Criminal Law - Criminal Law

Theories of Punishment

1. Retributive

   1. Morality

   2. Goal to achieve moral equilibrium

   3. Backwards thinking

   4. Individual deterrence

2. Utilitarian

   1. Public safety

   2. Greater good

   3. Maximizing utility

   4. Limit punishment

      1. Costs of enforcement

   5. Forward thinking, benefits that will come in the future

   6. General Deterrence

   7. Proponents of repeat offender statutes

3. Queen v Dudley

   1. Cannibalism life boat, punished for killing of another—retributive view

   2. If you had looked from utilitarian standpoint—one life for the life of three, greater good

Principle of Legality

1. Requirement of previously defined conduct

   1. No crime without law, no punishment without law

      1. Keeler-fetus kicker since fetus was not defined as human being under statute, no murder

   2. If common-law was previously established, adopt the terms of common law

      1. Commonwealth v Mochan, no phones at common law

2. Statutory Clarity

   1. City of Chicago v Morales loitering gangsters, unclear what conduct was prohibited, too much discretion to police officers

   2. Vagueness may invalidate a law for two reasons

      1. Fails to provide notice of what conduct is prohibited

      2. Authorize and encourage discriminatory enforcement

3. Statutory Interpretation

   1. Muscarello v United States carries was a term of art, not the common meaning of the word

   2. Legislative intent

      1. What crime was the statute meant to prevent

   3. Rule of lenity

      1. When there is ambiguity in a criminal statute, doubts are resolved in favor of defendant

Actus Reus—deed of the crime, physical or external part of the crime

1. Voluntary act

   1. Martin v State—drunk and dragged, did not appear voluntarily and therefore not guilty of the crime

   2. A person is not guilty of an offense unless his conduct includes a voluntary act or the omission to perform an act of which he is physically capable of

   3. Automatism

      1. State v Utter—drunk and discharged dad

      2. Can be a defense to a crime, must be able to prove

      3. Existence in any person a behavior of which he is unaware or has no conscious control

      4. State of unconsciousness voluntarily induced through alcohol or drugs, no longer a complete defense

      5. Decina—epileptic operating a car, aware of a condition that causes you to automatize, responsible for the consequences, not a valid defense

      6. Sleepwalking and sexominiac

   4. Even when an offense does not contain a mens rea component, a voluntary act may still be required for conviction

2. Omissions (Negative Acts)

   1. If the person who sustains to another a legal relation (husband to wife, parent to child, master to seamen) there is a legal duty to act as long as it does not jeopardizing his or her life

      1. If there is a domestic relationship, public duty, voluntary choice then you have to execute proper diligence

   2. When failure to act may constitute a breach of legal duty

      1. A statute imposes a duty

      2. One stands in a certain status relationship to another

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

      4. Where one has voluntarily assumed the care of another and secluded the helpless person to prevent others from coming to his aid

      5. When a person creates a risk of harm to another

   3. No duty

      1. Beardsley-morphine mistress, no duty to act because no spousal relationship, moral duty does not equal legal duty

      2. Bystanders

         1. Bystanders no duty

            1. Kitty Genovese, 38 neighbors hear and nobody comes to her rescue, bystander defect, diffusion of responsibility

            2. David Cash, friend of Las Vegas child rapist, no duty to act

            3. No punishment because

               1. Harder to determine motives and culpability

               2. Difficult line drawing problems arise

               3. Make worse by intervening

      3. Except under special circumstances, no legal duty to inform police of another person’s plans to commit a crime

         1. But cannot actively conceal plans to a crime

3. Social Harm

   1. Conduct crime

      1. Endangerment to socially valuable interest

      2. Not punishing the harm, but punishing because of the potential harm to society

Mens Rea—guilty mind, a guilty or wrongful purpose, a criminal intent

1. General Issues in Proving Culpability

   1. Intent

      1. Results that are the conscious object of the actor

      2. Purposefully

         1. What he wants to occur

      3. Knowingly

         1. Those that are virtually certain to occur from his conduct

      4. Proving Intent

         1. Intent can be inferred from the surrounding circumstances

            1. People v Conley-wine bottle beat up, use of the bottle, force of the blow, intent to cause permanent disability

         2. A person intends the natural and probable consequences of his actions

            1. People v Conley

         3. Transferred Intent

            1. Harm is done to unintended bystander instead of intended victim

            2. People v Conley—meant to hurt Marty, actually hurt Sean, defendant guilty of same crime

      5. General Intent

         1. No specific mental state stated in the statute

         2. Battery and rape statues without a specific mens rea

      6. Specific Intent

         1. A crime in which the intent is stated in the statute

         2. Possession of marijuana with the intent to sell

         3. Mens rea separate from the actus reus

         4. Proof of special motive

         5. Proof of attendant circumstances

      7. Model Penal Code, kinds of culpability

         1. Purposely

            1. Engage in an act to cause a specific result

            2. Want to occur, believes or hopes they exist

         2. Knowingly

            1. Actor is aware that the result is virtually certain to occur

         3. Recklessly

            1. Consciously disregards a substantial and unjustifiable risk that the material element exists or will result from his conduct

            2. Gross deviation from the reasonable person

         4. Negligently

            1. Should be aware of a substantial and unjustifiable risk that the material element exists or will result from his conduct

      8. Willful Blindness

         1. Deliberate effort to avoid unpleasant knowledge

         2. Conscious disregard for available information

         3. Two ways to decide if there was knowledge

            1. Missouri Criminal Code, State v Nations slutty 17 year old, not guilty did not have actual knowledge

            2. Model Penal Code-aware of a high probability of a material element’s existence

               1. United States v Jewell, marijuana mom, permitted willful blindness to constitute knowledge

      9. Problems in Statutory Interpretation

         1. Flores—Figueroa, fake social security guy

            1. What does “knowingly” mean, what does it modify?

            2. Knowingly transfers, posses, or uses without lawful authority, a means of identification of another person—does knowingly modify of another person?

      10. Strict Liability—do not express mens rea, only need actus reus

          1. No mistake of fact defense allowed

          2. Statutory rape

          3. Pharmaceutical industry—highly regulated industry

          4. A statute with no mens rea is not necessarily strict liability, apply common law intent if possible

      11. Mistake and Mens Rea

          1. Mistake of Fact

             1. General intent

                1. Mistake must be reasonable and objective

                2. Moral Wrong Doctrine

                   1. Can permit a conviction of a reasonable mistake if it was morally wrong

                   2. Regina v Prince—stealing Gina, reasonable to think over 18, morally wrong to steal a girl

                3. Legal Wrong Doctrine

                   1. If defendant has committed a crime, can convict of a more serious offense even if mistake of fact existed

                   2. Selling child porn to someone believed to be over 18, can convict of felony of selling to someone under 18

             2. Specific Intent (what was the specific intent of the person)

                1. Mistake must be in good faith and subjective

                2. People v Navarro—Robin Wood, specific intent was required and not established, could not convict

                3. Good faith can be unreasonable and still be upheld

                   1. Blurton—wally world robber, thought he was CIA, entitled to mistake of fact, believed in good faith

          2. Mistake (or ignorance) of Law

             1. Reasonably misinterpreting the law by the defendant is not a defense

                1. People v Marrero-prison guard riding dirty, reasonably thought he was a peace officer, did not rely on an official statement

             2. Defendant must reasonably rely on an official statement of the law in order for it to be a defense—entrapment by estoppel

             3. A defendant must show that the statute permitted his conduct, not merely that he believed it did

             4. Counter Defense

                1. Omission

                2. Ignorance in omitting an act permits a defense

                3. Lambert not convicted for omitting to register as a felon

                   1. Whitney did sing the anthem-guilty, did not omit

                   2. Pharmacist-should keep up with regulations, guilty

Causation

1. Actual Case (cause in fact)

   1. But for test--Prohibited conduct wouldn’t have occurred but for the defendant’s actions

      1. Substantial factor test

         1. Independently and concurrently

         2. 2 s acting independently could’ve cause same prohibited result

         3. 1 shoot 1 stab = both guilty even though either could’ve been enough

         4. Can I blame someone else for what happened?

      2. Acceleration

         1. Oxedine v State—bathtub beating not a substantial factor, Oxedine can blame GF because didn’t accelerate death, only aggravated son’s death

         2. Acceleration: not who caused the murder, but who caused it the fastest

2. Proximate Cause

   1. Can’t be proximate unless actual, BUT

   2. Can be actual w/o proximate

   3. Victim’s injuries must be direct and natural results

   4. Was the intervening cause superseded?

      1. De minimis (little impact in comparison to overall)

      2. Intended consequence doctrine

         1. Must be in manner wanted, doesn’t matter who does it, ie poison

      3. Omissions factor (duty of care)

      4. Forseeability (response v coincidental)

         1. Regular negligence foreseeable (bad doctor), but gross negligence not foreseeable

      5. Apparent safety (safety zone)

         1. Rideout—rideout, walkout, runover

            1. Victim reached point of safety, along side road

         2. State v Pressler—dumb popsicle,

            1. Own choice to not go to safety zone

      6. Voluntary human intervention

         1. Rideout

            1. Own volition when went back to roadway

         2. Velazquez—drag race suicide

            1. Race over, own choice to continue, suicide mission

   5. Intervening Causes

      1. Act of god (weather)

      2. Independent 3^rd party accelerates or causes harm in...