Criminal Law Outline PDF

Preview

Summary

Full Criminal law outline. Got an A...

Description

Jaime Whelan 1 Criminal Law Outline

Criminal Law Outline Professor Cavallaro Exam Monday, December 11

WHY PUNISH? I.

Theories of Punishment a. How good/effective is our system and why? b. Central questions i. When, in what circumstances, is punishment justified? How much punishment is appropriate? ii. What are the elements of criminal acts/defenses? iii. Relationship between doctrine and policy? c. Retributivism – claims that punishment is justified because the actor deserves it. i. Requires assumption that everyone has a choice in their criminal acts. ii. Punishment must be justified by the seriousness of the crime committed. iii. Many think how much punishment the offender deserves is linked to their “moral culpability” d. Deterrence – justification lies in the useful purposes that punishment serves. i. Forward-looking; “how will this effect the future?” ii. To be effective, must have rational actor. iii. Prospect of punishment v. benefits of criminal act e. Regina v. Dudley & Stephens i. Rule: killing an innocent life to save one’s own is murder, even if its under extreme necessity of hunger. 1. Justification – were they right? 2. Necessity – did they need to kill him to survive? 3. Excuse – not right thing to do, BUT… ii. Sentencing shows difference between a rule and a standard 1. Rule: court sentences defendants to death. Definite rule, murder is murder, rigid & predictable. 2. Standard – queen reduced sentence to 6 months in jail. Extraordinary, unusual circumstances; unique outcome. “not all cases are the same”; flexible.

CULP CULPABILITY ABILITY I.

Actus Reus a. Voluntary acts i. Martin v. State – a person must voluntarily commit the crime charged in order to be guilty 1. Common law v. Model Penal Code a. Common law – all actus reus in elements must be voluntary b. Model Penal Code 2.201 – a person is guilty if their conduct includes a voluntary act or omission in the elements of the offense. 2. People v. Newton – a reflex or convulsion (ex. Resulting from injury) is not a voluntary act that will support being guilty of a crime. a. Model Penal Code 2.201 – reflex or convulsion not voluntary acts within the meaning of this section.

II.

3. People v. Decina – “Antecedent Act Doctrine” – although the act itself may not have been voluntary, antecedent acts can satisfy later voluntary act. a. Person who knows that they are susceptible to seizures drives anyway, experiences seizure and kills 4 people. i. “reckless driving” due to seizure not voluntary, but choice to get into the car precedes that. b. Omissions i. Only those who fall into these four categories can be criminally liable for failure to act that results in the death of another. 1. Where a statute imposes a duty to care for another a. Ex. Mandatory reporters (doctors, teachers, etc). 2. Where one stands in a certain “status relationship” to another a. Parents to minor children, etc. 3. Where one has assumed a contractual duty to care for another. a. Lifeguards, babysitters, EMT/POLICE/FIRE. 4. Where one has voluntarily assumed the care of another and so secluded the helpless person as to prevent others from rendering aid. ii. Cases: Jones v. United States, Pope v. State 1. Moral obligation ≠ legal duty Mens Rea a. Mental state required for each particular offense – statutory & common law definitions. i. Only interested in mental state AT TIME of act ii. Usually material element when it is what makes the act illegal. iii. Must be present for every material element. 1. Always material element with Actus Reus 2. When trying to determine what is a material element – make arguments for both retributive (defense) and deterrence (prosecution) standpoints. a. Retribution – SHOULD BE material element because only those with culpable mens rea deserve to be punished. b. Deterrence – SHOULD NOT BE material element because we don’t care about what the actor thought – should be punished to better society. i. However, can you really deter someone if they didn’t know what they were doing? Need rational actor. b. Regina v. Cunningham (common law) – for criminal punishment, an actor must AT LEAST subjectively foresee possible result; minimum standard. i. AT LEAST RECKLESS when statute does not explicitly state mens rea language. c. Generally, cannot take culpability of one offense and apply it to another offense. d. Model Penal Code §2.02 – mens rea language. i. Purpose = “Conscious object” to engage in conduct or achieve result. 1. Worst actor – deserving of punishment. ii. Knowledge = “aware to a practical certainty” that the result would occur. iii. Reckless = “conscious disregard” – foresees a risk and continues to act anyway. 1. When no mens rea language, must prove at least reckless. 2. Risk for good reasons v. bad reasons (rushing child to hospital or late to nail appointment?)

Jaime Whelan 3 Criminal Law Outline

III.

iv. Negligence – “should be aware” of a substantial & unjustifiable risk. Actor’s subjective failure to perceive the risk; “gross deviation” from the standard of care a reasonable person would take. 1. Ordinarily not enough – unless a death occurs (see homicide unit). Mistake of Fact – Statutory Rape cases a. People v. Olsen – mistake of fact as to age is not a viable defense (in half of states) in statutory rape cases. i. In this case, adult had sex with a thirteen year old girl; “good faith belief” she was 16. This state allowed a mistake of fact as to age between 16 and 18, but below 14 was strict liability. 1. Statute designed to protect young people. 2. Laws change with culture & changing norms ii. Model penal code generally the same; just use MPC language.

RAPE I.

Rape a. Generally, rape is sex with force and without consent. b. Force requirement i. State v. Rusk – conduct counts as force if a reasonable person would be fearful/coerced. OBJECTIVE APPROACH for fear/force. ii. Some states use force as a proxy as to the actor’s awareness that there was no consent. 1. Generally, if force requires more, there is little to no consideration as to belief of nonconsent. iii. Resistance – some states explicitly require it; others implicitly require some sort of resistance. Juries like to see that a victim used “reasonable resistance” 1. This poses an issue for victims that “freeze” and an issue where resisting can cause more harm or even death to the victim. 2. Exception – reasonable fear. c. Consent requirement i. Some states do not require any more force than is necessary to achieve penetration anyway. In these states, there is a close inquiry as to mens rea for nonconsent. ii. M.T.S. – must allow mistake of fact as to consent because technically every time someone has sex they use enough force to commit a rape.

MIST MISTAK AK AKE E OF LAW/ STRICT LIABILITY I.

II.

Passive/omissions v. acting a. Marrero – acting – mistake of law generally not a defense. b. Lambert v. California – passive – rare exception; conduct that is wholly passive can use lack of knowledge/notice as a defense. i. Citing this case isn’t too effective because it’s a very rare exception ii. Due process issue – should have given defendant chance to comply before prosecution. Strict Liability a. Used most often for public health/safety and welfare. i. Liability – capacity to harm many people.

ii. Uses criminal law like tort law – forces people to use extraordinary care due to the significant risk to many people. iii. Most often results in fines, symbolic gestures – just enough to make compliance more cost-effective. b. See flowchart.

HOMICIDE I.

Intended Killings a. General i. Murder – unlawful killing of another with malice aforethought 1. What is malice? a. One person kills another with intent to do so, with or without provocation b. One person is killed by an act intended to kill another c. A person is killed by an act intended to kill, although not intended to kill any particular individual. d. If death results from an act which is intended to do no more than cause grievous bodily harm. e. If one person kills another by an intentional act in which he knows to be likely to kill or to cause grievous bodily harm. ii. Manslaughter – unlawful killing of another without malice aforethought. b. Premeditation i. Murder I – killing was willful, deliberate, and premeditated (WDP) 1. Two formulations: a. Carroll – “no time is too short” to formulate an intent to kill i. Pointing weapon at vital body part is enough to show intent to kill. b. Guthrie – need to see some deliberation; legislature told us to separate first and second degree and regard premeditation as a more serious offense. i. Was actor able to cooly reflect on their intent to kill? ii. Murder II – all other murders. Can’t prove murder I, automatically murder II.

Jaime Whelan 5 Criminal Law Outline

c. Provocation i. Voluntary Manslaughter 1. Common Law: HEAT OF PASSION. a. Where it exists, it serves to negate malice. Mitigates murder to manslaughter. i. Heat 1. Was the actor subjectively in a heat? Use specific facts from hypo to show their mental state. ii. Adequate Provocation 1. Average man would suffer the same effect. Male centered: anger and rage 2. Closed list  sexual jealousy/acts with a female relative, mutual combat. 3. If not on a list, should it be? Make arguments. iii. No cooling time 1. Was the actor still in a heat when the killing happened, or did they have time to cool down? iv. (and not mere words) 2. MPC: EXTREME EMOTIONAL DISTURBANCE a. Allows wider range of emotions than HOP. b. Looks both subjectively at disturbance AND whether the reaction was reasonable. c. Cassassa – jury agreed defendant was subjectively in that state of mind, BUT the reaction was not objectively reasonable. i. Cavallaro – “you’re just too weird” II.

Unintended Killings a. Involuntary Manslaughter

i. Common law – would a reasonable person have foreseen the risk? 1. Welansky – (P) a reasonable person could have foreseen that blocking exits would prevent people from getting out in an emergency. (D) it was not reasonably foreseeable that an employee would light a match and all the paper decorations would spread a fire within seconds, leaving people with no opportunity to get out before inhaling smoke. 2. Model Penal Code – conscious disregard a. US v. Fleming – defendant consciously disregarded the risk of causing a death when he swerved into oncoming traffic. b. Unintended Killing can be upgraded to Murder if: i. Common law: “substantial” likelihood & gravity of harm. 1. Malone – Russian roulette case – high likelihood of death (60% chance) although no intent to kill. ii. Model Penal Code – R+ “conscious disregard” plus an extreme indifference for human life. 1. Perfect example – kids throwing 6lb rocks onto highway from overpass. c. Felony Murder Rule i. Death that happens within the course of a felony can be murder if: 1. Felony was “inherently dangerous” a. BARRK can be assumed to be inherently dangerous. i. Burglary ii. Arson iii. Rape iv. Robbery v. Kidnapping 2. Does not merge a. Merges if you commit arson in order to kill somebody.

Jaime Whelan 7 Criminal Law Outline

b. Must have “independent felonious purpose” 3. Agency & Proximate cause a. If one of your agents did it, you’re still guilty. b. Proximate cause – whether the death occurring during the felony was reasonably foreseeable. ii. Model Penal Code §210 1. Malice is “presumed” in felonious conduct. 2. Without any other proof, jury can find recklessness. Needs no evidence of “conscious disregard” – just need to prove death occurred within the course of a felony. a. * CAN find guilty if…but don’t have to. Jury can reject the presumption. III.

Death Penalty a. Furman Problem – too much discretion when deciding who gets the death penalty & who does not. i. Need to constrain jury discretion to impose death penalty; avoids racial discrimination, etc. 1. Aggravating & mitigating circumstances. 2. Jury always needs to have the opportunity to not impose the death penalty; cannot require it for specific offenses. ii. Gregg v. Georgia – bifurcated test 1. Guilt a. Decision to find guilty not charged with a death sentence. Do not have to decide guilt staring death penalty in the face. 2. Sentencing.

THE SIGNIFICANCE OF RESULTING HARM I.

Causation

a. AR + MR (+ causation/result) = criminal liability. b. Only needs to be evaluated in certain cases, like where it is unclear what actually caused the death. i. Think MICHELLE CARTER – technically she isn’t the one that killed him, but the question of law is whether her conduct caused the death of the victim. c. Objective standard – would a reasonable person in defendant’s position foresee that their conduct would cause a death? i. Example: would a reasonable person think that sending text messages urging one to commit suicide would result in their death? 1. Prosecution – yes, because of their relationship/victim’s mental health/lack of autonomy, etc. 2. Defense – no, because mere words.

INCHO INCHOA ATE CRIMES I.

Attempts a. Should luck matter? b. Hypo: defendant has gun pointed to someone’s head, pulls trigger, gun doesn’t fire. i. Why should we punish someone differently if the gun fires or does not fire? 1. Retributivists  results matter. c. Where do we locate the actus reus? i. “place of mind changing” – basically where there is no turning back for the defendant. ii. Movie strip picture from notes 1. Retribution – when A pulls trigger – no going back now 2. Deterrence – attempt is a law enforcement tool; would stop It around 3-4. d. Defendant must be far enough along to prove that the attempted crime was their PURPOSE.

Jaime Whelan 9 Criminal Law Outline

i. Difference between knowledge and purpose is very significant in Inchoate crimes. We can punish crime with lower mens rea, but for attempts we need to prove highest level. e. Three tests: i. “dangerous proximity” – actor is in dangerous proximity to completing the object crime. On exam, ask, “what is left to be done? (both CL and MPC use this) ii. Equivocal test – innocent construction. If you can look at that part of the movie strip and created ANY innocent construction – not far enough along for attempt. iii.

“Substantial Step” – MPC – if it is strongly corroborative of the criminal purpose. 1. Example: movie strip. Would stop when A points gun at B. 2. BUT, if we find A’s diary saying “I am going to kill B. Tomorrow I will go to the gun store, buy a gun, find B and shoot him” then we can arrest at the gun store with this evidence.

II.

Complicity a. NOT A STANDALONE CRIME!! i. Viewed as vehicle of liability 1. You can charge for murder by complicity, vicarious liability, as accessory, etc; but not “guilty of complicity” ii. Object crime actually has to be committed. Cannot punish before it happens. b. Actus Reus  Aiding/Abetting/Encouragement. c. Mens Rea  DOUBLE MENS REA i. PURPOSE to aid/abet/encourage ii. PURPOSE that the crime actually be committed. 1. This can be evidenced by some sort of reward/kickback. 2. Example: in State v. Gladstone, defendant did aid the undercover cop by drawing him a map, and had the purpose to aid him in doing so – but cannot prove purpose that the crime be committed unless he had some

real interest in the sale. If undercover cop didn’t go, defendant wouldn’t have cared (or even known). d. Obvious but needs to be said i. Can’t have accomplice liability for an unintended death – like involuntary manslaughter. III.

Conspiracy a. STANDALONE CRIME i. Can still be charged even if the object crime is never committed. 1. In fact, can be punished even more severely than the object crime. ii. Post- 9/11 world, we want to be able to punish before the crime is committed. iii. Idea that two actors putting their heads together are worse than one. b. Actus Reus  Agreement c. Mens Rea  DOUBLE i. PURPOSE to agree, and ii. PURPOSE that the crime be committed. d. Also must have an “overt act” i. Must be in plain view ii. Step from planning to action iii. NOT the actus reus iv. Does not require anything illegal e. Often used as a tool by prosecutors – gets cooperating witnesses i. Last one to the state attorney’s office is the defendant, LOL ii. Conduct that defies coincidence shows proof of agreement even when there are no cooperating witnesses

Jaime Whelan 11 Criminal Law Outline

1. Example: a group of guys show up to the bank at the same time wearing bandanas. iii. Exception to hearsay rule – statements between co-conspirators admissible in court. f. So, what happens if a co-conspirator changes their mind? i. Not enough to say “you guys go ahead, I’m out” or stay home. ii. Must do something to try to stop the crime from happening 1. Calling the police, etc iii. Will still be charged with conspiracy, but will not be charged with the actual crime if completed by Pinkerton Liability. g. Pinkerton Liability i. If someone agrees, but does not help in committing the crime ii. Any co-conspirators are just as culpable as those that actually committed them. iii. Look at whether action is: 1. In the course of the object crime; or 2. In furtherance of the object crime.

JUSTIFICATION AND EXCUSE I.

Self-Defense a. AR + MR (+causation/result) = criminal liability UNLESS honest, reasonable belief that imminent deadly force is necessary. b. MPC – issue of retreat only arises if the defendant resorted to a “deadly force” c. Battered women’s syndrome i. Conduct doesn’t quite meet the imminent requirement, but experts can testify that the trauma of being beaten causes a victim to feel that it was imminent.

II.

Insanity

a. M’Naghten Rule – cognitive side of the rule; does the person understand what they are doing is wrong when they are doing it? b. Blake v. State – changes to M’Naghten Rule i. Need a volitional inquiry (even if you understand, could you control yourself?) ii. Needs clinical disease or defect - Experts are essential c. Control i. Volitional (people “lose it” despite knowing right from wrong) i i . No scientific tool to prove whether someone can or can’t control themselves.....