Five Components of a Crime: (1) Voluntary act or omission + duty (actus reas - AR) (Unless it’s inchoate liability), (2) Mens rea (mental state - MR) must
be proven for every material element à element changing the conduct from legal to illegal (except SL), (3) Causation, (4) Harm (result),
(5) Attendant circumstances added to a statute about a particular offense. Prosecution must prove all 5 beyond a reasonable doubt.
Actus Reas (must satisfy to move to rest of analysis)
MPC
MPC 2.201: A person is guilty if their conduct includes a voluntary act or omission in the elements of the offense
•
If Martin was in MPC jx, he would be guilty bc he was voluntarily drunk
•
Reflex/convulsion is not a voluntary act
Antecedent Act Doctrine: voluntary acts leading to the offense can satisfy AR (seizure car crash- chose to drive
despite seizure risk)
Omissions: 4 ways to be criminally liable for failure to act: (1) Statute imposes a duty to care for another (doctors, teachers, etc); (2) “status relationship” to another
(parents of minor children) (3) Voluntarily assumed contractual duty to care (lifeguards) (4) Voluntary assumed care and so prevented others from providing aid; (5)
You created the danger. **Moral obligation is not a legal duty
Common Law
• An individual cant be punished for
something they didn’t voluntarily do
• Martin v. State: was voluntarily drunk
but not voluntarily in public
Mens Rea
MPC
MPC 2.02 levels of culpability
1. Purpose: conscious objective is to engage in that conduct or achieve that result
2. Knowledge: aware that it’s practically certain conduct will cause that result
3. Reckless: conscious disregard of a substantial and unjustifiable risk
4. Negligence: should’ve been aware of a substantial and unjustifiable risk, and the failure to be
aware of it is a gross deviation from the standard of care a reasonable person (RP) would take
Causation
CL à “BFC” and “Proximate Cause” analysis. PC:
MPCà Only need BFC, jury decides if result was too remote (PC). Analysis: (1) what was the
foreseeability from the act. Can be broken by superseding
result? (2) was it within the purpose of the ∆? (3) if yes, send to jury to decide if superseding causes
causes, but wide scope of foreseeable (helicopter car chase)
made it too remote/accidental
Felony Murder – only Common Law
Analysis: (1) Does the jx recognize it? (2) All elements of underlying felony met? (3) Felony was inherently dangerous? (Burglary, Arson, Robbery, Rape,
Kidnapping) (4) Limitation?:
•
Felony must be independent of killing (not merge, ex assault /w deadly weapon would just become murder)
• What caused the death? Jx limits:
Agency limit: only culpable for deaths caused by felon or co-felon in furtherance of objective
Proximate cause: culpable for all reasonably foreseeable deaths (bank robbery heart attack)
Homicide
Premeditation jxs: (1) No time is too short to find premeditation, can be from just reaching for gun. (2) Guthrie: premeditation requires time to cool off, however
short. Must find intent prior to act à look for planning, relationship to victim.
Common Law degrees
MPC degrees
1st Degree à premeditation and deliberation. MR: malice
Murder + Intent to Kill: MR: Purpose or knowledge that result will occur. Intent to cause grievous
aforethought
harm is sufficient MR.
•
Analysis: statute’s required intent (MR).
2nd Degree à MR: (1) intent to kill or (2) cause great
Recklessness + Murder (extreme indifference to human life)
bodily harm, (3) intent to engage conduct w/ high
•
Can be unintentional if they acted recklessly. Requires huge chances/danger of risk
likelihood of harm, no premed but “depraved heart,” or (4)
otherwise its manslaughter. Ex: driving against traffic.
felony murder. See statute
Voluntary Manslaughter → intentional killing done in heat of passion
Manslaughter → subjective recklessness, and substantial & unjustifiable risk. OR
(1) Adequate provocation: mutual combat, adultery, etc. Never just words.
Extreme emotional disturbance (EMED):
(2) provoked during heat of passions (3) No time to cool off
(1) is EMED subjectively reasonable? Consider age, sex, handicaps, not morals.
(2) Would a reasonable person feel EMED (objective)
(4) Direct line of causation, prov → passion → killing
No specific provocation required, words can be enough, no cooling off time
Subjective (∆ felt heat) and objective (a reasonable person wouldn’t be able
necessary. Can simmer.
to control themselves)
Involuntary Manslaughter → Wanton and reckless
Negligent Homicide → should’ve known risk, objective standardà RP wouldn’t do it
behavior. Objective standard → reasonable person wouldn’t
do it
Common Law
recklessness often read in when statute doesn’t state the
required MR
Negligence generally not punished unless someone dies.
Presumption against SL
CL “Malice” Intent to: kill, bodily harm, extreme
recklessness (depraved heart), commit felony
Defenses to Liability
Justification: complete defense gets you out of liability (what you did was justified and you shouldn’t be punished). Ex: self-defense, necessity
Excuse: partial defense for your behavior gets you less punishment (conduct was wrong but under the circumstances D should be punished less) Ex: Duress,
insanity, provocation
Mistake of Fact
CL: a defense if it negates an element of the crime.
MPC: Mistake is a defense if it negates the required MR of a material
(never SL
Specific intent crime: can be reasonable or unreasonable mistake. element. Subjective, and may be reasonable or unreasonable.
crimes)
General: must be reasonable
Self Defense
Necessity
Defense
D must show that at the time of his attack, D is not the aggressor but is repelling an aggressor, and ∆ reasonably believed that:
There was an actual or apparent threat of imminent physical violence
The D responded proportionally to the threat (Can depend on physical characteristics of actors (imperfect self-defense))
Consider who started conflict? Was retreating or fighting more reasonable? Was it imminent or just inevitable (battered women)?
Castle Doctrine: If the jx has the duty to retreat, there is an exception if you’re in your own home
(1) ∆ acts for public welfare; (2) Need to break law arose from natural forces; (3) No actus reus; (4) ∆ made the correct choice (justified); (5) ∆
exercises free will to make a rational choice
CL → never for killing, MPC → rarely for killing
Duress Defense
(never for
homicide)
Insanity
Solicitation
Attempt
Dual intent:
intent to commit
crime and intent
to take the
substantial step
Conspiracy
AR: agreement
MR: purpose of
agreement; of
crime
Evidence:
beyond mere
knowledge, like
stake in venture
(1) ∆ acts out of self-interest; (2) Need to break law arose from human forces; (3) No mens rea; (4) ∆ made incorrect choice (not justified, but
excused); (5) ∆ deprived of free will by an outside force
CL elements → (1) an immediate threat of death or serious bodily harm; (2) a well-grounded fear the threat will be carried out; (3) non
reasonable opportunity to escape
MPC elements → (1) ∆ compelled to commit the offense by use or threat or force by another (2) reasonable person in their shoes wouldn’t be
able to resist the coercion
CL: M’Naughten Test: Mental disease or defect prevented ∆
MPC Test: At the time of the conduct, as a result of mental disease or
from knowing the nature and quality of the act; OR if he did
defect, ∆ lacked substantial capacity to either.
know, he didnt know his conduct was wrong
Appreciate the criminality of the conduct (cognition), OR
Conform his conduct to the law
Inchoate Offenses
Commands, encourages, induces another person with specific intent they would commit the crime. CL requires words must be successfully
communicated.
Merger: solicitation accepted → conspiracy, or crime once committed. Only solicitation when someone says “no”
Asking for help with crime: CL → not solicitation MPC → Is solicitation
Looks at facts as ∆ believes them to be. Required MR: Purpose
MPC and CL → Substantial Step test: blurry line but more than mere preparation. ∆s conduct strongly shows intent to commit the crime.
Defense: Abandonment (MPC): ∆must voluntarily and completely renounce his criminal purpose (1) without the influence of others and (2)
without a change in circumstances that makes it more likely you’ll be caught, or the offence won’t be successfully completed (e.g., hearing
sirens)
Merger: successful attempt becomes the crime
CL
MPC
Intents: (1) intent to form agreement and (2) intent the object of the
Intents: (1) agreement to engage in or plan a crime, and (2) the
agreement be achieved
crime takes place
Merger: Does not merge. Separate charge
Merger: Does merge. Can’t be convicted of conspiracy and
Withdrawal: avoid liability only for future crimes if voluntarily &
completed crime, unless conspiracy involved more crimes than
completely renounce crim purpose.
completed
Pinkerton Liability: Vicarious liability for substantive crimes that (1)
Withdrawal: Avoid liability for future crimes if voluntarily
were committed to further the conspiracy's objective and (2) were
completely renounce crim. purpose and communicate withdrawal,
foreseeable
and try to prevent conspiracy from succeeding
~ 4th, 5th, 6th amendment regulations on law enforcement have been fully incorporated to states via Due Process Clause of the 14th Amendment ~
4th Amendment Right to Privacy: prohibits unreasonable S&S, warrants w/o probable cause [see Mapp v. Ohio]
(1) Was it a search? (a) must be state action (b) Katz test 1. violation
(2) Prob Cause? [fair probability of crim activity] (a) Aguilar-Spinelli test: 1. Reliability
of subjective expectation of privacy & 2. reasonable expectation of
of informant (credible), 2. How informant learned the info (reliable); (b) Gates: prob
privacy (REP) Jones: Physical trespass for “persons, houses, papers,
cause is determined by the totality of the circumstances, need standard of fair probability
and effects” + Katz standard [gov’t trespass= search, sometimes gps
of crim activity (above reasonable suspicion). See amount of detail, source, corroboration,
monitoring]
police’s opinion
(3) Valid warrant? (a) Need: 1. PC (4) Exceptions? Good Faith: evidence obtained in reasonable, good-faith reliance on a facially valid search warrant is valid;
supported by 2. Oath or affirmation
applies only to deliberate or reckless violations, or systemic problems [weigh: cost of exclusionary rule vs. deterrent effect].
3. Describes place to be searched
Consent searches: warrant nor suspicion needed if cops obtain voluntary consent. State has burden of proof that consent was
with “Reasonable particularity”, 4.
voluntary under totality of circumstances [info source, details, corroboration, officer opinion]; co-occupants may consent;
Describes things to be seized with
ASK: was consent voluntary, what circumstances, did ∆ have knowledge of right to refuse. Automobile Exception: [generally
RP. (b) signed by neutral and
doesn’t apply to mobile homes] If police have probable cause that contraband is in the vehicle, police can search entire
competent magistrate (c) valid
vehicle where contraband could be hiding (including trunk and containers)—to search a container, prob cause must be
manner of search: knock &
attached to that container. Terry Stops: [not a seizure] “more than a hunch,” cops can stop and frisk w/o PC when they have
announce optional, up to the judge.
RS a person (1) has a weapon (2) will use weapon for illicit purpose. Others: hot pursuit, plain view, searches incident to
arrest.
Exclusionary Rule
Exceptions: Good Faith: Police act on facially valid
Warrantless Searches
(Mapp): material obtained
warrant, even if later the counts finds no prob cause.
Need PC → Exigent circumstances; Hot pursuit searches; Plain view; Plain
in an unreasonable s&s
Knock and Announce: judges can say the rule doesn’t
touch; Automobile search; Searches incident to arrest
can’t be introduced at trial
apply b/c it isn’t a deterrent and has substantial costs.
No PC → Inventory search; Consent searches; Administrative searches;
(see also Fruit of
Negligent mistakes: rule only applies to deliberate or
Border crossings; Roadblocks & checkpoints; Random drug testing; Jail
Poisonous Tree)
reckless violations
and prison searches; Probation & Parole; Community caretaking
5th Amendment: right to remain silent, self-incrimination. Trigger: custodial interrogation
Analysis → assess TOS: use or threats of physical force; lengthy interrogation w/ deprivation of needs; psych pressure; deception [*lying about a co-∆ confessing is
ok]; age [JBD], level, mental condition of suspect. Problems → case-by-case evaluation, not enough guidance for courts or police, inconsistent application.
To invoke → clear, unequivocal invocation [Berghuis, silence]. To waive → can be written, verbal, or implied. “Knowing, intelligent, and voluntary” from TOS, but
low standard. Can be waived by speaking, even hours later. To reinitiate interrogation police must re-mirandize after a few hours to a few days, no clear line.
Miranda: inherently coercive atmosphere of police investigations (not merely police tactics).
Exception to Miranda: Not required for undercover agents,
No “magic words” but must contain (1) right to remain silent (2) anything said can be used
impeachment, public safety (terrorism), routine booking Qs. Only
against ∆ (3) right to have counsel before and during interrog. (4) right to have counsel
confession is suppressed. Fruit of poisonous tree doesn’t apply.
appointed
6th Amendment: right to counsel at questioning. Trigger: formal charges.
Applies → after the initiation of judicial proceedings whenever the police deliberately elicit information in the absence of counsel. Invoke → clear and unequivocal.
Waive → mere speaking. Once invoked police can’t reinitiate, except case where 14 days was OK. Massiah Rule: 6th amendment prohibits police from deliberately
eliciting incriminating statements in absence of counsel or waiver of right
REMEDIES: sue police; disciplinary action against police; criminal action against police; exclusionary rule