Understanding Criminal Law Notes Actus Reus What is actus reus?

o Performance of a voluntary act that causes social harm. What is the general rule? o A person is not guilty of a crime unless her conduct includes a voluntary act. The Act o There can be bodily movement, but no act M pushing L into C. o Act does not apply to the results of the movement. The results constitute the social harm aspect of actus reus. o The Act itself must be voluntarily performed. An involuntary act is not an act at all, it is a physical event. Voluntary o Broad Meaning (Context of Defenses) Whether or not the individual was acting out of her own free will o Narrow Meaning (Context of Actus Reus) Movement of the body which follows our will, our choice, our resolve, etc. Involuntary: reflex, spasms, seizure, movements while unconscious or asleep. o What is the underlying concept? Criminal law responsibility should only attach to those who are accountable for their actions in a very personal way. Voluntary act involves the use of the human mind; involuntary only involves the use of the brain, without the mind. Rationale behind voluntary act requirement o Belief that criminal punishment (b/c it is so harsh) should only be imposed on those who deserve it. No voluntary actno basis for social censure. Burden of Proof o Falls on the defense to prove beyond a reasonable doubt that the act was voluntary. Issue of Time-Framing o Courts can choose between narrow and broad time-frames in identifying the conduct that must include a voluntary act. o The issue of time framing can be avoided if courts focus on the relevant act which caused the social harm. o People v. Decina Narrow Time Frame Ds conduct did not include a voluntary act. Broad Time Frame Ds conduct did include a voluntary act. Court chose to focus on the broad time frame by including the act of driving. o Martin v. State Court chose to apply a narrow time frame that did not include getting drunk in the first place.

Omissions o General Rule Subject to limited exceptions, a persona has no criminal law duty to act to prevent harm to another, even if the person imperiled may lose her life in the absence of assistance. o Criticisms? Morally repugnant. No difference between closing a door to trap someone to die, and not opening a door to help someone escape. Both result in death. Indifference of the rule may breed contempt for the criminal justice system. o Defense? Allowing prosecution would create a huge backlog of cases. Where do you draw the line? Difficult to prove mens rea (guilty mind), what if it was an honest mistake? Could lead to incorrect convictions. People fearing criminal prosecution for failing to help could try to do too much and only worsen the situation. Exceptions to the No-Liability Rule o Commission by Omission A defendants omission of a duty to act, assuming that she was physically able to perform the act, serves a legal substitute for a voluntary act. o When is there a duty to act? Status Relationship Dependence of one party on the other, or on their interdependence o Parent-Child; Spouses; Master-Servant Contractual Implied or express contract between the parties Voluntary Assistance One who voluntarily commences assistance to another in jeapordy has a duty to continue to provide aid. Bad Samaritan Laws o These statues make it an offense for a person not to come to the aid of a stranger in paeril in specified circumstances.

Mens Rea General Principle o An act does not make a person guilty unless their mind is guilty. Broad Meaning o General immorality of the motive. o Not necessary that the actor commits offense with any specific frame of mind. Sufficient that actor committed the act in a manner that demonstrates immorality Narrow Meaning o Particular mental state provided for in the definition of an offense. Example: Murder: intentional killing of a human by another human.

Mens rea provided for in the definition of this offense is intentional. o The distinction between the two conceptions can work for either the benefit or detriment of a person charged with crime. Rationale o Utilitarian Arguments Punishment of someone who lacks a culpable state of mind will be pointless b/c the point of punishment is to deter. How can one be deterred if he does not know the punishment that lies in store? BUT, it still could serve as a warning. Incidental harm-doer could still need to be incapacitated for safety of others. o Retributive Arguments Mens rea has its roots far deeper in retributive than utilitarian soil. The stigma that we associate with crime should not apply to one who has acted without a culpable state of mind Frequently Used Mens Rea Terms o Intentionally Person intentionally causes moral harm if It is his desire Or he acts with knowledge that the harm will certainly occur as a result of his conduct. It is important to distinguish between intending the conduct and intending the result. Transferred Intent We attribute liability to a defendant who intending to kill one person accidentally kills another person instead. o The law transfers the actors state of mind regarding the intended victim to the unintended one. Reasons we have transferred intent o Necessity Criminal should not get away with crime just because he didnt harm who he intended to harm o Proportionality The same harm is done to society regardless of who was hurt. This doctrine can be misleading if courts thoughtlessly transfer intent from one thing to another. o i.e. Aiming to kill a dog but accidentally killing a human o If A attempts to kill B, does so, but in the process also kills C. Should A be charged with 2 counts of murder? Oblique Intent o Defendant didnt really intend to the result, but knew that if he acted, the result was practically certain to happen if he achieved his actual goal.

(When you intend to shoot someone, but hope it wont kill them). o Treated the same, b/c person is still morally blameworthy. General v. Specific Intent o General: Intend to do a crime o Specific: Intend to bring about a result. Transferred intent is limited to results that create the same type of harm. A person who intends to do harm is clearly a proper subject for punishment. Knowingly or With Knowledge Person has knowledge of a material fact if He is aware of the fact Correctly believes that the fact exists. Shows willful blindness or deliberate ignorance o Controversial b/c it does not involve taking any active steps. Defendant need not intend the result; she need only know that the result is certain result. Recklessness Conscious decision to ignore a risk, of which the defendant is aware, that a bad result will occur. Knows the injury is being risked, but proceeds anyway. Only applies if the social good does not outweigh the possible harm. Recklessness requires that the defendant recognize that there is a particular risk and subjectively choose to disregard that risk. Negligence Defendant has not subjectively foreseen even the remotest possibility that harm may occur. Statutory Interpretation General principle that statutes ambiguities should be settled in favor of the defendant. Thus, if a legislature enacts a statute that incorporates a mens rea word, there is a strong argument that the mens rea word applied to every material element of the crime. Starting place for interpretation of legislative intent. The legislative intent to do away with mens rea requirement must be patently clear. Element analysis (Applied in Common Law) Application of statutory mens rea word to every significant part of the statute. o anyone who knowingly ships such a film involving the use of minor A defendant who knows that he is shipping a film, and even knows that what he is shipping is a sexually explicit film is not guilty unless he also knows that it involves the use of a minor. MPC distinguishes between elements and material elements.

o Mens rea requirements only apply to material elements. MPC and Statutory Interpretation Elements and Material Elements Elements: terms unconnected with the harm or evil sought to be prevented (venue, jurisdiction). Material Elements: terms connected with the harm or evil sought to be prevented by the statute. Ex: Whoever kills a bald eagle commits a crime. o Material Elements: Bald Eagle; Killing o Elements: How they were killed, etc. Kinds of Material Elements Conduct Attendant Circumstance Result o Ex: Anyone who purposely destroys book commits a crime. Conduct and Result: Destroy Attendant Circumstance: Attendant Circumstance (and material element.) MPC and Levels of Culpability Purposely Equivalent of intentionally in common law. Defendant aware or hopes or believes an attendant circumstance is true and that he entertains a conscious object to achieve the proscribed result. Knowingly Defendant knows the result is certain to occur should continue his action. Recklessly Defendant actually foresees that a harm may occur. o Risk that the defendant foresees is substantial and unjustifiable. Negligence Defendants actions constitute a gross departure from the standard of ordinary care. MPC 2.02 (3) If there is no mens rea stated in the statute, the element is proved if a person acts purposely, knowingly, or recklessly.

Homocide Premeditation and Deliberation Carroll and Guthrie cases exemplify the split in American jurisdictions regarding premeditation Proof of Premeditation o In the absence of statements which can prove premeditation, a jury must look at the circumstances in which the killing occurred to determine if it is 1st or 2nd degree. o 3 Categories of Evidence Regarding Premeditation Defendants behavior prior to the killing

Defendants prior relationship with the victim Evidence regarding nature or manner of the killing which can indicate a preconceived design. Should premeditation be necessary for 1st degree murder. o Anderson case (man kills 10 yr old girl out of nowhere) leads us to doubt whether an impassioned decision to kill is necessary less culpable than a dispassionate one. o The MPC has rejected premeditation and deliberation as the basis for identifying 1st degree murder The suddenness of a killing may only reveal callousness and depravity so extreme that no hesitation is required. It could just be more of an indicator of how much MORE morally blameworthy the killer is rather than how much LESS.

Provocation Girouard and Maher cases represent the contrasting approaches to provocation o Conventional common law position remains that only a few particular circumstances (e.g., battery, sudden mutual combat) can serve as adequate provocation. Rationale of Provocation Defense o Partial Excuse Exemplified in the Maher Case The more ground there is for attributing the intensity of the actors passions and his lack of self-control during the act to the extraordinary character situation in which he was placed rather than the extraordinary deficiency of his own character. o Partial Justification The complicity of the victim should not be ignored, because his conduct has a strong bearing on the courts judgment of the reasonableness of the accuseds failure to control himself. You could thus argue that there is less social harm done in victims death because the victim acted immorally. o Critics say that this moral conduct did not endanger anyone so it does not lessen the social harm. Should provocation be abolished? o Proponents of Abolishment Reasonable people do not kill no matter how much they are provoked. You still have the ability to control any desires. Anger cannot afford any ground for mitigating he gravity of a violent action. o Critics of Abolishment Killing in anger is ethically less wicked and deserving of lesser punishment. Distinction in moral blameworthiness between the two crimes. Sexual Infidelity as Provocation o Still depends on the circumstances and how the spouse being cheated on finds out. o What if a couple has lived together for years but are not legally married? Homosexual advances as provocative acts

o Why should such nonviolent proposals be sufficient provocation? o Is this a reflection of homophobia in society? Cooling Time o Common law view is that too long a lapse between the provocation and the act will render the provocation inadequate. Special Cases o When the defendant kills someone other than her provoker. o When defendant accidentally kills an innocent bystander. o When the defendant elicits the provocation himself.