CRIMINAL LAW OUTLINE FALL 2007
PROFESSOR RIDOLFI
PRINCIPLES OF PUNISHMENT CH. 2
I. Purposes of Punishment (4)
1) Deterrence (general and individual)
2) Retribution
3) Incapacitation
4) Rehabilitation
ACTUS REUS CH. 4
Elements of a Crime (4)
1) Actus Reus
2) Mens Rea
3) Result
4) Attendant Circumstances
a. circumstances that must be present, in conjunction w/act and result, in order to constitute the crime (e.g. if statutory offense is driving an automobile in an intoxicated condition, the attendant circumstance is being in an intoxicated condition)
I. Actus Reus (Def.): physical or external part of crime
A. Voluntary Act (“Positive Acts”)- Did D perform a voluntary act?
1. GR: D must (voluntarily) perform physical act for each element of crime that has an actus reus component.
a. Martin v. State p.127: Court held that D (intoxicated man who was arrested by police officers in his own home, taken onto a public highway, and charged with public drunkenness & manifesting drunken condition) could not be convicted b/c D did not voluntarily go to the public highway; D was forced there by arresting officers.
2. GR: To be culpable, voluntary human actions require consent of the actor’s will (a person who acts unconsciously may not have the requisite actus reus).
a. Voluntary intoxication is not a complete defense (juries given cautionary instruction about voluntarily induced consciousness)
b. State v. Utter p.129: D, intoxicated man w/ alleged “conditioned
response” acquired through combat training, fatally stabbed son. Though evidence insufficient to determine whether D was in unconscious state, Court held that defense could be established if D proved act conditioned or automatic.
B. Omissions (“Negative Acts”)- Did D omit to perform an act?
1. D has legal duty to act when…
a. status relationship exists btw D and victim
b. contract
c. statute
d. D voluntarily assumed the risk
e. D created the risk (responsible party)
2. GR: D can be held criminally liable if he fails to perform a legal duty and the omission causes harm.
-However, moral obligations to act do not create legal duties to act.
a. People v. Beardsley p.134: Intoxicated D failed to assist mistress, who was in stupor after consuming alcohol and morphine tablets. Court held that even though D may have had moral obligation to victim (as guardian & protector), D did not have legal duty (D and victim not married).
3. Policy Reasons for Limiting Omissions
a. More ambiguous than wrongdoings (acts)
b. Where to draw line when problems arise (e.g. Kitty Genovese case, when someone is forced to kill another person)
C. Distinguishing Acts from Omissions
1. GR: Removal of life support is considered a withdrawal or omission to act.
-D is not criminally liable if omission to act is in accord with patient’s (or those who are legally responsible for patient) wishes.
a. Barber v. Superior Court p.140: D-doctor took comatose patient off life support machines at the family’s request. Court held that D not liable for murder.
2. D does not have legal duty to act in situations where acting will not change the situation- nature can take its course (e.g. situation with two children in peril and saving one will result in death of the other).
D. Social Harm
1. Result Crimes
a. Law punishes b/c of unwanted outcome (e.g. death or destruction), namely harm resulting from D’s act or omissions
b. Social harm b/c community loses sense of security (more than just immediate victim suffers)
2. Conduct Crimes
a. Law prohibits specific dangerous behavior (e.g. driving under influence, solicitation to commit murder)
b. No social harm in tangible sense, but can argue that D endangers “socially valuable interests” while committing prohibited act
MENS REA CH. 5
I. Mens Rea (Def.): mental element of crime- a guilty mind, a guilty or wrongful purpose, a criminal intent
A. Nature of Mens Rea: To be guilty of a crime which has mens rea as one of its elements, the actor must have a guilty state of mind. U.S. v. Cordoba-Hincapie p. 147
1. GR: Mens rea requires a showing of intent or recklessness; a showing of malice or wickedness is not enough to convict.
a. Regina v. Cunningham p.149: D stole gas meter from basement of a house, causing gas to leak into adjoining house and partially asphyxiate elderly woman who lived there. Court overturned D’s conviction b/c held that defining “maliciousness” as “wickedness” too broad; D could only be convicted if he intentionally or recklessly injured victim.
B. Culpability: “Intent”
1. GR: A person acts with intent if he (1) desires to bring about a specific harm or (2) knows that the harm is almost certain to occur as a result of his conduct (“natural and probable consequences of his actions”).
a. People v. Conley p.151: After an argument at a high school party, D hit victim in the face with a wine bottle, causing injuries to victim’s mouth and teeth incl. permanent disability. Court held D liable b/c could infer intent from surrounding circumstances (e.g. words, weapon used, force of blow, absence of warning).
b. Unconstitutional (violates due process) for judge to instruct jury that the law presumes that a person intends the ordinary consequences of his voluntary acts. Sandstrom v. Montana p.154
2. Transferred Intent: When D intends to cause harm to 1 person but accidentally causes it to another, courts typically transfer D’s intent from 1st person to 2nd person
3. General Intent (intend the act) v. Specific Intent (intend the harm)
a. General Intent- any mental state, whether express or implied, in the def. of the offense that relates solely to the acts that constitute the criminal offense
b. Specific Intent- (1) special mental element required above and beyond any mental state required w/respect to actus reus of crime OR (2) actor aware of statutory attendant circumstance
C. Culpability: Model Penal Code § 2.02
1. Purposely: A person acts purposely if…
a. in context of result or conduct, it is his conscious object to engage in conduct of that nature or to cause such a result
b. in context of attendant circumstances, he is aware of existence of such circumstances or believes that they exist
2. Knowingly: A person acts knowingly if…
a. in context of result, he is aware that it is practically certain conduct will cause such a result
b. in context of attendant circumstances and conduct, he is aware that conduct is of that nature or that attendant circumstances exist
3. Recklessly: A person acts recklessly if he consciously disregards a substantial and unjustified risk that the material element [of the crime] exists or will result from conduct
a. substantial and unjustified risk involves gross deviation from standard of conduct that law-abiding person would observe in actor’s situation
b. difference btw knowingly and recklessly is degree of awareness
4. Negligently: A person acts negligently if he should be he aware of a substantial and unjustifiable risk that that the material element exists or will result from his conduct
a. negligent actor’s risk taking inadvertent (no awareness)
b. objective reasonable person standard applied
D. Culpability- “Knowledge” of Attendant Circumstances (Willful Blindness)
1. GR: A person acts knowingly when he is aware that attendant circumstances exist. (mens rea requirement with respect to particular fact not satisfied unless person had actual knowledge of existence of particular fact)
a. State v. Nations p.161: D-nightclub owner hired 16 yr. old girl to dance in club, though D claimed that she (1) asked girl for identification and (2) thought girl was 18. Court held that D could not be convicted of endangering welfare of child b/c no evidence to show that D had actual knowledge girl was under 17.
i. Showing D acted recklessly (aware of high probability of fact’s existence) not enough to meet burden of proof unless willful blindness included in statute
b. Proving Willful Blindness beyond a reasonable doubt
(U.S. v. Alston-Graves)
i. Evidence of overt physical acts to avoid knowledge (e.g. absenting oneself from the scene of an illegal drug delivery)
ii. Evidence of psychological avoidance (i.e. mental acts that cut off curiosity)
E. Problems in Statutory Interpretation of Mens Rea
1. GR: If statute ambiguous regarding whether mens rea term applies to all or only some elements of a crime, court should examine legislative intent (history) to determine correct interpretation.
a. U.S. v. Morris p. 167: D-hacker intentionally released worm virus onto the Internet, but did not intend to cause damage to high level gov’t computer systems. Court convicted D, holding that “intentionally” only applied to access portion (not damage) of statute.
2. GR (MPC §2.02(4)): Single mens rea term modifies each actus reus element of the offense, unless legislature indicates contrary purpose
II. Strict Liability and Mens Rea
A. GR: Mens Rea is not required for strict liability offenses. Only an actus reus is required for conviction. U.S. v. Cordoba-Hincapie p.172
1. Strict liability offenses (mostly public welfare offenses) usually have (1) a “small” punishment and (2) no stigma attached
B. GR: If a federal crime does not expressly state a mens rea requirement, determination of necessary mental state made by construing statute itself and by examining intent of Congress.
1. Staples v. U.S. p.174: D charged w/violating federal statute that required
registration of automatic weapons when police found modified AR-15 civilian rifle (similar to M-16 military machine gun) in his home. Court reversed D’s conviction, holding that Congress probably did not intend to dispense of mens rea requirement b/c prevalence of gun ownership in country.
C. GR: Mistake is not a defense to strict liability offenses.
1. Garnett v. State p.184: D, a 20 yr. old man w/low I.Q., charged with statutory rape for having sex w/13 yr. old that he believed was 16. Court held that even if D had good faith mistake w/regard to girl’s age (lack of mens rea), D still liable b/c statutory rape is a strict liability offense.
D. Policy Reasons FOR Strict Liability
1. Might keep relatively large class of people from participating in dangerous activities
2. People who engage in risky activity might act more cautiously b/c would be held strictly liable if caught
3. Inquiry into everyone act’s mens rea would burden courts
E. Policy Reasons AGAINST Strict Liability
1. Inconsistent w/purposes of criminal law
a. Culpability- a person may be punished for a crime even if they are not morally blameworthy
b. Deterrence- strict liability legislation does not deter b/c actor not aware of facts that make his conduct dangerous
2. Alternatives to Strict Liability
a. Requiring proof of recklessness, but setting higher penalties
b. Minor penalties, but require extremely low level of mens rea
c. Permit “lack of mens rea” affirmative defense
3. MPC § 2.02 (1): a person is criminally liable only if prosecution proves some form of culpability/mens rea regarding each material element of an offense
a. EXC: MPC § 2.05: strict liability recognized only for “violations” (wrongs subject to fines, forfeitures, or other civil penalties)
III. Mistake and Mens Rea
A. Mistake of Fact
1. GR: Mistake of Fact (reasonable or unreasonable) is a defense if it negates the mens rea required for specific intent crimes.
a. People v. Navarro p.191: D. charged w/theft for taking 4 wooden beams from a construction site that he thought was abandoned. Court held that D. could not be found guilty b/c prosecution had to show D had requisite intent; not enough to show that reasonable man would have know true nature of facts.
2. Common Law Mistake Doctrine: Reasonable mistake of fact (but not unreasonable one) is a defense for general intent crimes b/c negates culpability required for offense.
a. EXC- Moral Wrong Theory: no exculpation for mistake where, if facts had been as actor believed them to be, conduct would still be immoral (immoral act = requisite culpability)
i. Regina v. Prince p.194: Even though D believed girl 18 yr. old when he took her from her home, convicted b/c morally wrong to take child from parents w/out permission
b. EXC- Legal Wrong Theory: if D’s conduct, based on facts as he believes them to be, constitutes a crime (illegal), may be convicted of more serious offence of which he is actually guilty
B. Mistake (or Ignorance) of Law
1. 2 types: (1) mistake re meaning and (1) mistake re what constitutes an offense
2. GR: Mistake of Law (even if the mistake is reasonable) is not a defense.
a. People v. Marrero p. 196: D, a federal corrections officer, convicted for violating statute which he believed gave him the right to carry a gun. Court upheld D’s conviction, arguing that if D’s defense accepted, mistakes of law would be encouraged and wrong-minded individuals might use the defense to avoid conviction.
3. Policy Reasons FOR GR
a. Certainty of law- law is “definite and knowable”
b. Avoiding subjectivity in the law