CRIMINAL LAW
RIDOLFI
SPRING 2014
Know hybrid positions inspired by the MPC (see notes) e.g., attempt, 1st degree M (PandD murder), insanity, mens rea,
Do not hypothesize facts
Make a conclusion
Start argument where prosecution would start then mitigate down as would the defense
Exam: long essay, short essays, approx. 50 multiple choice; statutes will depend on interpretation
I Introduction
▪ Theories of Punishment:
▪ Retrivubitivism “Just dessert” proportional response for the harm done
▪ Utilitarian – looks at the benefit to society as a whole. Focuses on rehabilitation and the benefit from incarceration and
▪ crime – act or omission prohibited by law to protect the public from social harm, the violation of which is prosecuted by the state and punishable by fine, incarceration, and/or other restriction of liberty
▪ crime classification:
▪ felony – punishable by death or incarceration in a prison for more than 1 yr.
▪ misdemeanor – non-felonies
▪ malum in se crimes (“bad in themselves”) – Inherently dangerous, bad, or immoral crimes
▪ malum prohibitum crimes – necessary to regulate the general welfare (driving on wrong side of road)
▪ burden of proof
▪ Prosecution has burden of proof in criminal cases
▪ D must prove most defenses
▪ Jury may make inferences on matters of fact, but the ultimate fact must be more likely true than not
▪ Jury cannot presume malice aforethought in murder cases
▪ In murder cases, D must prove extreme emotional disturbance for a provocation defence
II Actus Reus
▪ An affirmative act/commission or a negative act/omission is necessary for commission of a crime; mere thoughts are not enough.
▪ Affirmative acts
▪ Require conscious and volitional movement
– Rule: A person must voluntarily commit the crime charged in order to be guilty of the crime
▪ D may be held liable if he caused his unconsciousness or had knowledge of pending unconsciousness
– Rule: An “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
▪ Negative acts
▪ Require:
– Legal duty to act
– Requisite knowledge (some jxs require knowledge of the law of legal duty), AND
– Possibility to act
▪ Legal duties arise from:
– relationships
⋅ Rule: A physician has no duty to continue treatment once proven ineffective (Barber v. Superior Court).
⋅ Rule: A person owes no legal obligation to another unless such person is within his custody or care as a dependent person (People v. Beardsley – man failed to aid mistress who took too much morphine; found innocent of manslaughter).
– statutes,
– contract, OR
– creation of risk—the voluntary assuming of the care of another, seclusion of the person from receiving aid from another
III Mens Rea
▪ Mens rea establishes what D was thinking at the time the act was committed.
▪ General intent – D intended to commit the criminal act (and for some crimes, knowledge of attendant circumstances)
▪ may be inferred from the commission of the act
▪ may be inferred from the circumstances surrounding the crime (Ppl v. Conley—D convicted of aggravated battery for striking the wrong person w/ a wine bottle; appealed averring no proof of intent to cause permanent disability)
▪ some crimes only require that general (not specific) intent be proven
▪ also referred to as willfully, deliberately, feloniously
▪ Specific intent – intent to do some further act or cause some additional consequences beyond that required to commit the actus reus
▪ Offenses in which mental state is expressly set out in the definition of the crime (e.g. the taking of property with the intent to permanently deprive)
▪ Must be specifically proven; cannot be inferred
▪ Good faith mistake of fact-regardless of whether reasonable or unreasonable-is a defense to specific intent crimes (see mistake of fact below).
▪ specific intent crimes:
– larceny
– burglary
▪ MPC APPROACH:
▪ Elemental approach, i.e., P must prove culpability for each element of the offense w/ the particular state of mind described in that crime; elements:
– Nature of forbidden conduct
– Attendant circumstances
– Result of conduct
▪ One of 4 culpability terms must be proven:
– Purposely
– Knowingly
– Recklessly
– Negligently
▪ Purposefulness – conscious objective to perform action of such nature or to cause such a result
▪ Knowledge – knowledge that the requisite external
liability offenses are also found in cases involving mistake-of-fact (e.g. mistake of age in statutory rape). These strict-liability crimes are also known as offenses against the public welfare (US v. Cordoba-Hincapie).
⋅ POLICY: Traditionally, statutory rape is a strict liability crime designed to protect young persons from the dangers of sexual exploitation by adults, loss of chastity, physical injury, and pregnancy (Garnett v. State – 20 yr old mild retard impregnated 13 yr-old and charged w/ 2nd degree rape in MD; he thought she was of age).
▪ Mistake of Fact: Good faith mistake of fact-regardless of whether reasonable or unreasonable-is a defense to specific intent crimes. The reasonableness of the mistake negates the requisite culpability required for the offense.
▪ If a person has a good faith belief that he has a right to certain property, he is not guilty of larceny, even if the belief is unreasonable. Where one sincerely believes that he has a right to property, he cannot possibly intend to steal the property. One cannot negligently steal. (Ppl v. Navarro – D took lumber from construction site under the belief that he had permission to take it.)
▪ Mistake of Law: NOT a defense, except to specific intent crimes.
▪ A misreading or misunderstanding of the criminal offense is generally not a defense to criminal charges. However, in the case of a specific intent crime, ignorance of the law is a defense since one cannot intend to commit a crime if one did not know it was a crime. (Ppl v. Marrero – D mistakenly believed he was a peace officer and didn’t need a gun license; guilty bc no specific intent required for criminal liability; firearms possession statute was strict liability)
▪ A good faith, although unreasonable, mistake of law is a defense to criminal liability. (Cheek v. US – D ceased to file tax returns due to unreasonable belief that tax laws were unconstitutional; still convicted bc no good faith mistake of law)
