Criminal Law Outline

Criminal Law, Swedlow Hillary 2010 Eva Crawford Pg. 1

What is a crime? Any social harm defined and made punishable by law

What is Criminal Law? Public law, those laws protecting society as a whole

What is Punishment? Removal of life cash or liberty etc. punishment is what whatever society deems it to be.

How does the constitute affect the law? It is the limit of what can be a crime, ex. 14th, and 8th amendments.

Where is the criminal law? 1. Common law- judge made law 2. Model Penal Code: American Law Institute put common law into one coherent code. 3. Legislature- Enactments of law by elected officials, ex. State penal codes/statutes.

Punishment Cases

Principles of Punishment

The Queen v. Dudley and StephensA person may not sacrifice another person’s life to save his own.

People V. Superior Court: A just punishment should: 1) protect society, 2) punish the defendant for wrongdoing, 3) encourage the defendant to be good in the future, 4) deter other crimes, 5) incapacitate the defendant, 6) make restitution for the victim, and 7) be comparable to punishments for similar crimes.People v. Du:Same as above.

United States v. Gementera:Be “reasonably related” to “the nature and circumstances of the offense and the history and characteristics of the defendant.”Be both “reasonably related” to and “involve no greater deprivation of liberty than is reasonably necessary” to “afford adequate deterrence to criminal conduct”“Provide the defendant with needed educational or vocational training, medical care, or other correctional treatment in the most effective manner.”

Utilitarianism: Justification that serves the greater good for society

Retributivism: Punishment equals the crime… ex. Death penalty

Deterrence: to change behavior from example.

Specific Deterrence: Change behavior on individual basis.

Goals of punishment:1. Rehabilitation:

2. Incapacitate:

3. Retribution:


Mens Rea /cases Definitions and DefensesNature of Mens Rea :

Case:Regina V. Cunningham:Malice” requires (1) an intent to do the harm that was done; or (2) recklessness as to whether the harm occur

General Definition: A guilty mind; a guilty or wrongful purpose; a criminal intent

Specific Definition: The mental state the defendant must have with regard to the offense.

General Issues of proving culpabilityINTENT

People v. Gentry :

Intent can be inferred by the circumstances surrounding the crime.

Specific Intent: crimes require that the accused intend both the criminal conduct and its particular result.

General intent: crimes require only proof that a defendant intended the particular criminal act, and not the result.Defense: Offer evidence to show that she was unable to form the requisite intent and thus cannot be convicted.i. Intoxication (Not acceptable for General Intent)

ii. Diminished Capacity (Depends on Jurisdiction) iii. Mistake of Fact: See below.

Strict Liability

United States V. Cordoba-Hincapie:The term mens rea has two competing meanings. On one hand, the broad view of mens rea simply means “guilty mind.” Under this definition, an individual will be found guilty for any criminal act (Actus rues) that he committed while having any morally culpable or blameworthy state of mind. On the other hand, the narrow view of mens rea provides that an individual is not guilty of an offense, even if he had a guilty state of mind, where the individual’s state of mind does not match the mental state specified in the definition of the charged crime.

Staples v. United States: Absent a clear Congressional statement that mens rea is not required, the public welfare/strict liability rationale should not be applied to interpret any statute that fails to mention mental state as an element of the offense.

Garnett V. StateTraditionally, statutory rape is a strict liability crime designed to protect young persons from the dangers of sexual exploitation by adults, loss

Malum Prohibita- Those that are prohibited things that we have decided to prohibit

Malum in Se- are those that are bad in and of themselves.. They are inherently evil

We are talking about offenses that have no mens rea to them.

They are called regulatory crimes.. Most are not dangerous crimes.

identify the strict liability look for the adverbs .. If you can’t find one look to see what kind of behavior the statute is actually preventing… Mala prohibita are allowable as long as the punishment are not to severe … and to severe is loss of liberty.


HomicideCommon Law Pennsylvania Degrees of Murder Model Penal Code

Homicides ContinuedIntentional killings

State v. Guthrie:There must be some period between the formation of the intent to kill and the actual killing which indicates the killing is by prior design.

Midgett v. State: Premeditation and deliberation are required elements of first-degree murder

State v. ForestAmong the circumstances to be considered to determine whether the Defendant acted with premeditation and deliberation required for first-


degree murder are: (1) lack of provocation by the victim; (2) conduct and statements of the Defendant before and after the killing; (3) threats and declarations of the Defendant before and during the killing; (4) ill-will between the parties; (5) the dealing of lethal blows after the victim was rendered helpless; and (6) evidence of the killing being done in a brutal manner.

Manslaughter

Girouard v. State

Words alone-that is, unaccompanied by conduct indicating a present intention and ability to cause bodily harm-cannot constitute adequate provocation to reduce murder to manslaughter.

Homicide Continued


Unintentional Killings-Unjustified Risk Takings

People v. Knoller :The theory of implied malice is applicable whenever the defendant is aware that they are engaging in acts that endanger the life of another, not just a risk of serious or great bodily injury.

State v. Hernandez:A defendant need not be aware of the risk to others from his conduct to be guilty of manslaughter.

State v. WilliamsThe conduct of the defendants should be tested from a reasonable man standard. If the conduct of the defendants, regardless of their ignorance, good intentions and good faith, fails to measure up to the conduct required of a man of reasonable prudence, they are guilty of ordinary negligence because of their failure to use ordinary caution.Unintentional Killing-Unlawful conduct

Rape


Forcible Rape (General)

State v. Alston: Generalized fear of the Defendant is not enough to render consent to sexual intercourse alleged void, but rather, the Defendant must use force or threats to overcome the will of the victim to resist the sexual intercourse.

The resistance Requirement

Rusk v. State : The evidence required to support a rape conviction must warrant a conclusion either that the victim resisted and was overcome by force or the victim was prevented from resisting by threats to her safety.

State V. Rusk: The reasonableness of the victim’s fear in determining whether sufficient force was used to support a rape conviction is a question of fact for the jury.

“No” or the absence of “Yes” as “Forcible”

Commonwealth v. Berkowitz: The “forcible compulsion” required to sustain a conviction for rape in Pennsylvania must be more than verbal resistance, i.e. threat or actual force

General Defenses To Crimes


Principles of Justifications

2. Self-Defense a. General Principles United States v. Peterson:The conduct of the defendants should be tested from a reasonable man standard. If the conduct of the defendants, regardless of their ignorance, good intentions and good faith, fails to measure up to the conduct required of a man of reasonable prudence, they are guilty of ordinary negligence because of their failure to use ordinary caution.

b. Reasonable Belief People v. Goetz:A person may use deadly force in self-defense if he reasonably believes that said force is necessary to protect himself.

State v. Wanrow:The reasonableness of a person’s actions in self-defense must be considered in the light of her own perceptions of the situation.

c. Battered Women State v. Norman:The killing of a passive victim does not preclude the defense of self-defense.

3. Defense of Others People v. Karr: Under the defense of others concept, a person may kill a person threatening another if he reasonably believes that that person is in imminent danger of death or serious bodily harm. An unborn fetus, viable or nonviable, is included in the defense of others.


Defense of Property/ Habitation and law enforcement D.

People V. Ceballos :A person is not justified in using deadly force to protect his property from burglary.

4.Necessity

Nelson v. StateTo invoke the defense of necessity, the crime committed must have been done (i) to prevent a significant evil; (ii) there was no legal alternative and (iii) the harm caused was not disproportionate to the harm avoided.

United States v. SchoonThe necessity defense is inapplicable to a case involving indirect civil disobedience.

General Defenses Continued


Principles of ExcuseDuressUnited States v. Contento-pachonDuress and necessity are available defenses to criminal liability

People v. Unger:The defense of necessity is available to prison escape situations where the prisoner is choosing to break the law to avoid a greater evil.

People v. AndersonDuress is never a defense to murder, nor can the defense of duress reduce murder to manslaughter.

Intoxication

United states v. Veach


Insanity

United states v. Freeman

The recognized purposes of criminal law are not satisfied by punishing someone who is mentally incompetent.

State v. Johnson

Under the now-adopted Model Penal Code test, a defendant is relieved of responsibility for his criminal actions under two circumstances: (1) when, as a result of mental disease or defect, the defendant lacked substantial capacity to appreciate the criminality of his conduct and (2) when, as a result of mental disease or defect, the defendant lacked substantial capacity to conform his conduct to the requirements of law.

Model penal Code

State v. Wilson

A defendant does not appreciate the wrongfulness of his actions if a mental disease or defect causes him to harbor a distorted perception of reality and to believe that under the circumstances as he honestly perceives them, his conduct does not offend societal morality even if he is aware that the criminal code forbids his actions.

Miscellaneous Common Law Crimes BARRKS


Crimes/Definitions

Burglary: Breaking and entering the dwelling house of another at night with the intent to commit a felony therein.

Elements

Mens Rea: The intent to commit a felony therein

Breaking: Create a breach or an opening, (or) constructive breaking creating an opening by fraud or threat of force, the felon did not physically do it but they might as well have.

Entering: Go in the opening... physically or with object/tools.

Dwelling House: A place where person resides or has resided.

At Night: amount of light in the sky.

Arson:

Malicious burning of dwelling house of another.

Mens Rea:

Intent to burn or a reckless disregard for a very high risk that burning will occur.

Burning: any act of charring or more to the dwelling house and not the fixtures.

Dwelling house: People’s home (same as burglary)

Battery:

The unlawful use of force resulting in harmful or offensive contact

Mens Rea: Intent to create contact or negligence that leads to the contact or an unlawful act that leads to the contact.

Harmful or offensive contact: reasonable person standard.

Can sometimes have consent, like in sports, but beyond the realm, no more consent.

Assault: Attempted but unsuccessful battery Mens Rea:

Attempted battery where you try to better your victim and fail. (or) intent to create fear or apprehension in the victim.


Kidnapping:

Forcible movement or secret confinement of the victim without lawful authority and against the victim’s will.

Forcible Movement: Moving Victim somewhere they don’t want to go

Secret Confinement: No one knows where they are and keeping them a secret.

Lacks Lawful Authority Over Victim: You don’t have permission over that person like a legal guardian would have.

Against the Victim’s Will: Without their consent.

MERGER DOCTRINE: A crime can merge into another crime … assault into battery.

Inchoate Offenses


Attempt

People v. GentryThe crime of attempt requires intent to do an act constituting a substantial step toward committing a crime and a specific intent to commit the crime attempted.

Bruce v. StateAttempted felony murder is not a crime in Maryland.

United States v. MandujanoWhile it is clear that the crime of attempt requires more than mere preparation, the distinction between preparation and attempt is not clear. A “frequently approved” test is that attempt requires some “appreciable fragment” of the crime be committed.

Mens Rea

Actus Reus

Solicitation

State v. CottonThe offense of solicitation requires some form of actual communication from the defendant to either an intermediary or the person intended to be solicited, indicating the subject matter of the solicitation.

State v. Mann;Solicitation requires the defendant to ask, entice, induce, or counsel another to commit a crime.

Mens Rea

Actus Reus

Conspiracy

People v. CarterConspiracy is defined as a partnership in criminal purposes, a mutual agreement or understanding, express or implied, between two or more persons to commit a criminal act or to accomplish a legal act by unlawful means.

Pinkerton v. United StatesAn overt act of one partner may be the act of all without any new agreement specifically directed

Mens Rea

Actus Reus


to that act.

People v. Lauria The intent of a supplier who knows of the criminal use to which his supplies are put to participate in the criminal activity connected with the use of his supplies may be established by: (1) direct evidence that he intends to participate, or (2) through an inference that he intends to participate based on, (a) his special interest in the activity, or (b) the aggravated nature of the crime itself.

People v. SwainA conviction of conspiracy to commit murder requires a finding of intent to kill and cannot be based upon a theory of implied malice.

Commonwealth v. AzimOnce conspiracy is established and upheld, a member of the conspiracy is also guilty of the criminal acts of his co-conspirators.

Commonwealth v. CookThe fact that a defendant may have aided and abetted a crime does not establish conspiracy, particularly where the evidence shows that prior planning was not an inherent facet of the crime. Furthermore, neither association with a criminal nor knowledge of an illegal activity constitute proof of participation in a conspiracy.

People v. SconceOnce a defendant’s participation in a conspiracy is shown, it will be presumed to continue unless he is able to prove, as a matter of defense, that he effectively withdrew from the conspiracy. Withdrawal from a conspiracy requires an affirmative and bona fide rejection or repudiation of the conspiracy, communicated to the co-conspirators. Further, under California law, withdrawal is a complete defense to conspiracy only if accomplished before the commission of an overt act.Special Defenses

People v. thousand:

Legal impossibility is a defense to the crime of attempt, but factual impossibility is no defense to

Impossibility

Abandonment


attempt.

Commonweath v. McCloskey

Voluntarily abandoning a crime before completion exonerates a defendant from criminal responsibility.

Liability

Accomplice Liability

State v. Ward :

An accessory cannot be tried, without his consent, before the principal. Furthermore, an accessory cannot be convicted of a higher crime than his principal. An acquittal of the principal bars a subsequent trial of the accessory.

State v. Hoselton

This court has consistently held that lookouts are aiders and abettors and, as such, are principals in the second degree. Further, an aider and abettor, or principal in the second degree, must in some sort associate himself with the venture, that he participate in it as something that he wishes to bring about, that he seeks by his action to make it succeed.

People v. Lauria:

The intent of a supplier who knows of the criminal use to which his supplies are put to participate in the criminal activity connected with the use of his supplies may be

General Principle

Elements

Mens Rea


established by: (1) direct evidence that he intends to participate, or (2) through an inference that he intends to participate based on, (a) his special interest in the activity, or (b) the aggravated nature of the crime itself.

Riley v. State

When a defendant solicits, encourages, or assists another to engage in conduct, and does so with the intent to promote or facilitate that conduct, the defendant becomes accountable for that conduct.

State v. Linscott:

Accomplice liability for a primary crime (i.e. robbery) is established by proof that the actor intended to promote or facilitate that crime. Liability for a secondary crime (i.e. murder) that may have been committed by the principal is established upon a two-part showing: (1) that the actor intended to promote the primary crime and (2) that the commission of the secondary crime was a “foreseeable consequence” of the actor’s participation in the primary crime.

State v. V.T.:

Actus Reus

Conspiracy Liability

Pinkerton V. United States :

An overt act of one partner may be the act of all without any new agreement specifically directed to that act.


Vicarious Liability

Commonwealth v. Koczwara:

One who applies for and receives permission from the state to carry on the liquor trade assumes the highest degree of responsibility to his fellow citizens. As a licensee, he is under a duty not only to regulate his own personal conduct, but also to control the acts and conduct of any employee to whom he entrusts the sale of liquor.

Corporate Liability

Theft Offenses

Larceny

Lee v. State: At common law, larceny has been defined as the tresspassory taking and carrying away of personal property of another with an intent to steal that property.

Larceny


Rex v. Chisser : Physical possession of a good obtained through larceny does not vest in the possessor a legal right to that good.

United States v. Mafnas: Ordinarily, if a person receives property for a limited or temporary purpose, he is only acquiring custody. Thus, if a person receives property from the owner with instructions to deliver it to the owner’s house, he is only acquiring custody. Therefore, his subsequent decision to keep the property for himself would constitute larceny.

Topolewski v. State: Where the owner of property, by himself or his agent, actually or constructively, aids in the commission of the offense, as intended by the wrongdoer, by performing or rendering unnecessary some act in the transaction essential to the offense, the would-be criminal is not guilty of all of the elements of the offense.

Rex v. Pear: This action is, today, commonly referred to as larceny-by-trick. It arises where a defendant, at the time of acquiring property from a legal owner, knows that the use he communicates to the owner is not the true use to which the property will be put once in his hands.

Brooks v. State:

If lost property has not been abandoned by the owner, it is the subject of larceny by the finder, when, at the time he finds it, he has reasonable ground to believe, from the nature of the property, or the circumstances under which it was found, that if he does not conceal, but deals honestly with it, the owner will appear or be ascertained. However, before the finder can be guilty of larceny, the

Larceny by trick

Larceny by False Pretenses


intent to steal the property must have existed at the time he took it into possession.

Lund v. Commonwealth:

At common law, labor or services could not be the subject of an action for false pretenses because neither time nor services may be taken or carried away.

Mens Rea

People v. Brown:

In order to find a defendant guilty of the crime of larceny, it must be proven that the intent of the defendant was to permanently deprive the owner of possession of the property that was taken. An intent merely to take the property temporarily will not be sufficient to support a conviction on a charge of larceny


People v. Davis :

The general rule is that the intent to steal required for larceny is an intent to deprive the owner permanently of possession of property. However, larceny may still be found, absent intent to permanently deprive, when: (1) the defendant intends to sell the property back to its owner; (2) the defendant intends to claim a reward for finding the property and (3) the defendant intends to return the property to its owner for a refund.

Embezzlement

Rex v. Bazeley:

For a charge of embezzlement to stand, there must be an element of entrustment, to an individual in the course of employment, of property held in trust for the entrustor. Moreover, there must be subsequent conversion of that property by the individual embezzler that implicates a breach of that trust between the parties

False Pretenses

People v. Ingram:

Theft by false pretenses occurs where the defendant makes a false representation with the intent to defraud the owner of his or her property and the owner is in fact defrauded. As in any other case of fraud, the injured party must have been induced to part with his or her property in reliance on the false


representation made by the defendant.

People v. Whight:

To support a conviction of theft for obtaining property by false pretenses, it must be shown: (1) that the defendant made a false pretense or representation; (2) that the representation was made with intent to defraud the owner of his property and (3) that the owner was in fact defrauded in that he parted with his property in reliance upon the representation.

United States v. Czubinski:

To support a conviction for wire fraud, the government must prove: (1) the defendant’s knowing and willing participation in a scheme or artifice to defraud with the specific intent to defraud and (2) the use of interstate wire communications in furtherance of the scheme. Additionally, to be in violation of Section:1034(a)(4) of the Computer Fraud and Abuse Act (the Act), a defendant must be found to have knowingly and with the intent to defraud, accessed a Federal interest computer without authorization, or exceeded authorized access and by means of such conduct furthered the intended fraud and obtained anything of value.

Any additional notes

Criminal Law Outline

Documents

Transcript of Criminal Law Outline