I. General Framework of Criminal Law

Criminal Law

Table of Contents

I. General Framework of Criminal Law

A.  Void for Vagueness…………………………………………………….1

B.  Utilitarian……………………………………………………………….1

C.  Retributive………………………………………………………………2

D.  Actus Reus……………………………………………………………...2

E.  Voluntariness…………………………………………………………...2-3

F.  Mens Rea……………………………………………………………….3-5

G.  Law of Mistake…………………………………………………………5-7

H.  Intoxication and Capacity………………………………………………7-8

I.  Causation……………………………………………………………….8-9

II. Specific Crimes

A.  Homicide……………………………………………………………….9-10

B.  Provocation…………………………………………………………….10-12

C.  Involuntary Manslaughter……………………………………………...12-13

D.  Felony Murder Rule……………………………………………………13-14

E.  Death Penalty…………………………………………………………..14-15

F.  Rape…………………………………………………………………….15-17

G.  Theft Crimes……………………………………………………………17-18

III. Defenses

A.  Defenses Generally……………………………………………………..19

B.  Self Defense…………………………………………………………….19-21

C.  Necessity………………………………………………………………..21-22

D.  Duress…………………………………………………………………..22-23

E.  Insanity…………………………………………………………………23-25

IV. Attempt

A.  Generally……………………………………………………………….25

B.  Policy/Theory…………………………………………………………..25-26

C.  Impossibility……………………………………………………………26

D.  Impossibility Brain Teaser……………………………………………..26-27

E.  MPC on Attempt……………………………………………………….27-29

V. Group Crimes

A.  Solicitation……………………………………………………………..29-30

B.  Accomplice Liability…………………………………………………..30-31

C.  Conspiracy……………………………………………………………..31-33

Criminal Law Outline

Prof. Kerr

Michael Forman

I. General Framework of Criminal Law

A.  Void for Vagueness Doctrine

·  Void for Vagueness is a two pronged test:

§  A law is void if it leaves the public uncertain as to the conduct it prohibits

§  A law is void if it authorizes or encourages arbitrary or discriminatory enforcement

·  Chicago v. Morales – loitering law for criminal gang members found to be vague because the it is uncertain what the criminal conduct is and it leads police to act arbitrarily when enforcing it

·  Papchristou v. Jacksonville – the city law made it a crime to be a vagrant; law struck down because it gave police complete discretion to determine who was a vagrant

B.  Utilitarian Theories on Punishment

·  Theories looking toward preventing future crimes

·  Theories help to make policy arguments on whether laws are good or bad

·  Three types pf util. arguments

§  Deterrence: criminals will perform a cost-benefit analysis; Does the cost of punishment outweigh the benefit of the crime?

§  Incapacitation: When someone is in jail, he cannot commit a crime; assumes repeat offenders who are not replaced by “new recruits” and who are not encouraged to commit more crimes on release from jail

§  Rehabilitation: criminals can be treated and cured from their diseases during their punishment; applies most to drug and alcohol abuse

·  Specific deterrence refers to the effect on the person prosecuted

·  General deterrence refers to the effect on the people who may commit the crime in the future

·  Prosecuting copyright infringement (i.e. Napster) is a good way to cause a high general deterrence value

·  Incapacitation is simple but doesn’t always work because there is usually someone ready to replace a criminal who is caught

C.  Retributive Theory on Punishment

·  Main idea behind retribution is just dessert, i.e. people should get what they deserve

·  Someone who has done wrong should suffer in proportion to his wrongdoing

·  A criminal conviction shows a general condemnation of the criminal actions by the state

·  Retributive punishments bring moral values back to balance

·  A criminal may value himself over the rest of society; punishment balances this moral value

D.  Actus Reus

·  Every crime must contain an act

·  Policy reasons for act requirement

§  Can’t be punished for bad thoughts and no actions

§  Mere thoughts don’t cause harm

§  State can’t punish thought crimes; State can’t prove thoughts

·  Robinson v. California – cannot be punished for having the status of being a drug addict; the law in the case punishes for having the desire to commit a crime, therefore there is no act

·  Proctor v. State – man was prosecuted for owning a house with an intent to distribute liquor; cannot simply punish for owning a house, there must be the act of distributing liquor before punishment is given;

·  There is a difference between ownership and possession; possession is a proactive, knowing concept, where ownership is not always; you can’t deter ownership, but you can deter possession

·  Omissions: if you have a legal duty to do something, knowing not performing that duty can substitute for an act

·  There are 4 situations where an omission would be criminal:

§  Statute imposes a duty

§  One stands in a certain status relationship to another

§  One has assumed a contractual duty to care for

§  One has voluntarily assumed control and prevented others from caring for the person

·  Act requirement is punishing people for conscious choices and decisions, whether those choices result in an act or in the omission of an act

E.  Voluntariness as an Aspect of Actus Reus

·  Act must be voluntary

·  Person cannot be held liable for something he cannot control

·  People v. Newton – def. brought a gun on a plane from the Bahamas to Luxembourg; the flight was interrupted and landed in NY; he was arrested and convicted under NY law; court reversed conviction because def. did not subject himself to criminal liability by virtue of a voluntary act

·  Martin v. State – no voluntary act because Martin was brought against his will to public property by police; Martin was drunk, but he was not voluntarily on public property

·  People v. Grant – def. assaults a police officer at a bar; he had a grand mal seizure in jail, he had been suffering from psychomotor epilepsy when the crime took place. For an act to be considered voluntary, A jury not only has to determine whether a person has the capacity to appreciate the criminal liability of his conduct or to conform his conduct to be in compliance with the law, BUT ALSO they must determine whether someone who has this capacity has BEHAVED AUTOMATICALLY.

·  If person acts involuntarily but chooses to drink beforehand and knows drinking can cause the condition, the he will be held liable for his actions

·  Man who knows he has seizures and drives a car anyways deserves punishment for a crime he commits because he is knowingly putting himself in a dangerous situation by driving

·  In terms of utilitarian theory, you cannot deter an involuntary act because the person has no control over it

·  While you cannot deter an involuntary act, the threat of punishment can encourage a person to alter their conduct (i.e. take medication, not drive a car, etc.)

·  In terms of retributive theory, criminal punishment should only be imposed on those who act as a result of their choice

·  MPC § 2.01 discusses voluntary acts:

§  Involuntary acts are: convulsions, sleepwalking, conduct during hypnosis, etc.

§  Omissions can be voluntary acts if there was a duty and a person knowingly failed to perform duty

§  Defines possession as a voluntary act, but says that person has to have control of the item for a long enough time to terminate possession

F.  Mens Rea

·  Every element of a criminal offense is accompanied by a required mental state

·  Common law had two different categories: general and specific intent crimes

·  There are three types of elements:

§  Conduct: act of the person

§  Attendant circumstances: surrounding description of the world which must be met

§  Result: what happens because of the crime; only some crimes have results, like murder, rape, etc.

·  Crime = Element 1(with mental state) + Element 2(with mental state) + …

·  Four different mental states according to the MPC:

§  Purpose: desire to engage in specified conduct

§  Knowingly: person is aware that it is practically certain that his conduct will cause result; willful blindness is equivalent to blindness

§  Recklessly: person consciously disregards substantial and unjustifiable risk that result will occur; gross deviation from standard of conduct

§  Negligently: person should be aware of substantial and unjustifiable risk that result will occur; gross deviation from standard of conduct; failure to live up to the standard of a reasonable person

Mental State / Conduct / Circumstances / Result
Purposely / Person’s conscious object is to engage in conduct / Person is aware of their existence, or person hopes or believes that they exist / Person’s conscious object is to cause such a result
Knowingly / Person is aware that his conduct is of that nature / Person is aware of circumstances / Person is aware that it is practically certain that his conduct will cause result
Recklessly / Not defined / Person consciously disregards substantial and unjustifiable risk that circumstances exist, gross deviation from standard of conduct / Person consciously disregards substantial and unjustifiable risk that result will occur, gross deviation from standard of conduct
Negligently / Not defined / Person should be aware of substantial and unjustifiable risk that circumstances exist, gross deviation from standard of conduct / Person should be aware of substantial and unjustifiable risk that result will occur, gross deviation from standard of conduct

·  Strict Liability: no mental state required for punishment

·  Strict liability is premised on utilitarian grounds; society is punishing people who are morally not blameworthy in order to more effectively deter socially dangerous conduct

·  MPC rejects the idea that there can be strict liability crimes

·  Purpose does not care about probability; even if someone threatens to do something and it is not possible, he can still have purpose

·  Recklessness is the default mens rea; if only one mens rea is stated for a statue, it applies for all elements

·  Regina v. Faulkner – def. had none of the mental states associated with the crime of arson when he accidentally set fire to ship; therefore he cannot be guilty of setting ship on fire because he was negligent and the crime required an intent

·  Retributive theory says that a man who has the required mental state is putting himself above others and the law and needs to be punished

·  US v. Balint – crime was selling drugs without filling out proper IRS forms; def. claims that he did not know the substance he was selling contained drugs; court said that he could be punished even though he had no knowledge because there is a burden on people selling drugs to protect the general public

·  The Balint court used a policy argument from Congress that said that the injustice of an innocent buyer buying the drugs is worse than punishing the innocent seller

·  People v. Ryan – def. did not know weight of mushrooms, therefore did not have associated knowing mens rea that element of the crime; gov. made intentionalist policy argument that the legislature did not mean for this when it made statue; court lets him off because of lack of mens rea for the element of weight

G.  Law of Mistake

·  Question raised: defendant does not know about something, is that a valid defense?

·  All mistake claims are claims of a lack of mens rea

·  Three different categories

§  Mistake of fact: focused on associated mental states regarding elements; defendant has different idea about an element

§  Mistake of non-governing law: same as fact, just when element is legal issue; when the legislature has made a legal issue a part of the crime

§  Mistake of governing law: defendant has no idea that elements add up to a crime; did not know actions constituted a crime

·  Regina v. Prince - court attached strict liability to element of age in statutory rape-like cases; no mistake defense could be made in terms of age

·  Most states attach strict liability to the element of age

·  Public policy and utilitarian theory point towards protecting children

·  People v. Bray – Bray never knows if he was a felon, so he is lacking the mens rea for being a felon in possession of a firearm; the felon element has a default reckless mens rea; Bray was not reckless because his conduct was not a gross deviation of the standard of conduct of a law-abiding person; this is an example of a mistake of non-governing law because a legal issue (i.e. being a felon) is part of the crime

·  US v. Baker – defense was that Baker did not know that elements plus mental states added up to a crime; court said that ignorance of the law is not a valid defense; you can’t deter someone who doesn’t know he commits a crime, but you will make him learn what the law is

·  Reliance on lawyer’s or prosecutor’s advice is not an official defense

·  Cheek v. US – def. honest believed that he did not need to pay fed. income tax; in terms of fed. tax law, ignorance of law is a valid defense for willfulness; Willfulness requires that the person knew the duty and willfully violated it.

·  In Cheek, Congress’ use of the word willfully was construed to require a purposeful or knowingly mental state to the crime. At trial, the judge incorrectly instructed the jury that an honest but unreasonable mistake as to the legality of his conduct is not a defense. By doing this, the judge was attaching a “negligent” mental state to the defense.

·  In Cheek, the willfulness mens rea created another element of the crime; since this element was not met, Cheek did not commit a crime

·  In Baker, the willfulness mens rea was not part of the crime, so there did not need to be willfulness to be convicted of the crime

·  Supreme Court said that Constitutional crimes have a willfulness mens rea, while statutory crimes do not have a willfulness mens rea

·  Reliance on false information provided by a lawyer, or even a government prosecutor, is not allowed as a mistake defense for criminal conduct

·  MPC § 2.04 Ignorance and Mistake

1.  Section 2.04(1)(a) lays out the general rule that questions of mistake of fact or non-governing law should be evaluated based on whether the mistakes negate the mental state required by the offense.

2.  Section 2.04(1)(b) takes into account the possibility that the legislature may explicitly make the mistake of law or fact a defense (as in Cheek), and allows such a defense in these cases.

3.  Section 2.04(2) says that if the facts the way the D thought them to be would have constituted a lesser crime than the more serious crime which he actually committed, he can still be convicted of the more serious crime, but his punishment should be that of the lesser crime.