Crim Outline Branham

8/6/2019 Crim Outline Branham

1/25

Criminal Law Outline

I. What is Criminal Law

a. Definition of Crime

1. Offense by someone against the state

1. Shocks conscious

2. Right to security

3. Infringing others rights

2. Substantial harm or risk of harm

3. Culpable state of mind

4. Interest in individual autonomy

5. Basic values/Morality

6. (Crime what the legislature says it is subject to constitutional constraints)

1. Is is blameworthy enough?

b. Differences between civil and criminal lawsuits

1. Who brings the lawsuit (state v. injured)

2. Standard of proof

a. Preponderance of evidence v. Beyond a reasonable doubt

3. Constitutional Rights

4. Stigma conviction holds much greater stigma than being liable

c. Purposes of Criminal Justice System

1. Retribution (penalty to punish D for crime)

a. Crime is a violation of the state

b. Focus on establishing blame on guilt/past

c. Adversarial relationship and process normative

d. Imposition of pain to punish and deter/prevent

2. Incapacitation (while in jail, cant commit another crime on public)


2/25

3. Deterrence

a. Specific penalty imposed on D so in future, theyll be

reluctant to commit in future

b. General punish bc want to deter OTHERS from same crime

4. Rehabilitation (receive treatment so will not repeat in the future bc

they know the crime is wrong)

2. Restorative Justice

1. Structure so criminal will give back to community to redress the

harm caused by his criminal conduct

2. Victim Offender Mediation Programs

3. Focus on Problem Solving, liabilities and obligations on future (what

should be done)

4. Restoring both parties goal of reconciliation/restoration

II. Actus Reus

a. Act Requirement (external manifestation of will)

1. Act required to commit crime

b. Court Cases

1. Sleepwalker guy killed mother in law, not guilty because did not actvoluntarily

2. Epilepsy guy voluntary act began when he went behind the wheel,

knowing he endangered others (there can be criminal culpablility if

someone starts or continues an activity knowing she may become

unconscious and engage in criminal behavior

3. Jones v. US was there sufficient evidence of conviction did she feed the

baby?

4. Queen v. Dudley (Cannibalism)

5. State v. Stark (knowingly transferred HIV)

6. Johnson v. State (Coke through umbilical cord)

7. People v. James (prostitution of 2 college girls)


3/25

III. Mens Rea state of mind, acted intentionally, unless you have a guilty state of mind,

conduct isnt blameworthy enough to call someone a criminal

1. Least culpable

b. Cases

1. Vallegas v. US

1. Charged with violation of clean water act dumped vials of blood

containing hep b into water knowingly placed others in imminent

danger of death or bodily harm

a. Court concluded D didnt act knowingly he must have been

aware his actions would cause a high probability of causing a

certain result, no evidence understood how tides worked,

knew people walked in the area, no evidence would cause a

high probability infection

IV.Mistake of Fact/Mistake of Law

a. Mistake of Fact No intent to deprive

1. MPC

1. If purpose of knowledge is the state of mind requirement any

honest mistake suffices including a reckless or neg mistake

2. If reckless any mistake that is not reckless

a. Was not aware of substantial risk acted negligently, but

because of her mistake, is not reckless (gun, shot friend)

3. If negligence - if d unreasonably believed she consented, that is

guilty

4. Gordon v. State

a. Voted when he wasnt 21 thought he was 21

b. Gordon has reasonable mistake not guilty; Gordon has

unreasonable mistake - guilty

b. Mistake of Law Knowingly didnt pay taxes

1. Ignorance of the law is not a defense

2. He knowingly failed bc he knew he didnt pay


4/25

3. IF he consulted an accountant guilty, if he consulted an actor of the state

interpreting administration of the law not guilty

4. Mistakes of Law that Do Not Negate Mens Rea

1. Law not published

2. When mistake arises from reasonable reliance on a statute that is

later determined to be invalid

3. When the mistake is based on reasonable reliance on a court

decision

4. When the mistake arises from reasonable reliance on a public

official who is in a position to interpret the relevant statute

5. EXAMPLES

a. Lambert v. California

- D with felony conviction didnt register in time

- Conviction unconstitutional under the

circumstances, the conviction violated due process of

the law

1. Unfair when activity was passive and she didnt

do something

2. No circumstances that she should enquire whatthe requirements are (didnt move, etc)

3. Needs to have actual knowledge or possibility of

knowledge

c. MPC Mistake of Fact s.2.04(1)(a) ignorance or mistake as to a matter of fact

constitutes defense if it negatives the purpose, knowledge, belief, recklessness or

negligence required to establish a material element of the offense

1. Crimes require purpose or knowledge honest mistake of fact is a defense,

even if the mistake was reckless

2. Crimes require recklessness, a mistake of fact is a defense as long as it

was not reckless

3. Crimes require negligence mistake of fact is a defense as long as the

mistake was not negligent (must be a reasonable mistake)

d. General/Specific Intent


5/25

1. General Intent - Only a reasonable mistake can be a defense

2. Specific Intent - Reasonable or unreasonable mistake can be a defense

a. Pick up pink umbrella

b. Not only must D intend to commit the act, there must be extra state ofmind

i. 1st degree murder, solicitation, attempt, conspiracy, larceny,

robbery, burglary, false pretenses, embezzlement

e. MPC voluntary intoxication is defense to crimes whose mens rea requirement is

purpose or knowledge

Ex Drunk, did not enter home with the intent to commit a crime just

went to the wrong home, not burglary

- voluntary intox is not a defense to crimes of recklessness if a sober person

would have been aware of the risk

- Reckless discharge of a firearm (drunk and shoot someone) yes guilty in the

act of consuming alcohol, we are being reckless bc we know it will impair our

thought process

- Not a defense to general intent crimes (Battery - crimes committed so often

while drunk)

- Defense to specific intent crimes because dont meet mens rea requirement

f. Involuntary Intoxication

Two ways may lead to avoidance of criminal liability

1. Mens rea is not present

2. When requirements of insanity defense (other than mental disease or

defect) are met (doesnt understand wrongfulness or cant control actions)

V. Homicide

a. Common Law Murder

1. Acted with malice

a. D intendt to kill or knowledge with practical certainty of death


6/25

b. Intent to cause serious bodily harm

c. If D acted with extreme recklessness

d. Intent to commit a felony

2. Premeditation

a. separate from intent to kill, can have intent to kill without

premeditation

i. Lapse of time between intent and killing

ii. Evidence of planning activity

iii. Motive (D took out $1 mil life insurance)

iv. Method of killing (Poison)

3. POLICY ARGUMENT - Should Premeditated Murder remain?

b. Voluntary Manslaughter Requirements (Common Law)

i. D was provoked

ii. Reasonable person would have been provoked to pt. of losing self-control

iii. D didnt cool off

iv. Reasonable person wouldnt have cooled off

1. Who is the reasonable person?

v. If on defense council want them to have as many of the same attributes

of the D as possible.

2. POLICY ARGUMENT - Should Murder be mitigated to manslaughter b/c intense

passion?

c. Involuntary Manslaughter

1. Mens rea - recklessness or negligence (split in jurisdictions)

d. MPC Murder, Manslaughter, Negligent Homicide

1. MPC Murder

a. Committed purposely or knowingly, or


7/25

b. Committed recklessly under circumstances manifesting extreme

indifference to human life

2. MPC Manslaughter

a. Committed recklessly, or

b. Committed under influence of extreme mental or emotional disturbance

3. MPC Negligent Homicide

a. Committed negligently

Commonwealth v. Feinburg, sold Sterno to people to drink

Commonwealth v. Welansky, owned nightclub caught on fire

b. Felony Murder

1. Another form of malice bc intent to commit a felony

2. Limitations on scope

a. People v. Hansen Inherently Dangerous

i. Shooting into inhabitable dwelling

ii. States confine f-m rule to felonies that are inherently dangerous

iii. Look at the crime in the abstract nature of the shooting, pose a

high probability of risk

b. Merger Doctrine felony must have an independent felonious

purpose

i. People v. Dekens

c. Agency v. Proximate Cause approaches

i. Agency D only guilty of f-m when he killed the victim or his

accomplice killed the victim

ii. Proximate cause D responsible for deaths that are theproximate cause of the felony he is committing (killings are

reasonably foreseeable)

VI.Rape

a. Statutory Rape


8/25

1. Rape is an act of sexual intercourse accomplished with a female not the

wife under age of consent defined by the statute (16 in most jurisdictions)

2. Strict Liability crime no need for mens rea

1. Girl does not understand the consequences

2. Has to be a line somewhere

3. Societal reasons

3. Honest mistake does not negate crime (in most jurisdictions)

4. POLICY ARGUMENT - Should SL continue to be the rule?

b. Rape

1. Penetration

2. Lack of consent

3. Mens Rea - recklessness will suffice - If he's aware there is a substantialrisk and he continues, the mens rea requirement is met

a. Negligence in most will sufficeb. POLICY ARGUMENT - Would a reasonable person believe nomeans no?

Arguments against Negligence Liability Arguments for negligably

Woman can fabricate complaints Harm is still the same/gravity of harm -harm is emotional and physical

Negligent conduct is not culpable enough for sucha serious crime

Shifts burden of communication to the man(by making it easier to prosecute men -

burden should be on man to make sureshe wants to)

Severity of the consequences of a conviction Proof argument - trying to prevent peoplewho did act recklessly from getting out(knew she didn't consent, and they pleadthey didn't know)

Severally punishing someone for their stupidity Deterrence - induce men to be careful andensure a woman wants to have intercourse- she has consented

Patronizing to women - saying we need to protectthem against unreasonable men, not strongenough to indicate what they really mean

Will change cultural norms

Standard should be recklessness, easier to proverape, cause heterosexual woman to be deprievedof sex

Other serious crimes for which negligencesuffices (Negligent Homicide)


9/25

c. Forcible Compulsion Requirement

1. D must have used force or threat of force (To make her afraid of serious

bodily injury

d. Marital Exemption

1. Common Law - Man could not rape wife

a. POLICY ARGUMENT - should this still exist?

Arguments for the exemption for Marital RapeImplied consent between husband and wifePrivacy of marriage should be preservedImpair reconciliation and disrupt marriageDifficult to prove - already have a pre-established relationshipWives can fabricate complaintRape not as bad

D can be charged with other crimes (such as battery)Arguments against Marital Rape

Archaic notionMarried woman has the same interest as unmarried woman in controlling access toher body

Just as bad as regular rape, OR worse - sense of betrayal/commitmentSTD's if he has strayedLimits to privacy - if he beats his wife, he can be prosecutedNot a marriage to preserve when a husband is raping his wife - the rape will destroythe marriage, not her testimonyFabricated complaints applies to all crimesStigma will dissuade fabricated complaints

Procedural safeguards that help weed out false complaints - call witnesses, victims,etc.Other crimes don't reflect the full extent of the harm

2. Today most jurisdictions do not have marital exemption

VII. Larceny

a. MPC

1. that the intent existed at some point (Continuous taking - joyride and

decide to keep later - larceny)

2, Failure to take reasonable measures to restore the property to the

rightful owner

-MPC rewards change of heart for lost, mislaid or misdelivered property


10/25

- When the person assumes control, the taking is not wrongful, or the taking is

ambiguous, the MPC provides a way for the person who had the intent to deprive

to get out of it

- Guilty of theft - culpability - returning the wallet is irrelevant - good thing to do,

taken account in sentencing - but he is culpable\

b. Common Law

wrongful, (trespassory)

taking,

and carrying away (Aspiration Requirement - Must physically move)

of the personal property of another person

with the intent to deprive the owner of the property permanently.

- Intent had to exist at the time of the taking

-Must be something tangible

Lund v. Commonwealth not larceny because took computer time

-Must intend at the time of the taking to permanently deprive owner

Brooks v. State

-Must know that the owner could be found (wad of cash found in mud)

c. Cases

5 dresses, but 6 were in the bag

Common law - must be aware of the mistake at the time, and must have the intent

to take.. Didn't know at the time of the sale - formed the intent later not guilty in

common law

MPC - guilty bc formed the intent to keep after you realized the mistake of the

employee intent at some time

-US v. Rogers case

Brother had a check - deposit part and bring back part of it; teller misread, and

deposited $80, and gave $1000

Under common law - intent at the moment

State v. Robington


11/25

Robington took the sedan for two months, the car dealership turned it over to her for

the weekend, Monday she would return the car or pay the money. She kept.

Defense - she thought that the title had been transferred to her

Why relevant to larceny?

What happens when the title transfers - wouldn't be property of another (last

element of larceny)

Larceny by Trick- committed when one obtains the possession of another's personal

property by deception, fraud, or force with the intent to convert it to their own use and

permanently deprive owner.

VIII. False Pretenses

a. MPC

b. MPC follows the minority approach - recognizes that a misrepresentation of current

intention can suffice and it recognizes that people in commercial transactions make

a promise, in their mind they either plan on delivering or if they can't, they'll pay

damages

c. If a D makes the promise and intends to do neither, then there is culpability for false

pretenses

d. Min. Rule - misrepresentation regarding current intention suffices

1. Harm is great, conduct culpable2. Proof problems are in every crime3. Won't be onslaught of cases bc the prosecutor still must prove all theelements4. Deter false promises5. Reasonable measures are costly and time consuming6. Civil lawsuits costly, time consuming and traumatizing

1. Can have both criminal and civil remedies

e. Common Law

1. Misrepresentation by D

2. Past or present material fact

3. Intent to defraud (the D knows the statement is false, or act with reckless

disregard as to the falsity of the statement)

-Knew there was a risk it wasn't Magic Johnson's signature was not

his


12/25

- Recognize that property not hers

4. Reliance

Does not have to be reasonable

(to protect people who are gullible, vulnerable or ignorant)

5. Title transferred

- Depends on victims intent

Maj. Rule - misrepresentation regarding current intention doesn't suffice1. Burdensome to courts2. If all intentions were held as statements of facts, harm business -sometimes its better business to break a contract

1. Inhibits commerce bc people afraid to act3. Provides incentive to change one's mind and do the right thing and deliver

on the promise4. Induce good business practice and in taking reasonable precautions topredict oneself5. Civil Remedies6. Proof problems - can be difficult to discern what is going on in her mind

False Pretenses did not exist at Common Law - not larceny, not a criminal - at common law thepenalty for larceny was death, so the law limited the circumstances larceny could be found

f. Cases

Chaplin v. US

Owned a liquor store, borrowed money to "purchase" liquor stamps and would pay

them back (this is the misrepresentation)

Majority said this would not be a false pretense since the mistatement was about

the future

A misstatement regarding one's current intention, does not suffice; a significant

minority rules that it does

IX.Embezzlement

a. Common Law

Elements of Embezzlement

1. Appropriation2. Of the property3. Of another4. By one entrusted with possession5. Converts to own use


13/25

*** Must intend to deprive person of their property (most jurisdictions - permanently)b. Cases

People v. Talbot- had intent to repay the money

Returned all checks to the company No concealment, transactions out in the open Everyone was doing it (prevalent practice for corporate officers) Worth 5.5 mil - intent and capacity to repay Board of directors knew he was doing this

X. Consolidated Theft Statute

Consolidated theft statutes (MPC favors them)-set forth the different ways individuals can steal from others

XI.Robbery

a. Common LawSometimes describes as "larceny plus"

(trespassory, taking, carrying away, personal property, of another with intent topermanently deprive)+ 2 others

Force or caused the victim to fear imminent force Taking must be from the victim's self or the victim's immediatepresence to control

b. Cases

State v. Mejia

Illegal aliens gave money to garcia to hold, found out garcia was leaving thecountry, went to get it, garcia fled, mejia shot and killed him

even if it is your property, do not need to rob people (use force) to get the

money back peaceful ways to get the money back

Purse snatching - sometimes a robbery or sometimes just a theft Not robbery if just grab and run - no force, no threat of imminent force Robbery - if struggle

XII. Burglary

a. Common Law

1. Breaking (satisfied by actual breaking - creation of an opening into the areawhere D is going to window - opening a closed window; but did open a windowthat was already open - not breaking)

Constructive breaking - entry occurs as a result of disception or threats('meter man' intended to rob)

2. Entering3. Dwelling House4. Of Another


14/25

5. Night6. Defendant had intent to commit a felony

1. How much is the TV worth?Modern Law1. Unauthorized entry (No breaking requirement)2. Building or structure

3. Intent to commit a crime (not necessarily a felony)Store - with the intent to commit a crime it is burglary - don't have authorized

entry to steal somethingIf they form that intent after they enter the story is it is theft

b. CasesPeople v. Gauze

Told roommate to go get your gun and Ill get mine Defendant had an absoluteright to enter the apartment as he resided there, as such the defendant cannot befound guilty of burglary

XIII. Attempt

a. MPC - Substantial Step Test

- backward looking approach - what the d has done

- Has she taken a substantial step toward the crime

- Must be strongly corroborative of the defendant's criminal purpose

Actions that can prove:

- Lying in wait

- Possession of materials to be employed in the commission of the crime can serve

no lawful purpose of the actor under the circumstances

- Reconnoitering place contemplated for the crime

- Unlawful entry of structure, vehicle or enclosure in which it is contemplated the

crime will occur

- Soliciting to engage in conduct constituting an element of the crime

- Enticing victim to area of crime

- Searching for or following contemplated victim

Under MPC conduct criminalized much earlier than under physical

proximity

b. Physical Proximity Test

- D must be physically close to completing the crime

- How much more will D have to do to commit the crime


15/25

c. CasesUS v. JacksonCourt set forth a number of tests to determine whether it is a crime

Physical proximity test (only need to know this one and substantial step test) The act must be proximate to the completed crime or directlytending toward the completion of the crime

Lying in bushes - physically close to where the crime occurred If he's not there - she is not close enough to be committing thecrime, no guarantee he is going to go there

Physical prox - what more does the D have to do to commit the crime People v. Staples

Rented an apt over a bank, had various materials, drilled holes on the floor One of his arguments - I changed my mind - I'm not guilty of attemptedburglary Abandoned it - he didn't have a change of heart, he just didn't followthrough with it If he had a true change of heart - still no going back Once the point had based when mere preparation gone beyond point of no

return - it's attempted burglary

Renunciation of AttemptUnder MPC you have crossed the line, but can avoid criminal culpability (s. 4) of MPC,affirmative defense of voluntary abandonment

Must prove the abandonment is voluntary and completeYou can renunciate What if left because a dog discovered her - not voluntary

Under common law - no going back after mere preparation

Policy Argument for/against renunciationMPC1. Public safety still protected - if have genuine change of heart - no threat tosociety2. Not blameworthy enough3. Provides incentive for people not to follow through with the crimeCommon Law1. No renunciation to at least some crimes (Hazard to the public)2. Provides maximum deterrence3. Avoids proof problems4. No renunciation defense for most other crimes

Legal v. Factual ImpossibiltyMPC - (majority) - Guilty if purposely engaged in conduct that would be a crime if the

circumstances were as he believes them to be- Legal or factual impossibility not a defense under MPC

Common Law - (minority) factual impossibility is not a defense, but legal impossibilityis


16/25

- If Moran intended to do what he did - shoot that thing in the window, this is a case oflegal impossibility because you can't murder a statue Defense to CL

- If he intended to do what he wanted to do - (kill Sherlock) but he couldn't becauseSherlock wasn't there, it's a case offactual impossibility

- Dluglash Case- Under MPC - doesn't matter if the person is dead - thought he was alive- Under the Common Law - even if he did everything he wanted to do, you can't murder a

corpse- LEGAL IMPOSSIBILITY

Hypo - D wants to kill someone, Thinks the gun is loaded, but the gun is unloaded, points it atP's head and pulls the trigger - guilty of attempted murder

Common Law - Factual Impossibility Can not prevail under this defense under the common law Factual Impossibility is not a defense Def'n - would have been a crime if the D had done everything he wanted todo.

D wanted to kill other individual - would have happened except thatthe bullets were not in the chamber

MPC - yes he is guilty Purposely engaged in conduct that would have constituted the crime ofmurder, if the surrounding circumstances were as he believed them to be

***** If you are the Prosecutor - shape facts so that factual impossibility is used

XIV. Solicitation

a. Common Law

1. All that is necessary is that the D encourage or advice that someone

commit a crime2. D must have the intent that the crime be committed

-Special danger of group activity

NO RENUNCIATION

b. Cases

SchleiferTelling Union members to rob, beat, kill 'scabs'This case should proceed to trial on the solicitation trial

QuintinCalling on people to be hippiesCrime of solicitation did not extend to this conduct

Consistent -


17/25

Quintin case - they were indiscriminately handing out the pamplets to random # of youngpeople - large, indefinable group of peopleSchleifer - speaking directly to union members - definable group of people

Solicitation has nothing to do with the likelihood that it will occur (committed solicitationnonetheless)

Hypo - Osama calls on all Muslims to declare jihad and kill all American officials because theyare all corrupt and bad

Solicitation -If you can define the group - yes it is solicitation of people

What if he calls on every American citizen to kill govt officials - solicitation?Yes - definable set of people.Size or indefinability of the group? - what is important? - at issue

Comes down to advocacy - will get into policy concerns?*Renunciation

c. Contemporary Approach - MPC

IF she tried to persuade them not to - possible not guilty ifRequirements:

1. Renunciation must be voluntaryi. Not voluntary when something happens that makes it morelikely that the crime will be detected

2. Renunciation must be completei. If ask someone else not to do it, but have someone else inmind to do it, not complete

3(a) Must persuade solicited person not to commit the crime OR(b) Otherwise prevent it's commission

XV. Accomplice Liability

Aids or agrees to aid person in committing crime

Mens rea - intent to provide assistance and intent crime to be committed (Just being

aware of the crime is not enough

need to know whether that person is presentAccomplice -

1. Assistance

2. Intent to provide assistance and the intent that the crime be committedWithdrawl

1. Withdraw all the aid and the encouragement, OR2. Provide timely notice to the police, or makes some other proper effort toprevent the crime

(Crime may occur and can avoid criminal liability)CL - D is liable for crimes that are the natural and probable consequence of the initialcrime


18/25


19/25

Distinction between withdrawal and renunciationWithdrawal - he did withdrawal bc he informed all the people with whom herequired or tell the police of the plans so they can stop it in time

Once have a conspiracy (agreement, overt act, requisite state of mind) - canwithdrawal from conspiracy - Benefit - not guilty of crimes that occur after thewithdrawal so he is guilty of conspiracy to robbery, but not robbery

Two ways in which to withdrawal1. Notify all the persons with whom the Defendant conspired2. Providing timely notice to the police of the conspiracy and theD's role in it.

Under MPC - away to avoid liability for the conspiracy itself (Modern) (CL - does not allowthis)

Renunciation (what it takes to avoid liability for the conspiracy itself)1. Renunciation of conspiracy must be complete and voluntary2. Thwart conspiracy's success (not just notifying the police)

Pinkerton Doctrine - what if conspire to commit one crime but another occurs?1. Other crime must be in furtherance of conspiracy2. Other crime must be a reasonably foreseeable consequence of conspiracy

Even though that Gary didn't think she would steal the gun, a reasonable person wouldthink that it is a possibility because if she used her own gun, it would be traceable toMary, if it were stolen, it would not trace the crime back to them.MPC

Not responsible for other crimes unless the defendant is an accomplice to the other crime(go back and remember what it means to be an accomplice - D intend the crime to becommitted, and provide some assistance to aid)If use MPC on Gary hypo - he is not guilty because he is not an accompliceBerkley student who molested the girl in the bathroom - friend walked in the bathroom,saw molester harming the child, and went back out and stood guard.

D not a part of the conspiracy - no agreement to commit the crime between thetwo of themBut, D is an accomplice because he has provided affirmative assistance and the

jury can draw an inference that the crime will occur

In order for conspiracy to occur - must be an agreement and an overt act taken infurtherance of the agreementIf Gary withdrew before the theft - withdrawn before conspiracy because the theft (overtact) hasn't taken place ---- not guily of theft or conspiracry

XVII. Causation

a. Common Law

Sometimes the actions of someone else can break the causal link in criminal cases1. But for causation2. Reasonably foreseeable3. Sufficiently direct result ********** in criminal case will need this one for criminalcases!!!

b. Cases


20/25

People v. KibbeDrunk, flashing money, guys plan to rob him, get him more drunk, rob him, take off his pantsand shoes ditch him in a rural hwy in zero degrees, gets hit by BlakeMurder, Larceny,

Ct. concluded that the D were the cause of the deathReasoning - "But For" causation

But for Defendant's actions, victim would be alive today, therefore they are thecause of his death.

Actual Cause, But For, Cause in factGenerally, Not sufficient to be considered the legal cause in a criminal case - mustbe something more than but for causation

What more is necessary is that the death of the victim was thedirectly forseeable consequence of the D's actions

Commonwealth v. Root But for the D's actions (drag racing), the deceased would be alive Reasonably foreseeable consequence - death And yet the court concludes that the D is not guilty How do you reconcile these two cases? The decedant's actions break the causal link, it was his decision to go in the left lane

right when a truck came - this specific action was a voluntary decision by the P, and thiswas a superceding cause of death - bc voluntary and reckless behavior breaks thecausal link.

XVIII. Self-Defense

a. MPCD believes that such force is immediately necessary for the purpose of protectinghimself against the use of unlawful force on the present occasion.

Subjective standardException if D is reckless or negligent in having such belief (that defensive

force is necessary or in acquiring or failing to acquire any material knowledge establishes culpability

Or if the D provoked the useThere is a duty to retreat before using deadly force only if effectuated with completesafetyb. Imperfect Self Defense

D who honestly but unreasonably believed that defensive force was necessaryare convicted of manslaughter rather than murder

c. Common Law

Objective standard - D must have reasonably believed (he must actuallyand honestly believed and those beliefs must be reasonable) --- MAJORITY RULE1. Deadly force was necessary2. To protect the defendant from an imminent infliction or application3. Of deadly force(force likely to cause death or serious bodily harm Reasonable person, or the shoes of the defendant

Initial Aggressor Rule if D starts hit and hits back in self-defense, he cannot prevailon self-defense


21/25

If A renounced his intent after initial push and then B hits and A hits back A isonly guilty of the battery from the initial contact self defense was an offense forthe second punch though

Excessive ForceA pushes BB chokes A

A pulls out a knife and stabs BEven if someone reasonably believes that a threat is imminent - they will lose the

defense if they used excessive forceBy B using excessive force, A has a right to protect himself. A can still be charged

with battery, but not guilty of aggravated batteryDuty to retreat

MPC there is a duty to retreatMajority Rule - There is no duty to retreat before using deadly force

Castle Doctrine - Do not need to retreat from his or her own home even if you couldretreat

MPC need to retreat before using deadly force against a coworkerd. Cases

State v. Goetz (Subway shooter, give me $5 shot all four, if calmer put to heads

Reckless - D was aware there was a substantial risk he didn't need to use this force---- Guilty of Involuntary Manslaughter

Negligent - convicted of negligent homicideState v. Norman (Battered Wife)

XIX. Defense of Property

a. MPC

Defense of property - most courts prohibit the use of deadly force solely to protect

property - preservation of life

Can use nondeadly force to protect property - provided that you reasonably believe(actually and reasonably believe things) the force is necessary to protect propertyfrom imminent threat

b. Common Law

Common Law Approach - (Only followed in a few states) - Deadly force can be used -

if individual using the deadly force believes it is necessary to prevent an imminent

and unlawful entry

1. Deadly force can be used if it is necessary to prevent an imminent and unlawful

entry and Person must reasonably believe the force is necessary to prevent afelony (felony other than the burglary - theft, rape, etc.)2. Must reasonably believe that the force is necessary to prevent a forcible felony or

that the victim poses a risk of death or serious bodily harm

c. Cases


22/25

Bishop v. State

Set up a spring gun towards the door of his trailer, person known to him came in torob it - hit and died

Can't use spring guns to defend your house(minority view - defense of habitation allowed if they could have used deadly forceat the time of unlawful entry if he was at home - this is what the defendant argues)

Argument against use of deadly force

Law enforcement, firemen, emergency services

Property not worth same as life

Arguments for use of deadly force

Levels playing field poor people dont have the money for more elaborate

security syst

XX. Necessity

a. MPC

Defendant honestly believes that committing a crime is necessary to avoid a

greater evil

Defense is unavailable when D charged with a crime requiring a mens rea of only

recklessness or negligence if the D was reckless or negligent either in bringing

about the situation requiring a choice of evils or in appraising the necessity for

his conduct.

b. Common Law

Necessity test - D must reasonably believe that the crime is necessary to avoid

harm greater than that caused by the crime itself (in addition, many jurisdictions

require that it be imminent).

Legislative Foreclosure exception - not up to you to do the balancing,

because it has already been determined by legislature.

Ex Abortion has been deemed legal, so kidnapping is the greater harm

c. Cases

US v. Kabat (ICBM + Priests damage missile facility)

State v. Reese (prisoner escapes to get away from imminent threat)

Lovercamp test

1. Prisoner faced with specific threat death, forcible sexual attack or substantial

bodily injury in immediate future


23/25

2. No time for complaint to officials or history futile complaints

3. No time to resort to courts

4. No evidence of force/violence used in escape

5. Prisoner immediately reports to proper authorities when he has attained a safedistance from threat

Main impediment from going to jury - each of the requirements had to bemet before he could be aquitted

Must immediately report to authorities2 ways to test

Normal necessity testOr - Prisoner defense test

Concern with Lovercamp - have to get thrown right back in to the situation thattrying to escape from

Can use against natural forces fire coming down hill, necessary to set one house on

fire to save others

XXI. Duress

a. MPC (Section 2.09)

Elements

Affirmative defense when he is coerced to do something by use of or

threat of unlawful force against his person or the person of another that a person

of reasonable firmness in his situation would have been unable to resist.

o Duress is a defense to homicide

o Threat that a reasonable person would be unable to resist

Not required to be an imminent threat (but still must threat of physical injury)

If erroneously believe that they received threat lose the defense IF the mistake

was reckless (or negligent) and they are charged with a crime requiring a mens rea of

recklessness or negligence

b. Common Law

Duress is a defense to any offense BUT murder

1. Reasonably believes

2. That the crime is necessary

3. To protect self from imminent threat


24/25

4. Of death or serious bodily harm

Reasoning for the defense

Was not the voluntary act of the accused

Negates intent because no time to formulate criminal intent

Variation on necessity

Majority

Do act with intent (know they will injure another)

Is voluntary act D makes a choice to violate the law

Crime need not be the lesser evil

At Fault Exception

Duress defense is unavailable in cases where D was at fault in bringing

about the situation that required them to commit the crime

If recklessly put themselves in a situation where coercion likely (Gang)

c. Cases

State v. Scott (gang member, cuts boy)

Ct. said not a defense bc of at fault exception

XXII. Insanity

a. MNaughton (Prevailing rule)

1. D must either not understand nature and quality of actions (cantaloupe -

head)

2. Or, as a result of his illness, he doesnt understand actions are wrong

Wrongfulness

D not aware actions illegal (some jurisdictions)

D knows actions illegal but doesnt know society perceives

actions immoral (God commanded him)

b. MPC

1. D must lack substantial capacity to appreciate wrongfulness of conduct


25/25

Illegality or immorality

2. Lacked substantial capacity to conform to requirements of the law (volition)

c. Guilty but mentally ill (some jurisdictions)

1. Goes to mental hospital and gets well - goes to jail for rest of sentence

c. Policy Considerations - which is better?

MPC

If D could not control his actions because of his illness he is not blameworthy

enough

Ex - throws baby in river - realizes it is wrong, but because of her illnessshe can't help it - she just does it

If someone so sick, may not anticipate that they will lose control or get sicker

Resources may not be available (live in a rural area, and not available; homeless- hard to access the mental health)M'NaghtenMore narrow rule - great harm caused by criminal conductAvoid some or many fabricated claims of insanity - easier to lie and get away withthe volition requirementAre blameworthy enough

If aware of what they are thinking about doing is wrong (illegal or societalwrong) - it's on them to get help, so they do not take those actions

If mom has feelings that she needs to kill her kids and doesn't get help anddoes it ---- she is blameworthy if she has the cognition

Volitional component has the potential to greatly expand the insanity defense

Provides an incentive for people to get treatment

Documents

Crim Outline Branham