Criminal Law

Murder Rule Statement CL

Unlawful killing with malice aforethought

Murder Mental States CL

Intent to kill

Intent to cause grievous bodily harm

Depraved-heart (implied malice)

Intent to commit a felony (felony-murder)

People v Smith Rule

A second degree felony-murder instruction may not properly be given when it is based upon a felony which is an integral part of the homicide and which the evidence produced by the prosecution shows to be an offense included in fact within the offense charge

Felony Murder Merger Limitation

When the underlying felony is assaultive in nature, the felony merges with the homicide and cannot be the basis of a felony-murder instruction. An “assaultive” felony is one that involves a threat of immediate violent injury

Murder: 1st Degree & 2nd Degree CL

1st Degree: Premeditated & Deliberate

2nd Degree: All other murders with malice aforethought

Depraved-heart Rule Statement

Phillips Test: When the killing is proximately 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

Actual Causation Rule Statement

But-for the defendants voluntary acts, would the social harm or statutorily prescribed result have occurred when it did?

Proximate Causation Rule Statement CL

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

Proximate Causation Rule Statement MPC

Was the way in which the actual result came about to remote or accidental in its occurrence to have a just bearing on the defendants liability or on the gravity of the offense?

Murder Rule Statement MPC

Causing the death of another human being purposely or knowingly, recklessly under circumstances manifesting extreme indifference to the value of human life, or negligently

Premeditated

Planning

Deliberate

Thinking/ weighing the consequences/ gravity of the situation; Identify facets of problem and debate them; Contemplation

Manslaughter Rule Stmnt CL

Unlawful killing without malice aforethought

Ways CL murder can be mitigated to manslaughter

Rule of Provocation:

1. Adequate provocation

2. Killing must have been in the heat of passion

3. It must have been sudden, following the provocation without time for the passion to cool

4. There must have been a causal connection between the provocation, the passion, and the fatal act

Manslaughter MPC

Causing the death of another human being recklessly under the influence of extreme mental or emotional disturbance for which there is a reasonable explanation or excused

Felony- Murder (California approach)

Application is limited to the actual killer, a party who is not the killer but had the intent to kill and is an accomplice to or solicitor of the murder, and a party who is a major participant in the felony and acted with reckless indifference to human life

Major Planning Factors/ Reckless Indifference Factors (Felony-murder, California)

Major planning factors:

1. Planning the crime

2. Awareness of danger/ past experience of other participants

3. Weapons- role in supply/ use

4. Present at the scene and able to precent (or had particular role in) the killing

5. Actions after lethal force

Reckless indifference factors:

1. Minimization of risk of danger

2. Aid to the victim or opportunity to intervene

3. Weapons- Role in supply/use

4. Likelihood of violence

5. Duration of the felony

Attempt CL

Defendant must have 1) the intent to act, and 2) the intent to commit the crime, and 3) do some act in furtherance of that intent

Solicitation

Defendant must have the intent to act and the intent that the solicited party will complete the target offense and request or encourage another to complete the target offense

Conspiracy CL

Defendant must have the intent to enter into an agreement and the intent that the target offense will be completed and form a tacit agreement with others to complete the target offense

Conspiracy MPC

Defendant must have the intent to enter into an agreement and the intent that the target offense will be completed and Defendant must also complete some overt act in furtherance of the agreement for the actus reus to be satisfied

Accomplice Liability

Defendant gave assistance or encouragement or failed to perform a legal duty to prevent the crime with the intent to promote or facilitate the commission of the crime 

• If the underlying crime charge is a specific intent crime, defendant must act with the intent required by the statute in their encouragement of the crime 

• If the underlying crime is a result crime, defendant must act with the specific mental state required by the statute with respect to the result, but intent is still required with respect to the principal’s conduct  

“The act that constitutes assistance can be very slight as in the saxophone case... “

Robbery CL

A trespassory taking and carrying of the personal property of another by use of violence or intimidation with the intent to steal property

Embezzlement CL

The fraudulent conversion of the personal property of another by one who is already in lawful possession of it with the intent to convert the property

Theft by False Pretenses

The knowingly false misrepresentation of a past or present material fact that causes the owner of personal property to transfer title of the property to the defendant who has the intent to defraud the victim

Defenses (In order- w/o rule statement)

1. Failure of Proof

2. Justification

3. Excuse

Failure of proof

Defendant argues that the prosecution has not met their burden as to a material element of the crime beyond a reasonable doubt

• Mistake of fact

• Mistake of law: Disregard of a known legal duty

• Voluntary intoxication: Negates the mens rea

Mistake of Law

Failure of proof; Disregard of a known legal duty

Mistake of Fact

Failure of proof

Assertion by the defendant that a particular factual error in his perception of the world led him to lack the mens rea required for the crime

Voluntary intoxication

Failure of proof; Negates the mens rea

Justification

Negates the social harm of the offense/ actor’s conduct

*Proportionality principle

• Necessity

• Self-defense

• Defense of others

• Defense of property

Necessity CL

Justification

• Clear and imminent danger 

• A reasonable expectation that the defendants action will effectively abate the danger 

• No legally effective way to abate the danger 

• The harm abated is greater than the harm resulting from the defendants violation of the law 

• Defendant is not responsible for creating the emergency 

Necessity MPC

Justification; When the defendant was reckless or negligent in bringing about the emergency, the defense is not available for any offenses that can be proven with a requisite MR of either recklessness or negligence

Self-defense

Justification

Defense of Another

Justification; One is justified in using reasonable force in defense of another person, even a stranger, when he or she reasonably believes that the other person is in immediate danger of unlawful bodily harm from an adversary and that the use of such force is necessary to avoid this danger.

• Deadly force is allowed if it reasonably appears that the adversary will perpetrate a deadly attack.

• This defense is not allowed to the initial aggressor.

• In assessing whether there might be a duty to retreat, consider whether the defender can take the defended party into a position of complete safety.

Defense of property

Justification; One is justified in using reasonable force to protect property from trespass or theft, when he or she reasonably believes that his or her property is in immediate danger of such an unlawful interference and that the use of such force is necessary to avoid that danger.

Deadly force is never justified purely to protect property.

Excuses

Negates the defendant’s responsibility for the social harm of the offense

• Insanity

• Duress

• Involuntary intoxication

Insanity- M’Naghten Rule

Excuse; To establish a defense on this ground, Defendant must clearly prove that at the time of the bad act, Defendant was laboring under such defect of reason, from disease of the mind, as to not know either the nature and quality of the act they were doing, or that what they were doing was wrong 

Voluntariness Principle

A person is only liable for a crime when the actus reus as a whole is voluntary. Every element of the actus reus does not need to be voluntary; The element of actus reus that transformed the behavior from innocent to an offense must be voluntary

6 Intervening Causes Factors- Proximate Causation CL

Is the intervening cause a superseding cause?

• De minimis contribution to social harm

• Intended-consequences doctrine

• Omissions

• Foreseeability

• Apparent-safety doctrine

• 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?

Failure to act is not criminal unless a legal duty exists:

1. Statutory

2. Contract

3. Special relationship

4. Voluntary Assumption of care

5. Creation of peril

Foreseeability

Is an intervening cause coincidental or responsive?

Apparent-safety Doctrine

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

Voluntary human intervention

Is an intervening cause a "free, deliberate and informed human intervention"?

Advanced Approach Proximate Causation MPC

1. What was the "actual result"?

2. 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 no, then proximate cause.

Felony- Murder Rule

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

Leading Justifications for Felony-Murder rule

• Deterrence

• Culpability/retributivism

Approaches to restricting the scope of felony murder

1. Limit the type of felonies

2. Impose a stricter proximate-cause requirement

3. Adopt a merger limitation

4. California’s approach: Major participant + Reckless indifference to human life

Limit the type of felonies (Restricting the scope of felony murder)

• 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.

• 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.

• 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.

Impose a stricter proximate-cause requirement (Restricting the scope of felony murder)

• 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.

Adopting a merger limitation (Restricting the scope of felony murder)

• Manslaughter

  • 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:

    • Without a merger limitation, and following the common-law definition of felony murder: how is that not felony murder?

    • 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

  • Take a defendant who cuts someone with a knife, with no intent to kill or cause grievous bodily harm. The victim bleeds out to death. Felony murder?

  • 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.

California’s approach: Major participant + reckless indifference to human life (Restricting the scope of felony murder)

• 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.

• The California Supreme Court established a framework for evaluating (i) who is a major participant and (ii) whether that person acted with reckless indifference to human life i

  • "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?

  • "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.

Attempt: Tests for Actus Reus

• CL Proximity Test

• CL Unequivocality Test

• MPC Substantial- Step Test

CL Proximity Test

Is the defendant's act sufficiently proximate to the intended crime?

CL Unequivocality Test

Is the defendant's act of such a nature that it is, in itself, evidence of the criminal intent with which it is done?

MPC Substantial- Step Test

Has the defendant engaged in an act or omission constituting a substantial step in a course of conduct planned to culminate in the defendant's commission of the crime?  And is the defendant's act strongly corroborative of the defendant's criminal purpose?

Natural and Probable Consequences Doctrine

1. Did the principal commit the target offense?

2. Was the defendant an accomplice to the target offense?

3. Did the principal commit another crime beyond the target offense?

4. Was the latter crime a reasonably foreseeable consequence of the original criminal act encouraged or facilitated by the aider and abettor?

State v Linscott Rule

Natural and Probable Consequences Doctrine

1. Did the principal commit the target offense?

2. Was the defendant an accomplice to the target offense?

3. Did the principal commit another crime beyond the target offense?

4. Was the latter crime a reasonably foreseeable consequence of the original criminal act encouraged or facilitated by the aider and abettor?

State v Sophophone Rule

Under the agency approach, a co-felon is not liable for a killing committed by a non-party to the felony

4th Amendment

Unreasonable search and seizures; Requires probable cause and a warrant

Commonwealth v Peaslee Rule

Mere preparation for the crime, without present intent to commit it, is too remote to constitute attempt; CL Proximity Test

People v Rizzo Rule

Did the acts come so near to the commission of the intended crime that there was reasonable likelihood of its accomplishment but for the interference?; CL Proximity Test

People v Miller Rule

Attempt requires specific intent to commit the crime and an overt act beyond mere preparation that is sufficiently close to completing the offense; Unequivocality test

State v Reeves Rule

When an actor possesses materials to be used in the commission of a crime, at or near the scene of the crime, and where the possession of those materials can serve no lawful purpose of the actor under the circumstances, the jury is entitled, but not required, to find that the actor has taken a “substantial step” towards the commission of the crime if such action is strongly corroborative of the actor’s overall criminal purpose; Substantial step test

Ex Post Facto

Criminalized after event takes place; Cannot impose greater punishment for law made after the fact; Lack of fair notice: People must have reasonable notice of potential consequences

Harts definition of Punishment

1. Prohibitory v Affirmative commands; Must’s and must nots

2. Valid and binding upon those who fall within their terms

3. Commands are subject to sanctions for disobedience

4. Community condemnation

5. Punishment

Proof Beyond a Reasonable Doubt

Proof that leaves you with an abiding conviction, to a moral certainty, of the truth of the charge; Not quantifiable

Owens v State Rule

Circumstantial evidence must make guilt more likely than innocence to any reasonable fact finder; Presumption of innocence

Jury Nullification

A jury has the power to acquit for any reason; Occurs when the jury decides that the prosecution has factually proven its case beyond a reasonable doubt, but for reasons of conscience disregards the facts and/or the law and acquits the defendant 

• The jury has the power to nullify, but not the right to do so 

• Jurors take an oath to obey judge’s instructions on law; Nullification constitutes a violation of the jurors’ oath 

Punishment Theory

Retributivism: We are justified in punishing people who engage in morally condemnable and blameworthy acts

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

Retributivism

We are justified in punishing people who engage in morally condemnable and blameworthy acts

Utilitarianism

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

• General deterrence

• Individual deterrence

• Rehabilitation

• Incapacitation

• Restorative justice

6 Principles of Punishment

• Legality Principle

• Culpability Principle

• Proportionality Principle

• Equality Principle

• Utility Principle

• Humanity Principle

Proportionality Principle

Ensures punishments are not excessively severe relative to the offense

Solem factors for determining disproportionality:

1. The gravity of the offense and the harshness of the penalty 

2. The sentences imposed on other criminals in the same jurisdiction 

3. The sentences imposed for commission of the same crime in other jurisdictions 

8th Amendment

Cruel and unusual punishments; Punishment should not be grossly disproportionate to the crime

Martin v State Rule

Criminal liability requires a voluntary act; a person cannot be convicted for conduct that occurred involuntarily and forcibly

Actus Reus

To be interpreted as the comprehension 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

Mens Rea

Broad: “Guilty mind,” “vicious will,” “immorality of motive,” or “morally culpable state of mind”

Narrow: The mental state the defendant must have had regarding the social harm elements set out in the definition of an offense

5th Amendment

Due process; Miranda rights

State v Nations Rule

Willful Blindness recognizes a defendant who deliberately avoids knowledge of a fact when Defendant is aware of a high probability that the fact exists; However, in State v Nations the legislature rejected the expansion to include willful blindness, thus the deliberate ignorance did not satisfy the knowledge mens rea requirement

Willful Blindness

1) A defendant must subjectively believe there is a high probability that a fact exists

2) The defendant must take deliberate actions to avoid learning of that act

Flores-Figueroa v United States

Where a statute includes a men rea requirement, the mens rea generally applies to each element of the offense unless the statutory language indicates otherwise

People v Rideout Rule

To determine whether an intervening cause breaks causation, apply the intervening-cause factors (in this case specifically, foreseeability, apparent-safety doctrine, and voluntary human intervention); Court found no proximate cause

People v Knoller Rule

Malice is implied when the killing is proximately 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 

Pinkerton Liability

A conspirator may not be liable where a substantive offense committed by one of the conspirators was not in fact done in furtherance of the conspiracy, did not fall within the scope of the unlawful project, or was merely a part of the ramifications of the plan which could not be reasonably foreseen as a necessary or natural consequence of the unlawful agreement

Whartons Rule

Defense to conspiracy:

An agreement by two persons to commit an offense that by definition requires the voluntary concerted criminal participation of two persons cannot be prosecuted as a conspiracy

Exceptions:

• If more than the minimum number of persons necessary to commit an offense agree to the crime, rule not triggered

• Does not apply if the two people involved in the conspiracy are not the two people involved in committing the substantive offense

Bilateral v Unilateral Conspiracy

Bilateral (CL): “If any two or more persons…” A tacit agreement between two or more people; Both must intend to agree to the commission of the offense

Unilateral (MPC): “A person commits a conspiracy…” Only one person need intend to agree to the commission of an offense

Duress

Excuse; Arises when a person unlawfully commands another to do an unlawful act using the threat of death or serious bodily injury

Involuntary Intoxication

Excuse

1. Coerced 

2. Pathological 

3. Involuntary- tricked 

4. Unexpected- ingestion of medically prescribed drug  

Felony-Murder Major Planning Factors (CA Approach)

1. Planning the crime 

2. Awareness of danger/past experience of other participants 

3. Weapons- role in supply/ use 

4. Present at the scene and able to precent (or had a particular role in) the killing 

5. Actions after lethal force 

Felony-Murder Major Reckless Indifference Factors (CA Approach)

1. Minimization of risk of danger 

2. Aid to the victim or opportunity to intervene 

3. Weapons- Role in supply/ use 

4. Likelihood of violence 

5. Duration of the felony  

Staples v United States Rule

Except where there is clear evidence of Congress’ intent to impose strict liability, Courts will presume a mens rea requirement

Strict Liability

Criminal liability imposed without requiring the prosecution to prove a culpable mens rea as to one or more elements of the offense; therefore, a defendant may be guilty even if they were unaware of, or mistaken about, the circumstances that made their conduct criminal

People v Marrero Rule

A mistake of law should not be recognized, except where specific intent is an element of the offense, or where the misrelied-upon law has later been properly adjudicated as wrong

People v Navarro Rule

A reasonable mistake of fact, but not an unreasonable one, ordinarily exculpates a defendant prosecuted for a general intent crime. The reasonableness of the mistake negates the culpability required for the offense

Mens Rea Broad

Culpability; If they committed the actus reus of an offense with a “vicious will,” “evil mind,” “morally blameworthy”, or simply, “culpable” state of mind

Mens Rea Narrow

Elemental; If, but only if, a person commits the actus reus of an offense with the particular mental state set out expressly in the definition of that offense

Mens Rea Utilitarian Argument

A person who commits the actus reus without a mens rea is not dangerous, could not have been deterred, and is not in need of reform