CRIMINAL LAW OUTLINE I. General Principles a. ACTUS REUS – ACTS AND OMISSIONS i. Physical Act – generally, an act must be a physical act to be criminal 1. Speech – not generally a physical act. A statement of intent =/= criminal act. Inciting someone to commit a criminal act, on the other hand, can be criminal. 2. Possession – must be conscious knowledge of possession, but not necessarily knowledge that the possession is illegal. a. Under MPC §2.01(4), possession can only be criminal if the defendant knew she had possession and was aware of such possession for enough time to terminate possession ii. Voluntary Act 1. Actions during unconsciousness, hypnotism, and sleep are not “voluntary” actions. 2. Reflexes or convulsive acts are not voluntary actions either. 3. EXCEPTIONS a. If an epileptic knows he is at risk of having a seizure and chooses to drive anyway, he is responsible for any the results of any seizure he might have while driving. (People v. Decina). iii. Failure to Act (Omission) – a failure to act exists when the defendant consciously and voluntarily disregards a legal duty to act. Duties can be imposed by: 1. Statute (obligation to file a tax return, register for selective service, etc.) 2. Contract (a lifeguard is contractually obligated to save a drowning swimmer) 3. Special relationship (ie parent to child) 4. Detrimental Undertaking (when the defendant has decided to assist the victim, but leaves them in a worse condition than before) 5. Causation (if you cause a person to be in danger, it is your duty to assist them). Absent these five situations, there is no imposed duty, no matter how unsympathetic the defendant b. MENS REA – STATE OF MIND In order to rise to the level of criminality, an actor must both commit a criminal act and have a “guilty mind” – the state of mind required for a crime, usually expressed in the statute. EXCEPTION: strict liability crimes i. Specific Intent – some crimes require that the defendant have a specific objective in mind when they commit their act. In order to prove guilt, you must prove the intent of the actor. ii. iii. iv. v. vi. 1. Assault with intent to commit a battery, for example, can only be proven if you can prove the intent to commit battery. Malice Crimes – murder and arson both require malice, which is a reckless disregard of a high degree of harm. Intent can be inferred from the accomplished act. That is, if A successfully kills B, his intent to do so can be assumed if the death was the result of a criminal act. General Intent – the required intent is the intent to commit an unlawful act, not necessarily to intent to cause the result. 1. Transferred intent – if A shoots at B, intending to kill him, but misses and kills C, he is still guilty of murder, even though his intent was not to kill C. a. People v. Scott – “[O]ne cannot reasonably distinguish between A, who unlawfully kills B unlawfully intending to kill B, and X, who unlawfully kills Y unlawfully intending to kill Z. Both A and X harbor the same blameworthy mental state, an unlawful intent to kill. Both A and X cause the same blameworthy result, an unlawful killing.” b. MODEL PENAL CODE §2.03(2)(a) – where the crime requires that a defendant intentionally cause a particular result (e.g., killing someone), that element of the crime is satisfied if the defendant accidentally inflicts that injury on one person while intentionally trying to injure another. Levels of culpability 1. Purposely | MPC §2.02(2)(a) | a defendant acts purposely if his conscious objective is to engage in the conduct or to cause a certain result. 2. Knowingly or willfully | MPC §2.02(2)(b) | defendant is aware that his conduct is of the nature required of the crime, or that the circumstances required exist. The defendant must be aware that the result is practically certain to occur based on his conduct 3. Recklessly | MPC §2.02(2)(c) | defendant acts with conscious disregard of a substantial and unjustified risk that a material element of the crime exists or will result from his conduct 4. Negligently | MPC §2.02(2)(d) | defendant should be aware of a substantial or unjustified risk that a material element of the crime exists or will exist. 5. If there is no stated MR, the assumption is that the defendant must have acted recklessly at least. Causation – when intent is required, the criminal act must occur as a result of the intent. The defendant’s act must cause the particular unlawful result. Mistake as a defense II. 1. Mistake of Fact a. Negation of intent – Mistake of fact may negate criminal intent, but only if it is an honest mistake. Never a defense to a strict liability crime. (Regina v. Prince) i. Limited only to situations where the defendant did not know and should not have known (State v. Jewell, in which defendant went out of his way to not know what he was transporting in the secret compartments of his car) b. Reasonableness of mistake i. Specific intent – even an unreasonable mistake, if truly a mistake, will negate the specific intent requirement. ii. General intent – mistake must be reasonable c. Mistake of Law – Not generally a valid defense unless: i. There is reliance on the decision of a court / official interpretation that is determined to be incorrect after the conduct (ie, defendant knew and misinterpreted the law, believing his actions to be legal) (eliminates MR) ii. Honestly held mistake of law negates intent 1. Incorrect or bad advice from an attorney is not a defense, but may negate an element c. PARTIES TO A CRIME – principal offender, accomplice, accessory after the fact i. Principal – the person whose acts or omissions are the AR element of the crime. Must be actively or constructively present. ii. Accomplice Liability – someone who has the intent that the crime be committed and aids the principal in the commission of said crime, without necessarily committing the crime itself – ie, a getaway driver 1. A parent who fails to protect a child from abuse can be held criminally liable for any abuse that befalls the child from a third party (State v. Stanciel), and people who take the role of a parent have the same duty as parents (Staples v. Commonwealth). 2. If the principal does not commit a crime, the accomplice cannot be liable, as there is no crime to be liable for. (State v. Hayes) 3. Innocent Agent – if someone is tricked into becoming an accomplice, they are not criminally liable HOMICIDE a. Definition – includes murder, manslaughter, and justified killings. Common law murder is the killing of another human with malice aforethought. i. Malice can be shown by proving the following MRs: 1. Intent to kill 2. Intent to do serious bodily injury 3. Reckless indifference to human life 4. Intent to commit a felony (felony murder) ii. Killing a person is a required aspect of homicide. At common law, a fetus is not a person. iii. Causation – Prosecution must show that the defendant caused the victim’s death 1. But-for test (cause-in-fact) a. Substantial factor – actual causation can be found when there are multiple causes but defendant’s act is a substantial factor b. Types of Homicide i. Murder is the 1. Unlawful 2. Killing 3. Of another human being 4. With malice aforethought ii. Intent to kill – an inference of intent to kill may be made by the use of a deadly weapon. iii. Intent to inflict serious bodily harm – a person who intends to do “grievous bodily harm” to a person but kills them is guilty of murder, despite lacking the actual desire to kill. iv. Depraved heart – if you act recklessly, say by dropping a bowling ball off an overpass, and kill someone, you can be found guilty of murder. v. Felony Murder – unintended killing proximately caused by the commission or attempted commission of an inherently dangerous felony. Those are Burglary, Arson, Rape, Robbery, and Kidnapping (BARRK) c. Statutory Crimes of Murder i. First degree: deliberate and premeditated murder. Amount of time needed for premeditation may be brief 1. Poison, lying in wait 2. Willful and premeditated 3. BARRK crimes ii. Second degree: all other intentional killings with malice but not deliberation and intent PENNSYLVANIA v. WEST VIRGINIA INTERPRETATIONS PA – Commonwealth v. Carroll 1° - no amount of time required to reflect, requires specific intent and premeditation, which can be proven from use of a deadly weapon and circumstantial evidence 2° - felony murder (non-BARRK), murders with intent to cause serious bodily injury, knowing death is likely but acting anyway, gross recklessness – ALL FORMS OF MALICE EXCEPT SPECIFIC INTENT WV – State v. Guthrie 1° - some period of time must be allowed for reflection, and there must be contemplation of intent 2° - impulsive killings, even those with intent (as they lack the reflection period of 1° murders), plus all the non-specific intent malice crimes. III. d. Voluntary Manslaughter – homicide committed in response to adequate provocation, but without malice i. Heat of passion – defendant was provoked by a situation that would inflame the passion of a reasonable person. Cannot have been set off by something that wouldn’t bother most people 1. Not a defense, just a reduction to manslaughter 2. Sufficient provocation – serious battery, threat of deadly force, and discovery of adultery by a spouse generally count as sufficient provocation ATTEMPT a. Requires a substantial step toward the completion of the crime, coupled with intent to commit the crime. i. Lying in wait, searching for, or following the intended victim ii. Unlawful entry into the place contemplated for the commission of the crime iii. Enticing the victim to go to such a place iv. Possession of materials specifically designed for committing the crime v. Possession of materials to be used in the commission of the crime at or near the place of the commission vi. Soliciting an innocent agent to engage in criminal conduct b. Dangerous proximity test i. An attempt does not occur until the defendant’s acts result in a dangerous proximity to the completion of the crime.
