Criminal Law Outline PDF

**[Criminal Law- Outline- Justice Appel]** [Ways of Thinking about Punishment ] 1. Retributive: \"eye for an eye\", \"they just deserve it\", very backward looking - Justifications: Michael Moore, Kant, James Stephen, Herbert Morris, Jean Hampton 2. Utilitarian: Forward looking, how...

**[Criminal Law- Outline- Justice Appel]** [Ways of Thinking about Punishment ] 1. Retributive: \"eye for an eye\", \"they just deserve it\", very backward looking - Justifications: Michael Moore, Kant, James Stephen, Herbert Morris, Jean Hampton 2. Utilitarian: Forward looking, how can the punishment bring **benefit to society**? Big focus on deterrence - Justifications: Jeremy Bentham and Kent Greenwalt - *People v. Du:* Shopkeeper shot and killed a girl, only got probation 3. Model Penal Code 1.02 (2) - Proportionality of Sentence to the Crime (Retributive) - Severity of sentence must be proportional to the crime - Dependent on the crime itself, harm done to the victims, and blameworthiness) - (Utilitarian) - When possible, promote: rehabilitation, general deterrence, preservation of families, and reintegration of offenders - Sentences no more severe than necessary to achieve the goals outlined in MPC 1.02 (1) - MPC 1.02(1) - Prevent Harm - Controlling Risky Behavior - Protecting Innocent Actions - Giving Clear Warnings - Understanding Crime Severity - Avoid sanctions that would increase the likelihood of the offense again   [Role of Criminal Law]  For Criminal Law to Work, they must 1. Principle of Legality: The law must be understandable (to the normal man) a. *In re Banks* - What a reasonable man could determine 2. Should not delegate authority to judges/juries 3. Rule of Lenity: when it is ambiguous, the verdict goes to the defendant a. Not embodied in the MPC: MPC pushes ambiguous terms to be determined to promote the goals in the MPC 1.02(1) [Statutory Interpretation] 1. Look at the plain meaning - Clear and Unambiguous Terms 2. Contact the Author (if possible) 3. Look to Legislative Intent a. Historical Context b. Statute History c. Documents surrounding the enactment of the law d. Subsequent cases that have already dealt with the particular issue e. Phrases, words, title, etc. surrounding the statute *Keeler v. Superior Court:* - Is a fetus a Human Being? - Courts decided it would be outside the role of the judicial to interpret it so broadly - They left it open to the legislature to decide *In Re Banks:* - Peeping Tom Statute - What does "peeping" and "secret" mean? - Subsequent courts may define language within a statute that future courts can/will use to decide facts before them at the time [Jury Nullification ]  Juries have the power to nullify, but do not have the right to nullify [Actus Reas (Acts and Omissions) ]  The criminal act must be a voluntary, affirmative act causing a criminally proscribed result. The act requirement may also be satisfied by an "omission" or failure to act under circumstances imposing a legal duty to act. 3 Components of Actus Reas: Conduct, Result, Attendant Circumstances Under the **common law**: the Actus Reas must be the actual and proximate cause of the injury/death 1. Physical Acts - Must be a physical act, a negative thought is not enough - For Possession - It is an act, but the actor must be aware of the position or have been in possession for a length of time where they could have gotten rid of it 1. The Act must be Voluntary - *Martin v. State* - police forcefully took the defendant to a public place - Non-Voluntary acts include - MPC 2.01 - Reflex or Convulsion - Bodily Movement during unconsciousness or sleep - Conduct during hypnosis or resulting from hypnotic suggestion - Other bodily movement that otherwise is not a product of the effort or determination of the actor, either conscious or habitual - *State v. Utter:* Drunk D killed son, claimed WWII conditioned response, no evidence was presented to suggest conditioned response - Timeframe Consideration - *Tourette\'s/ Epilepsy Hypothetical-* - Could still be held criminally responsible if 1. He knows of the possibility of seizure AND 2. The person\'s last act was voluntary 2. Failure to Act when Duty Exists (Omissions) - When does a legal duty to act and the failure to do so results in criminal liability - Statute - Contract (Home Health Care) - Special Relationship (duty of parent/child, duty to spouse) - Voluntarily Assumed Care - Creating the Risk - When is there an absence of duty? - When there is no duty to act, a defendant is not criminally liable for failing to help others in trouble. A mere bystander (non-active agent) has no duty to act. - You do not have duty to act if you are not the active agent - *People v. Beardsley*- man was not the active agent, thus did not have a duty to the woman who overdosed, no legal argument, only moral - Justice Appel: Reasons why courts may consider omission as not enough for liability - Difficult to determine what is omission and how it leads to the crime (question of causation) - Bystanders sometimes make things worse - Libertarian View: You are not an immediate party, so do not get involved 3. Types of Crimes - Conduct Crimes: The act does not have actual tangible harm - There may be an underlying social harm - Result Crimes: Has a specific harm [Mens Rea- State of Mind (Intent)]  *Mens rea* is the requirement of a "guilty mind" or legally proscribed mental state that a defendant must possess to commit a crime. Typically, crimes require the Actus Reas coupled with the guilty mind (except in strict liability cases). MPC requires that the mens rea be applied to all elements, 1. Specific Intent Crimes (element approach) - Specific-intent crimes require that the defendant possess a subjective desire, specific objective, or knowledge to accomplish a prohibited result. (Crimes that require a specific state of mind related to the resulting crime) - Must be outlined within the statute itself (looks to the elements of the statute) - *People v. Conley -* Intent was spelled out \"Intent to cause great bodily harm\" - Requires that intent need only be subjective (what did you think) 1. General Intent Crimes - General intent crimes require only an **intent to perform an unlawful act** - Transferred Intent: When a defendant acts with an intent to cause harm to one person or object and that defendant's act directly results in harm to another person or object - *People v. Conley-* does not matter that he intended to hit A and ended up hitting B - MPC 2.03.2: When the intended consequences is not what you intended, just because it happened to another person/property does not relive you of criminal liability - Requires intent be objective (what the reasonable man would think) 1. Strict Liability Crimes - Cases where there is no Mens Rea Requirement 1. Model Penal Code 2.02 - Levels of Culpability - 4 Levels of Culpability - Purposely: Consciously, conscious objective is to engage in the conduct or to cause a certain result. - Knowingly: Aware of, the defendant must be aware or know that **the** result is practically certain to occur based on his conduct - Recklessly: There is a risk of, act with a conscious disregard of a substantial and unjustifiable risk that a material element of a crime exists or will result from his conduct. - Negligent: Should have been aware of, a defendant **should be** aware of a substantial and unjustifiable risk that a material element of a crime exists or will result from his conduct. - What if there is no Mens Rea Element stated? - Had to have acted at least recklessly - MPC 2.02 (5) - Ladder of Culpability - If Negligence is required, it will be met if they acted purposely, knowingly, or recklessly - If Recklessness is required, it will be met if they acted purposely or knowingly - If knowingly is required, it will be met if they acted purposely [Mistake as a Defense ] 1. Mistake/Ignorance of Fact - Specific Intent Crimes - Will defeat a specific intent crime - Only requires a subjective understanding (what did you think?) - *People v. Navarro-* Specific Intent Crime, did not matter that his actions were unreasonable - General Intent Crimes - Requires an objective understanding (what would the reasonable man think?) - Was the mistake of fact reasonable? - Strict Liability Crimes - Not a defense because there is no Mens Rea Requirements - MPC 2.04(1) - It is a defense if the ignorance negates the purpose, knowledge, recklessness or negligence required OR - The law writes that it is allowed to be a defense 2. Mistake/Ignorance of Law - This is when you act thinking your action is legal - Generally, not a valid defense - MPC 2.04(2) - If you thought your conduct was legal, that is a defense if - The law was not known to the actor AND has not been published or readily acceptable/available OR - Acted on a reliance of an official statement afterward found to be wrong (court decision, administrative order, or official interpretation of the law) - *People v. Marrero-* did not act on a reliance of an official statement, just his own interpretation, does not meet the requirement - This must be proven with a preponderance of evidence (shifts the burden of proof to the defendant [Causation] A causal connection between the act or conduct and the result 1. Actual Cause (Cause in Fact) \*Common Law - "But For" : But for the actor's action, there was that result - Does not turn on Mens Rea (two separate arguments) -- Meaning you would still need to determine Mens Rea - *Oxendine v. State:* Could not determine if it was the man or his girlfriend who caused the life ending injuries, could not determine whether the man's actions were but for 2. Proximate Cause ('Legal Cause') - Proximate Cause is based on the foreseeability of the outcome (usually determined by juries) - Must be a direct and natural result of the actions - *People v. Rideout:* was it foreseeable by the D that the men would return to their car? The courts determined no, so there was no proximate cause - This case has the But for Element, but not the Proximate Cause Element - *Velazquez v. State:* Whether the driver recklessly driving over a cliff was foreseeable? Courts determined no; the driver died by his own volitional reckless driving. Thus, the D was not a proximate cause and was not liable for the death. - *State v. Rose:* Question of both elements, whether the man was dead on impact played a role on determining "but for" and proximate cause. Courts determined that because they could not determine time of death, there was no way to satisfy both causation elements [Criminal Homicide] 3. Murder - Common Law Murder: - The unlawful killing of another human being with malice aforethought - Malice Aforethought includes - Intent to Kill - Intent to cause Grievous Harm - Depraved Heart Murder (gross indifference to human life) - *People v. Knoller-* vicious dogs after a history of violence, attacked and killed someone. Owner acted with gross indifference to human life - Intent to Commit a Felony - The Felony Murder Rule (Strict Liability Crime- No mens rea) - Felony murder is an unintended killing proximately caused by and during the commission or attempted commission of an inherently dangerous felony. To convict a defendant of felony murder, the prosecution must establish the underlying felony, and that the defendant committed that felony. - Does not take into consideration the foreseeability, it is just a risk you take (No mens rea) - Must be an inherently dangerous felony - *Fisher v. State:* Child abuse that ended up in the child dying. Child abuse was not listed under felonies, but the courts decided that because it was dangerous actions, it should be considered - Merger Rule: - Does not septate 1^st^/2^nd^ Degree Murder, there is no manslaughter - Model Penal Code 210.2 - It is murder when, - It is committed purposely or knowingly - Its committed recklessly under circumstances manifesting extreme indifference to the value of human life - This is assumed in cases where there is an attempt to commit robbery, rape, or deviate sexual intercourse by force/threat, arson, burglary, kidnapping or felonious escape - It's a felony in the first degree, and can have the death penalty - Separation of Degrees of Murder - First Degree Murder - Killing with malice aforethought and with premeditation and deliberation - And in some states, killing under the felony-murder rule - Second Degree Murder - Killing with malice aforethought that does not meet the requirements for first degree murder - Does not require premedication or deliberation 4. Manslaughter - Common Law: No - Model Penal Code: 210.3 (Gross deviation from Common Law) - Manslaughter when, - Committed recklessly (ordinary recklessness) - Homicide which would be murder when committed under the influence of extreme mental or emotional disturbance w/ reasonable explanation or excuse - Reasonable Explanation: determined by the viewpoint of a person in the actor's situation under the circumstances he believes them to be - Charged in the 2^nd^ Degree - "Heat of Passion" Killing - Murder committed in response to adequate provocation - Adequate Provocation: Serious Battery or threat of deadly force - *Girouard v. State*- Words alone did not meet adequate provocation, there must be an accompanied act (could be threat, but in this case, the wife was significantly smaller, and a reasonable person would not have perceived she could threaten his life) - Common Law requires an accompany of an act, the MPC does not 5. Negligent Homicide - Modal Penal Code 210.4 - Negligent Homicide when, - Its committed negligently - Felony in the 3^rd^ Degree 6. Causation To prove a homicide, the prosecution must show that the defendant caused the victim's death. The prosecution must prove both actual and proximate causation - Actual Causation: "BUT FOR" - Proximate Cause (Legal Cause): Was the death foreseeable, was it a probable result - Proximate Cause: - Proximate cause (i.e., legal cause) exists only when the defendant is deemed legally responsible for a homicide. For the defendant to be legally responsible for a homicide, the death must be foreseeable. A death caused by the defendant's conduct is deemed foreseeable if death is the **natural and probable result** of the conduct - *State v. Sophophone-* Man was not responsible because he was in the car, the felony had ended for him, he had no relation to the death of the other guy, court determined there was no proximate cause - Year and a Day Rule: - Common Law: there is no proximate cause if the victim died a year and a day after the action occurred 7. Suicide/Aiding in Suicide - Model Penal Code 210.5 - Can be convicted for criminal homicide if, - Purposely causes such suicide by force, duress, or deception (1^st^ Degree) - Aids of Solicits another to commit suicide if the conduct causes such suicide or an attempted suicide, and otherwise of a misdemeanor (2^nd^ Degree) [Other Model Penal Code ] 1. MPC 1.12 (1) - Each element of an offense must be proven beyond a reasonable doubt, innocence is assumed otherwise 2. MPC 1.13(9) - What is an element of an offense? - Such conduct or such attendant circumstances, or such result of conduct is - Included in the description - Establishes culpability - Negatives an excuse/justification - Negatives a defense - Establishes jurisdiction 3. MPC 1.04 - Types of Crime: Felonies, Misdemeanors, or petty misdemeanors - Felonies: could get punishment of death or more than 1 year in prison - Misdemeanors: What the MPC says or what the statute says (by state) - For Petty Misdemeanors: what the MPC says or what the statute says, but with less than a year of prison - Violation: when a fine is only imposed - A person who commits a violation has not committed a crime - If there is no specific grade given, it is a misdemeanor - If there are other laws that are not outlined in the MPC, they still need to fit within these classifications 4. MPC 1.02(3) - If there is anything in the language of the MPC that can be interpreted in different ways, it should be understood in the way that most helps promote the goals outlined in MPC 1.02 (1) 5. MPC 1.05 (1) - No conduct is an offense unless it is a crime or violation under the MPC or another statute of the state 6. MPC 2.03 - If there is a requirement of purposely or knowingly, it is NOT met if the actual result is not within the purpose/contemplation of the actor UNLESS - The only difference is a different person/property, or the harm was less severe than what was intended - Involves the same kind of injury/harm and is not to remote or random - If there is a requirement of recklessly, or negligently, it is NOT met if the actual outcome is not something you were aware could happen UNLESS - The only difference is person/property or that the harm would have been worse - Actual Outcome is similar to what you thought and is not far-fetched or unlikely 7. MPC 210.0 - Definitions - Human Being: has been born and is alive - *People v. Eulo:* This case added a brain consideration when determining if someone is alive - Bodily Injury: physical pain, illness or other physical impairment - Serious Bodily Injury: Bodily Injury that creates a substantial risk of death or serious, permanent disfigurement - Deadly Weapon: firearm or other weapon that can induce death or serious bodily injury     **[RAPE AND OTHER SEXUAL OFFENSES ]** - Rape is a general intent crime -- meaning the objective test is used for mistakes (what a reasonable person would think) - Rape Shield Laws: Limits the evidence of past sexual relationships to be brought up +-----------------------------------+-----------------------------------+ | MPC | Common Law | +===================================+===================================+ | Guilty without "effective | Traditional Common Law: must use | | consent" | some degree of force or threat | | | (beyond the act of penetration) | | - Uses explicit or implied | of force in addition to the act | | threats to use physical force | of penetration only acknowledge | | or restraint | males' assailants and female | | | victims, cannot operate under | | - \^ That is what gets them to | deceit | | submit | | | | Requires both force and against | | Other ways that effective consent | the woman's will | | cannot be given | | | | Some states require resistance | | - Sleeping, unconscious, | | | physically unable to | Tends to focus on the victims' | | communicate consent | actions | | | | | - Lacks substantial capacity to | - Did they resist? | | appraise, control or remember | | | one's own sexual conduct | - If they didn't, was it out of | | because of a substance they | fear for their safety? | | were given without knowledge | | | or consent (for that purpose) | **Elements: ** | | | | | - Has intellectual development | 1. Sexual intercourse | | or mental disability that | | | makes the person | 2. Unlawful in nature | | substantially incapable of | | | appraising the sextual nature | 3. Without the woman's consent | | of the activity | | | | 4. By fear, force or fraud | | - Passing in and out of | | | consciousness | Mistake of Consent | | | | | - When wholly/partially | - Must be an honest mistake | | undressed for a purpose of | | | receiving nonsexual purposes | | | | | | - Caused them to think they | | | were someone else (Deceit) | | | | | | Mistake of Fact- | | | | | | Must negate the Mens Rea Element | | +-----------------------------------+-----------------------------------+ **[Defenses]** **[SELF DEFENSE]** +-----------------------------------+-----------------------------------+ | MPC | Common Law | +===================================+===================================+ | Completely Subjective Standard | Partially subjective, partially | | | objective | | Self Defense is JUSTIFIABLE if | | | | Honest= Subjective | | - The actor believes that such | | | force is IMMEDIATELY | Reasonable = Objective | | necessary against unlawful | | | force from another | \*Must have both | | | | | Self Defense is NOT JUSTIFIABLE | Elements | | to | | | | - Threatened with physical | | - Resist an arrest that the | force | | actor knows that's what is | | | happening (even if the arrest | - The threat was unlawful | | is unlawful) | | | | - Responsive force was | | - Resist force when someone is | necessary | | defending property, they have | | | a right to defend UNLESS | - Was immediately necessary | | | | | | - The response was proportional | | | to the threat | | - You are a public officer | | | doing your job | - You were not the initial | | | aggressor | | - You were kicked off the | | | property unlawfully | | | | | | - You believe you may get hurt | - If you are, but then | | | completely retreat, then | | Deadly force is NOT justifiable | right to self-defense is | | UNLESS under threat of death, | reinstated | | serious bodily harm, kidnapping, | | | or sexual intercourse | | | | | | Not justifiable when | - Some jurisdictions do not | | | have a duty to retreat (Stand | | - You start the fight or made | your ground) Can use deadly | | the situation worse | force to protect against | | | deadly threats | | - You could have avoided the | | | danger | Castle Doctrine: No duty to | | | retreat within your own home, | | - You do not have to run away | unless initial aggressor lives | | | there | | - When law enforcement attacks | | | and they can | **Imperfect self defense:** if | | | acting in belief you have right, | | Castle Doctrine: Not obligated to | but are mistaken about 1 of the 4 | | retreat from dwelling or work | elements, you have imperfect | | unless the initial aggressor is | self-defense🡪 gets you a lesser | | assailed from someone who lives | manslaughter charge | | there | | | | Depending on the jurisdiction, | | | **battered-spouse syndrome** may | | | be recognized as a mitigating | | | circumstance or a defense  | +-----------------------------------+-----------------------------------+ **[DEFENSE OF OTHERS ]** +-----------------------------------+-----------------------------------+ | MPC | Common Law | +===================================+===================================+ | Subjective | Alter Ego Rule: | | | | | You can use force is | - If placed in the shoes of the | | | person, if they have a right, | | - You would be allowed to use | you do too | | force to protect yourself | | | | Reasonable Belief Rule: | | - If the person you are | | | protecting could use force to | - If you act on a reasonable | | protect themselves | belief, you can act (if they | | | did not actually have the | | - You believe it is necessary | right) | | | | | Special Rules | No requirement to retreat unless | | | both people can do it safely | | - You do not have to retreat | | | unless that it what would | Must be objectively reasonable | | keep them safe | | | | | | - You have to get them to | | | retreat if you know it would | | | keep them safe | | | | | | - No need to retreat if you are | | | at their work/home | | | | | | - | | +-----------------------------------+-----------------------------------+ **[DEFENSE OF PROPERTY ]** +-----------------------------------+-----------------------------------+ | MPC | Common Law | +===================================+===================================+ | Force is JUSTIFIED if | Must be necessary and used in | | | fresh pursuit (still in your | | - You believe it is necessary | possession) | | to | | | | Deadly force is only authorized | | | when it is | | | | | - Stop someone from illegally | - It's your habitation | | entering/taking yours/someone | | | else's property | - You believe the person | | | intends harm | | - Get back property you are | | | legally entitled to that was | Person enters forcibly | | taken | | | | | | Limits | | | | | | - You must ask the person to | | | stop/give it back UNLESS | | | | | | | | | | | | - Asking them is useless | | | | | | - Would put someone in danger | | | | | | - The property is at risk | | | before you can ask | | | | | | Force is UNJUSTIFIED if | | | | | | - Force would put you at risk | | | of harm | | | | | | - If they are just getting | | | their property back that they | | | have a legal claim to | | | | | | Deadly Force is JUSTIFIED if | | | | | | - Someone is trying to take | | | your home away from you | | | without the right to do so | | | | | | - Someone is committing a | | | serious crime like | | | robbery/burglary and | | | threatened you with deadly | | | force | | | | | | Using a Device as Force | | | | | | - Does not cause risk to death | | | or serious harm | | | | | | - Reasonable to use it for | | | protecting property (commonly | | | used for that purpose) | | +-----------------------------------+-----------------------------------+ **[NECCESSITY \*Choice of Evils\*]** - Financial Harm: more likely to justify a necessity defense rather than a duress +-----------------------------------+-----------------------------------+ | MPC | Common Law | +===================================+===================================+ | Necessity is a defense when | The commission of a crime is | | | justifiable if it is necessary to | | - If you believe that breaking | prevent a greater harm from | | the law is necessary to | occurring | | prevent a greater harm or | | | danger to yourself or someone | Elements \*subjective belief | | else | these are met | | | | | Conditions that must be met | - The criminal act must have | | | been committed in order to | | - The harm you are trying to | prevent a substantial harm | | avoid must be worse than the | | | harm that would result from | - The harm must be imminent | | breaking the law | | | | - There must have been a lack | | - There shouldn't be any laws | of an alternative | | that specifically deal with | | | your situation or that | - The harm caused must be | | provide an exception for it | proportional to the harm | | | avoided | | - The law does not clearly | | | state that this kind of | Imminent harm- normally must be | | justification cannot be used | an emergency measure to avoid | | for the situation you are in | public or private injury | | | | | You cannot use this defense when | Provides defense in rare and | | | highly unusual circumstances | | - If you were reckless or | | | negligent in creating the | Objective standard- no reference | | situation where you had to | to what actor intends or believes | | choose between harms | to be necessary | | | | | - Also if your recklessness or | Defense is not available when | | negligence is enough to make | | | you guilty of the crime | - D caused the situation | | | | | Cannot be used for killing (only | - When there is legislative | | self-defense is available) | decision to prohibit the | | | necessity defense in that | | | situation | | | | | | - In homicides | +-----------------------------------+-----------------------------------+ **[DURESS]** +-----------------------------------+-----------------------------------+ | MPC | Common Law | +===================================+===================================+ | Duress is an excuse when | Elements of Duress | | | | | - Someone makes you do | - D subjected by another to | | something illegal by threat | threat of death or SBH if D | | or use of force against you | did not commit crime | | or someone else that a | threatener desires to either | | reasonable person would be | himself or a close relative | | unable to resist | | | | - Threat was unlawful | | Duress is not an excuse when | | | | - Imminent (actual and | | - If you put yourself in a | reasonable belief) | | situation where you were | | | likely to be forced to do | - No reasonably available | | something illegal | alternatives to avoid the | | | threat | | - If you were careless in | | | putting yourself int hat | - Committing crime will avoid | | situation, and your | harm | | carelessness was enough to be | | | guilty of the crime | - D did not reasonably or | | | negligently place themselves | | What about women acting under | in a situation where duress | | their husband? | was likely | | | | | - Just because a wife does | All elements are judges by an | | something her husband tells | objective standard (actual and | | her to, doesn't automatically | reasonable) | | mean she was forced to do it. | | | Required coercion that fits | Not a defense for murder or any | | the law | killing (although he said in some | | | states it is) | | When duress doesn't change other | | | defenses: | Burden is on the defendant to | | | establish by preponderance of | | - If what you did would be okay | evidence | | in other situations (under a | | | different law) being coerced | | | does not change that | | | | | | How it differs from common law | | | | | | 1. Only requires unlawful force, | | | not death or serious bodily | | | injury | | | | | | 2. Only requires person of | | | another, not just yourself or | | | family | | | | | | 3. Person in his situation, not | | | just an actual and reasonable | | | belief (more subjective) | | | | | | 4. Does not have to be imminent | | | | | | 5. Allows this excuse for murder | | +-----------------------------------+-----------------------------------+ **[INTOXICATION]** +-----------------------------------+-----------------------------------+ | MPC | Common Law | +===================================+===================================+ | Usually not a defense UNLESS if | ONLY SPECIFIC INTENT CRIMES | | shows that you didn't have the | | | mental state required for the | Involuntary intoxication: defense | | offense | to both general and specific | | | intent | | If acting recklessly | | | | General Rule: Voluntary | | - Being intoxicated is not an | intoxication is never an excuse | | excuse (you would have known | | | the risks had you been sober) | - In some states (very rare: if | | | you can prove total | | Intoxication is not the same as a | unconsciousness) | | mental disease or disorder | | | | - Only on some specific intent | | Intoxication CAN be a defense | crimes (Remember BOP is on | | when | the state to show specific | | | intent) | | - The intoxication is not your | | | fault (someone else made you | Example: (with different | | drink) or if it's a kind of | outcomes) | | intoxication that affects you | | | in a way you did not expect | A assaults B with the intent to | | | commit rape (specific intent) | | Definitions: | | | | Police intervene before A (who | | Intoxication: being mentally or | was drunk) raped B | | physically affected by substances | | | you have put in your body | - Intoxication would be allowed | | | | | Self-induced intoxication: means | Police intervene after the rape | | getting drunk or high on purpose | has occurred | | unless you were following medical | | | advice or had good reason to take | - Intoxication would not be | | the substance | allowed (rape is often a | | | general intent crime) | | Pathological Intoxication: being | | | affected by a substance much more | | | strongly than expected and not | | | realizing you could have that | | | reaction | | +-----------------------------------+-----------------------------------+ **[INSANITY]** - Brought up for sentencing, not really at trial +-----------------------------------+-----------------------------------+ | MPC | Common Law | +===================================+===================================+ | Insanity can be an excuse when | M'Naghten test: it must be | | | clearly proved that D: | | - If a person commits a crime, | | | but at the time, had a | 1. Was laboring under such a | | serious mental illness or | defect of reason, from | | defect and because of that | [disease of the | | could not understand that | mind] | | what they were doing was | | | wrong or could not control | 2. **(a)** As to not know | | their actions to follow the | [nature and quality of the | | law | act he was doing] | | | or | | Definition: | | | | **(b)** if he did know it, that | | Mental Illness or Defect: does | he [did not know what he was | | not include things like having a | doing was wrong] | | pattern of criminal or | | | anti-social behavior | - 2a is rarely used (people | | | that crazy do not make it to | | How it differs from common law: | trial) | | | | | - Uses appreciate (you know- | - 2b: must be to the level of | | more legal, aligns with | psychosis (depressive | | retributive thought) instead | disorder or bipolar not | | of knowing (more emotional) | enough) | | | | | - Incorporates 2 prongs | | | | | | 1. Cognitive- capacity to know | - Hallucinations (perceiving | | difference between right and | things that done exist) and | | wrong | delusions (grossly | | | misinterpreted sensory data) | | 2. Volitional- capacity to | | | exercise one's free will to | - Disorganized- highly | | act according to one's | irrational goals and ways of | | appreciation of that | achieving goals | | difference (irresistible | | | impulse) | D has burden of proving that he | | | was unable to appreciate the | | | wrongfulness of acts | | | | | | - Wrongfulness = moral | | | wrongfulness🡪 contrary to | | | public morality | | | | | | **[Crazed | | | Justification]** | | | | | | 1. If the situation as he | | | supposed were real, would he | | | be excused? (Would society | | | judge his reactions as an | | | appropriate response to | | | delusions?) | | | | | | 2. EX. If D believed society | | | would accept his actions, or | | | never considered that he | | | would be arrested, he | | | believes society justified | | | | | | 3. If D knew that society would | | | view his actions as wrong, | | | not crazed justification | | | | | | Irresistible impulse test: could | | | not control actions even though | | | know it is wrong | | | | | | - Most jurisdictions do not | | | have | +-----------------------------------+-----------------------------------+ **[DIMINISHED CAPACITY ]** +-----------------------------------+-----------------------------------+ | MPC | Common Law | +===================================+===================================+ | Evidence that they have a mental | Can only be submitted for | | illness, or defect can be used to | specific intent crimes (NOT | | show whether they had the right | general intent crimes) | | state of mind to commit the crime | | | | Due to the mental defect the | | If the case involves a serious | defendant did not have the | | punishment, like the death | correct mental state required to | | penalty or a long prison | commit the offense | | sentence, evidence that the | | | person's mental illness affected | May reduce to lesser charge | | their ability to understand their | | | actions or control them could be | Disadvantage: if Defendant wins | | used to argue for a lesser | insanity, defendant still gets | | punishment | committed | +-----------------------------------+-----------------------------------+ **[ALCOHOLISM ]** - Alcoholism is generally not accepted as mental insanity - 1 exception (very rare): brain altercation due to long term usage **[EUTHINASIA]** Necessity and Duress is never an excuse for murder (under common law) What about physician assisted suicide? - People v. Kevorkian: declined to recognize this as a constitutional right **[COMPETENCY TO STAND TRIAL]** Most of the time if one is aware of the proceedings, aware of the consequences, and can assist in defense, they will be deemed competent to stand trial **[CULTURAL ]** Not really an excuse In Maine - Under some circumstances (customary tolerance, not bringing them into danger) **[INCHOANT CRIMES]** **[ATTEMPT]** - Attempt is a specific intent crime +-----------------------------------+-----------------------------------+ | MPC | Common Law | +===================================+===================================+ | *Mens Rea:* Intentional/knowingly | Any overt act done with the | | | intent to commit the crime | | - Even if offense is strict | | | liability, attempt ALWAYS has | - **Physical Proximity test:** | | CMS requirement | Actor must have apparent | | | power to complete the crime | | Uncompleted attempts test: | immediately. | | | | | - Earlier in the event chain | | | | | | - Permits abandonment | - **Equivocality test:** Such a | | | nature as to be in itself | | Punishment: same grade and degree | sufficient evidence of the | | as the most serious offense that | criminal intent with which it | | is attempted... and attempt to | is done | | commit a capital crime or a | | | felony of the first degree is a | - **Dangerous proximity test:** | | felony of the second degree | D has achieved a dangerous | | | proximity to success  | | A person is guilty of trying to | | | commit a crime if they do | - More serious crime🡪 less | | something with the intention to | close they have to be | | commit the crime, even if they | | | don't fully complete it. There | - **Mere preparation is not | | are three ways this can happen: | sufficient** | | | | | - **(a)** If they do something | - Must be overt act | | that would be a crime, based | | | on what they believe is | | | happening around them (even | | | if they\'re wrong about the | - Abandonment is not allowed | | situation). | | | | **Punishment: ** | | - **(b)** If the crime involves | | | a certain result (like | **CA Penal Code: ** | | hurting someone), and they do | | | something that they believe | - Attempt punishable by prison🡪 | | will cause that result | one half the term of the | | without needing to do | actual offense | | anything more. | | | | - EXCEPT murder which is | | - **(c)** If they take a big | willfull, deliberate, or | | step towards committing the | premeditated🡪 life with the | | crime, based on what they | possibility of parole | | believe the situation is | | | like, even if they haven\'t | - Attempt are punish less | | finished committing the crime | across the board | | yet. | | | | If crime is actually committed, | | **What counts as a \"substantial | attempt is merged into the | | step\" (for part 1c):** To prove | completed crime | | someone was seriously trying to | | | commit a crime, their actions | My Notes- Common Law = Dangerous | | need to be a clear sign they're | Proximity | | on the path to committing the | | | crime. Here are some examples of | | | actions that could be considered | | | a substantial step: | | | | | | - Lying in wait or following | | | the victim. | | | | | | - Trying to get the victim to | | | go to the crime scene. | | | | | | - Checking out the place where | | | the crime will happen. | | | | | | - Breaking into a place where | | | the crime will happen. | | | | | | - Having things that are meant | | | to help commit the crime. | | | | | | - Collecting or making | | | materials near where the | | | crime will happen, if those | | | materials don't serve any | | | lawful purpose. | | | | | | - Asking someone innocent to | | | help commit the crime. | | | | | | - | | | | | | **Helping someone else commit a | | | crime:**\ | | | If someone helps another person | | | try to commit a crime, even if | | | that other person doesn't | | | actually commit the crime, the | | | person helping can be charged | | | with an attempt to commit the | | | crime. | | | | | | **Renouncing (Giving Up) a | | | Criminal Plan:**\ | | | - If someone was trying to commit | | | a crime but then decided to stop | | | before it happened, they can | | | argue that they abandoned their | | | criminal plan, and this could be | | | a defense. However, to claim this | | | defense, they have to show they | | | truly gave up on the crime for | | | good, not just because they were | | | worried they might get caught or | | | it was too hard. If they just | | | delayed the crime or decided to | | | do it later, it's not considered | | | abandoning the plan. | | +-----------------------------------+-----------------------------------+ **[CONSPIRACY]** +-----------------------------------+-----------------------------------+ | MPC | Common Law | +===================================+===================================+ | Agreement to commit a crime + | An agreement by two or more | | [overt act] in | persons to commit a crime. D must | | furtherance of that crime | | | | 1. Agree to commit crime | | - Overt act can be even less | | | than an attempt, closer on | 2. With intent to have crime | | the spectrum to mere thought | succeed (look at mens rea | | | requirement) | | - Persons can be | | | co-conspirators even if they | 3. SOME jurisdictions🡪 overt act | | do not know of the other's | | | existence, so long as they | **Pinkerton rule:** conspirator | | are working in furtherance of | is responsible for all acts of | | a conspiracy they have in | co-conspirators during course of | | common | and in furtherance of conspiracy | | | | | - **Punishment:** most serious | 1. Broader than accomplice | | act that parties intended to | liability because applies | | commit | even if co-conspirator is | | | unaware crime is being | | - **Withdrawal defense** | committed and has done | | 5.03(7)(c): Must take | nothing to aid commission of | | affirmative action, not on | crime | | the hook for conspiracy | | | | **Withdrawal defense:** ONLY | | **Thwarting actions** 5.03(6): if | COMPLETE DEFENSE IF NO OVERT ACT | | successfully thwarts actions of | OCCURRED YET🡪 otherwise only | | conspiracy, no longer on hook | exempted from future acts, still | | | on hook for original conspiracy | | Does not require a bilateral | | | agreement (unilateral agreement | 2.  Must take affirmative action | | is permitted) | to announce withdrawal to | | | other conspirators (may also | | | have to notify law | | | enforcement) | | | | | | **V cannot be co-conspirator** | | | | | | Mens Rea requirement: intent to | | | combine with others, and intent | | | to commit an unlawful act | | | | | | - It's the mens rea at the time | | | of the agreement | +-----------------------------------+-----------------------------------+ **[SOLICITATION]** - Merges with the underlying offense +-----------------------------------+-----------------------------------+ | MPC | Common Law | +===================================+===================================+ | **MPC 5.02** | Whenever a D recruits, | | | encourages, directs, counsels, or | | 1. 2. | induces another person to commit | | | a crime | | | | | | 1. Merely asking another person | | 1. | to commit crime is crime in | | | itself | | | | | | 2. misdemeanor, even if crime to | | 1. 2. 3. 4. | be committed is a felony | | | | | **Defense:** | **Mens Rea:** specific intent to | | | promote or facilitate commission | | **Renunciation 5.02(3):** | of crime (if kidding or does not | | affirmative defense if D | expect person solicited to take | | persuades that person to abort or | seriously, does not apply) | | otherwise prevents commission of | | | offense | **Actus reus:** mere speech is | | | enough | | Uncommunicated solicitation is | | | criminal | No overt act is required | | | | | | Uncommunicated solicitation is | | | not criminal | | | | | | My notes | | | | | | - 1\. Inviting, requesting a | | | particular offense (actus rea | | | s) | | | | | | - Double intent (1) intent to | | | invite (2) specific intent | | | that the other person will | | | commit that act (mens rea) | | | | | | Wharton Rule:  rule that bars a | | | conviction for conspiracy to | | | commit a crime that by definition | | | can be committed only by two | | | people acting together, such as | | | bigamy, prostitution, or dueling. | +-----------------------------------+-----------------------------------+ **[IMPOSSIBILITY ]** - Pretty much abolished everywhere (not in the MPC) - In MPC