Criminal Law Outline
In criminal law, we learn the common law, but every year, it gets more distant.
Districts get more variations.
We study common law because it is basically the only thing we have in common in a world of differing districts.
Thus, in criminal law we have difficult situation of what to teach.
Where the state has made any contribution, the court will tell us what it does to the Model Penal Code and common law.
Crime: Conduct, which shown to have taken place, incurs the formal and solemn pronouncement of the moral condemnation of the community. It is conduct that society deems as morally reprehensible; a wrong against society.
Every Crime consists of: Actus Rues + Mens Rea + Causation – Defenses.
Elements present in every crime:
Mens rea- mental element (state) (intent)
Actus reas- the conduct/act itself.
Criminal Process- Mens Rea
Mens Rea- the moral blameworthy state of mind/ the specific mental state. A person is not guilty unless they engage in the voluntary act or omission that causes the social harm if they didn’t have the mental capacity or the intent to do the act.
Culpability is the extent to which a defendant’s mental state shows the defendant deserves to be punished for his acts.
The mens rea requirement focuses on levels of awareness and intention with which the defendant acted; for example, did the defendant purposely cause a harm or was the harm the result of the defendant’s carelessness?
Intent in Criminal Law:
Desire (Purpose) or knowledge to a substantial certainty in 2nd Restatement.
Desire- in criminal law, we use purposefully.
In the 3rd Restatement, they are going back to the word purpose.
Motive- an ultimate reason to do something, but is that intent?
Criminal Law is subjective in terms of intent.
In torts, if had knowledge to substantial certainty or desire, then intent.
Mental states in Torts (being on someone’s mind): intent; consciousness; defendant knows there is risk but not to a substantial certainty; reasonable person would have known (going back to Negligence); recklessness (disregard a whole lot of knowledge of risk, but it is just not substantial).
Four mental states that we attach fault to:
(1) Desire/Purpose
(2) Knowledge to a substantial certainty,
(3) Recklessness (in between intent and negligence)
(4) Negligence- reasonable person or defendant knew.
In Regina, they were throwing “intent” words around.
This Appellate Court says must have intent with regard to that act.
Justice Fitzgerald says that the intention of the accused forms an element of every crime.
This court also simply allows recklessness in addition to intent.
If judge would have included this in the instructions, he probably would have been held guilty because the jury might have found him reckless.
By the American Institute, Model Penal Code, the states of mind that constitute intent or moral culpability.
The first kind of intent is the worst and so on (hierarchy of intent which determines longer sentences), thus both sides of the law (criminal v. torts) has a hierarchy.
(1) Purposely
Conscious object to engage in conduct of the nature or to cause such a result.
Purpose and purposely basically the same thing in torts and criminal law.
A person acts purposely if it is the defendant’s goal or aim to engage in particular conduct or achieve a certain result.
If the phrase “specific intent to” is used in a statute, that is also a signal that the level of mens rea is purposely.
(2) Knowingly
Aware that it is practically certain that his conduct will cause such a result.
Practically and substantially certain are pretty close, thus second type of mens rea in criminal law is practically the same as that in torts.
A person acts knowingly if she is virtually or practically certain that her conduct will lead to a particular result.
(3) Recklessly
He consciously disregards a substantial and unjustifiable risk that the material element exists or will result from his conduct.
Same as in torts again.
A person acts recklessly if she realizes that there is a substantial and unjustifiable risk that her conduct will cause harm, but consciously disregards the risk.
Recklessness is the minimum mens rea standard for most crimes.
It is also referred to as “general intent” or, as we have seen, maliciousness.
(4) Negligently
He should be aware of a substantial and unjustifiable risk that the material element exists or will result from his conduct.
A person acts negligently if she is unaware of and takes a risk that an ordinary person would not take.
A little different than torts though: negligence in criminal law involves a gross deviation from the standard of care that a reasonable person would observe in the actor’s situation (i.e. gross negligence).
Gross negligence in torts is more difficult: a whole lot of negligence.
This is an objective standard.
Thus, in effect, in criminal law, negligence is more like gross negligence in torts.
Criminal law basically adopted the same scheme as in torts because it was inevitable.
Criminal law has some extra rules we need to be familiar with as per the M.P.C. (pg. 57):
(3) Culpability Required Unless Otherwise Provided. When the culpability sufficient to establish a material element of an offense is not prescribed by law, such element is established if a person acts purposely, knowingly or recklessly with respect thereto.
The Model Penal Code says that if the law does not say which mens rea is required, then must be at least the top three.
(5) Substitutes for Negligence, Recklessness and Knowledge. When the law provides that negligence suffices to establish an element of an offense, such element also is established if a person acts purposely, knowingly or recklessly. When recklessness suffices to establish an element, such element also is established if a person acts purposely or knowingly. When acting knowingly suffices to establish an element, such element also is established if a person acts purposely.
If the state legislative says a particular mens rea (i.e. recklessly), any higher one will fit (i.e. knowingly), but a lower one will not.
(9) Culpability as to Illegality of Conduct. Neither knowledge nor recklessness or negligence as to whether conduct constitutes an offense or as to the existence, meaning or application of the law determining the elements of an offense is an element of such offense, unless the definition of the offense or the Code so provides.
Ignorance of the law is no excuse.
Problems on page 66:
The mens rea that applies to the general intent is any of the top three because it is not mentioned, the mens rea that applies to the specific intent (commit a felony) is purposely.
General intent is knowingly, and the prosecution can prove knowingly or purposely.
General intent, can apply any of the top three mens rea.
In this case, knowingly and purposely will suffice for general intent.
The Requirement of a “Voluntary Act”
As a general rule, all crimes require that a defendant commit a voluntary criminal act- an actus reus.
Under criminal law, as long as the person is engaged in conscious and volitional movement, the act is considered voluntary.
If an alleged act was involuntary, there may not be justification for imposing punishment.
Hypothetical: If in doctor’s office, reflex of leg going up, there seems to have been mens rea.
But, we need an (voluntary) act.
In this case, it was involuntary because it was a reflux.
Thus, without an act, no crime even though statute says someone knowingly creates harm.
We do not have a voluntary act in this case because the patient acted involuntarily.
The M.P.C. identifies four instances in which many jurisdictions are willing to say that the defendant did not act voluntarily:
Reflex or convulsion,
Bodily movement during unconsciousness or sleep,
Bodily movement not otherwise the product under hypnotic suggestion (debatably),
Bodily movement not otherwise the product of effort or determination of the actor, either conscious or habitual.
Regina v. Faulkner
Facts
A prisoner and seaman went into the bulk head to steal rum and he made a hole in the cask with a gimlet.
Rum ran out and the prisoner tried to put a small plug in the hole.
The prisoner lit a match in his hand and the rum caught fire; the ship caught fire and was completely destroyed.
The conviction was quashed because a necessary element for a defendant to be found guilty of an offense is intent or reasonable knowledge of the (probable) result.
In this case, the motive was perhaps so he can drink it.
He had a reason, but does that constitute his intent?
A reason to do something is not the same thing as intent, it may suggest intent.
Although, both are mental states.
Furthermore, he did not have desire or knowledge to a substantial certainty; t
h may not have mens rea)
In this statute, the defendant would have had to act “profanely…”
He did, so have an act, but the appellate court says we don’t have an act because this statute requires two acts: drunken condition and appear in public.
Defendant, in this case, did not put himself in public voluntarily, external force.
What if a sober person appears in public and acts to be drunk, under this statute, they are not convicted.
If a drunk is convicted while a sober person is not, the drunk is really punished for “being drunk.”
This is a status of being drunk, thus what is of concern is the status of being drunk.
There is a problem because there is a punishment for status which should not be done.
If we were really concerned with the noise and acts, then it would not matter if the person was really drunk or sober.
A voluntary act can include “possession” of an item. M.P.C. § 2.01(4) provides: “possession is an act, within the meaning of this Section, if the possessor knowingly procured or received the thing possessed or was aware of his control thereof for a sufficient period to have been able to terminate his possession.”
Robinson v. State of California
Facts
A California statute makes it a criminal offense for a person to “be addicted to the use of narcotics.”
In this case, it is a crime to be an addict and knowingly take illicit drugs.
The mens rea required in this statute is knowingly.
The addict knows he is an addict, thus we have mens rea.
The problem is that it is an involuntary act.
We may have direct evidence that he knowingly took these drugs and knew he was a junkie.
We have mens rea (intent, knowing) and an act (this guy is a junkie).
The statute has two parts: doing the drugs (voluntary act- something you do) and being an addict.
Being an addict is not an act.
One’s status is not an act, and does not serve to meet the act requirement.
Cannot be convicted for simply being something.
Yet, one becomes a junkie by taking, doing and possessing a lot of drugs.
Without the conjecture, without the unreliable information that would be put into a trial to show that this person is a junkie, it is fairer to catch the junkie in the act so we can know what they do.
This is why we require an act and not simply a status.
The Robinson Court equates addiction to a bad medical disease.
The Supreme Court came up with a different conclusion from the typical criminal judge would (as explained above), that one cannot be punished for simply being, or punishing for a status.
They use the 8th Amendment (no cruel or unusual punishment).
The Court says that 90 days in prison as stated in the statute is cruel and unusual.
A sentence is cruel and unusual depending on the crime being charged.
In this case, for a common cold or being addicted to drugs, it is cruel and usual.
Thus, 8th Amendment is invoked because in light of an addiction being like disease, 90 days in jail is cruel and usual.
They also use the 14th Amendment (equal protection)
This is a tool to apply all the federal amendments to the states.
Omissions
The general rule in the United States is that there is no duty to help another or to rescue a person from harm.
Therefore, a defendant ordinarily is not guilty simply for allowing harm to come to another, even if the defendant could easily have helped to prevent the harm.
What this suggests about the law is that society does not like to
