Crim Law/Prof Thomas
Fall 2010
Legality & Statutory interpretation
· Lenity doctrine: Biased in favor of accused
o Must give statute it’s plain and definite meaning
o May seek assistance from purposes appearing from statute as a whole, phraseology, words ordinary or technical, law prior to statute, mischief to be remedied, and the title.
· Due process
o Requires fair notice that act constitutes offense
o Courts cannot create new offense by adding terms, inserting or deleting words, or enlarging statute, or by giving terms new or false meanings and apply retroactively
o No Ex Post Facto laws
o No Bill of Attainders (legislative act declaring someone guilty without trial)
· Statutory clarity: must not be so vague that men of average intelligence must guess at its meaning and differ in its application
o Unclear statute is susceptible to enforcement in an arbitrary or discriminatory matter
Actus Reus
Acts
Model Penal Code
§ 2.01(1): “Not guilty…unless his liability is based on conduct which includes a voluntary act or the omission to perform an act of which he is physically capable.”
Not voluntary acts:
· Reflex/convulsion
· Bodily movement during unconsciousness or sleep
· Conduct during hypnosis or resulting from hypnotic suggestion
Exception:
§ 2.05(1): Voluntary act requirement does not apply to violations (punishable by maximum of fines or civil penalties only) unless included in the definition of the offense. Or, strict liability offenses.”
· Physical or external part of the crime, including harm and causation
o E.g. A plants dynamite around B’s house and detonates it (acts) causing B’s death (social harm)
· Not guilty of a crime unless act if voluntary
o Movement of the body which follows our volition
Omission
Common Law
Model Penal Code
Duty to act:
· Status (H/W; Parent/Child; Master/Servant)
· Contractual Obligation
· Omissions Following an Act
o Duty to aid injured or endangered is set about conditions that led there
o Voluntarily assumed and secluded from others help
· Statutory duty
§2.01(2): “Liability…may not be based on an omission…unless:
· Omission is expressly made sufficient by law
· Duty to perform the omitted act is otherwise imposed by law
* Still need mens rea, causation
Mens Rea
· Broad meaning: a general immorality of motive, vicious will, or an evil-meaning mind
· Narrow meaning: the particular mental state provided for in the definition of an offense
· Under MPC, each element must have been completed with requisite state of mind.
o §2.02(4): If mens rea for any element assume for each element of the offense. Unless, otherwise obvious from construction.
o Does not apply to illegality unless so defined
o If silent, each element is “purposely, knowingly, or recklessly”…NOT NEGLIGENTLY.
o Problems in statutory interpretation: Culpability modifies each offense unless otherwise stated but if term appears in middle of definition likely suggests a contrary purpose.
Definitions
Common Law/Pre-MPC
Model Penal Code
Intentionally: “it is his desire to cause the social harm; or he acts with knowledge that the social harm is virtually certain to occur as a result of his conduct”
Purposely:
Context of result or conduct: conscious object to engage in conduct of that nature or to cause such a result.
With respect to attendant circumstances: is aware of the exis
untary).
Mistake of fact
· Not really a defense…negates a mens rea requirement of an offense
· An actor who is mistaken about some fact “does not have the same kind of opportunity to avoid doing evil”
Common Law
Model Penal Code
Strict Liability Offenses: Under no circumstances does mistake of fact negate criminal responsibility.
Specific-Intent Offenses: Not guilty of an offense if his mistake of fact negates the specific-intent portion of the crime. (e.g. Mistakenly thinking property was abandoned.)
General-Intent Offenses:
Ordinary approach: Not guilty if mistake was reasonable and honestly held.
Another approach, Moral-Wrong Doctrine: should be no exculpation where if the facts were as believed, his conduct would still be immoral.
Still another approach, Legal-Wrong Doctrine: Guilty of offense if he would have been guilty of different (less serious) crime had the facts been as he thought.
§ 2.02(1): Not guilty unless he acted “purposely, knowingly, recklessly, or negligently as the law may require with respect to each material element of the offense.”
§ 2.04(1): Mistake is a defense if it negates the mental state required to establish any element of the offense.
Exception: Defense of mistake-of-fact is not available if actor would have been guilty of another offense had the circumstances been as he supposed…but punishment is at level of the lesser offense.
