Midterm Exam Spring 2020

Question 1

Civil versus Criminal

Answer 1

Moral condemnation separates a civil and criminal act

Question 2

Sources of Criminal Law

Answer 2

A. Common Law: judge made law
B. Statutes: legislatively drafted definitions of crimes, and other relevant doctrines
C. Model Penal Code: is not the law. Scholars, judges and lawyers put this together. Many states opt to adopt these rules as law.

Question 3

Jury Nullification

Answer 3

Occurs when the jury decides that the prosecution has proven its case beyond a reasonable doubt, but for reasons of conscience, it disregards the facts and decides to acquit the defendant. Jurors have the power to nullify, but not the right to do so. Defendant is not entitled to have the jury instructed that it may nullify the law.

Question 4

Utilitarianism

Answer 4

Pain of punishment is undesirable unless its infliction is likely to prevent a greater amount of pain in the form of future crimes.

Question 5

General Deterrence (utilitarianism)

Answer 5

a person is punished in order to send a message to others members of society to demonstrate what behaviors we consider acceptable and unacceptable.

Question 6

Specific Deterrence(utilitarianism)

Answer 6

criminal is individually deterred from committing future crimes

Question 7

Rehabilitation(utilitarianism)

Answer 7

punishment will prevent future crime by reforming an individual, by providing employment skills, psychological aid, or other rehab practices, in hopes that the criminal will not need or want to commit future crimes.

Question 8

Retribution

Answer 8

A. Believes we have a duty to punish (Kant). They punish because of the wrongdoing. They don’t care whether or not it deters future crimes or behavior, they just worry about punishing for that specific crime that was committed by that specific criminal, because they violated the standards of society. (Moore)
B. “pay their debt” to restore equilibrium in society (Morris)
C. Victim Vindication (Hampton)

Question 9

Proportionality of Punishment:

Answer 9

Punishment must be proportional to the offense committed

Question 10

Utilitarian proportion

Answer 10

cannot involve the infliction of more pain than necessary to fulfill the law’s deterrent goal of reducing a greater amount of crime

Question 11

Retributive proportion

Answer 11

punishment should be proportional to the harm caused on the present occasion, taking into consideration the actor’s degree of culpability

Question 12

Cruel and unusual punishment

Answer 12

Punishment cannot be cruel and unusual, protected by the eighth amendment

Question 13

Two Part Test for Proportionality of Punishment:

Answer 13

1. Condition imposed must be imposed for a permissible purpose
2. Conditions relate to the permissible purpose

Question 14

Queen v. Dudley and Stephens

Answer 14

Had to kill one guy so they could eat him, and all of the others could live
A person may not sacrifice a life to save his own. This needs to be punished.

Question 15

People v. Superior Court (Du)

Answer 15

Woman was frightened about the younger victim stealing milk from her store, and she pulls a gun out and shoots her in the head & only gets probation.
The court cannot take into consideration what the public wants to see for a punishment, but instead much focus on proportionality and the overall goal of punishment and the law.

Question 16

United States v. Gementera

Answer 16

Man steals mail, and his punishment is to wear thi sign admitting his wrong doings in front of the post office.
Highlights creative punishment
Punishment must be reasonably related
Involves no greater deprivation of liberty than reasonably necessary
Is consistent with any pertinent policy statements issued by the commission

Question 17

Coker v. Georgia

Answer 17

Man who escapes prison and rapes a girl for the third time. Man is sentenced to the death penalty. Is death proportional to the crime of rape?
Court says: no, factors considered for unconstitutional: (1) makes no measurable contribution to acceptable goals of punishment and hence is nothing more than the (2) purposeless and needless imposition of pain and suffering; or (3) is grossly out of proportion to the severity of the crime.

Question 18

Ewing v. California

Answer 18

The Defendant, Gary Ewing (Defendant), was convicted of one count of felony grand theft. Since he had previously been convicted of two or more serious or violent felonies, Defendant was sentenced, under California’s “three strikes” law to 25 years to life in prison.
Issue. Does California’s three strikes law violate the Eighth Amendment’s ban on cruel and unusual punishments, which prohibits sentences that are disproportionate to the crime committed?
Court puts forth the utilitarianism point of view here, highlighting the importance of deterrence

Question 19

Burden of Proof:

Answer 19

a. Government has the burden of production to regarding elements of a crime
b. Defendant has the burden of production regarding affirmative defenses

Question 20

Elements of a Crime:

Answer 20

1. Actus Reus
2. Mens Rea
3. Concurrence
4. Causation
5. Resulting Harm
   · Act + Intent + Result = Crime – Defenses

Question 21

Actus Reus (2 parts):

Answer 21

Definition: physical, external, component of a crime that society does not want to occur.

1. Voluntary Act or Legal Omission
2. social harm

Question 22

Martin v. State

Answer 22

Arrested for a disturbance on a public highway, after being detained by police prior, and brought to this public highway.
Court decides: he cannot fulfill elements of the crime, because one of the attendant circumstances was to be on the public highway, and the defendant did not voluntarily put himself there.

Question 23

State v. Utter

Answer 23

Defendant commits a murder because of a conditioned response (PTSD). Does this constitute as a voluntary act?
An “act” committed during unconsciousness is not voluntary, and therefore one cannot be held criminally culpable for said act. However, voluntarily induced unconsciousness, such as by drugs or alcohol, is not a complete defense.

Question 24

Voluntary Act or Legal Omission

Answer 24

a. In order to be crime, there must be voluntary conduct
b. Sometimes, a person is prosecuted because of what he or she did not do – an absence of conduct.
i. An omission substitutes for a voluntary act only when the defendant has a legal duty to act.
ii. Ordinarily, a person is not guilty of a crime for failing to act, even if such a failure permits harm to occur to another, and even if the person could act at no risk to their own personal safety.
iii. Promotes liberty

Question 25

Omission Exceptions:

Answer 25

Creation of peril
You have an obligation to rescue them or get them help. Even if you didn’t mean for the circumstance you created to be harmful.
Duty to control the conduct of others
Master Servant
Landowner Duty
Keep your premises safe
Statutory Relationship
Statute requires you to help (mandated reporters)
Certain Status Relationships
Parent and child relationships
Contractual Relationships
Contracted to provide services. Ex - life guard or babysitter
Voluntary Consumption of Care
If you make the situation worse, you need to render aid. When the person has ne previous obligation to aid.
Control
People under your control. Ex - military or employees

Question 26

People v. Beardsley

Answer 26

Court decides (regarding omission): Although there was a moral obligation, there was no legal relationship. Thus, there was no duty to act.
While his wife was out of town, the Defendant spent the weekend with another woman, Blanche Burns. On Monday afternoon, Ms. Burns consumed morphine in an apparent suicide attempt. After she died, the Defendant was convicted for manslaughter for failing to render aid.

Question 27

Barber v. Superior Court

Answer 27

This court deems the cessation of life support as an omission of further treatment as opposed to an affirmative act and there is no criminal liability for an omission where no legal duty is owed.
This was qualified as an omission, not an act.
Why? Because of long term policy implications. All the doctors would be arrested. They had to classify feeding as a “treatment.” Nobody would want to be a doctor.

Question 28

Levels of Possession:

Answer 28

Actual - in your hand
Constructive - in your car, with 4 others
Knowing - know what you have, and know you have it
Mere - you know that you have something, but you don’t know what it is.
Unwitting - you don’t know you have it

Question 29

Social Harm

Answer 29

Injury to some socially valuable interest

b. Based on different categories that help determine if social harm is present:
i. Result Crimes: crimes that prohibit a specific result (death)
ii. Conduct Crimes: crimes that prohibit specific conduct, even if no harmful result occurs (drunk driving)

Question 30

Attendant Circumstance:

Answer 30

Neither of the above two exist unless a certain attendant circumstance exists. Fact that exists at the time of the actor’s conduct, or at the time of a particular result, which is required to be proven in the definition of the offense.

Question 31

Voluntary Act (common law)

Answer 31

willed muscular bodily movement by the actor. An act is willed if the bodily movement was controlled by the mind of the actor.

Question 32

Voluntary Act (Modal Penal Code)

Answer 32

not clearly defined. Involuntary acts are instead defined as
Reflex
Convulsion
Bodily movement while asleep
Conduct during hypnosis
Bodily movement that otherwise is not a product of the effort or determination of the actor

Question 33

Mens Rea (culpable approach)

Answer 33

A person is not guilty of a crime with a voluntary act alone, they must also have a “guilty mind.” “morally blameworthy” or “culpable” state of mind

Question 34

mens rea (elemental apprach)

Answer 34

Narrow sense of the term. Particular mental state listed out by the statute.

Question 35

Regina v. Cunningham

Answer 35

Highlights the difference between the culpable approach and the elemental approach to mens rea evaluation
Gas leak happened as a result of the defendant stealing pipes, and someone was harmed from inhalation of the gasses.
The first court used a culpable definition of mens rea
The appellate court uses an elemental approach and determines that his malicious thoughts were gauged at stealing the money, not poisoning someone.

Question 36

People v. Conley

Answer 36

Man swings a wine bottle and injures the plaintiff. Appeals his conviction, stating that the wrong mens rea was used.
If this were a GENERAL intent - then the prosecutor would have been right. But, because this was written by a statute, this changes to specific intent

Question 37

Intentionally

Answer 37

A person commits the social harm intentionally if: (1) it was their conscious objective to cause the result or (2) they knew that the result was virtually certain to occur because of their conduct.

Question 38

Transferred Intent:

Answer 38

a person acts intentionally if the result of their conduct differs from that which she desired only in respect to the identity of the victim.

Question 39

Knowingly

Answer 39

One acts knowingly if they (1) are aware of the fact (2) correctly believes that fact exists, (3) suspects the fact exists and purposely avoids learning if their suspicion is correct (Willful blindness)

Question 40

Negligently

Answer 40

Conduct creates a substantial and unjustifiable risk of social harm.
· Unaware of the risk – but should be aware

Question 41

Recklessly

Answer 41

· Very substantial and unjustified risk taking
· Conscious disregard a substantial risk that causes social harm
· Aware of the risk, and chose to disregard it

Question 42

Specific Intent

Answer 42

a. To go beyond just the actus reus of the crime
b. Special motive
c. Awareness of a particular attendant circumstance
any crime that requires any above and beyond doing the moral culpability or the actual act (intent to do something else, specific motive, or it can be awareness of attendant circumstances)

Question 43

General Intent

Answer 43

a. Any offense that requires a proof of a culpable mental state of
b. actus reus committed with any culpable state of mind if not outlined by the statute

Question 44

State v. Nations

Answer 44

Court evaluates mens rea - knowingly - wilful blindness
The Defendant, Sandra Nations (Defendant) owns and operates the Main Street Disco, in which police officers found a scantily clad sixteen-year-old girl dancing for tips. Consequently, the Defendant was charged with endangering the welfare of a child less than seventeen years old. The Defendant was convicted and fined $1,000.
Court finds Defendant guilty because, knowingly means suspects the fact exists and purposely avoids learning if their suspicion is correct

Question 45

Model Penal Code & Mens Rea

Answer 45

· a person is not guilty of an offense unless he acted purposely, knowingly, recklessly, or negligently, with respect to each material element of the offense
· If there is one mens rea listed in the statute, the MPC requires that it apply to all of the elements of the statute.
1. Purposely (MPC): conscious objective to cause a result
2. Knowingly (MPC): person is aware that the result is practically certain to occur from their conduct
3. Reckless (MPC): consciously disregards a substantial risk that will result from his conduct
4. Negligently: person should be aware of the substantial risk. There is a gross deviation from the standard of care that a reasonable person would observe in the actor’s situation.

Question 46

Strict Liability

Answer 46

· An offense is strictly liable if commission of the actus reus is enough alone (no mens rea required)

Question 47

Public Welfare Offenses:

Answer 47

· An offense is strictly liable if commission of the actus reus is enough alone (no mens rea required)
· Public Welfare Offenses: malum prohibitum (conduct that is wrong just because it is prohibited) or Malum in se conduct (inherently wrong)
· Usually very minor in punishment (typically a fine, or very short jail time)
· Public Welfare Offenses typically threaten the safety of many people in society. Ex – transportation of explosives
· The Outlier: Rape (no public welfare strict liability offense)
· Courts do not assume that the legislature intended to abandon the common law mens rea requirement, even if a statute is silent.

Question 48

MPC and Strict Liability

Answer 48

Only recognizes SL on violations
If there’s no mens rea, then it’s not a crime and you cannot punish me heavily
Aka only used for minor offenses
The mens rea for the MP code is reckless if not specified.
If no mental state is listed, if there’s a state of mind mentioned once to one verb, it applies to all the verbs in the statute.

Question 49

Morissette v. United States

Answer 49

Highlights public welfare offenses
Morissette (defendant), entered an Air Force bombing range and took several spent bomb casings that had been lying around for years exposed to the weather and rusting and sold them. Morissette was indicted for violating 18 U.S.C. § 641 which made it a crime to “knowingly convert” government property.
Malum Prohibitum - the activity is not inherently bad, but instead there’s a statute that forbids it
Malum In Se - the act is bad within itself, or inherently

Question 50

Mistake of Fact:

Answer 50

Is there specific intent?
o A person is not guilty of a specific intent crime if their mistake of fact negates the specific-intent element of the offense.
o Even an unreasonable mistake of fact (a mistake that a reasonable person would not make) will sever culpability if the mistake negates the mens rea required for the offense.*
· Is there general intent?
o A defendant is not guilty of a general intent offense if their mistake of fact was reasonable. If unreasonable, then still guilty.

Question 51

Baldwin’s Approach to Mistake of Fact:

Answer 51

Step 1: is the offense general intent, specific intent, or SL?
Step 2: If specific intent - does the mistake of fact relate to the specific intent portion of the offense?
If yes, Elemental Approach: does the mistake negate the specific intent element of the offense? If it does, the DF is not guilty, and must be acquitted.
If no, treat the offense as if it were a general intent crime.
If general intent, did the DF act with a morally blameworthy state of mind?
Whether the DF’s mistake was reasonable or unreasonable? If it was unreasonable then he acted with a culpable state of mind and may be convicted. If his mistake was reasonable then he is morally innocent and entitled to a defense for want of a mens rea.
Alternatively, even if the DF’s mistake was reasonable, some court will apply the moral wrong or legal wrong doctrines.
Then apply legal wrong or moral wrong doctrine
Moral wrong doctrine looks through DF’s eyes: if they engage knowingly in morally wrong doctrine, then they also assume the risk that their conduct is also a legal wrong.
Legally Wrong Doctrine: punishes one based on looking at the facts as the DF sees it. So they are punished for the greater degree of the offense. Because you assume the risk of that legally wrong act you’re engaging in
If SL: a mistake is never a defense

Question 52

Perkins Rule (objective approach)

Answer 52

§ Common Law Rule: If the crime is a specific intent crime the belief can be unreasonable so long as it is a good faith belief
If the crime is a general intent crime the belief must be reasonable

Question 53

LaFave& Scott Rule (subjective approach)

Answer 53

-Modern View
- Does the defendant’s mistake of fact negate the mens rea required for an element of the crime?
Receiving stolen property without knowing the person does not have the required mens rea and cannot be convicted of a crime

Question 54

Staples v. United States

Answer 54

Defendant Staples was convicted under the National Firearms Act, which criminalizes the possession of a weapon that is capable of automatically firing. Defendant argued that he did not know that the gun would fire automatically.
Should this be a strict liability offense? Does this require mens rea? The court looks toward congressional intent to answer these questions.
The Court distinguishes this offense from the strict liability offenses and reasons that there has been a long tradition of widespread lawful gun ownership by private persons in this country. Therefore the Court rests it opinion on the rationale that “it is unthinkable that Congress intended to subject such law-abiding, well intentioned citizens to a possible 10 year term of imprisonment if what they genuinely and reasonably believed was a conventional semiautomatic turns out to have worn down into or modified into an automatic weapon.

Question 55

Garnett v. State

Answer 55

Brief Fact Summary. This case stems from sexual intercourse between 13-year-old Erica Frazier (Frazier) and the Defendant, 20-year-old Raymond Garnett (Defendant), resulting in the birth of a baby. At the time of the incident, the Defendant had been classified as being mildly retarded.
Court rules: this is a creature of legislation. They would have been mens rea in if they wanted to. Rape is an outlier, in the sense that you’re punished harder than most others. Question of public policy - we try to protect our children

Question 56

People v. Navarro

Answer 56

The Defendant was convicted of petty theft for taking lumber he believed to belong to him. The Defendant appealed the conviction on the ground that the jury was improperly instructed.
Specific intent - good faith ONLY - subjective test is used
General Intent Crime - mistake of fact is not a defense unless it is BOTH good faith and reasonable - both objective and subjective tests used
Court rules: Subjective test wins. Good faith is enough because specific intent is required.

Question 57

MORAL WRONG DOCTRINE:

Answer 57

exception to the above general rule. If the defendant’s conduct was immoral, they also assume the risk that that conduct is illegal, as well. Here, one cannot use the mistake of fact defense, even if the mistake was reasonable.

Question 58

LEGAL WRONG DOCTRINE:

Answer 58

If the defendant’s mistake was reasonable, but they would still be breaking another law, then they are not excused from culpability, even if they made a reasonable mistake of fact.

Question 59

MPC & Mistake of Fact:

Answer 59

· Under the MPC, if a defendant is guilty of a lesser crime with the fact as they saw the situation, taking into consideration there reasonable mistake of fact, they will be charged at the lesser offense (not the greater offense, like in the common law).

Question 60

Mistake of Law:

Answer 60

· Generally, not knowing the law never excuses a defendant from culpability. Even if it’s reasonable.
· Encourages people to know the law and avoid fraud/people always saying they didn’t know the law
· There are some exceptions to the above general mistake of law rule
o Not guilty if his mistake negates an element of the crime
o Not guilty if there is authorized reliance (relying on a statement of the law that turns out to be erroneous)
One could claim she was unaware the statute applied to her conduct.
One could claim she lacked the specific intent to commit the actus reus constituting the crime because of a misunderstanding of the law.

Question 61

People v. Marrero

Answer 61

Brief Fact Summary. Appellant was convicted of carrying a gun in New York State. Appellant argued that because he was a corrections officer, he mistakenly believed that he fell within the statutory exemption for peace officers.

Question 62

Cheek v. United States

Answer 62

Defendant Cheek was convicted under a provision of the Federal Tax Code that makes it a felony to “willfully attempt in any manner to evade or defeat any tax imposed by this title or payment thereof” for failing to file a tax return. Defendant argued that he had acted on information he received from a group opposing the institution of taxation and based on this information he believed that he did not owe any taxes.
Generally, mistake of law is no defense. But if the mistake negates the specific intent portion of the crime, even if unreasonable, they are allowed to present that defense, and the jury will decide.
The def. can have an unreasonable belief, as long as it’s reasonably held. This is a subjective test. And then the jury weighs this subjective belief.

Question 63

MP Code Approach to mistakes of fact and mistake of law:

Answer 63

the mistake must negate an element of the offense.
Defenses are not available if they’re guilty of another crime if facts were at the offender had supposed.
Only punished at the lower crime you thought you committed

Question 64

Actual Cause/Cause-in-Fact:

Answer 64

· “But For” Test: But for D’s voluntary act, would the social harm have occurred when it did?
Multiple Actual Causes: Often times two defendants can be the actual cause of a social harm, independently.
Concurrent Sufficient Causes: Alternative tests when there are two acts, either one of which is sufficient to cause the resulting harm, occur concurrently.
1. Substantial Factor Test: (some jurisdictions use this test) Was D’s conduct a substantial factor in the resulting harm?
A. MPC doesn’t use substantial factor test, only the but for test
B. 2 def. acting independently, two separate acts, but simultaneously (but for fails)

Question 65

Oxendine v. State

Answer 65

The Defendant Oxendine, Sr., was convicted by jury of manslaughter for the death of his son, Jeffrey Oxendine, Jr., whom the Defendant had beaten or kicked in the abdomen. The Defendant was convicted of manslaughter, and he argued on appeal that since the Defendant’s girlfriend had already delivered a fatal blow to the victim, he did not actually cause the victim’s death.
Acceleration versus aggravation
Aggravation is to make worse, but doesn’t speed up
Acceleration is to speed up the victim’s death in any way

Question 66

Proximate Cause/Legal Cause:

Answer 66

· In addition to actual cause, a defendant must also be a proximate cause of the social harm in order to be found guilty.
the unlawful act must be so integrated with the offense that we say that the result must have been proximately caused by the act
○ We attribute liability for proximate cause when the result is foreseeable by your actions
§ Proximate cause= legal cause (synonyms)

Question 67

People v. Rideout

Answer 67

Rideout (D) pleaded that the accident caused by his driving while intoxicated (OWI) or visibly impaired (OWVI) was not the immediate cause of Keiser’s death. Keiser had been a passenger in the car hit by Rideout, but had thereafter reached the side of the road safely before returning to the unlit car he had been in, which was in the center of the road. While there, he was struck by another vehicle.
Because there was no evidence that the victim was alive after impact, the court could not find beyond a reasonable doubt that the defendant was guilty of manslaughter.

Question 68

Intervening Cause:

Answer 68

· This is an actual cause of social harm that arises after D’s causal contribution to the result.
· Does not necessarily sever liability, unless if this new force severs causation, then they aren’t held liable.
· Unlawful act must be so integrated with the offense that we say that the result must have been proximately caused by the act.
· Abnormal and unforeseeable intervening causes sever liability
· An omission is NEVER a superseding action, and the Defendant will always be held liable
1. Response or Coincidence?
a. Responsive: intervening cause occurs as a response to the defendant’s earlier conduct
b. Coincidental: cause was not one that was foreseeable to a reasonable person, and is not a response to the defendant’s act
2. Intended Consequences:
a. A defendant is typically a proximate cause of a result, even with an intervening cause, if the defendant intended that result to occur
3. Free, Deliberate & Informed
a. A Defendant is not the proximate cause of a result if a free, deliberate, and informed act of another human being intervenes.

Question 69

Velaquez v. State

Answer 69

The Defendant, Velazquez (Defendant), was prosecuted for vehicular homicide in connection with his drag racing with the victim on a public road.
Court holds that there was CIF, but not PC. Because there was an intervening act. Thus, liability is severed. Although there is a responsive intervening act, it was not foreseeable.

Question 70

Concurrence of Elements:

Answer 70

Temporal - mens rea must be concurrent at time of actus reus (can’t change your mind at a later time)
Motivational - mens rea has to be the motivation for the actus reus

Question 71

State v. Rose

Answer 71

Appellant hit and killed a man while driving his car. Appellant argues that because there was no evidence of culpable negligence up to and including the time he hit the victim, he cannot be convicted of manslaughter.

Question 72

Homicide:

Answer 72

the killing of a human being by another human being.

Question 73

Human Being:

Answer 73

the CL provides that a fetus is not a human being until it is born alive.

Question 74

The End of Life

Answer 74

a person is legally dead when there is a total stoppage of the circulation of the blood and a permanent cessation of breathing and heart function. Some states (most states) classify “brain dead” to be the end of life.

Question 75

Common Law Murder

Answer 75

the killing of a human being by another human being with malice aforethought.

Question 76

Malice is:

Answer 76

o Intending to kill another human being
o Intention to inflict grievous bodily injury
o Intention to commit a felony, and a death accidentally occurs in the process
o An extremely reckless disregard for the value of human life

Question 77

Proving Intent:

Answer 77

o Prosecutor must show beyond a reasonable doubt that the killer purposely or knowingly took another’s life

Question 78

First-Degree Murder

Answer 78

A willful, deliberate, premeditated murder

Question 79

Willful

Answer 79

specific intent to kill, intentional

Question 80

Premeditated

Answer 80

to think about it in advance; think beforehand

Question 81

Deliberation

Answer 81

to reflect, to measure and evaluate the major facets of choice in a cool, calm manner; free from any excitement

Question 82

Second Degree Murder

Answer 82

o Everything else that is not willful, deliberate, or premeditated
o Is still an intentional killing of a human being