Crim Law
Sources
Common law def form the historical basis for the MPC Def, and provide a nice contrast.
MPC-not the law but an influential model of the crim law code.
Public Policy- 5 general recognized principle of punishment
1. Utilitarianism theory-concerned with consequences, they are forward looking..looking to the future to make the world better place..by using crim law
a. General deterrence-the idea we punish a particular D in order to deter other ppl from committing crimes
b. Specific deterrence-we punish him to deter him from committing crimes in the future..lets this a lesson to you..dont do it again. About teaching the D a lesson
c. Incompacitation-we lock someone up to physical prevent them from committing further crimes. About physically restraining so he doesn’t commit other crimes
d. Rehabilitation-we treat the D, we teach him so that he will no longer commit crimes in the future
2. Retributive theory-(ANDERSON!!)we punish someone bc they deserve it. these ideals don’t look forward..not concerned about the future or accomplishing anything. They look backward at what did the D do and what does he deserve as his punishment. In order to determine what they deserve, there are 2 factors:
a. Harm-what was the result of the D’s bad conduct, did he cause a bad result, did he injure someone. The greater the harm..the greater the result
b. Culpability-is about the D’s choice. Think about choice as in..what decision did the D make..did the D make a bad decision. Generally, and intentional decision is going to be worse..more culpable than an accidental causing of a harm. Foolish is more culpable than one that was unexpected cause of a harm.
Again this theory ask what does a D derserve, and we look at the harm caused, and the culpability (what did he do and with level of decision).
Essential Elements of Crime:
1. Physical act requirement:
a. w/o an act, you cant have a crime (we don’t punish inaction or thought act)
what is an act? the voluntary bodily movement. Voluntary means-you brain conscionsiously tells your body to move. That means almost every movement will be a voluntary act.
Exceptions (to crime): there are 3 types of movements that are not considered voluntary acts.
a. When the movement is not the product of the actors volition-somebody else moves you.
b. Sleepwalking-or similarly unconscious movements (rarely happens in the realworld)
c. Reflexis or convulsions
Ex. D has seizure disorder, he knows he has it, doesn’t take his medicine. Get in car and drives..and kills someone. Did he commit a crime? Yes. The act that gets punished and driving in the care in the 1st place and driving is a voluntary act. (not having the seizure).
Ommissions rule-ordinaily w/o an act, you cant have a crime. However, there are some limited situations where the failure to act, can lead to a crime. For this to happen, you need 3 things:
1. A legal duty to act-In general, our law does not impose an obligation to help other people. There are 5 recognized legal duties to act:
1. Statutory Duties- a handful of states have a good samaritin duty. File tax return (if you fail to act, in filing them). Professionals-if they suspect child abuse, teachers, clergy members etc.
2. Contractual Duty-ex. Babysitter, lifeguard, doctors, will be required to help the baby, drowner, patient, bc there is a K. doesn’t have to be written, there is usually an implicit or explicit agreement btwn the parties.
3. A duty created by status relationship:
a. Spouses to help eachother
b. Parent-child.
4. Voluntary assumption of care-the idea is that if you start helping someone, you may have an obligation to continue, even if you didn’t have a duty in the 1st place. The rationale if you start helping then stop, you can leave them in a worse position then they started. Ex. Someone drowing, amongst a group of ppl you volunteer to help, swim halfway there, and then change your mind. Someone else could have saved them. Hence, they are in a worse position. Hence at that point you have a duty to continue.
5. A duty created by the creation of the peril-if the duty is my fault, I may have a duty to help. Ex. Im driving, obeying speed limit, kids jumps in btwn car, you hit them. Even though you didn’t do anything wrong, you contributed to the injury…you were the cause of the p
C no longer use the 4 categories of SI, Malice, and GI. Instead the MPC define 4 specific mental state terms and used them in each statute to tell you what the mental state is:
1. Purposely/intentionally-it is the D’s conscious object to cause a particular result or engage in particular conduct. That’s what the D meant to do, he did it on purpose. ***conscious object are buzz words..put it in exam!!!
2. Knowingly-the D is aware of his conduct, or aware of the circumstances..the D has knowledge
3. Recklessly-when the D is aware of and consciously disregards a substantial and unjustifiable risk. Your intentionally taking a bad risk. (ppl get this wrong..when they say “the D should have known that is risky conduct and therefore they were reskless” to be reckless the D must have actually known). Reckless is the crime of intentionally taking bad risk.
4. Negligently-where the D should have known about a substantial and unjustifiable risk. This is the crime of being stupid.
**on an exam if may be hard to determine..but that’s when you define..and then try to argue both way.
1. Mistake of fact under the MPC
You simply ask, does the D mistake negate the mental state.
a. So if the mental state is purposely, did he mean to do it.
b. If the mental state is knowingly, did he know what he was doing.
c. If the mental state was recklessly, was he aware of the risk.
d. If the mental state was negligent, was the risk unreasonable.
Ex. D is speeding down a crowed highway, 90 miles an aware, crashes into someone and kills them. Ok, think about the mental state, in regards to the claim, he is charged with intentional murder. What is he gonna say/ his arguments are. (a) if mental state is purposely-I didn’t mean to do it (b) if the police find cocaine. He is going to say, I didn’t know it was there or I didn’t know it was cocaine. (this is a good defense..doesnt matter if the mistake was reasonable or unreasonable..if the mental state is knowledge and he doesn’t have the knowledge..his mistake is a defense). What if he is charged with a reckless crime like manslaughter..now he cant he didn’t mean to do it, bc that wont negate the mental state. He must say that he wasn’t aware of the risk, that if he drove at 90 miles and hour on a crowded highway that he might kill someone. This is not an easy argument and he might lose that argument, but that would be the claim of mistake. What if he is charged with a negligent crime, like neg homicide? Now he cant argue that he didn’t mean to do it, or I wasn’t aware of the risk. Now he has to argue either I didn’t know the risk, or I should have known the risk? (which is probably loosing.). he would have to say that my conduct wasn’t a substantial and unjustifiable risk. I was rushing through to get my pregnant wife to the hospital, so it was a risk, but not unjustifiable. If Strict liability, still no defense of mistake.
