Criminal Law Outline-5 PDF

1 Table of Contents Introductory Material 2 Punishment 2 Legality 3 Actus Reus...

1 Table of Contents Introductory Material 2 Punishment 2 Legality 3 Actus Reus 3 Voluntary Act 3 Omissions 5 Social Harm 5 Mens Rea 6 Intent 6 Knowledge-“Willful Blindness” 8 Strict Liability 8 Mistake of Fact 9 Mistake of Law 10 Causation 12 Actual Cause 12 Proximate Cause 13 Homicide 16 Intentional Killings 16 Murder 20 Manslaughter 21 Unintentional Killings 22 Reckless 22 Negligent 22 Felony Murder 22 Misdemeanor Manslaughter 25 Defenses 25 Self Defense 25 Defense of Others 27 Defense of Property/ Habitation 28 Necessity 29 Civil Disobedience 31 Duress 31 Insanity 32 Attempt 34 Mens Rea 34 Actus Reus 35 Impossibility 36 Abandonment 37 Solitiation 39 Conspiracy 39 Mens Rea 40 Actus Reus 41 Bilateral or Unilateral 41 Accomplice Liability 42 Mens Rea 43 Actus Reus 44  2 Actus Reus + Mens Rea→ Result= Crime (Causation) I. Introductory Material A. Nature of Criminal Law and Procedure Context 1. Pre-Trial a) Alleged crime-> arrest made (if the police pursue the case, many cases arrests never are made due to probable cause needed)-> preliminary hearing (in many states within two weeks after arrest) (judge must determine if the arrest was justified) ->prosecutor in some states to file an “information” in the trial court and proceed to trial-> many states then must be indicted by a grand jury-> accused can then make various pretrial motions which can lead to dismissal of charges if successful-> D may just plead guilty rather than go to trial due to a guilty pleas 2. Trial a) Opening Arguments -------Prosecution’s case-in-chief-----prosecution rests----D’s present evidence-----(rebuttal for the purpose of rebutting the defense case) ----Jury instructions-----Jury deliberation------>verdict B. Punishment 1. Theories: a) Retribution – “just desserts”/moral blameworthiness (backward-looking) (1) You get what you deserve b) Utilitarianism – greatest good for the greatest purpose (forward-looking) (1) Punishment must benefit the society; greatest good for the greatest number c) Deterrence – Deter the person or others from committing crimes (1) Specific – Def. decides not to commit future crimes (little evidence of this) (2) General – Other people see punishment, decide not to commit a crime d) Incapacitation – take person out of circulation (1) Put people in a place where they cannot do this again e) Rehabilitation – alter Def.’s basic character and improve their skills (no longer dominant) (1) Have people come out of punishment better off so that they will not do it again 2. Forms: a) Monetary fines b) Probation/parole c) Home detention d) Incarceration  3 e) Mass incarceration spikes C. Legality 1. Legality Principle: Nullum crimen sine lege, nulla poena sine lege: No crime without preexisting law, no punishment without preexisting law 2. Rule of Lenity: If a statute can reasonably be interpreted favorably to the govt, and equally favorably to the defendant, it should be read in the light more favorable to the defendant a) Biased in favor of the accused if the term is ambiguous 3. 3 elements: a) Criminal statutes should be understandable to ordinary law-abiding persons b) Criminal statutes should be crafted so that that do not delegate basic policy matters to policemen, judges, juries for resolution on an ad hoc and subjective basis c) Judicial interpretation of ambiguous statutes should be biased in favor of the accused (Lenity Doctrine) 4. Keeler v. Superior Court: Legality Principle- a) Facts: Robert Keeler attacked his ex-wife, who was pregnant with another man's child, intending to harm the fetus. The fetus was stillborn, with a skull fracture that could have been caused by the attack. The fetus was viable at the time of the attack, meaning it could have survived if born prematurely. Keeler was charged with murder under California Penal Code § 187, which criminalizes the murder of a 'human being'. Keeler appealed the charge. b) Courts construe a penal statute as favorably to the D as its language and the circumstances of its application may reasonably permit (lenity principle); just as in the case of a question of fact, the D is entitled to the benefit of every reasonable doubt as to the true interpretation of words or the construction of language used in a statute. D. Elements: Theft and Other Offenses 1. Prosecution must prove each element of a crime beyond a reasonable doubt 2. Lawyers must: a) (1) Identify what is charged, (2) Isolate/record each element, (3) prove each element beyond a reasonable doubt II. Actus Reus- Physical or external part of the crime A. The physical or external part of the crime; actus expressing the voluntary physical movement in the sense of conduct 1. A “bad act.” There is no universally accepted definition but the most common definition of the term would include both the conduct and the harmful result. B. Voluntary Act- Voluntary does not necessarily mean intentional, voluntary act that results in harm can be done without intent to do that harm:  4 Actus Reus- Common Law: Actus Reus- MPC (2.01 (1) & (2)): Voluntary act + Social harm No definition of voluntary act, but defines Voluntary act: conscious bodily movement, the involuntary act (essentially must be a physically physical component of the crime capable act) Cannot be convicted of crime in absence of Social harm: negation, endangering, or destruction of conduct of which you are physically capable an individual, group, or state interest, which is deemed ○ Reflex or convulsion socially valuable ○ Bodily movement unconsciousness or sleep ○ Deemed essence of all crime ○ Bodily movement under hypnotic Involuntary acts: serve as a defense, because suggestion “consciousness” is requirement of actus reus ****many states have rejected this category because they believe that a person who is under hypnosis still has power to control her behavior ○ Bodily movement that otherwise is not a product of the effort or determination of the actor, either conscious or habitual 1. Martin v. State a) Facts: Martin was arrested at his home for being drunk and using bad language. He was then put in a police car. He was charged with being drunk and behaving badly in a public place. Martin was found guilty under a law that says anyone who is drunk and behaves badly in a public place where other people are present can be fined. b) Holding: Yes. One convicted of being drunk in a public place must have voluntarily placed himself there c) Rule: Criminal liability may only be imposed when the unlawful conduct is committed voluntarily (1) Martins voluntary action was presupposed. His actions were involuntary because the policemen were the ones who brought him to the highway where he established the drunkenness. He did not voluntarily go to the highway, he was drunk at home. 2. State v. Utter a) Facts: Mr. Utter, who had been drinking a lot, was accused of stabbing his son. His son went into his apartment, cried out, came out with a stab wound, and said his dad had stabbed him before he died. Mr. Utter said he didn't remember what happened and that his actions were a conditioned response, meaning he automatically reacted violently to people who surprised him because of his training in World War II. The court didn't accept this defense and told the jury to ignore it. Mr. Utter was found guilty of manslaughter and he appealed.  5 b) Holding- There was insufficient evidence to prove whether Utter stabbed his son due to his conditioned response, this defense should not have reached the jury. c) Rule:A defendant’s act occurring during an unconscious or automatistic state is not a basis for criminal liability. C. Omissions (Negative Acts) = Generally, no duty to help, unless a legal duty to act exists: Omissions- Common Law: Omissions- MPC (2.01 (3)): General Rule: There is no crime for failure to act, Same as Common Law, generally unless a legal duty exists Person is not guilty of any offense unless his Duties Today: conduct “includes a voluntary act or the omission to ○ Statute imposes duty (Ex- to report child perform an act of which he is physically capable” abuse if you are working in the school (3) Liability for the commission of an offense may system, to file taxes) not be based on an omission unaccompanied by ○ Status relationship (Ex- parent to child, action unless; spouse to spouse) ○ (a) The omission is expressly made ○ Contractual duty (Ex- lifeguards, EMTs, sufficient by the law defining the offense; or firefighters, babysitters, caretakers, etc) ○ (b) A duty to perform the omitted act is ○ Voluntarily assuming the care of another otherwise imposed by law (Ex- if you are taking care of a sick family member) ○ You created the peril for the person (Ex- driver hits a pedestrian) Must aid after causing the harm 1. Bad Samaritan laws – have been enacted in a few jurisdictions and make it an offense to not come to the aid of another in specified circumstances 2. People v. Beardsley a) Facts: Mr. Beardsley, a married man, invited Ms. Burns to his apartment while his wife was away. They drank together and Ms. Burns stayed at his place for a few days. During this time, she took some morphine tablets and became unconscious. Mr. Beardsley asked a neighbor to look after her, but she died. Mr. Beardsley was then accused of causing her death by not taking care of her. b) Rule: No duty of care unless under limited circumstance that creates a legal duty. Legal duty is not created by moral obligation. D. Social Harm 1. Result crimes a) Law punishes defendant for harm resulting from acts/omissions b) A crime affects the victim and society 2. Conduct crimes a) Law prohibits specific behavior (i.e., DUI)  6 b) There is no tangible sense of social harm when a person commits a conduct crime, but in another sense, there is social harm – person harms society’s values III. Mens Rea- = Mental or internal part of a crime A. The guilty mind – broad definition; mental state that the law requires – narrow definition B. Most crimes require some kind of mens rea 1. In CL, not all elements require a mens rea 2. In MPC, every actus reus element should be “covered” by some sort of mens rea element C. Nature of Mens Rea 1. United States v. Cordoba-Hincapie a) History of mens rea: guilty mind, guilty or wrongful purpose, criminal intent b) Actus non facit reum nisi mens sit rea: a bad act does not make the doer of it guilty, unless the mind be guilty; that is unless the intent be criminal (crim law mantra) 2. Regina V. Cunningham a) Facts: Roy Cunningham stole money from a gas meter in an empty house, but didn't turn off the gas. The gas went into a nearby house and hurt an old woman. Cunningham admitted to stealing, but was also charged with a crime for causing harm to another person in a dangerous way. The judge told the jury that 'malice' meant being 'wicked', and Cunningham was found guilty. He then appealed to a higher court. b) Holding: don’t know if jury would have decided with correct definition of malice, verdict is dismissed c) Rule: Malice must mean the actual intention to do the harm done or recklessness as to whether the harm would occur or not (narrow, elemental conception) D. Intent 1. People v. Conley a) Facts: Conley was charged with a serious form of battery after he attacked Sean O'Connell. This happened when Conley tried to hit Marty Carroll with a wine bottle for not giving him a beer, but hit O'Connell instead. O'Connell got really hurt, with broken jaws and teeth, and even had to have surgery. The law says that if someone hurts another person on purpose or knowingly in a way that causes permanent damage, it's considered aggravated battery. The court found Conley guilty of this, but Conley didn't agree and appealed.  7 b) Holding: sufficient evidence to prove that Conley had the requisite intent. c) Rule: Problems of proof are alleviated [by] the ordinary [inference] that one intends the natural and probable consequences of his actions (inference instead of presumption, because presumption unconstitutional) 2. Common law mens rea a) General Intent – no mental state specified except for mental state necessary to do actions b) Specific Intent – A specific, particular intent in addition to any action necessary for the crime itself future act, special motive, awareness of circumstance (1) Specific Intent statutes – “with intent to” c) Three ways of differentiating specific and general intent: (1) Courts occasionally denominate an offense as “general intent” when no particular mental state is set out in the definition of the crime. In that case, the prosecutor only has to show that the social harm occurred with a morally blameworthy state of mind. In this case, specific intent would be when a mental state is clearly set out in the definition of the crime (2) Courts sometimes use specific intent to denote an offense that contains in its definition the mens rea element of intent. General intent in those courts would be reserved for crimes that have a lower threshold of culpability like recklessness or negligence (3) Maybe most common → courts use specific intent to describe a crime that contains in this definition “a special mental element above and beyond any mental state required with respect to the actus reus of the crime” (a) The special mental element will fall into one of three categories (i) Intention to commit some future act separate from the actus reus of the offense—Ex- possession of marijuana with intent to sell (ii) Special motive or purpose for committing the actus reus—Ex- offensive contact with the intent to cause humiliation (iii) Awareness of an attendant circumstance—Ex-intentional sale of porn to someone under 18 years E. Model Penal Code §2.02 mens rea (elemental approach) 1. Purposely – conscious object to engage in conduct or produce result 2. Knowingly – aware and practically certain that results will follow 3. Recklessly – conscious disregard of a risk 4. Negligently – unaware of risk, but should be aware  8 F. Knowledge- "willful blindness” problem 1. State v. Nations a) Facts: Sandra Nations owned a club where police saw a young girl dancing for tips. Nations said she checked the girl's ID when she hired her and that the girl wasn't underage. The girl didn't have an ID and told police she was sixteen. Nations was charged with endangering a child under seventeen. The law says the state has to prove Nations knew the girl was underage. b) Holding- state failed to show Nations had the knowledge required for this crime, Nations purposefully chose not to know. c) Rule: Where a statute requires knowledge of a fact as an element of a crime, it is insufficient to prove the defendant was aware of the high probability of that fact’s existence, unless the statute provides otherwise. (1) MO legislature designs knowledge of the child’s age as “actual knowledge of the fact” and not a highly probable knowledge (deviation from MPC, under MPC you don’t get to be willfully blind) Result Elements (Homicide): Conduct Elements (Ex: DUI): Circumstance Elements (Ex: Statutory Rape) Purposely Conscious object to cause that Conscious object to engage in Aware those circumstances exist result that conduct Knowingly Aware that it is practically Aware that his conduct is of that Aware those circumstances exist certain that the conduct will nature cause result Recklessly Conscious disregard of N/A Conscious disregard of substantial substantial and unjustifiable risk and unjustifiable risk Negligently Unreasonable lack of awareness N/A Unreasonable lack of awareness of of substantial and unjustifiable substantial and unjustifiable risk risk G. Strict Liability Offenses= without regard to fault or mens rea a) No mental state required, unless one is written in the stature or clearly intended by the legislature b) If offense is strict liability, no defense for making a mistake c) Strict liability typically imposed for two types of crimes: (1) Public welfare offenses (a) Ex- speeding (2) Common law morality crimes (a) Ex- statutory rape, bigamy, and adultery 2. Garnett v. State  9 a) Facts: Raymond Garnett, a mentally handicapped 20-year-old with the social development of an 11 or 12-year-old, had sexual intercourse with a 13-year-old girl named Erica Frazier. They met in late 1990 and had sex in February 1991. Maryland's law says that it's second degree rape if someone four years or older than the victim has sex with someone under 14. The law also says it's second degree rape if someone has sex with a mentally handicapped, mentally incapacitated, or physically helpless person and they know or should know about the victim's condition. The punishment for second degree rape in Maryland is up to twenty years in prison. b) Holding- Maryland legislature clearly intended for this statute to impose strict liability for rape. c) Rule: If the legislature (looked at legislative history) specifically intends for strict liability to be applied (to protect young persons from the dangers of sexual exploitation) then strict liability must be applied 3. Morissette v. United States a) Facts: Morissette, a scrap metal dealer, took old bomb casings from an Air Force range and sold them. He was charged with 'knowingly converting' government property, which means he knew he was taking something that wasn't his. He said he thought the government didn't want the casings anymore. The judge told the jury they only needed to decide if Morissette intended to take the property, not whether he knew it was wrong. Morissette was found guilty and appealed. b) Holding: trial judge wrongly instructed jury that it was not allowed to consider Morissette’s honest belief, judgment reversed. c) Rule: Acts that are bad in themselves, including larceny, require the element of mens rea, and any similar strict-liability statute will not be construed as eliminating the mens rea element. H. Mistake of Fact 1. Claim that the defendant did not have the necessary mens rea for the crime because the defendant made a mistake or was ignorant of a fact sh had known to be guilty of the charged offense a) If the crime is labeled a specific intent offense, it is much more likely that the defendant will be entitled to a mistake of fact defense than if the crime has been labeled as general intent offense 2. People v. Navarro a) Facts: Navarro took four wooden beams from a construction site and was found guilty of petty theft. He said he thought the beams were abandoned or that he had permission to take them. He argued that if he truly believed this, he couldn't be guilty of theft, even if his belief was unreasonable. But the court told the jury that Navarro could only be not guilty if his belief was reasonable.  10 b) Holding: Unreasonable mistake can be a defense, Navarro can’t be guilty of theft. c) Rule: An honest mistake of fact is a defense to a specific intent crime regardless of whether the mistake was unreasonable. I. Mistake of Law 1. People v. Marrero a) Facts: Marrero, a federal corrections officer, was arrested for having a loaded gun without a license. The law said 'peace officers' didn't need a license, and Marrero thought he was a 'peace officer'. The court said he wasn't a 'peace officer' and found him guilty. Marrero wanted the jury to consider that he honestly thought he was a 'peace officer', but the court said no. Marrero appealed this decision. b) Holding- upheld Marrero was guilty- court said too many people would claim to misunderstand the law. c) Rule: Mistake of law does not relieve criminal liability. 2. NO defense for cultural differences 3. Defense for: a) Misled by government officials, lawyer, & no reasonable notice of the law. Mens Rea- Common Law: Mens Rea- MPC: Intent Generally: Intent Generally: 2.01 Purposely (intent) = Conscious object Intentionally: when the conscious objective or purpose ○ A person acts purposely if it is the is to accomplish that result or engage in that conduct defendant’s goal or aim to engage in General Intent: particular conduct or achieve a certain ○ The intent to perform the act that constitutes result the crime, without any additional purpose or Knowingly (intent) = Practically certain objective. ○ A person acts knowingly if she is virtually ○ No particular mental state is set out in the or practically certain that her conduct will definition of the crime lead to a particular result ○ Requires: Recklessly = Conscious risk taking Only the intent to perform an unlawful ○ A person acts recklessly if she realizes act that there is a substantial and unjustifiable Specific Intent: risk that her conduct will cause harm but ○ A crime that requires an additional mental consciously disregards the risk state, such as the intent to bring about a Negligently = Not aware, but should have known particular result or achieve a specific goal ○ If law is silent, default is purposely, beyond the act itself. knowingly, or recklessly With the specific purpose to cause the ○ A person acts negligently if she is harm OR unaware of and takes a risk that an While knowing the harm would result ordinary person would not take. ○ Many statutes use the words “with intent to” to  11 describe the crime as a specific intent offense Transferred Intent: Transferred Intent: No transferred intent When defendant intends to do an action to one person The MPC does not require a rigid "transfer" of but intent because its framework is focused on accidentally does it to another whether the harm caused aligns with the mental Mens rea transfers victim to victim, but not across state required for the crime. different crimes Wilful Blindness= deliberate avoidance of acquiring Wilful Blindness= deliberate avoidance of acquiring knowledge of attendant circumstances: knowledge of attendant circumstances: Majority rule: For “knowingly,” only have to be aware Aligns with majority rule of the high probability of the fact – requires: For “knowingly,” defendant only has to be aware ○ (1) Defendant subjectively believes there is a of the high probability of the fact high probability that the fact exists AND UNLESS Defendant actually believes that the ○ (2) Defendant takes deliberate actions to avoid fact doesn’t exist learning of the fact Minority rule: For “knowingly,” need actual knowledge of the fact Mistake of Fact = honest mistake about attendant Mistake of Fact: 2.04= honest mistake about attendant circumstances: circumstances: “Ignorance or mistake…. Is a defense when it Where a law requires specific intent, mistake need negatives the existence of a state of mind that is only be held in good faith essential to the commission of an offense” Where a law requires general intent, mistake needs to MPC takes a more lenient view of mistake of fact be both held in good faith and reasonable defenses in those situations in which the CL would punish the defendant according to the level defendant intended to commit an offense, but of crime associated with her actus reus ended up committing a worse offense than the Exceptions: one she intended. ○ Moral wrong doctrine – even if reasonable ○ Even though the defendant committed the mistake, actor intentionally committed an actus reus of a more serious offense, she immoral act and so is blameworthy to justify is punished for the mens rea of the lesser conviction offense ○ Legal wrong doctrine - B knowingly possessed Mistake of fact is a defense when it negates the cocaine. When he was arrested, he was degree of culpability accidentally within 300 feet of a school. ○ No general vs specific intent differences Charged with a more serious offense even ○ No reasonable vs unreasonable though he didn't know he was close to a school distinction ○ Strict liability No legal wrong doctrine under MPC If strict liability, no mistake defense Mistake of Law = honest mistake about the law: Mistake of Law: 2.04 (3) = honest mistake about the law: Typically, mistake of law does not relieve liability, Only a defense when the defendant has relied on  12 unless: some kind of official statement about the law ○ Reasonable reliance on an official statement (like from a judicial decision or administrative about the law (e.g., statute, judicial decision, order etc.) official interpretation; not a lawyer) OR the statute was not readily available and he ○ Due process – no fair notice of law’s existence could not know. If strict liability, no mistake defense If strict liability, no mistake defense Strict Liability Strict Liability No mental state required. Crimes created by statute More or less the same as CL. Generally, crimes because of public welfare punishable by fines instead of incarceration; If offense is strict liability, there are no mistakes public welfare crimes defenses Look to statute and legislative history Look to statute and legislative history ONLY for violations that cannot result in imprisonment or probation IV. Causation A. Two step process: 1. Is there an actual cause (but-for) cause? a) Was the defendant a link in the chain of causation? 2. Is there a proximate cause (legal cause)? a) Were the defendant’s actions a sufficiently direct cause of the harm to warrant imposing criminal liability? B. Theories of Actual Cause 1. But-For Test- that the harm would not have occurred in the absence of- that is, but for the defendant’s conduct a) “But-for defendant’s voluntary act(s), would the social harm have occurred when it did even if defendant had not acted- then defendant’s conduct was NOT the actual cause of harm” 2. Multiple Actual Causes a) Accelerating a Result (1) 2 Defendant’s: 1st causes a lethal wound; 2nd causes non-lethal wound that accelerates death (a) Both are actual causes (2) Oxendine v. State- Accelerating (a) Facts: Jeffrey Oxendine and his girlfriend, Leotha Tyree, were charged with manslaughter for the death of Oxendine's son, Jeffrey Jr. Tyree pushed Jeffrey Jr. into a bathtub, causing internal injuries. The next day, Oxendine beat Jeffrey Jr., causing a second injury. Jeffrey Jr. died shortly after. Medical examiners testified that both injuries could have contributed to Jeffrey Jr. 's death, but they couldn't say which injury actually caused the death or if the second injury sped up Jeffrey Jr.'s death. Oxendine was convicted of manslaughter and appealed.  13 (b) Holding: Case remanded for resentencing, Oxedine was guilty of lesser, state failed to show that Oxedine’s conduct accelerated Jeffrey’s death (c) Rule: If a nonlethal injury contributes to but does not accelerate a victim’s death from another injury, then the nonlethal injury is not the cause of death. 3. Concurrent Sufficient Causes a) Concurrent sufficient causes (substantial factor test) (1) Used when 2 Defendant’s independently commit 2 acts, each of which alone would cause result b) Defendant’s conduct is an actual cause if Defendant’s conduct was a substantial factor in the result 4. More than 1 Defendant a) Used when neither act alone would kill, but together they do cause death b) Both are actual causes C. Proximate Cause 1. ALL proximate causes are actual, but not all actual causes are proximate 2. To be a proximate cause, victim’s injury must be a “direct and natural result” of Defendant’s actions 3. Intervening Causes- an independent force- another “but for” cause- that operates in producing a result, but that only comes into play AFTER the defendant’s voluntary act has been committed or his omission has occurred 4. Factors to determine if superseding: a) De Minimis Contribution to the Social Harm- (1) law will generally not treat very minor but-for cause as proximate cause when responsibility, can be attached to a far more substantial cause (2) Ex- D strikes V and is a minor injury but still requires medical attention, and V goes to hospital but the car gets struck by lightning and V dies (a) D is an actual cause but D’s causal connection will be treated as de minimis and relieve him of criminal liability for V’s death b) Foreseeability of the Intervening Cause- (1) A defendant cannot escape liability if the intervening act was reasonably foreseeable whereas an unforeseeable intervening cause is “superseding” in nature. (2) Criminal law tends to distinguish between “responsive” and “coincidental” intervening causes c) Intended Consequences Doctrine- (1) Situation in which actor sets things in motion, don’t quite happen the way the actor thought they would, but in the end the same thing happens  14 (2) Ex- M intended the death of V, furnished poison to X and falsely told X that it was medicine V needed, X did not believe that V needed the medicine, so didn’t give it and set it on a table where another, C, discovered it and gave it to V. M still intended and was still proximate to the death of V d) Apparent Safety Doctrine- (1) Defendant active force has come to rest in a position of apparent safety, the court will follow it no longer (2) Ex- P threatened the life of V (his spouse). V was forced to leave the house on a freezing night in order to protect herself. V reached 200 yards from her father’s home, where she would have been welcome, but she chose to spend the night in the cold rather than bother him by entering the house. V froze to death during the night. (a) Her decision to sleep outside constituted a superseding intervening cause e) Free, Deliberate, Informed Human Intervention- (1) Voluntary, knowing, and intelligent- intervening human agent than in the case of the intervention of a natural force or the actions of a person whose conduct is not fully free (2) Velazquez v. State (a) Facts: Velazquez and Alvarez decided to have a car race. They raced from a guardrail near a canal to a finish line a quarter-mile away. After the race, Alvarez turned around and raced back to the start line, with Velazquez following. They both crashed through the guardrail and into the canal. Alvarez died, but Velazquez survived. Velazquez was then found guilty of causing Alvarez's death. (b) Holding: Conviction reversed, Velazquez’s participation was not the proximate cause. (c) Rule: A defendant’s conduct is not considered the proximate cause of a result if the result was beyond the scope of foreseeable danger created by the conduct or if imposing criminal liability would be otherwise unjust. (i) Alvarez essentially killed himself by his own reckless driving (also, after initial drag race was over) f) Omissions- (1) An omission will rarely supersede an earlier, operative wrongful act, (a) Ex- D drives his automobile in a negligent manner, causing the death of V, passenger in D’s car, V’s failure to wear a seat belt, although casually related  15 to his own death, will not absolve D from liability for the death 5. People v. Rideout a) Facts: Rideout, who was drunk, caused a car accident but no one was seriously hurt. Reichelt and Keiser, who were in the other car, went to talk to Rideout. They then went back to their car in the middle of the road because they were worried it might get hit since it was dark and their headlights weren't working. While they were checking their car, another car hit and killed Keiser. Rideout was found guilty of causing Keiser's death because he was driving drunk, but he appealed. b) Holding: Keiser made the decision to leave the car, conviction vacated c) Rule: A superseding intervening cause does not need to be the only cause of a victim's injury to break the chain of causation such that the defendant's conduct is not the proximate cause of the injury. (1) If intervening cause does supersede Defendant’s act as the causal factor, then the Defendant’s conduct is not a proximate cause 6. State v. Rose a) ​Facts: Henry Rose hit a man with his car and drove away. The man's body was found under Rose's abandoned car. Rose was charged with leaving the scene and with manslaughter. The only medical witness couldn't say exactly when the man died. Rose was found guilty of both charges, but he appealed. b) Holding: Evidence could be seen either way, conviction of manslaughter reversed. c) Rule: In a criminal matter, if the evidence could be reasonably interpreted in a way that proves the accused's innocence, then the crime has not been proven beyond a reasonable doubt.  16 Causation (Links AR & MR to the result): Causation- Common Law: Causation- MPC: Responsive (dependant) intervening causes- ○ An act that occurs in reaction or response to the defendant’s Is the result too remote or prior wrongful conduct accidental? Asks the following ○ Defendant’s initial wrongdoing caused the response. Since he questions to determine: (Velazquez) is responsible for the presence of the intervening force, the ○ What was the actual result? defendant should not escape liability unless the intervening ○ Was the actual result within force was bizarre and unforeseeable the purpose of the actor? ○ Even negligent medical care is considered a normal response (If yes, then Only time it wouldn’t is if it was “gross” negligence proximate cause) ○ Ex- D2 seriously wounds V2. V2 is taken to a hospital where ○ If no, did the actual result he receives medical treatment by physician X and dies. involve the same kind of In D2’s prosecution for the death, X’s negligent injury or harm as that conduct constitutes a responsive intervening cause: designed? X’s medical actions were in response to D2’s act of (if no, not proximate wounding V2 cause) Coincidental (independant) intervening cause- ○ If yes, was the actual result ○ When the defendant’s act merely put the victim at a certain too remote or accidental in place at a certain time, and because the victim was so located its occurrence to have a just it was possible for him to be acted upon by the intervening bearing on the actor’s cause liability? ○ Rule of thumb- coincidental relieves the original wrongdoer If yes, not proximate of criminal responsibility unless the coincidental intervention cause was foreseeable If no, proximate 6 factors to determine if superseding cause Defendant is responsible for harm she caused AND punished according to If a defendant causes less harm than she the rules intended, only responsible for the harm that resulted. V. Homicide A. Intentional Killing- 1. Common Law 1st Degree Murder – Willful, premeditated and deliberate (Midgett) a) Requires:  17 (1) Time between developing intent to kill and actually killing (Guthrie) (a) Can be any interval of time that is of sufficient duration for the accused to be fully conscious of what he intended – juries can determine, but can be short (2) Thought process undisturbed by hot blood (a) Ex- bring a gun to the scene beforehand b) Forrest factors to determine if a killing is premeditated and deliberate (Forrest): (1) Want of provocation (I.e., did the victim provoke the killer) (2) Conduct and statements of D before and after killing (3) Threats and declarations of D before and during occurrence (4) Previous ill will between parties (5) Lethal blow when victim is down and helpless (6) Brutality of the killing (e.g., number and nature of victim’s wounds) 2. Common Law 2nd Degree Murder – Intentional, but not premeditated 3. MPC Murder – Purposely or knowingly B. Unintentional Killing 1. Common Law 2nd Degree Murder: Depraved Heart Murder – Unlawful killing with malice aforethought but without willfulness, premeditation, and deliberation. a) Requires the Thomas test (Knoller): (1) Act with high probability of death (2) Does act with a base anti-social motive (e.g., Russian roulette) (3) Shows a wanton/conscious disregard for the value of human life (a) i.e., awareness of the risk of death to another b) Objective (risk of death) and subjective (knew behavior put human life at risk) components c) How much risk constitutes “depraved heart?” (1) Traditional view – reckless act towards one person wouldn’t be deemed to be a “depraved heart” (2) Modern view – reckless act towards one person enough to be deemed a “depraved heart” 2. MPC Reckless Killing w/ Extreme Indifference to Human Life – Uses same test as CL, but more serious treatment than CL a) Murder in MPC; 2nd degree murder in CL 3. MPC Felony murder- Only applies to the following listed felonies: a) Robbery, rape or deviate sexual intercourse by force or threat of force, arson, burglary, kidnapping, & felonious escape b) ONLY need mens rea for the felony 4. CL Felony Murder – Homicide caused during the commission or attempted commission of a felony (Fuller)  18 a) ONLY need mens rea for the felony b) No mens rea as to the homicide; only the felony needs to be intended c) Basically, strict liability for a homicide that happens in the course of a felony d) Inherently dangerous- consider whether the felony was obviously dangerous as perpetrated (Fisher) (1) In the abstract- minority (a) Doesn't look at circumstances, looks at elements (b) Is it possible to commit the felony with those elements in a way that does not endanger life OR threaten serious injury (2) Attendant circumstances its committed- majority (a) Was the manner in which the defendant committed the felony inherently dangerous? (b) Downsides- every felony is going to be seen as dangerous because a death occurred e) Independent felony (or merger) (Smith) (1) A purpose independent of committing the act that was killed (2) Many felonies involve elements that could kill- in that circumstance wouldn’t expect someone to die (3) In order to limit- courts ask did that felony have a purpose OTHER than the blow that killed the individual (4) Robbery- independent purpose (5) Only purpose was to strike the blow, then it cannot be felony murder (6) Every aggravated assault would then be first degree murder (a) Separate the worst from the bad (b) Preserve the degree system f) In perpetration or in furtherance (Sophophone) (1) Killing must have some connection to the felony, but can also be in preparation for or fleeing from the felony (2) Death must have come in furtherance of the felony (a) Example aside from the agency doctrine- is this the defense still going on: Co-felon shoot the police officer and he dies (i) This could be a death in furtherance of (b) Agency doctrine- killing done by third party cannot be charged C. Manslaughter 1. Common Law-Voluntary Manslaughter: Elements: a) Provocation causes a D to lose control; otherwise, would not kill (1) Requires: (a) Killing was in the heat of passion  19 (i) E.g., discovering one’s spouse having sex with another, assault and battery (b) Can be any intense emotion, not just anger b) Heat of passion was sudden with no cooling off time (1) Cooling off time = enough time that a reasonable person would cool off c) Causal connection between provocation, passion, and the killing (D was provoked by victim) d) Adequate provocation (1) D was provoked by P; (2) A reasonable person would be provoked; and (a) Reasonable person = having the power of self-control to be expected of an ordinary person of the sex and age of the accused (i) Some personal handicaps count, but not psychological issues (ii) More objective than MPC (3) Provocations must be legally adequate – words alone are not enough (Girouard) (a) Words alone are enough in a few states 2. MPC Manslaughter: 2 theories a) Otherwise murder, except that it took place under EMED (1) Look through their weird eyes and their brain THAN reasonable person (a) A reasonable person would be provoked (Casassa); and (i) Reasonableness = the viewpoint of someone in the actor’s situation under the circumstances as he/she believes them to be (ii) Situation is important – e.g., blindness, shock from traumatic injury, extreme grief, etc. (iii) Much broader and subjective than CL (2) Allows cooling off time, allow emotional disturbance to add up, has to be reasonable (3) Could argue this (4) Words can be enough b) Reckless killing (not extreme, just conscious disregard for an unjustifiable risk) (1) Aware of risk, but consciously disregards it; inadvertent; subjective; gross deviation (2) Purposeful; but committed under extreme mental disturbance (heat of passion)-- reasonable person in actor’s circumstances as he believes them to be (subjective) D. Involuntary & Negligence Homicide 1. Negligence generally = Taking a risk that you didn't know was a risk, but  20 you should have known a) There must be actual present knowledge of the present facts with make an act dangerous b) Supposed to be an objective standard 2. Common Law 1st degree Involuntary Manslaughter: reckless killing 3. Common Law 2nd Degree Involuntary Manslaughter: Negligent Killing a) Typically, requires gross/criminal negligence (1) Criminal homicide convictions based on ordinary negligence are nearly non-existent today (Williams) 4. MPC Negligent Homicide – Also gross/criminal negligence 5. Misdemeanor Manslaughter: Death that occurs during an unlawful act that is not a felony; same as felony murder rules E. Intentional Killings 1. Murder a) State v. Guthrie- First degree CL (1) Facts: Dale Edward Guthrie worked at a restaurant and got made fun of by his co-workers. One of them, Steven Todd Farley, kept snapping him with a dishtowel. After Farley hit Guthrie's nose with the towel, Guthrie got really mad, pulled out a knife, and stabbed Farley in the neck, which killed him. Guthrie had some mental health problems and was really obsessed with his nose. He said he had a big panic attack right before he stabbed Farley. The judge told the jury that for it to be first-degree murder, Guthrie didn't need to have planned to kill Farley for a long time, just that he decided to do it at some point. The jury said Guthrie was guilty of first-degree murder, but Guthrie said the judge gave the wrong instructions to the jury. (2) Holding: Reversed & remanded. (3) Rule (CL): Intentional, deliberate, and premeditated killing cannot be equated with mere intent to kill (a) It means that the killing is done after a period of prior consideration (sufficient duration for accused to be fully conscious of what he intended) b) Midgett v. State- First degree CL (1) Facts: Midgett was accused of killing his eight year old son. His daughter said that Midgett had been drinking a lot and started hitting the son in the stomach and back with his fist. She had seen Midgett choking the son before. She said the son's bruises over the past six months were from Midgett. The son died from a stomach bleed caused by a hard hit, like from a fist. Midgett was found guilty of first degree murder, but he appealed. (2) Holding: insufficient for first degree murder charge, sufficient evidence for second degree murder.  21 (3) Rule: The crime of first degree murder generally requires the killing to be premeditated and deliberate. c) State v. Forrest- First degree CL-USE TEST TO SEE P & D (1) Facts: John Forrest admitted his terminally ill father to the hospital. Two days later, he visited his father, told him he loved him, and then shot him four times in the head. He left the room, dropped the gun, and admitted to shooting his father because he didn't want him to suffer. He was convicted of first degree murder but appealed, saying there wasn't enough evidence to show he planned and thought about the murder. (2) Holding: affirmed (3) Rule: Six step test a court looks for in order to determine whether a killing was premeditated and deliberate 2. Manslaughter a) “Rotten Social Background” and “Cultural Defense” b) Girouard v. State- CL Heat of Passion (1) Facts:Steven Girouard and his wife Joyce had a big argument. Joyce, who was much smaller than Steven, insulted him and asked for a divorce. She also told him she had reported him for abuse to his Army boss. Steven then stabbed Joyce 19 times with a kitchen knife, killing her. At his trial, it was said that Steven had mental problems and he was found guilty of second-degree murder. (2) Holding: Affirmed (3) Rule: “Rule of provocation”: (a) Adequate provocation (more than verbal, must have ability to cause bodily harm) (b) Killings in heat of passion (c) “Sudden” heat of passion (d) Causal connection to fatal act c) People v. Casassa- MPC EED (1) Facts: Victor Casassa was charged with second-degree murder for killing Victoria Lo Consolo, whom he was obsessed with. After she rejected him, he broke into her apartment, stabbed her, and drowned her. At his trial, the main question was whether he acted under 'extreme emotional disturbance'. The court decided that his emotional reaction was too strange to be considered reasonable, so they didn't reduce his charge to manslaughter. (2) Holding: affirmed (3) Rule: Two parts to determine EED: (a) Defendant acted under the influence of extreme emotional disturbance (subjective)  22 (b) There must be a reasonable explanation or excuse for such EED, reasonableness determined from viewpoint of defendant under circumstances as he believed them (objective) F. Unintentional Killings 1. Reckless a) People v. Knoller: CL Depraved Heart (1) Facts: Marjorie Knoller and her husband got four big dogs, even though they were warned that the dogs were dangerous. The dogs had already attacked and killed animals before. The dogs were brought to their apartment and later attacked and killed a woman who lived on the same floor. Knoller was charged with second degree murder and the jury said she was guilty because she didn't care about the risk to human life. The court said she could have a new trial because they didn't think she knew her actions could cause death, but this decision was reversed by the Court of Appeal. (2) Rule: Thomas Standard—malice implied when (a) Base antisocial motive (b) Wanton disregard for human life (c) High degree of probability that the act will result in death (3) USE THIS FOR DIFF. OF RECKLESS OR EXTREME RECKLESS SHOWING INDIFF. FOR BOTH SIDES 2. Negligent - CL Involuntary Manslaughter a) State v. Williams (1) Facts: Walter and Bernice Williams' 17-month-old son, William, got sick from an infected tooth. They tried to treat it with aspirin, but he got worse and eventually died from pneumonia. They didn't take him to the doctor because they didn't realize how sick he was and were afraid he would be taken away from them. The State of Washington charged them with manslaughter for not getting him medical care. They were found guilty and appealed. (2) Holding: affirmed (3) Rule: In WA, the ordinary or simple caution was the requirement, failure to do so was negligence and sufficient to support conviction of statutory manslaughter (a) Couples negligence proximately caused the sons death G.Felony Murder 1. People v. Fuller - CL felony murder a) Facts: Fuller and a friend broke into four vans in a car lot and stole spare tires. A police officer saw them and came over to check things out. Fuller and his friend got scared, jumped in their car, and  23 drove off really fast. They ran a red light and hit another car, killing the driver. Fuller was charged with murder. b) Rule: Felony murder applies, killing in connection with felony constitutes first-degree murder, must only show culpability for the felony not for the murder 2. Fisher v. State- CL Inherently Dangerous Felony a) Facts: Nine-year-old girl named Rita Fisher died because she didn't have enough food or water. She was also hurt and not taken care of by her mom, Mary Utley, and her sister, Rose Mary Fisher. They were both found guilty of child abuse and second-degree felony murder. They tried to argue that the crimes they were charged with couldn't be used for a felony murder charge in Maryland. They said that only certain crimes could be used for this, and child abuse wasn't one of them. b) Rule: The second-degree felony-murder rule applies to deaths that occur during the perpetuation of an inherently dangerous felony as determined by the circumstances of the specific case. 3. People v. Smith- CL Independent Felony (or merger) a) Facts: Smith (defendant) lived with her two-year-old daughter. Her daughter one day refused to listen to Smith. In response, Smith took her daughter to the corner and began hitting her repeatedly. Smith knocked her daughter against a closet door and the daughter went into respiratory arrest. She died at the hospital. Smith was convicted of child abuse and second-degree murder based on a theory of felony-murder. b) Holding- Smith can not be charged with felony- murder, child abuse has no other independent felonious purpose. c) Rule: A second-degree felony murder instruction may not properly be given when it is based upon a felony which is an integral part of the homicide and which the evidence produced by the prosecution shows to be an offense included in fact within the offense charged (1) Because the acts constituting the child abuse were integral part of the homicide, the offense merged into the homicide, error to give felony-murder instruction 4. State v. Sophophone- CL Killings “in the perpetration” or “in furtherance" a) Facts: Sophophone and three other guys broke into a house. The person living there was home and called the police. When the police got there, one officer caught Sophophone while another officer chased down one of Sophophone's friends, Sysoumphone. Sysoumphone shot at the officer, and the officer shot back and killed Sysoumphone. Sophophone was then charged with felony-murder because of the officer's killing of Sysoumphone. b) Holding: felony-murder conviction reversed. c) Rule: Two approaches–  24 (1) Agency approach: felony murder not applicable if person who directly causes death is non-felon (2) Proximate cause approach: felon may be held responsible for the killing committed by non-felon if the felon set in motion the acts which resulted in victim’s death (3) Provocative act- holds defendant liable if the defendant’s actions created a dangerous atmosphere that ultimately resulted in the victim’s death Rank on Homicide- Common Law: Homicide- MPC: Pg. 1060 Seriousness Broader Highest First degree murder: 3 Theories Murder (210.2) 3 theories: Intentional killing – deliberate, premeditated Purposely or knowingly (different things but Felony murder- either will do for murder) ○ Inherently dangerous Recklessly (unjustifiable risk – ○ Independent felony (or merger) unintentional killing is murder) ○ In perpetration or in furtherance Felony murder (list) Second degree murder: 3 Theories No degrees Intent to cause grave bodily harm, but death results Intentional killing but ○ No premed. & delib.; OR ○ “Failed manslaughter” “Depraved heart”/”Abandoned and malignant heart” ○ High probability of death ○ Base anti-social motive ○ Conscious disregard Manslaughter- Voluntary Manslaughter (210.3) 2 Theories: Elements: Otherwise murder, except that it took place Heat of passion under EMED Reasonable person in heat Reckless killing (not extreme, just conscious of passion disregard for an unjustifiable risk) Sudden adequate provocation NO Words; NO cooling off time  25 Manslaughter- Involuntary Negligent Homicide (210.4) 1st degree: reckless killing Gross or criminal negligence, didn’t know 2nd degree: gross or criminal negligence but should have Lowest Misdemeanor Manslaughter: Death that occurs during an unlawful act that is not a felony; same as felony murder rules VI. Defenses A. Background 1. Defense = Any set of identifiable conditions or circumstances which may prevent a conviction for an offense a) Defenses also have elements, but the D has the burden of proof 2. Five types of defenses a) Failure of proof defenses (1) All elements of offense charge cannot be proven (Ex.- mistake) b) Offense modifications (1) While the actor has apparently satisfied all elements of the offense charged, he has not in fact caused the harm or evil sought to be prevented by the statute defining the offense (2) Ex- paying a ransom to a kidnapper c) Justifications (1) A legal harm, but outweighed by a greater good (Ex.- necessity) d) Excuses (1) Harm done, but actor not responsible (Ex.- insanity) e) Non Exculpatory public policy defenses (1) Time limitations, diplomatic immunity, judicial legislation, executive immunity, and incompetency (Ex.- statute of limitations) B. Burden of Proof 1. Two arise in criminal trials a) Prosecutor has the burden of production regarding the elements of a crime; the defendant typically has the burden of production regarding the elements of an affirmative defense C. Self Defense 1. Never allowed in defense of property 2. Self-Defense Requirements a) Necessity (not the natural forces kind) b) Imminency c) Proportionality d) Reasonable belief 3. Dressler on elements of self-defense:  26 a) A non-aggressor is justified in using [deadly] force upon another if he reasonably believes that such [deadly] force is necessary to protect himself from imminent use of unlawful [deadly] force by the other person (1) Aggressor can reclaim, but only if D communicates withdrawal and does so in good faith 4. United States v. Peterson a) Facts: Bennie Peterson found Charles Keitt stealing from his car. They argued, then Peterson got a gun and threatened to kill Keitt. Keitt grabbed a tool and walked towards Peterson, who warned him to stay back. When Keitt kept coming, Peterson shot and killed him. Peterson was charged with murder, but argued that he acted in self-defense. The jury convicted Peterson of manslaughter. b) Holding: Peterson was initial aggressor, affirmed c) Rule: Ordinarily, the right to use deadly force is self-defense is not available to one who provokes a conflict or is the aggressor in it (1) Unless they withdraw in “good faith” and inform the other party (a) Always look for the aggressor, who takes it to another level (ie. from fist fight to knife fight) (b) Self defense = law of necessity, begins with necessity and ends when necessity ends 5. People v. Goetz a) Facts: Bernhard Goetz got on a subway train and was approached by four youths who asked him for five dollars. Two of them had screwdrivers, but they didn't have any other weapons. Goetz shot all four of them with an unlicensed gun, leaving one paralyzed, and then told the conductor they tried to rob him. He ran away but later turned himself in to the police. He was charged with several crimes, but argued that he was only defending himself because he was scared of being hurt. b) Holding: Not guilty c) Rule: Standard = “reasonable,” not “reasonable to him” (1) Consider if reasonable person could have these beliefs (reasonable belief does not have to be correct) 6. State v. Norman, Court of Appeals of North Carolina, 1988 a) Facts: Norman was abused by her husband for 25 years, including physical abuse, humiliation, and threats to her life. He also forced her into prostitution. After a severe beating, Norman tried to get help from the police and social services, but her husband continued to abuse her. Eventually, Norman shot and killed her husband while he was asleep. She was convicted of voluntary manslaughter and sentenced to six years in prison, but appealed the decision. b) Holding: guilty  27 c) Rule: Evidence of battered-wife syndrome will not absolutely justify a killing unless the defendant believed the killing was necessary in order to avoid imminent death or great bodily harm. (1) Imminent must be in the moment Self- Defense- Common Law: Self-Defense- MPC 3.04: Pg. 1038 Elements: Use of force justified when actor: Threat, actual apparent, of the use of deadly believes that force is immediately necessary force against the defender To protect oneself against death, GBH, kidnapping or ○ Typically, any weapon will work (table sexual assault (threat of) leg) Retreat Requirements: ○ If no weapon, can still have deadly Requires retreat if actor knows that he can avoid using force (Ex.- martial arts skills) deadly force with complete safety by retreating Unlawful and immediate D believed he was in imminent peril (of death Not justifiable: or GBH), and it was necessary to respond as such To resist arrest that actor knows is being made by peace Belief must be both honest and reasonable officer, although unlawful; or Proportionate To resist force used by occupier or possessor of property Retreat Requirements: or by another person on his behalf, knowing it’s under Majority CL rule: SYG – don't have to retreat claim of right to protect property except: ○ Necessity element is eliminated with ○ Actor = public officer SYG laws when there is a route of ○ Actor has been unlawfully retreat; don’t have to retreat, even if dispossessed of property you would definitely be safe ○ Actor believes such force is necessary Old CL rule: Retreat to the wall – Requires to protect himself from death/GBH retreat if you can do so safely Castle doctrine: Applicable today; Allowed to Deadly force not justifiable: defend home and curtilage w/out retreat If you provoked the person to use force against you (unless the person becomes the aggressor) If you can retreat or surrender possession of a thing safely - No duty to retreat from your home/place of work D. Defense of Others 1. Same elements as self-defense a) Both CL and MPC have objective and subjective element: (1) 1) (subjective element) the defendant actually believed he or she was acting to prevent the third party’s imminent harm; and (2) 2) (objective element) the belief was reasonable 2. State v. Giminski  28 a) Facts: Secret Service agents, including John Hirt, went to John Giminski's house to take two cars. Giminski's daughter, Elva, tried to drive away in one of the cars. The agents chased her and crashed into her car. Giminski saw Hirt pulling Elva out of the car while pointing a gun at her. Giminski grabbed a gun and pointed it at Hirt, which led to both of them getting shot. Giminski was charged with trying to kill Hirt. b) Holding: Giminski couldn’t have believed that hurt was going to hurt Elva and the reasonable person wouldn’t have either- so conviction affirmed. c) Rule: Two components for defense of others: (1) Subjective: Defendant must have actually believed he was acting to prevent or terminate an unlawful interference (circumstances) (2) Objective: A reasonable person must have to believe (overall standard) Defense of Others- Common Law: Defense of Others-MPC: 3.05: Pg. 1039 Apparent, reasonable belief in the right to defend the other Justified in using such force to protect yourself, under (does not need to be family) circumstances as you believe, the person you're trying to protect would be justified in using such protective force and you believe your intervention is necessary E. Defense of Property/Habitation 1. Important to distinguish this from other things- it is where you live- keeping them OUT of the building- it is about the building 2. Always about keeping people out 3. Once the threat is inside- no longer defense of habitation 4. State v. Boyett a) Facts: Deborah Rhodes and Renate Wilder were friends who lived together. Wilder started dating Cecil Boyett and Rhodes moved out. One day, Rhodes came to the house and knocked on the door. Boyett opened the door and shot Rhodes, thinking she was reaching for a gun. Boyett was charged with first-degree murder. b) Holding: Affirmed c) Rule: Person has a right to defend his or her residence not only when an intruder is already inside the home, but also when an intruder is outside the home and attempting to enter to commit a violent felony  29 Defense of Property/Habitation- Common Defense of Property/Habitation- MPC: 3.06: Pg. 1040 Law: Use deadly force to defend the To prevent/terminate unlawful entry or carrying away of habitation against entry only if defendant property reasonably believes: ○ Provided that it is in, or believed to be in, his ○ (1) Intruder intends an unlawful possession, or in the possession of another person for and imminent entry whose protection he acts ○ (2) Intruder intends injury or to To retake land or property that was unlawfully dispossessed commit felony but only if fresh pursuit and there would be exceptional ○ (3) Deadly force is necessary to hardship to wait for court order repel entry Use of deadly force NOT justified unless someone is doing one of the bad felonies and has threatened deadly force F. Necessity 1. Situations Constituting Necessity—That would otherwise be crimes a) Property destroyed to prevent the spread of fire b) Speed limit violated to pursue a suspected criminal c) An ambulance blowing through red light d) Mountain climbers lost in winter storm can take refuge in house and appropriate provisions e) Cargo can be jettisoned to preserve a vessel 2. Nelson v. State a) Facts: Dale Nelson got his truck stuck in a marshy area and couldn't get it out. He and his friends took a dump truck from a Highway Department Yard, even though it was against the rules, to try and free his truck. But the dump truck also got stuck. They then took a front-end loader from the yard, which they used to free the dump truck and another person's car, but they couldn't free Nelson's truck. Nelson was later found guilty of destroying property and joyriding. b) Holding: defense of necessity is not available for Nelson c) Rule: The commission of a crime is justifiable if it is necessary to prevent a greater harm from occurring. d) Three essential elements to necessity defense (all three must be met): (1) Criminal act must have been committed in order to prevent a substantial harm; (2) There must have been a lack of an alternative (3) The harm caused must be proportional to the harm avoided/ 3. The Queen v. Dudley and Stephens a) Facts: Thomas Dudley and Edwin Stephens were lost at sea with two other men. They had very little food and water. After more than a week without food, Dudley and Stephens killed and ate one  30 of the men, Richard Parker, who was sick and weak. The jury found that Dudley and Stephens would not have survived without eating Parker, but couldn't decide if they were guilty of murder. The court was asked to make the final decision. b) Holding: Affirmed, they could have waited, don’t know if someone was going to pick them up. c) Rule: The defense of necessity does not justify homicide unless the killing was committed in self-defense. Necessity- Common Law: Necessity- MPC: 3.02- pg. 1037 Elements: 1. The actor must reasonably believe he is faced with “a clear Conduct that the actor believes to be and imminent danger” necessary to avoid a harm or evil to 2. Defendant must expect, as a reasonable person, that his himself or to another is justifiable, action will be effective in abating the danger that he seeks to provided: avoid. I.e., there must be a direct causal relationship between ○ The harm or evil sought to be his action and the harm being averts avoided is a greater than that 3. There must be no effective legal way to avert the harm sought to be prevented by the 4. The harm that the defendant will cause by violating the law law defining the offense must be less serious than the harm that he seeks to avoid charged 5. Lawmakers must not have previously “anticipated the choice ○ Neither the Code nor other law of evils and determined the balance to be struck between the defining the offense provides competing values” in a manner in conflict with the defendant’s exceptions or defenses dealing choice with the specific situation ○ Ex- defendant may not defend his illegal use of involved marijuana for medical purposes if legislature previously ○ A legislative purpose to exclude said no to it the justification claimed does 6. Defendant must come to the situation with clean hands not otherwise plainly appear ○ Must not have substantially contributed to the When the actor was