Kinports_Crim_Fall2010
Criminal Law (Kinports)
I. Types of crimes
a. Federal
i. Four examples of federal crimes
1. Committing a crime on land owned by the federal government
2. Crimes that injure the federal government
a. Bribe an official
b. Cheat on federal taxes
c. Rob a federal bank
3. Crimes committed outside the jurisdiction of any state (could not realistically be tried in any one state)
a. Fraud (perhaps)
b. Wire fraud
c. Transporting stolen property across state lines
4. “Catchall” area
a. Drug statutes
b. Evinces the federalization of criminal laws
b. State
i. States can enact criminal statutes
ii. Most crimes are derived from state statutes
iii. Each state has its own criminal statutes
c. Common law
i. There is, no “common law crime”
ii. Much of state law is derived from old common law
II. Elements of a Crime
a. The act requirement (Actus reas)
b. The state of mind (mens rea)
c. Circumstances (not included in all crimes – statutory rape ex)
d. Result (not included in all crimes – murder ex)
III. Determining the Elements of a Crime
a. Look at the statutes
b. Examine legislative history
IV. Federal Sentencing Guidelines
V. Punishment
a. Why do we punish?
i. Retribution
ii. Specific deterrence
1. Punish a specific defendant so that he does not commit the same crime in the future
iii. General deterrence
1. Punish a specific defendant so that society sees the consequences of taking that action
2. Does it work?
3. Is it fair to make an example of a person?
iv. Rehabilitation
b. What do we punish?
i. Punishable activities are those set out by Congress in criminal statutes
ii. Queen v. Dudley
1. Defendants killed and ate a passenger to save their own lives
2. Convicted of the crime of murder – according to the law on record
3. Sentence likely acquitted
iii. Johnson v. State
1. Mother not convicted of delivering drugs to newborn when taking them while pregnant
2. She fulfilled the requirements of the statute
a. Court found as it did based on legislative intent
b. Court also considered policy of “keeping families together”
c. How severely do we punish?
i. United States v. Bergman
1. Defendant’s notoriety should not be used to aggravate his sentence and therefore should not be used to lighten it
2. Criminal behavior which is blatant, unmitigated by circumstances, and pressures warrants more than a token sentence
3. Defendant’s ‘good works’ are not considered in comparison to his criminal acts.
VI. The Act Requirement (Actus Reus)
a. Generally
i. Crimes are not committed by bad thoughts alone
ii. An act or an omission must occur
iii. Inchoate or agreements are considered acts in and of themselves
b. Voluntary Acts
i. MPC definitions of non-voluntary acts
1. A reflex or convulsion
2. A bodily movement during unconsciousness or sleep
3. Conduct during hypnosis
4. A bodily movement not the product of effort or determination, regardless of whether or not it’s conscious or habitual
ii. People v. Newton
1. Defendant brought gun unto a plane
2. Plane stopped at NY terminal
3. Not guilty because he did not commit the voluntary act which made this a crime
4. Voluntary act which made this a crime was the pilot’s decision to land
iii. Notes and Questions
1. Note 2 – Queen v. Parks
a. Sleepwalking a valid defense
2. Note 2 – Sallee v. State
a. Sleepwalking difficult to prove as a defense
3. Note 3 – People v. Decina
a. Court held defendant could be found criminally liable for driving in a reckless or culpably negligent manner, whereby another human being was killed
b. Extensive history of seizures
c. Omissions
i. MPC definitions of an omission
1. The omission is expressly made criminal by the law
2. The duty to perform the omitted act is otherwise imposed by law
ii. Jones v. United States– D.C. Circuit Court
1. Four situations where one’s failure to act may constitute a breach of legal duty
a. Instances where a statute imposes a duty to care for another
b. Where one stands in a certain status relationship to another
c. Where one has assumed a contractual duty to care for another
d. Where one has voluntarily assumed the care of another and so secluded the helpless person as to prevent others from rendering them aid
i. Levels of culpability
1. Purpose
a. The defendant’s conscious object to engage in the conduct or to cause such a result
b. If it is a crime which involves circumstances and he is aware of the existence of such circumstances, or hopes and believes they exist.
2. Knowingly
a. He acts knowingly if there is a practical certainty that his acts will cause such an outcome
b. Aware that his conduct is of that nature or that such circumstances exist
c. May also be satisfied by knowledge of a high probability
3. Recklessly
a. An obvious disregard of a substantial and unjustifiable risk.
b. The risk must be of such a nature that this disregard involves a gross deviation from the standard of conduct that a law-abiding person would observe in the actor’s situation
4. Negligently
a. When the actor should have been aware of a substantial and unjustifiable risk.
b. The risk must be of such a nature that the actor’s failure to perceive it involves a gross deviation from the standard of care that a reasonable person would observe
ii. Culpability required unless provided
1. When there is no provision in the statute mens rea is proved by knowledge, purpose, or recklessness
iii. Culpability of various elements
1. Unless a plain contrary purpose appears any requirement of mens rea applies to all elements of the crime
iv. Substitutions
1. A lower level of culpability may be satisfied by the use of a higher level of culpability
c. Common Law: Specific vs. General Intent Crimes
i. Generally
1. General intent crimes require proof of a particular state of mind accompanying the acts constituting the crime
a. Battery
i. Prosecution must prove that the defendant intentionally or recklessly inflicted physical injury on another
2. Specific intent crimes require evidence of an extra-special mental element in addition to proof that the defendant had a particular state of mind when committing the acts constituting the crime
