Docsity
Log inSign up
Docsity
Prepare for your exams
Prepare for your exams

Study with the several resources on Docsity

Earn points to download
Earn points to download

Earn points by helping other students or get them with a premium plan

Guidelines and tips
Guidelines and tips
Sell on Docsity
Sell on Docsity
Docsity AI
Docsity AI
Log inSign up

Prepare for your exams

Study with the several resources on Docsity

Find documents

Prepare for your exams with the study notes shared by other students like you on Docsity

Search for your university

Find the specific documents for your university's exams

Docsity AINEW

Summarize your documents, ask them questions, convert them into quizzes and concept maps

Explore questions

Clear up your doubts by reading the answers to questions asked by your fellow students

Earn points to download

Earn points by helping other students or get them with a premium plan

Share documents
download point icon20 Points

For each uploaded document

Answer questions
download point icon5 Points

For each given answer (max 1 per day)

All the ways to get free points
Get points immediately

Choose a premium plan with all the points you need

Study Opportunities

Choose your next study program

Get in touch with the best universities in the world. Search through thousands of universities and official partners

Community

Ask the community

Ask the community for help and clear up your study doubts

Free resources

Our save-the-student-ebooks!

Download our free guides on studying techniques, anxiety management strategies, and thesis advice from Docsity tutors

Criminal Law Outline 2 - Mistake of Law, Strict Liability, Vicarious Liability, Legality, Rape - Professor Siegel, Study notes of Law

University of Florida (UF)Law

Outline for Criminal Law. Criminal Law is a mandatory course for law school students. This outline particularly for Professor Siegel's Criminal Law class at UF Levin College of Law. Part two includes: Mistake of Law, Strict Liability, Vicarious Liability, Legality, Rape

Typology: Study notes

2011/2012

Uploaded on 05/17/2012

gator_law
gator_law 🇺🇸

4.3

(4)

13 documents

1 / 7

Toggle sidebar

This page cannot be seen from the preview

Don't miss anything!

bg1
Criminal(Law(–(Professor(Siegel(
Session(1(
( ( us.docsity.com(
Lambert v. California
All convicted persons in LA must register w/in 5 days, she is convicted. She claims ignorance of
the law, typically not an excuse
Which exception does she fall into? None really
-She was being prosecuted for the person she (felon) is not anything she did
-We don’t want the police to have a ready list of suspects, they should investigate on their own,
We typically don’t treat criminal law like this; we usually don’t have to give notice
Exception: sex offenders
Ex Post Facto – cannot enforce law “after the fact” (after it is published)
Bill of Attainer – a special law for a particular person, also illegal
C. MISTAKE OF LAW…WHEN NOT A DEFENSE?
1. under CL and MPC, mistake of law is not an excuse [MPC §2.02(9)]
2. why not a defense:
a. policy: do not want to encourage ignorance of the law
b. floodgates, every criminal could use a defense of misinterpretation
3. Exception: MPC §2.04 (3)—MIL is a defense if:
a. Statute/enactment not published or made known to actor prior to alleged conduct
b. If person acts in reasonable reliance upon an official statement of the law,
afterward determined to be invalid or erroneous contained in (i) statute or other
enactment, (ii) a judicial opinion, statement, or judgment (iii) administrative order
or grant of judgment (iv) official interpretation of the public officer or body
charged by law with responsibility for the interpretation, administration, or
enforcement of the law defining the offense.
4. NOT defenses:
a. One’s own misinterpretation of the law (even if investigated)
b. Advice from prosecutor/legal counsel
c. Advice that doesn’t come in an official way (informal statement)
D. CASES:
1. Regina v. Prince: man charged with “unlawfully taking” a girl under the age of 16, even
though he honestly believed she was 18. The court found that he was strictly liable as to material
element of age. MIF would of have been a defense if he thought he had permission to take her.
[Morally wrong doctrine] (MIF)
2. People v. Olsen, Ca.1984: girl sleeping in camper, sex with 13 yr old, who D reasonably and
mistakenly believes she is over 16. Held: no defense. Rule: people under 14 are in need of
special protection (strict liability). (MIF)
3. People v. Marrero, NY, 1987: prison guard is convicted of carrying an unregistered firearm.
He thought statute that he researched applied to him as a “peace officer”. He made a mistake in
his interpretation of the law. No MIL defense. (MPC 2.04(3))
pf3
pf4
pf5

Partial preview of the text

Download Criminal Law Outline 2 - Mistake of Law, Strict Liability, Vicarious Liability, Legality, Rape - Professor Siegel and more Study notes Law in PDF only on Docsity!

Session 1 Lambert v. California All convicted persons in LA must register w/in 5 days, she is convicted. She claims ignorance of the law, typically not an excuse Which exception does she fall into? None really

  • She was being prosecuted for the person she (felon) is not anything she did
  • We don’t want the police to have a ready list of suspects, they should investigate on their own, We typically don’t treat criminal law like this; we usually don’t have to give notice Exception : sex offenders Ex Post Facto – cannot enforce law “after the fact” (after it is published) Bill of Attainer – a special law for a particular person, also illegal C. MISTAKE OF LAW…WHEN NOT A DEFENSE?
    1. under CL and MPC, mistake of law is not an excuse [MPC §2.02(9)]
    2. why not a defense: a. policy: do not want to encourage ignorance of the law b. floodgates, every criminal could use a defense of misinterpretation
    3. Exception: MPC §2.04 (3)—MIL is a defense if: a. Statute/enactment not published or made known to actor prior to alleged conduct b. If person acts in reasonable reliance upon an official statement of the law, afterward determined to be invalid or erroneous contained in (i) statute or other enactment, (ii) a judicial opinion, statement, or judgment (iii) administrative order or grant of judgment (iv) official interpretation of the public officer or body charged by law with responsibility for the interpretation, administration, or enforcement of the law defining the offense.
    4. NOT defenses: a. One’s own misinterpretation of the law (even if investigated) b. Advice from prosecutor/legal counsel c. Advice that doesn’t come in an official way (informal statement) D. CASES:
  1. Regina v. Prince: man charged with “unlawfully taking” a girl under the age of 16, even though he honestly believed she was 18. The court found that he was strictly liable as to material element of age. MIF would of have been a defense if he thought he had permission to take her. [Morally wrong doctrine] ( MIF)
  2. People v. Olsen, Ca.1984: girl sleeping in camper, sex with 13 yr old, who D reasonably and mistakenly believes she is over 16. Held: no defense. Rule: people under 14 are in need of special protection (strict liability). (MIF)
  3. People v. Marrero, NY, 1987: prison guard is convicted of carrying an unregistered firearm. He thought statute that he researched applied to him as a “peace officer”. He made a mistake in his interpretation of the law. No MIL defense. (MPC 2.04(3))

Session 1

  1. Cheek v. US, 1991: believed he did not have to pay income tax, “wages” clarification. Tax evasion is a criminal offense so he is entitled to a §2.02(9) defense which would theoretically allow him a defense. However, b/c 2.02 (9) also says “unless definition provides” he is excused b/c the statute he argues acknowledges “willfully”—meaning he would have to prove MR of knowing. ( MIL)
  2. U.S. v. Albertini, 1987: defendant protested outside naval base. While case being sent to SC for certiorari, he protested again—believing he had right to b/c of AC ruling. Held: MIL defense b/c relying on official interpretation of the law. (MPC§2.04 (3))
  3. Lambert v. California, 1957: criminal moved to LA, did not know or have reason to know to register as a felon and was charged with violation. Held: MIL defense available b/c had no prior notification. (MPC 2.04 (3-1)).
  1. Strict Liability: N o culpable mental state (mens rea) required, it is enough that D has performed the act. (Statutory rape, bigamy). a) Interpretation: where statutes fail to impose a mens rea requirement for an element or attendant circumstance courts will read one in by looking at statutory purpose. b) If act is morally wrong courts will find that the mens rea exists. c) Courts are not likely to impose SL where a statute codifies the common law. d) Less likely to find SL where statute is complex, easy to violate innocently, and/or imposes a stiff penalty. e) Defense: prove that actus reus was involuntary f) MPC 2.05 provides that where SL is imposed to any material element of an offense, it can only be a violation (minor offense punished only by fine or forfeiture). Presumption is against SL. g) Public welfare crimes (malum prohibitum) are held to SL. ex/ illegal sale of liquor, sale of impure foods & drugs, misbranded items h) Statutory rape (age element) is held to SL. i) Non-material elements (jurisdiction etc.) are held to SL. j) Regulatory measure social betterment rather than punishment k) Many drug statutes (packaging, distributing, etc.) C. MPC APPROACH:
    1. §2.02 (1): generally declines notion of SL b/c requires mens rea for each material element
    2. §2.05: recognizes that “absolute liability” for violations that cannot result in imprisonment/probation, but may result in fines. D. CASES:

Session 1

  1. Must have notice ; or fair warning of what the crime is. a. Keller v. Superior Court (pg ) D is charged with murder of an unborn fetus. Held: not guilty because legislative intent was not to include fetus, and CL so far has not included, so to do so would violate due process.
  2. Constructive notice is sufficient.
  3. Prior Notice is required; if punishment changes after the crime is committed you can’t be held to it.
  4. Adequate notice is required, can’t be unconstitutionally vague, i.e. gives too much police power/discrimination.

1. Shaw v. Director of Public Prosecutions (pg ) D is convicted of “conspiracy to corrupt public morals” for publishing a magazine offering prostitutes. Held: Law is unconstitutionally vague: a. It is an ex post facto law made by court b. Too vague to be enforced, doesn’t put D on notice of what acts will be held illegal. c. Can’t predict what a jury will decide is corruption of public morals.

VI. Rape

(Sexual Intercourse) (by force or threat of force) (against the will and without consent)

  • Rape is only crime where you question the victim’s mens rea, not the D’s 1. Sexual intercourse
    • Always required
    • Penetration, however slight ( unlawful : can not rape wife, traditional property rimes, MPC adopts this, but if spouse aided others to rape his wife, he could be guilty of rape) 2. Without consent / Against will a. Majority : always required Sometimes you will see compel Even if it doesn’t say, you read it into the statute - Some states have eliminated the force requirement Therefore, criminal whenever consent is absent
    • Traditionally : Non-Consent proved only by physical resistance, NOW… b. 4 ways to express Non-Consent
      1. Just saying no- verbal resistance, some courts this is sufficient
      2. No + other behavior that makes unwillingness clear (Totality of circumstances)
      3. No OR anything other than words or conduct that say yes, MTS case NJ: consent can be established by silence

Session 1

  1. Simply not saying yes c. Fraud in the inducement/deception
  • Is Not rape
  • They still know they are having sex, no matter how despicable the fraud
  • Ex/ Sham marriage ceremony
  • Courts are split: People v. Evans (346) “medical treatment” d. Exception: Fraud in the factum
  • Is rape
  • No consent if you don’t actually understand that you are having sex.
  • Majority (Calif.): woman has sex w/man that is not her husband, is factum
  • No consent were victim is drunk, drugged, unconscious (some states only where D caused the intoxication) do not have to prove force
  • If D makes a reasonable mistake as to consent he does not have the mens rea for rape but,
  • If mistake is reckless or negligent many courts hold no defense e. Statutory Rape
  • Under 10 : not capable of consenting, do not have to prove force
  • Majority : S/L, even reasonable belief V is of age not an excuse
  • MPC : allows a reasonable mistake of age unless V is under 10 213.6(1) (1 and 2 always required) 3. Force / Threat of force (confirm lack of consent) a. Threat of force - serious bodily harm or death to the victim or imminent threat of serious bodily harm or death to a 3 rd party Forcible compulsion - Physical force or violence b. Majority:
  • Force is required; something additional beyond penetration, usually “forcible compulsion”
  • Only threats of physical harm are sufficient Not sufficient to use your power, Ex/ destitute widow
  • Threat can be imminent harm to another, kidnapping
  • Threat to the victim doesn’t have to be imminent c. Minority - Even in the absence of force, nonconsensual intercourse

Session 1 b. Minority / MPC: not mentioned so reckless

  • Reckless to the element of consent by the victim
  • He should have known they were not consenting
  • Mistake of fact is a defense If it is honest even if it is unreasonable (b/c reckless) c. Strict Liability : no mens rea Mass. (Commonwealth v. Ascolillo, 358) and Penn. (Commonwealth v. Fisher)
  • There is no mistake defense 2.05 under the MPC impose reckless
  • if they don’t state mens rea, fall back on 2.
  • can have strict liability/neg. will call it a violation
  • they will permit no mens rea crimes, no imprisonment, get a fine instead, call it a violation