Criminal Law

Steps to Analyze Criminal liability

1. Conduct (mens rea and actus reus) and causation that

2. violates a pre-existing penal-law prohibition

3. enacted by legislature that

4. unjustifiably and unexcusably

5. harms either individual or public interests

In criminal cases, what is the burden of proof that the prosecution must prove?

That the ∆ is guilty beyond a reasonable doubt

When the burden of proof shifts to the ∆, the ∆ must prove what?

preponderance of the evidence

Rule of Lenity

∆ is entitled to the benefit of every reasonable doubt as to the true interpretation of the words/construction of the language used in the statute (Keeler v. Superior Court)

Elements of an Offense

1. Actus Reus;

2. Mens Rea;

3. Circumstance Element (sometimes)

An act must be ____ to satisfy the actus reus element

voluntary

Voluntary Act Doctrine

Conscious choice to act = voluntary, even if coercion influenced the choice

Actus Reas: CL Voluntary

Voluntariness is pre-supposed choice of movement

Actus Reas: MPC voluntary unless:

• reflex or convulsion;

• sleepwalking;

• hypnosis;

• bodily movement that otherwise is not a product of the effort or determination of the actor

Actus Reas: Time framing

Look to moments before the accident to see if there was a voluntary act

Actus Reus: Example of Time framing

People v. Decina - driving a car knowing you have a heart condition, you voluntarily got behind the wheel

Actus Reas: Omission

The failure to act when you have a duty to do so

Actus Reus: OMISSION: must be ____ + ____ to satisfy the actus reus element

Omission + Duty

Actus Reus: Omission Common Law Duties

1. Statute imposes a duty

2. Status Relationship

3. Contractual duty

4. Voluntary assumption of care and seclusion from outside aid

Actus Reus: Under the MPC, criminal liability cannot be based on omission without action unless:

1. Omission expressly made sufficient by law defining offense; OR;

2. Duty to perform an omitted act imposed by law

Actus Reus: Possession

The simple act of possessing the item is the act itself

Actus Reus: Can possession be a strict liability crime?

No

Actus Reus: For possession, one must have ____ + ____

knowledge and control

Actus Reus: Types of possession

Actual, constructive, and joint. however, they are all just grouped into possession

Actus Reus: Actual Possession

Knowing of its presence and having physical control over it

Actus Reus: Constructive Possession

Knowing of its existence/location and has dominion/control over it

Actus Reus: Constructive Possession is NOT…

• Knowing of its location but not having access

• mere unexercised ability to manipulate a thing

Actus Reus: Joint Possession

When two or more people have knowledge and can access it whenever

Actus Reus: MPC Possession

Must know of object’s presence and have control for a sufficient period to have been able to terminate it; subjective knowing

Actus Reus: Can status be criminalized?

No, it is unconstitutional

Actus Reus: Can being addicted to something be criminalized?

No, it is unconstitutional (Robinson v. California)

Actus Reus: Can being drunk in public be criminalized?

Yes, it is constitutional (Martin v. State) (involves conduct)

Mens rea-o-meter (highest to lowest)

1. Intentional;

2. knowingly;

3. recklessly;

4. negligently

Mens Rea: Can higher mental states prove statutes that require lower mental states?

Yes, under the MPC

Mens Rea: MPC Purpose (Intent)

Conscious objective to engage in that conduct and to cause such result

Mens Rea: MPC Knowingly

Practically certain the conduct will cause the result, but it is not your purpose to cause that result

Mens Rea: Intentional/Purposefully and Knowingly are usually the same for ____ (crime)

murder

Mens Rea: MPC Recklessly

1. Aware;

2. unjustifiable;

3. substantial risk;

4. gross deviation (subjective);

5. from what a person would do

Mens Rea: 5 Part Test for MPC Negligent

1. should have been aware;

2. unjustifiable;

3. substantial risk;

4. gross deviation (objective)

5. from what a person would do

Mens Rea: Strict Liability

• No mens rea - If they have committed the actus reus, they are liable;

• if clear congressional intent, strict liability allowed

Mens Rea: MPC and strict liability

• disfavored;

• need at least recklessness

Mens Rea: CL and strict liability

no strict liability except felony murder

Negating mens rea

• Mistake of fact

• Mistake of law

• Willful blindness

• Intoxication

Mens Rea: Mistake of Fact can…

Negate a mens rea associated with a particular crime

Mens Rea: Mistake of fact as defense under MPC when:

1. negates mens rea; OR

2. law provides that such mistake is a defense

Mens Rea: Under MPC, must the mistake of fact be reasonable?

No, just an honestly held belief (subjective)

Mens Rea: CL and mistake of fact

objective but no set rule

Mens Rea: Mistake of Law

Ignorance of the law is no defense

Mens Rea: Mistake of Law under MPC is a defense when:

1. statute isn’t published or reasonably available; OR

2. acts in reliance on official statement of law which afterwards was deemed invalid/erroneous

Mens Rea: Mistake of law is usually not allowed unless…

… statute requires that you know of the illegality of your actions

Mens Rea: Can you rely on lawyer’s advice as an excuse under mistake of law?

No

Regina v. Smith

mistake of law/fact hybrid case. Court said mistake negated

Mens Rea: Willful Blindness

deals with knowingly mens rea - being aware of the likelihood of an action but not taking the steps to confirm is NOT a defense.

Intoxication and Actus Reus

Intoxication can be used to negate actus reus for both MPC and CL

Intoxication and mens rea for MPC

can negate purposefully and knowingly, but not recklessly or negligently

Intoxication and mens rea for CL

not a defense

Mens Rea: Is involuntary intoxication a defense?

Almost always, yes (i.e. roofied)

Mens Rea: Intoxication and Common Law

Common Law and some JX do NOT allow intoxication to negate a mens rea at all

Causation needs both _____ and _____

Cause in fact and Proximate cause

Cause in fact is concerned with…

… finding out what happened

Proximate cause is concerned with…

… determining who is responsible for what happened

Cause in Fact is fulfilled when…

… the result would not have occurred “but for” the ∆’s acts

Multiple factual causes

• Independently Sufficient Test

• Substantial Factor Test

Factual Causation: Independently Sufficient Test

When either of two causes would have been sufficient on its own

Factual Causation: Example of Independently Sufficient Test

When 2 poisons separately would kill in 6 hours, but together they kill in 30 minutes

Factual Causation: Which is better? Independently Sufficient Test or Substantial Factor Test?

Independently Sufficient Test because it means you have more evidence

Factual Causation: Substantial Factor Test

When both acts would eventually produce the result or substantially contribute to it, we just don’t know when

Proximate Cause

Focuses on foreseeability - that the ∆ could reasonably foresee that their actions would cause the result (jury determines)

Proximate Cause: Foreseability test:

1. result must occur in a natural sequence;

2. causation isn’t limited to the immediate/obvious results

Limitations on Proximate Causation

• Outside time limit

• Pre-existing conditions

• Intervening causes

Proximate Cause Limitation: Outside Time Limit (MPC & CL)

CL: year and one day

MPC: depends on JX

Proximate Cause Limitation: Intervening Causes

so unforeseeable that they break the causal chain.

Proximate Cause Limitation: Independently Sufficient

Another’s actions made your deadly

Proximate Cause Limitation: Responsive Intervening Cause

i.e. ambulance

Proximate Cause Limitation: Coincidental Intervening Cause

something so unrelatable

MPC Causation two-part analysis

1. But for and foreseeability

2. Mental state and transferred intent

Causation: MPC Mental state and transferred intent

• Transferred Intent - if the actor intended for that result to happen to another person, still intent

What do all levels of homicide need?

1. Act or Omission;

1. Causation; and

2. Death

Levels of homicide depend upon…

… the mens rea of the ∆

Murder under MPC

Purposefully and/or knowingly killing someone or extreme recklessness

Murder: Extreme Recklessness under MPC

Indifference to the value of human life (engaging in robbery, rape, arson, burglary, kidnapping, or felonious escape)

Under the MPC, is premeditation required?

No, but it can be evidence

Types of Murder under Common law

1. Malice aforethought;

2. Depraved Heart;

3. Felony Murder

Murder: Malice aforethought under CL

• intent to kill/do serious bodily injury

• premeditation and deliberation

Murder: Depraved Heart under CL

implied malice - extreme wanton or willful disregard

Felony murder under Common law

Strict liability when kiling in commission of another crime

How does the MPC feel about strict liability and felony murder?

MPC rejects these concepts

Limitations on Felony Murder

• Enumeration

• Inherently Dangerous Requirement

• The Merger Doctrine

• The Agency Rule

• Res Gestae Requirement

Felony Murder Limitation: Enumeration

If the crime is listed in the statute, then the felony murder rule applies, if not, it doesn’t

Felony Murder Limitation: Inherently Dangerous Requirement

If there is no way to commit this felony without endangering human life, it is inherently dangerous (i.e. kidnapping, rape, burglary)

Felony Murder Limitation: The Merger Doctrine

The felony must be independent of the death for FM

Felony Murder Limitation: The Agency (In-furtherance) Rule

Did the death occur in furtherance of the underlying felony? (i.e. shooting someone when fleeing a scene); exception: police officer shoots = m

Felony Murder Limitation: Res Gestae Requirement

Time, distance, and casual connection

Under Res Gestae Requirement, when is the ∆ considered safe?

Usually once all of the elements of the felony have been completed and you have arrived at a point of safety

Voluntary Manslaughter

A purposeful killing that was provoked; “hot-blood” killing

Manslaughter under the MPC

Influence of extreme mental or emotional disturbance for which there was a reasonable explanation or excuse

Voluntary Manslaughter under the MPC has a ____ view of reasonableness

subjective

Voluntary Manslaughter under the MPC must otherwise qualify for murder, meaning…

… the actor will have to have purpose, knowledge, or extreme recklessness, but kills because of a triggering event that is sudden and uninterrupted

Is there a specified time frame for voluntary manslaughter under the MPC?

No

Voluntary manslaughter under the common law

A purposeful killing when there is some kind of legal provocation

Common law Provocation Doctrine

Reduces a homicide (usually from murder to manslaughter) and thus reduces the punishment

Common Law Test for the Provocation Doctrine

1. The provocation must be adequate (battery or assault); objective;

2. The ∆ had no time to cool off; objective;

3. The provocation must have actually impassioned the ∆; subjective;

4. The ∆ must not have actually cooled off; subjective

Match the JX to the type of homicide

• Murder: MPC and CL;

• Extreme Reckless Murder: MPC

• Malice aforethought: CL

• Depraved Heart: CL;

• Fellony Murder: CL

• Manslaughter: MPC

• Voluntary Manslaughter: CL

• Involuntary Manslaughter: CL

• Negligent Homicide: MPC

Mens rea for Involuntary Manslaughter

Reckless or gross negligence

Involuntary Manslaughter elements under Common Law

1. Unintended killing;

2. Done in a reckless manner; and

3. Does not demonstrate a wanton depraved indifference to human life