PRINCIPLES FOR CRIME & PUNISHMENT – Justifications: (1) Retribution (retrib. theory) = punishment for its own sake; the offender deserves punishment b/c they violated the law and
therefore deserve to be punished. (2) Deterrence (util. theory) = consequentialist theory of punishment; reason to impose punishment is to deter crime. Specific deterrence is deterrence of particular
offender from re-offending. General deterrence is directed toward the public. (3) Incapacitation (util. theory) = purpose is to prevent crime; ex.) jail, prison, probation, house arrest, etc. (4) Rehabilitation
(util. theory) = consequentialist theory of punishment; we punish a person w/ goal that after punishment they’ll no longer want/need to commit crime; cure them of whatever abnormality accounts for
their criminal behavior; ex.) moral reform, psychological treatment, vocational training, etc. Theories of Punishment: (1) Retributive = seeks to punish offenders b/c they deserve to be punished; pastfocused. (2) Utilitarian = seeks to punish offenders to deter future wrongdoing; future-focused. Beyond Reasonable Doubt – substantial certitude; there can be doubt but it has to be reasonable doubt.
GENERAL – Elements of a Crime: (1) actus reus (ACT: voluntary act that causes harm to another person or property; objective. OR OMISSION: failing to act can create liability > types: explicit/direct and
implicit/indirect which means the statutes under which D is prosecuted does not explicitly criminalize a failure to do something), (2) mens rea (culpable intent/“guilty mind;” subjective), (3) elements of
the offense (concurrence of AR/MR), and (4) harmful result and causation; but-for cause (factual cause; but for D’s conduct, the result would not have occurred; “but for test” selects candidates for prox.
cause analysis) and proximate cause (legal cause; victim’s injury is direct and natural result of D’s actions; legal construct to prevent imposition of liability when result is seen as too remote > People v.
Ride Out). CRIMINAL LIABILITY = ACT + INTENT + PROXIMATE CAUSE. MENS REA cont’d: Specific Intent – D intended the act AND the result; higher requirement than general intent; requires proof of
conscious objective and purpose (“purposely”). Ex.) assault (intent to commit battery), burglary (intent at the time of entry to commit a felony in dwelling of another), solicitation (intent to have the
person solicited commit a crime). *MPC consists of majority specific intent crimes! General Intent – D intended the act; culpability is in the act itself; result of conduct is reasonably foreseeable; only
requires D to know the type of conduct engaged in could cause harm, even if they are unaware of the results (MPC > K/R/N). Ex.) arson (malicious burning of dwelling of another), rape (unlawful sexual
intercourse w/o consent), battery (intent’l physical contact w/o consent). Strict Liability – D is liable for committing an action, regardless of what their intent/mental state was when committing the
action; generally limited to minor offenses; 1 out of 5 possible mens reas (P/K/R/N); D’s awareness (or lack thereof) of what they’re doing wouldn’t negate a strict liability mens rea. Vicarious Liability –
liability that a supervisory party (i.e. employer) bears for the actionable conduct of an associate based on the relationship between the two parties. Mistake – Mistake of Fact: a mistake pertaining to
some fact; must be honest/reasonable > People v. Navarro – specific intent crime. Mistake of Law: a mistake or ignorance about the law; everyone is assumed to know the law; ignorance of the law is not
a valid defense UNLESS (1) law is not published yet, (2) you relied upon a statute that was later overturned/ruled unconstitutional, (3) you relied upon a judicial decision, or (4) you relied upon the
interpretation of an appropriate official (legal advice doesn’t count) > People v. Marrero – strict liability offense. Malum in se: an innately immoral act, regardless of whether it’s forbidden by law (i.e.
adultery, theft, murder). Malum prohibitum: an act which is immoral b/c it’s illegal, not necessarily illegal b/c it’s immoral (i.e. public intoxication, speeding, tax avoidance). MPC – Advocates the
elimination of ambiguous common law distinction b/w general and specific intent. Not the law itself but has been enacted into law by most states. Four categories into which the mental component of a
criminal offense can be characterized: (1) Purposely – conscious objective to engage in certain conduct or cause a certain result (i.e. burglary), (2) Knowingly – aware that conduct will necessarily or very
likely cause a certain result (i.e. possession), (3) Recklessly – conscious disregard of a substantial or unjustifiable risk that a harmful/prohibited result will follow, and this disregard is a gross deviation
from the standard of care that a reasonable person would exercise under the circumstances (i.e. DWI/DUI); involves both objective (“unjustifiable risk”) and subjective (“awareness”) elements, and (4)
Negligently – should have known/been aware of the unjustifiable risk that a harmful/prohibited result will follow, and such failure is a substantial deviation from the standard of care that a reasonable
person would exercise under the circumstances (i.e. speeding and killing a pedestrian as a result). CL – judge-made law from cases. Mens rea: (1) Intentionally = it was their conscious object to cause the
result or they knew that the result was virtually certain to occur because of her conduct. Transferred Intent Doctrine = the result of their conduct differs from that which was desired w/ respect to
identity of the victim. (2) Knowingly = either (a) aware of the fact, (b) correctly believes that the fact exists, or (c) suspects that the fact exists and purposely avoids learning if suspicion is correct.
HOMICIDE – CL: 1st degree murder – elements: (1) intent’l, “malice aforethought” = mean to kill that person, (2) deliberate = quaLity of time perp thought about it, (3) premeditated = quaNtity of time
perp thought about it; gray area re: how much time = premeditation; relies on analysis of facts/context. Felony murder – no mens rea element; murder during the commission of a felony. 2nd degree
murder – malice aforethought w/o intent to kill; no premeditation. Malignant/depraved heart: extreme reckless disregard for the value of human life. Voluntary manslaughter – Heat of Passion: intent’l
killing in response to legally adequate provocation > adequate provocation = physical combat, ass./batt., discovery of spouse in flagrante, resisting illegal arrest, witness severe injury to close relative >
Girouard v. State – words alone not adequate provocation. Sudden, no cooling off period; defense against 1st degree murder. Involuntary manslaughter – unintent’l killing that occurs in commission or
attempted commission of an unlawful act; gross criminal negligence. Misdemeanor manslaughter – unintent’l killing that occurs in commission of a lawful act in an unlawful manner. MPC: Murder
(§210.2) – purposely/knowingly, gross recklessness (like CL depraved heart), under circumstances manifesting extreme indifference to value of human life; presumed if principal or accomplice in
commission or attempt robbery, rape, arson, burglary, kidnapping, or felonious escape (accounts for Felony Murder); premeditation/deliberation NOT required. Manslaughter (§210.3) – reckless
homicide (like CL involuntary manslaughter), murder committed under the influence of extreme mental or emotional disturbance for which there is reasonable explanation or excuse (like CL voluntary
manslaughter) > reasonableness of explanation/excuse determined from viewpoint of ordinary person in actor’s situation and circumstances (mixed obj/subj standard); courts mixed on letting “culture”
affect obj standard; no automatic disqualification for cooling off. Negligent Homicide (§210.4) – committed negligently; should have been aware of substantial and unjustifiable risk; criminal negligence
standard, thus, needs “gross deviation” > Ex.) honest but unreasonable belief in need for deadly force in self-defense. Murder > Manslaughter: extreme emotional disturbance (more likely to send facts
to jury than CL heat of passion) b/c specific provocative act not required and no rigid cooling-off rule; words alone sufficient; reasonable explanation from subjective viewpoint of D under circumstances
as he believes them to be > People v. Casassa – D’s provocation NOT objectively reasonable. Murder (§210.2) – MPC does not expressly distinguish felony murder BUT provides for it by presuming a mens
rea of extreme recklessness if a homicide is committed or attempted while D is engaged in or is an accomplice in robbery, rape, arson, burglary, kidnapping, or felonious escape (i.e. limited to serious
felonies); ALSO extreme recklessness is merely a presumption, so D is allowed to make an affirmative defense. Felony murder is more difficult to charge under MPC b/c it’s morally questionable to apply
a punishment for murder to someone who has not necessarily shown an indifference to human life. RAPE – CL: when a male has sexual intercourse with a female, not his wife, w/o her consent (spousal
requirement has been weakened by statutory reform). Force: MAJ VIEW = intercourse must be committed by force/threat of force BUT sexual penetration might be sufficient; reasonable resistance
indicates force; ~ half of states require victim to resist; reasonable fear of death/GBH precludes needs to show force/resistance > Rusk v. State – in MD, must show victim resisted and D overcame that
resistance by force/threat of force. Non-Consent: MAJ VIEW = negligence standard (some require recklessness); use of force/threat of force may be sufficient for non-consent; inability to consent (i.e.
unconsciousness, effect of drugs/alcohol). Mistake of Fact: some jxs. allow honest/reasonable mistake of fact as a defense (i.e. negligence standard); other jxs. say no mistake of fact. MPC: when a male
has sexual intercourse with a female, not his wife, and compels her to submit by: (1) force, (2) threat of imminent death/GBH/extreme pain/kidnap to be inflicted on anyone, (3) he has impaired her
ability to consent through drugs/intoxicants w/o her knowledge, (4) she is under 10 YO (STRICT LIABILITY), or (5) she is unconscious. No proof of resistance is required; rape is a felony in the 2nd degree.
POLICY CONSID: (1) Marital exclusion – antiquated practice; most jurisdictions have removed this language from their implementation; heart of the issue is lack of consent. (2) Prompt complaint
requirement – victims traditionally required to report w/in 3 mos. but most jurisdictions use a much larger SOL. (3) Sexually promiscuous complainant defense – not likely a defense anymore; egregiously
outside modern social norms. (4) Gender constraints – current language would bar male victims from recovery in addition to protecting female rapists. DEFENSES – (1) Self Defense – Non-deadly force
= force individual reasonably believes necessary to protect themselves from imminent use of unlawful force; no duty to retreat. Deadly force = only ok if w/o fault, confronted w/ unlawful force, and
reasonably believes they are threatened w/ imminent death or GBH; majority rule is no duty to retreat. Defense of Others: majority rule is that there does not need to be a special relationship; there
must be reasonable appearance of right to use force. (2) Necessity – conduct otherwise criminal is justifiable if D reasonably believed that the conduct was necessary to avoid some harm to society that
would exceed harm caused by conduct; OBJ TEST. (3) Duress – person is not guilty of offense (other than intent’l homicide) if they performed an otherwise criminal act under threat of imminent
death/GBH; threats to thirds person may also work; ALWAYS involves human threat. (4) Insanity – complete defense; four main tests: (a) M’Naghten Test – at the time he committed the act, the accused
was laboring under a defect of reason, a disease of the mind, such that he did not know what he was doing/did not know it was wrong, (b) Irresistible Impulse Test – no power to resist the urge to act
caused by mental illness/disease, (c) “Product” Test (Durham Test) – action was the product of a mental disease or defect, and (d) MPC §4.01 Test – as a result of mental disease/defect, D lacked
substantial capacity to appreciate the wrongfulness of his conduct and/or D lacked substantial capacity to conform his conduct to the requirements of law > State v. Johnson – four tests. Purposes of
criminal law = rehab, deterrence, retribution > U.S. v. Freeman – purposes of criminal law are not being met when the truly irresponsible are punished. Incompetence = inability to stand trial; competence
= ability to consult w/ lawyer and a rational/factual understanding of the proceedings > Dusky v. U.S. *Insanity may not be a permanent state but must have been present at the time of the crime to use
as a defense. (5) Diminished Capacity – partial defense; renders you enable to have the required mental state capable of committing the particular crime due to some mental disease or defect. (6)
Infancy – under 7 YO, no criminal liability; under 14 YO, rebuttable presumption of no criminal liability; over 14 YO, adult standard. (7) Intoxication – may be any substance, typically drugs/alcohol.
Voluntary intox. = negates specific intent but not general intent. No defense to strict liability crimes; defense to 1st degree but not 2nd murder. INCHOATE CRIMES (ATTEMPT) – MPC §5.01(3) - a
person may be liable for ATTEMPT when they engage in conduct designed to aid in the commission of an offense under Section 2.06, but the principal party neither commits nor attempts to commit the
offense. AR: a substantial step, beyond mere preparation; must be dangerous proximity to success. MR: specific intent; public policy requires firm evidence of MR so it’s the highest standard; impossible
to attempt crime with reckless/negligent MR. MPC: lets police intervene earlier. CL: disincentive to proactive policing. Merger Doctrine: D can’t be convicted of both the completed offense and the
attempt to commit it. (1) Accomplice Liability – Principal 1st degree = actor who physically commits the crime himself. Principal 2nd degree = present, aiding, abetting the crime; must be present at the
scene of the crime. Accessory before the fact = aids, abets, counsels, solicits, assists, hires, or encourages its commission before the act. Accessory after the fact = aids a felon for the purpose of
hindering their apprehension, conviction, or punishment after crime is completed. AR: some sort of aid. MR: liable for all harms that are the natural/probable/foreseeable result of their actions. (2)
Solicitation – communication to another person to commit a crime. AR: the commanding, hiring, requesting, or encouraging another person to commit a crime; commission of the crime NOT a
requirement. MR: specific intent that other person commits the crime. CANNOT be charged with solicitation AND crime that was solicited. Solicitation -> Conspiracy upon agreement. (3) Conspiracy –
agreement b/w two or more persons to accomplish a future unlawful act; essence = agreement itself! AR: overt act w/ at least one co-conspirator. MR: specific intent; must intend to/purposefully agree
and intend for underlying crime to be achieved. [Communication] -> Solicitation -> [Agreement/Overt Act] -> Conspiracy -> [Substantial Step] -> Attempt -> [Commission] -> Crime.