Criminal Law Outline

I.      Theories of punishment
                     i.            Principles limiting the distribution of punishment:
o    1) Culpability – “safeguard” lawful conduct
o    2) Proportionality – “differentiate” between serious & trivial crimes
o    3) Legality – “fair warning” of illegal conduct]                     ii.            Punishment Theories
o    “Retributive Justice”
–          punish if and only if someone deserves it
o    Utilitarian Theory
–          punish if social utility (public good) is served. “Greatest good for the greatest number”… specific deterrence: preventing specific defendant from repeating conduct… general deterrence: punishing this person sends a message to society at large
–          problem: might overemphasize punishment (over punishment)
–          nothing “internal to the theory” to check “dranconian” punishments, i.e. against the innocent
            Mixed Theory
–          punish ONLY if there’s social benefit (utility) but only to the extent that it’s deserved… weaknesses: victim vindication is a goal in and of itself, risks under-punishment (won’t punish a deserving person if there is no apparent social good served in doing so)
II.      Actus Reus – “It is fundamental that a civilized society does not punish for thoughts alone…” (MPC)
                     i.            Voluntary act (or omission) that causes a legally prohibited state of affairs w/ culpable mens rea
o    Simultaneity principle
                    ii.            Voluntary act must be a willed, voluntary bodily movement.
                 iii.            What constitutes an involuntary act?
o    Cases of no muscle movement
–          Martin → drunk ∆ forced to public highway by police
o    Unconsciousness or trauma-induced disassociation (~ insanity?)
–          (Newton → gunshot to abdomen)
o    Automatism/spasms/tics/reflex  – an act that one is conscious of but cannot control
o    Hypnosis
o    Somnambulism
o    Brainwashing
o    Exception: When the defendant acts with knowledge of a pre-existing condition.
–          Decina → ∆-epileptic knew of his condition & drove
III.      Omission Liability
                     i.            Baseline Test
o    Barber → removal of IV tube from a comatose patient causing death
                    ii.            Grammatical Test
                  iii.            MPC Test: “embedded omissions”
                  iv.            Exceptions:
o    Special Relationships
–          Status relationships
o    Pope v. State → ∆ had no duty to act while watching a woman savagely beat her child
–          Contractual relationships
–          Relationships defined by statutory duty
o    Jones v. United States → ∆ charged with involuntary manslaughter for failing to provide for a 10-month-old child that was not his own
o    Culpable Causation of Peril
–          Jones v. State → ∆ raped a 12-year-old girl who drowned herself
o    Innocent Causation of Peril
–          State ex rel. Kuntz v. Montana, 2000 → ∆ stabbed her boyfriend while he was beating her then drove away. Boyfriend died.
–          Vincent v. Lake Erie → “preserved the ship at the expense of the dock”
o    Undertakings
–          Olicer → ∆ let man shoot up heroin at her house and left him for dead
IV.      The Cause-in-Fact Requirement
                     i.            But for the defendant’s act would the injury have occurred? (Acosta)
                    ii.            Problems with the But-For Test:
o    Independently Sufficient Causes
o    Coincidences
o    Omissions
V.      The Proximate Cause Requirement
                     i.            Arbitrary Space-Time test
                    ii.            The Harm-Within-the-Risk test: (MPC & 12 states)
–          Gorris v. Scott
o    Doctrine of Transferred Intent
o    Problems:
–          Grammatical
–          Test cannot accommodate intervening human actors
                 iii.            The Foreseeability test (2nd minority test in criminal law; dominate test in torts)
o    Objective
–          Warner-Lambert Co.→ explosion at chewing gum factory
–          Arzon → arson’s fire spread out of control and resulted in the death of a fireman
–          Kibbe → thieves strip decedent and leave him outside in subzero temperatures in a remote area; decedent gets hit & killed by a truck
o    Problems with the Foreseeability Test:
–          The multiple-description problem
–          Intervening actor problem
–          Redundancy problem
                  iv.            The Direct Cause Test (free-will)
o    Free & voluntary intervening acts
–          Not involuntary
–          Not committed under duress
–          Not justified (necessity or balance-of-evils)
–          Not ignorant, negligent, or reckless
–          Not committed by an insane or incapacitated person
o    Stephenson → ∆ kidnapper rendered woman “irresponsible” by his kidnap & “perversions,” thus ∆ responsible for her suicide (her acts don’t count as F&V)
o    Atencio → deceased trigger-puller did not break the causal chain after ∆ recklessly encouraged him to play Russian roulette; ∆ charged w/ manslaughter
–          No duty to prevent deceased from pulling trigger; duty not to participate
o    Coincidences break the causal chain
o    Problems: Parents