mbe crim law Flashcards
jurisdiction
the US has power to criminalize and prosecute crimes that
* occur on US territory
* occur on ships and planes or
* are committed by US nationals abroad
states can only punish crimes having some connection to the state
* a crime that occurs in whole or in party inside the state
* conduct outside the state that involved an attempt to commit a crime inside the state
* a conspiracy to commit a crime if an overt act occurred within the state
actus reus
No such thing as a “thought” crime. Wanting or hoping to commit a crime is not itself a crime.
(1) There must be some physical act in the world
* Act can be speech
(2) Act must be voluntary
* Involuntary act does not satisfy the actus reus requirement
* “Voluntary” does not necessarily mean the person wanted to do it. It means that he had motor control over the act.
(3) The failure to act can be sufficient actus reus
* Failure to comply with a statutory duty (failing to file tax return, failing to register for selective service)
* special relationship between defendant and victim (parent-child)
* Voluntarily assuming a duty of care that is cast aside
* The defendant causes a peril and fails to mitigate harm to the victim caused by the peril
mens rea: specific intent crimes
defendant committed the actus reus and did it for the very purpose of causing the result that the act criminalizes
- assault with attempt to commit a battery
- larceny
- accomplice liability/accessory before the fact
- false pretenses
- accessory after the fact
- first degree murder
- inchoate crimes (conspiracy, attempt, soliciation)
- theft offenses (larceny, embezzlement, forgery, burglary, and robbery
forgery
Forgery is:
(1) the making of a false writing of apparent legal significance with
(2) the specific intent to defraud.
“Making” includes creating a document, altering a document, or fraudulently inducing another to sign a document when that person is unaware of the significance of the document.
mens rea: malice
I “AM”certain that there are only two malice crimes: arson and murder
Malice exists when the defendant acts in reckless disregard of a high degree of harm. The defendant realizes the risk and acts anyway.
mens rea: general intent crimes
Catch-all category
The intent to perform an act, and the act is unlawful
The defendant does not need to know that the act is unlawful; it is sufficient to intend to perform the act that the law condemns
Generally, acts done knowingly, recklessly, or negligently under the Model Penal Code (MPC) are general-intent crimes.
examples:
1. battery
2. arson
3. rape
4. kidnapping
(attempt of general intent crime still needs the specific intent to commit general intent crime)
mens rea: strict liability
There is no state of mind requirement; the defendant must merely have committed the act
- Statutory/Regulatory offenses
- Morals offenses
mens rea: MPC states of mind
The MPC expresses mens rea as: purpose, knowledge, recklessness, and negligence. The MPC also recognizes some strict liability crimes
Hierarchy of mental states:
1. purpose- highest level of culpability
2. Knowledge
3. Recklessness
4. Negligence—lowest level of culpability
Look for the mens rea requirement in the statute through words like “knowingly” or “intent to”
If there is no mens rea language, assume the prosecutor must prove recklessness
(1) purposely
The defendant’s conscious objective is to engage in the conduct or to cause a certain result
(2) knowingly or willfully
Requires that the defendant be aware that his conduct is of the nature required to commit the crime and that the result is practically certain to occur based on his conduct
(3) recklessly
Requires the defendant to act with a conscious disregard of a substantial and unjustifiable risk that constitutes a gross deviation from the standard of conduct of a law- abiding person
(4) negligently
The defendant should be aware of a substantial and unjustifiable risk and acts in a way that grossly deviates from the standard of care of a reasonable person in the same situation
mens rea: interpreting statutes
If a statute does not state the culpable mind applicable to all material elements of the crime, then the mens rea applicable to one material element is applicable to all material elements unless a contrary purpose plainly appears.
For example, if a statute states: it is a crime to knowingly sell, distribute, or barter a sexually explicit film featuring actors younger than the age of majority.
the “knowingly” state of mind is applied to both the “sell, distribute, or barter a sexually explicit film” element and the “featuring actors younger than the age of majority” element.
so, if someone sells a sex film with minors, but they dont know they are minors, then they CAN’T be convicted under this statute
mens rea: interpreting statutes
If a statute does not state the culpable mind applicable to all material elements of the crime, then the mens rea applicable to one material element is applicable to all material elements unless a contrary purpose plainly appears.
For example, if a statute states: it is a crime to knowingly sell, distribute, or barter a sexually explicit film featuring actors younger than the age of majority.
the “knowingly” state of mind is applied to both the “sell, distribute, or barter a sexually explicit film” element and the “featuring actors younger than the age of majority” element.
so, if someone sells a sex film with minors, but they dont know they are minors, then they CAN’T be convicted under this statute
mens rea: transferred intent
When a defendant has the requisite mens rea for committing a crime against Victim A, but actually commits the crime against Victim B, the law transfers the intent from Victim A over to Victim B.
Can apply to:
HAM (Homicide, Arson, Murder)
mens rea: vicarious liability
Holds a person or entity liable for an actus reus committed by someone else
A corporation can be liable for the actions of its high-level employees or the Board of Directors.
mens rea: merger
A defendant can be convicted of more than one crime arising out of the same act.
A defendant cannot be convicted of two crimes when the two crimes merge into one.
Two categories of merger:
1. lesser-included offenses and
2. the merger of an inchoate and a completed offense
(1) lesser included offenses
* Lesser-included offense—an offense in which each of its elements appears in another offense, but the other offense has something additional
(2) inchoate and completed offenses
* Attempt— A defendant who actually completed a crime cannot also be convicted of attempt that crime.
* Solicitation—Merges into the completed offense
* Conspiracy and a completed substantive offense do not merge; A defendant can be convicted of both conspiracy to commit a crime and committing the crime itself.
principals, accomplices, aiders, and abettors
children
At common law, children under the age of 7 were never capable of committing a crime.
children ages 7-14 were rebutabbly presumed to be incapable of committing crimes
children at least 14 could be charged as adults
principals
defendant whose acts or omissions form the actus reus of the crime
Can be more than one principal to a particular crime
Ask: Who committed the actus reus that gives rise to the offense?
Accomplices
Theory for holding people other than the principal responsible for the crime committed by the principal; same degree of responsibility as the principal
people who assist in the prinicpal either before or during the commission of a crime
must act with the intent of assisting the principal to commit the crime; bystanders, even approving ones, are not accomplices
Liable as an accomplice for both the planned crime and any other foreseeable crimes that occur in the course of the criminal act
An accomplice can be criminalyl liable even if he or she cannot be a principal or even if the principal cannot be convicted.
Exception: A person protected by a statute cannot be an accomplice in violating the statute
exception: exempted necessary party: person is excluded from liability as an accomplice if:
* the crime requires more than one participant
* the criminal statute imposes liability on one participant and
* the person acts as the nonliable participant
VVVVVVVVVVVV
Accessories After the Fact
People who assist the defendant after the crime has been committed (e.g., obstruction of justice or harboring a fugitive)
VVVVVVVVVVVV
Aiders/Abettors and Conspiracy
In addition to accomplice liability for the substantive crime, individuals who aid or abet a defendant to commit a crime may also be guilty of the separate crime of conspiracy if there was an agreement to commit the crime and an overt act was taken in furtherance of that agreement.
VVVVVVVVVVVV
The Mental States of Accomplices
Majority and MPC Approaches—the accomplice must act with the purpose of promoting or facilitating the commission of the offense; the accomplice must know that her acts will assist or encourage the criminal conduct.
Minority Approach—the accomplice is liable if he intentionally or knowingly aids or causes another person to commit an offense.
Criminal Facilitation—under the majority rule, a person who is not guilty of the substantive crime (because he did not act with intent) may nevertheless be guilty of the lesser offense of criminal facilitation for simply assisting
Types of Homicide
homicide: the killing of a living human being by another human being
* Animals cannot commit a homicide and killing an animal is not a homicide;
* victim cannot already be dead
* suicide is not homicide, but assisting someone to commit suicide can be a homicide
VVVVVVVVVVVVV
There must be a causal relationship between the defendant’s actions and what happened to the victim
actual causation: victim would not have died “but for” what the defendant did
proximate cuasation: Defendant’s act is a foreseeable cause of the victim’s death (death is natural and probable result of conduct)
* Independent actions by a third person are generally not a foreseeable cause
* Assisted suicide is a homicide by the assister, except in jurisdictions that permit assisted suicide
two types of homicide:
1. murder
2. manslaughter
Types of Murder
(1) first-degree murder:
Specific-intent crime, typically defined as a deliberate and pre-meditated murder, or a killing that results during the commission of an inherently dangerous felony (i.e., felony murder is frequently classified as first-degree murder)
VVVVVVVVVVVVVVVVV
(2) Common law murder:
unlawful killing of another human being committed with malice aforethought
Lawful killing of another is not murder (e.g., state execution or a police officer’s justifiable use of deadly force)
four kinds of malice
1. intent to kill: The defendant acted with the desire that the victim end up dead. intent need not be premeditated; it can be formed in the moment before the killing
2. intent to inflict serious bodily injury: intent to injure, but they die
3. abandoned, malignant, or Depraved Heart: reckless disregard of human life (NO INTENT)
people are present: the defendant acted with a cavalier disregard for human life and a death resulted. Defendant must realize that his conduct is really risky but need not have any intent regarding the outcome of his actions.
Majority and MPC—defendant must actually realize that there is a danger
Minority—a reasonable person would have recognized the danger
(4) felony murder: death resulting from commission of dangerous felony –> BARRK: Burglary, Arson, Rape, Robbery, Kidnapping ( Majority of jurisdictions= the underlying felony is deemed a lesser-included offense of felony murder, defendant cannot be convicted of both the underlying felony and felony murder)
Deaths caused by other felonies get the label of misdemeanor manslaughter.
Felony murder can involve:
* someone who resists the felony
* when a bystander is killed during a felony
* third person killed by the resister or police officer (minority)
* Majority—agency (co-felon) theory: A defendant is only responsible for the crimes of the defendant’s “agents.” Because the victim, police, or third party are not the defendant’s agents, the defendant is not responsible for their conduct.
* minority proximate cause theory= defendant responsible for deaths cause by any person (co-felony, police, bystander)
* If a co-felon is killed by a resister or a police officer, then the defendant is not guilty of felony murder
Types of Manslaughter
all unlawful killings of another human being that are not first- degree murder or common law murder
two types: voluntary and involuntary
- voluntary
- Occurs when a defendant intends to kill the victim, but his state of mind is less blameworthy than murder
- adequate provocations (ordinary person standard)
heat of passion (in a daze)
no time to cool off (just snapped)
but if he did cool off, it could be rekindles (by seeing his wife with the cheating friend again after catching them in bed hours earlier) - NOTHING TO DO WITH INTENT! INTENT IS MURDER.
- involuntary
* Negligent or reckless conduct causing death or killing of someone while committing a crime other than those covered by felony murder (like misdemeanor manslaughter)
* A defendant who engages in criminally negligent conduct and causes a death is guilty of involuntary manslaughter (e.g., traffic deaths)
* no people are around
adequate provocation could be getting kicked in the groin twice, but not when a friend smashes your tv while watching sports game
Inchoate Crimes
crimes occuring before underlying crime:
1. attempt
2. conspiracy
3. solicitation
Under the Model Penal Code, a defendant may be concurrently prosecuted for, but not convicted of, more than one inchoate offense (i.e., solicitation, conspiracy, and attempt) based on conduct designed to culminate in the commission of the same crime
inchoate –> attempt
attempt is a specific intent crime
requirements:
- criminal intent to commit crime (attempt of general intent crime needs the specific intent to commit general intent crime, if attempted murder even if it fits depraved heart he would actually need intent to commit murder)
AND - overt act/substantial step to completing crime
under common law dangerous proximity test, an act occurs when it brings the defendant in dangerous proximity to completing the target offense (no dangerous proximity where you solicited someone to commit a crime for $ but you have not paid yet)
Attempt is a specific-intent crime even when the completed offense is only a general intent crime
VVVVVVVV
defenses
Defenses for specific-intent crimes can be used as a defense to attempt
Certain defenses like voluntary intoxication and unreasonable mistake of fact are available even if they wouldn’t be available had the crime been completed.
VVVVVVVV
merger
Attempt merges into a completed offense
you cannot be convicted of both attempted murder and murder of the same person in the same episode
You can be convicted of both conspiracy to commit murder and murder
defense of others
an individual has the same right to defend other individuals against a criminal that she has to defend herself
inchoate crimes–> conspiracy
common law conspiracy requires:
* an agreement
* between 2 or more people
* to commit an unlawful act
modern conspiracy statutes:
Add a fourth element: The performance of an overt act in furtherance of the conspiracy
Model Penal Code (MPC):
Only the defendant must actually agree to commit the unlawful act. The other people with whom the defendant agrees can be undercover agents, for example
agreement can be explicit or implicit
* simply knowing a crime is going to occur and doing nothing about it does not turn a bystander into a co-conspirator; there must be an agreement.
Purpose of the conspiracy Unlawful act
* If what the conspirators agree to do is not a crime, there is no conspiracy even if they think what they’re doing is wrong.
Overt act: Can be lawful or unlawful, as long as it furthers the conspiracy
VVVVVVVVVVVVV
scope of conspiracy
At common law, each co conspirator can be convicted both of:
1. conspiracy and
2. All substantive crimes committed by any other conspirator acting in furtherance of the conspiracy
IF YOU DO NOT WITHDRAW BEFORE CONSPIRED ACT COMPLETED, YOU CAN BE CHARGED WITH COMPLETED ACT!
Relationships of co-conspirators
* Chain Conspiracy: Co-conspirators are engaged in an enterprise consisting of many steps; each participant is liable for the substantive crimes of his co-conspirators
* Spoke-Hub Conspiracy: Involves many people dealing with a central hub; participants are not liable for the substantive crimes of their co-conspirators because each spoke is treated as a separate agreement rather than one larger general agreement
VVVVVVVVVVVVVVVVVV
Common law—it’s impossible to withdraw from a conspiracy, because the crime is completed the moment the agreement is made.
federal and MPC: a conspirator can withdraw prior to the commission of any overt act by communicating her intention to withdraw to all other conspirators or by informing law enforcement
* After an overt act—a conspirator can withdraw only by helping to thwart the success of a conspiracy.
* Even if a defendant cannot withdraw from the conspiracy (e.g., because a conspiracy had already been formed), the defendant can limit his liability for substantive crimes by informing the other conspirators of withdrawal or timely advising legal authorities.
VVVVVVVVVVVVVVVV
charging co-conspirators
Since the common law follows the bilateral approach to conspiracy, a conviction requires proof of at least two guilty minds. For this reason, and because of the need for consistency in verdicts returned by a single jury,* a conspirator cannot be convicted if all other coconspirators are acquitted at the same trial.*
inchoate crimes –> conspiracy–> MPC
Model penal code: unilateral theory of conspiracy.
1 individual, on their own, decides, agrees in their head, decides to commit crime= conspiracy
inchoate crime–> conspiracy–> co-conspirator rule
once there is a conspiracy, any crime committed by 1 conspirator, the other conspirator will be guilty of all those crimes, whether they committed them or not, as long as they are in furtherance (foreseeable) of the conspiracy
inchoate crime–> conspiracy–> withdrawal
- can’t get out of conspiracy, once agreement is made, still guilty of conspiracy.
-
but you can withdraw from other crimes following conspiracy, if you provide notice to:
1. co-conspirator or
2. law enforcement
prior to commission of those crimes
inchoate crime–> solicitation
Occurs when an individual intentionally invites, requests, or commands another person to commit a crime
If the person agrees, the crime is conspiracy instead
If the person commits the offense, the solicitation charge will merge into the completed offense
specific intent crime–> burglary
- breaking, entering dwelling of another at night with INTENT to commit a felony
The common law elements have been relaxed, so that modern law burglary requires: breaking and entering the property of another with the specific intent to commit a felony inside
VVVVVVVVVVVV
elements
- Even if you dont do anything, just need intent to commit, The usual felony is larceny, but it could be another felony, such as battery
- even if door unlocked, or window unlocked, if you open/enlarge entryway or obtian entry by committing fraud= breaking
- If you were invited in home, but then opened a door to a room you did not have consent to enter, you DID break and enter (check if when they did so, they had intent to commit felony therein)
- entering= any body part in dwelling
- dwelling= a structure regularly lived in, Modern statutes can also include a commercial building
- of another= Cannot burglarize yourself
VVVVVVVVVV
a burglary defendant who fails to complete the underlying felony is also guilty of the attempted commission of that felony.
That is because the defendant:
(1) specifically intended to commit the felony and
(2) performed an overt act in furtherance of the felony—the unlawful breaking and entering.
And the underlying felony (attempted or completed) does not merge with the burglary because neither offense requires all the elements of the other.
someone who comes inside with the owners consent and then steals something is guilty of larceny (and possibly robbery if he uses violence/threat of violence) but not burglary because there was no breaking
specific intent crime–> larceny
- trespassory taking away of personal property with intent to permanently deprive
- trepassory taking= touched your proerty without permission, defendant bears burden to show that there was consent; MUST NOT have been legally entrusted with property to begin with, that would be embezzlement
- away= any movement. 1 inch. 1 mile.
- personal property: must be tangible, not intangible
- intent= an intent to deprive the person of the property permanently, “Borrowing” property, even without the owner’s consent, is not larcenky, as long as you give the property back. if the property is destroyed in your care, you have not committed larceny.
- under a continuing trespass theory of larceny, when one takes property with the intent to return it, but later keeps it, larceny arises at the moment the def decides not to return the property
- larcney is a specific intent crime, as long as the defendant thinks it’s his property—however unreasonably—he is not guilty of larceny.
specific intent crime–> robbery
- larceny +assault= robbery
- intentionally taking another person’s personal property without their consent, with the intent to deprive him of it permanently, and the taking occurs from the victim’s person or in his presence either by FORCE/intimidation/fear or putting victim in fear of imminent physical harm
- any amount of force to overcome resistance is sufficient, could be before/during/after – to get away
- if you commit larceny its a lesser included offense, only convicted of robbery
VVVVVVVVVV
extortion: a variation of robbery
Involves threats of future harm (including non-physical harm)
specific intent crime–> assault
two forms:
(1) attempted battery
* if defendant has taken substantial step toward a battery but fails, he will be guilty of assault (substantial step could be soliciting someone else to commit the battery!)
* its a specific intent crime because its an attempt, specific-intent defenses available
(2) fear of harm
* intentionally placing another in fear of imminent bodily harm
* this form of assault is general-intent crime
specific intent crime–> larceny by trick
- taking posession by misrepresentation of fact
- rule: obtain possession of property of another by trick/lie/misrepresentation
- *if you commit robbery, larceny is a lesser included offense, only convicted of robbery
* presumptive answer is larceny by trick on questions
specific intent crime–> false pretenses
- obtaining TITLE (like cash, or a piece of clothing from a store by putting on a fake cheaper price tag on it, or title to someones car) of another’s property by knowingly misrepresenting a past or present material fact upon which VICTIM RELIED and did so with the specific intent to defraud
- to prove reliance, prosecution must establish that the defendant’s misrepresentation was a significant factor in or the cause of the victim’s decision to pass title to the property to the defendant
- Looks like larceny by trick
- title: sign over registration, signing deed over. some paper evidencing ownership/title
- usually some type of 2 way buy-transfer
- scam sale, fraud
property crimes: model penal code and other modern changes
Under the MPC and in many jurisdictions, crimes such as larceny, false pretenses, and embexxlement are treated as a single statutory crime of theft (which includes both tangible and intangible property)
specific intent crime–> embezzlement
- initially in possession with permission, then convert to own use- HOLDING/PROTECTION of property
- you gave it to me (in lawful possession of property of another) to hold, protect
specific intent crime–> accomplice liability/accessory before the fact
- aid, abet, help someone achieve the crime with intent to do so
- you’re helping someone do a crime
- knowledge alone is not enough, you have to do something
- can be guilty of crime and accomplice liability/accessory
specific intent crime–> accessory after the fact
- know (aware) of completed crime and do something to stop arrest, conviction, prosecution
(urging to flee is not enough, it would be like driving getaway car)
general intent crimes–> battery
unlawful application of force to another person that causes bodily harm or an offensive touching
* contact w/o permission
* accident/joke does not matter
VVVVVVVVV
elements
Unlawful: Consent is a complete defense to battery (e.g.,boxing match).
Application of force: Need not be a great deal of force; the slightest touch can constitute force in some cases
battery is a general intent crime so voluntary intoxication and unreasonable mistake of fact are not available defenses
Does not require actual physical contact between the defendant and the victim (e.g., throwing a rock that hits someone)
general intent crimes–> arson
- malicious burning of the dwelling of another, BUT MBE will often impleidly follow the modern trend that the structure does not need to be the dwelling of another, just a structure
- malicious= reckless (knew/should have known that you did something that can burn your house down)
- burning= under common law there had to be burning (fire) as opposed to an explosion or smoke damage. it also required damage to the structure, not just contents inside. modern statutes- its arson even if theres no damage to the structure of building or if fire was caused by explosion
- another person: under common law you could not torch your own house. but under Modern statutes—burning your own home is arson.
- dwelling: common law had to be a dwelling, not another structure but under modern statutes- burning down a commercial building is arson
general intent crimes–> rape
common law rape:
unlawful sexual intercourse with a female against her will by force or threat of force
most modern rape statutes:
gender neutral and require lack of consent rather than use of force
intent: rape is general intent crime, voluntary intoxication can be used as a defense
statutory rape: regulatory moral offense that involves consensual sexual intercourse with a person under the age of consent. strict liabiltiy, so long as defendant is having sex, he cannot claim ignorance or mistake about victim’s age
VVVVVVVVVDoes not negate victim’s consent
Consent to sexual intercourse obtained by fraud
1. in factum: pertains to nature of act—eg, doctor convinces patient that sexual act is part of medical exam; Victim is unaware that he/she is consenting to sexual intercourse= Negates victim’s consent
2. In inducement: Fraud pertains to what victim knows is an act of sexual intercourse—eg, defendant promises marriage in exchange for sex; Victim is aware that he/she is consenting to sexual intercourse= Does not negate victim’s consent
Other Sex Crimes at Common Law:
* Adultery: Having sex with someone who is not your spouse
* fornication: Sex between unmarried people
* Crimes against nature: Bestiality
* Incest: Sex between people who are too closely related to one another
* Bigamy: Marrying someone while you are still legally married to someone else
* Seduction: A man tells a woman that he will marry her if she has sex with him
general intent crimes–> kidnapping
unlawful confinement of another person against the person’s will either by moving or hiding the victim
note: perpetrator need only move victim a short distance even a few feet- to satisfy the movement element of kidnapping.
BUT if kidnapping occurs incident to the commission of another offense, then the movement of the victim must be more than is necessary to complete the other offense. otherwise, perpetrator can only be convicted of the other offense– but not kidnapping
perjury
willful act of falsely promising to tell the truth, either verbally or in writing, about material matters
the person must know what they are saying is false, must intend to say something that is false, and the falsity must go to material matter
Subornation of Perjury: A person persuades someone else to commit perjury, such as paying someone to testify falsely
bribery
common law: Corrupt payment of something of value for purposes of influencing an official in the discharge of his official duties
Modern law: Allows a bribery charge even if the person being bribed is not a public official
Offering a bribe and receiving a bribe are both felonies.
Recall that a person can be convicted of bribery even if the person could not “be bribed.”
defenses
- intoxication
2.mistake - insanity
- legal impossibility
negating mens rea: intoxication
covers alcohol, drugs, and medications
can be voluntary or involuntary
(1) Involuntary intoxication
Occurs when a person:
* Doesn’t realize that she received an intoxicating substance (e.g., “date rape” drugs);
* is coerced into ingesting substance or
* has an unexpected or unanticipated reaction to prescription medication
can be a valid defense to general-intent, specific-intent, and malice crimes when it negates the mens rea necessary for the crime
* NOT a defense for RECKLESS conduct
(2) Voluntary intoxication
Occurs when a person intentionally ingests the substance, knowing it is an intoxicant
voluntary intoxication is a defense only to specific intent crimes (FIAT) and only if it prevented the defendant from forming the mens rea
* Not a valid defense if the defendant got drunk in order to commit the crime
* Under the MPC, voluntary intoxication is only a defense to crimes for which a material element requires purpose or knowledge and the intoxication prevents the formation of that mental state.
negating mens rea: insanity
- durham rule: defendant would not have committed the crime but-for his having a mental disease or defect (Rarely used because so defendant friendly)
- model penal code: Due to a mental disease or defect, the defendant did not have the substantial capacity to appreciate the wrongfulness of his actions or to conform his conduct to the law
- Irresistible Impulse: Defendant has a mental disease or defect that prevents the defendant from controlling himself
- MBE McNaughton- Can’t appreciate nature/quality of what I was doing. You don’t know what is WRONG
majority= the defendant has the burden of proving insanity either by a preponderance of the evidence or clear and convincing evidence
* Some jurisdictions require the defendant to introduce evidence of insanity, and then the burden of persuasion shifts to the prosecution to prove sanity beyond a reasonable doubt
negating mens rea : mistake
Often, a defendant will claim that some mistake—regarding either facts in the world or the state of the law—negates his mens rea and thus he cannot be convicted of a crime for which there are both actus reus and mens rea elements.
(1) mistake of law
Mistakes about what the law forbids and what it permits
ignorance of the law is no excuse
three potential exceptions:
- Reliance on high-level government interpretations
- lack of notice
- Mistake of law that goes to an element of specific intent (applies only to the “FIAT” crimes or specific-intent crimes= 1st degree murder, assault with intent to commit battery, theft)
(2) mistake of fact
Key starting point: Determine whether the crime is a specific intent crime (FIAT), a general intent crime, or a strict liability crime
Strict Liability: Mistake of fact is never a defense to strict liability crimes
* Must be a voluntary act, but the defendant’s state of mind is irrelevant
General Intent: Mistake of fact is a defense only if the mistake is reasonable and goes to the criminal intent.
Specific intent (FIAT): Mistakes of fact are a defense whether the mistake is reasonable or unreasonable. The only question is whether the defendant held the mistaken belief.
defenses –> legal impossibility
- no matter what I did, it did not amount to a crime.
- always a defense
- legally impossible to be guilty
- elements for crime not met
defense: self-defense
(1) deadly force: force: Intended or likely to cause death or serious injury
* a vicitm is entitled to use deadly force only if he reasonably believes that deadly force will be used against him, or under MPC, reasonably believes crime (serious felony) will result in serious bodily injury
(2) non deadly force: locking door, pushing someone, hitting someone with a shoe (basically battery, so long as non-deadly)
* A victim is entitled to use non deadly force any time he reasonably fears imminent unlawful harm.
* may be used to prevent the commission of a lesser felony (burglary) or a breach-of-peace misdemeanor
retreat
- majority rule: retreat is not required even when entitled to use deadly force
- minority rule: must retreat rather than using deadly force if safe to do so
- even in minority jurisdictions, retreat is never required when the person employing deadly force is in his own home
VVVVVVVVVVVVVVVV
imperfect self-defense
where a defendant honestly, but unreasonably believes that there is an immediate threat and uses deadly force, imperfect self-defense reduces his crime from murder to voluntary manslaughter
defense of property
right to use only non-deadly for5ce to protect property
justified when the person reasonably believes property in his posession is in danger of imminent unlawful interference and uses reaosnable, non-deadly force to prevent that interference
duress
defendant claims he committed a crime only because he was threatened by a third party and reasonably believed the only way to avoid death or injury to himself or others was to commit the crime
in order to be a defense, there must be a threat of death or serious bodily harm. mere injury, particularly injury to property, is not sufficient
defense for all crimes other than intentional murder
necessity
available in response to natural forces; its the lesser of two evils
defense of arrest:
defendant’s use of force (like battery) may be justifiable if its deemed socially acceptable under circumstances in which it occurred
a civilian- even one acting without police direction– is justified in using reasonable force to arrest a person who has committed a crime in civilian’s presence
defenses –> factual impossibility
- facts were not what I thought, but still committed crime= no defense
- never a defense
- you are guilty
general intent crime: false imprisonment
intent to confine claimant
protecting others from self harm
defendant is privileged to use reasonable force (like battery or false imprisonment) to protect an individual from self-harm when
* individual is unable to understand nature and consequences of his actions (psychotic breakdown, drunk) and
* the defendant reasonably believes the individual is about to commit an act likely to cause death or serious bodily harm to him/herself (person is threatening to jump off 5th story balcony)
forgery
- creating or altering (drafting, adding or deleting);
- a document with purported legal significane (contract or check)
- to be false (alteration/creation must be made to change the legal significance of the document)
- with the intent to defraud (Specific intent crime where mere intent to defraud is sufficient, and actually defrauding someone isnt required)
ineffective assistance of counsel
Under the Sixth Amendment, applied to the states through the Fourteenth Amendment due process clause, criminal defendants have the right to effective assistance of counsel at trial.
A defendant can challenge his/her conviction by arguing that his/her counsel was ineffective by showing:
* deficient performance – the attorney’s representation fell below an objective professional standard of reasonableness and
* prejudice – there is a reasonable probability that, but for that deficiency, the trial’s outcome would have been different.
Defense counsel must inform the defendant of the possibility that a guilty plea may affect the defendant’s immigration status, and failure to do so constitutes deficient performance.
And even when there is overwhelming evidence of guilt, this deficient performance prejudices the defendant if there is a reasonable probability that, but for the deficient performance, the defendant would have gone to trial instead of accepting the guilty plea.
