Criminal Law Outline
Berger 2004
Chapter 3—Defining Criminal Conduct
Actus Reus
Voluntary Act
i. Movement of the human body that is willed by the actor
ii. People v. Decina
1. Facts—knowing he was prone to epileptic seizures he failed to take his medication and while driving lost control of the car and killed people
2. Voluntary act was getting into the car and driving, actual act that killed was losing control of the car due to a seizure that was involuntary
iii. Martin v. State
iv. People v. Newton
v. MPC
1. § 1.13(2)—act is defined as a bodily movement whether voluntary or involuntary, does not define voluntary act is essentially conduct in control of the actor
2. § 2.01(1)—Person is not guilty unless liability is based on conduct that includes a voluntary act or the omission to perform an act of which he is physically capable
3. § 2.01(a)—Not a voluntary act (a) reflex or convulsion (b) body movements while unconscious or asleep (c) conduct during hypnosis (d) body movement that is not consciously controlled by the actor, either conscious or habitual
Omission and Legal Duty
i. Legal duties are used to force people into action
1. Relationship—parent/child
2. Statute—
3. Contract to provide—nursing home
4. Voluntary assumption of the care—taking a sick person into your home
5. Creation of Peril—someone who pushes another person into a lake has duty to rescue them
6. Duty to control the conduct of another—business executives
7. Duty of landowner—club owner had duty to provide adequate emergency exits
ii. Pope v. State
iii. Jones v. United States
iv. Barber v. Superior Court
v. MPC
1. Omissions can satisfy the conduct element in 2 ways (1) when a statute makes it a crime (2) D has a duty to act imposed by law
Moral Duty
i. Criminal law does not impose a duty for what society fells is right and wrong
ii. Policy
1. “Laissez-faire” government approach—personal autonomy
2. “Slippery slope”—where do we draw the line
3. “Good Samaritan”—some states have enacted good Samaritan law which make it criminal to not aid someone who is in peril when you can do so without harm to yourself
Possession
i. Generally it is sufficient to not get rid of something you have once you become aware of its presence—illegal drugs, illegally weapons
ii. Failure to get rid of these items constitutes a voluntary act
iii. MPC
1. person’s possession is sufficient for criminal responsibility if, after becoming aware of the fact that the possession is illegal they do not abandon the possession within a sufficient period—failure to act by terminating possession is an omission of a legal duty
Mens Rea
Intent(Common Law)—Purposely (MPC)
i. Generally if a person commits a crime it is assumed they intended their conduct
ii. Specific intent v. General intent
1. Assault is a general crime, assault with intent to rape is a specific crime
2. Breaking and entering general crime, Breaking and entering with intent to commit a crime therein specific crime
3. Burning your house down general crime, burning house down to obtain insurance money is specific intent crime
4. Aggravated assault (general intent), assault with intent to kill (specific intent)
iii. MPC
1. This is equivalent to intentionally requires that the D be aware or hope or believe an attendant circumstance is true and that he entertain a conscious object to achieve the proscribed result
2. Transferred intent and specific intent
iv. Transferred intent
1. limited to result that create the same type of harm as was actually intended
Knowingly (MPC)—Oblique intent (Common Law)
i. The D didn’t really intend the result, but knew that if he acted the result was pretty certain to occur if he reached the goal or if D was reasonably certain the result would occur even if they didn’t want it to occur they are still guilty
ii. Policy
1. D is just as morally blameworthy as a person who intended the result
iii. Regina v. Cunningham
1. Facts—D tore a gas meter off the wall which resulted in gas leaking out and poisoning the neighbor
2. Holding—That the D was not guilty of the injury to the neighbor because he intended to steal he did not intend the injury to the neighbor
iv. MPC § 2.02(7)-(8)
1. D acts knowingly if he knows that the result, although one he does not consciously seek to cause is practically certain to occur should he continue he present course of action—D acts knowingly with respect to the attendant circumstance
2. Has specific provision that equates willfully with knowingly—general notion of willful blindness
Recklessness
i. Conscious decision to ignore a risk, of which the D is aware, that a bad result will occur—D knows injury risks but proceeds anyway
ii. Palsgraf
iii. MPC
1. D is reckless only if he actually foresees the harm may occur.
2. require that the risk the D foresees and thereafter consciously disregards be substantial and unjustifiable
Negligence
i. The person fails to perceive a risk that they should have been aware of
ii. Fitzgerald v. State
1. That degree of negligence or carelessness which is denominated as gross, and which constitutes such a departure from that would be the conduct of an ordinary careful and prudent man…as to furnish evidence of that indifference to consequences which in some offenses takes the place of criminal intent
2. State v. Weiner
a. Negligence to be criminal must be reckless and wanton
3. MPC
a. Only allows criminal negligence in homicide and the penalty is less then manslaughter
Mens Rea and the Model Penal Code
Culpability Level
Conduct
Attendant Circumstances
Result
D’s conscious object is to engage in such conduct
Purposely
D is aware or hopes or believes circumstances exist
D’s conscious object is to cause the result
Knowingly
D is aware his conduct is of this nature
D is aware the circumstances exist
D is aware that the result is practically certain
Recklessly
D consciously disregards a substantial and unjustifiable risk that he is engaging in his proscribed conduct
D consciously disregards a substantial and unjustifiable risk that the proscribed circumstances exist
D consciously disregards a substantial and unjustifiable risk that the result will occur
This disregard involves a gross deviation from the standard of conduct that a law-abiding person would observe, considering D’s purpose and the circumstances known to him.
Negligence
“Grossly” fails to recognize a substantial and unjustifiable risk he is engaging in this conduct
“Grossly” fails to recognize an unjustifiable risk that the proscribed circumstance exists
“Grossly” fails to recognize a substantial and unjustifiable risk that the result will occur.
The failure to recognize the risk, given the D’s purpose and the circumstances known to him, involves a gross deviation from the standard or care a reasonable person would observe.
Mistake of Fact
i. Some kinds of mistake of fact negate the required mens rea
ii. policy
1. they are not morally blameworthy
2. people are not deterred from doing something they perceive as innocent
iii. Knowledge and willful blindness
1. If you have a suspicion that a circumstance is one way, but take efforts to make sure you don’t have actual knowledge
a. Under the common law, if you chose to be willfully blind, then you will be treated as though you know all the facts
i. Seems to establishes a duty to inquire if the facts are highly suspicious—however this is a fictional duty
iv. Mistake of Legal Fact
1. this is a word that is defined differently in a legal way then it used commonly in non-legal vocabulary
v. MPC
1. § 2.04(1) provides that ignorance of mistake as to a matter of fact…is a defense if (a) it negatives the purpose, knowledge, belief, recklessness, or negligence required to establish a material element of the offense
2. § 2.02(7) retains willful blindness
vi. Regina v. Prince
vii. White v. State
viii. People v. Olsen
Strict Liability
i. Ways to tell if something is strict liability
1. Public Welfare Offenses—(possible options/limitations)
a. Generally applies to protect the public rather then one individual
b. Crimes where the real victim is the state not the public, ex. Rape, theft, burglary, rape, homicide, etc.
c. Depends on how many people are endangered
i. United States v. Dotterweich
1. Congress has preferred to place any hardship upon those who have at least the opportunity of informing themselves
lump sum he would have to report, he structured his transaction in order to avoid reporting, but did not know this was illegal, court reversed conviction saying the D was not willfully blind
ii. Mistake of Law
1. D suspects that his activity may be subject to government, even criminal, regulation, but concludes, either on his own or as the result of advice that he sought, that his actions are not criminal
2. State v. Hopkins
a. D a minister asked an attorney for advice before he posted a sign saying he was both a minister and a notary and was told that this would not be illegal, still convicted even though he sought advice
3. United States v. Cheek
a. Supreme court overturned a conviction for willfully refusing to pay taxes which the D claim after getting advice from anti-tax people and a lawyer that taxes were unconstitutional because he relied on the opinion, it didn’t matter whether the reliance was reasonable
iii. Exceptions to the Mistake of Law Rule
1. Specific Intent Crimes
a. Any mistake of law, no matter how unreasonable, would be a valid defense to a specific intent crime under common law
i. Example larceny is the intention to take the property of another, it you don’t intend to take property of another, you would have a defense
ii. Common law makes the mens rea a specific intent
b. Non-criminal Law Mistake
i. When D is ignorant of civil law that has been incorporated into criminal law, the doctrine should not apply
iv. Mistake of a non criminal law which are then incorporated into criminal law should be an excuse
v. Support
1. people should know the law and not act until they do
2. D’s could find people who said they gave them the advice in order to get off
3. person who knows, or should be aware that their conduct might be regulated have a duty to inquire about the law
4. want to encourage people to learn the law
vi. Opposition
1. failure to know every statute, administrative regulation, and interpretation of every statute does not reflect moral blameworthiness
2. A person who uses diligence to determine if they are violating the law and doesn’t want to violate the law is not culpable
vii. MPC
1. § 2.02(9) expressly provides that 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. There is one exception, if the statute or regulation in question has not been published or otherwise reasonably made available to the D the claim is allowed § 2.04(3)(a)
2. Reasonable reliance approach to mistake
a. General 2.04(3) provides that a D has a defense to a charge if he can show that he has acted in reasonable reliance on: (b) an official statement of the law, afterwards determined to be invalid or erroneous, contained in (i) a statute or other enactment (ii) a judicial decision, opinion or judgment (iii) an administrative order or grand of permission or (iv) an official interpretation of the public officer or body charged by the law with responsibility for the interpretation, administration or enforcement of the law defining the offense
b. Reasonable reliance and lawyers
i. Code does not blanketly prohibit reliance on their advice
ii. Argument that lawyers are trained to assist the client in getting what they want and may lead the lawyer to give “desired” advice
