Criminal Liability
I. Introduction
A. Test taking: figure out how to apply the facts for both sides; embrace the most “scary” facts for each side; know how to interpret statutes, and keep legislative purpose in mind
-***changing the timeframe; imagine purpose of statute to favor each side; looking at acts after a crime can help show what intent was during a crime
Criminal Law Review Session # 1
– neutralize damaging facts
1. Look at elements of statute (don’t need to memorize model penal code) need to understand how to read statutes, break them down and interpret them, need to
2. Understand statutory interpretation (note rules of statutory interpretation)
– May give us a statute we’ve never seen before. Have to be able to apply facts to statute.
– A. Language of statutes, policy reasons (w/respect to how we interpret statutes
– B. policy reasons- why to interp statutes one way rather than other) CLARIFY, ex moral wrong person acting in way that is socially inappropriates
3. What are the facts that support the elements of the statute? Always ask u work at da officed write memo advising him of all possible charges that can be brought in case. Id strengths and weaknesses of charges and what defenses can be raised. Start from most serious crime and work way down.
– Easier to start w/ da perspective b/c they’re putting tog charge
– We don’t have to tell her what result is (guilty or not guilty) Evaluate relative strengths and weaknesses of side.
– What facts support finding of an element
– Just talk about elements that are issues
Overview
– 1. Elements
– 2. Facts (neutralize difficult facts
– 3. Affirmative defenses
– 4. Sentencing- only talk about if we are asked to
rules of statutory interpretation
rules of law (provocation paradigm 1. legally adequate provocation (many are close calls shades of gray)
don’t need to know specific cases unless told
B. “proof beyond a reasonable doubt” (so still can be a doubt to convict)
C. harm to “society”
– When analyzing must discuss why policies worked in previous scenario but not in this scenario
– Purpose of punishment: to deter, does not deter by punishing the wrong person
Statute- breaking down to element, POLICY- why you have a statute, what harm trying to prevent
Break statute down look at each element and talk about both sides
– know affirmative defenses
– multiple choice- transferred intent, death penalty, this is what happ which diff most likely to work
II. Principles of Punishment
A. Why Punish?
1. Deterrence
A. General deterrence
· If people know ahead of time consequences for engaging in action they will avoid engaging in that action, assumes people believe they will be caught and that the punishment will be severe enough to be a deterrent How do we frame punishment so it deters enough people?
B. Individual deterrence
· the actual imposition of punishment creates fear in the offender that if he repeats his act, he will be punished again
2. Prevent Crime (risk management)
A. Incapacitation- physically prevent people from committing more crime (by locking them up)
3. Reform/rehabilitation (therapeutic)- mostly abandoned for lack of resources
A. help reform the criminal so that his wish to commit crimes will be lessened, give them options so they have skills and can function in society
B. increasing one’s social utility
B. Theories
1. Retributive
A. criminal punishment is justified as long as the offender is morally accountable, regardless of whether deterrence or other good consequences would result.
B. punishment is justified because people deserve it, backward looking
2. Utililitarian
A. inflicting pain, as by punishment, is in itself an evil and is therefore justified only if it results in a net increase of pleasure by deterring future harmful behavior, forward looking
B.
C. Readings: 2 articles: “sins of mothers” stretching statutes by criminalizing distribution of drugs through umbilical cords in first seconds of babies’ lives; deters prenatal care; may unreasonably break up families and have a bad effect on children
a. “Does Race Matter in Crim. Prosecutions?”; crack v. powder cocaine penalties, police discretion; longer sentencing/parole time/experimental sentencing…
b. Dudley v. Stephens: unsolicited killing of one is murder even if it saves the lives of three others
Crime = Actus Reus + Mens Rea- person must have been conscious when he acted and act must have been volitional; can’t punish for mere thoughts, deterrence won’t work for involuntary acts
Actus Reus:
Definition:
The crime and the result. The voluntary act, or lack of action, which caused the result
Result crime:
Act has a harmful result (murder)
Conduct crime:
Will not include a harmful result, as in no tangible loss (drunk driving). The offense seeks to punish mere conduct. The conduct may result in a social harm, but the act itself isn’t harmful. Thus, punishing for the possibility of social harm as a result of the actor’s conduct. (DUI)
state must prove EVERY element of a crime beyond a reasonable doubt
Attendant Circumstances:
A condition that must be present, in conjunction with the prohibited conduct or result, in order to constitute the crime
E.g. – If law states “it is an offense to drive a car while drunk,” then the attendant circumstances are driving while drunk – actus reus says no offense unless driving while drunk. It is not the act of being drunk, but rather, driving while drunk
Voluntary v. Involuntary Acts:
General:
Act must be voluntary in order for someone to be guilty of an offense. Society does not punish for involuntary acts which include, muscle reflexes, bodily movement during unconsciousness or sleep, or acts that occur because defendant was involuntarily taken somewhere, conduct during hypnosis
Martin – Defendant taken to freeway by police, then convicted of being drunk in public. However, the conviction was overturned because Defendant not in public voluntarily
Exception:
One will not be freed from liability for committing an involuntary act when the act was induced by drugs or alcohol
Utter – Veteran Kills son in a drunken state of unconsciousness. Because, voluntarily drunk, not involuntary action.
B. Omissions
1. Legal Duty to Act when:
a. close relations (husband/wife, parent/child)
mean to cause. Defendant liable because he intended to enter the federal computer network.
Specific Intent:
Definition:
A particular mental state is expressly set out in the definition of the crime, example: “with intent to sell”; could require knowledge
Thus, one is not guilty unless they had the specific intent to commit the harm that they caused.
Cunningham – Defendant stole water meter to sell it but caused other harm to the owner of the house because of a gas leak. Defendant not guilty for causing harm to owner because intended to steal and had no intent to cause harm.
Nations – didn’t know that the girl was 17, thus, couldn’t be guilty of endangering a minor by having her dance at her bar.
MPC’s requirements for intent:
Purpose:
Person has a conscious desire to engage in certain conduct or cause a certain result. Requires a desire to cause a result.
Knowledge:
Knows that result will occur but doesn’t necessarily desire it to occur. Simply requires that the actor be aware of a practical certainty that the result will occur. –
In battery, if you strike someone in the face with a bottle, person has knowledge that serious harm will result, even if doesn’t purposefully want specific harm to occur [such as nerve damage
Conley – struck victim with bottle, didn’t know he’d have nerve damage
Person constructs a bomb to blow up building. May not want people to die, but knows it will occur
Recklessness:
Is aware of a substantial and unjustifiable risk of the result occurring, but does the action anyway (subjective standard).
Risk must be a gross deviation from standard of conduct of a law-abiding person
Negligence:
A person should have been aware of a substantial and unjustifiable risk that a certain result would occur or that certain circumstances would exist..
Question for jury if objective viewer would have been aware of the risks, AND if failure of D to see these risks justifies condemnation.
have to first establish they had a duty to act before you can charge them w/ negligence
Issues 1. simple negligence
2. Looking at what should’ve known could’ve known not expected to know- put in rel timeframe at what pt actions would’ve made a difference
3. Look at concrete facts and draw inferences. Ex child wouldn’t hold down food. What can we infer from that they had knowledge of?
4. What is reasonable care? Reasonable person of a certain cultural background, reasonable person we think of? From a policy perspective, what does that say about our system? Many time standard settled by case law
Transferred Intent:
If result is intended on one party, but occurs on another
