Criminal Law Outline

Saturday, February 26, 2011 7:50 PM

I. Crime and Criminal a. Definition of Crime - A collection or body of binding rules that prohibit conduct that has been deemed to be harmful or otherwise undesirable and thus delineates what conduct is punishable by the authority who governs by said rules. b. Substantive v. Procedural -

c. Criminal v. Civil Law i. Criminal Law deals with more serious wrongs; 1) However, we can certainly find examples of prohibited conduct in criminal aw (jaywalking; traffic violations) that are far less serious (and harmful) than some instances of prohibited conduct in civil law (breach of contract causing business to fold; negligent auto design leading to consumer deaths) ii. Differences: 1) Who brings the Action a) Criminal - government (prosecution) brings the suit b) Civil - a private party (plaintiff) brings the suit. 2) Punishment a) Criminal - Punishments include fines, incarceration, and in some cases execution (also, unusual - public shaming) i) Misdemeanor - year or less max sentence ii) Felony - greater than a year (varies by jurisdiction) b) Civil - Punitive damages (financial penalty) may be awarded in cases of severe civil wrongdoing (such as in case of malicious intent) 3) Burden of Proof - ???? a) Criminal - Burden of proof is always on prosecution (unless prima facie case is made and defendant wants to raise an affirmative defense) b) Civil - Burden is on plaintiff, until prima facie case is made, then burden shifts to defendant 4) Standard of Proof a) Criminal - Defendant's guilt must be proven beyond a reasonable doubt" i) Practical certainty; no reasonable person would doubt defendant's guilt
Criminal Law Page 1

defendant's guilt b) Civil - If preponderance of evidence favors plaintiff, defendant is liable i) More than 50% probability (much easier standard to satisfy) iii. When the fact finder determines that a person is guilty of an offense, the resulting conviction is an expression of the community's moral outrage, directed at the criminal actor, for her act. 1) Whereas in civil law, we talk about liability, in criminal law we think about guilt. II. Presumption of Innocence a. A principle that requires the government to prove the guilt of a criminal defendant and relieves the defendant of any burden to prove his or her innocence. b. Due Process Clause of US Constitution i. 5th(applies to Fed.) and 14th(applies to States) Amendment ii. The prosecution must persuade the fact finder beyond a reasonable doubt of every fact necessary to constitute the crime charged. c. Presumption of Innocence is really a misnomer; its assumption of innocence that is indulged in the absence of contrary evidence. (you wouldn't be in trial if no evidence). i. It is a legal assumption 1) It is not considered evidence of D's innocence (and it does not serve to shift burden from D to P), and it does not require that a mandatory inference favorable to the defendant be drawn from any facts in evidence. 2) "POI" is more of a "benefit of the doubt" attitude that the law adheres to in the interest of protecting individual rights and not unjustly punishing D. 3) Furthermore, it is a legal assumption - citizens, jurors, etc., are not bound by it. (law can't regulate thoughts, attitudes.) ii. US Supreme Court: presumption of innocence of D is really an assumption of innocence that is indulged in the absence of contrary evidence. 1) The person wouldn't be here in the first place if there wasn't some evidence against him. iii. If we were really talking about a presumption, it would have to be a presumption of guilt. 1) D only gets to criminal trial in the first place if there is a determination of Probable Cause. III. Right to a Jury Trial a. Sixth Amendment - "In all criminal prosecutions, the accused shall enjoy the right to a speedy and public trial, by an impartial jury. b. Only applies to non-petty offenses. Offense is non-petty where: i. Imprisonment for more than 6 moths is authorized, or
Criminal Law Page 2

V. Punishment (cont. intentionally inflicts pain on D or otherwise causes D to suffer some consequence that is ordinarily considered to be unpleasant.) i. Definition: punishment is suffered when an agent of the government. b. IV. Preceded by judgment of condemnation (which in and of itself may be punitive if sufficiently shameful) iv. These consequences are intended by the act iii. Penalties imposed outside the criminal justice system. Blame: fault attributed for moral wrongdoing in the commission of social harm 1) Basis for desert (what you deserve for wrongdoing) 2) Retribution c. d. Imprisonment for more than 6 moths is authorized. such as the disbarment of a lawyer by the licensing authority or the actions of a lynch mob. it serves a societal protection against laws that are perceived to be unjust. he did break the law. Jury nullification serves as the community's safeguard against morally unjust or socially undesirable (albeit legally proper) criminal convictions that inflexible judges might impose. c. but the law is what is wrong so we will not punish him. Two critical factor make jury nullification possible: i. Jury may believe that law violated by D was unjust. Kadish: "it is deeply rooted in our moral sense of fitness that punishment entails blame and that. In CL. therefore. pursuant to authority granted to the agent by virtue of D's criminal conviction. do not constitute "punishment". Where the jury acquits D even where P proved D's guilt beyond a reasonable doubt. Fifth Amendment: Double Jeopardy clause protects D from being tried for the same offense twice.i. 6 moths imprisonment coupled with a huge fine). ii. i. Yes. legitimate) Criminal Law Page 3 . punishment may not be justly imposed where the person is not blameworthy. b. and thus D should not be punished for violating. i. Punishment a. although painful and unpleasant.g. a jury finds D "guilty" or "not guilty" but does not have to explain its verdict. or ii. Dressler: i. (e. Designedly harmful consequences that most people would wish to avoid ii. Where it is otherwise clear that the legislature intended offense to be considered a serious one. Imposed by people with authority (theoretical v. i. ii. In essence. Jury Nullification a.

empowered by D's criminal conviction. Judge who is lenient on DUI offender who lost his family in accident. and is crippled . Specific Deterrence iv. Punishment is one of the main distinctions between criminal and civil law. Restitution vii. 1) It is deserved when one freely chooses to violate established rules 2) To an uncompromising retributivist. Dressler: there is no universally accepted non-arbitrary definition iii. Denunciation g. D may be said to "suffer" punishment when the government. his job.these are unfortunate circumstances. so retribution would require intended punishment (which is a redundant term by Moore's understanding )) ii. d. Can we punish: thorough going masochist(someone who is persistent in causing themselves harm). persistent optimist (I have met new friends. Reasons for Punishment: i. can't be accidental (eg. Generally speaking. ii. intentionally imposes conditions or consequences that are ordinarily considered unpleasant or aversive upon D. e. you can't tryly understand how criminal jurisprudence and law may be informed by behavioral sciences. h. the wrongdoer should be Criminal Law Page 4 . typically no hope for reform or deterrence). not punishment. 1) You can't punish someone for a rule that has not been established. legitimate) v. Why is it important to have a theory of criminal law? i. Incarceration (public safety) iii. Follows breach of established rules. Rehabilitation vi. Sociopath (understands the social consequences and does not care) f. Retribution ii. Consistency and reliability  Understand how the criminal law works  Understand how the criminal law was developed/devised  Understand alternative views of how criminal law should be constructed and applied  If you don't have a theory of criminal law. General Deterrence v. Moore's Retributive Theory of Criminal Law 1) Punishment must be intentional. time to myself). Is punishment only in Criminal Law? i. psychopath (this can be scientifically measured. Retributivism i.iv. Punishment is justified when it is deserved. Imposed by people with authority (theoretical v.

Moore uses Murder hierarchy to show retribution is reason for punishment (Murder1. whether or not it will result in a reduction in crime. b) Revenge (or vengeance): harmful action in response to perceived wrongdoing i) Wrongdoing need not be real ii) Proportionality not required iii) Typically driven by reactive anger and other negative emotions (e. this is the opposite of Moore's theory." b) "It is morally fitting that an offender should suffer in proportion to his desert or culpable wrongdoing. but only if.. so must pay equal debt to restore moral balance ii) Condemnatory and penal proportionality required One. frustration) i. it is expected to result in a reduction in the pain of crime that would otherwise occur. the wrongdoer should be punished. 1) But what about Strict Liability. The pain inflicted by punishment is justifiable if." 2) Punishment has a deterrent effect. Backward looking (focusing on past Acts) iv. 2." iii. iii. shame. a) "He will avoid criminal activity if the perceived potential pain(punishment) outweighs the expected potential pleasure (criminal rewards). Reasons for Punishment 1) Incarceration (public safety) . a) Kant: "even if a society resolved to dissolve itself.D's imprisonment prevents him from committing crimes in the outside society during the period of Criminal Law Page 5 .2) To an uncompromising retributivist.. Utilitarianism i.the last murderer lying in prison ought to be executed. 3. Revenge 1) Is retribution the same as revenge? a) Retribution: serves to balance the moral scales i) Violator upset natural moral balance by acting wrongfully. vi. "The purpose of all laws is to maximize the net happiness of society. etc. Reasons for punishment: 1) Retribution v. Utilitarians assume: 1) People are rational a) "A person will act according to his immediate desires to the extent that he believes that his conduct will augment his overall happiness." i) This is an empirical question often not supported by science.g. Without proportionality. Retribution v.)." ii. punishment is unfair/unjust iii) Emotion is not an element by which retribution is defined. embarrassment.

2) Specific Deterrence . therefore. ii. Retributivism looks backward and justifies punishment solely on the basis of the voluntary commission of a crime. Criticisms of Retributivism . a) D's punishment serves as an object lesson to the rest of the community. Differences between Retributivism and Utilitarianism i.to help reduce future crime 5) Restitution .prevents crime out of aversive shaming condition. It glorifies anger and legitimizes hatred. ii. utilitarians do not advocate punishment unless they believe it will provide an overall social benefit. (form of specific deterrence). they care about the past only to the extent that it helps them predict the future. The infliction of pain that need not result in future benefit.HB PAGE 22 i. rather than on reason.j. Punishment is justified if it achieves social net gain AND person deserves it 1) Is this a Utilitarian approach limited by retributive goals (Moore) or a Retributive approach limited by Utilitarian goals (Fontaine). Utilitarianism can justify the punishment of a person known to be innocent of wrongdoing. It is irrational b/c it is founded on emotions. a) Some argue that denunciation is it's own theory of punishment (HB page 19) i) Utilitarian b/c we inform individuals that the community considers specific conduct improper ant the we value the victim's worth and channels community anger away from personal vengeance.D's punishment is meant to deter future misconduct by D. may justly be blamed when they choose to violate society's mores. Utilitarians look forward. Criminal Law Page 6 . It justifies using persons solely as a means to an end ii. 3) General Deterrence . ii) Retributive b/c of moral condemnation: serves to stigmatize the offender for his offense. 4) Rehabilitation . D is used as a means to a desired end.HB PAGE 20 i. Retributivists focus on their view that humans generally possess free will or free choice and. Criticisms of Utilitarianism .D is punished in order to convince the general community to forego criminal conduct in the future. Two Possible Mixed Theories i. such as anger. m. iii. Utilitarians believe that people are generally hedonistic and rational calculators. committing crimes in the outside society during the period of segregation. 1) No matte how egregious the wrongdoing.prevents crime by teaching that crime does not pay 6) Denunciation . namely a net reduction in crime. l. k.

ii. Retribution v. a) Deontology . 1) Uncompromised proportionality is a principle of deontological retributivism.Morality of an action should be judged by whether the act accords with the rule.Retributive approach limited by Utilitarian goals (Fontaine). they believe that more serious crimes deserve more serious punishment. VI.judges the morality of act by the outcome. (Utilitarianism is a type of Consequentialism)." ( Kant against Utilitarianism. b. Two Main Punishment Theories i. ii. or what degree of punishment unless we think they deserve it. not vice versa. why. 2) We don’t discuss who.since retributivists believe that the main purpose of the criminal law is to require that criminals pay their debt to society by undergoing punishment. Proportionality a. consequences of it. Utilitarian i. 2) No pure consequentialism is practiced 3) Utilitarian values qualify retribution. (if the act violates the rule. The punishment for a given crime should be roughly proportional to that crime's seriousness. n.) b) Utilitarian plans of justice are immoral b/c they punish the Criminal Law Page 7 . 2) Kant: "The only way we can respect the dignity of the criminal is to give him/her their proportional punishment. c) Dichotomy is ends v. Retributivists are especially likely to believe in the principle of proportionality . Punishing the wrongdoer is the right thing to do because of his desert. Deontological Retributivism (Pure Retributivism) 1) One who has committed a wrongful act and social harm deserves to be punished. means. 4) We don't consider social benefit if we haven't already identified desert. Consequential Retributivism (Qualified Retributivism) 1) Wrongdoer is punished if he deserves it and some social net gain is achieved. it is wrong) b) Consequentialism . Punishment is justified if it achieves social net OR person deserves it 1) No one has adopted this view but this is a logically possible mixed theory.. Exacting a proportional punishment is recognition of the offender's worth and dignity (consistent with the concept of desert)" a) "one person ought never to be dealt with merely as a means subservient to the purpose of another.

nor cruel and unusual punishments inflicted. Roper v. 2) Forbids some other punishments when compared to the crime committed(mental health history). public dissecting. Virginia: executing mentally handicap is cruel and unusual vi. Criminal Law Page 8 . Utilitarians are likely to be less wedded to the proportionality principle. ii. nor excessive fines imposed. Utah: Supreme Court ruled that drawing and quartering. d) The only purpose of punishment is in order that everyone may realize the desert of their act.b) Utilitarian plans of justice are immoral b/c they punish the criminal as a means. Justice Brenan asserted four principles which may determine whether a punishment is cruel and unusual: 1) The "essential predicate" is "that a punishment must not by its severity be degrading to human dignity". Furman v. v. they advocate punishing a given crime be the least amount that will suffice for general and specific deterrence. The punished person must invite the punishment by wrongful behavior. Wikerson v. c. Georgia. and this amount may not correspond to the moral blameworthiness of the particular crime. Atkins v. the 8th Amendment: 1) Forbids some punishments entirely." 3) A severe punishment that is clearly and totally rejected throughout society. burning alive. iii. Since utilitarians focus on deterrence. especially torture. 1) Essentially says that death penalty is disproportionately severe for any crime that does not cause another person's death. he was in jail for murder. a) I. 2) Retributive grounds for majority: death is disproportionately severe for a crime that did not take another persons life.e. c) Proportionality doesn't require that we rape the rapist (punishment need only be equal to the severity of the crime). ii. Coker v. 8th Amendment i. or disemboweling would constitute cruel and unusual punishment regardless of the crime. Simmons: executing individuals who were juveniles at time of crime is cruel and unusual. 2) "A severe punishment that is obviously inflicted in a wholly arbitrary fashion. Georgia: escaped prison rapes and nearly kills woman. vii. but maybe deterrence argument. Stoning in public 4) "A severe punishment that is patently unnecessary" a) Does not pursue any human goal iv. 3) Utilitarian grounds are not likely. Excessive bail shall not be required. According to the Supreme Court.

explain what they mean. If unreasonably vague. Essentially a rule against retroactive punishment. he may be more likely to kill the rape victim) b) Could be argued that the execution for rape would deter the act (probably the stronger of the two arguments). It does not. 1) In Re Banks . Kennedy v. 1) Fair notice . it must lean towards finding it constitutional. Lenity Principle . or that increases punishment. Louisiana: extended Coker by ruling that death for the raping of a child was excessive "where the victims life was not taken. VIII. require courts to denounce statutes unconstitutional if there is any question as to its specificity/breadth. but maybe deterrence argument. d. judges.Court suggested that between finding a law constitutional or unconstitutional. and without consideration of wide implications/applications.Legislatures are prohibited from enacting law that would punish conduct that was lawful at the time it was committed. a) Could be argued that execution would encourage killings (if perpetrator thinks he will be killed anyway. viii. 2 reasons: i.Courts are prohibited from enlarging the scope for criminal statutes. b. Judicial interpretation of ambiguous statutes should be biased in favor of the accused(lenity doctrine). Ex Post Facto .Statute are to be interpreted in the manner most favorable to the accused. Two Constitutional basis: i. Criminal statutes should be crafted so as not to delegate basic policy matters to policemen. Can't leave this all up to the courts (the courts would then be making law) ii.legislatures have to be clear and unambiguous. c. Actus Reus Criminal Law Page 9 .(otherwise violation of due process) ii. and juries for resolution on an ad hoc and subjective basis. Void for Vagueness . a) Lenity principle requires courts to favor D in cases where statute is unclear or ambiguous. iii. Criminal statutes should be understandable to reasonable law-abiding persons. it does not provide fair warning of what is prohibited. however. Due Process Clause of 14th Amendment . iv. 3 Corollaries: i. Legality a. ii." VII.3) Utilitarian grounds are not likely. A person may not be punished unless her conduct was defined as criminal before she acted. 1) Ad hoc means when a law is made only with a specific case at hand.

(a person is not guilty of an offense where liability is based on involuntary conduct). Omission as basis of Liability. Possession as an Act) i. both instances may be argued to cause social harm c. Martin v. b. One cannot willfully create a state by which she engages in acts that are involuntary and be excused for her wrongful action committed during said state. State v. (4)Possession is an act. Many utilitarians would argue that involuntary behavior should not be criminalized because it cannot be deterred. A note on automatism: a) Behavior that is carried out unconsciously (sleep walking) is non voluntary (or spontaneous or automatic) and thus may be used as a Criminal Law Page 10 . d) A bodily movement that otherwise is not a product of the effort or determination of the actor. iv. ii. the actus reus may be interpreted to include the harm caused by the physical act (murder. someone dies). (1) a person is not guilty of an offense unless his liability is based on conduct that includes a voluntary act or the omission to perform an act which he is physically culpable. if the possessor knowingly procured or received the thing possessed or was aware of his control thereof for a sufficient period to have been able to terminate his possession. Nevertheless. or b) A duty to perform the omitted act is otherwise imposed by law. e. within the meaning of this Section. Utilitarians v. AL statute does not explicitly require a voluntary act. State . and killed his son. iii. ii. Actus Reus a.VIII. i.You are not guilty of public drunkenness if you were forcibly taken to a public place. blacked out.01 (Requirement of Voluntary Act. i. (2) The following are not voluntary acts within the meaning of this section: a) A reflex or convulsion b) A bodily movement during a unconsciousness or sleep c) Conduct during hypnosis or resulting from hypnotic suggestion. Retributivists i. In some cases.Dad got drunk. Retributivists would claim that an individual who did not choose to do a wrongful act does not deserve punishment. However. (3) Liability for the commission of an offense may not be based on an omission unaccompanied by action unless: a) The omission is expressly made sufficient by the law defining the offense. d. either conscious or habitual. i. MPC 2. but the court is here making a statement that the actus reus element of a crime needs to be a voluntary act. Utter . some crimes don't require a result immediately caused by your conduct (driving while intoxicated).

This argument is only partly persuasive. the principle is founded on the belief that it is morally unjust to punish those who accidentally. Retributive .The mens rea requirement can be justified on deterrence. Mens Rea . or Guilty mental states. Specific Intent Criminal Law Page 11 . the treatment must be continued so long as the benefits exceed the costs. A close blood relation ship is the clearest example. ii.Dr. his punishment may serve as a useful warning to others to be more careful in their activities. b) However. General v. Retributivists i. and not the failure of merely a moral duty. In this case. Although there is no legal duty based on their relationship. Superior Court . a) She had taken drugs before.Degrees (or levels) of Guilty Mind.the principle of mens rea has its roots far deeper in retributive than in utilitarian. Utilitarian . even though this could have been done with perfect ease and safety. there maybe one if he created the risk. turns off respirator and patient dies. then not a defense to strict liability crimes.A special relationship between the defendant and the victim may give rise to such a duty to act. f. Even if one acting without a culpable state of mind cannot be deterred on the present occasion. thereby reducing the number of accidentally inflicted injuries. IX. The defendant will normally not be criminally liable for failing to attempt to rescue. Omissions (Negative Acts) i. Utilitarian v. ii. c) Barber v. One who causes harm accidentally. b) There is no duty to act if the prescribed course of treatment has been shown to be ineffective. if automatism is viewed as non-intent (rather than nonvoluntariness). rather than intentionally or with an "evilmeaning mind".voluntary (or spontaneous or automatic) and thus may be used as a defense to a crime (negation of actus reus element). Omission is defined as the neglect of a "legal duty". In other words. b) See People v. Liability for Omission a) Special Relationship . the treatment is ineffective b/c the patient will never recover substantial brain function. b. a) Life sustaining treatment must be continued when it is proportionate. rather than by choice cause social injury. the mens rea requirement flow from our society's commitment to individual choice.Mistress dies from morphine overdose. Although a society presumably wants to deter harmful conduct. Beardsley . V was not D's wife or child and D was not V's custodian or caretaker. is harmless and not in need of reformation. a.

.g. Aggravated battery requires the commission of a battery where the offender intentionally or knowingly causes great bodily harm or permanent disability or disfigurement. b) Court ruled that malice did not require wickedness. In contrast. traffic violations). malice must be taken not in the old vague sense of wickedness in general but requires actual intention to do a particular kind of harm or recklessness as to whether such harm should occur or not. was meant to emphasize that the definition of the offense expressly required proof of a particular mental state. or repeat offenses. General v. General intent. Conley) i. however. Strict liability offenses are crimes against the public welfare. statutory rape.g. ii. Strict liability offenses are also found in cases involving mistake of fact. refers to any offense for which the only mens rea required was a blameworthy state of mind. e. Criminal Law Page 12 . broad view. such as selling alcohol to minors) a) Under these strict liability offenses.stealing a gas meter. Intent can be inferred by the circumstances surrounding the crime. recklessly. a) Battery: a) Dressler (Broad): Unlawful physical contact b) Fontaine (Specific): Intentional infliction of physical harm iii. Aggravated is anything greatens the blame. typically minor crimes and infractions (e. or purpose. d. an individual will be convicted no matter what his/her mental state at the time of the commission of the crime. D was found guilty of aggravated battery (Mitigated is anything that lessens the blame. a) In any statutory definition of a crime.. c. a crime is general intent in nature if the actor can be convicted upon proof of any lesser state of mind. Foreseeability or recklessness would be sufficient to prove malice. including a defense to a charge of statutory rape where the individual charged with the offense alleges that he believed the victim to be over the age of consent. Proving Culpability (People v. or negligently. Regina v. is to cause the social harm set out in the definition of the offense.) D claimed that the state did not prove beyond a reasonable doubt that he intended to inflict a permanent disability. Cunningham . narrow view. Specific Intent i.b. such as when he causes the harm knowingly. and which exposed an individual to non-fatal asphyxiation. D attempted to strike V's friend with a wine bottle but instead hit V. Strict Liability Offenses i. a) An offense is specific intent if the crimes requires proof that the actor's conscious object. can involve more serious crimes for which imprisonment is a penalty (e. specific intent.

iii. the other may intend to foul the shooter. f. c) NOTE: The distinction be tween purpose and knowledge is the presence of a positive desire to cause the harm that results as opposed to knowledge of its near certainty. where you do intend to cause the harm. Intent can be inferred by the circumstances surrounding the crime. Two basketball players defending the basket . a) E. b) KEY: "Practical certainty" that harm to other will result a) Although the person intended to engage in the behavior and was fairly certain that it would cause some harmful outcome. Knowledge (knowingly) a) Where one is practically certain that her action will result in a crime against another party. b) KEY: Unaware of substantial risk that a "reasonable person" would Criminal Law Page 13 .Behavior v. substantial risk of causing a harmful result b) KEY: Awareness of "substantial risk" iv. but there may be different reasons (or motives) for wanting the harm to be caused. but should have been aware of the risk. the distinction divides the notion of maliciousness or viciousness from the somewhat less objectionable callousness. though she is not acting for the purpose of committing said crime. MPC Levels of Mens Rea i. In the broader sense of mens rea.: Two people can desire to engage in the same behavior but intend different outcomes to result from said behavior.G. Purpose does not mean merely the intent to engage in the behavior without respect to why the behavior is enacted. Negligence (negligently) a) Actor is not aware that his action poses an unjustifiable risk of harm. Knowledge . Recklessness (recklessly) a) Awareness that one's action poses an unjustifiable.one may intend to block the shot. she did not enact the behavior for the purpose of causing said harm. and thus fails to exercise a reasonable duty of care to prevent the harm in question. Outcome: Purpose has to do with having a specific goal to achieve a certain outcome as the result of acting a certain way. but both intend to jump and sing their arms down. ii. Purpose (intent) a) D intends the harm caused b) Where one's conscious objective for action is to cause the harm defined by the crime c) KEY: "conscious object" (or conscious objective) to cause harm that results (or could have resulted. b) Different than motive. in case of attempt crimes). d) Purpose v.iii.

Court recognized that D's refusal to learn age of young child suggested D was aware of a high probability that child was under 17. c) REASONABLE PERSON . or causing a child less than 17 to engage in any conduct.b) KEY: Unaware of substantial risk that a "reasonable person" would have been aware of. interpretation of provocation: heat of passion v. c) State v. fair-minded person have acted as the defendant did? If the defendant acted in a way that is grossly inadequate. her actions did not rise to the level of knowledge. It describes attempt to avoid liability for wrongful act by intentionally putting oneself in a position to be unaware of facts so that she cannot meet the requisite mens rea for criminal liability.D owned a strip club where she hired a 16 year old. a) This standard is viewed as an objective standard. a means of identification of another person. D argued that he did not know that the ID he possessed belonged to another person. d) Flores-Figueroa v. aiding. B-day.Willful Blindness a) When D intentionally fails to be informed about matters that would make her criminally liable. The reasonable person is not a real person. The court reasoned that ordinary grammar indicates that "knowingly" should be read to apply to all subsequently listed elements of the crime in the Criminal Law Page 14 . but may be made more subjective to the degree that the defendant's circumstances are taken into consideration (e. Child. Knowledge of Attendant Circumstances . possesses or uses. US a) D gave employer false name.g. Nations . Statute read: "knowingly transfers. doctor. then criminal negligence may be found. Although D was reckless in that she was conscious of a substantial and unjustifiable risk. informed.g. a) Court focused on strict statutory definition of knowingly and its distinctions from the lesser mens rea of recklessness." b) Court held that gov't needs to prove that D knew that the ID he possessed belonged to another person. b) Knowledge of a fact is satisfied by finding an awareness of a high probability that it existed. as compared to the reasonable person. i) E. and SSN#. The statute prohibited "knowingly encouraging. battered woman) b) Used as a standard to evaluate certain criteria of some affirmative defenses. but rather a standard that asks: would the overage. without lawful authority.The reasonable person standard is used to discern criminal negligence.

the requisite mens rea applies to all other elements of the crime..Navarro states that if a person has a good faith belief that he has a right to certain property. if the statute is a general intent crime. vi. i. the public welfare/ strict liability rationale should not be applied to interpret any statute that fails to mention mental state as an element of the offense. he cannot be guilty of larceny. even though it was unreasonable to believe this. well-intentioned citizens to a possible 10-year term of imprisonment if what they genuinely and reasonably believed was a conventional semi-automatic turns out to be fully automatic. and because people will not be deterred from doing what they believe to be innocent acts.. b) Court ruled that absent a clear Congressional statement that mens rea is not required. Even though D's belief of entitlement to the lumber may have been unreasonable. Where one sincerely believes that he has a right to property. D was convicting of a federal statute that stated possession of an unregistered firearm is punishable up to 10 years. the mistake must be reasonable in order to be acquitted. Nation a) D possessed a unregistered gun that had been altered and was now fully automatic. e) Staples v. Navarro . c) The Court argues that it is unthinkable that Congress intended to subject such law-abiding. c) Unless otherwise stated. Utilitarian i. The reasons for not finding a person who has a mistake of fact guilty seems obvious: a retributivist would not convict her because she is not morally blameworthy. even if the belief is unreasonable.apply to all subsequently listed elements of the crime in the relevant statute. People v. He believed the beams were abandoned or that he had permission to take them. d) Fontaine thinks this is a balancing of interests. Mistake of Fact a. Court held that in order to be convicted of larceny. Strict Liability a) Not a mental state' different class of crimes with no mental state requirement X. b. D must take another's property with the intent to permanently deprive him of the property. However. he cannot possibly intend to steal the property.D was charged with stealing wooden beams. So. iii. Retributivists v. the reasonableness of the belief does not matter since one cannot negligently steal property. because larceny requires the specific intent to deprive. As long as the belief is genuine and in good faith. ii. there is no utilitarian need to punish her Criminal Law Page 15 . he is not guilty of larceny.

administration. People v. "but for" causation) i. c) An official. Court held that a mistake of law defense is not valid unless the mistaken belief is based on an official statement of the law. Utilitarian v. in both. but erroneous. It is the cause that directly produces Criminal Law Page 16 . A utilitarian could argue that it is occasionally necessary to sacrifice the morally innocent person to achieve the better good of establishing an incentive for learning the law. administration or enforcement. mistakes about the law would be encouraged (and commonly used as an excuse to avoid responsibility and punishment for criminal behavior. aware that their conduct might be regulated have a "duty to inquire" about the law and are morally blameworthy for failing to ascertain its reach. or should be. Actual Cause (cause in fact. A proximate cause is one that is legally sufficient to result in liability. Retributivists i. An official Statement is: a) A statute later declared to be invalid b) A judicial decision of the highest court in the jurisdiction. If subjective mistakes of law were treated as valid defenses. ii. "but for" the existence of A. then factor A is an actual cause of result B. ii. A argument can be made that persons who are. i.) Seems to be a reasonable interpretation. XI. i. c. obtained from an entity with responsibility for the interpretation. a federal prison guard was arrested for having a loaded gun in a NY club.D. later determined to be erroneous.) b. It is an act or omission that is considered in law to result in a consequence. b. The statute exempted peace officers (any official or guard of any state prison or of any penal correctional institution. later determined to be erroneous. Proximate Cause (legal cause) i. Marrero . A cause or factor without which the event could not have occurred. Mistake of Law a. Remove this factor from the chain of events and the harm doesn't happen. ignorance of the law is not an excuse for criminal conduct. interpretation of the law. would B have occurred? If the answer is yes. The "but for" test is often used to determine actual causation. secured from a public officer in charge of its interpretation. or enforcement of the law defining the offense. Causation a. there is no utilitarian need to punish her either. so that liability can be imposed on the actor. Under both CL and MPC. one is excused for committing a criminal offense if she reasonably relies on an official statement of the law. XII.they believe to be innocent acts. a) The official statement must be written. However.

even nonviable -fetus as a human being by statute.D may be relieved of criminal responsibility if an intervening cause. Homicide a.or at times.) ii. i. premeditated killing with specific intent to kill is murder in the first degree.liability can be imposed on the actor. b. XIII. Some jurisdictions now treat a viable . have incorporated "brain death" in their definition of "death. V chose to stay outside in the freezing night and consequently died). and informed human intervention. a majority of states. either by statute or judicial decision. whether it occurred independent of D's voluntary act or omission.g. iii. In theory.A willful.(e. ii. 1st Degree Murder . c. or ○ The intention to commit a felon during the commission or attempted commission which a death results (felony murder rule). a) Free.When V has a route to safety but instead puts herself in further harm. Deliberate. which causes the injury of death. if the actus reus does not hold concurrence in point of time with the mens rea then no crime has been committed..Malice: ○ Intent to kill ○ Intent to inflict grievous bodily injury to another.An independent force that produces the social harm. a) Note the word "free" here. It is the cause that directly produces an event (sufficiently close to the resulting injury to justify liability. Criminal Law Page 17 . ○ An extremely reckless disregard for the value of human life. Concurrence (or contemporaneity or simultaneity) refers to the need to prove simultaneous occurrence of both actus reus and mens rea to constitute a crime." Common Law Homicide Murder . Intervening Cause . was the result of a free. deliberate. Concurrence of the Elements i.that is. Informed Human Intervention . but which happens after D's voluntary act or omission. Regarding the end of human life. Common law and majority define the beginning of life as birth for purposes of interpreting the criminal homicide law. Apparent safety Doctrine . deliberate. In determining whether a proximate cause counts as a superseding cause there is no issue that is more important than whether the intervening cause was freely formed ."the killing of a human being by another human being with malice aforethought" .

 A person kills "recklessly" if she consciously disregards a substantial and unjustifiable risk to human life.Four Elements: ○ The D must have acted in heat of passion at the moment of homicide. jealousy.Willful.An unlawful killing of a human being by another human being without malice aforethought upon a sudden quarrel or heat of passion. aware that her conduct is very risky . . ○ Some 2nd Degree Murder . However. deliberate killing with malice aforethought that is not premeditated is murder in the second degree. heat of passion cases typically involve the emotion of anger. Passion has been interpreted to include any violent or intense emotion such as fear.Is "an unlawful killing of a human being by another human being without malice aforethought" Voluntary Manslaughter .A willful. and desperation."an intentional homicide committed upon a sudden quarrel or heat of passion as the result of adequate provocation mitigates the offense to voluntary manslaughter" (intentional. deliberate. □ When a person should be. Manslaughter . Juries are typically instructed to apply an objective "reasonable-person" standard. passion/provocation) . which is of sufficient duration for the accused to be fully conscious of what he intended.the risk taking is inadvertent .Premeditate: ○ Any interval of time between the forming of the intent to kill and the execution of that intent. juries are increasingly instructed Criminal Law Page 18 . and constitutes involuntary manslaughter.her behavior may justify the appellation of "criminal negligence". .Malice ○ Can be implied if: (1) a person intends to cause grievous bodily injury to another. (2) if a person's conduct manifests an extreme indifference to the value of human life (depraved-heart). . premeditated: . is sufficient to support a conviction for first degree murder. but results in death. but is not. ○ The passion must have been the result of adequate provocation.murder in the first degree.  Due to the influence of the MPC.

e. it must be so gross as to deserve punishment. But probably more often this situation will be one in which a reasonable person. (2) mutual combat. be aware that she is taking a substantial and unjustifiable risk to human life. Involuntary Manslaughter a. or in the commission in an unlawful manner ( or without due caution/care) of a lawful act that might produce death. Unlawful-act manslaughter i. Traffic violations b.  However. Other courts have held open the possibility that insulting words may qualify in extreme circumstances.Words as Adequate Provocation ○ Surviving from the Common law in most non-Model Penal Code jurisdictions is the rule that words alone do not constitute adequate provocation. i.Adequate Provocation ○ Some states have identified specific provocation situations: 1) Discovering one's spouse having sex with another. a) I. but not insulting words. c. would not have engaged in the activity in question. b. Criminal negligence involves a gross deviation from the standard of care that reasonable people would exercise in the same situation. Gross negligence is required. Left ambiguous is what "the actor's situation" might include. Most physical characteristics are taken into account in determining whether the defendant' conduct was negligent. ○ The defendant must not have had an opportunity to "cool-off. D must. juries are increasingly instructed to test the defendant's reaction to a provocation by the standard of the ordinary person "in the actor's situation. . and the homicide. knowing of his physical defect. a few courts allow the defense to be raised in the case of informational. Criminal Law Page 19 . subjectively. ○ There must be a causal link between the provocation. Permits conviction for involuntary manslaughter when the death occurs accidentally during the commission of a misdemeanor or other unlawful act. Due to the influence of the MPC. a. the passion. An unlawful killing of a human being by another human being without malice aforethought in the commission of an unlawful act NOT amounting to a felony." The homicide has to have occurred soon after the provocation. . and (3) Assault and battery.

or (2) kills another person under circumstances that would ordinarily constitute murder. knowingly. Must have a conscious disregard of a substantial and unjustifiable risk. Manslaughter .When the actor unjustifiably. or negligently. but delineates degrees of homicide nonetheless.A person is guilty of manslaughter under the MPC if she: (1) recklessly kills another. and may be convicted of the lesser offense if the jury determines that her conscious risk-taking. Unlike the common law. . (Compare to reckless murder: extreme indifference…) ○ In any case in which a defendant is prosecuted for reckless murder." Criminal Law Page 20 . inexcusably. and in the absence of a mitigating circumstance. she is entitled to a jury instruction regarding reckless manslaughter." .The Model Penal Code rejects the degrees of murder approach. or (2) recklessly (extreme recklessness).Reckless Homicide ○ A person who kills another recklessly is guilty of manslaughter. kills another: (1) purposely or knowingly. (unlike common law). or because she killed a person recklessly under circumstances manifesting an extreme indifference to the value of human life. . under circumstances manifesting extreme indifference to the value of human life. the death need not occur within a year and a day of the homicidal act. recklessly.Extreme Mental or Emotional Disturbance ○ A person who would be guilty of murder because she purposely or knowingly took a human life. was not extreme enough to merit treatment as murder. although unjustifiable and substantial. but which homicide is committed as the result of "extreme mental or emotional disturbance" for which there is a "reasonable explanation or excuse.However. is guilty of the lesser offense of manslaughter is she killed the victim while suffering from an "extreme mental or emotional disturbance for which there is "reasonable explanation or excuse.  Liability for manslaughter under the Code cannot be founded on criminal negligence.One is guilty of MPC criminal homicide if she unjustifiably and inexcusably takes the life of another human being purposely.MPC Homicide . . most jurisdictions continue to recognize degrees of murder and many use the MPC distinctions in mens rea to help distinguish levels of homicide Murder .

Defenses a.involuntary manslaughter at common law . moral compass that can assist people in deciding which of various potential paths they should take in particular circumstances. (RPP) ○ Difference from Common Law Heat of Passion  A specific act is not required to trigger the EMED defense. affront. which under the circumstances is socially acceptable and which deserves neither criminal liability nor even censure. b) If the justification/excuse distinction is ignored or misapplied. the law may inadvertently express a moral falsity by characterizing improperCriminal Law Page 21 .disturbance for which there is "reasonable explanation or excuse. words alone can warrant a manslaughter instruction. Why care about the difference? i. or the right or sensible thing. he should not be blamed or punished for causing that harm. or other provocative act perpetrated upon the defendant by the decedent. People should take justifiable. or a permissible thing to do". Justification i. and tries to show that the actor is not morally culpable for his wrongful act. the system has failed to provide adequate guidance. paths. at least. and contrary to the common law. An excuse defense is in the nature of a claim that although the actor has harmed society. If the law does not label the paths clearly." Justified conduct is conduct that is a good thing."  The explanation must be subjective in that the defendant experienced intense feelings. Criminally Negligent Homicide ○ A criminally negligent homicide . an excuse centers upon the actor. not wrong. c. and seeks to show that the act was not wrongful. b.  It need not involve an injury. Whereas a justification claim generally focuses upon an act. Send a Clear Moral Message a) The criminal law represents a crude.  It need not fall within any fixed category of provocations. sufficient to cause loss of selfcontrol.  There is no rigid cooling-off rule. but nonetheless important. rather than wrongful-but-excusable. a justified act is an act that is right or.constitutes the lesser offense of negligent homicide under the Code. Excuse i. A justification defense is one that defines conduct "otherwise criminal. That is. at the time of the homicide  The explanation must be objective in that it must be a reasonable explanation or excuse that cause the defendant to kill. I.

Self-Defense (Full Justification) . b) The aggressor will be deterred by the fear that his intended victim will resist the attack. Defenses a. The law is not well-served when a defense is composed of a set of inconsistent . Some of the elements of the defense are best explained in justificatory terms. ii. a third person. iii. That is. if D is justified in performing act A to protect her own rights. justifications are universalized. i.perhaps even contradictory principles. iii. be the victim a) Conflicts usually occur between mutually culpable actors. the force you used was excessive a) So maybe reduced to manslaughter Criminal Law Page 22 .may inadvertently express a moral falsity by characterizing improperbut-excusable conduct as proper. Utilitarian Explanation a) If someone must die in a deadly conflict it is better that the aggressor. as long as the mistakes are genuine and reasonable. An excuse may only be invoked by the person who suffers from the excusing condition. a) The common law heat of passion defense to murder suffers from a lack of proper attention to the differences between justifications and excuses. Imperfect Self Defense/ Excessive Use of Force (partial Justification) i. Third Party Conduct a) Generally speaking. When too much force was used to defend oneself or another a) There is some reasonable belief of threat and that you need to defend yourself and you could have justifiably used some force…. At common law. X. ii. II. whose anti-social nature is manifested by his conduct. is also justified in doing A to protect D. b.Can defend oneself in case of imminent threat of grievous bodily harm or death. Retributive Argument a) Innocent victims of aggressive attacks are not immoral actors and cannot be seen as "blameworthy" when they respond to such attacks. iv.however. D needs to have the genuine and reasonable belief that she is present with a threat that: a) Is imminent b) Unlawful or unjust c) Requires amount of reactive force d) Many jurisdictions require D to retreat if the reasonable option exists. Providing Consistency in the Criminal Law a) Appreciation of the justification/excuse distinction can help lawmakers coherently define criminal defenses. D can be mistaken. whereas excuses are individualized. while others seem excuse based.

b) The actor reasonably believed that the threat was genuine c) The threat was present.e. f. iii.. normally excused) (See Excuse Defenses) i. Most jurisdictions have restricted this defense to cases of natural disaster. Retributive Arguments a) A coerced actor does not deserve to be punished for her actions. later determined to be erroneous c) An official. regardless of whether reasonable or unreasonable. a) So maybe reduced to manslaughter b) Viewed as justification b.g. Mistake of Fact (excuse. ii. d. Duress (Full Excuse) . but erroneous interpretation of the law. iii. g. sometimes justification) . ii. or enforcement a) The official statement must be in writing. by performing an objectively criminal act. I. "Lesser of two evils". police officer shoots a robber who only has a fake gun Mistake of Law (rarely excused) .Good Faith mistake of fact. b) A judicial decision of the highest court in the jurisdiction. check w/ Fontaine Mistake of Fact (Rarely justified. Never a defense to Murder Always? . and e) The actor was not at fault in exposing herself to the threat.c. Mistake of fact is NOT recognized as an affirmative defense in strict-liability cases.c some of the act was within your rights Necessity (Full Justification) . administration. a) Law doesn't want to provide a defense in situations where the threat may be fabricated. imminent. Utilitarian Arguments a) When a person is in thrall to some coercive power the threat of criminal punishment is ineffective. is a defense to specific intent crimes i. and impending at the time of the criminal act d) There was no reasonable escape from the threat except through compliance with the demands of the coercer. Duress applies when a) Another person threatened to kill or grievously injure the actor or third party. i. e.criminal act committed in response to thereat and out of coercion (and fear) i. Criminal Law Page 23 .Ignorance of law is no excuse. criminal trespass to save drowning child) i. particularly a close relative. secured from a public officer in charge of its interpretation.act committed to prevent greater harm from occurring (e. you prevent something even worse. Official Statement a) A statute later declared invalid. exception is when relying on government communication that act is allowable.

arising from a disease of the mind. she does not possess a fair opportunity to exercise her will to act lawfully. Insanity (Full Excuse) . Necessity a) Necessity does not require a threat of death or serious bodily harm. he was laboring under such a defect of reason. b) Necessity requires a weighing of the injury inflicted with the injury threatened.e. typically in the form of an official medical/psychiatric disorder ii. that there is no mens rea for guilty mind OR as a defense that you are not morally culpable. the claim of necessity can be made.. b) This result follows from the fact that duress is an excuse rather than a justification. Duress only excuses when the available choices are not only hard by also unfair. there is no inherent reason to restrict necessity to threats against life or person. Of course. Duress v. and that he: a) Did not know the nature and quality of the act that he was doing or b) If he did know it. a) Although the coerced actor possesses free will. and there is a culpable human being who may properly be held responsible for the social harm caused. but often claimed as an alternative defense iii. not undesirable. iv. and the person makes the right choice. iv. negating requisite mens rea. perpetrates a greater evil. M'Naghten Rule a) A person is insane if. he did not know that what he was doing was wrong. c) The necessity defense applies when a person is faced with a choice of two evils and must then decide whether to commit a crime or an alternative act that constitutes a greater evil. Criminal Law Page 24 . There needs to be substantial evidence of mental dysfunction. You can argue. with insanity. Check w/ Fontaine a) When a person commits the lesser of two evils. (the coercer) h. As long as the D actually inflicts less harm than he was threatened with. i. nobody should be subject to prosecution for the outcome. i.at least. society odes not excuse an actor for violating the law whenever she must make a hard choice. because the outcome is socially desirable or .a) A coerced actor does not deserve to be punished for her actions. defendant did not understand wrongfulness of act due to mental impairment or illness. at the time of the criminal act. Insanity is very seldom successful. In contrast. duress applies even when the coercer's threats overwhelm the actor's will so that she makes the wrong choice.at the time of act.

ix. c) Rehabilitation is not furthered by convicting an insane person and sending her to prison. or c) His will was destroyed such that his actions were beyond his control. Retributive Arguments (primarily) a) Serves as a distinguishing point between the bad and the made. b) Incapacitation of an insane person normally is socially desirable.. c) Does not recognize volitional incapacity in which a person is aware that conduct is wrong yet cannot control his conduct. not just partial unreasonableness. between those who possess free choice and those whose free choice is seriously undermined. It is more rational to separate her from the penal system and treat her condition as a medical problem. b) A person is insane if at the time of the offense: a) He acted from an irresistible and uncontrollable impulse b) He was unable to choose between the right and wrong behavior. b) Requires complete cognitive incapacity (similar to M'Naghten) a) Maybe harder b/c it requires Severe mental disease. as a result of a severe mental disease or defect D was unable to appreciate: a) The nature and quality of his conduct. Federal Test a) At the time of the offense. ALI/MPC Test a) As a result of a mental disease or defect. b) Requires total incapacity. vi.wrong. D lacks Substantial capacity to : a) Appreciate the criminality of his conduct. A person who does not know what she is doing or who cannot control her conduct cannot be deterred by the threat of criminal sanction. Irresistible Impulse Test a) Some jurisdictions have broadened the scope of M'Naghten to include mental illness that affect volitional capacity. viii. or b) The wrongfulness of his conduct. or b) To conform his conduct to the requirements of the law b) Does NOT require total mental incapacity c) Pretty broad determination of incapacity vii. v. Utilitarian Arguments a) Punishment of an insane person may be pointless or counterproductive. between evil and sickness. a) Rationality: just punishment is dependent on moral desert. moral Criminal Law Page 25 .

more often result in his conviction of a less serious crime or degree of crime than the original charge. there is a mens rea form of diminished capacity. Diminished Capacity (partial excuse) . although perhaps inaccurately. a) Fist. will be called here "partial responsibility. and moral responsibility for one's actions is dependent on the essential attributes of personhood. usually the mens rea element. Evidence of mental abnormality is offered to negate an element of the crime charged. i. Is a term used to describe two categories of circumstances in which an actor's abnormal mental condition. x. it is only a defense to murder to mitigate the offense to manslaughter." a) Few states recognize the "partial responsibility defense. b) Second form partially excuses or mitigates a defendant's guilty even if he has the requisite mens rea for the crime. that if she is caught for her crime she will be able to avoid conviction or commitment by raising the insanity defense. short of insanity. and on those whose illnesses are not severe enough to qualify for acquittal. a) A would-be wrongdoer may believe. namely rationality and selfcontrol. Awareness by such people that the law recognizes an insanity defense may reduce the deterrent effect of the criminal sanction. This mens rea model functions as a failure of proof defense. Counter-Deterrence Arguments a) The defense may have a negative impact on those who are NOT mentally ill.a) Rationality: just punishment is dependent on moral desert. Where it does apply .a lower degree of insanity i. will occasionally exonerate him or. Criminal Law Page 26 . moral desert is dependent on moral responsibility for one's actions.

majority held that capital punishment is always a disproportionate penalty for rape. .Crimes do not always have to be intentional. omission to act. called the prosecution. .Strict liability crimes are typically minor crimes and infractions.Sometimes. .Typically. .Mistake of fact is often recognized as an affirmative defense. April 25. GA.Burden of proof is always on the prosecution (unless prima facie case is made and defendant wants to raise an affirmative defense) .Mistake of Law is usually NOT a defense. never Monday. in states that grade murder by degree.Crimes don't always have to cause harm.In all criminal prosecutions. .You don't always have to "do something" to commit a crime. .Punishment is not only given in criminal law.In Croker v.Many jurisdictions restrict the defense of necessity to natural causes .In states that grade murder by degree. . not in strict liability crimes. always. reckless acts . Intent to inflict grievous bodily injury form of malice nearly always constitutes second-degree murder. unless official statement Sometimes . the litigation is always filed by the government. the accused shall enjoy the right to a Criminal Law Page 27 .Premeditation and deliberation are sometimes treated as synonyms .Criminal wrongs are not always significantly worse than civil wrongs. premeditation and deliberation constitutes 1st degree murder.Desert does not play a role in all crimes. Never . strict liability. Not Always .In criminal law. civil law punitive damages.Necessity is never a defense to murder Usually . . 2011 11:32 PM ALWAYS: . Inchoate crimes(possession). attempt crimes (attempted murder) .

Mistake of law is rarely a defense. Not always. the accused shall enjoy the right to a speedy and public trial. applies only to non-petty offenses. by an impartial jury (6th Amendment).. Rarely .In all criminal prosecutions. Criminal Law Page 28 .

maybe even wanting that to occur. and willful. .Does MPC change common law fetus rule? Or does the state also need a statute. they are disfigured..How much transferred intent do we need to know? We did cover it in the wine bottle battery case. ○ Specifically S/D that was genuine and reasonable but wrong. April 26.Just recklessness is manslaughter under MPC.Justification??? Criminal Law Page 29 . what about common law? .Free? Deliberate. informed intervention…. 2011 12:44 PM Questions for Fontaine: . if they are an accomplice? .. .Tuesday. ○ Telling old lady her daughter just died.Proximate Cause issue: If you brutally beat someone putting them in the hospital.Extreme reckless is murder…. even if it has adopted the MPC ..Self Defense on Exam: can we give our opinions as to Justification/Excuse. deliberate.Can battery that causes death be used to constitute 1st degree murder under felony murder rule? ○ This seems to negate the grievous bodily malice which usually would constitute 2nd degree. then first degree murder. So.How would we know a statute is strict liability? No mens rea? . .Can specific intent to kill be shown with practical certainty? Like Knowledge under MPC. knowing she has a terrible heart condition. .although it was foreseeable she would die. the victim pulls out the feeding tubes to kill her self…. If this were premeditated..Third party deaths under the felony murder rule? ○ Liable.

Sign up to vote on this title
UsefulNot useful