CRIMINAL LAW
Butler
Fall 2006
III. Modern Role of Crim. Statutes p.2
A. Lenity Doctrine p. 2
B. Statutory Interpretation p. 2
IV. Actus Reas p. 2-6
A. Voluntary Act p. 3
B. Omissions p. 4
C. Possession p. 5
D. Cases (VA & O) p. 5
E. Social Harm p. 6
F. Attendant Circ. p. 6
IV. Mens Rea p. 6-17
A. Definition p. 6
B. CL MR p. 7
C. MPC MR p. 8
D. Transfer. Intent p. 9
E. Cases p. 10
F. Stat. Interp. MR p. 12
G. Strict Liability p. 12
H. Mistake and MR p. 14-17
Mistake of Fact p. 14
Mistake of Law p. 16
V. Causation p. 17-21
A. Cause in fact p. 17
B. Proximate cause p. 18
C. CL Causation p. 19
(Subs. Rules)
D. MPC Causation p. 20
VI. Criminal Homicide p. 21-31
A. CL Murder p. 21
B. MPC Murder p. 23
C. CL Manslaughter p. 23
D. MPC Manslaughter p. 26
E. Unintentional Killings p. 27
F. Murder Chart p. 30
VII. Rape p. 31-35
A. CL Rape p. 31
B. AR Rape Cases p. 32
C. MR Rape Cases p. 33
D. Statutory Rape p. 33
E. CL Mistake/Rape p. 34
F. MPC Rape p. 34
VIII. Defenses p. 35-39
A. Self Defense p. 35
1. CL p. 35
2. MPC p. 35
3. Battered Woman p. 37
C. Necessity p. 38
1. CL
2. MPC
A. Duress p. 39
IX. Inchoate Offenses p. 40-49
A. Solicitation
B. Attempt p. 40
Impossibility Def p. 43
MPC p. 44
C. Conspiracy p. 47
MPC p. 47
Pinkerton p. 47
Cases p. 48
X. Accomplice Liability p. 49-55
A. CL p. 49
B. MPC p. 51
Cases p. 53
XI. Exam Guide (MPC Guide) p. 55-56
Always ask:
1. What was the conduct?
2. What was the state of mind?
Chapter III: Modern Role of Criminal Statutes
Keeler v. Superior Court Using common law origins to explain a statute
D beats his wife and stomps her stomach and baby, intentionally killing the fetus
D argues not murder b/c statute requires the killing of a Human Being and a fetus isn’t a HB, according to case law.
P says medical advances have changed the meaning
Would deny Keeler his due process rights. Would not give him fair warning of the change in the statute and it would be retroactive since the conduct was not a crime when it was committed and the enlargement of the statute would not have been foreseeable to Mr. Keeler.
Holding: D not guilty b/c statute based on codified common law, which didn’t consider a fetus a HB. Doesn’t matter if viable. Not legislative intent
“Void-for-Vagueness”
A criminal statute must not be so vague that men of common intelligence must necessarily guess at its meaning and differ as to its application
A statute must give sufficient warning so that men may conduct themselves accordingly
It’s very hard for a “void-for-vagueness” argument to be successful unless constitutional rights are being infringed upon
Courts don’t want to reward ignorance or misunderstandings of the law
Statutory Interpretation
When a statute is unclear or ambiguous, a court’s primary function is to ascertain the intent of the legislature that enacted the law
They look to dictionaries, case law, how other words in the statute were interpreted, legislative history, etc
If, after careful analysis, the meaning remains uncertain, the lenity doctrine requires strict construction of statutes (ambiguity should be construed in favored of the defendant) – courts will only resort to this if after seizing upon everything, the court can’t make any more than a guess as to the legislature’s intent, used as a tie breaker
US v. Foster Ambiguity in the statute wording or in the def. of a word
D arrested for trafficking meth, also had a firearm, charged with using or carrying a firearm during drug trafficking.
Argument over definition of word “carry”
Method for Solving Statute Ambiguity
look at statute
look at case law – previous court decisions
used a dictionary.
use related authority
look at legislative intent
implement rule of leniency if still ambiguous.
Chapter IV: Actus Reus
Actus Reus +
re possession, or the failure to terminate possession once the Δ learns of the item’s presence, is sufficient.
· Constructive Possession is also found to be a voluntary act. This is where the Δ may have not exercised physical dominion and control over the item, but the proximity to the item or the Δ ability to gain control or dominion over the item is sufficient.
2. Common law Involuntary Act – An act which the individual had no conscious control.
· These may include acts done while unconscious, sleepwalking, or acts resulting from physical causes such as an epileptic seizure or other uncontrollable spasm.
· They also may include bodily movements caused by being struck by another person or object (Falling asleep at the wheel of a car is NOT an involuntary act).
· The law does not punish involuntary movement because it cannot deter involuntary movement. If the person acts involuntarily, it is as if no act occurred.
· *Be careful with this category because if there is at least onevoluntary act the Δ may be criminally liable e.g. a Δ who knew he was subject to epileptic seizures voluntarily drove and subsequently killed four people when he lost control of the car during an epileptic seizure. He was convicted of negligent vehicular homicide because the act of driving satisfied the “voluntary act” element of the crime.
· Confusing cases:
o An act is not involuntary merely because the actor does not remember performing it
§ one may not remember an act, or he may have done so out of habit, but if the act was controlled by his mind it was voluntary.
o An act is not involuntary merely because someone pressured the actor to do it.
§ D may be acquitted of theft on the grounds of duress, a criminal defense, but the “voluntary act” requirement is met.
