Criminal Law Final

What is the rule from Martin v. State?

What is the rule from Martin v. State?

The law presumes a requirement for voluntary appearance or other act.

What is the rule from Newton?

Acts must be voluntary. Unconscious acts are not voluntary.

What is the rule from Decina?

Voluntary acts need not immediately precede the harm.

What is the rule from Cunningham and Falkner?

Every offense requires it owns mens rea. An intent for stealing coins does not carry over for an intent to the accidental poisoning of the woman next door.

What is the rule from Lambert?

An individual may not be convicted of a criminal offense requiring a duty to register unless it is shown that the individual had actual knowledge of the duty, or should have known, and the consequences of failing to comply.

What is the rule from Bradshaw?

It provides a dissenting view that convictions for possession do not require the defendant to have knowledge of the possession.

What is the rule from Giovanetti?

In order to be guilty, the prosecution must prove that the defendant suspected that something was wrong and the defendant went out of his way to avoid learning for the purpose of avoiding prosecution. This is known as willful blindness.

What is the rule from Olsen?

In cases where the defendant had a mistake of fact, and that mistake had no bearing on the legality of the act, then he is still guilty.

What is the rule from Marrero?

One who violates a statute may not raise a good faith mistaken belief as to the meaning of the law as a defense.

What is the rule from Liparota?

A defendant’s knowledge of an act’s unlawfulness may be an element of the crime. The public welfare exemption for MR only applies if the average person understands the particular conduct is regulated.

What is the rule from International Minerals?

Ignorance of the law is not a defense to a violation of a regulation. If a regulation has a MR requirement of “knowingly,” then knowledge of the facts/ circumstances giving rise to a violation is sufficient. Sophisticated users/businesses are held to a higher standard of their knowledge.

What is the rule from Regina v. Smith?

An honest mistake of fact can negate the MR of an element of a criminal offense. For example, when the law says “knowingly damaging the property of another” and the defendant honestly and reasonably believed the property was his, this may be a defense.

What is the rule from Jones?

In order for a defendant to be convicted for a failure to act, the prosecution must prove that the defendant was under a legal duty to act.

What is the rule from Pope?

Criminal liability may not be imposed upon an individual for failing to fulfill a moral but not legally recognized obligation.

What is the rule from Hazelwood?

Outlines the minority rule that the ordinary negligence standard is sufficient to impose criminal punishment that society seeks to deter.

What is the rule from Santillanes?

It highlights the majority rule that the mens rea element of negligence requires a showing of criminal negligence, not ordinary civil negligence.

What is the rule from Elonis?

Criminal statutes generally require that a person be aware that he is committing a crime, even if the statute does not explicitly contain a Mens Rea requirement.

What is the rule from Jewell?

“knowingly” includes positive knowledge as well as a defendant’s awareness of the high probability of an illegal act but purposely fails to investigate the presence of the illegal act in order to remain ignorant.

What is the rule from Geovanetti?

In order to be guilty, the prosecution must prove that the defendant suspected that something was wrong and the defendant went out of his way to avoid learning for the purpose of avoiding prosecution.

What is the rule from Olsen?

Reasonable mistake as to the victim’s age is not a defense to the charge of committing a lewd or lascivious act on a child under 14.

What is the rule from B (a minor)?

It is a defense to a criminal offense that the defendant had an honest belief regarding an essential fact related to the criminal act.

What is the rule from Garnett?

Courts should not read a Mens Rea requirement into a statutory rape law unless the legislature clearly intended for one.

What is the rule from Bailant?

A legislative body may enact laws to support public policy that impose criminal liability without proof of a MR element.

What is the rule from Dotterweich?

Affirmed that some statutes have strict liability (no MR). The public welfare exception for strict liability crimes outweighs the detriment to the individual defendants by ensuring that the public at large is protected.

What is the rule from Morisette?

Acts that are bad within themselves, including larceny, require the element of a mens rea. Any strict liability statute will not be construed to eliminate the MR.

What is the rule from Staples?

Federal criminal statutes are construed to include a Mens Rea requirement absent clear congressional intent to the contrary.

What is the rule from Guminga?

It is a violation of the due process clause for an individual to be convicted of a crime punishable by imprisonment for an act which he did not commit, did not have knowledge of, or give expressed or implied consent to the commission thereof.

What is the rule from Sault Ste. Marie?

Public Welfare Offenses strike a middle ground between traditional criminal offenses requiring a MR and absolute liability offenses that impose liability based purely on conduct.

What is the rule from Lambert?

In accordance with due process, an individual may not be convicted of a criminal offense requiring a duty to register as a convicted person unless it is shown that the individual had actual knowledge of the duty, or should have known, as well as the consequences for failing to comply.

What is the rule from Cheek?

Whether a purportedly good-faith misunderstanding of the law will negate the specific-intent requirement of willfulness under criminal tax laws is a question of fact for the jury, and there is no legal requirement that the belief be objectively reasonable.

What is the rule from Acosta?

an injury must be the actual result of an act for the act to be considered the proximate cause of the injury, and a defendant acts with implied malice if the defendant’s conduct carries a high probability of death, and the defendant consciously disregards this risk.

What is the rule from Arzon?

An individual is criminally liable if his conduct is a sufficiently direct cause of another’s death which should have been foreseen as being reasonably related to the individual’s acts.

What is the rule from Warner-Lambert?

The standard of negligence sufficient for criminal liability for homicide requires a different type and amount of proof than that required under tort law.

What is the rule from Shabazz?

A defendant’s intent to profit may be shown with evidence that the defendant directed duplicates of the copyrighted material to be produced in bulk for local and interstate sales, sold such duplicates, solicited wholesale customers, and shipped large quantities of such duplicates out of state.

What is the rule from Campbell?

Homicide is the killing of one human being by another, and excludes the act of one person providing a weapon to another person who ultimately commits suicide. When the intervenor purposely causes the crime, it does break the chain of causation. The proximate cause of the victim’s death was his own suicide, and Campbell escaped liability because the victim’s own actions broke the chain of causation.

What is the rule from Kevorkian?

If a person is involved only in the events leading up to a suicide and does not participate in the final overt act, the person does not commit murder. When the intervenor purposely causes the crime, it does break the chain of causation.

What is the rule from Root?

Involuntary manslaughter requires unlawful or reckless conduct which is the direct cause of a resulting death.

What is the rule from McFadden?

The acts and omissions of two or more persons may work concurrently as the efficient cause of injury and in such a case each of the participating reckless acts or omissions is regarded in law as a proximate cause which is a theory applicable in a criminal case. The outrageous behavior of another can break the chain of causation. BUT a mere accident does not relieve the defendant of liability.

What is the rule from Atencio?

The outrageous behavior of another can break the chain of causation.

BUT a mere accident does not relieve the defendant of liability.

What is the rule from Smallwood?

Both attempted murder and assault with intent to murder require that a perpetrator possess intent to kill. Intent to kill may be proved by circumstantial evidence sufficient to allow a fact-finder to infer the intent’s existence. Relevant circumstances include the perpetrator’s acts, conduct, and words. An inference of intent to kill based on the use of a deadly weapon is appropriate only if another’s death would be a natural and probable consequence of the perpetrator’s conduct. Knowingly exposing another to a risk of HIV does not by itself meet that burden.

What is the rule from Rizzo?

A defendant may not be convicted of attempt unless the defendant intentionally commits an act tending to the commission of a crime, which is so near to accomplishment of the crime that in all reasonable probability the crime itself would have been committed but for timely interference.

(dangerous proximity test)

What is the rule from McQuirter

Under Alabama law, a conviction for an attempt to commit assault with intent to rape will be upheld if the jury is satisfied beyond a reasonable doubt that the defendant intended to have sexual intercourse with the victim against her will, by force or putting her in fear. Intent is a question to be determined by the jury from the facts and circumstances gleaned at trial. If there is evidence produced at trial from which it may be inferred that at the time of the attempt McQuirter intended to commit the attempt, then the jury question is presented.

What is the rule from Jackson?

The crime of attempt requires a defendant to have acted with a criminal intent and have engaged in acts constituting a substantial step toward commission of the intended crime.

What is the rule from Jaffe?

A person cannot be convicted of an attempt to commit a crime if the completed acts would not be a criminal offense.

What is the failure of proof defense?

If the defendant can show that he did not know a particular fact, and if he does not know that fact affecst an element of the MR, the prosecution does not prove that element, meaning he is not guilty.

What is the mistake of law defense?

If the statute defining the offense is not known to the actor AND it is also true that the law was not published or otherwise reasonably made available prior to the conduct alleged, it can be a defense. Merely not knowing the law is not a defense.

What is the misunderstanding of law defense?

The defendant acts in reasonable reliance upon an official statement of the law, afterward determined to be invalid or erroneous, contained in a statute, judicial decision, administrative order, or official interpretation of a public officer/body.

What is the MPC/CL rule regarding posession?

If the possessor knowingly procured or received the thing OR was aware of its control thereof for a sufficient period to be able to terminate his possession, then he is guilty of possession. Possession requires knowledge.

Explain MR.

A defendant must have some mental culpability of some kind, even if it is obvious that he committed the crime. There must be a MR for every material element of the offense. This is true even if the statute is silent on a MR.

What does “malice” now mean?

The defendant either intended or was reckless to the possibility of the outcome.

What are the elements of a crime under the MPC?

AR: A guilty act. MR: a guilty mind. Attendant circumstances: specific facts necessary for the crime. Result: required outcome. Causation: linking the act to the result.

What breaks/preserves the chain of causation?

Superseding acts- unforeseeable, independent actions break the chain of causation, absolving the defendant from liability. Coincidence, negligence, or accidents do NOT break the chain of causation and do not relieve the defendant from liability.

Explain the levels of the MR under the common law.

Intent (includes knowledge), Recklessness, Negligence (Stronger than civil negligence (santillanes), not to be imposed by the court in the absence of statute).

Explain Willful Blindness under the Common Law.

Ostrech Instruction: the defendant went out of his way to avoid learning in order to not find out what was going on, it may substitute for a “knowingly” MR.

Explain willful blindness under the MPC.

The defendant must be aware of a substantial risk of the illegal circumstance AND went ahead and continued. If he thought that there were no illegal circumstances, then he is not guilty.

Describe mistake of fact under the MPC.

Ignorance or mistake negating the MR can be a defense if it disproves the mental state required for the offense. (2.04).

Explain causation

Actual cause: The defendant’s actions were the but for cause of the harm. If this is true, then proceed to proximate cause analysis: the harm was forseeable and the direct result of the defendant’s actions.

What categories establish a duty to act under which an omission will satisfy the AR?

Status relationships, Contractual obligations, duties imposed by law, seclusion of the victim by the defendant, and if the defendant puts the victim in danger.

Explain omissions.

if you have a legal obligation to do something and fail to do it, this satisfies the AR.

How does the MPC describe a voluntary act?

A bodily movement performed either consiously or habitually, excluding reflexes, convulsions, or movements during unconsiousness or hypnosis (MPC 2.01).

What are the 4 culpable mental states under the MPC?

Purposely (conscious object to engage in conduct or cause result)

Knowingly (Awareness that the conduct will almost certainly cause the result)

Recklessly (conscious disregard of a substantial and unjustifiable risk)

Negligently (failure to be aware of a substantial and unjustifiable risk).

Explain Attempt under the Common Law

Attempt is its own offense.

Specific intent to bring about the result is required.

Smallwood: it has its own AR and MR, which are separate elements from the root crime.

What is the MPC rule of Attempt?

The Mens Rea of the underlying offense is required. There are 3 AR’s: Acting with the culpability of the underlying offense, When causing a particular result as an element of the crime, he does or omits something with the purpose of committing the crime without any further conduct, or he purposely does or omits anything that consists of a substantial step of the crime.

What are the three main ways to analyze attempt and where the rule comes from?

Dangerous proximity Test (Rizzo):

Focuses on how close the defendant has gotten to committing the crime.

Substantial Step Test (MPC 5.01):

Focuses on what the defendant has already done.

Equivocality Test:

Requires proof based on what the defendant has done.

Prosecution must show that based on what the defendant has actually done, it is unequivocally clear that the defendant intended to carry out the crime.

(Minor Rule from Jaffe also important to consider).