Rando 6 page notes Flashcards
Regina v Dudley and Stephens, four men on boat case
Guilty of murder. Self-preservation alone does not qualify under the necessity defense.
Retribution
Focuses on the culpability of someone who commits a crime.
Utilitarian
Punishment should benefit happiness. Focus on the trehat of future crime/harm.
Actus reus parts
Conduct, circumstances, result
Mens rea hierarchy
Purpose, knowledge, reckless, negligence,
Causal link?
Between conduct and result if result is part of AR.
Does conduct need to be voluntary?
Yes.
Temporal concurrence?
Yes between AR and MR. No between conduct and result.
People v Newton: “unconciscious” case.
Involuntary unconsciousness is a complete defense, and jury should have been given those instructions. Criminal acts must be voluntary acts.
Martin v State: Drunken highway case
D wins. Involuntary act can’t be criminal.
People v Decina: Driving seizure case
D loses. Conduct was voluntary when he got into the car and started driving. Knew he was liable to have a seizure.
Jones v United states (omission), didn’t provide for son of family friend staying at house.
D wins. Not suffiicnet that there was a legal duty to the child.
Legal duties can come from
Certain status relationshisp (ex. parent/child, spousal, master to apprentice, shipmaster to crew, inkeeper to inebriated customer).
Contractual relationships.
Statute imposed duty.
If someone voluntarily assumes care and secludes a helpless person.
Wrongful creation of risk.
Innocnet creation of risk (in some jurisdictions).
Child drowning in ocean. “I’ll save you,” begin doing it, then give up and drowns. Other people at beach who could have helped. Legal duty?
Yes, there is a legal duty because you voluntarily assumed the care and might have hindred others from helping.
Professional swimmer sess a drowning and does nothing? Legal duty?
No.
Paid lifeguard sees a drowning child. Legal duty?
Yes, contractual relationship.
A accidently pushes B into pool, but then watches B drown. Legal duty?
innocent creation of risk. Depends on jurisdiction.
A wrongfully pushes B into the pool, watches drowning. Legal duty?
Yes.
Pope v state (ommission), took in woman and infant. Woman goes into MI episode and kills child. D does nothing.
D wins. Court find there was no preexisting duty when the mother was also there to care for the child. There must be a clear legal duty to hold D liable.
Regina v Cunningham (MR case), D stole gas meter, woman nextdoor exposed to gasleak. MR: “maliciously administer”
D wins. Maliciously administer means recklessly (foresaw the risk of harm and disregarded it). This was negligent at most.
Regina v Faulkner (MR), seaman on ship, tries to steal rum, lights ship on fire. MR. Harm is likely or probable to occur, and D disregards.
D wins.
State v Hazelwood, captain ran ship aground on reef causing oil spill. Civil negligence used.
D loses. Court wants to deter this behavior, so they find D guilty based on the civil negligence standard.
Santillanes v New Mexico (MR), D cuts nephew with knife. Child abuse?
No. Uses criminal negligence standard. Court wants to punish conduct that is morally culpable.
Criminal vs civil negligence???
????
Elonis v United States (MR), facebook messages case. No MR in statute.
Court says when a statute is silent, there is still a MR. Assumed recklessness.
Purpose conduct
Conscious object
purpose circumstances
aware, believes, or hopes
purpose resul
conscious object
knowingly conduct
aware that the condcut is of that nature
knowingly circumstances
Aware that the circumstance exists or aware of a high probability that the circumstances exist, unless you actually believe it does not
knowingly result
Aware that it is practically certain that the condcut will cause such a result
recklessly conduct
Consciously disregards a substantial and unjustifiable risk that the conduct is of that nature
risk: Gross deviation from the standard of a law-abiding person
Recklessly circumstances
Conscious disregard of a substantial and unjustifible risk
recklessly results
Consciously disregards a substantial and unjustifiable risk
negligently conduct
Should be aware of a substantial and unjustifiable risk that the conduct is of that nature
Negligently
should be aware of a substantial and unjustifiable risk
Negligently
Should be aware of a substantial and unjustifiable risk
Free floating mens rea “with intent to”
Usually purpose
United states v Jewell, Marijuana in secret compartment, claims they didn’t know. MR: Knowing
D loses. “Willfull ignorance” meets the knowing standard.
Invisble elements
Identity, date, jurisdiction
Mistake of fact
D is unaware or mistaken as to a fact pertaining to an element of the offense
REgina v Prince, taking girl under 16 out of parents home believing her to be 18
D loses. Mistake of act is not a defense because of strict liability (no more strict liability today), because the act itself was wrongful.
MPC ignorance or mistake as to a matter of fact or different law is a defense if
The ignorance or mistake negates the purpose, knoweldge, belief, recklessness or negligence required to establish a material element of the offense, or
the law provides that the state of mind established by such ignorance or mistake constitutes a defense.
Defense not available if D would be guilty of another offense had the situation been as he supposed. In such case grade and degree reduced to that he would be convicted of had situation been has he supposed.
Hypo: A think’s B’s clothes are cheap and ruins them. They are very expensiv. How guilty is A?
A is guilty for destroying clothes valued at the cheaper value.
General intent vs specific intent crimes
General intent: The prosecution must prove only that the accused meant to do an act prohibited by law.
Specific intent crimes typically require that D intentionally commit an act and intend to cause a particular result when committing that act.
Common law mistake of fact
See page 13
Mistake of same law
Mistake is the very law you have been charged with.
Is not a defense unless:
1) the law says state of mind established by such ignorance or mistake constitutes a defense.
2) the statute defining the offense is not known and has not been published or otherwise reasonably made available
3) D acts in reasonable reliance upon an official statement of the law, afterward determined to be invalid or erroneous.
Mistake of different law
Mistakes a factual understanding of different body of law
A mistake of different law is treated the same as a mistake of fact. A mistake of different law can be a defense if it negates a required MR element.
MPC mistake of fact/law chart
Page 14
Regina v Smith, remove previously installed stereo.
This is a mistake of different law because D is mistaking the definition of property and property law. D wins. The mistake of law negates the required MR of recklessness.
Cheek v United states (mistake of law), willfully atempts to evade or defeat any tax. Thought wages not income. Also thought unconstitutional
This is mistake of same law. Congress intended willfullness, in this complex provision, to mean the voluntary intentional violation of a known legal duty. Exception here falls into law is providing.
Constitutional defense fails.
Lambert v California (mistake of law), past convict, unaware of law requiring registration.
D wins. Mistake of same lawThis is a due process issue related to reaosnable made available. No reason D should have known even though law published (no reason to think requirement existed, only entered state no affirmative action, no real purpose other than administrative convenience, malum prohibitum).
People v Marrero (mistake of same law), corrections officer gun case
D loses. Court says fr the exception to apply, the statute must have later been found to be erroneous. If a person is relying on his own interpretation of the law, then he has to be correct.
Court takes utlitarian approach, opposite result would encourage people to misinterpret the law, flood of litigation.
Morissette v US (strict liability), gun casings thought were abandonded, charged with knowingly converting government property
D wins. No strict liability. Court says there must be an intent to steal which D did not have.
Strict liability is reserved for maters of public safety that don’t have background in common law aka public welafer or regulatory offenses. FActors?
Not a traditional offense with roots in common law.
Relatively light penalites.
Little stigma.
Often deal with omissions or neglect rather than positive agression.
Often danger is crated, but not immediate injury.
Not malum in se.
D stands in responsible relation to public danger, or is the best person to prevent harm.
Not a felony.
Circumstances that should alert D to possibility of regulation.
Utilitarian balancing.
Ex. high velocity traffic, highway safety, healtchare, worker saferty.
Staples v US (strict liability), didn’t know firearm fit description making it illegal.
D wins. No strict liability. This is not a public welfare offense. Violation of this law would be a felony.
US v Dotterweich (strict liability), D charged with shpping misbranded drugs. Recieved with wrong label, never checked.
D loses. This is strict liability because public welfare. D stands in responsible relation to public danger, is in best position to avoid harm so higher duty created.
Comes with a 1 year priso sentence (higher than most public welfare offenses, but still “low”).
