Self- Criminal Law vs. Criminal Procedure (Defense :!: (Self-defense…
Self- Criminal Law vs. Criminal Procedure
Elements of Crime
Strict liability crimes
Specific crime Intent
Additional defenses: 1) voluntary intoxication and
2) unreasonably mistake of fact.
General crime intent
catch all, those which do not belong to the other 3 categories
a general awareness that she is acting in a manner that would
be prohibited by law.
only 2: Murder + Arson "（除一级外）杀人-放火不需要特别意图，谁都可以"
Mental States VS the Model Penal Code
Analysis of Fault
always apply the common law mental states, unless we are told to apply MPC.
Causation and harmful result
Act: should be voluntary
Omission: have a legal duty to act
pay attention 1: voluntarily assume a duty of care and
fail to adequately perform it
Pay attention 2: Where your conduct created the peril.
Concurrence / Causation and harmful result
Concurrence: Mental + Act: at the same time
Causation: causation-in-fact + proximate causation
Duress: Duress is a defense to all crimes except homicide.
Non deadly force
any time the victim reasonably believes
that force is about to be used on him
when the victim reasonably believes that deadly force is
about to be used on him.
A victim is required to retreat if it is safe to do so
Exceptions (no need to retreat)
(1) no duty to retreat from your home;
• (2) no duty to retreat if you are the victim of a rape or a robbery; and
• (3) police ofcers have no duty to retreat.
Defense of others
Original Aggressor and Self-Defense
M’Naghten rule: lacked the ability to know the wrongfulness of his actions
Irresistible Impulse: can not control
Durham Rule: mental health
Model Penal Code: Defendant lacked the ability
to conform his conduct to the requirements of law
Mistake of fact : has to be reasonable
Necessity : natural force: to avoid a greater societal harm
Defense of a dwelling
can not use deadly force for property
MISTAKE/IGNORANCE OF THE LAW
Defense that should come from reasonable belief
mistake of fact:
Inchoate crimes :!:
Crime is complete when you ask!
Common law: does not need that person to agree
Common law: Bilateral approach
required two guilty parties. Thus, under this approach, if one person (in a two-party conspiracy) is merely forging an agreement, the other person cannot be guilty of conspiracy.
Furthermore, the acquittal of all persons with whom a defendant is alleged to have conspired recludes conviction of the remaining defendant under this approach.
The modern trend (and MPC approach): Unilateral approach
requires that only one person have a genuine criminal intent.
Overt Act requirement
Common law: no need act, agreement is enough "普通法下，说说共谋就是犯罪"
Majority rule: Overt act needed
Withdrawal: even adequate, can never relieve
from for the conspiracy, but can relieve from the subsequent crime.
Overt act: substantial step
Majority: after substantial step: no abandonment
Minority (MPC): okay if 1) voluntary + 2) complete renunciation of criminal purpose
Against the Person
Second degree murder
Murder that is NOT first degree
Or "Depraved heart" killing
a killing done with reckless indiﬀerence to an unjustifably high risk to human life
A killing done in the heat of passion as the result of adequate provocation
Would arouse sudden and intense passion in ordinary people and cause losing control
DId not have time to cool off
Actually did not cool off
honest but unreasonable belief
that his life was in imminent danger
Definition: The unlawful killing of another human being with a malice aforethought
intent to kill
intent to commit serious bodily harm
Reckless indifference to an unjustifiable high risk to human life
Intent to commit felony (felony murder) "BARRK"
First degree murder
actual intent and knowledge that the conduct would cause death
any killing (even accidental) during a felony
the felony must be other than killing
death is foreseeable
death from fleeing is felony murder; after temporary safety: NOT
Common law: not liable for death of co-felon
Homicide of a Police officer
D knows it is a police officer
Officer acting in line of duty
Other crimes against person
the means of restraint must be reasonable
the use of force intended or likely to cause serious bodily harm may not be used.
The use of a deadly or dangerous weapon; or
• With the intent to rape, maim, or murder
Statutory rape: strict liability crime
Against the Property/Habitation
Common law: Dwelling, House, can not be barn or commercial building
Common law: at ight
with the intent to commit a felony
Constructive: by fraud or threat
e.g. "to use the key for other purposes."
Taking property in the belief that it is yours (or that you have some right to it) is NOT common law larceny.
Larceny is the taking and carrying away of the tangible personal property of another by trespass with the intent to permanently (or for an unreasonable time) deprive the owner (or person in possession) of his interest in the property.
Extortion : essentially blackmail.
Take the title
Larceny by trick: only take the possession
No specific intent required; reckless disregard is okay.
Scorching is not; charring is enough.
Common law: has to be dwelling, not barn or commercial
Common law: has to be other people's, not own
4th A: prohibition against
unreasonable search and seizure :!: refer to Mini review page 509
ARRESTS AND OTHER
not required in public place
probable cause needed to compel for finger printing or interrogation
Probably cause to arrest
reasonable suspicion supported by articulable
facts of criminal activity.
at least reasonable suspicion that the law has been violated
Privilege against compulsory self-incrimination
Prohibition against double jeopardy
prohibition against cruel and
The death penalty
Parties to a crime
(1) the intent to assist the principal in the commission of the crime,
and (2) the intent that the principal is committing the crime
Scope of liability
she committed or aided/advised/encouraged
any other crimes committed in the course of committing the crime contemplated, as long as probable and foreseeable.
Encouragement - Repudiate the encouragment
Actually aided - do everything possible to neutralize /// call the police
Standards for police' action
Stopping a car
In any case, Supreme Court cases make it clear that a police offcer may stop a car if the offcer has PROBABLE CAUSE to believe that the driver has committed a traffc violation.
pretextual stop is okay
Search without a warrant
Plain view exception
warrantless seizure of evidence if
1) the officer is in a place he lawfully is allowed to be and
2) sees in plain view items
3) that he has immediate PROBABLE CAUSE to believe
4) are contraband or evidence, instrumentalities, or fruits of a crime.
Right to speedy trial
Right to a trial by jury
Right to confront witnesses
Right to assistance of counsel