Criminal Law – Leipold – Fall 2011
Content of Crimes→ A/R + M/R + absence of justification
CRIMINAL LAW OUTLINE
PRINCIPLE OF LEGALITY:
PL + advance legislative crime definition is to AVOID:
Arbitrary enforcement
Unfair Surprise
Power imbalance between branches of gov’t.
VAGUENESS DOCTRINE: applies Principle of Legality, statute passes Vagueness Doct. IF:
Avg. person can understand what conduct is dame
Vagueness doesn’t encourage arbitrary enforcement/abuse
Imi can be determined fr. Lang., Precedent, Context, Industry Regulations
Kolender v. Lawason: Loitering case, credible/reliable ID statute
Penal Statute has to be sufficiently definite so that the ordinary person can understand it +
The state can’t use if for arbitrary law enforcement.
Doctrine is rarely enforced and ONLY for statutory and non-violent crimes.
To CHALLENGE a statute, ask:
Necessary? Serves any legitimate purpose? (not already covered by other laws)
Can it be more precise? (would that be Practical? Possible?)
1st Amend. infringement always strikes down statute
“Obscene” is facially vague in statute but court ruling narrows it down to mean only hard core porn thus saving statute.
ACTUS REUS: THE CRIMINAL ACT
3 Elements to Every Actus Reus:
1. Conduct:
a. Action: Quantity (sufficient acts) + Quality (of a certain character)
Ø Voluntary Act, NOT just status, there has to be conduct.
b. Omission: failure to act where there was a duty to act
Ø Statutes Ø Kankei
Ø Contact Ø Assumption of Care
c. Possession
2. Circumstance: The circumstance of the act must make it a crime
3. Result
Voluntary Acts
Quantitative: How much conduct needs to be engaged in to satisfy ‘action.’
Qualitative: How “Voluntary” was the act? No real choice, under duress, etc.
Involuntary Acts → (NOT Liable)
Physically Coerced Movement
Reflex
Muscular Contraction/Paralysis produced by disease
Impaired consciousness/ Unconsciousness: No link between body/mind
Ø Concussion, Night Terrors, Hypoglycemia
Involuntary Act = Voluntary Act When:
Condition is known + frequent affliction
Act not necessary but by choice (??????)
There was a known warning prior to action
GENERAL RULE: Voluntary Act + Involuntary Act = Liable
Involuntary Act + Prior Knowledge of freq. of occurrence = Liable
MPC Involuntary CONDUCT 2.01:
(1) Conduct must include a voluntary act or the omission to perform an act which is physically capable.
(2) NOT Voluntary Acts:
Ø Reflex or Convulsion
Ø Bodily movement during Unconsciousness
Ø Conduct during Hypnosis
Ø Movements not a prod. of “effort or determination” either conscious or habitual.
(3) Liability for an offense cannot be based on an omission unaccompanied by action unless:
Ø Law makes the omission a crime
Ø Law imposes a duty to perform/act
(4) Possession = an ACT when the possessor knowingly procured/rcvd. the thing possessed OR was aware of his control of it for a sufficient period long enough to have allowed him to terminate his possession.
ACT:
Martin v. Stgate→ Voluntary violation is necessary: Cops drag drunk onto hwy to charge for public drunkenness. Conviction Overruled No voluntary action.
OMISSION:
5 Categories of Legal Duty Based on:
1. Statutes: (driver in auto accident must stop and render assistance)
2. Kankei: (mother-child)
3. Contract: (lifeguard)
4. Voluntary Assumption of responsibility→ that effectively precludes aid from others
5. Duty to Help when causer of harm (car crash)
o NO duty to Rescue in face of harm
o Fata actions vs. Fatal Omissions / Withhold vs. Withdraw
Omission Cont’d:
Rule: though died in Δ’s home, location created no legal duty since unaware of facts
Rule: voluntary assumption of duty can be based on someone being in hour home if you have brought them there or have control of the situation (taking from public→private locale)
Commonwealth v. Konz: Spouses cannot omit to seek medical care when partner is in serious need of medical attention Wife’s omission of no seeking med. Care for husb’s insulin needs = liable
People v. Robbins: Spousal duty to seek aid negated by partner’s competent decision to voluntarily forego help. Similar to Konz case but limited extent of spousal duty.
People v. Beardsley: No duty to companion left in friend’s hotel room.. Affair couple get drunk, she takes morphine, he hides her in friend’s room upon wife’s return, she dies. That duty establishes no duty via kankei.
HYPOS:
· House on Fire, parent’s run outside, child
M/R applies to all elements unless a contrary purpose clearly appears
III. Hierarchy, i.e. Knowledge suffices for N/ & R/
MISTAKES
Analyzing Mistakes:
Identify the Jurisdiction
Identify the nature of the mistake
Identify the Rule
Apply the rule to the Facts
Common Law
I. Mistake of Fact: S/L = No defense of Mistake of Fact
[SI]→ Specific Intent: HONEST mistake that negates the M/R
Ø If mistake does not negate M/R, then move over to [GI]→ the mistake must then be HONEST & REASONABLE
[GI]→ General Intent:
Ø HONEST & REASONABLE mistake AND
Ø NOT a crime as the Δ believed them to be
Grading:
· [SI]→ Mistakes of Fact going to grading ARE a defense IF honest. Δ will be convicted of the crime he though he was committing.
§ i.e. Δ mistakenly copies grand jury materials but meant to copy materials on an on-going investigation. If it was an honest mistake= Defense.
Rule: C/L will convict Δ of the mistake hey thought he was committing if SI
COMPLETE DEFENSE IF HONEST & REASONABLE→ GETS OUT FREE OR JUST A LOWER CRIME INSTEAD?
· [GI]→ Mistakes of Fact that go to grading of crime = irrelevant. One will be convicted of the crime they committed even if they thought they were committing another crime.
§ i.e. Man meant to burn down π’s barn but mistakenly burns the house instead, mistake can’t be a defense.
Rule: C/L will convict you of the crime you actually committed even if you
meant to commit a diff. crime IF it’s a GI crime.
II. Mistake of Criminal Law
· Ignorance is NO defense
III. Mistake of Non-Criminal Law
· [SI]→ HONEST mistake that negates the M/R = IS a defense. Not honest= NO defense
· [GI]→ Mistake of non-crim. law is NO defense.
· [S/L]→Mistake of non-crim. law is NO defense.
