Criminal Law Outline

Criminal Law

Nussbaumer

Summer 2014

Key

· Definitions, Cases, and Rationales

· Analysis

· Common Law Rules

· Model Penal Code

· Statutes

· Defined Elements

Background & Definitions

· Retributive theory of punishment –

· Utilitarian theory of punishment –

· Mens rea – the mental element of a crime; intent

· Actus rea – the act that causes harm; action

· Standard of review – on appeal the evidence viewed most favorable to non-appealing party. Could a reasonable jury have found as the trial jury did?

·

Homicide

Corpus Delicti

Definition – corpus delicti is first element of any homicide; it must be proved to bring action to court

Elements

· Death of a human being

· Criminal agency of another

Rule

· Uncorroborated out-of-court confession or testimony may not be used to prove corpus delicti

Factors

· Don’t need a body to prove death of human being – circumstantial evidence may suffice

· Circumstantial inferences may be used to prove criminal agency

· In-court statements can be used to establish CD

· Identity of actor not necessary to establish criminal agency of another

· Rationale behind rule is to provide safeguard against unreliability of out-of-court testimony

o Where rationale doesn’t exist, exception possible. Rationale trumps bright-line application.

Cases

· Downey – Circumstantial evidence can prove criminal agency element of CD.

o Police arrive at scene where woman is dead and husband confesses to killing her. CD rule precludes confession as evidence to prove CD element of criminal agency. In this case woman died of asphyxiation, her body was neatly laid out, geography discounted an accident, and she had defensive bruises. Facts inferred criminal agency as cause of her death, and such was sufficient to establish CD.

· Hicks – Out of court testimony not enough to prove CD. Identity of actor not part of CD.

o Court found for appealing D ruling that D’s out-of-court statements to his cellmate not enough to prove to prove CD because there was no evidence to corroborate or prove that death was due to agency of another element of CD.

· Warmke – Circumstantial evidence enough to prove death element of CD

o Mother returned to service station without baby to return blanket and later admitted that she had dropped baby off a bridge; she stated it was accident, but she failed to report it when is supposedly occurred. Body of baby not found.

Common Law Homicide

Murder

· Definition – the unlawful killing of another human being with malice aforethought.

· Rule – Common law murder requires malice aforethought, which can be established in 4 ways

o Intent to kill – D has the conscious objective to kill, or

o Intent to cause great bodily harm (GBH), or

o Depraved Heart Murder (DHM), or

§ Consciously and knowingly disregarded risk to human life, and

§ Very High Risk – subjective standard – D must have perceived risk

· Examples – shooting into occupied areas, throwing stone off tall building into busy street, pilot speed boat through area of swimmers, swooping plane to decapitate, driving high-speed on Main Street.

· Non-examples – shooting into abandoned cabin in empty mining town.

§ No provocation, justification, or excuse.

· Intoxication, self-defense, compulsion, insanity, etc.

o Felony-Murder Rule – Intent to commit the underlying felony

§ Rule – If D causes a death during the commission or attempted commission of a felony then malice aforethought is established.

· Only Intent to commit underlying felony must be proved

· Felony must be inherently dangerous to human life

o BARRK – Burglary, Arson, Rape, Robbery, Kidnapping

· Causation means reasonable foreseeability – very low threshold

· Independent felony rule – felony cant be integral part of the homicide

o Assault with a deadly weapon

· Factors

· Cases and Hypos

o McLaughlin – D didn’t act with malice when struck and killed 2 victims with auto.

§ D was driving his car on back road at night while intoxicated and stuck three persons killing two of them. D went back for victims taking them to hospital. Court ruled that victim didn’t act with malice aforethought because of conduct didn’t pose very high risk to human life and because he went back for victims.