1L Criminal Law exam prep

What is the minimum mens rea required for a homicide crime in most criminal laws?

The minimum mens rea required for a homicide crime in most criminal laws is typically "recklessness," which means the defendant consciously disregarded a substantial and unjustifiable risk that their actions could cause death.

What are 5 actus reuses classified as malicious in nature?

1 Intent to Kill (express malice)

2 Intent to commit serious bodily injury (some jx)

3 Depraved heart murder

4 Felony murder

5 Accomplice liability

If there is only gross negligence, what homicide was committed?

Involuntary manslaughter

How do you increase a second degree murder charge to first degree murder?

Premeditation and deliberation

Other statutory rules

Enumerated felony (felony murder)

How do you decrease a second degree murder charge to voluntary manslaughter?

To decrease a second-degree murder charge to voluntary manslaughter, the defense must typically demonstrate that the killing occurred under specific circumstances that mitigate the level of culpability.

Second-degree murder typically involves "malice aforethought," which can include an intent to kill or a reckless disregard for human life.

Voluntary manslaughter reduces the severity of the charge by arguing that the defendant's judgment was clouded by intense emotion, negating the element of malice aforethought.

Essentially, the defense aims to show that the defendant acted impulsively due to provocation, rather than with a deliberate intent to kill.

If there is malice, what is the default crime?

Second degree murder

What is the depraved heart murder mens rea standard?

gross recklessness

What is gross recklessness?

A conscious disregard of the substantial and unjustifiable risk to human life

Commonwealth v. Malone

Russian roulette shooting with conviction of second degree murder

People v. Knoller

Dog mauling with a conviction of second degree murder

Conrad v. Commonwealth

Involves defendant falling asleep at the wheel and killing a jogger with a conviction of involuntary manslaughter

Commonwealth v. Welansky

is a well-known case in American criminal law, particularly concerning the concept of "depraved heart" murder or implied malice that iinvolved a nightclub fire (the Cocoanut Grove fire in Boston, 1942) where a large number of people died. The owner of the nightclub, Welansky, was held criminally liable for the deaths.

Key Legal Concepts:

• Implied Malice: The case illustrates how implied malice can be established through evidence of the defendant's reckless conduct and disregard for the potential consequences.

• Causation: The case also deals with the idea of causation, meaning that the defendants actions were the cause of the deaths.

State v. Williams

Parents failed to get medical attention for their child and were charged with involuntary manslaughter

What does the extreme mental or emotional disturbance test focus on?

The defendant’s state of mind at the time of the killing and the circumstances as the defendant believes them to be

What is the MPC approach to provocation?

The Model Penal Code (MPC) approach to provocation includes the concept of Extreme Mental or Emotional Disturbance (EMED), which allows for a homicide that would otherwise be considered murder to be classified as manslaughter if committed under the influence of such disturbance, without requiring a specific provocative act.

When can a murder charge be reduced to voluntary manslaughter under the MPC?

If the killing was done under extreme mental or emotional disturbance and if there is a reasonable excuse.

Commonwealth v. Carr

Stephen Roy Carr was convicted of first-degree murder for shooting and killing Rebecca Wight and wounding Claudia Brenner, who were hiking and camping on the Appalachian Trail. Carr claimed he acted in the heat of passion after observing the two women engaging in homosexual acts. He sought to introduce evidence of his difficult psychosexual history, including rejection by women and sexual abuse, to explain his impassioned state. The trial court disallowed this evidence, finding it irrelevant.

Impacts:

Reinforced the objective "reasonable person" standard for evaluating provocation in heat of passion defenses.

Established that observing homosexual conduct is not legally sufficient provocation to reduce murder to manslaughter.

Limited the admissibility of a defendant's personal history when arguing heat of passion, emphasizing the focus on the objective nature of the provocation.

Contributed to the legal landscape of LGBTQ+ Rights.

People v. Berry

Defendant killed his wife after 20-hour cooling off period. He claimed he was provoked into killing her. Court ruled for the allowing of a jury instruction on provocation defense.

Illinois v. Walker

George Walker, who was involved in a fatal altercation where he defended himself against an attacker with a knife, resulting in the death of the assailant. Through appeal, the court ultimately found that the evidence supported a conviction of voluntary manslaughter rather than murder, leading to a reversal of the original conviction.

204 N.E.2d 594 (1965)

What factors are considered for a reasonable person under modern majority?

Age and gender only

What are the 4 requirements of the modern reasonable person test?

1. Defendant acted in the heat of passion

2. Defendant was reasonably provoked into the heat of passion

3. Defendant did not have sufficient time to cool off between provocation and the killing

4. A reasonable person would also not have had enough time to cool off

What is the deadly weapon rule?

The deadly weapon rule generally refers to legal definitions that classify certain items, like firearms and specific knives, as "deadly weapons" due to their potential to cause serious injury or death. This classification can lead to enhanced penalties for crimes committed with such weapons.

For example, we can infer the intent to kill by the weapon used and if it was used to hit vital organs.

When are mere words sufficient to prove provocation?

Mere words can be considered sufficient to prove provocation in some cases, particularly if they are accompanied by conduct indicating a present intention and ability to cause bodily harm. Courts have recognized that verbal aggression may be adequate provocation, especially in situations where it incites a strong emotional response in a reasonable person.

For example:

1. History of marital discord,

2. Wife evidenced intent to permanently leave husband,

3. Wife made insulting remarks about husband, AND

4. Wife announced she engaged in adultery.

Mere words doctrine

Mere words do not qualify as provocation

What is the categorical approach to provocation?

The categorical approach to provocation is a legal standard used to determine if a defendant's actions were sufficiently provoked to reduce a murder charge to voluntary manslaughter.

It is based on common law principles and identifies specific categories of provocation that can mitigate culpability.

The provocation defense may apply if the act falls in these 5 categories:

1 Aggravated assault or battery

2 Observation of serious crime against a close relative

3 Illegal arrest

4 Catching spouse in adultery

5 Mutual combat

In the categorical approach to provocation, who decides if the act falls in the category?

The Judge

Which provocation approach is the modern majority?

Modern reasonable person test

3 provocation rules

1. Categorical approach (common law)

2. Modern reasonable person test

3. Extreme mental or emotional disturbance test

Steps of a provocation analysis

1. Initial definition of homicide

2. Analyze Actus Reus and causation

3. Establish malice

4. Analyze provocation based on jurisdictional requirement

Is the provocation doctrine a complete defense?

No, the provocation doctrine is not a complete defense; it can mitigate damages or culpability but does not absolve a defendant of liability entirely. In criminal law, it may reduce a murder charge to manslaughter if the defendant acted in response to provocation.

Kind of crimes that voluntary intoxication is a defense for

Specific intent crimes

Examples include:

(a)   first degree murder - intent to kill with planning

(b)  Robbery and burglary - intent to steal and intent to deprive permanently

(c)   Conspiracy - intent to agree and intent to commit the target offense

(d)  Solicitation - intent to ask another to commit a crime and intent that they do so

(e)   Embezzlement - intent to steal and intent to deprive permanently by one in lawful possession

(f)   Forgery - intent to defraud

(g)  Larceny - intent to steal and intent to deprive permanently

(h)  Child molestation - intent to commit a specific sexual act with under age individual

(i)    Attempt - intent to commit the target offense

Homicide

The unlawful killing of one human being by another; actus reus must cause the death in question

Actus Reus requirement for homicide crimes

The voluntary act of killing or the omission that leads to the killing + causation

Inference that can be made from the natural and probable causes doctrine

We can infer the intent to kill if someone shoots a gun at someone because the natural and probable cause of shooting someone is death or serious injury

Garnett v. State

20-year-old had consensual sex with a 13-year-old, but he thought she was 16. She got pregnant. He was charged with statutory rape.

Deliberation

Focuses on quality of thought and not length of time; cool, calm, reflection

Cool calm reflection is part of which doctrine?

Deliberation

Premeditation definition

Person had time to think about the killing in advance, but no exact time is required

Wink of an eye doctrine

Premeditation can happen in a moment as long as it happens before engaging in the killing

Gross / criminal negligence

Defendant should have known of the substantial and unjustifiable risk to human life.

Gross negligence refers to a severe lack of care that shows a conscious disregard for the safety of others, while criminal negligence involves a gross deviation from a reasonable standard of care that can lead to criminal charges.

Both concepts highlight different levels of negligence, with gross negligence being more serious and potentially leading to punitive damages or criminal liability.

Express malice

Intent to kill

How can malice be implied

Implied malice can be inferred from a person's actions that show a conscious disregard for human life, even if there is no clear intent to cause harm.

For example, reckless behavior, such as drunk driving that leads to a fatal accident, can demonstrate implied malice if the individual was aware of the risks involved and chose to ignore them.

Other examples include:

Depraved heart murder (gross recklessness)

Felony murder

Intent to cause serious bodily injury (some jx)

Steps for analyzing homicide crime

1. Analyze basic homicide definition

2. Establish actus reus

3. Establish causation

4. Conduct malice analysis

5. Provocation analysis *if needed

6. Premeditation and deliberation analysis *if needed

Mens rea requirement for first degree murder

Malice + statutory rule or malice + premeditation and deliberation

Mens rea requirement for second degree murder

Malice

Mens rea requirement for voluntary manslaughter

Malice + provocation

Mens rea requirement for involuntary manslaughter

Gross negligence

Entry by innocent instrumentality

is a legal concept used in criminal law—particularly in burglary cases—where the defendant causes another person or object (the “instrumentality”) to enter a building or structure on their behalf, without that person realizing they are aiding in a crime.

Example: A burglar tricks a child into crawling through an open window to unlock the front door of a house. The child doesn’t know a crime is being committed, but the burglar uses the child’s entry to gain access. The child is the “innocent instrumentality,” and the burglar can be charged with burglary as if they entered the house themselves.

synonym for malice (according to common law)

Wickedness

Starting point definition of intent / purpose

Acts with the purpose, desire, or intent to cause the harm that is prohibited by the statute

Natural and probable cause doctrine

An alternative way to prove intent for homicide crime allowing the consideration of surrounding circumstances including the weapon used and manner of inflicting the wounds

Difference between rape and statutory rape

Rape - lack of consent due to extrinsic factors

Statutory rape - lack of consent due to the specific age of the victim

Most serious strict liability crime

Statutory rape

Elements of statutory rape

Defendant had sexual intercourse with someone under a specific age and the victim was incapable of consent due to their age or an age gap

Morissette v. United States

a 1952 Supreme Court case where the Court ruled that intent is a necessary element of the crime of knowingly converting government property. The case involved Morissette, who went hunting, took and sold old bomb casings as scrap metal, was charged with theft. He was convicted, but the Supreme Court reversed the conviction, emphasizing that the jury must determine the defendant's intent (men’s rea).

Examples of strict liability crimes

Littering

Public urination

Driving infractions

Statutory Rape

What jurisdiction are specific and general intent distinctions made

Common law only

Definition and examples of general intent crimes

General intent crimes are offenses where the perpetrator intends to commit an act that is prohibited by law, regardless of whether they intended to cause a specific harm.

Examples include battery, driving under the influence, and simple assault.

Specific intent crime definition

Crimes requiring a mens rea, which applies directly to the actus reus and has an additional intent requirement added on

Misdemeanor

A crime with a maximum punishment of 1 year in jail

Felony

A crime with a punishment of a year or more in prison

State v. Creasy

Man broke into a sorority and was charged with burglary since he stole apron strings

Steps for statutory interpretation

1. Plain meaning of text

2. Legislative history

3. Apply rule of lenity

Rule of lenity

Adopts the version of the statute or rule that is best for the defendant

U.S. v. Yermian

The defendant applied for a job and lied on the security clearance form.

The courts held that the defendant does not need to know that the false statement is within federal jurisdiction. The knowledge requirement applies only to the falsity and intentional nature of the statement — not to the federal connection.

Five primary mental states

1. Intent / purpose

2. Knowledge

3. Recklessness

4. Negligence

5. Strict liability (no mens rea)

Starting definition of knowledge

Actual conscious awareness of a material fact

Starting definition of negligence

Should have known of the substantial and unjustifiable risk

3 ways to define knowledge

• Actual knowledge:

A person has direct, clear awareness or understanding of a fact or situation.

• Constructive knowledge:

A person is presumed to know a fact because it was discoverable through reasonable care or diligence.

• Willful blindness:

A person deliberately avoids learning the truth to escape liability, even though they strongly suspect the fact exists.

Constructive knowledge

Anyone using reasonable care and diligence would have known

Willful blindness

Subjective belief that a fact exists but deliberate action was taken to avoid learning the act

U.S. v. Jewell

A man drove over the border with drugs in a secret compartment of his car

Starting definition of recklessness

Conscious disregard of substantial and unjustifiable risk

Martin v. State

In Martin v. State (1944), the Alabama Court of Appeals held that a conviction for public intoxication could not stand because the defendant's appearance in a public place while intoxicated was involuntary, as he was forcibly taken there by police officers

CA penal code for shoplifting

Entering a commercial establishment with the intent to commit a larceny while the store is open during regular business hours. Property taken must be less than $950.

If these elements are met, the charge MUST be shoplifting and can not be burglary or theft.

Rehabilitation theory of punishment

The idea that we should focus on resolving trauma and issues that caused the defendant to commit the crime rather than the punishment

Incapacitation theory of punishment

People should be isolated and kept away from the rest of society because they are dangerous

Retribution theory of punishment

Focuses on revenge and believes the offender is deserving of the punishment.

Deterrence theory of punishment

People need to be punished to deter crimes from happening again.

4 theories of punishment

Deterrence

Rehabilitation

Incapacitation

Retribution

Actus Reus definition

A voluntary act where one has complete control or an omission

2 primary components of crime

Actus Reus and Mens Rea

People v. Decina

The defendant had a seizure while driving and killed children. Convicted because he knew of the risk of having a seizure and drove anyway

5 situations with a legal duty to act

1 Special relationship

2 Contractual obligation

3 Statutory duty

4 Creation of the risk of harm

5 Voluntary assumption of care

Prima facie defense

Create reasonable doubt on an element of the crime

Standard of proof in criminal case

Proof beyond a reasonable doubt

Standard of proof in civil case

Preponderance of evidence

4 categories of homicide

First degree murder

Second degree murder

Voluntary manslaughter

Involuntary manslaughter

Is suicide a homicide crime in common law?

Yes

What are the 2 parts of causation for homicide?

The two parts of causation for homicide are actual cause and proximate cause. Actual cause is often determined using the "but for" test, while proximate cause assesses whether the harm was a foreseeable result of the defendant's actions.

Test for actual causation

But-for test

What does dependent intervening act mean?

The defendant is the proximate cause unless the intervening act is bizarre or extremely unusual.

What does independent intervening act mean?

The defendant is not the proximate cause unless the harm was foreseeable.

Factors to consider when determining proximate cause

Voluntary human intervention

Apparent safety

Foreseeability

Intervening acts

5 things that must be present for failure to act to satisfy actus reus

Knowledge of the circumstances

Legal duty to act

Ability to act

Failure to act

Failure to act caused the harm

Voluntary manslaughter definition

A type of homicide that can be second-degree murder but is reduced because of a heat of passion

Involuntary manslaughter definition

An accidental killing due to gross negligence

Robbery

Felonious taking and carrying away by the threat of force or by force. The property taken from the victim’s person or their immediate presence.

When does specific intent element of burglary need to happen?

At the moment of entry

Estes rule for robbery

Force or threat of force element can be satisfied if it occurs at any point from the start of the robbery (the taking) and the end of the robbery (when the thief is at temporary safety)