crim law Flashcards
why do we punish
utilitarianism, retributivism
utilitarianism
Was to maximize social welfare: Punishing deters
Deters: punishment sents message to society as a whole to keep from others doing it
Specific deterrance: deter the particular person from doing that crime again
Retributivism
Moral theory: punish to the extent there is wrongdoing: punish because it is morally right
Proportionality: evil of the crime should match what was done
conduct crime
Example: in larceny, the conduct is taking and carrying away
Voluntary act/ failure to act (omission)
result crime
Prohibited result: For example: in murder death is result
Will mostly only be in homicide for us
Elements of Criminal Liability
Legality
Actus Reas
Mens Rea
Concurrence
Causation
Transferred Intent
Intent from the intended victim transfers to the actual victim
If the intended target is killed as well as an unintended target, courts are split
- Some say intent continues to everyone who is unintentionally killed
- Some say intent stops at the person who was intended to be killed
actus reas
actually physical: physical element of crime: prohibited conduct or prohibited result
attendant circumstances:
- facts that have to attach for a crime to take place
Voluntary act: cannot be involuntary
Mistake of Fact
Purpose and Knowledge are negated by any honest mistake of fact
- Reasonable or unreasonable
3 exceptions
1: reasonable reliance that is later declared erroneous
2: if ignorance negates mens rea
3: lacks fair notice
actus reas element
omissions, results, and attendant circumstances
mens rea
mental state
- internal elements of crimes
MPC Mens rea: in order
Purposefully: Specific Intent
Knowingly: General intent
Recklessly: Acting in gross deviation from the conduct that a law-abiding person would engage in by :consciously disregarding a substantial and unjustifiable risk
Negligence: Gross deviation from the standard of care of a reasonable person and: failing to perceive a substantial and unjustifiable risk
Strict liability in Mens Rea
generally rejected by MPC since it doesn’t satisfy utilitarianism or retrubutivism
Common law: mental states
negligently: same as MPC
Knowingly of purpose (intentional): acted intentionally if you acted purposefully or knowingly
Maliciously: either intentionally or recklessly
Willfully: Differs in jurisdiction according to crimes
Recklessly: same as MPC
Negligence
Strict liability: Some crimes just need actus reas and no mental state is required
: Common law strongly disfavors this since no guilty mind they lack blameworthiness, and there is no deterrence value in punishing
Specific Intent
Ex: larceny is specific intent to deprive permanently
Roughly equals purpose
Elements specify a specific intent
Requires subjective awareness of a circumstance
Ommission
Violates a legal duty: does not give rise to criminal conduct unless they disregard a duty (ex: from contracts, relationships, etc)
Situations where failure to act may constitute a breach of legal duty
1. where a statute imposes a duty to care for another
2. where one stands ina certain relationship w another: ex parent
3. Where one has assumed a contractual duty to care for another
4. Where one has voluntarily assumed the care of another and so secluded the helpless person as to prevent others from rendering aid
5. One’s voluntary actions place another in peril: The creation of Peril
6.Parents are responsible for their children’s actions
General Intent
Roughly equals knowledge and stuff below (recklessness, negligence)
Concurrence of Actus Reus and Mens Rea
Men rea must coinside with actus reus of crime for it to be criminal: Fagan case
Inchoate crimes
all specific intent so cant be recklessness of negligence
Solicitation
actus reus: asking and encouraging someone to commit a crime
Mens rea: intent that the person will commit the crime
Rules:
- crime is complete once the words are spoken
- merger
- smaller crime merges into the
larger crime
- if you are an accomplice for
target crime
Conspiracy: actus reas
3 recs:
1. aggrement to commit a crime of series of crime:
2. Intent to crime: make agreements to accomplish the target crimes
3. an overt act in furtherance of the crime
Conspiracy: mens rea
Intent to do:
- purpose or knowledge
- Not a big deal over which jurisdiction purpose v. knowledge
- knowledge can lead to purpose
Conspiracy: Impossibility
agreeing to a crime that is impossible to commit
are you liable as a co-conspirator:
-Yes: impossibility is not a defense
-You are dangerous and morally blameworthy whether or not it is possible
Conspiracy: Special Liability Rules
Distinct crime: can be liable for both distinctly: doesn’t merge like solicitation
Pinkerton: usually rejected for MPC
Abandonment:
- Some jurisdictions will let you cut off furtherance crimes that have not been committed is you communicate your withdrawal to all co-conspirators
- Some require you to thwart conspirators from crime
attempt: mens rea
attempt to commit a crime
attempt: actus reas
2 tests:
Physical proximity: how close are you
Dangerous proximity: how dangerously close are you: depends on how dangerous it is
attempt: common law
closeness test: dangerous close and proximate close
Attempt: MPC
substantial step test: have you taken substantial test to corroborate the criminal offense
attempt: abandonment
common law: no abandonment
modern jurisdiction: some allow abandonment to prompt deterrence: HAS TO BE COMPLETE AND VOLUNTARY RELINQUISH CRIME
Battery: actus reus
unwanted touching of another human being: entry is not required
battery mens rea
negligence or higher: greater or equal to negligence
common law general: any state of mind will satisfy the men’s rea for battery
battery: aggravated battery
Typically, something bad in the sense that you used a deadly or dangerous weapon, inflicted serious bodily injury, or battery upon a child or police
Assault: actus reas
- Attempted battery
: You attempt to touch someone in an unwanted manner - Putting someone in reasonable fear and reasonable apprehension of an imminent batter
: So it may not be intent to touch but intent to cause fear of battery
assault: mens rea
Specific intent crime:
Actus reas 1
- Intent is that you intend to commit a battery and you attempted to commit a battery
Actus reas 2
- You intended to put someone in reasonable fear of an imminent battery even if its not your intent to touch them
rape: actus reus
sexual intercourse:
- penetration, by force, threat of force without consent, sexual intercourse by force or threat of force without consent
Common law:
- need force or threat of force
Rape: mens rea
Negligence or higher: regarding element of consent
:Reasonable mistake for consent, then there is no rape
Rape: strict liability
Statutory rape
actus reus
- determined by states some is 14,
16, 18
mens rea: stautory rape
- None since strict liability
Rape: resistance: consent
resistance
:Need resistance but not utmost resistance: depends on jurisdictions
2 kinds of consent
:attitudinal: like men’s rea
: performative: actions
RusK: no consent in this case: MAJORITY RULE
1. Intercorce
2. Force
3. w/o consent
MTS: no consent in this case: TREND RULE
1. Intercorce
2. Force
Murder: actus reas
unlawful killing of another human being
Murder: mens rea
Unlawful killing with malice forethought
4 conditions:
- Intent to kill
- intent to inflict bodily injury
- extreme recklessness to human life
- felony murder
Murder: extreme recklessness to human life
Not ordinary criminal recklessness: extreem recklessness
MPC describes as extreme indifference to human life
Murder: felony murder
actus reas: killing during a felony
mens rea: is none: strict liability
Killing: by anyone doesn’t have to be by the perpetrator of the crime
- Limited now to only the perpetrators and the accomplice
During: not just during crime but getting there and leaving as well
- Causation (to limit)
- 1. but for: if not this but for
- 2. proximate cause: closeness
Limitations to felony murder
Inherently dangerous:
- Ex: Robbery, rape, burglary, felonious escape, arson, kidnapping
Felony in the abstract is dangerous
Merger doctrine:
- Non-mergeable: Independent
Ex: hitting someone with a gun would not be felony murder
murder degrees : 1st degree
Two kinds
- Mens rea: premeditation and deliberation
: Mean you planned and waited in advance - Felony murder
:Death or life without parole
Must set out in statutes before the felonies that would lead to felony murder
Rape, robbery, arson, kidnapping
Murder 2nd degree
Every other murder that is not 1st-degree
All intentional killings without premeditation and deliberation
Felony murders with felonies not set up by the specific murders
Manslaughter
voluntary:
- Heat of passion
- Sudden and intense reaction with no cooling off time: provocation good enough that you lose your temper and kill someone
- Less than murder in grading and punishment
Involuntary
- Mens rea: killing negligently or recklessly
- Fall below malicious mindset for killing
- Analog killing: misdemeanor manslaughter
- Commit a misdemeanor and there is a proximate cause between misdemeanor and death
self defence: elements
Non deadly: use if you have a reasonable believe in necessity to use non deadly force for unlawful use
Deadly forse: need to protect against imminent unlawful deadly force/serious bodily injury
Self defense: retreat
non deadly: dont need to retreat
deadly:
- majority: don’t necessarily need to retreat
- minority: need to retreat: don’t have to under certain circumstances
- Castle doctrine: defend home
-robbed or raped deadly force can be used
self defence: aggressor
If they withdraw and the defender keeps going they switch roles
If the defendant escalates to deadly force than the aggressor becomes the victim
self-defence: imperfect self defense
Murder would be brought down to manslaughter
- Ex: victi=m should retreat but choses not to and shots and kills aggressor:
- Liable for manslaughter not murder
denfense of others
Can use as much force to defend third party (even deadly force) as they would use to defend themselves
Some say they can only use the amount of force the third party could use
intoxication defense
excuse defenses: dont justify but excuse conduct to say they arent culpable
intoxication: voluntary
Not a defense to strict liability crimes
Only excuses specific intent crimes
- If crimes need specific intent, then it is a defense otherwise, you can still be held for other crimes
Murder
- Defense to 1st-degree murder but not to 2nd-degree murder
- No 1st degree since you cannot premeditate and form intent
necessity
choice of evils: justification defense: society wants you to commit a crime since it commits a lesser of two evils
necessity: elements
Reasonable belief that there is a need to break the law to cause less harm to society
Must derive from natural forces
- Ex: running from a tornado and breaking into a store
Cant use as a defense to homicides
Necessity: Homicide law
Killing someone saves lives of a bunch of people
Can NEVER take a life based on necessity defense
- No clear answer
Duress
Excuse defense: well they are mitigating the circumstance even though you committed the crime
Duress: Elements
Reasonable belief you are under threat by another person of imminent threat or bodily harm
- Can be a threat to family or someone close to you
Did not bring about the harm
Case: Decina
illustrating the claim that courts sometimes might use the device of “time-framing” to find or not find an actus reus or some other element of the offense
Case: Barber
illustrating that seemingly affirmative acts are sometimes treated as failures to act, or omissions
Case where two doctors removed feeding tubes and life support (with the consent of family) the patient died and the doctors are being sued for murder
Ultimately not found liable
They can’t be held liable unless they have a legal duty to act
- If treatment is ineffective/the victim’s family consents
Pulling Plug (act) = manually withholding treatment (failure to act)
-act = failure to act
Cant hold the doctors liable
Case: Prince
the Majority opinion uses the moral wrong doctrine; the Dissent advocates the legal wrong doctrine
Upheld conviction even though he was mistaken on her age and it was reasonable for him to have made this mistake
There is no mens rea in her age and that falls under strict liability:
- Even though consent and possession are under knowledge age is not
- Mens rea in those elements (Consent and Possession) he made a mistake since age is strict liability he would still be held
It is moral wrong so the court disregards the mistake
Age is strict liability because of the moral wrong doctrine
Case: Fagan
illustrating that what seems to be a failure to act, or omission, is sometimes treated as an affirmative act; also, the court advances the notion of a continuing act
Actus rea came first, then mens rea
After actus rea, there was some mens rea, so the overlap was satisfied
Went on the officer’s foot with the car’s tire (unknowingly: actus rea), and when the officer told him to get off, he didn’t (mens rea)
- Argued it wasnt assault but an omission since he just didn’t act, and that cant be an assault: didn’t act in removing the car tire off the officer’s foot
Case: M.T.S
the force inherent in the act of sexual intercourse (intrinsic force) satisfies the force requirement for rape; also, the consent of the victim must be established by either affirmative words or conduct
Unauthorized touching
- Is battery so any non consentual intercourse is force: the states conseption
Follows the courts definition
Must show consent through affirmative words and actions
Case: Goetz
self-defense is assessed by whether the defendant’s conduct or beliefs were that of a reasonable person in the defendant’s “situation”
Case: Norman
imminence requirement for self-defense
Case: Patterson
the burden of persuasion for a defense may constitutionally be allocated to the defendant if the defense does NOT directly and clearly negate an element of the offense charged
3 fetures of punishment
loss of liberty, loss of life, stigma
Rehabilitation: 2 forms
One is in response to punishment
One is done without going through punishment: Rehabilitation with no punishment
3 principles for min amount of punishment
- the harm of the punishment must exceed the profit of the offense
- Proportionality: greater offense = greater punishment
- There must be increasingly severe punishment at each successive stage of a criminal course of conduct: ex more punish for murder than attempted murder
Legality Principle
for a defendant to be prosecuted and punished the act has to be previously criminalized
Ex post facto: cant retroactively punish
Malum in se
wrong in and of itself
malum prohibitum
wrong only because the legislature has said it is wrong
Legality principle 3 points
- statue must not be too big
- statue can not give police too much discretion
- rule of strict construction: rule of lenity: statute is ambiguous statue will be resolved in favor of the defendant
voluntary act
willed bodily movement
People v. Decina
- While operating the vehicle he had a seizure and ran over 4 people who died
- Can he be held liable?
- Act to drive the car was voluntary so under the model penal code he could be held
- Under Martin he involuntary had a seizure so since it wasn’t all voluntary he cannot be held
Fraud in de Factum: in rape
Fraud as to the nature of the act that the victim is defrauded into committing
Fraud in the inducement
The victim is entire of the nature of the act they are engaging in or performing but have been decided as to the reason or motive or purpose for engaging in that act
MPC: feolnies that show extreme indifference: 6
- Murder
- Arson
- Rape
- Kidnapping
5: Burgelary
6: Felonious Escape
Independent Purpose Test
If the defendant committed an underlying felony for a different reason than the reason for committing the injury that caused the death, then it is independent and does not merge, so the defendant is liable for felony murder
If defendant committed for the same reason as the underlying act to commit murder, than it does merge, and it is not independent so there can be no felony murder liability
Test for merger
1: Asses the elements of the felony
2: If the elements have any assultive aspect they are non independant felonies and they merge so no felony murder liability
3: if they have independant they to not merge so they have felony murder liability
