This site is a developmental version of Wiki Law School. To go to the production site: www.wikilawschool.org
Criminal Law Dressler/Outline
Principle of Legality: Prohibition of retroactive criminal law making. For a person to be convicted of a crime, the person must have notice that conduct was illegal at the time of the illegal conduct.
Actus Reus-The Bad Act (CL)
1. Elements: a. Voluntary Act= Volition MUST be Present (AKA the minimal mental element required for AR- related to MR but NOT the same)- consent of will must be present for actions to be determined capable
-Voluntary does not mean intentional
**Lacked MR, but did engage in the Voluntary Act - Automated Response- no willingness/volition
Generally, a person has no criminal law duty to act to prevent harm to another even if can assist without any risk of harm to herself/himself To act must have more than a “mere moral obligation” Must possess a legal duty to act (5): 1)Statutes- pay taxes, parents provide food/shelter to minor children 2)Contract 3)Status Relationship- parents/marital/employers/invitee 4) Voluntarily assuming a duty of care and secluding from help 5)Failure to Act when Created the Risk of Harm
b. That Causes
-Conduct Crimes-the endangerment of social arrangement or important value Ex) Drinking & Driving
Ex) Homicide - Attendant Circumstances: A condition that must be present in conjunction w/ the prohibited conduct, or result in order to constitute a crime
Ex) Burglary- the breaking and entering of a dwelling house of another at night Aatnd. Circ.=dwelling house of another at night Conduct=breaking and entering |
Actus Reus- MPC 2.01MPC 2.01- Sec. 2 sets out nonvoluntary acts that do not constitute AR 1) Reflex/Convulsion 2) Sleepwalking/Unconscious Movement 3)Hypnosis 4) Body Movement not conscious or habitable product of determination. - Sec. 4 addresses Possession as an Act-if unknowingly had drugs planted on you then cannot be convicted for possession - Sec. 3 -omission- is only basis for liability if a) omission is expressed by the law to be an offense, or b) have a legal duty to perform the omitted act |
Mens Rea- The Guilty Mind/ Bad Intent (CL)
- Occasionally intent elements will be defined in a statute
a. Desire/ Conscious Objective; OR b. Acts w/ Knowledge- that social harm is virtually certain to occur as a result of conduct
D intended to harm A, but harmed B instead then Ds intent to harm A transferred to B, BUT this is only allowed within the same crimes! Ex) Throwing a rock intending to hit a person, but accidentally shattering a window does not mean the intention to injure property will be valid
Specific Intent is when the mental state is set out in the definition of the crime=similar to elemental definition General Intent is when there is no specific mental state set out in the definition of the crime, so only need to prove social harm resulted w/ a morally blameworthy state of mind - Willful Blindness Problem A deliberate ignorance-if the person believes there is a high prob. of a fact (attendant circumstance) and takes deliberate action to avoid confirming, or fails to investigate in order to avoid confirmation.
- Exception to MR: SL Crimes (not SL doctrine) Generally, have smaller convictions/fines and courts will only enforce SL crimes if the legislature intended for the crime to be absent a MR, so Leg. Intent must be clear to enforce usually Ex) Public Welfare Offenses= impure drug/food sales, and traffic/motor vehicle regulations
|
Mens Rea- MPC 2.02**Highly influential and used in many stated
a. Purposely- Conscious Objective- was aware the attendant circumstances existed b. Knowingly- Practically Certain-was aware the attendant circumstances existed c. Recklessly- Conscious Risk Taking-A conscious disregard of a substantial risk- gross deviation from standard of conduct d. Negligently- Should have been aware
MPC 2.02 (7)- agrees with the CL Majority on Willful Blindness= high probably of awareness is knowingly |
Mistake of Fact CL/MPC 2.04 |
Mistake of Law CL/MPC 2.04 |
**Mistake Must be in good-faith
General Intent- A reasonable objective measurement is used to compare the D against If unreasonable mistake then guilty, but if mistake is reasonable then not guilty Specific Intent- NO reasonable objective measurement is used to measure the D against; if the intent is required and it is lacking then not guilty Steps#1 First identify if General Intent Crime, or Specific Intent Crime #2 Is the Mistake genuine?- If so, then employ above reasoning
*No reasonable requirement |
Exception: a. When an official assures a D that certain conduct is legally permissible and the D reasonably believes and relies on the advice b. The statute is later declared invalid c. A judicial decision later declared to be erroneous
- For mistake of law to be a defense the D must prove acted upon reasonable reliance on an official statement that afterwards was determined invalid, or erroneous. The D is not excused of liability simply by misconstruing the statute themselves, or by advice from an attorney or other non-designated official |
Causation CL- the link between AR and MR |
Causation MPC 2.03 |
Both types of causation must be proven
Factual/Actual- the “but-for” cause a. Direct b. Concurrent Sufficient (Substantial Factor) =2 Ds act, both would have killed but together they also kill =2 Ds act, neither individually would have killed but together they kill c. Acceleration =The result happened sooner because of Ds conduct, but must prove the result was accelerated and not that it could have possibly accelerated the result Proximate (legal) All are factual, but not all factual causes are proximate When a D can be blameworthy w/o actually being the cause of the end result a. Intervening Cause- ask if the chain of causation has been broken - Using the Objective Standard of Foreseeability If the intervening cause was foreseeable then the chain of causation is NOT broken and the D is criminally liable If NOT foreseeable then D is not liable because the chain has been broken Responsive Intervening Cause vs Coincidental Intervening Cause- Responsive I.C. is normally seen as reasonably foreseeable and does not break the chain Ex) Medical Care, even if negligent medical care is given still considered foreseeable (ER DR has a cold) Ex) Drowning after boat being hit by a neg. driver- even if the victim drowned because was drunk and could not swim to shore properly the D is responsible Coincidental I.C. is not seen as foreseeable and breaks the chain because while D did put the victim in the situation, the I. C. acted on the victim independently and coincidentally Ex) Gross neg. medical care or a knife wielding maniac at the hospital BUT say the hospital was a high security penitentiary then can question if foreseeable - The Apparent Safety Doctrine When a victim is safe, but then chooses to reenter a dangerous situation= the chain of causation is broken Ex) Reentering the road to fix car after a drunk driver caused a crash. The victim was able to make it to the side of the road but chose to reenter
When the victim makes a choice that leads to the result then the chain of causation is broken Ex) Choosing to sleep in the Cold after being forced out of the house from DV when could have slept at Father’s house
If D intended the result, but intervening cause(s) got in the way which still resulted in the intended result D originally wanted then D is still criminally liable |
The MPC approach is not as definite as the CL approach to finding causation
Factual/ActualDoes employ a but-for test BUT does not resort to sufficient factor test when there are multiple Ds. Will instead ask if D1/D2 were the but-for cause of victims death Proximate Cause- does NOT use a foreseeability test as the CL does- instead asks if D caused result w/ the level of culpability required for the offense (purposely, recklessly, knowingly, negligently)
Ex) Robbing a bank but bank teller being electrocuted by the silent alarm button |
***MR/AR/Causation must all be proven to have come together at the same time for their to be a criminal conviction of a crime
Homicide Categories |
CL |
MPC 210.0 |
CL: 1st Degree Murder
MPC: “Murder” |
**w/ Malice Aforethought
Premeditated/ Deliberated- Premed: quantity of time w/ thought - Delib.: quality of thought Killing done after a period of time of prior consideration BUT no defined interval of time in Majority of Jrxs. Just the thought to kill/Act of Killing happening simultaneously does not constitute Premed./Delib.- thought must be sometime before **Minority Jrxs (Michigan) have defined a more meaningful standard for premed/delib
a. want of provocation b. conduct statements before/after c. Threats/declarations before or during d. ill will between parties e. Brutal manner of killing f. Nature and # of wounds to victim
|
210.2- Lays out 3 Diff. Theories for Murder:
1. Purposely/ Knowingly = most similar to Premeditation and Deliberation found in the CL (3rd is Felony Murder) |
CL 2nd Degree Murder
MPC: “Murder” |
CL 3 Theories:
1. Intention to cause great bodily harm, but death results
- If 1st degree fails for premed./delib. - If manslaughter fails for lack of heat of passion or adequate provocation (cooling off time was present)
-Have malice aforethought w/o premed/delib.
1) The Killing is caused by an act w/ a base antisocial motive, 2) The natural consequences of which are dangerous to life, 3) The person performing the act knows their conduct endangers the life of others but acts w/ a conscious disregard |
2. Extreme Recklessness Manifesting an Extreme indifference to Human Life= A Conscious Disregard of the Risks |
CL: Voluntary Manslaughter
|
**w/o malice aforethought
1) Heat of Passion- absent “cooling off time” -Jury normally decides if their was a cooling off time- in the past it was the judge who determined
Generally accepted that words alone are not adequate provocation Minority of states (PA)- says informational words can be enough depending on the circumstance BUT mere insults are still not enough If words are accompanied by conduct indicating present intention and ability to cause D severe bodily harm then can be enough **Uses an Objective Standard- but argument against making wholly objective
|
210.3- Lays out 2 Diff. Theories of Manslaughter
1. Regular Recklessness (not extreme because extreme falls under murder)
- Employs a combination of an objective standard and a subjective standard. Requires that the circumstances are viewed as the D saw them but then use a reasonable person standard to ask if Ds reaction was reasonable to the events as D saw them **NO cooling-off time = recognizes that there can be a build up of emotions over time = recognizes a more broad degree of circumstances which can allow for a mitigation to manslaughter
|
CL: Involuntary Manslaughter
|
1st Degree: Recklessness
2nd Degree: Gross Negligence (AKA crim. Negligence- NOT civil negligence) |
Negligent Homicide is not conscious risk-taking, but should have known
(regular reckless is under manslaughter) |
Limitations to the Felony Murder Rule: Usually convicts under 1st, but some states convict under 2nd or 3rd (Pa/Ca= 2nd)
FMR- SL for death resulting from Ds conduct when engaged in a felony. Does not matter if death was intentional, unintentional, negligent, or complete accident
Inherently Dangerous Felony |
Merger Theory |
Agency Approach |
In the Abstract Rule:
Court looks at Elements of the Felony and NOT the facts of the case to determine if the felony is inherently dangerous to life Will only apply FMR if the Felony is found to be inherently dangerous to life
|
Applies when the Felony is not independent from the homicide
**Few States have abolished FMR= KY |
Accomplice Liability allows multiple felons to be charged under the FMR when one co-felon commits a homicide during the perpetration of their crime
|
**Unlawful Act Manslaughter Rule- Also V. Controversial
- Allows a manslaughter conviction where a homicide resulted from criminal conduct that was not arising to a felony ( At CL has been used to extend to acts that were morally wrongful, but not criminal)
DEFENSES:
Justification- legal harm, but harm was outweighed by good
Self Defense | Defense of Others | Defense of Habitation | Necessity |
Elements to use SD (CL):
1)threat actual or apparent to use deadly force against the D
In addition: -The D must not be the aggressor/provoker (Even if the adversary made the first blow/shot/threatening gesture, the D cannot use SD defense if the original aggressor)- if D is aggressor, must communicate to advisory intent to withdraw and demonstrate a good-faith attempt to do so
-Castle Doc. Allows no retreat from home or curtilage- if at fault for being the aggressor castle doc does not excuse such SYG Laws expand Castle Doc to anyplace person has right to be including public areas |
If a person comes to the aid of another acting on a reasonable belief then the defense of another can be applicable even if the other party actually has no right to SD- use to not be this was. If a D acted w/o the other actually having the right to SD then D would be liable, but has since changed | Broad Minority Approach
Minority allows for use of deadly force for any unlawful invasion of the home Middle Approach Allows force to prevent an intruder from entering when intending to commit a felony therein Narrow ApproachAllows force to prevent an intruder when intending to commit a violent felony therein
|
4 Elements to use Necessity (CL):
1) The act must have been done to prevent a significant evil
**why civil disobedience generally fails in being able to use Necessity Defense
-Does not include homicide situations
And sometimes physical harms to person or property
MPC 3.02More broad!
loose defense if created the harm but if reckless or negligent than can be prosecuted for that recklessness or neg. |
**PA SYG law requires the aggressor be armed and the D must not have been engaged in criminal activity (unlike in FL)
**BWS- not generally accepted as a justification to use SD, but some states have recognized the psychology behind abused women who have undergone the abuse cycle just once- abuse victims are always in fear of imminent harm , or a state of imminent threat. Other states require that the threat be imminent to allow SD in abused women cases
Excuses- legal harm, but the actor is not responsible because of disease or defect
Duress (MR is still present-not negated-but just not willful) |
Intoxication |
3 Elements:
1)Immediate threat of death or seriously body injury 2)Well grounded fear that threat will be carried out 3) No reasonable opportunity to escape the threatened harm
-Not allowed for Homicide defense -If at fault for being in coercive situation then defense is not allowed
Uses language of “person with reasonable firmness would not be able to resist”
|
Normally Courts are NOT Receptive!!
MPC 2.08-Does NOT adhere to specific intent/general intent distinction- if the intoxication negates an element of the offense then can apply
|
Insanity Defense
M’Naghten Test- Majority (28 states apply test or version of) | Irresistible Impulse Test-Supplement (doesn’t exist in isolation from M’Naghten) | Durham Rule/Product Test- NH Still Uses |
Focuses on Cognition and NOT Volition
1) At the time of the act, 2) The accused was laboring under such a mental defect of reasoning from disease of the mind that 3) (a)D did NOT know the nature and quality of the act he was doing, OR b)if did know, did NOT know what he was doing was wrong |
Allows Courts to focus on Volition too
Elements: 1)A mental disease that makes D unable to distinguish right from wrong OR 2) The complete overmastering of the D’s will by a mental defect under the control of which he acts |
Problem- Experts became the final authority and were defining “product” case by case
Elements: An accused was not criminally held responsible if unlawful act was a product of the mental disease or defect |
MPC 4.01(14 states adopt):
**Seen as a “softer standard” than M’Naghten, but allows medical expert influence like in Durham but w/o the expert’s authority overwhelming the case
Uses language of “lacks substantial capacity to appreciate the criminality [wrongfulness] of his conduct or to conform his conduct to the requirements of the law”
*AT CL, and MPC, anti-social behavior is not included
Attempt (1/3 Inchoate Crimes)
To convict for an attempted crime, the D must have been in the zone of perpetration. There is a concern of punishing just thoughts if making the perpetration line too close to the preparation line. If officials step in to deter a crime, and the D has not crossed into perpetration yet then will not be able to convict.
Punishing for Attempt is to deter the individual (Specific Deterrence), and to Generally Deter the other members of society
Now can punish attempt w/ the same severity as actual completion of the crime
Attempt (CL): | MPC 5.01: |
Dual MR
1) Actor’s conduct must be intentional (Actor intended to commit the acts that constitute the AR). 2)Specific Intent of the Crime is Present (The target crime being attempted) Ex) If D intends to severely injure V, but does not actually end up killing V, then D is not guilty of attempted murder (even though if D had killed V would be guilty of murder in 2nd degree) Ex) Pulling the trigger of a gun would satisfy 1, but if not intending to shoot a person, but do, then not charged w/ attempted murder
-Does not Apply in Attempted murder (FL is major minoity) The idea is that FMR is a SL crime where the MR is not needing to be proven- so can’t charge for attempted FM when the specific intent of murder must be found to convict under attempt |
Overview:
1a and 1b deals with completed crimes whereas 1c discusses non-completed crimes and uses the language of “substantial step” Section 2 gives examples of what a substantial step would be. The substantial step is the AR of the provision.
2 Elements of Attempt: 1) Purpose to commit the target offense=guilty if believes the results will occur, even if not conscious objective ex) bomb on airplane intending to kill husband but the bomb does not go off- would be guilty of attempted murder for husband and the rest of the passengers (at CL uncertain whether attempt at killing other passengers constitutes an attempt) 2) Conduct constituting a substantial step toward the commission of the target offense - Section 2 gives examples of substantial step Steps in using the test: 1) Does this case involve a complete or incomplete attempt? 2) If completed then look at 1a, conduct crime, and 1b, result crime. If not completed then look at 1c. |
The Tests (CL): Defining Perpetration of Attempt
Res Ipsa loquitur (Unequivocality) | Probable Desistance Test | Indispensable Element | Dangerous Proximity | Physical Proximity |
Silent Movie Test
To find attempt, the action must be equivocal to the crime attempting to commit.
Ex) People v Miller- guy in the field with the shot gun-but does not point it and walks toward the constable |
Focuses on how far the D has already proceeded (the 3 on the left focus on how close the actor’s conduct is to the final completion of the act)-Finds attempt when it is unlikely that the actor will voluntarily desist from effort to commit the crime MUST be voluntary and not due to an interruption from an outside source
Ex) Luring an underage person over for sexual relations and meeting them at the cab outside Ex) Altering a script for extra refills not entitled to= no attempt because doubt about whether D will actually return to pick up refill and then return again for the refill not entitled to |
To find attempt, the actor must have acquired control of the indispensable element of the crime- must possess an instrumentality of the crime to be in perpetration
Ex) Possessing a gun to kill; OR manufacturing equipment to make illegal drugs
|
Attempt arises when conduct is in dangerous proximity of success, or when the act is so near to the result that the danger of success is great
Look at: 1) nearness of danger, 2) greatness of harm and 3)degree of apprehension felt Ex) People v Rizzo- the person intending to rob was not in sight, so not within dangerous proximity Ex) Drug dealer orders cocaine, but rejects on quality of goods= found guilty of attempt Ex) Drug dealer informs carrier that will purchase the drugs, but sets up date in future for the exchange to secure the funds=no attempt |
The conduct must be proximate to the completed crime.
Attempt arises when the actor has it within their power to complete the crime almost immediately Ex) Weapon in hand and victim in view |
Defenses to Attempt: Impossibility (3 @ CL)
Pure Legal Impossibility | Factual Impossibility | Hybrid Legal Impossibility |
When D thinks committing a crime, but is actually not a crime Ex) Statutory rape where the limit is 15, but the D thinks it is 16 and then has sexual relations with a 15 year old.
MPC 5.01 only allows Pure legal impossibility as a defense - 1a states: “circumstances as D believed them to be”= abolished factual and hybrid impossibility defense Ex) If D thought he was bribing a juror then for all intensive purposes he was -1c is for incomplete crimes: Requires that Ds conduct be strongly corroborative Ex) If points gun at V who is actually already dead but the officer intervenes then attempt is considered incomplete even though could never actually reach the goal of killing V |
Often will read factual possibility is not a defense, but it can be-just rare for it to be accepted by courts
Ex) Pulling a trigger, but the gun was not loaded, but thought the gun was loaded Ex) Pick Pocketing a pocket that was empty NO MPC DEFENSE! |
Mistake about a legal status
Ex) Bribing a juror that is not a juror Ex) Shoots a tree stump believing it to be human Ex) Shoots V laying there, but V is already dead Ex) Receives non-stolen property believing it to be stolen NO MPC DEFENSE! |
Solicitation (Also an Inchoate Crime)
Solicitation @ CL- Asking Another to do the crime for them | MPC 5.02 |
Soliciting Party-Conceives the crime and then persuades other(s) to do it for them Ex) hiring a hit man to off someone
AR: The Asking (AKA inviting/requesting/commanding/hiring) **Solicitation is NOT an attempt to use the other as an innocent instrumentality
1) The intent to perform the act that constitutes the solicitation (The intent to ask/invite) 2) The Specific Intent that the other person commit the solicited offense
**If inquires, but the other says no then can still be charged with solicitation, or if the other says yes but has no intent of actually committing the crime (undercover police officer example)
If the crime actually happens then solicitation merges with the crime- cannot have a solicitation charge and a charge of the substantive crime Also merges with the attempt, if the actual crime is not completed to the end goal by the perpetrator but was completed unsuccessfully- so solicitation cannot exist with attempt as sep. charges
|
Section 1:
More broad definition- “A person is guilty of solicitation to commit a crime if with the purpose of promoting or facilitating its commission he commands, encourages, or requests another person to engage in specific conduct that would constitute such crime or an attempt to commit such crime…”
Ex) Asking someone to pickpocket knowing the pocket is empty- the other could be found guilty of attempt but the solicitor would be found guilty of soliciting an attempted larceny- unlike in the CL where the solicitor would not be liable at all
**If inquires, but the other says no then can still be charged with solicitation
If the crime actually happens then solicitation merges with the crime- cannot have a solicitation charge and a charge of the substantive crime Same as CL MPC Grades solicitation at the same level of the target crime- unlike the CL which grades it as a lesser offense |
Conspiracy
Conspiracy (CL) – Fills the gap in attempt if more than one person is involved | MPC: 5.03 |
**Known as the Prosecutor’s Darling= procedural (Joinder advantage) and evidentiary advantages (Hearsay advantage)
Also, a vague crime is to the prosecutor’s advantage because easier to prove when less evidence is needed *Can be dangerous, historically speaking has been used to punished those with “unfavorable” opinions
Only need a tacit mutual understanding to accomplish the unlawful act between conspirators- can be nod/wink/handshake (evidence of mere association should not be enough for conspiracy—Azim Case) If prove 4 criteria then can show there was an agreement: 1) Association; 2)Knowledge; 3)Presence; 4) Participation *BUT in agreeing- must be aware of the objective of the conspiracy!
1) Intent to agree (intent to commit the AR) 2) Intent to accomplish object of the conspiracy Ex) Swain Case- did not find the 2nd MR because was charged with 2nd degree murder for an unintentional killing- must have intent to murder to find all the required MR and if unintentional killing then no specific intent to kill
1) Knowledge of the illegal use of the good or service and 2) The intent to further the illegal purpose must be present in order to make a supplier a participant in criminal conspiracy -If lacking direct evidence of intent to further then can rely on circumstantial evidence and look at 1) stake in the venture; 2) legitimate use of the good; 3) volume- is amt disproportionate to the good if sold legally? **Can only infer intent from knowledge if the crime is very severe
Does not merge with the attempted crime either!
Unilateral Rule has been adopted in some state statutes in light of the MPC- allowed to charge conspiracy to just one person. Important when the other “conspirator” is actually an undercover cop
|
Subsection 1- Guilty of conspiracy for 4 types of agreements: Agrees too… 1) commit an offense = engages in conduct that constitutes such crime 2) attempt to commit an offense 3) Solicit another to commit an offense 4) Aid another in the planning or commission of the offense The object of the agreement must be a criminal act- and just a legal act in an unlawful way
But if the conspiracy involved completion of additional offenses then conspiracy will not merge with the crime committed- ONLY merges with the substantive crime Ex) If arrested before the completion of the crime then conspiracy does not merge- Ex) Plan to rob V1 and V2, but arrested after V1 is robbed but before V2 is robbed then the robbery will NOT merge with conspiracy Subsection 7(c): defendant must either (1) advise his co-conspirators that he abandons the criminal purpose of the conspiracy or (2) inform law enforcement of the existence of the conspiracy and his participation in it.
|
Accomplice Liability
Accomplice Liability (CL)-Derivative Liability | MPC 2.06 |
AR: The act is the assistance- so under CL must actually assist not just try to assist
*Mere presence is not enough- even if accompanying the perp. And then also flee- must aid/abet/ assist in some way
If have a duty and failed to act then could be considered an accomplice (Police man not acting when a robbery happens)
1) Must have intent to assist the P1 2) Mus have intent that the crime also succeeds *P2 must share same intent at P1 to be found guilty under accomplice liability. * Knowing is enough if actually assisting- makes up for the lack of purposely P2 does not have to be directly present though- can be considered constructively present (On street or outside of door)
Ex) One who furnishes the fake license plate
If a person encouraged/aided/abetted the commission of a crime then held liable for not just that crime but also the foreseeable consequences of that crime aided and abetted Liscott Case- Found to be liable for murder under an accomplice theory because murder was natural consequence of such a robbery – even though did not have the intent to have such a result Corroboration Rule- where the testimony of accomplices is treated with caution and there must be other evidence which connects the D to the crime outside of the accomplice testimony **Many States Have
*It is enough that the accomplice just made it easier |
MPC- just requires the attempt to assist- does not actually need to assist
Under the MPC, for a result crime the P2 must have the “kind of culpability, if any, with respect to the result that is sufficient for the commission of the offense” Foreseeable Consequence Rule Does NOT exist Section 3- “W/ the purpose of promoting or facilitating the offense” A(2)- says attempt to aid=does not have to actually aid Section 2- Liability for Conduct of Another Deals with the issue of using another to commit an offense (Bailey case- acted as the puppet master) Uses an unwitting agent to do bidding= directly liable opposed to accomplice liability |