First third Flashcards
Sources of criminal law
- Common Law: Judge made law. Came from British system
- Statutes: laws enacted by the legislature (“penal codes”) that define the crime, defenses to crimes, and other relevant doctrines of criminal law
- Model Penal Code: code created in 1950s, completed in 1962 by the American Law Institute. It has a utilitarian basis. Portions of it have become law in many states. Many states have used it to influence their law as well.
Criminal v. Civil:
Main distinction between crim and civil is punishment. Crime is limited to conduct that incurs the moral condemnation of the community. To commit a crime is to commit an act against the community at large.
• The Supreme Court has held that “punishment” cannot come from a civil proceeding. But a law enacted as civil may be recharacterized in the courts as criminal if “there is clear evidence that the primary legislative purpose is retribution and deterrence of wrongdoing”
Utilitarianism
• Punishment justified to the extent that it increases social welfare
• Decisions are made on a cost-benefit analysis—considers what would be a benefit to society.
o Net welfare = Social benefit – Social cost
o The “right” action is the one that results in the greatest net “social good”
• Both crime and punishment are evils b/c they both result in pain to individuals and society as a whole. Therefore, pain of punishment is undesirable unless its infliction is likely to prevent a greater amount of pain in the form of future crime.
Costs of punishment
- Cost to justice system
- Lost contributions to society tht person punished could have made
- Costs to dependents of offender
- Cost to offender himself
• Principles of Utilitarianism- Justifications for punishment
o General Deterrence: Person is punished in order to send a message or set an example to others (society at large or people contemplating criminal conduct)
• Counterargument—Utilitarian’s think of people as moral calculators, but this is not always the case in crimes of passion.
o Specific Deterrence: D is punished in order to deter D from future criminal activity (Stop recidivism). This is done by:
• Incapacitation: incarceration of D prevents him from committing additional crimes in the general community for duration of his sentence) and/or by
• Intimidation: D’s punishment serves as a painful reminder so when he is released he is deterred from future criminal conduct
• Counterargument—some people may not believe they will get caught. Crimes might shift from society to prison guards
o Rehabilitation: Punishment designed to “reform” prevent future crime by reforming an individual by providing him with employment skills, psychological treatment, etc. so that he will not want or need to commit future offenses
Retributivism (Kant)
– Punishment justified to the extent that it is deserved (proportional to the offense)
• Punishment of D justified as a deserved response to wrongdoing.
o Punish b/c of the wrongdoing-criminal gets his just deserts-regardless of whether such punishment will deter future crime.
o Punish people as much as they deserved to be punished; Must be proportional
• Wrong-doing creates a moral disequilibrium in society: wrongdoer obtains the benefits of the law (other people have respected his rights) but he does not accept the law’s burdens (respecting others’ rights).
• He breaks the social contract when he commits a crime and must pay his debt if he wants to return to society
o Punishment restores moral balance
o One who commits a crime is sending an implicit message to the victim that the wrongdoer’s rights are more important than the victim.
o Punishment is another way of showing the criminal and the victim that this message was wrong. Punishment that is proportional to the offense brings the criminal down to his proper place in relation to others.
• Proportionality—punishment should be proportional to the offense and harm caused; consider the actor’s degree of culpability for causing harm
• Just deserts—punishment of a wrongdoer is justified as a deserved response to a wrongdoing. Regardless of deterrence, it is backward looking.
o Counterclaim:
• What is the point of punishing someone if it does not do anything for society?
• Policies are based on anger and emotion rather than reason.
• Response—anger is good if it is directed at the wrongdoer.
DISTINGUISHING BETWEEN MPC AND CL
There are two different types of criminal jurisdictions in the United States: common law-based and Model Penal Code-based.
- American criminal law is historically common law – judge-created and developed on a case-by-case basis.
o Often inconsistent, incomplete, and redundant. In the 20th century, many states recognized the need to reform and codify their systems of criminal law.
- American Law Institute (ALI) began work in 1952 on development of a model code of criminal statutes. In 1962, the ALI adopted and published the Model Penal Code.
o MPC had a great influence on reforming criminal law. Many states use as guidance in reforming/updating statutory systems, but none have adopted in its entirety
DISTINGUISHING BETWEEN MPC AND CL
There are two different types of criminal jurisdictions in the United States: common law-based and Model Penal Code-based.
- American criminal law is historically common law – judge-created and developed on a case-by-case basis.
o Often inconsistent, incomplete, and redundant. In the 20th century, many states recognized the need to reform and codify their systems of criminal law.
- American Law Institute (ALI) began work in 1952 on development of a model code of criminal statutes. In 1962, the ALI adopted and published the Model Penal Code.
o MPC had a great influence on reforming criminal law. Many states use as guidance in reforming/updating statutory systems, but none have adopted in its entirety
How do you know CL?
- Discuss actus reus and mens rea, don’t mention statutes, etc.
- All federal cases are common law, and no case before 1962 is an MPC case!
How do you know MPC?
- Refer to statutes constructed similarly to MPC sections, talk about attendant circumstances, etc.
- Sometimes it’s straightforward, the judge will specifically say that the state’s penal code is based on the MPC (usually when the judge is about to do something that the law doesn’t really allow).
Common Law elements of an offoense
Actus reus Mens Conduct Result Attendant circumstance
MPC Elements of an offense
- 13(9) Element of an offense—
(1) Conduct: Law prohibiting a specific behavior
a. Action or omission and
b. Accompanying state of mind (Mens Rea)
(2) Culpability Requirement
(3) Attendant Circumstances: circumstances that must be present in order for the offense to be possible
(4) Result: things that contingently follow from what you do
(5) All of which establish:
a. A kind of culpability, or
b. Negatives an excuse for justification of such conduct, or
c. Negatives a defense under the statute of limitations, or
d. Establishes jurisdiction or venue
Most crimes need
MOST CRIMES NEED BOTH. “A person is not guilty of an offense unless her conduct is voluntary, accompanied by the mens rea of the offense, and the conduct constitutes, or is the actual and proximate cause, of the state of affairs proscribed by the offense.” (strict liability exception)
Actus reues elemtnes
a. “Guilty Act”
b. Physical or external part of the crime
c. three elements:
i. Voluntary act or legal omission
ii. Which causes
iii. Social harm (people are not punished for conduct, but for conduct that results in “social harm”)
d. Physical aspect of a result includes:
i. Conduct (sometimes you don’t need result: drunk driving; speeding)
ii. Conduct + Result
iii. Attendant circumstances
e. Act which is not voluntary is not an “act” for purposes of actus reus
MPC crimes must be proven
§ 1.12—Proof Beyond Reasonable Doubt, Affirmative Defenses, Presumptions
• Each element must be proved beyond reasonable doubt to convict
• When prosecution makes a presumption about a fact
o Proof of existence submitted to jury for decision
o Jury may use sufficient evidence to give rise to a presumed fact
What is a result crime?
Result Crimes – must have SI to bring about the result of the result crime.
- Example- If D blindfolds herself and shoots a gun into a room that she knows is occupied and kills somebody, she may be convicted of murder
- However- If D’s reckless act does not kill anyone, she is not guilty of attempted murder b/c she lacked the specific intent to kill someone in the room
Waht is a conduct crime?
SI to engage in the conduct (actus reus) of the offense.
Actus Reus
Guilty act
Waht does AR consist of ?
Actus Reus of an offense usually consists of: 1. A voluntary act 2. That causes 3. Social harm.
Most definitions include a conduct and result
Dillof: Act done with a purpose. Mere thoughts ≠ punishable as crimes; involuntary acts ≠ liable. Moral obligation doesn’t nec. create legal duty; if they do not there is no duty to act/omit
AR Rule, a person is generally not guilty of a criminal defense unless
unless his conduct includes a voluntary act. Ie carried out voluntarily
o See: Martin v. State, p. 128 (D dragged out to street by cops while drunk, charged w/ being drunk on public highway).
o MPC § 2.01(1): “A person is not guilty unless his liability is based on conduct which includes a voluntary act or omission to perform act of which he is physically capable.”
- D can be liable for an omission if it is a breach of a duty to act. Otherwise, there is no general duty to act to prevent harm to others.
waht is a voluntary act under CL
a willed muscular contraction or bodily movement; controlled by actor’s mind. Done with a purpose.
• An act involves physical, although not necessarily visible, behavior
• Excludes the mental process of thinking about or developing an intention to do an action.
• Voluntary includes a will or violation, a voluntary act includes the human brain
State v. Utter —VOLUNTARY ACT/EMBEDDED INVOLUNTARINESS
D stabbed his son to death after drinking all day but had no recollection of his act. D argued autonomic response. Held: when the state of unconsciousness is voluntarily induced through the use of drugs or alcohol, the state of consciousness is not a complete defense.
• The burden of proof to show will/involuntariness—the prosecutor, beyond a reasonable doubt. Prosecutor MUST prove the voluntariness of an act.
Involuntary act?
Reflex actions, Seizures, Convulsions, Acts occurring while person is unconscious/asleep, Hypnotic State.
Voluntary: MPC § 2.01(1): person is not guilty of an offense unless
his liability is based on conduct which includes a voluntary act [or the omission to perform an act of which he is physically capable and has a legal duty]
INVOLUNTARY ACTS: MPC § 2.01 (2): VOLUNTARY ACT IS NOT
(a) Reflex or convulsion
(b) Bodily movement during unconsciousness or sleep
(c) Conduct during hypnosis/resulting from hypnotic suggestion
(d) Bodily movement that otherwise is not a product of the effort
either conscious or habitual
Martin v. State – NO VOLUNTARY ACT
D, after being arrested while intoxicated at his home, was taken by officers to a highway where he illegally used loud and profane language and was convicted of being drunk on a public highway. Held: D was carried to the public place involuntarily, so NOT GUILTY.
• Criminal liability must be based on conduct that includes a voluntary act or omission.
• W/in narrow timeframe → placed onto highway involuntarily.
• W/in broad timeframe→ May suggest that D became drunk voluntarily and thus was guilty. (MPC would probably take this view~ it is sufficient that the person’s conduct included a voluntary act. It is not necessary that all aspects of his conduct be voluntary.)
POSESSION: MPC § 2.01 (4): “possession is in act…if the possessor
knowingly procured or received the thing possessed or was aware of his control thereof for a sufficient period to have been able to terminate his possession”
People v. Decina—VOLUNTARY ACT; EPILEPTIC DRIVER
D = epileptic who killed 4 children when the car he was driving went out of control during a seizure. HELD: D guilty b/c he knew that he was susceptible to seizures but failed to take proper precautions.
(1) W/in narrow timeframe seizure was involuntary, BUT
(2) W/in broad timeframe getting into car and driving are voluntary acts
Basic Voluntariness Requirement:
In general, a person is only liable for:
• A result offense if a voluntary act accompanied by relevant Mens Rea, caused the prohibited result
• A conduct offense if a voluntary act, accompanied by relevant Mens Rea constituted or caused the prohibited result
• EX—asking a hypnotist to hypnotize you so you “involuntarily” steal a laptop. You are still liable.
**Act not involuntary just b/c actor does not remember performing it.
**Act not involuntary just b/c someone coerced the actor to do it.
Omissions general rule
A person is not guilty of a crime for failing to act, even if it permits harm to another, and even if the person was not risking personal safety.
Waht is an omission
Seeing a crime take place, but permitting it to occur because you have no legal duty to act. Liable for omission only if legal duty to act
EXCEPTIONS: Legal duty to act if Physically Capable: CL
EXCEPTIONS: Legal duty to act if Physically Capable:
(1) Statutory Duty: where a statute expressly requires a person to perform.
a. Failure by definition constitutes a crime (tax returns, provide food/shelter to minor kids)→ “crime of omission”
(2) Duty by status: a person has a duty to protect another with whom he has a special relationship- based on dependency or interdependency
a. (children, spouses, master-servant, State v. Williams)→ “crime of commission”
(3) Duty by contract: a person may have an express contract to come to the aid or another or such contract may be implied in law
a. (lifeguard, babysitter, caregiver) → “c=rime of commission”
(4) Duty by Voluntary Assumption: one who voluntarily assumes the care of another must continue to assist if a subsequent omission would place victim in a worse position than if the good Samaritan had not assumed care at all.[bring below the baseline]
a. (once you start aiding, cant give up) → “crime of commission”
(5) Duty by Risk Creation: one who creates a risk of harm to another must thereafter act to prevent ensuing harm
a. (driver hits pedestrian) → “crime of commission”
2.01(3): Duty imposed by law. (No liability for omission unless) “Liability based on an omission is permitted in two circumstances:
- The omission is expressly made sufficient by the law defining the offense; or
- A duty to perform the omitted act is otherwise imposed by law
1) Acts are movements only
2) Omissions are failures to engage in specific acts
3) Only liable for acts that cause results
4) May be liable for omissions that cause results
Direct Harm v. Indirect Harm:
- Boundaries for a risk in which you would be liable for an omission, and a risk in which you would not be liable for omission
- Distinction between directly or indirectly causing harm. Someone who creates harm or places someone in the discretion of harm
People v. Beardsley – not liable for omission; no legal duty to render aid
Blanche Burns ingests morphine. D tries to assist her in recovery by carrying her downstairs and telling another man to take care of her. Man became concerned with her condition and called doctor. Doctor discovered victim was dead. D convicted of manslaughter b/c had a duty to care for her. Appealed. Held: D not liable. Woman was there by her own free will without any coercion. She voluntarily went to the D’s house & voluntarily engaged in the use of intoxicants. D did not assume any care or control over her. There was no status relationship between the two. He had no legal obligation to act, only a moral one which is not punishable by law.
Barber v. Superior Court – not liable for omission; no legal duty to act
Victim on life support after surgery. Family decided to take him off life support. Afterwards, he could still breathe but showed no signs of improvement and had to be fed intravenously. D consulted with family and removed the IV tubes and victim died. D charged with murder. Held: NO LIABILITY FOR FALIURE TO ACT UNLESS there is a LEGAL DUTY TO ACT. Physician has no legal duty to continue treatment once it has proved to be ineffective. Doctor’s behavior is not an act under CL b/c it does not bring victim below baseline. This behavior is merely an omission that brings victim back to baseline.
Social harm? What importance
destruction of, injury to, or endangerment of some socially valuable interest.
→ A person is not guilty of an offense unless his voluntary act (or omission) causes social harm (can be non-tangible social harm).
Categories of social harm
- “Result” elements or crimes – some crimes prohibit a specific result (i.e., murder→the death of a person)
- “Conduct” elements or crimes– some crimes prohibit specific conduct, whether or not tangible harm results thereby. (i.e., drunk driving)
- “Attendant circumstance” elements – a “result” or “conduct” is not an offense unless certain “attendant circumstances” exist.
Why Omissions Cannot Be Enforced:
• Proving the omitters state of mind—criminal conduct requires a guilty state of mind, it is too difficult and ambiguous to determine the state of mind of those who fail to act.
• Makes matters worse—well-meaning bystanders often make matters worse by intervening in ongoing events
• Line-Drawing—if 50 people observe a crime, should all 50 be held responsible for not acting to intervene?
Promoting Individual Liberty—Criminal law should be limited to punishing only the most serious moral wrong-doings, not non-doing.
o Our freedom would be crammed if omitting to do something good was enforced.
• EX—donating to UNICEF.
HOW TO DISTINGUISH BETWEEN ACTS AND OMISSIONS CL
• Acts cause harm
o Being harmed is being made worse, being placed below the welfare baseline.
• Omissions withhold benefits
o Withholding of benefits makes no worse, stays at baseline
• Causing harm or withholding benefits depends on where the baseline is set
HOW TO DISTINGUISH BETWEEN ACTS AND OMISSIONS MPC
- Acts are movements only
- Omissions are failures to engage in specific acts
- Only liable for acts can cause result
- Maybe liable for omissions that permit results
Barber Under MPC:
where an act is defined as a willed muscular contraction or body movement this would be considered an act. Therefore, doctor would be guilty of murder.
Mes Rea
Guilty Mind
Mens rea intent
BOTH CL AND MPC REQUIRE CULPABLE(morally blameworthy) STATE OF MIND
Rationale:
• Utilitarian—person who commits actus reus w/o mens rea is not dangerous, could not have been deterred, and is not in need of reform.
o Punishment of a person who does not act with mens rea will be ineffective, and wasteful. One who accidently causes harm is harmless and not in need of reform.
• Retributive—mens rea requirement supported by just deserts. A person who commits mens rea in a morally innocent manner does not deserve to be punished
o Did not choose to act unlawfully.
CL two general meanings of intent
• Broad (“Culpability”) meaning: if committed actus reus “vicious will,” “evil mind,” or a “morally blameworthy or culpable” state of mind, the actor had mens rea.
• Narrow (“Elemental”) meaning: if, but only if, a person commits actus reus with the particular mental state set out in the definition of that offense
o EX—killing intentionally v. killing unintentionally
INTENT Commits the social harm of an offense “intentionally” if:
• Goal/object/purpose/desire to cause the result; or
• Knew that the result was virtually certain to occur b/c of his conduct.
**Intent refers to social harm—the unwanted result, not the act that caused the result.
**Purposely or knowingly doing or causing X.
Knowingly + Purposely: ** They will both be punished the same **
CL
• Putting a bomb in a persons apartment to kill X (purposely), but virtually certain it might kill Y (knowingly).
o Knowingly causes death
• A shoots V to distract police. A does not care if V dies. V dies.
o Purposely causes death
• B shoots V from afar. B intends to kill V, but does not know if he will. B kills V.
o Purposely causes death
KNOWLEDGE Some offenses require proof that the actor had knowledge of attendant circumstance. A person acts “knowingly” regarding an existing fact (attendant circumstance) if he either:
- Is aware of the fact
- Correctly believes that the fact exists; or
- Suspects that the fact exists and purposely avoids learning truth (a.k.a “willful blindness”)
Knowingly CL
- Has knowledge or
- Substantial certainty or
- High probability, or
Willingly CL
(= knowingly)
• Synonym for intentional
• Act done with a bad purpose or evil motive
Presence of “willful” in def of offense → allows mistake of law to be basis for pardon if D did not “intend” to break law
MPC § 2.02: CULPABILITY, REQ PURPOSE OR KNOWLEDGE
Replaces CL Mens rea terms with four culpability terms—purposely, knowingly, recklessly, and negligently.
Presumption – when a term appears it applies to everything
MPC Burden of Proof approach
rosecution must prove that a person acted purposely, knowingly, recklessly, or negligently in respect to each material ingredient of the offense, with a culpable state of mind, as set out in the statute §2.02.
2.02(1): “A person is not guilty of an offense unless
he acted purposely, knowingly, recklessly, or negligently, as the law may require, with respect to each material element of the offense.”
• Liability if C+R+AC + MR(C)+MR(R)+MR(AC).
o § 1.13(10): material element part of offense which at least partially relates to the social harm of the offense.
MPC has not intentional terms
They divide it into purposfully and knowingly
PURPOSELY 2.02(2)(a) : D acts purposefully when
conscious object to engage in the conduct or to cause the result which is the nature of the crime; AC: awareness, belief or hope of the existence
KNOWINGLY2(b) : D acts knowingly when
awareness that the result is “practically certain” to occur from her conduct. And aware that the [attendant] circumstances exist or he is aware “of a high probability of its existence, unless he actually believes that it does not exist” (“willful blindness” doctrine)
RECKLESSLY (c): Consciously disregards a
substantial and unjustifiable risk that the material element exists or will result from his conduct in a gross deviation from the standard of care that a reasonable person would observe in the actors situation. [conscious disregard, actual awareness]
NEGLIGENTLY(d) : should be
aware but fails to perceive “substantial and unjustifiable risk” constituting a “gross deviation from standard of care a reasonable person would observe in the actor’s situation Generally conforms with the CL definition. [no awareness of the risk, hypothetical awareness, a reasonable person would be aware].
• Recklessness v. Negligence
actor is consciously aware of substantial and unjustifiable risk, but proceeds anyway; in case of negligence, the actor is not aware of the risk but should be
MPC “In the actor’s situation” : incorporates more subjectivity into the objective standard than
than is permitted at Common Law. Lets courts determine “reasonable person”
The material elements of the offense might include:
- The nature of the forbidden conduct
- The attendant circumstances
- The result of the conduct
- No criminal conviction can be obtained if a culpability term is not proved for each element * * *
MPC* * * No criminal conviction can be obtained if
a culpability term is not proved for each element * *
Unjustified Risk Taking Factors—which show existence of mens rea.
- Gravity of harm that a reasonable person would foresee might occur as result of the risk-taking
- Probability that this harm will occur
- Reason for the proposed conduct. (A risk is unjustified if gravity of foreseeable harm, multiplied by the gravity of the foreseeable harm, outweighs the foreseeable benefit from conduct.
CL CRIMINAL NEGLIGENCE (“gross negligence,” or “culpable negligence”) actor should be aware
that conduct creates substantial & unjustifiable risk of social harm.
• The gravity of the harm foreseeably resulting from conduct
• The probability of such harm occurring
• The burden or loss to the defendant from the risky conduct
• not always reckless
CL Recklessness
Criminal should be aware that he is taking a very substantial and unjustifiable risk (Holmes’s view), or if criminal consciously disregards a very substantial and unjustifiable risk that his conduct will cause the social harm of the offense (Modern Definition)
CL Malice
Intentionally or recklessly causing social harm prohibited by an offense.
Regina v. Cunningham: Malice is intentional or reckless, requires knowledge
D tore the gas meter from wall in house in order to steal the money in the meter. Did not turn off the gas and it leaked into the next house and partially asphyxiated D’s prospective mother in law. D was convicted under statute for “maliciously” causing another to take a noxious thing. Rule/Holding: “Maliciously requires that D acted recklessly with foresight of the actual consequence or it requires actual intent to do the particular harm. Recklessness is where D foresees that such harm might occur but does the act anyway. Trial court mis-instructed “malicious” meant wicked.
SPECIFIC INTENT: explicitly contains one of the following mens rea elements in its definition:
- Intent to commit some future act or further consequence beyond the conduct or results
- Special motive for committing the actus reus of the offense; or
- Awareness of a particular attendant circumstance
Specific intent crimes are
Solicitation, Conspiracy, Larceny/Larceny by Trick, False Pretenses, Embezzlement, Forgery,
Burglary, Assault, Robbery, Intent to Kill Murder, Voluntary Manslaughter, Attempt,
GENERAL INTENT: requires proof of
a culpable mental state, but does not contain a specific intent.
• No specific mens rea term in def. of offense→ falls under the umbrella of “general intent”
• Sufficient that D committed the actus reus with any culpable (Morally blameworthy) state of mind.o AR committed wrongfully → in a morally blameworthy manner
GI crimes
rape battery kidnapping false impresionment drunk driving
Determining how mens rea requirements apply to elements of offense
o Step 1: Look at provision at issue.
• Employ ordinary English grammar.
o Step 2: Look at related provisions.
• Assume language used consistently.
o Step 3: Look at “legislative history” and purpose.
o Step 4: Look at practical issues of proof.
2.02(3): Default: if statute does not specify mental state required
P, K, R will do. Not negligence
2.02(4): Distributive principle: if in offense there is only one mens rea term
then it is going to apply to all the elements unless “contrary purpose plainly appears.”
2.02(5): Hierarchy of culpability. If the lower MR is required
it will be satisfied by the higher MR. (i.e., purposely satisfies negligence requirement).
• Higher mental state will satisfy any lower mental state, P is the highest, N is the lowest
2.02(6): Conditional intent: when a particular purpose is an element of an offense
the element is established even if the purpose is conditional (element established intent realized upon certain conditions); unless the condition negatives the harm or evil sought to be prevented by the law defining the offense.
2.02 (9): knowledge, recklesslessness and negligence cannot
constitute an illegal act alone
People v. Conley: Knowingly
D was convicted of aggravated battery. D attempted to strike vc’s friend, struck vc in the face with bottle, causing a permanent disability to vc’s mouth. D contends state failed to prove beyond a reasonable doubt that he intended to cause permanent disability. Rule/Holding: A person commits a battery when he intentionally or knowingly causes great bodily harm or permanent disability or disfigurement. Not necessary the D intended to bring about particular injuries that resulted; enough to show that D intentionally struck vc. D needed either “conscious objective” to achieve the harm or was “consciously aware” that the harm was “practically certain to be caused by his conduct” Intent can be transferred.
1.12(5)(b): judge can tell a jury that they have to find the presumed fact (that D intends X) to be true beyond reasonable doubt,
but they can use the presumption raising fact (that D engaged in act A and X is a natural consequence) to lead them to the presumed fact (that D intends X)
Transferred Intent Doctrine
Intent transfers if a person acts intentionally as defined above and if the result of his conduct differs from that which he desired only in respect to the identity of the victim. (Dillof’s specialty)
o No need to transfer intent if murder, since murder = “Intent to kill” any human – not one particular one – thus, if D shoots V instead of X, he has satisfied the requirement w/o transferred intent
Doesn’t apply to statutory offenses that require intent to be directed to a specific victim
2.03(2)(a): Transferring intent of same offense
• If contemplated result and actual result differ only in that a different person or property is involved or in that the contemplated harm would have been more serious or extended (you try to kill A but actually kill B) → transferred intent (Conley – Broke bottle on someone else’s head)
2.03(2)(b): Transferred intent of similar offense
• If the contemplated result & actual result involve the same kind of injury or harm and the actual result was 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 (you intended to punch X in the face but actually punch X in the shoulder) → transferred intent
2.03(4) – when particular result = material element of strict liability offense, element is not established unless
actual result is probable consequence of actor’s conduct.
- P/K/R/N causing the specified result TRANSFERRED
- Where there is P/K/R/N w/ respect to specified AC
Willful blindness
• A deliberate effort to avoid guilty knowledge
Willful blindness when does a person act knowingly?
• A person acts knowingly if:
o Aware of the fact
o Correctly believes that the fact exists
o Suspects that it exists
o Purposely avoid learning that a fact exists to avoid learning the truth
• All cases satisfying the CL requirement will satisfy the MPC but not all cases that satisfy the MPC will satisfy the MPC because of the extra requirement
State v Nations - Willful blindness
D hired a 16 yr old girl to dance for tips at D’s club. D was charged with endangering the welfare of a child under 17. D appealed arguing that state failed to show that she knew the child was under 17 and therefore failed to show that she had the requisite intent under statute. Rule/Holding: To “knowingly engage in criminal conduct, a D must have actual knowledge of existence of the attendant circumstances that constitute the crime.” State failed to meet its burden.
Willful blindness a person cannot be liable if
they are unable to gain the information or genuinely believe that they are unable to gain the knowledge
o Not avoiding guilty knowledge
• if the person fails to obtain knowledge for fear
that if he knows he will be liable for the crime
o Convicted under willful blindness
o Deliberate avoidance of knowledge was to avoid responsibility
Attempt to know made
Not liable
No attmept to know made
liable
2.02(7): Knowledge is established if a person is
aware of high probability of the existence of a particular fact, unless he actually believes that it does not exist. (Practical certainty) (need more than a 50/50 chance)
**Definition of “knowledge” is more expansive compared to CL
if “aware of high probability of existence”→liable
-2 common interpretations:
- Intentionally committed the prohibited act,
- Requires proof that actor intentionally performed prohibited act in bad faith, w/ a wrongful motive, or in violation of known legal duty.
If “aware of a high probability of its existence”= culpable.
Rules of Thumb for Interpreting Statutory Intent
(1) Look at the provision at the issue
(2) Look at related provisions
(3) Look at other laws in the area
(4) Look at legislative history and purpose
(5) Look at practical issues of proof
- Ascertain meaning legislative intent of enacting statutes
- Ascertain meaning through punctuation (phrase set off by commas)
- Ascertain meaning through attendant circumstances
MPC §2.02(4): Unless a contrary legislative intent “plainly appears”… :
”… a mens rea element applies to every material element of the offense.
When a legislative intent purpose plainly appears:
• Consider diction, word choice, punctuation, and syntax
• May not be plain when contrary purpose plainly appear and must argue
2.02(4) - “contrary purpose plainly appears”.
Ex: felony to knowingly set a fire causing death of a person over 65.
-Must knowingly set fire, and know it would cause death, and know person over 65
MR applies to all three things
STRICT LIABILITY –commission of the actus reus w/out
proof of mens rea sufficient for conviction
How to determine strict liability
- Look at language of statute
- Usually apply CL presumption of MR (unless congressional intent indicates otherwise)
- No presumption if items regulated (Relate to public danger; Alert to probability of SL)
TYPE I Strict Liability (Complete): no mens rea required for liability, just actus reus.
• Public Welfare Offenses
o Nature of Conduct – involves conduct that is wrongful only because it is prohibited, instead of inherently wrongful.
• speeding, liquor law, foods
• Purpose of the offense is regulation, not punishment
o Punishment –usually minor (monetary fine or a very short jail sentence).
o Degree of Social Danger: A single violation threatens the safety of many.
TYPE II Strict Liability ( Limited): Some mens rea required on some elements, but no MR required on at least one element (ex. AC). Because you know you are dealing with something dangerous
- Non-Public Welfare Offenses (Malum in se – inherently wrong)
• Statutory Rape (person convicted even without culpable state of mind as to victim’s age)
• for offenses rooted in the CL, a court will not assume that the legislature intended to abandon the mens rea requirement, absent evidence to the contrary, even if the statute is silent regarding this element.
Staples v. United States: D convicted because he had not registered a modified firearm, capable of fully automatic fire, he claimed he did not know of the rifle’s automatic firing capability.
Held: Silence in a statute regarding the mens rea does not imply that the offense is a strict liability. The mens rea required was the knowledge that the gun was a firearm. HAND GUNS NOT SO DANGEROUS AS TO PUT PEOPLE ON NOTICE
Garnett v. State: 21 year old retarded man was convicted of second degree statutory rape for having sex with a 13 year old girl.
Type II (limited) strict liability because he knowingly had sex. Don’t need to know attendant circumstance of V’s age. Ex: w/o a permit, knowingly discharging a pollutant
MPC §2.05: generally abolishes strict criminal liability except
as to “violations,” for which imprisonment is never permitted (small offenses like traffic violations).
MPC 2.02(3): when a criminal offense (as distinguished from a “violation”) does not expressly include a mens rea term in its definition,
the prosecutor must nonetheless prove that the D acted purposely, knowingly, or recklessly in regard to each actus reus element of the offense.
MPC 2.04(2) not defense if D would be guilty of a different offense had the situation been as supposed,
- Would have been engaged in a different offense BUT
3. Will only be sentenced for as great of an offense as he believed he was committing.
Mistake of age is not a defense to the strict liability crime of statutory rape. Mistake of law or mistake of act is
no defense to a strict liability offense
MISTAKE OF FACT as a DEFENSE to
Mens Rea
Mistake of Fact is a defense when it is a FAILURE OF PROOF DEFENSE
- A factual mistake negates the specific intent element of the offense
- (whether the mistake is reasonable or unreasonable)
• EX—D attempts to have intercourse with a minor, believes she consented→ mistake of fact
• EX—D attempts to take property which he believes is abandoned→ mistake of fact
Mistake regarding element of offense= defense when, in light of the mistake, D lacks required MR for offense.
People v. Navarro: MISTAKE OF FACT; FAILURE OF PROOF DEFENSE
D picks up wooded beams from a construction site incorrectly believing that they have been abandoned as worthless. Charged with larceny. Held: D not guilty of larceny b/c good faith mistaken belief that beams were abandoned negates the specific intent of larceny (intent to steal). D was not guilty regardless of whether his mistake was reasonable or unreasonable; in either case he did not intend to steal. At most he acted recklessly or negligently in regard to victim’s property.
General Rule- D not guilty of general-intent offense if her
mistake of fact was reasonable.
• An unreasonable mistake of fact is guilty.
. General Intent: standard becomes
morally blameworthy state of mind (crimes on page 5)
• Think you’re engaged in an AR (something that is prohibited, if you have a reasonable belief that not engaged in prohibited act but still think it’s something immoral, or other AR>
• Hard to use mistake of fact b/c crime requires any blameworthy state of mind
EXCEPTION:
Moral Wrong Doctrin
one can make a reasonable mistake regarding an attendant circumstance and still demonstrate moral culpability worthy of punishment. You can still be culpable for a related but unintended outcome.
Application: Two step-process:
1) Facts: look at the facts from the mistaken actor’s perspective. We assume the facts were as D reasonably believed them to be
2) Moral Judgment: looking at the facts as the D understood them to be, was D’s conduct morally wrong? (not whether actor believes his actions were morally wrong, but whether society deems them morally wrong)
**Criticism: permits conviction of a person who did not know, or did not have reason to know that his conduct would violate the law.
ALTERNATIVE EXCEPTION:
Legal-Wrong” Doctrine:
Court may convict D of mistake even though it was reasonable, if her conduct violates the “legal wrong” doctrine.
- This doctrine provides that there should be no absolved for a mistake where, if the facts had been as the actor believed them to be, her conduct would still be illegal.
- (Substitutes the word illegal for immoral)
- D is guilty of higher offense based on the result of his actions, even though if the situation were as he supposed, the offense would have been lower
* *Criticism: may result in punishment disproportionate to blameworthiness/MR
2.04(1): Ignorance or mistake is a defense if:
- Ignorance or mistake negatives the purpose, knowledge, belief, recklessness, or negligence required to establish a material element of the offense
- The law establishes a state of mind defense in regard to mistake/ignorance
- Does not have to be reasonable
A mistake of fact is a defense to a crime if the mistake negates a mental state element required in the definition of the offense REGARDLESS OF REASONABLENESS of mistake.
- Mistake of fact rule applies to all offenses in the same manner
- If D doesn’t haven’t required mential state b/c of mistake – not liable
EXCEPTION: Variation of Legal Wrong Doctrine (§2.04(2)):
D would be guilty of another lesser offense had the situation been as he supposed:
• NO ignorance or mistake defense
• Unlike CL, D would be convicted of the lesser offense he would be guilty of if the situation were as he supposed.
o D is guilty for lesser offense and is punished for the lessor offense
• Difference: Rape: 1st degree offense: Rape under 12
o Second degree offense: Rape under 16
o Say the D raped a girl who he believed was 13, but she was actually 11. Under legal wrong doctrine, he would be guilty for 1st degree. Under moral wrong,
• Punishment is one of the lesser offense
o Ex: think you are transporting coke, but you transport pot → liability for pot, punishment for pot
o Ex: think you are transporting pot, but you transport coke → liability for coke, punishment for pot
Perkins- Determine whether GI or SI offense
- General intent: offense where MR not specified; if good faith and reasonable mistake, no liability
- Specific intent: offense where a MR is specified; if good faith mistake, no liability.
LaFave: cl No liability when
cl No liability when mistake negates required mental element. If you are mistaken about something, you can’t know it- mistakes then negate the mental state. And if mental state required, no liability.
Example:
• When no MR specified, default morally blameworthy state of mind and since reasonable mistake not blameworthy, no liability.
• If unreasonable = blameworthy= liability.
Mistake of law general rule
General Rule: knowledge of the law is not an element of the offense. Mistake of law-even a reasonable one!- does NOT relieve an actor of liability.
CL/MPC Fair Notice Requirement: Mistake of law defense is permitted where
Offense was not known to D and
(2) Offense was not published or reasonably made available to actor before she violated the law.
Mistake of Law Merits: An affirmative defense for limited category of mistakes (mistakes based on invalid statute)
Alternative: Mistake of Law affirmative defense for all reasonable mistakes.
General Rule: ignorance is no excuse
for the commission of a crime. Relying on your own mistake of law is not a defense.
I. Reasonable mistake → DEFENSE
II. Unreasonable mistake → NO DEFENSE
People v. Marrero: No excuse for relying on a personal, reasonable, but incorrect reading of the law:
D was a federal corrections officer arrested for possession of a gun w/o a license. Statute says that “peace officers” are exempt from liability. Statute defines “peace officers” to include “correction officers of any state correctional facility or any penal correctional institution.” D claimed he was therefore exempt. This was rejected so he claimed mistake of law. Although his interpretation that he qualified as a peace officer was reasonable, Appeals Court concluded that he was not, and should be held liable. A person, even a reasonable person, is not excused for committing a crime if he relies on his own erroneous reading of the law.
THIS IS BECAUSE THE OFFENSE IS A GENERAL INTENT OFFFENSE- when specific intent is an element of the crime, a mistake of law may constitute a defense. (see Cheek below) Court also examined 2.04(3) even though this is a CL case
EXCEPTIONS:
Failure of Proof Claim:
D’s mistake of law negates an element of mens rea required in the definition of the offense. D’s mistake or ignorance will relate to a law other than the offense for which he is being charged. (specific intent offense)
Cheek v. United States
: D charged with multiple counts of willfully failing to file a federal income tax return (specific intent crime). Under federal law, “willfulness” is defined as an “intentional violation of a known legal duty.” D testified that he had believed, among other things, that his wages were not “income” within the meaning of the Internal Revenue Code provisions. Rule/Holding. Supreme court held that generally ignorance of the law is not a defense. But now laws are complex and difficult to understand. So Congress intended to make specific intent to violate the law an element of certain federal criminal tax offenses. Court ruled that D was entitled to have the jury instructed that, if D genuinely (albeit quite unreasonably) believed that wages were not income, D was not guilty of the offense charged. In such circumstances, D’s mistake regarding the legal meaning of the term “income” negates the element of “willfulness,” in that he did not intentionally violate a known legal duty. This is the different law mistake.
Different Law mistake: D’s mistake of law negates an element of mens rea required in the definition of the offense. D’s mistake or ignorance will relate to a law other than the offense for which he is being charged.
- Specific Intent- Different law mistake whether reasonable or unreasonable is a defense if mistake negates the specific intent in the prosecuted offense.
- General Intent: Not a defense (See Marrerro above). You cant plead your own general intent to mistake of law
- Strict Liability: Not a defense; NO MR to negate if the liability is strict.
Reasonable Reliance: (EXCUSE DEFENSE)
A person is not guilty of a criminal offense if, at time of the offense, he reasonably relied on an official statement of the law, later determined to be erroneous, obtained from a person or public body with responsibility for the interpretation, administration, or enforcement of the law defining the offense.
On whom or what body is reliance reasonable?: (CL less clear than MPC 2.04(3))
o Official statement of the law found in a statute
o Judicial opinion (particularly by the state supreme court)
o Administrative ruling
o Official interpretation of the law given by one who is responsible for its enforcement or interpretation (US or State attorney general).
Due Process Clause (“Fair Notice”): (EXCUSE DEFENSE)
in very rare circumstances, it offends due process to punish a person for a crime of which he was unaware at the time of his conduct.
Lambert v. California: D, a LA resident, had previously been convicted of a felony while she lived in the city. She was unaware of an ordinance that required ex-felons residing in the city to register w/ the police. She failed to register and was prosecuted under the ordinance. Holding. The Supreme Court agreed that ordinary ignorance of the law is no excuse rule is “deep in our law,” but it warned that Due Process Clause occasionally limits its application. In this case, the Courts concluded that it violated the due process to convict D in the absence of “actual knowledge of the duty to register or proof of the probability of such knowledge.”
Scope of Lambert: (uncertain): Due Process probably not violated unless three factors co-exist:
- The “unknown” offense criminalizes an omission;
- The duty to act is based on a status condition rather than conduct;
- The offense is malum prohibitum in nature (conduct that constitutes an unlawful act only in virtue of a statute rather than an unlawful act that is evil or morally wrong in and of itself)
2.02(9): Mistaoke of LAw
neither knowledge nor recklessness or negligence as to whether conduct constitutes a crime, or as to the existence, meaning or application of the law determining the elements of an offence is an element of such offence.
• (i.e., knowingly killing a person-you don’t need to know that your knowingly killing a person).
• Only a mistake of law if the mistake is about some other law and not the law D is being charged with (different law mistake).
.02(8): “Willfully” satisfied
w/ knowingly; CL is ambiguous, it can mean either “intention” or “in known violation of a legal duty”.
2.04(1): defense on failure of proof claims
if mistake negates P, K, R, or N required to establish the element (generally speaking relates to different law mistakes).
Mistake of a different law is a defense to knowledge. Mistake of the law you’re charged with is not a failure of proof claim.
• If you made a mistake defined in law as you thought it was elsewhere,
you’re not liable
o EX—crime to steal a vehicle. vehicle=bike, steal bike, think bike isn’t a vehicle, bike included in vehicle=guilty… unless elsewhere vehicle defined to exclude bike)
• § 2.04(2) says that a mistake of fact or law defense is not
available to D if he believes he is committing some other crime. However, the mistake will reduce the grade and degree of the offense to those of the offense of which he would be guilty had the situation been as he supposed.
2.04(3): Mistake of Law A belief that conduct is not an offense = defense if :
AFFIRMATIVE DEFENSE
Defense if D proves beyond a preponderance of evidence reliance on official statement of law from:
• Statute/ update not yet published
• Judicial opinion
• Administrative order or grant of permission
• Official interpretation of public officer or body charged w/ responsibility for interpretation, administration or enforcement of the law.
