Criminal Law

Front 1

Mc Closkey

Back 1

Mom bought beer for teens, kid died in drunk driving accident. PA ruled that it was not a “remote” possibility AND not unfair to hold mom responsible. Dependent Intervening Cause: Intended or reasonably foreseeable by defendant

Front 2

Dependent Intervening Cause:

Back 2

Intended or reasonably foreseeable by defendant

Front 3

Independent Intervening Cause:

Back 3

Not proximate cause because NOT intended or reasonably foreseeable by defendantEx: A stabs B who goes to hospital. C kills B to put him out of misery. C is now criminally responsible, not A.

Front 4

Recklessly

Back 4

: Involves knowingly taking a risk, but going ahead anyway
i. D is aware of and consciously disregards a substantial and unjustifiable risk (gross deviation from law-abiding standard of conduct (objective/subjective combo)

Front 5

Negligently:

Back 5

D should be aware of a substantial and unjustifiable risk. Gross deviation from conduct of reasonable person (objective)
i. Criminal Negligence is purely objective because it requires a lack of awareness of risk

Front 6

Purposely (Intent):

Back 6

What your will is, why you’re doing it;
i. D consciously desires to commit the act and cause the result. D is aware or, or believes to exist, the circumstances to commit the crime (subjective)

Front 7

Knowingly:

Back 7

Awareness of conduct, with practical certainty that the result will occur (subjective)
i. If knowledge is part of the crime, D avoids liability by not knowing

Front 8

Difference between Recklessly and Knowingly is:

Back 8

i. Knowingly deals with specific outcome
ii. Recklessly only deals with risk
d. Assume the Mens Rea goes all the way down, to include recklessness and negligence even if it is not listed in the statute

Front 9

Relationship of homicide to
Purposely
Knowingly
Recklessly
Negligent

Back 9

wanted it -1st degree murder
practically certain would happen-2 deg
Aware it could happen-Manslghter
Should have known,didnt-criminally neg. homicide.

Front 10

Transferred Intent: The “Poor Shot Rule

Back 10

A shoots at B to kill B, but hits C and kills C instead; intent to kill is transferred
i. Where there is no doctrine specifically transferring intent, crime would be (1) attempted murder of A and (2) reckless homicide of B
*Cohen thinks this is important: this focuses on moral culpability of actor;
act changes, but person is still morally blameworthy

Front 11

What is the Ostrich Problem?
What is a famous test for this

Back 11

(Deliberate Ignorance)

Jewell Instruction

Front 12

Jewell Instruction:

Back 12

When there is deliberate indifference (a calculated effort to avoid the sanctions of the statute while violating its substances), the law will allow the finding of knowledge even if you don’t have the knowledge
ii. The Jewell test changes the definition of “knowingly” by lowering the quality of knowledge that is necessary to be found guilty (Sanchez-Robles: high probability that Sanchez did not recognize smell of marijuana, so no knowledge and thus no liability)
iii. Two Prongs: suspicion and deliberate avoidance.

Front 13

Sanchez-Robles:

Back 13

high probability that Sanchez did not recognize smell of marijuana, so no knowledge and thus no liability)

Front 14

• State v. Miranda

Back 14

Live-in boyfriend has a duty of care to child that a father would under common law.
• this case was actually later reversed by CT Supreme Court in 878 A.2d 148
• father has duty under common law (due to relationship)
o court is willing to stretch this to live-in boyfriend/'stepfather'
• dissent is concerned about fair warning - principle of legality

Front 15

Strict Liability: Does not require proof of Mens Rea element

Back 15

. Ex: statutory rape, DWI, health codes
2. Why enact SL crimes? Policy: too hard for government to prove Mens Rea for every case

Front 16

Burden of Production:

Back 16

burden of introducing enough evidence to raise an issue (i.e. insanity not an issue, normally)

Front 17

Burden of Persuasion:

Back 17

which side must convince the jury that the standard of
proof is proven (guilty beyond a reasonable doubt)

Front 18

Defenses

Back 18

: issue proved by defendant and disproved by prosecution upon burden shift

Front 19

Affirmative Defense:

Back 19

issue proved by the defendant, by preponderance of the eviden

Front 20

What are the homicide categories of the PENNSYLVANIA MODEL?

Back 20

1st degree Murder
2nd degree murder
Voluntary Manslaughter
Involuntary Manslaughter

Front 21

PENNSYLVANIA MODEL
First Degree Murder

Back 21

1.WDP – Willful, Deliberate, and Premeditated

2. Felony-Murder (listed felony)

Front 22

PENNSYLVANIA MODEL
Second Degree Murder

Back 22

1. Intent to Kill
2. Intent to Seriously Injure
3. Felony-Murder (non-listed felony)
4. Depraved Heart

Front 23

PENNSYLVANIA MODEL
Voluntary Manslaughter

Back 23

1. Heat of Passion (killing while provoked)

Front 24

PENNSYLVANIA MODEL
Involuntary Manslaughter

Back 24

1. Misdemeanor Manslaughter Rule
2. Criminal Negligence

Front 25

What are the homicide crimes under the MODEL PENAL CODE (MPC)

Back 25

1)Murder
2)Manslaughter
3)Criminally Negligent Homicide

Front 26

MPC
Murder

Back 26

1. Purposely or Knowingly; or
2. Recklessness (with Extreme Indifference to Human Life)

Front 27

MPC

Manslaughter

Back 27

1. Reckless; or
2. Extreme Emotional Disturbance

Front 28

MPC

Criminally Negligent Homicide

Back 28

1. Criminal Negligence

Front 29

What 2 approaches are used to deal with death of a co-felon?

Back 29

1)Agency Theory
2)Proximate cause theory

Front 30

Agency Theory

Back 30

Courts take two approaches to the issue. Under the agency theory, a felon is responsible
only for those crimes committed by someone who is considered the felon's agent (normally a co-felon).
Under this approach, since the killings above were committed by clerk C and officer P, felon Y is not
responsible for them since neither is felon Y's agent.

Front 31

Proximate Cause Theory.

Back 31

The second approach, sometimes called the proximate cause view, holds
a felon responsible for deaths that are reasonably foreseeable consequences of the felony. Under
this test, it would likely be held that Y is responsible for the deaths caused by clerk C and officer P
since it is foreseeable that both the liquor store clerk and the police officer would use deadly force
in responding to the armed robbery and could easily kill one of the robbers or even an innocent
bystander.

Front 32

“principle of legality”

Back 32

there can be no crime
without (pre-existent) law, no punishment without (pre-existent)
law.

Front 33

“Specific Intent” Offenses

Back 33

In most cases, a “specific intent” offense is one that explicitly contains one
of the following mens rea elements in its definition: (1) the intent to
commit some act over and beyond the actus reus of the offense; (2) a
special motive for committing the actus reus of the offense; or (3)
awareness of a particular attendant circumstance.

Front 34

“General Intent” Offenses

Back 34

Any offense that requires proof of a culpable mental state, but which
does not contain a specific intent, is a “general intent” offense. Sometimes,
such an offense will have no explicit mens rea term in the definition
of the offense; it is enough that the defendant committed the actus reus
with any culpable state of mind.

Front 35

The M’Naghten Test of Insanity

Back 35

1. Rule
Aperson is legally insane if, at the time of the act, he was laboring under
such a defect of reason, from disease of the mind, as: (1) not to know the
nature and quality of the act he was doing; or,
(2), if he did know it, that
he did not know what he was doing was wrong.

Front 36

The “Irresistible Impulse” (“Control”) Test of Insanity

Back 36

1. Rule
In general, this supplement to M’Naghten provides that a person is
insane if, as the result of mental illness or defect, she “acted with an
irresistible and uncontrollable impulse,” or if she “lost the power to
choose between . . . right and wrong, and to avoid doing the act in
question, as that [her] free agency was at the time destroyed.” See the
Main Outline for criticisms of the test.

Front 37

D. The “Product” (Durham) Test of Insanity

Back 37

1. Rule
A person is excused if his unlawful act was the product of a mental
disease or defect. As subsequently defined, “mental disease or defect” is
“any abnormal condition of the mind which substantially affects mental
or emotional processes and substantially impairs behavior controls.”
Thus, to be acquitted according to this rule, two matters must be proved:
the defendant suffered from a mental disease or defect at the time of the
crime; and, but for the mental disease or defect, he would not have
committed the crime.

Front 38

Model Penal Code Test of Insanity

Back 38

1. Rule
The MPC test represents a broadened version of the M’Naghten and
irresistible impulse tests. With modifications, it retains the second prong
CAPSULE SUMMARY 43
of M’Naghten and adds to it a volitional prong. The Code provides that
a person is not responsible for her conduct if, at the time of the criminal
act, as the result of a mental disease or defect (a term left undefined), she
lacked the substantial capacity either: (1) to appreciate the criminality
(or, in the alternative, wrongfulness) of her actions; or (2) to conform her
conduct to the dictates of the law.

Front 39

Larceny
Common law larceny

Back 39

the
trespassory
taking and carrying away of the
personal property of
another
with the intent to steal the property, i.e.
permanently deprive the other of the property.

The ultimate harm of
theft comes when the wrongdoer permanently deprives the person of the
property. That harm has not occurred at the moment when the thief
nonconsensually “takes and carries away” the personal property.

Front 40

Accessory Before the Fact

Back 40

She is one who
intentionally
assists
in the commission of the offense,
but who is
not actually or constructively present during its commission.

Front 41

Accessory After the Fact

Back 41

She is one who
1) knowingly
2)assists a
3)felon to
4) avoid
5)arrest, trial, or
conviction.

Front 42

Accomplice

Back 42

A person “assists” in an offense, and thus may be an accomplice in its
commission, if she:
1) solicits or encourages
2)another person
to
3)commit the crime,
or
if she
4)aids in its commission.

Front 43

The Pinkerton Doctrine

Back 43

This
doctrine provides that a conspirator is responsible for any crime committed
by any other member of the conspiracy, whether or not he assisted, if the
offense falls within the scope of the conspiracy or a reasonably foreseeable
consequence thereof.
At common law, a person may be held accountable for the actions of others
either as an accomplice, discussed above, or as a conspirator. A controversial
feature of conspiracy law in many jurisdictions is the Pinkerton doctrine,
named after the Supreme Court ruling in Pinkerton v. United States.

Front 44

Innocent-Instrumentality Doctrine

Back 44

MPC!
A person is guilty of an offense that she did not personally commit if,
acting with the requisite mens rea, she “
1)causes
2)an innocent or irresponsible
person”
3)to commit
4)the crime.

This is equivalent to the common law
innocent-instrumentality rule discussed earlier.

Front 45

Falcone –

Back 45

US Supreme Court moonshine case. Sugar seller was charged with conspiracy, court held knowledge of crime was not enough to promote. Fortunes of a conspirator must rise and fall with the criminal venture.