Criminal Law Cheat Sheet PDF

Preview

Summary

Kuo - Fall 2018....

Description

ACTUS REUS – vol act/ omission where there’s a legal duty that causes social harm Voluntary Act: willed muscular reaction - reflexes aren’t voluntary. Time framing important (broad & narrow arg. - Martin); Unconsciousness can be defense, but voluntary unconsciousness is not a complete defense (Utter); if you have knowledge that you might be susceptible to involuntary acts, you need to take steps to avoid harm; Omission: failure to act when there was a duty. Duty created by: (1) statute; (2) status; (3) contractual; (4) assump. of care and seclusion; (5) created of risk (Beardsly-not spouse; Billingslea-motherno duty) MENS REA- the mental state of the crime CL: General Intent: culpable/mental state applies only to the bare actus reus; Specific Intent: mental state goes beyond that necessary for bare actus reus, dual intent; Intent=results that are the conscious object of the actor and ones they know are virtually certain to occur; Willful blindness (not knowledge); Statute interp. – rebuttable presumption that MR applies to subsequent AC unless stated MPC MR terms: purposely: conscious object to cause result; knowingly: aware that result is practically certain to occur; recklessly: conscious disregard of a substantial & unjustifiable risk - less than substantial certainty; negligently: Δ didn’t know but should’ve known of substantial & unjustifiable risk. If offense is silent as to culpability, negligence is not sufficient; willful blindness=knowledge; Stat. interp.= if there is one MR, should apply to all material elements unless contrarily stated. Requires proof of mens rea as to each material element of offense. Transferred Intent- CL: victim-to-victim, not crime-to-crime, MPC: yes unless the actual act was more severe than the intended act; Strict liability: CL: Liability where MR does not need to be proven; no stigma; MOF can’t work b/c you can’t negate a nonexistent MR – cts infer some MR. Punishment= fine; MPC: no SL crimes, only violations (fines and civil penalties); Mistake of Fact- MPC: Mistake is defense if it negates the MR required to establish any element of offense (does not have to be reasonable). Can mitigate the charge to a lesser offense but not a complete defense. CL: MWDfrom the eyes of the actor, is the action immoral?; LWDIf ∆ causes social harm prohibited by more serious offense X, he is guilty of that offense even if he thought he would be guilty of less serious offense Y; Mistake of Law CL&MPC: only if there’s a mistake by someone w/ authority over law. CAUSATION – Actual/ Proximate ACTUAL – CL&MPC= but-for: acceleration 2nd act is cause if speeds up result; acting in concert working together - all guilty; aggravation nonlethal+nonlethal=lethal; substantial factor 2 independent actors - cannot tell which caused (death by 2 blows); Omission failure of duty; Obstructed cause someone takes out victim right before you do – first actor not PC for death. MPC 2.03(1): conduct is the cause of a result when it is an antecedent but for which the result in question would not have occurred. PROXIMATE – CL: Are intervening acts superseding? (1) LaFave-Scott/Perkins-Boyce: coincidental intervening cause breaks chain UNLESS it’s foreseeable; responsive intervening cause breaks chain ONLY IF abnormally unforeseeable; (2) apparent safety doctrine: (defense) when victim has reached place of apparent safety - breaks chain; (3) free, deliberate informed human intervention: (defense) free decision by victim causes result - breaks chain; (4) intended circumstances doctrine: any intended conseq. of an act is prox. (got what Δ wanted); (5) omission; (6) de minimis: act was so small it doesn’t break chain. If a person dies within a year and a day of the injury by Δ, Δ is responsible for the death. Superseding factors can break that chain of causation. MPC: prox. cause-no requirementBUT will apply one test under MPC 2.03(2)(3): (2) Δ must act purposely or knowingly causing a particular result; (3) Δ must act recklessly or negligently causing a particular result. Was the result too remote or accidental to be just bearing on the actor’s liability? If too remote, not liable. Concurrence of Elements (defense): the actus reus, mens rea, and actual cause must all occur at the same time (temporal concurrence). Δ’s conduct must have been set in motion by the mens rea (motivational concurrence) (Rose). INTENTIONAL KILLINGS- CL: murder=w/malice aforethought; manslg=w/o MalAf CL: MalAf: 1) intent to kill 2) intent to cause SBI 3) Gross R 4) Intent commit felony 1st Deg. Murder: intent to kill w/premeditation (should I kill X? - “twinkle of eye”) & deliberation (weighing pros/cons; evaluating consequences). 2nd Deg. Murder: intent to kill w/o both premeditation & deliberation. Forrest Factors to determine P&D (determine btwn 1 st & 2nd) (1) lack of provocation on the part of the deceased, (2) conduct/statement of the ∆ before and after the killing, (3) threats and declarations of ∆ (before & during), (4) Ill-will or previous problems btwn deceased and ∆, (5) dealing of lethal blows after π = helpless, (6) evidence of brutal killing, (7) nature and number of wounds Voluntary manslaughter: intent to kill while in HOP and upon adequate provocation. HOP test: (1) was Δ in heat of passion? (subjective); (2) would reasonable person be in heat of passion? (objective); (3) Was there cooling off time? Adeq. Prov. Test: (1) was Δ provoked? (subjective); (2) would reasonable person be provoked? (objective); (3) was provocation legally adequate? (adultery, agg. assault, serious crime against close relative, Mutual combat) *words alone not adequate for provocation (information words may be enough pending on jurisdiction). Reasonable Person test: court can look at age, sex, and any characteristics relevant to the gravity of the provocation. Traits that go to ability of self-control are not considered. MPC: murder 210.2: killing committed purposely or knowingly; manslaughter §210.3: homicide committed under extreme mental or emotional disturbance for which there is a reasonable explanation or excuse (objective), which is determined from the viewpoint of a person in the Δ’s situation & under the circumstances as the Δ believes them to be (subjective) (relevant knowledge/physical attributes are considered): (1) Subjective: was Δ under influence of EMED? (2) Objective: was it reasonable for Δ to have an EMED? (Extreme grief, blindness) *No cooling off requirement *words alone can be sufficient to put Δ in EMED. UNINTENTIONAL KILLINGS CL: 2nd Deg. M: intent to cause GBH, depraved heart/ abandoned & malignant heart/ & extreme reck. (shows conscious & unjustifiable risk creation w/extreme indiff. to human life) implied malice. FMnon-enumerated felony. IV MS: accidental killing that occurs when ∆ is reckless or negligent. FMmisdemeanor.

Criminal Negligent IV MS – what should ∆ have known? (1) what did ∆ know? (2) what ∆ didn’t know? – (2a) what ∆ didn’t know but reasonably should have? (2b) what ∆ didn’t know and could not reasonably have been expected to know? *Williams – didn’t take baby to doctor b/c of fear of doc. taking baby –crim.neg = invol. ms MPC: murder §210.2(b): gross recklessness manifesting extreme indifference to the value of human life. FMreckless or indifference presumed in enumerated felonies: BARRK MS §210.3: killing done with recklessness (aware of consciously taking a sub & unjust. risk) Neg. Hom. 210.4: killing that was done negligently. (unconscious risk creation; should be aware) FELONY MURDER – to convince felons to commit crimes more carefully CL - any killing committed during the course (from the attempt to the “immediate flight”) of a felony can be moved up to a higher degree of murder  BARRK. All elements of felony must be met & must be a causal link; Resulting death is strict liability (no MR for killing) 1st deg. m.: felony that is enumerated; 2 nd deg. m.: non-enumerated felony; misdemeanor manslaughter: misdemeanor (i.e. roll through stop sign & run over child). - LIMITS (ALL VALID ON EXAM): (1) Inherently Dang.: (a)Abstract Test – look at statute devoid of facts; if felony be committed w/o creating a subst. risk of death - not inher. dang - FM does not apply (if there is one way to commit felony w/o risk of death, test fails); (b)Facts of the Case Test: look @ facts of the case - was felony inherently dangerous in this case? Usually yes, b/c killing wouldn’t have occurred if the felony wasn’t (Burroughs) (2) Merger: FM rule won’t apply unless underlying felony is independent of the homicide. TEST: Is the predicate felony: (1) integral and included in the killing? (2) did it have an independent felonious purpose (not assaultive in nature)? (Smith); (3) Res Gestae: killing must be in the furtherance of the felony. Prox. time, distance, and causal req. (King); (4) Third party commits murder: (a) Agency Doctrine: (maj. rule) focus on shooter; shooter is responsible for what accomplices do ; (b) Proximate Cause Rule: focus on deadly result; if felon set in motion the acts which result in death; (c) NJ Rule: focuses on ID of victim, if victim is innocent, felon is liable; if victim is co-felon/accomplice, felon not liable. (Sophophone) Defense: none to FM (SL)  must defend against felony. MPC: murder 210.2: no FM, but allows FM only w/BARRK; jury may infer extr. Reck. DEFENSES – Justification/ Excuse SELF DEFENSE (justification) CL: (1) unlawful threat of force; 2) imminent/immediate threat, (*Norman-not imminent b/c asleep); (3) Δ believes he is in peril (subj); (4) the belief is reasonable (obj.); (5) force used is necessary and proportional. RP standard - some subj characteristics of Δ - relevant knowledge, experience of the ∆, physical traits. LIMITS: (1) aggressors: can’t generally use self-defense. It’s one who is not free from fault, who incited/encouraged/promoted the fatal attack, who commits affirmative unlawful act reus calculated to produce an affray foreboding consequence; however, aggressor can regain the right of self-defense if he first retreats from his initial threat; (2) Stand your ground: maj – don’t have to retreat from place where you can legally be. Retreat to the wall: minority-duty to retreat & not use deadly force if able, unless castle doctrine; (3) imperfect self-defense: some jurisdictions allow this: allows a person to mitigate their criminal charge if they had genuine belief in their need for selfdefense, but their belief was wrong. MPC §3.04(1): Person is justified in using force when the actor believes that such force is immediately necessary to protect against the use of unlawful force by the other person at that time. (Differences from CL: only subj. & no imminence req.) (Goetz). LIMITS: (1) aggressors: no self-defense. It’s one who, w/purpose of causing death or SBI, provoked use of force against herself in same encounter; (2) duty to retreat: there is a duty to retreat if you can do so safely, unless castle doctrine; (3) MPC §3.09(2): if reckless in forming your belief that self-defense was necessary, actor cannot use selfdefense if crime has “reckless or negligent” MR, can for P or K. If negligent in forming your belief that self-defense was necessary, actor cannot use self-defense if crime has “negligent” MR, but can for R, K, or P (imperfect self-defense). DEFENSE OF OTHERS (justification) same element of SD, but actor thinks that another is in imminent danger (normally limited to parties w/special relationships) CL (1) Reasonable Belief Rule (majority): defense is justified when a reasonable person in the Δ’s situation would believe the intervention was necessary for the 3 rd person and that a reasonable person would believe the 3rd person would be justified in using that force themselves; (2) Alter Ego Rule (minority): puts the actor in the shoes of the other person. Δ may use force that is actually justified; (3) Imperfect Defense of Others : some jur. will allow a person to mitigate his charge if he had a genuine belief of the need for defense of others but that belief was wrong. Retreat only if both can be safely retreated and DEADLY force MPC §3.05: (1) Actor believes such force is immediately necessary (believes 3 rd party would be justified in using SD) (2) to protect against unlawful force. (subj. belief) LIMITS: (1) retreat - duty to retreat if that would save the 3P; Δ must help the 3P to retreat if he can do so safely; subject to castle doctrine; (2) if reckless in forming your belief that self-defense was necessary, actor cannot use if defense if crime has reckless or negligent MR (can for P or K). If negligent in forming your belief that self-defense was necessary, actor cannot use self-defense if crime has “negligent” MR (can for R, K, or P). DEFENSE OF PROPERTY(justification) CL: Deadly force never allowed; MPC: deadly force never allowed unless (subj) against total destruction or dispossession if: (1) Δ believes he was unlawfully dispossessed of it and (2a) the force was used immediately after dispossession or (2b) even if not immediate – believes person has no claim to it. DEFENSE OF HABITATION (justification) CL: Eatman Rule (old maj/now min) - deadly force allowed if Δ reasonably believes that the intruder intends to unlawfully and imminently enter and deadly force is necessary to prevent entry; Falco Rule (min) Eatman + and reasonably believes intruder intends to commit a felony in the house; Boyett Rule (maj) Eatman + and reasonably believes

intruder intends to commit a forcible and atrocious felony inside the house such as murder, rape, robbery (substantial risk of death/great bodily harm - GBI); MPC: deadly force can be used when the actor believes (subj) the aggressor is attempting or committing BARK- felonious threat; where the aggressor has threatened deadly force/GBI or the actor would be exposed to GBI if he used something other than deadlyF. LIMITS if reckless in forming belief that defense necessary, actor cannot use defense of habitation if crime has “reckless or negligent” mens rea, can for P or K. if negligent in forming your belief that defense of habitation was necessary, actor cannot use defense of habitation if crime has “negligent” MR, but can for R, K, or P. CL/MPC NO spring guns. CL if justified for using deadly forcehard to prove, rarely okay) NECESSITY (justification) “Lesser of 2 evils” Defense (natural force) CL: ELEMENTS: (1) done to prevent greater evil; (2) no legal & adequate alternative; (3) Harm caused not disproportionate to harm avoided; (4) imminent harm/dire need/emergency; (5) reasonable expectation that actions will abate danger; LIMITS: Δ can’t use if he created the situation that causes the need to use necessity and Δ cannot use as defense for homicide . (usually applied to natural threats, not people threats) MPC: ELEMENTS (1) actor believes his conduct is necessary to prevent a greater evil; (2) evil or harm which must be avoided is greater than the evil or harm caused by Δ’s actions; (3) cannot be used when something in statute suggests leg. wanted to prevent this specific situation; LIMITS: Unavailable if Δ (1) recklessly or negligently brings about the situation OR (2) recklessly or negligently appraises the necessity for his conduct. (1) if the actor recklessly formed belief that actions were necessary, he can use for crimes with MR of P or K (2) if negligent in forming belief that actions were necessary, then can use for R, P, K MR crimes. May be able to use necessity as defense to murder (MPC doesn’t specifically say). Diff from CL: no immanency requirement, no reasonable alternative requirement, not limited to natural forces, subjective. DURESS (excuse-what you did was wrong but you are not morally blameworthy; human force) CL: ELEMENTS: (1) immediate threat of death or GBH to ∆ or 3d person; (2) wellgrounded fear that the threat will be carried out; (3) no reasonable opportunity to escape the harm; (4) ∆ cannot be at fault for putting himself in situation; (5) must be unlawful threat and human. Duress cannot be used as defense to murder MPC: Elements (1) actor coerced by threat of unlawful force against him or someone else; (2) person of reasonable firmness would’ve been unable to resist the need. LIMITS: (1) If actor reckless in putting themselves in the situation to be under duress, cannot use duress at all (2) if actor negligent in putting themselves in the situation that caused them to be under duress, can use duress for R, K, P crimes. Duress can be used as a defense to murder. (MPC doesn’t require threat to mean immediate or imminent like CL MPC has no escape clause) INTOXICATION (excuse) CL: Voluntary-some jur. don’t allow this. Some use as defense for specific intent crimes (negates MR) for failure of proof claims, but not for general intent crimes. If at time of offense, Δ lacked the capacity to form the requisite SI MR b/c he was intoxicated, his charge can be mitigated; Involuntary can always be used as a defense (coerced, pathological, innocent mistake, unexpected result from medically prescribed drugs); MPC: voluntary - not a defense unless it negates an element of the offense. Does NOT negate reckless MR if the Δ would’ve been aware of the risk had he been sober; Involuntary-always a defense. INSANITY (excuse) CL: Insanity Tests: (1) M’Naghton Rule (maj.)-cognitive incapacity (didn’t know nature/quality of act) or moral incapacity (didn’t know it was wrong) Need expert testimony. (2) Irresistible Impulse- M’Naughton + Δ must show that the mental disease destroyed his free will & was rendered powerless to resist (inability to control); (3) Durham or Product Test- “but-for” test - act is product of mental disease/defect. Seldom used test b/c Δ is never responsible. MPC: (1) lacked the substantial capacity to appreciate the wrongfulness of his conduct or lacked the substantial caopacity to conform his conduct to the requirements of the law. CL/MPC: Guilty But Mentally Ill (GBMI)-jury decides that Δ was sane at time of crime and guilty of offense but mentally ill; GBMI verdict means Δ may be treated while in prison. INCHOATE (INCOMPLETE) OFFENSES ATTEMPTS are failures at the target crime; 2 types of attempts: (1) incomplete-criminal attempt is thwarted before ∆ can commit every last step necessary to complete the target crim; (2) complete - every step necessary for the target crime, but for some reason it doesn’t work. MENS REA CL: specific intent; (1) intend AR of attempt and (2) perform acts with intention of committing target crime; you cannot be charged w/attempt of reckless or negligent crime since you can’t intend the unintentional; MPC: “purposely” or “with the belief” that the target crime will occur b/c of your acts ACTUS REUS: CL focuses on what is left to be done. 7 tests: (1) physical proximity: overt act must be proximate to complete crime or directly tending toward the completion of the crime; (2) dangerous proximity: the more severe the harm is going to be, the farther away Δ can be (gravity/probability of harm); (3) Res ipsa loquitur test: actor’s specific criminal purpose must be evident from his conduct (overt/direct act – like a silent movie); (4) last act: (Trad) Δ attempts the crime when he has done the last act necessary; (5) indispensable element: Δ attempts the crime when he has in his control the last thing needed to commit the crime (the more that remains to be done, the less likely Δ will be convicted); (6) probable desistance: without interruption, actor probably would not have backed out; (7) abnormal step : Δ goes past point where typical ∆ would stop & think better of his actions; MPC: focuses on what has been done (must be a substantial step that strongly corroborates criminal purpose; threshold is less than CL; treats attempts as serious as target offense) DEFENSES TO ATTEMPTS: Impossibility (old but still around): (1)FACTUAL-(CL-no; MPC-no) the actor was intending to commit a crime, but commission is impossible due to Δ’s factual mistake;

(2)HYBRID LEGAL-(CL-yes; MPC-no) Δ’s goal was illegal but commission is impossible due to Δ’s factual mistake regarding legal status of some factor; (3)PURE LEGAL- (CL-yes, MPC-yes) conduct is legal; mistake goes to law. Abandonment (new/on the upsurge): Can only abandon if there was an attempt. CL: maj. yes b/c it’s not considered attempt, some no ; MPC: yes b/c it’s attempt - need a complete (no postponement) and voluntary (can’t be prompted by someone ...