Cases Midterm

Question 1

Morisette v. US (1952)

Answer 1

Do acts which are bad in themselves (inc. larceny) require the element of mens rea + will any similar strict liabillty statute not be construed as eliminating the mens rea element?

• Distinguishes rationales of tradinonal crimes v. public welfare offences.
• omission of expressed provision of mens rea in conversion statutes deriving from common law offences + exclusion of mens rea.
• Intent so inherent to tradinonal crimes = Do not need mentioning.
• Unlawful conversion of gov. property evolved from larceny = specific intent.

YES

Question 2

Roper v. Simmons

Answer 2

Unconstitutionality of YOUTH DP under 8th Am.?

Proportionality of formal sentences → Gross disproportion to crime committed:
* 0l test:
→ national consensus = 20 had it but only 6 used it.
→ International consensus

• INJ:
  → Youth are immature = can change for better
  → Must be protected
  → Diminished culpability + blameworthiness
  → Brain maturity + malleability
  → Constitutionally different = Treated differently

VIOLATION of 8th Am.

Question 3

Roger v. Tennesse (1998)

Answer 3

Does the ex post facto clause protect against retroactive judicial d.?

• Calder test only applies to legislative acts = Not extended → Court MAY interpret doctrine/ statute retroactively UNLESS such interpretation = indifensible + unexpected → Not the case → Rule was outdated + abolished in other States.
  → Fair note respected.
  → SOP
• DO Scalia → changed statute = Creating new law = Beyond SOP
  → Ban on passing retroactive laws should apply
  → Fair notice not respected = Did not know until Court.

NO, it does not.

Question 4

State v. Miranda (1990)

Answer 4

Does a stepdads failure to protect the child from parental abuse amount to assault by omission? Is there a legal duty to protect?

• Statutory offence includes failure to act.
• Special relationship creates legal duty to act.
• Voluntarily assumed the care of kids
• Case-by-case assessment

C+ DO → Rogers → creation of new law
→ Ex post facto laws
→ Due process (fair notice)

YES

Question 5

Leather Spray Case (1990)

Answer 5

Are BOD criminally liable for harm inflicted using leather spray due to failure to recall + continuing production?

• Crime elements = Act/omission + causation + social harm
• Assessing causation:
  1.- Actual cause = YES = using specific sprays causing harm.
  2.- Objective imputation = YES
  → Created wrongful nish
  → Guarantor duty to avert harm
  → Failed to avert harm = Refused to recall product .
  → Collectively responsible → 1 BOD against = Did not do everything possible

HELD LABLE

Question 6

State v. Tipetts (2002)

Answer 6

Was it a voluntary act?
* To be CL → Involuntary act must be a foreseeable or likely consequence of the voluntary act.
* Arrest = IC = MJ introduced into jail
* Not a direct result of merely possessing MJ
* No proof of possession.

LACK OF VOLUNTARY ACT.

Question 7

Leather Strap Case (1955)

Answer 7

Did D’s act with dolus eventualis?
Dolus eventualis = Awareness (c) + Acceptance (v) of risk
* RC → YES → D’s clearly foresaw the harmful consequence as possible
* CA → NO → Recognising a harmful consequence DOES NOT equal approval.
* FC → YES → Awareness + aceptance recognised + proved.
→ Dolus eventualis also exists if the occurrence of result is not desired.
→ Prioritising own intenest at any cost!

YES

Question 8

People v. Baker (2004)

Answer 8

Whether there was intent to kill the baby?

• Evidence = Everything
  → lack of proof of intention + depraved indifference BARD.
• Intention → Statement not sufticient .
• Depraved indifference → Lack of proof of wanton indifference to human life.
• Recklessness → Lack of proof of awareness of obvious risk.

→ Negligent homicide.

Question 9

Bärwurz Case (1997)

Answer 9

Does D’s conduct qualify as attempted homicide with dolus eventualis?

• Qualification of attempt based on facs = NO
• close proximity under GCC → Taking steps which will IMMEDIATELY lead to the completion of outcome.
• D’s action must be direct precusor of fulfilment of crime.
• All necessary steps = Not sufficient.
• Harm must follow directly from D’s conduct = NOT CERTAIN
• completion of offence = largely matter of coincidence
• Objective approach → Focus on D’s actions + outcomes.

Question 10

People v. Lehnert (2007)

Answer 10

Had D made substantial steps toward the commission of the offence?

• Had taken substantial steps based on evidence + facts.
• Physical proximity test → Dangerousness of action conduct in terms of proximity to the comission of a crime.
• Substantial steps test → D’s conducts was corroborative of her firm intent to complete commission of crime.
• Evidence clear + strongly corroborative of D’s purpose