CRIMINAL LAW OUTLINE – PILLSBURY (FALL 2008)

The Liability Formula

  1. Act + MR + Additional Circumstances  Result w/o Affirmative Defenses = Guilt
  2. Must be a voluntary act (or an omission to act if there exists a legal duty) with the required mens rea and under additional circumstances (if they exist) that leads to a result without any affirmative defenses

The Voluntary Act Requirement

I.Rule: Criminal liability requires that a defendant commit a voluntary act that is conscious,uncoerced, and not the result or reflex/convulsion. It may be an affirmative act or an omission to act where there was a legal duty to act.

II.Affirmative Acts

  1. The law presumes that any act is voluntary as long as it is not a result of coercion, unconsciousness, or reflex/convulsion
  2. PHYSICAL COERCION
  3. Examples:

a)Martin  defendant was forcibly taken from his house by police and dragged to a highway where he was arrested for being drunk in public  NOT a voluntary act

b)Defendant’s friends force him to drink/spike his drink without him knowing. Defendant gets very drunk and loud but refuses to leave restaurant. Liability?

  1. No. Defendant voluntarily manifested a drunken state but did not voluntarilyget drunk.
  1. UNCONSCIOUSNESS
  2. Includes sleepwalking and hypnosis
  3. Example:

a)Newton – defendant shot a police officer, claimed he was shot in the stomach and knocked unconscious before he pulled the trigger  court held this was NOT a voluntary act

  1. REFLEX/CONVULSION
  2. Acts committed during a seizure are generally not voluntary
  3. However, can extend the time frame to include a previous voluntary act

a)Decina – defendant knew he was susceptible to seizures but decided to drive anyway, had a seizure in the car, and hit someone  court pushed voluntary act back in time and held that defendant was guilty because he voluntarily chose to drive

  1. Habitual acts are still considered voluntary
  2. Example: Police officer carries her weapon both on and off duty. She goes to the courthouse when she’s off duty, searched by security, find the gun and arrest her for bringing a weapon into the courthouse  this is a voluntary act

III.Omissions to Act

  1. Rule: Must be a voluntary omission to act where there was a legal duty to act and the defendant had the capacity to act.
  2. Jones –baby died while in Jones’ house, did not give the baby food or care Jones was not guilty because he did not have a legal duty to care for the child
  3. Five Categories that constitute a legal duty:
  4. Relationship

a)Parent-child, husband-wife

  1. Statutory

a)Statute requires that a person do something (i.e. report an accident, file taxes)

  1. Contractual

a)Babysitters, child care providers

  1. Voluntary assumption of care

a)Someone who voluntarily undertakes care or rescue for person in danger

  1. Creation of the peril

a)Someone who created the danger the person is in

Mens Rea

  1. Mens Rea is the “guilty mind” (mental state) that is required along with the voluntary act for criminal liability.
  1. Model Penal Code
  2. PURPOSE
  3. It was a person’s conscious object to cause a particular result.
  4. KNOWLEDGE
  5. Person is practically certain that his conduct will cause a particular result.
  6. RECKLESSNESS
  7. Person has actual awareness of a substantial and unjustifiable risk and consciously disregards that risk.
  8. NEGLIGENCE
  9. A reasonable person would have been aware of a substantial and unjustifiable risk (so person should have been aware).

a)Negligence = only objective mens rea

b)Proof of higher mens rea always sufficient for proof of lowers mens rea (i.e. if defendant acted purposely, he also necessarily acted knowingly, recklessly, and negligently)

  1. Common Law Mens Rea Terms
  2. Maliciously, willfully, wantonly
  3. Examples:

a)Cunningham  defendant tore gas meter off the wall to steal money inside, gas seeped through the wall, almost killing a neighbor  defendant did not act maliciously (maliciousmeant intending harm not “wicked”)

b)Faulkner defendant tried to steal rum from a ship, lit a match, set the ship on fire and destroyed it  defendant did not act maliciously

  1. Translating Common Law Mens Rea Terms into MPC Definitions
  2. Maliciously = purposely, knowingly, recklessly
  3. Willfully = purposely, knowingly, recklessly
  4. Wantonly = knowingly or recklessly
  1. Approach to analyzing Mens Rea in statutes
  2. Examples:
  3. NY Statute for Burglary: “Knowingly entering or remaining unlawfully in a building with intent to commit a crime therein…when the building is a dwelling”

a)Knowingly – applies to “entering or “remaining” (you obviously have to know that you are entering or remaining) AND to “unlawfully” (should know that your entering or remaining was unlawful to be liable)

b)Intent (purposely) – applies to “with intent to commit a crime therein”

c)Different ways to interpret “dwelling” element:

  1. Strict liability that it was a dwelling
  2. Knowledge that it was a dwelling
  1. Statute making it a crime to “maliciously destroy the property of another”

a)Maliciously = purposely, knowingly, recklessly

b)Maliciously obviously applies at least to destroying the property

c)What about “of another”?

  1. Strict liability to “of another” – not likely that the legislative intentwas to punish someone who destroyed property that they honestly believed was theirs
  2. Maliciously should also apply to “of another” – defendant must have had knowledge, purpose, or recklessness as to the property belonging to someone else
  1. Strict Liability
  2. Rule: Strict liability offenses require no proof of mens rea (defendant can be found guilty if he simply committed the act)
  3. Designed to protect public welfare by deterring risky behavior and reduce cost of litigation by avoiding prosecution having to prove mens rea
  4. Examples:
  5. Prince  defendant took 14-year-old girl “out of the possession of and against the will of her father,” thought she was 18 defendant found guilty (strict liability)
  6. Olsen  defendant had sex with 13-year-old girl, claimed she had invited him into her trailer and that she told him she was 16 defendant found guilty (strict liability statute designed to protect young children)
  7. Classic common law offenses (i.e. burglary, larceny, etc.) are generally NOT strict liability offenses even if the statute does not mention mens rea.
  8. Morissette defendant took empty bomb casings from an Air Force bombing range, thought the bomb casings had been abandoned  court held that the offense was similar to larceny and was not a strict liability offense.
  9. Courts will often consider legislative intent in determining whether to apply strict liability.
  1. Mistake of Fact
  2. Rule: Mistake of Fact is a valid defense when the mistake negates the necessary mens rea for an essential element of the offense.
  1. ANALYSIS:
  2. Did defendant’s mistake relate to an essential element of the offense that required mens rea?
  3. If so, did the mistake negate that mens rea?
  4. If defendant is charged with violating a statute that has:
  5. SUBJECTIVEmens rea (purpose, knowledge, recklessness) any honest mistake is sufficient
  6. OBJECTIVE mens rea (negligence)mistake must be honest and reasonable
  7. STRICT LIABILITY NO mistake of fact defense
  8. Examples:
  9. A sells B a $10,000 bracelet for $500. B is an undercover police officer who discovers that the bracelet has been stolen. A is charged with knowingly selling stolen property. A claims that she was given the bracelet by an old lady who she thought was rewarding her for helping her cross the street.

a)Knowingly = any honest mistake

b)A honestly believed that she was the rightful owner of the bracelet because it was given to her as a gift

  1. Boy and Girl meet at a party. They have both consumed a considerable amount of alcohol but Boy is much less affected because he is a big football player. Boy invites Girl to his room. When Boy starts unbuttoning Girl’s shirt, she makes a groaning noise and shakes her head. Boy doesn’t stop and grabs Girl sexually. Boy is charged with sexually assaulting a non-consenting victim with knowledge, recklessness, or negligence as to the victim’s non-consent. He claims that he believed Girl consented.

a)Negligence is minimum mens rea required here = honest and reasonable mistake

b)Boy may have honestly believed that Girl had consented but a reasonable person would have known that Girl shaking her head indicated non-consent

  1. Ruth is a 75-year-old woman who is a very careful driver. She takes her car in for service to fix the speedometer. The mechanic tells her that the speedometer has been fixed. Later, Ruth is pulled over and given a ticket for speeding. She finds out that the mechanic had incorrectly set her speedometer.

a)Speeding has no mens rea requirement and is a strict liability offense = no mistake of fact defense

b)Even though Ruth honestly and reasonably believed that she was not speeding, she will still be liable.

  1. Mistake of Law
  1. How do you distinguish between Mistake of Fact and Mistake of Law?
  2. A mistake of law has to involve a specialized knowledge of law
  3. A mistake of fact deals with common knowledge
  4. Courts have difficulty with Mistake of Law claims because they create a conflict between two competing values:
  5. Fairness to individuals (where an individual really did make a mistake re the law) vs.
  6. Certainty of law (do not want to encourage ignorance of the law)
  1. General Rule: Ignorantia legis non excusat Mistake of law is no excuse
  2. However, mistake of law MAY BEan excuse if:
  3. The mistake negates the mens rea necessary for the crime
  1. Example: case where defendant ripped out wiring in his apartment damaging floor boards, charged with destroying property of another. Crime requires that defendant know the property belongs to another (not a crime to destroy your own property)  defendant thought property belonged to him bc he had installed the floor boards himself so he did not have the necessary mens rea for the offense
  2. Mistake of law claim used as an affirmative defense

1. Defendant relied on an official statementof law that was later changed

  1. Statement must come from an official authority such as a judicial opinion or attorney-general (NOT a police officer or lawyer)

2. Inadequate publication of the law

  1. There is no mistake of law defense for a strict liability statute
  2. Marrero  defendant was a federal officer who was arrested for carrying an unlicensed weapon. He misinterpreted a statute exempting peace officers of “any state correctional facility or any penal correctional institution”  strict liability

Homicide

PURPOSE TO KILL HOMICIDES

  1. Premeditated Murder (1st Degree Murder)
  2. Rule: Premeditated murder requires that defendant act with purpose to kill + premeditation.
  3. Premeditation means cool and reflective thought in the decision to kill.
  4. ANALYSIS:
  1. First, establish that defendant had purpose to kill defendant acted with the conscious object to end the victim’s life
  2. Then, determine if there was premeditation according to what approach the jurisdiction has adopted:

a)CARROLL APPROACH

  1. Premeditation is a matter largely left to the jury (if purpose to kill established, jury is free to decide that there was premeditation)
  2. Much easier to establish premeditation
  3. Carroll defendant waited 5 minutes after he and his wife had an argument in bed, then shot his wife in the head while she was sleeping  court held that no significant time period is needed between decision and action to establish premeditation.

b)GUTHRIE APPROACH

  1. Premeditation requires some period of reflection or calculation prior to the killing.
  2. A court will use three indicators(Anderson factors) to determine if there was premeditation:
  3. Planning
  4. Relationship/Motive
  5. Manner of Killing
  6. Guthrie  defendant was snapped in the nose with a towel by a co-worker, grabbed a knife and stabbed the co-worker in the neck, killing him  NOT premeditated murder bc there was no period of calculation or reflectionprior to the killing.
  1. Purpose to Kill w/o Premeditation or Provocation
  2. i.e. Guthrie  no premeditation but probably also not provocation (Guthrie’s state of emotion was not reasonable)
  1. Provocation
  1. Provocation reduces murder to manslaughter (it does not eliminate defendant’s liability)
  2. Rule (and analysis) for provocation depends on the jurisdiction:

Common Law Rule:Provocation requires thatdefendant act with purpose to kill while actually and reasonably provoked.

  1. Actual provocation means defendant was actually impassioned when he acted (i.e. defendant was actually in a state of strong emotion).
  2. Reasonable provocation refers to the reasonableness of defendant’s EMOTIONS, not his actions means that a reasonable person in defendant’s situation would have been similarly impassioned so as to be sorely tempted to kill.
  3. For provocation to be reasonable, defendant must have reacted within a reasonable amount of time (no cooling off period)

MPC Rule: Defendant must have been suffering from “an extreme emotional disturbance for which there was a reasonable explanation or excuse.”

  1. Reasonableness is determined from the viewpoint of a person in the defendant’s situation under the circumstances as he believed them to be.
  1. COMMON LAW ANALYSIS:
  2. Again, first establish that defendant had purpose to kill defendant acted with the conscious object to end the victim’s life
  3. Then, determine if defendant was 1) actually provoked and 2) reasonably provoked.

a)Whether defendant is reasonably provoked depends on the approach:

b)Categorical Approach

  1. In a categorical approach, the issue of provocation will not go to the jury unless the provocation fits into a specific category of provoking incidents:
  2. Mutual combat (not widely recognized today)
  3. Extreme assault/sexual abuse on defendant or a loved one
  4. Discovery of spouse’s adultery
  5. Words alone are NOT enough

c)Discretionary Approach

  1. In a discretionary approach, juries have more discretion in deciding provocation claims (jury can look at all of the circumstances surrounding the situation and determine if provocation was reasonable)
  2. Words alone MAY BE enough
  1. Example:

a)Bill and his girlfriend are drinking at a bar. Bill’s girlfriend complains that another guy is staring at her. Bill confronts the man who laughs and insults Bill. Bill insults the man back, who then hits Bill over the head with a whiskey bottle. Bill is bleeding and stunned. 10 to 30 minutes later, Bill approaches the man and stabs him in the chest five times, killing him.

  1. Bill clearly had purpose to kill  stabbed victim in the chest five times
  2. Was Bill actually provoked?
  3. Probably  he seemed upset with the man for staring at his girlfriend and was certainly angry from his insults and attack with the bottle
  4. Was Bill reasonably provoked?
  5. Yes  a reasonable person would have been similarly impassioned after being insulted and struck over the head with a whiskey bottle
  6. Was there a cooling off period?
  7. No  the killing occurred right after Bill regained his senses and was likely still so angry that his sense of reason was blurred by his emotions
  8. Thus, it is likely that there was sufficient provocation for it to go to the jury.
  1. MPC (EED)
  2. Does not require any provoking incident
  3. No timing requirement
  4. ANALYSIS:

a)First, establish that the defendant acted under the influence of an extreme emotional disturbance.

b)Then, determine if that emotional disturbance was reasonable(from the viewpoint of a person in the defendant’s situation under the circumstances as he believed them to be):

  1. Example:

a)Casassa after being rejected by his girlfriend, defendant began doing bizarre things such as breaking into her apartment to eavesdrop on her and lying naked in her bed,finally showed up at her house and stabbed her in the neck killing hercourt held that defendant did act under the influence of extreme emotional disturbance but that it was so peculiar to him that it was not reasonable even for someone in his situation.

  1. Prosecution vs. Defense Arguments for reasonableness:
  2. Defense would focus on subjective element and argue that you must take defendant’s specific emotions into account bc the analysis is from the viewpoint of someone in his situation under the circumstances as he believed them to be.
  3. Prosecution would focus on objective element and argue that a reasonable person would not act like defendant did, even in his situation (i.e. dealing with rejection).

UNINTENTIONAL HOMICIDES – NO PURPOSE TO KILL

  1. Depraved Heart Murder (RECKLESSNESS)
  1. Rule: Depraved Heart murder requires that a defendant act with recklessness as to the risk of death + display an extreme indifference to the value of human life.
  2. ANALYSIS:

1.Recklessness: Was defendant aware of a substantial and unjustifiable risk and did he consciously disregard that risk?

2.Did defendant act with an extreme indifference to the value of human life?

  1. Typical Depraved Heart Murder Examples:
  2. Shooting into a crowd
  3. Dropping a heavy object from the top of a building into a crowd
  4. Russian roulette
  5. Example:
  6. Protopappas – defendant placed a frail and diseased female patient, knowing that it could kill her, and then did not take adequate care in ensuring her when she began suffering complications during surgery  defendant was guilty of depraved heart murder because:

a)Defendant took a substantial by placing patient under general anesthesia,

b)the risk was unjustified because he could have administered a much lower dose, and

c)he was actually aware of the risk because he had warned the patient and his staff that she might die from the procedure.

d)Defendant displayed an extreme indifference to human life by not taking sufficient steps in protecting his patient’s safety once she began turned blue and stopped breathing.

  1. Reckless Manslaughter (Argument for the defense in a depraved heart murder situation)
  2. Recklessness alone sufficient (no requirement of an extreme indifference to human life)
  1. Involuntary Manslaughter (NEGLIGENCE)
  2. Rule: Involuntary manslaughter requires that a defendant demonstrate gross negligence as to the risk of death, meaning that his conduct was agross deviation from a reasonable standard of care.
  3. ANALYSIS:
  4. First, establish that a reasonable person would have been aware of the risk of death
  5. Then, determine if defendant’s conduct constituted GROSS NEGLIGENCE (which involves more risk and less justification than ordinary negligence)
  6. Example:
  7. Case where defendants did not give their sick baby medical care because they originally thought it was just suffering from a toothache and then were afraid that their baby would be taken away if they took it to a doctor, baby died defendants were guilty of voluntary manslaughter because a reasonable person would have been aware of the baby’s illness (so defendants should have been aware) and the state only required proof of ordinary negligence (not gross negligence).

FELONY-MURDER