LAW423 Criminal Law (Klein) FA13
Outline by Max13UT
Table Of Contents
1) The Actus Reus (p.2)
a) Voluntariness
b) Omission
2) Mens Rea (p. 5)
a) Default Rules
b) General and Specific Intent
3) The Property Offenses (p. 9)
a) Overview
b) Offenses in Depth
i) 31.03 Theft
ii) 31.04 Theft of Service
iii) 31.06, Presumption of theft by check
iv) 31.07 Unauthorized use of a vehicle
v) 32.41 Issuance of bad check
vi) 32.45 Misapplication of fiduciary property
vii) 29.02 Robbery
viii) 29.03 Aggravated robbery
ix) 30.02 Burglary
x) 30.04 Burglary of Vehicles
4) The Assaultive Offenses (p.15)
a) 22.01 Assault
b) 22.02 Agg. Assault
c) 22.04 Injury to child
d) 22.05 Deadly Conduct
e) 38.06 Escape
5) Sexual Offenses (p. 17)
a) Sexual Assault
b) Statutory Rape
6) Homicide (p. 23)
a) Common Law Homicide
b) TPC Homicide in depth
c) Murder categories in depth
i) Depraved Heart Murder
ii) Premeditated Murder
iii) Voluntary Manslaughter
iv) Involuntary Manslaughter
v) Felony Murder
7) Weapons, Intox and Drug Offenses (p.33)
a) Weapons Offenses (Chapter 46)
1
b) Intox. Offenses (Chapter 49)
c) Drug Offenses (Chapter 481)
8) Inchoate Offenses (p.37)
a) Attempt
b) Solicitation
c) Conspiracy
9) Punishments
10) Defenses
a) Proof Issues
b) Defenses Overview
c) Individual Defenses
i) Internal Defenses
(1) Mistake of Fact
(2) Mistake of Law (Type 1)
(a) Claim of Right is a subset of MoL 1
ii) True Defenses
(1) Mistake of Law (Type 2)
(2) Necessity & Duress
(3) Self Defense
(4) Defense of others
(5) Defense of property
iii) Intoxication
(1) Voluntary
(2) Involuntary
iv) Insanity
v) Age Affecting Criminal Responsibility
11) Complicity
The Actus Reus:
Definition: TPC
1. TPC 1.07: Act is a bodily movement, and includes speech, can be voluntary or involuntary.
2. TPC: 6.01: Requirement of Voluntary Act
a. Person commits offense only if voluntarily engages in conduct (act, omission or
possession)
Definition: MPC
1. MPC 2.01, Conduct must include Voluntary act p.160
a. Involuntary acts are
i. Reflex/convulsion
ii. Movement during unconsciousness or sleep
iii. Hypnosis
iv. Movement not by effort of D
Voluntariness Rules
2
2. Rule: A Voluntary Act is required for criminal liability according to 8th and 14th
amendments.—Powell
a. State cannot criminalize status w/o an act --Robinson
3. Explanation
4. Robinsion v. California (US Supreme Ct. 1962)
a. Facts: R was convicted under LA Statute making it a crime to use or be addicted
to narcotics
b. Issue: Whether state has power to make a person’s status criminal without evidence of an act?
c. Holding: No, CA Statute is violation of 8th amendment (Cruel and unusual) and
14th (Due Process).
5. Powell v. Texas
a. Facts: Powell was an alcoholic, and was convicted under statute that made it a
crime to be found drunk in a public place or any private residence other than
one’s own. Powell was arrested for being found drunk in public.
b. Issue: Whether a voluntary act is required for criminal culpability?
c. Holding: 4-1-4 split
i. 4 Justices say no criminal liability w/o act
ii. 4 Say no criminal liability w/o voluntary act, here act involuntary
iii. 1 says no criminal liability w/o voluntary act, but going out in public was
the act and was voluntary.
1. Case lacks majority reasoning, but we treat Powell like the 1 vote
concurrence is the holding.
6. Examples
a. State v. Mercer
i. Facts: D shot and killed his wife and 2 others. At trial, claimed he was
unconscious. Claimed jury instructions were erroneous, that unconsciousness
negated the act itself (not just premed and delib.)
ii. Holding: Jury instructions were erroneous, unconsciousness negates the act
itself
iii. Rule Mercer: Voluntariness negates the act element of the crime.
b. Hypo 1: State v. Freeman
i. Facts: Woman drove into a crowd of kids during a seizure. She knew she was
subject to seizures, and didn’t take her medicine
1. Act: Getting into the car and turning it on
2. M/R: Knowing subject to seizure, and ignoring risk
3. Causation: Crashed Car in Seizure
4. Result: 2 kids dead
ii. Depending on where the act takes place, more or less criminal liability.
c. Hypo 2: State v. Falater
i. Facts: While sleepwalking, D stabbed and drowned his wife
1. D argued since he was sleepwalking, he must be acquitted as matter of
law
2. Judge refused, instructing the jury that the act must be voluntary and
all evidence must be considered
3
ii. Holding: Sleepwalking is not necessarily involuntary conduct as matter of
law, but is question for the fact finder
Liability for Omission:
Rule: The American Bystander Rule: Generally, person cannot be liable for failure to act
Exception: To be liable for omission (#2), there must be a duty to act and a breach of that duty
7 Common Law Duties to Act (Question of law, judge decides whether there is a duty).
a. Contract
b. Status Relationship (Husband/wife, etc).
c. Voluntarily Assumes Care (you start performing first aid, a Dr. starts treating a
patient)
d. Causes victim’s distress
e. Duty to Control
f. Landowner
Breech of Duty at Common law (Question for jury)
a. Must be possible to aid w/o risk to self
b. Must have knowledge of need to aid.
1. TPC Omission Rule: 6.01 (c)
a. A person who omits to perform an act does not commit an offense unless a law
provides that omission is an offense or provides that he has a duty to perform the
act
2. MPC Omission Rule: 2.01
a. Omission unaccompanied by action not basis of offense unless
i. The omission is expressly made sufficient by the law defining the offense
ii. A duty to perform the omitted act is imposed by law
Explanation
a. State Ex. Rel. Kuntz v. Montana 13th Judicial Dist. Court.
i. Facts: Kuntz stabbed her boyfriend while he was attacking her during a
fight.
1. After she came back in the house after cooling off, she found him
non-responsive
2. She left the scene and failed to summon aid and he died
ii. Issue: Whether she had a duty to act and breached that duty?
iii. Holding: She had duty to act (caused peril, status relationship), but
probably no breach of duty in situation (b/c she was in danger).
b. Policy arguments for the American Bystander Rule
i. We aren’t our brother’s keepers – cultural paradigm that is different in
Europe
ii. The problem with laws saying that you have to obey common decency is
that you couldn’t give constitutional notice to defendants.
c. Omission Hypos
i. . I watch student drown in pool, wishing she would die!
1. At public pool? No duty
4
2. At home pool? Yes, duty of landowner
ii. Lifeguard fails to rescue child in the pool
1. Yes there is a duty (contract)
2. Whether there is a breech of duty depends on circumstances
iii. I start fire by accident, but don’t call 911
1. Yes duty as landowner
2. May not have breeched duty, need facts
iv. Doctor takes patient off of respirator
1. Yes duty (by contract and vol. assumed care)
2. But no breech, because dr. does not have duty to provide
extraordinary measures when they would be futile.
Mens Rea
Default Rules
Texas Default Rules for M/R
1. 6.02
a. Person does not commit offense unless I, K, R, or N
b. If definition of offense does not prescribe M/R, M/R is required unless definition
plainly dispenses with M/R
c. If no M/R proscribed but otherwise required, R or higher.
d. Proof of a higher M/R constitutes proof of M/R charged.
2. 6.03 M/R definitions
a. Intentionally (I)
i. conscious objective or desire to engage in conduct or cause the result
b. Knowingly (K)
i. With respect to nature of conduct or A/C’s if Aware of nature of his conduct or that A/C’s exist. Person Acts K with respect to result when aware that his conduct is reasonably certain to cause result
c. Recklessly (R)
i. Aware, but consciously disregards substantial and unjustifiable risk that A/C
exists or result will occur. Risk much be of such nature and degree that
disregard constitutes a gross deviation from the standard of care that an
ordinary person would exercise under all the circumstances as viewed from
the actor’s standpoint. d. Negligently (N) (Criminal Negligence)
i. Should have been aware of substantial and unjustifiable risk that A/C exist or
that result will occur. Risk much be of such nature and degree that disregard
constitutes a gross deviation from the standard of care that an ordinary person
would exercise under all the circumstances as viewed from the actor’s standpoint.
3. State v. McQueen (Tex. Crim. App)
5
a. Rule: when otherwise innocent conduct is criminalized based on A/C, must apply
M/R to A/C
b. Explanation: In TX, 3 types of Crimes
i. Specified Conduct (M/R must apply to conduct)
1. Assault
ii. Specified Result (M/R must apply to result).
1. Murder
iii. Specified Circumstances
1. McQueen says that when otherwise innocent conduct is criminalized
based on A/C, must apply M/R to A/C
c. In Zubia v. State, Tex Crim. App. held that statute criminalized result of injuring
person, therefore A/C that victim was child does not require M/R.
4. Proof Requirements for M/R
a. Winship: 5th Amendment Due Process requires the state prove all the elements of the
offense beyond a reasonable doubt –In Re Winship, 1970, U.S.Ct
i. Reasonable Doubt is such a doubt that would cause a reasonable and prudent
person, in one of the graver and more important transactions of his life, to
pause and hesitate before taking the represented facts as true and relying and
acting thereon.
b. 6th amendment requires jury determine each element of the offense—United States v.
Gaudin, U.S.Ct 1995.
c. With regard to the offense, State has the Burden of Proof (production and persuasion
as to every element of criminal offense
i. Standard of Proof is BRD.
1. TPC 2.01 and MPC have same requirements.
d. Apprendi Rule
i. Any fact that increases sentence beyond statutory max other than prior
conviction is an element, and must be put to the jury, and be proven BRD
ii. However, M/R does not necessarily need to attach to additional elements in
TX.
e. Lambert Rule: Lambert v. California (Supreme Court) (also a Question of strict
liability)
i. Facts: L was arrested on suspicion of another offense, but charged with a Los Angeles Felon
Registration law, B/c she had been convicted of a felony in the past. .
ii. Procedural History: At trial, L argued that the statute denied her due process and other
iii.
iv.
v.
rights under U.S. constitution. L was found guilty, and L renewed constitutional objection,
moving for arrest of judgment and a new trial. This motion was denied. L appealed and
challenged constitutionality of statute, and lost. L then appealed to the U.S. Supreme Court
Issue: If a person has no knowledge of a duty the law imposes on them, can they be
convicted according to Due process clause of 14 th amendment?
Rule: When person is unaware of a duty imposed by the law, and lacks the opportunity to
comply or defend themselves, a conviction would be inconsistent with 14 th amendment due
process clause.
Reasoning: In this case, the LA Statute is violated without any activity at all, just being in
the city is sufficient. L upon becoming aware of her duty to register was given no opportunity
to comply, even though her mistake was innocent.
vi. Explanation:
6
1. When Passive conduct is criminalized (status), notice of a duty to do
something is required for due process (14th amendment).
2. due process requires that court must read in a specific intent to
willfully or knowingly violate the law
3. Can be used to argue crimes of omission.
Differences between TPC and MPC Default Rules
1. MPC Default Rules require M/R attach to every materiel element (whether a statute lists an
M/R or not), TPC does not.
a. MPC: If statute proscribes M/R, but does not specify, M/R attaches to each Materiel
element, TPC does not require M/R for every element.
i. Materiel element is one that does not relate exclusively to SoL, venue,
jurisdiction, or any other mater similarly unconnected with the harm or evil
incident to conduct sought to be prevented by the offense, or the existence of a
defense to such conduct.
b. In MPC, K of A/C is satisfied by knowledge of high probability
c. TPC Default rules (McQueen) only require attachment of M/R to A/C in cases of
otherwise innocent conduct, MPC require M/R attach to all materiel elements
2. MPC does not distinguish between GI and SI
General and Specific Intent
Definitions
3. General Intent: M/R directed at a non-mental element of the crime (Act, A/C, Result).
a. Example: Assault (I, K or R causes bodily injury to another).
4. Specific Intent: M/R concerning matter which is NOT an element of the crime
a. Example: Larceny/Theft (Intent to permanently deprive)
3 Questions to Ask for Every Statute
1. GI or SI
a. May determine if certain defenses are applicable
2. Level Dimension (I, K, R, or N)
3. Object Dimension (To which elements does M/R attach)
M/R Cases
1. Ex Parte Washington (AL S.Ct. 2001)
a. Facts: D sold cocaine to undercover officer on 2 occasions. Both times, was supposed
to deliver 28 grams. First time, delivered 26, second time, 28.5, and arrested and
charged with trafficking in cocaine
b. Issue: Whether jury instructions were erroneous, in that state must prove D knew how
much cocaine he was selling
c. Holding: No, quantity is not an element of the offense, merely triggers sentencing. the
Criminal act is the manufacture, transportation or possession of cocaine.
i. This is how most jurisdictions (including TX) treat drug offenses.
7