Quick Facts Crim Midterm PDF

Preview

Summary

quick facts...

Description

Criminal Law Midterm Quick Facts! (lol) Reasons for having criminal law in the first placeWhenever question of legislative intent, must reference: o NYPL 5.00 Penal law not strictly construed. o NYPL 1.05 General purposes. Burden of ProofBeyond a Reasonable Doubt  Decided by jury Legal Rule: To define the legal consequences of particular factual scenarios; To identify what facts when proved will trigger what legal consequences  Conceptually can be understood as an if, then proposition  IF certain legal facts are proved to have occurred, THEN certain legal conclusions and consequences follow. THREE DIFFERENT KINDS OF ISSUE: 1. What the facts were - Disputes about what happened a. Pure issues of fact 2. What the governing rules of law are and mean - Disputes about what legal rules govern, or about what the governing legal rules mean a. Pure issues of law 2. How the governing rules of law apply to the facts of the problem - Disputes about how the governing legal rules apply to the facts a. Mixed issues of law and fact How does one address a pure issue of fact? 1. Under rules of evidence, who bares of proving a fact 2. Answered by jury How does one address a pure issue of law?  Ex. Rules of statutory interpretation  Answered by judge How does one address a mixed issue?  Answered by jury The Adversarial Dynamic: Plaintiff vs. Defendant A contest between their conflicting interests and objectives The Structure of a Law Suit—  The ultimate issue to be resolved: In the dispute between P and D, should P win?  Ultimate Conclusion: P wins; or P loses  Legally significant facts:

In the dispute between P and D, what happened (that is legally relevant)? Whether a plaintiff wins or loses, there is legal consequence of the facts Law suit cannot determine who wins or loses from the facts alone. Legal consequences of the facts DEPEND on what legal rules are Governing rules of law: In the dispute between P and D, what legal rules govern (to determine the legal consequences of the facts)?

  

Identifying Specific Version of Crime: 1.  2. 

Why are you not proceeding under the other versions of a specific crime? The absence of evidence** Why are you choosing to proceed under ____ statute? There is a plausible basis for developing the necessary evidence for establishing the requirements of…

Fundamentals of Statutory Interpretation: 1. Identifying ambiguity in statutory meaning 2. Stating issues of statutory meaning 3. Developing analyses, and making arguments, for resolving issues of statutory meaning METHOD FOR STATING AN ISSUE ABOUT THE LEGAL MEANING OF STATUTORY LANGUAGE:  Identify the specific words from the statute, the legal meaning of which is at issue.  Identify the specific facts of the case, the legal significance of which is at issue.  Connect the statutory words to the facts, by posing the question: o Does the legal meaning of these words include those facts? Issues of statutory meaning: What culpable mental state applies to each element of a crime? This question must be addressed separately with respect to each element. MPC 2.02 (1).  With respect to this issue of statutory interpretation, there may be a range of plausible meaning. According to the Model Penal Code 1.13-(9) -- "element of offense" means (i) such conduct or (ii) such attendant circumstances of (iii) such a result of conduct a Principles of Element Identification:  Must be complete thought  Always start with the conduct element  Each adverb or adjective signifies a separate element; cannot state a compound element; if you are considering two elements together it is less likely that you will sharply focus on the legal meaning of the specific element; one must address the question what culpable mental state applies to each and every element Generic sense of element- any category of fact the prosecutor must prove to establish that the defendant committed the crime charged MPC element- subset of generic elements, facts prosecutor must prove involving defendant's conduct, attendant circumstances, or results of that conduct (MPC 1.13 (9))



Prove defendant acted with some culpable mental state in relation to every element of the crime (MPC 2.02 (1))

Actus Reus: requirement that a defendant's criminal liability must be based on some voluntary act; voluntariness is focused on what is going on in the defendant's mind, the connection between the act and the mind o Minimum requirement of a crime o Voluntary act being a movement of the defendant's body o Omission can serve as actus reus under the discussed circumstances (above) Additional elements o Attendant circumstances o Results  If a result, we must show that the conduct CAUSED the result o Temporal Concurrence: The requirement that at the exact time the crime was committed he had the culpable mental state Additional rules governing actus reus: A. For any crime, there must be a temporal concurrence between Ds actus reus and the acquired mens rea P must prove that at the time of his actus reus, D was acting with the required mens rea A. For homicide, there must be a causal connection between Ds actus reus and the death at issue. P must prove that but for Ds actus reus, the relevant death would not have occurred. Causation--one chain of causation that did come from conduct and culminate in the death Risk Creation-- chains of possible creation that could have resulted from the defendant's conduct and could have culminated in the death Mens Rea— Defined: A further requirement regarding defendant's voluntary act-that the voluntary act (or omission) must have been undertaken with some culpable mental state  What was going on in the defendant's mind  What his thoughts were while doing the voluntary act  A specific culpable mental state or multiple mental states depending on the language in the crime MPC 2.02(1) Minimum Requirements of Culpability.  Establishes a presumption that some culpable mental state applies to each element of a crime  Question of which culpable mental state applies must be addressed separately with respect to each material element NYPL 15.15 Construction of statutes with respect to culpability requirements. 1. "When the commission of an offense defined in this chapter, or some element of an offense, requires a particular culpable mental state, such mental state is ordinarily designated in the statute defining the offense by use of the terms "intentionally," "knowingly," "recklessly," or "criminal negligence," or by use of terms, such as "with into to defraud" and "knowing it to be false," describing a specific kind of intent or knowledge. When one and only one of such terms appears in a statute defining an offense, it is presumed to apply to every element of the offense unless an intent to limit its application clearly appears."

NYPL Section 15.15(1) When an element requires a particular culpable mental state it is ordinarily designated in the statute defining the offense by the use of the terms "intentionally", "knowingly", "recklessly" or "criminal negligence". i. Intentionally 1. Must be done with respect to a result or to conduct ii. Knowingly 1. With respect to conduct or to a circumstance ii. Recklessly 1. A person acts recklessly with respect to result or circumstance ii. Criminal Negligence 1. With respect to result or circumstance I. Acting Intentionally with respect to an element of an offense (Most difficult to prove) i. Comparing NYPL definition of Intentionally vs MPC Purposely ii. NYPL 15.05(1) 1. Intentionally: A person acts intentionally with respect to a result or to conduct described by a statute defining an offense when his conscious objective is to cause such result or to engage in such conduct i. Can only apply to result or conduct element, not an attendant circumstance 2. Intentionally with respect to a result: i. A person acts intentionally with respect to a result described by a statute defining an offense when his conscious objective is to cause such result ii. Meaning by definition: intentionally to cause a result when it was that person's goal to cause that result iii. Meaning by example: intentionally opening fingers in order to case a pen to fall 2. Intentionally with respect to conduct: i. Person acts intentionally with respect to conduct described by a statute defining an offense when his conscious objective is to engage in such conduct ii. Meaning by example: intentionally in respect to moving fingers iii. Meaning by Definition: Intentionally in respect to movement of body when it is my goal to move my body in that way I. Acting Knowingly with respect to an element of an offense i. NYPL 15.05(2) 1. A person acts knowingly with respect to conduct or to a circumstance described by a statute defining an offense when he is aware that his conduct is of such nature or that such circumstances exists i. Can only apply to conduct and attendant circumstance, not result 2. Knowingly with respect to conduct: i. A person acts knowingly with respect to conduct described by a statute defining an offense when he is aware that his conduct is of such nature 2. Knowingly with respect to attendant circumstance: i. Person acts knowingly with respect to a circumstance described by a statute defining an offense when he is aware that such circumstance exists ii. MPC 2.02(b) 1. A person acts knowingly with respect to a material element of an offense when: i. If the element involves the nature of his conduct or the attendant circumstances, he is aware that his conduct is of that nature or that such circumstances exist; and ii. If the element involves a result of his conduct, he is aware….

iii. Can be in respect to all three—conduct, circumstance, and result Differences Between Knowingly and Intentionally: I. Acting knowingly with respect to a circumstance includes the possibility that the circumstance does not exist; ex. side effects of medication. II. Acting intentionally/purposely with respect to a circumstances includes acting directly because of the existing circumstance. o Higher level of immorality Acting Recklessly with Respect to a Material Element of an Offense NYPL 15.05 (3) A person acts recklessly with respect to a result or to a circumstance described by a statute defining an offense when he is aware of and consciously disregards a substantial and unjustifiable risk that such result will occur or that such circumstance exists. The risk must be of such nature and degree that disregard thereof constitutes a gross deviation from the standard of conduct that a reasonable person would observe in the situation.  Decision to proceed must also involve a gross deviation from the standard of conduct that a reasonable person would observe  Easier to prove factually, as a matter of technical legal analysis, but because it has so many elements, it is difficult to apply Essential conceptual difference between knowingly and recklessly:  In both—Prosecution must prove the defendant's awareness of something.  Difference of the degree of certainty, Prosecution must prove knowingly the defendant was aware the fact existed; Recklessly must prove defendant was aware that there was a risk that the fact existed Ex. NYPL 150.15 Arson in the second degree A person is guilty of arson… When he intentionally damages a building or motor vehicle by starting a fire, and when (a) another person who is not a participant in the crime is present in such building or motor vehicle at the time, and (b) the defendant knows that fact. i. Class B felony MPC elements: 1. D engaged in a specific relevant conduct (conduct) 2. This conduct started a fire (caused a fire) (result) 3. This fire caused damage to a building (or motor vehicle) (result) 4. Another person was present in the building or motor vehicle at the relevant time. (circumstance) 5. The other person present was not a participant in Ds crime (circumstance) People v. Hall Ex. NYPL 125.15(1) Manslaughter in the second degree. A person is guilty of manslaughter in the second degree when he recklessly causes the death of another person. Using Colorado Penal Law 18-1-501(8) "Recklessly." A person acts recklessly when he consciously disregards a substantial and unjustifiable risk that a result will occur or that a circumstance exists. The risk must be of such a nature that its disregard constitutes a gross deviation from the standard of care that a reasonable person would exercise.

[Generic] elements P must prove to establish that D acted recklessly with respect to risk of causing a result: [e.g., causing the death of another person] 1. Ds actus reus created a risk of causing the death of another person; 2. That risk [of causing a human death of another human being created by Ds conduct] was substantial; 3. That risk [of causing a human death of another human being created by Ds conduct] was unjustifiable; 4. D consciously disregarded that risk [of causing a human death of another human being created by Ds conduct] **Note: Proving that a person consciously disregarded a risk associated with his conduct implicitly requires proving that he was aware of that risk, yet proceeded with his conduct despite such awareness. [See ALI Commentary, KS 274, n3] 5. Considering the nature of the risk, Ds disregard of the risk constitutes a gross deviation from the standard of care that a reasonable person would exercise To apply this element of recklessness, one must address two sub-elements: A. What is the standard of care that a reasonable person would exercise? B. Considering the nature of the risk, was Ds disregard of such risk a gross deviation from the standard of care that a reasonable person would exercise? MPC 2.02 (2)(c ) *** The risk must be of such a nature and degree that, considering the nature and purpose of the actor's conduct and the circumstances known to him, its disregard involves a gross deviation from the standard of conduct that a law-abiding person would observe in the actor's situation.  Misunderstanding of an element leads to misapplication. Ambiguities in the meaning of "Recklessly"—Issues of Statutory Interpretation 1. What does the requirement of a temporal concurrence between actus reus and mens rea mean if: a. D engaged in an extended course, or pattern, of conduct which created an ongoing and consistent risk of causing a human death; or i. Issue of law: How do we define the relevant actus reus for a charge of reckless homicide ii. Can the whole course of conduct be characterized as the actus reus? Or if you are going to find the course of conduct very narrowly, it is much harder to satisfy the temporal concurrence part iii. Question of legislative intent; consider policy reasons for this—Substantive and Strategic Rationale b. D engaged in a course of planning his risk-creating actus reus; i. Thinking about this for a week; going to be really icy on Saturday—going to be more of a thrill, going to ski like a demon ii. What if he became aware of the risk he could kill during the planning process; Can that be deemed to satisfy an issue of temporal concurrence? 2. Must P prove not only D was aware of the relevant risk but also that D was aware such risk was substantial, and that D was aware such risk was unjustifiable? [See KS 278, n5] a. To what extent he was aware of risk, of factors relating to its substantiality and of factors relating to its unjustifiability i. No sense of a requirement of a degree of risk, merely risk that he knew he could kill somebody; explanation is prosecution friendly—just have to prove that the defendant was aware of some risk

1. What does the phrase in the actor's situation mean? a. If D has individual characteristics that made it more difficult for him than for a person without those traits to conform to a standard of reasonable care, should such characteristics be accounted for in determining the "standard of care" a reasonable person would observe "in the situation"? i. Some personal characteristics will be accounted for and others will not be Rules, Principles, Methods for addressing pure issues of fact. Proving awareness and intent, and the use of presumptions.  Unless the defendant admits the crucial mental facts, the prosecutor must prove mens rea indirectly, through so-called circumstantial evidence and the inferences one can draw from it. Kinds of Evidence (in terms of relevance to prove a legally significant fact) - Circumstantial evidence: Evidence relevant to prove one fact which provides a basis from which to conclude (that is, to draw an inference) that another fact -- some legally critical fact -- occurred.  Direct evidence: Evidence which itself tends to prove that some legally critical fact occurred. Examples: On the legally critical issue of fact -- Whether, at the time of his actus reus, D was aware of the risk that his skiing could cause a human death:  Circumstantial evidence could include testimony about Ds training and experience.  Direct evidence could include a witness testifying that she heard D screaming "Look out below; if you get in my way we both could get our heads cracked open!"  Why can you infer he is using his expertise of skiing at the specific time? A reasonable person ordinarily would be using relevant information they have at the time the information is relevant.  This person had information about the dangers of skiing, an ordinary person thinking ordinarily would be thinking about the dangers of skiing when he is skiing dangerously.  Chain of inferences, asking the fact finder to make an inference from time 1 as a basis for inferring a similar awareness at time 2 Causation--one chain of causation that did come from conduct and culminate in the death Risk Creation-- chains of possible creation that could have resulted from the defendant's conduct and could have culminated in the death

Dudley v. Stephens Why does all of this matter? Criminal law is created by statutes. Statutes comprised of text and words. Words can have ambiguous meaning. Statutes can have ambiguous meaning. According to what principle of interpretation can ambiguity be resolved? The intent and purpose the legislature had in creating the statute.  Section 5.00 of NYPL—Penal law not strictly construed. Necessary for designating a choice as a crime: 1. A substantive judgement a. That a particular choice is somehow bad - bad (i) because it is instrinsically immoral or (ii) because it can have bad effects on society 2. Strategic judgement a. That criminalizing a particular bad choice would serve societal goals of (i) retribution, (ii) deterrence, (iii) incapacitation, or (iv) reform

Strategic Policies— Choice Retribution: Punishment must be proportionate to the seriousness of moral culpability reflected in defendant's criminal choice  "They made the identical choice, what was going on in their minds in terms of the relevant choice was morally identical"  Punishment of D1 = Punishment of D2  Evaluate the morality or immorality of a defendant's thought processes. The basic view of human beings for choice retribution:  Human beings are responsible moral agents who choose [freely] between good and evil o Wants to judge choices people make, if there is no choice, there is nothing to evaluate Deterrence: The anticipated cost of punishment for the commission of a crime should outweigh the anticipated benefit from commission of a crime, so that a potential criminal, as a rational cost-benefit calculator, will choose not to commit the crime  Threatened Punishment > Potential wrongdoer's incentive for committing crime The immediate objective of deterrence: Prevent the commission of crime by discouraging people from choosing to commit criminal acts  Create and secure safe space for people to exercise their socially acceptable liberties The basic view of human beings for deterrence:  Human beings are rational cost-benefit calculators who pursue pleasure, and who avoid pain o If no choice or bodily movement by will, there was no choice that could be influenced by criminal law Variables for achieving deterrence: 1. The degree to which punishment is certain 2. The degree to which punishment is severe 3. The degree to which potential criminals have knowledge of the rules defining crimes and the punishments promised for the commission of those crimes Rules, Principles, Methods avai...