Criminal Law

Professor Smith

I. Criminal Law Theories

Utilitarians and Retributavists

Don’t really need to know much in this section other than these 2 theories. J

II. Actus Reus

A voluntary act or failure to perform a voluntary act that one has a legal duty + that causes (causation elements) + a Social harm

Example: homicideà”if he purposely, knowingly, recklessly, or negligently causes the death of another human being.” CAUSES THE DEATH= actus reaus

Voluntary Element

Broad meaning: that the defendant possessed sufficient free will to be blamed for her conduct. If the act was due to coercion or mental illness the actor does not deserve to be punished for her actions.

Narrow Meaning: a movement of the body which follows our volition, a willed contraction of a muscle. Thus practically all human acts are voluntary.

-Utilitarians do not favor voluntary act requirement

-retributivists favor this requirement

Martin v. State

-police came arrested Martin drunk from his house and took to highway

-convicted for being drunk on highway

-on appeal, conviction set aside

-Martin’s act of being on highway not voluntary

State v. Utter

-son fatally stabbed by father

-father voluntary got drunk

-unconscious at time of stabbing

-father voluntarily got drunk

Omission (Negative Acts)

5 cases where omission can be punished under law

1. Statute imposes duty

2. One stands in a certain status relationship to another

3. One has assumed a contractual duty to care for another

4. One has voluntarily assumed the care of another so secluded the helpless person as to prevent others from rendering aid.

5. Duty by risk creation- D’s action placed V in the condition

People v. Beardsley

-man and lover got drunk. Lover passed out and placed in basement where she dies.

-man convicted for manslaughter

-appeal- conviction set aside

-court said no legal duty towards woman

Argument against Ct’s rulingà one can argue that the man took the woman to the basement and prevented others from helping her

Sometimes it is hard to tell if act is an affirmative act or omission

Barber v. Superior Court

-cessation of life support is not an affirmative act but rather withdraw or omission of further treatment.

-Proportionality test used by the court

v II. Mens Rea

o Broad meaning: a general immorality of motive, vicious will, evil meaning mind.

o Narrow [elemental] meaning: the particular mental state provided for in the definition of an offense.

o Intentionally

§ Under CL, intentionally defined as:

· It is D’s desire to cause the social harm; or

· D acts with knowledge that the social harm is virtually certain to occur as a result of his conduct.

§ Transferred Intent

· Attribute liability to a D who, intending to hurt or kill one person, accidentally hurts or kills another person.

· Transferred intent doctrine does not apply to statutory offenses which require that the defendant’s criminal intent be directed towards the actual victim.

o Knowingly

§ Person acts knowingly if

· He is aware of the facts

· Correctly believes the facts exist

· Or suspects that they exist an purposely avoids learning if her suspicion is correct (willful blindness)

o Criminal Negligence

§ Person should be aware that his conduct creates a substantial and unjustifiable risk of social harm.

§ Objective standard (reasonable man): Physical characteristics (e.g. blindness) might be considered but other characteristics (e.g. low education) is not considered.

o Recklessness

§ Person consciously disregards a substantial and unjustifiable risk that his conduct will cause the social harm of the offense.

o Malice

§ Person intentionally or recklessly causes the social harm of the offense

o General vs. Specific Intent (CL)

§ General Intent

· A crime for which only mens rea required is a blameworthy state of mind. A crime where D only desired to commit the act which served as the actus reus.

· Example

o Battery: only need intent to make harmful or offensive contact (actus reus).

§ Specific Intent

· D, in addition to actus reus, desired to do something further.

o Example

§ Burglary: Breaking and entering [actus reus] dwelling place of another at nighttime [attendant circumstance] with the intent to commit felony therein [mens rea].

· D had a special motive to commit the actus rea

o Larceny: carrying away personal property of another with the intent to permanently deprive

· D was aware of a particular attendant circumstance

o Receiving property with the knowledge that it is stolen.

o MPC 2.02[1]

§ Differences between CL and MPC

· Person can’t be punished under MPC just because acted with culpable state of mind (expunges culpability meaning of mens rea)

· Unlike CL, MPC doesn’t use general and specific intent distinctions.

· Unlike CL MPC has 4 terms: purposely, knowingly, recklessly and negligently.

· Recognizes affirmative defenses.

§ Purposely

· Person acts purposely if it is his conscious objective to engage in conduct of that nature or to cause such a result [applies to result conduct]

o A’s conscious object is to take B’s life and he purposely kills B.

· A person acts purposely with respect to attendant circumstances if he is aware of the existence of such circumstances or he believes or hopes that they exist [applies to attendant circumstances]

o E.g. D purposely enters a house hoping that it will be occupied in order to commit a felony.

§ Knowingly

· A result is knowingly caused if the actor is aware that it is practically certain that his conduct will cause such a result.

o D placing a bomb in an airplane in order to kill V, but also knowing that it will certainly kill the other passengers.

· One acts knowingly if he is aware that his conduct is of that nature or that such attendant circumstances exist.

§ Recklessly

· A person acts recklessly if he consciously disregards a substantial and unjustified risk that the material element exists or will result from his conduct.

§ Negligent

· A person’s conduct is negligent if he should be aware of a substantial and unjustifiable risk that the material element exists or result from his conduct.

· Risk taking is inadvertent, unlike reckless behavior where risk taking is conscious.

§ Principles of Statutory interpretation under MPC

· If a statute defining an offense prescribes the kind of culpability that is sufficient for the commission of the offense, without distinguishing among the material elements thereof, a court will interpret such culpability provision as applying to every material element of the offense, unless a contrary purpose plainly appears.

o E.g. False imprisonment: to knowingly restrain another unlawfully.

o Person knowingly restrained the person and knew it was unlawful.

· If a single culpability term is placed by the drafters in the middle of the statute, i.e. some material elements of the offense precede the culpability term and some come after, this would suggest a contrary purpose.

o E.g. burglary: to enter an occupied structure with purpose to commit a crime therein.

o Purpose only applies to commit a crime therein.

o As far as entering an occupied structure, purposely, knowingly, or recklessly applies (when silent, purposely, knowingly, or recklessly, not negligently).

o Strict Liability

§ No culpable mental state need to be shown. It is enough that D performed the act in question.

§ Some categories

· Public welfare- proof of the commission of actus resu is all that is required

· But a statute that is silent regarding mens rea may be interpreted as requiring at least some minimal level of mens rea.

§ MPC

· Under MPC, only offenses that are strict liability are violations and punishable only by fines or forfeiture.

o Mistakes of Fact

§ Examples

· D driving over the speed limit because speedometer is inaccurate.

· D carrying away property belonging to V thinking that he has permission to take it.

§ Mistake of Fact no defense for a strict liability crime.

§ Specific Intent Crimes

· A defendant is not guilty of an offense if his mistake of fact negates the specific-intent portion of the offense.

· Mistake does not have to be reasonable, could be reckless or negligent mistake. As long as there is not the specific mens rea.

§ General Intent Offenses

· A person not guilty if his mistake of fact reasonable, but guilty if unreasonable.

· If reasonable= no culpable state of mind

· Another approach: “Moral Wrong Doctrine”

o One has made reasonable mistake of fact but he manifests a bad character or otherwise demonstrates worthiness of punishment.

o Moral Wrong Doctrine not triggered unless the defendant’s conduct would be immoral had the situation been as he supposed.

· Legal-Wrong Doctrine

o D is guilty of criminal offense X, despite a reasonable mistake of fact, if he would be guilty of a different, albeit less serious, crime Y, if the situation were as he supposed.

§ Mistake of Fact Analytical Outline (Common Law)

· Is the offense general intent, specific intent or strict liability?

· With specific intent offenses, ask: Does the mistake relate to the specific intent portion of the offense?

o If yes, do elemental analysis: that is, ask yourself whether the mistake negates the specific intent element of the offense. If it does the defendant must be acquitted.

o If no, treat the offense as if it was a general intent crime as discussed below.

· With general intent offense do culpability analysis: that is, determine whether the defendant acted with a morally blameworthy state of mind. There are various ways to answer this question:

o The usual way: Determine whether the defendant’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 mens rea.

o Alternatives: Even if the defendant’s mistake was reasonable, some courts will apply the moral wrong and/or legal wrong doctrines.

· With strict liability offenses, a mistake is never a defense.

§ MPC

· One is not guilty of an offense unless he acted purposely, knowingly, recklessly, or negligently[2]

· Mistake is a defense if it negates the mental state required to establish any element of the offense.

· MPC provides that mistake of fact is not available if the actor would be guilty of another offense had the circumstances been as he supposed.

· Similar to CL legal wrong doctrine, but unlike CL, under MPC, the person will be guilty of the lesser offense.

III. Causation

Actual Cause (Cause in Fact)

No criminal liability unless there is actual cause

But For Test- would the social harm have occurred when it did but for D’s voluntary action? If answer “no”, then D is the actual cause.

Prosecution has to prove beyond a reasonable doubt that the defendant is “a” (not “the”) cause of the resulting harm.

Proximate Cause

Direct Cause

No intervening causes (e.g. D shot V and V died)

LaFave & Scott Analysis

1. Intervening causes (mens rea element)

(a) Coincidence/Independent

(b) Responsive/Dependent

2. Analysis

1. What are the intervening causes?

2. Were they (a) or (b)?

3. If (a): Is it Foreseeable?

If yes, then not superceding; chain of legal cause not broken.

If not, then superseding; chain of legal cause is broken.

If (B): is it abnormal or bizarre?

If yes, then superceding; chain of legal cause is broken.

If no, then not superceding; chain of legal cause not broken.

Intervening causes

Responsive Intervening Causes

An act that occurs in reaction or response to the defendant’s prior wrongful conduct.

A responsive intervening cause does not relieve the initial wrongdoer of criminal responsibility unless the response was highly abnormal and bizarre

-For example, if d shoots v and v goes to the hospital where he does not receive proper medical treatment and he dies. D is still liable because v’s act of going to the hospital was in response to d shooting him and the lack of proper treatment is not bizarre or abnormal.

-but if the doctors act extremely negligently, then it will be considered abnormal and bizarre

Independent Intervening Causes

Common law rule of thumb is that a coincidental intervening cause relieves the original wrongdoer of criminal responsibility, unless the intervention was foreseeable.

-for example, d shoots v and v goes to the hospital. At the hospital, an escaped convict shoots v and kills him. The independent intervening cause was not reasonably foreseeable.

Doctrines:

Intended consequences doctrine

A voluntary act intended to bring about what in fact happens, and in the manner in which it happens, has a special place in causal inquiries. Intended consequences can never be too remote.

Apparent-safety doctrine

-d threats the life of v, his wife. v leaves the house and reaches the parents house but does not want to bother them and sleeps outside and freezes to death. D not guilty.

Free, Deliberate, Informed Human Intervention

-x and y drag race and after race finished, x turns around and drives high rate of speed and hits a tree and dies. Y not liable because x made “free, deliberate, informed” choice.

vs.

-x rapes y. Due to the shame, y commits suicide. Y’s actions not “free, deliberate and informed.”

IV. Homicide

Killing of a human being by another human being.

We are concerned with criminal homicide and not innocent homicide.

Murder: CL definition: Murder is the killing by another human being with malice aforethought.

Manslaughter: CL definition: unlawful killing of a human being by another human being without malice aforethought.

Malice aforethought has 4 constituent states (“malice quartet”)

1. Intent to kill (includes awareness that death will result from one’s actions)

2. Intent to cause grievous bodily harm (includes knowledge that one’s conduct will cause such injury)

3. Extreme Recklessness; wanton disregard for human life- consciously disregarding a substantial and unjustified risk to human life.
**Note: CA requires proof of the subjective awareness of the probability of causing death.

4. Felony-murder rule- strict liability for homicide committed during the commission of a felony

Most states now divide murders into degrees[3] (Pennsylvania Model):
1^st degree: perpetrated by means of poison, lying in wait, willful, premeditated, deliberate killing or which is committed in the perpetration or attempted perpetration of arson, rape, robbery or burglary.

-intent to kill murder= intentionally killing without justification, excuse or mitigating circumstances with deliberation and premeditation.

2^nd degree: all other kinds of murders

-intentional killings that are not premeditated and deliberate

-intent to inflict grievous bodily injury killings

-reckless killings- extreme indifference to the value of human life: “Depraved heart”

-deaths that occur in the commission of a felony other than arson, rape, robbery, or burglary

**CA and PA allow “last straw” defense of combined grievances over time, Maryland and other jx do not.

Murder: Intent to kill

-one who intentionally kills another human being without:
Justification (self defense)

Excuse (e.g. insanity)

Mitigation circumstances (e.g. sudden heat of passion)

Is guilty of malice aforethought.

Intent to kill: Willful, deliberate, premeditated

Premeditated

State v. Schrader

-defendant and victim got into argument

-defendant stabbed victim 51 times

-ct. ruled that no time is too short for a wicked man to construct premeditation

-premeditation can be established in “twinkling of an eye”

So under Scharder, court fails to clearly distinguish willful killings and willful, deliberate, premeditated killings.

-other states such as Michigan in Morrin treat the terms willful, deliberate, and premeditated as independent elements of 1^st degree murder.

-Morrin jurisdictions believe that one who kills cold bloodedly is more dangerous and more culpable than one who kills on impulse.

Deliberate

-deliberate means to measure & evaluate the major facets of a choice or problem

-it is the process of determining upon a course of conduct to kill as a result of thought, including weighing the reasons for and against the action and considering the consequences of the action.

-such state of mind presupposed a cool purpose, free from influence of excitement or passion

-thus the idea that the most heinous killings are those that are cold blooded.

+It is impossible for a person to deliberate unless he premeditates

+It is impossible to premeditate without possessing a deliberate state of mind

+Premeditation involves quantity of time.

+deliberation speaks of quality of time.

Provocation as mitigating factor (murder à voluntary manslaughter)

-one who kills in sudden rage may be guilty of manslaughter if his anger is the result of adequate provocation

Traditional CL categories of provocation doctrine:

Ÿ Extreme assault or battery upon the defendant

Ÿ Mutual combat

Ÿ Defendant’s illegal arrest

Ÿ Injury or serious abuse of a close relative

Ÿ Sudden discovery of spouse’s adultery

Girouard v. State

-words alone cannot provide the sufficient provocation to mitigate crime from murder to manslaughter

**But can lower degree from 1^st to 2^nd

-Ct. recited the rule of provocation

Ÿ There must have been adequate provocation.

Ÿ The killing must have been in the heat of passion

Ÿ It must have been a sudden heat of passion- that is, the killing must have followed the provocation before there had been a reasonable opportunity for the passion to cool.

Ÿ There must have been a causal connection between the provocation, and the fatal act.

Unintentional Killings

Wanton Murder

Malice aforethought is implied if D’s conduct manifests an extreme indifference to the value of human life. For states that separate murders into degrees, this is 2^nd degree murder.

-at common law, this kind of conduct referred to as “an abandoned and malignant heart” or “depraved heart”

-Under MPC, such conduct is referred to as reckless.

Under wanton murder doctrine, the accused does not intend to kill, but his conduct manifests such a high degree of indifference to value of human life that the actor as good as intended to kill his victims.

Some examples of Wanton Conduct

Shooting a gun at a crowd of people (not actually intending to kill anyone).

Driving car at high speed in rain and while intoxicated.

Omissions:

Parents indifferently fails to feed her infant for 2 week.

Neighbor has 2 big pit bulls and trains them to fight and no fence around the house and kids living in the next house.

Another definition: When the risk of death is great and the justification for taking the risk is weak or non-existent, the actor is guilty of murder, she has acted with a “depraved heart.”

Common Law has 4 levels of risk in cases of unintentional killings:

1. Due care (no liability)

2. Ordinary negligence (no criminal liability)

3. Gross negligence (involuntary manslaughter)

4. Wanton conduct (murder; malice quarter-3)

Involuntary Manslaughter (Gross Negligence)

Common Law: common law courts have used “gross negligence” “culpable negligence”

MPC: Some ordinary negligence made criminal, unlike common law.

Criminal negligence, or involuntary manslaughter, involves a gross deviation from the standard of care that reasonable people would exercise in the same situation, It is more than civil negligence- it must be so gross as to be deserving punishment.

Misdemeanor Manslaughter (unlawful act manslaughter)

-strict liability doctrine

-IM covers unintentional homicides that occur during the commission of an offense that is misdemeanor, or a non dangerous felony, that is malum in se e.g. larceny. If the amount is large, or unknown to the thief the larceny is a felony, but it is not a dangerous felony. There is NO merger doctrine, as in felony murder, e.g. the misdemeanor most commonly used to operate this rule is battery. Yet battery has as its dominant feature the very act of violence that brought about the death.

-The doctrine is known as misdemeanor-manslaughter in that the defendant’s intentional commission of a misdemeanor or non dangerous felony (unlawful act) supplies the culpability required to impose homicide liability.

Misdemeanor Manslaughter: Malice Quarter

1. Intent to kill (no applicable)

2. Intent to inflict non serious bodily injury (e.g. battery)

3. Gross negligence (more than ordinary negligence but less than wanton)

4. Misdemeanor- manslaughter rule (commission of misdemeanor or non dangerous felony. **Strict liability and no merger limitation e.g. battery does not merge.

v Felony Murder Doctrine

o At CL, person guilty of murder if he kills someone, even accidentally, during the commission of any felony.

o In states that use Pennsylvania, usually arson, robbery, rape and burglary felonies involved= 1^st degree murder

o All other felonies= 2^nd degree murder

o Rule very unpopular among states

o Some limitations by states

§ Inherently Dangerous Felony Limitation

· In the abstract= look at the definition of the crime to see if inherently dangerous

· Facts= look at facts of each case to see if this particular felony inherently dangerous.

§ Merger Doctrine

· Felony that is the predicate for the felony-murder rule must be independent of homicide.

· E.g. assault with a deadly weapon merges with the homicide

§ Causation Limitation

· There has to be causal relationship between death and the felony

· E.g. King case: Felons’ plane crashed while transporting drugs and one died

· Ct. said no causal link between drug transportation and crash. If flying low to avoid detection, then there would have been that link.

§ Killing by non-felon

· In most states if killing by anyone other than the felon, then felony murder rule doesn’t apply

§ Agency Theory

· Felony murder only applies if murder committed in furtherance of the felony by a person acting as his agent.

v MPC § 210

o Three categories: Murder, Manslaughter, Negligent Homicide

o Murder

§ No degrees used

§ Intent to kill

§ Extreme Recklessness

§ No Felony Murder Rule (But can use Extreme Recklessness as an alternative)