criminal law tutoring slides 3 (3 of 6)

7/29/2019 Criminal Law Tutoring Slides 3 (3 of 6)

1/21

Criminal Law Tutoring

Session 3Feb. 23, 2011


2/21

Overview!! Criminal law system!! Trial procedure

!! Evidence basics!! Burden of proof

!! Juries!! Advantages!! Disadvantages

!! Issues in punishment!! Blame!! Justifications

!! Retribution!! Utilitarianism!! Vengeance

!! Sentencing

!! Defining criminal conduct!! Legality!! Proportionality!! Actus reus!! Mens rea!!

Mistake of fact!! Strict liability!! Mistake of Law

!! Rape!! Actus reus!! Mens rea!! Reform issues

!! Homicide!! Premeditation!! Provocation

!! Unintended killings!! Felony-murder!! Death penalty

!! Significance of theresulting harm

!! Causation!! Attempt

!! Group culpability!! Complicity!! Corporate liability!! Conspiracy

!! Principles of exculpation!! Justifications!! Excuses!! Insanity


3/21

Where we are now!! Criminal law system!! Trial procedure

!! Evidence basics!! Burden of proof

!! Juries!! Advantages!! Disadvantages

!! Issues in punishment!! Blame!! Justifications

!! Retribution!! Utilitarianism!! Vengeance

!! Sentencing

!! Defining criminal conduct!! Legality!! Proportionality!! Actus reus!! Mens rea!!

Mistake of fact!! Strict liability!! Mistake of Law

!! Rape!! Actus reus!! Mens rea!! Reform issues

!! Homicide!! Premeditation!! Provocation

!! Unintended killings!! Felony-murder!! Death penalty

!! Significance of theresulting harm

!! Causation!! Attempt

!! Group culpability!! Complicity!! Corporate liability!! Conspiracy

!! Principles of exculpation!! Justifications!! Excuses!! Insanity


4/21

Defining Criminal Conduct: Mens Rea

!! Early definition: Guilty mind.!! Some sort of knowledge, purpose, intent!! For each actus reus element, you also need the mens rea.

!! If the statute reads knowingly took, P needs to show D knew hewas taking something

!! Two old cases!! Regina v. Cunningham: Defined malice as wickedness and didnt

convict D of harming neighbor for ripping gas meter off wall.

!! Regina v. Faulkner: Sailor dropped a match when stealing rumand burned ship. Court said that because he willfully went to

steal rum, he could be convicted of burning.


5/21


!! Modern definition: The state of mind required by thestatute that was necessary to have committed the crime

!! MPC adopts 4:!! Purpose!! Knowledge!! Recklessness!! Negligence

!! Start by looking at the statute. Easy case: Statute willcontain one of the above words


6/21


!! Break the statute down (N.Y. burglary statute on p. 226)!! Actus reus

!! Conduct=entering!! R=with intent to commit a crime therein!! AC= a building thats a dwelling

!! Three different actus reus elements. Each one must beproven beyond a reasonable doubt as a prerequisite for

guilt.

!! You also need the mens rea . . .


7/21


Actus reus! Mens rea!C! Entering! Knowingly!R! Commit a crime! Intent!AC! Building thats a

dwelling! Knowingly? Thatsplausible, butstatute doesnt

spell it out!Or recklessly? (the

MPC default)!


8/21


The MPC Definitions:!! Purpose: conduct with intention of getting result!! Knowledge: conduct knowing result would likely

come

!! Recklessness: conduct was so reckless should havebeen aware result would come

!! Negligence: acted without taking care to preventthe result, and had duty to prevent the result

!! Note that no legislature has adopted thiscomprehensively.


9/21


!! Whats criminal negligence?!! Something close to the tort standard: State v. Hazelwood. The

captain of the Exxon Valdez was criminally negligent in lettingship run aground, which caused the ships oil leak.

!! OR something more than the tort standard. Santillanes v.New Mexico. Man cut his nephews neck, and the court saidcriminal negligence should be something higher than the tortnegligence standard.

!! Does knowledge always have to be conscious?!! United States v. Jewell: D drove across the border with pot in

the car. He deliberately avoided checking his car, and the courtsaid this was knowledge enough. But theres a dissent(remember, this is a minority rule on knowledge).


10/21


!! What if the statute doesnt spell out the mens rea?!! The MPC makes two presumptions that might help you:

!! If the statute is silent, the default is recklessness (MPC 2.01)!! If there is a mens rea for one element in the statute, that mens

rea applies to all other elements in the statute.


11/21

Mistake of Fact

!! When the D is mistaken about something that wouldmake Ds act not a crime

!! Example: Theft defined in statute as the taking of avaluable thing. D takes a couch from beside a Dumpster.

Turns out the couch is a) valuable and b) not abandoned.Has D committed theft?

!! Most jurisdictions would say yes.!! MPC approach:

!! If the mistake of fact negates the mens rea for the crime, thenthat can be a complete defense.


12/21

Mistake of Fact

!! Common context: Statutory rape. D is mistaken aboutthe girl/boys age.

!! Cases!! Regina v. Prince (old English case). D liable for taking 14-year-old

he thought was 18 away from father.!! People v. Olsen: D thought girl was 16. Thats not a defense.!! B (A Minor): English case that takes opposite view: honest

belief girl was of age is a defense.

!!Garnett v. State: D was mentally disabled. Court said thatmistake of fact is still no defense.

!! Statutory rape statutes now sometimes used to punishboth kids whos the D and whos the victim?


13/21

Strict Liability

!! This is NOT the tort context!! When the D is liable even no matter what Ds intention/

knowledge was.

!! These tend to be regulatory crimes!! United States v. Balint: Convicted of selling drugs even though Ds

didnt think they were selling drugs.

!! United States v. Dotterweich: Manufacturer convicted under Foodand Drug Act for selling mislabeled goods. Public policy here:

We want food to be safe.


14/21

Strict Liability

!! Generally, strict liability crimes are not favored.!! Why?

!! United States v. Morrisette: D took bomb casings he thought AirForce had abandoned. Statute not clear on mens rea. Supreme

Court reversed his conviction and said he would have had tohave known that the casings werent abandoned, not just

known that he was picking them up.

!! This case stands for: Courts dont like strict liabilitycrimes unless:

!! 1. Its a regulatory crime and the penalty is not significant!! Or: 2. Theres a clear expression of legislative intent


15/21

Strict Liability

!! Staples v. United States.: D cant be convicted of owning amachine gun when he didnt know it was a machine gun.

!! State v. Guminga: Owner cant be prosecuted (vicariousemployer liability) when his employee served an underage

person alcohol. Court frowns on strict liability whenthere are personal consquences.

!! State v. Baker: D convicted for speeding when he had amalfunctioning cruise control.

!! Canada hates strict liability: Regina v. City of Sault Ste.Marie.


16/21

Mistake of Law

!! Generally: Ignorance of the law is no excuse forcommitting a crime

!! People v. Marrero: D claimed he thought he was a peace officerunder the statutory definition and could carry gun. Court said

no way.!! Willful ignorance of the law really no excuse

!! Cheek v. United States : D claimed honest belief that he didnthave to pay taxes. Court didnt buy it.


17/21

Mistake of Law

!! But when laws are unpublished, it can violateConstitutional due process if the D has no reasonableopportunity to know what the law is

!! Lambert v. California: D didnt register like she was supposedto. She had just moved to town and didnt know.

!! Another but if an officer of the law tells you its not acrime, that can be a defense

!! Other law doctrine: When liability for a criminal law isbased in part on the application of a non-criminal law.Mistake about the civil law would constitute a mistake oflaw defense for the criminal liability.


18/21

Rape

!! One of two specific crimes this course spends a lot oftime on

!! What to know from the statistics: Broad outlines!! Rape is both overreported and underreported!! Commonly an acquaintance-based crime!! Often secret!! Ds are overwhelmingly male; victims overwhelmingly female!! Problems with police believing the victim!! Recidivism rates are lower than you might think


19/21

Rape: Actus Reus

!! Conduct = sexual act. But that varies by statute.Some limit to penetration, others say unwantedcontact.

!! Attendant Circumstance = Element of force orcoercion or lack of consent in some combination!! Note these are often merged with conduct facts. Same facts

for act might also prove force

!! Result (sometimes) = aggravating factor that raisesgrade of rape!! Traditionally, pregnancy!! Also serious bodily injury!! Or death


20/21

Rape: Actus Reus

!! Look to the statutes in your casebook. Differentjurisdictions have different definitions.!! MPC: 213.1 Model Penal Code version

!! In the easy cases, theres obvious force or lack of consent!! Cases in the casebook are the hard cases

!! State v. Rusk: D took the victims car keys, so she followed himupstairs. She said she submitted because she was terrified. Hesaid she seemed fine. So the question is consent. (court upheldconviction).

!! What about coercion?!! State v. Thompson: High school principal threatened to kick

victim out of school. How was that consent?


21/21

Coming up

!! Next office hours:Wednesday, March 2, 11 a.m. in the caf

!! Next tutoring session:Wednesday, March 9, 11 a.m. room 206

!! E-mail:[email protected]

criminal law tutoring slides 3 (3 of 6)

Documents