Professional Documents
Culture Documents
OUTLINE
Retributive:
Crimes deserve punishment. The punished criminal must be
blameworthy.
---What if you believe that people are the product of genes or
their upbringing? Are they blameworthy when they commit
crimes?
1
---Murder deserves a higher sentence than shoplifting—but
how much higher?
Relevant cases:
Carbaga
James Hogan
Mann
Boesky
---A criminal justice system exist whereby states have their own criminal
laws. Sometimes they adopt parts of the MPC as their actual body of criminal
law. The Federal government has its own set of laws.
Actus Reus
The criminal offense must include some conduct, that is, action or the
failure to act where action is called for.
2
The requirement of an act may refer to some or all of seven conditions
for just punishment:
1. past
2. voluntary
3. bad
4. conduct
5. specified
6. in advance
7. by statute
The law treats man’s conduct as autonomous and willed, not because
it is, but because it is desirable to proceed as if it were.
3
the patron outside and the defendant leapt through the crowd
outside and struck an officer twice in the face. Later at the jail,
the defendant had a grand mal seizure. He suffers from
psychomotor epilepsy; seizures prevent the conscious mind of
controlling the actions of the body.
People v. Decina
Mr. Decina had an epileptic seizure while driving and his car struck and
killed four people.
4
Code. Counsel for the defendant alleged that he was afflicted
with the disease of chronic alcoholism and that his appearance
in public was not of his own volition. Defendant was
convicted.
Yes they can, whereby the defendant commits no act because the charge is
that he/she omitted to act.
5
---Moreover, it held that there are four situations where one
may be held criminally liable.
Crimes of possession
6
People v. Valot, Michigan Court of Appeals, 1971
Valot rented a motel room for himself and several friends. The
room was registered in his name and the motel manager
complained to the police that “hippie type” people had been
using the room. The police observed marijuana and drug
paraphernalia in the room.
Guilty mind vs. strict liability: the case of “public welfare offenses”
7
consumers before sharing in illicit commerce; rather than to
throw the hazard on the innocent public that is wholly helpless.
Thus, Dotterweich was strictly liable.
Strict Liability:
8
One indicia for strict liability is:
(1) A low sentence
-mallum in se—it is immoral
-mallum prohibitum—it is illegal but not immoral
Should the conviction for the felony charge for the lighting the
ship on fire be upheld? Is intent required?
Kinds of culpability:
9
Negligently: If he should be aware of a substantial and
unjustifiable risk that the material element exists or will result
from his conduct.
Specific intent:
A mental element requiring “purpose” or “knowledge” because either
(a) the statute has a mental term that applies to a material element of
the crime which equals purpose of knowledge, or, (b) the statute
requires intent as to some future act or result which is not a part of the
actus reus.
General intent:
Defined as not “specific intent”. In most courts, the general intent
element requires at least some recklessness-the conscious disregard
for risk.
10
Whether an honest and reasonable mistake of fact regarding a
victim’s age may serve as a defense to a charge of statutory
rape?
Mistake of Fact:
a) Unaware of risk because of honest, reasonable
mistake of fact. There is no liability but in some
courts if someone still committed a lesser criminal
act then mistake is not a defense.
b) Honest but unreasonable mistake of fact—there is
no defense in most common law cases.
11
(b) The law provides that the state of mind established by such
ignorance or mistake constitutes an offense.
Reckless:
A negligent or reasonable mistake exculpates. D is
culpable only if his mistake is reckless.
Negligent:
A reasonable mistake exculpates. D is culpable only
if his mistake is reckless or negligent.
Strict Liability:
No mistake exculpates. D is culpable no matter what
type of mistake he makes—reckless, negligent, or
reasonable.
12
Diminished capacity can be used as a doctrine of “partial
responsibility”: because of some mental problem one is not as
responsible as others, thus, the crime is reduced.
Mental Illness:
No mens rea—diminished capacity
General defense:
1. Even if all of the elements are present then
the defense still exists. E.g. insanity: there
is a defense regardless of the elements
involved.
2. As a defense of partial responsibility: E.g.
self defense
---No, the defendant cannot suggest that she did not know what
she was doing or that she was unable to engage in purposeful
conduct.
---Self-induced intoxication is not a defense unless it negatives
an element of the offense.
---When the culpability for a crime is that the person acted
“purposely” or “knowingly” evidence of violent intoxication is
admissible to disprove that requisite mental state.
---A defendant must show that he was so intoxicated that he did
not have the intent to commit an offense.
13
Common law: intoxication is relevant if it shows no
specific intent. It is relevant to establish general
intent—saying that one is drunk will show that one has
general intent, it shows mens rea.
It is a defense in specific intent crimes
because, if, as the result of his intoxication, a person
was incapable of forming, or did not in fact form,
the specific intent required in the definition of an
offense.
Causation:
14
(a) Intervening Actions: Premised on free will, the common
law generally assumed that individuals were the exclusive
cause of their own actions.
(b) Temporal Intervals: A lengthy interval between cause and
result raises a number of problems. First, the longer the
interval, the more plausible it becomes that but for the
defendant’s action the victim might have suffered some
other misfortune. Second, the longer the interval, the more
plausible it becomes that some other undetected factor has
caused the result.
---No, because there was another injury, the injury may not
reasonably have been the cause of death, and the injury could
not been shown to be the cause of death.
---But-for causation is of legal interest only in the
comparatively rare cases of where, notwithstanding
appearances, it is absent; that when it is alleged to be absent,
this raises a question of fact for the jury, who may decide by
ordinary experience but may have to be assisted by expert
evidence.
---Causation may be an element of any crime defined as the
causing, producing, or achieving of a result. These results may
include injury, damage, annoyance, fear, misinformation, or
contamination.
15
“Proximate” Causation / “Legal” Causation
16
Was the defendant guilty of the decedent’s death whereby the
decedent pulled the tubes out of himself?
Homicide:
Introduction:
§210.2 Murder
Criminal homicide constitutes murder when:
1. it is committed purposely or knowingly
2. it is committed recklessly under circumstances manifesting
extreme indifference to the value of human life.
17
§210.3 Manslaughter
Criminal homicide constitutes manslaughter when:
1. it is committed recklessly, or,
2. a homicide which would otherwise be murder is committed under the
influence of extreme mental or emotional disturbance for which there is
reasonable explanation no excuse.
Intentional Homicide:
Presumptions:
18
2. The defendant is an ordinary person
3. Therefore, she intended the natural and probable
consequences of her actions in this case.
3 varieties of premeditation:
1. intent to kill—if one made a decision to kill
2. time—if there was time for the person to deliberate
3. “mature and meaningful reflection”-“planning and
calculation”—someone who reflected and then went ahead
and murdered
19
Voluntary Manslaughter
Mitigaton:
Partial Justification:
If the defendant somewhat exaggerates the premise for killing or the
killing is an excessive reaction there is sometimes partial
justification.
20
There are certain criteria for the claim:
1. The provocation has to come from the victim
2. Words themselves are never adequate provocation
3. The victim’s defensive force against the killer’s initiating
force could never be a provocation.
4. The killer must have some strong evidence that the wrong he
avenges actually occurred.
Partial Excuse:
Sometimes there is partly an external force that “motivated” a
killing.
If partial excuse is the basis for mitigation then there are criteria:
1. The killer must act immediately after the provocation
2. The victim need not have been the cause of the provocation
3. The victim’s defensive force against the killer’s initiating force
could be a provocation
4. The killer may have been wholly, though understandably,
mistaken in ascribing bad conduct to the victim.
Cooling Period:
Causal Connection:
21
reasonableness of such explanation or excuse shall be determined
from the viewpoint of a person in the actor’s situation under the
circumstances as he believes them to be.
(b) Who is the “reasonable person” who would have been provoked?
A reasonable man is a person having the power of self-control to
be expected of an ordinary person of the sex and age of the
accused, but in other respects sharing such of the accused’s
characteristics as they think would affect the gravity of the
provocation to him, and whether such a person would react to the
provocation as the accused did.
MPC—refer to §210.3(b)
Unintentional Homicides:
Involuntary Manslaughter:
22
---The defendants were negligent in not taking the baby to the
doctor and its death was a proximate result of the negligence.
---At common law, the breach of duty, in the case of
involuntary manslaughter, had to amount than ordinary
negligence, it had to be gross negligence.
---Ordinary negligence supports a verdict of statutory
manslaughter. The caution exercisable by a man of
reasonable prudence on notice concerning the symptoms of
the baby’s illness and lack of improvement in the baby’s
apparent condition in the period signified that the baby needed
medical attention. The defendants’ failure to do so was
ordinary negligence, thus, statutory manslaughter.
Did the trial court err in not submitting to the jury a lesser
crime of criminally negligent homicide?
---The essential distinction between the crimes of manslaughter, 2nd
degree, and criminally negligent homicide is the mental state of
the defendant at the time the crime was committed. In one, the actor
perceives the risk, but consciously disregards it, In the other, he
negligently fails to perceive the risk. The result and the underlying
conduct, exclusive of the mental element, is the same.
---Yes. In this case, there was a reasonable basis on which the jury
could have found that the defendant failed to perceive the risk in his
actions. His conduct and lack of perception would justify a verdict
for criminally negligent homicide.
23
---In this case, it is sufficient that the plaintiff manifested a
reckless, murderous disposition. He may have intended some
other result, but he is responsible for the actual result.
24
(b) Felony Murder and Misdemeanor Manslaughter
25
---To invoke the felony murder doctrine when the killing is not
committed by the defendant or by his accomplice could lead to
absurd results.
---Accordingly, for a defendant to be guilty of murder under
the felony-murder rule the act of killing must be committed
by the defendant or by his accomplice’s action in
furtherance of their common design.
---Dissent: the purpose of the felony-murder rule is also to
deter people from undertaking inherently dangerous felonies
in which killing is reasonable foreseen. Robbers have certain
controls over what they are doing.
26
---Independent felony requirement—there must be a felony that
is independent of the murder.
In many states, the felony-murder rule does not apply if the underlying
felony is an offense that is an “integral part” or is “included in fact”
in the homicide itself. In such circumstances, the felony is not
sufficiently independent of the death and, therefore, merges with it.
For purposes of the felony-murder rule, such a felony disappears; it is
subsumed by the homicide.
Generally, a defendant is not eligible for the death penalty unless he/she is
convicted of the state’s equivalent of first-degree murder. The prosecutor
must prove a higher degree of murder in a special proceeding, usually called
the “penalty trial”.
27
(3) Aggravating Circumstances
(a) The murder was committed by a convict under sentence of imprisonment
(b) The defendant was previously convicted of another murder or of a felony involving
the use or threat of violence to the person.
(c) At the time the murder was committed the defendant also committed another murder
(d) The defendant knowingly created a great risk of death to many persons
(g) The murder was committed for pecuniary gain
(h) The murder was especially heinous, atrocious or cruel, manifesting exceptional
depravity
(4) Mitigating Circumstances
(a) The defendant has no significant history of prior criminal activity
(b) The murder was committed while the defendant was under extreme mental or
emotional disturbance.
(c) The murder was committed under circumstances which the defendant believed to
provide a moral justification or extenuation for his conduct.
(e) The defendant acted under duress or under the domination of another person
(f) At the time of the murder, the capacity of the defendant to appreciate the criminality or
wrongfulness of his conduct or to conform his conduct to the requirements of law was
impaired as a result of mental disease or defect of intoxication
(g) The youth of the defendant at the time of the crime.
---The sentencer, in all but the rarest kind of capital case, must
not be precluded from considering, as a mitigating factor,
any aspect of a defendant’s character or record and any of the
circumstances of the offense that the defendant proffers as a
basis for sentence less than death.
Attempt:
In some cases, an actor is held fully or partially responsible for offenses that
were, in a sense, never committed. In others, an actor is held vicariously
liable for an offense truly committed by another. The doctrines permitting
this extension of liability are generally called doctrines of attribution.
28
Today, an attempt to commit a felony is graded as a felony, but typically is
treated as a lesser offense than the substantive crime. Usually, the penalty
for an attempt to commit a capital crime or an offense for which the penalty is
life imprisonment is set at a specific term of years of imprisonment. An
attempt to commit a less serious felony is usually punished at one-half of the
maximum allowed for the target crime.
Second: Conduct of the actor may dispose him towards the criminal activity,
not alone on one occasion but on others. Therefore, there is a need for proper
safeguards.
29
---Dissent: An attempt to pull the trigger and shoot the gun
is enough. This type of “attempt: and the “dangerous” or
“stupid” act are not at war with one another; they are internally
consistent and can sensibly co-exist.
Objectivists believe that conduct should not be punished unless its criminality
is “objectively discernable at the time that it occurs,” i.e., the defendant’s
acts performed, without any reliance on the accompanying mens rea, must
mark the conduct as criminal in nature.
30
Common law distinctions between preparations and attempt:
1. The physical proximity doctrine
2. The dangerous proximity doctrine: greater the crime and nearer the
distance the stronger the evidence for attempt
3. The indispensable element test: indispensable aspect of the endeavor
4. The probable distance test
5. The abnormal step approach: attempt is a step toward the crime that a
normal citizen would not take
6. The unequivocally test: manifestation of an attempt to commit a crime
The Model Penal Code rejects the common law approach. Attempt requires
an act that is a substantial step in the course of the conduct designed to
accomplish a criminal result, and in order to be substantial such an act must
strongly corroborate criminal purpose.
31
---The jury must be satisfied beyond a reasonable doubt that
that the defendant intended to have intercourse with the victim
against her will putting he in fear of it.
---The question of intent is for the jury and it must take into
consideration customs and racial differences.
One who intends to commit a crime, but who fails to consummate it because
of a circumstance of which the person is unaware, is as dangerous as one who
successfully commits a crime or who does not commit it because eof police
intervention.
32
A person is guilty if the attendant circumstances were as he believed them
to be. (i.e. one believes that he is receiving stolen property that is actually not
stolen).
A person is guilty when he has performed an act with the purpose of causing
or with the belief that it would cause such a result without further conduct
on his part. (i.e. a person shoots another who is already is dead believing that
he is not dead).
If a person is arrested before he completes the last act, but after the
commission of a substantial step then he will be convicted because he
performed acts that under the circumstances as he believed them to be the
act was done.
Thus, one may convicted under the Model Penal Code on the basis if
circumstantial evidence of criminal purpose.
Complicity:
33
Pace v. State if Indiana, Supreme Court of IN, 1967
Appellant was driving across state, and Rootes was with him.
The appellant picked up a hitchhiker; subsequently Rootes was
robbed while the appellant said nothing.
34
supplements the efforts of the perpetrator, and he is
guilty as a principal in the second degree under common
law.
Common Law:
--There does not have to be a but-for causation of the crime
--The crime must be actually committed
--There must be conviction of the principal
35
and, two states of mind:
1. The intent to assist the primary party to engage in the
conduct that forms the basis of the offense
2. The mental state required for the commission of the offense,
as provided in the definition of the substantive crime.
Almost always, the second mental state may be inferred
upon proof of the first
Hypothetical:
A defendant gives his car keys to someone that he knows
is drunk and tells him to get him a pack of cigarettes at the store.
The person gets into an accident and kills someone.
If the person is convicted if drunk driving then id the
defendant guilty of drunk driving under complicity?
---Under Common Law---N0
36
---Under the MPC—Maybe
Defenses: Justifications and Excuses:
Defenses--Generally:
The defenses of justification and excuse concede that the actor has committed a
criminal act with the mens rea required by the definition of the crime.
Nevertheless, the actor offers a plausible argument of desert or utility why
he/she should not suffer punishment.
1. Wrongdoing:
Justification: the actor fulfilled the definition of a criminal
defense; he/she did no wrong. It denies the wrongfulness of a
conduct.
2. Legality:
Justification: if legal actors know of the availability of the
defense then they can make responsible choices and conform to
the law.
3. Burden of Proof:
Justification: until the prosecution has proven that the
defendant committed a defense without justification, it is not
established that the defendant broke any law.
4. Third Parties:
Justification: One who assists in the justified commission of
an offense may also avail himself through a defense of
justification.
37
Excuse: One who assists the excused but wrongful
commission of an offense could be liable for the offense as an
accomplice, unless he also has an excuse.
Defenses:
Justification: necessity, self-defense, and defense of
others
Excuses: duress, insanity
Choice of Evils:
---Necessity:
1. there must be a situation of emergency
arising without fault on the part of the actor
concerned
2. this emergency must be so imminent and
compelling as to raise a reasonable
expectation of harm, either directly to the
actor or upon those he was protecting
38
3. this emergency must present no reasonable
opportunity to avoid the injury without doing
the criminal act; and
4. the injury impending from the emergency
must be of sufficient seriousness to
outmeasure the criminal wrong
Summary of Justification:
1. there must be a triggering event—the defendant cannot be at
fault in the triggering event. If he is then he is guilty of
creating the situation
2. Was the response Necessary? At Common Law—there has
to be imminent harm. Under MPC—the act must be
necessary
3. Was the response proportional to the Danger? For self-
defense no deadly force can be used on a non-deadly threat
Self Defense:
39
(a) The actor’s belief in the unlawfulness of the force or conduct against which he
employs protective force or his belief in the lawfulness of an arrest which he
endeavors to effect by force is erroneous; and
(b) His error is due to ignorance or mistake as to the provisions of the Code, any
other provision of the criminal law or the law governing the legality of an arrest.
(2) When the actor believes that the use of force upon or toward the person of another
is necessary for any of the purposes for which such belief would establish a
justification under Section 3.03 to 3.08 but the actor is reckless or negligent in
having such belief or in acquiring or failing to acquire any knowledge or belief
which is material to the justifiability of his use of force, the justification afforded
by those sections is unavailable in a prosecution for an offense for which
recklessness or negligence, as the case may be to establish culpability.
(3) When the actor is justified under section 3.03 to 3.08 in using force upon or
toward the person of another but he recklessly or negligently injures or creates a
risk of injury to innocent persons, the justification afforded by those sections is
unavailable in a prosecution for such recklessness toward innocent person.
In order for a person to raise the insanity defense, there must have been
an insane condition at the time the crime was committed. If the person
is insane at the time of the trial then he is incompetent to stand trial.
40
41