0 оценок0% нашли этот документ полезным (0 голосов)
56 просмотров9 страниц
Actus Rea Common Law Model Penal Code Requires affirmative, voluntary act. Intention to commit a crime is insufficient to convict if there is no evidence of an act putting that intent into effect. There must be a voluntary act or omission. There is no duty to do what you are incapable of doing.
Actus Rea Common Law Model Penal Code Requires affirmative, voluntary act. Intention to commit a crime is insufficient to convict if there is no evidence of an act putting that intent into effect. There must be a voluntary act or omission. There is no duty to do what you are incapable of doing.
Actus Rea Common Law Model Penal Code Requires affirmative, voluntary act. Intention to commit a crime is insufficient to convict if there is no evidence of an act putting that intent into effect. There must be a voluntary act or omission. There is no duty to do what you are incapable of doing.
Criminal Law Common Law/ Model Penal Code Comparisons
Professor Brickey, Spring 2002
Actus Rea
Common Law Model Penal Code Requires affirmative, voluntary act; intention to commit a crime is insufficient to convict if there is no evidence of an act putting that intent into effect. Mere movement of vehicle does not necessarily constitute act of driving vehiclethere must be an affirmative act by (Taft) If knowledge that actions could cause harm to another (i.e., you know you can blackout and drive anyway), act constitutes crime (Decina) There must be a voluntary act or omission
Circumstance: external conditions when engages in conduct Possession: Mere presence + Intent to posses + power to possess = conviction Mere presence possession (Kimbrellwatching drugs) Possession: Possession is an act if: knowingly procured OR knowingly received the thing OR was aware of control for sufficient period of time Omission: There must be a duty statutory status relationship (Biddle) contract (Moorechauffer) voluntary assumption of care (Jones)
There is no duty to do what you are incapable of doing You must be aware of the circumstances before a duty exists (Teixera)
Willful omissiondeath = murder Negligent omissiondeath = manslaughter Omission: Liability for the commission of an offense may not be based on an omission unaccompanied by an action unless: Omission is expressly made sufficient by law defining offense A duty to perform the omitted acts is otherwise imposed by law
Mens Rea
Common Law Model Penal Code Criminal Negligence Gross lack of competency Gross inattention Criminal indifference Gross deviation = recklessnessaware of substantial risk created by conduct and disregards that risk (Peterson) Homicideneg. homicide if acted with criminal negligence (State v. Howard) Subjective Test Criminal Negligence Should be aware of substantial and unjustifiable risk that a material element exists or will result Risk must be of nature and degree that failure to perceive = gross deviation from reasonable persons standard of care Specific Intent Crime: Requires actual intention to do more than actus reus, not just general blameworthiness General malevolence is not an attempt to commit a crime even if it results in an substantive crime Malice aforethought specific intent to kill (Shea) MPC no longer recognizes the distinction between general and specific intent. Rather, it spells out what is required for each crime. General Intent Crime: Intent to commit an act, serves as actus reus (See above)
Knowledge
Common Law Model Penal Code Majority subjective test Minority objective test Subjective test Deliberate ignorance and Positive Knowledge have equal culpability Knowingly is not limited to positive knowledge, but includes the state of mind of one who does not posses positive knowledge only because it consciously avoided it. Willful blindness (Jewelmarijuana) If one is aware of high probability of existence of a particular fact, unless he actually believes it doesnt exist, he is still culpable If there is a high probability of existence, knowledge is established
Willfulness
Common Law Model Penal Code Intentional or deliberate a voluntary, intentional violation of a known legal duty (Cheek) ? It means no more than that the person charged with the duty knows what he is doing. It does not mean that, in addition, he must suppose that he is breaking the law.
Strict Liability
Common Law Model Penal Code Malum prohibita Statutory rape, bigamy Can only be a violationminor offenses, not crime; fine/forteiture No need to show culpable mental state
(Transferred Intent)
Murder
Common Law Model Penal Code 4 ways to satisfy mens rea requirement: Intent to kill Intent to commit serious bodily injury Reckless/extreme indifference to value of human life (depraved heart) Intent to commit dangerous felony no bootstrapping allowed (felony must be independent)People v. Wilson 3 ways to prove Purposefully, knowingly (differs from willinglydid away with malice aforethought) Recklessly manifesting extreme indifference to human life (depraved heart, subjective view of recklessness) During a felony recklessness of act presumed if engaged in commission of robbery, rape, arson, burglary, kidnapping, felonious escape, but felony murder is not adopted per se Death must be shown to have occurred Criminal liability for the natural and probable consequences of unlawful acts
Res gestae: Embraces not only the actual facts of the transaction and the circumstances surrounding it, but the matters
immediately antecedent and having direct causal connection with it as well as acts immediately following it 1 st degree Poisoning Lying in wait Willful Deliberate Premeditated Felony Only 1 st degree 2 nd degree: Depravity of heart No intention to kill
Premeditation No set time required, only that intention occurred at time of killing or beforehand (Schrader)decision overruled in so far as it suggests that premed and delib could come into existence at time of killing If there is assault by both parties and sudden emotion, it becomes voluntary manslaughter Court in Forrest gives 6 circumstances used to determine premeditation o Want of provocation on part of dead o Conduct and statements of defendant before and after killing o Threats and declarations of defendant before and during course of occurrences giving rise to killing o Ill-will or previous difficulty between defendant and victim o Dealing of lethal blows after deceased rendered helpless o Evidence that the killing was brutal
Manslaughter
Common Law Model Penal Code Voluntary: Intent to kill, but in the heat of passion with no malice aforethought Objective test for sufficiency of provocation 4 requisites 1) acts in response to provocation which would cause a reasonable man to lose his self-control (actualmere words are not enough) 2) heat of passion 3) lapse of time not enough to cool off No distinction between voluntary and involuntary recklesslyaware of the risk, but consciously disregards it; advertant; subjective; gross deviation purposeful, but committed under extreme mental disturbance (heat of passion) reasonable person in actors circumstances as he believes them to be (subjective) 2 nd degree 4) had not cooled off Involuntary: Criminal negligence required Unintended killing caused during the commission of an unlawful act not amounting to a felony Negligent Homicide Committed negligentlyought to have been aware of the risk; inadvertent; objective Should be aware
Attempt
Common Law Model Penal Code Intent to commit a crime + performance of an act toward its commissions + failure to commit the crime the attempt is the direct movement towards the commission after the preparations are made does anything with the purpose of causing a particular result which is an element of the crime Belief that it will cause the result without further conduct Dangerous Proximity Test: looks at what is left to be done if the last proximate act is done, always sufficient, yet not always required focus on the actors actions beyond mere preparation Substantial Step Test: (Subjective Test) focuses on what has already been done acting with culpability for the commission of the crime purposefully engages in conduct which would constitute crime if circumstances were as he believes them to be must have culpability to commit a crime there can be no attempt of negligent homicide Six circumstances which shall not be held insufficient as a matter of law: lying in wait, searching for, following victim reconnoitering the place contemplated unlawful entry possession of specially designed materials possession of materials at or near place of commission soliciting an agent to engage in conduct Legal Impossibility: when s actions sets in motion, even if fully carried out as he desires, would not constitute a crime (Oviedo) courts look at objective acts performed to determine criminality without reliance on accompanying mens rea COMPLETE DEFENSE Legal Impossibility: The only defense Factual Impossibility: Objective of is proscribed by criminal No factual Impossibility Defense law, but a circumstance unknown to the actor prevents him from bringing about that objective Never a defense Hybrid Impossibility: (Brickey) Objective is criminal, but there is a factual mistake as to the legal status of the goods (shooting at a tree stump, shooting a dead man)Booth, Rojas No hybrid defense
Solicitation
Common Law Model Penal Code Requesting someone to commit a crime Communication not required of conduct indicates solicitation No corroboration needed No overt act required Falls short of an attempt A substantive crime in and of itself Solicitation merges into conspiracy In some jurisdictionsattempted solicitation Commands, encourages another to engage in specific conduct which would constitute a crime or an attempt of that crime with purpose of promoting/facilitating its commission Affirmative defense to persuade other person not to commit crime or prevent commission of the crime if renunciation is complete and voluntary
Abandonment
Common Law Model Penal Code Involuntary abandonment never a defense Requires complete and voluntary renunciation Not voluntary is motivated by increase in probability of detection Not a defense if the crime is completed Affirmative defense if you persuade accomplice not to do so or otherwise prevent commission; requires that crime not be completed Not complete if it is merely a decision to postpone conduct Even if last act is done, if defendant fixes so as to prevent, still a defense
Conspiracy
Common Law Model Penal Code An agreement between 2 or more persons to do either an unlawful act or a lawful act by unlawful means Agreement + Objective + Mens Rea It is not necessary that each conspirator agree to commit the substantive object crime; also not necessary to have tacit agreement between co-conspirators All members of conspiracy may be liable for the substantive crime even if committed by only one member, without a new agreement Once agreement made, no withdraw from conspiracy, only from substantive offense Guilty if with purpose of promoting/facilitating commission of crime, agrees with such other person or persons that they or one or more of them will engage in conduct which constitutes such crime or an attempt or solicitation to commit such crime All members of conspiracy need not know each other For the individual to terminate his part in the conspiracy, must advise others of abandonment or inform law enforcement of the conspiracy
Whartons Rule: an agreement between 2 people to commit a particular crime cannot be prosecuted as a conspiracy when the crime necessarily requires the participation of 2 persons for the completion Unilateral Theory: individual is liable if he agrees with another person Pinkerton Rule: criminal act must be foreseeable and done in furtherance of the conspiracy for all members to be found guilty of substantive crime without any liability Rejection of Pinkerton: just being a member of a conspiracy, with no other aiding, is not enough to be convicted of substantive crime must use accomplice liability Some jurisdiction require actual action: mere preparation may be okaybut more than knowledge, promotion of venture If tried in same trial, need two for conviction; if separate trials, can have just one conspirator No person can be convicted unless an overt act is done by him or co-conspirator Overt act may be mere preparation Abandonment presumed if there is no overt act
Parties to a Crime (Accomplice Liability)
Common Law Model Penal Code Principal in the 1 st Degree: The person who actually commits the crime Principal in the 2 nd Degree: Person who aided, counseled, encouraged the commission of the crime Guilty of offense if committed by own conduct or by someone for whom legally accountable
Accomplice When: Solicits another person to commit crime Present at the time the crime was committed Can be constructivea look out Must have same mens rea as principal Accessory Before the Fact: Aids and abets the commission of a crime Not present at the time of the crime merged with principal 2 nd
Accessory After the Fact: Aids criminal after crime committed 3 Elements *Felony must be completed *Knowledge of felony *Aid the Felon Individual and separate crime Conviction of a principal is not a condition precedent to the conviction of an accessory after the fact. Aids/agrees/attempts to aid in planning or committing Has legal duty to prevent commission of crime but fails to do so Conduct by law establishes complicity
Liable for all foreseeable consequences Rejects foreseeable consequences doctrine accessory not liable for crimes beyond those which were intended to aid or encourage
Ignorance or Mistake
Common Law Model Penal Code Mistake of Law: Never a defense (traditional view) Follow MPC (modern view) Mistake of Law: A defense if it negates the mental state required State of mind established constitutes defense Not available as a defense if would have been charged with another offense had the situation been as he supposed
A belief that conduct is not offense is a defense when: Statute not known and has not been published prior to conduct alleged Reliance on official statement of law determined to be invalid or in error Mistake of Fact: Defense only for specific intent crimes must lack mens rea for crime Mistake of Fact: Based on s subjective belief Mistake of age is no defenseno defense Must be an honest mistake Mistake of age is no defense if under 10
Intoxication
Common Law Model Penal Code Voluntary Intoxication: Not a defense but may be used if it negates specific intent Inadmissible to negate general intent negligence Voluntary Intoxication: Defense if it prevents an accuse from having the required state of mindbut not always a complete defense Does not negate recklessness or criminal negligence Involuntary Intoxication:
Involuntary Intoxication: Presence or threat of force/duress Defense if intentionally ingests a substance, but mistakenly believes that it is not intoxicating