Criminal Law
Johnson
Fall 2011
Crime Requirements
1. Act Requirement – all crimes (actus reas)
2. Mens Rea – all crimes except strict liability (intent)
3. result – have to prove D’s act caused a certain result ( ex. homicide)
4. Circumstance – some statutes require that the act occur under certain circumstances (ex. burglary can not be committed during the day)
1. Act Requirement;
– D must commit a voluntary act or an culpable omission of an act where there is a legal duty to act
-No crime can be committed by thoughts alone.
– person’s thoughts are not susceptible proff unless demonstrated by outward actions
– shouldn’t include those who think criminal things but don’t let their thoughts govern conduct
– no deterrence by punishing thoughts
– An attempt or agreement w/ another person to commit a crime may be criminal b/c this attempt or conspiracy requires some activity beyond just entertaining the idea
– Physical Component component consists of :
o Action
o Causation
o Social Harm
2. Involuntary Acts are not culpable
– can’t deter involuntary acts
– doesn’t seem culpable; doesn’t seem blame worthy so no retribution
involuntary acts are very narrow
– unconscious, sleep, sleep walking, reflex, seizures, hypnosis, spasms
– can’t say that you couldn’t help yourself because your mind knows what you are doing even if you think its wrong
MPC 2.01 (a) Voluntary Acts –
– a person is not guilty of a crime under the MPC unless “his liability is based on conduct that includes a voluntary act or the omission to perform an act of which he is physically capable.”
–
– Not responsible for act if unconscious or asleep
State v. Parks – sleep walker not convicted
– no voluntary act b/c he was sleepwalking ; unaware of his act
– sleep walking is hard to prove but can be used as a defense and worked here
– involuntary act so no cause for retribuion
But… only some element of the act needs to be voluntary; as long as D commits at least one voluntary act D may be criminally responsible
State v. Decina – epileptic guilty of negligent vehicular homicide
– because he knew of his condition ahead of time and drove anyway
– actus reas was driving the car; voluntary
– if he had just had a seizure on the sidewalk and knocked someone down he would not have been liable
3. Omissions
– subject to a few exceptions; a person has no criminal law duty to resuce or render aid to another even if that person may die. MPC follows common law here.
– why don’t we punish failure to act?
o Slippery slope; hard to draw line
o Individualistic society where everyone looks out for themselves
o Should the court enforce morality?
– can be guilty for a culpable omission (failure to act) if you have a duty and the ability to perform the required act (ex. fail to file income taxes)
– Duty to Act created by
1. statutes
2. special relationships – (parents etc)
3. contractual obligations – (nursing home)
4. voluntary assumption of care – (ex. Jones)
5. D’s status as a landowner
6. duty to control 3rd parties
7. D’s creation of peril (needs to be an affirmative action)
8. if you begin rescue à can’t leave in a worse position or seclude them so others don’t attempt rescue
Hypo: little girl drowning in pool. Father, Olympic swimmer, lifeguard, and the person who pushed her in watch her drown. Who’s liable.
1. Father because of his special relationship
2. Lifguard b/c of his contractual obligation
3. person who pushed her in b/c created the peril
4. NOT the Olympic Swimmer
MPC 2.01 3 (b) – if you have a legal duty to act then your omission can lead to legal liability;
– if the law defining the offense provides for it
– if the duty to act is otherwise imposed by law (torts, contracts)
Jones v. US. – Jones given $ to take care of kids. One child eventually died from neglect.
– had assumed a voluntary assumption of care and failed to act
– duty that was neglected must be a duty by law – it is voluntary assumption of care
Good Samaritan Statutes — some states now have statutes that require aid in emergencies
Ex. if another is in grave physical harm, to the extent help can be rendered w/out danger of peril to self, must give aid unless aid being given by other (Vermont)
State v. Walden – mother convicted b/c she watched her friend beat her baby
– failure of a parent who is present to take all steps to protect the child from an attack by another person constitutes an act omission by the parent showing the Parents consent and contribution to the crime being committed
Misprison of Felony – 7 year old in casino bathroom
– failed to report a known felony
– statue won’t punish unless affirmative steps were taken to conceal the crime
– won’t punish a mere omission to report a crime
MPC – Actus Reas – 2.01
– no conviction w/out actus reas
– Act is a bodily movement; either voluntary or involuntary
o Unconscious conduct, reflexes, and convulsions are involuntary
– Possession is an act if the possessor either knowingly obtained the object possessed or knew she was in control of it for a sufficient period to have been able to terminate possession (2.01 4)
4. MENS REA – state of mind
– the mental element of the crime, a culpable or blameworthy state of mind
– prosecution must prove a certain state of mind at the time the act was committed
– no mens rea for strict liability crimes
1. the state of mind required by statue for conduct, result, or circumstance elements of a particular crime in order for D to be convicted.
2. Common mens rea terms:
i. Intentionally: Common law; either desire to cause the harm or action with knowledge that social harm is substantially certain to occur as a result of the conduct
ii. Transferred intent: criminal law is generally unwilling to impose liability for transferring intent from one crime to another
1. Regina v. Faulkner – goal was to steal rum but when lit a match the boat burned down à not guilty of arson b/c did not have the intent for arson
2. transferred intent does apply to felony murder and misdemeanor manslaugher, and tranfer of intent from one victim to another
ex. mean to shoot B but kills C
-Reasons for the Mens Rea requirement
1. mental state helps to define more precisely the kinds of behavior society wishes to prevent and punish
2. mens rea requirements protect those who accidentally or innocently cause harm
3. the retributive purposes of criminal law are served by punishing only those who are culpable
4. “ even a dog distinguished b/w being stumbled over and being kicked”
Common Law Levels of Culpability
1. Intent –
a. D has a desire for the action to occur
b. Distinguish b/w intending the conduct and intending the result
c. Transferred intent – results that create the same harm as intended, even if on a different person, allow the transfer of intent
d. Oblique intent(now sometimes is called knowingly) – didn’t intend the result, but knew that if he acted the result was practically certain to happen if he achieved his actual goal.
iii. Extent to which harm was apparent
5. Mens Rea proved by inference, from conduct and words of D
6. motives may matter in proving mens rea.
Ex. if D hits victim with her car, we may believe her assertion that it was negligence if strangers. But if victim has been sleeping w/ D’s husband the added “motive’ may shift our belief about mens rea.
– good motive are not alone a defense
o ex. draft avoidanc, assisted suicideà had the intent to commit the act even if you didn’t think it was wrong
Motive v. Intent
– motive is the cause which induces action à only deals with desire
– intent is the purpose or design with which an act is done and involves the will
MPC LEVELS OF CULPABILITY – 2.02
i) a person is not guilty of an offense unless he acted purposely, knowingly, recklessly or negligently, as the law may require, with respect to each material element of the offense
1. Purposely
– acts purposely with respect to a material element of a crime when
–
i) circumstance à is aware of such circumstance or hopes they exist
ii) result à causing the result is a conscious objective
iii) conduct à conscious objective to engage in the conduct of that nature
– acts with the conscious objective to engage in conduct of that nature or to cause such a result
2. Knowingly (willfulness)
– subjectively aware of circumstance
– subjectively aware of practically certainty of the result
– subjectively aware of nature of conduct
– D is subjectively aware that there is a substantial or practical certainty that his or her actions will cause a particular result
– Ostrich Defense – MPC 2.02 (7) – infers knowledge
1. when knowledge of a particular fact is an element, such knowledge is established if a person is aware of a high probability of its existence, unless he actually believes it does not exist.
3. Recklessly
– consciously disregards a substantial and unjustifiable risk that a material element of the crime will result
– disregard involves a gross deviation fromt eh standard of conduct that a law abiding person would observe in the actor’s situation
4. Negligently (unreasonable
– should be aware of a substantial and unjustifiable risk that the material element exists or will result from his conduct
– risk is of a nature that his failure to observe it involves a gross deviation from the standard of care that a reasonable person would observe in his situation
Peery Example –
1. Purpose exposed oneself to others
– have to show he wanted other people to see him
– his objective was to expose himself (design, intent)
2. Knowingly expose oneself to others
– don’t have to show why he did so – doesn’t have to want people to see him
– that he was aware that it was practically certain or that there was a high probability that he was exposing himself to others
– = willful
