Final Criminal Law Outline PDF

Potential Crimes (Homicide) Crime Definition Mens Rea Elements Cases Involuntary The accidental killing or MPC- Recklessness 1. Mens Rea Washington v. Williams...

Potential Crimes (Homicide) Crime Definition Mens Rea Elements Cases Involuntary The accidental killing or MPC- Recklessness 1. Mens Rea Washington v. Williams (Baby Manslaughter unintentional killing of Common law- Gross 2. Killing of another person dying of gangrene) another person Negligence/Negligence Jones v. U.S. (Baby left in basement and became malnourished) Voluntary The intentional killing of Common law- adequate 1. Elements of Provocation Girouard v. Maryland (Wife Manslaughter another person (does not provocation a. The killer must have cheats on husband and states demonstrate an evil/malice MPC- Purposely, been provoked she should have never married killing) knowingly, or extremely b. 2. A reasonable person him) reckless but does so while would have been Brooks v. State (Defendant suffering from an provoked killed her husband after he “extreme mental or c. 3. The killer must NOT jerked, cussed, and battered her emotional distress” (No have cooled off before Adequate Provocation) killing d. 4. A reasonable person would not have cooled off before killing MPC-People v. Casassa i. Subjective v. (Defendant stalked and killed a Objective factors girl he was dating after she 2. Adequacy of Provocation discontinued the dating Approaches relationship)) a. Strict Categorical b. Loose/Flexible (modern approach & reasonable standard) 3. Reasonableness of Cooling off Period Manslaughter Consciously disregarded MPC- Recklessness 1. Mens Rea People v. Hall (Former ski substantial and unjustifiable 2. Death instructor was drunk and skied risk that death could result straight down a hill at high from his speeds and struck and actions killed victim) Murder (First The intent to kill another Common Law- Malice 1. Intent Warden v. Franklin Degree) person afterthought 2. Premeditation MPC- Purposely or 3. Deliberation knowingly a. MPC rejects P+D for viewing if the killer is most blameworthy Depraved Heart Common Law- A conscious Common Law- Reckless 1. Mens Rea Old CL- People v. Knoller (CL)/Extreme disregard of the value of Old Common law- 2. A conscious disregard of human (Presa Dogs who shredded the Recklessness human life Implied Malice life/extreme indifference to the neighbor like groceries in the Murder (MPC) Extreme Recklessness MPC- Reckless/Extreme value of human life hallway) (Second Degree) (MPC)- requires that the Recklessness CL- Mayes v. Illinois (Husband defendant act “recklessly set wife on fire by throwing a under the circumstances glass) manifesting extreme MPC- Kansas v. Doub, III indifference to the value of (Def. was the cause of a head- human life” on collision were a 9 yr. old was killed, he later admitted to his girlfriend after several months) (Depraved Heart in context of DWI) Intent to Grievously The killer only meant to Common Law- Purposely 1. Mens Rea Injure injure the victim seriously or (in causing the grievous 2. Intent to grievously injure grievously, not kill them injury that led to death) or Knowingly (substantial certainty grievous injury would occur)  Old Common Law- Implied Malice Negligent Homicide A homicide where the killer MPC-Negligence 1. Mens Rea State v. Williams (baby died (Third Degree) is not aware of the risk but 2. Death after they only gave him baby should have been aware of aspirin for 2 weeks while it the risk complained of a toothache; had they taken him into a doctor, he would have lived) Felony-Murder One is guilty of Common Law- No mental 1. Enumerated Felonies/Inherently People v. Cavitt (Defendant’s felony-murder if a death state (Only an intent to Dangerous Felony/Manner of robbed girlfriend’s stepmother results from a felony, one commit or attempt to Commission and the girlfriend kills her commits or attempts to commit the underlying 2. Independent Felony stepmother) commit felony) 3. Causal Relationship State v. Martin (Defendant sets Old Common law- a. Time & Place a building on fire after being implied malice (malice b. Logical Relationship kicked out of a party where a aforethought) i. Logical woman dies in the burning MPC- Presumed Nexus Test building) (MPC- too remote or Recklessness 1. Logical v. accidental in occurrence) Tempora l Kansas v. Sophophone (A Nexus defendant dies by the hands of c. Causal the police during a break-in and i. Res Gestae the co-felons are charged with 4. Causation felony murder) a. But-for Causation b. Actual Causation w/ Proximate Causation  Actus Rea Common Law Model Penal Code Requires affirmative, voluntary act; intention There must be a voluntary act or omission to commit a crime is insufficient to convict if Conduct: physical activity (affirmative act), there is no evidence of an act putting that possession intent into effect. Result: consequence Mere movement of vehicle does not Circumstance: external conditions when Δ necessarily constitute act of driving engages in conduct vehicle→there must be an affirmative act by Δ (Taft) If knowledge that actions could cause harm to another (i.e., you know you can blackout and drive anyway), act constitutes crime (Decina) Possession: Possession: Mere presence + Intent to possess + power to Possession is an act if: possess = conviction knowingly procured OR Mere presence ≠ possession knowingly received the thing OR (Kimbrell→watching drugs) was aware of control for sufficient period Omission: Omission: There must be a duty Liability for the commission of an offense may statutory not be based on an omission unaccompanied status relationship (Biddle) by an action unless: contract (Moore→chauffer) Omission is expressly made sufficient by voluntary assumption of care (Jones) law defining offense There is no duty to do what you are A duty to perform the omitted acts is incapable of doing otherwise imposed by law You must be aware of the circumstances before a duty exists (Teixera) Willful omission→death = murder Negligent omission→death = manslaughter  Mens Rea Common Law Model Penal Code Criminal Negligence Criminal Negligence Gross lack of competency Should be aware of substantial and Gross inattention unjustifiable risk that a material element Criminal indifference exists or will result Gross deviation = recklessness→aware of Risk must be of nature and degree that substantial risk created by conduct and failure to perceive = gross deviation from disregards that risk→ (Peterson) reasonable person’s standard of care Homicide→neg. homicide if acted with criminal negligence (State v. Howard) Subjective Test Specific Intent Crime: MPC no longer recognizes the distinction Requires actual intention to do more than between general and specific intent. Rather, it actus reus, not just general blameworthiness spells out what is required for each crime. General malevolence is not an attempt to commit a crime even if it results in a substantive crime Malice aforethought ≠ specific intent to kill (Shea) General Intent Crime: (See above) Intent to commit an act, serves as actus reus Knowledge Common Law Model Penal Code Majority→ subjective test Minority→ Subjective test objective test Deliberate ignorance and Positive Knowledge If one is aware of high probability of have equal culpability existence of a particular fact, unless he Knowingly is not limited to positive believes it doesn’t exist, he is still culpable knowledge but includes the state of mindof If there is a high probability of existence, one who does not possess positive knowledge is established knowledge only because it consciously avoided it. Willful blindness (Jewel→marijuana)  Willfulness Common Law Model Penal Code Intentional or deliberate→ a voluntary, ? intentional violation of a known legal duty (Cheek) It means no more than that the person charged with the duty knows what he is doing. It does not mean that, in addition, he must suppose that he is breaking the law. Strict Liability Common Law Model Penal Code Malum prohibita Can only be a violation→minor offenses, not Statutory rape, bigamy crime; fine/forfeiture – what about statutory rape, felony murder? No need to show culpable mental state (Transferred Intent) Murder Common Law Model Penal Code 4 ways to satisfy mens rea requirement: 3 ways to prove Intent to kill Purposefully, knowingly (differs from Intent to commit serious bodily injury willingly—did away with malice Reckless/extreme indifference to value of aforethought) human life (depraved heart) Recklessly manifesting extreme Intent to commit dangerous felony indifference to human life (depraved heart, —no bootstrapping allowed (felony must be subjective view of recklessness) independent) →People v. Wilson During a felony —recklessness of act presumed if engaged in commission of robbery, rape, arson, burglary, kidnapping, felonious escape, but felony murder is not adopted per se Death must be shown to have occurred Criminal liability for the natural and probable consequences of unlawful acts Res gestae: Embraces not only the facts of the transaction and the circumstances  surrounding it, but the matters immediately antecedent and having direct causal connection with it as well as acts immediately following it 1st degree Only 1st degree Poisoning Lying in wait Willful Deliberate Premeditated Felony nd 2 degree: Depravity of heart No intention to kill Premeditation No set time required, only that intention occurred at time of killing or beforehand (Schrader)—decision overruled in so far as it suggests that premed and delib could come into existence at time of killing If there is assault by both parties and sudden emotion, it becomes voluntary manslaughter Court in Forrest gives 6 circumstances used to determine premeditation o Want of provocation on part of dead o Conduct and statements of defendant before and after killing o Threats and declarations of defendant before and during course of occurrences giving rise to killing o Ill-will or previous difficulty between defendant and victim o Dealing of lethal blows after deceased rendered helpless o Evidence that the killing was brutal Manslaughter Common Law Model Penal Code Voluntary: No distinction between voluntary and Intent to kill, but in the heat of passion with involuntary no malice aforethought recklessly→aware of the risk, but Objective test for sufficiency of provocation consciously disregards it; advertant; 4 requisites subjective; gross deviation 1) acts in response to provocation which purposeful, but committed under extreme would cause a reasonable man to lose his mental disturbance (heat of passion)— self-control (actual→mere words are not reasonable person in actor’s circumstances enough) as he believes them to be (subjective) 2) heat of passion 2nd degree 3) lapse of time not enough to cool off  4) had not cooled off Involuntary: Negligent Homicide Criminal negligence required Committed negligently—ought to have Unintended killing caused during the been aware of the risk; inadvertent; commission of an unlawful act not objective amounting to a felony Should be aware Ignorance or Mistake Common Law Model Penal Code Mistake of Law: Mistake of Law: Never a defense (traditional view) A defense if it negates the mental state Follow MPC (modern view) required State of mind established constitutes defense Not available as a defense if Δ would have been charged with another  CRIMINAL LAW OUTLINE SUMMER 2024 Chapter 1: The Structure of Criminal Law A. What is Criminal Behavior 1. Conduct 2. With specific mental state (Mens Rea) 3. That inflicts or threatens (causation) 4. Harm to individual or public interests 5. Without justification or excuse B. Criminal liability requires: 1. “The Guilty hand moved by the Guilty Mind, under the required Circumstances, that sometimes case a Result in the absence of Justification or Excuse” i. The guilty hand – the “doing” part of the crime 1. Taken some sort of action that is required of a crime ii. The guilty mind – Mental state requirement of the crime 1. Criminal law relies heavily on the definitions of different mental states to determine whether a crime has occurred and to distinguish more from less serious crimes 2. Even if the defendant performs the conduct required for a crime, she will not be guilty if she does not perform that conduct with the required mental state iii. Moved by – refers to the concurrence requirement 1. The guilty mind (exists at the same moment) must move the guilty hand iv. The Required Circumstances – “attendant circumstances” of a crime 1. Some crimes require certain circumstances to exist for the crime to take place v. Sometimes causes a result 1. Many crimes require a specific result to occur 2. Result v. conduct a. Result – assault inflicting serious bodily injury requires the result of serious bodily injury to have been caused by the assault b. Conduct – assault with intent to inflict serious injury requires you to assault someone with the intent to seriously injure them vi. In the absence of a justification or an excuse 1. Justification – limited to defenses where society either tolerates or approves of certain behavior that would otherwise be a crime 2. Excuse – they relieve you from criminal responsibility even though conduct wasn’t justified…committed criminal act but is not punishable Chapter 2: The Criminal Process A. Criminal Process 1. Procedural Postures i. Errors in jury instructions ii. Motions to dismiss before trial iii. Motions to dismiss during trial and challenges to sufficiency of the evident iv. Evidentiary rulings v. Appeals by prosecution vi. Jury nullification 2. Owens v. Maryland i. Issue: When 2 diametrically opposed conclusions exist based on just circumstantial evidence, is the evidence sufficient for a factfinder to conclude that one result happened over the other? ii. Rule: when circumstantial evidence suggests two equally probably inferences regarding a defendants conduct, additional factors may support a finding that one inference was more probably than the other. 3. New York v. Link  i. Though technically only a misdemeanor and one that does not carry a jail sentence of greater than six months, prostitution is still a serious offense 1. Length of prison sentence is a substantial but not sole factor in determining if a crime is serious enough to warrant a jury trial 4. US. V. Carson i. Prior acts of prostitution by a victim are not relevant to a defendant’s intent to engage in sex trafficking under 18 Chapter 3: Philosophies of Punishment A. Retribution a. Society punishes offenders for the crimes because they are morally worthy of blame i. Choice-based retribution: you deserve to be punished when you steal from someone or deliberately injure them because you choose to hurt them ii. Harm- based retribution: society should punish you based on the harm you caused B. Deterrence a. Justifies punishment on grounds that punishment deters people from committing crime in the future i. Utilitarian theory: we should punish offenders to promote the greatest good for the greatest number of people C. Incapacitation a. justifies punishment of the grounds that it stops people from committing crimes…usually by imprisoning them D. Rehabilitation a. purpose of punishment should be to rehabilitate offenders E. Restorative Justice a. sees the purpose of punishment as repairing the harm done by the offense and restoring the situation that existed before the crime has been committed F. Expressive punishment a. sees punishment’s primary purpose as expressing society’s denunciation of the crime G. Powell v. Texas a. It is not cruel and unusual to punish someone afflicted with a mental disease when their conduct was part of the pattern of disease and occasioned by a compulsion that was symptomatic of the disease H. Queen v. Dudley and Stephens a. There was no excuse in this case for the murder because necessity is not a justification for the murder of another regardless of the circumstances i. Justification of necessity is not a defense for willful murder since the necessity is not out of the safeguard of one’s own life Chapter 4: Statutory Interpretation and Sources of Law A. Statute: Law passed by legislature and signed into law by the executive B. The process a. Plain language i. Read the statute…what is the literal sense b. Intent of the legislature i. Legislative history/purpose of the statute c. Rule of lists i. Enumeration, things outside the list do not count d. Rule of Lenity i. Ambiguities in statutes are resolved in favor of the defendant C. Constitutionally vague: unclear, person with ordinary intelligence can’t know meaning D. Overbreadth: overbroad…too sweeping E. US v. Lake a. Something is in “the presence of a person if it is so within his reach, observation, or control, that he could if not  overcome by violence or prevented by fear, retain possession of it F. Van Buren v. United States a. An individual does not violate the CFAA of 86 if they have authorization to obtain information for an improper use G. Yates v. US a. The term “tangible object” refers to an object used to record or preserve information and does not include fish (should the fish be a tangible object such as a computer) H. Chicago v. Morales a. The Gang Congregation Ordinance, preventing gang members from “loitering” with one another or other persons, violate the Due Process Clause of the Fourteenth Amendment to the Federal Constitution as its standard/guidelines are too vague to give citizens notice to what is prohibited and does not establish minimal guidelines to govern law enforcement I. Lawrence v. Texas a. - Consenting adults have the freedom to engage in intimate sexual conduct, sodomy, in private in the exercise of their liberty under the Due Process Clause of the Fourteenth Amendment to the Constitution. Chapter 5: The Guilty Hand A. All crimes, except for omission liability, require some voluntary act a. Generally, a product of conscious choice B. MPC involuntary act a. A bodily movement that otherwise isn’t a product of the effort or determination of the actor, either conscious or habitual C. Mental states are the most important part of criminal law because they are central to our notions of blameworthiness D. Common Law vs. MPC E. The requirement of a voluntary act a. All crimes, with exception of omission liability, require a voluntary act. Act is voluntary if it is a willed muscular motion. (this definition includes words and speech since vocal cords do not move on their own). Voluntary act is the product of a conscious choice i. MPC definition of involuntary: a bodily movement that otherwise is not a product of the effort or determination of the actor, either conscious or habitual  Common Law MPC Voluntary Acts: Voluntary Acts: Acts Done under duress A person is not guilty of an ○ Can be turned if you offense unless his liability is satisfy the defense of based on conduct which duress includes a voluntary act or Habitual Acts the omission to perform an Things done while act of which he is physically sleepwalking/under capable. hypnosis (some jurisdictions) \\Involuntary Acts: Involuntary: Reflexes Reflex or convulsion A bodily movement during unconsciousness or sleep Conduct during hypnosis or resulting from hypnotic suggestion A bodily movement that otherwise is not a product of the effort or determination of the actor, either conscious or habitual (Someone else taking your arm and slapping someone F. Status Offenses with it) a. One cannot be criminalized because of status because there is no voluntary act when we think of addition…the overall act of being addicted is not voluntary i. Continuing offense = status offense G. Robinson v. California a. A law that criminalizes one’s “status” is unconstitutional and considered cruel and unusual under the 8th and 14th amendments H. How Voluntary Act Doctrine Operates in Practice a. Martin v. State i. For someone to be held criminally liable, their acts that brought them to that position MUST have been voluntary…a person could not have been forced into committing the unlawful conduct involuntarily (man took outside on highway then charged) b. People v. Decina i. A criminal defendant who disregards the consequences that can result from driving a vehicle with knowledge of a health condition that can produce involuntary actions may be found guilty of vehicular homicide (had seizure and killed 4) c. People v. Grant i. Involuntary conduct or automatism is a valid defense in a criminal proceeding (punched a cop outside a bar…psychomotor seizure) I. Omission Liability  Omission Liability Definition/Examples Statutory Duties The legislature can create a legal duty for you to do certain things Ex. If a cop is nearby, they have a statutory obligation in most jurisdictions to come to one’s aid in the event of an emergency Contractual Duties If someone is contractually obligated to come to your aid, they can be prosecuted for not coming to your assistance Think of a lifeguard not coming to save you if you’re drowning Status Relationships These create a legal duty for the person in the relationship to come to your aid Examples ○ Parent to child ○ Spouse to spouse ○ Employer to employee ○ Ship captain to crew and passengers Duties Voluntarily Assumed Voluntary assumption of a legal duty creates a legal duty because such undertakings may have caused the victim to rely upon the aid or may have dissuaded others from helping Ex. An olympic swimmer being like “I got this!” and proceeding to not help you when you’re drowning Creation of a Risk of Peril If there is someone responsible for what happened to you to be in that situation, they have an obligation to come to your aid Ex. If someone pushed you into the pool and you start to drown, that person who pushed you has an obligation to act J. Omission Liability for MPC a. Liability for the commission of an offense may not be based on an omission unaccompanied by action unless… i. The omission is expressly made sufficient by the law defining the defense ii. A duty to perform the omitted act is otherwise imposed by law b. ***Limitation on Omission Liability*** i. With respect to the, one must only aid another to the extent of their ability to safely do so c. Jones v. US i. The duty of something/someone neglected must be a legal duty, not a moral one (kids in cages) K. Possessory Offenses a. Legislatures have created a wide range of possessory offenses, in which the simple act of possessing something constitutes an entire crime or a key element of a crime b. Courts have wrestled with what it means to legally possess something. c. Possessing something is a strange conduct because it involves not doing something, but having something d. Criminal law recognizes two types of possession i. Actual possession: requires physical custody ii. Constructive possession: satisfied by having sufficient dominion and control L. Special Focus: Drug Possession a. Drug offenses are possessory in nature  M. State v. Matarazzo a. Possession offenses do not require actual possession…Constructive possession suffices i. One is in control of a dwelling typically also constructively possesses articles found within the dwelling N. US v. “Zavala” Maldonado a. We can establish constructive possession when the defendant has power to control the illegal substance and intends to exercise that power O. Model Penal Code MPC a. Do the MPC and Common Law differ that much for possession, omission liability, and voluntary acts doctrine? i. Possession, omission liability, and the voluntary act doctrine are areas where the MPC and the common law approach are largely aligned although common law jurisdictions do not always express these doctrines in statutory form ii. MPC offers specific guidance on the amount of time that criminal possession requires. iii. § 2.01 MPC: Requirement of a Voluntary Act; Omission as Basis Liability; Possession as an Act 1. A person is not guilty of an offense unless his liability is based on conduct that includes a voluntary act or the omission to perform an act of which he is physically capable 2. The following are NOT voluntary acts within the meaning of this Section: a. Reflexes or convulsions b. A bodily movement during unconsciousness or sleep. c. Conduct during hypnosis or resulting from hypnotic suggestion. d. A bodily movement that otherwise is not a product of the effort or determination of the actor, either conscious or habitual 3. Liability for the commission of an offense may not be based on an omission unaccompanied by action UNLESS a. The omission is expressly made sufficient by the law defining the offense b. A duty to perform the omitted act is otherwise imposed by the law 4. Possession is an act if the possessor knowingly procured or received the thin possessed or was aware of his control thereof for a sufficient period to have been able to terminate the possession Chapter 6: The Guilty Mind A. MPC Mental States a. Purpose i. it is the actor’s conscious object to engage in the conduct or to cause the result ii. The actor is aware of the existence of the predicate circumstances, believes or hopes they exist b. Knowing i. Aware that the conduct is of the nature or that such circumstances exist ii. Aware that it is practically/substantially certain that the conduct will cause such result c. Reckless i. The actor consciously disregards ii. A substantial AND unjustifiable risk 3. Gross Deviation 4. From the standard of care or of conduct that a law-abiding person would observe d. Negligent i. Actor should have known, should have been aware of ii. A substantial AND unjustifiable risk iii. Failure to perceive it 4. Involves a gross deviation from the standard of care B. MPC general requirements of culpability she is aware that it is practically certain that his conduct will cause such a result a. Recklessly - a person acts recklessly with when… i. He consciously disregards a substantial and unjustifiable risk that the material element exists or will result from his conduct b. Negligently - a person acts negligently when… i. He should be aware of the substantial and unjustifiable risk that the material element exists or will result  from his conduct c. The difference between recklessness and negligence is whether the D foresaw the risk of the prohibited result occurring or ought to have foreseen it d. MPC punishes recklessness more severely than negligence e. Common law also follows the same definition of negligence = gross negligence C. Regina v. Faulkner a. Someone who is in the process of committing a felony cannot be convicted for an accidental act collateral to the felony that would have been a crime if done intentionally D. Specific v. General Intent (Common Law) Type Definition General Intent Defined in 3 ways 1. Generally blameworthy state of mind 2. A general awareness of the nature of what you are doing 3. Recklessness or even negligence as to the existence of the element in question Specific Intent Defined in 3 ways 1. A further intent beyond what is otherwise required to establish the crime 2. An intent to achieve a specific result or condition 3. A purposeful or knowing state of mind as to the existence of the element in question a. Specific intent is sometimes interpreted to require not just a knowingly, but purposeful state of mind b. Vermont v. James Riley i. The crime of simple assault does not require that the defendant have the actual ability or the actual intent to inflict bodily harm c. State v. Richardson i. The state must prove that the defendant had knowledge of the other person and a desire to seriously injure that specific person to convict a defendant of specific intent to inflict serious injury d. Elonis v. US i. Criminal statues generally include a requirement that a person is aware that they are committing a crime, even if the statute does not explicitly contain a mens rea requirement e. Holloway v. US i. Conditional intent is still considered to be intent 1. An intent to kill in the alternative is still an intent to kill f. Willful Blindness i. Choosing not to learn the facts to escape culpability 1. US v. Jewell 2. Deliberate ignorance and positive knowledge are equally culpable; when knowledge of the existence of a particular fact is an element of an offense, such knowledge is established if a person is aware of a high probability of its existence, unless he believes that it does not exist. g. Hate Crimes i. US v. Miller  1. Statutes use the term “because of” requires showing of “but-for” causation 2. Where was your head in relation to the thoughts? E. MPC v. Common Law a. MPC Default Rules i. Meant to help judges decide when and where to read various mental states into criminal statutes Rule # Rule 1: Minimum requirements of Except as provided in Section 2.05, culpability a person is not guilty of an offense unless he acted purposely, knowingly, recklessly or negligently, as the law may require, with respect to each element of the offense 3: Prescribed culpability When the law, defining an offense, requirement applies to all material prescribes the kind of culpability elements that is sufficient for commission of an 4 Substitutes for recklessness and When the law provides that negligence and knowledge negligence suffices to establish an element, such element also is established if a person acts purposely, knowingly or recklessly. When recklessness suffices to establish an element, such element also is established if a person accounts purposely or knowingly. When acting knowingly suffices to establish an element, such element also is established if a person acts purposely 5 Requirements of purpose satisfied When a particular purpose is an if purpose is conditional element of an offense, the element is established although such purpose is conditional unless the condition negatives the harm or evil sought to be prevented by the law defining the offense. (Conditional intent is still intent) 6 Requirement of knowledge When knowledge of the existence of satisfied by high probability a particular fact is an element of an offense, such knowledge is established if a person is aware of a high probability of its existence, unless he believes that it does not exist (Willful Blindness) 7 Requirement of Willfulness A requirement that an offense be satisfied by acting knowingly committed willfully is satisfied if a person acts knowingly with respect to the material elements of the offense, unless a purpose to impose further requirements appears 8 culpabilities as to illegality of Neither knowledge nor recklessness conduct or negligence as to whether conduct constitutes an offense or as the existence, meaning or application of  the law determining the elements of an offense is an element of such offense, unless the definition of the offense or the Code so provides (Ignorance is not a defense) F. Common Law Default Rules a. Ambiguities are largely resolved based on the text of the statute Common Law MPC Allows for strict liability (may be Requires at least negligent mens rea presumed for public welfare (no strict liability for any material offenses) element of a crime) If a statute is silent or ambiguous on If a statute is silent on mens rea, a mens rea, it is resolved based on minimum mental state of Plain language of text recklessness applies to all material Legislative intent and policy but elements courts will generally require at least recklessness (ex. Of exceptions: strict liability offenses and felony murder) Ambiguity as to which element a If a prescribed mens rea appears in a prescribed mens rea modifies is statute without making clear which resolved by looking at plain elements it applies to, then the language of text, leg. Intent, and prescribed mental state applies to all policy material elements (travel rule) If intent is conditional, then the If purpose is conditional, purpose mens rea is still met (Holloway) mens rea is still met G. Strict Liability (catch all for lack of mens rea) a. Only exists in the common law b. Even a reasonable believe is no defense because no state of mind is required for the element to be satisfied H. Regina v. Prince a. When the legislature clearly intends to omit a mens rea requirement as to the victim’s age in a criminal statute, a defendant’s honest, mistaken belief as to the victim’s age is not a defense I. Dean v. US a. Proof of intent is not required for the statute, even if the gun goes off accidently, defendant is still culpable (store robber with gun) J. Public Welfare Offenses a. What are Public Welfare Offences? i. Public welfare offenses are a class of offenses where courts decided NOT to read in mental state requirements. ii. These are presumed to require AT LEAST general intent with respect to all material elements iii. These are typically regulatory offenses b. What factors help guide courts on these types of offenses? i. The more severe the penalty the less likely the court will find strict liability ii. The greater the stigma of the offense, the less likely the court will find strict liability iii. The more innocent the nature of the activity the less likely the court will find strict liability iv. The greater the danger to the public the more likely the court will find strict liability v. The more regulated the activity generally the more likely the court will find strict liability vi. The easier it is for defendant to determine whether the offense elements exist through the exercise of ordinary diligence, the more likely the court will find strict liability c. Morissette v. U.S. i. Traditional, older common law offenses do not require the element of criminal intent to be explicitly stated; just because a statute of this nature does not explicitly include a mens rea, that doesn’t mean that no criminal intent is required. Even though the statute did not use any mens rea language, mens rea is a requirement of all crimes unless there is clear legislative intent not to require mens rea d. Mistake of Fact i. Mistakes of fact do not have to be reasonable 1. Imagine a jurisdiction defines murder as intentionally killing someone, and involuntary manslaughter as negligently killing someone. Intentionally killing someone requires that you at least act knowing that someone else is substantially certain to die because of what you do. 2. Imagine a deer hunter accidentally shooting and killing another deer hunter. He shot what he thought was a deer, but it was a person. a. He intended to kill what he was shooting, but he was mistaken about what it was. He wouldn’t have the mental state required because he didn’t intentionally (knowingly) kill another person i. The hunter’s unreasonable mistake would be a defense to a specific intent crime like intentionally killing another person ii. The hunter’s unreasonable mistake WOULD NOT be a defense to a general intent crime; so, he would be guilty of involuntary manslaughter here because that crime only requires negligence ii. People v. Navarro a. For specific intent crimes, D’s mistake of fact doesn’t have to be reasonable; it only needs to be based on a good-faith belief to negate a statute’s mens rea of specific intent iii. K. Common Distinction Between Specific and General Intent with Respect to Mistakes a. At common law, a mistake of fact didn’t have to be reasonable to be a defense to a specific intent crime i. Since specific intent crimes require that a person act with knowledge or purpose, it makes sense that a  genuine but unreasonable mistake would constitute a defense ii. ***However, a mistake of fact MUST be reasonable to be a defense to a general intent crime. *** L. Malum Prohibitum Crimes and Mistakes of Law a. Malum Prohibitum: These are acts that are wrong because a statute prohibits the act i. Regarding mistakes of law, judges have concluded that presuming knowledge of the law in criminal cases is an effective way to ensure that we learn and obey malum prohibitum offenses Defense Example Where knowledge of the law being broken is expressly required by the words U.S. v Moran exemplifies this of the statute, ignorance of the law is a defense Where use of the word “willful” occurs, it implies that the defendant has knowledge that what they are doing is wrong Where the crime contains a mental state element that requires knowledge of Example: some law other than the law defining the offense English case where an evicted tenant was prosecuted for vandalism for removing ceiling tiles, he put there himself that he wanted to keep when he moved ○ Vandalism statute required the defendant to knowingly damage the property of another ○ Tenant had to be aware of English property law to understand that the tiles became a structure of the home once he put them there ○ Since he had to be aware of additional law besides just the vandalism statute, court found that he didn’t have the required mental state for the crime When the legislature created by statute a limited “reliance” defense on some 3 types of legal authority that the defendant legal authority other than the statute itself a mistake of law resulting from can reasonably rely: such reliance is a defense. A statute later found to be invalid or unconstitutional A judicial interpretation of a statute later found to be erroneous An official interpretation by an agency or official charged with enforcing the law a. Cannot rely on the word of your defense attorney or a cop to be the official interpretation of that law b. Malum in Se: These are acts that are wrong “in and of themselves.” c. People v. Marrero i. No; a defendant may not raise a good faith mistaken belief as to the meaning of the law as a defense 1. Someone who violates a statute can’t use the defense of misinterpreting the law in good faith  M. Mistakes of Law Defenses a. When is mistake of law a permissible defense? i. There are 3 cases this can be used: Instances where Mistake of Law is a Permissible Defense A. U.S. v. Dennis Moran a. No, the defendant cannot be found guilty of copyright infringement since he truly believed that the copyright laws didn’t prohibit him from “insuring” his videos i. If the defendant truly believes that the law does not proscribe his/her conduct, then they can raise a “mistake of law” defense, even if the defendant’s view is not objectively reasonable Common Law v. MPC (Mistakes of Fact and Mistakes of Law) Common Law MPC Mistake of Fact Mistake of Fact The “legal wrong” doctrine Under the MPC, a mistake would impute guilt on of fact would make a defendant for the crime he defendant guilty of a lesser thought he was committing crime if the circumstances The mistake does not have had been as the defendant to be a reasonable one for a believed them to be specific intent crime ○ Under MPC, the ○ For general intent, it mistake does not must be reasonable have to be reasonable under any circumstances Mistake of Law Mistake of Law B. Intoxication a. Voluntary Intoxication and Mental State (2 rules) i. Voluntary Intoxication may negate a mental state of purpose or knowledge but not a mental state of criminal negligence or recklessness 1. Voluntary intoxication may negate a specific intent but not a general intent to commit a crime a. For general intent crimes, the defendant is held to the standard of a sober person when evaluating their mental state **THIS RULE ALSO REQUIRES JURIES TO PRETEND THAT THE DEFENDANT IS SOBER WHEN ASKING WHETHER THE DEFENDANT WAS SUBJECTIVELY AWARE OF THE RISK INVOLVED 2. For general intent the defendant is held to the standard of a sober person when evaluating the mental state a. Not a defense unless it negates an element of the offense C. Involuntary Intoxication and Mental State a. A few cases suggest that involuntary intoxication could negate one’s capacity to form general intent (recklessness or negligence b. Involuntary intoxication can be used to negate general intent (there are three types) i. Three types of involuntary intoxication (Common Law)  Unknowing Defendant didn’t know the intoxicating qualities of the substance consumed Ex. your drink is spiked, you drink something without any indication that there is alcohol in it Coerced Someone would need to be holding you down and forcing you to drink it Peer pressure would not qualify Pathological One shot rule If after one time you take that substance and have a bad reaction, you can use this defense one time. After that, this is not usable because after that you would understand the risks of ingesting that substance To raise this. (1) The intoxicating reaction is truly excessive (2) Defendant had no way of knowing that there would be an excessive reaction D. Intoxication as a General Mental State Defense a. MPC rules for intoxication i. Except as provided in Subsection (4) of this Section, intoxication of the actor is not a defense unless is negates an element of the offense 1. When recklessness establishes an element of the offense, if the actor, due to self-induced intoxication, is unaware of a risk of which he would have been aware had he been sober, such unawareness is immaterial a. AKA, this defense is not usable unless it negates a purposeful or knowing intent b. **Minority rule states that it can be used for recklessness* 2. Intoxication does not constitute a mental disease within the meaning of Section §4.01 3. Intoxication that is not (a) self-inducted or (b) is pathological is an affirmative defense if by reason of such intoxication the actor at the time of his conduct lacks substantial capacity either to appreciate its criminality (wrongfulness) or to conform his conduct to the requirements of law. a. AKA, the intoxication cannot be voluntary on the part of the defendant ii. State v. Cameron 1. To raise the defense of voluntary intoxication, one has to show that they were so intoxicated that they couldn’t the specific intent to commit the offense b. Minority Rules to Intoxication Defense i. Rule #1: Voluntary Intoxication is NEVER a usable defense (Egelhoff) ii. Rule #2: Voluntary intoxication can be used for reckless crimes (MPC) iii. Montana v. Egelhoff  1. No; nothing in the Due Process Clause of the 14th Amendment prevents Montana from prohibiting consideration of a defendant’s intoxication when determining the existence of a mental state. iv. Minority Rule: Voluntary intoxication is NEVER a defense to a specific intent crime 1. Commonwealth of Pennsylvania v. Karen Smith (Pathological Intoxication) a. Defendants can’t generally assert an involuntary intoxication defense if they’re responsible for their intoxication. E. Homicide: Murder Common Law MPC Associated Cases Intent to Kill: (first degree) Intent to Kill: Warden v. Franklin Specific Intent Crime Done purposely or People are generally (Willfully, knowingly presumed to intend the Intentionally, natural and probable knowingly. etc) consequences of their Deadly Weapon Rule: Intent to kill may be inferred from use of actions a deadly Weapon Common Law MPC Associated Cases Intent to Grievously Injure Intent to Grievously Injure NA (2nd degree) Does not exist under Specific Intent (to the Model Penal Code grievously injure, not kill) ○ Purposely (In causing the injury that led to death) ○ Knowingly (Being substantially certain that the injury would occur) Grievous Injury: The injury must seriously impair the victim in a permanent or semi-permanent way A. Elements of Intent to Kill Murder: a. Definition: If one consciously desires that someone dies, or is substantially certain that they will die by their conduct, then they intend to kill them i. **People are generally presumed to intend the natural and probable consequences of what they do** ii. This is different from premeditated/deliberate because intent can be formed at any time; premeditation and deliberation require it was thought about and planned B. Requirements/Elements of Intent to Grievously Injure a. Definition: Here, the assailant must seriously impair the victim in a permanent or semi-permanent way i. Only recognized by a minority of jurisdictions today ii. Most typically occurs when a fighting or beating gets out of hand  iii. **Generally, the injury must make you worry about “life, health, or limb.” C. Premeditated and Deliberate Murder Common Law MPC Associated Cases Premeditated/Deliberate (1st Premeditated/Deliberate (1st State v. Bingham Watson v. degree) degree) U.S. Specific Intent No degrees of murder Commonwealth v. Carroll In MPC, a purposeful or knowing killing is a murder, whether you thought about it for a second or for a year a. Definition i. Requirements/Elements of Premeditated and Deliberate Murder: ii. Premeditation: Sufficient time to deliberate iii. Deliberation: Defendant deliberates b. There needs to be time for “brief reflection.” i. MAJORITY APPROACH: There needs to be enough time to change your mind, to give your decision a “second look.” ii. Quality of time: How clearly were they able to think about it iii. Quantity of time: How long did they think about it A. Earmarks: Weigh these like factors a. Motive b. Planning Activity c. Manner of killing (Lying in wait, acquiring a weapon, poisoning, etc.) B. Watson v. U.S. (Premeditated/Deliberate) a. A reasonable jury could find, from the evidence of the government, that D had formed the decision to kill upon reaching for the loose gun, and that he gave further thought about this decision when the officer pleaded for his life. b. There is no specified time period for how long it could take for premeditation or deliberation to form C. Commonwealth v. Carroll (Premeditated/Deliberate) a. Yes, Defendant is guilty of murder in the first degree i. There is no set time period for forming the (premeditation) intent required for 1st degree murder B. Depraved Heart Murder Common Law MPC Associated Cases  Depraved Heart/Reckless (1st degree) Depraved Mayes v. Illinois General Intent Heart/Reckless People v. Marjorie Knoller ○ Recklessly (in context Reckless (in Kansas v. John P Doub III of murder: gross context of (MPC) deviation from murder done reasonable care under stemming from a circumstances conscious disregard of a manifesting an substantial and extreme unjustifiable risk to indifference to human life) the value of **Some human life) jurisdictions differentiate between recklessness (manslaughter) and EXTREME recklessness (murder) 1. Elements of Depraved Heart/Reckless Murder A. Definition: A homicide occurs involving conduct so reckless that it resulted in someone's death a. Reckless indifference is enough to constitute “malice aforethought” B. Elements: Here, the killing does not require purpose, the actor just needs to be doing something considered reckless a. Conscious disregard b. Substantial and c. Unjustifiable risk that constitutes a d. Gross deviation from the standard of care of a reasonable person (Common Law) C. Elements: MPC a. Extreme indifference to Human Life i. Mayes v. Illinois (Depraved Heart) 1. Intent to harm isn’t always material; if one commits an act even with the intention of “mischief” and death ensues, it will be considered murder ii. People v. Marjorie Knoller (Depraved Heart) 1. A murder conviction requires a finding of malice, which can be express or implied. a. A finding of implied malice requires that one act with a conscious disregard for human life iii. Kansas v John P. Doub III (Depraved Heart) 1. A driver who acted with an “extreme indifference to human life” can be convicted of depraved heart murder 1. Felony Murder Common Law MPC Associated Cases  Felony Murder Felony Murder General Rule NONE (It is viewed in Presumed recklessness West Virginia v. Paul Everett a strict liability sense) ○ Fact that you have Sims engaged in an inherently People v. Archie Fuller dangerous felony Limits on Felony Murder ○ Presumed means Hines v. State of Georgia that it is People v. Everett Keith rebuttable Howard P has met Limiting Felony Murders to this, but D Independent Felonies People can put v. Linda Lee Smith forth an Limiting Causal argument Relationship Between the to Felony and the Resulting challenge Death this People of State of NY v. MPC Gladman gives a little more wiggle room People v. Cavitt State v. for D Martin A. Elements of felony murder 1. Definition: One is guilty of murder if a death results from a felony, one commits or attempts to commit C. Rules for Felony Murder 1. 2 Ways for determining what felonies are included (Felonies Included Rules) i. Enumeration: This means that the statute lists the felonies that suffice for felony murder and limits felony murder on that list 1. The following all created felony murder liability at common law and are also the most commonly enumerated felonies in those jurisdictions that list them in their statute a. Rape b. Robbery c. Burglary d. Arson e. Kidnapping 2. Inherently Dangerous Felony Rule: i. Per se: The felony in the abstract is inherently dangerous (Dr. Strange analogy lol) ii. Manner of commission: The felony in a particular case is carried out in a dangerous fashion D. How do we determine if a felony is permissible to be used as the underlying felony for a felony murder charge? (Independent Felony Rule) 1. Independent Felony Rule: The felony that gives rise to felony murder must be independent from the resulting homicide i. Independent = the felony must have an entirely separate felonious purpose from the homicide itself 1. “Inapplicable to felonies that are an integral part of and include with fact homicide.” (Rule from Smith case) E. How do we determine how to connect the initial felony to the resulting homicide? (Causation Rules) (Majority of  Jurisdictions require both of these) 1. Actual Causation: But for the felony, the death would not have occurred 2. Proximate Causation: The death was the foreseeable result of the felony i. Not foreseeable if the death occurs in a manner that is so unexpected or unusual that he or she could not justly be found culpable of the result F. Theories 1. Agency Theory (majority): No liability for kills that happen from a non-agent i. Only agents of the felony are liable for deaths that occur FROM THEM ii. If a bystander shoots and kills another bystander while a felony is taking place, the felon wouldn’t be liable 2. Proximate Causation Theory (Minority): You put the situation into motion, so the results that occur are not unexpected or unforeseeable i. Especially if there is a cop or security guard. If a cop shoots and accidentally hits a bystander, the felon is still on the hook. ii. Felon will be liable for any deaths that occur during their felony 3. Redline Rule (Bright Line Rule): Felons are not liable under felony murder for deaths of co-felons caused by felony victims or police officers 4. Res Gestae Rule: Whether the killing was committed in, about and as a part of the underlying transaction G. West Virginia v. Sims 1. No; whether the discharge was accidental or not does not have an impact on whether or not the felony murder rule would apply; malice is not an element that is required to be proven for the crime i. Malice is not an element that has to be present/proven by the prosecution for felony-murder convictions H. People v. Archie Fuller 1. Yes, a homicide that occurs during one felony will qualify as murder in the first degree i. All murder that occurs during another felony will be considered first degree murder under the felony murder rule. I. Limits on Felony Murder 1. YES! There are 2 ways i. Enumeration: This is when the statute lists the felonies that suffice for felony murder and limits felony murder liability to that list. The following are all felonies that create felony murder liability at COMMON LAW and are also commonly listed in jurisdictions that list them in their statute ii. Inherently Dangerous Felony Rule: At common law, only felonies that were dangerous to human life supported felony murder. 1. Per Se Rule: A felony is only inherently dangerous if there is no way the felony can be committed without creating a substantial risk that someone will die (IN THE ABSTRACT) 2. By Commission: A felony is inherently dangerous if it was committed in a dangerous manner in the case before the court (By the facts of the case) 2. Hines v. State of Georgia (By Commission and Per Se) i. A felony is “inherently dangerous” when it is “dangerous per se” or “by its circumstances creates a foreseeable risk of death.” 3. The People v. Everett Keith Howard (Per Se) i. Per se rule: If a felony can be committed without creating a substantial risk of death to another, it is not inherently dangerous. J. Limiting Felony Murders to Independent Felonies 1. The People v. Linda Lee Smith i. To be convicted under the felony murder statute, the underlying felony cannot be an “integral part of” or “included in fact” in the resulting homicide. For felony murder, the underlying felony must have an “independent felonious purpose” that isn’t homicide. K. Limits on the Causal Relationship Between the Felony and the Resulting Death 1. The People of the State of New York v. Gladman i. To determine if a homicide takes place in the immediate flight, the following factors should be  considered: 1. Interval of time between the commission of the felony and the commission of the homicide? 2. Whether the culprit had possession of the fruits of criminal activity? 3. Were the police in close pursuit? 4. Did the criminal reach a place of temporary safety? 2. People v. Cavitt (Logical Nexus) i. A logical nexus and temporal connection are necessary for a felony murder conviction of non-killing co- felons 1. Logical nexus-needs to be “beyond mere coincidence of time and place” 2. Temporal nexus- “part of one continuous transaction” 3. State v. Martin (Logical Nexus/Causation) i. No; the ensuing death from the felony cannot be too remote in nature in relation to the underlying felony 1. To be convicted for felony murder, the resulting homicide must be proven with actual and proximate causation, not just actual causation L. Homicide: Manslaughter 1. Voluntary Manslaughter Common Law MPC Associated Cases Voluntary Manslaughter: A Voluntary Manslaughter: A Illinois v. Walker killing where the defendant homicide which would acts because of adequate otherwise be murder is Giorard v. Maryland (Adequate provocation, without a cooling committed under the influence provocation) off period of extreme mental or emotional disturbance for Brooks v. State (Adequate Mental State=Specific Intent which there is reasonable provocation) explanation or excuse. The reasonableness of such State v. Gounagias explanation or excuse shall be (Reasonable Cooling Off determined from the viewpoint Period) of a person in the actor’s situation under the People v. Casassas (MPC and circumstances as he believes EMED) them to be Mental State= Purpose Elements: (Adequate Elements: (EMED) Provocation) No cooling off period Defendant acted in the “heat of (DIFF FROM CL). As passion” of the killing long as D is under extreme Defendant demonstrates that mental emotional distress, it they were “adequately can be considered provoked” manslaughter Killer must have been ○ **BUT THE provoked (subjective) REACTION A reasonable person would NEEDS TO BE have been provoked (objective) REASONABL The killer must NOT have E killed off before the killing. It can’t be a weird response (subjective) to a situation (Think of the Casassas case) Purposely, knowingly, or extremely recklessly BUT had to be suffering from an “extreme mental or emotional disturbance.” A reasonable person would not have cooled off before the D under extreme emotional killing (objective) distress **WORDS ALONE Reasonable CANNOT BE SUFFICIENT explanation/excuse for the FOR ADEQUATE behavior (objective PROVOCATION** standard/ordinary person) Some jurisdictions may allow for informational words **BATTERED WOMAN’S SYNDROME CAN BE USED FOR ADEQUATE PROVOCATION Evidence of past abuse and a fear for future, continued abuse can prove sufficient to move a murder charge down to manslaughter (Just make sure you don’t have crappy counsel)  2 basic types of provoking events ○ Sexual acts (adultery) ○ Violent acts 1. Definition: The unlawful killing of another human being without malice (CL) A. Illinois v. Walker (General Rule) a. A killing that happened in the heat of the moment b/c of a violent provocation is considered voluntary manslaughter, not murder. B. Girouard v. Maryland (Adequate Provocation) a. Words alone cannot constitute adequate provocation. But they can if the words are accompanied by conduct indicating a present intention and ability to cause the defendant bodily harm. C. Brooks v. State (Adequate Provocation) a. Battered woman’s syndrome can be considered appropriate “adequate provocation” for a manslaughter charge D. State v. Gounagias (Reasonable Cooling Off Period) a. A provocation which does not cause instant resentment, but which is only resented after being thought upon and brooded over, is not a provocation sufficient in law to reduce intentional killing from murder to manslaughter. E. People v. Cassassas (MPC and EMED) a. The defense of extreme emotional disturbance has 2 components i. Defendant must have “acted under the influence of extreme emotional disturbance (subjective) ii. There must have been a “reasonable explanation or excuse” for such emotional disturbance (objective) 2. Involuntary Manslaughter Common Law MPC Associated Cases Involuntary Manslaughter: Manslaughter: People of the State of Colorado Requires criminal/gross Requires recklessness v. Nathan Hall (MPC) negligence (A conscious disregard of a substantial and State of Washington v. unjustifiable risk) Williams (Minority Rule) 1. Definition: The extraordinary unintentional killing that constitutes extremely reckless murder a. Majority Rule: Requires at least criminal/gross negligence b. Failure to recognize a substantial and unjustifiable risk of death c. Some require recklessness 1) The actor consciously disregards the substantial and unjustifiable risk of death a) Minority Rule: Requires only ordinary negligence i) Should have been aware of a risk (Washington v Williams) 2) The People of the State of Colorado v. Nathan Hall (MPC) a) To be charged with reckless murder, they must have consciously disregarded a substantial and unjustifiable risk of death to another (**IF THERE IS ANY SORT OF RISK OF DEATH, THAT IS  ENOUGH TO CREATE A SUBSTANTIAL RISK**) 3) State of Washington v. Williams (Minority Rule Example) a) If a person commits ordinary negligence, (fails to exercise ordinary caution that a reasonable person would exercise under the same or similar circumstances), and such negligence proximately causes the death of another, the person is guilty of involuntary manslaughter. 3. Homicide: Causation (1) Actual Causation (a) Both actual and proximate cause are required for criminal liability (i) Actual: But for the fact, the result would not have occurred (ii) Proximate: Central idea here is that of foreseeability; and we limit criminal liability to foreseeable harms 1. Actual Causation a. What if multiple people attack someone? i. Doctrine of Complicity: Any one accomplice can be held liable for the acts of another. This fills in any gaps in causation that occur when more than one person causes the bad result ii. Under this, each felon is responsible for the acts of the other, and together they did the crime iii. Does actual cause need to be the exclusive cause of an action? iv. NO; it doesn’t have to be the sole cause, but it can be a substantial factor Accelerating Causes Imagine being stabbed and left for dead in the road. If someone comes up to you and shoots you and that kills you, that cause accelerated the death Concurrent Sufficient Causes Say 2 people acted independently and stabbed and shot you at the same time. Courts in scenarios like this will often say that each act was a “substantial factor” in bringing about his death Concurrent Insufficient Causes What if neither wound was fatal in and of itself, but both cumulatively resulted in your death? Here, each act clearly satisfies the but for test, but for the stabbing, you wouldn’t have died. But for the shooting, you wouldn’t have died. 1) Year and a day rule a) At common law, one couldn’t be guilty of a homicide crime unless the victim died within a year and a day of the homicidal act i) Period has been increased or the rule has been abolished altogether 2) Proximate Cause a) What happens if the wrong person is harmed during the commission of an act? i) Harming the wrong person doesn’t ordinarily break the chain of causation between the defendant and the result (Transferred intent) (1) What ways to we determining if an actor can be held causally responsible in cases where a victim suffers harm in an unexpected way?  3) Dependent Intervening Cause (not superseding): This is an intervening cause that was a response to something that the defendant did (this usually doesn’t break the chain of causation) a) Independent Intervening Cause (Superseding): This is an intervening cause that operated completely independently of the defendant’s actions i) How do we treat victims with pre-existing weaknesses? (1) These don’t break the chain of causation (a) You “take the victim as they are” (b) Eggshell victim: You knock down someone whose skull is as thick as an eggshell; if he dies you are still on the hook for that 4) Regina v. Martin Dyos a) If, in the absence of the defendant’s action(s), there is a possibility that the death still could have occurred, then the defendant cannot be found guilty under the theory of actual causation. 5) State v. Echols a) The element of proximate cause in a crime requires only that the defendant’s actions be a proximate cause, not the sole proximate cause, of an injury. 6) Commonwealth v. Root a) Involuntary manslaughter requires unlawful or reckless conduct which is the direct cause of a resulting death. A. Defenses a. Self Defense i. How can we determine when defensive force is justifiable? 1. Checklist: Justifiable defensive force MUST: a. Be used against an unlawful force