Principles of Punishments PDF
Document Details
Uploaded by WellBehavedEarthArt
LSU
Tags
Summary
This document discusses different theories of punishment, including utilitarianism and retributivism. It also covers case law relevant to punishment, including Graham v. Florida and Coker v. Georgia.
Full Transcript
Principals of Punishments Utilitarianism Retributivism Punishment Theories Believes that justification is the useful purpose that Believes in an eye for an eye approach...
Principals of Punishments Utilitarianism Retributivism Punishment Theories Believes that justification is the useful purpose that Believes in an eye for an eye approach 8th Amendment punishment serves ○ Punish because you committed a crime ○ Excessive bail shall not be required, nor ○ The good of the punishment outweighs the bad ○ Punish for punishment safe excessive fines imposed, nor cruel and unusual Considers the value of pleasure and pain in itself Positive Retributivism punishments inflicted. through ○ Desert is a condition both necessary and ○ Cases ○ Its intensity sufficient to justify punishment. ○ Its duration Should not be punished unless deserved Graham v. Florida ○ Its certainty or uncertainty If deserved, punish as much as he deserves Court says that the Constitution ○ Propinquity or remoteness ○ Moral desert of offender is sufficient prohibits sentencing juveniles for life Punishment should only be admitted to exclude Negative retributivism w/o the possibility of parole greater evil and should be inflicted where ○ Mix of utilitarianism and retributivism Coker v. Georgia [plurality] ○ It is groundless (no mischief to prevent) utilitarianism answers the general justifying limits of the imposition of the death ○ Must be in efficacious (cannot act to prevent question penalty mischief) retributivism answers the distributive ○ Unprofitable or too expensive (mischief to question combination of the acts in the case do punish if it is greater than if it was prevented) ○ Purpose not cause harm ○ Needless (can be prevented another way) To reduce crime and protect the rights of all ○ Unless real harm (death or near death), Beneficial Consequences to secure their persons and property death judgement is insufficient ○ General Deterrence A person can legitimately be punished ○ Death penalty should only be reserved The knowledge that punishment follows only if he commits a crime for harshness crime deters people from committing ○ Punish in proportion to the crime Ewing v. California [plurality] crimes AND ○ Individual Deterrence ○ Only if doing so would produce a Court says there is a penological Deters offender from repeating his acts world w/ less crime purpose of deterrence because knows he will be punished Punishment as a defeat Thomas’ concurrence: not proportional ○ Incapacitation ○ the motive for inflicting suffering is to counter Breyer dissent: sentence in real-time Physically prevents the offender from the appearance of the wrongdoer’s superiority ○ Look at the actual person committing committing crimes and thus affirm the victim’s real value the crime Imprisonment does so temporarily ○ Defeat of the offender at the hands of the victim while death penalty does so ○ Conduct that triggered the sentence permanently ○ Criminal history ○ Reform Yes, committed to previous It helps diminish the criminal's wish to felonies, but stealing golf clubs commit crimes shouldn’t be sufficient to trigger 3-strike rule and get life Commonwealth v. Mochan No statutory or common law on the matter so not criminal ○ Nothing in statute or common law that said making lewd phone calls was a real crime NOT THE CASE TODAY Penal Theories ○ Presumption of Innocence Before presenting any evidence, the defendant is innocent Owens v. State very likely that he was drunk on his driveway or that he was drunk and operating his vehicle Presumed innocent, even if drunk in the car ○ Proof of guilt Innocent until the State proves Δ is guilty Beyond a reasonable doubt Proof of such convincing character that you would be willing to rely and act upon it w/out hesitation in the most importance of own affairs. ○ 7 standards of sentencing Δ (People v. Du) (1) Protect society (2) punish Δ for committing a crime (3) encourage Δ to lead a law-abiding life (4) deter others (5) secure restitution for victim (6) seek uniformity in sentencing Proportionality Two Part Test (Ewing v. California) ○ Proportional (Solem test) [AND TEST] The gravity of the offense v. harshness of the penalty Does Δ have OTHER criminal sentencing in SAME jdx? Does Δ have any criminal sentences for the SAME offense in ANOTHER jdx? ○ Penelogical purposes [OR TEST] Incapacitation Deterrence Retribution Individual deterrence Collective deterrence Rehabilitation (reform) Keeler v. Superior ○ What you write as a statute is really important to understand what is considered a criminal statute ○ Cannot convict someone for a criminal offense that was not considered an offense at the time In re Banks ○ Every word in the statute has to have a meaning Peeping tom case Secretly meaning intention of invading privacy ○ Lack of fair notice The Rule of Lenity ○ No more than a guess of what congress intended Capital Punishment (Death Penalty) ○ MPC 210.6 on death penalty Death Penalty sentencing is separate from trial Would permit under this ○ Measuring Dignity No excessive punishment Must not involve the unnecessary and wanton infliction of pain Must not be grossly out of proportion to the severity of crime ○ Breman dissent Moral concepts that state that punishments like the death penalty is no longer morally acceptable Ignores the intrinsic worth and human dignity of every person Whether or not human life has intrinsic worth ○ Marshall dissent No effective deterrence No evidence that the death penalty has led to a deterrence Retribution is the total denial of the wrongdoer’s dignity and worth Undermines the very concept the nation is built on A crime is (actus reus + mens rea) - affirmative defenses. Criminal Liability Actus Reus (+) Mens Reas Actus reus is the physical or external part of the crime Mens rea is the culpable state of mind ○ The guilty act Purpose of Mens Rea ○ The culpable act ○ New rule: continuing process of self-civiliation Three Components Understands that people sometimes do wrongs w/o intending to ○ (1) Forbidden Result (only a few result crimes) Sometimes changes law (some crimes no longer considered crime) Arson Determining Culpable State of Mind Battery ○ Common Law Homicide Guilty Mind Sexual Assault? Wrongful purpose ○ (2) Attendant Circumstance Engaging in wrongful purpose Circumstances that must be proven to a crime Malice Causation of forbidden result Regina v. Cunningham definition Social harm ○ An actual intention to do the particular harm that was done Common law: can be there but don’t always have to be present ○ Recklessness whether such harm should occur or not ○ (3) Conduct Criminal Intent Need voluntary act and omission General Intent Voluntary Act Specific Intent ○ Must be intentional and have some volitional component ○ MPC MPC Δ committed each material element of the charge offense w/ the particular Volitional acts are acts that are not voluntary state of mind required in the definition of the crime ○ (1) reflex The four culpable mindsets (it is a pyramid) ○ (2) unconscious movements Purpose ○ (3) bodily movement that is not a product of effort ○ conscious objective to perform an action of that nature or to Conscious or habitual cause such a result Common Law Can also include knowledge and recklessness Same nonvoluntary acts as the MPC ○ People v. Conley ○ Martin v. State Conscious objective Court said no voluntary act, therefore no crime Practically certain to be caused by the conduct ○ A voluntary act MUST be included Aggravated battery defined NOT all acts are voluntary Intentionally or knowingly causes great bodily harm, or State v Utter permanent disability, or disfigurement ○ Conditional response ○ intentionally is to accomplish the result or engage in Once trained to react a certain way, will respond the conduct described in the statute naturally ○ knowingly– consciously aware that the result Doesn’t reach actus reus portion described in the statute is practically certain to because ○ Act committed when one is unconscious is in not an by the conduct act at all Consciously aware that it could happen ○ Irresistible impulse (NOT THE SAME AS Knowledge CONDITIONAL RESPONSE) ○ conduct is of the required nature or that the prohibited result is Lack the ability to exercise will power to practically certain to follow from the conduct control act in accordance w/ rational judgement Lower standard than purpose Doesn’t reach mens rea portion ○ Willful blindness ○ Voluntary Intoxication is not enough to undermine actus reus State v. Nations (didn’t check ID for adult dancer) and mens reus Knowingly means Omission ○ Aware that those circumstances exist ○ Failure to perform legal duty ○ Aware of that high probability of its existence Different types of legal duty (People v. Beardsley) ○ Would have known had the person not willfully shut Common Law their eye ○ (1) Statute Missouri has not passed this part, not guilty as Statute imposes duty long as you don’t know ○ (2) relationship status ○ State v. Miles certain status relationship to another imposes Was knowingly in actual or constructive possession or duty knowingly attempted to become in actual possession of the ○ (3) contract illegal drug Assumed a contractual duty to care for Statutory Interpretation another (1) Can look at all this: ○ (4) voluntary assumption of care ○ Rules of grammar, logic, and other tools one has voluntarily assumed the care of (2) Also need to have common sense another and so secluded the helpless person ○ Be careful w/ this as to prevent others from rendering aid Recklessness ○ (5) creation of risk of harm ○ Conscious risk creation a person creates a risk of harm to another ○ aware that there is a risk to the conduct, NOT that you are aware ○ Justifications the risk will occur MPC ○ The probability is less than substantially certain ○ An omission is expressly stated in the statute Negligence ○ The duty to perform the omitted act is imposed by ○ It does NOT require awareness law ○ A person creates a substantial and unjustifiable risk of which ○ People v. Beardsley they ought to be aware Omission based on duty to care Only apply the first three if the statute is silent on culpability Must be legal 2.04 allows ignorance or mistake of fact to negate mens rea Not merely moral obligation U.S. v. Cordoba-Hincapie (intent to distribute) Imposed by law or contract ○ Thought they were carrying cocaine and not heroin Immediate and direct cause of death Convict on the crime you thought you were committing Barber v. Superior Court Strict Liability ○ Death defined ○ Mens rea strict liability refers when there is a violation of the law, but that law Cessation of hart and respiratory function does not necessarily see a distinction between someone who is KIND OF liable ○ Murder defined and someone who actually IS. Unlawful killing of another with malice and aforethought Disfavored in criminal law Unlawful meaning unjustifiable or inexcusable ○ Morissette v. United States (Public Welfare Offense) Malice can be expressed or implied Common Law Larceny ○ Expressed is when there is an intent unlawfully to take any life Requires specific intent to permanently deprive another of their ○ Implied is when there is an abandoned or malignant heart property ○ Cessation of Heroic Life Support ○ Abandonment is an exception to common law larceny Not an affirmative act Knowingly converts The withdrawal or omission of further treatment ○ Knowing conversion is taking something and believes another ○ Court says the no duty to continue treatment, once it has proved to be person sees value in it and continues to retain it ineffective Concurrence of evil meaning mind and evil-doing hand Proportionate treatment is the reasonable chance of providing benefits Combination of mens reas (evil-meaning mind) and actus reus weighed against the burdens attendant to the treatment (evil-doing hand) Disproportionate is the prognosis is virtually hopeless for any significant Strict liability for public welfare regulations that have small penalties improvement ○ Garnett v. State (statutory rape done by a low mentally capable person) Statutory rape punishes morally wrong behavior His mental age [etc..] did not matter Justifications for statutory rape Sophistication ○ Don’t want to deal w/ argument that minor is sexually sophisticated Verbal misrepresentation ○ Don’t want to deal w/ argument about minors lied about age Careful attempts to ascertain age ○ Should look at: physical appearances, need to find out age, willful blindness does not apply ○ Weaknesses of Strict Liability No awareness – not subject to punishment (stigma/moral blameworthiness) Tort law achieves deterrence Judicial efficiency – regulatory or administrative Small penalties distinguish “real” crime from lesser crime Careless drafting Dilutes the moral force of criminal law People v. Navarro ○ Mistake of Fact If no specific intent or special mental element, then mistake of fact will not excuse conduct unless it is reasonable As long as there is specific intent, no need to look for reasonableness People v. Marrero ○ Mistake of law Ignorance of the law is no excuse, unless The statute allows it When you are acting on a reasonable reliance upon a statement of law ○ Reliance on a statement of law from like an attorney When the statute is unconstitutionally vague When there are due process implications of convicting a person without knowledge of the law New York Penal Code Unless a good faith belief in the legality would negate an express and necessary element Causation Cause-in-Fact Proximate Cause Common Law MPC ○ Cause-in-fact is the ACTUAL cause of the crime ○ Does NOT use proximate cause, only uses but-for But for OR substantial factor Common Law But for ○ Proximate cause is an intervening cause of some kind ○ Would not have occurred “but for” the defendant’s actions Legal cause of the harm Would not have happened in the absence of Δ conduct legal fiction to end responsibility/liability Ask “but for” Δ conduct, would have the harm/injury still ○ Concurrence of the Elements have occurred? What happens when a number of different potential actions result in the Substantial factor course of the crime ○ Two persons acting independently together could’ve been the ○ Intervening causes but-for cause alone (both happened) “Act of God” Both actions meet C-I-F requirements Independent third party ○ Requires Act or omission of the victim Concurrent actions Victim did or failed to do something Happen independently but ○ 6- Factor Test (Rideout v. State) Would have equally caused the death of an individual De minims contribution ○ Acceleration Theory Very minor impact still have proximate cause Oxeydine v. State (bathtub case) Intended-consequence doctrine Lesser included offense is where the lesser offense had to occur for Intended for something to occur, have proximate cause the higher offense to occur Omission factor Oxeydine girlfriend pushed Oxeydine’s child into a bathtub and didn’t Omit conduct would the injury of occur still have occured take to the hospital. Child died. Responsive (yes) v. Coincidental (no) Acceleration degree of causation Responsive is reasonably expected to do something Requires that some secondary conduct accelerates the death Coincidental Tanya coming in ○ Makes it happen faster Apparent-safety doctrine Not relieved of responsibility if a later injury accelerated death → but Once in a safe position but take themselves out of safety for the infliction of a second injury Voluntary human intervention MPC ○ 2-factor test ○ Same thing Beyond the scope of any fair assessment of danger Unjust, based of fairness and beyong ○ Rideout v. State Intoxicated driver hits another car which causes it to spin out Check on person in the SUV and then returns to car Third party comes down the rode and hits the passenger and he dies ○ Velazquez v. State (drag race case) Two guys drag racing, and both fall into the canal One dies, the other survives 2-factor tets If it occurs during the drag race it would be a fair assessment Would not be unjust if it happened in the course of the drag raise For full caution, need both proximate cause and actual causation Intentional Homicide - Homicide is an unjustifiable and unexcused killing of a human being - Intentional homicides are conscious objectives to obtain the death OR knowledge that the conduct would cause a death - Death, as defined in Barber v. Superior Court, is - The cessation of the heart and respiratory function - Irrevrisble cessation of all brain function - NOW sufficient function to breathe is enough (not dead according to statute) 1st Degree Murder 2nd Degree Murder Voluntary Manslaughter Unlawful killing of another w/ malice aforethought unlawful killing of another w/ malice but no Manslaughter is the unlawful killing of another ○ Actus Reus premeditation without malice, upon a sudden squarrel of Voluntary Conduct: ○ Actus Reus ○ Actus Reus: unlawful killing of another Volunary Conduct: Volunary Conduct: Attendant Circumstance: unlawful killing unlawful killing another Attendant Circumstance: Attendant Circumstance: Forbidden Result: another another death Forbidden Result: Forbidden Result: ○ Mens rea death Death Malice aforethought ○ Mens Rea ○ Heat of passion Malice NO premeditation, it’s merely deliberate ○ Deliberate The intent to commit greviously bodily harm of No reasonable opportunity to cool off ○ Wanton, Thomas, and Phillips some sort ○ Provocation Test: Malice defined Rules of Provocation wanton disregard of human Deliberate Is there adequate provocation life Wanton, Thomas, and Phillips Test: Heat of passion ○ Implied malice ○ wanton disregard of human life No reasonable opportunity to cool Sometimes recklessness Implied malice off Aforethought ○ Sometimes recklessness ○ Premeditation Casual relationship between ○ Ability to perform the intent to State v. Guthrie (nose sensitive guy) provocation, passion, and fatal act kill ○ Guy who gets hit in the nose and snaps Standards for sufficient State v. Guthrie (nose sensitive guy) ○ Proper instructions for 1st Degree Discovery of adultery ○ Guy who gets hit in the nose and snaps Intentional, deliberate, and premeditated killing Mutual combat ○ Proper instructions for 1st Degree Time for prior consideration Assault and battery Intentional, deliberate, and premeditated Time varies based on minds and temperament Injury to relative or third party killing of different people Time for prior consideration Any interval of time between the forming of Resistance to unlawful arrest Time varies based on minds and the intent to kill and the execution for the intent Girouard v. State temperament of different people State v. Forrest (sick father case) Girouard’s wife said she reported Any interval of time between the forming ○ Guy who kills his father because his father was sick him to his sergeant of the intent to kill and the execution for ○ 6+ Test for deliberation and premeditation Grabs knife and puts it behind the intent No provocation pillow State v. Forrest (sick father case) Conduct and statements before and after ○ Guy who kills his father because the father Threats and declarations Stabs wife was sick Ill-will or previously difficult Mere words are not sufficient ○ 6+ Test for deliberation and premeditation Lethal blows after felled and rendered helpless provocation, need more No provocation Brutal manner Per Girouard Conduct and statements before and after Bonus: nature and bumber of wounds MPC says mere words are Threats and declarations The MPC does not distinguish between the degrees of provocation Ill-will or previously difficult murder ○ Extreme emotional disturbance Lethal blows after felled and rendered ○ whether the actor’s conscious disregard of the risk, helpless under the circumstances, manifests extreme Some emotional/ personal mental defect Brutal manner indifference to the value of human life State v. Guthrie (pillow knife case) Bonus: nature and bumber of wounds ○ Guthrie has a bunch of mental The MPC does not distinguish between the degrees disorders of murder Bipolar, Body Dysmorphia, specifically nose Has multiple panic attacks a day ○ Victim hits Guthrie in the nose, and Guthrie snaps and kills him MPC: People v. Casass acted under the influence of extreme emotional disturbance reasonable explanation or excuse for such extreme emotional disturbance Ordinarily recklessness fits manslaughter Unintentional Homicide Felony Murder Abandoned & Malignant Heart Involuntary Manslaughter When one causes the death of another while Unlawful killing of another w/ malice and Unlawful killing of another with reckless disregard for committing or attempting to commit an inherently recklessness human life dangerous felony ○ Actus Reus ○ Actus Reus ○ Actus Reus: Voluntary Conduct: unlawful killing Voluntary Conduct: unlawful killing Voluntary Conduct: Attendant Circumstances: another committing/attempting to commit Forbidden Result: death Attendant Circumstance: another Attendant Circumstance: ○ Mens Rea Forbidden Result death An inherently dangerous felony Malice ○ Mens Rea ○ Determined by the nature of the Implied malice standard General intent (any culpable mindset works) crime or/and by the manner in ○ Wanton disregard of human life Mere recklessness which it was perpetrated in a ○ Conscious disregard of the risk Reckless disregard for human life given set of circumstances that the act could result in ○ The defendant knew of a general Forbidden result: someone’s death or harm but do death not care risk and disregarded it ○ Mens Rea: deliberate Knew that it could happen Intent to commit the felony Recklessness but did it anyway Replaces malice aforethought Knew the risk would occur but ○ MPC: the same type of recklessness MPC does NOT recognize the felony murder rule, disregarded it Breach of duty of care instead, they apply something similar ○ Breach of duty for involuntary manslaughter ○ An implied malice within the conduct requires such recklessness demonstrates an More than mere negligence or simple extreme indifference to the value of negligence human life. Need gross negligence Inherently dangerous rule ○ Delaware Majority Rule ○ State v. Walter Look at the statute or law and the Native American parents failed to take their circumstance/context in which it was 17-month-old to the hospital perpetrated Child Welfare League of American ○ California Minority Rule removed Native American children Just look at the statute from home Who commits the killing (intervening cause and felony murder)--- Sophophone (cop kills co-felon Parental duty to provide medical care for after arresting felon) dependent child ○ Agency Approach negligence in providing medical Only applies when a person commits a attention felony that directly results in someone’s ○ Medical negligence is foreseeable death Gross medical negligence is NOT Has to be caused by the felon, co-felon, MPC: Negligent Homicide or agent for felony murder If a third party did the killing, it ○ homicide committed negligently breaks the chain ○ requires that the defendant SHOULD HAVE ○ Proximate Cause Approach KNOWN of the substantial and unjustified risk of The commission of the felony sets up the the forbidden result events that resulted in the death ○ does not exist in common law Can be guilty of any death that is ○ didn’t know about the risk, but failed substantially connected to the felony, even if a third party (non-felon) commits the killing from the standard of a reasonably prudent person Ireland Rule ○ The felony murder rule is inapplicable to felonies that are an integral part of and included, in fact within the homicide ○ explanation/justification for this If the homicide results from conduct for an independent felonious purpose than it is felony murder If the homicide results from a single court or conduct with a single purpose, then it is NOT felony murder The difference is in committing a felony and committing a felony in a manner that would cause some grievous bodily harm resulting in death Justifications for felony murder ○ Deterrence Deter violence during the commission of felonies Deterring dangerous felonies ○ Transferred intent Presumption of culpability felon's intent to commit a crime is sufficient to transfer to the intent to kill essentially relieves the state from the burden of proving premeditation and malice ○ Strict liability Did something wrong, so must be held to it justifies a conviction for murder simply on the basis that the defendant committed a crime and a murder occurred. eliminates the mental elements needed to convict a felon for a killing during the commission of a felony. General evil mind Rape Crimes RAPE STATUTORY RAPE Old Rule: vaginal intercourse of a woman, that’s not one’s wife, forcefully Sexual intercourse of an older person with a minor that cannot legally consent against her will w/o consent because of their age (their age makes their consent invalid) New Rule: sexual intercourse by force or threat of force and against the will of ○ Actus reus the victim w/o consent Voluntary conduct: sexual intercourse ○ Actus Reus Attendant circumstance: an older person, minor, Voluntary Conduct: sexual intercourse Forbidden Result: none Attendant Circumstance: by force or threat of force, against the will of ○ Mens rea: victim, w/o consent Strict liability Forbidden Result: none/rape Do not care what your mental state is ○ Mens rea: Policy reasons behind statutory rape: General intent ○ Justifications for statutory rape Purpose Statutory rape punishes morally wrong behavior Knowledge Sophistication Reckless Don’t want to deal w/ argument that minor is sexually sophisticated Negligent Verbal misrepresentation Force can be Don’t want to deal w/ argument about minors lied about age ○ Physical/nonphysical force Careful attempts to ascertain age Actual force does not need to be shown Should look at: physical appearances, need to find out age, willful State v. Berkowitz blindness does not apply ○ It can also be moral, psychological, or intellectual force used to Garnett v. State (statutory rape done by a low mentally capable person) compel a person to engage in sexual intercourse against the ○ Garnett, 20 yrs, had mental state (social level) of an 11-12 yr old, IQ 52, person’s will etc… and had sex with a 14 yr old Moral = appealing to one’s morality His mental age [etc..] did not matter Psychological = abusing a position of authority ○ Found guilty of statutory rape Intellectual = perpetrator convincing you that having sex with them is a good thing ○ Constructive force State v. Altson Guy that waits at the school door of ex-gf and rapes her ○ Had hit her before The court said no constructive force because general fear was not sufficient to show force Actual physical force need not be shown in order to establish force sufficient to constitute an element of the crime of rape, threats of serious bodily harm which reasonably induced fear is sufficient ○ Threats of physical force or actual force enough to overcome the victim’s will to resist ○ Threats of bodily harm Either explicit or implied State v. Rusk ○ The guy takes the key to the girl’s car and makes her go to his apartment ○ The victim asks Rusk if she does what he asks if he won’t kill her, and he says yes ○ Threats of physical force or actual force enough to overcome the victim’s will to resist Judge Wilner: verbal resistance is resistance Mens rea ○ Consent MTS: no affirmative consent; force enough for sexual penetration “The State must prove beyond a reasonable doubt that there was sexual penetration and that it was accomplished without the affirmative freely-given permission of the alleged victim.” “The State must demonstrate either defendant did not actually believe that affirmative permission had been freely-given or that such a belief was unreasonable under all of the circumstances.” ○ Commonwealth v. Lopez the defendant’s mistake about whether the victim consented must be BOTH honest and reasonable. There is no requirement that that the defendant intended the intercourse to be without consent Rape Shield Laws ○ State v Herndon Prior sexual conduct and reputation Harassing and humiliating No bearing on consent in this case The jury can focus on relevant issues in this case Survivor is more likely to report May look at Unique pattern of conduct Bias or motive to fabricate ○ State v. Wilhelm: Conduct with a third-party, even in close proximity to sexual conduct, is prejudicial and not relevant ○ Have rape shield laws because: Protects both public and private conduct Consensual activates with a third party are not relevant to activities with them MPC ○ 1st Degree: all of the above mentioned in the 2nd degree, PLUS ACTUALLY, inflicting serious bodily injury upon anyone OR The victim was not a voluntary social companion of the actor upon the occasion of the crime and had not previously permitted him sexual liberties ○ 2nd Degree: sexual intercourse when a male has it with a woman not his wife if he compels her to submit by force or by threat of imminent death, serious bodily injury, extreme pain or kidnapping does not require physical force or resistance, just compulsion ○ Since there is no mens rea specified for Rape, the prosecutor must at least prove recklessness The defendant’s mistake must merely be honest to vitiate the mens rea Inchoate Crimes - Assault includes both the completed offense and the attempt to commit the offense - This encompasses the former offense of mayhem, battery, and assault - A battery is more broad - Attempt to commit battery or assault - Attempt to commit a violent injury Attempt Conspiracy Solicitation Accomplice Liability An act intended to bring about the an agreement between two or more Asking, inciting, or counseling of First degree [perpetrator] substantive crime through a persons to commit an unlawful act or another to commit a crime for them ○ Do it physically themselves substantial step toward the series of unlawful acts ○ Actus Reus Commits the actual crime commission of the offense but for ○ Actus Reus: Voluntary Conduct: asking, (commits every element) unforeseen interruption it did not Voluntary Conduct: an counseling, inciting ○ Engage in the act occur agreement Attendant circumstances: Second degree [abettors] ○ It is an act that brings us into the Attendant circumstance: another, to commit a crime, ○ Present when the crime was dangerous proximity to the between two or more persons, for them committed completion of the crime with the to commit an unlawful act Forbidden Circumstances: Does not actually do the intent to carry out the underlying ○ Mens Rea none crime crime Dual intent crime ○ Mens Rea: ○ Aid, counsel, and encourage the Have to analyze the acts Intent to agree/combine Requires the intent to for crime taken to commit the with other another person to commit the Accessories before the fact [inciter] underlying crime (ie. Intent to accomplish a crime for them ○ One who is guilty of aiding and analyzing the elements of crime (illegal objective) Solicitation is sometimes viewed as encourage the crime larceny) Does not require that the crime be more dangerous than conspiracy. ○ NOT present in the commission MPC accomplished ○ Solicitation mergers with other of the crime ○ Seriously dedicated to the ○ Can be charged w/ underlying crime Accessories after the fact [criminal commission of a crime crime State v. Mann protectors] ○ Disposed to criminal activity Pinkerton v. United States: brothers ○ The court says that the person ○ Acknowledges the others guilt ○ Failure to commit due to fortuity tax fraud case soliciting is more intelligent and and assist after the crime has ○ Punished at the same level, ○ brother s agreed to commit crime masterful than the efforts of the been committed except for capital crimes but one brother becomes hireling ○ Can mislead police officer, hide Treated as a second degree incarcerated The person who commits it is offender, held evading law crime ○ Continuous conspiracy less morally culpable, only ○ ALSO NOT PRESENT DURING Actus Reus: Must have affirmative action interested in getting their part CRIME ○ Voluntary Conduct: An act to establish withdrawal from State v. Cotton Note: accessories can only be held ○ Attendant circumstances: the conspiracy ○ Husband who writes letters to guilty if the principal is found guilty dangerous proximity, to An overt act of one partner wife so she can convince ○ Only tried first than principal if completion, underlying crime may be the act of all step-daughter to not testify they waive that right Mens Rea People v. Swain against him ○ If the principal is tried first and is ○ Dual intent crime: ○ Drive by shooting case where guy ○ If with the intent that another acquitted, than the accessory is Intent to carry out the boast in jail about having good person engage in conduct acquitted underlying crime aim constituting a felony, he solicits, State v. Hoselton Intent to engage in conduct ○ Conspiring hints that a plan must commands, requests, induces, ○ Group of friends that break into a that constitutes the beginning be formed employs, or otherwise attempts to barge of perpetration Cannot conspire or plan to be promote or facilitate another ○ Lookout defined People v. Gentry: substantial step in reckless person to engage in conduct “[B]y prearrangement, murder People v. Lauria constituting a felony within or keeping watch to avoid ○ Guy who pours gasoline on his ○ Prostitutes who use telephone without the state. interception or detection or to girlfriend and she catches on fire service of defendant ○ If statute: provide warning during the ○ Attempted murder is when with ○ Criminal liability requires Intends to communicate and perpetration of the crimes intent to commit the offense of Knowledge of the illegal use as long as it’s designed to thereby participating in the murder does any act which of the lawful goods or service communicate it is solicitation offense charged” constitutes a substantial step Intent to further the illegal use if common law requires ○ Need to have knowledge or toward the commission of the ○ Precedent for inferred intent actual communication, it is an receive something from it offense of murder. The offense Acquired a stake in the attempt if the communication Riley v. State attempt need not have been venture is not met ○ Two guys that shot a bonfire w/ completed. No legitimate use for the young people For attempted murder must goods or services exists MPC have the intent to kill When the volume of business ○ With the purpose of promoting or Need purpose is grossly disproportionate to facilitating the commission of the Last Act Test any legitimate demand offense they ○ Commonwealth v. Peasley When illegal use is a higher Solicit the other person to Peasley sets up contraption portion of the total business commit it that would cause a fire, but Positive knowledge of a Aid or agree or attempt to aid abandons on his way to felony and the continued the other person in planning activate it provision of service or committing it ○ Mere preparation is not enough, ○ Intent has to be based on Having a legal duty to needs to be something more knowledge prevent the commission of People v. Rizzo Direct evidence that they the offense, fail to make ○ Guys who try to rob this man but intended to participate, or proper effort to do so can’t find their victim Through an inference that ○ If they act w/ the kind of ○ Determining proximity they intend to participate culpability, if any, with respect to So near to the result that the based on: that result that is sufficient for the danger of success is great Special interest in commission of the offense Very near to the activity Rule (are an accomplice when) [also accomplishment of the crime The aggravated nature of applies to MPC] If you are still looking for the crime ○ Solicit, encourage, or assist your victim, no attempt Commonwealth v. Azim ○ w/ intent to promote or facilitate occurs because opportunity ○ Guy that drives the car while other the commission of the offense never came to attempt two guys beat up a Uni student ○ w/ whatever culpable mental state ○ How to measure proximity ○ Conspiracy can be established is required for the underlying How near it is through circumstantial evidence crime Substantiality of the harm Relationship, State v. Linscott Degree of social conduct, ○ Guys who goes rob cocaine apprehension circumstance of the parties, dealer and one is trigger happy State v. Reeves and ○ Liability for the Primary Crime ○ Two girls who try to poison overt act To convict someone have to teacher with rat poison People v. Foster prove that a person ○ Kind of culpability otherwise ○ Two guys agree to commit a intended to promote or required for the offense crime, but the other one was lying facilitate the primary Intentionally engages in and turned the other guy into the crime and that action or causes result cops the secondary crime Acts with the intent to cause ○ Unilateral conspiracy is not was a foreseeable a result accepted in majority of states consequence of Acts with the intent to participation in the complete… and the conduct primary crime constitutes a substantial step State v. Helmstein toward the commission of the ○ Group of drunk friends who offense break into a grocery store Commonwealth v. McCloskey ○ Testimony of an other ○ Inmate that tries to escape from accomplices prisons but abandons halfway No conviction, unless ○ Abandonment/Withdrawl corroborated by such other When a person abandons the evidence as tends to connect act, they are merely the defendant to with the contemplating commission of the offense Corroboration is insufficient, if it merely shows the commission of the offense or the circumstances thereof Need something else other than co-accomplices saying that X was an accomplice People v. Genova ○ Guy who gave cop $10,000 to distribute drug Charged with the attempt to intent to distribute ○ Aided and Abetted Underlying crime was committed Performed acts or gave encouragement which aided and assisted Intended the commission or had knowledge the principal intended the commission Bailey v. Commonwealth ○ two old men who fight and one calls cops so the other gets shot ○ Causation in accomplice liability An intervening act which is reasonably foreseeable does not break the chain of causal connection US v. Lopez (couple who escapes prison) ○ Excuses (duress) do not extend to accomplices because they are personal Justifications (necessity) do In re Meagan R ○ Can’t aid and abet in a crime in which you are a protected class of a person Can’t aid and abet in your own statutory rape State v. Formella (friends who go steal test) ○ To terminate liability Terminates complicitly before the crime AND Gives timely warning of law enforcement Other Types of Liability Vicarious Liability Corporate Liability As a general rule employer Can be guilty for the specific intent crime of an agent, when ○ The employer has no responsibility for criminal activity of employees, unless ○ The agent was acting within course and scope of employment consents, approves, or participates ○ The agent was acting at least in part, in furtherance of the corporate interest ○ The criminal act was authorized, tolerated, or ratified by corporate management Theft Rule: Burglary ○ Breaking and entering into the dwelling place of another, committed at night without permission with felonious intent Rule: Larceny ○ Common law: The trespassory taking and carrying away of the property of another, w/o their consent, and with the felonious intent to permanently deprive the owner of its possession. Possession can be actual or constructive Actual: physical control Constructive: control and dominion Felonious Intent: to permanently deprive the owner of their possession ○ Larceny by false pretenses a false representation w/ intent to defraud; obtaining both possession and title the false representation is when you present something valid and must be relied on ○ Larceny by trick obtaining the possession of another's property (w/o title) by fraud fraud removes consent and replaces trespass ○ Embezzlement Conversion of property received in a non-trespassory manner by someone who received it in trust for another Have to have legal possession at the time and convert it ○ Converts the property to their own use – uses the property in a manner that manifests the intent to permanently deprive. taking possession of the property of another in a lawful, non-trespassory, manner. ○ Mail, Wire, and Computer fraud. For wire fraud, it must be knowing and willing participation in a scheme or artifice to defraud with the specific intent to defraud. The use of interstate wire communications in furtherance of the scheme ○ For computer fraud, Obtaining anything of value by fraud through the use of a computer General Defenses Defenses ○ The formalistic distinction A statute that incorporates a defense into the crime impermissibly shifts the burden to the Defendant A statute that has a separate “affirmative defense” does not impermissibly shift the burden to the Defendant ○ 2 types of defense Denial Defense: defendant argues the prosecutor failed to meet their burden of proof in showing that the defendant met the requirements of the crime Failure of proof Offense modification Affirmative: prosecution has met their burden of proof, but defendant provides other evidence that justifies or excuses their behavior and mitigates the defendant from punishment Justification ○ Extend to co conspirators Excuses Do not extend to anyone else ○ 5 general categories Failure of proof The failure of the state to meet its burden You cannot prove all the elements of an offense Offense modification All the elements of the offense are proved, but NOT the cause of the harm we are trying to prevent Not part of the category of persons that the crime is meant to punish Justification (what we want you to do) The elements are met, and the harm occurs, but the harm is outweighed by avoiding a greater harm or societal interest Focuses on the conduct Excuses The elements of the offense are met, the harm occurs, and the harm does not outweigh another harm or societal interest, but conditions suggest no responsibility ○ Not responsible for the behavior Some condition of that person made them act in a way that is not act Focuses on the person Nonexulpatory public policy The elements are met, the harm occurs, and there is culpability, but some public policy outweighs a conviction ○ Self Defense allows a person to use physical force upon another person when and to the extent he reasonably believes he is defending himself from what he reasonably believes to be the use of imminent use of force. Can be a justification “Elements” A threat is actual or apparent of deadly force, must be unlawful and immediate Must believe there is an imminent peril of death or serious bodily harm Response is necessary to save themselves therefrom Mere words do not constitute provocation or aggression not available if you are the aggressor in a conflict culminating in death Different ground where self-defense can be use Duty to retreat, if you have a safe retreat, you cannot use deadly force Stand your ground ○ You can stand your ground and use deadly force whenever it seems reasonably necessary to save your life Castle doctrine ○ You can use deadly force and do not have to retreat if you are in your home ○ Self Defense of Other allows a person to use physical force upon another person when and to the extent he reasonably believes he is defending another from what he reasonably believes to be the use of imminent use of force. Justification and exculpation defense If proven, one can be completely relieved of criminal liability ○ Self Defense of Property/Habitation does not require the felon to be inside the house when committing the felony require that the person seeking to commit a felony is assaulting the home to commit a VIOLENT felony Justified only if defendant reasonably believed that the commission of a felony in his home was immediately at hand and that it was necessary to kill the intruder to prevent that occurrence Deadly force is not allowed of property is a lower threshold, only have to prove a forceful entry into home and a violent felony ○ Necessity (defense of choice of evils) physical force of nature that negates actus reus. requires that the harm is not disproportionate, there must be an adequate alternative and must prevent a greater evil. MPC: Must actually believe that the conduct is necessary to avoid evil The evil or harm avoided must be greater The balancing of evils is a matter for trial necessity is not available if the legislature has addressed the situation. ○ Duress (1) An immediate threat of death or serious bodily harm Immediate is the threat must be present, immediate and NOT impending Cannot be a veiled threat of future harm (2) a well-grounded fear that the threat will be carried out (3) no reasonable opportunity to escape the threatened harm ○ Criminal Insanity: an affirmative defense of an excuse that extinguishes criminal liability M’Nagthen (cognitive) Did not know the nature and quality o