Crim EXAM OUTLINE
COURSE THEMES
Prove beyond a reasonable doubt that D committed…
…every material element of criminal charge.
I. Beyond a reasonable doubt
– Burden of proof on prosecution
– Preference to let criminal walk over putting innocent man in prison, or attaching social stigma to him
II. Material elements:
Common Law
MPC
Actus reus (a.r.)
Guilty act
Culpable conduct
Mens rea (m.r.)
Guilty mind
Mental state
Attdnt circumstances (a.c.)
the context required by statute
Result (if required), with
Causation (if Result required)
CULPABILITY (Actus reus and Mens rea)
A. Actus Reus = Culpable conduct
1. ACTUS REUS = physical criminal act (Dressler ch.9)
Voluntary act…
– (narrow) willed movement; uses mind
– Volition a question of prosecution, not defense– must be proved against.
– Time frame – only one voluntary act needed, but must be relevant (per mens rea)
…that causes
…social harm.
2 Scenarios:
– Act must be done by D, and not by someone else (Martin)
– Act must not be reflexive (ie. D must be in control of self) (Newton)
2. Requirement of Overt and Voluntary Conduct
a. EXAMPLES OF INVOLUNTARY (non-criminal)
Martin: cops dragged drunk into public
Material elements of statute:
Any person
a.c.
While intoxicated
a.c.
Appears
Actus reus
In public place
a.c.
Where one or more present
a.c.
Manifesting drunkenness thru boisterous behavior
Actus reus
– Ct presupposes legislature intended “voluntary” appearance
– *MPC NOTE* — only says crimes includes voluntary act, not every material element must be voluntary
Newton: unconsciously shooting cops
– Martin: no act
– Newton: no volition
b. ACTUS REUS – TIME FRAME
Martin: statute couldn’t be expanded b/c the material element “appears in public place” has very specific time frame.
Decina (epileptic mows down pedestrians)
– Statute allows expanded time frame
Negligently
Knowing that seizure was possible
Causes death
when?
Defense: by jumping curb while seizing, ie not voluntary
Prosecution: by getting into car w/o meds, ie voluntary
Of another person
– “Causes” is a broad word that expands time frame. If said “kills” it’s a bit more time-specific.
· Time frame is set by elements of offense. Focus on elements and you never have to use the words “time frame”.
· Sequence of events can’t be strung out unreasonably – this would be “attenuated” series.
· (This is causation analysis = did direct (reasonable) sequence of events lead to these results?)
3. Omissions (of duties!)
a. OMISSION: CAUSATION ISSUE
Can you cause something by doing nothing?
– Law says yes – actus reus thru act OR omission
– BUT only if legal (statutory) duty to act, not just moral :
· Status relationship: legal guardian (Pope, Jones: who is responsible for childcare?)
· Contractual obligation
· Duty imposed by statute (eg. must rescue if no serious risk to rescuer)
· Following an act
o If I created the risk, must rescue.
o If I started to assist, must finish (bc my act discouraged others from starting)
– *MPC* — says omission must formally criminalized for conviction
b. MEDICAL OMISSION
Kill (act) vs. let die (omission)
Statute = Unlawful killing
of human being
with malicious intent
i. Common law
Barber:
– Withdrawing tube is omission (ie. not giving the next injection)
· But it would be act if greedy relative pulled it!
· Dunlap calls this an unnecessary confusion of a longstanding distinction btw act and omission. Court is just trying to protect doctors.
– No duty to act (ergo no crime)
· Consider “patient’s interests and desires”
· Dr. not req’d to take “heroic” measures when perm. recovery not reasonably possible
f Levels of Mens Rea
o Purpose: act must be his objective, not a mishap
o Knowledge: must know nature of act (a.r.) and practical certainty of result
o Recklessness: conscious creation of substantial risk
Jewell: willful blindness (gray area in common law btw knowingly and recklessly)
– Either he knew weed was in his truck /OR/
– He barely avoided knowing weed was in truck
· If he knew great likelihood of its presence, is he guilty?
· Yes, if he was willfully blind (= knowledge)
MPC: High probability that he knew it was illegal
Common law: taking steps to avoid knowledge that is likely to be criminal
– Jewell kinda fudges both of these, so not a great example.
o Negligence: failure to perceive risk (lack of care)
Santillanes: Accidental knife injury to child, i.e. accidental abuse
– lower court wrongly used civil negligence standard
· use criminal negligence standard when statute does not say whether it requires criminal or civil standard
· nature of risk must grossly deviate from reasonable conduct under criminal negligence standard
Negligence notes:
– Criminal negligence is a higher standard than civil negligence:
Crim negligence
Civil negligence
Should have known risk (specific)…gross enough to deserve social contempt and punishment of criminal status
Didn’t exercise reasonable caution (more general)
– MPC 2.02(3): If mens rea not prescribed, negligence cannot establish guilt. Only purposely, knowingly, or recklessly will suffice. (ie. Cts can’t est negligence as mens rea; only legislature can.)
