You are on page 1of 22

A crime is different from a tort.

A crime are not just wrongs done to

individual victims, but wrongs done to society as a whole. Everyone is
theoretically harmed when people breach codes of ethics and morality.

Crimes generally have 2 main components.

1. Bad act(s) actus reus. Generally having a thought that
you are wanting to commit the crime. Can include bad actions or
attendant circumstances
2. Bad intention mens rea. The intentions can be (1)
purposefully (2) knowingly (3) recklessly (4) negligently

Theories of Punishment
Incapacitation- usually accomplished through prison sentences
and/or death penalty. People who are likely to do the crime again in the
future, we want to keep them away from public.
Deterrence- fear is a great motivator. Not available on federal level.
Retribution-in order to balance a wrong that has been done to a
society or victim, must do a wrong against the perpetuator. Eye for an
Restoration- putting the victim in society back to the position they
were before the crime had been committed.
Rehabilitation- idea here I someone has committed a crime and we
want their punishment to not just punish, but hopefully do some good
in the sense that they get the skills and perspective to live a lawful life.
To the extent circumstance are in the picture. Linsday lohan discussion.
Not available on federal level

Week 1 reading notes:

Proof beyond a reasonable doubt
The due process clause of the us constition requires the presector to
persuade the factfinder beyond a reasonable doubt of every fact
necessary to constitute the crime charged
The reasonable doubt standard is a prime instrument for reducing the
risk of convictions resting on factual error. it is far worse to accuse an
innocent man than to let a guilty man go
Proof beyond a reasonable doubt requires that a jurors mind be in a
subjective state of near certitude of guilt
We presume people are inncent until proven guilty.

Owens v State
A circumstantial evidence alone is not to be sustained unless the
circumstances are inconsistent with an reasonable hypothesis of
- Christopher Columbus owens is appealing a case in which a
judge without a jury convicted him of driving while intoxicated,
and it is being appealed because there was noce evidence that
was legally sufficient in support such a finding. The case goes to
show 2 possible reasons why he would be passed out in the car
while drunk, he was either coming back from driving drunk
( which is illegal) or about to go ( which is not illegal since it was
a drive way and not a public highway) court takes several
matters in to consideration to see what the possible implications
were and how it would effect the 2 possible scenarios. With the
whole suspricious vehicle call it was implied he was driving
erratically, with him having empty cans in the car it implied he
was drinking while in the car since usually people dont put
empty bottles in their car from their house. Court affirmed the
lower court decision.

Queen v Dudley

Dudley and Stephens (defendants) were on the crew of an English

yacht, along with fellow seamen Brooks and Parker. Due to a storm, the
men were lost at sea in an open boat for approximately twenty-four
days. They had no water except for occasional rainwater, and little
food. After over a week without any food, Dudley and Stephens
approached Parker, who was sick and in a much weaker state, and slit
his throat. The three remaining men fed off Parkers body for four days
until a passing ship rescued them. Dudley and Parker were put on trial
in order to determine whether their act of killing Parker was murder.

People v superior court (du)

Soon Ja Du, her husband, and son operated a liquor store in Los
Angeles. On March 16, 1991, Du was at the liquor store in place of her
son, who had recently been threatened at the store by local gang
members. One customer, a 15-year-old girl named Latasha Harlins,
selected a bottle of orange juice in the back of the store. She placed
the bottle in her backpack and approached the counter, from where Du
had been observing Harlins. Believing that Harlins meant to pay for a
cheaper item and steal the orange juice, Du accused Harlins of
shoplifting. A fight ensued, during which Harlins hit Du twice in the eye.
Du attempted to throw a stool at Harlins but missed. After throwing the
stool, Harlins placed the orange juice on the counter and walked
towards the door. Meanwhile, Du grabbed a gun behind the counter
and shot Harlins in the back of the head, killing her. Du was
subsequently tried for voluntary manslaughter. At trial, Dus husband
testified that he had acquired the gun for self-protection but had never
taught Du how to use it. A ballistics expert revealed that, without the
Du familys knowledge, Dus gun had been modified in a way that
made the trigger much more sensitive and easier to set off than usual.
Du testified that she did not remember shooting the gun, and that the
killing was unintentional and in self-defense. The jury found Du guilty.
After trial, but before sentencing, a probation officer noted that Du was
unlikely to commit a crime again in the future and that she was not a
violent person.

United States v Gementera

Shawn Gementera (defendant) stole several pieces of mail from
various San Francisco, California mailboxes and was charged with mail
theft. After entering a guilty plea, the trial judge ordered a pre-
sentence report prepared on Gementeras background. Although
Gementera was only 24-years-old at the time of the mail theft charge,
he had a long criminal history. The district court, relying on the United
States Sentencing Guidelines, sentenced Gementera to two months
incarceration and three years of supervised probation. Gementera was
also sentenced to perform 100 hours of community service standing
outside of a post office building wearing a sandwich board sign that
said, I stole mail. This is my punishment. Gementera filed a motion to
remove the sandwich board portion of his sentence. After the
prosecution and defense counsel submitted alternative sentencing
recommendations, the district judge modified the sentence. After
Gementera served his two months of incarceration, he was required
while on supervised probation, to (1) observe postal customers visiting
the lost or missing mail window at a post office facility, (2) write
letters of apology to the known victims of his mail theft crime, (3)
deliver several lectures at a local school, and (4) stand outside a postal
facility for one, eight-hour day wearing the sandwich board with the
same language mentioned above. Gementera appealed, arguing the
district judges sentence violated the Sentencing Reform Act, 18 U.S.C.
Conditions of supervised release, including those that cause shame or
embarrassment, imposed upon offenders by a district court do not
violate the Sentencing Reform Act if they are reasonably related to the
statutory purposes of deterrence, protection of the public, and the
legitimate purpose of rehabilitation.

Civil: +50% to prove guilty

Criminal: beyond a reasonable doubt 98%

C I T Y O F C H I C A G O V. M O R A L E S
In 1992, the Chicago City Council enacted the Gang Congregation
Ordinance which prohibited criminal street gang members from
loitering with one another in any public place. The ordinance was
violated if (1) a police officer reasonably believed that at least one of
the two or more persons present in a public place was a criminal
street gang member, (2) the persons were loitering, defined as
remaining in any one place with no apparent purpose, (3) the officer
ordered all of the person to disperse from the area, and (4) any
person disobeyed the officers order. Morales (defendant) and others
were accused of violating the law, but the charges were dismissed by
the trial court that held the law to be unconstitutionally vague. In a
consolidated appeal from several of those holdings, the Illinois
Supreme Court agreed with the trial courts and affirmed. The U.S.
Supreme Court granted certiorari to review whether the states
supreme court correctly held the ordinance violated the Due Process
Clause of the Fourteenth Amendment.

An ordinance violates the Due Process Clause of the Fourteenth
Amendment if it is so vague that it fails to provide sufficient notice to
citizens regarding the type of conduct prohibited and fails to provide
adequate guidelines for law enforcement officers.

Does an ordinance violate the Due Process Clause of the Fourteenth
Amendment if it is so vague that it fails to provide sufficient notice to
citizens regarding the type of conduct prohibited and fails to provide
adequate guidelines for law enforcement officers?
Yes. The intent of the ordinance was to stop loitering gang members
from intimidating ordinary residents leaving their homes. A law may be
unconstitutionally vague for two reasons. First, it may fail to provide
the kind of notice that will allow an ordinary person to understand what
conduct is prohibited. Second, it may authorize arbitrary enforcement.
A law fails to meet the Due Process requirements of the Fourteenth
Amendment if it is so vague that it leaves the public uncertain as to
the conduct it prohibits. Giaccio v. Pennsylvania, 382 U.S. 399, 402-03
(1966). The term loiter may have a common meaning, but the
definition of the term in the ordinanceto remain in any one place with
no apparent purposedid not. It is hard to know whether any
particular person standing in a public place has an apparent purpose.
The loitering is the conduct the ordinance is designed to prevent. If the
loitering is innocent in nature, the dispersal order is an unjustified
impairment of liberty. Moreover, the terms of the dispersal order are
vague. It provides that the officer shall order all such persons to
disperse and remove themselves from the area. The lack of clarity in
how far persons must move and how quickly must they disperse
further supports the ordinances vagueness. The ordinance contains no
standard of conduct for a citizen to conform his or her actions to.
Finally, the ordinance does not contain adequate guidelines for law
enforcement officers. In any public place persons who stand or sit in
the company of a gang member may be ordered to disperse unless
their purpose is apparent. If the ordinance was narrowed to include
only loitering with an apparent criminal or harmful purpose or effect,
the police may then have sufficient limitation on their authority to
disperse such loitering persons. But the ordinance does not. The
ordinance provides too little notice to citizens and affords too much
discretion to police officers. The holding of the Illinois Supreme Court is
A criminal law must not permit policemen, prosecutors, and juries to
conduct a standardless sweepto pursue their personal
predilections. The ordinance is unconstitutionally vague because it
lacks sufficient standards to guide law enforcement officers how to
judge whether an individual has an apparent purpose. The ordinance
simple allows police officers to choose which purposes are permissible.
A reasonable alternative would be focusing on acts committed by
individuals that posed a harmful purpose. Further, the term loiter
could have been more narrowly written to mean to remain in any one
place with no apparent purpose other than to establish control over
identifiable areas, to intimidate others from entering those areas, or to
conceal illegal activities.

S U P E R I O R C O U RT O F P E N N S Y LVA N I A 1 1 0 A. 2 D 7 8 8 ( 1 9 5 5 )
Michael Mochan (defendant) was charged with making numerous
telephone calls to the home of Louise Zivkovich at all times of day and
night where he referred to her in a lewd, immoral and lascivious
manner and used other profane language to incite her to commit
adultery to the great damage, injury and oppression of Zivkovich.
Mochan was tried before a judge without a jury and convicted of a
misdemeanor. Mochan appealed, arguing that the offense he was
charged with did not constitute a misdemeanor at common law.

Any unlawful act which directly injures or tends to injure the public
morals or health of the community is indictable.

Is any unlawful act which directly injures or tends to injure the public
morals or health of the community indictable?
H O L D I N G A N D R E A S O N I N G ( H I RT, J . )
Yes. Although the indictment charging Mochan with committing
unlawful acts is based in the common law and not included in any
statutory text, Commonwealth v. Miller, 94 Pa. Super. 499, 507 (1928),
held that the common law is sufficiently broad to punish as a
misdemeanorany act which directly injures or tends to injure the
public to such an extent as to require the state to interfere and punish
the wrongdoer, as in the case of acts which injuriously affect public
morality. Mochans criminal intent was shown by his overt acts
beyond the mere verbal solicitation of adultery to Zivkovich. Mochans
language and statements injuriously affected public morality because
the operator or anyone else on Mochans four-party telephone line
could have heard what he was saying. Undoubtedly, at least two
individuals at Zivkovichs house heard the conversation. The charges in
Mochans indictments identify the offense as a common law
misdemeanor and the testimony established his guilt. The judgment of
conviction is affirmed.


Shortly after obtaining a divorce from his wife, Keeler (defendant) intercepted
her on a mountain road, observed that she was visibly pregnant by another
man, and shoved his knee into her abdomen and struck her. At the time of the
incident, fetal movements had been detected by a physician and by Keelers
ex-wife. Thereafter, the viable fetus was delivered stillborn, its head
fractured. Keeler was charged with murder. Keelers motion to set aside the
information for lack of probable cause was denied and he appealed to the
California Supreme Court seeking a writ of prohibition on the ground that his
actions did not constitute an offense under state law.

A viable fetus is not a human being under the law to which one may be
charged with murder.

Is a viable fetus a human being under the law to which one may be charged
with murder?


No. Penal Code 187 provides that murder is the unlawful killing of a human
being, with malice aforethought. If the fetus which Keeler is charged with
killing is not deemed a human being under the statute, he cannot be charged
with murder. In enacting the law in 1872, the state legislature intended that
the term human being should have the common law meaning of a person who
had been born alive and not be applied to unborn fetuses. The prosecution
argues, however, that the significant advancement in medical science since
1872 warrants a re-thinking of the common law requirement of a live birth and
that a viable fetus at 28 weeks or more has an excellent chance of survival.
There are two insurmountable hurdles to such an argument. First, there are no
common law crimes in California. Thus, unless proscribed by the legislature,
there is no criminal sanction against one who murders a fetus. Second, even if
the Court were to expand the scope of murder to include an unborn fetus, the
holding would only apply to those charged in the future as required under Due
Process principles. When a new penal statute is applied retrospectively to
make an act punishable which was not criminal at the time the defendant
committed it violates the notice requirement of due process. Thus, Keeler
would not be able to benefit from any such holding anyway. The information
charging Keeler with murder of the unborn fetus is dismissed.
The majoritys holding defies logic and common sense. The legislature defined
murder as the unlawful killing of a human being. Those terms are not frozen
in place as of any particular time, but must be fairly and reasonably
interpreted by the court. Whether a homicide occurred in this case should be
determined by medical testimony regarding the viability and ability of the fetus
to survive prior to Keelers act. The majority suggests that to do so would
create a new offense. However, contrary to the majoritys suggestion, the
legislature has not defined the crime of murder in California to apply only to
the unlawful and malicious killing of one who has been born alive. Instead,
the legislature used the term human being and it is left to the courts to
determine what constitutes a human being. Additionally, the majority states
that any alternative holding would violate due process, but due process only
precludes prosecution under a new statute insufficiently explicit regarding the
specific conduct prohibited or under a preexisting statute by means of an
unforeseeable judicial enlargement thereof.

S U P R E M E C O U RT O F N O RT H C A R O L I N A 2 4 4 S . E . 2 D 3 8 6
North Carolina established a Peeping Tom statute, G.S. 14-202, that
proscribed peeping into a females room with the intent to invade
privacy. Respondent Banks (defendant) challenged this law on the
grounds that it was unconstitutionally vague, since different people
would have to speculate as to its meaning and arrive at different
interpretations. Banks also argued the law was unconstitutionally
overbroad because it criminalized actions beyond the scope of what
the legislature meant to criminalize.

A criminal statute is not void for vagueness if it gives fair notice of the
criminalized conduct and provides sufficient guidance to judges and
defending lawyers, and is not void for overbreadth if there is an
available interpretation that does not inadvertently criminalize
permissible actions.

Is a Peeping Tom statute that criminalizes the secret peeping into a
females room with the intent to invade privacy void for vagueness or
No. G.S. 14-202 is neither void for vagueness nor overbreadth. As long
as a criminal statute gives fair notice of the specific conduct that the
statute criminalizes and provides a guiding standard for the
interpretation and application of that crime by judges and defending
attorneys, it is not void for vagueness. Statutes are not required to be
as specific as possible. It is only necessary that statutes are sufficiently
detailed so that there is little uncertainty as to what conduct is
criminalized. In Kahalley v. State, 48 So. 2d 794 (1950), the Alabama
Supreme Court invalidated a Peeping Tom statute because it did not
require the peeping to be done in secret. This omission made it difficult
to determine what type of conduct the statute prohibited. However,
G.S. 14-202 explicitly refers to those who peep secretly. This court
previously interpreted the term secretly in State v. Banks (1965), and
said it clearly refers to the act of spying on someone with the wrongful
intent to invade privacy. The inclusion of the term secretly
adequately notifies the public as to what type of conduct the statute
prohibits, and gives sufficient guidance to a judge or defending lawyer
to determine whether the defendant has violated the statute. It is
therefore not void for vagueness. The statute is not void for
overbreadth, as well. As long as the statute does not criminalize acts
that the legislature did not intend to criminalize, the statute is not
overbroad. Therefore, if there is an interpretation of the statute that
does not inadvertently criminalize permissible conduct, the statute is
not void for overbreadth. In Lemon v. State (1975), the Supreme Court
of Georgia said its Peeping Tom statute was not overbroad because the
requirement of a wrongful intent narrows the applicability of the law. It
eliminates the possibility that the law might punish someone who is
lawfully in a location where he accidentally observes a woman in her
room. G.S. 14-202 similarly avoids such a possibility because it
includes a requirement of wrongful intent. This statute is therefore not
overbroad, and its constitutionality is upheld.

Principle of legality- criminal penalties can only be imposed with fair

notice that the conduct is forbidden.
Void for Vagueness
Person of ordinary intelligence isnt given fair notice that the
conduct is Forbidden by statute.
Encourages erratic and arbitrary arrests and/or convictions.
They can discourage activity that we as a society find valuable.

Ex Post Facto laws prohibited in Federal and State

EPE Law operates retroactively to : (1) make an act criminal that was
not criminal when it was commited. (2) aggravates a crime or
increases the punishment for it. (3) changes the rules of evidence to
the detriment of defense as a class OR (4) alters the law of criminal
procedure to deprive defendants of a substantive right.

No bills of attainder- laws that punishes or denies privilege without a

judicial trial.

Statutory interpretation:
Plain meaning rule- when the language of the law is plan and the
meaning is clear, court must follow it even if court feels the outcome is
- Exceptions:
o Law leads to injustice, oppression, or an absurd outcome.
Ambiguous statute- courts use rule of lenity- ambiguous statutes are
strictly construed in favor of defendant.

Prohibits criminal street gang members

From loitering with one another or with other persons in any public
Loitering: remaining in any one place with no apparent purpose

Next week

actus reus- (guilty act)- physical act (or omission) by the defendant
mens rea- (guilty mind/intention)- the state of mind ( or intent) of the
defendant at the time of her act
concurrence- the physical act and the sate of mind existed at the
same time
harmful result & causation- a harmful result that is caused (both
actually & proximately) by the defendants act

(for some crimes, also need attendant circumstances)

Physical Act (bodily movement):

Act must be voluntary- conscious exercise of the will

Not voluntary- reflexive or compulsive acts- acts performed while

asleep or unconscious. However, once the D learns that s(she might
fall asleep/become unconscious and engage in dangerous behavior,
that behavior may be considered voluntary.

Conduct that is not the product of the actors determination.

Omissions can count as acts ( i.e., they can satisfy the actus reus
elements of crimes) under certain circumstances.
Duty to act can be created by- statute, relationship (parent/child,
spouse/spouse), contract, ( bodyguard, lifeguard, nurse), creation of
peril by defendant

- Knowledge of the facts that gives rise to the duty is required,

- Reasonably possible to perform the act.

ILS Motion Brief/Motion Memo

Get to the Point and Be Brief
Lead with the strongest point

Motion Memo Sections:

Cover pageintroduction/summary/preliminary statementstatement

of the case/statement of facts/facts sectionargumentconclusion

Cover page
- see the local rules
- caption-
o identifies the parties ( including names, and procedural
designations (e.g., plaintiff / defendant, appellant/appellee)
- title ( identifies te memo and its purpose, e.g., memorandum in
opposition to defendants motion for directed verdict)
- set up the procedural posture of the case
o nature or litigation (e.g., criminal prosecution for DUI)
o Identifies the parties
o Describe the motion before the court and the relief being
- Can include a very brief/conscise summary of writers theory of
the motion ( example this motion seeks dismissal , because the
defendants action did not qualify as trespass to real property
under Calfornia common law. This memorandum explains that
the plantiff has failed to allege that the defendant physically
invaded the plaintiffs property, which is an essential element
of trespass.
- similar to the statement of the facts in an office memo
- corresponds to the discussion section of a memo
o lays out the rules
o analyzes the facts under that rules
- reminds the judge what outcome you want, and summarizes
your legal theory
- The defendant walked down a public sidewalk that bordered
the plaintiffs property. Although he did yell at the plaintiff who
was in her front yard, he never physically invaded her property.
Sound have have never been considered physical, and physical
invasion is required for trespassing. This court should dismiss
plaintts case for faulture to state a claim upson which relief can
be granted.

Start with Research

Then write Facts section
Then Write argument <-> Conclusion/Intro

Crimes are defined generally with:

Actus reus-bad act-act (must be voluntary)
Conduct- physical act of the world
Circumstance- aka attendance circumstances facts about the world
Consequence- result

Mens rea-guilty mind-stand of mind

It is to distinguish between accidental acts and acts made with a guilty
MPC-levels of culpability

Purposely- actors conscious object is to engage in certain

conduct or to cause a certain result. Highest standard.
Knowingly- actor is aware that his conduct is of a certain
nature, or that certain circumstances exist.
awareness satisfied when actor is aware of a high
probability that circumstances exist and deliberately
avoids learning the truth
Knowing with resect to conduct is satisfied when the
actor is aware that the conduct will necessarily or
very likely cause the result.
Recklessly*- if there is no mens rea defined, it will by
default be recklessly
actor acts recklessly when she consciously disregards
a substantial and unjustifiable risk that
circumstances exist or a certain result will follow.
The risk must be a gross deviation from the standard
of care of a reasonable person in the same situation.
Recklessness is about conscious risk creation.
Awareness of risk
Negligently- actor fails to be aware of a substantial and
unjustifiable risk and such failure is a substantial deviation
from the standard of care of a reasonable person.
This is not about TARP ( the average
reasonable person) this is about a very
unreasonable risk.
No awareness of the riskobjective standard.

BlueBook Exc
Pg 262 table 1, pg 430 for abbreviations
Rapagnani v. Judas Co., 1999 PA Super 203.

Cite to a PA superior Court case that hasnt yet been published in the
atlantic reporter:

Com. v. Graham, 2013 PA Super 306

If has been published:

Com. v. Brown, 23 A.3d 544 (Pa. Super. Ct. 2011)

If want to cite to a pa supreme court case:

Atlantic reporter

Com. v Miller, 819 A.2d 504 (Pa. 2002)

Supreme Court of Pennsylvania.December 28, 2009 605 Pa. 1987 A.2d 638

Commonwealth v. Anderson, 538 Pa. 574 (Pa. 1994)

Felony- crime punishable by death, imprisonment >1 year

Misdemeanor- crime punishable by < 1 year imprisonment

A violation does not constitute a crime and conviction of a violation

shall not give rise to any disability or legal disadvantage based on
conviction of a criminal offense.

A violation does not constitute a crime and conviction of a ciolation

shall not give rise to any disability r legal disadvantaged based on
conviction of a criminal offense.

Strict liability offense are those that dont require awareness of all
factors that constitute the crime.
Most strict liability offenses= public health or public safety is
imporicated (regulalatory or
Mala in se- crimes that are in wrongs in themselves ( inherently evil)
Mala prohibirum- prohibited by legislature.

mistake of fact
this defense is not relevant to elements of a crime that have no
mens rea requirement.

Ignoranace or mistake of fact is relevant to guilt when it shows that the

D didnt have the mens rea required for a crime.
General intent- awareness ( or in the cae of negligence, not being
aware whe one should be) of the factors that constitute the crime

Specific intent- when a crime requires both an act, and doing that act
with a specific purpose, intent or object.
Example: E.G., forgery ( intent to defraud) BURGLARY
Exceptions: Murder or Arson (malice, not specific intent)

Receipt of stolen property

(1)Receiving possession and control
(2)Of stolen personal property
(3)Known to have been obtained in a manner constituting a criminal
(4)By another person
(5)With the intent to permanently deprive the owner of his interest
in he property

(2)and carrying away
(3)tangible personal property
(4)of another
(5)by trespass
(6)with the intent to permanently ( and for an unreasonable amount
of time) deprive the person of her interest in the property.

People v Navarro

Trespassory- (1) taking and carrying away (2) of property of another (2) with the
intent to steal the property.

If it comes down to a specific intent element the reasonability of the mistake

doesnt matter.

Generally: ignorance of the law is no defense but there are exceptions.

(1)Reasonably rely on a statute or judicial decision it is a valid defense. Even if

the statute/judicial decision is later declared unconstitutional or the judicial
decision is overruled.

(2)When you rely on an official interpretation of the law (or official advice)
valid defnense under the MPC, so long as that statement about the law is obtained
from some onr with responsibility for the interpretation, administration, or
enforcement of the law.

N dense under common law ( unless is was erroneous official statement of the

(3) if statute that makes the conduct illegal was not published or reasonable
available prior to the conduct valid defense.

Murder- unlawful killing of another human being with malice aforethought

Drug possession- unlawful to knowingly or intentionally possess controlled


Actual cause- but for test

Simultaneous acts- simulataneous acts by two or more people may be considered

independently sufficient causes of a single result.

Hastening the inevitable result- an act that hastens the inevitable result is
nevertheless a legal (actual cause) of the result.
Proximate cause- D is responsible for all results that occur as a natural and
probably consequence of the conduct, even if she didnt anticipate the precise
manner in which they would occur.

Causation does not involve any mental state, does not require mens rea.

Intervening Acts- When do they make the cause not proximate?

When the intervening act is a mere coincidence or is outside the

foreseeable sphere of risk

Acts by a third party- when acts are unforeseeable, proximate cause is

severed (i.e., no proximate cause)

Acts of nature- if the acts is a mere coincidence, proximate cause is


Acts by the victim- when acts are unforeseeable, proximate cause is


How to approach mistake of fast question

1. Ask if the law is (a) specific intent, (2) general intent, or (3) strict liability

If specific intent, ask if the mistake is related to the specific intent element
of the offense
If yes: if mistake negates the specific intent valid defense.

If no: Move on to (b) do the general intent analysis.

If its a general intent law: ask if the mistake was reasonable. If yes ask if
the mistake negates the mens rea for an element. If it does valid
defense. If it does not not a valid defense.

If its a strict liability law no defense because no required mens rea

Intentional Killings
Degrees of Murder

State v Guthrie

Defendant- Dale Edward Guthrie

Guthrie lost his temper when his co-worker Farley snapped a dishtowel and him in
jest and then the D lost his cool and pulled out a knife and stabbed Farley in the

Guthrie has a lot of psychiatric problems, he claims that right before he stabbed
the guy he had a panic attack.

It is only necessary that such intention should have come into existence for the
first time at the time of such killing or at any time previously.

in order to constitute a premeditate murder an intent to kill need exist only for
an instant.

Midgett v State.

Issue- whether the states evidence was sufficient to sustain the conviction.

Unless our law is changed to permit conviction of first degree murder for
something like child abuse or torture resulting in death, our duty is to give those
accused of first degree murder the benefit of the requirement that they shown by
substantial evidence to have premeditated and deliberated the killing no matter
how heinous the facts may otherwise be.
The point of this opinion is to note that there was no evidence of premediation or
deliberation which are required element sof the crime of first degree murder.

State v Forrest

People v Rideout

Intervening and superseding causes. Proximate Cause.

Safety Doctrine

to cut off proximate cause- reasonable and

Finding proximate cause under the MPS

1. was the actual result within the purpose or contemplation of the actor?

a. Yesproximate cause.

b. NoDid the actual result involve the same kind of injury or harm as
designed by the actor?

i. If nonot proximate cause

ii. If Yeswas the actual result too remote or accidental in its

occurance to have a just bearing on the actors liability

1. If noproximate cause

2. If yesno proximate cause

Section 5.1.4, 5.1.5 6.3- Beazley

Applying the Law- Coughlin

Midterm Exam- Tuesday Feb 25 in class at 9 am sharp.

In class oral argument- Friday March 14

Graded oral argument- Saturday April 12

Midterm- will deal with some kind of unlawful killing.

Deliberate= D made to kill in a cool and dispassionate manner

Premeditated= D actually reflected on the idea of killing

Model Penal Code 210.1 Criminal Homicide

Purpose;y, knowingly, recklessly, or negligently causes the death of another human


Criminal homicide is murder, manslaughter or negligent homicide

Tuesday 265, 308-338

Friday 338-355

293-298 Point Headings

9.1.1 page 169/169 and 389-- Introduction

Point Headings


(1) conclusion that you want the court to accept OR

(2) An action that you want the court to take


The reason that the court should take that action or agree with that

There is insufficient evidence for standing to be convicted of third degree

murder because the element of malice is no met

Inform the court of the issue and precise procedural step youre asking it to take.

Clarify/narrow the issue before the court

ID facts needed for context

Legal Grounds- When viewing the evidence in the light for beneficial to the
commonwealth, blah blah blah for the jury to grant/deny motion to aquit.

Thomas Shockley is on trial for conspiracy for conspiracy for agg assault and third
degree murder.

Adequete provation-

Defendant was in fact provoked, and the provocation must have been enough to
arouse sudden and intense passion in the mind of an ordinary person to cause her
to lose self-control

D did in fact not cool off between the provocation and the killing and there was
not sufficient time to cool off.

How to analyze- first go through elements of Malice, if there is not then it can not
be murder, so that tells you it is either voluntary or involuntary manslaughter. If
you look at the face pattern, and any of the elements of malice are there, you
have either involuntary manslaughter or nothing. Then see if someone acted with
crim negligence or if they were somehow doing an unlawful act. If acting lawfully,
did you act without due caution? If unlawfully unlawfully act

If any of the innumerated felonies, then its a first degree murder. If no

inumerated but ineadently dangerous to human life second degree.

If not nherently dangerous or inherently dangerous voluntary manslaughter. Is

there adequate provocation? You can have an intent to kill, but if you have
adequate provation, then you dont have malice and thats how we use it to get
out of murder.
If any malice elemtents are met, no provation, no felonies was it willful
deliberate or premeditated?

If felony is not inherently dangerous, not innumerated felony, but willful

deliberate premediated first degree

People v Fuller- Res gestay? the cut off point is when the felony reaches a place
of temporary safety in order to cut off felony murder.

Limitations on liability for felony murder

( when, even though a death occurs in the commission of a felony, you do NOT use
the felony-murer rules/test)

Termination of the felony

- Felony has reached a place of ( at least) temporary safety

- Death of a co-felon- Redline rule

- Killing is caused by someone other than D or accomplice

o [CA] Proximate-cause theory- felons are liable for the death of

innocent victims by even non- accomplices

o agency-theory- no felony murder liability- death must have been

caused by a felone or his accomplice.

- Death was the foreseeable result of commission of the felony

- Merger- if felony that has been commited, intended is one assaulted by its
nature, it merges into its subsequent killing.

Proximate Causation
Involuntary manslaughter exists when the death of a human being occurs during
the commission of a criminally negligent or unlawful act.
Felony murder occurs when in the commission of an inherently dangerous felony
and as a result of that felony some one is killed. The murder must occur during the
commission of the crime meaning that the crime ends when the persons have
reached a place of safety. Also if the felony is a predicate of the murder; it merges
with the felony and cannot apply to felony murder. Generally it doesn't matter
whether the death was intended so long as it happened in furtherance of the

Involuntary manslaughter is the unintentional killing of other due to criminal

negligence, or when committing a non-negligent but unlawful act, or if that the
conduct was inherently dangerous. Criminal negligence is conduct that is wanton
and reckless departure from the conduct of a reasonably careful and prudent

Mens Rea--Here mens rea will be _____ ( look to see if there is a deadly weapon,
threat, or other facts that show a mental state for an intent to kill)
Actus Reus must include at least one voluntary act, here ________.