pain and effing suffering in criminal law (all of it)

Answer setup

1. Actus Reus
2. Mens Rea
3. Concurrence
4. Causation

Incapacitation

Removing a person who is inclined to crime from society.

Retribution

Does the punishment fit the severity of the crime?

Deterrence

Does this put pressure on the actor to not commit the crime or future crimes again?

Rehabilitation

Will punishment give a criminal skills or values which convert them into a law-abiding citizen?

Actus reus (Proctor)

a voluntary act or omission that results in a social harm

a voluntary act (Grant, Martin)

brain is awake and sending messages

Mitchell

stricter penalties can be created on actors who commit a crime based on a protected class (ex. race)

Proctor

Criminal act requires an overt legal act - no prosecution for "thought crimes"

Grant

not voluntary conduct - seizure

Martin

not voluntary conduct - someone forcibly moves your body

Decina

Moves the timeline - doing a voluntary act at one time can make you liable for a crime later

an omission (Pestinikas)

defendant has a legal duty to act, was physically capable of acting, and was aware of the circumstances, but didn’t act

Five situations where individuals have a legal duty to act (omission)

1. Special relationship
2. Defendant enters into a contract (that creates a special relationship)
3. Statutory duty to act
4. Defendant creates risk of harm
5. Defendant voluntarily assumes care of a person at the exclusion of all others

Special relationship examples

Spouse-spouse
Parent-child (but NOT child-> parent)

Beardsley

Social guests don't count, only specific special relationships.

Howard

A parent is liable for involuntary manslaughter If parent failed to protect the child from a known and substantial risk of harm.

Pestinikas

Liable for murder because of oral contract. Also could make an argument for providing help at the exclusion of all others.

Intentionally mens rea (Cunningham)

It is their desire (conscious object) to cause the harm

Holloway

Conditional intent to kill is still intent to kill.

Fugate

Intent to kill can be inferred from surrounding circumstances.

Scott

Intent to harm can be transferred from one victim to another.

Recklessly

Consciously disregards a substantial and unjustified risk

Jewell (MPC)

Knowingly includes willful ignorance and avoiding learning the truth.

Negligently

Should have been aware of risk - deviation from standard of care

Elonis (S.C. CASE)

If the crime is not strict liability, we cannot default to a negligent mens rea (must go up to recklessly)

Strict liability

A crime with no mens rea.

Examples of strict liability crimes

Traffic violations, statutory rape, bigamy, adultery

Morissette

When do we assume strict liability? (1) legislative intent; (2) is it common law crime; (3) harshness of penalty; (4) seriousness

When do you need to know specific/general intent?

If a COMMON LAW mistake of fact defense is available.

Specific Intent Requirements

1. Intent to Achieve a Future Goal - Not Part of Actus Reus
2. Special Purpose or Motive for Committing the Actus Reus (ex. hate crime, burglary (breaking and entering with intent to commit a felony))
3. Proof of Awareness of an Attendant Circumstance

General Intent Requirements

No future goal, motive or attendant circumstances (ex. battery)

Moral wrong doctrine (Bell) (common law only)

Permits the conviction of a person with a mistake of fact defense if the thing he was doing was an immoral act.

Legal wrong doctrine (common law + MPC)

Mistake of fact relating only to the degree will not shield a deliberate offender from the full consequences.

Specific intent defense

A reasonable or unreasonable mistake that was in good faith

General intent defense

A reasonable mistake that was in good faith.

Concurrence

Connection between the actus reus and the mens rea

Temporal concurrence

Defendant must possess the requisite mens rea at the same time they engage in the actus reus.

Thabo Meli

Intent was to murder, even if time of death was slightly after murderous act (public policy case)

Motivational concurrence

Mens rea must be the motivating force behind the actus reus.

Actual cause (Velasquez)

Defendant was actual cause of harm to victim (make sure to also explain proximate cause if satisfied)

But-For Causation Test (Velasquez)

But for D's voluntary act (or omission), would the social harm have occurred when it did?

(If But-For Test fails) Substantial Factor Test

When there are two actors who simultaneously and independently act, and evidence indicates that either act alone would have killed V instantly, both are the actual cause.

Oxendine (Accelerating Theory)

Evidence where additional injuries were inflicted after life-threatening injuries - defendant could not be held liable for speeding along death because there was insufficient information to support theory.

Velasquez

Even when a defendant’s reckless driving is a cause-in-fact of a death, courts have declined to impose criminal liability (1) where the prohibited result of the defendant’s conduct is beyond the scope of any fair assessment of the danger created by the defendant’s conduct, or (2) where it would otherwise be unjust, based on fairness and policy considerations, to hold the defendant criminally responsible.

Independent/Dependent Intervening Cause Test (Govan)

1. Was there an intervening cause?
If no, defendant liable. If yes...
2. Was the intervening cause dependent or independent?
If dependent, liable unless circumstances were extremely unusual or bizarre
If independent, generally not liable unless cause was foreseeable

Govan

Pneumonia was dependent intervening cause for gunshot to victim’s neck - still liable

an actor with an omission

what is NOT a superseeding intervening cause?

Foreseeability Test (Rementer or Kibbe)

Is it foreseeable that harm would occur?

Rementer

Even though independent intervening cause was there, victim's actions were taken in response to defendant's conduct. Would be foreseeable that she would run.

Kibbe

The ultimate harm is something which should have been foreseen as being reasonably related to the acts of the accused.

Intentional killings (first degree/second degree/depraved heart)

requires malice aforethought

express malice

intent to kill

implied malice

intent to commit serious bodily injury, “depraved heart” (Knoller/Malone), “deadly weapon rule” (Fugate)

First degree murder (Anderson)

Involves intentionality, premeditation and deliberation

Premeditation (Bingham)

Killer reflected upon and thought about killing in advance

Deliberation (Gilbert)

Quality of accused's thought process; undertaken with a cool head.

Second degree murder (Brown)

General baseline charge when first degree murder is not satisfied

Depraved Heart Murder (Knoller)

Conscious disregard for human life which results in a death.

Malone

Reckless disregard for human life

Involuntary Manslaughter (Welansky)

Brought about the death of another human being through "criminal negligence" (aka gross negligence or recklessness).

Self-defense requirements

Defendant must have had an honest and reasonable belief that they...
Were threatened with an imminent threat of unlawful force,
The force they used was necessary to repel the threat, and
The force used was proportionate to the threatened force.

Goetz

Objective standard must be used for self-defense - what a reasonable person would believe

McNaughten Test for insanity

Defendant has mental disease/defect
Disease rendered him incapable of understanding the nature of his actions OR
Disease rendered him incapable of distinguishing from right and wrong

MPC Test for insanity

As a result of mental disease or defect the actor lacks substantial capacity either to appreciate the criminality of his actions or to conform his conduct to the requirements of law

Mistake of Fact test to negate mens rea

Specific intent or general intent crime?
General intent: Mistake must be reasonable and genuine
Specific intent: Mistake need not be reasonable as long as in good faith.

Navarro

Crime was specific intent because there was intent to take the beams and deprive the owner of their property. Defendant believed the beams were abandoned

mistake of fact vs mistake of law

Mistake of fact: I sped b/c my speedometer was broken.
Mistake of law: I sped b/c I didn't know the speeding limit was 60.

Early Common Law Categorical Test for Heat of Passion Defense

Defending your honor or provoking and deeply hurtful statements + revelations of adultery (Ambro)

Modern Common Law Reasonable Person Test (Berry) for Heat of Passion Defense

Defendant actually provoked.
It was reasonable to be provoked.
Did not actually have sufficient time to cool off.
A reasonable person would not have sufficient time to cool off.

MPC Heat of Passion Defense (Dumlao)

Extreme mental or emotional disturbance caused actor to kill

Incomplete attempt

Don't complete the task because they don't manage to get that far.
Ex. Preparing to fire a gun, but doesn't.

Complete attempt

Don't complete the task because they missed/something else happens
Ex. Firing a gun + missing

Dangerous Proximity to Success (Rizzo)

Acts constituting attempt must come very near to the accomplishment of the crime - "dangerous proximity to success". Actors hadn't had the victim in their sights yet.

Beyond Mere Preparation (Staples)

Actor must have gone beyond merely preparing for the crime - must have been committing the crime itself.

MPC Attempt

Substantial step is taken by D that corroborates the actor's criminal purpose. Emphasis on what has been done as opposed to what remains to be done