Criminal Law - Midterm Izvanariu

3 Constitutional Limitations

Void for Vagueness (5th and 14th)

Cruel and Unusual Punishment (8th)

Equal Protections Clause (14th)

Void for Vagueness Cases

Papachristou

Kolender

Void for Vagueness - Two Prong Test

Fair Notice

Fettered Discretion

Void for Vagueness - Fair Notice

Whether the meaning of the law was clear

Void for Vagueness - Fettered Discretion

Whether it left too much room for “arbitrary and discriminatory” action by justice actors

Rule of Lenity and Void for Vagueness Differences

RL - statute does not have to change/VfV - statute must be changed or stricken

RL - inspired by constitution/VfV - Constitutional doctrine

Actus Reas

Voluntary act or omission that causes a social harm

Can there be more than one physical act?

Yes

Are bad thoughts enough?

Bad thoughts are not enough, but can be punished if they are immediately connected to the social harm

Voluntary Act - Two Prongs

Physical Act

Voluntary Nature

Voluntary Act - Physical Act

Bodily movement by the defendant not of the defendant

Speech counts

Voluntary Act - Voluntary Nature

Must be willed of the mind; CHOICE

Habitual acts count

Regardless of duress

Voluntary Act - Decina

When there is an involuntary act leading to social harm, we can reach back to a previous voluntary act that is proximately related

Actus Reas - Status

Status does not satisfy the actus reas requirement

An act that is unavoidable consequence of a status cannot be criminalized

Actus Reas - Legal Duty to act

Special Relationship

Contract

Statutory Duty

Creation of the risk

Voluntary Assumption of risk

Actus Reas - Omission Elements

There was a legal duty

D knew that they had a legal duty

Both reasonable and possible for D to perform legal duty

Common Law Intent

Conscious objective or purpose

Knowledge to virtual certainty

Common Law Intent - D has knowledge if

D is aware of that fact

Correctly believes it exists; OR

D demonstrates willful blindness

MPC Knowledge

D is aware that a harmful result was practically certain to occur

MPC Knowledge - Willful Blindness

D subjectively believes high probability of existence

Took deliberate action to avoid confirmation OR purposefully failed to investigate

MPC and CL Recklessness

D is aware and consciously disregards a substantial and justifiable risk

Gross deviation from the reasonable person standard of care

MPC and CL Criminal Negligence

D fails to be aware of a substantial and justifiable risk

Substantial deviation from the reasonable person standard of care

General Intent

Intent to do the crime

Specific Intent

Intent to do the crime PLUS intent to do further act, intent to gain, or awareness of present circumstance

The furtherance requires its own mental state

Common Law - Modification

The mens rea modifies the verb of the statute and strict liability is applied to the rest

MPC - Modification

Culpability must be proven for every element of the offense

Strict Liability

NO mens rea requirement

Mistake of Fact

Occurs if D misunderstood some fact that negates an element of the offense

Mistake of Fact - Specific Intent

Can be negated by good faith but does not need to be reasonable

Mistake of Fact - General Intent

Can be negated by good faith AND reasonable mistake

Mistake of Fact - Strict Liability

Can NOT be used

Mistake of Law - General Rule

Ignorance of the law is no excuse

Mistake of Law - Reasonable reliance

D relied on official interpretation of the law

Obtained from a person or public body

The interpretation is officially made or issued

Later determined to be erroneous; AND

D’s reliance must be reasonable

Causation - Two Prong Analysis

Whether D is the actual cause of the social harm

Whether D is the proximate cause of the social harm

Causation - Actual Cause Modified But For Test

But for D’s voluntary act, would the social harm have occurred when and as it did?

Causation - Acceleration

D is an actual cause if D’s voluntary act speeds up an inevitable result, even by a brief amount of time

Causation - Proximate Cause

Whether D’s acts were so remote or unattenuated from the actual result that it would be unfair to hold D criminally liable

IS IT FAIR?

Causation - Direct Cause

No event of causal significance intervened between the actus reas and result

An act that is the direct cause is the proximate cause

Causation - Intervening Cause

An act that:

Occurs after D’s voluntary act and before social harm; AND

Contributes causally to the harm

Causation - Intervening Dependent Cause

Occurs in response to or dependent on D’s voluntary act

Is the proximate cause unless it is unusual or bizarre

Causation - Intervening Independent Cause

Would have happened regardless of D’s voluntary act

NOT the proximate cause unless the independent cause is foreseeable

Medical Aid

Negligent = foreseeable

Reckless/Grossly Negligent = unforeseeable

Temporal Concurrence

Act causing harm and culpable mens rea occurred at the same time

Motivational Concurrence

Culpable mental state motivated the act that caused the harm

Homicide

The killing of a human being by another human being

Criminal Homicide

The killing of a human being by another human being without justification or excuse

Murder

The killing of a human being by another human being with malice aforethought

Malice Aforethought

Intent to kill

Intent to cause serious bodily injury

Depraved Heart

Felony murder

Intent to Kill

CL definition of intent applies

SUBJECTIVE

Serious Bodily Injury

SUBJECTIVE

First/Second Degree Murder Difference

Premeditation and deliberation

Premeditation

The duration of time D reflected; quantity

Deliberation

The actual weight of options and reflection; Quality

Planning Activity

How and what D did prior to the actual killing

Motive

Prior relationship and/or conduct

Voluntary Manslaughter - Elements

Intentional Killing of a human being

In the heat of passion and intense emotional state

In response to adequate provocation

Before a reasonable cooling off period

Adequate Provocation - Categorical Approach

Question of adequacy is for the judge to see if it fits in the categories

Adequate Provocation - Adequate Categorical Approach

Adultery

Illegal arrest

Mutual combat

Deceased seriously injured or abused D’s close relative

Deceased seriously assaulted D

Adequate Provocation - Inadequate Categorical Approach

Learning of adultery

Observing cheating by non-spouse

Trivial battery

Words alone

Three mere words exceptions

Revelation of adultery/sexual inadequacy among other provoking statements

Slave provoking master

Nonviolent homosexual advance

Adequate Provocation - Modern Common Law Approach Elements

D acted in a heat of passion

D was reasonably provoked into a heat of passion

D did not have time to cool off

A reasonable person would not have had time to cool off

Causal connection/victim is provoker

Adequate Provocation - Modern Common Law Approach

Question of adequacy is for the jury

Adequate Provocation - MPC Extreme Emotional or Mental Disturbance Elements

D was suffering from extreme emotional or mental disturbance

Reasonable explanation or excuse for the EMED

Reasonableness determined from the viewpoint of a person in the actor’s situation under the circumstances as they believed them to be

Adequate Provocation - MPC Extreme Emotional or Mental Disturbance

No heat of passion or provocation defense

Used mental AND emotional

Jury has to use SUBJECTIVE reasonableness

The Reasonable Person - Common Law

Same demographic characteristics as accused but not the same temperamental qualities (more OBJECTIVE)

The Reasonable Person - MPC

Jury is supposed to put itself fully into D’s shoes and ask whether D’s actions were reasonable (SUBJECTIVE)