Please enable JavaScript.

Coggle requires JavaScript to display documents.

Criminal law - Coggle Diagram

- - - - All crimes must have an actus reus. Or: all crimes must have an actus reus that is not a sham.
      - Actus Reus must be voluntary
      - Actus reus (or any other element) must be clearly specified
        
        Vague laws can still be applied to the defendant is they are clear with respsect to them (De George)
        
        Language need not be mathematically precise and some odd, marginal applications will not make a law vague. Language is inherently plastic and this does not make everything vague.
        
        Test
        
        Whether the law is not clear to those who enforce it, or not clear to those who must follow it (hill v. Colorado)
    - - Doctrines related to certain kinds of actions
        
        Omission liability or guilt
        
        There must be a preexisting duty to act, whether tort, contract, or positive law itself--jury must be instructed as to this requirement. Jones
        
        Possession
        
        Constructive possession
        
        Maldonado theory. Also State v. Fox
        
        intent to control
        
        Ability to control
        
        Casey theory
        
        Authority to control, such as by ownership
        
        Actual possession. Holding a gun, sitting in a car.
      - The defendant must commit the actus reus voluntarily
        
        Exception: but voluntarily put themselves into a position where they would act involuntarily ,they can still be found guilty. Hinkle, Grant
      - Coincident of actus reus and defendant's action
        
        The statute has an actus reus, and its fine (its not a sham), but the individaul defendant didn't do enough to be in trouble. Lack of coincidence. Crossing state lines with intent to abuse a minor example (Hoxmeyer).
    - - The puzzle of white's concurrence!
  - - - Presumption of distribution.
        
        One mens rea to rule them all! "Knowingly...." then knowingly applies to all following material elements. PRESUMPTIVELY.
      - Presumption against any element of the crime not having a mens rea
      - Recklessness default Rule
    - - You can't argue you didn't know that something was criminalized, but you can always argue that you didn't satisfy the requirements of the crime. Compare Bray to Baker.
        
        exception. MPC 3.04, reliance on an official who tells you the wrong thing.
  - - - Victim hurts themselves. Defendant is still guilty. Hamilton, Stephenson.
      - Negligent treatment
        
        Negligent treatment after defendant's acdtion leads to guilt. It is not a superceding cause.
        
        Grossly negligent treatment after defendant's action does not lead to defendant's guilt. Such grossly negligent treatmetn IS a superceding cause of the defendnat's attack/crime.
- - - - intentionally causing the death of another. Second degree murder.
        
        If you add premeditation, you have first degree murder. Premeditation is: "giving a thought before acting to the idea of taking a human life and reaching a definite decision to kill"
      - Felony Murder
        
        Three ways to move away from an unrestricted felony murder rule
        
        Felony murdrer is only for enumerated felonies
        
        Possibly exceptions for other felonies eitehr dangerous as a type or dangerou as Committed. Commonwealth v. Reveron
        
        mens rea toward death while committing the felony
        
        restriction on what counts as causing the death in thecourse of the felony. State v. Martin
      - Depraved Heart Murder (not intentional)
    - - Voluntary Manslaughter
        
        objective element 2. subjective element
        
        Cooling off period often negates voluntary manslaugther, but not if it is sufficiently re-aggravating
      - Involuntary Manslaughter
        
        Causing the death of another, recklessly, grossly negligengtly, negligently. Welanksy, Williams,
  - - - Utmost resistance (Brown)
      - Reasonable resistance (Dorsey)
    - - Force or fear with non consent in fact (Massachusetts)
      - No affirmative consent creates liability regardless of whether there was force or fear (New Jersey)
  - - - Embezzlement. Having something lawfully and then exploiting that position.
      - False pretenses. Taking by fraud or lying.
      - Larceny. taking by force or stealth (pickpocket)
        
        Larceny by finding (dropped wallet case)
    - - Elements (pg. 1021)
        
        taking of personal property from the person of another or immediate presence and against his will, accomplished by means of force or fear. The fear may be created by injury to the person or property of the victim or to the person or property in the victim's presence.
      - Claim of right defense (out of fashion today)
    - - Elements
        
        Obtaining property by wrongful use of fear, where the fear is borne of a threat to do a (possibly lawful) injury.
- - - - Note: No takesies backsies. If you attempt you can't abandon the attempt and escape liability
      - Merger. Can be convicted either of attempt or the crime
  - - - intent
      - overt act
        
        less than required for attempt. Must in some way contribute to carrying out the goal of the conspiracy but could be something very far from executing the end goal of the conspiracy
      - Agreement between two or more people
        
        Evidence? Need not be direct but can be by inference. Griffin. Cepeda.
    - - Conspiracy is a crime independent of whether the crime is committed
- - - - rebuttable
      - irrebuttable, or conclusive
- - - - Duress
        
        elements
        
        (1) an immediate threat of death or serious bodily injury, (2) a well-grounded fear that the threat will be carried out, and (3) no reasonable opportunity to escape the threatened harm (4) surrender. (contento pachon)
    - - Self defense
        
        Reasonable belief that force is necessary to prevent imminent great bodily harm or death. Also the response must be proportional.
        
        Subjective reasonableness (Liedholm)
        
        Objective reasonableness (Goetz)
        
        What happens when the belief is unreasonable?
        
        How unresaonble the belief was determines what crime was committed by the use of force in self defense
      - Necessity
        
        Elements
        
        That must be imminently resolved
        
        The choice is unavoidable, the criminal wrongdoing is unavoidable.
        
        Injury from the emergency has to outweigh the criminal wrong
        
        Emergency