Crim Law Capers

Front 1

Kansas v. Hendricks, 1997

Back 1

State wanted to civilly confine people – Act was OK because it was a civil punishment, not a criminal punishment – no issue of double jeopardy

Front 2

United States v. Blarek

Back 2

he case of the interior designers loitering money for a druglord”: specific deterrence, incapacitation and rehabilitation not applied – general deterrence does…sending out a message to the public

Front 3

United States v. Gementera

Back 3

the case where the guy had to wear a sandwich board for stealing mail”: D argued this punishment violated his 8th Amendment rights – it was to humiliate him – Court held that this was not cruel and unusual punishment; goals of general deterrence and rehabilitation.

Front 4

People v. Mooney (1986, p.60):

Back 4

“the case where the kid, who was on drugs, shot 2 people in a small community” – community based sanction was OK – incapacitation not necessary; rehabilitation not necessary (or already happened); retribution (no one wants it); deterrence served by 600 hrs of community service.

Front 5

Ewing v. California (2003)

Back 5

the case where he was sentenced to 25 years to life for stealing golf clubs”: three strikes rule is not grossly disproportionate; Ewing argues retribution – but court rules utilitarian – deterrence – design of the 3 strikes law is to ensure longer prison sentences and greater punishment for those who commit a felony and have a prior violent/serious felony conviction
-Does this law lead to prosecutorial discretion?
-Does the law actually deter? – A criminal may think ‘why not commit a more serious crime if it’s 25 years to life no matter what?’

Front 6

Coker v. Georgia (1977)

Back 6

rape used to be punishable by death – court here said capital punishment for rape of adult woman disproportionate

Front 7

Kennedy v. Louisiana (2008)

Back 7

an issue the court did not address was about rape of someone other than adult women… what about child rape? Court said killing someone for child rape is grossly disproportionate

Front 8

Rummel v. Estelle (1980)

Back 8

mandatory life (with possibility of parole after 12 years) for petty thief with two prior theft convictions not disproportionate

Front 9

Stanley v. Georgia

Back 9

the case where the guy was arrested for having lots of porn”: Court said you cannot punish for acts that are protected under the Constitution – 1st Amendment rights

Front 10

State v. Saiez (1986)

Back 10

the case where the guy had an embossing machine”: there are limits on police power - the means selected must have “reasonable and substantial relation to the object sought to be obtained and shall not be unreasonable, arbitrary, or capricious” – not guilty for just having the machine

Front 11

Harmelin v. Michigan

Back 11

mandatory life without parole for possession of 672 grams of cocaine with intent to distribute not disproportionate

Front 12

Solem v. Helm

Back 12

mandatory life without parole for “habitual offender” (drunk driving, three burglaries, passing bad check) disproportionate

Front 13

Solem v. Helm

Back 13

mandatory life without parole for “habitual offender” (drunk driving, three burglaries, passing bad check) disproportionate

Front 14

Harmelin v. Michigan

Back 14

mandatory life without parole for possession of 672 grams of cocaine with intent to distribute not disproportionate

Front 15

What questions must be asked about a criminal statute?

Back 15

1. Does criminal statute infringe upon a constitutional right?

2. Does criminal statute exceed upon the government’s police powers?
A. Does it protect public health, safety, welfare or morals

B. Is it rationally related to one of these goals? (And narrowly tailored)

Front 16

What are the five rules of legality and what are they for?

Back 16

1. Lenity, 2. Publicity, 3. Legislativity 4. Prospectivity, 5. Specificty,

B. Fair notice/Fair warning
1. Which are constitutional?
prospectivity, legislativity, specificty.
2. non-constitutional?
lenity, publicity

Front 17

Legislativity?

Back 17

Not a crime, unless legislature says it is.

No common law crime.

However Courts still have the power to interpret crimes.

• MPC: “No conduct constitutes an offense unless it is a crime or violation under this Code or another statute of this State.

Front 18

Policy reasons for Legislativity?

Back 18

Legislatures are more inclusive – more encompassing than judges

Judges could create crimes and apply them prospectively

More comfortable as a society if our legislatures act collectively to decide what is a crime, rather than having judges on their own trying to create new laws

Limits what the court can do

Front 19

Legislativity Cases?

Back 19

Commonwealth v. Keller
Meadows v. State

Front 20

Commonwealth v. Keller

Back 20

Legislativity Case

“the case where the woman’s husband is away, she has two babies, and stuffs them in shoe boxes” – charged with
common law misdemeanor of improper conduct with a corpse

Rule of Lenity was passed after this stating all crimes have to be written down.

Common Law misdemeanor Crimes are okay, as this was prior to the rule of legislativity = no punishment

Front 21

Meadows v. State

Back 21

Legislativity Case

the case where the drunk driver kills fetus”: rule of legislativity applied here: court said “person” did not mean fetus under the statute – did not want to create a new crime

• The court goes on to describe how they are not able to change or add common law to more clearly define "person', and whether or not a fetus would be included in that.

Rather, it is appropriate for the court to defer the creation of new crimes to the legislature.

(No common law crimes and judicial interpretation of statutory terms are limited to the scope of the legislatures intent upon the adoption of the statute)

Front 22

Lenity?

Back 22

If a criminal statute is TRULY ambiguous, the defendant gets the benefit of the doubt.

MPC § 1.02(3) does away with rule of lenity – comes into play only when a statute is truly ambiguous

California simply rejects this rule.

Front 23

MPC Approach to Lenity?

Back 23

MPC § 1.02(3
does away with rule of lenity – comes into play only when a statute is truly ambiguous

Front 24

Johnson v. State (1992, p.122)?

Back 24

the case of the crackhead mom delivering drugs to babies”: the court looked to the legislative history to see what “deliver” meant and it said nothing that included mothers.

Front 25

Prospectivity?

Back 25

1. No ex post facto laws; Const. Art. I, §§ 9, 10

2. Cannot make an innocent action criminal and apply it retroactively

3. Cannot increase punishment retroactively

4. Cannot alter rules retroactively to make conviction easier

5. If the change benefits D then it’s OK to apply retroactively

Front 26

Rogers v. Tennessee (2001, p. 130)?

Back 26

The case where the guy died 15 months later” – D wanted to use the year and a day rule – court did not look at ex post facto clause because that applies to legislature not the court system.

Front 27

Publicity?

Back 27

Laws must be published; really means publication and nothing else

Front 28

United States v. Casson (1970, p.148):

Back 28

Publicity

the case where the guy committed a crime 6 hours after it became a law”: Court held that anyone could have easily determined the status of the bill.
The law has to be knowable, not necessarily known to the defendant.

Front 29

Specificity?

Back 29

Against Vagueness

A. Really a rule against arbitrary enforcement

B. Questions to ask are:

1. Is it so vague that criminal cannot tell what it means?

2. Is it so vague that it lends to arbitrary enforcement?

Front 30

People v. Bright
(People v. Clark)
(Kolendar v. Lawson)

Back 30

• Mr. Bright is arrested at Penn Station NYC and charged with criminal possession of stolen property.
• Under this penal law - a person was guilty of an offense if he loitered or was found sleeping "about any toilet, station or station platform of a subway or elevated railway or of a railroad" and was "unable to give satisfactory explanation of his presence". In a challenge to the constitutionality of a penal law on the grounds of vagueness - a two pronged analysis is required:
• First, the statute must provide sufficient notice of what conduct is prohibited;
• Second - the statute must not be written in such a manner as to permit or encourage arbitrary and discriminatory enforcement.
• Loitering is understood as meaning the act of remaining about or hanging around a place without any apparent purpose. However, such a statute is unconstitutionally vague - fails to distinguish conduct calculated to cause harm and conduct that is essentially innocent, thereby failing to give adequate notice as to what conduct is prohibited.
enforcement (Kolendar v. Lawson)

Front 31

People v. Nelson

Back 31

The case of the jostling pockets” – Court said the statute was not void for vagueness – The Penal Law clearly delineates specific conduct easily avoided by the innocent-minded.

Front 32

Chicago v. Morales

Back 32

• In 1992 the Chicago city council enacted the gang congregation ordinance, which prohibits "criminal street gang members" from "loitering" with one another or with other persons in any public place.
The supreme court struck down the Chicago ordinance because it fails to give the ordinary citizen adequate notice of what is forbidden and what is permitted, and provides absolute discretion to the to the police officers to determine which activities constitute loitering.
Vagueness issues can turn out hurting the very people they are trying to help discretion to police officers to determine what activities constitute loitering”

Front 33

Elements of a Criminal Offense
Historical Approach

Back 33

A. Actus Reus = crime (prior to 13th century)
1. Only cared about committing a bad act

Front 34

Elements of a Criminal Offense
Modern Approach

Back 34

A. Actus Reus (bad act) +
B. Mens Rea (guilty mind) = crime (post-13th century)
1. Intentionally
2. Rationally

Front 35

Creation of the Model Penal Code

Back 35

1930s (formed)-1950s(created)

Front 36

Justification?
Excuse?

Back 36

A. Justification- something society would want to encourage

B. Excuse--something society would want to discourage (i.e. protecting ourselves against a criminal)

Front 37

What Makes a Crime (MPC Approach)?

Back 37

MPC §1.02(1)(a)

Voluntary conduct (an act or, where there is a duty to act, a failure to act, coupled with the requisite mental state) that unjustifiably and inexcusably inflicts or threatens substantial harm to individual or public interest.
1. Actus Reus (bad act)+
2. Mens Rea (guilty mind) = crime,
**unless there is a: justification or excuse.

Front 38

Ways to think about criminal liability?

Back 38

1. Did defendant commit a voluntary act?
2. Did act fall within definition of the crime?
3. Did defendant have requisite mental state?
4. Notwithstanding the above, was the defendant justified?
5. If not justified, should his/her conduct be excused?
6. If justified or excuse, NOT GUILTY

Front 39

The Queen v. Dudley and Stephens?

Back 39

The case where the boys are stuck at sea and eat the weakest boy”: the two boys were charged criminally with the murder of other boy because you cannot murder someone and justify it – they have actus reus + mens rea – it was not necessary to kill the smaller boy

No necessity to murder

Front 40

The Act Requirement?

Back 40

1. There has to be either an act or, in the rare case where there’s a duty to act, a failure to act (omission).

2. Act, not thoughts (standing alone)

3. Act, not status (standing alone)

4. And the act (or failure to act) has to be voluntary

5. The voluntary act must be connected to the charged offense

Front 41

The Offense Elements?

Back 41

1. Conduct – verb – all offenses must have this element

2. Attendant Circumstance(s) – facts that have to exist

3. Result (actual industry)


B. Mens rea should be attached to each element
1. Intent to enter, intent to be at night – but what the intent means differs)

Front 42

What are the elements of this Criminal Statute?

“A person is guilty of robbery if, in the course of committing a theft, the actor inflicts serious bodily injury upon another.

Back 42

1. Conduct: Inflicts

2. Attendant Circumstances:
i. Serious bodily injury,
ii. in the course of committing a theft,
iii. upon another person, person

3. Result: Bodily injury

Front 43

What are the offense elements of this criminal statute?

"It is unlawful for any person 18 years of age or older to deliver any controlled substance to a person under the ager of 18.”

Back 43

1. Conduct: Deliver

2. Attendant Circumstances: Controlled substance, person 18 years of age.

3. Result crime? No

Front 44

Offense vs. Defense?

Back 44

1. Person committed the offense
2. Prosecution must prove every element of an offense beyond a reasonable doubt

Front 45

Negating vs. Affirmative defenses?

Back 45

1. “I did not do the crime…” (element negating) – quasi offense

2. I did the crime, but…” (affirmative defense)

Front 46

What are the offense elements of this criminal statute?

"It is unlawful for any person 18 years of age or older to deliver any controlled substance to a person under the ager of 18.”

Back 46

1. Conduct: Deliver

2. Attendant Circumstances: Controlled substance, person 18 years of age.

3. Result crime? No

Front 47

Offense vs. Defense?

Back 47

1. Person committed the offense
2. Prosecution must prove every element of an offense beyond a reasonable doubt

Front 48

Negating vs. Affirmative defenses?

Back 48

1. “I did not do the crime…” (element negating) – quasi offense

2. I did the crime, but…” (affirmative defense)

Front 49

Material elements vs. nonmaterial elements?

Back 49

A. mens rea does not apply in nonmaterial elements (things relating to statutes, jurisdictions, statute of limitations)

B. Every material element has to be proven beyond a reasonable doubt

1. Conduct, attendant circumstances, result

Front 50

Acts, not Thoughts; Why?

Back 50

A. Cannot ever really know what others are thinking without them committing an act
1. Not thoughts alone
2. Not thoughts alone
3. There must be a physical event attached to the thoughts
4. There must be a physical event attached to the thoughts

Front 51

People v. Dalton (p.214)

Back 51

Acts, not Thoughts:

Brian Dalton (p.214) – charged with possession-prosecutorial discretion – retributivist would say he wouldn’t deserve punishment because no actual harm was caused.

Front 52

Acts, not Status

Back 52

Penalize the sin, not the sinner

ACTS MPC 2.01
1. A person is not guilty of an offense, unless his liability is based on conduct, which includes a voluntary act or the omission to perform an act, for which he is culpable.
a. The following are not voluntary acts…
i. reflex or convulsion
ii. Unconscious bodily movement (i.e. sleep walking)
1. Performed while unconscious; and
2. Not the product of effort from the actor
iii. conduct during hypnosis

Front 53

People v. Davis

Back 53

Acts, not Status

The case of the heroin addict who had to shoot up even after the police got there”: Davis says he is addicted

Front 54

People v. Robinson

Back 54

This case is missing the act requirement – criminalizing for being an addict is criminalizing them for status – violates Eighth Amendment;

Front 55

People v. Powell

Back 55

Defendant is charged with being drunk in public, not for being an alcoholic

Front 56

State v. Tippetts

Back 56

The case where the guy was dragged to prison with drugs in his pocket):
1. Claiming no voluntary act
2. Did not voluntarily go to the jail
3. If he was charged with possession, his argument would not stand (b/c he would have voluntarily put it in his pocket

Front 57

Martin v. State

Back 57

The case where the cops took guy out into the road and charged him for being drunk in public” – he did not voluntarily go in public

Front 58

People v. Decina

Back 58

The case where the epileptic went for a drive and killed four schoolgirls” – says he cannot be criminalized because it was not voluntary – charged with driving in a negligent manner where a human is killed – started to violate statute as soon as he got behind the wheel of the car

Front 59

The Exception to Act Requirement?

Back 59

The failure to act (omission) can only be criminal if D had a duty to act:
Ex. Common law duties:
1. Parent to child,
2. Spouse to spouse
3. Captain to crew
4. Crew to passengers
5. Master to apprentice
Innkeeper to guests

Front 60

State v. Miranda (1998)

Back 60

The case where the boyfriend gets charged for failure to care for girlfriend’s child”: Parent-like (Quasi Parent): charged because he had a familial relationship with the child

Front 61

When omission liability is attached? (5)

Back 61

1. Special relationship
i. Familial relationship (i.e.State v. Miranda)
2. Statutory duty
3. Contractual caretaking duty
4. Voluntary assumption of duty
5. Creation of peril (Kuntz v. Montana)

Front 62

Kuntz v. Montana (2000)

Back 62

Exception to Act Requirement: Omission

The case of the wife stabbing the husband in a trailer park”: Found guilty – not for stabbing but for failing to get help when the husband was hurt

This is an Act(Stabbing husband) + Omissions case (calling 911):*Creation of Peril.

She can get off on Self-Defense for stabbing.

She cannot get off on the Ommission, as the threat was removed she had a duty as his common law wife to contact the paramedics no justification or excuse for her failure to do this.

Front 63

Key Distinction on Omission

Back 63

Omission is not a separate crime but a basis for criminality.

Use omission to prove a crime

Front 64

What is Possession?

Back 64

Possession is an act:
A. Can be Joint
B. Law can impose presumptions
1. i.e. in NY, if you are driving a friend that is carrying drugs, you are possession under presumption, NYPL § 220.25)
n:

Front 65

What are the 3 types of possession?

Back 65

1. Actual (in your hand)
2. Constructive (under your dominion or control) i.e. Al had actual possession but his friend had constructive possession

Front 66

What are the 2 categories of possession?

Back 66

1. Simple
i. (possessing crystal meth)
2. Compound
ii. (possession + intent to distribute)

Front 67

Rule of Legislatively?

Back 67

MPC §1.05 subsection 1-3


o Its not a crime unless the legislature says it is
o Provides that the power to make criminal law rests solely with the legislature and that all criminal laws come from statutes instead of judicial opinions.

Front 68

Defenses (4 types)?

Back 68

1. Element negating defenses
i. "failure of proof defense", behavior does not satisfy one or more elements laid out in definition of offense.

2. Affirmative Defenses
i. Defendant bears some or all of the burden of proof.

3. Justifications FOCUSES ON CONDUCT
i. Asserts the conduct is not unlawful, although it satisfies the element of an offense

4. Excuses FOCUSES ON DEFENDANT
i. Assert the defendant is not responsible for her unlawful conduct

Front 69

Criminal Law Burdens of Proof?

Back 69

o State has to prove beyond a reasonable doubt every fact necessary to constitute a crime charged. This includes every element of the offense, and only every element of the offense. It does not include any element of a defense.

Front 70

State v. Tippetts (2002)?

Back 70

• Defendant appeals from a judgment of conviction for supplying contraband. He argued that the trial court should have granted his motion for acquittal because he did not voluntarily introduce marijuana into the Washington County Jail.
• Court states that a voluntary act requires something more than awareness. It requires an ability to choose which course to take - an ability to choose whether to commit the act that gives rise to criminal liability.
• Ex. A person may be aware of a seizure they are having but that doesn’t mean it is voluntary. State then argues that the earlier voluntary act of possession is sufficient to hold the defendant criminally liable for the later involuntary act of introducing the marijuana into the jail.

Front 71

State v. Miranda (1992)?

Back 71

Omissions – Exceptions to the act requirement

A. Defendant Miranda (21) living with girlfriend (16) and her two children somewhere in Connecticut in September 1992, same month the baby boy was born.

B. Defendant took care of children and held himself out as their stepfather, and identified himself as such publicly, like at the hospital when baby taken in on Jan 27, 1992, following the defendant’s 911 call.

C. Turns out girl was abusing kid, which hospital realized when it saw all the injuries?

D. Omission liability where:
1. One has a certain relationship;
2. Statutory duty;
3. Contractual caretaking duty;
4. Voluntary assumption of duty; or
5. Creation of peril (Kuntz v. Montana)

Front 72

Kuntz v. Montana

Back 72

Omissions – Exceptions to the act requirement

A. Duty based on creation of peril. Fifth duty whose violation can give rise to criminal omission liability.

B. When a person places another in a position of danger, and then fails to safeguard or rescue that person, and the person subsequently dies as a result of this omission, such an omission may be sufficient to support criminal liability.

C. The Rule in this case is that if you create a situation of peril for another person you have a legal duty to:
1. personally provide assistance; or
2. summon medical assistance. This legal duty does not require that a person place herself at risk of serious bodily injury or death (personal safety may be secured prior to summoning aid).

Front 73

Possession (4 types)?

Back 73

1. Simple possession – just possessing something illegal for personal use

2.Compound possession – Possession with intent to distribute

3. Actual possession – In your hand

4. Constructive possession – Under your dominion or control

Front 74

Mens Rea (Common Law)?

Back 74

A. Specific intent crime
1. crimes that specified a particular mental state, or required the defendant to be aware of certain attendant circumstances

B. Taking with intent
1. To deprive another of his property

C. General intent crimes
1. Everything else

Front 75

Mens Rea (MPC) (5 types)?

Back 75

1. Purposefully (Mastermind)
i. Conscious objective is to bring about a particular result and engage in particular conduct. The goal, the object and then some

2. Knowingly (Know it all)
i. Think aware; aware that conduct and circumstances will almost certainly cause a particular result; deliberately burying your head in the sand can be a substitute for knowledge. Completely aware, but less than purposefully

3. Recklessly (Daredevil)
i. Conscious disregard of substantial and unjustifiable risk; a gross deviation from the standard of conduct that a law-abiding person would observe. Saw the risk but ignored it; knew better

4. Negligently (Stupido)
i. Should be aware of substantial and unjustifiable risk, and failure to perceive risk amounts to a gross deviation of the standard of care a reasonable person would observe. Did not know, wasn’t even thinking. BUT should have known; should have been thinking.

5. Willfully (Knew it, did it anyway)
i. Federal cases only; means someone did something knowingly and knew that they were violating a law; Used for regulatory crimes, ie willfully failed to file taxes. Offense has to be knowingly and the def has to know the are violating some law

6. Strict Liability (no Mens Reas required)

Front 76

Mens Rea (MPC) Rule?

Back 76

Mental States – only apply to material elements.

Front 77

Mental States and Statutory Interpretation (Common Law)?

Back 77

1. Look at the plain meaning of the statute
2. Look at legislative intent
3. Look at related statutes
4. Look at prior interpretations

Front 78

Mental States and Statutory Interpretation (MPC)?

Back 78

1. If a statute mentions a mental state apply it to the whole statute unless a contrary purpose appears

2. If no culpable mental state is listed in the statute, the default state is recklessness.

3. IN NEW YORK, If no culpable mental state is listed in the statute, the default state is NEGLIGENT.

4. Unless a contrary purpose plainly appears

Front 79

MATTER OF RONNIE L.?

Back 79

A. Facts: Student and non-student were patted down and the gun was found in the pocket of non-student.
Non-student, respondent, claimed he did not know that the gun was there, until its removal.

B. Issue: If conduct inherently involves a culpable mental state, is there any reason not to make it a material element of defense?

C. Holding: No

D. Reasoning: Legislative intent demonstrated their intention to make this crime one of strict liability. The consideration of culpable mental state is only to establish the seriousness of the violation not the violation itself.

Front 80

QUEEN v. TOLSON?

Back 80

Suggests that such a thing as a guilty mind exists, however the differing mental states of minds required in differing crimes denotes that immorality is essential to constitute a crime. (too relative).

Front 81

General Minimum Requirements of Mental Culpability (MPC)?

Back 81

MPC 2.02

A. Minimum Requirements of Culpability. Except as provided in Section 2.05, a person is not guilty of an offense unless he acted purposely, knowingly, recklessly or negligently, as the law may require, with respect to each material element of the offense.

Front 82

Purposely (MPC)?

Back 82

MPC 2.05

A person acts purposely with respect to a material element of an offense when:

(i) if the element involves the nature of his conduct or a result thereof, it is his conscious object to engage in conduct of that nature or to cause such a result; and

(ii) if the element involves the attendant circumstances, he is aware of the existence of such circumstances or he believes or hopes that they exist.

Front 83

Knowingly (MPC)?

Back 83

MPC 2.05

A person acts knowingly with respect to a material element of an offense when:

If the element involves the nature of his conduct or the attendant circumstances, he is aware that his conduct is of that nature or that such circumstances exist; and

If the element involves a result of his conduct, he is aware that it is practically certain that his conduct will cause such a result.

Front 84

Recklessly (MPC)?

Back 84

MPC 2.05

A person acts negligently with respect to a material element of an offense when he should be aware of a substantial and unjustifiable risk that the material element exists or will result from his conduct. The risk must be of such a nature and degree that the actor's failure to perceive it, considering the nature and purpose of his conduct and the circumstances known to him, involves a gross deviation from the standard of care that a reasonable person would observe in the actor's situation.

Front 85

Negligently (MPC) ?

Back 85

MPC 2.05

A person acts negligently with respect to a material element of an offense when he should be aware of a substantial and unjustifiable risk that the material element exists or will result from his conduct. The risk must be of such a nature and degree that the actor's failure to perceive it, considering the nature and purpose of his conduct and the circumstances known to him, involves a gross deviation from the standard of care that a reasonable person would observe in the actor's situation.

Front 86

State v. Lozier?

Back 86

MPC 2.05

A. Counts against a drug trafficker included selling drugs in vicinity of school which enhances the penalty but def didn’t know school was there.

B. When an offense being described does not specify any degree of culpability but plainly indicates a purpose to impose strict liability then culpability is not required for def to be guilty of the offense. In this case the statute within vicinity of a school does not describe a necessary mental state but insinuated strict liability so it should be so with no required mental state.

Front 87

People v. Steinberg?

Back 87

Purpose v. Knowledge

(Conscious Objective vs. Awareness)


• Def smacked kid, she died, didn’t get medical attention. Def claims that failing to obtain medical care for the child cannot support mens rea element of 1st degree manslaughter unless def has medical background and would know serious injury would result from lack of medical attention. This contention is meritless.
• The Penal Law distinguishes between intent (conscious objective to cause result proscribed in statute) and knowledge (awareness that one element of crime is satisfied).
• So the intent is the important thing here and knowledge that result will occur is not prerequisite of intent. But he just needed the objective to cause injury, not the knowledge that it could cause her death.

Front 88

Holloway v. US?

Back 88

Purpose v. Knowledge

(Conditional Purpose)

o An intent to kill is present whether it is attached to a condition (give me your car or ill kill) or whether it is simply a statement. Congress intended to punish all carjackers and not just the rare ones where they give a condition and say I won’t kill you if you give me your car.

Front 89

State v. Wyant?

Back 89

Purpose v. Knowledge

(Purpose v. Motive)

o You can’t punish extra for a crime bc it had a racially discriminate MOTIVE bc motive is not an element of a crime, it is evidence of guilt. Cannot punish for a thought. Purpose, intent, aggravating circumstance, etc are elements of a crime, not motive. Legislature cannot decide blacks are more valuable than whites and enhance punishment when a black is the victim. Violates equal protection clause. Conduct motivated by racial bigotry can be constitutionally punished without constructing the thought crime of motive being involved.

Front 90

US v. Villegas (Jewell)

Back 90

Knowledge vs. Recklessness

Willful Ignorance and Conscious Avoidance


o Driver crossed border with marijuana not knowing he had it. The gov't can complete their burden of proof by proving beyond a reasonable doubt that if the def was not actually aware of the drugs that his ignorance was solely a result of him making a conscious purpose to disregard the nature of what was in his car and a conscious purpose to avoid learning the truth.
o To act “knowingly” then is not necessarily to act only with positive knowledge but also to act with an awareness of the high probability of the existence of the fact in question.
o You have to show that the person actively looked the other way, there is no conscious avoidance if the person in fact did not know.
o Conscious avoidance – deliberately burying your head in the sand can substitute as knowledge.

Front 91

People v. Coe

Back 91

Knowledge v. Recklessness

Willfulness and Knowledge of Illegality

Nurse forcibly searching patient with history of heart disease for missing cash. Willfully is a culpable mental state equivalent to that of knowingly, within the federal context. She knowingly violated the statute here protecting patients from having their personal privacy invaded.

o Nurse forcibly searching patient with history of heart disease for missing cash. Willfully is a culpable mental state equivalent to that of knowingly, within the federal context. She knowingly violated the statute here protecting patients from having their personal privacy invaded.

Front 92

People v. Strong

Back 92

Recklessness v. Negligence

o Mental states define the difference btw manslaughter in the 2nd degree murder and criminally negligent homicide. The latter is correctly assigned here bc the def failed to perceive the risk inherent in his actions (if he did not realize it and consciously disregard it which would be manslaughter in the 2nd degree). He honestly didn’t think stabbing someone would cause them harm.

Front 93

Commonwealth v. Pierce

Back 93

Recklessness v. Negligence


o Recklessness means you act with a certain consciousness of what the consequences will be. Wrapped sick woman in kerosene, was his ignorance of the tendencies of kerosene excuse the use of it?
o Determine whether his recklessness was necessary to make the def guilty of felonious murder or whether his acts are to be judged by the external standard of what would be morally reckless in a reasonable man.
o He should have realized his actions were not reasonable and his ignorance does not excuse his recklessness.
o Very few cases will be negligent (but one is homicide like People v. Strong) b/c you can almost always say the defendant should have known better.

Front 94

What is the only Strict liability offense under the MPC?

Back 94

Strict liability - is imposed on the defendant if there is no mental state involved in committing the crime. - ex. Used in public welfare crimes, juveniles and statutory rape
• There is no strict liability under the MPC, except for sexual assault against children under 8 years old.

Front 95

What category of criminal offenses tend to recognize strict liability?

Back 95

Criminal offenses that pertain to public warfare such as:

Juveniles
School zones

Example: STAPLES semi-automatic gun (no) v. FREED the Grenade (yes) why strict liability? grenade exposes more people to danger than gun

Front 96

What are the types of mistake and what are the differences?

Back 96

(2)

1. Mistake of Law--> Ignorance of the Law

2. Mistake of Fact--> ignorance of a material fact

Front 97

Mistake of the law may not be used for what type of offenses and why?

Back 97

Mistake of law exceptions may not be used for violations as they are subject to strict liability due to them not being so punitive, socially stigmatizing and regulatory rather than criminal in nature (so as to require a lesser burden of proof).

Front 98

Modern (MPC) Approach to Mistakes of Fact and Law?

Back 98

Modern (MPC) Approach to Mistakes of Fact and Law are the same
The MPC nullifies the use of mistake of fact analysis; as all mental culpability standard are applied to the material elements by default the mistake of fact analysis has also been performed to lead to an identical outcome.

Front 99

Mistake of Law Common Law Approach and rationals?

Back 99

. Common Law (J. Blackstone~1769)
• “Ignorance of the law is no excuse”
• Rationals
o Rule of publicity
• Since laws are published, they are knowable
o To do otherwise would hold “people ignorant of the law” to a different standard and make it hard to make crimes enforceable
o Everyone would claim ignorance, to get away with crimes

Front 100

People v. Davis

Back 100

Acts

People v. Davis (Cant be sent to jail for being a heroin addict).

Front 101

People v. Domagola

Back 101

Acts

People v. Domagola (Sitting behind the wheel, attempting to start car)

Front 102

People v. Marriott

Back 102

Acts

People v. Marriott (Sitting behind the wheel, Engine turned on and then off)

Front 103

State v. Tippets

Back 103

Acts

State v. Tippets (Marijuana in pocket, taken to jail before he could get rid of it Possession requires more than just awareness).

Front 104

Prudhomme v. Hults

Back 104

Acts

Prudhomme v. Hults (Sitting behind the wheel, Engine turned on and lights on)

Front 105

People v. Robbins

Back 105

Omissions

People v. Robbins (Epileptic and beliefs would be cured with no medical intervention = no omission)

Front 106

People v. Morgan

Back 106

Omissions

People v. Morgan (Egregious Omission= doubled sentence for manslaughter)

Front 107

People v. Sanford

Back 107

Omissions

People v. Sanford (Child owes no duty to parent under common law)

Front 108

Billingsea v. State

Back 108

Omissions

Billingsea v. State (Child owes no duty to parent under MPC)

Front 109

In Re to Ronnie?

Back 109

MENS REA

Front 110

Queen v. Tolfelson?

Back 110

MENS REA

Front 111

State v. Cameron?

Back 111

MENS REA

State v. Cameron (General intent includes: Purposeful, Knowingly, Recklessness and Negligent)

Front 112

State v. Zunnia?

Back 112

MENS REA

State v. Zunnia (General intent includes: Purposeful, Knowingly, and Negligent; except Recklessness)

Front 113

Mens Reas
People v. Smith?

Back 113

MENS REA
Purpose v. Knowledge
People v. Smith

Front 114

US v. Villegas?

Back 114

MENS REA
Knowedge v. Recklessness
Us v. Villegas

Front 115

]US v. Herededia

Back 115

MENS REA

Willful Ignorance v. Conscious avoidance

• United States v. Heredia (2007, p.310): “what drugs? There’s no drugs in the trunk” – how do you prove knowledge? Prove that D deliberately disregarded finding out the truth where there is a high probability of awareness

Front 116

US v. Jewell

Back 116

MENS REA

Willful Ignorance v. Conscious avoidance


o Secret compartment in a vehicle; ∆ knew of the possibility of marijuana being there but did not get positive knowledge
o ∆ argued he couldn't be convicted because knowledge was required.
o Constructive knowledge = willful blindness. Thus, ∆ knowingly brought marijuana into the U.S. in violation of the law.

Front 117

US. v. Gionavetti

Back 117

MENS REA

Willful Ignorance v. Conscious avoidance

Front 118

People v. Coe

Back 118

MENS REA

Willful Ignorance v. Conscious avoidance

o Woman at nursing home is missing 10 bucks. She forcibly searches a man with a heart condition and he dies.
o She was found guilty bc she was given a handbook when she moved in which prohibited her from doing what she did.
• Willfully requires that the offense be done knowingly and done in known violation of some law.

Front 119

Commonwealth v. Pierce (1884, p.322)?

Back 119

Commonwealth v. Pierce (1884, p.322): “the kerosene case” – Pierce had a close call before so he was aware of a risk and elected to disregard the risk = recklessness

Front 120

People v. Strong (1975, p.319)?

Back 120

People v. Strong (1975, p.319): “the religious stabbing case” – if you really believe him that he honestly believes, then negligence – jury will likely say reckless, that he knew of the risk; but possibly negligence

Front 121

Martin v. State (1944, p.226)?

Back 121

Martin v. State (1944, p.226) (in notes): “the case where the cops took guy out into the road and charged him for being drunk in public” – he did not voluntarily go in public

Front 122

People v. Decina (1956, p.231)?

Back 122

People v. Decina (1956, p.231) (in notes): “the case where the epileptic went for a drive and killed four schoolgirls” – says he cannot be criminalized because it was not voluntary – charged with driving in a negligent manner where a human is killed – started to violate statute as soon as he got behind the wheel of the car

Front 123

Brian Dalton (p.214)?

Back 123

charged with possession-prosecutorial discretion – retributivist would say he wouldn’t deserve punishment because no actual harm was caused
o There must be a physical event attached to the thought

Front 124

Queen v. Dudley Stephens

Back 124

*The Queen v. Dudley and Stephens (1881, p.192): “The case where the boys are stuck at sea and eat the weakest boy”: the two boys were charged criminally with the murder of other boy because you cannot murder someone and justify it – they have actus reus + mens rea – it was not necessary to kill the smaller boy

Front 125

People v. Bright (People v. Clark) (1988, p.125)?

Back 125

: “the cases where they are arrested for loitering in transportation facilities”: statute (1) must provide notice of what conduct is prohibited and (2) must not be written in a way as to permit/encourage arbitrary & discriminatory enforcement (Kolendar v. Lawson)

Front 126

People v. Nelson?

Back 126

• People v. Nelson: “The case of the jostling pockets” – Court said the statute was not void for vagueness – The Penal Law clearly delineates specific conduct easily avoided by the innocent-minded

Front 127

Solem v. Helm?

Back 127

Solem v. Helm (1983) – mandatory life without parole for “habitual offender” (drunk driving, three burglaries, passing bad check) disproportionate

Front 128

Harmelin v. Michigan?

Back 128

Harmelin v. Michigan (1991) – mandatory life without parole for possession of 672 grams of cocaine with intent to distribute not disproportionate
• Depends on who is on the Supreme Court – 5-4 decision

Front 129

Coker v. Georgia (1977)

Back 129

Coker v. Georgia (1977) – rape used to be punishable by death – court here said capital punishment for rape of adult woman disproportionate

Front 130

Rummel v. Estelle (1980) ?

Back 130

Rummel v. Estelle (1980) – mandatory life (with possibility of parole after 12 years) for petty thief with two prior theft convictions not disproportionate

Front 131

Kennedy v. Louisiana (2008)?

Back 131

Kennedy v. Louisiana (2008) – an issue the court did not address was about rape of someone other than adult women… what about child rape? Court said killing someone for child rape is grossly disproportionate
(Now we have death penalty for treason, premeditated murder).

Front 132

Ewing v. California (2003, p.47)?

Back 132

*Ewing v. California (2003, p.47): “the case where he was sentenced to 25 years to life for stealing golf clubs”: three strikes rule is not grossly disproportionate; Ewing argues retribution – but court rules utilitarian – deterrence – design of the 3 strikes law is to ensure longer prison sentences and greater punishment for those who commit a felony and have a prior violent/serious felony conviction
-Does this law lead to prosecutorial discretion?
-Does the

Front 133

Rogers v. Tennessee (2001, p. 130)?

Back 133

Rogers v. Tennessee (2001, p. 130): “The case where the guy died 15 months later” – D wanted to use the year and a day rule – court did not look at ex post facto clause because that applies to legislature not the court system

Front 134

Martin v. State (1944, p.226) (in notes)?

Back 134

• Martin v. State (1944, p.226) (in notes): “the case where the cops took guy out into the road and charged him for being drunk in public” – he did not voluntarily go in public

Front 135

U.S. v. Baker (1986, p. 354)?

Back 135

U.S. v. Baker (1986, p. 354): “The case of the counterfeit watches” – He was convicted under a statute that penalizes this activity. His defense was that he did not know that trafficking counterfeit goods was criminal and that he should not be convicted because he did not know the law existed. Court said no, this is the law.

Front 136

Commonewealth v. Doane (1848, p. 354)?

Back 136

Commonewealth v. Doane (1848, p. 354): “the case where the guy stole pig iron from a shipment” – D’s defense was that his actions were custom and that others were doing the same thing – court held that such a custom could not be sustained because it was a bad custom

Front 137

Lambert v. California (1957, p.353)?

Back 137

Lambert v. California (1957, p.353): “The case where the criminal had to register with the state” – D was convicted of violating an LA ordinance that required any convicted person to register within 5 days of arriving in the city. Court held that this violated due process because it lacks notice. Actual knowledge and subsequent failure to comply are necessary before a conviction under this ordinance can stand.

Front 138

Hopkins v. State (1949, p. 367)?

Back 138

the case of the fake minister” – D was convicted for violating a statute that restricted erecting any sign intended to aid the performance of marriages. D argues that State Attorney told him he would not violate the law with his sign, and he listened in good faith. Ignorance of the law will not excuse its violation. The advice given by a public official is no excuse – not official interpretation just advice

Front 139

Cox v. Louisiana (1965, p.368)?

Back 139

Cox v. Louisiana (1965, p.368): “the case where the guy picketed with the police chief and sheriff’s permission” – Court reversed lower court decision – nothing to do with police’s permission – but stating that “near” was not clearly defined

Front 140

People v. Marrero (1987, p.368)?

Back 140

People v. Marrero (1987, p.368): “the case where the guy wasn’t a real peace officer” – Even a reasonable misinterpretation is no defense – statute listed state peace officers were protected but D was a federal peace officer.

Front 141

Cheek v. U.S. (1991, p.356)?

Back 141

“The case where the guy doesn’t agree with paying taxes” – D believes the tax system is unconstitutional and he believes he doesn’t have to pay taxes. He is prosecuted for failing to pay taxes – the statute requires that you willfully fail to pay taxes (you know you are violating the law). So, the only issue is whether he know he was violating the law – yes he knew he was; he was convicted – Proved that the law imposed a duty on D & that D knew of this duty & he voluntarily and intentionally violated the duty.

Front 142

Arthur Anderson, LLP v. United States (2005, p. 358)?

Back 142

“the case where the company destroyed its documents” – court held that the jury instructions were wrong, they diluted the meaning of “corruptly” – higher court said the statute meant to punish people that were conscious of wrongdoing.

Front 143

Ratzlaf v. U.S. (1994, p.361)?

Back 143

Ratzlaf v. U.S. (1994, p.361): “the case of the structuring” – D was convicted of structuring his deposits. D knew what he was doing but he didn’t know that what he was doing was a crime. Since the statute required a state of ‘willfully’, D had an ignorance of the law excuse.

Front 144

Bryan v United States (1998, p. 363)?

Back 144

Bryan v United States (1998, p. 363): “The case where the guy deals firearms” – D said he must willfully break the law but the court said this statute is not technical – and D knew his conduct was unlawful

Front 145

State v. Cameron (1986, p. 365)?

Back 145

“the case of the drunk chick who attacked with the broken bottle” – Court held that intoxication must be at a very high level because the rule is that voluntary intoxication is a defense only when it negates an essential element of the offense

Front 146

-R. v. Elgeton, 1955?

Back 146

-R. v. Elgeton, 1955, The accused must have taken the last step he was able to take along the road of his criminal intent – he must have done all he intended to do and was ale to do to effect his criminal purpose

Front 147

King v. Barker, 1924,?

Back 147

-King v. Barker, 1924, A criminal attempt is an act that shows criminal intent on its face, res ipsa loquitor

Front 148

People v. Murray, 1859?

Back 148

-People v. Murray, 1859, D hired a witness, eloped with niece and had a magistrate. Last Act – There is a wide difference between preparation for the attempt and the attempt itself.

Front 149

-Commonwealth v. Kennedy?

Back 149

-Commonwealth v. Kennedy, D placed poison in a cup with the intent that victim would use the cup. Proximity Test – Acts expected to bring about the end result, without further act on the part of the criminal, are near enough.

Front 150

Commonwealth v. Peasley?

Back 150

Commonwealth v. Peasley, 1901, D arranged combustibles, candles, hired an arsonist – but changed his mind. Dangerous Proximity Test: Court said some preparation can constitute an attempt if it comes very near to accomplishment of act

Front 151

McQuirter v. State, 1953?

Back 151

McQuirter v. State, 1953, D followed woman, when he was a few feet away, turned and went home – convicted – Court said there was ample evidence to sustain conviction.

Front 152

Tremaine v. State, 1963?

Back 152

Tremaine v. State, 1963, D uses victim’s phone, then later tries to get back in – he grabs and yanks up her robe – he threatens to hit her. Court says attempt to rape conviction cannot be sustained because he did not commit an overt act which would amount to an attempt to rape.

Front 153

United State v. Presto, (1987)?
Substantial Step Test

Back 153

United State v. Presto, (1987): “The case where the drug phone calls weren’t enough” – Court reversed the conviction of attempting to sell 10 kilograms of marijuana. The trial jury relied on D placing the phone calls, but the court found this to be too ambiguous and that there were too many other steps remaining before the distribution could be consummated.

Front 154

United States v. Ramos-Palomino (2002, p.438)?
Substantial Step Test

Back 154

United States v. Ramos-Palomino (2002, p.438): “The case where the meth had to be of a certain weight” – D challenged the conviction that he allegedly had attempted to possess with the intent to distribute 50 grams or more of a mixture containing meth. Court held that D was found to have attempted several times to obtain a bound of meth and that he was unsuccessful because of matters beyond his control, rather than a decision on his part to abandon the venture; and this constituted as taking a substantial test

Front 155

People v. Montefolka (1997, p.438)?
Substantial Step Test

Back 155

People v. Montefolka (1997, p.438): “The case where the guy went into girl’s house and told her to take off her underpants after wrestling her to the floor.” – Court found him not guilty because he did not take substantial step. Court found that since he changed his mind and abandoned the effort on his own he did not take that step.

Front 156

People v. Lehnert (2007, p. 430)?
Substantial Step Test

Back 156

“The case where the lady found a way to buy gun powder and drove by her intended victim’s houses” – Case went up to the highest court of Colorado, and it adopted language similar to the MPC – a change from the traditional way. D was found to have taken a “substantial step” that was corroborative of the firmness of her intent

Front 157

People v. Staples (1970, p.446)?

Back 157

“The case where the guy rented above a bank and started drilling a hole” - Court said reason of abandonment does not matter – he took the substantial step and had the mens rea of robbing the bank

Front 158

LeBarron v. State (1966, p.451)?

Back 158

LeBarron v. State (1966, p.451): “The man who decided not to rape the girl because she was pregnant; The attempt to commit a crime requires the actor to have an intent to perform acts – and would accomplish those except for the intervention of another person or some other extraneous factor. Court held pregnancy constituted intervention of an extraneous factor – no defense here.

Front 159

People v. Dlugash?

Back 159

People v. Dlugash (1977, p.454): “The case where the guy kicked the guy when he was already down”: D argued he could not be guilty of causing the death of another because the other was already dead; Under the Penal Law, a person is guilty of an attempt with intent to commit a crime, he engages in conduct which tends to effect the commission of such crime. It is no defense to the charge of attempted murder that the victim may have been dead. Jury could find that D’s purpose was to kill the victim.

Front 160

People v. Thousand?

Back 160

People v. Thousand: “the case where the guy wanted to have sex with a 14 y/o” – Court charged the guy with attempting to solicit a minor – it didn’t matter that it wasn’t a minor – he believed it was

Front 161

Commonwealth v. Henley?

Back 161

Commonwealth v. Henley, receipt of stolen property. Fact that defendant thought property stolen was enough

Front 162

People v. Oviedo

Back 162

Legal Impossibility:
• when Δ’s actions sets in motion, even if fully carried out as he desires, would not constitute a crime (Oviedo)

Front 163

Smallwood v State, MD CoA (1996), 547?

Back 163

• Smallwood v State, MD CoA (1996), 547: Overturning convictions for attempted murder for HIV+ man who raped 3 women w/o condom b/c evidence not strong enough to infer specific intent to kill b/c HIV not as deadly as gun

Front 164

People v. McManus, 1986?

Back 164

-People v. McManus, 1986, Can invoke as a defense to any crime involving the use of force

Front 165

State v. Buggs (1990)?

Back 165

State v. Buggs (1990): “The case where the guy was scared of the Crips” – D says he believed responsive force was necessary – but court says that a reasonable person would believe responsive force was necessary – this case was closer to MPC on the immediacy of response but closer to common law approach in the honest belief

Front 166

-People v. Bradley (2002)?

Back 166

-People v. Bradley (2002): “the case where the guys were stealing and the store owner took out a saw and the guy punched him in the face” – Court said their actions were not deadly force, but ordinary use of force – retreat is not a condition precedent of the use of ordinary physical force in self-defense – in determining deadly force look at the actions, not the results

Front 167

Commonwealth v. Toon (2002)?

Back 167

“the case of the pretty boy” – Mass court has a duty to retreat before resorting force, whether non-deadly or deadly – D could have walked away but did not.


Retreat
-About half of the jurisdictions are “no retreat” jurisdictions
-Some jurisdictions have a retreat before using force vs. retreat before using deadly force
-It matters whether a person can retreat in complete safety
-“Castle Rule” – Most jurisdictions say you never have to retreat from one’s own home

Front 168

Rowe v. United States (1896)?

Back 168

Rowe v. United States (1896): “the case where the guy kicked the other guy then stepped back” – court said if a person who was attacked first responds but does not go further, he restores his self-defense when the initial aggressor pursues him

Initial Aggressor
-Only a non-aggressor can claim self-defense
-An aggressor can become a non-aggressor if he make it clear that he’s callig it off
-If someone raises the ante, that person becomes the aggressor