Criminal Law Outline

Criminal Law – Stone – Fall 2010

Inaction
– The failure to act when there is a duty to do so
– Inaction when action is legally mandated satisfies the actus reus requirement
– 4 Situations when a legal duty to act is imposed:
o 1) Certain relationship to another (parent/child)
o 2) Statute requires action (paying taxes)
o 3) Contractual duty (lifeguard)
o 4) Voluntarily assume the care of another

Possession
– The act is inferred from mere possession
– State v. Fox
o Marijuana house – D lived in the house w/ drugs, no evidence that D had control over the drugs, his conviction for possession w/ intent to distribute was Reversed
o Elements –
§ Knowingly and intentionally possess drugs and
§ Intent to distribute drugs to another
– Knowledge + Ability to possess ≠ Possession (where no intent to make use of knowledge/ability)
– Conviction can be based on Actual (caught in possession) or Constructive Possession (Implied by surrounding facts and circumstances)
– Constructive Possession –
o The contraband is subject to Ds dominion and control
o Constructive possession requires a sufficient NEXUS between D and the drugs to permit an inference that D had both Power AND Intent to exert dominion and control over the drugs
– Ct looks to 4 Factors –
o 1) Ownership/occupancy of premises where drugs found
o 2) Incriminating statements or behavior
o 3) Presence of drugs in specific area over which D had control (closet, drawer)
o 4) Proximity to drug

Causation
– 2 Requirements — D’s conduct must both be the:
o 1) Cause in Fact
§ But-For Causation
§ Exception – Cause in Fact isn’t required for concurrent causation (b/c it’s literally impossible)
o 2) Proximate Cause of the Harm
§ Direct, sole cause always satisfies proximate cause
§ Intervening events
· Dependent intervening causes – do NOT break the chain of causation
· Independent intervening causes – breaks chain of causation – D NOT liable
– Causation Theories –
o But-For (Cause in Fact)
o Triggered sequence of events
o Unforeseeable/Foreseeable and Reasonable/Unreasonable
o Accelerated Death
o Knowledge of condition
o Intervening circumstances
o “Take V as you find him”
– People v. Dlugash
o D shoots V shortly after he had already been fatally shot
o D believed V was alive
o Guilty of AM, not guilty of murder – b/c D didn’t actually kill V
§ D’s act was NOT the cause of Vs death
o Guilty of AM b/c if the crime could’ve been committed if the attendant circumstances had been as D believed them to be, it’s no defense to AM that V was already dead
§ Factual impossibility is NOT a defense to an attempt crime
– People v. Love
o D gets in a fight w/ his wife, kicks her in the spleen, then long chain of events leading to her death
o Wife died from pneumonia contracted while in the hospital for injuries inflicted by D – no evidence that V’s injuries were caused by anything else
o D is guilty of Vol. Manslaughter under the ‘triggering the sequence of events’ theory
o Even though Ds conduct was not the sole, immediate cause, it was reasonably foreseeable that Ds conduct would cause Vs death
§ The intervening cause was dependent, as it was a necessary response to Ds initial act
– Velazquez v. State
o Drag race – D found NOT guilty of vehicular homicide
o The sole basis for liability would have been Ds participation in the race
o Note – Result would have been different if a non-participant had been killed by the drivers
o V effectively killed himself by his voluntary and reckless driving in the drag race, thus Ds actions were not the proximate cause of death
o V was an equally willing and foolhardy participant

Specific Intent
– State v. Trinkle
o D gets drunk at a bar, then was refused service, came back later w/ a gun, shot at the building from the outside, wounded V, but he didn’t know V nor intended to kill her
o D is NOT guilty of AM b/c no Specific Intent to kill her
§ Here, SI requires that D has the SI to kill a particular V
o SI is usually requires for attempt crimes
§ Elements of AM
· Substantial step towards the commission/completion of murder
· Act aimed at a specific person
· Knowing such act would create a strong probability of death or great bodily harm
– Note –
o For AM, there must be a Specific Intent to kill a particular person
o For murder, there doesn’t necessarily need to be a Specific Intent to kill (intent to inflict SBI or depraved heart – reckless disregard for human life)
o So, if D had killed V instead of wounding her, D would be guilty