Criminal Law – Ridolfi (Fall 2011)
1) Types of Crimes
a) Malum in se
i) Conduct that is inherently wrong, sinful, criminal
ii) Derives from common law
iii) Result crime (i.e. murder)
b) Malum prohibitum
i) Conduct that is prohibited by virtue of statute
ii) Regulatory offenses
iii) Conduct crime (i.e. D.U.I.)
2) Theories of Punishment
a) Utilitarianism
i) Punish crimes to deter future crimes; forward looking
(1) General deterrence- Observing someone get punished deters society from doing it
(2) Individual deterrence- Offender doesn’t want to get punished again so doesn’t repeat conduct
b) Retribution
i) Punish crimes because individual deserves it; backwards looking
c) Queen v. Dudley
i) Murder by necessity may constitute a crime
3) Elements of Crime
a) Actus Reus- Physical or external part of the crime; voluntary act or omission
b) Mens Rea- Culpable mindset of the wrongdoer in commission of a crime
c) Attendant Circumstances- Objective fact or condition that must be present when defendant engages in conduct
i) I.e. breaking and entering into a dwelling house of another at nighttime
4) Actus reus
a) Voluntary act
i) Definition
(1) Conscious movement of the body
ii) Concept
(1) A person is not guilty of a crime unless his conduct includes a voluntary act
(i) Martin v. State (drunk in public)- No crime because public appearance was not voluntary
iii) Unconsciousness v. Voluntarily-Induced Unconsciousness
(1) Act committed during unconsciousness is not voluntary, and therefore one cannot be held criminally culpable for said act. However, voluntarily induced unconsciousness, such as by drugs or alcohol, is not a complete defense
(i) State v. Utter (triggering stimulus)- Guilty of manslaughter because of self-induced drunkenness
b) Omission of Legal Duty
i) Concept
(1) Legal duty to act where one has requisite knowledge and possibility to act without endangering oneself
(2) Duty to Act
(a) Status relationship- Dependence of one party on the other or interdependence (i.e. parent-child, husband-wife, master-seaman)
(b) Contractual obligation
(c) Omissions following an act (creation of risk, voluntary assistance)
(3) MPC §2.01
(a) Liability for the commission of an offense may not be based by an omission unaccompanied by action unless: the omission is expressly made sufficient by the law defining the offense; or, a duty to perform the omitted act is otherwise imposed by law
(4) Moral Obligation
(a) Where there is no duty exists, omission to act is not a crime for failing a moral obligation.
(i) People v. Beardsley (morphine OD)- No duty
(a) Medical withdrawal of life-sustaining substance is an omission (like not giving medication)
(i) A physician has no duty to provide further medical treatment when patient has no meaningful chance of medical improvement.
1. Barber v. Superior Court (pull plug)- No duty
5) Mens rea
a) Malice
i) A person acts with malice if he intentionally or recklessly causes the social harm prohibited by the offense.
(1) To prove malice, must prove actual intention to cause harm or recklessness (awareness of risk of harm but continued to act anyway)
(2) Regina v. Cunningham (gas meter)- Guilty verdict reversed (bad “wickedness” instructions
b) MPC §2.02- General Requirements of Culpability
(a) Purposely- Conscious objective was to cause the result
(b) Knowingly- Knew that the result was virtually certain
(c) Recklessly- Conscious decision to ignore a risk, of which the defendant is aware
(d) Negligently- Reasonable person knew or should have known of the risk
c) Intent
i) Common Law
(1) A person acts intentionally causes the social harm of an offense if: 1) It is his purpose (i.e. conscious objective) to cause the social harm; or 2) He acts with knowledge that the social harm is virtually certain to occur as a result of his conduct.
(a) People v. Conley (aggravated battery)- Jury found intent (purpose or knowledge) to cause great bodily harm, permanent disability or disfigurement
(i) Can reasonably infer intent (mens rea) based on surrounding circumstances (i.e. words, weapon used, force of blow)
ii) It is unconstitutional for judges to instruct jury that the law presumes that a person intends the ordinary consequences of his voluntary acts.
(1) D is required to disprove that he intended—should be prosecutor who has to prove this element of intent (violates due process)
(2) Sandstrom v. Montana- Jury on its own must apply its common sense in such circumstances and a judgment is allowed to inform the jurors that they may, but need not, draw such an inference
d) General Intent v. Specific Intent
(a) General intent- No specific mental state other than you know you’re doing something illegal (i.e. assault)
(b) Specific intent- Offense entails a mental state in regards to the specific crime (i.e. assault with intent to rape)
(i) Extra element identified in a statute
e) Willful Blindness (Deliberate Ignorance)
i) Concept
(1) Actor is aware of a high probability of the existence of the fact in question and deliberately fails to investigate in order to avoid confirmation of the fact
ii) “Knowledge” of Attendance Circumstance
(1) Most jurisdictions permit a finding of knowledge of an attendance circumstance (ostrich instruction)
(2) MPC §2.202(7)
(a) Propo
t crimes.
i) People v. Navarro (stolen beams)- Wrong jury instruction that must prove defendant’s belief was made in good fair and was reasonable
(1) Mistake has to be examined subjectively- Belief could have been made in good faith and was unreasonable to trier-of-fact
(2) Failure of proof case: Prosecutor had to prove intent to permanently deprive
(3) Perkins: 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. If intent required, mistake of fact would be a defense. There is requirement of a specific intent in stealing. There is no such thing as larceny by negligence.
(4) LaFave and Scott: Honest mistake of fact or law is a defense when it negates a required mental element of the crime
b) If while committing a grander crime and one is cognizant of the lesser crime, one will be convicted of the lesser crime. §2.06(2)
8) Mistake of Law
a) Generally, a person is not excused for committing a crime if he relies on his own erroneous reading of the law, even if a reasonable person would have similarly misunderstood the law.
i) People v. Marrero (peace officer gun)- Own misreading of statute not a defense
b) Policy Reasons Against Mistake of Law as Defense
i) Avoid subjectivity in the law
ii) Deter fraud
iii) Encourage legal knowledge
iv) If mistake of law were a defense, rule would foster lawlessly by encourage ignorance of law
c) Exceptions to No-Defense Rule (MPC §2.04)
(1) Reasonable Reliance Doctrine (Entrapment by Estoppel): Not guilty he reasonably relies on an official statement of the law, later determined to be erroneous, from a statute, judicial decision or opinion, or official interpretation of the public officer or body charged with responsibility for the interpretation, administration or enforcement of the law defining the offense.
(2) Fair Notice- Not guilty of statute is not known to her and was not published or otherwise reasonably made available before she violated the law
(3) Failure of Proof- Not guilty if negates mens rea (purpose, knowledge, belief, recklessness or negligence)
