Please enable JavaScript.

Coggle requires JavaScript to display documents.

Criminal Law (Basic Principles (Types of punishment (Gen deterrence…

- - - - About impacting future behaviour. We want to send the message that if you violate the law, then you will be punished
    - - In Non-con and utilitarian
    - - looks only at the past so as to impose punishment to equalize the harm.
    - - Is non-con and util
  - - - Here, BoP shifts to D to prove based on preponderence of the evidence
        
        Then BoP goes back to P to prove BARD why D's arg is wrong
- - - - Note: assume representation is not false, unless clear evidence that makes you believe it is FALSE.
  - - - Requires use of force or threat of for + taking from the victim's immediate person or proximity
        
        Note: administering a sedative can be considered force b/c you irdirectly cause
        
        Snatch Exception (if wallet or something similar gets snatched out of your hand b/f you become aware of the snatching, then you not lia for robbery) falls under the Force element.
    - - Isn't really a theft crime, but is gen associated w/ it.
- - - - Rule: If death caused in the commission of an inherently dangerous felony, then you guilty of 2nd degree felony murder
        
        Felonies must be inherently dangerous to life (ex. BARRK crimes) or else they are not enough to get 1st degree conviction
        
        If only inherently dangerous, then second
        
        If felony isn't inherently dang at all, the FMR no apply.
        
        Exeptions to FMR
        
        Vicarious lia Exception: D's no lia if a co-D dies as a result of a cop or bystander killing them
        
        Agency Rule: FMR only applies if death is by D's hands OR by someone furthering a common objctive.
        
        Misdemeanor Manslaughter Rule: commission of 1) a misdemeanor or 2) a felony that cannot serve as the underlying felong for a FMR conviction constitutes invol manslaughter rather than a form of murder
        
        Merger Doctrine: if your conduct is assaultive in nature (ie close enough to a homicide) then FMR no apply.
        
        Vicarious lia can apply here.
      - Is an SL crime
        
        If death occurs during commission of felony (attendant circumstance), then P can get murder conviction.
    - - Threshold for recklessness is super fucking low.
        
        Ex. Sending a guy with a gun into a room full of armed security guards, is reckless.
    - - Elements:
        1) Unlawful
        2) Killing
        3) of another person
        4) w/o MA
        --As a result of gross negligence or (recklessness).
        
        Negligence is only adequate for Invol Man if it is more than civil neg and is foreseeable.
        
        A mother would not be liable for going to a grocery store and leaving her children at home when a random fire burns down the house and the kids b/c the fire was unforeseeable.
  - - - Occurs when you are downgraded from 2nd degree murder as a result of a legally adequate provocation.
        
        Legally Adequate Provocation differs based on whether you're in a categorical district, or a RPP district or an MPC disctrict
        
        Categorical has 5 enumerated leg adequate provocations:
        1) an aggravated assault or battery
        2) the observation of a serious crime against a close related
        3) an illegal arrest
        4) mutual combat, or
        5) catching one's wife in the act of adultery.
        
        Note: this is the majority approach for some reason.
        
        RPP Provocation occurs when:
        1) D was in fact provoked and was in "the heat of passion"
        2) D must not have "cooled off" btwn the provocation and the killing
        3) RPP would have been provoked; &
        4) A RPP, provoked in the same way, would not have" cooled off" btwn the provocation and the killing.
        
        MPC Test is whether the killing was commited while D was "under the influence of extreme mental or emotional disturbance" for which there is reas explanation and excuse.
        
        Called EMED test and
        
        In CL, Downgrade only occurs when you kill the person who provoked you.
        
        All legally adequate provocation must also mean have the requisite "heat of passion" requirement. If you've "cooled off" since provocation, then you can't downgrade.
        
        Gay/Trans panic defense is still Allowed in 47 states
      - Elements:
        
        1) Unlawful
        
        2) Killing
        
        3) of another person
        
        4) w/o MA
        
        5) but w/ Legally adequate provocation
    - - Elements:
        1) The unlawful
        2) Killing
        3) of another
        4) w/ MA
        
        Note: You can be guitly of murder based on omissions liability based on a special relationship
        (Ex. two spouses ice skating on frozen lake, one fall, other skates away. Latter now guilty of murder b/c they had spec rel and duty to act.
        This would likely fall under DHM
      - Both CL and MPC use same four intents for MA
        
        Co-conspirators are only liable for the killing if they participate.
        ---Urging killers to flee after the death wouldn't qualify as participation, for instance.
  - - - Categorical Provocations
      - RPP Standard Provocation.
      - MPC test (extreme mental or emotional disturbance): here, jury looks through D's sub eye to see what provoked him
      - In CL, yo
- - - - Latraverse: A D can only be convicted for attempting a crime only if they took sub step towards the commisiion of the crime, where guy was driving around w/ stuff to commit arson w/ note saying that it was P's turn and that was sub step towards burning house down.
    - - Dangerous Proximaty test: was conduct dangerous proximate to the completion of a crime
        
        Think: Crime would have happened if not for the final intervening act that precluded the commission of the crime.
      - Unequivocality Test:
        Looks at acts done towards commission and ask whether intent to commit the crime can be deduced.
  - - - Note: Attempted murder is only a think if requisite intent is Intent to kill. Anything under that is insufficient for Attempted murder.
  - - - Legal Impossibility:
        When D's conduct even when carried out in the way they desired would not constitute a crime.
        
        Factual Impossibilities (couldn't shoot a victim b/c V was out gun's range) does not preclude lia for attempted liability.
        
        Ex. You can't Rape a corpse or murder someone who's already dead.
    - - Abandonment no count if you stop b/c of unforeseen roadblock or you get scared of being caught.
- - - - Conduct Crime: where crime is conduct itself (Ex. Stalking)
      - Attendant Circumstances: stats that turn legal action into illegal action.
      - Result Crime: where crime is the result (Ex. muder b/c someone is unjustifiably killed)
- - - - D no need to be accurate; it only req that, if D wrong, D's mistake was reas
      - Under MPC, SD is based on sub standpoint (did D believe
        
        In practice, CL and MPC approaches end up w/ similar results.
      - Duty to retreat
        
        Majority rule is stand your ground rule
        
        Minority Rule is duty to retreat
        
        Duty to retreat no apply when on your home property or at work. (called the castle doctrine)
    - - Clean hand doctrine: D can't be initial aggressor in an SD scenario.
  - - - In Crenshaw, there's no difference btwn legal wrong and moral wrong
      - In some jx, there is a deific degree exception where you're insane and can escape legal/moral wrong element if you're acting under the "control of God"
    - - is a but/ for test
      - Is also very broad. Psychiatrists like it.
    - - note: this need not be a sudden "impulse" to satisfy the test.
    - - Rule: is there a mental health infirmity (less than insanity) that makes it imposs for pros to prove MR.
        
        Ex. I did the thing while under an insane delusion
      - Is an eample of Partial Responsibility: a mental defect that can mitigate liability.
        --Think the Twinkie defense.
  - - - Under MPC, no imminence req or req of direct causal relationship.
- - - - Note: always assume a crime is gen intent unless otherwise specified.
      - Ex. Arson (ote: arson has very broad def), Rape, Battery
    - - Typically limited to reg crimes: liquor crimes, sale of unadulterated milk.
    - - Spec intent Defenses
        
        Mistake of fact
        
        Under MPC, a mistake negates any of the mind-states D is defending against so long as D mistakenly believed in good faith that his conduct was not criminal?
        
        Ex. Navarro: Theft can be acquitted by mistake b/c spec intent needed for theft has not been established.
        
        In CL,
        
        Vol intox
        
        Exception: if I vol tox self and do thing, then I can't plead this def if I voluntarily tood steps to do X.
        
        :Gen rule: I was drunk, so I shouldn't be lia
        
        Exception: you commit a crime involuntarily do to the volitional acts of others (think the case where the cops pull the one guy out into the streets to make him guilty of pub intox).
      - Common Examples: Attempt, Burglary, Larceny, Receiving stolen property,
    - - Dangerous weapon rules
        
        Deadly weapon rule:
        You can prove intent to kill or intent to cause serious injury if you use a deadly weapon in a specific way that would reasonable create the respective results.
        
        A dangerous weapon is anything that could kill or cause serious bodily harm.
        
        Ex. Pointing a dealy weapon at a vital part of the victim's body, then intent to kill.
      - Natural and proper consequences doctrine: if conduct would be the natural and probably consequences of a certian MR, then you can prove that mind state and get a conviction for the respective crime.
  - - - Purpose: D acts purposefully when it is his "conscious object" to engage in conduct of that nature or to cause such a result (ie the crime).
      - Knowledge: knowledge to "a practical certainty" that their conduct will cause the such a result.
        
        Willful blindness (both CL & MPC): a criminal actor cannot purposefull shield themselves from knowledge to shiled themselves from liability.
      - Recklessness: Awareness and conscious disregard of a substantial and unjustifiable risk.
        
        Reck vs knowledge: both req sub awareness. Know req higher awareness; what's actually going on. Reck is just basic awareness
      - Negligence
        
        Reck vs neg: For former, is aware of risk. For latter, they should have been aware of that risk.
- - - - There's force, lack of consent, and marital exception
        
        B/f: Rape was only btwn men and women only
      - First element usually requires penile penetration.
      - Third requires victim to "resist to the utmost"
        
        Some jx remove this resistance element and replaced it w/ a simple consent req.
      - Second Element only needs force up to successful penile penetration.
      - Defenses:
        Mistake of Fact (Objective standard of "I didn't know I was raping her")
        Mayberry Defense
        
        Also Note legal wrong doctrine (Ex. Bell v. State[The child prostitution case]): if you're trying to raise a gen intent def (Often mistake of fact) for something that will always be a crime, then it's not possible
        Rephrased: regardless of whether you had 1) g faith and 2) a valid mistake of fact, your conduct was such already criminal enough that we want to punish you regardless.
        
        The Mayberry Defense: a full defense to rape if D can prove he believed V gave consent to to equivocal or ambiguous conduct through two tests
        
        1) The subjective test
        which asks whether D actually believed he had consent.
        
        2) The Objective Test
        Whether a RPP under the same circumstances would make the same mistake.
    - - Today, consent is very important. Resistance req is no longer needed to the utmost in some jx.
        
        Consent can be revoked during the course of the sex act.
      - Consent: remember magic dick excuse: If induced to sex w/ valid consent to the act of sex, then no consent issue. If not, then fraud ulent consent no = valid consent.
        
        Note: an exception to the magic dick rule is when you induce someone to have sex w/ you by pretending to be someone's existing spouse.
        
        Fraud in Factum: Gynocogist says he's about to do a check up and then proceeds to penetrate his patient.
    - - B/c SL crime, no mistake of age defenses
        
        Exception in Cali: if D isn't able to make this defense, then it's a DP clause vio. So, some states allow reas mistake of age defense