Midterm CJ 320 Bowman SDSU

Model Penal Code

Professor thinks it is useless!

Sources of Criminal Law

Federal, State, Local

California Classification of offenses

Felony (state prison possible), wobblers (can be felony can be misdemeanor), misdemeanor (up to 1 year in jail and/or fine), infraction (fine only)

Punishment for felony otherwise not prescribed

16 months, 2, or 3 years

Punishment for misdemeanor otherwise not prescribed

6 months and/or fine not exceeding 1000 dlls

Types of terms

low term, mid term, upper term. Ex. 16 months (low term), 2 years (mid term), 3 years (upper term)

Elements for criminal liability

Actus Reas: bodily movement + free will

Mens rea: mental state

Concurrence: Both at the same time (AR+MR)

Causation

Resulting Harm: murder, mayhem

Mayhem

When a person maliciously deprives a human of a member of his body. Ex. cut tongue, take eyes out, etc.

Actus Reas excludes

reflex reaction, spasms, seizures

Omissions of Actus Reas

Must have a legal duty to act.

Legal duties arise based on

Statutes, contracts, special relationships

Statutes

Ex. hit and run, firearms in reach of children, etc

Contracts

file a tax return, register a gun, etc

Special relationships

parent-child

Possession is divided into two categories

actual possession and constructive possession

Actual possession is

Defendant knowingly exercises direct physical control over an object. In other words, they have it on them.

Constructive possession is

Defendant knowingly exercises control over, or the right to control an object either directly or through another person. Ex. occurs when law enforcement believes there are multiple people with knowledge and access to drugs (in car, in glove compartment, etc)

Mens Rea has four recognized mental states:

General intent, specific intent, transferred intent, constructive intent

General intent

Intent to do something. Most crimes require general intent, meaning that the prosecution must prove only that the accused meant to do an act prohibited by law. Whether the defendant intended the act's result is irrelevant.

Specific intent

With intent to commit a crime. Specific intent crimes typically require that the defendant intentionally commit an act and intend to cause a particular result when committing that act. Ex. Enter a building to burglarize.

Transferred intent

Intent to harm one person and harmed another one instead.

Constructive intent

Reckless conduct. Ex. driving the wrong way on the freeway; person with AIDS not telling partners; etc

Concurrence

Penal Code 20: In every crime or offense, there must exist a union, or a joint operation of act and intent, or criminal negligence.

Causation: there are two types

Factual causation and proximate causation

Factual causation

"But for" test. Actor's conduct set a chain of events in motion which led to the harmful result.

Proximate cause

Indicates a nearness in time and place between the actor and the result.

In California only, there are two parties to a crime:

Principals and accessories

Principals

Are those who actually commit the crime and those who aid and abet the commission of the crime.

Accessories

Those who assist after the commission of the crime.

Penal Code 30

The parties to crime are classified as principals and accessories

Penal Code 971

No distinction between principals in the first degree and second degree. No distinction between accessory before the fact and a principal. All persons concerned in the commission of a crime are principals.

Penal Code 32

Ever person, who AFTER a FELONY has been committed, harbors, conceals, or aids a principal in such felony, with the INTENT that said principal may avoid or escape from arrest, trial, conviction or punishment, having KNOWLEDGE that said principal has committed such a felony, is an accessory.

Aiding and abetting has two offenses

Target offense and non-target offense

Target offense

The crime that the accused parties INTENDED to commit.

Non-target offense

An additional UNINTENDED crime that occurs during the commission of the target offense.

To prove that the defendant is guilty of a crime based on aiding and abetting that crime, the People must prove that:

To prove that the defendant is guilty of a crime based on aiding and abetting that crime, the People must prove that:

The perpetrator committed the crime;

The defendant knew that the perpetrator intended to commit the crime;

Before or during the commission of the crime, the defendant intended to aid and abet the perpetrator in committing the crime;

AND

The defendant's words or conduct did in fact aid and abet the perpetrator's commission of the crime.

Someone aids and abets a crime if he or she knows of the perpetrator's unlawful purpose and he or she specifically intends to, and does in fact, aid, facilitate, promote, encourage, or instigate the perpetrator's commission of that crime.

Natural and Probable Consequences Doctrine

To prove that the defendant is guilty of , the People must prove that:

The defendant is guilty of ;

During the commission of a coparticipant in that committed the crime of ;

AND

Under all of the circumstances, a reasonable person in the defendant's position would have known that the commission of the was a natural and probable consequence of the commission of the .

Conspiracy

A conspiracy is an agreement entered into between two or more persons with the specific intent to agree to commit the crime of_____, and with the further specific intent to commit that crime, followed by an overt act committed in California by one or more of the parties for the purpose of accomplishing the object of the agreement.

The Defendant is charged with conspiracy to commit in violation of Penal Code section 182.

To prove that the defendant is guilty of this crime, the People must prove that:

The defendant intended to agree and did agree with one or more of the other defendants or co-participants to commit ;

At the time of the agreement, the defendant and one or more of the other alleged members of the conspiracy intended that one or more of them would commit ;

The defendant or one of the co-participants committed at least one overt act to accomplish :

AND

This overt act was committed in California.

overt act

is an act by one or more of the members of the conspiracy that is done to help accomplish the agreed upon crime. The overt act must happen after the defendant has agreed to commit the crime. The overt act must be more than the act of agreeing or planning to commit the crime, but it does not have to be a criminal act itself.

Calcrim 403

Natural and Probable Consequences (Only Non-Target Offense Charged)

[Before you may decide whether the defendant is guilty of , you must decide whether (he/she) is guilty of .]

To prove that the defendant is guilty of , the People must prove that:

1. The defendant is guilty of ;

2. During the commission of the , the crime of was committed;

AND

3. Under all of the circumstances, a reasonable person in the defendant's position would have known that the commission of the was a natural and probable consequence of the commission of the .

Attempt PC 21A

An attempt to commit a crime consists of two elements: a specific intent to commit the crime, and a direct but ineffectual act done toward its commission.

Calcrim 460

Attempt Other Than Attempted Murder

[The defendant is charged [in Count ______] with attempted .]

To prove that the defendant is guilty of this crime, the People must prove that:

1. The defendant took a direct but ineffective step toward committing ; (actus Reus- act)

AND

2. The defendant intended to commit

(Mens Rea- Thought).

Attempt PC 664 (Punishment)

"Attempts" = Half punishments. instead of 2-3-4

Punishment for attempt is 1-2-3

Calcrim 372 (Flight)

Defendant's Flight

If the defendant fled [or tried to flee] (immediately after the crime was committed/ [or] after (he/she) was accused of committing the crime), that conduct may show that (he/she) was aware of (his/her) guilt

Calcrim 441 (Solicitation)

Solicitation: Elements

The defendant is charged [in Count ______] with soliciting another person to commit a crime.

To prove that the defendant is guilty of this crime, the People must prove that:

1. The defendant requested [or ] another person to commit [or join in the commission of] the crime of ;

[AND]

2. The defendant intended that the crime of be committed(;/.)

[AND

3. The other person received the communication containing the request.]

Self Defense Requires:

Actual belief and reasonable belief/in an immanent danger.

Self defense for homicide Calcrim 505

Justifiable Homicide: Self-Defense or Defense of Another

The defendant is not guilty of (murder/ [or] manslaughter/ attempted murder/ [or] attempted voluntary manslaughter) if (he/ she) was justified in (killing/attempting to kill) someone in (self-defense/ [or] defense of another). The defendant acted in lawful (self-defense/ [or] defense of another) if:

1. The defendant reasonably believed that (he/she/ [or] someone else/ [or] ) was in imminent danger of being killed or suffering great bodily injury [or was in imminent danger of being (raped/maimed/robbed/ )];

2. The defendant reasonably believed that the immediate use of deadly force was necessary to defend against that danger;

AND

3. The defendant used no more force than was reasonably necessary to defend against that danger.

General principles of self defense Calcrim 3470

Right to Self-Defense or Defense of Another (Non-Homicide)

The defendant is not guilty of if (he/she) used force against the other person in lawful (self-defense/ [or] defense of another). The defendant acted in lawful (self-defense/ [or] defense of another) if:

1. The defendant reasonably believed that (he/she/ [or] someone else/ [or] ) was in imminent danger of suffering bodily injury [or was in imminent danger of being touched unlawfully];

2. The defendant reasonably believed that the immediate use of force was necessary to defend against that danger;

AND

3. The defendant used no more force than was reasonably necessary to defend against that danger.

Defense of home Calcrim 506

Justifiable Homicide: Defending Against Harm to Person Within Home or on Property

The defendant is not guilty of (murder/ [or] manslaughter/ attempted murder/ [or] attempted voluntary manslaughter) if (he/ she) (killed/attempted to kill) to defend (himself/herself) [or any other person] in the defendant's home. Such (a/an) [attempted] killing is justified, and therefore not unlawful, if:

1. The defendant reasonably believed that (he/she) was defending a home against , who (intended to or tried to commit / [or] violently[[,] [or] riotously[,]/ [or] tumultuously] tried to enter that home intending to commit an act of violence against someone inside);

2. The defendant reasonably believed that the danger was imminent;

3. The defendant reasonably believed that the use of deadly force was necessary to defend against the danger;

AND

4. The defendant used no more force than was reasonably necessary to defend against the danger.

Necessity Calcrim 3403

Necessity

The defendant is not guilty of if (he/ she) acted because of legal necessity.

In order to establish this defense, the defendant must prove that:

1. (he/she) acted in an emergency to prevent a significant bodily harm or evil to (himself/herself/ [or] someone else);

2. (he/she) had no adequate legal alternative;

3. The defendant's acts did not create a greater danger than the one avoided;

4. When the defendant acted, (he/she) actually believed that the act was necessary to prevent the threatened harm or evil;

5. A reasonable person would also have believed that the act was necessary under the circumstances;

AND

6. The defendant did not substantially contribute to the emergency.

Insanity Calcrim 3450

Insanity: Determination, Effect of Verdict

You have found the defendant guilty of . Now you must decide whether (he/she) was legally insane when (he/she) committed the crime[s].

The defendant must prove that it is more likely than not that (he/she) was legally insane when (he/she) committed the crime[s].

The defendant was legally insane if:

1. When (he/she) committed the crime[s], (he/she) had a mental disease or defect;

AND

2. Because of that disease or defect, (he/she) did not know or understand the nature and quality of (his/her) act or did not know or understand that (his/her) act was morally or legally wrong.

VOLUNTARY INTOXICATION

(CALJIC 4.22)

Intoxication of a person is voluntary if it results from the willing use of any intoxicating liquor, drug or other substance, knowing that it is capable of an intoxicating effect or when he willingly assumes the risk of that effect.

Voluntary intoxication includes the voluntary ingestion, injecting or taking by any other means of any intoxicating liquor, drug or other substance.

VOLUNTARY INTOXICATION (ASSUMED RISK)

CALJIC 4.20

(NOT A DEFENSE TO GENERAL INTENT CRIMES

No act committed by a person while in a state of voluntary intoxication is less criminal by reason of that condition. If the crime requires general intent, the fact the defendant was voluntarily intoxicated is not a defense and does not relieve him of responsibility for the crime.

VOLUNTARY INTOXICATION (ASSUMED RISK)

CALJIC 4.21

(WHEN RELEVANT TO SPECIFIC INTENT)

Voluntary intoxication may negate specific intent or mental state.

If the evidence shows that the defendant was intoxicated at the time of the alleged crime, you should consider that fact in deciding whether defendant had the required specific intent or mental state.

If from all the evidence you have a reasonable doubt whether the defendant formed that specific intent or mental state, you must find that he did not have such specific intent or mental state.