Nakiya's crim outline

Crim outline

Owens v. State:

A conviction upon circumstantial evidence alone is not to be sustained unless the circumstances are inconsistent with any reasonable hypothesis of innocence. For the State to prevail there must be some other factor that enhances the likelihood of the inference and to diminish the likelihood of the second.

Commonwealth v. Mochan:

The common law is sufficiently broad to punish as a misdemeanor, although there may be no exact precedent, any act which directly injures or tends to injure the public to such an extent as to require the state to interfere and punish the wrongdoer, as in the case of acts which injuriously affect public morality, or obstruct, or pervert public justice, or the administration of government.

Keeler v. Superior Court:

Penal Code section 187 provides: “Murder is the unlawful killing of a human being, with malice aforethought.”

Muscarello v. United States:

The phrase “carries a firearm” includes knowingly possessing and carrying firearms in a vehicle, including its locked glove compartment or trunk, which the person concerned accompanies.

Martin v. State:

Any person who, while intoxicated or drunk, appears in any public place where one or more persons are present, *** and manifests a drunken condition by boisterous or indecent conduct, or loud and profane discourse, shall, on conviction, be fined.

State v. Utter

An “act” committed while one is unconscious is in reality no act at all. It is merely a physical event or occurrence for which there can be no criminal liability.

People v. Beardsley

Establish that no such legal duty is created based upon a mere moral obligation. The fact that this woman was in his house created no such legal duty as exists in law and is due from a husband towards his wife, as seems to be intimated by the prosecutor’s brief.

Baber v. Superior Court

A physician’s failure to continue treatment of a comatose patient at the request of the patient’s family is not an unlawful failure to perform a legal duty and therefore is not punishable under the penal code.

Morrissette v. United States

The mere omission from the language of the statute of any mention of intent is not to be construed as eliminating the element of intent from the crime.

Staples v. United States

Absent a clear Congressional statement that mens rea is not required, the public welfare/strict liability rationale should not be applied to interpret any statute that fails to mention mental state as an element of the offense.

Garnett v. State

Traditionally, statutory rape is a strict liability crime designed to protect young persons from the dangers of sexual exploitation by adults, loss of chastity, physical injury and in the case of girls, pregnancy.

United States v. Schoon

The necessity defense can be invoked if the defendant demonstrates that (1) they faced a choice between two evils and chose the lesser evil, (2) they acted to prevent imminent harm, (3) there was a direct causal relationship between their actions and the harm to be averted, and (4) there were no legal alternatives to breaking the law. However, this defense is not available in cases of indirect civil disobedience.

Nelson v. State

A crime can be justified if it was necessary to prevent a greater harm. To claim necessity as a defense, the accused must show that the criminal act was committed to avert a significant harm, there were no reasonable alternatives, and the harm caused by the criminal act is proportional to the harm it prevented.

State v. Boyett

In New Mexico, the defense of habitation allows a resident to use deadly force against an intruder when necessary to prevent a felony inside the home, and it does not require the intruder to have physically entered the home.

State v. Nations

When a statute requires knowledge of a specific fact as an element of a crime, the defendant must have actual awareness of that fact for the element to be satisfied, unless the statute specifies otherwise.

People v. Kurr

State v. Norman

A killing can be justified on the grounds of perfect self-defense if the defendant believed it was necessary to prevent imminent death or serious bodily harm and this belief was reasonable. However, evidence of battered-wife syndrome will not automatically justify a killing unless the defendant believed it was essential to prevent imminent death or great bodily harm.

State v. Wanrow

The justification for self-defense necessitates a subjective standard of reasonableness, accounting for the defendant’s perceptions and all the facts and circumstances known to the defendant at the time of the incident.

People v. Goetz

In New York, a person is justified in using deadly force in self-defense or defense of another only if there is an objective and reasonable belief that the attacker is using or about to use deadly force or is committing or attempting to commit a kidnapping, forcible rape, forcible sodomy, or robbery.

Regina v. Cunningham

In criminal law, the term “malice” refers to (1) a specific intent to cause the type of harm that was actually caused, or (2) a reckless disregard for the likelihood that one’s actions could cause harm, with awareness of the potential risk involved.

United States v. Cordoba-Hincapie

When a defendant provides evidence during sentencing that they made a mistake of fact regarding the type of drugs involved in a narcotics offense, the burden of proof shifts to the prosecution to establish the defendant’s mens rea (mental state) concerning the type of drug.

United States v. Peterson

In the District of Columbia, an initial aggressor in a fatal conflict cannot claim self-defense unless he withdraws from the conflict in good faith and communicates this withdrawal. Also, the initial aggressor must retreat, if possible, before using deadly force in self-defense.

Patterson v. New York

The state is obligated to prove each element of a crime beyond a reasonable doubt. However, a defendant can be required to prove an affirmative defense, such as acting under extreme emotional disturbance.

People v. Wilhelm

A juror can be discharged from jury service if they are unable or unwilling to evaluate the facts of a criminal case and make a verdict based on the court’s instructions.

People v. Conley

Criminal intent is necessary for the charge of aggravated battery, and it can be inferred from the circumstances surrounding the crime. The law stipulates that a person should have acted intentionally or knowingly to inflict permanent disability or disfigurement to be charged with aggravated battery. Intent may be presumed if a person’s actions are such that the likely consequences are known to the person.

State v. Herndon

Commonwealth v. Lopez

In rape prosecution, the defense of mistake of fact regarding the victim’s consent is not available. To be convicted of rape, the prosecution must prove that the defendant committed sexual intercourse by means of force or threat and that the victim did not consent. Mistake-of-fact defense is only applicable if the mistake negates the necessary mental state required for the crime.

Boro v. Superior court

Rape can be classified into two categories based on fraud – fraud in the factum and fraud in the inducement. Fraud in the factum occurs when the deception relates to the very nature of the act, and this nullifies consent. Fraud in the inducement, on the other hand, involves deceit concerning the circumstances surrounding the act; this does not nullify consent.

Commonwealth v. Berkowitz

In Pennsylvania, for sexual intercourse to be classified as rape, it must be obtained through forcible compulsion or the threat of forcible compulsion that would prevent the victim from resisting. Verbal resistance alone is not enough to establish that the sexual intercourse was obtained by force.

State v. Rusk

In a rape charge, the element of lack of consent can be proven either by demonstrating resistance or by showing that the victim did not resist due to a genuine and reasonably grounded fear.

Rusk v. State

In Maryland, for a rape conviction to stand, there must be sufficient evidence demonstrating that the victim resisted the act and that the defendant used force or the threat of force to overcome this resistance.

State v. Alston

To establish rape, there must be sufficient evidence to prove that sexual intercourse was against the victim’s will and was obtained through the use of force or the threat of force.

Tison v. Arizona

A defendant convicted of felony-murder can be sentenced to death, even if they did not intend to kill or inflict the fatal injury, as long as they were major participants in the felony and displayed reckless indifference to human life.

Payne v. Tennessee

In a capital sentencing hearing, the jury may consider victim impact evidence if it is deemed relevant to the decision on whether to impose the death penalty.

McCleskey v. Kemp

To establish an equal protection violation, a criminal defendant must prove that there was intentional discrimination and that this purposeful discrimination had a discriminatory effect on him or her.

Gregg v. Georgia

The death penalty is not inherently a violation of the Eighth and Fourteenth Amendments, but it must be imposed through sentencing procedures that prevent arbitrary or capricious application.

State v. Miles

The death penalty is not inherently a violation of the Eighth and Fourteenth Amendments, but it must be imposed through sentencing procedures that prevent arbitrary or capricious application.

State v. Sophophone

The felony-murder rule doesn’t apply when the person who causes the death is not a felon and acts lawfully.

People v. Smith

A felony that is assaultive in nature cannot be used as the basis for a felony-murder charge unless the felony was carried out with an independent felonious purpose apart from the assault.

People v. Howard

People v. Fuller

The felony-murder rule states that if a death occurs during the commission or attempted commission of certain dangerous felonies listed in the statute, the perpetrator is guilty of first-degree murder, regardless of whether the death was intentional or accidental.

State v. Williams

A person is guilty of involuntary manslaughter if they commit ordinary negligence, meaning they fail to exercise the caution that a reasonable person would under similar circumstances, and this negligence is a proximate cause of another person’s death.

People v. Knoller

Implied malice, necessary for a murder conviction, requires that the defendant acted with a conscious disregard for human life, not just a disregard for the risk of serious bodily injury.

People v. Casassa

In New York, a defendant charged with murder may have the charge reduced to manslaughter if he can prove that he acted under “extreme emotional disturbance” for which there was a reasonable explanation or excuse. This determination is based on both a subjective analysis of the defendant’s mental state and circumstances and an objective analysis of whether a reasonable person would find the explanation or excuse for the emotional disturbance to be reasonable.

Girouard v. State

To mitigate a murder charge to manslaughter, the provocation must be of such a nature that it could inflame the passion of a reasonable person and cause them to act impulsively rather than rationally. The assessment of adequacy of provocation is based on a reasonable-person standard and does not take into account the defendant’s individual mental issues.

Midgett v. State

To be convicted of first-degree murder, the killing must be premeditated and deliberate. However, some jurisdictions make exceptions for cases involving child abuse, allowing convictions for first-degree murder without premeditation or deliberation.

State v. Guthrie

For a killing to be classified as first-degree murder, the defendant must have had a period of time between forming the intent to kill and the actual killing. This time is necessary to indicate that the act was premeditated and deliberate, as opposed to being impulsive or spontaneous.

People v. Eulo

In homicide cases, courts can use brain-based criteria, such as the irreversible cessation of brain activity, in addition to the traditional cardiorespiratory criteria (irreversible cessation of breathing and heartbeat), to determine when death occurs.

State v. Rose

In a criminal case, the crime has not been proven beyond a reasonable doubt if the evidence can be reasonably interpreted in a manner that indicates the defendant’s innocence.

Velazquez v. State

A defendant’s conduct is not the proximate cause of a prohibited result if it is beyond the scope of the defendant’s conduct or if it would be unjust to hold the defendant criminally liable, even if the defendant’s conduct is a cause-in-fact of the result.

People v. Rideout

To establish causation in a criminal case, both factual and proximate causation must be proven. Proximate causation is established if the injury is a direct and natural result of the defendant’s actions. If there is an intervening cause that is not reasonably foreseeable and supersedes the defendant’s conduct, the defendant’s conduct is not the proximate cause of the injury.

Oxendine v. State

An injury can be considered the cause-in-fact of a victim’s death if it accelerates the victim’s death, even if the injury itself is non-lethal and follows a lethal injury.

Cheek v. United States

The question of whether a good-faith misunderstanding of the law negates the specific intent requirement of willfulness under criminal tax laws is a matter for the jury to decide. There is no legal requirement for such a belief to be objectively reasonable.

People v. Marrero

A person who breaks a law cannot use a defense of good faith mistaken belief regarding the meaning of the law.

People v. Navarro

In cases of specific intent crimes, an honest mistake of fact is a defense regardless of whether the mistake was reasonable or not.

bbbbbbb

MISTAKE OF FACT 

  • An honest mistake of the law is a defense when it negates the required mens rea.  
  • If specific intent, mistaken good faith belief negates the intent 
  • If general intent, mistake has to be honest and reasonable to negate 

MISTAKE OF LAW 

  • Not an excuse unless  
  • Elemental exception “defendant must know it is illegal” 
  • Due process exception: does not like to prohibit a status, no actual notice of omission 
  • Rea Reliance/entrapment by estoppel: official source interprets the law you rely on and then the court changes their mind.  
  • Public official letter 

Battery

Battery is the touching or striking of another against their will. It was a voluntary act.

FELONY MURDER 

felony + a death = felony murder 

  • Mens Rea  
  • The defendant satisfied the requisite mens rea for the predicate felony [PREDICATE FELONY]. Because felony murder is a strict liability crime, the defendant only needs to satisfy the mens rea for the predicate felony.  

 

  • Actus Reus 
  • Voluntary act: 
  • A defendant satisfies the voluntary act requirement by voluntarily committing the predicate felony [PREDICATE FELONY].  

 

Merger Doctrine: if the underlying felony is integral or a necessary part for the homicide, you cannot be found guilty of a felony murder, just murder. 

Inherently dangerous felony Doctrine: The felony must be an inherently danger felony for felony murder to apply. Use abstract approach or facts approach to decide if the felony is inherently dangerous.  

  • Abstract Approach 
  • If elements of the crime are inherently dangerous. 
  • Does Defendant create the risk of death or serious bodily harm?  
  • If yes: Felony Murder Doctrine applies 
  • If no: No felony Murder Doctrine 
  • Facts Approach 
  • Looking at the facts of the specific case, was there a risk of death or serious bodily harm? 
  • If yes: Felony Murder applies 
  • If no: No felony murder 
  • CRITISISM: The fact someone died means it is ALWAYS inherently dangerous. 

 Infurtherance of a felony analysis:

A jurisdiction might limit the felony murder to acts that are during the commission of a crime.  

  • Break in Circumstances 
  • If there is a break in circumstances where the actions are no longer in furtherance of the felony, no felony murder. 
  • Application 
  • Agency Approach (majority) 
  • The agency approach to felony is that even if the defendant is not the direct cause of the death, if their co-defendant is the direct cause, the defendant is still responsible for felony murder.  
  • Felony Murder  
  • Proximate Cause Approach 
  • If a non-felon OR co-felon are the direct cause of the death BUT our (1) defendant was the proximate cause AND (2) the defendant’s actions cause the natural and foreseeable result of death 
  • Yes, felony murder 

Further Murder

**if there is a felony + a death = felony murder 

**CANNOT ATTEMPT BC UNINTENTIONAL  

  • Mens Rea  
  • The defendant satisfied the requisite mens rea for the predicate felony [PREDICATE FELONY]. Because felony murder is a strict liability crime, the defendant only needs to satisfy the mens rea for the predicate felony.  

 

  • Actus Reus 
  • Voluntary act: 
  • A defendant satisfies the voluntary act requirement by voluntarily committing the predicate felony [PREDICATE FELONY].  

 

IF UNDERLYING FELONY = INTEGRAL/NECESSARY FOR MURDER 

à Merger Doctrine: if the underlying felony is integral or a necessary part for the homicide, you cannot be found guilty of a felony murder, just murder. 

INHERENTLY DANGEROUS FELONY DOCTRINE 

Jurisdiction might take this approach.  

The felony must be an inherently danger felony for felony murder to apply. Use abstract approach or facts approach to decide if the felony is inherently dangerous.  

  • Abstract Approach 
  • If elements of the crime are inherently dangerous. 
  • Does Defendant create the risk of death or serious bodily harm?  
  • If yes: Felony Murder Doctrine applies 
  • If no: No felony Murder Doctrine 
  • Facts Approach 
  • Looking at the facts of the specific case, was there a risk of death or serious bodily harm? 
  • If yes: Felony Murder applies 
  • If no: No felony murder 
  • CRITISISM: The fact someone died means it is ALWAYS inherently dangerous. 
  • DO BOTH OF THEM. 

INFURTHERANCE OF A FELONY ANALYSIS 

A jurisdiction might limit the felony murder to acts that are during the commission of a crime.  

  • Break in Circumstances 
  • If there is a break in circumstances where the actions are no longer in furtherance of the felony, no felony murder. 
  • Application 
  • Agency Approach (majority) 
  • The agency approach to felony is that even if the defendant is not the direct cause of the death, if their co-defendant is the direct cause, the defendant is still responsible for felony murder.  
  • Felony Murder  
  • Proximate Cause Approach 
  • If a non-felon OR co-felon are the direct cause of the death BUT our (1) defendant was the proximate cause AND (2) the defendant’s actions cause the natural and foreseeable result of death 
  • Yes, felony murder 

 Homicide

  1. STATUTE BREAKDOWN: “In this jurisdiction an individual commits a homicide offence when they act, in a way that causes the death of a human being, with a specified mens rea.”  
  2. Sometimes, statutes take a different approach than what we have gone over in class, make sure you read what the statute on the exam wants. 

ELEMENT 1: VOLUNTARY ACT STATEMENT: “All crimes require at least one voluntary act. An action is voluntary when a movement is ‘willed,’ meaning that the defendant consciously chose to take that action.”  

ELEMENT 2: [DEFENDANT] caused [VICTIM]’s death.

PROXIMATE CAUSE:  

  • Proximate cause refers to the moral responsibility and foreseeability of the death. The more foreseeable the act is, the less likely that it severs the proximate cause chain. There are several doctrines that the court uses to determine if the defendant was the proximate cause. The applicable doctrines are [INSTERT RELEVANT FACTORS HERE] 
  • SUBSTANTIAL RISK: USE FACTS TO ANALYZE THIS 
  • UNJUSTIFIED RISK: USE FACTS TO ANALYZE THIS 
  • GROSS NEGLIGENCE: An actor is negligent if they are subjectively unaware of a substantial and unjustified risk. Gross negligence is a much higher standard than simple negligence; an action is grossly negligent if it falls substantially below the standard of care that a reasonable person would have provided.
  • INTENDED CONSEQUENCES DOCTRINE 
  • If the defendant gets the result they want in the general manner they intended, the defendant does not escape liability even if an unforeseeable event intervened.  
  • 5. APPARENT SAFETY DOCTRINE 
  • When the defendant’s active force has come to rest in a position of safety the proximate cause chain is severed.

INTENTIONAL HOMICIDE 

***MURDER AND MANSLAUGHTER CAN TAKE EITHER MPC OR COMMON LAW IN SAME JURISDICTION, THEY DO NOT HAVE TO MATCH 

  • CL: “MALICE AFORETHOUGHT” 
  • FIRST DEGREE  
  • 2 approaches to mens rea for first degree murder to be satisfied. 
  • MORRIN TEST--No opportunity to cool off.  
  • Under the Morrin test, [DEFENDANT] must have time to time to develop the intent to kill (premeditation) and be undisturbed by hot blood (deliberation). 
  • GUTHERIE TEST 
  • Under the Gutherie test, [DEFENDANT] must have sufficient time to be fully conscious of intent to kill.   
  • IF BOTH TESTS ARE SATISFIED DO NOT MITIGATE. IF ONE IS NOT SATISFIED, MITIGATE TO VOLUNTARY MANSLAUGHTER 
  • VOLUNTARY MANSLAUGHTER = ADEQUATE PROVACATION 
  • For murder to be mitigated to voluntary manslaughter in a common law jurisdiction there must be 1) legally adequate provocation, 2) provocation is sudden, 3) killing occurred while the defendant was in the heat of passion, 4) there is a causal relation between provocation, heat of passion, and killing.  
  • VOLUNTARY MANSLAUGHTER = EXTREME EMOTIONAL DISTRESS 
  • For murder to be mitigated to voluntary manslaughter in an MPC jurisdiction the defendant must be 1) extremely emotionally disturbed and 2) a reasonable person in the defendant’s position would have been extremely emotionally disturbed if the facts/circumstances were as the defendant to believe.  
  • UNINTENTIONAL HOMICIDE 
  • **NO INTENT TO KILL DO AS ACTUS REUS ANALYSIS 
  • DEPRAVED HEART MURDER (2ND DEGREE)  
  • “Callous disregard for human life”  
  • If the defendant 1) acted with awareness that their actions created a substantial and unjustified risk of death or great bodily harm and 2) disregarded the risk. 
  • IS THE RISK SUBSTANTIAL? 
  • IS THE RISK UNJUSTIFIED? 
  • IS THERE A CALLOUS DISREGARD FOR HUMAN LIFE 
  • DID THE DEFENDANT KNOW RISK OF DEATH? 
  • INVOLUNTARY MANSLAUGHTER 
  • Did the defendant recklessly cause the death of another?  
  • Not as extreme as depraved heart 
  • Must be negligent to the fact the act will specifically cause death.  
  • MPC 
  • EXTREME INDIFFERENCE/RECKLESSNESS (2ND DEGREE) 
  • If the defendant 1) acted with knowledge of recklessness in regard to the  risk of death or great bodily harm.  
  • IS THE RISK SUBSTANTIAL? 
  • IS THE RISK UNJUSTIFIED? 
  • IS THERE EXTREME INDIFFERENCE TO VALUE OF HUMAN LIFE? 
  • DID THE DEFENDANT KNOW RISK OF DEATH? 
  • NEGLIGENT HOMICIDE 
  • If the defendant is 1) subjectively unaware but 2) a reasonable person would have been aware that there was a substantial and unjustifiable risk of death.  

 

ATTEMPT 

  • Main purpose of Attempt crimes is to give law enforcement a place to intervene before someone can commit the main offence 
  • MERGER RULE: A defendant can’t be convicted of both the attempt and the completed crime.  
  • PHYSICAL PROXIMITY: act for the attempt must be physically proximate to the completed crime.  
  • DANGEROUS PROXIMITY: act for the attempt must be physically proximate to the completed crime with severity of the crime considered in determining how close defendant must be to the crime.  
  • UNEQUIVOCAL CONDUCT TEST: if the defendant’s actions are sufficient to establish equivocally that the act is criminal. No other option as to what the actor is doing, look at this as a completed attempt.  

MPC 

  • The MPC separates complete from incomplete attempts. A defendant has a completed attempt is when every act is completed as planned but the defendant is unsuccessful in the result. A defendant has an incomplete attempt when some acts were completed but the rest are incomplete either due to choice or prevention by an extraneous factor.

CONSPIRACY 

  • It is unclear whether this statute takes a common law or MPC approach . . . 
  • Can be punished for both conspiracy and underlying crime unless Wharton Rule exception 
  • Overt act = not a hard test to satisfy 
  • Conspiracy = a partnership in criminal purpose, mutual agreement or understanding, express, or implied between 2 or more persons to commit a criminal act or to accomplish a legal act by unlawful means 

SEXUAL ASSAULT 

  • Look at this crime differently than others because it violates bodily autonomy. 
  • Tendency to conflate elements of this crime make it particularly difficult 
  • Force v consent elements 
  • Requires sexual contact, of a person, forcibly, without consent 
  • Force 
  • Required force to overcome victim’s resistance  
  • Yes-means-yes = need an affirmative yes to establish consent 
  • No-means-no = you have to prove the victim said no to establish no consent 

Sexual Assault: Mens Rea 

  • Susan Ager: 
  • Did not speak when being assaulted because they were in the middle of the mountains, and no one could help. Case brings up 3 categories that make it difficult to line draw. 
  • Duty: the need to be a good and ready wife/ feel obligated to have sex 
  • Ambiguity: doesn’t know if they want to have sex but could be in the mood 
  • Hope: hope that their dissatisfaction could turn into delight about the situation 

 

  • Mistake of fact defense: Commonwealth v. Lopez 
  •  reasonable and honest belief as to a complainant’s consent negates mens rea of rape 

 

Unequivocal conduct rule: if evidence of actual consent is weaker, to set up a mistake, you’re conceding victim didn’t give consent 

  • Concerns that mistake of fact defense would tend to eviscerate the rule that victims need not use force to resist an attack 

 

This case painted 3 ways to look at Sexual Assault Mens Rea 

  • Strict liability (Minority view)- The state has to prove that there was consent. An no consent= assault 
  • General Intent (Majority view)- Mens rea falls under the general intent 
  • California Rule: can use mistake of fact if the mistake of fact can be proven equivocal 

 

Affirmative Refusal: no means no 

  • Requires some expression of non-consent 
  • Victim has to articulate non-consent in some way 
  • Silence/ambiguity is consent 

Affirmative Consent: yes means yes