General Flashcards
Reasonable Doubt
(85-90% certainty)
State v. Owens
Facts - Driver found behind wheel of a car parking on private driveway at night with lights on and with motor running.
Issue - can we convict solely based on circumstantial evidence? Yes
Rule - A conviction cannot be sustained if based only on circumstantial evidence, unless the circumstances also don’t point to innocence.
Burden of Production vs. Burden of Persuasion
Burden of Production - obligation to introduce sufficient evidence for a triable issue
Burden of Persuasion - obligation to introduce enough evidence to satisfy standard of proof (prosecution has the burden to persuade beyond reasonable doubt, except in affirmative defenses, where defense bears initial burden of production)
Jury Nullification
Jury is supposed to follow the law, but can technically refuse to return a guilty verdict, even in cases where evidence of guilt is sufficient to meet proof beyond reasonable doubt
Pros: check on power, block harsh law, conscious of the community
Cons: implies that jury is above the law, juries biases
State v. Ragland
Facts - Felon in possession of a gun. Shown to be a felon and to have a gun. D argues to change the instructions to allow for possibility of jury nullification. No “must” in must find guilty.
Issue - Does a jury need to include jury nullification possibility? NO
Rule - Jury nullification is a right that should be limited not expanded
People v. OJ Simpson
8 months of trial, but only couple hours of deliberation = nullification? Maybe
Penal Statute - Material Elements
a) actus reus,
b) mens rea,
c) results,
d) causation,
e) attendant circumstances
Punishment Theories
Requires Proportionality
Utilitarian - forward-looking and justify punishment because it has positive consequences
- Deterrence - prevention or reduction of crime (general: society deterred vs. specific: individual deterred)
- Incapacitation of the offender
- Rehabilitation of the offender
Deontological - backward-looking
- Retributivism - defendants should be punished for just desserts
- Expressivism - allow society to express disapproval of crime
United States v. Brewer
(Texas 2013)
Facts - Ds are 64 and hubby is handicapped and sickly created sham contracting company that made $6.5mil.
Issue - Terrible crime, but deserving of a “life” sentence? No
Rule - Criminals may not always need prison time in order to achieve the results of punishment for a crime.
United States v. Madoff
(NY 2009)
Facts - pyramid scheme guy, fraud of maybe $65bil, 150 yr. sentence
Issue - was crime proportional? Yes
Rule - Sentence should adequately deter criminal conduct
Theories - symbolism, general deterrence, retribution
Notes - white collar crime hard to detect, greedy in nature
United States v. Gementara
(9th Cir. 2004)
Rehabilitation
Facts - D took mail from mailboxes. Sentenced to community service and sandwich board + apology, and school lectures
Issue - Is this sentencing appropriate for rehab? Yes
Rule - Courts have broad discretion, this does rehabilitate the D
Fundamental Principles of Criminal Law
Central vision: for fairness, a law must provide “fair notice” (opportunity to conform behavior)
Principle of Legality Requirements
- Can’t have secret laws
- Can’t do retroactive punishment
- Can’t have overly vague laws (if ambiguous -> court in favor of D)
Rogers v. Tennessee
(SCOTUS 2000)
Facts - D stabbed victim that survived but died about a year later. “Year and a day rule” defense abolished by TNSC but then decided to charge D
Issue - Did the court violate the Ex Post Facto Clause? Yes
Rule - Cannot retroactively punish a defendant
City of Chicago v. Morales (USSC 1999)
Facts - Chicago passed ordinance to prohibit gang loitering that broadly covered a bunch of people and activities (non-gang related)
Issue - Was the ordinance too vague (violate Due Process)? Yes
Rule - Law is vague if there is no notice to people, or gives too much discretion to the police
Rule of Lenity
When law ambiguous - courts look to plain meaning, legislative history, CL, purpose, and social policy, if still ambiguous, a court will invoke rule of lenity: read law in favor of defendant
One rationale for rule - D may have conformed behavior to one interpretation
Bell v. United States
(SCOTUS 1955)
D guilty of trafficking two girls, but charged should only be 1 charge for 1 instance. The Mann act was ambiguous on D’s theory.
Issue - was the law too ambiguous to allow for D’s theory to be true? Yes
Rule - If truly ambiguous, then rule of lenity
General Rule for Criminal Statutes
All crimes have to be written in statute except small CL crimes that are interpreted by the Courts - then courts use CL precedent to decide (more ideal for law in statute for public knowledge)
Elements of Crime
Act Requirement
Mens Rea
Causation
CL Mens Rea
Act is criminal if it is performed with a culpable mental state (with few exceptions)
CL - requires malice - wicked motive or evil intent
Specific Intent - 2 levels of intent (ex: robbery - enter and rob) (replaced by MPC Purposely)
General Intent - 1 level of intent (battery) (replaced by MPC knowingly, recklessly, negligently)
Transferred Intent - A shoots at B, but kills C. Transfer intent from B to C
MPC Mens Rea
Acting purposely, knowingly, recklessly, negligently
State v. Young
(FL 2000)
Facts - Child abuse with telephone cord. D wanted jury instruction w/ better “malice” def.
Issue - Was the disciplining done with malice? No
Rule - Malice is ill will, hatred, spite, an evil intent
United States v. Bailey
(SCOTUS 1980)
Facts - Ds escaped prison. Argues purpose was to escape conditions of jail: fire, rape, etc. not “intent to escape confinement”
Issue - Did Ds escape with the purpose of the knowledge?
Rule - If still acted knowingly then still guilty
How do you show Purpose
Can look at
- attendant circumstances,
- timing,
- motive,
- history,
- plan
Acting Purposely
Purposely - intent (conscious object - defendant desires to commit the act or produce the relevant result)
Nature of conduct - conscious object to engage in conduct or cause result
Attendant circumstances - aware of the existence of the attendant circumstances or he believes or hopes they exist (Ties to kill A but also kills B, indifferent to result of B’s death and acts with knowledge)
Knowingly
With purpose and with knowledge
Nature of conduct - D is aware that his conduct is of that nature or that circumstances exist
Result of conduct - D is aware that it is practically certain that his conduct will cause such a result (practically certain B will die when throwing grenade at A)
Willfully blind - avoid acquiring incriminating info -> usually still knowingly (drug courier)
United States v. Jewell
(1976)
Facts - 110 pounds of marijuana in secret compartment but D claimed to not know
Issue - Does knowingly require positive knowledge? No
A D who is willfully blind probably was put on notice and still knowingly
United States v. Heredia
(2007)
In failing to preserve the requirement that the willfully blind actor have a motive to avoid criminal punishment, removed an important protection for defendants
Global-Tech Appliances v. SEB
(2011)
Willful blindness requires
Subjective belief of high probability that a fact exists
Deliberate actions to avoid learning of that fact
MPC Knowingly
knowledge of the existence of a fact is established if “a person is aware of a high probability of its existence, unless he actually believes that it does not exist.
Recklessness
Awareness of the possibility that his behavior will cause a prohibited result
Penalize for risk-taking behavior
Conscious disregard of a substantial and unjustifiable risk that a RP would not do
Reasonable person would not have done that
State v. Olsen
(SD 1990)
Facts - Driving tractor turns and kills an oncoming driver
Issue - Was D’s actions reckless or negligent? Negligent
Rule - Reckless conduct must create a high degree of risk with awareness
Commonwealth v. Welansky
(1944)
Nightclub fire
Court did not require actual foresight of the risk - reckless had to be intentional conduct
Negligence
Taking of a substantial and unjustifiable risk, but completely unaware of it
Reasonable person would have been aware
Difference between recklessness is awareness
Strict Liability Offenses
Conviction without a mens rea
- Usually new, regulatory offenses
- with minor penalties,
- that have public welfare rationale
Strict liability is harsh and controversial, since requires no awareness - usually minor pen.
Ex: medical and environmental regulations, statutory rape, alc to minor, food tampering
Strict liability motivates public to investigate and deters crime (check IDs at bar)
Canada has absolute liability = US strict liability
Staples v. United States
(SCOTUS 1994)
Facts - Illegal to possess machine gun, D claims he didn’t know it was a machinegun M16
Issue - Does this crime have a mens rea of strict liability or other? Not strict liability
Rule - Federal felony statutes should not be interpreted to eliminate mens rea
United States v. Apollo Energies
Misdemeanor for violating Migratory Bird Treaty Act, even if D didn’t intend to break the law. They killed migrating birds and thus culpable.
Strict Liability
Malice Murder Types
malice aforethought
Express malice - deliberate intention to bring about the victim’s death
Implied malice - indifference to a particular result brought about by a level of carelessness or inattention so severe that it demonstrated defendant’s malice (death by avoidable accident)
Mistakes
relevant if it negates a required mens rea
- Mistake of fact - “moral wrong” - mistake if not a defense if D thought he was committing a moral wrong (MPC is similar but has to be for a lesser offense)
- Mistakes of law - ignorance of law is not an excuse
MPC - recognizes that legal mistakes might be relevant if knowledge or awareness of the law is a material element of the offense
People v. Navarro
(CA 1979)
Facts - D took wooden beams cause thought they were abandoned
Issue - Is a mistake of fact a defense to a specific intent crime? Yes
Rule - an honest mistake of fact is a defense to a specific intent crime
People v. Weiss
(NY 1938)
D led to believe by detective that they had the authority to arrest (Lindbergh)
Issue - Can this mistake of law be presented to the jury as a defense? Yes
In NY, a D is permitted to prove the he believed he was acting with authority as a defense to a charge of kidnapping
People v. Marrero
(NY 1987)
Federal corrections officer, had gun in club, but D thought he was a peace officer because it includes “correction officers” as peace officer
Issue - Is there a good faith mistaken belief here? No
Rule - Mistaken belief in law is not a defense. Has to be a mistaken belief upon an official statement of law that was later held invalid or valid interpretation of the law (own interpretation does not count)
Causation Concepts
“But-For” cause
Proximate cause
Intervening Act
Concurrence
Cause in Fact
Determined by “but-for” causation test (if D refrained, result still occur?)
Over-determination problem - result is over-determined because any of causes would produce harm - too much causation
Ex: firing squad, but one guard does not shoot
Substantial Factor Test
Acceleration Theory
People v. Jennings
(2010)
Facts - child-abused son, malnourished, killed with shovel, buried in mine
Issue - each D blames the other, is there causation? Yes
If actions are a substantial factor leading to same result then can charge
Oxendine v. State
(DE 1987)
Facts - child victim with 2 set of injuries, which kills Father’s or GF’s?
Issue - Is there causation to support manslaughter if GF could’ve caused a fatal wound? Uncertain, no charge
Rule - Prosecution must prove acceleration, and evidence did not show
Michelle Carter
(2015)
Encouraged boyfriend to commit suicide -> acceleration
State v. Smith
(OH 2007)
Facts - Drunk, encouraged toddlers to fight, punched a diabetic, who later died
Issue - Was there proximate cause? Yes
Rule - punch proximate caused the victim’s death because punch caused indifference
Substantial Factor Test
Were D’s actions a substantial factor in producing result
Acceleration Theory
Did D’s actions accelerate or hasten result (shoot falling person)
Proximate cause
Causal connection sufficiently close to hold D responsible for harm
Intervening agents - break the chain of causation, agent act negligently then will not break chain
Is D’s act the proximate cause?
Intervening Act
Coincidental - then breaks chain unless foreseeable
Responsive - breaks chain only if abnormal and unforeseeable
People v. Roberts
Prison fight led to other prisoner stabbing a prison guard. D charged (no intervening)
Apparent Safety Doctrine
People v. Rideout (2006)
Drunk driving -> car crash. Then victim goes back to move car and gets hit. No charge
Express Malice Murder
An unlawful killing where the actor desired the death of the victim
Implied Malice Murder
Reckless killings that demonstrated a depraved indifference to human life
MPC Intentional Killing
Killing performed purposely or knowingly
Premeditation
A murder planned in advance, perhaps with a careful or elaborate design
Usually must be “pre” and that there’s evidence that D deliberated and formed intention to kill prior
Taylor v. State
(GA 2007)
Facts - D hit and run, had legal documents in his car with victim’s name, acceleration Last second
Issue - Is there malice here? Yes - acceleration showed intent
Rule - D is guilty of malice murder if evidence established express or implied malice
State v. Guthrie
(WV 1995)
Facts - Victim was teasing D, hit D with towel, D took out knife and stabbed him. D suffers from psych problems, especially about nose
Issue - Was there premeditation and deliberation here? No
Rule - WV, intent can’t be made one second before, has to have premeditation. D needed time to consider and weigh decision. Should not be a first degree murder.
Commonwealth v. Carroll
(PA 1963)
Facts - D’s wife has mental disorder - possibly child abuses, they get into heated argument, where she and he shoots her dead
Issue - Is there a set length of time necessary to form the intention to kill for first-degree?
Rule - there is no set length of time necessary to form intention.
Thomas v. State
(NV)
Fired from Lone Star Steakhouse - comes back with gun and stabs two victims
19 stabs in one and chasing of other Vic. was enough to support premeditation
Voluntary Intoxication
Actus Reus exists
Premeditation or deliberate might not occur - could be too drunk to deliberate
Larger rule - allow voluntary intoxication to negate mens rea for specific intent crime only
CL Voluntary Murder
CL - killing performed with provocation or sudden “heat of passion” - provocation requirements:
Adequate provocation - must be committed in the heat of passion
Killing in the head of passion - situations “calculated to inflame the passion of a reasonable man and tend to cause him to act for the moment”
Performed suddenly before reasonable opportunity for passions to cool off
Causal connection between provocation, passion, and killing
Heat of Passion Standard
Extreme assault on the defendant Mutual combat Illegal arrest of the defendant Injury or serious abuse of close relative (or friend) Sudden discovery of spousal adultery
Some jurisdictions - “mere words” never constitute provocation and that D must witness the adultery or injury
State v. Castagna
(NJ 2005)
Facts - Victim is a black guy who pushes D’s friends and knocks one out, D hears about it and rushes over. Mob forms and they chase this guy down, D throws brick onto his head killing him
Issue - is there a heat of passion argument here? For just a friend? Yes but for a jury to decide
Rule - there could be a heat of passion argument here, but that is for a jury to decide so sending case back.
Girouard v. State
(MD 1991)
Facts - Heated argument, Wife jumped on his back and pulled his hair, and verbally assaulted him and his livelihood, D grabs knife and stabs her 19 times
Issue - Is there a heat of passion argument? No
Ruling - Does not fit into the traditional provisions for a heat of passion argument. He was 200 pounds, so no threat on life.
Extreme Emotional Disturbance
MPC - downgrades to manslaughter when “committed under the influence of mental or emotional disturbance for which there is reasonable explanation or excuse”
Provocation is strict, EED allows for many more situations that can cause EED
State v. White
(UT 2011)
Facts - Divorce led to many stressors for D, finances, kids, etc. Tried to refi the house but needed husband, he said later, he talks on phone, she tries to run him over
Issue - Is there an EED defense where there was a long cooldown? Yes
Rule - EED defense does not have to be contemporaneous, allows for triggering event to be a bottling up of events and emotions
Imperfect Self-Defense
Actor who commits a killing with a sincere but unreasonable belief in imminent harm
Diminished Mental Capacity
EED is Mini insanity defense - not full fledged insanity defense
Ellie Nesler
Protecting her son in trial against molester
Reckless Killing
MPC - disregarding risk “involves a gross deviation from the standard of conduct that a law-abiding person would observe in the actor’s situation”
Gross deviation - RP would not do this
Requires VERY high degree of risk
Some jurisdictions - if demonstrate either implied malice or a depraved indifference to to life
Reckless
Reasonable person standard - would RP find risk justified?
Types of Reckless Killing
Reckless Murder
Involuntary Manslaughter
Implied malice and extreme indifference murder
Misdemeanor Manslaughter Rule (Unlawful Act Doctrine)
People v. Kolzow
(IL 1998)
Facts - D out all night, comes home, goes in to poop, leaves infant strapped in car, four hours later, baby dead
Issue - Were D’s actions a reckless disregard of substantial and unjustifiable risk? Yes
Rule - RP would not leave an infant in a car for four hours in the summer. Actions were substantial and unjustifiable
People v. Knoller
(CA 2007)
Facts - Ds owned two dogs that have aggressive history and tendencies. Vet letter said dangerous. Dogs end up killing a neighbor
Issue - Are Ds actions a conscious disregard for human life? New trial w/ better instruct.
Rule - D must have awareness of engaging in conduct that endangers the life of another.
People v. Snyder
(NY 2012)
Facts - D suffocating her children to receive benefit checks from state, daughter dies
Issue - Is there a showing of depraved indifference? Yes
Ruling - Depraved indifference is the mother simply not caring about her daughter being harmed or not. Her actions were indeed depraved and thus reckless.
Misdemeanor Manslaughter Rule (Unlawful Act Doctrine)
Allows a conviction for involuntary manslaughter if the D commits an underlying misdemeanor that results in death
Mens rea is the mens rea required for the underlying misdemeanor
Recklessness is presumed by statute - no need to prove recklessness w/r/t death
Still needs causation
State v. Biechele
(RI 2005)
Facts - Lit off pyrotechnics without permit inside venue and killed 100 people.
Issue - Is a person guilty of misdemeanor manslaughter only if his underlying illegal conduct is a proximate cause of death? Yes
Rule - guilty if the misdemeanor of pyrotechnics proximately caused a foreseeable death
Felony Murder
Allows a court to convict a D who commits a felony that results in someone’s death
Ex: armed robbery gone wrong and someone dies
Doctrinal limitations
Independent felony or merger limitation
Triggering felony must also have a life of its own apart from the resulting death or killing
Ex: Assault with deadly weapon and victim dies, cannot be F-M
People v. Sarun Chun
(CA 2009)
Facts - Gang member, sees rival car and shoots to scare, but kills a girl. No intent
Issue - Does this act qualify for Felony Murder? No
Rule - Shooting (in the abstract) is assaultive and cannot be merged with murder
Derek Chauvin
MN allows assaultive merger - charges him with second degree murder
Inherently dangerous felony limitation
Triggering felony must be “inherently dangerous” to human life
First approach - look at definition of crime in abstract
Second - look to facts of the case and D’s behavior
People v. Howard
(CA 2005)
Facts - D pulled over, but flees and high speed chase. Police stop, he runs traffic light and runs into a car killing the passenger
Issue - Is D’s act inherently dangerous so as to charge with F-M? No
Rule - if a felony can be committed without creating a substantial risk of death to another, it is not inherent dangerous
State v. Stewart
(RI 1995)
Facts - Multi-day drug binge, baby dies from starvation and dehydration
Issue - Are facts of crime inherently dangerous so as to charge with F-M? Yes
Under the facts, actions were inherently dangerous and thus F-M
“In furtherance of the felony” limitation
Killing cannot be too remote from the triggering felony
Killing must be performed “in furtherance of” or “in the perpetration of” the felony
Ex: D escapes after rob bank and runs over a bystander
People v. Hernandez
(NY 1993)
Facts - drug deal, try to rob, undercover officer, shootout, police shoots police
Issue - Is D guilty of F-M if a police shoots a police? Yes
Rule - Using proximate cause, there is causal relationship because cop was responding to D’s crime, and it is foreseeable that a cop would respond and die
Five Teenager Burglary
Special view of proximate cause because they were unarmed and knocked on door with no answer. Court bent rules.
Agency approach
it matters who performs the actual killing (cop killing don’t count)
State v. Sophophone
(KS 2001)
Facts - Burglary caught, cops find as they flee, co-felon hides in field, cop finds, he tries to shoot, and cop kills co-felon. Charge D with his death
Issue - Is D guilty of his co-defendants death? No
Rule - Under the agency theory, cop killing co-felon is intervening
Negligent homicide
Negligent homicide only requires negligence
Was D aware of the risk? No awareness required
D punishable for carelessness
Requires a RP standard deviation
Ordinary negligence (normal) - usually a substantial and unjustifiable risk
Gross negligence - gross deviation from RP standard of care
People v. Traughber
(MI 1989)
Facts - Sign on road, truck swerves then swerves back but into oncoming car
Issue - Under ordinary negligence, did D commit a negligent act? No
Rule - D was responding to an emergency and did what a RP would do.
State v. Small
(LA 2012)
Facts - left her kids in apartment to go drink. Fire started and killed 6 yr daughter
Issue - Was D act a gross negligence? Yes
Rule - A RP would consider her actions a gross deviation from standard. Guilty
Tree of Malice
Malice
Express malice - mens rea - intentional - purpose or knowingly
Implied malice - reckless - not intentional
No Malice
Voluntary manslaughter - no malice but still intentional
Involuntary manslaughter - reckless - not intentional
Misdemeanor manslaughter
MPC - Subjective RP
if defendant was blind that would affect the RP standard. RP might be tailored depending on characteristics
Guy skis too fast and kills somebody, negligent if risky but no aware of it
Don’t look at the profession?
Physical Battery
Three major elements to a physical battery:
- Must engage in an unlawful application of physical force
- Must result in either a physical (bodily) injury or an offensive touching
- Acting with purpose, knowledge, or recklessness (or sometimes negligence)
- Acts can be direct or indirect - can be a more complex chain of events set in motion by the D
Physical Battery Defenses
Mistake
Accident
People v. Peck (IL 1994)
Quarrel in the neighborhood, police summoned, attempted arrest, D spit in officer’s face
Spit in cop’s face constitutes aggravated battery because it was provocative and by any means
Surgeon Amputates Arm, not Leg
No consent to remove arm, so this would be a battery
Assault
Two avenues that can lead to an assault conviction
- Attempted battery
- The act and mental state requirements remain the same as physical battery - with the only difference being the result requirement
- No requirement of a physical injury, just mere attempt - placing the victim in a reasonable apprehension of bodily harm
Mens Rea is the intent to cause the required apprehension in the victim
- Perpetrator must be genuinely aware that his behavior is threatening victim
- Must be reasonable apprehension
Commonwealth v. Boodoosingh (CT 2014)
Attempted battery with baseball bat, but did not hit victim, had intent and rushed towards
Initiating an assaultive action can be sufficient for an assault charge, since D came “reasonably close” to act.
Border Patrol Agent and the Brick
Not guilty because agent was not aware and thus no fear of apprehension
State v. Birthmark (MT 2013)
Mom and brother are reasonably in fear. They called 911 and fled the house. Jury did not get to hear the argument of whether his mom and brother were reasonably in fear
Being angry with a weapon, threatening family is enough to sustain an assault charge
Kidnapping
Unlawful confinement of the victim or the restriction of the victim’s movement
Basic requirements
- Confining or carrying away the victim (most controversial element)
- Forcibly or by threat or fear of deception
- For a nefarious purpose
Mens rea - usually requires intent or purpose
MPC Kidnapping
Uses following purposes - to hold for ransom or reward, or as a shield or hostage, or to facilitate commission of any felony or flight thereafter, or to inflict bodily injury or to terrorize the victim of another
