Criminal Law Outline – Said
Fall 2010
I. Princples of Criminal Law
· Theories:
a. Utilitarianism – Looks to the future; Punishment is not for the prior wrongdoing, but to prevent future crime.
· General Deterrence – D is punished in order to deter the community from committing the crime.
· Specific Deterrence – D is punished to deter D from future criminal activity.
· Rehabilitation – Future crime is prevented by rehabilitating D so that D will not want or need to commit crimes in the future.
b.Retribution (“Just Deserts”) – Punishment is justified as a deserved response to a criminal offense. Retributivists punish because of the offense, regardless of whether the punishment will deter future crime.
· Proportionality of Punishment – Punishment should be proportional to the offense committed.
a. Utilitarian – Punishment is proportional if it inflicts no more pain than necessary to deter future crime.
b.Retributive – Punishment should be proportional to the harm caused on the present occasion , taking into account the actor’s degree of culpability.
c. Different Results – Could occur in determining how much punishment is proportional to the offense.
· Ex: A recidivist is punished more severely than a first time offender. Utilitarian would say long imprisonment may be needed to deter a recidivist. Retributive would say punishment should be proportional to the crime just committed; criminal paid his debt for previous offenses.
· Jury Nullification – When the jury decides that the prosecution has proven its case beyond a reasonable doubt , but for reasons of conscience the jury acquits the defendant.
· Occurs when jury feels sympathetic to the defendant; when jury feels victim was significantly at fault; when the jury disagrees with the logic of the law.
· Jury’s don’t have the right to nullify, but they have the power to nullify. Therefore, D is not entitled to have the jury instructed on its power to nullify.
· D cannot be reprosecuted after an acquittal.
· Legality – “No crime without pre-existent law; no punishment without pre-existent law.”
· Constitutional Law – Ex Post Facto Clause
· Fair Notice – A person may not be punished for an offense unless the statute is sufficiently clear that a person of ordinary intelligence can understand its meaning.
· Nondiscriminatory Enforcement – Criminal statute should not be so broadly worded that it is susceptible to discriminatory enforcement by law enforcement officers.
· Burden of Proof – D is presumed innocent; Due process clauses of 5th and 14th Amendments requires the government to prove “beyond a reasonable doubt of every fact necessary to constitute the crime charged.
II. Actus Reus
· Definition – the physical, or external, component of a crime
· Two Elements:
a. Voluntary Act or Legal Omission – A person is not ordinarily guilty of a criminal offense unless his conduct includes a voluntary act. This is a common law principle and is position of MPC § 2.01(1)
· To be found guilty of an offense, it is sufficient that the person’s conduct included a voluntary act; it is not necessary for all aspects of his conduct be voluntary.
o Ex: A person who is knowingly subject to seizures and chooses to drive, and subsequently has a seizure and has an accident resulting in death. The death occurred as a result of an involuntary act (seizure), but he may be found guilty of an offense since he voluntarily chose to drive.
·
It is difficult to determine the state of mind (mens rea) of one who fails to act.
Omissions – Generally a person is not guilty of a crime for failing to act. (CL and MPC § 2.01(3)). Exceptions:
o Some statutes expressly require a person to perform specified acts. Failure to perform those acts constitutes an offense and can be referred to as a “crime of omission.”
o Duty by Status – A person has a common law duty to protect another with whom he has a special status relationship with. (parent-child, spouse-spouse)
o Duty by Contract – A person may have an express contract to come to the aid of another, or such a contract may be implied by law (babysitter has an implied contract to protect the baby
o Duty by Voluntary Assumption – One who voluntarily assumes care must continue to assist if a subsequent omission would place the victim in a worse position than if the person had not assumed care at all.
o Duty by Risk Creation – One who creates a risk of harm to another must thereafter act to prevent ensuing harm.
b.Social Harm – destruction of, injury to, or endangerment of, some socially valuable interest.
· Result Elements – Some crimes prohibit a specific result.
Ex: The social harm of murder is the “death of another human being,” a harmful result.
· Conduct Elements – Some crimes prohibit specific conduct, whether or not tangible harm results.
Ex: A DUI statute prohibits a certain type of driving, not a result of that driving.
· Attendant Circumstances – A fact that exists at the time of the actor’s conduct, or at the time of a particular result, and which is required to be proven in the definition of the offense.
Ex: For murder, the result (death) must be of another human being.
III. Mens Rea
· Meanings
a. Broad (culpability) – A person has acted with “mens rea” if he committed the actus reus of an offense with any culpable state of mind.
b.Narrow (elemental) – “Mens rea” exists if a person commits the actus reus of an offense with the particular mental state set out expressly in the definition of the offense.
· Common Law States of Mind:
a. Intentionally – D commits an offense “intentionally” if: (1) it was her conscious object to cause the result; OR (2) if D knew that the harm was virtually certain to occur as a result of D’s conduct.
o Transferred Intent Doctrine Ex: D intends to kill A; D fires a g
he mens rea, is sufficient to convict the actor.
a. Public Welfare Offenses – Conduct that is wrongful because it is prohibited (motor vehicle laws).
o The penalty for violation of a public welfare offense is usually minor.
o A single violation of a public welfare offense often threatens the safety of many persons.
b. MPC §2.05 – Abolishes strict criminal liability except as to “violations.”
o MPC §1.04(5) – “violation” is an offense which involves no punishment other than a fine, fine and forfeiture, or other civil penalty.
· Mistake of Fact – D is not guilty of a crime if D’s mistake of fact negates the mens rea of the offense charged.
a. Specific-Intent Offenses – D is not guilty of a specific-intent offense if D’s mistake of fact negates the specific-intent element of the offense; even an unreasonable mistake of fact.
o Ex: D picked up wood beams from a construction site, mistakenly believing that the wood had been abandoned – D is not guilty of larceny because his mistaken belief negates the specific-intent (intent to steal). (People v. Navarro, p. 191)
o Ex: D obtains cocaine from A, mistakenly believing it was heroin – D is guilty of the offense “receiving property, knowing that it was contraband. D knew he was receiving contraband; D’s mistake related to the type of contraband.
b. General-Intent Offenses – D is not guilty of a general-intent offense if, as a result of D’s mistake of fact, D committed the actus reus of the offense with a morally blameless state of mind.
o D’s mistake of fact MUST be reasonable.
o Moral Wrong Doctrine – A court may convict D of an offense, although D’s mistake of fact was reasonable, if D’s conduct is immoral.
o Legal Wrong Doctrine – D is guilty of offense X, despite a reasonable mistake of fact, if D would be guilty of crime Y if the factual situation was as D supposed.
c. Strict-Liability Offenses – Mistake of fact is never a defense to a strict-liability offense.
d. MPC §2.04(1)(a) – A mistake of fact is a defense to a crime if the mistake negates the mental state element required in the definition of the offense.
o No distinction between general and specific intent offenses.
o Exception MPC §2.04(2) – The defense of mistake of fact is not applicable if D would be guilty of a lesser offense had the facts been as D believed them to be (similar to Legal Wrong Doctrine).