Outline
Rule of Lenity (statutory interpretation)
If a criminal statute has ambiguity in the language is going to be read in the favor of the defendant and we won't find the defendant liable, if anything would benefit from this. This would be the legislators fault.
Criminal statutes should be interpreted narrowly to ensure that a defendant is not convicted for a crime about which the person may have been unaware.
If the words of a statute offer two possible meanings, and each meaning is both plausible and constitutional, then the court must decide which interpretation it will follow.
Concurrence
In criminal law is the requirement that BOTH a guilty act (actus reus) and a guilty mind (mens rea) occur at the same time for a crime to have been committed.
The act alone is not enough, it has to be apparent from the facts, that the act was driven by the guilty mind.
Elements of A Crime
Actus Reus (The Act)
Mens Rea (The Mental State)
Causation (caused the act to happen and show you have causation (if i have a knife, my act is getting ready to stab them) but if i have a knife and im holding it and someone runs to me and bumps their self into the knife then no there is no causation.
Attendant Circumstances (any element that is not the act or mental state is the attendant circumstance. An extra element to complete the crime.)
And, there must be concurrence of the elements - they must be present at the same time for the crime to have taken place.
Actus Reus:
Refers to the voluntary act or omission that comprise the physical elements of a crime
Mens Rea:
Refers to criminal intent
The literal translation from latin is “guilty mind”
A mens rea refers to the state of mind statutorily required in order to convict a particular defendant of a particular crime
Causation:
Is a term used to refer to the relationship between a person’s actions and the result of those actions. In a legal sense, causation is used to connect the dots between a person’s actions.
Attendant circumstances:
Attendant circumstances are the elements other than acrus reus and mens rea. They are additional requirements that define the crime. Like the other elements, without proof of the attendant circumstance, conviction fails.
Ex:
The victim’s age would be an attendant circumstance in a statuatory rape case.
The blood alcohol content would be an attendant circumstance in a drunk driving case.
Actus Reus:
Voluntary Act
Criminal liability requires a voluntary act
A voluntary act is:
A bodily movement
Performed consciously
As a result of the actor’s effort or determination
The voluntary act must be the product of the defendant’s will
Criminal law does not punish mere thoughts or status
MPC (Model Panel Code) specifies these to be excluded:
The following cannot satisfy actus reus:
Reflexes or convulsions
Bodily movements during unconsciousness or sleep
Conduct during hypnosis or resulting from hypnotic suggestion
Bodily movements not the product of conscious effort or determination
Omission
Most crimes allowing omission for actus reus are statutory - the omissions allowed are written in the statute.
The allowed omissions are usually based on some sort of legal duty
Legal duty = omission for actus reus
One must have a LEGAL DUTY to act for omission to work for actus reus.
A moral obligation is NOT ENOUGH
Case: West v. Commonwealth
A caretaker who has a legal duty to care for another can be held criminally liable for a failure to act that results in the other’s death. A caretaker is an individual who has the responsibility for the care of an adult due to a family relationship, or who has assumed the responsibility voluntarily, by contract, or by agreement.
There are SIX situations where a failure to act may constitute a breach of a legal duty. KNOW THIS!!
A statute imposes a duty of care for another
Certain status relationship (parent/child)
Where one has assumed a contractual duty to care for another (lifeguard, babysitter, teacher)
Where one has voluntarily assumed the care of another and so secluded the helpless person as to prevent others from rendering aid
Creation of the danger (with exceptions)
Duty to aid (few jurisdiction) or report (some jurisdictions)
Duty to Act = Police
As a general rule, an individual has no duty to come to the aid of another. This is true for police officers as well.
A police officer does not assume any greater obligation to others individually.
However, once that officer decides to render aid to a victim, a special relationship may be established that produces a duty to an individual
Additionally, some liability may exist in certain situations where the state legislature enacts laws mandating an officer’s duty to take action (ie-domestic violence, child abused, etc)
Possession
Possession was written into the statute for actus reus.
A person is not guilty of an offense unless his liability is based on conduct which includes a voluntary act
Possession is a voluntary act if the possessor knowingly procures or receives the thing possessed, or having acquired control of it was aware of his control for a sufficient time to have enabled him to dispose of it or terminate his control.
Many possession statutes require proof that the defendant actually possess the item, or at least have the ability to exercise dominion or control over the item
Constructive Possession:
Constructive possession is the legal possession of an object that is not in the person’s direct physical control.
More than mere presence needed
Constructive possession for a visitor requires evidence of control over the drugs.
Status or Condition:
Addiction is based upon a condition or status, not an act.
No voluntary act = no actus reus
Mens Rea:
Common Law: The mental state required to complete a crime
Specific Intent vs. General Intent:
Specific Intent:
Requires proof that the defendant had a particular state of mind that involved the commission of the offense
The prosecution must show that defendant BOTH had intent to perform a particular act AND had a corresponding mental state when doing the act.
General Intent:
Requires proof that the defendant engaged consciously in the act that constitutes the offense, but need not prove that the defendant sought a particular result or was fully conscious that they were committing a crime.
The mental intent is met by performing the physical act itself; no intent to actually violate the law
Model Penal Code - YOU NEED TO KNOW
Four Levels of Culpability
Purposely (Highest): This is the highest level of intent - it requires that the D intended to bring about the specific outcome in the statute.
Knowingly: Defendant is aware that it is practically/virtually certain that his conduct will cause a result
Recklessly: A person acts recklessly with respect to a material element of an offense when he consciously disregards a substantial and unjustifiable risk that the material element exists or will exist from his conduct. The risk must be of such a nature and degree that, considering the nature and purpose of the actor’s conduct and the circumstances known to him, its disregard involves a gross deviation from the standard of conduct that a law-abiding person would observe in the actor’s situation.
Rule: Did the defendant consciously disregard a substantial and unjustifiable risk that would cause _____ blank would be elements of recklessly
Negligently (Lowest): A person should be aware of a substantial & unjustifiable risk, and the failure to perceive that risk constitutes a gross deviation from the standard of care a reasonable person would exercise in a similar situation.
Criminal negligence does not require proof of defendant's intent - just the gross deviation.
Willfulness and knowingly are synonymous (they are the same)
Highest level of punishment to least order ^^^
Evidence of Intent:
Direct & Circumstantial Evidence
Direct Evidence:
Physical evidence, eyewitness statements, statements, by the defendant
But the defendant cannot be forced to testify
Circumstantial Evidence:
Proves a fact at issue by proving other events and circumstances which afford a basis for a reasonable inference by the jury that the fact at issue exists. The facts and circumstances must form a chain.
Natural & Probable Consequences to Show Intent
This allows the jury to infer that a person intends the natural and probable consequences of his actions, even if this is contrary to the defendant’s own statements.
Ostrich Instruction
Willful Blindness:
Defendant must subjectively believe that there is a high probability that a fact exists AND
Defendant must take deliberate actions to avoid learning of that fact
Knowingly:
Defendant takes deliberate actions to avoid confirming a high probability of wrongdoing and who can almost be said to have actually known the critical facts
Recklessly:
Defendant knows of a substantial and justifiable risk of wrongdoing and consciously disregards it
Negligently:
Defendant should have known of a substantial and unjustifiable risk of wrongdoing
Transferred Intent:
Applies only in the situation of the same intended harm inflicted on an unintended victim.
It is NOT applicable when the harm caused is different from the harm intended.
Ex: - causes harm to property but meant to cause harm to a person
But it does not have to be the EXACT harm - it can be the same TYPE OF HARM - harm to person (intend to kill) transfer to harm to person (serious injury but not death.)
Ex: A has the intent to kill B. A shoots at B but misses and instead hits C. Because A intended to kill a person, the mens rea of intent to kill is satisfied. Since C does not die, the required result for murder is not met, so the crime is attempted murder. Under the doctrine of transferred intent, A’s intent to kill B transfers to C.
Exceptions to transferred intent:
Cases of misidentification - transferred intent is not needed - they intended to act against the specific person (they had intent) they were just wrong in who they thought the person was. They are liable for the intent they had.
It is expressly written in the statute that the transferred intent does not apply.
It does not apply when the harm is different
Strict Liability (Common Law):
Crimes with no mens rea element. The prosecutor only need to prove the defendant committed the actus reus of the offense. Malum Prohibitum.
Malum in Se
Wrongful in itself, morally wrong
Evil conduct rejected by civilized society
Murder, rape, etc.
Malum Prohibitum
Wrong because it is prohibited, made illegal by legislature (ie - speeding tickets)
Offenses that are illegal because the law says so
Regulatory offenses, some white-collar crimes, etc.
Mistake of Fact:
The Mistake of Fact defense relieves a person of criminal liability where a reasonable mistake of certain facts means that the person did not have the requisite mental state (mens rea) required for the commission of the crime.
Application of the mistake of fact defense is keyed to the intent level of the crime…
so … what is always the first step in mistake of fact analysis?
Court cases: US v. Bowling:
Mistake of fact relieves a person of criminal liability where a reasonable mistake of fact of certain facts means that the person did not have the culpable mental state required for the crime.
Defendant has the right to put on evidence that the defendant had an honest misunderstanding
It is up to the jury to determine if the mistake by the defendant is reasonable
If there is a mistake of fact, it is a COMPLETE defense to criminal liability
Specific Intent Crime:
Any mistake could be a defense - reasonable or unreasonable
General Intent Crime:
Only a reasonable mistake is a defense
Strict Liability Crime:
No type of mistake is a defense
Mistake of Law:
General Rule: Ignorance or mistake of law is no defense even if that mistake is reasonable. It is presumed that everyone knows the law.
Case: Cheek v. US: Willfulness (when used in criminal tax cases) means: 1. Law imposed a duty on the defendant, 2. Defendant knew of this duty, and 3. Defendant voluntarily and intentionally violated that duty.
If D knows of the law = prosecution wins.
If D can show he did not know or misunderstood the law, had a good-faith belief = defendant wins. But, up to the jury to decide
Three Exceptions to Mistake of Law
Official Interpretation: Misunderstanding of the law is based on an official interpretation of the law by a person or agency who has authority to interpret the law + acts on a reasonable reliance on that official interpretation (not a lawyer).
Element of the Crime: if a statute by definition include as an element proof that D has knowledge of some law. D’s mistake of that law may be able to disprove an essential element of a crime. If that happens then D cannot be guilty of the crime.
The Lambert Principle: ignorance of the law is generally not a viable defense, but Due Process places some limits on the exercise of that doctrine
For a conviction to stand for failure to register, the defendant must have actual knowledge of the duty to register or proof of the probability of such knowledge.
Causation:
If causation is a legal issue, you're generally needing to show that the prosecutor can prove the defendant is the cause of the harm.
Prosecutor must prove that the D caused the particular harm prohibited by the statute. Most cases where causation is a debatable issue involves death or physical harm
Rarely an issue in other crimes
Cause-In-Fact/But-For Cause:
This is the FIRST step in the analysis for causation:
Was the D the cause-in-fact or actual cause of the harm?
Ask yourself, who or what caused the harm?
Test:”But for” the defendant’s voluntary act or omission would the harm have occurred when it did?
If it would have occurred without the D’s conduct, then D is NOT the actual cause.
If it would Not have occurred without D’s conduct, then D is the actual cause
Note: There can be more than one but for cause
Causation becomes an issue when the link between the D’s conduct and the harm is not immediately clear.
Or, when there is conduct by a second actor, or something else intervenes.
Proving Cause-In-Fact:
Expert Witness: When the cause of death or the timing of the death is at issue - challenging causation - both sides can call medical experts
Standard: a reasonable medical certainty (this must be more than 'possible')
It is up to the jury to decide which expert testimony to use when deciding causation
Ex. 1: Accelerating a result
Acceleration requires specific proof of when the victim would have died to establish the liability of D1, AND also how the conduct of D2 caused the otherwise inevitable death to occur earlier.
Ex. 2: Concurrent Sufficient Causes
Each act ALONE is sufficient to cause the result. So, both could be guilty of murder
Ex. 3: Obstructed Cause:
D1 stabs V, but that may not have killed him. D2 then shoots V three times in the head killing him instantly.
Here, D2’s conduct obstructed D1’s attempt to kill V by shooting the V.
So D1 only attempted to kill V and D2 killed V.
D2 was a better murderer so only he is guilty of murder.
D1 would be guilty of attempt or some other lesser crime.
Ex. 4: Combined Direct Effect
Requires proof that both actions were needed to cause the death. Both could be criminally liable for the death.
Causation - Proximate Cause
There is no real “test” for proximate cause in criminal law.
It is determined based on policy considerations or matters of fairness regarding D’s responsibility.
It is the idea that it isn’t fair to hold the defendant responsible for something he couldn’t foresee
It is up to the jury to decide, when looking at all of the causes of the harm, if it is fair and just to say D is the proximate cause of the harm.
The closest thing to a rule is =
Proximate cause requires that the resulting harm be a foreseeable result of the defendant’s actions such that it is fair to hold him criminally liable
Intervening Causes:
Independent:
not foreseeable; destroys causal connection between defendant’s act & V’s harm
Dependent:
normal & foreseeable result of defendant’s original act
Causation Approach: (FOR EXAM)
Is D the actual cause - but-for cause of the harm?
If yes, move to proximate cause
If no, not guilty
Is D the proximate cause?
Did anything intervene between the D’s conduct and the harm?
If so, was it independent or dependent?
Was it foreseeable? Was it superseeding?
Ultimately, would it be fair to hold D criminally responsible.
Larceny:
Is the trespassory taking and carrying away of the personal property of another with the intent to permanently deprive
Larceny Elements:
Trespassory >>>> Actus Reus
Taking >>>> Actus Reus
Carrying away >>>>Actus Reus
Person property of another >>>> Attendant circumstance
With intent to permanently deprive >>>> Mens Rea
Trespassory:
For it to be larceny, the D must take the property from the possession of another without consent of the person
Trespassory = without consent
Taking (Caption):
Taking (or Caption) is the act of taking possession of the property of another.
Larceny involves possession, not custody. But the line between possession and custody can be blurry.
Carrying Away (or Asportation):
For larceny, D must literally “carry away” the property of another.
This can be virtually any movement of the property as long as it is a “carrying away” motion.
Carrying away can be done with even the slightest change in position of the stolen object. But this movement needs to be part of the carrying away process - a carrying away - movement.
Example: D came across two upside-down wheelbarrows in V’s yard. D turned them both over. D then pushed one wheelbarrow 6 inches towards the gate. Is she guilty of larceny for one or two wheelbarrows?
Timing matters! When was the intent to permanently deprive formed?
Intent to Permanently Deprive:
Larceny requires that the D intent to permanently deprive the owner/possessor of the property, not a temporary deprivation.
Larceny has a distinction between Custody v. Possession (this is an issue in the trespassory element)
Larceny is a trespassory taking, meaning a taking without consent
To determine if it is a larceny, you need to determine if the D was given permission/consent to take the property.
If D had lawful possession (was given permission), then not larceny because they had consent or permission to take the property. There was no trespassory taking.
If D only had custody (temporary possession), then probably larceny because he only had custody of the property, which is not consent or permission to take the property.
Possession:
A person has possession of property when they have physical possession or sufficient control over it to use it in a reasonably unrestricted manner.
Possession – physical control
Constructive possession – not in physical control but has the power to exercise dominion or control over it
Custody:
A person has custody of property if they were given physical control over it, but their right to use it is substantially restricted by the person in constructive possession of the property.
Access to it is limited or temporary
The owner/possessor is nearby and/or limited rights are given.
Example: jewelry store or test drive with dealer
Lawful Possession = Only Custody (Legal Fictions)
Lawful Possession = Custody - 4 scenarios
temporary/limited authorization to use the property
Property from an employer to an employee for use in the employment relationship (like embezzlement)
Bailee of goods enclosed in a container (Breaking Bulk)
Obtained the property by fraud (Larceny by Trick)
It should only be a larceny if there is a trespassory BUT in the 1st and 3rd scenario, we don't know what else to call it (if they are falsities; they look like larcenies but they are NOT.)
Temporary/limited authorization to use the property
Jewelry store – D only has custody, salesperson has constructive possession
If D takes it and leaves, then it is larceny because he did not have lawful possession of it, only custody.
Test-driving a car with salesperson – D has custody, salesperson has possession
If D takes it and leaves, it looks like a larceny because he did not have lawful possession of it, only custody.
Test-driving car alone – D has lawful possession when he leaves the lot alone
If D takes it, it is not larceny because he was given possession of it. The dealer consented/gave permission for D to take it off the lot.
2. Property from an employer to an employee for use in the employment relationship (ie – laptop, car, etc.)
RULE: Employer maintains constructive possession of any property given to an employee for use during the employment relationship. Employee only has custody of the property.
If D (an employee) takes work property with the intent to keep it, it is larceny because she did not have lawful possession of it, only custody. By taking it, she took possession without permission.
3. Bailee of goods enclosed in a container
Bailee has lawful possession of the container, but only custody of the contents.
If D steals the container, it is not larceny because he had lawful possession of the container.
If D takes the contents inside the container, it is larceny because he only had custody of the contents.
This is called “breaking bulk.”
Breaking Bulk: Permits a larceny prosecution of an agent who had lawful possession of a package, but he removes something from the package
4. Obtained the property by fraud (Larceny by Trick)
If D is given possession of the property by fraud, he only has custody (larceny by trick) because the V did not knowingly transfer possession.
If D takes it, it is larceny because he did not already have possession of it, only custody.
Common Law Larceny:
Trespassory taking and carrying away of the personal property of another + with intent to permanently deprive
False Pretenses:
False representation of a material present or past fact that causes the victim to pass title to property to the wrongdoer + with intent to permanently deprive
Larceny by Trick:
False representation of a material present ot past fact that causes the victim to pass possession to property to the wrongdoer + with intent to permanently deprive
Larceny Approach:
First Question: How did D get the property?
Permission or no Permission
§ If no permission = larceny
§ If permission was given, do one of the legal fictions apply?
Was the possession temporary/limited?
Was the possession from an employer?
Was the possession of the container but not the contents?
Was the possession obtained by fraud?
Trick v. False Pretenses:
Trick = Possession
Pretenses = Title
Larceny by False Pretenses:
Bell v. U.S. (1983) – Fraud is used to obtain title to the property, not just possession. False representation of a material present or past fact that causes the victim to pass title to property to the wrongdoer.
People v. Shannon – Asportation of store property with the intention to resell it back to the store is theft.
Embezzelment:
D is in lawful possession of the property and converts the property for her own use + IPD (intent to permanently deprive)
This is the gap filler for when the D is given unlawful possession of the item but takes it for his own use
Because he was given lawful possession, it cannot be larceny
Larceny requires a trespassory (without consent/permission) taking.
Receiving Stolen Property:
is knowingly receiving, retaining, concealing, or disposing of stolen property
State v. Jennings – A person is guilty of receiving stolen property if he or she receives, retains, or disposes of another's property while knowing or having a reason to believe that the property has been stolen.
Robbery:
Trespassory taking and carrying away of the personal property of another with intent to permanently deprive accomplished by means of force or fear.
Larceny + accomplished by means of force or fear
Robbery CONTAINS Larceny
Armed Robbery:
For D to commit the crime of armed robbery, the D must “be armed with a dangerous weapon” at the time of the crime
Dangerous Weapon:
The victim’s viewpoint is the determinative factor- if a replica or fake weapon, did the victim reasonably believe that the D had a real weapon?
Remember, the jury still had to determine if it was a reasonable belief.
Amount of Force:
The difference between larceny and robbery is the use of force - no matter how slight.
There has to be some degree of force or fear that the victim comprehends to make it robbery and not just larceny
But, mere removal of property attached to a victim (like a pickpocket) is not the kind of force needed for robbery. It is not mere physical effort.
Sufficient force for robbery must be enough to overcome the physical resistance created by the attachment of an item to the person.
Burglary:
Breaking and entering of the dwelling house of another at night with the intent to commit a felony therein
Breaking Down Burglary:
Breaking → actus reus
Entering → actus reus
Dwelling house of another (structure) → attendant circumstances
At night (anytime) → attendant circumstances
With intent to commit a felony therein → mens rea
Entry:
Entry can be proved by direct evidence eye-witnesses) or circumstantial evidence that indicates the D was inside the structure.
Entry can be accomplished by the intrusion into the building of any part of the body, an arm, a hand, a finger or a foot, and in some instances, an instrument, providing the instrument is inserted and utilized as a means of effectuating or attempting to effectuate the theft.
Burglary - Breaking:
Breaking traditionally means “break into” or “unlawful entry.”
Things that can constitute breaking:
Actual force - kicking down a door, breaking a lock
Pushing open an unlocked or even partially open door or window, even just slightly
Entering through a completely open door if the entrant is not permitted to be there
Achieving entry through a fraud (pretend to be a maintenance worker) = constructive breaking
Intent - ANY Felony:
Breaking and entering of the dwelling house of another at night with the intent to commit a felony therein.
Timing of Intent - Concurrence:
A person is not guilty of burglary if she does not form the intent to commit a felony within a structure until after she is inside.
Ex: D breaks into a home because it’s pouring and she wants to get out of the wet and cold. At that point she may be guilty of trespassing, vandalism, etc. If she sees expensive art once she’s inside and decides to steal it, she may be guilty of larceny, but she’s still not guilty of burglary because there was no concurrence of her actions and intent for that crime.