statute (mother | | | to child) | | | | | | - - - - | +-----------------------------------+-----------------------------------+ | **Contract** | paying a babysitter, a lifeguard, | | | police officer, teacher (classic | | | fact pattern, student came in | | | with busies and lied about what | | | happened, the teacher was | | | supposed to report it.) | +-----------------------------------+-----------------------------------+ | **Voluntary Assumption** | If you start trying to save | | | someone, then you stop trying to | | | save them. Ex. A swims out to | | | save B, A gets halfway out there | | | and decides B just isn't worth | | | A's energy. A turn around and | | | lets B drown. | +-----------------------------------+-----------------------------------+ | **Creation of Peril** | if you create the risk than you | | | are responsible (tends to be | | | multiple choice question about | | | it.) | | | | | | Ex. A knocks B off the deck of a | | | ship. A has the duty to rescue | | | B. | +-----------------------------------+-----------------------------------+ ### **A Note on Good Samaritan Laws** [ ] - ### Very few states (i.e., Florida, Hawaii, Wisconsin) have Good Samaritan laws. Frequent explanations for this are that Good Samaritan Laws are contrary to American culture, and it's difficult to prove who exactly is culpable in the situation (typically in regard to mens rea and causation). - ### When Good Samaritan laws do exist, they typically exist in very limited circumstances. For instance, Minnesota, Rhode Island, and Hawaii make it a crime not to help someone in peril. Some other states make it a crime not to help someone who has been a victim of a crime. - ### Evidently, arguments in favor of Good Samaritan laws are that they make the community safer. Legal scholars frequently note that "pluralistic ignorance" is typically a driver in states adopting Good Samaritan Laws. - ### "Pluralistic ignorance": the idea that when bystanders see other bystanders unconcerned, they will not be concerned either. ### **DISTINGUISHING OMISSIONS FROM ACTS** ### **R: A physician is under no** **legal duty to** **continue futile life-sustaining support absent objection from a spouse. ** {#r-a-physician-is-under-no-legal-duty-to-continue-futile-life-sustaining-support-absent-objection-from-a-spouse..ListParagraph} ### **C: [Barber v. Supreme Court:]** Two physicians were charged with murder and conspiracy to commit murder after they removed a respirator and feeding tube from a patient who was in a deep coma. {#c-barber-v.-supreme-court-two-physicians-were-charged-with-murder-and-conspiracy-to-commit-murder-after-they-removed-a-respirator-and-feeding-tube-from-a-patient-who-was-in-a-deep-coma..ListParagraph} - ### [Note:] The Court considers the doctors pulling the plug to be an omission of care rather than an act. Here, the Court engages in a "legal fiction" to ensure the physicians are not criminally liable. - ### Legal Fiction: A fact assumed or created by courts which are then used in order to help reach a decision or to apply a legal rule (a workaround for the court to get the result they want). ### **R: When a doctor withdraws life support, it is a** **lawful omission, whereas euthanasia is an illegal, affirmative act treated as murder.** {#r-when-a-doctor-withdraws-life-support-it-is-a-lawful-omission-whereas-euthanasia-is-an-illegal-affirmative-act-treated-as-murder..ListParagraph} ### **C: [Airedale NHS Trust v. Bland:]** The patient was in a vegetative state. The hospital administrator petitioned the family court to allow withdrawing life-sustaining feeding and antibiotics not constituting murder. {#c-airedale-nhs-trust-v.-bland-the-patient-was-in-a-vegetative-state.-the-hospital-administrator-petitioned-the-family-court-to-allow-withdrawing-life-sustaining-feeding-and-antibiotics-not-constituting-murder..ListParagraph} MEnS REA- THE CULPABLE MENTAL STATES ==================================== ### The requirement of mens rea reflects the commonsense view of justice that blame, and punishment are inappropriate in the absence of choice; the kind of mental awareness or intention that must accompany the prohibited act, under the terms of the statue defining the offense. ### Courts will interpret "malice" and other vague or ambiguous mens rea language to require that the defendant was aware his actions posed a substantial risk of causing prohibited harm. ### **R: Malice means either (1) an actual intention to do the particular kind of harm that was in fact done; or (2) reckless disregard of a foreseeable risk that harm should result.** {#r-malice-means-either-1-an-actual-intention-to-do-the-particular-kind-of-harm-that-was-in-fact-done-or-2-reckless-disregard-of-a-foreseeable-risk-that-harm-should-result..ListParagraph} ### **C: [Regina v. Cunningham:]** The defendant ripped a gas meter out of an unoccupied home without turning off the gas. The gas leaked into the house next door, and a woman was partially asphyxiated. He was indicted under a statute prohibiting a person from "unlawfully and maliciously" giving or causing another person to take poison in a manner that endangers his or her life or causes serious injury. {#c-regina-v.-cunningham-the-defendant-ripped-a-gas-meter-out-of-an-unoccupied-home-without-turning-off-the-gas.-the-gas-leaked-into-the-house-next-door-and-a-woman-was-partially-asphyxiated.-he-was-indicted-under-a-statute-prohibiting-a-person-from-unlawfully-and-maliciously-giving-or-causing-another-person-to-take-poison-in-a-manner-that-endangers-his-or-her-life-or-causes-serious-injury..ListParagraph} ### THE FOUR MENTAL STATES ##### Purposeful (intentionally) M.P.C. § 2.02 (2) (a) - ##### A person acts purposely with respect to a material element of an offense when it is their conscious objective to engage in conduct of that nature or to cause such a result. - ##### Example: Wife and husband are on a plan, X, wife's ex-boyfriend is jealous and knows what plane the couple will be on. X plants a bomb on the plane, intending to kill both Wife and Husband. In other words, X's purpose in placing the bomb is to kill both Husband and Wife. ##### Knowing (Awareness) M.P.C § 2.02(2)(b) - ##### AKA: awareness, willful - ##### A person acts knowingly with respect to a material element of an offense when the offender **is [aware]** that the prohibited conduct [is **practically certain**] to follow. - ##### Example: Same hypo as above, but there are 90 other people on the plane, and X knows that those 90 other people will **[certainly die]** due to his actions and the bomb's power and size - ##### Note: This encompasses willful blindness ("ostriching") ##### Reckless M.P.C. § 2.02(2)(c) - ##### AKA: "gross deviation", "depraved heart" - ##### A person acts recklessly with respect to a material element of an offense when they consciously disregard a **[substantial and unjustifiable risk. ]** - ##### Example: Same hypo above except, this time, X knows that Wife and Husband will be the only passengers on the rear end of the plane. Accordingly, he decides to only put the bomb there and have it go off while they are boarding so it's unlikely others will get hurt. However, when the bomb goes off, there is a flight attendant in the rear of the plane who is also killed. - ##### **Opaque Recklessness** awareness of some risk but failing to appreciate how substantial that risk is. ##### Negligent (the closest to tort) M.P.C. § 2.02(2)(d) - ##### A person acts negligently with respect to a material element of an offense when they **[inadvertently]** create a substantial and unjustifiable risk of which they **[ought to be aware]**. - ##### Example: Leaving a child unattended in a locked/hot car; a doctor prescribing medicine to someone without checking if they are allergic, patient subsequently dies; texting while driving at high speeds and killing someone. ### Culpability unless otherwise noted **(M.P.C. § 2.02(3))** - ### If a statute is silent on intent (i.e., no mens rea stated), then "write-in" a minimum of recklessness (UNLESS IT'S A STRICT LIABILITY CRIME). ### **R:** **Criminal statutes generally include a requirement that the person is aware that they are committing a crime, even if the statute does not explicitly contain such a mens rea requirement. In other words, [negligence] is not the correct minimum standard to read into statutes omitting a mens rea.** {#r-criminal-statutes-generally-include-a-requirement-that-the-person-is-aware-that-they-are-committing-a-crime-even-if-the-statute-does-not-explicitly-contain-such-a-mens-rea-requirement.-in-other-words-negligence-is-not-the-correct-minimum-standard-to-read-into-statutes-omitting-a-mens-rea..ListParagraph} ### C: **[Elonis v. United States:]** When the defendant's wife left him, he started posting threats to kill her, bombing the police department, and bombing their child's kindergarten. He was charged with 18 U.S.C. § 875 (c), which did not contain any required mens rea. The district court instructed the jury to convict or not, based on the reasonable person standard (i.e., negligence). {#c-elonis-v.-united-states-when-the-defendants-wife-left-him-he-started-posting-threats-to-kill-her-bombing-the-police-department-and-bombing-their-childs-kindergarten.-he-was-charged-with-18-u.s.c.-875-c-which-did-not-contain-any-required-mens-rea.-the-district-court-instructed-the-jury-to-convict-or-not-based-on-the-reasonable-person-standard-i.e.-negligence..ListParagraph} - ### Note: Recklessness is the minimum we read in, we can read in higher levels! ### Willful Blindless=Knowledge - ### Willful blindness can be a substitute for knowing! - ### Example: Bank robbery and the robber lives above a bank, he has all these machines use to rob, the landlord notices and asks then jokes about an increase in rent, the landlord is willful blindness. - ### Negligence is an objective standard (becomes a risk). Willful blindness instruction is heavier on utilitarian rights. ### **R: The mens rea of "knowingly" includes positive knowledge as well as willful blindness. A person is willfully when they (1) subjectively believe there is a high probability that a fact exists** **AND (2) they take deliberate action to avoid** **learning of that fact.** {#r-the-mens-rea-of-knowingly-includes-positive-knowledge-as-well-as-willful-blindness.-a-person-is-willfully-when-they-1-subjectively-believe-there-is-a-high-probability-that-a-fact-exists-and-2-they-take-deliberate-action-to-avoid-learning-of-that-fact..ListParagraph} ### C: **U.S. v. Jewell:** Jewell entered the U.S. with 110 pounds of weed concealed in a hidden compartment. Jewell says he knew of the compartment but not that there were drugs inside. {#c-u.s.-v.-jewell-jewell-entered-the-u.s.-with-110-pounds-of-weed-concealed-in-a-hidden-compartment.-jewell-says-he-knew-of-the-compartment-but-not-that-there-were-drugs-inside..ListParagraph} MENS REA CONTINUED, mistake of fact =================================== ### M.P.C. § 2.04: Ignorance of mistake as to a matter of fact or law is a defense if: ##### The ignorance or mistake negates the purpose, knowledge, belief, recklessness, or negligence required to establish a material element of the offense OR ##### The law provides that the state of mind created by ignorance or mistake constitutes a defense. ### When mistakes of fact applies (mens rea defense) ### **R: A defendant's honest, mistaken belief as to the victim's age is not a defense** {#r-a-defendants-honest-mistaken-belief-as-to-the-victims-age-is-not-a-defense.ListParagraph} ### **C: Regina v. Prince**: Defendant was convicted of taking an unmarried girl out of the possession and against the will of her father. The jury found the girl was 14 at the time, but she told the defendant that she was 18. The defendant honestly believed this to be true, and his belief was reasonable. {#c-regina-v.-prince-defendant-was-convicted-of-taking-an-unmarried-girl-out-of-the-possession-and-against-the-will-of-her-father.-the-jury-found-the-girl-was-14-at-the-time-but-she-told-the-defendant-that-she-was-18.-the-defendant-honestly-believed-this-to-be-true-and-his-belief-was-reasonable..ListParagraph} ### Morale Doctrine: if you do something immoral, you are taking the risk of it being illegal. ### **R: Reasonable mistake as to the victim's age is not a defense to a charge of committing a crime against a child of tender years (this jurisdiction considers tender years to be under the age of 14).** {#r-reasonable-mistake-as-to-the-victims-age-is-not-a-defense-to-a-charge-of-committing-a-crime-against-a-child-of-tender-years-this-jurisdiction-considers-tender-years-to-be-under-the-age-of-14..ListParagraph} ### **C: People v. Olsen:** Statutory rape case of a case 13-year-old that told the defendant that was 16 years old. {#c-people-v.-olsen-statutory-rape-case-of-a-case-13-year-old-that-told-the-defendant-that-was-16-years-old..ListParagraph} ### COMPARE TO: {#compare-to.ListParagraph} ### **R: It is a defense to a criminal offense that the defendant has an honest belief regarding an essential element of the criminal act. The prosecution must prove the absence of a genuine belief.** {#r-it-is-a-defense-to-a-criminal-offense-that-the-defendant-has-an-honest-belief-regarding-an-essential-element-of-the-criminal-act.-the-prosecution-must-prove-the-absence-of-a-genuine-belief..ListParagraph} ### **C: B. v. Director of Public Prosecutions:** A 15-year-old boy asked a 13-year-old for oral sex. He believed she was older than 14. (here, the court rejects the holding in Prince). {#c-b.-v.-director-of-public-prosecutions-a-15-year-old-boy-asked-a-13-year-old-for-oral-sex.-he-believed-she-was-older-than-14.-here-the-court-rejects-the-holding-in-prince..ListParagraph} STRICT LIABILITY ================ ### Strict Liability: When liability is imposed without any prescribed level of culpability. - ### Policy behind strict liability offenses: created an affirmative duty to avoid acts harmful to public health or safety. In other words, the legislature views these crimes as so important to public welfare that they are going to impose liability without a mens rea. - ### Mala in Se Crimes: Morally wrong crimes - ### Mala in Prohibitum: Regulatory offenses ### Three typical instances of strict liability: - ### Crimes against children (examples: statutory rape, child pornography) - ### Regulatory offenses (public welfare offenses), where the behavior is being regulated by criminal law, arising out of business practices, usually manufacturing and distribution, where the innocent consumer is unable to protect potential risks of potentially dangerous products. - ### When a statute indicates that it is a strict liability offense. ### How to identify a strict liability offense: - Is there a stated mens rea? - Yes... not a strict liability offense, apply the prescribed mens rea. - No... could be! Keep going! - Is the offense a public welfare offense (ex. public health laws, building codes, food and drug safety laws, etc.) - Yes... more likely strict liability but keep going. - No... probably not strict liability but keep going. - What is the penalty for the crime? - High penalty (imprisonment for more than a year) \... unlikely a strict liability offense but keep going. - Low penalty (imprisonment for less than a year) \... most likely a strict liability crime, but keep going. - Would the conviction hurt the person's reputation? - Yes... unlikely a strict liability crime, apply a minimum of recklessness. - No. more likely a strict liability crime - Note: You don't need to necessarily have all of these. Rather they are weighed against each other. When answering an essay question, you should discuss these points in explaining how you concluded whether the offense was one of strict liability or not. ### M.P.C. generally rejects strict liability, stating that strict liability should generally not be used in the smallest and pettiest offense when it's a low penalty. ### **R: In traditional common law crimes, where the courts have continually required a mens rea requirement for material elements of the offense, strict liability will not be imposed.** {#r-in-traditional-common-law-crimes-where-the-courts-have-continually-required-a-mens-rea-requirement-for-material-elements-of-the-offense-strict-liability-will-not-be-imposed..ListParagraph} ### **C: Morissette v. United States:** Morissette entered an Air Force bombing practice area and took bomb casings so he could sell them. He believed they were abandoned. He believed they were abandoned. He was convicted of violating 18 U.S.C. 641, which made it a crime to "knowingly convert" government property. At trial, the judge instructed the jury to interpret "knowingly" to apply just to Morrissette's intent to take the casings, disregarding whether Morissette knew that the casings were still government property. {#c-morissette-v.-united-states-morissette-entered-an-air-force-bombing-practice-area-and-took-bomb-casings-so-he-could-sell-them.-he-believed-they-were-abandoned.-he-believed-they-were-abandoned.-he-was-convicted-of-violating-18-u.s.c.-641-which-made-it-a-crime-to-knowingly-convert-government-property.-at-trial-the-judge-instructed-the-jury-to-interpret-knowingly-to-apply-just-to-morrissettes-intent-to-take-the-casings-disregarding-whether-morissette-knew-that-the-casings-were-still-government-property..ListParagraph} ### **R: Absent a clear statement from Congress that no mens rea requirement applies, federal felony statutes should not be interpreted to eliminate the mens rea requirement.** {#r-absent-a-clear-statement-from-congress-that-no-mens-rea-requirement-applies-federal-felony-statutes-should-not-be-interpreted-to-eliminate-the-mens-rea-requirement..ListParagraph} ### **C: Staples v. United States:** Staples had an unregistered semi-automatic gun. A metal piece was worn down to the extent that the gun could fire automatically. The prison sentence was 10 years. {#c-staples-v.-united-states-staples-had-an-unregistered-semi-automatic-gun.-a-metal-piece-was-worn-down-to-the-extent-that-the-gun-could-fire-automatically.-the-prison-sentence-was-10-years..ListParagraph} ### Vicarious liability is a substantial departure from the ordinary rule that a principal is not answerable criminally for the acts of his agent without the principals' authorization, consent, or knowledge. Accordingly, it is not common in criminal law, especially in offenses with high penalties. ### **R: It is fundamentally unfair via the Due Process Clause for an individual to be convicted of a crime punishable by imprisonment [for an act he did not commit,] did not have knowledge of, or give expressed or implied consent to the commission thereof.** {#r-it-is-fundamentally-unfair-via-the-due-process-clause-for-an-individual-to-be-convicted-of-a-crime-punishable-by-imprisonment-for-an-act-he-did-not-commit-did-not-have-knowledge-of-or-give-expressed-or-implied-consent-to-the-commission-thereof..ListParagraph} ### **C: State v. Guminga:** An employee at a restaurant served a minor alcohol. The manager did not know or condone the act. The maximum penalty under the statute was 1 year imprisonment or a \$3,000 fine. {#c-state-v.-guminga-an-employee-at-a-restaurant-served-a-minor-alcohol.-the-manager-did-not-know-or-condone-the-act.-the-maximum-penalty-under-the-statute-was-1-year-imprisonment-or-a-3000-fine..ListParagraph} MIStake of law ============== ### M.P.C [§ 2.04(3):] Mistake of Law is generally not a valid defense even if reasonable; however, it can arise when - ### The statute or other enactment defining the offense is not known to the actor and has not been published or otherwise reasonably made available prior to the conduct alleged. - ### OR - ### The actor acts in reasonable reliance upon on official statement of law, that is afterward determined to be invalid or erroneous, contained in: - ### A statute or other enactment; - ### A judicial decision, opinion or judgment; - ### An administrative order or grant of permission; or - ### An official interpretation of the public office or body charged by law with responsibility for the interpretation, administration, or enforcement of the law defining the offense. ### **R: Mistake of law defense do not apply when the defendant misinterprets what conduct the statute allows.** {#r-mistake-of-law-defense-do-not-apply-when-the-defendant-misinterprets-what-conduct-the-statute-allows..ListParagraph} ### **C: People v. Marrero:** Corrections officer was arrested for carrying a loaded firearm. Marrero believed that he was a "police officer" under an exception to a statute, thus, allowing him to be in the possession of a loaded firearm. He was not exempt from prosecution for the unlawful possession of a gun. {#c-people-v.-marrero-corrections-officer-was-arrested-for-carrying-a-loaded-firearm.-marrero-believed-that-he-was-a-police-officer-under-an-exception-to-a-statute-thus-allowing-him-to-be-in-the-possession-of-a-loaded-firearm.-he-was-not-exempt-from-prosecution-for-the-unlawful-possession-of-a-gun..ListParagraph} - ### Policy Considerations in Marrero: The court doesn't want to encourage ignorance; the Court is worried about the judicial economy. - ### There are an infante number of good faith and baith faith mistakes of law defenses that could be brought if used in situations like this one. ### Complex Crimes ### **R: Where the law is complex, ignorance of the law is permitted.** {#r-where-the-law-is-complex-ignorance-of-the-law-is-permitted..ListParagraph} ### **C: Cheek v. United States:** Cheek did not pay his takes and believed that tax laws were unconstitutional. However, he did not have sincere belief or misunderstanding of the law enough to negate willfulness. His defense argument that the law was complex was not a valid defense in this case. {#c-cheek-v.-united-states-cheek-did-not-pay-his-takes-and-believed-that-tax-laws-were-unconstitutional.-however-he-did-not-have-sincere-belief-or-misunderstanding-of-the-law-enough-to-negate-willfulness.-his-defense-argument-that-the-law-was-complex-was-not-a-valid-defense-in-this-case..ListParagraph} ### **R: In accordance with Due Process, an individual may not be convicted of a criminal offense requiring a duty to register as a convicted person unless it is shown that the individual has actual knowledge of the duty, or should have known, as well as the consequences for failing to comply. The court held that knowledge of the duty to register was required or proof of the probability of such knowledge.** {#r-in-accordance-with-due-process-an-individual-may-not-be-convicted-of-a-criminal-offense-requiring-a-duty-to-register-as-a-convicted-person-unless-it-is-shown-that-the-individual-has-actual-knowledge-of-the-duty-or-should-have-known-as-well-as-the-consequences-for-failing-to-comply.-the-court-held-that-knowledge-of-the-duty-to-register-was-required-or-proof-of-the-probability-of-such-knowledge..ListParagraph} ### **C: Lambert v. California**: Statute required felons to register with the Chief of Police. The defendant, a new resident of CA, did not know of this law, failed to register and was arrested for violating the statute. The Supreme Court reversed Lambert's conviction by holding that knowledge or probability of knowledge of a statute is required to convict someone of a notice offense. {#c-lambert-v.-california-statute-required-felons-to-register-with-the-chief-of-police.-the-defendant-a-new-resident-of-ca-did-not-know-of-this-law-failed-to-register-and-was-arrested-for-violating-the-statute.-the-supreme-court-reversed-lamberts-conviction-by-holding-that-knowledge-or-probability-of-knowledge-of-a-statute-is-required-to-convict-someone-of-a-notice-offense..ListParagraph} ### {#section-2.ListParagraph} ### {#section-3.ListParagraph} LEgality ======== ### Three stages of statutes. ##### Statutory Construction- the creation of criminal statutes ##### Statutory Interpretation- the understanding of what a statute criminalizes ##### Statutory Application- the application of a statute to a criminal proceeding ### The doctrine of legality #### No judge-made criminal law (no more common law crimes) ##### Instead, a penal statute must come from the legislature. #### No retrospective ("ex post facto") application ##### Instead, the penal laws must be established before the defendant is charged. #### No laws that are unconstitutionally vague ##### Because... ###### People need to have notice of what the law prohibits, and... ###### When laws are vague, law enforcement is inclined to enforce the law as arbitrary and capricious ###### Criminal law must define conduct with sufficient particularity to put the average person on notice as to what is prohibited and not encourage law enforcement to act arbitrarily, discriminately, and with virtually unlimited discretion. Otherwise, such a law violates Due Process by being "void for vagueness" ###### **R: Due process requires that criminal laws be adopted by the legislature not the judiciary and provide fair warning of prohibited conduct.** {#r-due-process-requires-that-criminal-laws-be-adopted-by-the-legislature-not-the-judiciary-and-provide-fair-warning-of-prohibited-conduct..ListParagraph} ###### **C: Commonwealth v. Mochan:** The defendant called a woman using lewd language, trying to persuade her to commit adultery. The issue here was whether or not the defendant could be charged for a common law crime that was not enacted into legislation. Here the defendant was convicted, but almost all jurisdictions have abolished common law offenses. {#c-commonwealth-v.-mochan-the-defendant-called-a-woman-using-lewd-language-trying-to-persuade-her-to-commit-adultery.-the-issue-here-was-whether-or-not-the-defendant-could-be-charged-for-a-common-law-crime-that-was-not-enacted-into-legislation.-here-the-defendant-was-convicted-but-almost-all-jurisdictions-have-abolished-common-law-offenses..ListParagraph} ### Interpreting Vague Statutes: 1. Determine if there are vague words: a. If there are no vague words, then apply the statute, if vague words then continue... 2. Try to interpret the statute with canons of construction: b. [Plain Meaning:] determine the plain, dictionary meaning of the words. i. Example: speed limit signs, simple building codes c. [Ejusdem Generis ("of the same kind"):] compare the vague words to other words in the statute. ii. Example: **Yates** case: "record, document, \[fish\]" d. [Expressio unius est exclusion alterius ("expression of one is the exclusion of the other"):] if the legislature meant it, they would have said it. iii. Example: "shipped in 3-5 business days," thus, excluding weekends and holidays e. [Legislative Intent:] looking at any available evidence on how the legislature would want the law applied. iv. Example: legislative history, time period, big event preceding the change, legislature acts after a specific ruling (see note after **Keeler**) f. [In Pari Materia:] comparing the statute to other statutes. v. Example: the vague statute says "vehicles" but elsewhere in the statute, the statute refers to trucks, cars, and buses, thus, from this, we might be able to conclude that "vehicles" in the first part of the statute refers to ground vehicles with wheels 3. If after this, the statute is still vague, determine if it is SO vague that it is unconstitutional ("void for vagueness") with these questions: g. Does the statute give fair warning as to prohibited conduct? vi. No = unconstitutional; Yes= constitutional h. Does the statute prevent giving police unfettered discretion? vii. No = unconstitutional; Yes= constitutional i. Are the elements clearly defined? viii. No = unconstitutional; Yes= constitutional j. Is the application of the law consistent and equally applied? ix. No = unconstitutional; Yes= constitutional 4. If after looking at these four factors, it is unclear whether the statute is ambiguous, apply the rule of lenity. k. Rule of Lenity: [To ensure a criminal statute provides fair warning to the public, a tie goes to the defendant.] x. Last resort, only used in "grievous ambiguity." ### **R: The law gives fair notice when it uses [ordinary language] that would make any lay person understand what conduct is illegal.** {#r-the-law-gives-fair-notice-when-it-uses-ordinary-language-that-would-make-any-lay-person-understand-what-conduct-is-illegal..ListParagraph} ### **C: McBoyle v. United States:** The defendant was convicted of transporting an airplane from Illinois to Oklahoma that he knew was stolen. Court held that an airplane is not a "vehicle" within the meaning of the National Motor Vehicle Theft Act. The defendant won in this case since he was not on notice that "vehicle" included a plane. {#c-mcboyle-v.-united-states-the-defendant-was-convicted-of-transporting-an-airplane-from-illinois-to-oklahoma-that-he-knew-was-stolen.-court-held-that-an-airplane-is-not-a-vehicle-within-the-meaning-of-the-national-motor-vehicle-theft-act.-the-defendant-won-in-this-case-since-he-was-not-on-notice-that-vehicle-included-a-plane..ListParagraph} ### **R: Judges must do their best in determining what the writes of ambiguous statues meant through an analysis utilizing the [canons of construction. ]** {#r-judges-must-do-their-best-in-determining-what-the-writes-of-ambiguous-statues-meant-through-an-analysis-utilizing-the-canons-of-construction..ListParagraph} ### **C: Yates v. United States:** A fisherman caught an oversized fish and then threw it off his boat to prevent federal authorities from knowing he had the fish. He was charged with violating a federal provision that criminalized the destruction or concealment of any record, document or tangible object, to obstruct federal investigation. The defendant lost in this case because it found that a fish was a "tangible object." {#c-yates-v.-united-states-a-fisherman-caught-an-oversized-fish-and-then-threw-it-off-his-boat-to-prevent-federal-authorities-from-knowing-he-had-the-fish.-he-was-charged-with-violating-a-federal-provision-that-criminalized-the-destruction-or-concealment-of-any-record-document-or-tangible-object-to-obstruct-federal-investigation.-the-defendant-lost-in-this-case-because-it-found-that-a-fish-was-a-tangible-object..ListParagraph} ### **R: Pursuant to the Due Process clause, the terms of a penal statute must provide [fair notice] of what conduct is prohibited.** {#r-pursuant-to-the-due-process-clause-the-terms-of-a-penal-statute-must-provide-fair-notice-of-what-conduct-is-prohibited..ListParagraph} ### **C: Keeler v. Superior Court of California:** Man kicks pregnant wife in the stomach, killing the fetus. California, Penal Code § 187 criminalizes the murder of a "human being." Keller won because it was not clear in the statute if a fetus counted as a "human being." {#c-keeler-v.-superior-court-of-california-man-kicks-pregnant-wife-in-the-stomach-killing-the-fetus.-california-penal-code-187-criminalizes-the-murder-of-a-human-being.-keller-won-because-it-was-not-clear-in-the-statute-if-a-fetus-counted-as-a-human-being..ListParagraph} ### **R: [Retroactive application] by the judiciary of a change in the common law of crimes does not violate either the ex post facto clause or the Due Process clause unless the application is "unexpected and indefensible".** {#r-retroactive-application-by-the-judiciary-of-a-change-in-the-common-law-of-crimes-does-not-violate-either-the-ex-post-facto-clause-or-the-due-process-clause-unless-the-application-is-unexpected-and-indefensible..ListParagraph} ### **C: Rogers v. Tennessee:** Defendant stabbed victim and victim went into a coma eventually dying of complications 15 months later. Tennessee, at the time, had a common law that a defendant could not be charged with murder when the victim dies a year and a day after the defendant's infliction of harm. The court abolished the common law rule as outdated, and the defendant was convicted. {#c-rogers-v.-tennessee-defendant-stabbed-victim-and-victim-went-into-a-coma-eventually-dying-of-complications-15-months-later.-tennessee-at-the-time-had-a-common-law-that-a-defendant-could-not-be-charged-with-murder-when-the-victim-dies-a-year-and-a-day-after-the-defendants-infliction-of-harm.-the-court-abolished-the-common-law-rule-as-outdated-and-the-defendant-was-convicted..ListParagraph} ### **R: A criminal law is unconstitutional under the Due Process clause on vague grounds if it either [fails to give adequate notice] of the prohibited conduct or [permits arbitrary and discriminatory] enforcement of the law.** {#r-a-criminal-law-is-unconstitutional-under-the-due-process-clause-on-vague-grounds-if-it-either-fails-to-give-adequate-notice-of-the-prohibited-conduct-or-permits-arbitrary-and-discriminatory-enforcement-of-the-law..ListParagraph} ### **C: City of Chicago v. Morales**: City of Chicago enacted an ordinance criminalizing "loitering" in a public place with one or more other people. Under the ordinance, if a police officer observed someone the officer reasonably believed to be "loitering," the officer could order the people to disperse. Anyone who did not follow the officer's instructions was in violation of the ordinance. This law was determined to be vague, discriminatory, and arbitrary. {#c-city-of-chicago-v.-morales-city-of-chicago-enacted-an-ordinance-criminalizing-loitering-in-a-public-place-with-one-or-more-other-people.-under-the-ordinance-if-a-police-officer-observed-someone-the-officer-reasonably-believed-to-be-loitering-the-officer-could-order-the-people-to-disperse.-anyone-who-did-not-follow-the-officers-instructions-was-in-violation-of-the-ordinance.-this-law-was-determined-to-be-vague-discriminatory-and-arbitrary..ListParagraph} CAUSATION ========= ### Elements of causation #### Factual ("But for") ##### The prohibited result would not have occurred but for the defendant' actus reus. #### Proximate cause ##### Satisfied when the intervening act was intended, the outcome was reasonably foreseeable, or the outcome was not too remote or accidental to hold the defendant responsible. ##### The act, in addition to being a but-for-cause, must have a close relationship to the resulting harm. ##### Measured through foreseeability (objective, i.e., what a reasonable person could have foreseen the consequence.) ##### Negligence does not cut the chain of causation. ##### **R: A defendant is responsible for all results that occur as a [natural and probable consequence] of their conduct, even if they** **did not anticipate the precise manner in which they would occur.** {#r-a-defendant-is-responsible-for-all-results-that-occur-as-a-natural-and-probable-consequence-of-their-conduct-even-if-they-did-not-anticipate-the-precise-manner-in-which-they-would-occur..ListParagraph} ##### **C: People v Acosta:** Defendant was in a high-speed police chase. Two police helicopters crashed causing the death of three passengers. The defendant was responsible for those deaths, even though pilots were flying negligently. {#c-people-v-acosta-defendant-was-in-a-high-speed-police-chase.-two-police-helicopters-crashed-causing-the-death-of-three-passengers.-the-defendant-was-responsible-for-those-deaths-even-though-pilots-were-flying-negligently..ListParagraph} ##### **R: A defendant's conduct does not need to be the sole exclusive factor leading to a victim's death. Rather, a defendant is criminally liable if his conduct is a [sufficiently direct cause] of another's death and reasonably related to it.** {#r-a-defendants-conduct-does-not-need-to-be-the-sole-exclusive-factor-leading-to-a-victims-death.-rather-a-defendant-is-criminally-liable-if-his-conduct-is-a-sufficiently-direct-cause-of-anothers-death-and-reasonably-related-to-it..ListParagraph} ##### **C: People v. Arzon:** Defendant set fire to a couch in an apartment building which spread. Another fire was started on another floor. The accumulated smoke from the two fires caused the death of a firefighter. {#c-people-v.-arzon-defendant-set-fire-to-a-couch-in-an-apartment-building-which-spread.-another-fire-was-started-on-another-floor.-the-accumulated-smoke-from-the-two-fires-caused-the-death-of-a-firefighter..ListParagraph} ### Breaking the chain of causation, three mins ways to break causation. #### Mere coincidence #### Outside the foreseeability sphere of the risk created by the defendant's acts ##### Nature ##### Independent third-party act (look at free will) #### Recklessness in response to recklessness #### **R: The chain of causation is broken by a third party's independent rational act.** {#r-the-chain-of-causation-is-broken-by-a-third-partys-independent-rational-act..ListParagraph} #### **C: People v. Campbell:** The defendant told his friend to kill himself and gave him a loaded gun to do so. The friend killed himself. The defendant in this case did not kill another person. Inciting someone to kill themselves is not a homicide. {#c-people-v.-campbell-the-defendant-told-his-friend-to-kill-himself-and-gave-him-a-loaded-gun-to-do-so.-the-friend-killed-himself.-the-defendant-in-this-case-did-not-kill-another-person.-inciting-someone-to-kill-themselves-is-not-a-homicide..ListParagraph} #### **R: A conviction for murder is proper if a defendant participates in [the final overt act] that causes death of another but not if the defendant is merely involved in the events leading up to the commission of the final overt act.** {#r-a-conviction-for-murder-is-proper-if-a-defendant-participates-in-the-final-overt-act-that-causes-death-of-another-but-not-if-the-defendant-is-merely-involved-in-the-events-leading-up-to-the-commission-of-the-final-overt-act..ListParagraph} ### **C: People v. Kevorkian:** The defendant set up two killing machines for old and sick women in which they had to perform an action that killed them. The circuit court held that a person has a due process right to commit suicide, and the assisted suicide statute burdens that right. {#c-people-v.-kevorkian-the-defendant-set-up-two-killing-machines-for-old-and-sick-women-in-which-they-had-to-perform-an-action-that-killed-them.-the-circuit-court-held-that-a-person-has-a-due-process-right-to-commit-suicide-and-the-assisted-suicide-statute-burdens-that-right..ListParagraph} ### **[Campbell and Kevorkian]** reflect generally prevailing American law in which one who successfully urges or assists another to commit suicide is not guilty of murder, at least as long as the deceased was mentally responsible and was not forced or deceived. MPC § 210.5(1) is similar to this. {#campbell-and-kevorkian-reflect-generally-prevailing-american-law-in-which-one-who-successfully-urges-or-assists-another-to-commit-suicide-is-not-guilty-of-murder-at-least-as-long-as-the-deceased-was-mentally-responsible-and-was-not-forced-or-deceived.-mpc-210.51-is-similar-to-this..ListParagraph} ### **R: If a defendant inflicts both mental and physical injuries upon a victim which renders the victim mentally irresponsible and suicide follows, [the defendant is guilty of murder.]** {#r-if-a-defendant-inflicts-both-mental-and-physical-injuries-upon-a-victim-which-renders-the-victim-mentally-irresponsible-and-suicide-follows-the-defendant-is-guilty-of-murder..ListParagraph} ### **C: Stephenson v. State:** Defendant kidnapped, imprisoned, and raped a woman. The woman snuck away and bought poison, ingested it, and died. Her suicide was a natural and probable consequence of the defendant's criminal treatment, and he was convicted. {#c-stephenson-v.-state-defendant-kidnapped-imprisoned-and-raped-a-woman.-the-woman-snuck-away-and-bought-poison-ingested-it-and-died.-her-suicide-was-a-natural-and-probable-consequence-of-the-defendants-criminal-treatment-and-he-was-convicted..ListParagraph} ### Recklessness in Response to Recklessness ### **R: [Recklessness in response to recklessness may break the chain of causation.]** {#r-recklessness-in-response-to-recklessness-may-break-the-chain-of-causation..ListParagraph} ### **C: Commonwealth v. Root**: Two men were racing and when they came to a bridge, the victim (one of the drivers) drove into oncoming traffic in order to pass the defendant. The defendant's conduct was not a sufficiently direct cause of the competing driver's death to make him criminally responsible. {#c-commonwealth-v.-root-two-men-were-racing-and-when-they-came-to-a-bridge-the-victim-one-of-the-drivers-drove-into-oncoming-traffic-in-order-to-pass-the-defendant.-the-defendants-conduct-was-not-a-sufficiently-direct-cause-of-the-competing-drivers-death-to-make-him-criminally-responsible..ListParagraph} ### **R: The acts and omissions of two or more persons may work concurrently as the effective cause of injury and in such a case, each of the participating reckless act or omissions is regarded as the [proximate cause. ]** {#r-the-acts-and-omissions-of-two-or-more-persons-may-work-concurrently-as-the-effective-cause-of-injury-and-in-such-a-case-each-of-the-participating-reckless-act-or-omissions-is-regarded-as-the-proximate-cause..ListParagraph} ### **C: State v. McFadden:** Defendant and Matthew engaged in drag race. Matthew lost control of his car and swerved into a lane of oncoming traffic where he hit another car, killing himself and a little girl in the car. The defendant's car did not physically contact either of the cars. The defendant was convicted. {#c-state-v.-mcfadden-defendant-and-matthew-engaged-in-drag-race.-matthew-lost-control-of-his-car-and-swerved-into-a-lane-of-oncoming-traffic-where-he-hit-another-car-killing-himself-and-a-little-girl-in-the-car.-the-defendants-car-did-not-physically-contact-either-of-the-cars.-the-defendant-was-convicted..ListParagraph} ### **R: Where there is mutual encouragement in a wanton and reckless joint enterprise, such conduct may be found to be a direct link in the death of another.** {#r-where-there-is-mutual-encouragement-in-a-wanton-and-reckless-joint-enterprise-such-conduct-may-be-found-to-be-a-direct-link-in-the-death-of-another..ListParagraph} ### **C: Commonwealth v. Atencio**: Three were playing Russian Roulette and one of them died in the process. The defendant (one of the friends in this case) was found guilty of manslaughter. {#c-commonwealth-v.-atencio-three-were-playing-russian-roulette-and-one-of-them-died-in-the-process.-the-defendant-one-of-the-friends-in-this-case-was-found-guilty-of-manslaughter..ListParagraph} ### All jurisdictions and MPC recognize transferred intent. - ### An omission can suffice as a legal cause. - ### The eggshell plaintiff (take the victim as they are) concept is recognized in criminal law. ### {#section-4.ListParagraph} ### Graphical user interface, text, application Description automatically generated Graphical user interface, text, application Description automatically generated {#graphical-user-interface-text-application-description-automatically-generated-graphical-user-interface-text-application-description-automatically-generated.ListParagraph} IMPOSSIBILITY (DEFENSE) ======================== ### Exam note: Oftentimes, a case/problem contains facts that support both legal and factual impossibility which is why impossibility is challenging. A tip is to decide which facts or circumstances are most pertinent to the call of the question and decide whether legal impossibility or factual impossibility is the better fit because you might not have enough time to address both. ### Legal Impossibility; - ### One of the elements of the crime is not reached. - ### Despite the defendant's mental states, there is no criminal law that prevents the defendant's conduct or result. - ### Legal impossibility is **[always]** a defense. - ### Ex: A intends to kill B, but B is already dead. A is not criminally responsible for murder because there is no actus reus, he is already dead, thus the element is not fulfilled. ### **R: A person [cannot] be convicted of an attempt to commit a crime if the completed acts would not be a criminal offense.** {#r-a-person-cannot-be-convicted-of-an-attempt-to-commit-a-crime-if-the-completed-acts-would-not-be-a-criminal-offense..ListParagraph} ### **C: People v. Jaffe**: Defendant attempted to purchase 20 years of cloth, believing it was stolen. However, the cloth has actually been recovered, returned to its owner, and presented for sale legally. Defendant was charged with a crime that a person who buys or receives any stolen property knowing it to have been stolen is guilty of criminally receiving such property. {#c-people-v.-jaffe-defendant-attempted-to-purchase-20-years-of-cloth-believing-it-was-stolen.-however-the-cloth-has-actually-been-recovered-returned-to-its-owner-and-presented-for-sale-legally.-defendant-was-charged-with-a-crime-that-a-person-who-buys-or-receives-any-stolen-property-knowing-it-to-have-been-stolen-is-guilty-of-criminally-receiving-such-property..ListParagraph} ### [Clarification of **Jaffe**] {#clarification-of-jaffe.ListParagraph} ### A person who (1) [buys or receives any stolen property] (2) [knowing it to have been stolen]. {#a-person-who-1-buys-or-receives-any-stolen-property-2-knowing-it-to-have-been-stolen..ListParagraph} ### The defendant was not convicted because a person who received LEGAL property under the misapprehension that it was stolen cannot be convicted of attempting to receive stolen goods. {#the-defendant-was-not-convicted-because-a-person-who-received-legal-property-under-the-misapprehension-that-it-was-stolen-cannot-be-convicted-of-attempting-to-receive-stolen-goods..ListParagraph} ### True Legal Impossibility: when a person engages in activity they believe to be prohibited, but it turns out no such crime exists. - ### Example: A person secretly carries \$9,000 in their suitcase out of the country, thinking this is a crime and not realizing that it is permissible to do so. ### Factual Impossibility; - ### Factual impossibility exists when a persons' intended end constitutes a crime, but they fail to consummate the offense because of an attendant circumstance unknown to them or beyond their control. - ### Factual impossibility is **[never]** a defense; however, the person can usually be charged with an **[attempt crime]** (ex: a man shoots someone four times, but the gun was empty, so it's just an attempted murder). ### **R: A defendant cannot use that under the surrounding circumstances of the event, a crime was factually impossible to complete, as a defense to an attempt charge if the crime would have been committed had the circumstances been as the defendant believed them to be. ** {#r-a-defendant-cannot-use-that-under-the-surrounding-circumstances-of-the-event-a-crime-was-factually-impossible-to-complete-as-a-defense-to-an-attempt-charge-if-the-crime-would-have-been-committed-had-the-circumstances-been-as-the-defendant-believed-them-to-be..ListParagraph} ### **C: People v. Dlugash:** Defendant shoots a corpse that was already shot, believing the deceased person to be alive. The defendant is charged and convicted of attempted murder. {#c-people-v.-dlugash-defendant-shoots-a-corpse-that-was-already-shot-believing-the-deceased-person-to-be-alive.-the-defendant-is-charged-and-convicted-of-attempted-murder..ListParagraph} ### Factual impossibility is said to occur when extraneous circumstances unknown to the actor or beyond his control prevent consummation of the intended crime meaning there is a requisite intent. Legal impossibility is said to occur where the indented act, even if completed, would not amount to a crime and just leave the person with a guilty conscience. Accomplice liability ==================== ### Accomplice liability- Mens Rea - ### "Two mens reas" acting simultaneously #### The intent to act itself. #### The secondary actor must act **[purposefull]**y to encourage, counsel, hire, command, induce, or procure the primary. ##### Note: by virtue of this, sometimes the accomplice is going to have a higher culpable mental state than the principal- that is ok! #### **[Principal-]** someone who was actually present at the scene of the crime and either committed the dirty deed or assisted at the scene of the crime. #### USED TO BE: Accessory before the fact and Accessory after the fact. #### Primary and secondary do not have to have the same mens rea. ### Mens Rea for aiding and abetting: ##### Secondary party intends to assist primary party engage in conduct that forms the basis of the offense, and ##### S has the level of culpability required for the offense ##### [MERE PRESENCE] is not enough to prove accomplice liability of the secondary actor. ##### **R: It must be shown that a person's words were intended to encourage and aid the perpetrator of the crime, not that they merely had that effect.** {#r-it-must-be-shown-that-a-persons-words-were-intended-to-encourage-and-aid-the-perpetrator-of-the-crime-not-that-they-merely-had-that-effect..ListParagraph} ##### **C: Hicks v. United States:** Two men on horses, one of the men shot killed a third man. There second man laughed during it and told the deceased to "take off his hat and die like a man". The man meant to use the words that he did but it is unclear that he intended the words to encourage the man to shoot and kill the other. {#c-hicks-v.-united-states-two-men-on-horses-one-of-the-men-shot-killed-a-third-man.-there-second-man-laughed-during-it-and-told-the-deceased-to-take-off-his-hat-and-die-like-a-man.-the-man-meant-to-use-the-words-that-he-did-but-it-is-unclear-that-he-intended-the-words-to-encourage-the-man-to-shoot-and-kill-the-other..ListParagraph} ##### **R: Mere communication to the effect that another might or probably would commit a criminal offense does not amount to aiding and abetting. Rather, the secondary actor needs to (1) associate themselves with the venture, (2) wish to bring about the crime by their actions.** {#r-mere-communication-to-the-effect-that-another-might-or-probably-would-commit-a-criminal-offense-does-not-amount-to-aiding-and-abetting.-rather-the-secondary-actor-needs-to-1-associate-themselves-with-the-venture-2-wish-to-bring-about-the-crime-by-their-actions..ListParagraph} ##### **C: State v. Gladstone**: An undercover officer approached the defendant and asked him where he could buy weed. The defendant drew the undercover cop a map, showing him how to get to Thompson's house. There was no evidence of communication between the defendant and Thomposon. The defendant was charged with aiding and abetting in the unlawful sale of marijuana. The defendant had no **[stake in the venture,]** so the judgment was reversed. {#c-state-v.-gladstone-an-undercover-officer-approached-the-defendant-and-asked-him-where-he-could-buy-weed.-the-defendant-drew-the-undercover-cop-a-map-showing-him-how-to-get-to-thompsons-house.-there-was-no-evidence-of-communication-between-the-defendant-and-thomposon.-the-defendant-was-charged-with-aiding-and-abetting-in-the-unlawful-sale-of-marijuana.-the-defendant-had-no-stake-in-the-venture-so-the-judgment-was-reversed..ListParagraph} - ##### Stake in the venture; you need to have it, you need to have some sort of involvement or benefit it does not have to be money. ##### **R: A basic principle of accomplice liability is that the defendant must intend to facilitate the offense, this intent element can only be fulfilled when a person is actively participating in the criminal venture with full knowledge of the circumstances constituting the crime.** {#r-a-basic-principle-of-accomplice-liability-is-that-the-defendant-must-intend-to-facilitate-the-offense-this-intent-element-can-only-be-fulfilled-when-a-person-is-actively-participating-in-the-criminal-venture-with-full-knowledge-of-the-circumstances-constituting-the-crime..ListParagraph} ##### **C: Rosemond v. United States:** Defendant was in the car during a drug sale which turned into a gun fight. Defendant was convicted under § 2 of Title 18, Section 924 (c) providing that "any person who during and in relation to any crime of violence or during drug trafficking, uses or carries a firearm". Defendant appeals claiming that he did not know that someone was carrying a gun. In this case the defendant did not have full knowledge of the circumstances. He can be charged for drug dealing but he can't be charged with the gun. {#c-rosemond-v.-united-states-defendant-was-in-the-car-during-a-drug-sale-which-turned-into-a-gun-fight.-defendant-was-convicted-under-2-of-title-18-section-924-c-providing-that-any-person-who-during-and-in-relation-to-any-crime-of-violence-or-during-drug-trafficking-uses-or-carries-a-firearm.-defendant-appeals-claiming-that-he-did-not-know-that-someone-was-carrying-a-gun.-in-this-case-the-defendant-did-not-have-full-knowledge-of-the-circumstances.-he-can-be-charged-for-drug-dealing-but-he-cant-be-charged-with-the-gun..ListParagraph} ### Mens Rea for result and attendant circumstances. ### **R: If someone is in full knowledge of a principal's gross negligence and participates in procuring the principal acting in a gross negligent manner, they can be charged as an accomplice in a manslaughter arising from the principal's criminal negligence. (rule is specific to this case)** {#r-if-someone-is-in-full-knowledge-of-a-principals-gross-negligence-and-participates-in-procuring-the-principal-acting-in-a-gross-negligent-manner-they-can-be-charged-as-an-accomplice-in-a-manslaughter-arising-from-the-principals-criminal-negligence.-rule-is-specific-to-this-case.ListParagraph} ### **C: State v. Mcvay**: Defendant was charged as an accessory in a manslaughter prosecution arising out of an explosion that occurred on a Newport-bound steamer which killed several passengers. He was convicted. {#c-state-v.-mcvay-defendant-was-charged-as-an-accessory-in-a-manslaughter-prosecution-arising-out-of-an-explosion-that-occurred-on-a-newport-bound-steamer-which-killed-several-passengers.-he-was-convicted..ListParagraph} ### (Ex: grey's anatomy when surgeons do something grossly negligent and the nurses don't walk out and leave, but instead stay, then you can be charged.) {#ex-greys-anatomy-when-surgeons-do-something-grossly-negligent-and-the-nurses-dont-walk-out-and-leave-but-instead-stay-then-you-can-be-charged..ListParagraph} ### **R: Under accomplice liability, the accomplice does not need to intend a specific result, it is enough that they intentionally aided the principal action in the commission of the crime. Intent applies to the accomplice's actions not the results.** {#r-under-accomplice-liability-the-accomplice-does-not-need-to-intend-a-specific-result-it-is-enough-that-they-intentionally-aided-the-principal-action-in-the-commission-of-the-crime.-intent-applies-to-the-accomplices-actions-not-the-results..ListParagraph} ### **C: Commonwealth v. Roebuck:** Defendant assisted in luring a victim to an apartment complex where the victim was eventually shot and killed. Although the defendant did not pull the trigger, he was charged as an accomplice. The defendant appeals arguing that he cannot be an accomplice to an unintentional killing. He was convicted. (Intent applies to the action, not the result of what happens.) {#c-commonwealth-v.-roebuck-defendant-assisted-in-luring-a-victim-to-an-apartment-complex-where-the-victim-was-eventually-shot-and-killed.-although-the-defendant-did-not-pull-the-trigger-he-was-charged-as-an-accomplice.-the-defendant-appeals-arguing-that-he-cannot-be-an-accomplice-to-an-unintentional-killing.-he-was-convicted.-intent-applies-to-the-action-not-the-result-of-what-happens..ListParagraph} - ### Note: Under Mcvay and Roebuck, it is clear that the accomplice must have specific intent to further the underlying conduct committed by the principal. But for the result, the accomplice only needed to have the means rea required for the result element of the substantive offense. 2 ### **R: Multiple defendants can be charged with depraved indifference to murder committed by one defendant if each defendant intentionally aided the defendant who committed the murder.** {#r-multiple-defendants-can-be-charged-with-depraved-indifference-to-murder-committed-by-one-defendant-if-each-defendant-intentionally-aided-the-defendant-who-committed-the-murder..ListParagraph} ### **C: People v. Russell**: Three defendants battled one another in a shootout in the center of a housing complex. A school principal was shot and killed, and the ballistic evidence could not prove whose bullet killed him. They were all prosecuted under a theory that they all aided and abetted one another. All were convicted because they created the zone of danger, and it did not matter that the court could not determine what bullet killed him. {#c-people-v.-russell-three-defendants-battled-one-another-in-a-shootout-in-the-center-of-a-housing-complex.-a-school-principal-was-shot-and-killed-and-the-ballistic-evidence-could-not-prove-whose-bullet-killed-him.-they-were-all-prosecuted-under-a-theory-that-they-all-aided-and-abetted-one-another.-all-were-convicted-because-they-created-the-zone-of-danger-and-it-did-not-matter-that-the-court-could-not-determine-what-bullet-killed-him..ListParagraph} ### The natural and probable consequences doctorine - ### The natural and probable consequence doctrine states that a person is not only guilty of the offense they intended to facilitate or encourage, but also of any reasonably foreseeable offenses committed by the primary actor. - ### Only 20 states clearly endorse the natural and probable consequences theory! - ### M.P.C. rejects the natural and probable consequences theory for accomplice liability. - ### M.P.C. requires a purposeful mens rea, when another crime is committed the accomplice cannot be liable because the second crime is beyond the purpose the accomplice possessed. ### **R: A defendant may be found guilty as an aider and abettor of a co-conspirator of a crime he intended to facilitate or encourage and for any additional crime which was naturally, probably, and foreseeable put into motion.** {#r-a-defendant-may-be-found-guilty-as-an-aider-and-abettor-of-a-co-conspirator-of-a-crime-he-intended-to-facilitate-or-encourage-and-for-any-additional-crime-which-was-naturally-probably-and-foreseeable-put-into-motion..ListParagraph} ### **C: People v. Luparello**: In an attempt to locate a former lover, the defendant enlisted a friend to discover her whereabouts at "whatever cost" from her current husband, Martin. The friends were armed with a gun and a sword and went to Martin's house. One of the men shot him, killing him. The defendant was charged with murder. {#c-people-v.-luparello-in-an-attempt-to-locate-a-former-lover-the-defendant-enlisted-a-friend-to-discover-her-whereabouts-at-whatever-cost-from-her-current-husband-martin.-the-friends-were-armed-with-a-gun-and-a-sword-and-went-to-martins-house.-one-of-the-men-shot-him-killing-him.-the-defendant-was-charged-with-murder..ListParagraph} - ### The court used the reasonably foreseeable doctrine and said that he set these acts in motion and therefore, it was foreseeable that this might happen. - ### But the natural and probable consequence test (narrower) would examine that the manner of the killing without trying to persuade him to give the information the second time was not natural and probable. If he was to beat him to death while trying to get information, that would be different, but he outright shot him. ### v. Accomplice Liability- Actus Reus, one who participates in an inherently dangerous and unlawful activity shares the culpability of the person who actually commits the crime. {#v.-accomplice-liability--actus-reus-one-who-participates-in-an-inherently-dangerous-and-unlawful-activity-shares-the-culpability-of-the-person-who-actually-commits-the-crime..ListParagraph} - ### Participation means either proving physical or physiological assistance to the primary actor. - ### Physical examples: - ### Here have a gun! - ### Under common law the aid has to be successful - ### Under the MPC aid just has to be attempted and that is enough. - ### An example would be an individual standing guard during bank robbery. This is physical aid because he is physically (constructively) present and keeping people out the bank. - ### Psychological examples: - ### You can do it! - ### An example is encouraging the actor to commit the act, "I will support you any way you need, I will be outside, but I will be able to aid you with whatever you need". There are words of encouragement and are enough to be considered aid. - ### This can look like: encouraging, counseling, hiring, commanding, inducing or procuring the primary actor in performing the criminal conduct. - ### There is a derivative liability in which criminal responsibility of the accomplice depends on the criminal responsibility of the primary. - ### Mere presence alone does not satisfy the actus reus requirement. - ### But for causation is not required to satisfy aiding and abetting (do not talk about it) ### **R: Encouragement is enough for accomplice liability under some circumstances.** {#r-encouragement-is-enough-for-accomplice-liability-under-some-circumstances..ListParagraph} ### **R: With accomplice liability, causation does not have to be proven, therefore, involvement can be quite minimal and fulfill the actus reus requirement of accomplice liability.** {#r-with-accomplice-liability-causation-does-not-have-to-be-proven-therefore-involvement-can-be-quite-minimal-and-fulfill-the-actus-reus-requirement-of-accomplice-liability..ListParagraph} ### **C: Wilcox v. Jeffery:** An American saxophone player played a concert in London which violated the country's Aliens Order of 1920". The defendant was a British reporter who was covering the concert, the player's arrival at the airport, and purchased a ticket for the performance. He also wrote an article about the performance in a magazine. The reporter was found guilty of aiding and abetting the player's violation of Order 1920. He appealed and lost. {#c-wilcox-v.-jeffery-an-american-saxophone-player-played-a-concert-in-london-which-violated-the-countrys-aliens-order-of-1920.-the-defendant-was-a-british-reporter-who-was-covering-the-concert-the-players-arrival-at-the-airport-and-purchased-a-ticket-for-the-performance.-he-also-wrote-an-article-about-the-performance-in-a-magazine.-the-reporter-was-found-guilty-of-aiding-and-abetting-the-players-violation-of-order-1920.-he-appealed-and-lost..ListParagraph} ### The Relationship between the criminal liability of the parties ### **R: For there to be accomplice liability, the two actors must share a common motive and common design. (Remember, the actors have two different distinct mens reas, but they ultimately work together towards the effectuation of the overall crime).** {#r-for-there-to-be-accomplice-liability-the-two-actors-must-share-a-common-motive-and-common-design.-remember-the-actors-have-two-different-distinct-mens-reas-but-they-ultimately-work-together-towards-the-effectuation-of-the-overall-crime..ListParagraph} ### **C: State v. Hayes:** Defendant tried to get Hill to rob a store with him. Hill, a relative of the store owner, agreed to do so, really just setting the defendant up to be arrested in the act. Defendant helped Hill climb through a window, into the building, to effectuate the robbery. Defendant also gave Hill some bacon through the window as well. Defendant was charged with burglary and larceny but was not convicted. {#c-state-v.-hayes-defendant-tried-to-get-hill-to-rob-a-store-with-him.-hill-a-relative-of-the-store-owner-agreed-to-do-so-really-just-setting-the-defendant-up-to-be-arrested-in-the-act.-defendant-helped-hill-climb-through-a-window-into-the-building-to-effectuate-the-robbery.-defendant-also-gave-hill-some-bacon-through-the-window-as-well.-defendant-was-charged-with-burglary-and-larceny-but-was-not-convicted..ListParagraph} - The primary actor was Hill, and he has no mens rea, the secondary was Hayes. But because the primary actor lacked intent, there was no crime, so there is no criminal responsibility from Hill. Again, the secondary' criminal responsibility depends on the primaries. ### {#section-5.ListParagraph} ### {#section-6.ListParagraph} ### {#section-7.ListParagraph} ### {#section-8.ListParagraph} ### {#section-9.ListParagraph} ### IRAC FOR EXAM {#irac-for-exam.ListParagraph} ### ![A black and white page of a document Description automatically generated](media/image2.png) {#a-black-and-white-page-of-a-document-description-automatically-generated.ListParagraph} ### {#section-10.ListParagraph} Murder Flowchart - D killed someone Note: If they tried and failed -- see attempt liability Note: If - Studocu {#murder-flowchart---d-killed-someone-note-if-they-tried-and-failed-see-attempt-liability-note-if---studocu.ListParagraph} ============================================================================================================== {#section-11.ListParagraph} {#section-12.ListParagraph} {#section-13.ListParagraph} {#section-14.ListParagraph} {#section-15.ListParagraph} {#section-16.ListParagraph} {#section-17.ListParagraph} **[ATTEMPT]** - Attempt is when someone tries to commit a crime but is unsuccessful in completing the crime. - The sentences for attempted crimes are generally one step below the sentences of the completed crime. See N.Y. § 110.05. [Attempt Elements] 1. Specific intent to commit the crime 2. Some actus (what actus reus suffices varies upon jurisdictions) [Mens Rea] Because attempt (inchoate crimes) requires specific intent to commit the specific crime, by default, the following crimes cannot be attempt crimes: - [Unintentional crimes (i.e., reckless or negligent crimes, involuntary manslaughter)] - [Felony murder] **R: An attempt requires a purpose to produce the proscribed result, even when recklessness of some lesser mens rea would suffice for the conviction of the completed underlying offense.** [Actus Reus] +-----------------------+-----------------------+-----------------------+ | **ATTEMPT--ACTUS | | | | REUS** | | | | | | | | Ask: which | | | | jurisdictional test | | | | should be used when | | | | assessing the actus | | | | reus in an attempted | | | | crime... | | | +=======================+=======================+=======================+ | **TEST** | **DESCRIPTION** | **EXAMPLE** | +-----------------------+-----------------------+-----------------------+ | **Last Approximate | The person does | Shoot the gun and the | | Act** | everything needed for | bullet does not hit | | | the crime to happen | the person. | | **(Common Law--no | except for the last | | | longer used)** | act. | | | | | | | | - Anything before | | | | this last act, | | | | under common law, | | | | was purely | | | | preparation | | | | (making plans, | | | | maps, etc.). | | +-----------------------+-----------------------+-----------------------+ | **Dangerously Near | The defendant must be | **R: [A defendant may | | Proximate Test** | in dangerous | not be convicted of | | | proximity with | attempt unless the | | | regards | defendant intentional | | | to [distance]{.underl | ly commits | | | ine} and [time]{.unde | an act tending to the | | | rline} to | commission of a | | | successfully | crime, which is so | | | completing the crime | near to | | | | accomplishment of the | | | - Remote acts are | crime that in all | | | not enough for | reasonable | | | attempt | probability the crime | | | | itself would have | | | - The test is in a | been committed but | | | small number of | for timely | | | jurisdictions but | interference. ]{.unde | | | it is also the | rline}** | | | test in N.Y. | | | | | **C: [People v. | | | - Policy Reasons: | Rizzo:]** | | | This test allows | Rizzo | | | time for | and three other men | | | abandonment of | intended to rob | | | the plan by the | Charles. The four | | | actor and thus, | men, two of which had | | | ensures that | guns, drove around | | | someone taking | looking for Charles | | | steps towards a | but they never found | | | crime is not | him. The police | | | punished for a | arrested all four men | | | step they may not | because they thought | | | have eventually | they were acting | | | taken | suspiciously. The | | | | four were charged | | | | with attempted | | | | first-degree robbery | | | | but found not guilty | | | | because they were not | | | | dangerously proximate | | | | to success. | +-----------------------+-----------------------+-----------------------+ | **Equivocality Test** | Looks at how clearly | **C: [McQuirter v. | | | the actor's acts | State:]** | | | speak to their | A | | | intent | black man was walking | | | | down the street in | | | - If it can be | Alabama and they | | | innocently | charged him with | | | explained, it is | attempted rape. The | | | not an attempt. | judgment was affirmed | | | | based on the context | | | - "\[t\]he | of the situation. | | | unequivocal act | There was no innocent | | | toward the | way to explain his | | | commission of the | behavior. | | | offense must | | | | demonstrate that | | | | a crime is about | | | | to be committed | | | | unless frustrated | | | | by intervening | | | | circumstances" [S | | | | tate | | | | v. Disanto]{.unde | | | | rline}, | | | | 668 N.W.2d 201, | | | | 207 (S.D. 2004) | | | | | | | | - Criticisms: this | | | | ends up being the | | | | last step most of | | | | the time | | +-----------------------+-----------------------+-----------------------+ | **Substantial Step** | Used in the majority | **R: An individual | | | of states, MPC's | may be convicted of | | ***(MPC, majority)*** | test, and the federal | an attempted crime | | | test | when they had the | | | | culpability of the | | | The actus reus can be | crime he intended to | | | broken down into two | commit and took | | | parts: | substantial steps | | | | that corroborated the | | | 1. Substantial | firmness of their | | | Conduct in the | criminal intent. ** | | | furtherance of | | | | the completed | **C: [United States | | | crime in which | v. | | | the conduct has | Jackson:] | | | to show that you | ** Men | | | are [trying to | were planning to rob | | | complete the | a bank and did things | | | crime ]{.underlin | like obtain shotguns, | | | e} | ammunition, masks and | | | | affixed a fake | | | 2. Strongly | license plate on the | | | corroborative of | prospective getaway | | | the criminal | car. One of the men | | | purpose (the | went into the bank to | | | intent) | begin the robbery but | | | | realized there were | | | - Measuring from | too many witnesses | | | the inception of | inside, so he | | | the criminal | informed the others. | | | venture, how far | They went back on a | | | the actor has | later date and were | | | gotten to the | arrested on the way | | | crime's | by police, who | | | commission | recovered the guns, | | | | ammunition, and | | | | masks. They were | | | | charged with | | | - Accordingly, if | attempted robbery of | | | there is | the bank. | | | ambiguity of what | | | | the intent of the | | | | actions are, such | | | | conduct [cannot]{ | | | |.underline} be | | | | a substantial | | | | step then | | +-----------------------+-----------------------+-----------------------+ **[SOLICITATION]** - Solicitation is a type of an inchoate crime BUT in most states, it is its own statutory offense so it is not analyzed like an attempt crime. - Elements of Solicitation: 1. Had intent to promote or facilitate... 1. conduct that would constitute a crime or an attempted crime An example would be asking for someone to engage in acts for money (soliciting, prostitution). **R: Solicitation, encouraging another to commit a crime, without an overt act moving towards the effectuation of a crime, [is not an attempted crime]. It is simply a crime of solicitation. ** {#section-18.ListParagraph}

Document Details

Tags

Related

Summary

Full Transcript

Upgrade to continue