Criminal Law Midterm

Theories of Punishment

retribution, deterrence, incapacitation, rehabilitation

deterrence

General: punishment should prevent others from committing crimes. The punishment is an example to the rest of society.
Specific: Individuals specifically deterred

Retribution

the reaffirmation of societal norms for the purpose of maintaining respect for the norms themselves
-the community's desire to punish the offender
- opposite of rehabilitation

incapacitaiton

segregate the offender form society as to prevent criminal conduct during the period of incarceration

Statutory interpretation

1. plain meaning/dictionary definition
2. canons of construction (examining phrases. considering undefined words/phrases in the context of the entire statute. avoid absurdity
3. legislative history reveal congressional intent
4. Rule of Lenity: the decision be made in favor of the defendant (if tie, the defendant wins)

sentencing

Typically described by statute, minimum or maximums for specific crimes. Discretion is often in hands of prosecutes offering plea deals and judges that are issuing the sentencing (Suitee: trial judge abusing discretion? Justified on general deterrence reasoning)

lesser included offense (definition and elements and when do you ask for it)

A crime whose elements are contained within a more serious crime.
(1) each element must be necessary element of the greater offense,
(2) the evidence in the case must support an inference that the lesser crime was committed,
(3) If it is possible to commit the greater offense without having committed the lesser offense, the lesser offense is not an included crime.
Defense and prosecution can ask for a lesser included offense only BEFORE the jury instructions.

collateral consequences

Ramifications of a criminal conviction (stigma, housing, etc.) Not the actual punishment itself, but the subsequent consequences that come over and above the sentence imposed by a court.
Smith v. Doe: Sex offender registration requirement is retroactive punishment? Look first at the intent of the legislature. If it was clearly to punish then that's it. If its intent was civil or something else, then go beyond that and check to see if its result is punishment nonetheless.
Factors to consider: Was it regarded in our history as punishment? Does it impose disability or restraint? Whether in statutory scheme is so punitive either in purpose or effect as to negate the intention?

Elements of a crime

actus reus, mens rea, causation, concurrence

Actus Reus (what must the prosecutor demonstrate)

"the guilty act" - the prosecutor must show:
--\> that a voluntary act caused the harm, OR
--\> that there was an omission where D had a legal duty to act that caused harm.

1.) a person should not be convicted solely on the basis of his thoughts, but also must have done something that caused some sort of social harm.
\---\> Dalton: cannot be punished for writing in a journal
\---\> Mitchel: punishments could be worse for thought if they are acted upon (act out bc of racism)
2.) the defendant's act must have been voluntary.
\---\> Martin: not voluntary bc brought into public place by officer
\---\> Decina: Did act voluntary because he knew that he had this condition of having convulsions and still chose to get behind the wheel (this was the act!) SHIFTED THE MOMENT OF VOLUNTARY ACT.
3.) no criminal liability for an omission (failing to act) UNLESS the person who failed to act had a legal duty to act.
\---\> 5 situations
4.) there is the notion that "status crimes" are unconstitutional: people should only be criminally punished for their conduct, not simply for being a certain kind of person.
\--------\> cannot be punished for being an addict

Actus reus: legal duty to act

*physically capable of acting without harming oneself
*need to know that the person needs help

Situations where D has a legal duty to act:

1. Special Relationships between defendant and victim
\----\> (husband/ wife, mother/ child)
\----\> (Howard- mother has a duty to act)
2. When defendant enters into a contract which requires him either explicitly or implicitly to act in a particular way
\--- day care
\---nursing home
3. Statutory duty to act
\--- failure to register gun,
\--- sex offender
4. When the defendant creates the risk of harm
\--- D accidentally knocks O into river
5. When defendant who otherwise would not have a duty to voluntarily assumes care of person in need of help

Mens Rea (definition and types)

guilty mind;
\***The kind of moral blameworthiness that ought to make a person criminally responsible for his or her actions.
\***MPC: if nothing is specified for a crime you need at least reckless to be sufficient for a crime (Yerman- applies to material elements of a crime not a jurisdictional element).

Purposely: conscious object to engage in conduct of that nature and aware of the existence of the circumstances
\---\> Conscious object
Knowingly: Practically certain that his conduct will cause such a result
\----\> Aware that it is practically certain
Recklessly: Aware but disregard
\---\> Consciously disregards a substantial and unjustifiable risk
\---\> DEFAULT IF NO MENS REA
Negligently:
\---\> Should be aware of substantial and unjustifiable risk

Inferring intent

Not knowing what is in somebody else's mind and sometimes need a short cut.
Fugate: Intent may be deduced from all the surrounding circumstance, including the instrument used to produce death and the manner of inflicting a fatal wound (natural and probable cause doctrine- breaking into place with a gun).
\---\> If the circumstances suggest that the natural and probable consequences are death, then intent can be presumed.
Jewell: did defendant knowingly possess weed? Actual knowledge or willful blindness? Positive knowledge is not required. Knowledge is established if a person is aware of a high probability of its existence, i.e. willful blindness.

Strict Liability (definition/how to determine if it is a SL crime)

**Does not include a mental state element**
--\> Court must determine whether the legislature purposefully left out a mental state element bc it wanted to treat the crime as one of strict liability or whether the omission was inadvertent
--\> When it is silent on mens rea the ordinary presumption is that mental state is required for criminal liability

Morrissette: When determining if a crime is SL or not when no mens rea is specified look to these factors if yes then SL crime:
(1) public welfare offense, i.e. public health and safety, welfare, etc.),
(2) statute punishes for omission,
(3) statute punishes risk of injury (rather than actual injury),
(4) D in position to prevent the harm, and it's reasonable to expect this of D,
(5) light penalties,
(6) little stigma,
(7) newly- created crime
(not a crime at common law)
Garnett: Court does not go through Morrissette factors because they found clear legislative history and intent to make it a SL crime. Showed that the statutory construction was made to put in no mens rea and if they wanted to they knew how to do it.

Specific vs General Intent crimes

Specific Intent:
(1) not only doing the act but the doing it with a specific intent or objective
(2) Specific intent if the crime requires actually knowledge by the defendant of the circumstance bound in the definition of the offense,
Look at the circumstances surrounding the act to find if there was intent
General Intent:
Historical definition where general intent crimes was one where there was no mens rea specified.
(1) D knows the elements of the crime

Defenses

(1) Mistake of fact
(2) Mistake of Law

Mistake of Fact (and exceptions)

Specific intent
--\> mistake needs to be honest
General Intent
\---\> mistake needs to be honest AND reasonable
Strict Liability
\---\> no mistake of fact defense

Exceptions:
Moral Wrong Doctrine: A defendant who is charged with a general intent crime who would normally be found not guilty because of an honest and reasonable mistake.
\---\> may still be found guilty if their conduct is judged by court to be immoral under the facts as the defendant believed them to be.
Legal Wrong Doctrine: Defendant can still be found guilty even if they made and reasonable and honest mistake if the defendant's conduct would be
\---\> illegal under the facts the defendant believed them to be then they can still be guilty of the original offense.

Mistake of Law Defense

Generally not a defense
- Citizens are assumed to know the law in the United States
Exceptions:
1. Reasonable reliance on an official interpretation of law
\----\> People v. Marrero: Courts and AG (or Government official at State/ Fed level) are only qualified individuals to make an official statement.
\----\> One cannot claim the protection of mistake of law simply by misconstruing the meaning of a statute but must instead establish that the statute relied on actually permitted the conduct in question and was only later found to be erroneous
2. If knowledge that the prohibited conduct is unlawful is an element of the crime
\----\> The defendant's lack of knowledge will negate the mens rea requirement for the commission of the offense.
(i.e. if the prohibited offense is about willfully avoiding the element)
3. Fair notice of legal duty imposed by law is lacking, so conviction would violate due process.
\----\> Lambert: Violates Due Process because need notice and had to have known violating law.
D must establish that:
(1) D conduct was wholly passive
(2) Circumstances that might move one to inquire as to the law are lacking.
(3)D was ignorant of duty law imposed; and
(4) There was no reasonable probability D knew conduct was illegal.

Causation (definition and types)

Action has to cause social harm that is end of the crime.
Actual "but for":
\---\> D is the "but for" cause of the harm (the result would not have happened in the absence of D's conduct). Not necessarily the primary cause, but a cause regardless.
Was it foreseeable that the victim would suffer in that specific way?
Proximate:
\---\> Whether it is fair and just to hold the defendant criminally liable?
\---------\> Intervening Cause: something has happened after the defendant has taken their action and whether it changes liability.
- Responsive/Dependent IC: D is the proximate cause unless the IC is extremely unusual or bizarre (defendant is not on the hook for dependent/ responsive IC)
\-----\> Dependent upon D's fault to react.
- Coincidental IC: D is not the proximate cause unless the IC is foreseeable (defendant is still on hook even though it was an independent/ coincidental IC)
\-----\> Independent of D's fault to react.

Concurrence (definition and types)

Connection between the actus reus and the mens rea.
Temporal: Need the mens rea and the actus reus at the same time.
Motivational: Mens rea motivates you to do the act.

Property Crimes (types)

Theft:
\-- Larceny
\-- Embezzlement
\-- False Pretenses
\-- CL Burglary
\-- Robbery

Larceny Elements

(1) the trespassory taking and carrying away of personal property
Intend to trespass
\--- If you are initially lawfully in possession of the thing and then decide to not return it - not larceny
\--- If you have custody of the property and decide to steal it at the moment you gain possession - guilty
(2) with the intent to permanently deprive the owner of it
\---The intent to take and the taking must occur at the same time

Embezzlement Elements

(i) The fraudulent/intentional;
(ii) Conversion;
\-- act that seriously interferes with the owner's ability to use it
(iii) Of property;
(iv) Of another;
(v) By a person in lawful possession of that property.
\-- or by someone to whom it has been entrusted

False Pretenses Elements

(1) a false statement of fact that
(2) D knew/believed it was false when made
(3) Intended person to rely on statement
(4) person relied on it
(5) person parted with property
\***Any person who knowingly and designedly by false pretenses obtained title to property from another was guilty of the crime of false pretenses\***
\---\> Requires that the victim is deceived (injury)

Common Law Burglary Elements

(1) Breaking (Thibault)
\----Forced and unconsented
\--------Actual
\--------Constructive
*Not a break in if the door is open.
(2) Entry (Eichmann),
(3) Dwelling house
\*****Some structure where someone usually sleeps - place of business does not suffice
(3) at night
(4) with the intent to commit a felony at time of entry
\****Not just intent to enter, but also to commit the crime.
\****Does not matter if you actually commit the crime

Robbery Elements

(1) Felonious intent
(2) Force or putting in fear as a means of effectuating the intent and
(3) By that means taking and carrying away the property of another from his person or in his presence
property be taken from the person; the taking be accomplished by means of force (Crocker- no evidence of force)

Criminal Homicide (general types)

Homicide
Murder
--\> first degree
--\> second degree
Manslaughter
--\> voluntary
--\> unintentional
- involuntary manslaughter
- depraved heart

First Degree Murder (definition and elements)

definition: unlawful killing of a human being with malice aforethought
First Degree:
- murder committed with premeditation and deliberation
(1) Proof that the murder involved premeditation and deliberation
Premeditation
The killer must have reflected upon and thought about killing in advance (for no particular length of time)
Deliberation
Refers to the quality of the accused's thought process
Usually undertaken with a "cool head"
(2) The murder was committed using a means specified in the first-degree murder statute such as lying in wait poison or torture
(3) The murder occurred during commission or attempted commission of an enumerated felony
rape, robbery, kidnapping, burglary, or arson

second degree murder (definition)

killing that is done with malice aforethought, but without premeditation or deliberation

Ways to Prove Malice Aforethought

(1) Intent to Kill
- Express malice
(2) Intent to inflict great bodily injury
- implied
(3)An abandonment or malignant heart or depraved heart
- Reckless indifference to an unjustifiably high risk to human life
- Implied
(4)Intent to commit a felony.
- felony murder,
- implied

Voluntary Manslaughter (definition and elements)

Definition: Unlawful killing of a human being without malice aforethought; intentional killing that would normally qualify as second-degree murder
- heat of passion killing
- Reduced to the lesser crime of voluntary manslaughter through the application of a partial defense
\---\>provocation imperfect
\---\> self-defense or
\---\> diminished capacity

Elements:
(1) D was actually provoked.
(2) it was legally adequate provocation.
(3) there was not reasonable sufficient time to cool off, and;
(4) There's casual connection between the provocation, the passion, and the killing.

Voluntary Manslaughter Legally Adequate Provocation Tests

Early "categorical" test: Limited categories of LAP:
- aggravated assault or battery;
- observation of a serious crime vs. a relative crime.
- illegal arrest;
- combat;
- husband catching wife in act of adultery.
\-----\> Ambro: Mere words exception: A series of provoking statements that leads up to the event.
Modern "reasonable person" test:
(1) D was actually provoked,
(2) the reasonable person in D's shoes would have been provoked (LAP);
(3) D didn't have time to cool off,
(4) reasonable person in D's shoes would not have cooled off
\-----\> Berry: 2-week period of provocatory conduct by his wife that could arouse a passion of jealousy, pain and sexual rage in an ordinary man of average disposition to cause him to act rashly
MPC's extreme mental or emotional disturbance defense:
(1) From POV of D
(2) Under the influence of extreme mental or emotional disturbance for which there is reasonable explanation or excuse. Circumstances determined from the viewpoint of a person in the actor's situation under the circumstances (as he has lived his life- can bring in idiosyncratic things & background experience) as he believes them to be.
\****Do not need to be provoked by the victim. Abandons need for casual connection between victim & def (no cooling off period)\****
\-----\> Dumlao: Showed evidence of mitigation so can go through jury.
(3*)Personal characteristics of the defendant are relevant.
- Cooling off period does not negate EED defense
- Provocation need not come from victim.
- Jury has wider scope.

Unintentional Homicide

If our actions inadvertently lead to someone's death we are not necessarily guilty of murder; however, we may bear the guilt if our actions were reckless

Involuntary Manslaughter:
- If a person commits ordinary negligence, i.e., fails to exercise ordinary caution that a reasonable person would exercise under the same or similar circumstances, and such negligence proximately causes the death of another, the person is guilty of involuntary manslaughter.
\------\> Williams: parents did not take child to the doctor and he died
\------\> Recklessness: Extreme Disregard for a known consequence vs. negligence which you were not aware of the risk to begin with.

Depraved Heart:
- Do not have to show actual knowledge just that someone SHOULD have known, not that they actually did.
\------\> Malone: Reckless conduct that results in death of another is malice. Having a loaded gun and aiming it at another person amounts to extreme recklessness.