REDONE Midterm Attack (Modules 1-5)

Punishment

state’s intentional infliction of pain on D because D was convicted of a crime

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. statute must be clear

2. Public is on notice of what is prohibited

3. Crimes can’t be defined ad hoc (by a single decision maker)

4. grievous ambiguities resolved in D’s favor

Vague Statute - When is it considered void?

If the statute fails to 1) give fair notice of what conduct is prohibited, or 2) provide standards that guide police, prosecutors, judges, and juries that prevent arbitrary enforcement

When is a statute overbroad?

When it reaches too much legal conduct. A court can impose a limiting construction.

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

The famous standard is “innocent until proven guilty.” What standard is used to prove D is guilty?

Every element must be proven beyond a reasonable doubt. Circumstantial evidence can suffice.

Necessity Defense

Necessity is not a defense to murder.

Actus Reus

Voluntary act or omission causing prohibited harm.

1. Conduct = the prohibited behavior.

2. Result = the outcome the statute requires (if required).

3. Attendant circumstances = extra facts required.

What are the elements of a crime?

Crime = Actus Reus + Mens Rea

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. statute imposes the duty

2. status relationship (e.g. spouse/child)

3. contractual duty (e.g. baby sitter)

4. voluntary assumption of care the secludes the victim from other help

5. creation of risk.

For a result based crime, if Defendant failed to act (an omission), what must the prosecution prove to hold the omission liable under the statute?

That the omission caused the result

Minnesota Omissions Rule

Reasonable aid required if:

1. at emergency scene

2. able to help without danger to themselves or others

3. KNOW person is exposed to grave physical 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.

How does Willful Blindness function?

Proves knowledge. Only applies to statutes that require D’s knowledge.

Willful Blindness: Rule

1. Supreme Court Standard: 1) I think fact exists 2) don’t learn it: 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. Intent transfers if:

1. D had required mens rea as to intended victim

2. D caused harm to actual victim

3. same type of harm as intended

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, not just to perform the prohibited act. Ways to prove:

1. D intended to commit the further act

2. D had a special motive to produce a particular result

3. D was aware of a particular attendant circumstance (e.g. receiving stolen property)

Examples: “with intent to” “for the purpose of”

General Intent

Requires only the mental state needed to do the prohibited act itself. No further intent, purpose, ir knowledge is necessary.

Five Levels of Mental Culpability

Purposely

Knowingly

Recklessly

Negligently

Maliciously

Purposely

A defendant acts purposely if:

1) it is their conscious object to engage in the conduct,

2) it is their conscious object to cause the result, or

3) they are aware of the attendant circumstance or believe or hope it exists

Knowingly

A defendant acts knowingly if they are:

1) aware their conduct is of the nature described in the statute, even if they do not want it,

2) aware the attendant circumstance from the statute exists, or

3) practically certain the prohibited result will follow.

Recklessly

D is actually aware of and consciously disregards a 1) substantial and 2) unjustifiable risk that the result will occur OR that the attendant circumstance exists.

The disregard is a gross deviation from the standard of conduct a law-abiding person in D’s position would observe.

Negligently

D should’ve been aware of a substantial and unjustifiable risk but were not, and the failure to perceive it is a gross deviation from a reasonable person’s standard of care.

(Lack of D’s knowledge distinguishes negligence from recklessness).

Maliciously

D acts maliciously if D 1) actually intends to cause the particular kind of harm that occurred, or 2) are reckless as to that harm.

What is Strict Liability and where does it often apply?

D is liable regardless of their mental state.

Applies to regulatory health/safety, specialized trades, low penalty, low stigma offenses.

Suppose a statute doesn’t include a mental state. Is it automatically strict liability?

No. A mental state is read in (especially for felony penalties).

How does the MPC handle Strict Liability?

Strict liability doesn’t apply to crimes. It only applies to violations punishable by fines or civil penalties without criminal stigma.

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

MoL Reasonable Reliance Exception: Rule

D may be relieved of conviction if D reasonably relied on an official statement of the law, later found invalid, contained in a

1. statute

2. administrative order

3. judicial decision

4. an official interpretation by officer

MoL Fair Notice Exception: Rule

Conviction may violate Due Process if

1. law punishes omission/passive failure to act

2. malum prohibitum

3. no notice/alerting circumstances to prompt D about the duty

4. duty arises solely from presence

MoL 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 of the offense…

If General Intent, the mistake needs to be Honest + Reasonable.
(e.g. Trespass requires the general intent to physically enter a specific piece of land. If there is a giant sign on the land that says “PRIVATE PROPERTY - DO NOT TRESPASS” and D walks on anyway, that is an unreasonable mistake, no matter how honest.)

If Specific Intent, the mistake needs to be Honest.
(e.g. Larceny requires the specific intent to permanently deprive another person of their property. If D thought the umbrella is his, the specific intent didn't exist in D’s brain).

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

If multiple concurrent causes, each each 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 occurred.

What is a Superseding Cause? What are examples?

A superseding cause cuts off criminal liability.

CUTS OFF D’s LIABILITY: (VADUC)

1. Voluntary act: a free, deliberate, informed act by V or a third person

2. Apparent safety: V reaches safety, then returns to danger

3. De minimis contribution: D’s contribution is trivial (D inflicts minor cut; X then fatally shoots V)

4. Unforeseeable/extraordinary event (e.g. crazy act of god, such as a random lightning strike)

5. Coincidental intervening cause

(Can argue foreseeability to keep chain intact).

What is an intervening but non-superseding cause? What are examples?

An intervening cause but non-superseding cause preserves liability.

PRESERVES D’s LIABILITY: (FOIR)

1. Foreseeable intervening cause (e.g. drunk V left on a dark road, hit by a truck; also foreseeable acts of God)

2. Omission by V or a third person (V refuses a life-saving procedure)

3. Intended consequences: the result D intended occurs in an unexpected way (D pushes V off cliff; V hits a power line and dies)

4. Responsive cause, e.g., medical treatment, rescue, escape (unless abnormal)

Responsive Intervening Cause: Rule

Keeps the chain intact. An intervening cause that is a reaction to the situation D created (e.g. medical treatment, rescue, or the victim’s escape unless abnormal. Gross medical negligence may break the chain).

(Chain broken only if abnormal/unforeseeable)

Coincidental Intervening Cause: Rule

An intervening cause that harms the victim only because D’s conduct put victim in a specific place at specific time. (1920s earthquake house hypo)

(Chain is BROKEN, unless foreseeable)

How does the MPC handle Causation?

STEP 1: Same but for test.

STEP 2:

• For purpose or knowledge mens rea statutes: was the actual result the one D intended or contemplated?

• For recklessness or negligence mens rea statutes: was the actual result within the risk?

(The following keeps causation intact: 1) Transferred intent 2) actual harm is less than what D intended or risked 3) actual result is same kind of harm D intended or risked)

How does the MPC handle causation with a strict liability statute?

The actual result must be a probable consequence of the defendant's conduct.

Example:

Statute: Illegal to sell contaminated food that causes illness. No mental state required.

D sells contaminated food. Customer gets food poisoning. Illness is a probable consequence of selling contaminated food. Thus, causation is satisfied, even if D had no idea the food was bad.

However, if D sells contaminated food, and the customer slips on the dropped container and breaks a wrist. D’s sale is a but-for cause, but a broken wrist isn’t a probable consequence of selling contaminated food. Causation fails.

What are the doctrines you should be ready to analyze during the exam?

HOMICIDE

Common Law:

1st degree murder (Felony Murder)

2nd degree murder

Voluntary Manslaughter (Heat of Passion)

Involuntary Manslaughter

MPC:

Murder

Manslaughter (Extreme Emotional Disturbance)

Manslaughter (Recklessness)

Negligent Homicide

Other Issues:

1. Statutory Interpretation

2. Actus Reus - Result/Conduct Based, Attendant Circumstances, Conduct

3. Mens Rea

4. Willful Blindness

5. Necessity Defense (Regina)

6. Transferred Intent

7. Intent

8. Mistake of Law

9. Mistake of Fact

10. Causation