CRIMINAL LAW OUTLINE
General Notes on Criminal Law
– A crime is made up of an act (actus reus) and a mental state (mens rea)
o The actus reus is basically anything that is not mens rea
– Four Elements to an offense (only the first two must be present)
o The Act (actus reus)
o State of Mind (mens rea)
o Results – there must be a causal relationship between the results and 1 & 2 above)
o Attendant Circumstances (no causal relationship needed)
– Steps in Analysis:
o Ascertain Elements of an Offense (see above)
o Ascertain “Defenses” – those disproving elements of a crime
o Ascertain True Defenses – Those that eliminate/excuse liability even if all the elements of the crime are present
– Types of Argument:
o Policy
o Analogy
o Textual (statutory language)
o Consequences
o Historical
– All criminal behavior is made so by statute
o Theories of Punishment:
§ Deterrence
· general – discourages others from committing an offense
· specific – criminal offender is incapacitated from further criminal activity; also, he may be deterred from repeat behavior on release.
§ Retribution / Punishment
§ Rehabilitation
§ Condemnation (of a given behavior)
§ Morality – inculcating values in society
§ Vengeance – ensure it is performed by state, not people
– Lesser Included Offenses
o If a crime includes all of the elements of another offense, the other offense is a lesser included offense. An actor cannot be convicted of both, but charging him with the greater implicitly charges him with the lesser.
§ Ex.: Robbery is larceny with force or threat of force; thus, larceny is a lesser included offense of robbery. An actor charged with robbery can be convicted of either, but not both.
o If crimes have some of the same elements but each has unique elements as well, then an actor must be charged separately, and can be convicted of both.
– Rule of Lenity – if a statute is ambiguous, it should be construed in favor of the defendant.
The Act Requirement (Actus Reus) – In General
– The Act must be voluntary
o According to the MPC, the following are not voluntary (p. 158):
§ Reflex/Convulsion
§ Unconsciousness/Sleep
· State v. Mercer – Mercer shot his wife while “unconscious” & was thus not guilty because there was no voluntary act
§ Hypnosis
§ Reflexive/convulsive acts / acts that the actor did not consciously determine
· ex. A shoves B into C; no liability to B
o A “crime” based on status is generally not voluntary, and thus not criminal
§ Robinson v. California – Court overturns law making narcotic addiction (not usage) criminal behavior.
– Omissions of an Act
o A failure to act is generally not criminal
o The exception is a where the actor (with the requisite mens rea) breaches a known duty that exists due to:
§ Contract
§ Statute (e.g., failure to file taxes)
§ Common Law
§ A relationship that creates a duty (i.e., parent-child)
· Jones v. United States: convicted of involuntary manslaughter for failing to provide 10-month old child with care
§ Assumption of Care – If you start helping someone, you create a duty to finish
§ Creation of Peril – If you put someone in danger, you have a duty to help them.
· However, rule of lenity applies to the victim. Kuntz: Failure to summon medical assistance, after stabbing boyfriend and reaching a safe place, did not constitute negligent homicide.
o The key question
ssion by a misrepresentation, the consent is not valid.
· This is not embezzlement – there is no trust relationship involved.
· This is not false pretenses – since possession, not title, is involved.
o The “carrying away” can be very slight (see Welch)
o Embezzlement – wrongful (fraudulent) conversion of property of another placed in the actor’s care to a use not intended by the owner.
§ The key difference between embezzlement & larceny is that for embezzlement to occur, there must be a trust relationship involved. (Embezzlement vs. “Larceny by Trick”)
§ For larceny, the actor can have mere custody, but not possession. For embezzlement, the actor has actual possession. (Recall custody v. possession under “trespassory taking,” supra.)
§ In “Larceny by Trick” there is fraud to induce consent to possess. For embezzlement, the consent for possession is valid, but the consent for the conversion is invalid.
· Historical note – Embezzlement was created by statute to close a loophole in common-law larceny.
· There is no “taking” since the actor is already in possession of the property. The offense occurs when the actor converts the property.
· i.e., did the actor have the right to possess the property when the conversion occurred?
o False Pretenses – the obtaining of title to another’s property with the intent to deprive the owner through false statements of material fact which induces the owner to pass title.