|
Criminal Law Outline
Introduction (CB 1-30) Purposes of Punishment Process of Crime Definition Principle of Legality 31-43
Previously defined conduct – general rule --- Forbids retroactive crime definition. Desirability in principle of advance legislative specification of criminal conduct. Principle concerns the process rather than the content.
Rationales for Legality Principle In order for deterrence to work, we must have stuff spelled out ahead of time. Commitment to representative government and Idea of social contract. We only gave up what we have to, not every freedom. Don’t want individual judges or people to make laws that are good for them, want representatives to make laws that are good for everyone. Judicial innovation could (in Beccaria’s view pg. 37) lead to arbitrariness and inconsistency. Today people wouldn’t say that crimes exist because people don’t know what the law is. Most criminals know their conduct is illegal but believe they won’t be caught. Therefore, the principle of legality is justified more as being essential to the ethical integrity of the criminal law. Principle of legality is a good check on police officers and prosecutors. “in a system that lodges the all-important initiating power in the hands of officials who operate, as they must, through informal and secret processes, there must be some devices to insure that the initiating decisions are, to the greatest extent possible, fair, evenhanded, and rational.”
Rex v. Manley (1932 ENG): Δ was convicted of giving false comments to the police. The trial court held that the act “tended to a public mischief” and the appeals court affirmed, finding compelling evidence that there were “ingredients” of public mischief or prejudice to the community. Today viewed as bad law. Shaw v. Director of Public Prosecutions (1961): Δ convicted of common law misdemeanor of conspiracy to corrupt public morals (for publishing hooker directory). “There remains in the courts of law a residual power to enforce the supreme and fundamental purpose of the law. Contra bonos mores – against public morals. Knuller v. Director of Public Prosecutions (1972): Conviction for running classified ads by male homosexuals, relying on Shaw, despite an act by parliament decriminalizing homosexual acts.
Vagueness 43-64 A Constitutional Doctrine requiring that criminal statutes have at least minimally clear meaning. Papachristou v. City of Jacksonville, US 1972 - 52 Facts: Two white women and two black men were arrested while driving under an ordinance banning “vagrants” R: Vagrancy laws of the Jacksonville type teach that the scales of justice are so tipped that even handed administration of the law is not possible. “Those generally implicated by the imprecise terms of the ordinance – poor people, non conformists, dissenters – may be required to comport themselves according to the lifestyle deemed appropriate by the Jacksonville police and the courts. “Encourages arbitrary and discriminatory enforcement” è “convenient tool for harsh and discriminatory enforcement. Over-Inclusive: allows police officers to decide when to enforce.
Kolender v. Lawson, US, 1983 - 43 F: Lawson arrested 15 times under Cal. Statute §647-e that requires persons who loiter or wander on the streets to provide a credible and reliable ID and to account for their presence when reqruented by a cop under circumstances that would justify a stop under Terry rule. H: §647-e is unconstitutionally vague b/c it encourages arbitrary enforcement by failing to describe with sufficient particularity what a suspect must do in order to satisfy the statute. R: Void for Vagueness doctrine: a penal statue must define the criminal offense with sufficient definiteness that 1) ordinary people can understand what conduct is prohibited and 2) in a manner that dn encourage arbitrary and discriminatory enforcement. Need to show how a suspect would satisfy the requirement to provide credible and reliable ID. è in end, suspect violates statues unless the officer is satisfied with the ID.è State fails to establish standards by which the officers may determine whether the suspect has complied with the ID requirement. Under fed constitutional law, courts can find something unconstit. usually only when there is a criminal outcome. è only way to 2 ways to challenge the law 1) violate the law. You challenge the law as a defense 2) facial challenge è rarely happens, so this is construed very narrowly. You usually aren’t allowed to challenge a law that is not directly affecting you. è usually has to be invalid in a respects. This case is a facial challenge!!!
Chicago Gang Congregation Ordinance - in one year alone, 40,000 people were arrested. - Less notice than Kolander è in that case, perp. could get out of situation by showing identification. Here you have no way out until trial when you can give an affirmative defense. Struck down by Ill courts on vagueness grounds è definition of loiter is too broad. è It’s difficult to understand what is it to not have a purpose. Having a cigarette, going for a walk, etc...è also vagueness of disperseness element, what does it mean (one block, two) and for how long.
Whats wrong with a vague statute? fails to give adequate notice of whats prohibited. Ie lack of fair warning. indefinite law invites arbitrary and discriminatory enforcement. The power to define a vague law is left to those who enforce it.
CRTICISM: Most people don’t learn what the law is from a statute. This means that facial uncertainty of the statute can be overcome by judicial construction. A vague statute may invite arbitrary enforcement, but any law allows it. Police decide who to arrest and which laws to enforce. Prosecutors decide who to bring charges against and prosecutors may accept or reject guilty pleas and make or withhold recommendations of sentence.
3 points about SC and vagueness doctrine. Never been used to strike down a core crime such as rape, murder or theft. If the legislature is making a good faith attempt to deal with a real social problem, particularly where there is an identifiable victim to the crime, its unlikely to be held unconstitutionally vague. SC rarely if ever used the vagueness doctrine to prohibit legislature from accomplishing a legitimate law enforcement objective. Its ALWAYS relevant to vagueness issue whether its possible to draft a narrower statute that will still accomplish the same goal. And Law enforcement need is always a powerful arg. Against the vagueness of any statute. Law students overuse the vagueness doctrine. Its very limited. Classic situation is one where the crime defined by the legislature seems to be aimed at no particular evil, where the average citizen may well violate the law by engaging in perfectly innocuous conduct, where there is a large opportunity for law officers to pick and choose those they’d like to arrest and where there isn’t a serious law enforcement need for a statute drafted in the terms before the Court.
Factors that influence the cts. Decision to tolerate vagueness infeasibility of greater precision social costs of not being able to regulate certain bx. Obscenity regulations dem. this, its impossible to really define obscene material, but it needs to be done so we tolerate vagueness.
Political cost of not regulating certain bx. Public reactions, pressures on law enforcement. When there is lower cost of non-reg. this creates more discretionary powers particularly when the law that’s enforceable gets at minor and low danger conduct.
How to analyze a statute for vagueness. Statutory language Are there any cases that further narrow the language Are the concerns the court has identified implicated Fourth does it promote arbitrary and discriminatory treatment Is a criminal/non-criminal law How harmful is the is the conduct being regulated What is the status of offenders What is the cost of regulation Is greater precision feasible?
U.S. v. Petrillo – A provision of the Federal communications Act made it criminal force a broadcast licensee to employ more people than they need. The reference to number of employees needed was challenged as being vague. The Supreme Court reversed. Stating that in this instance it couldn’t have been more precise. The Difficulty in being more precise is an important factor favoring judicial . . . acceptance of statutory indeterminacy. One more --- there is heightened scrutiny when the law in question impinges upon first-amendment freedoms of speech and press. This is because it is costly to have vague laws in this area because of the unwanted deterrence of constitutionally protected rights. Government may regulate in the area of constitutional freedoms only with narrow specificity. Obscenity: falls out of the category of protected speech. Roth Test: “average person, applying contemporary community standards, the dominant theme of the material taken as a whole appeals to the prurient interest.” Decided on case dealing with a statute prohibiting obscene and indecent pictures or prints . . . held to be constitutional.
Roth Memoirs – Later Memoirs court added 3 elements: The dominant theme of the material then as a whole appeals to a prurient interest in sex The material is patently offensive because it affronts contemporary community standards relating to the description or representation of sexual matters; The material is utterly without redeeming social value.
Strict Construction 64-84 Requires that ambiguity in interpretation of criminal statutes be resolved in favor of the accused. Began in response to the rise in the use of the death penalty. “it was against this background of unmitigated severity in serious crimes that the doctrine of strict construction emerged.” Later, when the death penalty was used much less, legislatures enacted statutes overruling the strict construction and stating that laws should be interpreted in order t benefit the overall purpose. Today strict construction is used inconsistently
The justification for using it is not to avoid severe punishments, but rather a concern for fair notice.
Keeler Cal. 1970 --- guy kills fetus. Statute says its unlawful to kill a human being which has been defined as someone born alive. --- not fetus. Court says Although the Penal Code commands s to construe its provisions “according to the fair import of their terms, with a view to effect its objects and to promote justice” It is clear the courts cannot go so far as to create an offense by enlarging a statue or deleting words, or by giving terms used false or unusual meanings.
People v. Sobiek, Cal App, 1973 -74 : Sobiek embezzled money from his investment club (15 friends organized club to invest money in second mortgage) of which he was president. (1) steal, take, carry away (1) personal property (3) “of another” P: Court granted quashing of indictment on basis that a general partner cannot be convicted of embezzling partnership property which comes into his possession or under his control during the course of the partnership business by reason of his being a partner. i.e. no one can be guilty of stealing what belongs to himd I: Is this law applicable or is he guilty of grand theft? R: The rule that a partner cannot be found to embezzle partnership money should be rejected. è “Whatever the merits of such notices in the civil law, it is clear they have no relevance to the criminal law’s effort to deter deprivations of other people’s economic interests. This is not ex post fact b/c: 1) interpretation of the grand theft statute in this way is reasonable; 2) He must have known that his act was immoral and that he was taking the property of others.
- in Keeler, it was found that nothing in the statute to preclude CL rule; in Sobiek it was found that nothing in the statue required CL rule. McBoyle v. U.S. – 283 U.S. 25 (1968) SC finds that a statute prohibiting theft of motor vehicles didn’t apply to an airplane b/c the common usage of the word motor vehicles implies things running on land. Even though a thief probably wouldn’t check the language, we still need to have clearly written laws in order for them to apply.
Actus Reas Crime requires conduct. The conduct can be an act, an omission (file taxes, register for draft, etc) where there is a legal duty (relationship, statute, contract, assumption of care) to act, or possession (burglary tools, narcotics). Normally, the conduct must occur under prescribed circumstances and sometimes it must cause a prescribed result. The "actus reus" is all of the conduct, circumstances, and results required by the definition of the offense. Voluntary Act 106-113 Classic definition of voluntary act: act that results from an exercise of the will. Things that are not voluntary: A pushes B into C (physically coerced movement) Swarm of bees (reflex movement) Unconsciousness Muscular Contraction or Paralysis produced by disease.
Martin v. State: man convicted of being drunk on public highway b/c police arrested him at his home and drug him to the highway. People v. Decina: D was epileptic. Had seizure while driving and ran over and killed several children. He was convicted for negligent homicide in a motor vehicle. Everyone agreed that the seizure was involuntary, but he was still liable because the act of driving a car with knowledge that he was subject to epileptic seizures was voluntary. Time frame , concurrence of voluntary and mens rea If you expand the time frame you can find a voluntary act and the question is whether you can find a person who performs a voluntary act with a guilty mind – was there time when the D assumed the risk.
Robinson v. : SC holds that being addicted to drugs is not voluntary and thus not criminally punishable. Powell v Texas: SC holds that a person who is a chronic alcoholic can still be held liable for public intoxication. Robinson è States cannot punish for status alone. Powell è but states can punish the acts flowing from status è e.g. violence stemming from drug addiction. Constitutional Limitation Defining a crime in terms of a “status” rather than a particular activity violates the Eighth Amendment prohibition against cruel and unusual punishment Ex: it’s illegal to buy drugs, but it’s not illegal to be addicted to them.
Conclusion Marine – where an act must be voluntary where conduct must be voluntary being carried by the police is not voluntary. Docina – if we expand the time frame to include mens rea, then you can convict even the ultimate act that causes the harm is involuntary. Robinson – prohibits states from punishing status Powell – states can punish acts compelled by status. Where states sometimes can and do draw a distinction is where the addiction was not voluntary.
Omissions 85-98; note on 105 In order to be held liable for an omission there must be a duty to act. Mere moral obligation to act is not enough. Some statutes expressly punish failure to act thereby creating a duty to act.
“Voluntary Act” applies as well to both omissions and possession From Low book: “Criminal liability can be based on an omission if the defendant is physically capable of performing the act, and if one of two conditions is met: (1) the omission is expressly made sufficient by the law defining the offense; or (2) a duty to perform the act is “imposed by law.” Chief categories of legal duty are summarized in Jones v. United States, 308 F. 2d 307 (D.C. Cir. 1962). Duties based on statute, such as the common provision that a diver involved in an auto accident must stop and render assistance to injured persons; Duties based on relationship, such as that b/t a parent and a minor child. Duties based on contract, such as the employment responsibilities of a lifeguard; and duties based on voluntary assumption of responsibility that effectively precludes aid from others, such as the person who takes a foundling home and thus secretes it from the agencies of public assistance. Deciding factor is that niece was supported by Aunt.
Steps of Analysis: Is there a duty? What is the source? - Look at the relationship of the victim and the Δ Was it breached? - Reasonableness of failure to act Did the breach cause harm? - Actual and proximate causation
Commonwealth v. Konz (1979): Decedent was denied access to his insulin by wife and student on Saturday. On Sunday decedent was given opportunity to seek help but choose not to and died on Monday. While the court found a spousal duty to help, it also found that her conduct was not a proximate cause of death – the causal chain (intervening act) had been broken by his choice not to seek help after her omission. Regina v. Instan (1893): Δ lived with and was supported by her aunt. Aunt developed gangrene and died within a few days, all the while the Δ knew of her aunt’s condition and did nothing about it, continuing to feed the aunt. Court upheld conviction, saying that while not every moral obligation is a legal duty, every legal duty is founded upon a moral obligation. Familial implied duty? People v. Robbins (1981): After a religious awakening decedent stopped taking medication and died. Husband charged with homicide for failure to summons medical aid. Indictments were thrown out – unwarranted extension of spousal duty that would be in conflict with NY right to not undergo medical treatment. People v. Beardsley (1907): Δ and a women drank for two days and she took morphine. Δ passed women off on friend (wife was coming home) and she died. Prosecutor claimed duty as “her natural guardian and protector” – court ruled no duty (not married). People v. Oliver (1989): Δ brought man home from bar and gave him spoon to shoot up. He collapsed and she went back to bar. Per Δ’s instruction, her daughter and friend dragged man into shed where he died. Court found that Δ took the decedent out of a public place where he could have been helped therefore she took charge of a person who could no longer take care of themselves – establishing a duty that was breached. Jones v. United States, Defendant was entrusted with care of two children. She let them starve nearly to death in her basement. court holds that there was no duty of care since there was no contract for her to care for the children.
Mens Rea- a guilty mind or mens rea is generally regarded as an essential requirement for the imposition of criminal liability Common Law Approach (114-137) NOTE: under CL if a statute doesn’t mention special mens rea the default is General Intent. --- NOTE: also the default level of mens rea is generally negligence and sometimes recklessness.
Historical Origins Regina v. Faulkner Facts: A seaman on a ship broke into a liquor barrel and when he tried to plug the hole he lit a match to see. This caused a fire and the ship was destroyed, he was charged with arson. The prosecution wanted to transfer intent from the theft to the arson, Court rejects this saying that when he set fire to the ship he had a felonious intent but not the intent of burning the vessel Issue: Did he intentionally set fire to the ship? Is it sufficient that he should have foreseen the consequences?
He did not intend to start the fire and the fire was not a necessary consequence of the felony, and if it was a probable result of the felonious act that he should have foreseen, the intent to start the fire could be imputed to him but the view was not submitted to the jury He was not convicted because the jury was not asked to make this determination (should he have foreseen), what they were charged with was insufficient (intent for theft transfers to arson)
Common Law – In common law mens rea terminology usually does not mean what one would expect, and the statutory language doe not reflect accurately what are the mental elements of the various crimes Regina v. Cunningham – A man steals a gas meter from his basement and lets gas leak out into the house next door nearly asphyxiating an old woman who lived there. He was convicted under a statute that poisoning another person was a felony. The trial judge instructed the jury that the statute had no mention of the necessity for intent so that his “unlawful and malicious act” of stealing the meter, which caused the lady to be poisoned, was enough.
Morissette v. United States Morissette convicted of stealing a U.S. government property after a jury instruction omitting the requirement that he intended to “wrongfully” deprive the government of its property. Rule: where intent of the accused is an ingredient of the crime charger, its existence is a question of fact that must be submitted to the jury. Reasoning: A conviction for stealing gov. property requires an intent to wrongfully deprive. At CL, theft offenses required knowledge on the pat of a defendant that the act of taking constituted a wrongful deprivation in order to sustain conviction. Mens rea is so rooted in CL, can’t assume then that no mens rea is required when a statute fails to mention it. Rather, its assumed to be required unless specifically stated otherwise. NOTE: under common law once you get convicted of a crime you are convicted of the crime you actually committed. Higher grade if the fake rolex turns out to be real. Under the MPC it’s the opposite.
Mens Rea levels of intent (most to least) Purposely è intentional Knowingly è necessary consequences Recklessly è actual foresight of risk Negligently è should have foreseen risk
Specific v. General Intent Specific Intent There are three kinds of specific intent crimes, all focusing on an actual subjective intent concerning something the Δ did or planned. Some mental picture of the crime or outcome exists in the persons mind. Contemplated Conduct – Δ must intend to engage in conduct beyond what has already been done. Contemplated Impact – Δ hope or intend that conduct will have some future impact or effect. Knowledge (willful) that one or more elements of the Actus Reus exists – Δ know elements of actus reus exist or believe that facts exist even if they don’t.
General Intent General Intent = recklessness or negligence. Recklessness - Focuses on actual awareness of risk that an element of a crime will occur. Negligence - Refers to situations where the Δ should have been aware of a risk that an element of a crime will occur. (see mistake of fact defense)
Note: Mistake of Fact Defense: Morissette’s defense was based on mistake of fact. His claim was that he thought the government had abandoned the bomb casings and had left them for anyone to take. This turned on the distinction b/t specific and general intent. If it was general then it would have tuned on whether it was an “honest and reasonable mistake.” If specific then is was a valid defense whether or not the mistake was reasonable under the circumstances. All of the elements of a crime must be proved by the prosecution. Its just framed as a defense because the defense will bring it up. The prosecution still has the burden of proving that its not true.
Model Penal Code Approach App A-1-A-3; 137-49 Article 1 § 1.02(3) The provisions of the Code shall be construed according to the fair import of their terms but when the language is susceptible of differing constructions it shall be interpreted to further the general purposes stated in this Section and the special purposes of the particular provision involved. The discretionary powers conferred by the Code shall be exercised in accordance with the criteria stated in the Code and, insofar as such criteria are not decisive, to further the general purposes stated in this section. Essentially saying that they won’t use rule of strict construction.
Article 2 § 2.01 (1) -- states that people won’t be guilty of an offense unless the conduct was voluntary or the liability is based on an omission to perform an act of which he was physically capable. (2) The following aren’t voluntary. a reflex or convulsion a bodily movement during unconsciousness or sleep conduct during hypnosis or resulting from hypnotic suggestion; a bodily movement that otherwise is not a product of the effort or determination of the actor either conscious or habitual.
(3) Liability for omission unaccompanied by action will only happen if: the omission is expressly made sufficient by the law defining the offense; or a duty to perform the omitted act is otherwise imposed by law.
(4) Possession is an act, within the meaning of this Section, if the possessor knowingly procured or received the thing possessed or was aware of his control thereof for a sufficient period to have been able to terminate his possession. General Requirements of Culpability § 2.02 – Minimum Requirements of Culpability. Except as provided in § 2.05, a person is not guilty of an offense unless he acted purposely, knowingly, recklessly or negligently, as the law may require, with respect to each material element of the offense. Purposely: A person acts purposely with respect to a material element of the offense when: i. If the element involves the nature of his conduct or a result thereof, it is his conscious object to engage in the conduct of that nature or to cause such a result; and ii. if the element involves the attendant circumstances, he is aware of the existence of such circumstances or he believes or hopes that they exist.
Knowingly: A person acts knowingly with respect to a material element of an offense when: i. If the element involves the nature of his conduct or the attendant circumstances, he is aware that his conduct is of that nature or that such circumstances exist; and ii. if the element involves a result of his conduct, he is aware that it is practically certain that his conduct will cause such a result.
Recklessly: A person acts recklessly with respect to a material element of an offense when he consciously disregards a substantial and unjustifiable risk that the material element exists or will result from his conduct. The risk must be of such a nature and degree that, considering the nature and purpose of the actor’s conduct and the circumstances known to him, its disregard involves a gross deviation from the standard of conduct that a law-abiding person would observe in the actor’s situation. Requires a finding of fact by the jury.
Negligently: A person acts negligently with respect to a material element of an offense when he should be aware of a substantial and unjustifiable risk that the material element exists or will result from his conduct. The risk must be of such a nature and degree hat the actor’s failure to perceive it, considering the nature and purpose of his conduct and the circumstances known to him, involves a gross deviation from the standard of care that a reasonable person would observe in the actor’s situation. Culpability required unless otherwise provided. When the culpability sufficient to establish a material element of an offense is not prescribed by law, such element is established if a person acts purposely, knowingly or recklessly with respect thereto. When a code prescribes the kind of culpability to apply to one element of the offense, it applies to all elements of the offense unless another purpose is clear. if the law states that a certain level of culpability is required, all higher levels also meet this burden. Requirement of knowledge Satisfied by Knowledge of High Probability. When the knowledge of the existence of a particular fact is an element of an offense, such knowledge is established if a person is aware of a high probability of its existence, unless he actually believes that it does not exist.
§ 2.04 Ignorance or Mistake Ignorance or mistake as to a matter of fact or law is a defense if: The ignorance or mistake negatives the purpose, knowledge, belief, recklessness or negligence required to establish a material element of the offense; or The law provides that the state of mind established by such ignorance or mistake constitutes a defense.
Although ignorance or mistake would otherwise afford a defense to the offense charged, the defense is not available if the defendant would be guilty of another offense had the situation been as he supposed. In such case, however, the ignorance or mistake of the defendant shall reduce the grade and degree of the offense of which he may be convicted to those of the offense of which he would be guilty had the situation been as he supposed. A belief that conduct doesn’t legally constitute an offense is a defense to a prosecution for that offense based upon such conduct when: The statute or other enactment defining the offense is not known to the actor and has not been published or otherwise reasonably made available prior to the alleged conduct; or He acts in reasonable reliance on an official statement of the law, afterward determined to be invalid or erroneous contained in i. a statute or other enactment; ii a judicial decision, opinion or judgment; iii. An administrative order or grant of permission; or (iv) an official interpretation of the public officer or body charged by law with responsibility for the interpretation, administration or enforcement of the law defining the offense.
The defendant must prove a defense arising under Subsection (3) of this Section by a preponderance of evidence.
Actus Reas under MPC – Includes Conduct, circumstances and results. The conduct is sometimes specific as in larceny “taking and carrying away” or broad as in murder “any act or omission when required duty to act that causes the death of a human being.” Circumstances: in larceny must be property of another person for eg. Result: ie. Death of a person in murder. NOTE: although the elements of actus reas don’t neatly fit into one of this categories, it is essential to do this every time you approach an MPC problem.
Step Two of MPC analysis: once the conduct is separated in conduct, circumstances, and result you must then apply the required mens rea to each element. NOTE: default standard is recklessness.
Derivitive Defenses: Mistake of Fact Common Law: Step 1: classify the crime as one of specific intent, general intent, or strict liability Specific intent: an honest mistake of fact is a defense. This assumes that the mistake relates directly to a specific intent required for commission of the offense.
Green v. State (1949): Δ drove into woodland and killed several hogs. It turned out they were someone elses and he was arrested. He asserted a mistake of fact defense. An honest mistake of fact is a defense to a specific intent crime.
General Intent: an honest and reasonable mistake of fact is a defense. This rule will apply to actus reas elements of specific intent crimes as long as there is no strict liability with respect to that element. This assumes that the mistake relates directly to the general intent required for commission of the offense. Why? Because general intent crimes require recklessness or negligence. One who makes a reasonable mistake isn’t negligent. State v. Walker (1978): Δ and son abducted Δ’s grandson and another school kid whom they believed to be the Δ’s granddaughter (the boy’s sister). The court remanded the case with the instruction that the mens rea required for the crime (abducting a child without the consent the parent), was knowledge (of the unlawfully element) – therefore an honest mistake of fact was a defense. Yermian v U.S. (1984): Δ made false statements on a security clearance form. The offense required a specific intent but the mistake of fact was related to an element of the offense that did not require specific intent. The court held that the general intent rules thus applied – whether the Δ “honestly and reasonably” believed that the lies did not implicate the interests of the federal government. The Δ admitted that he knowingly made false statements. The mistake was offered with tregard to an element of the offense that did not require a specific intent, i.e. that the false statement involved a matter within the jurisdiction of the US. The general intent rules therefore apply, and the question accordingly was whether the Δ “honestly and reasonably” believed that the lies did not implicate the interests of the federal government.
Note: when one makes a mistake as to the actus reas elements of a crime this can be a defense only where the mistake shows that the specific intent required by the crime was not there. Ie receiving stolen property. Mistaken belief that the property was not stolen is a defense. Receiving crim law books known to have been stolen. --- mistaken belief that they were stolen English books is only a defense if the crime is interpreted to require specific intent as to the element of crim law.
Strict Liability: mistake of fact is not a defense if it relates to an element for which strict liability is imposed.
Ignorance/Mistake of Law 149-163 State v. Fox: 124 Idaho 924 (1993) Fox charged with possession of ephedrine, a controlled substance in Idaho. He contended that he was not aware that it was illegal. Rule: The mens rea element necessary for conviction of possession of a controlled substance only requires knowledge of the nature of the substance possessed. Reasoning: possession of a controlled substance is a “general intent” crime. For these types of offenses, the mens rea requirement is satisfied by the defendant knowledge of the facts sufficient to constitute the criminal act. Here Fox knew he possessed ephedrine. That’s enough.
Maxim: ignorantia juris neminem excusat: ignorance of the law is no excuse: If it were allowed as a defense, it would always be entered by the Defense. And the court would have to decide it in every case. Really difficult to prove one way or the other if someone knew the law. Some states have proposed reforms to this rule: Jersey has code stating that there’s no crime if the mistake was reasonable and the actor had pursued all means available to find out if what he was doing was legal.
Registration laws may be different: Lambert v. California: woman convicted for failure to register in LA. Court states that actual knowledge of required for registration laws. Since no conduct is required just mere presence.
Problems with the Maxim
The threat of penal sanctions can have no deterrent effect if the actor reasonably believes conduct to be lawful Everyone is presumed to know the law is easier when the offenses are Malum in se however modern laws define a great many crimes that are Malum Prohibitum. If ignorance if the law would always be alleged by the party, and the court, in every case, would be bound to decide the point. Holmes – Public policy sacrifices the individual to the public good. Such an excuse would encourage ignorance of the law. Hall – The degree of vagueness increasing as one proceeds from the core of the rules to their periphery. It is therefore possible to disagree indefinitely regarding the meaning of these words. It is the courts job to decide one way or another on issues of law. If it was left up to the individual, whenever a Δ in a criminal case thought the law was thus and so, he is to be treated as thought he law were thus and so, i.e. the law actually is thus and so. Exceptions:
Interpretation of Mens Rea Terms - Mens rea words have on occasion been interpreted to permit a defense in the case of good faith mistakes about the meaning of the criminal law. Misled by Official Authority - Some courts have acquitted on grounds of fairness in cases where the Δ made a mistake of criminal law in reliance upon an official statement. Strict Liability Unfair - Application of the principle that ignorance of the criminal law is not a defense is unacceptable in situations where the context provides no warning signals to the reasonably socialized individual that give the individual a fair opportunity not to become a criminal. Due Diligence Effort to Ascertain the Law - There is some support for the proposition that a defense should be provided to a person who diligently tries to avoid criminal conduct by learning about the law in advance. Not in very many places, however.
Mistake of non/criminal law: State v. Woods: Case dealing with woman convicted of adultery under blanket act for being with married man. She believed him to be divorced. Brings up issue of mistake of non-criminal law relevant to the criminality of the conduct.
Under the Common Law if the offense required a specific intent or some other special mental element, a mistake of a non-criminal law that negated the required mens rea was a defense. ---- the mistake has to be honest. But: under CL general intent crimes --- no mistakes of law were a defense --- mistakes of facts have to be reasonable. MPC -- Model Penal Code--- has to negate recklessness for mistake to work. Mistake of law not a defense unless the statute defining the crime expressly requires knowledge of the law (i.e. the mistake negates the mens rea which is knowledge.) M
Strict Liability 193-205 -- There are four basic times when strict liability is imposed: Public Welfare Offenses (Violations under MPC) Dispense w/mens rea for certain elements and holds that the guilty act alone makes out the crime Under MPC: Strict Liability concerns a category of offenses that the MPC calls “violations.” Under § 1.04 violations aren’t crimes and carry only fines, forfeitures, or other civil penalties. The culpability structure doesn’t apply to violations. (like in torts). Examples: Distributors or sellers of impure foods/drugs, intoxicating liquors, hazardous or toxic materials Traffic regulations Business licensing
The offenses usually share the following characteristics: No harm is required to occur, although Δ is usually in a position to prevent great harm by the exercise of care The offense does not involve conduct designed to harm a particular individual, but conduct that may harm random members of the public at large The underlying conduct is not itself immoral, or not necessarily immoral, but is sought to be controlled for reasons of public health or safety The public injury will occur irrespective of good or bad intentions of Δ Normally the penalties and the stigma of conviction are relatively minor
Immoral behavior - Closely associated with private morality, and in particular with sexual behavior, that traditionally has not required mens rea for one critical element of the offense Prince v. Regina (1875): Δ convicted of taking a girl under the age of 16 (she was 14) out of the possession and against the will of her father. Δ thought she was 18 but mistake of fact defense denied. The court reasoned that Δ’s conduct would have been morally wrong even if the girl had been 18 – Malum in Se.
Elements of any crime that do not affect the criminality of the Δ's behavior. Strict liability for grading elements, mens rea for the lesser offense is sufficient to punish you for the greater offense if on the facts you have violated the greater offense (strictly liable for value of items stolen). Mistakes of facts as to a grading element are not a defense. i.e. mistake of the value of the property. You still knew you were stealing just thought it was a lesser crime. The GRADE of the offense is based on what was done, not what was thought to be done.
Other – Felony murder, Firearm regulations, lying to federal government official, etc. United States v. Freed (1971): Δs were indicted for possession of unregistered hand grenades in violation of a federal statute. The act requires no specific intent or knowledge that the hand grenades were unregistered. Possession is the criminal act required. (Douglas) This is a regulatory measure in the interest of public safety, which may well be premised on the theory that its no surprise that possession is hardly an innocent act. (Douglas) Knowledge not of law (negating fair notice holding of trial court) but simply of possession. It should be common sense that the govn’t would have such regulations. Rule: A person may be convicted of a crime even if he’s not aware that the act was illegal. Reasoning: When a criminal statute is of a regulatory nature tending to promote public health and safety, it isn’t necessary to show a specific intent to violate the statute. This is particularly true when the nature of the offense is such that a reasonable person is likely to suspect that the conduct is prohibited. Here, the statute in question is of a regulatory nature, and a reasonable person would suspect that owning hand grenades is illegal. Therefore, Freed did not need a specific intent to break the law.
Staples v. United States (1994): Δ failed to register a machine gun under the same statute as Freed. Supreme Court held that the severe penalty associated with the offense (10 yrs.) tended to suggest that Congress did not intend to eliminate a mens rea requirement and thus public welfare offense rational doesn’t apply. United States v. Yermian (1984): Δ lied about his employment history and criminal record on a job questionnaire for his employer, a defense contractor. Δ admitted to making false statements but claimed that he had no knowledge it would be communicated to a federal agency. Court ruled that Δ knew or should have known. Noted the language was of a federal jurisdictional element and that such language need not contain the same culpability requirement as other elements of the offense.
Rationale – Appropriate to use strict liability where the potential social harm is very great and where it can be said that known context gives adequate notice that behavior is clearly wrong. When talking about SL we are referring to crimes in which we dispense with one of the mens rea requirements. Its not ACTUAL absolute strict liability.
Involuntary Acts
Essentially same as CL MPC §§2.01(1)-(2)
People not guilty of a criminal offense unless conduct “includes” a voluntary act, omission to which his is physically capable. Not voluntary if it is - reflex, convulsion, bodily movement during sleep/unconsciousness, conduct while hypnotic, not a product of “effort or determination” by actor Mistake of Fact - §2.04 (1) & (2)
Mistakes That Negate Mens Rea - A mistake of fact is a defense if it negates any mens rea requirement of the offense. §2.04(1)(a) Hence, if the prosecutor is required to prove a mens rea of X, it is a defense if the Δ makes a mistake that creates a reasonable doubt that X exists. Mistakes That Establish a State of Mind Constituting a Defense - A mistake of fact is a defense if it establishes a state of mind that constitutes a defense. §2.04(1)(b) The provision applies when the definition of the offense, to some other relevant provision of the penal law, states that a contain belief is a defense – basically mistake of circumstances (bigamy – thought spouse was dead) Grading Elements - Since grading factors require mens rea, a mistake of fact as to a grading factor can be a defense if it negatives the mens rea. But if the Δ would be committing a lesser offense on the facts as they were believed to be (as will always be the case with grading factors), the Δ will be convicted of the lesser offense (the thief who believes he is only committing petty theft when in fact it is grand theft) §2.04(2) - establish required mens rea and the “not” with mistake of fact.
Mistake of Criminal Law
The Paradigm Case
Ignorance or mistake as to whether given conduct constitutes a crime is not a defense. And ignorance or mistake as to the existence, meaning, or application of the law determining the elements of an offense is not a defense. §2.02(9) – States that no mens rea is requires :as to whether conduct constitutes an offense” or as to “the existence, meaning or application of the law determining the element sof an offense. This means that no mens rea as to the criminality of behavior is required. States that knowledge of the law is not an element to be negated – prosecutors do not have to prove that Δ knew the law – it is not an element of the crime to be proved. Establishes no mistake of criminal law.
Exceptions
Where the MPC so Provides: §2.04(3)(a) ignorance of the criminal law is a defense if the law is unknown to the Δ and has not been published or otherwise reasonably made available (notice). §2.04(3)(b) contains a list of official sources. A mistake as to the meaning of the criminal law based on one of these sources is a defense if it is not negligently made. Reliance on official statement (would change Hopkins and Striggles) and Δ must actually believe the conduct to be lawful and that belief must have been formed “in reasonable reliance” on an official misstatement from one of the prescribed sources. Where the definition of the offense so provides - §2.02(9) – It is possible in the definition of a particular offense to require some mens rea level as to the criminality of behavior, or as to the meaning, existence, or application of the law determining the elements of an offense (not found in MPC) Non-criminal law - §2.04(1)(a) – Establishes mistake of fact or law however since §2.02(9) forbids mistake of criminal law, law in §2.02(1)(a) is taken to mean non-criminal law (see below) Stronger cases where there is a question of fair notice and whether the party acted in reasonable reliance upon official sources – also where the law is of a regulatory nature versus Malum in se.
Mistake of Non-Criminal Law - Treats mistakes of non criminal law just like mistakes of fact. A mistake of the non-criminal law is a defense if it negates mens rea. Intoxication 181-93 Terminology: Intoxication includes alcohol and drugs. “Voluntary” intoxication is the voluntary introduction of artificial substances into the body which the D knows or should know are likely to have intoxicating effects. Admissibility to negate actus reas can just be used as evidence of the D’s inability to perform the act. Common law doesn’t permit intoxication as a defense to the voluntariness of an act.
Admissibility to Negate Specific Intent – three views: Not admissible to negate a specific intent. 20% of states take this approach.
Admissible whenever relevant – ie. Admisable to negate specific intent whenever evidence is relevant to the particular specific intent required by the definition of the offense. 40% of states take this approach.
Admissible only to show that D lacked capacity to form a specific intent – burden of persuasion is on the D by a preponderance of the evidence. 40% of states take this apprach
General Intent Crimes: Consensus that intoxication is inadmissible to negate mens rea for general or “basic” intent offenses.
Director of Public Prosecutions v. Majewski (1976 ENG): Δ was convicted of assault – Δ claimed he was under the influence of drugs and alcohol and thus should escape liability. The court held that self-induced intoxication provides no defense and is irrelevant to offenses of general intent and if Δ is unaware of a risk which he would have been aware had he been sober, such unawareness is immaterial. Chittum v. Commonwealth (1970): Δ was convicted of attempted rape over an defense of intoxication. A restrictive VA court ruled that intoxication can mitigate specific intent only in cases of murder (to 2nd degree) and is never an excuse for crime. MPC § 2.08 Intoxication Except as provided in Subsection (4) of this section, intoxication of the actor is not a defense unless it negatives an element of the offense. When recklessness establishes an element of the offense, if the actor, due to self-induced intoxication, is unaware of a risk of which he would have been aware had he been sober, such unawareness is immaterial. Intoxication does not, in itself, constitute mental disease within the meaning of section 4.01. Intoxication which isn’t self induced or is pathological is an affirmative defense if it caused the actor to lack substantial capacity to either appreciate the criminality of the act or to conform his conduct the requirements of law. Definitions Intoxication means a disturbance of mental or physical capacities resulting from the introduction of substances into the body; Self-induced intoxication means intoxication caused by substances which the actor knowingly introduces into his body, the tendency of which to cause intoxication he knows or ought to know, unless he introduces them pursuant to medical advice or under such circumstances as would afford a defense to a charge of crime. Pathological Intoxication – means intoxication grossly excessive in degree, given the amount of the intoxicant, to which the actor does not know he is susceptible.
Summary of MPC intox standard if required mens rea is purpose or knowledge: intoxication is always admissible to disprove the required purpose or knowledge whether or not it was self-induced or pathological. Recklessness: if intox is NOT self-induced or is pathological, then the intox is fully admissible to show that the D was unaware of the risk. Recklessness: if intox is self induced and isn’t pathological, then the D may not offer evidence of intox show unawareness of a risk that the D would have otherwise been aware of if not intoxicated. Negligence: person held to standard of reasonable sober person. The situation would not take into account the defendant’s intoxicated state.
Homicide Intro: Distinction B/t Murder and Manslaughter Murder under Common Law: 4 types of cases. Those where the actor intended to kill or knew that death would result Those where the actor intended to inflict grievous bodily harm or knew that such harm would result those where the actor manifested reckless indifference to death – a state of mind variously described as a “depraved mind” and “abandoned and malignant heart,” or “wickedness of disposition, hardness of heart, cruelty, recklessness of consequences, and a mind regardless of social duty Those where the death occurred while the actor was engaged in the commission of a felony
Manslaughter under CL where actor intended to kill but committed the offense in a sudden heat of passion engendered by adequate provocation (voluntary manslaughter) where actor engaged in reckless or negligent behavior that was insufficiently culpable to constitute murder but more culpable than ordinary civil negligence (involuntary manslaughter) those where the death occurred while the actor was engaged in the commission of an unlawful act not amounting to a felony. (involuntary manslaughter).
Categories of homicide Murder - four categories of murder, when a person acts with: Malice aforethought (means with intent and knowledge to kill) Intent to inflict serious bodily harm
Extreme recklessness Felony murder
Voluntary Manslaughter – an emotional state mitigates it from murder, but intent is still there Involuntary Manslaughter – unintentional homicide where defendant acted with criminal negligence or recklessness Misdemeanor Manslaughter – homicide occurring during the execution of a misdemeanor Freddo/Casassa è Intentional homicide can become mere manslaughter. Essex è unintentional homicide can become murder Grading: Intentional Homicide 657-64, 774-801 Different Degrees of homicide graded by “premeditation” (1st degree) and “deliberate” (2nd degree) People v. Anderson: --- man murdered 10 year old girl. Stabbed more than 60 times. Rule: the brutality of a killing cannot in itself support a finding that the killer acted with premeditation and deliberation. This was therefore 2nd degree.
1st Degree: 3 patterns (most 1st degree verdicts have all 3) Evidence of planning activity evidence of motive. evidence as to the manner of the killing that showed a preconceived design to kill.
Freddo v. State – dude keeps calling Freddo a son of a bitch despite repeated requests to stop. One day Freddo whacks him in the head. Rule: murder should be reduced to voluntary manslaughter if the passion prompting the killing was due to a provocation that would, in the mind of an average reasonable man, stir resentment likely to cause violence, obscuring the reason and leading to action from the passion rather than judgment. Heat of Passion - An intentional killing will be reduced to manslaughter if committed in the heat of passion caused by adequate provocation before a reasonable person would have cooled off: The Δ must have actually lost control, the loss of control must have been in response to legally adequate provocation Δ's reactions must have been reasonable or understandable. Δ must not have actually cooled down, the time between the provocation and the killing must not have been too long (as determined by the court), and it must have been reasonable for the Δ not to have cooled down given the actual passage of time. State v. Gounagias – dude sodomized then ridiculed about it. Kills two weeks after the incident. Holding: that this is not sufficient to lower the grade. Too much of a cooling period.
People v. Ogen: the adequacy of provocation should not be judged by reference to the accused’s special sensitivities. Criticized b/c what the law recognizes as a reasonable provocation is what a white male thinks. Ie finding his wife in bed with another man.
Included/Excluded as adequate provocation: Included
|
FREE Law School Outlines 
