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.
