Crim Law Flashcards
Jones v United States. DC Circuit
A court must inform the jury of what it needs to decide its decision on (if applicable) before just letting them loose and in order for a defendant to be convicted of a crime for the failure to act, the prosecution must prove that the defendant was under a legal duty to act.
In Loco Parentis
An individual or organization that assumes the legal rights and responsibilities of a child’s parents.
Misprision of felony
A misdemeanor offense under England’s common law consisting of failing to report knowledge of a felony to the appropriate authorities. Generally less common today.
Pope v. State (Maryland, Court of Appeals, 1979)
Criminal liability may not be imposed upon an individual for failing to fulfill a moral, instead of a legal, obligation.
MPC 2.01(3)
(3) Liability for the commission of an offense may not be based on an omission unaccompanied
by action unless:
(a) the omission is expressly made sufficient by the law defining the offense; or
(b) a duty to perform the omitted act is otherwise imposed by law.
Burrage v. United States (U.S. Supreme Court, 2014)
Burrage sold heroin to Banka, who subsequently died of a drug overdose. Should Banka get a large sentence due to the controlled substance act, even tho it isn’t clear (and may even be unlikely) that the substance killed him?
Under the Controlled Substances Act, the enhanced punishment for distributing a drug that results in a death or serious bodily injury applies if the use of that particular drug is the but-for cause of the death or serious bodily injury.
Commonwealth v. Mochan (1955)
Mochan made many inappropriate calls to Zivkovich, a married women he didn’t know. He went to jail.
Any unlawful act which directly injures or tends to injure the public morals or health of the community is indictable (essentially doing bad but not illegal things can still get you in trouble)
In re: Winship (US Supreme Court, 1970)
Juvenile commits a crime. Is it preponderance or beyond a reasonable doubt that applies? Doubt.
The Due Process Clause protects a juvenile charged with a criminal offense from conviction except upon proof beyond a reasonable doubt of every element of the offense.
McBoyle v. United States (U.S. Supreme Court 1931)
McBoyle stole an airplane and was punished under the National Motor Vehicle Theft Act. But the theft act language only applied to ground vehicles.
The court found an airplane is not a “vehicle” within the meaning of the National Motor Vehicle Theft Act and the judgement was reversed.
MPC 2.03
SECTION 2.03. CAUSAL RELATIONSHIP BETWEEN CONDUCT AND RESULT; DIVERGENCE BETWEEN RESULT DESIGNED OR CONTEMPLATED AND ACTUAL RESULT OR BETWEEN PROBABLE AND ACTUAL RESULT
(1) Conduct is the cause of a result when:
- (a)it is an antecedent but for which the result in question would not have occurred; and
- (b)the relationship between the conduct and result satisfies any additional causal requirements imposed by the Code or by the law defining the offense.
(2) When purposely or knowingly causing a particular result is an element of an offense, the element is not established if the actual result is not within the purpose or the contemplation of the actor unless
- (a)the actual result differs from that designed or contemplated, as the case may be, only in the respect that a different person or different property is injured or affected or that the injury or harm designed or contemplated would have been more serious or more extensive than that caused; or
- (b)the actual result involves the same kind of injury or harm as that designed or contemplated and is not too remote or accidental in its occurrence to have a [just] bearing on the actor’s liability or on the gravity of his offense.
(3) When recklessly or negligently causing a particular result is an element of an offense, the element is not established if the actual result is not within the risk of which the actor is aware or, in the case of negligence, of which he should be aware unless:
- (a) the actual result differs from the probable result only in the respect that a different person or different property is injured or affected or that the probable injury or harm would have been more serious or more extensive than that caused; or
- (b) the actual result involves the same kind of injury or harm as the probable result and is not too remote or accidental in its occurrence to have a [just] bearing on the actor’s liability or on the gravity of his offense.
(4)When causing a particular result is a material element of an offense for which absolute liability is imposed by law, the element is not established unless the actual result is a probable consequence of the actor’s conduct.
People v. Arzon (Supreme Court of New York County, 1978)
Arzon set a fire. Firefighters came. Another fire was in the building. A firefighter died from that fire. Arzon was found guilty of 2nd degree murder.
An individual is criminally liable if his conduct is a sufficiently direct cause of another’s death which should have been foreseen as being reasonably related to the individual’s acts.
People v. Acosta California Court of Appeal, 4th Appellate District, 1991
Acosta runs from police in LA. Two helicopters collide as they go after him. It was found that his actions were the proximate cause but there was not malice, so the previous judgement of 2nd degree murder was reversed.
An injury must be the actual result of an act for it to be considered the proximate cause of the injury.
Staples v. United States (Supreme Court, 1994)
Staples has a semi-automatic rifle and modifies it so that it can be fired automatically, no in violation of the National Firearms Act for an unregistered weapon.
Absent a clear statement from Congress that there is no mens rea requirement, federal felony statutes should not be interpreted to eliminate the mens rea element.
United States v. Balint
United States Supreme Court, 1922
Balint sold drugs. Argued he didn’t intend to break the law but the law said, “he who shall do them shall do them at his peril and will not be heard to plead in defense good faith or ignorance.”
The court found that a legislative body may enact laws to support public policy that impose criminal liability without proof of a scienter (mens rea) element.
