Term
|
Definition
1. Actus Reus
a. The physical act (i.e. the actual killing, etc.)
i. Objective
1. Past
2. Voluntary
3. harmful
4. Conduct
5. Specified
6. In advance
7. By statute |
|
|
Term
|
Definition
i. Specific Intent
1. The violator had the purpose of causing some result
ii. General Intent
1. The violator intentionally committed the act itself
a. Example: purposely moved their arm, but without the specific intent of hitting someone |
|
|
Term
|
Definition
| v. Strict Liability, Purpose,Knowledge,Recklessness,Negligene |
|
|
Term
|
Definition
i. Purpose
1. the conscious objective to achieve the result |
|
|
Term
|
Definition
ii. Knowledge
1. they knew to practical certainty the act would have the result |
|
|
Term
|
Definition
iii. Recklessness
1. consciously disregarding a substantial and unjustifiable risk |
|
|
Term
|
Definition
iv. Negligence
1. should have been aware of the risk, even if they were not |
|
|
Term
|
Definition
v. Strict Liability
1. there is no particular mental state required (i.e. ignoring risk)
2. just need to show actus reus and the results which were caused |
|
|
Term
|
Definition
| what a party must show in order to prove a crime or to present a defense to the crime |
|
|
Term
| elements of burden of proof |
|
Definition
1.) Proof beyond reasonable doubt
2.) Clear and convincing (the federal standard)
3.) 4.) Probable cause
5.) Reasonable suspicion
Preponderance (51%) |
|
|
Term
| proof beyond a reasonable doubt |
|
Definition
a. Needed for a conviction
b. If the defense claims justification, the burden is on the prosecution to prove PBRD |
|
|
Term
|
Definition
| a. If the defense claims excuse, the burden is on the defendant to prove either clear and convincing or preponderance |
|
|
Term
| what are the theories of punishment |
|
Definition
1.) Utilitarianism
2.) Retribution |
|
|
Term
|
Definition
| a. Punishment is permissible only if it reduces suffering from future crimes more than it creates suffering for the accused |
|
|
Term
| b. Subtheories of utilitarianism: |
|
Definition
i. Deterrence
ii. Rehabilitation
iii. Incapacitation |
|
|
Term
|
Definition
the threat of punishment prevents future crime.
d. Assumes criminals know what the specific punishment for each crime is
1. Most widely accepted rationale of the practice of punishment
2. Certainty and severity of punishment together operate as the most effective deterrents of crime – either one alone is ineffective
3. Assumes that criminals will weigh the pros/cons of crime
4. Problems:
a. Low rates of arrest
b. Long delay between the crime and the punishment
c. Most crimes are impulsive and irrational |
|
|
Term
|
Definition
5. Specific Deterrence – aims at the particular offender to keep him from doing it again
6. General Deterrence – is a warning to the rest of society when someone is punished (more willing to let the innocent be punished) |
|
|
Term
|
Definition
by imposing sanctions, we change the criminal
1. Aims at preventing future crime
2. Seeks to reform the criminal to become a useful member of society
3. Does NOT imply moral blame – you couldn’t help yourself |
|
|
Term
|
Definition
iii. Incapacitation – if you’re locked up, you can’t harm society
1. Assumes:
a. Crimes in prison “don’t count”
b. Past offenders will repeat their crimes
c. If removed from society, criminals will not be replaced by new criminals
d. By locking them up, you won’t make them worse |
|
|
Term
| 2.) Retribution (aka “Just Deserts” |
|
Definition
backward-looking; not interested in the future, but in punishing those who merit it
a. A criminal must be punished for the wrong he has committed
b. Rests on the foundation of vindictive justice |
|
|
Term
|
Definition
| a. Supreme Court declared that punishment should not be “grossly disproportionate to the crime” |
|
|
Term
| what does the 8th ammendment do |
|
Definition
b. Eighth Amendment prohibits cruel and unusual punishment
i. Applies to inherently cruel punishments such as torture and execution by painful and lingering methods
ii. Also prohibits punishments that, while conceptually permissible, are cruel and unusual in a given case because the punishment is so disproportionate to the crime
1. If the punishment in a given case is outrageously disproportionate, the courts may forbid enforcement of the punishment |
|
|
Term
| c. Ewing v. California (p. 75) |
|
Definition
i. Held that the Eighth Amendment did not prohibit a state from sentencing a repeat felon to a prison term of 25 years to life under a “three strikes” law
1. Under CA’s three strikes law, an offender with two or more prior “serious” or “violent” felony convictions must be sentenced to life imprisonment
ii. The CA legislature has determined that public safety requires incapacitating repeat criminals, and the Eighth Amendment does not prohibit that choice
iii. The sentence is justified by the state’s judgment that offenders who have committed serious or violent felonies and continue to commit felonies must be incapacitated |
|
|
Term
| d. Solem v. Helm: (p. 79) |
|
Definition
i. Held that the Eighth Amendment prohibited a life sentence without possibility of parole for a seventh nonviolent felony
ii. Set out three factors relevant to determining whether a sentence is so disproportionate that it violates the Eighth Amendment:
1. Gravity of the offense and the severity of the punishment
2. The sentences of other criminals in the same jurisdiction
3. The sentences imposed for commission of the same crime in other jurisdictions |
|
|
Term
| I.) The Criminal Act elements |
|
Definition
Crimes malum prohibitum
Crimes malum in se
c. Culpability
d. Actus Reus |
|
|
Term
|
Definition
i. Those acts or omissions to act that are wrong from their very nature
1. Ex: murder, robbery, rape |
|
|
Term
| b. Crimes malum prohibitum |
|
Definition
| wrong because they are prohibited by state |
|
|
Term
|
Definition
1. Actus reus, which is the commission (or omission) of some act prohibited by law
a. Mens rea, which is the criminal state of mind
2. To constitute a crime, the act must concur with the intent (the actus reus must be attributable to the mens rea) |
|
|
Term
| 1. Proctor v. State (p. 107) |
|
Definition
a. Issue: whether an overt act is required before a defendant can be guilty of a crime (in this case, he owned a house with the intent of using it to sell alcohol)
b. Holding: Yes. Mere ownership of property is an innocent and lawful act. An unexecuted criminal intent alone is not punishable as a crime. There must be some omission or commission. |
|
|
Term
| why would proctor v state go in actus reus? |
|
Definition
| although they tried to convicted proctor of intending to sell liquor this was not enough to convicted him. he did not commit an act yet. nor had he failed to act |
|
|
Term
| e. Omission: elements where u are supposed to act |
|
Definition
1. Statutory obligation
2. Status relationships (parent/guardian – child)
3. Contractual duty
a. Even oral contracts (where breach proved malicious)
4. Voluntary assumption of care
5. Actor has created peril |
|
|
Term
| Jones v. United States why is this an omission case? |
|
Definition
i. A woman failed to feed her friend’s infant child after it was given to her
ii. state can charge someone with omission of act but only if one has no legal responsibility |
|
|
Term
|
Definition
| i. There must be some commission or omission (act) for a crime to occur |
|
|
Term
| model penal code omission to act |
|
Definition
| 1. Liability for the commission of an offense may not be based on an omission unaccompanied by action unless: the omission is expressly made sufficient by the law defining the offense; or a duty to perform the omitted act was otherwise imposed by law |
|
|
Term
| In General no duty to act when |
|
Definition
| UNLESS the defendant is shown to have had knowledge of his legal duty to act. |
|
|
Term
|
Definition
| Either actual possession, joint possession (when object found in a place where more than one person shown to have been aware of existence and exercised control over it), or constructive possession |
|
|
Term
| i. Elements of Constructive possession |
|
Definition
1. Power to exercise control
2. The intent to control |
|
|
Term
|
Definition
| i. Conduct must be done by free will and have opportunity to be avoided |
|
|
Term
|
Definition
| being punished for your status (ex: drug addict) rather than for a specific action |
|
|
Term
|
Definition
| i. must have happened to be punished; retributivist restraint (deserts) |
|
|
Term
|
Definition
| i. Distinction we draw between actus reus and mens rea; also falls under notice of illegal conduct so people can know to voluntarily avoid that conduct |
|
|
Term
|
Definition
| i. Conduct cannot be too vaguely defined (Morales)…this hurts constitutional freedoms, gives police and prosecutors too much discretion, and must actually know what is illegal (or have opportunity to know; notice) |
|
|
Term
|
Definition
| i. Concerns about retroactive lawmaking; must punish for what is a crime at the time of the act (notice) (see Rogers and judicial interpretation) |
|
|
Term
| i. Robinson v California why is this a status crime |
|
Definition
1. Supreme Court struck down the CA statute which prohibited drug addiction
a. Equated the statute with penalizing someone for having a cold – a disease (in this case, addiction) is not a criminal offense
b. The defendant could have been convicted under the CA statute without ever having used or possessed narcotics within the state and without ever having done any antisocial act there
c. The statute allowed conviction for the mere desire to do a criminal act (propensity to use narcotics) |
|
|
Term
| ii. Powell v Texas (p 143) status crime why |
|
Definition
1. Alcoholic was charged with public intoxication
2. His attorney argued that defendant’s alcoholism caused him to be drunk in public; it was not of his own volition
a. Therefore, he was being punished for his status of alcoholic
3. Defendant was still convicted. Reasoning:
a. He was not convicted for drinking, but for drinking and being drunk in public
b. There was no evidence that he had to be in public (he was not homeless, etc) |
|
|
Term
|
Definition
i. In all instances, the “act” must be prohibited by law for a crime to exist. A person might intend to commit a crime by performing some act, but if that act is not prohibited, then there is no crime.
ii. No liability in federal court unless the crime is defined by statute |
|
|
Term
|
Definition
ii. Solem: 3 Pronged Test:
1. Gravity of the offense v. severity of the penalty
2. Penalties imposed in jurisdiction for similar offenses
3. Penalties imposed in other jurisdictions for same offense |
|
|
Term
|
Definition
b. Mens Rea – bad conduct should only be punished when it is accompanied by bad thoughts
i. The criminal law generally conceives bad thoughts as (1.) the desire to harm others or violate some other social duty; or (2.) disregard for the welfare of others or for some other social duty |
|
|
Term
| how do u prove genereal intent |
|
Definition
| simply by showing that the prohibited result was caused by a voluntary act of the defendant |
|
|
Term
| 3 types of strict liablity |
|
Definition
ii. Strict Liability – has at least 3 different uses
1.) Substantive Strict Liability (liability w/o moral fault – a person can be punished for the offense even though he is morally blameless); (2.) Pure Strict Liability (liability w/o any culpable mental state with respect to any element of the crime; these are unusual); (3.) Impure Strict Liability (liability w/o any culpable mental state |
|
|
Term
| common facts of strict liablity crimes |
|
Definition
a. The crime is a violation of a part of a regulatory scheme designed to protect social welfare
b. The crime is malum prohibitum
c. Carries relatively light penalties
d. Requiring a mens rea would impede the regulatory regime |
|
|
Term
|
Definition
| i. Ignorance or mistake of law arises in 2 contexts: 1.) those in which, b/c of ignorance or mistake as to a collateral law, the defendant lacked the mental state required for a conviction; and 2.) those in which the defendant had the requisite mental state but claims he was unaware that his conduct was proscribed by the criminal law |
|
|
Term
| Mistake of Non-Governing Law |
|
Definition
| a law that constitutes PART of the crime that you are charged with. (Example: Regina v. Smith, p. 234) |
|
|
Term
| 2. Mistake of Governing Law – |
|
Definition
| mistake regarding the actual law you broke. Criminal mens rea requires only that the defendant intended to do the prohibited act. Ignorance or mistake of law is not a defense. |
|
|
Term
| mpc on mistake of law/fact |
|
Definition
| f. The MPC states that ignorance or mistake as to a matter of fact or law |
|
|
Term
| ii. Reasonable Belief can Negate |
|
Definition
|
|
Term
| iii. Mistake of Law as an Excuse: |
|
Definition
a. Defendants should have been able to present the affirmative defense that they reasonably relied on the opinion of the MA Attorney General.
b. While ignorance of the law is generally no excuse, there is substantial justification for treatment as a defense the belief that conduct is not in violation of the law when the defendant has reasonably relied on an official statement of the law made by a public official charged with the responsibility of interpreting the law |
|
|
Term
|
Definition
| is the killing of one human being by another. Homicide is not necessarily a crime, but it is a material element of the crimes of MURDER and MANSLAUGHTER |
|
|
Term
|
Definition
| 2.) How to classify homicide: (prosecution has burden of proof beyond a reasonable doubt; intent to kill cannot be presumed) |
|
|
Term
| common law with malice what is homicide classification |
|
Definition
|
|
Term
|
Definition
| a. Intentional and premeditated |
|
|
Term
| i. Various types of mens rea |
|
Definition
| 1. Intent to kill – conduct, accompanied by an intent to kill, that causes another’s death constitutes murder |
|
|
Term
| 2. Intent to inflict serious bodily harm |
|
Definition
| conduct coupled with an intent to do serious bodily injury but without an intent to kill, which causes another’s death, constitutes murder |
|
|
Term
|
Definition
| reckless conduct that a reasonable person would realize creates a high degree of risk of death or serious bodily injury to another, which actually causes the death of another, may constitute murder |
|
|
Term
|
Definition
1. 1st degree intentional, premeditated murder
a. Intentional and premeditated
2. 1st degree felony murder
a. Committed in the course of a serious felony (i.e. robbery, rape, burglary, arson, mayhem, kidnapping)
3. 2nd degree intentional murder
a. Intentional, but no premeditation
4. 2nd degree gross reckless murder
a. Extreme indifference to human life
b. Act must be sufficiently wanton to imply malice
5. 2nd degree felony murder
a. Committed during other serious felonies |
|
|
Term
| homicide without malice common law |
|
Definition
|
|
Term
| 1. Voluntary manslaughter |
|
Definition
a. Intentional
b. Heat of passion
c. Imperfect self-defense (honestly believed the act was necessary for self defense) |
|
|
Term
| 2. Involuntary Manslaughter |
|
Definition
a. Unintentional
b. Reckless homicide
c. Criminally negligent homicide
d. Misdemeanor manslaughtere. Vehicular Manslaughter |
|
|
Term
| d. Misdemeanor manslaughter |
|
Definition
| i. Killing resulted from inherently dangerous misdemeanor |
|
|
Term
| e. Vehicular Manslaughter |
|
Definition
i. Not in all states
ii. Needed because of:
1. Frequency
2. Ubiquity |
|
|
Term
|
Definition
| a. Malice,b. Intentional Murder (Second Degree) |
|
|
Term
| intentional homicide malice |
|
Definition
i. Purpose or Knowledge
ii. Intent to inflict serious harm on another
iii. Callous indifference to human life (extreme recklessness; depraved heart)
iv. Intent to commit some serious felony (willing to undertake a crime that could cause a death, even if that risk is relatively low) |
|
|
Term
|
Definition
i. Murder without premeditation
ii. In most states, murder not falling within the category of first degree murder is second degree murder |
|
|
Term
| iii. Second Degree Intentional Murder: |
|
Definition
1. No premeditation Intentional,2. Felony Murder,3
Wanton Disregard for Human Life |
|
|
Term
| ii. MPC Standard of Voluntary Acts |
|
Definition
a. A reflex or convulsion
b. Bodily movement during unconsciousness or sleep (automatism)
i. Grant: guy gets drunk and attacks cop…claims epilepsy and gets to jury
ii. Decina: guy has seizure while driving car…open up time frame and didn’t take his meds (convicted)
c. Conduct during hypnosis or resulting from hypnotic suggestion
d. A bodily movement otherwise not a product of the effort or determination of the actor, either conscious or habitual |
|
|
Term
| c. Two Categories of Strict Liability |
|
Definition
i. Public Welfare Offenses: regulatory crimes; light punishment
ii. Non-Public Welfare Offenses: Crimes that do not require proof of Mes Rea |
|
|
Term
| e. All strict liability cases raise several issues (Policy) |
|
Definition
i. Whose job is it to determine statutes and definition/presence of mens rea
ii. Since lack of mental state can be up for much abuse, is it appropriate to leave these things to police and prosecutors?
iii. Should anyone be punished at all for lacking a culpable mental state? Punishes the morally innocent |
|
|
Term
| why are strict liablity crimes good policy |
|
Definition
i. Juries usually tend to link strict liability/negligence and tend to require some level of mens rea anyway
ii. Show a rule-like precision making them easy to enforce
ii. Show a rule-like precision making them easy to enforce
1. Lower burden on prosecution where proving mens rea would be otherwise extremely difficult and mass harm may occur nonetheless
iii. Have a deterrent effect (utilitarian)
1. Requires individuals who work with dangerous materials to be careful or not enter the business at all |
|
|
Term
|
Definition
| if given a criminal statute and no mental culpability attached to every element, default to recklessness |
|
|
Term
| ii. 4 elements for heat of passion defense |
|
Definition
1. Adequate provocation
a. Objective
b. Reasonable person might have been provoked
2. Actual provocation
a. Subjective
b. Defendant was provoked to act
3. No adequate cooling time (decision for the jury)
a. Objective
b. Reasonable person would not have cooled off yet
4. No actual cooling time
a. Subjective
b. Defendant had no time to cool off between the provocation and the killing |
|
|
Term
| connection between manslaughter and murder |
|
Definition
| iii. Manslaughter includes homicides that are not bad enough to be murder but that are too bad to be of no criminal consequence |
|
|
Term
|
Definition
| Voluntary manslaughter is an intentional homicide committed under extenuating circumstances that mitigate but do not justify or excuse the killing. |
|
|
Term
|
Definition
| the principal extenuating circumstance in a manslaughter case is that the defendant acted in a state of passion engendered by adequate provocation. (For elements, see above) |
|
|
Term
|
Definition
| Common law reasonable person test. At common law, sufficient provocation is that which causes a reasonable person to lose his normal self-control. Although a reasonable person who has lost control over himself would not kill, his homicidal reaction to the provocation is at least understandable. The provocation defense is available only if the offender moves quickly (i.e. succumbs to the provocation right away); too much delay can lose the defense |
|
|
Term
| iii. Criminal homicide constitutes manslaughter when: |
|
Definition
| A homicide which would otherwise be murder is committed under the influence of extreme mental or emotional disturbance for which there is reasonable explanation or excuse. The reasonableness of such explanation or excuse shall be determined from the viewpoint of a person in the actor’s situation under the circumstances as he believes them to be |
|
|
Term
|
Definition
| a. Charges of automatism or even intoxication (NOT insanity) bring up questions as to mens rea element of a crime |
|
|
Term
| mens rea i. Psychological Impairment: mpc,most courts,some courts |
|
Definition
1. MPC approach: evidence of psychological impairment negates all elements of crime; 2. Most courts: negate specific intent only
3. Some courts: don’t permit PI to negate at all |
|
|
Term
| mens rea voluntary vs involuntary intoxication |
|
Definition
1. Involuntary intoxication is usually a valid defense
2. Voluntary intoxication:
a. Many states rule that this is no excuse and can never excuse mens rea at any level |
|
|
Term
|
Definition
a. Purpose to cause death
b. Intent to inflict serious bodily harm
c. Extreme recklessness/callous indifference to human life (gross recklessness)
d. Felony rule |
|
|
Term
| viii. Cultural Considerations provocation |
|
Definition
2. Should age, race, and sex always be considered?
a. According to the MPC: reasonableness is assessed from the viewpoint of a person in the actor’s situation
i. Includes personal handicaps and some external circumstances (such as blindness, shock from traumatic injury, or extreme grief)
ii. Does not include idiosyncratic moral values |
|
|
Term
| 4 elements of provocation |
|
Definition
| b. Provocation Defense (must prove all 4):i. Adequate Provocation,ii. Actual Provocationiii. No Adequate Cooling Time,iv. No Actual Cooling Time |
|
|
Term
| other important types of provocation(referance HOT Doc for further info) |
|
Definition
vi. Cumulative Provocation – Gounagias
vii. Adultery as Provocation – Rowland v. State |
|
|
Term
| d. 3 Questions in Mind for Provocation Defense for “adequate” standards |
|
Definition
ii. How immediate must provocations occur in respect to the crime?
i. What constitutes adequate legal provocation
iii. How flexible are we in defining the reasonable person? |
|
|
Term
| mpc reform on provocation |
|
Definition
1. MPC Reform Rules:
a. Passion as would naturally arise in the mind of an ordinarily reasonable person given the circumstances
b. Circumstances were sufficient to arouse passions of a reasonable man
c. Reason was so obscured by situation that acted out of passion rather than judgment
d. Passion may be fear, anger, or other emotion
e. Passion may be provoked by words
f. Passion may be provoked by a series of events over a considerable period of time (Berry |
|
|
Term
4.) UNINTENTIONAL HOMICIDE
a. Involuntary Manslaughter |
|
Definition
| i. Based on negligence and recklessness |
|
|
Term
| e. Does voluntary manslaughter match up with theories of punishment? |
|
Definition
i. Deterrence: no (acted rashly and instantly)
ii. Rehab: possibly…temporary flaw in character that could be fixed
iii. Incapacitation: yes…gets those potentially dangerous/angry off the streets
iv. Retribution: no…can “cold blooded” killing be more blameworthy than voluntary killing? Starts to look like victim bashing… |
|
|
Term
| b. Criminally or “Gross” Negligent Homicide |
|
Definition
| i. a gross deviation from community standards of right and wrong; reasonable person would have avoided grave danger |
|
|
Term
| 2. Involuntary Manslaughter |
|
Definition
| a. Reckless Homicide,b. Criminally or “Gross” Negligent Homicide,Misdemeanor Manslaughter,d. Vehicular Homicide |
|
|
Term
| d. Vehicular Homicide *drunk driving |
|
Definition
ii. Drunk Driving
1. Most states have statutes which deal directly with this where at least gross negligence is automatically established if DUI |
|
|
Term
|
Definition
First degree murder convictions under enumerated felonies include
a. Rape
b. Robbery
c. Arson
d. Burglary |
|
|
Term
|
Definition
a. Deterrence
i. Deters prospective felons (general)
ii. cant deter individuals b/c no intent (no specific
Lousy Felon”
i. Don’t deserve a mens rea requirement in ct. |
|
|
Term
| b. Unlawful Involuntary Manslaughter |
|
Definition
| a. Unintentional homicide in the commission of a dangerous, unlawful (malum in se) act. If the unlawful act is malum prohibitum, the defendant generally is held not guilty of manslaughter unless the death is the foreseeable |
|
|
Term
|
Definition
the thing is done” (majority of states)
i. Homicide must occur during commission of the felony (usually between time when actor may be prosecuted for attempted felony and when temporary place of safety reached) |
|
|
Term
|
Definition
an independent felonious act is required
i. Policy: if not for this, every single homicide would become a felony murder
1. Assault: merged purpose (cause bodily harm)
2. Robbery: independent felonious purpose (to get money/goods) |
|
|
Term
| limitations of felony murder rule |
|
Definition
| 3. Limitations: felony must be inherently dangerous |
|
|
Term
|
Definition
| cant be held liable unless one who kills is felon/co-felon (most states) |
|
|
Term
| ii. Protected Persons Theory |
|
Definition
| felons liable only when innocent person is killed during felony (many less states |
|
|
Term
| iii. Proximate Cause Theory |
|
Definition
| all felons liable in all cases regardless of whom victims/shooters are |
|
|
Term
| g. Arguments for No Mens Rea Requirement for Felony Murder: |
|
Definition
i. Independent felony establishes the mens rea that would otherwise be required for murder
ii. Immoral people don’t deserve the mens rea requirement
iii. General deterrence from committing felonies
1. Felony murder rule benefits the state and the prosecution in that it can be hard to prove intent |
|
|
Term
1. FELONY MURDER
a. Common Law |
|
Definition
Any homicide committed while perpetrating or trying to perpetrate a felony was murder
b. Some jurisdictions limit this rule to certain types of felonies (rape, robbery, etc.)
c. Foreseeability doesn’t matter |
|
|
Term
| ii. What constitutes “immediate flight” is a question for the jury |
|
Definition
a. Whether the homicide and the felony occurred at the same location, or if not, the distance separating the locations
b. The interval of time between the felony and the homicide
c. Whether the culprit had possession of the fruits of the criminal activity
d. Whether the police were in close pursuit
e. Whether the criminal had reached a place of temporary safety |
|
|
