Crim class Flashcards
Criminal code protects us by
Deterrence: reason for criminal codes
Moral influence: teach citizens right & wrong
Incapacitation: reduce abiltiy to do wrong
Rehabilitation: “fix” potential wrongdoers
Retribution: offenders deserve punishment/suffering: not utilitarian - not about benefit but doing what’s right
Elements for Criminal codes
Conduct: describes specific act req. For the crime: most codes don’t focus on conduct
Result: req. For the crime: most codes focus on this
Both conduct & result is actus reas
Attendant Circum.: circumstance req. For the crime - selling drugs near school
Mental state: thinking/ attitude for crime : “mens rea”
Mental state elements
Person is guilty of criminal attempt if he purposefully takes a substantial step toward commision of a crime
A person is guilty of murder if she tells another person with malice aforethough
MPC section 202: Gen req. Of culpability
Minimum req. Of culp. Except as provided in Section 2.05 person isn’t guilty of an offense unless he acted purposefully, knowingly, recklessly or negligently- law may require respect to each material element of the offense
Kinds of Culpability: highest one is the worst
Purpose, Knowledge, Recklessness, Negligence
Purpose: want. Person acts purposefully with respect to a material element of an offense when:
An element involves the nature of his conduct or a result thereof its his conscious object(purposeful: if its your goal/desire) to engage in conduct of that nature or to cause such a result & if th element involved the attendant circumstances he is aware of the existence of such circumstances or he believes or hopes that they exist
Awareness
A person acts knowingly with respect to a material element of an offense when: element involves the nature of his conduct of the attendant circumstances he is aware that his conduct is that nature or that such circumstances exist & element involves a result of his conduct( look at conduct deeper, just b/c they did it doesn’t mean they know they did) he is aware that its practically certain that his conduct will cause such a result
Recklessness
person acts reckless w/ respect to a material element of an offense when he consciously disregards (aware you have a risk: Prosecution has to prove person has knowledge of risk & disregards it) a substantial ( know that something bad will happen)(magnitude of harm that might result & probability) & unjustifiable risk( when there isn’t a reason for why you posed the risk against another’s life) that the material element exists or will result from a conduct. The risk must be such a nature & degree that considering the nature & purpose of conduct & circumstances knowing disregards a gross deviation from standard conduct that a good citizen would observe in that person’s situation ( most substantial risks aren’t justified)
Negligence
should be aware of substantial & unjustifiable risk. Gross deviation from standard of care to act as RP: should have known & gross deviation from reasonableness: harder to prove than Tort law: only to pay in Tort with criminal law its higher in negligence
Homicide:
the defendant killed another person
All homicides have the same act element: result element
Differ in the mental state and attendant circumstances or b/c of special defense applies
types of homicide
Murder
Manslaughter
Negligent Homicide
murder elements
Act: killing
Mental: malice aforethought:
4 kinds of malice aforethough/ 4 dif kinds of murder:
intent to kill
extremely recklessness aka depraved indifference
intent to inflict serious bodily harm (seriously hurt someone but didn’t expect them to die)
kill in course of a felony ”felony murder” (committing felony and you killed someone)
Intent to Kill: desire/ purpose to kill/murder
Mental state: malice aforethought
Very hard to prove someone’s mental thoughts: but you can get around it by confessions
Permissible inferences: deadly weapon rule or natural and probable consequence: jury is permitted to infer that def did something that has natural and probable consequence of death: like pushing someone off a 500 ft ledge like the grand canyon
Intent to Kill: desire/ purpose to kill/murder
Mental state: malice aforethought
Very hard to prove someone’s mental thoughts: but you can get around it by confessions
Permissible inferences: deadly weapon rule or natural and probable consequence: jury is permitted to infer that def did something that has natural and probable consequence of death: like pushing someone off a 500 ft ledge like the grand canyon
premeditation
when considering 1st or 2nd degree: premeditation is the Guthrie (appellate court) approach: willful, deliberate (period of time before the killing- the person is reflecting on the plan to kill) (which would then qualify for one as premeditating) & premeditated
OR pennsylvania/Caroll approach: if you had intent to kill at any time then the jury can find premeditated (trial approach)
1st Degree Murder
Premeditated
May qualify for the death penalty
“Felony murder”
2nd Degree Murder
Not premeditated
Gives you life in prison
manslaughter
Intentional killing in the heat of passion
Crime will be reduced to this is a defendant has a defense of provocation
Killer has intention to kill
Constitutes manslaughter when (MPC defense)
Extreme mental or emotional disturbance/ EMED: look at intense anger or bizarre conduct
Reasonable explanation or excuse : for the emotional disturbance/ REE( have to show a reason for why the person is disturbed)
Def can make a plea in mitigation to jury in hope that they show empathy -
Provocation not required under EMED defense ( there isn’t any provoker sometimes - jury can give person defense based on person’s delusions)
No cooling time limitation
No exceptions to this: def could plead that mere words lead to EMED
Defense is available for killings of non-provoking 3rd parties
Provocation Defense: CL approach
Has to be in Heat of passion: feelings of the defendant at the time of the incident - not speculative: had to be their actual emotions : wild and overwhelming feelings
Had an Adequate provocation: has to be experiencing passionate emotion and had to: 5 recognized categories: adultery, injury to a loved one, battery, mutual combat, illegal arrest : use RP approach and see if the provocation would inflame the passions of a RP (see would a person feel overwhelming emotion) (reluctant to subjectify the RP standard) (individualization only occurs by age like children & looking at children of same age, looking also at the gender and using RP) (can’t take in account personal experiences to prior incident and psychological experiences before the event took place, or cultural background)
Cooling time had not elapsed: would a RP have cooled down in that time, look to see if enough time had passed
provocation
Can mere words by spoken and be okay for provocation: NO b/c they won’t qualify as a categorical rule
Apply RP standard for adequate provocation
rekindling
cool down- look to see what time has passed ( you can be rekindled from emotion after the time has passed - the defense of provocation will be allowed if cool down time hasn’t happened:
Killing a 3rd party: D became furious and attacks person - bystander tries to jump in and kills them
Unintentional Killing: Involuntary Manslaughter
Criminal homicide constitutes manslaughter when: committed recklessly (conscious disregard, substantial risk & unjustifiable)( person should know about the risk but that doesn’t mean that they actually knew- need evidence on what they were thinking) (have to realize that it was dangerous to be reckless)
Risk taking is justified when the enjoyment outweighs the cost of that risk
Conscious disregard: look at person’s experience ect
