Академический Документы
Профессиональный Документы
Культура Документы
B.
C.
Legality:
a) Principle of legality conduct must be specifically prohibited by criminal laws before it may be punished b) Serves many purposes: a. Provides notice of what conduct is illegal b. Confines the discretion os the police and their enforcement of the laws c. Prevents judges and juries from creating new crimes
D.
Conduct:
a) Most crimes consist of 4 elements: a. A prohibited act that results in some kind of social harm (actus reus, guilty act) b. Prohibited mental state (mens rea or guilty mind). c. A chain of causation that links the s actions with the social harm; and d. Concurrence between the mens rea and actus reus. 1) The criminal law generally requires an act in addition to a culpable mind-set before an individual can be held liable.
E.
Actus Reus
a) Act requirement that shows our philosophical commitment to autonomy, free speech, and liberty preservation; limits state interference; also shows solid proof of intent and actual harm; very few crimes involve only thoughts. b) The common law requires that all crimes require an act or omission in addition to a bad state of mind.
F.
Status Crimes
a) Cannot be punished for status alone but can be convicted for an act related to the status. b) Acts are not states of being, have to be punished not for being a drunk but doing something while drunk. a. Robinson v. California crime = being an addict. Punish for disease = Cruel and unusual punishment b. Powel Crime = being drunk in public. Being in public is a voluntary act therefore an act
G.
Possession Crimes
a) Possession itself may be a crime, MPC 2.01(4) requires that the defendant knowingly procured or received the thing possessed or was aware that she is in control of the item illegally possessed and have sufficient time to terminate possession a. Have the ability to guide the drugs destiny b. Wheeler v. US heroin in apartment. Constructive possession and ability to guide its destiny c. People v. Ireland wife selling weed. He had no control over the weeds destiny b) Joint possession- contraband can be possessed by more than1 person simultaneously when it is found in a place where more than one person is shown to have been aware of its existence and to have control of it. c) Constructive possession- Can still be guilty even if it is not found on her immediate vicinity. Possessed constructively when the accused is shown to have been aware of the existence and to have exercised control over it.
H.
Mens Rea 2
J.
Statutory Interpretation:
a) b) c) d) Conduct element: the action that must be performed. Result element: the result that must occur. Attendant circumstances: what other features must be present. Three Components: a. Text: The most important; if the text is clear, go with the text. b. Legislative History: Legislative intent at the time the statute was enacted. c. Present Day (issues, specifications, etc.): Layer the previous two components with present day circumstances; this is the least embraced component. Judges goal in interpreting a statute are: a. Respecting the plain language of the statutory text. b. Decide what the intent of the legislature or voters was when they formed or passed a statute. c. Be consistent with past rulings. Judges have informal rules for interpreting statutes: a. How should a judge prioritize when reading a statute? b. Is this statute or its interpretation enforcement efficient or constitutional? c. What rules of grammar and syntax should be used in interpreting statutes?
e)
f)
K.
Statutory Construction:
a) Look to the plain language of the statute b) Ways to look at statutes a. Intentionalist- Chooses the outcome that the legislature would have chosen had it seen the case. Attempt to reconstruct how legislatures thought at the time. b. Textualist- Just look at the words, what they wrote is the law. Does not always work because of ambiguity in the words. c. Pragmatist- Look at the text but still use common sense, respect for precedent, and a sense for societys needs c) Canons a. Substantive 1) Thumb on the scale- Chose the interpretation most consistent with common law. 2) Rule of lenity- If the criminal statute does not clearly outlaw private conduct, then the private actor cannot be punished.
L.
Transferred Intent:
1. 2. The s guilt is thus exactly what it would have been had the blow fallen upon the intended victim instead of the bystander. If D intends to harm one person or item of property and does similar harm to another person or item, D will be treated as if she had, in fact, intended the result that occurred (the intent is transferred) and criminal liability will attach. MPC: if D causes less harm than intended, he will only be responsible for the harm resulted. CL: Responsible for higher crime. Specific Intent: If the definition of a crime requires NOT ONLY the doing of an act, BUT the doing of it with a specific intent, the crime is a specific intent crime. This definition is focused on the consequence. It is necessary to identify specific intent crimes for 2 reasons: a. Need for proof: the existence of specific intent crime cannot be inferred from the doing of the act. The prosecution must produce evidence tending to prove the existence of the specific intent. b. Applicability of defense: some defenses, such as voluntary intoxication, drugged condition and unreasonable mistake of fact, apply only to specific intent crimes. c. Major Specific Intent Crimes: i. Solicitation: intent to have the person solicited commits the crime. ii. Attempt: intent to complete the crime iii. Conspiracy: intent to have the crime completed. iv. First degree premeditated murder: (where defined by statute) premeditated intent to kill. v. Assault: intent to commit a battery. vi. Larceny and Robbery: intent to permanently deprive another of his interest in the property taken. vii. Burglary: intent at the time of entry to commit a felony in the dwelling of another. viii. Forgery: intent to defraud. ix. False Pretenses: intent to defraud x. Embezzlement: intent to defraud. General Intent: a. Intent to commit the act that causes the harm, not the intention of the consequences of her acts. Generally, all crimes require general intent, which is an awareness of all factors constituting the crime. i. The must be aware that she is acting in the proscribed way and that any attendant circumstances required by the crime are present. (Note that the NEED NOT be certain
3.
M.
Distinguishing between Specific & General Intent, Malice Crimes, & Strict Liability:
1.
2.
3.
4.
5.
N.
Mistake:
a) Mistake is a way of trying to negate the mens rea element of a criminal offense. i. The common law approach to mistake and ignorance relies on the distinction between specific and general intent. ii. A second distinction is whether the mistake is a mistake of fact or a mistake of law. b) Mistake or Ignorance of Fact: a. Ignorance or mistake as to the matter of fact will affect criminal guilt only if it shows that the did not have the state of mind required for the crime. b. Common Law 1) Specific intent crimes - a mistake of fact is a defense to a specific intent crime when the accused could establish simply that he or she honestly believed in a mistaken circumstance that negates the mens rea required for the offense charged (a subjective approach). 2) General intent crimes - mistake of fact can be a defense to a general crime only when the accused could establish BOTH that he honestly believed in a mistaken circumstance AND that such mistaken belief was reasonable as well (an objective approach). 3) Strict liability crimes - ignorance or mistake of fact is ordinarily no defense to a strict liability crime. However, a number of courts have implied an intent requirement where D offers
c)
O.
Intoxication
a) You CAN form intent while intoxicated, EVEN IF it is specific intent. You may not be able to make good decisions while intoxicated, but you can still form intent. b) Evidence of intoxication, under the MPC, may be raised whenever the intoxication negates an element of the crime. c) Defense to specific intent crimes: Voluntary intoxication evidence may be offered when the defendant is charged with a crime that requires purpose or knowledge to establish that the intoxication prevented the defendant from forming the requisite intent. a. Thus, it may be a good defense to specific intent crimes, but will usually not be a sufficient defense to general intent crimes. The defense is not available if the defendant purposely becomes intoxicated in order to establish the defense. b. Voluntary intoxication is NOT a defense to crimes requiring malice, recklessness, negligence, or crimes of strict liability. 1) MPC 2.08(1) refuses to recognize voluntary intoxication as a defense unless it negatives an element of the offense. a. Intoxication is not a defense unless it negatives an element of the offense b. Intoxication is not a defense to recklessness c. Intoxication, does not in itself, constitute mental disease c. Involuntary Intoxication: is universally recognized as a defense if it negates the mens rea required for the crime 1) Unwitting intoxication: unaware of spiked drink 2) Coerced intoxication: forced to ingest 3) Pathological effect intoxication: medication or alcohol producing grossly excessive effect d. Degree of intoxication: must be to the extent that a person could be considered mentally incapable
P.
Theft
a) Consolidation: the MPC consolidated into one theft crime most common separate crimes at common law into one, inclusive theft offense. a. MPC 223.2 it is theft by unlawful taking or disposition if a person unlawfully takes, or exercises unlawful control over, movable property of another with purpose to deprive him thereof or unlawfully transfers immovable property of another or any interest therein with purpose to benefit himself or another not entitled thereto. b) Larceny a) Common law - larceny consists of an intentional taking and carrying away of tangible personal property of another by trespass with intent to permanently (or for an unreasonable time) deprive the person of his interest in the property. b) MPC 223.1 - sufficient if the defendant exercises unlawful control over moveable property. c) Taking and carrying away 1. use does not equal taking and carrying away 2. Asportation (carrying away): bare removal from the place in which he found the goods even if the thief does not quite make off w/ them. Slight movement is still larceny. 3. Caption (taking): severance of the goods from the possession of the owner d) Trespassory taking- no consent
c)
10
11
f)
g)
e)
3. 4. False Pretenses: 1. Elements: a) A misrepresentation by the defendant (puffing about value of an item is not misrepresentation) b) Of a past or present material fact c) With the intent to defraud the victim d) Where the victim relies on the misrepresentation e) In transferring TITLE to some property 1. Chaplin v. US liquor stamps Larceny by Trick 1. Elements: a) Taking POSSESSION (not title) of the property of another b) By knowingly making false representations as to material facts or making false promises c) With an intent to defraud i. MPC - No intent to defraud if the defendant pays or intended to pay for the goods (if the good was for sale in the first place) 2. Mason v. State stealing the keg but wanted to pay Defenses to theft crimes: a. Defendants most often claim 1) The alleged property does not qualify as property under the law 2) The owner consented to the taking 3) The defendant did not intend to permanently deprive the owner but was simply borrowing the object without permission. a. Not a defense if formed AFTER the act 4) May also allege a claim of right
Q.
12
R.
13
Voluntary Manslaughter
Involuntary Manslaughter
1. committed with criminal negligence (defendant was grossly negligent) or 2. during the commission of an unlawful act (misdemeanor or felony not included within the felony murder rule).
a.
b.
c.
Murder is defined as the unlawful killing of another human being with malice aforethought. Malice may be express or implied and is not ill-will or hatred. 1) This includes four states of mind: a. Intent to Kill: which includes the equivalent of MPC purpose and knowledge. b. Intent to Cause Grievous Bodily Harm: knowledge or purpose is sufficient for murder if victim actually dies. c. Extreme Recklessness: depraved heart murder unintentional homicide under circumstances evincing a depraved mind or an abandoned and malignant heart; equivalent to recklessness with extreme disregard for human life. d. Intent to Commit a Felony: felony murder doctrine. 2) Knowing or Purposeful homicide was murder unless committed in the heat of passion engendered by adequate provocation Manslaughter. 3) Defense to Murder: In many jurisdictions, in addition to the provocation defense, voluntary manslaughter can also be established by imperfect self-defense where an accused person honestly believed that he or she needed to kill in order to take justified protective action but such belief of the accused was unreasonable. 4) Deadly Weapon Rule: Intentional use of a deadly weapon authorizes a permissive inference of intent to kill. A deadly weapon is any instrument, or in some limited circumstances, any body part, used in a manner calculated or likely to produce death or serious bodily injury. Manslaughter: Unlawful killing of a human being without malice; divided into voluntary (upon a sudden quarrel or heat of passion) and involuntary (in the commission of an unlawful act not amounting to a felony, or in the commission in an unlawful manner, or without due caution and circumspection, o a lawful act which might produce death.) Voluntary manslaughter is the intentional homicide in the heat of passion, with adequate provocation, and occurring before an adequate time to cool off therefore lacking the malice necessary to establish murder. 5) Note that there is NO malice aforethought required for manslaughter. 6) Provocation: There must be: a. The provocation must have been one that would arouse sudden and intense passion in the mind of a reasonable person such as to cause him to lose his selfcontrol; b. The defendant must have, in fact, been provoked. c. without a cooling off period for a reasonable person, and d. The defendant did not cool off. 7) Most frequently recognized are in cases of being subjected to serious battery or a threat of deadly force; and discovering ones spouse in bed with another person.
14
15
c.
d.
e.
16
c)
Second Degree
c.
Murder in the first degree: murder perpetrated by means of poison, or by lying in wait, or by any other kind of willful, deliberate or premeditated killing, or which shall be committed in the perpetration, or attempted perpetration, of arson, rape, robbery, or burglary. 1) Elements: a. Premeditation means that the killer must have reflected upon and thought about the killing in advance. 1. No particular length of time is required for premeditation. b. Deliberation refers to the quality of the accused thought processes. 2. Refers to killing with a cool head (a careful weighing of the proposed decision). 2) 3 Categories of evidence:
17
18
g.
S.
19
b.
c.
d.
e.
20
T.
Causation
a. b. Causation: the tort conception of causation is insufficient to impose criminal responsibility. Instead, a stricter test, requiring a closer connection between the conduct and the resulting harm, may be applied. When a crime is defined to require not merely conduct, but also a specified result of that conduct, the s conduct must be both the cause-in-fact and the proximate cause of the specified result. a) Cause-in-fact: The s conduct must be the cause-in-fact of the result, i.e. the result would not have occurred but for the s conduct. Defendant does not have to be the sole cause 1) Defendant does not have to be the only cause of victims death 1) Commonwealth v. Rementer drunk approached car which hurriedly drove off running over drunk b) Proximate Causation (legal): Problems of proximate causation only arise when the victims death occurs because of the s acts, but in a manner not intended or anticipated by the . 1. The ultimate harm needs to be something that was or should have been reasonably foreseeable as being reasonably related. 1) People v. Kibbe left guy on side of road with no clothes in 0 degrees c) The general rule is that the is responsible for all results that occur as a natural and probable consequence of his conduct, even if he did not anticipate the precise manner in which they would occur. All such results are proximately caused by the s act. The chain of proximate causation is broken only by the intervention of a superseding factor. Common Law Requirement: The death of the victim must occur within one year and one day from the infliction of the injury or wound. a) If it does not occur within this period of time, there can be no prosecution for homicide, even if it can be shown that but for the s actions, the victim would not have not as and when he did. b) The rule has been sharply criticized by the US Supreme Court as an outdated relic of the common law, and most of the states that have recently reviewed the rule have abolished it. Rules of Causation a) An act that hastens an inevitable result is nevertheless a legal cause of that result. 1. Example: A terminates the life support system of B, resulting in Bs death. Can A be held liable for Bs death Yes. Note that society may not wish to condemn such an act of mercy. Nevertheless, for purposes of causation analysis, As act caused Bs death. b) Simultaneous acts by two or more persons may be considered independently sufficiently causes of a single result. 1. Others will say that that the second person accelerated the death and is guilty of murder while the other person is guilty of attempted murder c) A victims pre-existing condition that makes him more susceptible to death does not break the chain of causation. 1. The takes the victim as he finds him. 2. Example: A, with malice aforethought, shoots B in the leg. B bleeds to death before he can receive medical attention because he is a hemophiliac. A is liable for murder despite the fact that a person without hemophilia would not have died from the shooting. Intervening Acts:
c.
d.
e.
21
f.
22
g.
T.
23
24
25
e)
26
f)
27
28
g.
h. i.
j.
k.
29
l.
30
T.
2.
31
c.
d.
32
3.
4.
5.
33
6.
34
7.
8.
9.
35
d.
36
37
38