Professor S. Broyles
Criminal Law Outline
Spring 2012
I. PRINCIPLES OF PUNISHMENT
· Why do we punish? (6 theories-DRIER)
1. Don’t
a. General deterrence – D is punished in order to convince the general community to forego criminal conduct in the future. D’s punishment is an objective lesson to the community.
b. Specific deterrence – D’s punishment is meant to deter future misconduct by D. It can occur in two ways
i. Incapacitation – D’s imprisonment prevents him from committing crimes in the outside society during period of segregation
ii. Intimidation – D’s punishment reminds him that if he returns to a life of crime, he will experience more pain
2. Rehabilitation (reform)
a. incarceration is rarely used for rehabilitation purposes.
b. Goal is to reduce future crimes, methods vary from case to case, but consist of
i. Psychiatric care
ii. Therapy for drug addiction
iii. Academic or vocational training
3. Incapacitation
4. Education
5. Retribution
a. Eye for an eye – Retributivists believe that punishment is justified when it is deserved. It is deserved when the wrongdoer freely chooses to violate society’s rules. One ought to be punished for wrongdoing even if it will not result in reduction of crime.
b. Moral aspect – “it is morally fitting that an offender should suffer in proportion to his desert or culpable wrongdoing.
c. Looks back – justifies punishment solely on the basis of the voluntary commission of a crime.
d. Free will – humans generally possess free will or free choice and, therefore, may justly be blamed when they choose to violate society’s mores.
6. Utilitarianism
· Bentham – maximize pleasure and minimize pain.
· Utilitarian’s believe that pain inflicted by punishment is justifiable if, but only if, it is expected to result in a reduction of the pain of crime that would otherwise occur.
· Forms of utilitarianism
o General deterrence
o Specific deterrence
§ Incapacitation
§ Intimidation
o Rehabilitation
· Looks forward – care about the past only to the extent that it helps them predict the future. Do not advocate punishment unless they believe it will provide an overall social benefit.
· Hedonism – people are generally hedonistic and rational calculators
II. ACTUS REUS
Crimes can be broken down into
1. Actus reus
2. Mens rea
3. Causation
4. Attendant circumstances
· Physical or external part of the crime- Actus reus has no universally accepted definition.
· NO punishment for thoughts alone – premised on retributive belief that it is morally wrong to punish people for unacted-upon intentions.
· 3 Elements, the actus reus of an offense consists of::
1. Voluntary act
2. That causes;
3. Social harm
A. The Voluntary Act – a person is not guilty of a crime unless her conduct includes a voluntary act (can be split to two components)
1. The “act”
a. An act is simply a bodily movement, muscular contraction.
b. Act involves physical, although not necessarily visible, behavior.
c. Excludes the internal mental process of thinking about, or of developing an intention to do a physical act.
d. Aspects to note:
i. There can be bodily movement, but really no “act” by person whose body moved. (A grabs and swings B’s arm into C’s body)
ii. The term “act” does not apply to the results of a person’s bodily movements
iii. Some courts and scholars hold that an “act” must itself be voluntarily performed, an involuntary act is merely a physical event.
2. Its “voluntary” nature
a. MPC—the MPC provides no person may be convicted of a crime in the absense of conduct that “includes a voluntary act or the omission to perform an act of which he is physically capable”
i. Act= as a “bodily movement whether voluntary or involuntary
ii. Does NOT def. voluntary – except “partially and indirectly” by listing bodily mvmtns that are involuntary: reflexes; convulsions; conduct during unconsciousness, sleep, or due to hypnosis and any conduct that “is not a product of the effort or determination of the actor, either conscious or habitual.”
iii. “voluntary act rule” applies to “crimes” but not to “violations”
· Voluntary Act Cases
1. Martin v. State
§ Drunk, police officer arrests him at house and took him to highway where he committed the act, loud profane language.
§ Statutes that presupposes that the person violating was voluntarily present, here drunk was involuntarily carried to place by police. So no violation. Not voluntary.
2. State v. Utter
§ Drunk dad killed son, claims conditioned response b/c son came behind him
§ An “act” committed while one is unconscious does not in all cases provide a defense to a crime. When state of unconsciousness is voluntarily induced by alcohol or drugs, then that state of unconsciousness is not a complete defense.
§ Note: Different meaning of “involuntary” à bank robbery he was kidnapped, choice was made to go with robber. The choice is just the lesser of two evils. If there is some choice it is voluntary.
B. Omissions (“Negative Acts”)
1. General Principles -Omission generally
o Not every moral obligation to act creates a concomitant legal duty. Subject to a few limited exceptions a person has no criminal law duty to act to prevent harm to another, even if the person imperiled may lose her life in the absence of assistance.
o “commission by omission” – a D’s omission of a common law duty to act, assuming that she was physically capable of performing the act, serves as a legal substitute for a voluntary at. If the remaining elements of the charged offense are proven the D may be convicted of the crime.
1. People v. Beardsley
· Married man failed to come to aid of woman who he was having affair after she took lethal dose of poison in his presence. She died
· Kitty cried help 30 mins no one came, 38 neighbors saw her and heard
· When there is a duty to Act
· Status Relationship – person may have common law duty to prevent harm to another if she stands in a special status relationship to the person in peril. Usually when dependence of one party on the other. Ex. Parents, married people,
· Contractual obligation – duty to act may be created by implied or express contract.
· Omissions following an act – an act, followed by an omission, will result in criminal responsibility for the omission, even where there is no liability for the original act.
o Creation of risk – person who wrongfully harms another or another’s property, or who wrongfully places a person or her property in jeopardy of harm, has a common law duty to aid the injured or endangered party. Breach of duty in this regard, may be held criminally responsible for harm arising from omission
o Voluntary assistance – one who voluntarily commences assistance to another in jeopardy has a duty to continue to provide aid, at least if a subsequent omission would put the victim in a worse position than if the actor had not initiated help. Rule applies even if the omitter had no initial responsibility to rescue the victim.
· Statutory Duty- a duty to act may be statutorily imposed. Pay taxes, driver of MV involved in an accident
2. Distinguishing Acts from Omissions
1. Barber v. Superior Court
· D physicians charged w/ murder and conspiracy to commit murder of Herbert, their patient. Herber coma not likely to recover. Revd permission from patients family, doctors caused life-sustaining equipment to be turned off and when Herbert continued to live, removed intravenous tube that provided hydration and nourishment. Herbert died loss of fluids and nourishment.
· Court – physicians’ conduct amounted to an omission of further treatment rather than an affirmative act. Disconnection of medical devices that fed and hydrated, same as withholding treatment.
III. MENS REA
A. Nature of “Mens Rea”
· “Guilty Mind”—the D’s mens rea. (two usages of mens rea)
· Except for SL cases, a person is not guilty of an offense unless he performs a voluntary act AR with a mens rea
· Intent can be transferred (TI) Ex. Requisite intent to kill A, not a specific human being. So, if shot at B believing to be A, intent transfers.
o Broadly – mens rea “guilty mind” “vicious will” “immorality of motive” or “morally culpable state of mind” à D is guilty of a crime if she commits the social harm of the offense with any morally blameworthy state of mind; it is not significant whether she caused the social harm intentionally or, instead, with some other blameworthy mental state.
o Narrowly – mens rea refers to the mental state the D must have had wrt the “social harm” elements set out in the definition of the offense. à D is not guilty of an offense, even if she has a culpable frame of mind, if she lacks the mental state specified in the definition of the crime.
1. Regina v. Cunningham
· C entered cellar of building, tore gas meter from gas pipes stole coins in meter. As consequence, gas escaped the pipes, seeped through cellar walls, nearly asphyxiated V. Although C did not intend to endanger anyone’s life by his actions, he was charged w/ offence that “whosever shall…maliciously…cause to be administered to or taken by other person any poison…or noxious thing, so as thereby to endanger the life of such person, … shall be guilty of felony.”
· this case helps you understand the more broad definition of mens rea and the more narrow definition of mens rea. Because, here there are two ways to view “malice” the trial court says all you have to do when you look at malicious is have some broad culpable state of mind (here tc said à crime was intended to steal gas, he did not intend to harm wade) The appellate is saying you got in wrong must look at the more narrow version, because he did not intend to harm Ms. Wade. The appellate court held the conviction must be quashed, because the jury was not properly directed to the meaning of “maliciously”. They cannot prove that doing what he did he intended to harm Mrs. Wade.
General Intent: the traditional broad meaning understood as a “general immorality or wrongness of motive” a blameworthy state of mind. Does not reference the specific elements of the crime
in other words, the D didn’t have to intend to do a specific crime, as long as he did the crime with a guilty mind
Statutory elemental meaning in which a crime is one of general intent where the D can be
Specific Intent: Requires something more than the general intent to commit the crime
1. Some future act, separate from the actus reus
Ex. Possession of Heroin with the intent to sell.
Possession of heroin is the actus reus
With the intent to sell is the separate future act that the actor intends to commit and that constitutes the specific intent mental state
2. A s
rcourse w/ a person below age at which law deems consent possible, cannot defend on ground that he did not know or was mistaken of the victims age.
· Strict Liability exception in regard to public defenses: (3) parts
1. When they involve particularly harmful items
2. That these are the kinds of offense are of strict liability only when the D knows he is dealing with a dangerous device
3. The penalty (the harsher the penalty the less likely it will be a SL or a regulatory crime)
Strict liability
· Presumption is that crimes are not SL, even if the statute does not include a mens rea component
· The court will look to legislative history to determine whether the legislature intended it to be SL
· If it expressly says strict liability then it is SL
· Keep in mind the harshness of the penalty – less likely it will be SL if it is a harsh penalty
· The character of the defenses that might be SL and you look at public welfare or regulatory, it does not seem justifiable for the government to say that you are criminally liable for something that you are not in fact aware of
D. Mistake and Mens Rea
1. Mistake of Fact
· In dealing with mistake of fact defenses involving Specific intent crimes, a mistake of fact defense will be regarded as a defense regardless of whether it was reasonable or not.
o Exonerate for general intent ONLY if reasonable NOT if unreasonable
Mistake of Law for Specific intent exonerates no matter now unreasonable
· Ex. Abe believes, however unreasonable, that by law he is the owner of Esau’s car and proceeds to take it “bake”, Abe is not guilty of larceny because larceny requires that one intends to take the property of another. Since Abe thinks that he is the owner of the car, he has not “intentionally” taken property he knows to be anothers
· If it is general intent NO mistake is allowed
People v. Navarro (This is a specific intent crime) – stole wooden beams from construction cite
One who feloniously steals the property of another is guilty of theft. “If no specific intent or other special mental element is required for guilt of the offense charged, a mistake of fact will not be recognized as an excuse unless it was based upon reasonable grounds. On the other hand, because of the requirement of a specific intent to steal there is no such thing as larceny by negligence.”
–In dealing with mistake of fact defenses involving Specific intent crimes, a mistake of fact defense will be regarded as a defense regardless of whether it was reasonable or not.
· Here, if they cannot prove that he had the mental state required for specific intent crimes, larceny, then the D cannot be guilty of the crime.
· Client was not aware that the beams belonged to someone else, therefore a mistake of fact defense is appropriate, because he thought it was abandoned, therefore he did not know that they belonged to someone else, in that, the D lacked the mental state required.
Holding: The trial court erred. If the jury thought the D belief to be unreasonable, it might infer that the D did not in good faith hold such a belief. HOWEVER, if it concluded that the D in good faith believed that he has a right to take the beams, even though such a belief was unreasonable as measured by the objective standard of a hypothetical reasonable man, D was entitled to an acquittal since the specific intent required to be proved as an element of the offense had not been established.
People v. Marrero – guard at federal prison in CT arrested in NY for possession of loaded .38 caliber pistol
Common-law rule in penal law 15.20 Effect or ignorance of mistake upon liability
2. A person is not relieved of criminal liability for conduct because he engages in such conduct under a mistaken belief that it does not, as a matter of law, constitute an offense, unless such mistaken belief is founded upon an official statement of the law contained in (a) a statute or other enactment.
MPC 2.204 Ignorance or Mistake
(3) a belief that conduct does not legally constitute an offense is a defense to prosecution for that offense based upon such conduct when (b) he acts in a reasonable reliance upon an official statement of law, afterward determined to be invalid or erroneous, contained in (i) a statute or other enactment.
Mistake of law cannot relieve a D of criminal liability. The defense of mistake of the law should not be recognized, except where specific intent is an element of the offense or where the misrelied-upon law has later been properly adjudicated as wrong.
Holding: Affirmed. The underlying statute never in fact authorized the D conduct, the D only thought that the statutory exemptions permitted his conduct when in fact, the statute forbade his conduct.
