Criminal Law, Eric Sirulnik, Fall 2003 Outline David Ludwig

Criminal Law, Eric Sirulnik, Fall 2003 — Outline — David Ludwig

Basic Culpability Doctrines

The Traditional Concepts
Why do we punish?
Deterrence
Public Safety – get person off the street (warehouse theory)
Rehabilitation – doesn’t seem to be working (jail = graduate school for criminals)
Retribution – payback; at what cost ($35-40K to incarcerate one person for one year)
Two types of crime:
malum in se – “bad in itself”; inherently blameworthy
arson, murder, theft, rape, etc.
malum prohibitum – “bad by prohibition”; not inherently immoral but illegal because we say so
drug laws, seatbelt laws, regulatory offenses, etc.
Two aspects of crime:
actus reus – the act
mens rea – the motivation
Common law (& some statutes): general intent, specific intent, strict liability
Model Penal Code: purposely, knowingly, recklessly, negligently, strict liability
Regina v. Faulkner
Facts: D was stealing rum from ship when rum caught fire and ship burned (felony accidentally committed in the context of the intentional commission of another felony), court found not guilty for arson based on lack of mens rea.
Arson: (common law) setting fire to any property where people are likely to be.
Court states that mens rea is required for a felony conviction even if the felony occurs in the context of another felony. The exception to this rule is if the second unintended felony is a necessary consequence or a probable outcome of the first felony.
Transferred intent: A intends to kill B but accidentally kills C.
Constructive intent: A throws a rock off a tall building and accidentally kills someone below
reckless – saw the risk and proceeded
negligent – should have seen the risk; reasonable person would have seen risk
United States v. Yermian
Facts: D put false info on DoD security questionnaire with job application, charged with making false statements to govt agency, issue is whether “knowingly” applies to knowledge of falsity of statements or knowledge that such statements would be transmitted to govt, court upheld conviction.
Statutory interpretation: (1) language of statute, (2) legislative history.
Mens rea does not apply to jurisdictional clauses. (This holding was affirmed in U.S. v. Green.)
Lenity: when a statute is ambiguous it is interpreted in light most favorable to D.
People v. Hood
Facts: D was drunk and forced his way into ex-girlfriend’s house, when cops came there was a struggle and D shot officer with officer’s gun, court reversed conviction of assault with a deadly weapon (=assault with intent to commit murder) and remanded so that jury can consider effects of intoxication.
Specific Intent: requires additional mental element — dual goal oriented behavior
Intoxication can be a partial defense; can negative mens rea/intent requirement
General Intent: just the act with no additional intended consequences
Intoxication has no bearing; not a defense
Intoxication can be a partial defense to assault with a deadly weapon; can negative intent to commit murder (=with a deadly weapon).
Intoxication is not a defense to simple assault (policy: too many assaults by drunks).

Garnett v. State
Facts: 20 year old retarded man had sex with 13 year old who said she was 16, court affirmed statutory rape conviction.
MD statute for statutory rape(second degree rape)does not have a mens rea requirement (strict liability crime), so it does not matter that he did not know or that she misrepresented her age.
MPC frowns on statutory rape as strict liability except if the victim is under 10, because this implies a criminally negligent state of mind.
First degree rape is rape with use of a weapon or with multiple parties.
Bryan v. United States
Facts: D used straw purchasers in Ohio to acquire pistols, then filed serial numbers and resold pistols on a street corner in Brooklyn known for drug dealing, court affirmed conviction of dealing firearms without a license.
Issue is meaning of “willfully” in federal statute; D argued that it means he must have known of the federal licensing requirement; US Sup Ctsays that ignorance of the law is no excuse and “willfulness” only requires that D knew his conduct was unlawful.
Knowingly = knowing the physical qualities of the act; knowing what you’re doing
Willfully = knowing what you’re doing & knowing that it is wrong/illegal (with the bad purpose to disobey/disregard the law)
Lambert v. California
Facts: D arrested on suspicion of another crime and convicted of violation of the felony registration law, court reversed conviction for lack of notice of criminality of offense.
Constructive Notice: with respect to actions that are generally known to be criminal (see Mistake of Law below), no express notice of criminality is required, but with respect to passive crimes (acts of omission; status crimes) the state needs to provide some sort of notice under due process.
Mistake
Mistake of Law:
Generally not a defense, but can negative some mens rea requirements (usually justified by public policy concerns or notice/due process concerns.
Knowledge of the criminal prohibition may be presumed (w/out proof) if (1) act was malum in se, (2) act involved danger to the public, or (3) actor was in a position of responsibility sufficient to place him under a duty to be informed of applicable regulations.
Mistake of Fact:
Can be a defense if mistake belief is (1) honestly entertained, (2) based on reasonable grounds, and (3) of such a nature that conduct would have been lawful if the facts were as they were believed to be.
Unreasonable mistake of fact may be a (partial) defense in specific intent situations.
MPC § 2.02 (general requirements of culpability — mistake can negative culpability requirements); also MPC § 2.04 (mistake not a total defense but cal lower offense to what the actor believed).
United States v. Garrett
Facts: D forgot she had a gun in her purse and tried to board a plane, court affirmed conviction of attempting to board an aircraft with a concealed weapon.
Congress didn’t specify a mens rea requirement (so it’s probably not supposed to be a strict liability crime, but generally (at common law) non petty offenses do have some mens rea requirement. Therefore, court decides the requirement is “should have known” for which there was sufficient evidence in this case.
Gradation of Offenses:
Petty Offense: up to 6 months or $5K fine (usually no jury trial)
Misdemeanor: 6-12 months in prison
Felony: over 12 months in prison

Regulatory Offenses and Strict Liability
Morissette v. United States
Facts: D took some abandoned bomb casings from test site and sold for scrap metal, uncle sam was not happy & D admitted everything, court reversed conviction of converting US property.
Court looks at history of mens rea requirements for theft/larceny at common law and determines that there has always been a mens rea requirement, so they apply one to this statute (which was silent). Since D thought that the property was abandoned, the requirement was not met.
US v. Balint (also Behrman): doctor/pharmacist sold/distributed drugs without a prescription because he didn’t know they were controlled substances (controlled substances act had just), court found guilty, lack of mens rea not a defense
Serves as an example that just because a statute is silent on mens rea doesn’t mean there is a means rea requirement (as was the case in Morissette).
There is often a mens rea requirement implied in old common law crimes, but not necessarily with newer statutory/regulatory crimes.
United States v. Weitzenhoff
Facts: D authorized dumping of sewage into the ocean, court affirmed conviction of violation of clean water act.
D argued that he thought his acts were acceptable under the statute (& his permit) although the evidence does not corroborate this. Statute was silent, legislative history changed “willfully” to “knowingly” and shows congressional intent to prosecute negligent violators. With regard to public health/welfareissues there is often no mens rea requirement because the actor has a duty to be informed of the regulations that govern his industry.
MPC – Strict Liability: only for minor violations, otherwise there is always some culpability requirement for all crimes under the MPC
Mens rea strategy:
Unclear statutes:
Read the statute
Legislative history
Case precedents
If still unclear, lenity (in favor of D)
Also, common law crimes, almost always have implied mens rea requirement even if they were later codified; regulatory offenses (public health/welfare) are usually strict liability especially if actor had a duty to be informed of regulations.
Balancing test:
Social benefit vs. Individual liberties
Also, fair? effective? necessary?
The Conduct Requirement
People v. Newton
Facts: Huey Newton was stopped and hassled by the man, cop shot him in the belly and he lost consciousness during which time he killed one cop and injured another, court reversed voluntary manslaughter conviction based on unconsciousness /diminished capacity.
Diminished capacity can reduce a murder charge to manslaughter; unconsciousness is a complete defense.
Justifiable homicide: killing under the color of law (a police officer in the line of duty)
Modesto doctrine: judge must give jury instructions (or raise an issue/objection sua sponte) if there is a material defense supported by any evidence that the defense has failed to raise.
Invited error: if you made a mistake/omission at trial for a deliberate tactical purpose, you cannot raise this as a mistake on appeal

People v. Decina
Facts: D had an epileptic seizure while driving and fell unconsciousness killing 4 children, D knew seizures were possible but doctor and DMV said he was ok to drive, court upheld order granting new trial on negligent homicide charges (over D’s motion to dismiss; due to evidentiary errors).
Court reasoned that since D knew of his condition and the possibility that a seizure could strike at any time, and he proceeded to drive unaccompanied anyway, this is sufficient evidence for a charge of negligent homicide, regardless of the fact that he had a valid driver’s license.
Hinges on what was the act — if act driving out of control, he was unconscious; if act was getting behind the wheel in disregard of risk, act was voluntary and conscious.
Negligent homicide: a form of involuntary manslaughter that carries penalty of 2nd degree murder
Commonwealth v. Pestinikas
Facts: Ds were supposed to provide food and medical care to decedent but instead locked him up and left him to die while stealing his money, court affirmed third degree murder convictions.
Ds were not decedent’s legal guardians & the homicide was a crime of omission. Court found a legal duty to act in the K signed by Ds.
Legal duty: 4 ways omission can be criminal because of not performing one’s legal duty:
Statute (i.e. good samaritan laws, child endangerment laws, duty of public servants, etc.)
“Otherwise imposed by law” = K (i.e. day care, hospitals, nursing homes)
Special relationships = Status relationship (i.e. doctor/patient, teacher/pupil, parent/child, worker/employer, common carrier/passenger)
Officious intermeddler: no duty to rescue but one inserts oneself into the situation isolating the individual to their detriment
Malice: specific intent prerequisite for proving murder
Intent to injure/kill
Recklessly risking injury/death
Felony murder rule
Proving Premeditation:
Method
Motive
Planning
Commonwealth v. Cali
Facts: D may or may not have started fire, but he stood by and watched it burn without summoning help with the intent to defraud insurance company, court affirmed conviction of insurance fraud by arson.
Legal duty to sound alarm imposed by insurance K.
Intent does not have to be formed prior to act/event; even if he didn’t decide to defraud insurance until after the fire started, the intent requirement is fulfilled.

The Model Penal Code Reform
MPC
American Law Institute, 1952
Blameworthiness & culpability (which applies to every material element)
You can only be punished once for a single crime (not both crime & attempted crime)
Negligence is only criminal if death results
Intoxication is only a defense for purposefully and knowingly, not recklessly and negligently
No difference between reasonable and unreasonable mistake

United States v. Jewell
Facts: D deliberately avoided positive knowledge of the marijuana in a secret compartment of his car to get around the mens rea requirement, but there is circumstantial evidence which shows that he had some idea of what was going on and deliberately avoided actual knowledge, court affirmed transporting and possession of marijuana charges.
Willful blindness = constructive knowledge (equivalent to actual positive knowledge)
2 elements:
high probability of illegality (in mind of D) (positive element)
D didn’t actually believe that it was not the case (negative element)
State v. Coates
Facts: D driving drunk and involved in a collision, officer walked him back to the scene and he stabbed officer in the back, court affirmed second and third degree assault charges.
Intoxication is only a defense for purposefully and knowingly, not recklessly and negligently
Assault is general intent under MPC as well as common law
People v. Marrero
Facts: D was a prison guard who brought his gun to a bar thinking that statute authorizing peace officers to carry guns applied to him, court affirmed unlawful possession of a pistol conviction.
Mistake of law must come from some legal authority; simply misconstruing the meaning of a statute is not sufficient.

Discretion and the Rule of Law

Vagueness, Strict Construction, and the Principle of Legality
Papachristou v. City of Jacksonville
Facts: 4 joined cases of people charged with violations of Jacksonville’s vagrancy statute, all convictions reversed.
Statute was void for vagueness:
Void on its face: if you read it you don’t know what it means — no notice
Void as applied: arbitrary and erratic arrests and convictions — no equal protection under the law — unpredictable
City of Milwaukee v. Nelson
Facts: D was loitering in front of local bar giving jive handshakes to passing cars, when cops approached he ran inside and said he was doing nothing, court held that loitering ordinance was constitutionally valid.
Vagueness: fails to afford proper notice or encourages arbitrary and erratic arrests
Overbroad: applies to conduct that the state is not permitted to regulate (constitutionally protected activities)
State v. Anonymous
Facts: D screamed at complaintant that she is a tramp & whore then called her at work with the same, court affirmed harassment conviction but remanded disorderly conduct conviction for jury instructions about fighting words.
Fighting Words: words having a direct tendency to cause acts of violence by the persons to whom they are addressed (as determined by jury)
Screws v. United States
Facts: D cops beat a black guy to death, court reversed conviction for violation of constitutional rights based on jury instructions.
D argued that statute only applied to constitutionally enumerated rights, not rights under due process; court said that due process rights are applicable but jury must determine if Screws knew that the rights were constitutionally protected.
Presumption of regularity: court assumes that any laws passed by the legislature are valid; court tries to interpret all laws as valid
Law, Morality, and Judicial Authority
Powell v. State
Facts: D had sex with wife’s niece, D claims consent, niece denies it, court reversed sodomy conviction declaring law unconstitutional.
Georgia privacy rights are broader than US privacy rights; in GA sodomy is protected under right to privacy, so sodomy laws are unconstitutional.
Manifest infringement: burden of proof required to declare a law unconstitutional
Compelling state interest: the only time laws can infringe on constitutional rights
Lawrence v. Texas
Facts: Ds caught in homosexual sex act, court reversed sodomy convictions declaring law unconstitutional.
Bowers precedent was bad law and is overruled; sodomy laws are unconstitutional as a violation of the right to privacy.
Sentencing Discretion
People v. Pointer
Facts: Macrobiotic D malnourished kids then kidnapped them from foster care, court upheld child endangerment conviction but reverse the part of sentence which prohibited her from conceiving.
Court had every right to impose harsh penalty, but the prohibition of conception is overbroad in that it infringes on right to privacy and does not serve any compelling state interest.
United States v. Eli
Facts: D was an intermediate cocaine distributor whose sentence was much more severe than others in the chain of distribution who did more business, court affirmed distributing cocaine conviction and sentence.
Court said that because of D’s prior record and the circumstances of his arrest and info about other crimes he was attempting, the heavy sentence was justified.
Proportionality review: to determine if a sentence violates cruel & unusual, compare to persons convicted of same charges in same & other jurisdictions — has to be extremely disproportionate to be cruel & unusual
Abuse of discretion test: did judge rely on false info or not allow D to be heard?
Capital Punishment
Gregg v. Georgia
Facts: D was hitchhiking and shot both people in car to rob them, court affirmed robbery and murder convictions and capital punishment sentence.
D argued that death penalty is cruel & unusual, court replied that since it passes 2 tests of cruel & unusual it is ok: (1) doesn’t violate contemporary standards of decency, (2) is not excessive.
After Furman (which preceded Gregg) most states changed their death penalty statutes to insure that statutes were not being applied arbitrarily (too much jury discretion).
Current statutes are ok because they have bifurcated trial (guilt and penalty), jury is bound by standards (statutorily specified aggravating circumstances), and all death sentences have an automatic appeal, where state Sup Ct reviews trial for prejudice, sufficiency of evidence, and disproportionate sentencing.

Criminal Homicide

Murder: The Meaning of Malice Aforethought
Holmes v.