Midterm Attack

Retributivism

eye for an eye. Punishment = proportional to D’s crime. D morally deserved it.

Utilitarianism

All pain = bad. Punishment must reduce future crimes.

Punishment > Benefit of Crime.

Punishment < Pain of Crime.

Constitutional Proportionality

No cruel and unusual punishments (can’t be grossly disproportionate

(past criminal history can be considered).

Legality Requirements

1. D is presumed innocent

2. statute must be clear

3. Public is on notice

4. No ad hoc (single person decider)

5. grievous ambiguities resolved in D’s favor

Statutory Interpretation Canons (Chunk 1)

Step 1: Plain meaning controls, otherwise PRACTICAL:

1. Purpose of statute as a whole

2. Related statutes on same subject

3. Antecedent/prior law replaced

Statutory Interpretation Canons (Chunk 2)

1. Contextual phrasing

2. technical word meaning

3. interpretation by prior courts

Statutory Interpretation Canons (Chunk 3)

1. Consequences/severity of punishment

2. aim/overall goal

3. legislative history

Necessity Defense

Necessity is not a defense to murder.

Actus Reus

Voluntary act/omission causing prohibited harm.

1. Conduct = the prohibited behavior.

2. Result = the outcome (if required).

3. Attendant circumstances = extra facts required.

Result Crimes

Punish a harmful outcome

Conduct Crimes

Punish behavior

Conduct Crime Requirements

1. Past occurrence

2. Harmful

3. Voluntary

4. Conduct, not thought

Involuntary Act

Any non-conscious movement (reflex, convulsion, sleep, hypnosis)

Omission/Failure to Act

No duty to act to prevent harm to another UNLESS

1. statutory duty

2. relationship

3. contractual duty

4. voluntary assumption

5. seclusion

6. creation of risk.

Minnesota Omissions Rule

Reasonable aid required.

1. must be at scene

2. able to help without danger

3. KNOW person faces grave harm

Mens Rea: Different Versions

1. Culpability (Broad) = Guilty mind, vicious will.

2. Elemental (Narrow): Mental state proven element by element of statute.

3. Statute silent on Mens Rea = recklessness.

Willful Blindness: Rule

1. Supreme Court Standard: Requires 1) subjective belief of a high probability that a fact exists, and 2) deliberate actions taken to avoid learning that fact.

2. MPC § 2.02(7): Knowledge established if a person is aware of a high probability of its existence, unless they actually believe it does not exist.

Transferred Intent Rule & Elements

D intends to harm V1 but ends up inflicting same kind of harm on V2.

1. mens rea as to intended victim

2. D caused harm to actual victim

3. same type of harm

Intent

D intends the result when D is aware the result is practically certain (whether D wants it or not).

Specific Intent

Requires actual intent (purpose) to achieve a specific result or purpose

“with intent to” “for the purpose of”

General Intent

Requires only recklessness/negligence. Only need mental state to commit action (not produce result).

Five Levels of Mental Culpability

Purposely

Knowingly

Recklessly

Negligently

Maliciously

Mistake of Law General Rule

MoL is no defense.

Mistake of Law General Rule Exceptions

1. Reasonable Reliance

2. Fair Notice (Lambert)

3. Knowledge of Law Element

Reasonable Reliance Exception: Rule

D may be relieved of conviction if D relies on invalid

1. statute

2. administrative order

3. judicial decision

4. official interpretation by officer

Fair Notice Exception: Rule

Conviction may violate Due Process if

1. law punishes omission

2. malum prohibitum

3. no alerting circumstances

4. duty arises solely from presence

Knowledge of Law Element Exception: Rule

Tax law contains “willfully.” Prosecution must prove

1. intentional violation

2. of a known duty.

Is Mistake of Fact a defense on Strict Liability crimes?

No, there is no mens rea to negate

Mistake of Fact: Rule (Common Law)

When D has an incorrect belief about a fact that is part of an element…

If General Intent, the mistake needs to be Honest + Reasonable

If Specific Intent, the mistake needs to be Honest.

Mistake of Fact: Rule (MPC

MPC abolishes categories. If D’s HONEST mistake negates the mens rea, the State has failed to prove an element.

Mistake of Fact: Defense Limitations

1. Moral Wrong: D cannot use MoF defense for an immoral act (e.g. abduction)

2. Legal Wrong: 1) CL: If D’s believed facts = a lesser crime, D is convicted of the greater. MPC: D is convicted of the offense D believes he committed.

Parts of Criminal Causation

1. Actual Cause

2. Proximate Cause

Actual Cause: Rule

But for D’s conduct, would the result happen? 3 tests:

1. Substantial Factor

2. Acceleration

3. Dispositive vs Non Essential Contribution

Substantial Factor

Conduct is an actual cause if it was a substantial factor in bringing the result

Acceleration

D is an actual cause if he speeds up the result.

Dispositive vs Non Essential Contribution

An act causes a result when it was dispositive to the outcome

Proximate Cause: Rule

The result must be the direct and natural result of D’s conduct with no superseding cause breaking the link.

1) The result must be foreseeable, and 2) criminal liability must be fair given how the harm actually happened.

Intervening Cause Types

1. act of God

2. Act of third person

3. act/omission by the victim

4. Responsive Intervening Cause

5. Coincidental Intervening Cause

Superseding Cause: Rule

Breaks the chain and relieves D of criminal responsibility

Superseding Cause: Dressler Factors

FAVOID

1. Foreseeability (D crashes, tree also falls and hits victim)

2. Apparent safety (Victim reaches safe area then goes back to danger)

3. Voluntary human intervention (e.g. Victim decides to walk a mile after injury)

4. Omissions (Victim refuses life saving procedure)

5. Intended consequences (D pushes victim off cliff to kill him. Victim hits power line and dies).

6. De minimis contribution (D throws softball. At same time, couch falls off balcony.)

Responsive Intervening Cause: Rule

Reaction to the situation D created.

(Chain broken only if unforeseeable)

Coincidental Intervening Cause

Random event occurs simply because D’s action put Victim in a specific place at specific time. (1920s earthquake house hypo)

(Chain broken only if unforeseeable)