Download Criminal Law Outline 2 and more Study notes Law in PDF only on Docsity!
Criminal Law – Professor Seigel
Types of arguments:
- deontological – First principles. It is just wrong to take another life even if it means saving your own; it is immoral
- precedent
- analogy – drawing situations and how they would be handled
- ad hominine – attacking the person instead of the law
- utilitarian – greatest good for the greatest number of people (type) slippery slope – if we allow this, then we will allow something worse, and then chaos
- teleological – anything that is not deontological
- ad hoc – case by case basis
Purposes of Punishment:
- Retribution – punishing b/c the defendant deserves it (deontological argument)
- Deterrence – punishment is justified b/c it reduces (discourages) crime later, primarily through fear of punishment in the future. a. Specific : this perpetrator – taught a lesson so he will never do it again b. General : Others – what message will it be sending to others if he is not punished?
- Rehabilitation – punishing or pursuing other alternatives to improve a criminal’s character and outlook so that he or she will function in society without committing future crimes
- Incapacitation – making it physically impossible for a person to commit a crime, typically by incarceration
- Equal Justice – (fits well with retribution) there are no special privileges; same crime – same time for ALL people no matter race/family/income etc.
Sentencing guidelines:
• Indeterminate sentencing – maximum sentencing guidelines for a crime ie. Robbery – up to 20 years, but it
could be anywhere in between. System with parole
• Determinate sentencing – guidelines base system where you get points for each thing in the crime (20 + 2
- 3 – 3 = 22 – base offense) Then there is a chart with crime history to determine how long you will be in jail. I II III IV V and base offense on the side. Also, no parole or 85% served under this system. Problems: 1. is the idea of equal justice right? 2. how do you decide the severity of crime? 3. limiting trial by just like sentence trial Supreme Court ruled guidelines cannot be mandatory but are advisory
ELEMENTS TO A CRIME: - MPC §1.13(9)
Ingredients to crime like murder – everything prosecution must prove beyond a reasonable doubt i. such conduct (actus reus) ii. such attendant circumstances iii. result iv. mens rea – mental state to commit crime v. negate justification or excuse defenses vi. negate statute of limitations defense vii. establish jurisdiction or venue (districts; towns)
I. ACTUS REUS – conduct VERB!! Actus Reus – requires voluntary action or conduct However, some voluntary conduct could be found if you move back in time… So… Question Is this voluntary conduct sufficient to satisfy actus reus requirement? Answer Is it 1. blame worthy 2. conduct legislature intended to deter?
Martin v. State pg. 173
He voluntarily got drunk, but he did not voluntarily appear in a public place
People v. Newton pg 175
Should have a jury instruction on if his conduct was voluntary when shooting the police officer because he was shot before he shot the police officer
What constitutes voluntary conduct? MPC §2.01(2) The following are NOT voluntary acts w/in the meaning of this section: a. reflex or convulsion b. bodily movement during unconsciousness or sleep c. conduct during hypnosis d. bodily movement that otherwise is not a product of the effort or determination of the actor, either conscious or habitual
Habit – the MPC expressly declares that a habitual action done w/out thought is to be treated as a voluntary action Possession – is an act only if the person is aware she has the thing she is charged with possessing
What about failure to act? Jones v. United States pg 190 The court could not find a legal duty for her to act. Morally, she should have cared for starving baby but no legal duty.
Rule: No law in U.S. where you have to be a good Samaritan – no legal duty to do the morally right thing. Americans put a value on freedom. We want people to do the right thing, but we don’t want to force them to do it. omission is generally not sufficient actus reus exceptions: status relationships: a. parent to child; husband to wife; master to apprentice; innkeeper to inebriated customers b. if the law provides otherwise – when teachers are w/ students, they act as parents and have to act c. contract to do so (babysitter) d. prevent other from helping or move a person so others cannot find them or act e. if you are the cause of harm even on accident have an obligation to act.
*STUDY GUIDE FOR POPE V. STATE pg. 183
- Under what exception to Good Samaritan rule is prosecution proceeding?
- What is the key issue of statutory interpretation?
- Did Pope have responsibility for the supervision of the child in the circumstances?
- What is the court’s holding?
- she had no legal obligation to help – she does not fall within the class of person to whom the child abuse statute applies
- Identify the arguments the court makes/implies in support of its holding
- ad hominine – specific evidence sets this case aside
- Counter arguments
- deontological – some one should be held responsible for child’s death b/c it’s wrong
- utilitarian – makes the greatest good happy to punish her
IV. MENS REA - culpability Mens Rea attaches to first 6 elements
MPC 2.02(3) - If a statute does not define the mens rea, recklessness is the default mens rea to the crime. MPC 2.02(4) – apply mens rea in a statute to all parts or elements
Levels (highest to lowest): MPC 2.
- Purposely – it is his conscious object to engage in conduct
- Knowingly – you know it is going to happen or confident it will MPC 2.02 (7) Requirement of knowledge satisfied by knowledge of high probablility – can’t just say don’t tell me what you are putting in my car A defense can be: an honest, unreasonable mistake, with awareness of the risk
- Recklessly – aware of the risk, but you do it anyway
■ Reliance on an invalid statute
■ Reliance on a judicial decision
■ Reliance on an administrative order
■ Reliance on an official interpretation
• Not state attorney’s opinion (Hopkins)
RAPE
Why we study rape: 1. serious offense
- raises all kinds of policy issues as what constitutes rape – undergone major changes
Actus Reus elements: force or threat of force and sexual intercourse
Traditional Rape Elements – still major common law view (North Carolina, Maryland)
- sexual intercourse
- a. by force risking serious bodily injury or death OR b. by threat of force of serious bodily injury or death
- a. victim’s physical resistance to fend off force OR b. victim’s fear to explain lack of resistance
- against will and without consent of victim
Why need threat of force?
- with a threat of force, it is more easily determined if rape instead of just a he said/ she said
- traditionally, rape is a crime of violence and this maintains that. Seigel’s views why:
- We worry about label being attached to people who do not deserve it.
- by keeping threat, you separate clods (dummies) from the thugs. State v. Alston – pg. 332 (NORTH CAROLINA) Past experience is irrelevant to show force compulsion for rape. Ruled that a general fear may be justified, but not enough to show force required to support conviction
Forcible Compulsion Element PENNSYLVANIA VIEW: Commonwealth v. Mlinarich pg 334 Statute defined forcible compulsion as: use of physical, intellectual, moral, emotional, or psychological force
MPC:
Forcible compulsion – compels to submit by force or threat of death, etc. Majority view – can say no all you want, but there needs to be some force or physical resistance
NEW JERSEY: State in the Interest of M.T.S. pg. 338 Ruled that the element of force is met simply by an act of nonconsensual penetration involving no more force than necessary to accomplish that result Force = act itself Cases now rest on consent which is defined by affirmative freely given permission (words or actions)
NEW YORK: People v. Evans pg. 346 Majority view – fraud is not a way to convict for rape (fraud in the factum) Acts may be reprehensible, but obtaining sex through fraud is not a crime Problems for prosecution in this case: 1. threat 2. little physical resistance Traditionally…
- fraud in the factum – misunderstanding of nature of the act itself (thinks it’s her husband or does not realize it’s sex… OBGYN) - rape
- fraud in the inducement – inducing by lying about who you are – not rape
MENS REA ELEMENT
MASSACHUSETTS: Commonwealth v. Sherry pg 351 Believes no physical force necessary to have force element Issue: mistake of fact on the issue of consent – defendants want knowledge as requisite mens rea, but court rules that it requires negligence Commonwealth v. Ascolillo – even if it is found that a mistake is honest and reasonable, it doesn’t matter – here MA is attaching strict liability to consent
PENNSYLVANIA: Commonwealth v. Fischer pg. 354 strict liability w/o a supreme court ruling – does not allow mistake of fact or negligent mens rea
MAJORITY: attach negligence – honest and reasonable mistake
HOMICIDE
Taking of human life Murder - killing of a person with “malice aforethought.” Malice aforethought – express: purpose or knowledge Implied: no provocation, “abandoned and malignant heart” -mistake of law not a defense for murder if you don’t have malice aforethought, you don’t have murder
- Degrees of Murder: 1 st^ degree – willful, deliberate, premeditated, 2 nd, 3rd, felony murder – murder while committing a felony *PA credited with separating 1st^ and 2nd^ degree Theories of Murder: 1. felony murder
- recklessness plus
- purpose/knowledge Mens Rea under Major Common Law for Murder (that have not adopted negligent homicide) Purpose, or knowledge, or reckless + depraved indifference to the value of life Mens Rea under MPC for Murder Purpose, or knowledge, or recklessness + extreme indifference to value of life
PENNSYLVANIA – Commonwealth v. Carroll pg. 396 no time to short to create premeditation – form in an instant It’s premeditated if it’s premeditated – tautology It’s wrong to think about murder – deontological
• “in an instant” is basically allowing court to determine if there was malice aforethought
for murder, and it can give leverage for prosecutors for guilty pleas – plead guilty and we will drop it to 2 nd^ degree.
WEST VIRGINA and CALIFORNIA – evidence of actual reflection - there has to be some time period before killing to contemplate or have premeditation. State v. Guthrie pg. 400 and People v. Anderson pg 403
MPC – gets rid of premeditation as requirement for murder all together
Many states distinguish: premeditated – 1st^ degree Not premeditated – 2nd^ degree Evidence that supports finding premeditation:
- “planning activity
- prior relationship with victim which indicates a motive to kill
- nature or manner of killing which indicate deliberate intention
Recklessness + depraved indifference to value of human life
Judge went through test and did not find what he did was reasonable -Casassa was acting malevolently
2. Involuntary Manslaughter Mens Rea – Recklessness under both MPC and common law Commonwealth v. Welansky pg. 425 Failure to protect patrons – involuntary manslaughter 3. Negligent Homicide (only under the MPC – most states do not have this now) MR – gross negligence State v. Williams pg. 431 Crime of manslaughter for negligently failing to supply their 17 month old with necessary medical attention as a result, he died. » no question of not loving the child ISSUE of proximate cause – need “ordinary caution” as defense -you do not take heredity, intelligence, or temperament into account when judging reasonableness of a person b/c: 1. you should know you are dumber and seek more guidance – deontological 2. where do you draw the line – flood gates
Felony Murder Rule MPC §210.2(1)(b) Wipes out MR requirement for murder – only need mens rea for underlying felony » if your felony results in a death – you can be strictly liable for the death
Regina v. Serne pg 448 Charged with willfully setting fire to his house and having his imbecile child die 2 METHODS TO FIND HIM GUILTY:
- the killing of another person by an act done with an intent to commit a felony (felony – murder rule)
- an act done with the knowledge that the act will probably cause the death of some person (recklessness plus)
This case: felony = arson Prosecutors like felony murder because it is basically a short cut
People v. Phillips pg 459 CALIFORNIA Child had cancer of the eye and needed it removed immediately. Phillips told family to build up resistance w/ medicine. Child died with in 6 months. INITIAL CRIME: Grand theft by false pretenses
California believes : Only crimes that are “inherently dangerous” apply felony murder rule
2 ways to decide inherently dangerous:
- crime in the abstract – defined by statute (California)
- crime as committed by this defendant in this case (Rhode Island)
California believes grand theft is not inherently dangerous so no felony murder applied favors defendents
People v. Satchell pg. 462 CALIFORNIA Possession of a concealable weapon by an ex felon is not inherently dangerous either favors defendents
People v. Stewart pg. 464 RHODE ISLAND Rhode Island views inherently dangerous as the crime as committed by this defendant in this case (ad hoc) She is charged with child neglect which would not be a crime inherently dangerous by statute or in the abstract favors prosecution
basically, it’s always going to be inherently dangerous b/c a death resulted
People v. Smith pg 466 Beat her child to hard and child died ISSUE: does child abuse merge into homicide conviction » just about every homicide is preceded by a felonious act and plaintiffs would not have to prove mens rea on any homicides Therefore, you have to say some felonies merge with homicide and you CANNOT use felony murder rule Independent felonious purpose test – one felonious purpose resulting in death – distinct enough so felony murder attaches Ex: in robbery your independent purpose is to get money – never to kill – does not merge could view it as an ad hoc basis or case by case basis for merger
State v. Canola pg 471 Should cofelon be liable for death when other felon shot him?
- proximate cause
- agency – even though sometimes felony is proximate cause of death, limited to when killing is in furtherance of the felony – one of the cofelons has to commit the homicide ie. Policeman does killing – agency not met
MAJORITY VIEW:
Proximate cause plus co-felon exception If a co-felon is murdered by a police officer, the other felons are not liable for the death
LIMITATIONS to Felony Murder:
- Is the felony inherently dangerous? a. abstract crime – defined by statute (CA) b. as applied – crime as committed by this defendant
- Merger Doctrine a. single course of conduct with singe purpose – integral part of and included in fact with the homicide b. “ad hoc” – case by case basis to merger doctrine
- Felony must be the legal cause of death
CHAPTER 6: SIGNIFICANCE OF RESULTING HARM
Causation
People v. Acosta pg. 518 Legal Cause: 1. Actual Cause (cause in fact) – but for test
- Proximate Cause – foreseeable outcome (objective)
- Was there an intervening human actor who broke the causal chain »need ALL of these to have legal cause!!!
Applied to this case:
- But for Acosta’s egregious driving the helicopters would have never been there and crashed
- He argues how can it be objectively foreseeable when it has never happened before BUT court rules he could have foreseen it
HOWEVER: even though it passes the foreseeability test, in order to show recklessness for murder that he must have foreseen risk and disregarded it Therefore, he cannot be convicted of murder b/c of mens rea, but there is causation
Foreseeability – a completely malleable concept » is it just to hold defendant liable
RULE: Intervener breaks casual chain B. Intervener also is reckless RULE: cases split Root – breaks causal chain McFadden, Atencio, Feinberg - do not
CHAPTER 8: EXCULPATION (DEFENSES)
PRINCIPLES OF JUSTIFICATION
SELF DEFENSE
Elements of Self Defense:
- must be a threat (if you use deadly force, must have deadly threat; if you punch, must have threat of punch)
- threat must be unlawful and immediate
- believe he was in imminent peril of death or serious bodily harm, and response was necessary to save himself
- beliefs must be objectively reasonable
MPC uses immediate instead of imminent for self defense – thought they were being more lenient when they made it
People v. Geotz pg. 751 this is a case of jury nullification high profile case where jury does not follow law, and they can choose to do that, BUT defense cannot urge jury to not follow the law Reasonable is always OBJECTIVE!!!
Will not take race into account of self defense! Will take size, outnumbered, previous experience, but will not look at race
BATTERED WOMAN’S SYDROME
General Rule: If a case appears to have self defense claim – allow battered woman sydrome
DUTY TO RETREAT
Common Law: there is a duty to retreat
- If defendant resorts to deadly force
- actor knows he can avoid the necessity of using such force with complete safety by retreating »EXCEPT: if you are in your own home, there is no duty to retreat unless a co occupant is attacking you MPC: §3.
- If you are at your place of work, no duty to retreat unless a coworker is attacking you
- Even if a co occupant of your home is attacking, no duty to retreat
*Aggressor is not allowed to use deadly force!
- you have a duty to withdraw
- once you withdraw and person comes at you with force, self defense restored
Words alone are not enough to be aggressor, but coupled with anything (body language; physical) you are aggressor
MPC §3.04(2)(b)(i) – Aggressor If other person ratchets it up to deadly force, you can use it Makes it more limited MPC §3.09 addresses if in self defense you accidentally shoot a bystander – we are going to see if you acted negligently or recklessly, you may likely be liable if you are reckless
-Common law the same way
DEFENSE OF NECESSITY –
MPC §3.02 – Justification generally a choice of evils (1) Subjective – actor believes to be necessary (a) Objective - conduct is greater than that sought is NOT a defense to taking of one’s life
Lovercamp – federal precedent for necessity where defense can be submitted to the jury where these 5 conditions are met:
- prisoner is faced w/ specific threat of death, forcible sexual attack or substantial bodily injury in the immediate future
- There is no time for a complaint to the authorities or there exists a history of futile complaints which make any result from such complaints illusory
- there is no time or opportunity to resort to the courts
- there is no evidence of force or violence used towards prison personnel or other innocent persons in the escape
- the prisoner immediately reports to the proper authorities when he has attained a position of safety from the immediate threat People v. Unger pg 809 Rules that precedent of Lovercamp does not need to apply ALL the criteria in it. Will take them into account, but you do not have to meet every one
»dissent – worried about more prisoners escaping and using defense (utilitarian – more harm then good)
Borough of Southwark v. Williams pg 813 RULE: When we say necessary, we mean NECESSARY! If there are alternatives, burden on defendant to find them
Commonwealth v. Hutchins pg 814 RULE: Need an imminent threat
DURESS
MPC §2.
- Source of threat: another person
- threat: unlawful force – defendant or another person
- reasonable firmness could not resist
- can take an innocent life
»MPC does not allow the taking of a life under necessity, why under duress? Pg. 854 says under duress, law will hold some one else liable for deaths but under necessity there is no one else to blame for deaths
Common Law View:
- source of threat: another person
- threat: must be imminent
- apprehension of death or serious bodily injury
- NEVER excuses killing of an innocent
- (some jurisdictions) choose lesser evil
State v. Toscano pg 845 (NEW JERSEY) Should be allowed defense of duress b/c they apply MPC version Prosecution could argue that since he has gambling debts, he brought this upon himself
INSANITY
