1. STATUTE 2. CASE LAW, 3. CL or PP ARG. IF STATUTE SAYS SUPP COMM LAW, use CL. CAN supp with MPC if it doesn’t say use CL but most time MPC is just in the state statute. 1. what charges THEN defenses? (ALL OFFENSES/TOPICS – no actus reus (involuntary conduct or conduct imputed in omission; need to look at ambig term here and argue it?), no mens rea (not meet the culp req or mistake that negates the culp), hom and agg mitt and fm and causation and dp, attempt, imposs defense, conspire, imputation (mens rea imputed in vol intox and conduct imputed in accomplice), THEN defense – justif (defense of force, or necessity or mistake as to being just) and excuses (mistake as to law, insane, other disab), rape and hate crimes change crim patterns. 2. PP and theories of pun with them IRAC – remember counter args and then conclude w/ why my approach is better. – CL issues – conspiracies need bil agree at common law; in omissions, conduct of crime imputed to you so as at to charge you with it in the CL, Common law homicide – heat of passion and malice aforethought
a. Nature of crim law
i. Started as CL. Now coded by Fed and state. Crts interpret but no auth to change.
ii. CRIM/CIVIL DIFF: civil = compensating for a harm and placing resp on party most able to avoid the harm. Crim = statutes (legality princ), case laws (statutory interp: UNABMIG vs AMBIG (SC or FI) )and policies (theories of pun).
1. Culp Req: for crim, must be aware; act purposefully, knowingly, reckless
a. Culpability (mens rea) – state of mind. What the actor thinks.
i. Civil law is about compensating a victim
ii. Crim law is about pun, there must be an element of culpability
iii. Removed from victim – more about the actor and their mind
2. Consent Def: Allowed in civil not in Crim unless it vitiate the harm; with consent, there is no harm. Crim law theres no consent to bodily harm.
3. De Minimis Defense: Crim law addresses only harms of suff seriousness. (crime v. vio: illegal parking is not a crime).
4. Justif/Excuse Defense: in crim, choice of 2 evils; even if not just, actor can be barred from liab if circs render blameless (insane). (civil doesn’t recog justif and excuses – Still liab if you harm the dock).
5. Moral Blame: crim law reflects moral blameworthiness deserving condemnation. civil reflects the fair allocation of loss of something.
a. defense protect a person from condemn as crim if they aren’t at fault.
iii. CRIM – CULPABILITY, MORAL BLAMWORTHINESS, OUTSIDE ACCEPTABLE SOCIETY BEHAVIOR, CHARGES BROUGHT BY THE STATE.
b. STRUCTURE: 3 doctrines of Crim law liab – COURSE OUTLINE minus policy –***YOU MUST HAVE ALL THREE IN CRIM LAW – on exam, ARE THERE ALL THREE? ***WAS ITCONDUCT VOL (actus reus – if terms amb, look in statue or arg pp) AND CULP (mens rea – if silent read in reck)? IF NOT, CAN IT BE IMPUTED? IS THERE DEFENSE?
i. Offense- elements that define the crime.
1. conduct – actus reus – what actor does MUST BE VOL and DON’T PUN FOR THOUGHTS, AND
2. culp – mens rea – state of mind (purpose, knowledge, reckless, neg – if silent read in reckless); can be acts and omissions, esp if omission in the statute.
ii. Imputation – actor liab even if didn’t satisfy offense els (conduct and culp); DIFF FROM ATTMEPT OR CONSPIRACY
1. Conduct can be imputed (i.e. accomplice liab, OMISSIONS AT CL))
2. Culp can be imputed (i.e. vol. intox. We will impute culp; if he HADNT been drunk, he WOULDVE known)
iii. Defense – conditions under which an actor will be acquitted though he satisfies els of offense or have els imputed to her.
1. justification defense – conduct tolerated or encouraged b/c special justif circs.
2. excuse defense – actor not blameworthy and thus excused.
3. EX- MPC 211.1(2) – agg assault – person guilty of AA if a) attempts to cause bod inj under circs manif….. b) attempts to cause bod inj to other w/ dead weap
a. STEP 1 (pull apart statute): CONDUCT (vol?) –parts a and b above…..Did he satisfy??? Yes, inj were severe and knifes dead weap
i. STEP 2: DEFS: “bod inj” “serious bod inj” “deadly weapon”…do these match case? (if not in statute, look in case, or if not in case arg COMMON LAW or POLICY)
b. STEP 3: CULP –did he meet any of these???-purpose – conduct and result are conscious objects, OR-knowing – aware of conduct, OR-reckless – conscious disregard for risk
c. STEP 4: CAN IT BE IMPUT (culp) 2.08 intox – when recklessness….he unawareness is immaterial….
d. STEP 5: Def…any? Justif excuse? excuse defense- (2.09 Duress…)
e. IF SILENT IN STAUTE AS TO CULP, read in RECKELSSNESS
2. LEGALITY PRINCIPLE – Nothing can be a crime unless it’s written down in the law (CL); need notice
a. DOCTRINES – deal with statute concerns for civil and crim law
i. void for vagueness – STATUTES must not be vague, if so its unconstitutional. Needs to give person fair notice of whats criminal.
1. vague v. ambiguous – provision is vague if not define prohibited conduct. Amb if has 2 or more interpretations (this is not unconstitutional).
ii. Ex post facto law – invalidate laws that crim prior, lawful behavior and aggravate pun for greater than when crime was committed. CANT CREATE NEW CRIMES.
1. Rationale for doctrines: effective deterrence and over deterrence – prohibited conduct must be clearly defined; know what is and what isnt
2. EX: MPC v stat
, being with someone is not possessing their weapons. Culp – reck or malice. Here she had mal intent. Amb: FIRST, have to make arg what is/isnt amb. what is possess? What pt does this become destruct….D wants SC. P wants FI, arg is els are same as whats in a bomb so are same as bomb…. –Attempted Explosion of a Destructive Device with Intent to Murder Conduct – attempt to explode or ignite. Did she/didn’t she have this. Culp – have intent to commit murder? What to fulfill? Ambiguity…
i. WHAT Theories of pun here based on these statutes: retrib? Only punish if you reach level of culp, not just neg. allows ppl to know, reflect on what they knows blameworthy.
4. Actus Reus=acts MUST HAVE VOL ACT UNDER CRIM LAW (CL AND MPC).
a. Must be vol movements of the body, NOT THOUGHTS alone, but agreement can be a man intent.
b. Unconscious or reflexes don’t count or force, duress, etc
c. You can’t be punished for acts alone – have to be bad acts.
d. Liab for omission (**WAS THERE DUTY AND CAUSATION (omis the but for or pc of harm, also hom, what degree?))– (only focus on conduct, then look at culp. according to statute, its not in common law). TYP NO DUTY to aid at CL but 2 ways to be liab in MPC:
i. defined in offense – omission IS the offense (by statute –for offense or a principle statute)
1. If you don’t act in a given situation you ARE crim liab
ii. Conduct imputed – omission of conduct when D fulfills certain req including legal duty and capacity to perform . Conduct called for in statute isn’t satisfied, but if you were in situation and failed to act, liab is imputed to you. Usually only if theres legal duty to perform – then treat offenders get imputed the offense conduct:
1. DUTY 4 ways to impose liab by imputation. MPC 201:
a. Legal duty to aid,
i. Duty for All LIABITY for omissions req:
1. Landowner (pools…)
2. Relationships (mom kid….)
4. Continuing duty of care to one who vol assumes resp for another
5. actor created peril, even if not crim
b. youre aware of harm,
c. you could’ve taken measures and
d. you didn’t do anything
LOOK at offense in statute then PRINCPLE