I. Defining Criminal Conduct: ACTUS REUS (The requirement of a voluntary action)
A. Martin v. State
1. Drunk dude taken out of house by cops and then arrested for drunk in public.
2. NOT in trouble if INVOLUNTARY act.
B. Criminal liability ALWAYS REQUIRES an “actus reus”
1. The commission of some VOLUNTARY act that is PROHIBITED by law.
C. People v. Newton
1. Newton was shot by cops then grabbed gun and shot cop back.
2. Said he was ‘unconscios or semiconscious”
3. Where NOT SELF-INDUCED, as by voluntary intoxication or the equivalent, UNCONSCIOSUNESS is a COMPLETE DEFENSE to a charge of criminal homicide.
D. Notes
3. Voluntary acts and blameworthy acts
a. The category of involuntary acts, for purposes of the actus reus requirement, is defined VERY NARROWLY, and these involuntary acts are NEVER BLAMEWORTHY.
4. A problem if someone is epileptic and KNOWS of condition.
a. If AWARE of condition which he KNOWS may produce such consequences as here, and his DESREGARD of the consequences, renders him LIABLE for CULPABLE NEGLIGENCE.
I. Defining Criminal Conduct: ACTUS REUS (Omissions)
A. Jones v. US
1. Gave their baby to someone else to watch, and baby died.
2. One can be held CRIMINALLY LIABLE
a. When a STATUTE imposes a DUTY to care for another,
b. Where one stands in a certain STATUS RELATIONSHIP to another,
c. Where one has ASSUMED CONTRACTUAL DUTY to another,
b. Where one has VOLUNTARILY ASSUMED the care of another and so SECLUDED the helpless person as to PREVENT OTHERS from RENDERING AID.
3. Involuntary manslaughter in instant case.
a. is most of the time.
b. could be murder if the defendant REFUSED AID WITH INTENTION OF CASUING DEATH.
B. Pope v. State
1. Defendant took crazy mom and kid into her house and one day, mom went into a frenzy, beat kid and kid eventually died.
2. Although she took the mom and kid in, because the mom was present, Pope could not usurp the mom’s responsibility for the child.
3. NOT GUILTY because she didn’t take responsibility.
C. John Kleinig, Good Samaritan
1. Very little duty to bystanders to RENDER AID, or to REPORT.
D. One who by his overpowering criminal act has PUT ANOTHER IN DANGER has a DUTY to PRESERVE LIFE.
I. Defining Criminal Conduct: MENS REUS (Basic Conception)
A. Regina v. Cunningham
1. Took gas cap off valve and gas leaked and partially choked an old lady.
2. Jury must decide whether, even if the defendant did NOT INTEND to injure old lady, he FORESAW that the removal could cause injury but DID SO ANYWAYS.
B. Regina v. Faulkner
1. Dude tried to steal rum and ended up setting ship on fire and burning it down
2. If, while a person is engaged in committing a felony, he accidentally does some COLLATERAL act, which if done willfully would be another felony either at common law or by statute, he is GUILTY of the LATTER felony.
a. BUT NO BECAUSE NO!!!!!!!
C. State v. Hazelwood.
1. Criminal negligence standard is only men when the risk is “of such a nature and degree that the FAILURE to perceive it constitutes a GROSS DEVIATION from the STANDARD of care that a REASONABLE PERSON would observe in the SITUATION.
D. Santillanes v. NM
1. Need Criminal Negligence, regular negligence NOT ENOUGH
E. US v. Jewell
1. Guy had gange in car and said I didn’t know about it, but KNEW OF SECRET COMPARTMENT
2. Statute says he must KNOW about it, so State has BoP to prove it.
3. When Knowledge of the existence of a particular fact is an element of an offense, such knowledge is ESTABLISHED if a person is AWARE of a HIGH PROBABILITY of its EXISTENCE, UNLESS he HACTUALLY BELIEVES it does NOT EXIST.
F. Notes
3. Willful blindness instructions should NOT be GIVEN, UNLESS
a. The defendant was SUBJECTIVELY AWARE of a HIGH PROBABILITY of ILLEGAL conduct, AND
b. the defendant PURPOSELY contrived to AVOID LEARNING of the illegal conduct.
I. Defining Criminal Conduct: MENS REUS (Mistake of Fact)
A. Regina v. Prince
1. Girl said she was 18 and defendant had NO REASON NOT TO BELIEVE.
2. Statute doesn’t have language requiring knowledge so you can say it doesn’t matter because act itself is wrong. FUCK THIS
3. Guilty
B. Mistake of Fact
1. Mistake must NEGATE REQUIRED MENS REA or establishes a state of mind that CONSTITUTES a DEFENSE.
C. People v. Olsen
1. Olsen screwed 14 year old, but girl said she was 16.
2. Courts want to PROTECT CHILDREN IN TENDER YEARS
3. If guilty of LESSER CRIME, GUILTY of GREATER one.
D. A v. Director
IMINAL LAW, because you do so at your own peril.
D. HOLY FUCKING SHIT look at this for MOL
1. General Rule – NO MOL
2. Exceptions – Specific Intent
3. Super Exception – Crime with elements DEFINED by NON-CRIMINAL law.
E. Cheek v. US
1. Dude didn’t pay taxes because he SINCERELY BELIEVED that he doesn’t owe taxes.
2. The standard for statutory willfulness requirements is “VOLUNTARY, INTENTIONAL VIOLATION of a legally KNOWN duty.
3. To NEGATE willful and wanton, you must be OBJECTIONABLY REASONABLE and that is a JURY DECISION.
F. Lambert v. California
1. Must register if you are a convicted felon must register in cali.
2. Didn’t know
3. This is a PASSIVE ACT
a. So NEED to have KNOWLEDGE of duty to register
II. Homicide: LEGISLATIVE GRADING OF INTENDED KILLINGS (The Premeditation-Deliberation Formula)
A. Commonwealth v. Carroll
1. Dude killed his wife when she made fun of him, BUT it was when she was ASLEEP and he had waited HOURS AFTER ARGUMENT
2. Even though he was still in an emotional state, there was enough time for him to COOL DOWN
3. A lot of courts hold that NO TIME IS TOO SHORT
a. Time can drop murder to lower to level
4. Courts will NOT ALLOW PHSYCHOLOGISTS to determine criminal responsibility or INTENT
B. State v. Guthrie
1. Defendant stabbed co-worker during tete a tete.
2. Said its not willful and deliberate so there should be more saying what is willful and deliberate.
3. Three areas where PREMEDITATION can be SHOWN
a. Planning activities
b. Facts about defendant’s RELATIONSHIP with victim; might show MOTIVE
c. Evidence regarding NATURE OR MANNER of killing
II. Homicide: LEGISLATIVE GRADING OF INTENDED KILLINGS (Provocation)
A. Girouard v. State
1. Are words ENOUGH of a provocation to warrant a lesser charge.
