1. Exam Information:
  1. Closed Book, 3 hour essay
  2. Possibly essay w/ sub-parts
  3. Hypothetically: develop the case/example
  4. MPC provisions will not be on exam itself
  5. Be prepared for other statute to work into CL analysis or MPC analysis
  6. Be prepared to address mental state requirement
  7. Contrast CL with MPC
  8. CL w/ statutory variations
  9. Note major differences between CL and MPC
  10. Ex: statutes that modify CL murder
  11. First: state here is what CL said as to murder (3 types)
  12. express malice
  13. felony murder
  14. depraved hear murder
  15. State statutes often divide murder into 1st and 2nd degree
  16. 1st: premeditated and deliberate
  17. 2nd: ….
  18. If not given a statute just mention the above in passing (don’t dwell on it): good discussion of CL rules will be almost as many points even if fail to mention this statutory stuff
  19. Ex: Attempt
  20. Some CL has been codified
  21. Ability to analogize to relevant case-law
  22. Ex: this is like case where Defendant consumed quart of wine and LSD and court found this was relevant b/c….
  23. Policy
  24. Renunciation, withdrawal, unilateral conspiracy
  25. Why law does or does not recognize these things
  26. Policy considerations in the particular circumstances
  27. Example Exam Question:
  28. I. “…..”
  29. Questions:
  30. 1(a)……
  31. 1(b)……
  32. 1(c)……
  33. Answer the question according to question as numbered
  34. Essay answer: not just (1) Yes or No and (2) why Yes or No
  35. Instead:
  36. plausible approach to question
  37. start w/ definition
  38. mention strengths
  39. then branch off
  40. Thread of Analysis through appropriate crimes
  41. apply facts to these elements of crimes
  42. Supplement: Criminal Law (by LaFave)
  43. Look to clarify understanding (Table of Contents)
  44. See relationship of principles
  45. Elements of a doctrine
  1. Introduction
  1. Contrast between Criminal and Civil Law
  2. Criminal Prosecution: intervene because conduct presents public danger
  3. Burden of Proof:Criminal: beyond a reasonable doubt
  4. Act + Intent + Causation = Liability
  5. Model Penal Code: promulgated by ALI
  6. Will be contrasted w/ Common Law throughout semester
  1. Imputability
  1. The Necessity of an Act
  2. Crime requires either a voluntary physical act or an omission when there is a legal duty to act
  3. Palmer v. City of Euclid
  4. Facts: Palmer dropped female friend off at apt.
  5. Held: statute was void for vagueness as applied to Mr. Palmer
  6. Act: necessary element to form a crime
  7. What Constitutes an Act
  8. Voluntary Act: Defendant must have committed voluntary act (subject to a few exceptions): Voluntary Act = “Actus Reus”
  9. Reflex or Convulsion – an act consisting of a reflex or convulsion does not give rise to criminal liability
  10. State v. Taft
  11. Facts: emergency brake released, charged w/ D.U.I.
  12. Held: the mere movement of a vehicle does not necessarily in every circumstance constitute a “driving” of the vehicle
  13. Voluntary Act: in course of conduct under MPC
  14. Possession: power + intent to control (conscious possession)
  15. MPC Possession: In situation: aware of control and for sufficient period of time to terminate her possession
  16. People v. Decina
  17. Facts: Defendant subject to epileptic attacks and suffered attack, vehicle jumped curb and killed 4 people
  18. Held: once Decina began to operate the vehicle that is when the act occurred.
  19. Conscious risk-taking: Negligence in this case: operating the vehicle…
  20. State v. KimbrellPossession
  21. Facts: Charged w/ trafficking cocaine (based on possession of the cocaine), cocaine remained on table while husband was to make the drug deal
  22. Possession: power + intent to control (disposition)
  23. Ex: could have thrown it away while husband gone
  24. If possession = element of crime generally construed to be conscious possession
  25. Negative Acts/Ommission
  26. In some cases: omission may be basis for criminal liability
  27. Legal Duty:(essentially when defendant has a duty to act imposed by civil law)
  28. Relationship
  29. Statute
  30. Contract (express or implied)
  31. Voluntary assumption of care: usually if person isolated (?)
  32. Creation of peril
  33. Biddle v. Commonwealth (CB 492)
  34. Facts: severely malnourished infant, failure to feed infant
  35. Criminal omission would be based on duty of status relationship between parent and child (Failure to fulfill duty = culpable omission)
  36. Failure to feed child
  37. Commonwealth v. Teixera
  38. Facts: nonsupport for illegitimate child
  39. Omission: nonsupport
  40. Legal Duty: statute gave duty to support children
  41. Duty to act
  42. Must be legal duty and not just moral duty
  43. Absent statute requiring Good Samaritan rescue: may have breached a moral duty but not a legal duty
  44. Jones v. U.S.
  45. Facts: child neglect, 2 defendants: Green (mother) and Jones (caretaker)
  46. Who has duty?
  47. Green: parental status
  48. Jones: contract or voluntary assumption
  49. Held: trial court failed to instruct that jury must find a breach of a legal duty
  50. Davis v. Commonwealth
  51. Facts: mother froze to death or starvation, room where daughter staying had evidence of person living there
  52. Held: implied contract b/c defendant derived economic benefits (food stamps, welfare, live free in mother’s home)
  53. Van Buskirk v. State
  54. Argument, boyfriend ordered out of car, girlfriend struck him, she left, boyfriend hit later by a different car
  55. If Van Buskirk created the peril: her failure to reasonably alleviate the peril would be a culpable omission
  1. Responsibility/Mental State
  1. Mens Rea
  2. Concurrence: act and intent
  3. Must have an act in addition b/c guilty mind alone cannot constitute a criminal offense
  4. Defendant’s conduct (actus reus) often is primary evidence in proving the defendant’s mental state
  5. requirement that there be a “culpable state of mind”; intent; knowledge (“guilty mind”)
  6. Exceptions: Some crimes are defined in such a way that the “mens rea” is merely negligence or recklessness
  7. Criminal Negligence/Recklessness: substantial deviation from the standard established by law
  8. Criminal Negligence: inadvertent risk-taking
  9. Defendant should be aware of risk
  10. reasonable person would have realized the risk (Ex: Gian-Cursio)
  11. Recklessness: conscious risk taking, a gross deviation (Ex: Petersen)
  12. Recklessness:
  13. Aware of risk
  14. Consciously disregards
  15. Substantial and unjustifiable risk
  16. Elements leading to finding of criminal recklessness:
  17. if degree of risk great enough
  18. risk substantial
  19. defendant aware
  20. MPC requires that there be a conscious disregard of a known risk for an act to be reckless
  21. Objective Standard v. Subjective Standard:
  22. Objective standard – “reasonable person” (i.e what should he have done)
  23. Subjective standard – done in good faith (i.e. intent)
  24. Gian-Cursio v. State: criminal negligence
  25. Facts: Chiropractor treated TB w/ fasting, Mozian died as result
  26. Difference between medical malpractice and manslaughter: gross incompetence then may rise to level of criminal negligence
  27. State v. Petersen: Recklessness
  28. Facts: Drag race, Petersen stopped at intersection, Wille continues, hits truck and dies along w/ passenger, Warren
  29. Held: Petersen took unjustified, huge risk (gross deviation)
  30. Reckless act: setting the race in motion
  31. Risk he created continued up to and including the time of the collision
  32. Petersen helped set in motion this force (the other driver)
  33. State v. Howard: intent, recklessness, negligence
  34. Facts: shot guy getting in the way of him protecting his friend, then shot the guy
  35. Held: No reasonable basis under facts to justify negligent homicide
  36. Howard was acting intentionally: explained by his raising self-defense (intended serious bodily injury/kill)
  37. Explanation of manslaughter conviction (lower charge to manslaughter:
  38. imperfect self-defense:
  39. if defendant had unreasonable belief
  40. or if reasonable belief: did not justify “deadly force”
  41. Specific Intent
  42. General Intent: D desired to commit the act which served as the actus reus
  43. Given intent to do actus reus, the intent to do all things that are natural and probable result of the act may be presumed
  44. Specific Intent: D, in addition to desiring to bring about the actus reus, must have desired to do something further
  45. For these offense: neither negligence nor the intent to do a different crime is sufficient (Ex: burglary)
  46. Thacker v. Commonwealth
  47. 3 drunk men, “shoot lights out” of tent, fired shots that went through Mrs. Ratrie’s bed
  48. Specific Intent: mental state needed for attempted murder = intent to kill (not specific intent to do some other act, i.e. “shoot the lights out”)
  49. Other Particular States of Mind
  50. Malice
  51. Malice: implies intent to do wrong
  52. intent to annoy, vex or injure another
  53. intent to do wrongful act
  54. State v. Nastoff
  55. Facts: modified chain-saw emitted carbon, smoldered and caused fire
  56. Held: Nastoff didn’t intend to do the wrongful act the statute describes: intent to injure property (the malice the statute describes)
  57. Knowledge (Scienter)
  58. Knowledge
  59. Majority view: have actual knowledge (subjectively know)
  60. Minority view: objective: the defendant should have known
  61. MPC: A person acts knowingly under the MPC w/r/t the nature of his conduct or the surrounding circumstances, if he is “aware” that his conduct is of a certain kind or that certain circumstances exist; aware that it is practically certain that his conduct will cause that result
  62. Willful blindness/deliberate ignorance at CL
  63. MPC: if person is aware of a high probability of its existencethat can be a substitute for knowledge
  64. State v. BealeKnowledge: Subjective Test
  65. Facts: antique store, customer believes items are stolen, goods put back on display and sold
  66. Held: D himself must have believed that the goods were stolen i.e. subjective test: Subjective → believed → culpability
  67. U.S. v. JewellWillful Blindness
  68. Tijuana, “Ray” offers marijuana then offers $100 to drive car across the border, defendant looks around car and sees nothing
  69. Even if found that defendant did not know subjectively then willful blindness can serve as a proxy for knowledge
  70. Willful blindness here:
  71. Aware of high probability that there was marijuana in car (MPC)
  72. Deliberate ignorance: Jewell didn’t want to know the truth b/c of the consequences (CL)
  73. Willfulness
  74. Willful: intentional or purposeful
  75. Fields v. U.S.Willful
  76. Facts: didn’t produce 3 documents for House investigation committee
  77. Willful in this context does not mean evil purpose
  78. Willful: (here) more like deliberate purpose
  79. Strict Liability
  80. “malum in se”: evil in itself → mens rea
  81. Act + mental state
  82. Recognized as bad partly b/c of actor’s state of mind
  83. “malum prohitbitum”: statute criminalizes, no mental state necessary, can impose strict liability (not inherently bad: legis. authority makes act criminal)
  84. Accused’s good faith or innocent mistake is not a defense: liability depends solely upon commission of the prohibited act
  85. Commonwealth v. OlshefskiStrict Liability
  86. Facts: overweight truck, weigh bill
  87. With this type of statute: does not matter that Olshefski did everything in his power to obey the law
  88. Unlawful Conduct
  89. General Intent: volitionally doing a prohibited act
  90. intent to commit the act which constitutes the crime
  91. Transferred Intent
  92. Elements:
  93. If contemplated harm was criminal
  94. And there is great similarity between that harm and the actual result
  95. Then: the actor may be held criminally liable for the actual result
  96. Gladden v. State: Transferred Intent
  97. Facts: Bad heroin deal, Gladden shot wildly at Siegel, hit 12 years old boy who died
  98. Theory of case: not that Gladden was reckless but this is intentional murder
  99. “intention follows the bullet”
  100. Cuellar v. State: Who qualifies as “another”
  101. Facts: fetus, car accident, baby born alive (emergency c-section) then died 43 hrs. later from injuries
  102. analogous to CL rule: baby must be born or in process of being born
  1. Offenses Against the Person (Homicide)
  1. Homicide: What mental states will suffice?
  2. Murder
  3. Common Law: malice aforethought, intent to kill or injure
  4. Malice aforethought (express or implied)
  5. express:
  6. Intent-to-kill
  7. Intent to commit grievous bodily injury
  8. implied:
  9. felony-murder rule: commission of underlying felony: presumption of malice
  10. depraved heart murder: so extremely reckless or indifferent to value of human life generally that malice is implied
  11. Depraved Heart Murder (reckless indifference)
  12. universal malice, not directed at any one person
  13. Depraved Heart Murder Elements:
  14. know risk but disregard
  15. unjustifiable risk to human life
  16. no social utility
  17. King v. State
  18. Facts: followed out of nightclub, then shot at tires of vehicle
  19. Reckless → extreme indifference → life generally
  20. High degree of risk: death
  21. Awareness of risk: consciously disregard it
  22. Awareness of Risk: Actual Risk v. Probability (Subjective standard: awareness of risk)
  23. Ex #1: walking down suburban street, shoots out windows of home, hits occupant: Jury will find: person aware of risk
  24. Ex #2: walking in forest, cabin appears abandoned, shoot out windows, there was occupant who was killed: Harder case
  25. Conduct = gross deviation from the standard of care a reasonable person would exercise
  26. Consider the possible social utility: if justifiable for taking the high degree of risk
  27. substantiality of the risk: likelihood / probability that it will cause harm, but the higher the justification for the conduct you can have a lower degree of risk.
  28. State v. HokensonPart of continuous transaction: criminally liable
  29. Facts: D calls in prescription, enters w/ bomb and knife, was under arrest, bomb went off in officer’s hands
  30. We are presuming recklessness for what period of time?
  31. Responsible for the forces set in motion by your recklessness→ continuous transaction
  32. Until the forces are not in motion anymore: you will be strictly liable
  33. Felony-Murder
  34. Felony-Murder Elements:
  35. unintended killing
  36. underlying felony: no mens rea for murder but need it for underlying felony
  37. Inherently dangerous felony
  38. Presumption of Malice: b/c underlying felony is inherently dangerous
  39. Inherently Dangerous Felony Test:
  40. Must look at the felony in the abstract
  41. Must show: high probability of risk of death (more than 50%)
  42. Natural and probable consequence (Ex: Patterson below: is death natural and probable consequence of furnishing cocaine?)
  43. People v. Phillips: Inherently Dangerous Felony (abstract)
  44. Facts: chiropractor treating 8 year old for cancer
  45. Held: No felony-murder applied here b/c not an inherently dangerous felony
  46. Here: person could commit fraud (medical fraud) w/o ever causing a serious risk that someone would die
  47. People v. Patterson: Inherently Dangerous Felony Issue
  48. Facts: Defendant supplied cocaine, Jennie Licerio died
  49. Held: case remanded to determine if felony of furnishing cocaine = inherently dangerous
  50. Problem: Felony-Murder Rule divorces responsibility element from the culpability element (Presumes malice)
  51. If criminal liability rests on moral culpability: then isolate F-M rule as much as possible
  52. State v. MayleWhen does felony end?
  53. Facts: attempted robbery at McDonald’s in Ohio
  54. Held: felony still occurring when the officer was shot
  55. F-M rule includes: things immediate and that immediately follow the commission/attempt of the felony
  56. Complete and continuous transaction until they reach a place of safety
  57. People v. WilsonMerger Principle
  58. Facts: killing of Mrs. Wilson in the bathroom
  59. Court concerned: losing distinctions between different types of murders: Assault w/ deadly weapon merging into homicide
  60. Ex:Voluntary MS always a felony and if it is allowed as a predicate for F-M then voluntary MS will always get bootstrapped up to murder
  61. People v. HansenMerger Principle: Assaultive Conduct
  62. Facts: clearly reckless conduct (if he would have known the kids were inside he would not have shot)
  63. Shooting into occupied building: Assaultive conduct (felony)
  64. Held: doesn’t merge into homicide
  65. California stance on F-M rule:
  66. Merger Principle:If all you have in the box is “assault”: not enough for F-M
  67. Human Shield Cases: Clearly a case of murder as it is a reckless act with extreme indifference to human life.
  68. Premeditation/Deliberate Murder
  69. Elements: (measuring cold calculated judgment v. impulse)
  70. Willful → intentional
  71. Deliberate → thought
  72. Cool mind that is capable of reflection
  73. Premeditated → beforehand
  74. Actual reflection beforehand
  75. People v. PerezPlanning/Motive/Manner
  76. Facts: victim stabbed 38 times, D went to same H.S.
  77. Typical premeditation categories:
  78. Planning
  79. Motive
  80. Manner
  81. Held: sufficient evidence to support jury’s finding of premeditated/deliberate murder
  82. Length of time to form: does not have to be long
  83. Just: cool reflection showing conscious decision to kill victim (rule out impulse)
  84. Provocation: Something considered provocation can negate the cool deliberation needed for premeditation
  85. 2nd degree murder: can include intentional killing
  86. 1st degree murder: must add cool mind and actual reflection
  87. State v. SchraderNo appreciable time required to form intent to kill
  88. Facts: D to purchase war souvenirs, argument over authenticity of German sword
  89. Deliberate/premeditated: held to be knowing and intentional
  90. Midgett v. StateHomicide must be premeditated/deliberate
  91. Facts: Father hit malnourished child in stomach and killed him
  92. Held: Father intended abuse but had no intent to kill
  93. Ex: if D thought for a long time planned to kill boy and then got drunk to get up courage
  94. Court likely to find: premeditation and deliberation
  95. State v. ForrestMoral Justification not Adequate to reduce charges
  96. Facts: D kills father, terminally ill in hospital
  97. D admitted intended this (put father out of misery)
  98. Elements:Armed, D’s statement, Multiple shots (cocked pistol), No provocation, Helpless victim
  99. Use Elements to determine:If cool mind and Deliberate act
  100. Statutory Homicide
  101. 1st Degree
  102. premeditated and deliberate
  103. Some jurisdictions: focus on the method/means, may include F-M
  104. 2nd Degree
  105. include all other murders:go back to Common Law: every C.L. murder not in 1st degree category falls in this catch-all category
  106. MPC Murder (CB 216)
  107. Purposely/knowingly: similar to Common Law Express Murder
  108. Felony Murder: similar to Common Law (presumption of malice)
  109. enumerated felonies (MPC 210.2(1)(b))
  110. Recklessly: extreme indifference to value of human life: similar to C.L. depraved heart
  111. Voluntary Manslaughter
  112. Voluntary Manslaughter Policy Issues:
  113. Recognize human frailty: people sometimes act out of heat of passion
  114. Search for rule that mitigates culpability
  115. Common Law
  116. Intentional killing of another human being
  117. Heat of Passion:extreme emotional state
  118. sudden
  119. subjective test: did D lose control?
  120. Adequate Provocation
  121. legal adequacy: defined in rigid CL categories
  122. Defendant acts in response to a provocation that a reasonable person would lose self-control (objective inquiry)