Criminal Law (Sloss) Spring 2011

Voluntary act
Social harm
Mens rea
Actual causation

5. Proximate causation

6. Defenses (justification + excuse)

Basic Ideas

A FELONY is a serious crime that is punishable by at least one year in prison
A MISDEMEANOR is a lesser crime with a maximum penalty of less than a year
All Crime have 4ELEMENTS
1. Voluntary act (actus reus)
2. A culpable intent (mens rea)
3. Concurrence between MR and AR
4. Causation of harm
RESULT CRIMES are those in which the actus reus is defined in terms of prohibited consequences irrespective of these are brought about, i.e. causing death (murder). This differs from conduct crime.
CONDUCT CRIMES are those in which the actus reus is concerned with prohibited hebabiour regardress of consequences (example: blackmail).
Conduct and result crimes are those in qhich the actus reus is defined in terms of a prohibited outcome that has to be caused in a particular way by specific conduct.
Arson involves a combination of a prohibited result (damage or destruction of property) and conduct (the property must be destroyed by fire).

Theories of Punishment

Rule of Lenity: construe a penal statute as favorably to the defendant as its language and the circumstances of its application will reasonably permit
MPC: requires criminal statutes to be construed according to the fair import of their terms
Punishment is suffering 1) purposefully inflicted 2) by the state 3) because one of its laws was violated
Utilitarianism
Punishment is itself an evil because it deliberately inflicts harm on a human being, therefore, we should “hurt” criminals only if some “good” is achieved by this act (various SOCIAL benefits to the law-abiding (reduction of FUTURE crimes)
Maximimize the net happiness of people
Deterrance
Punishment of a criminal reduces future crime because D can decide not to commit future crimes or other persons, after contemplating committing crimes and learning of the threatened punishment, will not do so.
General—punishment convinces the general community to avoid criminal conduct in the future
Specific—“individual” deterrence, so D is deterred from committing future crimes
Incapacitation
Those who commit criminal acts have rejected important social norms and have thereby demonstrated their willingness to do so in the future and, for the good of those who abide by the law, these offenders need to be prevented (incapacitated)
Rehabiitation
Offenders can be “changed” into nonoffenders if given the proper “treatment” (emanated from Quakers), peaked in the 1970’s with the idea of “behavior modification”
Indeterminate sentencing which shows a symptom and cure of each individual would require something different
Retribution
Persons who whose to do wrong acts deserve punishment, and it should be imposed on them even if it serves no utilitarian purpose (backward thinking)
Punish the morally culpable
Do not follow the “deterrence” theory
MPC
1.02 both retributive and utilitarian elements
MPC not directly enforceable by any state
People v. Du
In imposing a sentence, a judge must first consider the objectives of sentencing a defendant, including: (1) to protect society; (2) to punish the defendant for committing a crime; (3) to encourage the defendant to lead a law-abiding life; (4) to deter others; (5) to isolate the defendant so she cannot commit other crimes; (6) to secure restitution for the victim and (7) to seek uniformity in sentencing. (killing 15 y/o stealing OJ)

Criminal Statutes

Penal statutes are to be construed narrowly and against the state
Any statutory interpretation, there is a tension with older statutes (strict) or to promote the purposes for which you were trying to promote. (Keeler v. Superior Court); fetus a human being case
Rule of Lenity: criminal statutes must be strictly construed against the prosecution (not often strictly applied)

Actus Reus

AR often broken down into three elements:
Conduct element (drunk driving)
Result element (murder)
Pending circumstances element (assaulting a federal officer)
Key principals:
No criminal liability without a voluntary act (you cannot punish people just for bad thoughts)
Toward the end of the semester we will discuss conspiracy (which is like an exception to the “bad thought” idea)
One cannot be punished for their thoughts alone!
If someone does something to you, you shouldn’t be held morally accountable for something that you do yourself (implicit in criminal punishment is moral condemnation (Martin v. State)
“Voluntary Act” @MPC
2.01 (voluntary act) engaging in act with knowledge of risk behavior, you’re still potentially liable because you made the choice to put yourself in that position (voluntary unconsciousness is NOT a defense)
possession: must be some awareness (State v. Utter)
Omission
Exeptions are if there is a “special legal duty” to act:
1. Close blood relationship
2. contract
3. D caused danger
4. Undertaking (rescue)
(People v. Beardsley) No criminal liability for failure to act, but there are a number of exceptions to this
Xc: statute + status relationship + contractual duty of care + helpless person who is secluded after voluntary care + person creates a risk of harm nARROW
Cf. Terressa Nix (accomplice for girl in trunk)
Cf. “cash” case : seeing his friend raping someone, but he doesn’t have a duty
Key takeaway: why criminal liability for omission? To justify utilitarian grounds (another example would be the human trashcompactor even though morally there is no diference, criminally, your acts produce different liabilities)
Exceptions for Omissions to Act under Actus Reus *

Mens Rea

“culpable state of mind”

In order to punish someone properly, you need to have the intent to do the crime
Two Types
Culpability= broad= any blameworthy state of mind (older)
Elemental=narrow= mental state in regard to the social harm elements within the specific definitions of the crime
Intent
Reckless means foreseeing that the harm would occur and doing it anyways (p.152) [harm which the statute is trying to get at] and the level of culpability changes (partly the mans rea and partly the result) Regina. V. Cunningham, ripping pipe off wall
Guilt has to be proven beyond a reasonable doubt (people v. conleybattery caused a permanent disability)
Presumption: jury gets the idea that the prosecution doesn’t have to prove it
Inference: that D intended his actions
Usually split up into three types:
General Intent: must be merely shown that the D desired to commit the act which served as the Actus Reus
Specific Intent: D, in addition to bringing about the actus reus, must have desired to do something further
Recklessness of Negligence:
Strict Liability are a fourth category which require no mens rea at all
Transferred Intent
GR not a defense even when the result is completely unforeseeable
MPC
2.02
Purposefully : conduct crime or a result crime [hardest standard]
It is the conscious object to engage in the particular conduct/result in question
Knowingly: significant, less than practically certain, not a black and white line from recklessly (D aware of that fact)
D does not desire a particular result, but he is aware that the conduct or result is certain to follow
D’s awareness of the consequences of his act and can be practically certain of the result or conduct
Can be presumed by a statute or a judge
Recklessly: risk; am aware but go ahead anyways, mental state proof “substantial unjustifiable risk”
Consciously disregards a substantial and unjustifiable risk that is a gross deviation from the conduct of a law-abiding person
Must be aware of the risk!
Negligently: involves risky behavior; should be aware but im not aware
Awareness not required, but most states require gross negligence
Strict Liability: no culpable mental state at all must be shown—t is enough that D personed the ACT
Look for constitutionality issues (generally not a problem)
Vicarious liability imposed liability for acts of another
Basic idea of no liability without fault and YET there are number of SL situtions
Some dangerous activity that the gov needs to regulate to protect public welfare
Wanted to eliminate criminal liability without mental states (unsuccessful)
Puts heavy burden on what people are thinking “effects are the same”
Efficient administration of justice / public welfare
Flipside: undermined crime, and they don’t see them as morally blameworthy if we start to say “sometimes morally blameworthy”
GR: Crimes without a mens rea requirement for a material element are PRESUMED SL (Garnett v. State)
2.02(8) wilful MPC “as much as we’d like to get rid of this word, we wont be able to, so were saying willfully= knowlingly UNLESS statute says otherwise (State v. Nations  hiring 17 y/o to dance for tips)
“knowing” standard re: identity theft (flores-Figueroa v. US)

Mistake of Law (DEFENSE TO MENS REA)

MPC: mistake of law is GR not a defense (some exceptions) (2.04)
GR: ignorance of the law is no excuse
THREE EXCEPTIONS
1. Reasonable Reliance on some official statement of the law on (Marrero)
MAJ POLICY: mistakes would be encouraged “serve came playing and evasion from properly imposed criminal liability” (Marrero)
2. Due Process issue
3. Where the definition of the crime includes knowledge of the law as part of the mens rea for the crime (cheek)
examine whether or not if it is statutory, if D is willfully blind to a material fact
U.S. v. Cheek didn’t pay his taxes bc he “honestly believed” he didn’t have to

Mistake of Fact

MPC: is a defense if it negates the mens rea of the crime (2.04)
Subjecttive/Ojbjective Factors + “good faith belief”  negates mens rea (People v. Navarro) stealing banisters which he thought were abandoned

Causation

Not every crime as causation
Not if it’s a conduct crime
But if it’s a result element crime, prosecution has to prove causation as part of the element of the crime
Always AC
Sometimes PC
Actual
“but for”
“cause in fact” of harm because it would not have happened anyway
“substantial factor”
i.e. shorting the live of V or there is a conspiracy
Contribution or aggravation without acceleration is insufficient to establish causation (Oxendine)
Concurrence of the elements (State v. Rose) The whole idea of “concurrence of the elements”  P must show that FOR SOME PERIOD OF TIME before the D got away that the victim was still alive, without it they cannot support the homicide charge
Proximate
Policy question: is the connection between the act and the harm so stretch that it is unfair to hold D liable for that harm?
@CL: no precise definition; depends on the facts of the case
@MPC: Ds at will be the proximate result of the result is not too remove or accidental in its occurance to have a just bearing on the actor’s liability or on the gravity of his offense. 2.03.(2)(b)
Generally not an issue (usually when there is an intervening force)
This is not a causation in any technical sense, its an issue of “moral responsibility”
MPC talks about it from a moral standpoint
Direct v. Intervening
Direct harm followed D’s act without the presnce of any clearly-defined act or event by an outside person or thing; D is rarely able to convince the court that the chain of events was so bizarre that he should be absolved
Intervening= better odds at escaping liability then a even contributes to the result
Dependant act ones that could not have occurred except for D’s act (medical treatment for a wound caused by D)
Independent act ones which would have occurred even if D had not acted
3rd persons: medical treatment (usually not considered abnormal) and 3rd parties failure to act will NEVER supercede D’s act
LaFave:
a coincidence will break the chain of legal cause unless it was foreseeable, while a response will do so only if it is abnormal and also unforeseeable.
Apparent Safety Doctrine
(Ridout) they went to the side of the road + was in a safe position and then had a volitional act after he reached a safe point
If the victim reached a point of apparent safety then that breaks the “chain” then the person who started it is no longer liable
In certain felony murder statutes, "res gestae" is a term defining the overall start-to-end sequence of the underlying felony. Generally, a felony's Res Gestae is considered terminated when the suspect has achieved a position of relative safety from law enforcement

Criminal Homicide

Mens Rea

1. “purposefully or knowingly” MPC/CL Murder
2. Recklessness PLUS (MPC: extreme indiff; CL: depraved,implied mal) Murder
REMEMBER MO statute doesn’t have (MS not Murder—unusual!)
3. Recklessness (CL: statutes involuntary, often MS; MPC: Reckess killing) Manslaughter
4. Gross Neg (MPC: Negligent Homicide, CL: involuntary manslaughter)
5. Simple Negligence (FM rule will bump this up to murder in conj w/ another felony)
6. Strict Liability

Homicide / Mens Rea CL / Mens Rea MPC
Murder 1 / Premeditated, Deliberated , Willful (planning, manner, motive) Malice Aforethought
1. murders committed in a specific statutory manner
2. premeditation
3. Certain types of Felony Murder
4. Depraved Heart (disregard for human life)’
Malice: Presumption of malice: (1) a person is presumed to intend the natural and probable consequences of his act. (2) killing with a deadly weapon. / § 210.0 Purposefully, knowingly, or acting with Gross Recklessness in regard to human life. (Subjective recognition of Recklessness)
Section 210 abolishes the distinction between 1st and 2nd.
NOTHING TO DO WITH MALICE
Murder 2 / All killings without premeditation, all killing committed with intent to cause serious bodily harm / NO
Voluntary Manslaughter / Voluntary manslaughter is killing done on a sudden in the heat of passion after adequate provocation
HOP Mitigation from murder to manslaughter: (1) Adequate provocation,
(2) heat of passion, (3) lack of opportunity for the passion to cool, and (4) causal connection between provocation, passion, and act. At common law, words alone never constitute adequate provocation. Objective Test : Gravity of Provocation and Standard of Self control
-imperfect self defense/insanity / § 210.2 (1)(b) Reckless or EEMD or Imperfect Self Defense
*must be a reasonable explanation or excuse
both objective and subjective standard (go to notes)
Involuntary Manslaughter / Clueless Defendant, Killing without due caution or circumspection
Reckless – not wanton disregard
Gross/Culpable Negligence
Unintended killing during an act ment to wound / NO
Negligent Homicide / No NH in CL / §210.4 Negligent
*1) Criminal homicide
constitutes negligent homicide
when it is committed negligently;
Negligent homicide is a
felony of the third degree
MPC: Negligent Homicide – The risk must be
of such a nature and degree that the actors
failure to perceive it, considering the nature
and purpose of his conduct and the circumstances known to him, involves a gross deviation from
the standard of care that a reasonable person would observe in the actor’s situation

Murder

unlawful taking of the life of another falls within homicide but MURDER falls into two categories:
1st degree: committed with premeditation and deliberation and killings committed curing the course of other felones (FM)
2nd degrees: all other types
Four Types
Intent-to-kill
Most common; requires the desire to bring about the death of another
MR: substantially certain the death will occur even if active desire is absent; ill will not necessary
Can be proven by circumstantial evidence
Intent-to-commit grievous-bodily-injury
MR: requirement for murder is serious bodily injury
Subjective standard applied, must have actually realized it would cause GBH
GBH: life threatening (some); more broad (others)
MPC: does not recognize this standard
“depraved heart” aka “reckless indifference to human life”
nearly all states allow murder if causing death while acting with great recklessness
e.g. setting fire to the building where people are sleeping; firing a bullet into a passing train, high speed persuit
split over awareness of risk

MPC follows subjective approach: conscious disregard

Intoxication not an excuse from “awareness”

felony-murder
if in conjunction with a “dangerous felony”
inherently dangerous jurisdictional split

abstract (objective)

facts of the case (subjective)

robbery, burglary, rape, arson, assault, kidnapping
felony must be independent of the felony (for policy reasons of turning every attack into automatic murder

Elements of Murder
AR: someones gotta die
MR: “malice aforethought” (the 4 types of “intent” above)
Causation: AC + PC

“willful, deliberate, and premeditated killing” M1 v. M2 State v. Guthrie
blink of an eye v. period of time for prior consideration
1st degree:
only a short period of time required for premeditation (look @ planning, motive, manner)
intoxication may make it 2nd degree
certain felony murders
MPC doesn’t divide it up, and attached no significance to “premeditated”
2nd degree
no premeditation
intent to seriously injure
reckless indifference
felony murders (sometimes)
How big is the difference of punishment?
CA M1 25—D M@ 15—L
NY 25—D M2 25—L
IL 20—D; M2 4-15
MO LWOP or D; M2 10-L
Causation
Natural and probable standard must be met
MPC

Manslaughter

Two types: “voluntary” and “involuntary (accidental)
Heat of Passion (most common)
Extremely angry and disturbed state
Four elements:
Reasonable provocation (objective standard)

i.e. lost temper, batterly, assault, mutual combat, adultery, words carrying information (cf. “words alone”)

Actually in heat of passion
No time for reasonable person to “cool off”

Time between D’s discovery of upsetting facts and his cat of killing must be sufficiently short, even if a new provocation comes along and rekindles anger

D not in fact “cooled off”

If not met…”missed hurdle” and can go up to murder

“heat of passion in response to sudden provocation” or “adequate provocation”
CL: “words alone rule”  MOD: subjective + circumstances
DEFENSES
Provocation (subjective/objective)
Objective: gravity of provocation + standard of self control (Holley)
Overturned Morgan standard (flexibile)
Other Kinds of Volunttary Manslaughter
“imperfect defenses” are situations in which what would otherwise be a complete defense or justification does not exist due to an unreasonable mistake or some other reason
imperfect self defense
imperfect defense of others
mercy killings
Involuntary
Gross negligence requires (MPC requires recklessly)
All circumstances considerered (including social utility)
Awareness of risk (jurisdictional split)
Most states require them to be actually aware
MPC says you are only reckless when you consciously disregard a substantial and unjustifiable risk
Victims contributory negligence NOT a defense!
Misdemeanor-manslaughter rule permist a conviction of IM during the commission of a misdemeanor or some other unlawful act (idea is that it’s a substitute for criminal negligence)
i.e. battery, traffic violations
causation
causal relation between the violation and death
malum in se: dangerous in itself, often found as long as the violation is the cause in fact of the death , even if it as not the natural and probably cause of death or even foreseeable (PC often suspended
malum prohibitum not dangerous in itself, but simply a violation of the public welfare regulation
some courts require the proximity to be natural and probable
violation irrelent to others (tey don’t apply M-M rule at all)
MPC
Policy Issues

Felony Murder