Criminal Law, Prof. Eckhardt, Spring 2013
PUNISHMENT
WHY?
1. Retribution: Revenge: Retaliation: Just Deserts
a. Morally right & fully deserved
b. Should be proportionate
c. Necessary consequence of a crime
Consequentialist
2. Deterrence: General Prevention
a. Set an example.
b. Suffering for committing a crime is suppose to deter others from committing future crimes, lest they suffer the same unfortunate fate.
3. Reform: Rehabilitation: Correction
a. Restore to good
b. Return to society so reformed that he will not desire/need to commit further crimes.
4. Incapacitation: Restraint: Isolation: Disablement
a. Imprisonment à preventing future crimes by individual
b. Protect society by isolating dangerous individuals
BASIC PREMISES OF CRIMINAL LAW: Crime = Actus Reus (conduct) + Mens Rea (mental contemplation)
This is the whole exam à condensed à argue prima facie case
Criminal conduct consists of:
1. ACTUS REUS (defined in statutes à action or non-action where there is a legal duty)
a. Conduct
b. Results
c. Circumstances
2. MENS REA (bad state of mind)
3. Physical Conduct (actus reus) and Mental State (mens rea) must concur
a. Mental state causes act
4. Only harmful conduct should be made criminal
a. Statute must bear some reasonable relation to injury to the public à constitutionality arguments.
5. CAUSATION: Conduct must be the “legal (proximate) cause” of the result.
6. SENTENCING
a. PROPORTIONALITY: Person engaged in criminal conduct may only be subject to legally prescribed punishment.
b. LEGALITY: No crime or punishment without law
i. Ex post facto provision
ii. Strict construction of criminal statutes
iii. Void- for vagueness doctrine
iv. Trend away from open ended common law crimes
7. MISTAKES
a. MISTAKE OF FACT
b. MISTAKE OF LAW
c. STRICT LIABILITY
8. HOMICIDE
a. ATTEMPT
b. GROUP CRIMINALITY
c. CONSPIRACY
9. JUSTIFICATION / EXCUSE
a. SELF-DEFENSE
b. DEFENSE OF PROPERTY
c. LAW ENFORCEMENT
d. COICE OF EVILS
e. NECESSITY
f. DURESS
g. INTOXICATION** Most used à negates specific intent, but not general intent
h. INSANITY
10. CORPORATE LIABILITY
a. Due diligence
ACTUS REUS: Culpable Conduct – 2.01 à what is the act?
1. Was the act voluntary?
a. Reflex/Habit vs. Conscious
2. Was there an omission of an act?
a. Failed to act as required by statute.
b. Failed to act as required by relationship to victim.
c. Caused peril to another.
d. Voluntarily assumed care.
3. Was the act a possession?
a. Possessor must knowingly procure/receive the thing possessed or was aware of his control thereof for a sufficient period to have been able to terminate his possession.
b. An act of possession is not committed if::
i. You do not know you have the thing.
ii. You do not know the nature of the thing you have.
MENS REA: Culpable Mental States à what was the state of mind?
1. Common Law
a. Specific Intent (What was D thinking/planning at the time of the offense?): expressly required proof of a particular mental state. (Murder)
i. Attitude must match definition of the offense
1. Contemplated Conduct
2. Contemplated Impact
3. Knowledge that one/more elements of the Actus Reus exists
ii. Definition of the crime expressly:
1. Includes intent/purpose
2. Must be aware of statutory attendant circumstance
b. General Intent: any offense for which the only mens rea was a blameworthy state of mind. (Assault)
i. Any crime that does not require specific intent or impose strict liability
ii. Words: Reckless, Wantonly, Corruptly, Negligently, Willfully, Fraudulently, Maliciously, Scienter (intent/knowledge), Feloniously, Wrongfully
iii. Use MPC Organization: P à K à R à N
2. MPC 2.02: Don’t use Common Law language; Don’t worry about specific/general intent (b/c most statutes expressly include mens rea & state of mind is judicially implied) à eliminates ambiguous
or recklessly – 2.02(3)
b. If describes necessary culpability w/o distinguishing among the material elements = culpability shall apply to all material elements. – 2.02(4)
c. Element of an offense – 1.13(9)
d. Material element of an offense – 1.13(10)
CAUSATION à Did the conduct cause the result? = Jury Question
1. Common Law
a. Did the D initiate physical forces that led to a particular result?
b. Must be “cause in fact” of result (but for) à tort standard not really used in criminal law.
c. Must be “proximate (legal) cause” = reasonably foreseeable + reckless
i. Intervening Cause
1. Dependent
a. Intended/reasonably foreseeable
b. Sufficiently related: not too remote/accidental
2. Independent
a. Not intended/reasonably foreseeable
b. Sufficiently independent: unfair/unjust to hold responsible
2. MPC 2.03
a. Must be “cause in fact” of result (but for) à tort standard not really used in criminal law.
b. Must be “proximate (legal) cause” = reasonably foreseeable
i. Purposely/Knowingly – 2.03(2)
1. Actual result must be w/in the purpose/contemplation of the actor UNLESS:
a. Different person/property (transferred intent)
b. Same kind of injury/harm designed (contemplated) AND
c. Not to remote/accidental
ii. Recklessly/Negligently – 2.03(3)
1. Actual result must be w/in risk of which the actor is aware/should be aware
a. Different person/property or injury would have been more serious than caused
b. Actual result involved the same kind of injury
c. Not too remote
iii. Strict Liability – 2.03(4)
1. Actual result must be probable consequence of the actor’s conduct
