Crim Law Cole Fall 2012
Crime: any social harm defined and made punishable by law
Why punish?
· Imposing Punishment Justifications for punishment fall into 2 categories:
· 1) Retributive- claims that punishment is justified b/c people deserve it. Tend to be backward looking b/c seek to justify punishment on the basis of the offender’s behavior in the past
· 2) Utilitarian- Believes that justification lies in the useful purposes that punishment seeks. Tend to be forward-looking b/c they seek to justify punishment on the basis of the good consequences it is expected to produce in the future.
· The purposes are:
o a. Prevention
o b. Rehabilitation
o c. Incapacitation
Deterrence and Retributive (Theories that explain Criminal Law)
· Retribution: idea that people deserve what they get. People should be punished if they deserve it and shouldn’t if they don’t
· Deontological: not dependent on the consequences just the right thing to do. Looks mostly at rules
· General Deterrence/Utilitarian: punishing a defender will deter others from doing the same thing
· Hypo: Person commits a crime and while running away gets shot by a cop and becomes paralyzed. Should he also get punished?
o Retribution Approach: No he is already deterred so what’s the point
o Utilitarian Approach: No because there is not social benefit
· Optimal Deterrence: How much to spend on deterrence to get a favorable outcome
Responsibility In General: Mens Rea
· Criminal Intent: a collective of various states of mind. It has at times been used to express blameworthiness and at others it has emphasized it is not limited to actual intention
· Mens Rea: Mental part of the crime. Culpable state of mind. Latin for “guilty mind”
· Actus Reus: Physical part of the crime
MENS REA
· Common Law
o General Intent
§ Defendant desired to commit the act
o Specific Intent
· Statutory Provisions
o Intentionally
o Maliciously
o Willfully
o Strict Liability
· Model Penal Code
· Purposely: consciously engage in the particular conduct in question
· Knowingly: aware that his conduct is of a certain kind or that certain circumstances exists.
· Recklessly: Consciously disregards a substantial and unjustifiable risk Subjective Standard
· Negligently: Should be aware of a substantial and unjustifiable risk Objective Standard
CRIMINAL NEGLIGENCE
· Any conduct, except conduct intentionally harmful or recklessly disregardful of an interest of others, which falls below the standard established by law for the protection of others against unreasonable risk of harm
· Gian Cursio v. State
· Defendant held him out to be able to cure, despite not being medically qualified to do so. Thus, he is measured by the standard of other such medical personnel. Good faith/bad faith is irrelevant as this is measured purely from an objective perspective. This is a gross deviation from the general practice of treatment
RECKLESSLY
· Conscious risk; Knew what you were doing was wrong but did it anyway
· If a statute does not have mens rea language, the model penal code thinks the mens rea needs to be recklessness or above.
· State v. Peterson
· For purposes of determining a person is reckless it is not enough that they took a risk but whether that risk was substantial and unjustifiable.
· State v Howard
· The difference between the minimum required mens rea of recklessness for manslaughter and criminal negligence for negligent homicide is simply whether the defendant was aware, but consciously disregarded a substantial risk the result would happen, or was unaware but ought to have been aware of a substantial risk the result would happen.
· Transferred Intent: Defendant might not have known he would get in the middle of the argument, but his intent when shooting was to shoot Johnson and the focus of the intent question is not upon the actual victim but the intended victim which the defendant was aware of the risk.
Negligence—Objective standard
Recklessness—Subjective Standard (what’s going on in the mind; mental culpability)
Intent: General, Specific, and Conditional
General Intent
· General intent exists when the prohibited result may reasonably be expected to follow from the offender’s voluntary act even without any specific intent by the offender
· The word willfully is used to denote general intent
Specific Intent
· Specific intent exists where from the circumstances the offender must have subjectively desired the prohibited result.
· Burglary is a specific intent crime
· Thacker v. Commonwealth
· To do an act with intent to commit one crime cannot be an attempt to commit another crime though it might result in such other crime. Shooting into a tent, not meaning to kill, and then not killing, cannot be charged as attempted murder.
Conditional Intent
· Conditional intent means that a defendant may not negate a proscribed intent merely by requiring the victim to comply with a condition.
· Holloway v. United States
· For example, a person saying, “Get out of the car or I'll shoot you” satisfies the “intent to kill” – so long as the prosecution can prove beyond a reasonable doubt that the defendant would have at least attempted to harm or kill if the victim had not complied (in other words, the prosecution must show that the threat was real, and not a bluff)
Malice
· Requires only an intent to do harm without justification or excuse
· Malice Aforethought: an intent to do the very harm done, or harm of a similar nature, or a wanton and willful disregard of an obvious likelihood of causing such harm, without justification, excuse or mitigation
· State v. Natsoff
· Modification may have been intentional, but intention is not synonymous with maliciousness. The statute clearly requires a showing of a malicious state of mind (wish to vex, annoy, injure another person, or intent to do a wrongful act). Government failed to prove that defendant intended to start the fire, or which is the requisite intent for liability for maliciousness.
Knowledge
· Relation of knowledge to convictability is a variable factor within a wide range. Sometimes knowledge is required for guilt, other times strict liability is used where knowledge or lack of knowledge is immaterial for conviction
· State v. Beale
· Need actual positive knowledge, is not enough what a reasonable person would have known that the goods were stolen. The “ordinary reasonable man” test fails to distinguish between civil and criminal responsibility. The “ordinary reasonable man” test can be used as a standard to determine one’s intelligence.
WILLFUL BLINDNESS
· Occurs when the defendant has a suspicion that something is the case, but in order to be able to deny knowledge, has purposely refrained from making inquiries which would have led to the knowledge in question.
· United States v. Jewell
· Conscious purpose to avoid knowing. If you have an innocent purpose than that’s OK. However if you deliberately close you eyes to the truth when you are aware with a high probability that you are carrying something illegally.
WILLFUL
· When used in a criminal statute it generally means an act done 1) with a bad purpose 2) without justifiable excuse 3) stubbornly, obstinately perversely 4) characterize a thing done w/o ground for believing it is lawful or
· Fields v. United States
· Willful means no more that the person knows what he is doing. Intentionally or deliberated. Even if he has a good faith belief even if he thinks the documents are privileged. Good faith is not enough if the behavior is intentional and deliberate.
STRICT LIABILITY
· Types of SL Crimes:
o 1) Public welfare crimes/offenses
o 2) Regulatory crimes
o 3) “Civil” crimes
o 4) Malim prohibitum crimes- crimes that society prohibits
o 5) Malim in se- Crimes that are bad in themselves
§ a) There is no strict liability for murder or kidnapping b/c the highest levels of crime have the highest levels of mens rea
· Commonwealth v. Olshefski
o Coal driver with weight of coal too much. Broke statute and was guilty
Mens Rea and Mistake
· Ignorance or mistake is a defense only when it negates the existence of such a state of mind that is essential to the commission of an offense or when it establishes a state of mind that constitutes a defense under a rule of law relating to defenses.
· If there is strict liability, the mistake defense will fail
· If the statute charges mens rea of purposely or knowingly then it is a specific intent crime
· If the statute charges recklessly or negligently, then it is a general intent crime
· The defense of mistake of fact requires that the accused act in good faith and with reasonableness. Mistake is never a defense to rape; rape is a general intent crime.
· FEWER defenses for general intent; MORE for specific intent crimes
Mistake of Fact
· a) A pure factual mistake
· b) A fact is something that you can tell with your five senses. If you need a judicial ruling to figure out the answer to the question then it is not a pure fact.
· c) Specific
the major facets of a choice (quality of thought)
§ Premeditated: To think about before hand (quantity of thought)
v Some jurisdictions say no time is too short, any interval sufficient
v Others require that D had chance to give a 2nd thought
Ø Note: Heat of passion not premeditated, thus a mitigating factor to manslaughter
§ Murder: Intent to Inflict Grievous Bodily Injury (implied intent)
· Rule: D does not intend to kill, but malice is implied because he intends to cause grievous bodily harm to another.
· Almost always a second degree
· Grievous bodily harm: grave injury giving rise to apprehension of danger of life, health, limb
§ Murder: Extreme Recklessness “Depraved heart” (implied intent)
· Rule: D does not intend to kill, but malice is implied because there is an extreme indifference to the value of human life (w/w disregard of likelihood and natural tendency of behavior to cause death or bodily harm
– e.g. Act; shooting in a crowded room, speeding DUI in bad weather, Russian roulette
– e.g. Omission: parent fails to feed, owning aggressive dog and failing to train/secure
Ø Almost always second degree
· Distinguishing murder from manslaughter
o Reckless: D consciously disregarding a substantial and unjustifiable risk to human life
o Negligently: D should be, but is not, aware that conduct is unjustifiable risky
Ø Implied malice is lacking – thus, manslaughter
§ Murder: Felony-Murder Rule (unintentional)
· C.L. Rule: D is guilty of murder if he kills another during the commission or attempted commission of any felony
· F.M is a strict liability offense: mens rea not required.
· Justifications
Ø Deterrence: Enhanced risk will cause felon to be more careful
v Counter arg: Usually, D could be convicted anyways, deterrence doesn’t work
Ø Defending sanctity of human life: F.M reflects society’s judgment of seriousness of crime
v Counter arg: Unfair, separate offenses, does not distinguish recklessness (conflicting with proportional punishment)
Ø Transferred intent: Intent of felony xferred.
v Counter arg: Ordinarily, law does not recognize transfer from one social harm to a different and greater harm
Ø Easing P burden of proof: F.M do not involve innocent homicide. Malice evident
· Limits
Ø Inherently dangerous felony: Many states limit to homicides occurring during the commission of felonies dangerous to human life
v Test 1: Can the crime (in the abstract) be committed without creating a substantial risk someone will be killed?
ü e.g. Doctor practicing illegally (felony) patient dies, not felony murder because not inherently dangerous. People v. Burroughs
v Test 2: Are the facts and circumstances such that the felony was inherently dangerous under the circumstances?
Ø “Independent felony.” Merger limitation: F.M. only applies if felony independent of, or collateral to, the homicide. If not, then it merges and cannot serve as bases for F.M. conviction. Is death an integral part of the same crime as the underlying felony?
v Rationale: No deterrence if already intending the harm
Ø Res Gestae Requirement: Homicide must occur “within the res gestae (during the commission or attempt) of the felony
ü Note: If strictly applied, it limits F.M. rule, if broadly applied, it extends the rule
· Proximity requirement: Must be close proximity in time/distance between felony/homicide
v R.G. being when actor reached point where could be convicted for felony, ends when completed
v Or, most courts say it ends when felon reaches a place of safety
· Causal requirement: Felonious nature of conduct caused death
v e.g. Plane carrying drugs crashes/kills. Drugs did not cause death unless flying low to avoid cops.
