Login/Account Details
Student Resources
| Personal Statement Editing |
| LSAT Prep |
| Law School Loans |
| Student Health Insurance |
| Law School Rankings |
| Law School Search |
| FREE Law School Outlines |
FREE Law School Outlines List by Subject Criminal Law Criminal Law Fall 2002 | Criminal Law Fall 2002 |
|
|
|
School: University of Detroit
Year: 2002
Professor: Keenan
Course Outline provided by Legalnut.com
|
Criminal Law Outline
Checklist Homicide (and manslaughter), solicitation, conspiracy, accomplice liability (and pinning everything on the people involved),bootstrapping/independent crimes, insanity, intoxication, excuse, mistake, to mental state to causation Elements of a crime Act: crimes must be voluntary (no drunks or loafers or unconscious people) -- sending people do to it falls under accomplice liability Omissions: Statute (tax returns), Contract (lifeguard, nurse), Relationship between the parties (parents, spouses), Voluntarily assuming a duty of care towards someone else, than failing to perform, Defendant’s conduct created the peril Defenses to act: Innocent instrumentality (tricked, or pushed) Impossibility Legal impossibility: no crime if a legal act, even if thought illegal (buying non-stolen merchandise) Factual impossibility is not a defense: liability even if the completion of crime is impossible Self defense Non-deadly force: one may use non-deadly force any time they believe they reasonably believe that force is about to be used on him Deadly force Majority: A victim may use deadly force any time that victim reasonably believes that deadly force is about to be used on him Deadly force is any force that results in death Minority: Require a victim to retreat to the wall if it safe to do so Exceptions to duty to retreat Don't have to retreat out of your home Don't have to retreat if you are a victim of a rape or robbery Police officers have no duty to retreat An original aggressor would only get the defense of self-defense unless the aggressor runs away and stops at the door, communicate that he is withdrawing. Defense of others: This turns on only the reasonableness of the belief that they need your assistance. Defense of a dwelling Deadly force may never be sued solely to defend your property Spring guns are a crime -- deadly force may never be used solely to defend your property Justified homicide Where the killing is necessary The killer is without fault; and The killing occurs in The performance of a legal or The exercise of a lega7l right. Mental state -- under MODEL PENAL CODE default mental state required is recklessness Transferred intent -- intent gets transferred from one's attempt to their right -- makes one crime into two: Murder of the person who actually was killed and Attempted murder of person that was originally intended to be target Specific intent (Cl: Purposely or knowingly) -- the state must prove the intent by independent evidence (and cannot be inferred from the conduct) Qualify for additional defenses not available for other kinds of crimes. Voluntary intoxication is a defense to specific intent and malice crimes larceny Inchoate crimes Solicitation: Asking someone to commit a crime solicitation of murder does not amount to attempt -- cajoling (mischief doesn't count) Impossibility is not a defense nor is withdrawal of solicitation Elements of solicitation Enticing, advising, encouraging, or ordering another to commit a felony, or misdemeanor against the public welfare (e.g., breach of the peace, obstruction of justice) Conspiracy: If one asks someone to commit a crime, and they agree (only crime is conspiracy). More than just knowing about crime is necessary, but no explicit agreement is necessary -- note: one can also be guilty of the object crime, if successful Objective of conspiracy Can't be for something which only requires general intent Corrupt motive doctrine Mistake of law, in some courts might apply that something that is malem prohibitium (rather than malum in se) might not be a crime Same evidence test (no longer used): multiple conspiracies exist if different evidence used Elements necessary for conspiracy Agreement Intent to agree: only if there is a common purpose to attain an objective covered by the law of conspiracy is their liability Intent to pursue the unlawful objective (a specific intent)-- usually criminal, but some common law objective are non criminal Exceptions made for crimes that are made to protect people from each other Configurations of conspiracies Chain conspiracies, no communications between conspirators, but inference can be made Possibility can exist that there is not, in fact one big wheel conspiracy, but several smaller wheels If the wheel views the hub as part of a big conspiracy, and the spokes infer or know that there are other spokes than it is a wheel conspiracy, otherwise there are separate conspiracies Multiple conspiracies if one person deals with others who have no connection with each other Liability for conspiracy: conspirators are liable for all the crimes of co-conspirators if those crimes were committed in furtherance of the conspiracy and were foreseeable One gives up their independence, and is subject to the crimes of others in the conspiracy, and their testimony (including hearsay) Pinkerton rule: liable for acts within the scope of the conspiracy Suppliers are usually not held liable, as there has to be a positive attitude towards the action (the more restricted the more likely they are to be positive) Success on that part with which defendant was immediately concerned was dependent upon success of the whole. Warton Rule; conspiracy requires more people than logically necessary to commit a crime (criticized) -- so an acquittal of one under the old rule meant ant acquittal of both -- under MODEL PENAL CODE, an acquittal might meant the other still conspired with some people Defenses to conspiracy Legal Impossibility of the underlying action (steel from an empty pocket) Acquittal of one party Under MODEL PENAL CODE acquittal of one person won't matter, as the MODEL PENAL CODE only requires acquittal of one person Factual impossibility is not a defense (aborting an unpregnant woman) No Overt act Majority: Agreement and some overt act (by only one of the conspirators) Any act will do e.g., Guy shows up at place he agrees to rob or Second meeting Minority: -- and common law -- conspiracy is in agreement itself Withdrawals from conspiracy Even if withdrawal is adequate, can never withdraw the defendant from liability from the conspiracy itself Can withdraw from liability from other subsequent crimes Withdraw, even if adequate can never withdraw from liability from the conspirators other subsequent crimes Abandonment -- would have to show that there was one more act in furtherance of the conspiracy before the statute runs out RICO: unlawful for any person employed or associated with any enterprise engaged in or the activities of which affect, interstate or foreign commerce (can just be a violation of state law) to conduct or participate directly or indirectly in the conduct of such enterprise’s affairs through a pattern of racketeering activity or collection of unlawful debt -- triple civil damages are available for RICO Elliot approach: it is irrelevant that each defendant participated in the enterprise's affairs though different, even unrelated crimes, if each crime was intended to further the enterprise's affairs. Needs to be a pattern of violations Conspiracy to commit a crime, and use its proceeds for anything – even something that is legal in a criminal enterprise. Can be a crime to invest wrongfully obtained money in legit businesses under RICO Must be pattern (in 10 years) Attempt: Attempt is specific intent, and a substantial step in the direction of the crime (cannot be convicted of lesser included offences of what the attmept is) Attempt under the Model Penal Code is the manifestation of dangerousness is as great - or very nearly as great - as in the case of purposive conduct." The Model Penal Code Approach: for attempt must have been acting with the kind of culpability otherwise required and taken a substantial step toward the commission (bank robbers) Will find an attempt at an earlier stage with the "substantial step" test than with the "proximity" test, e.g., lying in wait, searching for or following an intended victim, or possessing materials to be used at or near the scene of the intended crime. Old: not necessary to carry through with the last act; dangerous proximity to success test (set up stuff for arson, didn’t light) Proximity: even if the act is lawful, if it is done for purpose of evil consequence Was the defendant’s act sufficiently proximate to the intended crime? (This can be strictly interpreted--where the defendant must have done everything he believed necessary to bring about his criminal result--or, it can be less strictly interpreted, requiring either physical proximity or an "indispensable element," e.g., with assault with a deadly weapon, the defendant must have procured a deadly weapon). Alternative to Proximity: criminal liability for manifestation of intent (man followed woman, said he intended to get her) Equivocality Test (Common Law): Defendant must have committed an act that could not reasonably be interpreted as having any other purpose. Defenses to attempt Mere preparation for crime cannot be enough, must be a step beyond mere preparation Impossibility is no defense to a charge of attempt Majority/MODEL PENAL CODE: If the facts could have been as the defendant believed them, and if that would be a crime, then he would be guilty of attempting the crime under the MODEL PENAL CODE and under the majority position. Malice (two malice crimes at common law (Murder, and Arson)): Definitions Aforethought Seems to mean that the mental state must occur before or at the time of the killing Malice is defined as if she unjustifiable, inexcusably, and in the absence of any mitigating circumstances, kills a person with any one of the four mental states (purposefully, knowing, negligently, recklessly) Common law murder and Arson General Intent -- (recklessly or negligent) (rape and battery and more) -- all other crimes unless they qualify for strict liability -- intent can be inferred from conduct All other crimes are general intent Strict Liability: If the crime is in the administrative, regulatory, or morality area (if there are no adverbs) -- problem with assumption of strict liability according to the
Mistake of fact negates intention -- so it can't be a defense to strict liability If a statute is administrative, regulatory, or morality area Any defense that negates an intention is no defense to the no intent crimes of strict liability Concurrence between mental state and act Causation -- act must be both factual and legal cause Factual cause -- substantial factor necessary But-for cause of harm Normal negligence is not a superseding cause, but exceedingly gross negligence is Combined acts are each sufficient Legal cause No liability of insubstantial cause of harm or independent intervening force Negative acts are never superceding causes MODEL PENAL CODE: not liable if harm occurred different than foreseeable or contemplated and too accidental to warrant conviction Must be concurrence between the men rea at time of thinking and the act Accomplice Liability (unlike conspiracy, no agreement necessary) -- Actual assistance required and principle must know of Accomplice's actions Liability Defendant must intend to commit or to assist another in committing (requires specific intent) In some situations (the mental state might be that the accessory might think that the principal will commit the crime) in some states the required mental state is the knowledge the principal’s mental state Model Penal Code: a person who attempts to aid a person is guilty of being an accessory, regardless of whether the act or the attempted act occurred (§5.01.3) Detectives are not culpable if they have a different mens rea (e.g. not to permanently deprive one of goods) Some courts take the position that any active assistance establishes a mens rea Common law categories Principles in first degree Principles in second degree -- one who gives "constructive prence" Accessories before the fact; An accessory before the fact is one who procure counsels or commands the commission of a felony but who, unlike a principal in the second degree, is not present, actually or constructively, at the commission of the criminal act. Accessories after the fact is defined as Knowledge (not just suspicion) that a felony had been committed, and completed, by the assisted person; Accomplices are liable for the crime itself and all other foreseeable crimes Even if the principle has an immunity the accomplice can still be tried accomplice is imputed with the mens rea of the actor (intent to commit or encourage the crime) (former lover looking for girl) Both parties must have the same intent (relative helped robber rob store to help police catch him) One is not an accomplice if they do not actively aiding or abetting or counseling the crime Don't give people accomplice liability just because they are present, but they seem to be consenting Mens Rea as to Result (in recklessness cases) An accessory before the fact can be liable for the final act (ship boiler blew up) -- even for negligence Participation can be an accessory An accomplice must have the same culpable mental state and intentionally aid in the commission (accident killing others while drag racing) Actus Reus -- Wilcox v. Jeffery—The nature of the illegal act is immaterial (the jazz musician) Sometimes just encouraging can be enough Defenses to Accomplices liability withdrawal Where an accessory has only counseled, commanded, or encouraged the crime, he may withdraw by communicating his changed intention to the other parties If he has already given tangible aid, he must withdraw the aid or try to prevent its use (e.g., by warning the police). Note that it is not necessary that the crime actually be prevented by his actions; if he withdraws properly, he will not be liable even if the crime takes place. Note, however, that the withdrawal must reflect a renunciation of the criminal purpose, not a mere determination that the odds of success are slim, or that one is afraid of getting caught. Also, such withdrawal must take place before the chain of events has become "unstoppable." Defenses -- ways of knocking out the mens reas Infancy Under seven -- no criminal liability Under fourteen -- rebuttable presumption of criminal liability Insanity -- four tests == Most states the prosecutor has the burden of persuasion M'Naughton Rule (traditional): Two prongs Defendant is not guilty by reason of insanity if he lacked the ability to know (and the time of his conduct) the wrongfulness of his action to understand the nature and quality of his action -- requires a disease of the mind I.e. one thinks that they are squeezing lemons Accused’s sanity may be tested by his knowledge that his acts were legally wrong. Objective tests used for Society’s morals Irresistible impulse: Defendant lacked the ability or capacity for self control and free choice. IRRESISTIBLE IMPULSE TEST (followed by a few states—control or volition test) — Due to mental illness, defendant is unable to control his actions or conform his conduct to the law. Note that this need not be sudden — "impulse" is misleading. Note that some jurisdictions use both this and M’Naghten — if defendant meets either, he’s acquitted. Durham rule (formerly test in DC and NH): Defendant's conduct is a product of a mental illness -- mental illness is a vague term United States v. Brawner—The Durham test will not be allowed State v. Wilcox—Evidence toward diminished capacity would produce uneven results. Insanity can be that someone doesn’t know what he is doing – thinks something is something else.: Durham Rule (anti-Mcnaughton rule) A small minority of jurisdictions accept the Durham Rule rather than the M’Naghten Rule in defining criminal insanity. The rule holds that a person is legally insane if his act was the product of a mental disease or defect. The Durham Rule is criticized as being too vague, too subject to the influence of experts, and too favorable to defendants. (two halves of M’Naughton rule -- doesn’t understand the nature and quality of his actions) ALI or MODEL PENAL CODE test lacked substantial capacity to appreciate criminality of conduct lacked substantial capacity to conform conduct to the requirements of the law. ALI/MODEL PENAL CODE "SUBSTANTIAL CAPACITY" TEST (was modern trend until Hinckley; liberalized alternative knowledge or control test) - Defendant had a mental defect such that he lacked the substantial (not total) capacity to EITHER appreciate the criminality/wrongfulness of his conduct OR conform his conduct to the law. In essence, this combines the M’Naghten and Irresistible Impulse tests. Intoxication Voluntary intoxication: Addicts and alcoholics are voluntarily intoxicated Voluntary intoxication is a defense only to specific intent crimes Involuntary intoxication: When someone is slipped into one's drink or forced to drink) This is a form of insanity Just like insanity it is a defense to all crimes, even the no intent crimes of strict liability Mistake Lack of Mens Reas Mistake of fact -- see table Mistake of Law (usually not an excuse but can show lack of adaquate mens reas) misunderstanding as to the law is not a defense, unless the statute’s interpretation is later deemed invalid, in cases where intent is not an element of the crime (corrections officer had a gun) Where the crime explicitly requires defendant’s knowledge of some aspect of the law, and defendant doesn’t have that knowledge, he will be exculpated. Such instances are very rare. Cheek v. United States—There must be a willful violation (tax evader) Due Process required Mistake is a defense if the action is based on a valid official statement of law that is later overturned (peace demonstration at naval base) Lambert v. California—Due process requires knowledge of statute if contains duty to act (convicted person didn’t register) Entrapment Almost never available because predisposition on the part of the defendant to commit the crime negates entrapment The police must originate and induce the crime SUBJECTIVE APPROACH: In the majority of jurisdictions, entrapment is a valid defense where: The defendant was not "predisposed" to commit the crime, and law enforcement officers (or those working for them) instigate defendant to commit the crime. MODEL PENAL CODE -- OBJECTIVE APPROACH: This alternative version of the entrapment defense, adopted by the Model Penal Code and in several jurisdictions by either statute or judicial decision, is also called the "hypothetical person" test. It provides a defense when the conduct of the police is found to be such that it would induce a non-predisposed person to commit the offense. The predisposition of the actual defendant is not supposed to be relevant. The issue of entrapment in an objective test jurisdiction is generally decided by the court, not the jury. Justification Self defense -- justifiable Non-deadly force: one may use non-deadly force any time they believe that a victim reasonably believes that force is about to be used on him Deadly force Majority: A victim may use deadly force any time that victim reasonably believes that deadly force is about to be used on him Deadly force is any force that results in death Minority: Require a victim to retreat to the wall if it safe to do so Exceptions to duty to retreat Don't have to retreat out of your home Don't have to retreat if you are a victim of a rape or robbery Police officers have no duty to retreat When does an original aggressor get the defense of self-defense unless the aggressor runs away and stops at the door, communicate that he is withdrawing. Defense of others: This turns on only the reasonableness of the belief that they need your assistance. Defense of a dwelling Deadly force may never be sued solely to defend your property Spring guns are a crime -- deadly force may never be used solely to defend your property Justified homicide Where the killing is necessary The killer is without fault; and The killing occurs in The performance of a legal or The exercise of a legal right. Duress and Necessity Defenses to all crimes at common law, except homicide Necessity is the same as duress, except that it is a defense to all crimes, except homicide
Duress Threat of serious bodily harm to family member by another human being Defendant behave reasonably Situation wasn’t the defendant’s fault Government proclamation on something eliminates necessity defense Common law crimes -- no state actually has them. One you know the old common law crimes, one can predict the MODEL PENAL CODE versions Assault -- to tie to a mental state, it is necessary --must look at the statute Assault as an attempted battery (specific intent crime) Like all attempts, assault as an attempted battery is a specific intent crime Assault as a threat -- (general intent crime) Battery: (General Intent) a completed assault Possession: need to exercise Dominion be in control have knowledge have opportunity to dispossess (safekeeping is not disposing) Homicide Victim must be human Murder, by itself is common law murder (requiring malice) and won't be able to use the additional defenses for first degree murder (and for only specific intent crimes) -- lower the mental state to common law murder voluntary intoxication any mistake of fact reasonable or unreasonable need clear evidence of premeditation to support first degree conviction (killed 10 year old daughter) one of the follwing mental states is required for common law murder (MALICE at common law, one of the following intents were necessary (look like specific intent) There is a demonstrated intention to cause great bodily harm; The act (or omission) would naturally tend to cause great bodily harm or death; Abandoned and malignant murder (highly reckless, depraved heart) Intentional performance of an act detailing a substantial likelihood of an act causing death (must show malice) I.e. playing Russian Roulette A homicide occurs during the commission of a dangerous felony.(see felony murder) Note that implied malice is sufficient for "malice aforethought," a requirement, along with the unlawful killing itself, of common law murder. Implying malice: Use of a deadly weapon will allow a presumption of intent to kill. In light of Sandstrom v. Montana, the "presumption" must be viewed as a permissive inference. LF/CL § 7.1(a) Felony Murder: causing death while you are committing a felony (no malice needee) Committed during the course of a felony including inherently dangerous felonies [arson, kidnapping, robbery, burglary and rape Some courts consider that the felony must be inherently dangerous, while other will look at the circumstances where the felony was committed Defendant must be guilty of underlying felony Causal connection for Felony Murder: Ask whether the felony dictated the conduct which led to the homicide. If not too remote in time and place, the homicide will constitute felony murder. Death must be something foreseeable. Not as a result of the felons fighting amongst each other. Death should be reasonably foreseeable Independent test: If the felony itself it near Homicide (battery) Felony murder doesn’t apply Place of temporary safety-once felon has reached, subsequent deaths caused not felony murders Redline Rule - victim or police officer resists or shoots felon to prevent crime or escape - -felon not liable for death of co-felon (but can be liable for death of 3rd party bystander) Manslaughter -- Two kinds of manslaughter Where there is intent to kill -- Voluntary manslaughter (heat of passion)-- never use voluntary manslaughter unless there is some passion Killing from passion (provoked) -- no adequate time to cool off The Traditional Common Law Limits Elements Actual provocation -- spouse having sex with another is provocation to mitigate murder (spitting in someone's face, assault) Legally adequate response Acted reasonably Adaquate time to cook off Mere words are not enough provocation to mitigate murder (murdered wife disparaged his prowess) Departures From the Categorical Approach -- MPC takes just "emotional disturbance" view Any provoking circumstance should be presented to the jury, as well as the cooling off time —reasonableness of person’s extreme emotional disturbance can be considered by a jury (rejected boyfriend murders her) Consideration of a "reasonable man" should take into account the circumstances of that person (sodomized child murdered attacker) Fight Imperfect justification Where there is no intent to kill involuntary manslaughter -- killings from criminal negligence ie falling asleep at the wheel of a car firing a gun and missing misdemeanor manslaughter killing while you are committing a misdemeanor or what is known as an unenunerated felony(not dangerous)
LEGALNUT.COM NOTICES AND DISCLAIMERS:
Copyright Property. This outline is © copyrighted 2006 by Legalnut.com (Site). This outline, in whole or in part, may not be reproduced or redistributed without the written permission of Site. A limited license for personal academic use is permitted, as described below or in Site’s Terms and Conditions of Usage page on this site. This outline may not be posted on any other website without permission. Site reserves the exclusive right to distribute, change or modify this outline in whole or in part.
This Outlines does not constitute legal advice and is not a replacement for obtaining legal counsel.
| ||||||||||||
![[image]](Criminal%20Law%20Fall%202002_Images/Criminal%20Law%20Fall%202002_1.png)