Criminal Law
Elements of Crime
Inchoate Crimes: All require specific intent (PURPOSE ONLY, not knowl) to commit target offense
Parties to Crime
Homicide: unlawful killing of a human being by another: A killing is unlawful when it is 1) w/o legal justification or excuse (no defense), 2) committed as a result of a criminal state of mind (mens rea). Homicide + malice = murder. Homicide w/o malice = manslaughter. Killing (actus reus) = D is legal cause of V's death. Ask: was the death an expected outcome of D's conduct? --> murder. Unexpected? --> manslaughter. Then look for things that raise or lower out of those categories.
Defenses: For justification (actus reus) defenses ask: was it truly necessary for the D to take the law into her own hands and commit an act that is normally unlawful (reas amt of force)? For excuse (mens rea) defenses ask: was the D's mental process overwhelmed to the point that it is unfair to hold him accountable for a crime?
Theft Crimes: Intent to permanently deprive (steal)
Mens Rea (Guilty Mind)
Actus Reus (Guilty Act)
Common Law
Categories: Model Penal Code/Statute
General Intent: Only reqs desire to do the proscribed act; includes reckless and criminally negligent states of mind (rape, battery, kidnapping). Nullified by honest and reas mistake of fact.
Malice: essential mens rea element for murder at common law.
Strict liability: no mens rea req'd. Act + Result = Guilt. (statutory rape, bigamy, public health, safety regs)
Specific intent: Reqs proof that D intended to create specifically prohibited harm, includes purpose or knowledge ("w/ intent to" (first-degree murder, assault, inchoate crimes, property-related crimes). Nullified by honest but unreas mistake of fact and voluntary intoxication.
Recklessly: gross deviation from norm in consciously disregarding substantial and unjustifiable risk ("D knew the risk but didn't care") (aware of risk but not enough to have substantial certainty that a particular result will come from it)
Knowingly: knows, w/ almost absolute certainty, that will produce result
Criminal Negligence: Gross deviation from norm in failing to perceive substantial and unjustifiable risk ("D did not realize he created the risk, but should have, b/c a reas person in that situation would have"). Greater deviation than civil neg
Purposefully: conscious objective to bring about result
Transferred Intent: intent to harm a particular individual or object transfers if instead it causes similar harm to another person or object
Accessory before the fact: not at scene, provided assistance beforehand. Liable for every crime committed--both planned and all foreseeable crimes.
Accessory after the fact: not at scene, provided assistance after crime completed. Not liable for the crime committed, but liable for the separate crime of being an accessory after the fact, or obstruction of justice.
Conspiracy crime of planning to commit crime w/ someone else --> Key = E that D crossed line from thinking about crime to collective preparation to commit crime. Rule: Agreement to create unlawful criminal combination b/w 2 or more persons w/ intent to agree and specific intent (purpose) to commit the unlawful act
Solicitation: crime of trying to get someone to commit your crime --> Key = communication. You can't solicit an attempt.
Attempt: Crime of "almost' committing a crime --> Key = E that D crossed line from preparation to perpetration.
Murder: unlawful killing of a human being + malice. Assisted suicide is not murder (has to be killing another human being) (common law: if victim died more than 366 days after D's act that was an actual cause of death, the law treated the death as unforeseeable so that D was not legal cause. Most states have eliminated this rule or extended the period.)
Common law murder req's 1) an unlawful killing and 2) "malice aforethought" (murder mens rea). Malice can be express (expected to cause death) or implied (created extreme risk), intentional or unintentional. 4 types of malice:
Intent to inflict serious bodily injury: Conscious desire or substantial certainty that D's actions will result in V's injury. Serious/grievous bodily harm = significant but not fatal injury
Depraved Heart: unintended kill resulting from extreme risk creation that manifests wanton disregard for human life. Ex: Russian roulette (tip: 1/6 chance not substantial certainty). Unintentional killing results from:
Intent to kill: D acts w/ the purpose to kill another or w/ knowl that his conduct will kill another. Deadly weapons doctrine: intent to kill inferred from D's use of instrument designed to kill or used in manner likely to kill or inflict grievous bodily harm (swinging a bat at V's head)
Felony murder--killing during course of felony. Intent not req'd. Common law: felony murder would stand if the killing was done by anyone. Under the modern approach, the killing must be done by the D or co-D
Manslaughter
Voluntary: (heat of passion) = intent to kill mitigated by adequate provocation or other circs negating malice
Involuntary: unintentional killing resulting from unjustified risk creation (recklessness or gross neg) that is not suff. extreme to rise to level of implied malice.
Modern Approach to homicide: Degrees
First-Degree murder: CL & Maj Rule: Proof that D's decision to kill was done w/ both premeditation and deliberation elevates 2nd degree to 1st degree murder. D must consciously decide to kill, so only malice suff. is intent to kill
First-Degree Felony Murder: when the felony is enumerated by statute (e.g. rape, burglary, robbery, arson, kidnapping)
Second-Degree Murder: a catch-all for all other CL murders
Embezzlement: conversion of property held in trust w/ the intent to steal (criminal originally had possession, unlike w/ larceny) -- NO TRESPASS, the taking was allowed
Theft by False pretenses: obtaining title to property owned by someone else through fraud.
Larceny: taking away another's property by trespass w/ the intent to permanently deprive the person of their property
Defense of Others: justified when necessary to defend 3rd party who is facing unlawful imminent threat of bodily harm. Deadly force only justified when threat of death or GBH
Defense of Property: Reas, non-deadly force is justified in defending one's property from theft, destruction or trespass where: 1) D has reas belief property is in imminent danger PLUS no great force than necessary is used, 2) deadly force may never be used to defend (trap guns)
Self-Defense (justification defense): honest and reas judgment that it is necessary to use force to defend against an unlawful, imminent threat of bodily harm. 1) D is V of unlawful threat (not initial aggressor), 2) D is in imminent danger of unlawful bodily harm (call cops otherwise), 3) D uses proportional force (no more than reas necessary) to prevent imminent harm
Duress: D took criminal action believing it to be the only way to avoid unlawful threats of great physical harm or imminent death. Can't remove murder unless FM and you remove the underlying felon on account of duress, b/c the action you take has to be less than what's threatened.
Mistake
Necessity: justifies commission of what is normally a crime when:
Infancy
Entrapment: crim activity originates w/ LE and the D is in no way predisposed to commit the crime.
Intoxication: by any substance including alcohol, drugs, and medicine
Insanity (Excuse of lack of mental responsibility). If D was legally insane at time of his criminal act, no crim liability will be imposed. 4 different tests:
Common Law: "M'Naghten rule." : Focuses on D's reasoning abilities. D relieved of crim resp. upon proof that at time of commission:
Model Penal Code: D not resp. for crim conduct if, at time of such conduct and as a result of mental disease or defect, he lacked substantial capacity to appreciate criminality (wrongfulness) of his conduct or to conform conduct to the reqs of law (control impulses)
Involuntary intoxication: complete defense to all elements of any crime req'ing proof of general or specific intent so long as it negates mens rea. Results when the individual takes the intoxicating substance 1) w/o knowledge of its nature, 2) under direct duress imposed by another, or 3) pursuant to medical advice while unaware of the substance's intoxicating effect. May be treated as mental illness in some jxs.
Voluntary Intoxication: self-induced (intentional taking w/o duress a substance known to be intoxicating). Person need not have intended to become intoxicated. May be a defense to crimes req'ing intent or knowl if the intoxication prevented the accused from formulating the requisite specific intent--good defense for specific intent crimes but not for general defense crimes (including murder, which includes recklessness as a type of malice). Won't negate recklessness, neg, or SL
Mistake of fact must negate the state of mind. For general intent crimes, the mistake must be reas. For specific intent crimes, reas is not req'd (any mistake of fact is a defense). Not a defense to strict liability offenses.
Mistake of law is NOT a defense to any crime
Common Law: act w/ a dangerous propensity towards completion of the crime
Model Penal Code: act must be a substantial step in a course of conduct planned to culminate in the commission of the crime.
Voluntary, conscious act that causes an unlawful result (act + volition = legal act) OR
Omission when D has duty and ability to act. (No legal duty to act or aid. A duty may arise from statute, contract, the relationship b/w the parties, the assumption of care, or the creation of the peril)
Reflections/sleepwalking lack volition so not legal acts
Legal duty by K (life guard/nursing home)
Status (H/W, parent/child)
Statutory duties (LE)
Voluntary undertaking to rescue that is abandoned
Failing to help after creating risk (hit & run)
Intent: acts intentionally w/ purpose or knowledge (but for inchoate offenses, it really only means purpose, not knowledge)
Willful: acts purposefully or knowingly, w/ moral turpitude (similar to intent). Lecture: ONLY purpose (not knowl)
Express Malice: D intended to kill another human being. To prove intent to kill, D acted w/: 1) purpose to kill, 2) knowl that her conduct would kill, or 3) intent to inflict grievous bodily harm altho no intent to kill
Implied Malice: D caused death as a result of extreme reckless or criminal neg conduct that manifested a wanton disregard for human life. (reckless or neg w/o wanton disregard = involuntary manslaughter, not murder. no implied malice)
Concurrence: Mental state must actuate (set in motion) conduct that produces criminal result (mens rea + actus reus -- first sets the later in motion. do NOT need to be concurrent in time)
Causation (Actual cause + Proximate cause = Legal causation)
Actual Cause: Cause in fact. 3 tests to satisfy:
Proximate Cause: Req'd only when intervening event occurs b/w D's actual cause and crim result. Question becomes whether intervening event supersedes D's responsibility. (Ask: was the harm an objectively foreseeable result of D's conduct or not?)
Substantial factor: Multiple causes/parties responsible but D's act was a substantial factor in causing crim result
Acceleration (homicide): D's conduct speeds up inevitable death, even if brief ("mercy" killing to put someone out of misery after they were stabbed or something is still murder)
"But for": result would not have occurred but for D's conduct
If the intervening event is foreseeable, it will not supersede --> D is still liable. Foreseeable = negligence (Also D's sensitivites are foreseeable -- take V as you find him, eggshell skull rule --> dependent or responsive to D's initial cause)
If it is unforeseeable normally will supersede --> relive D of liability and break causal connection to crim result. Unforeseeable = grossly negligent or reckless conduct that accelerates a death set in motion by D (independent intervening cause or a mere coincidence more likely to be unforeseeable) (normal responses to D's conduct are foreseeable, like jumping into the ocean to avoid D's gunshots)
that creates an extreme risk to others +
and demonstrates wanton indifference to human life and conscious disregard of un reas risk of death or serious bodily injury
reckless or grossly neg conduct +
Reqs
proximately caused (death was foreseeable outgrowth of felony) +
during commission or attempted commission +
unintentional killing +
of serious or inherently dangerous felony (BARRK)
If reqs ^ are met --> malice is automatically inferred. A complete defense to the underlying crime is a defense to FM
Obstacles for prosecution
"Right connection to felony": death must be foreseeable outgrowth of felony. Liberally applied -- only coincidences ruled out.
"Right time": death must be result of injuries inflicted during the commission, attempt, or immediate flight from felony. Felony starts when D could be convicted of attempt, and terminates when D reaches temporary safety
"Right type of felony": 1) listed in statute or 2) be independent (NOT battery, assault, manslaughter or anything with the purpose of harming someone) of killing and inherently dangerous. BARRK crimes satisfy both reqs:
Burglary (unless w/ intent to harm someone inside)
Arson
Rape
Robbery
Kidnapping
Co-felon liability: Varies by jx
CL: Attaches to all felons for any homicide during felony, just reqs proxy cause of death. Ex: group robbery. Homeowner trips on way to call cops and dies. All felons are responsible
Exceptions:
Majority: Agency rule: FM liability limited to killing committed by a hand of co-felon
Exempts FM liability for killings at hands of non-felons
some apply when non-felon kills non-felon -- V aims at felon but kills bystander
Non-violent felon: Min CL: Exempt felony if not armed and did not participate/have knowl of co-felons' intent
Deserving V: Min CL: killing a co-felon
Redline limitation : Maj CL: Police or V kills co-felon --> felon not guilty if a co-felon (and not an innocent) is killed
Premeditation: D must think about the act of killing. CL: Can premeditate immediately. ML: Some time necessary, but brief is enough time to decide. Most jxs require jury to find that premeditation occurred after intent to kill was formed, which means proof of some reflection. Quantity of thought.
Deliberate: D must make deliberate choice to kill, reqs rational thought. Voluntary intoxication, diminished capacity may prevent. Quality of thought
Heat of passion negates malice element --> intentional killing mitigated by adequate provocation or other circs negating malice
Adequate provocation (objective) = a provocation that would lead a reas person to lose self-control and fly into sudden homicidal rage. Mere words not enough (generally). Rage must be hot -- time to cool off can't be too long. There must be a causal connection -- intent to kill must result from the provocation.
Recklessness: D is subjectively aware of risk and ignores it
Gross neg: unaware of risk but reas person would have been aware. Ex: mishandling loaded weapons, driving dangerously like DUI, shaking baby so hard it causes death.
D did not intend to kill or expect conduct to cause death, but death still results from unjustified risk creation. Only implied malice if so extreme it indicates a wanton disregard for human life.
Misdemeanor manslaughter (min rule): unintentional killing that occurs during commission/attempt of an inherently evil misdemeanor or a non-BARRK felony, like petty theft
Other Crimes Against the Person
Rape
False Imprisonment: Confinement of one person by another when it is intentional, against the law, and V is fully confined (no reas exits)
Assault: Incomplete battery (2 types)
Kidnapping
Battery
General intent crime established by:
w/o legal justification/excuse
D unlawfully applies force (can be indirect like a rock if D puts it in motion)
D does so intentionally, recklessly, or a as a result of crim neg
In most jxs, simple battery (misdemeanor) can be elevated to aggravated battery (felony) when D:
Defenses: 1) valid consent (football), 2) self-defense and defense of others as long as proportional force, 3) prevention of crime so long as proportional force
uses deadly weapon, or
special category of V (child, woman, cop)
causes serious bodily harm
Majority: Failed attempted battery: proof that D intended to actually batter a V but failed --> so long as D intended to commit battery, no defense that V was not aware of assault or that D was not presently able to commit (tried throwing a rock at V and missed, even if V was unaware)
Minority: Fear of battery assault: D never intended to actually batter the V, but instead, to put the V in fear of an immediate battery --> D must act w/ threatening conduct intended to cause reas apprehension of imminent harm to V.
Reas apprehension: No assault when reas person would not expect imminent bodily harm. More "expectation" than "fear" -- must simply anticipate that battery will result in immediate bodily harm. V must be aware of threat of harm.
Can rise to aggravated felony assault when : 1) D commits w/ dangerous weapon, 2) D acts w/ intent to rape or murder V, 3) V is specially protected by statute
Modern: suffices that V be taken to another location or concealed
Majority: some movement of V (asportation), restraint not enough
CL: 1) unlawful 2) restraint of a person's liberty 3) by force or show of force 4) so as to send V into another country
Modern: No implied resistance req --> focuses on objective lack of consent
Statutory rape: If V is under statutorily prescribed age of consent (usually 16), intercourse = rape, even if V expressed her consent or D mistakenly believed she was of legal age. Under statutory age, V is legally incapable of giving consent.
Common law: 1) carnal knowl of a woman (vag penetration of V by D) not wife, 2) against her will (w/o consent), 3) by force or threat of force ("NO" was not enough)
if jury determines reas person in D's situation would have known V's lack of consent, that establishes rape
penetration satisfies "force" req
mistake of fact can be defense b/c no req to prove extrinsic force, but mistake must be both honest and reas (b/c general intent crime, not specific intent)
Common Law:
of tangible personal property
of another
and carrying away
w/ intent to permanently deprive or steal (specific intent)
trespassory (w/o consent) taking. The owner of a lost object retains "constructive possession" over the object until it is found. Trespassory if the thief can track down the owner from details on the item (or the circumstances). Larceny even if D just keeps, instead of actually takes, lost property that they find and knows isn't theirs.
If D takes property, but at the time intends it to be temporary, and later decides to permanently deprive the owner of the property, doctrine of continuing trespass establishes concurrence b/w unlawful taking and requisite intent to steal
No intent if you think property is yours, no matter how unreas
If, at the time of taking, D intends to return property to V unconditionally and w/in a reas time, no intent IF D has ability to return. However you can't "undo" a larceny by returning it if you ever had the intent to permanently deprive (all elements checked out)
Unlawful conversion: transforming someone else's property to your own -- need some action toward property that seriously interferes w/ owner's rights, i.e. selling, consuming, damaging, claiming title to it.
Of tangble personal property of another
By one who is already in lawful possession. Specific fraudulent intent to steal can be negated by honest belief that D has right to property.
Robbery: larceny accomplished by force or threat of force
Taking from V's person or presence (area w/in their control)
Force or threat of force that places V in actual fear at time of taking req'd. Ex: Pickpocket. Larceny yes but not robbery b/c no fear. Force has to be more than just the force req'd to take the property
Must be trespassory taking of personal property w/ intent to steal. Honest mistaken belief of right negates intent to steal
Which causes V to pass title to his property --> no crime w/o reliance
To D
False rep of present or past material fact by D
Who knows it is false
And intends thereby to defraud
Larceny by trick: obtaining possession (not title) through fraud, w/ intent to steal
D tricks possessor into giving possession through fraudulent misrep --> no crime w/o reliance
False check = larceny by trick, not false pretenses, b/c title does not pass until check clears, but most jxs have specific crime for this
Extortion (blackmail): obtaining property of another by threat of future harm to V or his property. If it's present harm, it's probably robbery, not extortion
Receiving stolen property: receipt of stolen property, known to be stolen w/ the intent to permanently deprive owner (CL misdemeanor)
Forgery: Fraudulently making false writing w/ apparent legal significance w/ intent to make wrongful use of doc. Alteration must be material (change meaning or effect of doc) to qualify -- i.e. signing false signature on will
Crimes Against Habitation (NOT ownership)
Burglary: Breaking and entering of the dwelling of another at night w/ intent to commit felony therein
Arson: Malicious act that creates considerable risk of burning of dwelling of another. Malice established by (specific) intent or result or extreme recklessness. Modern: no req of dwelling of another (any property). Charring is needed (damage to actual structure, not just blackening).
Dwelling house of another: CL home where people lived, whether occupied or not and included structures on "curtilage" such as storage sheds. Modern: almost any structure whether or not "dwelling.:
At night (modern generally dispenses w/ this req)
Entering: Breaking to exist is not burglary. Placing any portion of body inside structure is. Modern: tool used for taking is sufficient
With intent to commit felony therein: B&E must be accompanied by simultaneous felonious intent (felony intent after B&E is insufficient)
Breaking CL: req's some force. Modern: relaxed to include slight enlargement of an opening (any trespassory entry). CL & Modern statute: entry by fraud, deception, threat is adequate
Intent: must intend solicitee to perform criminal acts
Offense complete at time solicitation is made --> once solicitation is communicated = crime, solicitor cannot withdraw from solicitation.
Rule: Enticing, advising, inciting, hiring, inducing, urging, or otherwise encouraging another to commit target offense. CL: misdemeanor and crime solicited had to be felony or peace breach. ML: Broader -- requesting another to commit any offense
No req that solcitee commit offense BUT if they do (or attempt to), solicitation merges into that offense and solicitor charged as an accomplice, not solicitor
Two elements
Specific intent or purpose to bring about criminal result (attempted murder: can only be intent to kill, no lower level of malice) PLUS
significant overt act in furtherance of that intent that proves D went past point of preparation and began perpetration.
MPC: Acts prior are suff as long as "substantial step" toward commission that indicates a purpose to complete attempt has been made
Many jxs: Proximity test: how close in time and physical distance D was to time and place target crime was to be committed
CL: D req'd to perform last act necessary to achieve intended result
Some use equivocality test: D's conduct unequivocally indicates he was going to complete target offense
Ex: At CL, D would have to pull trigger to be guilty of attempted murder. Today (MPC), loading bullets while in proximity to intended V w/ clear line of sight would be suff
Defenses
Abandonment: CL: no defense once attempt complete (moved from preparation to perpetration). MPC: voluntary, complete abandonment is defense
Legal impossibility: Not guilty if thought committing a crime but its' not
Factual impossibility: D would have committed offense had facts been as she believed them to be --> D is GUILTY of attempt. Ex.: D thinks gun works, points at V, and pulls trigger. Its jammed and doesn't work --> D guilty of attempted murder
Co-conspirator liability/Pinkerton rule: Each co-conspirator is liable for crimes of all other co-cons where crimes were both:
Procedural issues: CL: if only 2 conspirators, acquittal of 1 co-con req'd acquittal of other b/c need 2. MPC: Unilateral conspiracy: Permits conviction of single party when other feigned agreement or is acquitted
Overt act req: CL: not req'd, agreement itself is a crime. ML: Req overt act in furtherance of conspiracy (beginning preparation to commit the crime is all that is req'd, can be very trivial, unlike req in attempt when it is beyond prep to perpetration)
Defenses
a foreseeable outgrowth of conspiracy (murder of guard), and
committed in furtherance of conspiratorial goal
Withdrawal (CL + MPC): complete and voluntary withdrawal severs liability for future crimes, but no defense to conspiracy itself. Req's notice to all conspirators. Can withdraw from the CONSPIRACY itself if you withdraw before an overt act, after only talking. If you withdraw after over act, only withdrawing from crime, not conspiracy
Renunciation (MPC only): withdrawal + affirmative act to thwart conspiracy can eliminate liability for conspiracy too
Accomplice: Way to link accomplice to a crime committed by someone else. Accomplice charged as if he were principal (one who committed crime). D is criminally liable as an accomplice if: he does some act (or omission w/ duty to act) that facilitates the principal's commission of crime (or attempt), including encouragement w/ purpose of bringing about commission of crime.
Scope: accomplice liable for crimes purposefully facilitated and all others that are reas foreseeable outgrowths of primary crime. Must be objective, can't just say he didn't expect it
Defenses
CL: Accomplice can withdraw by giving principal timely notice and giving no further facilitation or encouragement (or nullifying its effect)
MPC: To remove accomplice liability, must either: 1) render prior assistance to perpetrator completely ineffective, 2) provide cops w/ timely warning of plan, or 3) make proper effort to prevent perp from committing
D suffered from severe mental disease or defect AND
As a result, unable to know either 1) nature and quality of act (hallucinating), or 2) what he was doing was wrong (delusional self-defense)
Irresistible impulse test: not guilty when D had a mental disease that kept him from controlling his conduct
Durham (or NH) rule: D not crim resp. if unlawful act was product of mental disease/defect -- it would not have been committed "but for" the disease/defect
Homicidal self-defense (deadly force): permitted only in response to imminent threat of death or grievous bodily harm
Retreat rule: CL: V of unlawful violence had duty to retreat before use of deadly force. Even when retreat still req'd, not req'd in D's own home, car or office and not req'd if retreat not feasible
Unclean hands: First aggressor may not claim self-defense. CL: aggressor could regain right to self-defense only by complete withdrawal perceived by the 1st V. ML: 1st aggressor has right to self-defense if the 1st V responds to the aggression w/ excessive force
Maj: reasonableness of D's belief that 3rd person was being unlawfully attacked. If reas but mistaken, D can still claim defense of others
Min: D steps into shoes of V attacked -- if 3rd party was first aggressor or failed to retreat when req'd by law, D has no defense
no reas alternative to breaking law to avoid greater harm +
D not responsible for causing the harm. CL: necessity never defense to murder, unless raised as defense to underlying felony for FM. MPC: Can raise for all charges, even homicide, which might result in acquittal if D kills 1 person to save lots of lives
Necessary to avoid immediate threat of greater harm to persons or property +
Human Shield Exception: If a victim is killed by the cops and a co-felon was using the victim as a human shield to try to get away, the felon is guilty too
Burden of Production: D must first present "some E" of insanity at the time of the offense. Burden of Proof:
Federal: D must prove insanity by C&C E
State: Split. MPC: D must prove insanity by POTE. Some jxs: prosecution must prove sanity beyond a reas doubt
INTENTS
Specific Intent Crimes (Act AND Outcome): SCAR BAFFLE. (Voluntary intoxication and UNreas mistake of fact can remove specific but NOT general intent)
Assault
Robbery
False Pretenses
Attempt
First Degree Murder (express malice = specific intent)
Conspiracy
Larceny
Solicitaion
Embezzlement
Burglary
General Intent Crimes: RABID FK (only involuntary intoxication can remove)
Battery
Involuntary Manslaughter
Arson
Depraved Heart Murder (implied malice = reckless/neg + wanton disregard for human life = general intent) (if no wanton disregard, then it's not implied malice, and it's involuntary manslaughter)
Rape
False Imprisonment
Kidnapping
Imperfect Self-Defense/Mistaken Justification -- using more force than necessary in defense because of an honest but UNREAS mistake of fact
Diminished mental capacity: a minority of states allow a mental disturbance short of insanity to nullify malic and reduce murder to manslaughter
Mayhem: ML: battery that causes permanent disfigurement