Omissions, Causation & Mens Rea Cases Flashcards
Dee takes in Melissa and her three month old child. Melissa is under distress where at times does not care for the child. Melissa abuse the child over several hours, in D’s home and presence and the child died. In police questioning D did not contradict Melissa’s denial of abusing the child.
Is she guilty for an omission to act?
No because this child is not under her supervision.
(1) relationship: would be in congruence that Pop’s acts of hospitality and kindness will lead to criminal prosecution
(2) act of commission or omission: there was an obvious need to help the child and Pope’s missions were in themselves, cruel and human treatment within the meaning of the statue
criminal liability can only be imposed from a legal, not moral obligation
Pope v. State (1979)
D and decedent agreed to a drag race. They go the quarter mile in a public road and after they stopped, the deceased turned his car 180° and went back to the start line. D followed. As they approached the end of the road neither could stop. Deceased crashed through guard rail, propelled over canal was thrown from his corner impact and pinned under it when it landed on him— died instantly. D also crashed through guard rail, but was able to escape.
D guilty of vehicular homicide?
No. Velasquez cannot be held criminally liable. He meets the first element of vehicular homicide; operating a car recklessly likely to cause death or bodily harm. Although he was the cause in fact under the but-for test, Velazquez is not the proximate cause because the deceased killed himself by continuing the race after it ended consuming alcohol beforehand and not wearing a seatbelt.
vehicular homicide requires a showing of proximate cause
Velasquez v. State (1990)
Girlfriend supported her boyfriend’s suicide. Was she a cause?
Yes—found guilty on a bench trial on omission theory.
Question depends on whether or not you feel like his intervening active killing himself was voluntary enough capable enough to cut off Michelle’s liability .
bench trial= judge decide the facts. Choose this one they don’t think they can get a fair trial from a jury (could be from prior convictions, or lots of news could persuade the jury one way)
Michelle Carter
Son plead guilty to four counts of first-degree, premeditated murder for his actions in a school shooting. The Drake convicted the parents of involuntary manslaughter after the child school shooting.
Theories?
Parents caused the death by letting Ethan take the gun to school, knowing he had murder his thoughts, mental problems, a gun fixation, access to his gun and didn’t search his backpack or take him home that fateful day. They let a dangerous minor child of their free to harm others.
On day of the shooting school staff member found a drawing of Ethan that detected the handgun and a person appearing to have been shot with the message, “The thoughts won’t stop, help me.” —> left him in school and another parent told the school about Ethan’s mental health issues or that they had bought him a gun recently. That same day he committed the shooting.
People v. Crumbly
Guy went to Walmart, pulled out a gun and demanded the assistant manager to give him cash. At trial, he explained that he was working with the other assistant manager of former Navy seal, who recruited him to help the CIA infiltrated a drug cartel. The robbery was fake and the assistant manager working that night was allegedly in on the plan.
Guilty of armed robbery?
Armed robber requires intent to permanently deprived the person of the property.
Blur and raised a failure of proof defense = in order to convict me of his armed robbery need to show this intent, but I do not have that
- Evidence was relevant to the fact that he locked criminal intent
- Appropriate inquiry is if any rational trial effect could’ve found the essential elements of the crime
we punished differently based on mental state and calibrate punishment to intent = purpose of mental state
State v. Blurton
Guy caught with 11 pounds of marijuana worth $6000 concealed in a compartment between the trunk and rear seat. Testified that he didn’t know it was present.
Can he be charged for “knowingly” possessing and bringing it into the US?
He is guilty. Holding that knowingly requires positive knowledge would make deliberate ignorance as a defense.
Jewel argued that the government has to prove that he had positive knowledge to be able to find him guilty. He had to know the marijuana was there instead of a lower bar of willful blindness.
Many drug traffickers probably don’t have positive knowledge of the drugs they carry but this narrows the purpose of the drug control act.
Willful blindness/conscious avoidance is not a defense for drug trafficking
US v. Jewell (1976)
Ski worker who raced down the slope after it closed and collided and killed someone, “ off-balance being thrown on from mogul to mogul, out of control for a considerable distance period of time, and at such a high speed that the force of the impact between his ski and the victims had fractured the thickest part of the victim skull”
Can he be guilty of manslaughter; recklessly causing death? Reckless = consciously disregards a substantial and unjustifiable risk that a result will occur
Yes. A risk may be substantial, even if the chance of the Harmel occur as well below 50%.
Ex: if a person holds a revolver with a single bullet in one of the chambers points, the gun at another head and pulls the trigger. The risk of death is substantial, even though the odds that it will happen or no better than 1/6.
People v. Hall
Company, jobber in drugs, purchase them from manufacturers and ship them repacked underitsown label in interstate commerce
Did they violate law that prohibits “adulterated or mis branded drugs”?
Yes, responsible on strict liability.
We want a stronger system to express the laws condemnation of this activity . Want companies to go beyond ordinary standard of care
- This was not a known harm [#1]
- Drugs are in a heavily regulated industry with objective standards, you should know what they are (vs another industry with a subjective standard)
- Congress placing responsibility on people with the opportunity of informing themselves of such conditions rather than throwing it on innocent people [#5]
United States v. Dotterweich (1943)
Detective entered a club in plain clothes to conduct a prostitution investigation. Woman came over and showed her breasts and invited him upstairs to do whatever. He told her he could give her $100 and she agreed.
Liquor board charged the owner with violating three liquor board rules related to solicitation of prostitution, indecent exposure, and violation of public morals, saying that the violations are strict liability offenses not requiring knowledge of the impermissible conduct. Are they?
Courts go both ways on this. Maryland said it was strict liability.
- Plain meetings of suffer, permit and allow
- One of the violations doesn’t say knowingly in the first sentence, but it does in the second sentence —> first is SL
- Modern licensed industry, illegal acts may be common in this type of industry
Kougl v. Board of liquor
Wife left man of seven years taking their two kids. Man changed his Facebook name to his rap style name and posted photos and lyrics that threatened his coworkers, ex-wife police, a school and a police officer.
Federal law makes it a crime to transmit interstate commerce and communication containing a threat to injured the person of another
Did he do this?
No, not strict liability.
Statue does not specify that the defendant must have any mental state with respect to these elements — that he must intend that his communication contain a threat
Jury lowered the instruction to ordinary negligence, but federal criminal liability requires the mental state
Dissent : court doesn’t explain the type of intent necessary. It could be recklessness not negligence.
Elonis v. United States
Captain ran his ship aground of a Bligh Reef and reported he was evidently leaking some oil —> 11million gallons in the Prince William Sound
Statue of any person may not discharge caused to be discharge or permit the discharge of petroleum … negligent violation is a misdemeanor
Was he negligent?
Yes. Julia adopted an ordinary civil negligence men’s Raya, and this was in line with due process of Alaska constitution—he’s liable.
Civil negligence is sufficient because normal negligence gets at the aims of due process assuring criminals penalties are only imposed when something society can expect to deter , here it could’ve been deterred.
Dissent: cannot impose criminal sanctions by setting a lower standard to negligence. Mirror negligence is insufficient to justify award of punitive damages.
State v. Hazelwood (1997)
Police suspicious while scanning parcels for legal drugs and arranged for a package to be left at D’s door. Notice him exiting his apartment and then saw a female look at the box and go inside. Dee picked up. The box, went back to his apartment. He saw the police and ditched the box. Uncovered 300 pills of oxycodone.
Any person who knowingly purchaser brings into the state or knowingly an actual constructive possession of 4 g of more of any morphinexxx is guilty
Is he?
Yes. Knowingly does not apply to the specific type of drug. Is a practical interpretation if we have to prove oxycodone is an Issa no one knows about that. This is impractical.
Knowingly does not travel to the type of drug because the legislative intent is to regulate every type of drug so allowing knowingly to travel down and frustrate the entire enforcement scheme
State v. Miles (2017)
Woman owns and operates a disco. Officers found 16-year-olds dancing on stage with tips. D said both were legal age when hired (same day) but they had no idea with them
Person commits a crime if he knowingly causes a child less than 17 years exposed to any behavior to injure his welfare…
What’s the ambiguity?
How far “knowingly travels”. Court found she was not guilty because she did not have actual knowledge of that the child was under 17.
But Rationales for SL:
1. protecting minors from sexual exploitation, even if they consented
2. Difficulty of proof for prosecution to prove they actually knew the victim’s age.
3. Promoting caution encourages duty to exercise, caution verify the age
4. Moral blameworthiness the law of sexual activity with a minor is morally blameworthy, regardless of the specific knowledge.
State v. Nation
