Please enable JavaScript.
Coggle requires JavaScript to display documents.
Criminal Law (Defenses: For justification (actus reus) defenses ask: was…
Criminal Law
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?
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
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
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
Homicidal self-defense (deadly force): permitted only in response to imminent threat of death or grievous bodily harm
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
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
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
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.
-
-
-
-
Intoxication: by any substance including alcohol, drugs, and medicine
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
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:
-
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)
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)
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
Burden of Production: D must first present "some E" of insanity at the time of the offense. Burden of Proof:
-
State: Split. MPC: D must prove insanity by POTE. Some jxs: prosecution must prove sanity beyond a reas doubt
-
-
Inchoate Crimes: All require specific intent (PURPOSE ONLY, not knowl) to commit target offense
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
Co-conspirator liability/Pinkerton rule: Each co-conspirator is liable for crimes of all other co-cons where crimes were both:
a foreseeable outgrowth of conspiracy (murder of guard), and
-
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
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
Solicitation: crime of trying to get someone to commit your crime --> Key = communication. You can't solicit an attempt.
-
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
Attempt: Crime of "almost' committing a crime --> Key = E that D crossed line from preparation to perpetration.
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
-
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
-
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
Parties to Crime
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.
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
Elements of Crime
Mens Rea (Guilty Mind)
Common Law
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.
-
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.
-
Transferred Intent: intent to harm a particular individual or object transfers if instead it causes similar harm to another person or object
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)
Actus Reus (Guilty Act)
-
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)
-
Status (H/W, parent/child)
-
-
-
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.
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:
-
and demonstrates wanton indifference to human life and conscious disregard of un reas risk of death or serious bodily injury
-
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
-
If reqs ^ are met --> malice is automatically inferred. A complete defense to the underlying crime is a defense to FM
-
-
-
Manslaughter
Voluntary: (heat of passion) = intent to kill mitigated by adequate provocation or other circs negating malice
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.
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
Involuntary: unintentional killing resulting from unjustified risk creation (recklessness or gross neg) that is not suff. extreme to rise to level of implied malice.
-
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
-
-
INTENTS
Specific Intent Crimes (Act AND Outcome): SCAR BAFFLE. (Voluntary intoxication and UNreas mistake of fact can remove specific but NOT general intent)
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-