Criminal Law, Swedlow Hillary 2010 Eva Crawford Pg.

What is a crime? Any social harm defined and made punishable by law What is Criminal Law? Public law, those laws protecting society as a whole What is Punishment? Removal of life cash or liberty etc. punishment is what whatever society deems it to be. How does the constitute affect the law? It is the limit of what can be a crime, ex. 14th, and 8th amendments. Where is the criminal law? 1. Common law- judge made law 2. Model Penal Code: American Law Institute put common law into one coherent code. 3. Legislature- Enactments of law by elected officials, ex. State penal codes/statutes.

Punishment
Principles of Punishment The Queen v. Dudley and Stephens A person may not sacrifice another persons life to save his own. People V. Superior Court: A just punishment should: 1) protect society, 2) punish the defendant for wrongdoing, 3) encourage the defendant to be good in the future, 4) deter other crimes, 5) incapacitate the defendant, 6) make restitution for the victim, and 7) be comparable to punishments for similar crimes. People v. Du: Same as above. United States v. Gementera: Be reasonably related to the nature and circumstances of the offense and the history and characteristics of the defendant. Be both reasonably related to and involve no greater deprivation of liberty than is reasonably necessary to afford adequate deterrence to criminal conduct Provide the defendant with needed educational or vocational training, medical care, or other correctional treatment in the most effective manner.

Cases
Utilitarianism: Justification that serves the greater good for society Retributivism: Punishment equals the crime ex. Death penalty Deterrence: to change behavior from example. Specific Deterrence: Change behavior on individual basis.

Goals of punishment: 1. Rehabilitation: 2. Incapacitate:

3. Retribution:

Criminal Law, Swedlow Hillary 2010 Eva Crawford Pg. 2 Mens Rea /cases
Nature of Mens Rea :

Definitions and Defenses

General Definition: A guilty mind; a guilty or wrongful purpose; a criminal intent

Case: Regina V. Cunningham: Malice requires (1) an intent to do the harm that Specific Definition: The mental state the was done; or (2) recklessness as to whether the defendant must have with regard to the offense. harm occur

General Issues of proving culpability

INTENT People v. Gentry : Intent can be inferred by the circumstances surrounding the crime.

Specific Intent: crimes require that the accused intend both the criminal conduct and its particular result. General intent: crimes require only proof that a defendant intended the particular criminal act, and not the result. Defense: Offer evidence to show that she was unable to form the requisite intent and thus cannot be convicted. i. Intoxication (Not acceptable for General Intent) ii. Diminished Capacity (Depends on Jurisdiction) iii. Mistake of Fact: See below.

Strict Liability United States V. Cordoba-Hincapie: The term mens rea has two competing meanings. On one hand, the broad view of mens rea simply means guilty mind. Under this definition, an individual will be found guilty for any criminal act (Actus rues) that he committed while having any morally culpable or blameworthy state of mind. On the other hand, the narrow view of mens rea provides that an individual is not guilty of an offense, even if he had a guilty state of mind, where the individuals state of mind does not match the mental state specified in the definition of the charged crime. Malum Prohibita- Those that are prohibited things that we have decided to prohibit Malum in Se- are those that are bad in and of themselves.. They are inherently evil We are talking about offenses that have no mens rea to them. They are called regulatory crimes.. Most are not dangerous crimes. identify the strict liability look for the adverbs .. If you cant find one look to see what kind of behavior the statute is actually preventing Mala prohibita are allowable as long as the punishment are not to severe and to severe is loss of liberty.

Criminal Law, Swedlow Hillary 2010 Eva Crawford Pg. 3

Staples v. United States: Absent a clear Congressional statement that mens rea is not required, the public welfare/strict liability rationale should not be applied to interpret any statute that fails to mention mental state as an element of the offense. Garnett V. State Traditionally, statutory rape is a strict liability crime designed to protect young persons from the dangers of sexual exploitation by adults, loss of chastity, physical injury and in the case of girls, pregnancy.

Mistake of Fact People v. Navarro: If a person has a good faith belief that he has a right to certain property, he is not guilty of larceny, even if the belief is unreasonable. They are saying that I thought the property was abandoned. 1. They come back to the good faith belief 2. And whether that good faith belief is reasonable or unreasonable. If the defendant claims an honest mistake of fact that will negate his mens rea in a specific intent crime. In a general intent crime it is going to be honest and reasonable.

Mistake of Law (or Ignorance of Law) The general rule that ignorance of law / mistake People v. Marrero: of law is not a defense. What that means is that Mistake of law regarding a statutory definition is we are all presumed to know the law. not a valid defense unless the mistaken belief is based on an official statement of the law contained in a statute or issued by a public servant.

Criminal Law, Swedlow Hillary 2010 Eva Crawford Pg. 4

The court does tell us that there are some exceptions 1. A misinterpretation if the defendant relies on a misinterpretation of the law by one who is charged to interpret the law. (such as a district attorney) it is narrow because we want to limit when people can argue this. The person must be acting in there official capacity. 2. when the Defendant is charged with a specific intent crime and the Defendants mistake would negate the specific intent.

Check v. United States A good faith misunderstanding of the law or a good faith belief that one is not violating the law does not have to be reasonable to negate the element of willfulness.

Criminal Law, Swedlow Hillary 2010 Eva Crawford Pg. 5 Actus Reus
Voluntary Acts Martin v. State: A person in not guilty of an offense where liability is based on involuntary conduct.

State v. Utter An act committed during unconsciousness is not voluntary, and therefore one cannot be held criminally culpable for said act. However, voluntarily induced unconsciousness, such as by drugs or alcohol, is not a complete defense.

Omissions People v. Beardsley: A person owes no legal obligation to another unless such person is within his custody or care as a dependent person.

Criminal Law, Swedlow Hillary 2010 Eva Crawford Pg. 6

Homicide
Common Law Pennsylvania Degrees of Murder Model Penal Code

Homicides Continued
Intentional killings

State v. Guthrie: There must be some period between the formation of the intent to kill and the actual killing which indicates the killing is by prior design. Midgett v. State: Premeditation and deliberation are required elements of first-degree murder State v. Forest Among the circumstances to be considered to

Criminal Law, Swedlow Hillary 2010 Eva Crawford Pg. 7

determine whether the Defendant acted with premeditation and deliberation required for firstdegree murder are: (1) lack of provocation by the victim; (2) conduct and statements of the Defendant before and after the killing; (3) threats and declarations of the Defendant before and during the killing; (4) ill-will between the parties; (5) the dealing of lethal blows after the victim was rendered helpless; and (6) evidence of the killing being done in a brutal manner.

Manslaughter Girouard v. State

Words alone-that is, unaccompanied by conduct indicating a present intention and ability to cause bodily harm-cannot constitute adequate provocation to reduce murder to manslaughter.

Criminal Law, Swedlow Hillary 2010 Eva Crawford Pg. 8 Homicide Continued
Unintentional Killings-Unjustified Risk Takings

People v. Knoller : The theory of implied malice is applicable whenever the defendant is aware that they are engaging in acts that endanger the life of another, not just a risk of serious or great bodily injury. State v. Hernandez:
A defendant need not be aware of the risk to others from his conduct to be guilty of manslaughter.

State v. Williams The conduct of the defendants should be tested from a reasonable man standard. If the conduct of the defendants, regardless of their ignorance, good intentions and good faith, fails to measure up to the conduct required of a man of reasonable prudence, they are guilty of ordinary negligence because of their failure to use ordinary caution. Unintentional Killing-Unlawful conduct

Criminal Law, Swedlow Hillary 2010 Eva Crawford Pg. 9 Rape

Forcible Rape (General) State v. Alston: Generalized fear of the Defendant is not enough to render consent to sexual intercourse alleged void, but rather, the Defendant must use force or threats to overcome the will of the victim to resist the sexual intercourse.

The resistance Requirement Rusk v. State : The evidence required to support

a rape conviction must warrant a conclusion either that the victim resisted and was overcome by force or the victim was prevented from resisting by threats to her safety.

State V. Rusk: The reasonableness of the

victims fear in determining whether sufficient force was used to support a rape conviction is a question of fact for the jury.

No or the absence of Yes as Forcible

Commonwealth v. Berkowitz: The forcible

compulsion required to sustain a conviction for rape in Pennsylvania must be more than verbal resistance, i.e. threat or actual force

Criminal Law, Swedlow Hillary 2010 Eva Crawford Pg. 10

General Defenses To Crimes Principles of Justifications 2. Self-Defense a. General Principles United States v. Peterson: The conduct of the defendants should be tested from a reasonable man standard. If the conduct of the defendants, regardless of their ignorance, good intentions and good faith, fails to measure up to the conduct required of a man of reasonable prudence, they are guilty of ordinary negligence because of their failure to use ordinary caution. b. Reasonable Belief People v. Goetz: A person may use deadly force in selfdefense if he reasonably believes that said force is necessary to protect himself. State v. Wanrow: The reasonableness of a persons actions in self-defense must be considered in the light of her own perceptions of the situation. c. Battered Women State v. Norman: The killing of a passive victim does not preclude the defense of self-defense. 3. Defense of Others People v. Karr: Under the defense of others concept, a person may kill a person threatening another if he reasonably believes that that person is in imminent danger of death or serious bodily harm. An unborn fetus, viable or nonviable, is included in the defense of others.

Criminal Law, Swedlow Hillary 2010 Eva Crawford Pg. 11

Defense of Property/ Habitation and law enforcement D. People V. Ceballos : A person is not justified in using deadly force to protect his property from burglary. 4.Necessity Nelson v. State To invoke the defense of necessity, the crime committed must have been done (i) to prevent a significant evil; (ii) there was no legal alternative and (iii) the harm caused was not disproportionate to the harm avoided. United States v. Schoon The necessity defense is inapplicable to a case involving indirect civil disobedience.

Criminal Law, Swedlow Hillary 2010 Eva Crawford Pg. 12

General Defenses Continued

Principles of Excuse Duress

United States v. Contento-pachon
Duress and necessity are available defenses to criminal liability

People v. Unger:
The defense of necessity is available to prison escape situations where the prisoner is choosing to break the law to avoid a greater evil.

People v. Anderson
Duress is never a defense to murder, nor can the defense of duress reduce murder to manslaughter.

Intoxication United states v. Veach

Criminal Law, Swedlow Hillary 2010 Eva Crawford Pg. 13

Insanity United states v. Freeman The recognized purposes of criminal law are not satisfied by punishing someone who is mentally incompetent. State v. Johnson
Under the now-adopted Model Penal Code test, a defendant is relieved of responsibility for his criminal actions under two circumstances: (1) when, as a result of mental disease or defect, the defendant lacked substantial capacity to appreciate the criminality of his conduct and (2) when, as a result of mental disease or defect, the defendant lacked substantial capacity to conform his conduct to the requirements of law.

Model penal Code State v. Wilson A defendant does not appreciate the wrongfulness of his actions if a mental disease or defect causes him to harbor a distorted perception of reality and to believe that under the circumstances as he honestly perceives them, his conduct does not offend societal morality even if he is aware that the criminal code forbids his actions.

Criminal Law, Swedlow Hillary 2010 Eva Crawford Pg. 14 Miscellaneous Common Law Crimes BARRKS
Crimes/Definitions Burglary: Breaking and entering the dwelling house of another at night with the intent to commit a felony therein. Elements Mens Rea: The intent to commit a felony therein Breaking: Create a breach or an opening, (or) constructive breaking creating an opening by fraud or threat of force, the felon did not physically do it but they might as well have. Entering: Go in the opening... physically or with object/tools. Dwelling House: A place where person resides or has resided. At Night: amount of light in the sky. Arson: Malicious burning of dwelling house of another. Mens Rea: Intent to burn or a reckless disregard for a very high risk that burning will occur. Burning: any act of charring or more to the dwelling house and not the fixtures. Dwelling house: Peoples home (same as burglary)

Battery:

Mens Rea: Intent to create contact or negligence that leads to the contact or an unlawful act that The unlawful use of force resulting in harmful leads to the contact. or offensive contact Harmful or offensive contact: reasonable person standard. Can sometimes have consent, like in sports, but beyond the realm, no more consent.

Criminal Law, Swedlow Hillary 2010 Eva Crawford Pg. 15

Assault: Attempted but unsuccessful battery Mens Rea: Attempted battery where you try to better your victim and fail. (or) intent to create fear or apprehension in the victim.

Kidnapping: Forcible movement or secret confinement of the victim without lawful authority and against the victims will.

Forcible Movement: Moving Victim somewhere they dont want to go Secret Confinement: No one knows where they are and keeping them a secret. Lacks Lawful Authority Over Victim: You dont have permission over that person like a legal guardian would have. Against the Victims Will: Without their consent. MERGER DOCTRINE: A crime can merge into another crime assault into battery.

Criminal Law, Swedlow Hillary 2010 Eva Crawford Pg. 16 Inchoate Offenses
Attempt People v. Gentry
The crime of attempt requires intent to do an act constituting a substantial step toward committing a crime and a specific intent to commit the crime attempted.

Mens Rea

Actus Reus

Bruce v. State
Attempted felony murder is not a crime in Maryland.

United States v. Mandujano

While it is clear that the crime of attempt requires more than mere preparation, the distinction between preparation and attempt is not clear. A frequently approved test is that attempt requires some appreciable fragment of the crime be committed.

Solicitation State v. Cotton

The offense of solicitation requires some form of actual communication from the defendant to either an intermediary or the person intended to be solicited, indicating the subject matter of the solicitation.

Mens Rea

Actus Reus

State v. Mann;
Solicitation requires the defendant to ask, entice, induce, or counsel another to commit a crime.

Conspiracy People v. Carter

Conspiracy is defined as a partnership in criminal purposes, a mutual agreement or understanding, express or implied, between two or more persons to commit a crimin al act or to accomplish a legal act by unlawful means.

Mens Rea

Actus Reus

Criminal Law, Swedlow Hillary 2010 Eva Crawford Pg. 17

Pinkerton v. United States
An overt act of one partner may be the act of all without any new agreement specifically directed to that act.

People v. Lauria
The intent of a supplier who knows of the criminal use to which his supplies are put to participate in the criminal activity connected with the use of his supplies may be established by: (1) direct evidence that he intends to participate, or (2) through an inference that he intends to participate based on, (a) his special interest in the activity, or (b) the aggravated nature of the crime itself.

People v. Swain
A conviction of conspiracy to commit murder requires a finding of intent to kill and cannot be based upon a theory of implied malice.

Commonwealth v. Azim
Once conspiracy is established and upheld, a member of the conspiracy is also guilty of the criminal acts of his co-conspirators.

Commonwealth v. Cook
The fact that a defendant may have aided and abetted a crime does not establish conspiracy, particularly where the evidence shows that prior planning was not an inherent facet of the crime. Furthermore, neither association with a criminal nor knowledge of an illegal activity constitute proof of participation in a conspiracy.

People v. Sconce
Once a defendants participation in a conspiracy is shown, it will be presumed to continue unless he is able to prove, as a matter of defense, that he effectively withdrew from the conspiracy. Withdrawal from a conspiracy requires an affirmative and bona fide rejection or repudiation of the conspiracy, communicated to the coconspirators. Further, under California law, withdrawal is a complete defense to conspiracy only if accomplished before the commission of an overt act.

Criminal Law, Swedlow Hillary 2010 Eva Crawford Pg. 18

Special Defenses People v. thousand:
Legal impossibility is a defense to the crime of attempt, but factual impossibility is no defense to attempt.

Impossibility

Abandonment

Commonweath v. McCloskey
Voluntarily abandoning a crime before completion exonerates a defendant from criminal responsibility.

Liability
Accomplice Liability State v. Ward :
An accessory cannot be tried, without his consent, before the principal. Furthermore, an accessory cannot be convicted of a higher crime than his principal. An acquittal of the principal bars a subsequent trial of the accessory.

General Principle

State v. Hoselton
This court has consistently held that lookouts are aiders and abettors and, as such, are principals in the second degree. Further, an aider and abettor, or principal in the second degree, must in some sort associate himself with the venture, that he participate in it as something that he wishes to bring about, that he seeks by his action to make it succeed.

Elements

Criminal Law, Swedlow Hillary 2010 Eva Crawford Pg. 19

People v. Lauria:
The intent of a supplier who knows of the criminal use to which his supplies are put to participate in the criminal activity connected with the use of his supplies may be established by: (1) direct evidence that he intends to participate, or (2) through an inference that he intends to participate based on, (a) his special interest in the activity, or (b) the aggravated nature of the crime itself.

Mens Rea

Riley v. State
When a defendant solicits, encourages, or assists another to engage in conduct, and does so with the intent to promote or facilitate that conduct, the defendant becomes accountable for that conduct.

Actus Reus

State v. Linscott:
Accomplice liability for a primary crime (i.e. robbery) is established by proof that the actor intended to promote or facilitate that crime. Liability for a secondary crime (i.e. murder) that may have been committed by the principal is established upon a two-part showing: (1) that the actor intended to promote the primary crime and (2) that the commission of the secondary crime was a foreseeable consequence of the actors participation in the primary crime.

State v. V.T.:

Criminal Law, Swedlow Hillary 2010 Eva Crawford Pg. 20

Conspiracy Liability Pinkerton V. United States :
An overt act of one partner may be the act of all without any new agreement specifically directed to that act.

Vicarious Liability Commonwealth v. Koczwara:

One who applies for and receives permission from the state to carry on the liquor trade assumes the highest degree of responsibility to his fellow citizens. As a licensee, he is under a duty not only to regulate his own personal conduct, but also to control the acts and conduct of any employee to whom he entrusts the sale of liquor.

Corporate Liability

Criminal Law, Swedlow Hillary 2010 Eva Crawford Pg. 21

Theft Offenses

Larceny
Lee v. State: At common law, larceny has been
defined as the tresspassory taking and carrying away of personal property of another with an intent to steal that property.

Larceny

Rex v. Chisser : Physical possession of a good

obtained through larceny does not vest in the possessor a legal right to that good.

United States v. Mafnas: Ordinarily, if a

person receives property for a limited or temporary purpose, he is only acquiring custody. Thus, if a person receives property from the owner with instructions to deliver it to the owners house, he is only acquiring custody. Therefore, his subsequent decision to keep the property for himself would constitute larceny.

Larceny by trick

Topolewski v. State: Where the owner of

property, by himself or his agent, actually or constructively, aids in the commission of the offense, as intended by the wrongdoer, by performing or rendering unnecessary some act in the transaction essential to the offense, the would-be criminal is not guilty of all of the elements of the offense.

Larceny by False Pretenses

Rex v. Pear: This action is, today, commonly

referred to as larceny-by-trick. It arises where a defendant, at the time of acquiring property from a legal owner, knows that the use he communicates to the owner is not the true use to which the property will be put once in his hands.

Criminal Law, Swedlow Hillary 2010 Eva Crawford Pg. 22

Brooks v. State:
If lost property has not been abandoned by the owner, it is the subject of larceny by the finder, when, at the time he finds it, he has reasonable ground to believe, from the nature of the property, or the circumstances under which it was found, that if he does not conceal, but deals honestly with it, the owner will appear or be ascertained. However, before the finder can be guilty of larceny, the intent to steal the property must have existed at the time he took it into possession.

Lund v. Commonwealth:
At common law, labor or services could not be the subject of an action for false pretenses because neither time nor services may be taken or carried away.

Criminal Law, Swedlow Hillary 2010 Eva Crawford Pg. 23 Mens Rea
People v. Brown:
In order to find a defendant guilty of the crime of larceny, it must be proven that the intent of the defendant was to permanently deprive the owner of possession of the property that was taken. An intent merely to take the property temporarily will not be sufficient to support a conviction on a charge of larceny

People v. Davis :
The general rule is that the intent to steal required for larceny is an intent to deprive the owner permanently of possession of property. However, larceny may still be found, absent intent to permanently deprive, when: (1) the defendant intends to sell the property back to its owner; (2) the defendant intends to claim a reward for finding the property and (3) the defendant intends to return the property to its owner for a refund.

Embezzlement
Rex v. Bazeley: For a charge of embezzlement to stand, there must be an element of entrustment, to an individual in the course of employment, of property held in trust for the entrustor. Moreover, there must be subsequent conversion of that property by the individual embezzler that implicates a breach of that trust between the parties

Criminal Law, Swedlow Hillary 2010 Eva Crawford Pg. 24 False Pretenses
People v. Ingram: Theft by false pretenses occurs where the defendant makes a false representation with the intent to defraud the owner of his or her property and the owner is in fact defrauded. As in any other case of fraud, the injured party must have been induced to part with his or her property in reliance on the false representation made by the defendant. People v. Whight: To support a conviction of theft for obtaining property by false pretenses, it must be shown: (1) that the defendant made a false pretense or representation; (2) that the representation was made with intent to defraud the owner of his property and (3) that the owner was in fact defrauded in that he parted with his property in reliance upon the representation. United States v. Czubinski:
To support a conviction for wire fraud, the government must prove: (1) the defendants knowing and willing participation in a scheme or artifice to defraud with the specific intent to defraud and (2) the use of interstate wire communications in furtherance of the scheme. Additionally, to be in violation of Section:1034(a)(4) of the Computer Fraud and Abuse Act (the Act), a defendant must be found to have knowingly and with the intent to defraud, accessed a Federal interest computer without authorization, or exceeded authorized access and by means of such conduct furthered the intended fraud and obtained anything of value.

Criminal Law, Swedlow Hillary 2010 Eva Crawford Pg. 25 Any additional notes