Vincent Paradise Crim Law Outline Section 1: Actus Reus Actus Reus – Physical or external part of the crime Types of Actus Reus 1. Voluntary Act – willful action 2. Omission – choice to do nothing Types of Crimes Resulting from Actus Reus 1. Result Crimes – Punishes unwanted outcomes (ex. Murder) 2. Conduct Crimes – Punishes specific types of prohibited behavior (ex. DUI) Martin v. State (Voluntary Act) Rule: Criminal liability can only be imposed when the unlawful conduct is committed voluntarily. Facts: Case when defendant was arrested in his home while intoxicated and officers brought him to a public place to then charge him. State v. Utter (Voluntary Act) Rule: Substantial evidence on the defense of conditioned response tending to demonstrate whether the defendant committed the requisite actus reus should be presented to the jury in a murder trial Facts: Father stabbed and killed son after son came up behind him, use defense that since he served in WW2 he was trained to do so and did it as a reaction. People v. Beardsley (Omission) Rule: One is not under a legal duty to care for a houseguest such that the failure to do so makes one criminally punishable for any resulting harm Facts: Defendant had an affair with a woman who took a bunch of morphine tablets. Defendant took her to a neighbor’s house to watch her. When the neighbor thought something was wrong, he called authorities who pronounced her dead. Section 2: Mens Rea Mens Rea – Mental state during crime Types of Men’s Reas 1. Purposely/intentionally – it is his conscious objective 2. Knowingly – one is aware of his actions and should know the result 3. Recklessly – disregards a substantial unjustifiable risk 4. Negligently – when one should be aware of unjustifiable risk Regina v. Cunningham Rule: Under the United Kingdom’s Offenses Against the Person Act, the term malice means either (1) an actual intention to do the particular kind of harm that was in fact done or (2) reckless disregard of a foreseeable risk that the harm would result. Facts: Defendant ripped a gas meter off the wall to steal money out of it. Never shut off the gas leading the gas to seep into a neighboring house, because of loose walls. People v. Conley Rule: Criminal intent may be inferred from the circumstances surrounding a crime. Facts: Fight at a party leading to the plaintiff’s departure. Once they left the defendant approached them and swung a wine bottle at the plaintiff’s friend’s head. Friend ducked and it ended up smashing the plaintiff in the face causing much injury. State v. Nations Rule: Where a statute requires knowledge of a fact as an element of a crime, it is insufficient to prove the defendant was aware of the high probability of that fact’s existence, unless the statute provides otherwise. Facts: Case when the owner of a club hired a 16-year-old girl as a dancer. However, it couldn’t be proven that he “knowingly” did so which was an element of the statute. Flores-Figueroa v. United States Rule: When interpreting a statute, courts look only to the plain and ordinary meaning of the text unless there is clear evidence that the legislature intended a different meaning. Facts: Defendant used fake identification/social security number etc. However, the second time he used different info with the same boss leading to him being caught. However, he couldn’t get an additional two years because he didn’t “know” if the social security number belonged to someone else. Section 3: Mistake Mistake of Fact – defense where the prosecution needs to prove beyond a reasonable doubt that the defendant did know. Mistake of Law – Defense must prove a defense arising under 2.04 subsection (3) by a preponderance of evidence. 1. Reasonable Reliance (statement from a good source) 2. Lack of notice (about the law) People v. Navarro (Mistake of Fact) Rule: An honest mistake of fact is a defense to a specific intent crime regardless of whether the mistake was unreasonable. Facts: When defendant took 4 wooden beams from a construction site, thinking they were abandoned. People v. Marrero (Mistake of Law) Rule: One who violates a statute may not raise a good faith mistaken belief as to the meaning of the law as a defense. Facts: when the correctional officer misinterpreted a statute, and was found guilty for carrying a firearm illegally since he wasn’t considered a “peace officer” Cheek v. United States Rule: Whether a purportedly good-faith misunderstanding of the law will negate the specific intent requirement of willfulness under criminal tax laws is a question of fact for the jury; there is no legal requirement that the belief be objectively reasonable. Facts: Defendant was part of an anti-tax advocacy group and stopped paying taxes. Once charged, his defense was that he sincerely believed that he didn’t owe money to anyone. (Purposely was an element of the statute) Section 4: Causation Result Crimes contain causation Chain of Causation: Foreseeable v. Unforeseeable events Cause in fact “But for” the actions of the D, would result have occurred? “substantial factor”: Were D’s actions a substantial factor in causing the result? Simultaneous actions of two people. “Acceleration”: Did D’s action hasten result, even if result inevitable? Proximate Intervening agents: third party, force of nature, victim Will not break chain if normal, foreseeable responsive to D’s actions Will break chain if coincidental, unforeseeable, non-responsive Velazquez v. State (actual cause/cause in fact) Rule: Even where a defendant’s conduct is a cause-in-fact of a prohibited result, it is not the proximate cause if the prohibited result is beyond the scope of the defendant’s conduct, or it would be unjust to impose criminal liability. Facts: Drag racers that raced towards the starting line of an agreed upon track leading to them crashing into the water and resulting in one of their deaths. Although defendant was a cause in fact he wasn’t the proximate cause because the actions were beyond his scope. Oxendine v. State (cause in fact) Rule: A non-lethal injury inflicted after a lethal injury is the cause-in-fact of a victim’s death if it accelerates the victim’s death. Facts: Case where couple abused a child. After he died, medical examinations found that it was the girlfriend that cause the death. Case dealt with whether father should be culpable but wasn’t since he didn’t speed up the death. People v. Rideout (Proximate Cause) Rule: A defendant’s conduct is the proximate cause of a victim’s injury if it is a direct and natural result of the defendant’s actions. Facts: DWI case where defendant caused an accident. However, once everyone was safe and out of harm’s way the plaintiff put himself back into danger when another struck him and killed him. Defendant found not guilty because plaintiff took it upon himself to put himself back in danger.
