Sociology of Criminal Law Exam #2

justification defenses

Defendant admits responsibility for their acts, but claim they’ve behaved correctly

• Typically result in acquittal

excuse defenses

Defendant admits what they did was wrong, but weren’t responsible under the circumstances

e.g. minor, insanity

burden of production

Defendants have to “start matters off by putting in some evidence in support” of their justification or excuse

(i.e. def. have to produce evidence for their defense)

burden of persuasion

If def. meets burden of production, have to prove their defenses by a preponderance of the evidence

perfect defense

Secure a def.’s acquittal

imperfect defense

Secures a lesser sentence for the def.

self-defense

• Available for prevention only

• Not available to the initial aggressor (Initial Aggressor rule) EXCEPT where the aggressor has withdrawn completely

Four elements:

• Unprovoked attack

• Necessity

• Proportionality (reasonable force)

• Reasonable belief

imminent danger (reasonable belief)

Honest and reasonable belief that time for defense is now (subjective)

retreat rule

Person has to retreat unless they honestly and reasonably believe that doing so will not eliminate the threat of death or serious bodily injury

castle doctrine

when you’re attacked in your home you can stand your ground and use deadly force to fend off an unprovoked attack

• cohabitant extension: extends castle doctrine further

• Been extended in some place to include any place you have a rt to be, protection of property, and against threats that aren’t imminent

→ Creates blanket immunity, shifts burden of proof to prosecutors

stand your ground doctrine

If you don’t start the fight, you can stand your ground and justifiably kill your attacker if you reasonably and honestly believe it’s necessary to do so

• Disproportionate force exception: only use enough force to stop the attack (not always lethal force)

necessity

Attack of such a nature that actor must use self-defense to repel it

defense of others

• Traditionally meant protecting yourself and members of your immediate family

• Has since expanded to include anyone who needs immediate protection from attack

(i.e. not going to get in trouble for trying to stop a fight)

defense of home and property

• Extension of rt to self-defense

• Often limit use of deadly force to cases where it is reasonable to believe intruders intend to commit violence

*Does not include curtilage*

necessity - choice of evils

Choosing to commit a lesser crime to avoid a greater crime

• Life, health, and safety over property, NOT other people (i.e. no cannibalism)

• Must be imminent and necessary

Steps:

• Identify the evils

• Rank them

• Choose lesser evils to avoid greatest evil

consent

If a mentally competent adult wants to be a crime victim, gov’t will not get in their way if:

• No serious injury

• Injury happened during sporting event

• Conduct benefits consenting person

• Consent is to sex content

• Consent is voluntary, knowing, and authorized

insanity

• Can be applied to any case where there’s a mens rea element

• About 1/3 of these are used in murder cases

• Defendants who unsuccessfully argue serve significantly longer

  • Those acquitted are typically committed to mental institutions and spend twice as long in custody

• Only 3% who successfully argue were later diagnosed w/ no mental illness

• Only 8% of successful defendants are released from custody after 8 yrs, 35% remain, and 47% remain in monitored custody for life

• 95% of successful defenses are the product of a plea bargain

• Juries biased against this

M’Naughten Rule

• A rt-wrong, all-or-nothing test

• Depends on def. mental capacity to know rt from wrong

Two requirements:

1. Def. has mental disease/defect at time of crime

2. Disease/defect caused def. either not to know nature/quality of actions or that what they were doing was wrong

volitional incapacity

Even if the def. knew what they were doing and knew it was wrong, can qualify for verdict of not guilty if they suffer from mental illness that damages their willpwr or disease was reason they acted

• Irresistible impulse

• Rely entirely on expert to determine

substantial capacity (MPC)

At time of offense, def. lacked substantial capacity, but not necessarily complete capacity, as a result of mental defect/disease to either:

1. appreciate wrongness of conduct

2. conform conduct to requirements of law

*Excludes psychopathic, sociopathic, habitual criminals, antisocial*

*Has to be a defect that affects reason*

Durham Rule (NH)

• Traditionally, any crim conduct that’s product of mental illness triggers insanity defense

• Now, limited to individuals who must prove legal insanity by clear and convincing evidence

burden of proof for insanity

• 2/3 of states recognize it is placed upon def., usually by a preponderance

• Insanity Defense Reform Act of 1984: holds def. to higher standard, requiring proof by clear and convincing evidence

diminished capacity/responsibility

An attempt to prove def. is guilty of a lesser crime by negating specific intent

(i.e. def. didn’t have capacity to form specific intent)

• Purpose drops to knowledge

defense of age

• Common law def:

  • Under 7: no crim capacity

  • 7-14: presumption of no capacity

  • 14+: same capacity as adults

• Today:

  • One type identifies specific age ranges

  • Another type grants exclusive jurisdiction to juvenile courts up to a certain age but makes exceptions for a list of serious crimes

  • Third type simply states that juvenile court jurisdiction isn’t exclusive

  • AR: juvenile court jurisdiction is 17 or younger BUT children under 10 deemed incapable of forming crim intent AND can be treated as adult 14+

duress

1. Threats amounting to duress - death in some, serious bodily injury in some (AR), some are silent

2. Immediacy of threats - instant, imminent, unclear in some (AR)

3. Applicable crimes - some states, not a defense to murder; all crimes in some states; some states don’t say (AR)

4. Degree of relief - threat real, reasonable belief in others (AR)

intoxication

generally untenable, but two competing principles:

1. accountability: those who get drunk should face the consequences of their actions

2. culpability: crim liability and punishment depend on culpability

entrapment

state tries to get you to commit crimes

• subjective test: did def. have a disposition to commit, or did intent originate w/ gov’t intervention?

• objective test (AR): would the state’s actions cause a normal law-abiding person to commit the crime?

• Predisposition doesn’t matter

syndrome

a group of symptoms or signs typical of a disease, disturbance, or condition

• defenses that rely on affected mental states

complicity

an actor is liable for someone else’s conduct

accomplice

• Before or during crime

Actus reus

• Pos. act to help commit

• Words not enough (except sometimes if they encourage/approve a crime)

• Mere presence at crime not enough unless there’s a duty

Mens rea:

• Purposely - clearly qualifies

• Knowingly - confusing and split

• Recklessness and negligence - more confusing

Common Law punishment: charged like they committed the crime

Modern punishment: same as common law

accessory after

Aiding with awareness of the act

Four elements:

1. Personally aided

2. Knew crime was committed

3. W/ purpose of hindering prosecution

4. Someone besides accessory committed the crime

Common law punishment: treated as if they committed the crime

Modern punishment: punished less harshly

vicarious liability

Arises when 1 actor is said to have “rt, ability, or duty to ctrl” activities of the violator

• Based solely on relationship b/w 2 individuals—principle and agent

• Transferred actus reus and mens rea

• Punish principle for acts of agent

enterprise vicarious liability

Holding a company responsible for its employees’ actions

• Determining their actual responsibility is often difficult b/c there are many stakeholders and decision makers

Common Questions:

• Is it fair to stakeholders, who usually end up paying the fine?

• Does it have any deterrent effect?

parental vicarious liability

Holding parent responsible for actions of child

• Typically violates due process unless parent was negligent, encouraging, etc.

apparent authority

Actor may not have authority in the situation, but does so anyway AND principle is aware and does nothing to stop it

actual authority

Relationship clearly defines agent’s authority and bad act occurred while exercising that authority

inchoate crimes

the mens rea of purpose or specific intent and the actus reus of taking some steps toward accomplishing the criminal purpose—but not enough steps to complete the intended crime

criminal attempt

Two elements:

1. Intent to commit

2. Overt act toward commission

criminal attempt actus reus

• Dangerous person: even though the act wasn’t complete, we have an interest in stopping dangerous activity before it occurs

• Dangerous conduct: even though act isn’t complete, we have an interest in stopping dangerous activity before it occurs

• Preparation alone is never enough

proximity test

“Were the defendant’s acts close enough to the intended crime to count as the criminal act in the attempt?”

• First have to determine how close is close enough

last proximate act rule

a person is only guilty of an attempt to commit a crime if they perform the final, ultimate act necessary to complete the offense

probable desistance (PD) test

Focus on how much the def. has already done to demonstrate they’re dangerous

• Def.’s conduct has to pass pt where most ppl would think better of their conduct and stop

• Person test

res ipsa loquitor (a.k.a. unequivocality test)

Does the act speak for itself: if a reasonable person can guess what will happen next, and they draw the conclusion the actor was about to commit a crime, they are guilty of attempt

• Person test

dangerous proximity to success test (DPS)

Looking to what def. has left to do to commit the crime

(i.e. has the def. become “dangerously close” to committing the crime)

• Conduct test

indispensable elements (IE) test

Has the def. gained ctrl of everything they need to commit the crime?

substantial steps test

Attempters take enough steps toward completing the crime not to show that a crime is about to occur but to prove that the attempters are determined to commit it

Includes:

• Lying in wait, searching for, or following the contemplated victim of the crime

• Enticing the contemplated victim of the crime to go to the place contemplated for its commission

• Reconnoitering [or “casing”] the place contemplated for the commission of the crime

• Unlawful entry of a structure, vehicle, or enclosure in which it is contemplated that the crime will be committed

• Possession of materials to be employed in the commission of the crime that are specially designed for such unlawful use or that can serve no lawful purpose of the actor under the circumstances

• Possession, collection, or fabrication of materials to be employed in the commission of the crime, at or near the place contemplated for its commission, if such possession, collection, or fabrication serves no lawful purpose of the actor under the circumstances

• Soliciting an innocent agent to engage in conduct constituting an element of the crime

impossibility

• Legal: when actors intend to commit a crime and do everything w/in pwr to, but crim code doesn’t criminalize their actions

• Factual: when actors intend and try to commit a crime but some fact or circumstance (extraneous factor) interrupts them to prevent the completion of the crime

abandonment (of crim intent)

• Aff def. in 12 states

• Unification is aff in AR

  • Def. abandons his/her attempt

  • Abandonment prevents commission of offense

  • Amounts to a voluntary and complete renunciation of his/her crim purpose

conspiracy

• Further removed from committing crime than attempt

• Justifications for punishing:

  • Nips crim purpose in the bud

  • Strikes @ special danger of group crim behavior

• Actus reus: agreement to commit a crime

  • Doesn’t have to be in writing

  • Unspoken understanding inferred from facts/context is good enough to prove agreement

1/2 of states require overt act to verify firmness of agreement

• Mens rea

  • Specific intent: intent to make agreement or to achieve crim objective

  • Purpose: difficult to prove

parties to conspiracy

• Traditionally: 2+ individuals agree to commit crimes

*Must demonstrate both agreed, can be problematic when undercover*

• Unilateral: doesn’t require conspirators to agree w/ or even know other conspirators as long as def. believed there was an agreement

*Failure to convict one party doesn’t preclude conviction of other*

wheel conspiracy

composed of hub (participant in all transactions) and spoke (only participate in one transaction)

chain conspiracy

participants @ one end may know nothing of participants @ other end, but they all handle the same commodity @ one pt (e.g. cartels)

crim solicitation

Trying to get someone else to commit a crime

• Requires inciting/encouraging words (approving isn’t enough)

• Can solicit an audience

• MPC: solicitation doesn’t have to make it to object, though some states do require that

Mens rea: specific intent to accomplish underlying crime

Criminal objective: some felonies, some violent felonies, some “any crime”

• AR any felony or misdemeanor

• Renunciation qualifies if def. prevented commission of offense solicited by a voluntary and complete renunciation of crim purpose

crim objective for conspiracy

• Traditionally: covered everything from treason to disturbing peace

• MPC: overt act requirement - act in furtherance of agreement

• AR: requires overt act and and mens rea of purpose

• Can involve any crim offense

People v. Kimball (‘53)

Drunk guy trying to impress cashier → stages fake robbery → a completed theft is not required for an attempt conviction when actions directly tend toward the crime

State v. Damms (‘60)

mom tries to convince her to stay married → husband kidnaps her → stop at gas station and husband tries to shoot her, but gun isn’t loaded → convicted of attempted murder because all but final act was complete to murder

Le Barron v. State (‘66)

Railroad attempted rape - dude decides not to because she’s pregnant - convicted of attempted rape because his overt acts clearly suggested he intended to rape her

State v. Akers (‘79)

Parents were charged under a statute making them vicariously liable for damages or legal violations caused by their children operating snowmobiles → held that holding parents criminally liable solely based on their parental status is unconstitutional

State v. Chism (‘83)

David dressed as woman, one-legged uncle stabbing of uncle, drive to remote area, he helps hide body, w/in an hour he reports the crime, convicted but Q of why he helped his uncle