Criminal Law Exam 1

Torts

• private wrongs for which you can sue the party who wronged you and recover money

• applies to everyone

• private parties bring thins actions against other parties

• damages & money

compensatory damages

damages recovered by tort plaintiffs for their actual injuries

Punitive damages

Damages recovered by tort plaintiffs to punish the defendant for their “evil behavior”

Mala in se crimes

• Offenses that require some level of criminal intent and are inherently evil

• Ex: rape, robbery, murder, stealing, etc. 

Mala prohibita offenses

• Offenses that are crimes only because a specific statute or ordinance prohibits them 

• Ex: parking illegally, drinking in public, or other minor offenses 

Misdemeanor

• Offense punishable by fine and/or confinement in the local jail for up to one year 

State Criminal Codes

• criminal law created by elected representatives in state legislatures. 

Municipal Codes

• criminal law created by city and town councils elected by city residents. 

US Criminal Code

• criminal law created by the U.S. Congress l

• Congress heavily relies on administrative agencies, whose members are appointed, not elected by the voters, to “participate” in creating criminal law

codified

written definitions of crimes and punishment enacted by legislatures and published

Model Penal Code (MPC)

• proposed criminal code drafted by the American Law Institute (ALI) and used to reform criminal codes. 

  • It was adopted in 1962 after common law crimes became disastrous. 

    • Not every state immediately adopted the MPC, but its influence was felt heavily. 

Criminal Liability

• Conduct that unjustifiably and inexcusably inflicts or threatens substantial harm to individual or public interests. 

Majority Opinion

• the law of the case; the opinion of the majority of the justices on the court who participated in the case

Concurring Opinion

agrees with the conclusions of either the majority or the dissenting opinion but provides different reasons for reaching the conclusion

Plurality Opinion

an opinion that represents the reasoning of the greatest number (but less than a majority) of justices

Principle of Legality

principle that says no one can be convicted of, or punished for, a crime unless the law defined the crime and prescribed the punishment before the person engaged in the behavior that was defined as a crime

• this is called the first principle of criminal law

Ex Post Facto Laws

• a retroactive law that does one of three things: 

  • (1) criminalizes an act that wasn’t a crime when it was committed, 

  • (2) increases the punishment for a crime after the crime was committed, or 

  • (3) takes away a defense that was available to a defendant when the crime was committed. 

• these are banned under the consitution

Void-for-Vagueness Doctrine

• the principle that statutes violate due process if they don’t define a crime and its punishment clearly enough for ordinary people to know what is lawful. 

Fair Notice

in vague laws, it isn't whether the defendant knows there’s a law against the act but whether an ordinary, reasonable person would know that the act is a crime

The Rule of Lenity

the requirement of courts to resolve every ambiguity in a criminal statute in favor of the defendant

Narrow Lenity Rule

the requirement of courts to interpret ambiguous statutes in favor of defendants only in the core felony cases and other crimes requiring fault

Affirmative Defenses

defendant has to “start matters off by putting in some evidence in support” of their defense of justification and excuse

Burden of Production

to make defendants responsible for presenting evidence in their own justification or excuse defense

Burden of Persuasion

defendants have to prove their justification or excuse defenses by a preponderance of the evidence

Preponderance of the Evidence

1. Proving the defendant had at least 51% chance of committing the act 

2. Most civil cases 

Clear and Convincing

1. Prove that it was “highly probable” that claims are true 

2. No number associated 

3. Often seen in the removal of children from parents 

   1. The state has to prove there is clear and convincing evidence before taking away parental rights 

4. Could be seen in a dispute over a will or estate 

   1. Person disputing by clear and convincing evidence what was meant by the person who died 

Beyond a Reasonable Doubt

1. In criminal cases 

2. Reasonable doubt exists when you are NOT “firmly convinced” 

Requirements for a Search Warrant

1. Probable Cause

   1. Must be based on probable cause, meaning there is a reasonable basis to believe that a crime has been committed and the evidence of the crime is present at the location to be searched. 

2. Signed by a Judge 

   1. Must be issued by a neutral and detached magistrate or judge. 

   2. Ensures an impartial evaluation of the evidence supporting the request for a warrant. 

3. Specificity 

   1. Warrant must describe with particularity the place to be searched and the items to be seized. 

   2. Prevents exploratory searches and limits the scope of law enforcement’s intrusion. 

Good Faith Exception

evidence obtained from a search conducted with a defective warrant can still be admissible if law enforcement officers acted in good faith, believing the warrant to be valid

Automobile Exception

1. allows law enforcement to search a vehicle without a warrant if they have probable cause to believe it contains evidence of a crime

2. * in order to search your vehicle there HAS to be probable cause

Consent

If an individual voluntarily consents to a search, law enforcement does not need a warrant.

Exigent Circumstance

When immediate action is necessary to prevent imminent danger to live, the escape of a suspect, or the destruction of evidence

Search Incident to Lawful Arrest

1. When a person is lawfully arrested, law enforcement has the right to conduct a search of the person and the immediate area within their control to ensure officer safety and prevent the destruction of evidence

Plain View Doctrine

allows officers to seize evidence without a warrant if it is immediately apparent as contraband or evidence of a crime and is in plain view while the officer is lawfully present at the location

Inventory Searches

1. Inventory searches are conducted by law enforcement to catalog the contents of a vehicle or property when it is lawfully impounded. 

2. These searches are intended to protect the owner’s property, ensure officer safety, and prevent false claims of theft or damage

Border Searches

1. At international borders and their functional equivalents, law enforcement officers have broad authority to conduct searches without a warrant or probable cause

Miranda Advisement

1. You have the right to remain silent. 

2. Anything you say can and will be used against you in a court of law. 

3. You have the right to an attorney. 

4. If you cannot afford one, one will be provided/appointed for you. 

Test for Miranda Rights

1. Person must be “in custody” 

   1. “In custody” meaning when they are deprived of freedom of action in any significant way 

      1. High degree of restriction of movement

   2. Objective standard → reasonableness 

      1. “Reasonable person in the Δ‘s shoes would not feel like it’s reasonable to leave”

2. Being Interrogated 

   1. Questions asked +

   2. Law enforcement (not just police qualify as this) +

   3. Questions must be of the type that a police officer/law enforcement knows or should know are likely to elicit an incriminating response. 

• “Custodial Interrogation” 

  • The all together term for both of the parts of the test above. 

Elements of a crime

to convict, the prosecution must prove beyond a reasonable doubt: 

1. A criminal act (in ALL crimes), ** 

2. Criminal intent (in ALMOST ALL crimes), **

3. Concurrence (in all crimes), 

4. Attendant circumstances (in some crimes), 

5. That criminal conduct caused criminal harm (in bad result crimes only).

Concurrence

• the principle of criminal liability that requires that a criminal intent has to trigger the criminal act. 

Attendant Circumstances Element

• a “circumstance” connected to an act, an intent, and/or a bad result. 

Corpus Delicti

Latin for “body of the crime”; it refers to the body of victims in homicides and to the elements of the crime in other crimes

Manifest Criminality

the requirement that mental attitudes have to turn into actions for a “crime” to be committed.

One-Voluntary-Act-Is-Enough Rule

• conduct that includes a voluntary act satisfies the voluntary act requirement 

Automism

unconscious bodily movements

Fault-Based Defenses

defenses based on creating a reasonable doubt about the prosecution's proof of a voluntary act.

Criminal Omission

the failure to act when there’s a legal duty to act

Good Samaritan Doctrine

•  imposes a legal duty to help or call for help for imperiled strangers. 

  • This is normally not adhered to in all courts. 

American Bystander Rule

• there’s no legal duty to rescue or summon help for someone who’s in danger, even if the bystander risks nothing by helping. 

  • This is the most common approach to responding to crime in courts.

Actual Possession

1. Ex: in their pocket, in their hand, etc. 

Constructive Possession

1. Most cases 

2. Not on your person, but somewhere you have control of (apartment, car, purse, etc.) 

Knowing Possession

1. North Dakota and Washington

   1. Two states that do not require a knowing element. 

Mere Possession

refers to having physical control or custody of an item (such as drugs or a weapon) without any additional illegal intent, usage, or aggravating factor like an intent to sell. [1]

Subjective Fault

• Crimes that are linked with immorality 

• Require a bad mind 

• The worst type of crimes, in other words

Objective Fault

• Involve a mindset that's not necessarily bad

• Is more like recklessness and negligence 

• “Reasonable person” 

• What would/should they have known 

Strict Liability

• Totally different kind of crime 

• No mens rea has to be proven – if you did the crime, you did it. That's it. 

• For example: if your dog bites someone else. They just did it, that’s all. 

General Intent

• It applies “across the board”

• Intent to commit a criminal act

Specific Intent

• General intent crimes + intent to cause a harmful result 

• Oftentime the language of “with intent to” is in a specific intent crime 

Conversion

• Theft crime

  • This doesn’t include “with intent to” in the language, but theft takes the conversion language and adds “with intent to deprive the other person…” 

Purposely/Intentionally

• Level of Culpability

• “Conscious objective” to make something happen 

Knowingly

• Level of Culpability

• “Awareness” that it’s “practically certain” the conduct will cause the outcome 

Recklessly

• Level of Culpability

• “Consciously” creating a risk but then don’t expect or care about harm caused

Negligently

• Level of Culpability

• Unconsciously creating a risk and use the “reasonable person” standard 

• Even though that person didn’t think about the risk, would a reasonable person? 

Principle of Concurrence

• some mental fault has to trigger the criminal act in conduct crimes and the cause in result crimes 

  • Required for all crimes, except strict liability 

  • No more coverage about concurrence, not because it’s not important, but because it’s never an issue. 

Causation

• holding an actor criminal accountable for the results of his conduct 

• Only an element for the prosecutor to prove in results crimes (typically the worst crimes) 

• Needs both factual cause and legal cause

Factual Cause

• (also called, “but for” cause or “cause in fact”) of death, other bodily harm, and damage to and destruction of property 

  • “But for the conduct, would there be harm?”

Legal Cause

• (also called “proximate” cause) of death, other bodily harm, and damage to  and destruction of property.

Intervening Cause

• an event that comes between the initial act in a sequence and the end result 

Ignorance Maxim

• the presumption that defendants knew the law they were breaking 

  • Most statutes and court opinions retain the ignorance maxim as the law, although the US Supreme Court has taken some steps toward modifying the rule.

Mistake of Fact

• a defense to criminal liability whenever the mistake prevents the formation of any fault-based mental attitude — namely, purposely, knowing, recklessly, or negligently 

  • ** mistake does not work with strict liability crimes 

Failure-of-Proof Defenses

mistake defenses in which defendants usually present enough evidence to raise a reasonable doubt that the prosecution has proved the mens rea required for criminal liability.

Justification Defense

• Self-defense 

  • Saying “I am responsible, but my actions were justified.” 

Excuse Defense

• Insanity

  • Saying “what I did was wrong, but I am not responsible” 

Perfect Defense

• A defense that proved their defense and is acquitted 

Imperfect Defense

A defense that didn’t work out perfectly. They failed in their full defense, but they didn’t fully fail (usually a lesser charge)

Mitigating Circumstances

• Some evidence that was produced by the defense claiming self-defense and the jury says no. The defendant is still found guilty, but the jury/judge gives less of a punishment but not necessarily a lesser charge.  

• The jury still takes this into consideration in punishment but not charge. 

Elements of Self-Defense

1. Nonaggressor 

   1. Not the person who started it. 

   2. Exception: if the attacker completely withdraws from the attack, then they can defend themselves against the initial victim if the victim comes at them after. 

2. Necessity

   1. The attack was imminent. 

   2. Exception: victims of domestic violence who can demonstrate a pattern occurs and act before the pattern fully happens again. 

3. Proportionality 

   1. You can’t attack someone with more force than they did. 

   2. You can’t stab someone, who was only yelling at you. You can’t use a gun on someone with a knife. It’s not a proportional response. 

4. Reasonable belief 

   1. Two part test: 

      1. Subjective Test:

         1. The defendant honestly believed they had to react in the way they did. 

      2. Objective Test: 

         1. A reasonable person in the same situation would have also believed they had to react. 

Insanity Defense Necessities

• To successfully assert an insanity defense, an individual must prove by a preponderance of the evidence:

  • That he or she suffers from a mental illness and

  • That the mental illness rendered him or her unable to appreciate the wrongfulness of his or her conduct at the time of the offense. 

• Proof of mental illness alone is insufficient. 

GBMI

• Found guilty of the crime 

• These people go to jail 

• Sometimes they do get treatment 

NGRI

• Not guilty verdict 

• Civil commitment to mental institution 

Elements of Duress

1. Nature of the threat

2. Immediacy of the threats

3. Crimes the defense applies to 

4. Level of believe regarding the threat 

Voluntary Intoxication

• Not an excuse for a crime because you voluntarily ingested a substance. 

• Conflicting principles:

  • Accountability 

  • Culpability 

Involuntary Intoxication

• Excuse to criminal liability in all states 

• Unknowing or forced 

• Law excuses involuntary intoxication and not voluntary intoxication due to free choice 

• Can’t blame involuntary intoxicated persons because they were forced or tricked into an intoxicated state 

• Not just alcohol 

Entrapment

• Government agents got people to commit crimes they wouldn’t otherwise commit 

  • All societies rely on it 

  • Rejected by US courts for a long time 

  • Shifting attitudes 

  • Consensual crimes 

  • Affirmative defense