Criminal Law Final

Utilitarianism

Punishment is justified because it produces consequences for society in the future

Utilitarianism Four Categories

General Deterrence, Specific Deterrence, Rehabilitation, and Incapacitation

Utilitarianism General Deterrence

Punishing one offender discourages other people in society from committing similar crimes because they fear receiving the same punishment.

Utilitarianism Specific Deterrence:

Punishing a particular offender is intended to discourage that same person from committing crimes again in the future.

Utilitarianism Rehabilitation

Punishment aims to change or reform the offender so they can return to society as a law-abiding citizen.

Utilitarianism Incapacitation

punishing an offender to protect society by removing or limiting their ability to commit future crimes

Retributivism

People should be punished because they deserve it for the wrong, they have already committed. They focus on justice.

Retributivism Two Categories

Positive and Negative

Positive Retributivism

If a person deserves punishment because they committed a crime, they should be punished.

Negative Retributivism

A person cannot be punished unless they deserve it. Even if punishment might benefit society, it is unjust to punish someone who did not commit a crime or deserves less punishment.

8th Amendment

Cruel and Unusual Punishment Clause prohibits disproportional punishment

Principal of Legality

no crime without (pre-existent) law, no punishment without (pre-existent) law

Ex Post Facto Law

A law that changes the legal consequences of something that already happened by making an act a crime after it was committed, increasing the punishment after the crime was committed, taking away a legal defense that was available at the time, or changing the legal rules in a way that makes it easier to convict someone.

Due Process

Courts are prohibited from enlarging the scope of a criminal statute.

4th Amendment

protects individuals from unreasonable searches and seizures by the government. It requires law enforcement to obtain a warrant based on probable cause, specifically describing the place to be searched for and the items or people to be seized.

Exclusionary Rule

prevents the government from using evidence gathered in violation of the Fourth Amendment in a criminal trial

Probable Cause Definition his definition

under all circumstances known to a police officer an objective reasonable police officer will conclude they have a fair probability that the defendant was committing a crime

6th Amendment

Provides that “in all criminal prosecutions, the accused shall enjoy the right to a speedy and public trial, by an impartial jury.” However, the right to a jury trial is generally limited to prosecutions of non-petty offense crimes for which the maximum potential punishment exceeds incarceration of six months.

Jury Nullification

Occurs when a jury returns a "not guilty" verdict in a criminal trial, even though the jurors believe beyond a reasonable doubt that the defendant broke the law. It serves as a deliberate rejection of the evidence or a refusal to apply the law because the jury considers the law itself unjust or the potential punishment too harsh. A jury has the fundamental right to engage in jury nullification, but no one is allowed to ask them to do it in court.

Conduct Crime

o   A crime where the act itself is a criminal offense, regardless of whether a specific result occurs. The focus is on what the defendant did.

o   Example: Driving while intoxicated

Result Crime

o   A crime where the offense requires a specific harmful outcome or consequence to occur. The focus is on whether the defendant’s conduct caused the required result.

o   Example: Murder

Three Strikes Law Rule in Ewing v. California

A sentence violates the constitution only if it is grossly disproportionate to the offense. To determine if it’s grossly disproportionate you look at 3 factors: (1) the gravity of the offense and the harshness of the penalty (2) the sentences imposed on other crimes in the same jurisdiction (3) the sentences imposed for commission of the same crime in other jurisdictions

Textualism

A method of interpreting statutes that gives the words of the law their ordinary, plain meaning as they were understood when the statute was enacted. Courts focus on the text itself rather than the legislature's intent or policy goals.

void for vagueness rule

o   A statue is unconstitutional if it fails to give a person of ordinary intelligence fair notice of what conduct is prohibited or it encourages arbitrary and discriminatory enforcement.

In Re Banks Rule

A criminal statue is not unconstitutionally vague if (1) a person of ordinary intelligence can understand what conduct is prohibited AND (2) the statue provides sufficient standards to prevent arbitrary or discriminatory enforcement. A court may interpret statutory language using its ordinary meaning and prior judicial interpretations to clarify its application.

Actus Reus Definition (his definition)

It is to be interpreted as the comprehensive notion of act, harm, and its connecting link, causation, with actus expressing the voluntary physical movement in the sense of conduct and reus expressing the fact that this conduct results in a certain proscribed harm, that it causes an injury to the legal interest protected in that crime.

Voluntary Act (his definition)

A person is only liable for a crime when the actus reus as a whole is voluntary. For “the actus reus as a whole” to be voluntary, every element of the actus reus does not need to be voluntary; one or more elements of the actus reus could be involuntary. Instead, the element of actus reus that transformed the behavior from innocent to an offense must be voluntary. In other words, at the time the actus reus was completed--at the time the behavior became criminal-- the defendant could have done otherwise than to satisfy the physical elements of a crime. When the actus reus elements are satisfied in sequence, rather than all at the same time, this will typically require that the defendant could have done otherwise at the time the last element of the actus reus was satisfied.

Voluntariness Principle

A person may be held criminally liable only if they commit a voluntary act (or fail to act when there is a legal duty to act). An involuntary act alone cannot serve as the basis for criminal liability.

General Rule for act or omission

Criminal liability generally requires a voluntary act (actus reus). An omission (failure to act) is not criminal unless the defendant has a legal duty to act.

There is a legal duty to act in criminal law when:

o   Where a statue imposes a duty

o   Imminent peril (you caused the crash you have to help)

o   Where one stands in a certain status relationship with another

o   Where one has assumed a contractual duty to care for another (lifeguard and person drowning)

o   Where one has voluntarily assumed the care of another and so secluded the helpless person to prevent others from rendering aid

Specific (elemental) offenses

a specific intent offense is one that expressly contains one of the following mens rea elements in its definition (1) the intent to commit some act over and beyond the actus reus of the offense (2) a special motive for committing the actus reus of the offense (3) awareness of a particular attendant circumstance

General (culpability) offenses

an offense that requires proof of a culpable mental state, but which does not contain a specific intent element

Purposely

intentionally is not used in the code. Instead, MPC subdivides common law intent into two alternative components and calls them purposely and knowingly. A person causes a result purposely if it is her conscious object to cause the result.

Knowingly

a person knowingly causes a result if she is aware that the result is “practically certain” to result from her conduct

Recklessly

if he consciously disregards a substantial and unjustifiable risk that the material element exists or will result from his conduct

Negligently

a person acts negligently when he should be aware of a “substantial and unjustifiable risk” This risk constitutes a gross deviation from the standard of care that a reasonable person would observe in the actor’s situation.

An offense is strict liability in nature if

commission of the actus reus of the offense, without proof of mens rea, is sufficient to convict the actor

Social Harm (his definition)

Negation, endangering, or destruction of an individual, group, or state interest, which is deemed socially valuable

State v. Nations

club case

Rule: When a statue requires that the defendant acts knowingly, the prosecution must prove the defendant was actually aware of the required attendance circumstance. Near suspicion, negligence, recklessness, or even awareness of a possibility is not enough unless the legislative says otherwise.

Specific Intent Offenses (mistake of fact)

A defendant is not guilty of a specific intent crime if her mistake of fact negates the specific intent element of the offense. Even an unreasonable mistake of fact which is a mistake that a reasonable person will not make; will exculpate the actor if the mistake negatives the Mens Rea required for the offense

General Intent Offenses (mistake of fact)

A defendant is not guilty of a general intent offense if, as a result of her mistake of fact, she committed the axis race of the offense with a morally blameless state of mind

o   A defendant is not guilty of a general intent offense if her mistake of fact was reasonable, she is guilty if her mistake was unreasonable

Exception to Mistake of fact

o   Moral Wrong Doctrine: There should be no expulsion for a mistake where, if the facts had been as the actor believed them to be, his conduct would be immoral

Two-step process for this doctrine: (1) look at the facts from the mistaken actor's point of view (2) was the defendant's conduct morally wrong to society

Model Penal Code General Rule to Mistake of Fact

A mistake of fact is a defense against a crime if the mistake negates the mental state element required in the definition of offense.

Mistake of fact (his definition)

Mistake of fact is reasonable to negate mens rea under general intent

As a defense it is the defendant’s burden to prove but as a burden of proof issue it becomes the prosecution’s burden to prove

Mistake of Law

Ignorance or mistake of law is generally not a defense against a criminal charge. A defendant's personal misunderstanding or misinterpreting of a statute does not excuse criminal liability unless a statutory exception applied.

Cheek v. United States

tax fraud piolet

Rule: When a federal criminal tax statute requires the defendant act willfully the government must prove the defendant voluntarily and intentionally violated a known legal duty. In honest, good faith misunderstanding of the tax law even if objectively unreasonable may negate willfulness. However, disagreement with the law or belief that the law is unconstitutional does not negate willfulness.

Cheek v. United States Willfully

The court interpreted the term “willfully” as “an act done with a bad purpose,” or with an “evil motive.” The supreme court described the term “willfully” as connecting “a voluntary, intentional violation of a known legal duty,” and did so with specific reference to the “bad faith or evil intent” language employed in Mursock.

(1) law imposed a duty (2) Defendant knew of the duty (he was convinced it was unconstitutional, so he was also convicted he did not have duty) (3) Defendant intentionally violated

MPC Proximate Cause (put on board)

Was the way in which the actual result came about too remote or accidental in its occurrence to have a jury bearing in D’s liability or the gravity of the offense?

HIS BUT FOR TEST

But for the Defendants voluntarily acts, would the social harm or statutorily proscribed result have occurred when it did

HIS For actual causation, ask

but for the defendant's voluntary acts, would the social harm (or statutorily proscribed result) have occurred when it did?

Proximate Causation Common Law Basic Question

was the way in which the actual result came about reasonably foreseeable?

Proximate Causation Common Law 6 factors

De minimus contribution to social harm, Intended consequences doctrine, Omissions, Foreseeability, Apparent-safety doctrine, and Voluntary human intervention

De minimis contribution to social harm:

there are many but-for causes of any given event; is this a minimal or trivial contributor?

Intended consequences doctrine:

did the actual result happen in the general way the actor intended?

Omissions

is an intervening cause an omission? (Generally, an omission will not break the causal chain.)

Foreseeability

is an intervening cause coincidental or responsive?

1. Coincidental (wrong time at the wrong place)

2. Response (ran someone over, doctor was negligent, does not break the cause)

Apparent-safety doctrine

has the defendant's active force come to rest in a position of apparent safety?

Voluntary human intervention

is intervening causing a "free, deliberate and informed human intervention"?

Gross Negligence

Breaks Causation

Mere negligence

does not break causation

Proximate Causation MPC Basic Question

was the way in which the actual result came about too remote or accidental in its occurrence to have a just bearing on the defendant's liability or on the gravity of the offense?

Proximate Causation MPC Advanced Approach

What was the "actual result"?

Was the actual result within the purpose or contemplation of the actor?

1. If yes, then proximate cause.

2. If not, then did the actual result involve the same kind of injury or harm as that designed?

   1. If not, then the actor's conduct is not a proximate cause.

   2. If yes, was the actual result too remote or accidental in its occurrence to have a just bearing on the actor's liability?

      1. If yes, the actual result was too remote or accidental, then no proximate cause.

      2. If not, then proximate cause.

Multiple Actual Causes

the conduct of two or more people each contributes to a prohibited result, and each person's conduct is considered an actual (factual) cause of that result. A defendant cannot escape liability simply because another person's conduct also helped cause the harm.

Concurrent Sufficient Causes

two acts, either one of which is sufficient to cause the resulting harm when it does, occur concurrently

o   Substantial Factor test: was the defendants conduct a substantial factor in the resulting harm

Superseding Intervening Cause

an unforeseeable intervening event that breaks the chain of causation and relieves the defendant of criminal liability for the result

Oxendine v. State

acceleration

couple beating kid

Rule: To establish criminal homicide, the state must prove beyond a reasonable doubt that the defendants conduct was a legal cause of the victim’s death. When another person has already inflicted a fatal injury, the state must prove that the defendants later conduct accelerated the victim’s death.

Note: Acceleration will not exclude a prior cause

Common Law Homicide degrees

o   1^st degree murder is premeditated and deliberate

o   2nd degree murder is all the other kinds of murder

Homicide

any mental state; The killing of one human being by another. It can be criminal or noncriminal.

Common law Definition of Murder

a killing of a human being by another human being with malice afterthought

Muder

Mental State:Intentional, knowing, or sometimes extremely reckless

Definition: An unlawful killing with malice aforethought.

Manslaughter

Mental State: Less blameworthy than murder

Definition: An unlawful killing without malice. Usually voluntary or involuntary.

Reckless Homicide

Mental state: recklessness

Definition:Causing death while consciously disregarding a substantial and unjustifiable risk.

Negligeny Homicide

Mental State: criminal negligence

Definition: Causing death by failing to perceive a substantial and unjustifiable risk that a reasonable person would have noticed.

Common Law Murder Factors

Intent to inflict Grievous Bodily Harm, Knowing Homicide/Intent to kill, Grievous bodily injury, Depraved Heart, and Felony Murder Rule

Intent to inflict Grievous Bodily Harm

A person acts with malice afterthought if she intends to inflict grievous bodily injury on another human being. Therefore, if a death results from her conduct, she is guilty of murder.

Knowing Homicide/Intent to kill

A person commits knowing homicide when she is aware that her conduct is practically certain to cause the death of another person. Even if death is not her conscious objective, knowledge that death is virtually certain is sufficient for murder.

A criminal homicide is murder under the code if the killing is committed purposely or knowingly.

Grievous bodily injury

Injury that imperils life or that is likely to be attempted with fatal or dangerous consequences. Or it is injury that gives rise to the apprehension of danger to life, health, or limb

Depraved Heart

A person who acts with what the common law described as a depraved heart or an abandoned and malignant heart is one who acts with malice afterthought. If a person dies as a result of such conduct, the actor is guilty of murder although the death was unintended.

Felony Murder Rule

A person is guilty of the common law of murder if she kills another person, even accidentally, during the commission or attempted commission of any felony

Common Law Definition of Manslaughter

An unlawful killing of a human being by another human being without malice afterthought.

Categories of Manslaughter

o   Voluntary: involved an intentional killing bur one in which the actor takes a life in sudden heat of passion as the result of adequate provocation

o   Involuntary: a person is guilty of involuntary manslaughter if she kills another person during the commission or attempted commission of an unlawful act that does not otherwise trigger the felony murder rule

Provocation Doctrine

servers to reduce an intentional killing from murder to manslaughter

Factors that may mitigate murder to manslaughter

o   Discovering one’s spouse in the act of sexual intercourse with another

o   Mutual combat

o   Assault or battery

o   Injury to one of the defendants’ relatives or to a 3^rd party

o   Death resulting from resistance of an illegal arrest as adequate provocation

Rule of Provocation

o   There must have been adequate provocation

o   The killing must have been in the heat of passion

o   It must have been a sudden heat of passion – that is, the killing must have followed the provocation before there had been a reasonable opportunity for the passion to cool

o   There must have been a causal connection between the provocation, the passion, and the factual act

Provocation Mere Words Rule

Words spoken by the victim no matter how abusive or taunting fall into a category society should not accept as adequate provocation. Unless they are accompanied by conduct indicating a present intention and ability to cause the defendant bodily harm

Provocation Cool Down Rule

The provocation defense is unavailable to a defendant who kills the victim after he has a reasonable opportunity for the passion to cool.

extreme emotional disturbance rule

a defendant must prove (1) that he acted under the influence of extreme emotional disturbance (subjective element and good faith) and (2) that there was a reasonable explanation or excuse for that disturbance when viewed from the viewpoint of a person in the defendant’s situation under the circumstances as he believed them to be (objective standard)

People v. Knoller rule

dog mauling

Malice is implied when the killing is approximately caused by “an act, the natural consequences of which are dangerous to life, which act was deliberately performed by a person who knows that his conduct endangers the life of another and who acts with conscious disregard for life.

Reasons for Felony Murder

-deterrence

-retribution perspective

-clear definition of defenses

-court resources

-minimization of perjury

HIS Classic formulation of the felony-murder rule

o   A person is guilty of murder if a death results from conduct during the commission or attempted commission of a felony.

HIS o   Leading justifications for the felony-murder rule

o   Deterrence

o   Culpability/retributivism

HIS o   Approaches to restricting the scope of felony murder

Limit the types of felonies, Impose a stricter proximate-cause requirement, Adopt a merger limitation, California's approach: major participant + reckless indifference to human life

HIS Limit the types of felonies

• Abolition: Some states have abolished the felony-murder rule.

• Inherently dangerous felonies: Many states limit felony murder by requiring that the defendant's attempted/committed felony be dangerous to life.

  • One approach is to consider whether the felony is dangerous in the abstract.

  • Another approach is to examine the specific facts of the defendant's attempted/committed felony to determine whether the defendant's conduct was factually dangerous to life.

• Common-law felonies: Under this approach, the underlying felony for a felony-murder charge must be one of the crimes which was a felony at common law.

  • Includes: rape, sodomy, robbery, burglary, arson, mayhem, and larceny.

• Malum in se felonies: Under this approach, the underlying felony for a felony-murder charge must be malum in se as opposed to malum prohibitum.

HIS Impose a stricter proximate cause requirement

• If a defendant commits arson:

• Foreseeable that an occupant might be killed--would apply the felony-murder rule.

• Unforeseeable that a looter would run into the burning building and perish--might decline to apply the felony-murder rule.

• A court might require a closer temporal link.

• Generally, consider how closely the homicide and underlying felony are in terms of (1) time, (2) place, and (3) causal connection.

HIS Adopt a merger limitation

• Manslaughter (voluntary or involuntary) is generally a felony.

• Take a defendant who recklessly operates his car, unintentionally kills a victim, and thus commits (felony) involuntary manslaughter:

  • Problem: without a merger limitation, all manslaughter would be felony murder--manslaughter would cease to exist as a separate crime.

    • Assault with a deadly weapon

      • Applying a merger limitation, the underlying felony must involve conduct separate from the acts of personal violence which constitute a necessary part of the homicide itself. The assault "merges" into the homicide and cannot support a standalone felony-murder charge.

    • Caution: If the legislature enumerates the underlying felonies that can create felony-murder liability, the court cannot apply the merger doctrine to those enumerated felonies.

HIS CALIFORNIA APPRACH: MAJOR PARTCIPANT + RECKLESS INDIFFERENCE TO HUMAN LIFE (limitations)

• California limits the application of its felony-murder rule to the following actors:

• The actual killer;

• If not the actual killer, one who, with the intent to kill, aids, abets, counsels, commands, induces, solicits, or assists the actual killer in the commission of murder of the first-degree; or

• A person who was a major participant in the underlying felony and who acted with reckless indifference to human life.

HIS CALIFORNIA APPROACH: MAJOR PARTICIPANT + RECKLESS INDIFFERENCE TO HUMAN LIFE (major participant factors)

• What role did the defendant have in planning the criminal enterprise that led to one or more deaths?

• What role did the defendant have in supplying or using lethal weapons?

• What awareness did the defendant have of particular dangers posed by the nature of the crime, weapons used, or past experience or conduct of the other participants?

• Was the defendant present at the scene of the killing, in a position to facilitate or prevent the actual murder, and did his or her own actions or inactions play a particular role in the death?

• What did the defendant do after lethal force was used?

HIS CALIFORNIA APPROACH: MAJOR PARTICIPANT + RECKLESS INDIFFERENCE TO HUMAN LIFE (reckless indifference to human life factors)

• The defendant's knowledge of weapons, and use and number of weapons;

• The defendant's physical presence at the crime and opportunities to restrain the crime and/or aid the victim;

• The duration of the felony;

• The defendant's knowledge of his or her cohort's likelihood of killing; and

• The defendant's efforts to minimize the risk of violence during the felony.

People v. Fuller

stolen tires

felony murder rule: All murder which is committed in the perpetration of or attempt to perpetrate, arson, rape, burglary, mayhem, or lewd acts with a minor, is murder of the first degree.

People v. Smith

felony murder merger

child abuse

Rule: Where the conduct constituting a felony is the sole cause of death, i.e. assault, the felony “merges” with the homicide into a single crime.