Download Criminal Law: Insanity, Intoxication, and Mistakes of Fact and more Cheat Sheet Criminal Law in PDF only on Docsity!
Actus Reus
(^) A voluntary act (or omission when there is a legal duty to act) that results in some kind of social harm (in legalese, an "actus reus").
The four basic elements of a crime:
1. A voluntary act (or omission when there is a legal duty to act) that results in some kind
of social harm (in legalese, an "actus reus").
2. A prohibited mental state (in legalese, a "mens rea", or guilty mind).
3. A chain of causation that links the defendants actions with the social harm.
4. Concurrence between the mens rea and the actus reus.
Formula for Criminal liability:
Actus Reus + Mens Rea + Causation + Social Harm = criminal liability A. THE VOLUNTARY ACT REQUIREMNT
o In general, a person cannot be convicted of a crime unless he or she commits a voluntary
(Volitional) act that causes social harm.
o A volitional act is a movement of the body willed by the actor.
o Nonvolitional acts are ones where the will or awareness of the act are absent. For example
is someone has a seizure and hits another person with their arm while seizing out, you can
say that the persons body, but not the person, has caused the impact. Other ex. Movements
during sleep, reflexive actions.
o Habitual acts are generally considered volitional even if "the actor is unaware of what she
was doing as she is doing it."
o Courts may use a time-framing construct to draw the line between voluntary and non-
voluntary decisions. this is up to the judge's discretion.
o The awareness of a condition which may produce terrible consequences, and
disregarding those consequences, renders that person liable for culpable negligence.
Martin v. State
Criminal liability may only be imposed when the unlawful conduct is committed
voluntarily.
Officers Forcibly took Martin from his home to the highway (a Public place) where he
allegedly committed the proscribed acts.
The court held that If the accused is taken involuntarily and forcibly carried to a public
place by an arresting officer, a charge of being drunk in a public place cannot stand.
The Actus Reus requirement was not met since the officers forcibly brought him to a
public place and he did not go there voluntarily.
State v. Decina
A criminal defendant who disregards the consequences that can result from driving a
vehicle with knowledge of a health condition that can produce involuntary actions may
be found guilty of vehicular homicide.
The awareness of a condition which may produce terrible consequences, and
disregarding those consequences, renders that person liable for culpable negligence.
To have an unexpected heart attack or other disabling attack, without any prior
knowledge or warning thereof, is altogether different situation.
Interpretive Construction in the Substantive Criminal Law
Legal arguments can be made only after a fact pattern is characterized by interpretive
constructs.
Courts may use a time-framing construct to draw the line between voluntary and non-
voluntary decisions. this is up to the judge's discretion.
The defendant commits a voluntary act at time 1 which poses a risk of causing an
involuntary harm later (drives the car knowing he is blackout-prone) then the 2nd
act—crashing while unconscious—we be deemed voluntary
Liability for Omissions
o Criminal liability can be based upon an omission if the defendant had a legal duty to act
and was physically capable.
o There was no statute or contract imposing a duty of care on Beardsley, nor was there a
special relationship between Beardsley or Burns.
Commonwealth v. Howard
o A parent may be convicted of involuntary manslaughter for a child’s death if the parent
failed to protect the child from a known and substantial risk of harm that directly caused
the child’s death.
o The mother knew of the abuse, The death of her child was a direct result of appellants
failure to protect her child. The mother did nothing to protect her child and the child's
death was due to the gross negligence of her mom.
o A parent has the legal duty to protect their child. The omission of this duty will create
criminal culpability.
Commonwealth v. Pestinikas
o A failure to perform a duty imposed by a private contract may be the basis for a criminal
charge.
o In this case, the appellants had a contract to care for the elderly man and provide
necessary care to him. The contract imposes a legal duty upon the appellants to
preserve the life of the elderly man.
o A criminal act involves both a physical and mental aspect. An omission to act can satisfy
the physical aspect of criminal conduct only if there isa duty to act imposed by law. for
criminal liability there needs to be malicious intent.
The "No Duty to Rescue" Rule
o The legislature has the power to enact good Samaritan Statutes.
o 2 types of categories of statutes-- one civil and the other criminal--that are referred to as
" Good Samaritan " Laws:
1. The first type of statute protects from civil liability those who help or rescue others
in emergency situations. (Applies to specific types of professionals such as doctors,
firefighters).
2. The second type imposes an affirmative duty on ordinary people to assist others in
need. Failure to provide such assistance may result in criminal punishment.
Attempt
The attempt offense requires both the intent to commit the crime and, in most states, some
sort of substantial act in furtherance of the crime. Although Sally's intent to murder her
husband and Kate may be clear from her enrollment in the auto class and her confessed plan,
Sally had not yet tried to implement this plan. Action toward the crime is required for attempt
because the law does not penalize bad thoughts alone.
Two defenses specific to attempt
1. the defense of impossibility
- Factual impossibility (not a defense) (^) A situation in which the defendant is mistaken about a fact that makes it impossible for her to commit the target offense. If the facts were as the defendant believed then she would have succeeded in committing the offense. (^) Ex) reaching into someone's pocket to steal their wallet but their pocket is empty. The defendant was mistaken about a fact: the pocket was empty
- Inherent factual impossibility (defense to attempt) (^) The crime is real but the means being pursued by the defendant are so inherently unlikely to result in the prohibited outcome that criminal prosecution seems to be a waste of time and energy.
- Pure Legal impossibility (a defense to attempt) (^) Driver who turns right on red, imagining it to be a crime, but gets stopped for a broken tail light. The crime of turning right on red is impossible to commit because its legal.
- Hybrid legal impossibility (a defense to attempt) (^) Occurs when the defendants intended act is criminal, but the defendant is mistaken about the legal status of some factor relevant to the offense in question (^) Defendant receives property that was not stolen believing that it was stolen (^) Defendant tries to steal from the pocket of a stone statute that resembles a human
3 factors considered:
Nearness of danger
Greatness of harm
Degree of apprehension felt (people v. Rizzo)
To be liable for criminal attempt under the dangerous proximity
test , the defendant must come close to actually completing the
target offense (this test is narrower than the MPC’s Substantial
Step test- i.e., it is usually more difficult to hold a defendant liable
under the dangerous proximity test than substantial step test)
4. Indispensable element
Once you possess the instrumentality for the crime you have
crossed the line from preparation to perpetration
5. Probable Desistance
The actor has reached a point where it is unlikely that he would
voluntarily desist from his effort to commit the crime
Identify the “point of no return” of an ordinary person in
the actor shoes
6. Unequivocally—Res Ipsa Loquitour
An act does NOT equal an attempt unless it is unequivocally
manifested with criminal attempt
Based on the act alone can you determine whether the
accused was attempting to commit the crime? If there is
more than one reasonable possible answer, then the accused
has not yet done enough
People v. Rizzo (Dangerous Proximity)
Any act taken in preparation to commit a crime can be said to be “tending”
towards its accomplishment. But only those acts which advance very near to the
accomplishment of the intended crime will support an attempt conviction. In other
words, the act must have a "dangerous proximity" to successful commission of
the crime
Dangerous proximity? Court says No
the act must have a "dangerous proximity" to successful commission of the crime.
Here, Rizzo and the other men were looking for Rao to rob him of the payroll, but
they were never able to even locate him. Rizzo and the others had the intent to
commit the crime, but they never had the opportunity. Their acts are too remote to
support a conviction for attempted first-degree robbery.
People v. Staples (Unequivocally)
(^) If the acts of a defendant constitute an attempt to commit a crime, as opposed to mere preparation, he cannot raise the defense of abandonment
(^) In this case, Staples’ act in drilling the holes was a direct step toward completing the burglary and therefore constitutes an attempt. Consequently, Staples cannot raise the defense of abandonment. It is therefore irrelevant whether he voluntarily abandoned his plan or involuntarily abandoned it when he realized that the landlord had notified the police.
State v. LaTraverse (MPC- Substantial Step)
A defendant may only be convicted for attempting a crime if the defendant took actions
constituting a substantial step toward the commission of the crime.
To constitute a substantial step, the conduct must be strongly
corroborative of the actors criminal purpose.
Here, Latraverse took substantial steps toward his goal of intimidating Lombardi into not
testifying at the grand jury proceeding. Latraverse was in Lombardi’s neighborhood late at night with a tool for unlocking cars and materials to start a fire. Latraverse’s intentions were made clear in the threatening note that was specifically addressed to Lombard
Model Penal Code’s method, which provides that an attempt occurs only when a defendant
purposely does something constituting a substantial step toward a crime.
o To amount to a substantial step, the defendant’s actions must support the criminal
purpose.
Causation (Common Law & Supervening Factors)
Causation in criminal law : defendants conduct must be a direct , substantial, and
operative cause of the social harm.
o (^) To be an operative cause, the defendant’s course of conduct must have been a substantial factor, but not necessarily the sole factor, in causing the social harm (^) To impose criminal liability, the action does not have to be the immediate cause of death. The courts consider: [1] did defendant's conduct trigger a series of events which ended in the victims death (operative cause)? And [2] whether the fatal result was so extraordinary, remote or attenuated that it would be unfair to hold the defendant criminally liable?
Common Law
Year and 1 day rule
> Victim has to die within 1 year and 1 day for the defendants initial act to be
connected
> Jurisdictions have modified this rule over the years
(^) De Minimis Contribution : if defendants acts contributed minimally to the social harm then courts are likely to decided that the defendant isn't criminally labile. (^) Omissions are typically not superseding causes.
Conspiracy (Common Law)
Common Law approach to Conspiracy: (^) Conspiracy was committed as soon as two persons formed an agreement to commit a crime or immoral act (included "corrupt, dishonest, fraudulent, immoral" acts) (^) Bilateral approach: requires an actual agreement to commit a crime between the defendant and at least one other (^) the scope of conduct that is punishable is very broad (^) The law of punishing an agreement to commit a crime came close to violating the prohibition against thought crimes o (^) Most jurisdictions require proof of an "overt act" by any member of the conspiracy to demonstrate the existence of conspiracy (^) The overt act need not be illegal or even central to accomplishing the ultimate goal of conspiracy (^) In common law jurisdictions the defendant can be convicted of both the target crime and the conspiracy to commit that crime. Common law Bilateral approach to agreement: o (^) Asks whether there is an agreement between two or more people to commit a criminal act o (^) The focus is on the content of the agreement and whether there is a shared understanding between the conspirators. State v. Pacheco (^) Under a bilateral approach, a conspiracy does not exist if there is no actual agreement to commit a crime between the defendant and at least one other person. (^) Here, no genuine agreement to commit murder or drug-related offenses existed, because Pacheco was conspiring with Dillon, an undercover agent, who had no intention of actually agreeing to commit the crimes.
The Mens Rea of Conspiracy
In common law jurisdictions, conspiracy is usually considered a specific intent crime. The required specific intent involves two elements:
- The intent to enter into the agreement
- The intent to commit, or aid in the commission of, the act or acts constituting the target crime
Defense of Habitation
Common Law
permitted an occupant of the dwelling to use any force necessary, including deadly
force, if he reasonably believed the force was necessary to prevent an imminent unlawful entry AND the intruder intends to commit a felony or cause harm to the occupant
> Underlined is difference between modern and former CL
(^) The Home Protection Bill of Rights creates a rebuttable presumption that a residential occupant has a reasonable fear of death or great bodily injury when he or she uses deadly force against an unlawful and forcible intruder into a residence. (^) 4 elements that need to be met for the bill to apply:
- There must be an unlawful and forcible entry into a residence.
- The entry must be by someone who is not a member of the family or the household
- The residential occupant must have used deadly force against the victim within the residence
- The residential occupant must have had knowledge of the unlawful and forcible entry. (^) The Home Protection Bill of Rights does not apply to unenclosed porches, with no signs, gates or other indications that would tend to show the residential occupant did not expect intrusion into that area. (^) Open doors or windows affords some expectation of such protection because reasonable persons understand the social convention that portals may not be crossed without permission from the structures owner. (^) The Reasonable Expectation Test is used for determining the scope of the terms "residence" or "building" for burglarous entry. It asks the question of whether the nature of the structure's composition is such that a reasonable person would expect some protection from unauthorized intrusions.
Defense of property
one is not allowed to use deadly force in defense of property. People v. Quesada
(^) Statutory felony murde r: if the killing occurred during the perpetration or attempted perpetration of an enumerated felony then 1st degree murder. (enumerated felonies: rape, robbery, arson, kidnapping) Limitations on the felony murder rule:
- Inherently dangerous felony limitation (looking at the felony in the abstract) (^) a homicide is second-degree murder if it is committed in the perpetration, or attempted perpetration, of any felony that is inherently dangerous to human life (^) Possession of a firearm by a convicted felon is an inherently dangerous felony 1. Foreseeability can be a factor to distinguish if it is an inherently dangerous felony (^) To determine whether a particular felony is inherently dangerous , a trial court looks to the elements of the offense in general, not to the defendant’s specific conduct. This is consistent with the requirement the court must view the elements of the felony in the abstract.
- Res Gastae requirement (time and place requirement) has 2 parts: 1. The felony and the homicide must be close in time and distance. In other words there must be both temporal and geographic proximity between the homicide and the felony. 2. The requirement demands a casual connection between the felony and the homicide. (^) Criminal liability requires more than a finding that "but for" the felony the parties would not have been present at the time and location of the accidental death.
- Merger doctrine (^) You cannot charge an individual with assault with a deadly weapon and felony murder at the same time – these same charges merge into the crime itself 4. The agency rule A doctrine that the court uses—unless the individual who was killed was an agent in the underlying felony, then you possibly will not be held liable But you will be held responsible for anything the co-felon may do, may or may not be responsible for what the 3rd^ party does
Florida Statute
○ 1st Degree murder (782.04)(1)(a)(1) ■ The unlawful killing of a human being when perpetrated from a premeditated design to effect the death of the person killed or any human being ■ Capital felony ○ 2nd Degree murder (782.04)(1)(b) ■ The unlawful killing of a human being when perpetrated by any act imminently dangerous to another and evincing a depraved mind regardless of human life, although without any premeditated design to effect the death of any particular individual, ■ Punishable by imprisonment for a term of years not exceeding life ○ 3rd Degree murder (782.04)(4) ■ The unlawful killing of a human being, when perpetrated without any design to effect death, by a person engaged in the attempt to perpetrate any felony OTHER THAN those enumerated in (782.04) (4) ○ Agency Rule to limit Felony Murder (782.04)(3) ■ When a human being is killed during the perpetration of, or during the attempt to perpetrate, any of the enumerated felonies in 782.04(3) by a person OTHER THAN THE PERSON ENGAGED, the person perpetrating or attempting to perpetrate such felony commits murder in the 2nd degree, which constitutes felony of the 1st degree ● Ex: A person tries to rob a bank, the bank teller tries to shoot the felon but misses and kills a bystander, the FELON is going to be charged with 2nd degree murder ● It is a mitigating defense ● MPC ○ Model Penal Code. ■ Requires malice aforethought ■ Purposeful, knowing, reckless, or negligent causing of the death of another human being which calls into play the 4 mens rea elements ■ Does not recognize degrees of murder
- To conform her conduct to the requirements of the law
Differences from the other two tests:
Uses “appreciate” rather than “know” in order to avoid a narrow interpretation
Avoids the word “impulse” in order to avoid the potential pitfalls arising from using
that word
“lacks substantial capacity” avoids criticism of total incapacity requirements
Criticism
Includes a volitional prong despite there being a lack of resources to prove volition
Why have insanity defense?
Those who are substantially unable to restrain their conduct are by definition
undeterrable
Punishment of the insane is no example for others
The insane cannot rationally weigh the consequences of their conduct and therefore
cannot be blamed
Retribution alone is just a form of revenge and is inappropriate for people suffering
from mental incapacity
Intoxication (common law)
Defense of intoxication is comprised of two distinct defenses: (1) voluntary intoxication and (2) involuntary intoxication In Common Law jurisdictions, the rule has been whether a defendant can argue voluntary intoxication as a defense turns on whether the crime charged is considered a specific intent crime or a general intent crime. (^) If the charged offense is a general intent crime , then the defendant will not be permitted to introduce evidence of her intoxication (^) If the charged offense is a specific intent crime the defendant will be allowed to present evidence of her voluntary intoxication. (^) However, in order to secure an acquittal, the defendant must show that because of their intoxicated condition, they did not have the specific intent required for commission of the crime. (^) Most jurisdictions recognized involuntary intoxication as a basis for a temporary insanity claim, in this way involuntary intoxication can be used as an affirmative defense. Commonwealth v. Smith
(^) In Pennsylvania, a defendant in a criminal case may not prevail on a defense of involuntary intoxication if the defendant voluntarily consumed alcohol that heightened the effect of a medically prescribed drug (^) Generally, the involuntary intoxication defense has been recognized in four situations : (1) the intoxication was caused by the fault of another through force, duress, fraud, or similar conduct; (2) the intoxication was caused by an innocent mistake on the part of the defendant; Defendant took hallucinogenic pill in a reasonable belief it was aspirin (3) the defendant unknowingly suffered from a physiological or psychological condition that caused abnormal susceptibility to a legal intoxicant; or Sometimes referred to as pathological intoxication (4) unexpected intoxication resulted from a medically prescribed drug. (^) The case at hand is most similar to (4). However, appellants argument differs from a pure type four involuntary intoxication defense in that she does not claim that the patch alone caused an unknowing and unexpected intoxicating effect. It seems that her intoxication was voluntary and caused an unexpected intoxication when mixed with the patch.
Homicide
"Malice aforethought" should be understood as a legal term of art or technical label for the mens rea of murder. In Penal Codes that primary rely on Common Law, an unlawful killing of a human is committed with "malice aforethought" and constitutes murder when any one of the four conditions are present:
- An intent to kill
- An intent to commit serious bodily injury
- An "abandoned and malignant heart" or "deprived heart"
- The felony murder rule applies MPC Homicide section 210 Murde r-purposely, knowingly, recklessly under circumstances manifesting extreme indifference to the value of human life Manslaughter - recklessly, or a homicide committed under the influence of extreme mental or emotional disturbance for which there is a reasonable explanation or excuse Negligent homicide
(^) There was no evidence that the dad intended to kill the son. There was evidence that the dad intended to further abuse the kid. (^) The fathers actions were decided in the moment. No deliberation (^) Court held that there is insufficient evidence to establish deliberation and premeditation. (^) There is a Difference between intent to kill and intent to abuse some legislatures will include intent to seriously abuse in the rule State v. Bingham (^) For purposes of a first-degree murder conviction, a finding of premeditation may not be based solely on the passage of a certain amount of time. (^) Just because the defendant has the chance to deliberate, this does not mean he actually did deliberate. (^) Manual strangulation, accomplished over a time period of three to five minutes, alone, is not enough to support a conclusion of premeditation. (^) In addition, it is not obvious that a person has the definite ability to deliberate or think through his actions while engaged in sexual activity. (^) This shows how easy it is for the court to turn circumstantial evidence (^) In this jurisdiction premeditation involves more time than a twinkle of an eye (minority view) Gilbert v. State (^) Unlike sentencing guidelines, statutory mandatory-minimum sentences do not allow for discretion or consideration of mitigating factors. (^) In this case, though Roswell Gilbert may have killed his wife out of love or mercy, Florida does not recognize mercy killing as a defense to premeditated murder. Therefore, Gilbert was properly found guilty of first-degree murder. (^) "good faith" is not a legal defense to first degree murder
Involuntary Manslaughter
A person is guilty of involuntary manslaughter when as a direct result of doing an act
in a reckless manner, he causes the death of another person
Standard of recklessness : conscious disregard of human life. Viewed by the ordinary
man.
Commonwealth v. Welansky (^) Wanton or reckless conduct may consist of intentional failure to take the duty of care that is required for the safety of others. (^) If a defendant owes a duty of care for the safety of business visitors invited to premises controlled by the defendant, the defendant acts wantonly or recklessly if the defendant intentionally fails to take appropriate care in disregard of the probable harmful consequences to the business visitors, even if the defendant did not subjectively foresee the risk posed by the unsafe conditions. (^) Although Welansky was not present at the nightclub on the night of the fire, he still controlled its management. He also was aware of the unsafe nature of the nightclub, including its lack of a sufficient number of accessible exits and its inoperative fire doors. Welansky did not need to specifically foresee the risk of death caused by the unsafe conditions, so long as a reasonable person in his place would have foreseen it.
Voluntary Manslaughter (The Doctrine of Provocation)
o (^) One of the ways an intentional killing can be mitigated from murder to voluntary manslaughter is through the doctrine of provocation, also known as heat of passion defense. (^) Mitigating defense, a partial defense. o (^) The better way to think of the provocation is that the defendants culpability is mitigated, not because the absence of malice aforethought, but because of culturally-sanctioned sympathy for his or her loss of self-control. (^) Recognition that anger and passion are in some circumstances justified by prevailing culture. o (^) Three approaches to see if defendant, who is charged with murder, is entitled to a voluntary manslaughter instruction:
- The early common law (categorial) test
- The modern "reasonable person" test
- The MPC's extreme mental or emotional disturbance defense 1. The early common law's categorial approach to provocation (^) Begin to be abandoned in late 1800's
