Crim Law

Punishment: 3 Main Questions

• Why punish?

• Who should be punished?

• How much/what kind of punishment?

6 Justifications for Punishment

• General Deterrence - set example to prevent others in society from committing crimes

• Specific Deterrence - prevent future crimes for the individual (specific person)

• Incapacitation - contain dangerous people

• Retribution - punishment is appropriate for culpable acts - eye for an eye

• Justice - need to give compensation to victims (recompense)

• Rehabilitation - help people become better (reform)

Theories of Punishment (3)

• Utilitarianism (future benefit) - deterring future crimes

  • Punishment given to the amount pain is given

• Retributivism (backward looking) - punishment is justified by the culpability of the person being punished

  • They deserve it; punishment should be proportional to the crime

• Negative Retributivism (compromise approach) - moral culpability and proportional harm is required for punishment ONLY to take place if it benefits society

The Principle of Legality

A person may not be convicted/punished of a crime for doing/not doing something unless conduct was previously defined by law as criminal:

3 Rules:

• Clear and understandable to give notice to law-abiding person

• Clearly defined what conduct prohibited so decisions about scope are not effectively delegated to “enforcers”

Lenity Doctrine

• If scope is ambiguous choose application in favor of D (statutory interpretation)

  • If ambiguous, favor the non-drafter (D)

    • Most “void for vagueness” cases fail: how

      • insufficient notice of prohibited conduct

      • authorizes or encourages arbitrary and discriminatory enforcement

      • over breadth problem - criminalizes innocent behavior

Elements of a Crime

• Result

  • Requires a certain result to occur due to D’s act (murder)

• Conduct

  • Requires that a certain type of conduct occur; cam be act or omission (drunk driving)

• Attendant Circumstances - conditions that MUST be present for a particular crime to occur (age of victim in statutory rape)

• Mens Rea - guilty mind

  • Anything not mens rea is actus rea (the guilty act)

  • Social harm is BOTH result & conduct

Crimes of Omission

Generally NO legal duty to actively care for another

Exceptions:

• Where specific law imposes a duty

  • Doctors, teachers, counselors report child abuse

• Special relationship

  • parent/child, husband/wife, jailer/inmate

• Contractual duty

  • Person has specifically agreed to care for another

• One voluntarily assumes care & thereby secludes others

  • Isolating the victim and then quitting

• First harms the other

  • Driver hitting a pedestrian, and calling for aid

True or False: Crimes have to be voluntary acts or omissions?

TRUE!

• Both MPC & CL requires voluntary conduct for an offense to be a conviction

• No punishment for thought crimes

• Part of the actus reus requirement

  • Not voluntary acts: reflexes, movement during unconsciousness or sleep, conduct during hypnosis

Mens Rea: 2 Approaches

Mental component of criminal liability

1. General - D is guilty of crime if they commit the social harm of the offense with ANY morally blameworthy state of mind; Ex. rape and arson

2. Specific - Refers to the mental state in regard to the social harm elements the D must have; Ex. 1st degree murder requires premeditation and intent to kill

• Associated with specific intent crimes

General Intent

Any culpable state of mind is enough

• Ex: rape, arson, battery (statutory rape)

Specific Intent

Offenses that expressly require a particular state of mind

• Ex: murder - malice aforethought, larceny - intent to steal, burglary - intent to commit felony inside

CL Approach to Intent

• Intended to do it - desire of the conscious object of the social harm

• Almost certain the result will occur - virtually certain to occur

MPC Approach to Mens Rea

• Purposely - conscious object

• Knowingly - practically certain

  • Think unless miracle the result will flow form conduct

• Recklessly - consciously disregard a substantial and unjustified risk

  • Don’t give a darn or don’t give a damn

• Negligently - should have been aware

  • Under MPC, negligence alone is not enough for a crime (need at least recklessness)

Willful Blindness CL

1. D must subjectively believe that there is a high probability the fact/circumstance exists, AND

2. D took deliberate action(s) to avoid learning

Willful Blindness MPC

When knowledge of the existence of a particular fact is an element of an offense, such knowledge is established if a person is aware of a high probability of the fact’s existence, unless that person actually believes that it does NOT exist

• No deliberate action required, if the person actually believes that certain facts don’t exist (even if totally unreasonable) in the clear

  • Sincere = in the clear

Strict Liability

D is liable for committing an action, regardless of what his intent or mental state was when committing the action

• CL - public welfare offenses: liquor laws, food purity, drug laws, traffic, etc.

• MPC - needs at LEAST recklessness for criminal liability (don’t like SL offenses)

  • Exception:

    • Statutory rape - child under 10 years old

Mistake of FACT

Typically elements of crimes; depends if crime requires:

• General Intent - mistake must be reasonable to be a defense

• Specific Intent - mistake must be sincere, but not reasonable

MPC:

• Mistake must negate mens rea required to establish a material element of offense (knowingly enters not mistakenly enters)

  • When mistake or ignorance still results in offense D is still guilty of lessor offense (ex: stealing property $10, but actuall $1,500 - still convicted of the lessor offense $10)

Mistake of LAW

Generally, not an excuse:

• CL - does not excuse

  • For no loopholes and binding on all persons regardless of their knowledge

• MPC - only when:

  • Official statement of law - Decision of a state appellate court or official opinion of state attorney general

  • That is later determined to be invalid or erroneous

Causation (Actual Cause)

But-For Test - if it were not but-for the D’s voluntary act, would the social harm of the offense still have occurred when it did?

• If yes, D is NOT a but-for cause

  • Same time/accelerates?

Doctrine of Concurrent Sufficient Causes

Each of the causes would alone be sufficient to produce the result, and these individually sufficient causes occur concurrently

• Ex: Two independent shooters fire a the same victim at the same time

Proximate Causation

An act is a direct cause of a social harm (all PC are but-for causes, but not all but-for are PC)

• Common Intervening Causes:

  • Acts of a 3rd party

  • Act of God or Natural Force

  • Act/Omission of the victim that affects the result

• Things that “break the causal chain” turn intervening causes into superseding to absolve the D of criminal liability

  • There can be more than 1 proximate cause

Kolar’s 3 Key Principles of Proximate Causation

• But-For Causation is required for proximate cause

  • Needs to also be a but-for cause

• Proximate Causation requires a natural, foreseeable, and non-remote connection between a “cause” and a “result”

  • Lead to result/injury in a way that is “natural and continuous”

  • Connection being “natural and probable”

  • Can’t be too remote

• Proximate Causation is defeated by Superseding Causation

  • Causal connection is unbroken by an efficient intervening cause (superseding cause)

  • Superseding cause = both unforseable & culpable (cuts off earlier but-for cause)

CL Murder

The unlawful killing of another human being with malice aforethought

4 Traditional Ways to Establish Malice

1. Intent (purpose or knowledge) to kill

   • Expressly intent to kill (2-4 implied malice)

2. Intent (purpose or knowledge) to inflict great bodily harm

3. Depraved/Malignant heart - extreme recklessness regarding risk of death)

4. Felony Murder - during commission of another felony

CL Approach to Manslaughter

The unlawful killing of another human being without malice aforethought

2 types:

• Voluntary - intentional homicide committed in “heat of passion” as result of adequate provocation and committed before an adequate opportunity to cool off

• Involuntary - gross negligence or recklessness leads to death of another causing death with inadequate carefulness

  • Includes misdemeanor manslaughter

Elements of “Heat of Passion” Manslaughter

• Acted in sudden “heat of passion” (particial defense)

• Passion was result of adequate provocation

• No adequate opportunity to cool off

• Casual link between the provocation, the passion, and the killing

Adequate Provocation

• Aggravated assault or battery upon D

• Mutual Combat

• Commission of serious crime against D or close relative

• Observation/discovery of spousal adultery

  • Key is marriage

• False arrest of D (kidnapping)

NOT adequate:

• Minor/trivial assault or battery (on D or another)

• Learning of adultery of spouse

• Observing or learning about infidelity of GF/BF/Future Spouse

• “Mere words”

Evolution more totality of the circumstances, let jury decide if loss of control is excusable

Mere words usually not enough, unless MPC states, but informational more likley to allow adequate provocation then insulting words

Extreme Emotional Distress/EMED Defense:

1. Must actually be under the influence of an extreme mental/emotional disturbance

2. Must be a reasonable explanation or excuse for disturbance with reasonableness determined by viewing the situation from perspective of D as he perceived it

CL Unintentional Killings

• Civil liability - death caused by negligence (wrongful death lawsuit)

• Involuntary Manslaughter - death due to gross negligence or recklessness (Criminal negligence)

• Depraved Heart Murder - death caused by extreme recklessness (callous disregard of risk of death)

• Felony Murder - death caused in connection with certain felonies

Felony Murder CL & Purposes

Traditional Rule: A felony + a killing = felony murder

Purposes:

• To deter felons from accidentally killing or negligently causing a death (encourages to be careful)

• To punish for lethal results of underlying crime, due to “bad intent: of underlying felony (retribution)

• To make murder convictions for death caused by felonious activity easy and efficient to obtain (efficiency)

Felony Murder Approaches CL

• Agency Approach - felony murder does not apply if no-felon causes murder (not team felony, not liable)

• Proximate Cause Approach - felony murder applies if the non-felon who killed was in the situation due to the actions of felon who is the proximate cause (any team, you started it)

True or False: Intent is the same as motive?

FALSE!

• Motive is having a particular reason for committing an offense

Murder Evolution

1. Pennsylvania Model - murder divided into 1st and 2nd degrees

2. Murder - divided into 3 degrees

3. MPC Approach - No degrees; 3 homicide crimes (murder, manslaughter, & negligent homicide)

Justification v. Excuse Defenses

• Justification - based on idea that circumstances sometimes “justify” bad outcomes (D’s conduct is good, beneficial, or at least tolerable to society)

  • Self-Defense » Necessity » Habitation

    • What I did was right/necessary - removes wrongness of act

• Excuse - based on idea that circumstances and traits of the defendant sometimes “excuse” bad outcomes (not morally culpable/morally blameworthy)

  • Insanity » Duress » Involuntary Intoxication

    • What I did was wrong, BUT I’m not responsible - removes blameworthiness

Why have Justificaiton & Excuse Defenses?

• Justification

  • Conduct was justified under the circumstances

  • The conduct was seen as good, genefictial, or at least tolerable to society

• Excuse

  • Can’t deter these people

  • Should only punish behavior taht is freely chosen

  • Should ony punish an actor that had both the capacity & opportunity to engage in the unlwaful conduct

  • Actor was not the true cause of the harm (someone else)

  • The criminal act does not reflect the ture character of the actor

Self-Defense (Justification)

*A necessity defense

CL:

• CL - the non-agressor is justified in using force upon another if he reasonably and actually believes force was necessary to protect self from imminent & unlawful use of force by another

  • Must be necessary and proportional

    • Typically a non-deadly threat does not justify a deadly response

  • Normally aggressor cannot claim self defense unless they retreated

    • Agressor - affirmative unlawful act reasonably calculated to produce an affray foreboding injurious or fatal consequences

  • Traditionally person had to “retreat to the wall” - exception being castle exception

• Stand Your Ground - eliminated the “retreat” requirement and allow use of deadly force as long as person responding to unlawful force is: 1) not committing a crime & 2) in a place where person has a right to be

  • Majority rule

MPC:

• MPC - a person is justifed in using force upon another only if he "believes that such force is immediately necessary to protect self against the unlawful force by another person on the present occasion

  • Deadly force is justified if person beleives immediately necessary to protect self from unlawful threat of death, serious bodily harm, forcible rape, or kidnapping

    • Subjective belief of “reasonable,” but if mistake then can be convicted

    • Aggressor cannot claim self defense

  • Duty to Reatreat - must do so if person knows he can avoid necessity of deadly force “with complete safety” by retreating, surrending a thing, or comokying with a demand to abstain, UNLESS

    • Home - no duty unless og aggressor

    • Workplace (exception if person is co-worker)

  • MPC broader than CL - allow subjective belief

Battered Woman Syndrom /Battered Spouse /Intimate Partner Abuse Syndrome

• Traditional Cycle of Abuse

  • Tension» Acute Battering » Contrition Phase

  • Key: learned helplessness

• Most states permit expert testimony in some cases, esp. in situation involving claims of confrontational self-defense - more divied in non-confrontational (sleeping cases)

• Potential Evidence Uses:

  • Support credibility regarding abuse - explain why they can’t just leave

  • Regarding the actual belief that absusive partner was about to engaging in abuse - hypervililance/sensitivity evidence

  • Shift analysis about “reasonableness” of D’s perceptions from perspective of syndrome suffer - subjectivize the “reasonableness” injury (most controversial)

• OK - words alone & threats does not equal aggressor

*Look at who was the aggressor at the time of the kill, then see if they have a self-defense claim

Habitation Defense (Justification)

CL:

• CL deadly force habitation defense - must reasonably believe that use of deadly force is necessary to prevent commission of violent felony in home

  • Can use lethal force against one who hasn’t yet entered home, BUT only if reasonably beleive other intends to commit violent felony inside (not all jurisdictions limit defense to belief of violent felony)

  • Defense does NOT apply where other fleeing or had lawfully entered home - then reg. self-defense

MPC:

• MPC - must believe force is immediately necessary for any use of force to defend property

  • Deadly force only if actor believes:

    • other is attempting to take control of you home

    • if other is attempting arson, burglary, robbery, theft, and other actually uses/threatens deadly force or using non-deadly force to repel other would be dangerous

  • MPC “habitation defense” more narrower than CL - more specific threat info. needed

Necessity Defense (Justificaiton)

CL: rarely raised and rarely successsful

1. actor faced w/ clear & imminent danger/threat

2. reasonable expectation that act chosen will avoid/resolve/diminish danger

3. no effetive legal way to avoid danger/threat

4. harm sought to be avoided must be greater than reasonably foreseeable harm caused

   1. Objective test whether D’s harm evaluation was correct, but just sincere

5. Act chosen can’t be specifically prohibited by law

6. D must have “clean hands” - didn’t cause the bad situation

7. Defense limited to “natural forces” - fire, tornado, flood, snowstorm, etc

• Unavailable in homicide cases - Dudley v. Stephens (can’t kill to save others)

• Limited to actions to protect property & people (not $ or reputation)

MPC:

• MPC does not require that harm avoided be “imminent" danger”

• Danger doesn’t ahve to be a natural cause

• Defense not limited to acitons to protect people/property

  • Can apply to situations involving actions to save $ & reputation

• D Doesn’t automatically lose defense if you created the situation or problem yourself

• No homicide limitation - allows killing on innocent(s) to save greater number of others

  • Only 2 states use approach - Broader than CL

Duress Defense (Excuse)

*Free will being overcome by pressure

CL:

• unlawful threat by another to kill or grieviously injury D or someone else, unless D commits certain illegal act(s)

• D reasonably believed threat is genuine

• Threat was present, imminent, & impending at time of criminal act

• No reasonably oportunity to escape (accept through compliance)

• D was not at fault in exposing self to threat

  • NOT a defense to murder

MPC:

• Person of reasonable firmness in same situation would have been unable to resist the coercion

  • Does not require imminent threat or it to be deadly force/grievous injury

  • Available in murder cases & if no actual threat (reasonble mistake)

  • Defense unavailable if D purposely/recklessly put self in situation where duress likely - unless negligently in neg. homicide cases

• One’s situation includes physical traits of D & others, but not moral & emotional threats

Intoxication Defense (Excuse)

*Voluntary intoxication NEVER an excuse - either failure of prood or negates a specific intent element

CL:

• Intoxication (voluntary & involuntary) can preclude formation of specific intent that is required for specific intent crimes, but voluntary intoxication is not a defense to general intent crimes

  • Voluntary - NEVER unless preclude formation of a req. specific intent element (failure of proof)

  • Involuntary - rare but ture defense if proven:

    • Coerced intoxication - duress/coercion

    • Pathological intoxicaiton - unpected grossly ecvessive reaction to an intoxicant

    • Intoxication by innocent mistake - someone spiked drink

    • Intoxication due to medical prescription - unexpected reaction to a prescribed drug

MPC:

• Any kind of intoxicaiton is a defense if it “negates an element of the offense”

  • Voluntary - if potentially negalt mens rea elements of “purposely” & “knowlingly”

    • NOT a defense to recklessness - if D were aware of the risk if he were sober » getting drunk is reckless

  • Intoxication can be a defense that is not voluntary if it causes D to be unable to appreciate conduct or unable to conform conduct to law

  • Broader

Insanity Tests (Excuse)

1. M’Naghten Rule - whether at time of act, D was suffering from a defect of reason caused by a disease of the mind, such that D did not know/understand:

   1. The nature & quality of the act committed, or

   2. That the act committed was wrong

      1. Entirely cognitive; ignores “volitional issues” - capacity to control behavior

      2. All or nothing approach

      3. Majority approach today

2. Irresistble Impluse/Control Test - whether at time D commited the act, D did not know/understand:

   1. The nature & quality of the act comitted, or

   2. That the act commited was wrong (M’Naghten), OR

   3. Whether at time of act, D actued from an irresistible and uncontrollable impose, such taht D lack power to choose between right & wrong or to avoid doing the act in question

      1. Suggests insanty comparable toa. suddent & explosive fit

      2. All or nothing appraoch

      3. Allows more than M’Naghten but still limits testimony

3. The Protect Test - D’s unlawfula ct was the product of mental disease or mental defect

   1. Broad

   2. Not focused on either cognitive or volitional

   3. Metal diease and mental defect don’t have agreed-upon meaning

   4. Very unpopular

4. MPC Approach - If at time of conduct as a result of mental disease or defect he lacks substantial capacity either:

   1. To appreciate the criminality (wrongfulness) of his conduct, or

   2. To conform his conduct to the requirements of law

      1. Recognizes BOTH cognitive & volitional impairments

      2. Braod testimoney

      3. Excludes antisocial personality disorder - sociopaths/psychopaths

      4. Seen as allowing D to get off too easily

      5. Terms “substantial capacity” lack clear, discrete meaning

Inchoate Offenses

Incomplete Crimes

• Attempt - Trying

• Solicitation - Asking

• Conspiracy - Agreeing

Attempt

When a person with intent to commit an offense performs a “substantial step” toward committing it