Sei sulla pagina 1di 10

CRIMINAL LAW OUTLINE

General Intent Crimes


Knowingly using force, violence, or intimidation to commit crime (i.e. robbing a bank)

Specific Intent Crimes


Knowing and doing that thing for a continued or other purpose (i.e. burglary trespass for purpose of
committing felony after Illegally entering because you had in your mind then to commit another
crime) Doing step 1 with intent to do step 2

Specific Intent Crimes General Intent Crimes Strict Liability Crimes


Attempt Battery Statutory Rape
Solicitation Rape Selling Liquor to Minors
Conspiracy Kidnapping
Larceny Involuntary Manslaughter
Embezzlement Depraved Heart Murder
Burglary
Assault
Robbery
Voluntary Manslaughter
Intent-to-kill Murder

LEGALITY:

The principle of legality = no crime without Commonwealth v. Mochan The defendants


preexisting law. conduct was not forbidden by any particular
This trumps any other rules if there is a statute, but a general provision in the
conflict. Courts dont create crimes. Statutes Pennsylvania Penal Code grandfathered in
must be written clearly, and interpreted to the common law crimes. The defendant was
benefit of the accused. If you have to rely on a convicted and appealed on the basis that his
prosecutor or judge to interpret criminal conduct did not constitute a common law
statutes, you give them enormous power. The crime. The court finds that any act, which
Due Process Clause says that potential outrages decency and is injurious to public
criminals must have fair warning of what is morals, is a misdemeanor under common law.
against the law. Keeler v. Superior Court The Penal Code
Rule of Lenity ambiguities in statute must be further forbids the courts from convicting or
resolved in Ds favor punishing anyone for a crime not specified by
statute. Statutes are to be interpreted in the
manner most favorable to the
defendant. Finally, no one can be convicted of
an act they committed before that act was a
crime, in other words, no one may be punished
under ex post facto legislation. The protection
of due process is the judicial analogue of the
prohibition on ex post facto laws. It is not the
role of the court to make crimes, rather, it is the
responsibility of the legislature.
McBoyle stole airplane but statute defined
vehicle for land and plane was not included
Dauray requirement that in criminal
prosecutions, ambiguities in the statute must be
resolved in the D favor (Rule of Lenity)
City of Chicago v. Morales gang members
cant loiter. Law was too vague.

ACTUS REUS:

The actus reus is the physical component of Martin v. State Martin is convicted of being
the crime. It happens out there, in the physical drunk on a public highway. It turns out that
world. The mens rea (or guilty mind) deals he is arrested at home and taken out onto the
with the state of mind the actor had in road. He says that the statute implicitly
committing the actus reus. Actus Reus = requires him to voluntarily go to a public place
Voluntary Act + Social Harm while drunk.

Actus reus requires a voluntary act (or


sometimes an omission, or failure to act) that
causes social harm. We say social harm
because this is criminal law, not tort
law. Social harm means something very
specific, yet it has a very broad meaning.

MENS REA:

Mens Rea = culpable mental state Regina v. Cunningham Statute guilty if


Not every culpable act must be done with a unlawfully and maliciously cause noxious
culpable mental state thing to endanger life. Malice requires actual
MPC: intention (mens rea) to do particular kind of
1) Purposely 2.02(2)(a) harm. D did not have mens rea, so not guilty
- It was Ds conscious object to engage in Regina v. Faulkner trying to steal rum and
conduct of such a nature or to cause such a burns ship down. Not guilty because intent
result. element was not present. Different crimes with
different intention.
2) Knowingly 2.02(2)(b)
- D was aware of the existence of the
risky circumstances (attendant
circumstances) and is aware that his
conduct will cause a result (result).
- D hoped that the circumstances
existed
- Willful Blindness 2.02(7)
- Deliberate Avoidance

3) Recklessly 2.02(2)(c)
- Subjective Analysis
D consciously disregarded a substantial or
unjustifiable risk that the material element
exists or will results
Gross deviation from a standard that a
reasonable person would have observed

4) Negligently 2.02(2)(d)
- Objective Analysis
- Defendant should have been aware of
the risk that the material element exists
or will result from his conduct.
- Gross deviation from a standard that a
reasonable person would have observed

Willful Blindness 2.02(7)


- Another way to prove knowledge
- Regarding attendant circumstances
- D was aware of a high probability of a
substantial risk regarding these
circumstances.
-
Deliberate Avoidance/Conscious Avoidance:
Deliberately avoiding without knowing that
there is a substantial risk
o Way of proving knowledge without
proving person actually knew
Lower level of mens rea than willful blindness

COMMON LAW:
1) Intentionally (Purposely / Knowingly)
- It was the actors conscious object to engage in
the conduct.
- D was virtually certain that the harm would
occur
- D knew or believed that a material fact existed.
- Purposely and Knowingly are Combined
- Willful Blindness
- D was aware of the high probability that a
circumstance may exist, and failed to investigate
that risk or was deliberately ignorant

2) Recklessly is essentially the same as the MPC

3) Negligently is essentially the same as the MPC

Necessary and Probable Consequences Doctrine:


You can use the resulting harm to prove
purposeful
Infer intent from the surrounding circumstances
MISTAKE OF LAW:

Generally knowledge of a laws existence and People v. Marrero Mistake of law may
understanding of its meaning is not a required negate intent but it is not a defense to a strict
element of an offense, unless the statute itself liability crime.
says to the contrary (e.g., statute specifically Cheek v. United States Cheek was indicted
says you must have knowledge, recklessness, for failing to file and tax evasion. In his
or negligence in regard to the law)(MPC defense, he argued that he sincerely believed
2.02(9); 2.04(1)) he didnt have to pay his taxes and he acted
o Exception: if the definition of the crime without the mens rea required for the crimes.
itself requires knowledge of the law A claimed good-faith belief need not be
and you didnt know it, then you lack reasonable in order to be considered as a
one of the necessary elements for the defense.
offense (MPC 2.04(1)) People v. Weiss Weiss claims that he thought
o Exception: No defense for personal he had authority of law. How Weisss mistake
misunderstanding of the law, but differs from that of Marrero Duress might
reasonable reliance on an official be relevant to the question of whether the
statement of the law from a public mistake was reasonable.
official or some other source. Balin
A casual or unofficial Morissette
interpretation of the law from a Lambert felon charged with no registering
public official is no good.
Common law = Ignorance of the law is no
defense.
o Rationale = the excuse of mistake of
law encourages ignorance of the law;
interest in persuading people to learn
the law outweighs that individuals
interests
Statute specifically says you must have
knowledge, recklessness, or negligence in
regard to the law

MISTAKE OF FACT:

Mistake of Fact is a defense Regina v. Prince statute says cant take


o Proving fact existed and knowledge = unmarried girl under 16 from parents.
irrelevant Violation makes you guilty of misdemeanor. D
Under Common Law: thought she was 18, not 14. Still a violation
o Mistake of fact is a defense for specific because mistake of fact is not a defense when it
intent crimes if it negates mens rea comes to sexual offenses. Reasonable mistake
EXCEPTION: does not absolve D of liability.
o Strict Liability crimes (Sexual Morisette v. United States stealing old bomb
Offenses) casings from Air Force. Crime to knowingly
convert government property. D thought it was
abandoned. Not liable.
HOMICIDE:

MPC NEW YORK CALIFORNIA


Murder Criminally Negligent Homicide Murder
Committed purposely and Causing death of another Unlawful killing of human
knowingly person with criminal being, or fetus with malice
Committed recklessly under negligence aforethought (malice =
circumstances manifesting Class E felony (4-yr max) deliberate intention
extreme indifference to unlawfully to take away the
value of human life 2nd Degree Manslaughter life of another)
1. Recklessly cause death of
1st Degree Felony (may be Willful, deliberate, and
another person
sentenced to death) 2. Intentionally cause or aid
premeditated killing (dont
another person to commit need to prove meaningful
Manslaughter suicide reflection of gravity of his
Committed recklessly Class C felony (15-yr max) or her act)
2nd degree felony
1st Degree Manslaughter Manslaughter
Negligent Homicide 1. Intent to cause serious Voluntary Upon sudden
Committed negligently physical injury to another quarrel or heat of passion
3rd degree felony person and causing death of Involuntary in
such person or a 3rd party commission of an unlawful
2. Intent to cause death of act (not felony);
another person and causing
commission of lawful act
death of such person or 3rd
person under circumstances which might produce death
which do not constitute in an unlawful manner
murder because he acts under Vehicular driving
the influence of extreme vehicle in the commission
emotional disturbance of an unlawful act with
Class B felony (25-yr max) gross negligence (wanton
and conscious disregard for
2nd Degree Murder life implied malice)
1. With intent to cause death of
another person, he causes Other Murders
death of such person or 3rd
person
2. With depraved indifference to
human life, he recklessly
engages in conduct which
creates a grave risk of death to
another person, and thereby
causes death of another person
3. Felony Murder committing
crime and in course and
furtherance of such crime or of
immediate flight therefrom, he
or another participant, if there
be any, causes the death of
person other than one of the
participants
INCHOATE CRIMES
(crime where crime doesnt happen)

Solicitation
Rules: State v. Davis (p. 637)
o Solicitation alone is not enough to Church (p. 639)
constitute as an attempt (b/c no
resulting harm, therefore different level
of sentencing)
o Solicitation is part of preparation
(separate crime)
Attempt
Complete attempt = offender does everything R v. Eagleton
necessary to complete the crime but they fail People v. Rizzo (p. 618)
(e.g. you shoot someone but they dont die). King v. Barker (p. 617)
Incomplete attempt = offender gets stopped McQuirter v. State (p. 622)
short from completing the attempt. o McQuirter was arrested for attempt to
Attempt needs purpose (mental state) commit an assault with intent to
Actus Reus for Attempt: rape. Assault, at common law, was an
o In general, attempt = when someone attempted battery. So, we can parse
takes a substantial step towards the this crime as attempt to attempt a
commission of an offense with the battery with intent to rape. This is a
intent to commit that offense. triple inchoate crime!
o At common law, this was a United States v. Jackson (p. 631)
misdemeanor, no matter what the People v. Johnston (p. 622)
target offense was. Today, attempt to United States v. Joyce (p. 635)
commit a felony is a felony. Ross v. State (p. 622)
Standards:
o Dangerous Proximity
This is Holmess test: theres no
attempt unless the danger of The Model Penal Code is strongly distinguished from
success is very great. the common law in that most of the common law tests
o Unequivocal Act look back to see how close the defendant has come to
An act isnt an attempt until it completion. The Model Penal Code test asks how far
ceases to be equivocal. This is the defendant has gone from the thought process. If
an objectivist test. the defendant has taken a substantial step towards
o The Last Step committing the crime, even if there is a lot more to be
A criminal attempt only occurs done, you can convict. Therefore, its much easier to
when the actor has performed convict under the Model Penal Code than at common
all the acts they believe are law.
necessary to commit the target
offense.
Rules:
o Passing mere preparation and
committing the attempt = crime
o Changing mind while preparing = not
guilty
o Changing mind after committing an
attempt = still guilty
o Attempt = lower sentencing (to
encourage not following through)
Impossibility
Legal Impossibility = actions which the Jaffe The Jaffe court said that Jaffes act
defendant performs or sets in motion, even wouldnt have been a crime if it had been
if fully carried out as he desires, would not completed. That is, we wouldnt otherwise
constitute a crime. punish someone for receiving non-stolen
Factual impossibility = when the objective of property. The Jaffe explanation is a
the defendant is proscribed by the criminal traditional way to explain legal
law but a circumstance unknown to the impossibility.
actor prevents him from bringing about that
objective.
At common law, factual impossibility is no
defense, while legal impossibility is a
defense.

Conspiracy
Mental States for Conspiracy: People v. Luparello (p. 682)
o Intent to agree to commit a legal act in o Rule = If foreseeable even beyond
an illegal manner or an illegal act in a scope of principals intent, then still
legal manner liable
o Intent to achieve objective Vaden v. State (p. 694)
Rules: States v. Hayes (p. 693)
o Conspiracy is a separate crime (no People v. Lauria (p. 713)
merge) Pinkerton v. United States (p. 723)
o Chain Conspiracy People v. Russell (p. 680)
o Wheel Conspiracy Roy v. United States (p. 684)
o Overt Act Requirement Defendant United States v. Garcia (p. 710)
must have committed an act beyond
Kotteakos v. United States (p. 740)
mere preparation for the crime
United States v. Alvarez (p. 732)
o Whartons Rule 2 people cant be
Gebardi v. United States (p. 751)
conspirators where they agree to
o Rule = Statute can protect person
commit crime that necessarily requires
charged with criminal conduct in
participation of both, unless more
violation of act
people are involved
o Undercover Agents Cannot have Garcia v. State (p. 754)
conspiracy with an undercover agent o Rule = cant conspire with an
o Pinkerton Rule All other conspirators undercover cop (cannot conspire with
are liable for any crimes committed in someone who does not agree with you
furtherance of the conspiracy or agrees with you fraudulently)
Interstate Circuit, Inc. v U.S. (p. 707)
Girouard v. State Words = adequate
provocation if they are accompanied by the
threat of bodily harm. Why? Social policy we
dont want domestic disputes to end in the
killing of a spouse. In Girouard, the
provocation is not words alone because the
victim jumped on the defendant and pulled his
hair. But at common law, words alone are
never adequate provocation to partially justify
or partially excuse homicide.

Aiding & Abetting


Aiding & Abetting = liable for acts committed in Attorney General v. Tally, Judge (p. 689)
furtherance of the aiding and abetting action (helping Hicks v. United States (p. 661)
with purpose of facilitating crime you are helping) o Rule = mere presence does not make
you an aider and abettor, unless your
Mens Rea for Aiding & Abetting presence encouraged the act
Same as in conspiracy People v. Russell (p. 680)
Rules: People v. Luparello (p. 682)
Natural and Probable Consequence Theory o Rule = Foreseeable
o Note that the Model Penal Code rejects Consequence/Offense (If you aid and
the natural and probable abed a crime and a different crime
consequences doctrine. occurs, you are responsible for that
Doctrine of Willful Blindness (Conscious crime)
Avoidance)
o Doctrine used to prove knowledge
o If they didnt know they are
committing a crime, but you help them
commit it, you may still be guilty
o Mens Rea can be found in conduct
o A reasonable person would perceive the
risk that something criminal is taking
place
Knowing Presence As A Defense
o Being there without doing anything to
further or assist crime yet to be
committed, then not an aider or abettor

Casual Facilitation
Casual Facilitation = Conspiracy by Conduct State v. Gladstone (p. 664)
Acting in furtherance of the activity/crime People v. Lauria (p. 713)
o I.e. providing things needed to o Relevance: awareness of criminal
commit the crime nature of the enterprise (stake in
Doctrine of Willful Blindness (Conscious venture, substantial increase in
Avoidance) business)
o Doctrine used to prove knowledge
o If they didnt know they are
committing a crime, but you help them
commit it, you may still be guilty
o Mens Rea can be found in conduct
o A reasonable person would perceive the
risk that something criminal is taking
place
DEFENSES

1. Justification
a. Self Defense
i. Reasonable belief of imminent and serious bodily harm
1. Force must be proportional to the threat
ii. Doesnt apply if:
1. Retreat is possible
a. Exception = Castle jurisdiction dont have to retreat if at home
2. Defendant is the aggressor
iii. Self-Defense On/Off Theory
1. Excessive Force = Off
2. Committing a crime = Off
2. Excuse
3. Duress
4. Intoxication
5. Mental Disorder
6. Diminished Capacity

Intoxication
Must be so drunk you cant appreciate the Voluntary Intoxication Cases:
offensiveness of conduct People v. Hood
Voluntary Intoxication State v. Stasio
o Common law is not a defense Montana v. Egelhoff
o Now can be a defense to a specific Involuntary Intoxication Cases:
intent crime
Involuntary Intoxication

Diminished Capacity
McNorton Standard: Davis
o Because of mental disease they lack McNorton
ability to discern the reasonableness of
conduct and cannot conform conduct to
requirements of law (cannot control
conduct)
o Lacks capacity to appreciate
wrongfulness of conduct
Inability to know right from
wrong
Irresistible Impulse Psychiatric Defense
(added to McNorton case)
o If conduct comes from irresistible
impulse, then not guilty
o Irresistible Impulse = akin to
provocation
o MPC does not like Irresistible Impulse
Defense
As a result of mental disease or
defect, defendant lacked
substantial capacity to
appreciate wrongfulness of
conduct and conform conduct to
requirements of law (control
conduct)
MPC requires specific proof of
mental defect
Bursting Bubble Presumption
o Before Sanity is not presumed if D
offers scintilla of evidence presumed
sanity disappears and prosecutor must
prove defendant was sane
o Now Presume everyone is sane and
D has burden of proving that he is not
sane by preponderance of evidence.
Prosecutor must prove he is not

Potrebbero piacerti anche