Criminal Law Study Guide

Foundations of Criminal Law

Criminal law is a body of rules defining conduct prohibited by the state and prescribing punishments for its violation. These rules are designed to maintain social order, protect individual rights, and ensure public safety. Its functions include retribution (inflicting proportional punishment on morally blameworthy individuals), deterrence (preventing future criminal behavior through fear of punishment), rehabilitation (reforming offenders into law-abiding citizens), and incapacitation (removing offenders from society to prevent further harm).

• Purposes of criminal law: retribution, deterrence (general and specific), rehabilitation, incapacitation, restoration

• Sources of law: Common law (judge-made law based on precedent) vs. Model Penal Code (a statutory text used as a guide for states)

• Structure of criminal statutes: elements of the crime, definitions, defenses, and penalties

1. Justifications & Excuses

- **Justification** is a defense asserting that the defendant’s actions were right or permissible under the circumstances (e.g., self-defense).
- **Excuse** is a defense conceding that the defendant’s actions were wrong but arguing that the defendant should not be held responsible due to a lack of culpability (e.g., insanity).

Actus Reus

Actus reus refers to the physical element of a crime, requiring a voluntary act or a legally significant omission. A voluntary act is a bodily movement controlled by the actor’s will, distinguishing it from involuntary actions like convulsions or sleepwalking, which typically do not meet the requirement. Criminal liability for omissions arises under specific circumstances, such as failing to feed a dependent or neglecting a statutory duty. Also, status (e.g., being a drug addict in jurisdictions where this is criminalized) or constructive possession of contraband (having the power and intention to control it) may satisfy this element.

• Voluntary vs. involuntary acts: the act must be willed and not the product of reflex, duress, or automatism

• Criminal liability for omissions: only when there is a legal duty to act

• Possession as an act: actual vs. constructive possession; knowledge and control

• Legal duties to act: statutory, contractual, familial, or created by the defendant

2. Types of Possession

- **Actual Possession**: Physical control over the item.
- **Constructive Possession**: The ability to control the item, even if it is not physically on the person.

Mens Rea

Mens rea refers to the mental state required for a given crime. According to the Model Penal Code (MPC), mental states are ranked: purposefully (intent to cause a specific result), knowingly (awareness that the result is virtually certain), recklessly (conscious disregard of a substantial and unjustifiable risk), and negligently (failure to perceive a substantial and unjustifiable risk). These should be compared with common law terms like malice (intent to cause harm) or general intent (intent to perform the act), which are defined differently across jurisdictions. Also, review examples of strict liability crimes, which require no mens rea, focusing on public welfare offenses.

• Model Penal Code mental states: purpose, knowledge, recklessness, negligence (MPC § 2.02)

• Strict liability offenses: offenses that do not require mens rea (e.g., statutory rape) (think of misdemeanor traffic offenses)

• Transferred intent: when the intent to harm one person is transferred to another

3. Mental States

- **Purposefully**: The defendant’s conscious object is to cause a certain result.
- **Knowingly**: The defendant is aware that the result is practically certain to occur.
- **Recklessly**: The defendant consciously disregards a substantial and unjustifiable risk.
- **Negligently**: The defendant should have been aware of a substantial and unjustifiable risk.

Concurrence and Causation

Concurrence means that the actus reus and mens rea must coincide; the mens rea must exist at the time of the act. Causation requires that the defendant’s act is both the actual (but-for cause) and proximate cause of the harm. Proximate cause involves foreseeability: the harm must be a foreseeable result of the defendant’s actions. Intervening causes may break the chain of causation unless they are foreseeable.

• Temporal concurrence of actus reus and mens rea: the mental state must prompt the act

• Actual vs. proximate cause: but-for causation; legal causation

• Foreseeability and intervening causes: superseding causes that break the chain of liability

Homicide

Homicide includes all unlawful killings. At common law, murder involves malice aforethought, which includes intent to kill, intent to cause serious bodily harm, or depraved heart. Murder can be broken into degrees depending on jurisdiction, often differentiating premeditated murder from other forms. Voluntary manslaughter includes killings committed in the heat of passion upon adequate provocation. Involuntary manslaughter involves criminal negligence. The felony murder doctrine holds a defendant liable for deaths occurring during the commission of dangerous felonies. Review limitations such as the merger rule (the felony must be independent of the homicide) and agency vs. proximate cause theories (who must cause the death). The MPC classifies killings into murder, manslaughter, and negligent homicide, with different standards for each.

• Common law categories: murder (first and second degree), voluntary and involuntary manslaughter

• Felony murder rule and limitations: inherently dangerous felony requirement, limitations and exceptions

• Provocation and heat of passion: adequate provocation, cooling-off period

• MPC approach to homicide: murder, manslaughter, negligent homicide

4. Key Concepts

- **Malice Aforethought**: The mental state required for murder, encompassing intent to kill, intent to inflict serious bodily harm, or an abandoned and malignant heart.
- **Heat of Passion**: A state of extreme emotional disturbance, caused by adequate provocation, that can reduce murder to voluntary manslaughter.

Inchoate Crimes

Inchoate offenses include attempt, solicitation, and conspiracy. Attempt requires a specific intent to commit a crime and a substantial step toward its commission, beyond mere preparation. Solicitation involves urging another to commit a crime with the intent that they follow through. Conspiracy requires an agreement between two or more parties and, in some jurisdictions, an overt act. Defenses like abandonment (valid under the MPC if the defendant voluntarily and completely renounces the criminal purpose) and impossibility (legal vs. factual) are important. The Pinkerton Rule extends liability to co-conspirators for crimes committed in furtherance of the conspiracy.

• Attempt: substantial step test (MPC), proximity test (common law), abandonment (renunciation)

• Solicitation: elements and legal consequences, withdrawal

• Conspiracy: agreement, overt act, Pinkerton rule (liability for co-conspirators' acts)

• Legal vs. factual impossibility: only factual impossibility is not a defense

Accomplice Liability

Accomplice liability attaches to one who assists or encourages a crime with the intent to aid. A principal commits the crime, while an accomplice supports it. Focus on the mental state required for accomplice liability—intent to promote or facilitate the crime—and how accomplices may also be liable for additional crimes that are the natural and probable consequences of the intended offense. Distinguish between principals in the first degree (those who commit the criminal act) and principals in the second degree (those who aid, abet, or encourage the principal at the scene of the crime).

• Roles: principal in the first degree, principal in the second degree, accomplice (accessory before the fact), accessory after the fact

• Mens rea for accomplice liability: specific intent to aid the primary party

• Natural and probable consequence doctrine: liability for foreseeable crimes

Defenses to Crimes

Defenses fall into justification (making the act lawful) and excuse (negating culpability). Justification includes self-defense (reasonable belief in imminent harm), necessity (choosing the lesser evil to prevent a greater harm), and defense of others. Excuses include duress (threat of death or serious harm, immediate and unavoidable), insanity (various tests to determine mental incapacity), and infancy (lack of criminal capacity due to youth). Mistake of fact may negate mens rea, depending on the type of crime (specific vs. general intent), while mistake of law is rarely a defense except in specific cases (e.g., reliance on official interpretation). Explore defenses such as entrapment, which involves government inducement to commit a crime, and the defense of property, which allows reasonable force to protect one's property.

• Justification: self-defense, necessity, defense of others (reasonable and proportional force)

• Excuse: duress, insanity (M'Naghten, Irresistible Impulse, MPC tests), infancy

• Mistake of fact vs. mistake of law: effect on mens rea; exceptions for reliance on official advice

• Model Penal Code approach to defenses: broader recognition of mitigating circumstances

5. Insanity Tests

- **M’Naghten Rule**: The defendant did not know the nature and quality of the act or did not know that the act was wrong.
- **Irresistible Impulse Test**: The defendant could not control their actions due to a mental disease or defect.
- **Model Penal Code (MPC) Test**: The defendant lacked substantial capacity to appreciate the criminality of their conduct or to conform their conduct to the requirements of the law.

Strict Liability

Strict liability crimes require no proof of mens rea. These are usually regulatory or public welfare offenses like traffic violations, selling alcohol to minors, or food safety regulations. Examine the justification for punishing without fault—mainly administrative convenience and public safety—and the fairness concerns that arise from potential overbreadth or lack of deterrent value. These offenses often involve public safety concerns where the state imposes liability regardless of intent or knowledge.

• Definition and rationale: public welfare offenses, regulatory crimes

• Typical strict liability crimes (statutory rape, traffic offenses): examples and justifications

• Public welfare offenses: protecting health, safety, and environment

Public Policy and Punishment Theories

Public policy underlies many criminal law doctrines, influencing how crimes are defined and prosecuted. Theories of punishment (retributive, utilitarian) help explain sentencing practices and justify doctrines like felony murder or strict liability. Policy choices impact prosecutorial discretion, plea bargaining, and legislative drafting. How laws are written and enforced often reflects societal values, balancing individual rights with public safety.

• Goals of punishment: retribution, deterrence, rehabilitation, incapacitation, restoration

• Moral blameworthiness vs. legal culpability: discrepancies and implications

• Impact on legislative choices and grading of crimes: influencing offense classifications and penalties

Mental Illness and Capacity

Criminal law uses insanity defenses to excuse those who lack culpability due to mental illness. The M’Naghten Rule tests whether the defendant understood the nature or wrongfulness of their actions. The Irresistible Impulse Test examines the ability to control conduct. The MPC test asks whether the defendant lacked substantial capacity to appreciate criminality or conform conduct. Understand the procedural aspects of raising insanity and its differences from competence to stand trial, including evaluations by mental health professionals and burdens of proof.

• Insanity tests: M’Naghten, Irresistible Impulse, Durham, MPC (definitions and applications)

• Procedures for raising insanity: evaluations, burdens of proof, outcomes

• Competency to stand trial vs. criminal responsibility: differing standards and purposes

6. Competency vs. Insanity

- **Competency to Stand Trial**: Refers to the defendant’s present ability to understand the proceedings and assist in their defense.
- **Insanity**: Refers to the defendant’s mental state at the time of the offense, determining criminal responsibility.

Intoxication and Diminished Capacity

Voluntary intoxication may serve as a defense to specific intent crimes by negating the mental state. Involuntary intoxication may be treated similarly to insanity. Diminished capacity may be recognized in some jurisdictions as a partial defense or to negate mens rea. Study how these doctrines interact with defenses and sentencing mitigation, and their varying acceptance across jurisdictions. The MPC provides guidelines for considering intoxication as a defense.

• Voluntary vs. involuntary intoxication: distinctions and standards

• Effect on specific vs. general intent crimes: negation of mens rea

• Use of diminished capacity as a partial defense: criticisms and justifications

Consent

Consent can negate elements of crimes such as assault or sexual offenses. It must be voluntarily given, informed, and by someone legally competent. Consent is generally not a defense to serious bodily injury crimes or in cases where public policy forbids it (e.g., mutual combat, sadomasochism). Understand how courts draw boundaries based on harm, foreseeability, and legality. The absence of consent is often a key element in sexual assault cases.

• Legal requirements for valid consent: voluntary, knowing, and intelligent

• Limitations imposed by public policy: harm principle, legality

• Consent in bodily harm cases: exceptions and limitations

7. Key Considerations for Consent

- **Voluntariness**: Consent must be freely given, without coercion or duress.
- **Informed Consent**: The person must understand the nature and potential consequences of the act.
- **Competence**: The person must have the legal capacity to give consent.

Procedural Doctrines

Understand burdens of proof: the prosecution must prove each element beyond a reasonable doubt. Defendants may carry the burden of producing evidence for affirmative defenses, but the burden of persuasion often remains with the prosecution. Distinguish between legal and factual impossibility, and how they apply to inchoate crimes. Review procedural posture in motions to dismiss, jury instructions, and appellate review. The exclusionary rule and the fruit of the poisonous tree doctrine also impact how evidence is admitted.

• Burden of proof and presumptions: beyond a reasonable doubt, affirmative defenses

• Failure of proof vs. affirmative defenses: differing burdens and