Wadie Said
Criminal Law
Fall 2012
I. Introduction
A. Presumption of Innocence: In US, person is innocent until proven guilty
1. Owens v. State
a. Circumstantial evidence can sustain conviction where presumption of innocence is unreasonable
b. Jury decides the facts – only overturned in limited circumstances (rational jury)
B. Jury Nullification
1. Jury can refuse to convict even if prosecution has proved its case beyond a reasonable doubt
2. State v. Ragland
a. Jury does not have right to be informed of JN power
b. Defense argues part of right to fair trial
c. Policy: Arguments over whether JN is a good thing
C. Theories of Punishment
1. Utilitarian: Justification based on usefulness of punishment
a. General Deterrence – Deter society as a whole
b. Individual Deterrence – Deter an individual from committing crime again
c. Incapacitation – Remove from society
d. Reform – Set person on better life track
2. Retributive: Punish someone because they deserve it
a. Paying debt brings criminal back into moral equilibrium
3. Civil Commitment: Protect society by removing certain individuals
4. Case Law
a. Queen v. Dudley & Stephens
i. Utilitarian punishment
ii. Will it deter D & S from doing crime again?
iii. Will it deter society from committing same crime?
D. Constitutional Principles of Punishment
1. Eighth Amendment: No cruel and unusual punishment; excessive bail; excessive fines
2. Coker v. Georgia: Georgia statute requiring death penalty for rape of adult woman unconstitutional
3. Ewing v. California: California “Three Strike You’re Out Law” upheld. It is falls under utilitarian punishment and does not violate 8th Amendment. Court views following factors: (1) criminal history, (2) parole, (3) state interest
E. Legality
1. No punishment without law
2. Corollaries to Legality
a. Law must be understandable to reasonable law-abiding citizen (notice)
b. No delegation of policy matters (must be determined by legal system; no police discretion)
c. Ambiguity in statute should be read in light most favorable to defendant (lenity)
3. City of Chicago v. Morales
a. Court struck down statutes due to
i. Uncertainty to public as to what conduct it prohibits
ii. Police did not have adequate guidelines as to how to enforce statute
4. Muscarello v. United States
a. Defining term “firearm” in statute
b. Lenity – Does not always automatically permit verdict for defendant
II. Actus Reus
A. Definition: Comprehensive notion of the ‘act’ of a crime in connection with the voluntary physical movement of the actor
B. Common Law: Actus: Physical movement (voluntary conduct); Reus: Harmful result of act
C. MPC § 2.01
1. Person not guilty unless conduct includes a voluntary act or omission
2. Not voluntary acts:
a. reflex or convulsion
b. bodily moveent during unconsciousness or sleep
c. conduct during hypnosis or resulting from hypnotic suggestion
d. bodily movement otherwise not product of effort or determination of actor
3. Liability may not be based on omission unaccompanied by action unless:
a. omission or expressly made sufficient by law OR
b. duty to perform omitted act is otherwise imposed by law
4. Possession is an act
D. Types of Crimes:
1. Result Crime: Murder (punish result of murder – actually killing someone)
2. Conduct Crime: DUI (punish conduct of drinking/driving – possibly no harmful result)
E. Martin v. State
1. Conviction overturned because Martin did no voluntary act to violate law
2. Police took him to highway and then arrested him for public drunkenness
F. State v. Utter
1. Military man kills his son – convicted of manslaughter
2. Conditioned response defense not valid because there was no evidence to show act was involuntary
G. Omissions
1. People v. Beardsley
a. No formal relationship—did he assume duty by moving her downstairs?
b. Rule of Law based on legal duty – not moral duty
c. Must have legal role of “protector”
2. Barber v. Superior Court
a. Policy on doctor care—stopping treatment
b. What are the differences between the two cases?
i. Duties owed to the victim
ii. No duty to continue treatment once proven ineffective—“proportionate treatment”
3. Duress?
a. No actus reus because person is not mentally making voluntary movement
4. Epileptic Seizures?
a. If no notice, it is not voluntary
b. If notice, court can rule it is voluntary
III. Mens Rea
A. Definition: The mental state required to commit a crime
1. BROAD: A person has acted with mens rea if they committed actus reus with a “vicious will,” “evil mind,” “moral blameworthiness,” or “culpable” state of mind.
2. NARROW: A person commits actus reus with particular mental state set out expressly in definition of the crime.
B. Common Law
1. Maliciously
a. Intentional or reckless cause of a social harm of an offense
2. Intent
a. Conscious object to cause result OR
b. Knew harm was virtually certain to occur as result of conduct
3. Willful Blindness
a. Person is aware of fact
b. Correctly believes that it exists OR
c. Suspects it exists and purposely avoids learning if suspicion is correct
4. Criminal Negligence
a. Peron should be aware (but isn’t) that conduct creates a substantial and unjustifiable risk of social harm
5. Recklessly
a. Conscious disregard for a substantial and unjustifiable risk of social harm
C. Model Penal Code § 2.02
1. Purposely
a. If element involves nature of conduct or result threof, it is conscious object to engage in conduct of that nature of or to cause such a result
b. If element involves attendant circumstances, person is aware of existence of such circumstances or believes or hopes they exist
2. Knowingly
a. If element involves nature of conduct or attendant circumstances, person is aware that conduct is of that nature or such circumstances appears
b. If element involves result of his conduct, he is aware that it is practically certain his conduct will cause such a result
3. Recklessly
a. Person acts recklessly with respect to material element of offense when he consciously disregards a substantial and unjustifiable risk that the material element exists or will result from his conduct.
4. Negligently
a. Person acts negligently with respect to material element of offense when he should be aware of a substantial and unjustifiable risk that the material element exists or will result from his conduct.
D. Statutory Interpretation
1. Common issue is whether mens rea term applies to all or only some of actus reus element
a. Look at legislative intent
b. Position of mens rea term in definition OR position of punctuation
c. Presumption that mens rea terms do not apply to attendant circumstances
E. Strict Liability
1. Person is guilty of crime regardless of mens rea. Only actus reus requirement needs to be satisfied
2. SL and laws without mens rea requirement are generally disfavored
3. Generally found in public welfare offenses
a. Administrative rules; usually light punishments; conduct is only wrong because it is prohibited; violations often threaten safety of others in society
4. Model Penal Code § 2.05
a. Allows SL only for “violations” and not “crimes”
F. Mistake of Fact
1. Common Law Principles:
a. Specific Intent: A mistake of fact negates the specific intent; a person is not liable even for unreasonable mistake of fact
b. General Intent: A person is not guilty of general intent offense if mistake of fact was reasonable
c. Exceptions: Moral Wrong Doctrine and Legal Wrong Doctrine
d. Never a defense of SL offense
2. Model Penal Cod
uing harm
i. People v. Rideout:
i. Third car was intervening cause
ii. Proximate cause not established because deceased had reached safety of side of road and then chose to go back to car in middle of road
ii. Velazquez v. State:
i. Cause in fact has been established but criminal liability not imposed because:
1. It is beyond scope of any fair assessment of danger
2. Unjust because it is unfair or against public policy
7. MPC § 2.03
a. Conduct is cause of result when:
i. It is an antecedent but for which result in question would not have occurred; and
ii. The relationship between conduct and result satisfies any additional causal requirement imposed by Code and by law defining offense
b. When purposely or knowingly causing a particular result is an element of an offense, the element is not established if actual result is not within purpose or contemplation of actor unless:
i. Actual result differs from that designed or contemplated, as case may be, only in respect that a different person or different property is injured or affected or that injury or harm designed or contemplated would have been more serious or more extensive that that cause; or
ii. Actual result involves same kind of injury or harm as that designed or contemplated and is not too remote or accidental in its occurrence to have a just bearing on the actor’s liability or gravity of his offense
c. When recklessly or negligently causing a particular result is an element of an offense, the element is not established if the actual result is not within the risk of which the actor is aware or, in case of negligence, should be aware unless:
i. Actual result differs from probable result only in respect that a different person or property is injured or affected or that the probable injury or harm would have been more serious or more extensive that that cause; or
ii. Actual result involves the same kind of injury or harm as probable result and is not too remote or accidental in its occurrence to have a just bearing on actor’s liability or on gravity of his offense
d. When causing a particular result is a material element of an offense for which absolute liability is imposed by law, the element in not established unless actual result is a probable consequence of actor’s conduct
