This action might not be possible to undo. Are you sure you want to continue?
Bergman – doctor convicted of defrauding a nursing home. Court would not let him have a punishment of philanthropic work, though this would help society more, because he “deserved” some punishment, and doing what he already liked doing wouldn’t be punishment. 3. Backward-looking 4. Ideas of self-restraint, the inability for a society to function if some give in to their animal instincts 5. Not for the victims only, but an expression of societal condemnation? B. Utilitarianism 1. Balance – pleasure/pain calculation (from Bentham) a) Criminals calculate b) Society calculates (1) US v.Johnson – woman convicted a crime, but had a stable home for 4? Children. Court punished her to house arrest, as they did not want 4 innocents to suffer for 1 person’s crime. 2. Forward-looking; used to improve society 3. Deterrence a) Criminals rationally calculate - If threat of pain is greater than possible pleasure, they won’t act (Bentham, Posner) (1) US v. Bergman – doctor defrauded nursing home patients. Gave him a sentence to deter other greedy folks, though it recognized that he probably wouldn’t try to do it again and was not a danger to anyone.. b) If violence is inherently irrational, then they won’t calculate (Gilligan) c) Punishment must fit the crime. (1) If the punishment is too great, then it will deter rational innocent actors for anything associated with the activity, even legal action.
(2) That is cost on society that is greater than the benefit of deterring criminals. d) Certainty is better than severity (1) As important to appear effective as to be effective (2) Increasing severity too much may decrease percentage of convictions e) Use of stigma as a deterrent (1) Effective (2) Goes against the democratic concept of allowing courts to determine (and regulate) punishment 4. Incapacitation a) Society is better if the streets are safe b) Selective incapacitation (1) Should repeat offenders then be locked up preemptively? (2) They are more likely to commit again (3) Not certain they will – just deserts & retributivism fight back. (4) US v. Jackson – man who was repeat offender for bank robbery was sentenced to life in prison. Posner concurred with sentence based on the law, but commented that this was too severe, as bank robbery is generally a young man’s crime, and 20 years would be fine to deter another attempt. 5. Rehabilitation a) Want to make the offender safe to return to the streets b) Want to make the prisoner a better person (1) Paternalistic? (2) State v. Cheney – Supreme Court of Alaska criticized the leniency of the sentence on a first-time rapist, because without punishment he would not understand the gravity of his offense and be reformed.
he was convicted. As the statute said only “being found drunk”. As they strengthen those beliefs. and then arrested for public drunkenness. Voluntary a) §2. that the appearance had to be voluntary. then charged with being drunk on the road.01(2)(d) (2) Winzar v. Actus Reus 1.01 – “A person is not guilty of an offense unless the liability is based upon conduct which includes a voluntary act or the omission to perform an act of which he physically capable. then they strengthen their beliefs in the moral norms of society. thanks to the word “appear” in the statute. Chief Constable of Kent – drunk man taken by the police out of a hospital where he was sleeping in the corner. Culpability 1. d) Drunk (1) Martin v. What is it? D must commit: a) A voluntary act (or omission) b) That causes c) Social harm d) With a culpable mental state B. c) The voluntary requirement is not usually explicitly written in the statute. placed in their car.” b) MPC’s voluntary requirement is RETRIBUTIVE – we wouldn’t care whether it was or not under utilitarian ideas.6.01(2)(b) . Strengthening morals of the public a) Idea that punishment of some leads to strength of public faith in law-abiding conduct b) Society condones social norms c) Circular reasoning – if society believes that the criminal law system is just. State – drunk man was taken from his home by the cops to a public space. §2. but judges assume it is. e) Unconscious (1) Can be a complete defense under the MPC §2. Held. then they have faith that a law system condemning morals outside the norm is a just system. II.
reversed a conviction of a drug user for being a drug user based on the marks on his arms. . then retributively they do not deserve punishment. Decina j) Duress can be involuntary. Expert witness testimony was used f) What the MPC doesn’t count: (1) Doesn’t remember (2) Couldn’t help it (3) Unintentional (4) Habit g) What the MPC will take as involuntary: (1) Involuntary possession §2. though.(2) People v. i) If a person knows they are prone to involuntary acts. or §2. Common law. though he was not caught using. California – S. l) Status is not a voluntary act (1) Retributivist concept – society would be better without criminals on streets. or even in possession. and that alcoholism was not widely accepted as a disease. h) Legal insanity is NOT involuntary. or drugs.01(4) (2) Hypnosis§2.01(2)(b) (a) Cogden case – woman killed daughter while having a nightmare.01(2)(c) (3) Sleep-walking §2. treason allows words to be a voluntary act. (2) Robinson v. US – man tried to reverse conviction for being drunk in a public place on the basis of the disease of alcoholism. (3) Powell v. they can be convicted of criminal negligence (epileptic driver) People v. It can be an excuse.09? k) Under common law. Officers charged defendant had shot one of the officers. Didn’t succeed because he could not factually prove alcoholism was his problem.C. Psychiatrist testimony about mental disorder and sleep-walking problem got her acquitted. Newton – man claimed not to remember anything at all from when he was shot until when he woke up in the hospital. But if they’re not caught doing the illegal act.
there is more tendency not to help. (2) Jones v. Morally reprehensible. Still acquitted with no legal duty to care – didn’t fall under any one of the 4 exceptions.Pollock e) Bystander indifference (1) Pope v.01 – “A person is not guilty of an offense unless the liability is based upon conduct which includes a voluntary act or the omission to perform an act of which he physically capable. (3) When there is a larger group. Jones. when clearly had the means to feed it.2. (5) If you start to help. . State – woman watched a mother kill her child. and then taken the victim to a place where no other person could administer help. Why? (3) Case about the boy at Berkeley who watched his friend kill a girl – again. Was acquitted of murder and child abuse. did not stop her.01(3) – “Liability for commission of an offense may not be based on an omission unaccompanied by an action unless: -the omission is expressly made sufficient by the law defining the offense. f) Good Samaritans (1) Almost all nations have laws except Anglo-American (2) US fears losing individual liberties. or -a duty to perform the omitted act is otherwise imposed by law c) 4 exceptions (US v. you have a duty to continue Where is this from? d) Presupposed duty of a mother to care for her child . DC Circuit): (1) Certain relationship (parent) (2) The person has assumed a contractual duty (3) Where a statute imposes it (4) Where one has voluntarily assumed care. Omissions a) §2. or be suspected of being involved. US – family friend allowed a child to die of malnutrition.” b) §2. People are afraid they will do more harm than good. morally repugnant but not illegal. but not legally wrong.
The four gradings of mens rea – MPC §2. His intent was that they die.02 a) There are three parts of the crime for which you have to find mens rea for each element (1) Nature of the conduct . The legislature should decide this. (a) Michigan v. (b) Washington v. but his intent was not to commit an act that would kill them – so he had mens rea. h) Medical omissions (1) Taking someone off life-support is a voluntary omission and not legally culpable in most states. This has been replaced by the MPC. Actus non facit reum. Common law defined it as “malice aforethought”. and the transfer of victim’s willpower to immediate family was acceptable (b) Cruzan v. Why do we care about mens rea? a) Retributivists – a person doesn’t deserve to be punished if they didn’t intend to do something criminal b) Utilitarians – not as strong. Kervorkian – he set up a clearly physician-assisted suicide. held that the 14th Amendment doesn’t have anything to say about this. Society doesn’t benefit from incapacitating someone who is not a danger to society – but the rest of society does benefit from the power of deterrence.g) Up at the 4 requirements for a crime listed above. Glucksburg – Constitution does not protect the right to physician-assisted suicide. “depraved heart. it’s not clear that an omission CAUSES the harm. as a physician does have the right to omit treatment. The state charges them with murder through omission of duty. nisi mens sit rea – “an unwarrantable act without a vicious will is no crime at all” 2.. (a) State v. Barber: Two physicians unplug life-support from a comatose person with no chance of recovery at the behest of the immediate family. Court held it was not.C. Missouri – S. “evil intent”. or even attempt. 3. It is the states’ decision whether or not the family members can have the right to decide on behalf of a comatose person who has not given their consent. (2) Lethal injection is a voluntary act and therefore culpable. 4. but the victims themselves were conscious and made the decisions to pull their “triggers”. but didn’t have actus reus. C. Mens Rea 1. He was not the cause of the death.
(3) Contributory negligence or negligence of 3rd parties is not a defense.02(7) (a) to get around willful blindness (b) cgUS v.02(7) (2) Awareness of a high probability of the result upgrades from recklessness to knowledge §2. c) Knowledge (1) Knowledge does not adhere to a reasonableness standard §2. claimed he didn’t know they were in the car (c) Ostriches and careless birds d) Recklessness – must be substantial and justifiable e) Negligence – gross deviation from what an ordinary person would think/know – but really didn’t know. it is for all §2. unless it is gross negligence (4) Must be gross deviation that creates a substantial and unjustifiable risk. but often is. (1) Difference between civil and criminal negligence? – I believe it’s really only one of degree – (2) How bad is the potential result. with the drugs being smuggled in the car.(2) Circumstances around the conduct (3) Result of the conduct (4) Don’t have to find if it doesn’t make sense (5) When statute says for one. Jewell. .02(4) b) Purpose/intent (1) Wishes are not intent (2) Motive is not supposed to be relevant.
(3) People v. (2) The mistake must be reasonable in recklessness & negligence (3) You are always held to what you thought you did.05 c) What are the characteristics? (1) Not a stiff penalty . Olsen – man had sex with a 13-year-old. saying he honestly believed she was 18. c) Common law (1) General – if you did something illegal. – very subjective (3) Legal wrong – if you did something really illegal. Mistake of Fact a) Two theories for this: b) MPC §2.04 (1) Ignorance or mistake is a defense if it negates the existence of the requisite mental state. you are acquitted. (2) White v. you have to be committing one crime with intent to do another b) Mistake of fact can be a defense in specific intent even if unreasonable. and what you thought you were doing was legal but immoral. who he thought she was over 16. Prince – man takes a 14-year-old away from her father. Specific Intent vs. even if less than what you actually did. 6. How did they rule? 7. Strict Liability a) Purpose is one of public policy – totally deterrence b) SL is in the common law. True for purpose. and thought you were doing something not-so-illegal. MPC doesn’t like it ever §2. but didn’t know she was pregnant. State – man abandoned his wife. d) Violating statutory rape is where this comes up a lot! (1) The infamous Regina v. it wads a crime to abandon a pregnant wife. General Intent a) To have specific intent. you will be held for the really illegal.5. you will be held for the illegal act. too? (2) Moral wrong – if you did something illegal. and have a reasonable mistake of fact defense that would have made the act legal.
or recklessness. e) Involuntary acts are a defense to SL f) Arguments against SL standards: (1) It’s unjust (2) No statistical evidence that it deters (3) What about forcing defendants to prove there was no negligence? More fair. 8. (1) People v. knowledge. (2) Fair notice and time to correct – Lambert v. Court held that we don’t want SL standards that get a lot of totally innocent people trapped accidentally. because the court interpreted no mens rea written to mean purpose. d) As a general rule. c) Many states have exceptions: (1) If a person shows an exhaustive effort to find out about the law. California (3) Lack of knowledge & understanding – mainly for tax law d) MPC is similar. Morrisette – man collecting scrap metal from an Air Force base not held liable under a SL standard. Staples – man with automatic weapon that had been doctored to look like a regular weapon.” This is not the usual assumption about a statute. b) Two ways to look at it: (1) Can’t allow the excuse. and preferably actually say “strictly liable. the statute should not have any mens rea mentioned.(2) Easy to follow the rule – standards are clear (3) Breaking the rule has the power to harm the public (4) There is no parallel common law rule – it’s a new statute. and then relies in good faith upon the results of that. Mistake of Law a) At common law.04(3): (1) Reasonable Reliance on an incorrect law . but with more exceptions §2. it’s never a defense. (2) People v. or people would know and use it in bad faith (2) Should apply a negligence standard – we ultimately want people to act morally rather than just legally. it would be unfair to punish them.
The NJ Supreme Court held that this could be rape if the evidence showed non-consent. Whether spousal rape is permissible C.04(4) III. Acquitted for no “force” element. How to analyze the statutes 1.(2) Must prove mistake of law by a preponderance of the evidence §2. (b) Mlinarich – 14-year-old had sex with a foster parent under the duress that.1(2)(a) b) Do we need force requirement at all? (1) MTS – two juveniles have sex. Force or threat of force 3. (3) MPC allowed it as a lower-grade offense with a reasonableness standard §213. nonconsent. The gravity of the facts required to be proven 2. she would be returned to the juvenile detention facility. if she did not. This is heavily factsensitive. Whether and how the crime is split into distinctly graded offense 3. Usual components 1. Force. & resistance – Actus Reus 1. there is no resistance on her part and no force used on his – just the act. Thompson – principal forced a student to have sex with him upon the threat that otherwise she would not graduate high school. She claims it was non-consensual. . What is force? a) Non-physical threats often not treated as “force” (1) Sometimes treated as sexual assault (2) Have to look for a word in the statute like “duress” (a) State v. Sexual Intercourse 2. Lack of consent B. Rape A. The level of punishment authorized 4.
(b) Battered women do not resist – pattern behavior (3) Arguments FOR resistance requirement: (a) Makes for clear evidence/defense (b) Has a good chance of stopping a rape before it happens. Found not to be rape because there was no resistance. and the appeal upheld the jury’s fact-finding decision of “reasonable” fear. at which point he picks her up. What is consent? a) Common law views on consent: (1) Old common law you had to resist to prove “no” (2) Modern majority you have to verbalize “no” (3) Modern minority silence constitutes “no” (4) Modern super minority (Antioch standard) you need an affirmative “yes” b) Can you have a mistake of fact defense for consent? See below. Rusk – Pat and Eddie at Fell’s point. His story was different. then she said “will you promise not to kill me if I do what you say” and he nodded. Statutes do not address this. and has sex with her.2. (b) State v. She claimed she was afraid because he “looked at her”after she drove him home. takes off her clothes. Jury convicted Eddie. according to stats (c) Makes for less chance that the innocent will be convicted (4) Arguments AGAINST: (a) Man women don’t tell the authorities when they don’t have resistance (b) “Freeze factor” is common . c) Resistance is sometimes required as evidence of nonconsent (1) Not when there is evidence of “reasonable” fear of more force if resisting (a) “reasonable man” and “reasonable woman” might be different. (2) Implicit threats encounter the problem of resistance (a) Alston – woman who has been sexually abused by a man says no to a final advance.
What’s the mens rea you need? a) Traditionally. 2. where man led totally naïve girl through Manhattan and eventually to his apartment. but she was taken to a remote location. f) Unconsciousness as lack of consent – all laws agree no consent. All this talk about consent leads to question of whether they intended to do it without consent. . knowledge – sometimes recklessness b) Modern needs only negligence .d) Fraud can be considered lack of consent – Boro v. No sign of resistance from her. Sherry – four doctors take the woman out to the cabin. she claims she was forced. g) Intoxication as lack of consent: (1) Old common law & MPC §213. Superior Court. you needed purpose. smoke pot.court held there had to be a reasonableness factor.Requires a “reasonableness” factor (1) Commonwealth v. Court required proof of criminal intent. all have sex with her. but there was no sign of resistance. Mens Rea for Rape 1. The defense tried to offer a jury instruction that they did not have knowledge . where he messed with her mind and then had sex with her. woman has sex with an “anonymous” after doctor said this was necessary to cure a disease he had made up.1(1)(b) – had to be involuntary (2) Some modern common law – severe intoxication is always lack on consent D. They claim she was a willing participant. Found guilty of rape – there was no consent e) Mere deceit goes both ways – Evans.
when honest & reasonable. even if unreasonable. 2. 3. Court used the opportunity to axe the marital exemption in the State of NY altogether.c) Gradation might be correct here – currently. it is becoming one. Liberta – woman who had a court order of restraint against her husband was raped in front of their son. MPC allowed it! §213. isn’t it? E. Corroboration a) Not technically a requirement anymore b) People naturally ask about corroborative evidence for credibility anyway (1) Some say that people don’t believe the woman (2) Some say that juries are always sympathetic to the woman . we are looking at contributory & comparative negligence in cases where negligence seems to be the standard. Extended to nonmarried but living together. the rape did not happen. as force and resistance requirements disappear. He tried to raise a mistake of fact defense as reasonable to a date rape claim. d) In a lot of ways. b) Though frowned upon in modern common law. Negligence focuses more on the circumstances and on each person’s role. F. which has been the problem all along in terms of evidence. Gives no marital privilege if separated already a) People v. which interested the court (they found it did not relate to his appeal under ineffective counsel) c) Mistake of fact is a defense to larceny (really thought you had permission to take it. (1) Commonwealth v. Problems of Proof 1. Mostly done away with now. There are a lot of rapes that are not committed by rapists – evidence for a negligence standard. it was a defense when honest. Is there a mistake of fact defense? a) Traditionally. we conclude that if there was a mistake. e) Why not recklessness? Seems to focus too much on the mindset of the perpetrator. 3.) Though seems crass to make it applicable to rape. even though this woman was clearly protected by the separation portion of the statute. Fischer – date rape case with vastly different stories at Villanova.6(2) – unless separated by judicial order. The Marital Exemption 1.
What is it? 1. What can it be? a) Need to have “malice aforethought” (1) Can be express malice – intent to kill a specific person (2) Can be death resulting from intent to cause grievous harm (3) Can be reckless indifference to the result of death (4) Death occuring during a felony b) Does not have to be premeditated any longer! c) We have degrees of murder because death is such an extreme option but one we wish to have available. (1) Commonwealth v. 2. etc. loading it. He claimed total rage and that it was involuntary.c) MPC required it . but court did not buy this. . They found a sufficient amout of time between decision to kill and killing. (2) Nagging women argument comes up a lot – court still holds this to be insufficient provocation. manslaughter. Premeditation a) No longer has to be any period of time b) Helpful to have acts of preparation – going to get the gun.6(5) 2. Shield laws a) Allow women not to have to tell prior sexual history b) Designed because prejudicial effect outweighs probative value c) Only used in some jurisdictions? IV.§213. Murder 1. infanticide B. Unlawful killing 2. See below. Murder. Carroll – man with schizophrenic wife who is abusing the kids finally gets so angry that he kills her after an argument. suicide. Homicide A.
(5) Counter-examples: (a) Andersen case (counterexample) – man convicted of murder after stabbing a 10-year-old girl more than 60 times. motive. Definitely had all three. no motive. and was convicted – but no sense of immorality. Gut reaction of horror can trump all other evidence? (b) State v. It’s really a sad case. Forrest – man brings gun to hospital and kills his long-ill father. The court found no planning. Manslaugher 1. d) Perhaps we don’t look so much at premeditation as we do at moral depravity of the situation. yet convicted of murder. and stabs friend to death. What is it? a) No need for “malice aforethought” (1) Voluntary manslaughter – provocation/heat of passion (2) Involuntary manslaughter (a) Death from a lawful act done recklessly (b) Death from an unlawful act that was a misdemeanor . and the sudden and irrational nature of the killing in response to a joke to be examples of no premeditation. Guthrie – the guy with the fascination about his nose goes nuts when it gets hit by a friend.c) What should you look for to determine premeditation & deliberation? (1) Planning (2) Motive (3) Manner of killing (4) Examples: (a) State v. No evidence of planning. C. or rational manner of killing.
it was typically catching wife in act of adultery. Convicted of murder – too much time had elapsed. Bourdeaux – man who heard in the morning that a man had raped his mother 20 years ago killed the man that evening. The provocation defense is a reasonable man standard (2) Actor did not have time to cool off (a) Maher v. Court found this was a reasonable enough question to go to the jury. then two weeks later after much taunting he killed the guy. (ii) If someone is so angry that they kill whoever’s standing around. DOESN’T mean that it was cause a reasonable man to kill. it’s not. c) At common law. (d) Man suspected his wife of infidelity for several weeks. then caught her and killed her.2. d) What do you need? (1) Reasonable & adequate provocation (a) Words are not provocation. (i) Girouard – man killed wife by stabbing after a provocation in which she called him a “lousy fuck”. it’s a defense. (b) US v. then had heard from a friend that they had slept together the day before. Provocation a) This defense has a “reasonable man” standard. (e) People v. but the attempt charge would decrease to an assault and battery if he would not have been convicted of murder. Had seen them go into the woods together a half-hour before. Berry – man waited 20 hours in apartment to kill a woman. b) The killing is never reasonable! It is whether the provocation was such that a reasonable man would have lost his ability to think rationally. Didn’t succeed in killing him. . Convicted of murder. People – man entered saloon to kill the man he thought was sleeping with his wife. (c) State v. but jury let him off on manslaughter as smouldering provocation!!! (3) Some kind of causal link b/w provocation and homicide (a) Mistaking the victim: (i) If defendant legitimately thinks he’s killing the guy who provoked him. Goumingias – man sodomized.
D. Involuntary Manslaughter & Criminal Negligence 1. (3) What would be a reasonable excuse? Maybe seeing someone kill your child. came over and tried to get her to date him again.3(1)(b) – “a homicide which would otherwise be murder is committed under the influence of extreme mental or emotional disturbance for which there is a reasonable explanation or excuse. would break into her house and lie naked in her bed – finally. The reasonableness of such explanation or excuse shall be determined from the viewpoint of a person in the actor’s situation under the circumstances as he believes them to be. Cassassa – man was dumped by a woman. f) Cultural differences – we often allow this defense. Jury found that. became obsessed with her. and when she said no. it did not have a reasonable excuse. What the difference between criminal & civil negligence? a) One of gradation only b) Utilitarian purpose of deterrence .e) The MPC has an exception for severe emotional disturbance with a reasonable excuse: (1) §210.. while he was obviously disturbed.” (a) Two tests: is the person several emotionally disturbed? (subjective) (b) Is that disturbance reasonable under the circumstances? (Objective) (2) People v. he killed her.
more than anything else.c) We sense that criminal behavior should be anti-social behavior. uneducated. and it fired on the third. despite no motive. Extreme Recklessness – the difference between manslaughter & murder 1. 2. Loses control of car and kills another driver. Pulled the trigger on a 5-cartridge gun three times. b) US v. E. Court found him guilty of murder. MPC §210. in order to turn recklessness into a standard for murder. most states have made killings while drunk driving murder. b) MPC does not believe that ignorance excuses criminal negligence – Source? (a) US v. Later. His duty of care was questionable (proximate cause). the likelihood of harm was high. Defenses a) Contributory negligence is not a defense. the justifiable risk low – atmosphere and keeping out people sneaking in. not just very negligent behavior. Malone – 17-year-old kills 13-year-old while playing Russian roulette. 3. . and got involuntary manslaughter. the risk that the harm would be serious even higher. Williams – Native American couple. the law was changed to include a lower grade of criminal negligence. Fleming – guy who is high who drives at 100 mph down the wrong side of the GW parkway in a long police chase.” – there has to be “extreme indifference to human life. What are the factors to determine the grading? a) Duty of care b) Likelihood of harm c) The risk that the harm is serious d) The actual awareness of the risk e) Justifiable risk – very subjective f) Example: Commonwealth v. and were convicted of manslaughter. there has to be more than the usual level of “gross deviation from the standard of conduct that a law-abiding person would observe…. let their child die because they were afraid the state would take him away if they went to a doctor. because of the extreme indifference to human life. Welansky – the owner of the bar held liable for the deaths during a fire.” a) Commonwealth v. but his actual awareness of the risk low/questionable. c) In general.2 makes clear that.
this woman’s behavior – by being a crack addict – led to death. (b) People v. and the owner had a heart attack during the robbery. Basic Doctrine a) This is a strict-liability concept. Satchell – carrying a concealed weapon is a felony.§210. Think about a mistake of fact question in these kinds of cases. Even if they thought there was 0% chance of harm. That’s why it’s frustrating. (1) Thin-skull doctrine (2) People v. What if they thought there was low risk? Recklessness requires an objective test. (2) Some feel the specific facts of the case are essential. e) There is a lesser offense – misdemeanor-manslaughter rule 2. Does the punishment fit the crime? Probably not. (1) Some courts feel this should be determined in the abstract (a) People v. Stewart – woman convicted of f-m for negligently allowing her child to be “a habitual sufferer”. d) The death does not have to be foreseeable. Does the felony-murder rule actually deter felons? Probably not. (a) People v. Phillipas – doctor of chiropractics told a family that he could cure their child. but “thin-skull” doctrine applied.2. but not an inherently dangerous one in the abstract. too. the MPC is. would a reasonable person have thought so? F. b) The person committing the felony does have to be the proximate cause of the death c) Death must be foreseeable. She died 6 months later. Although the crime is not abstractly dangerous to human life. The court issued a jury instruction that death during Grand Theft would be f-m. 3. IF it was natural and probable. He was prone to them anyway.2(1)(b). who had cancer. with his treatments. as Grand Theft is not an inherently dangerous felony. b) The act which causes it must itself be reckless endangerment of human life . The Supreme Court reversed. Felony-Murder Rule 1. Basically. which is a felony in RI. 3 requirements to the felony-murder rule a) The felony needs to be inherently dangerous. Stamp – man robbed an office.
(1) There have been exceptions that the felon should not ever be held liable for the death of his co-felon. (3) Taylor v. and they feel that someone should be blamed. felons can be held liable for death committed by the victims. all of them can be held liable. many will rule that the co-felon’s death should be attributed to the other felons. but only convicted for the victim – the death of the co-felon was dismissed as not being under the f-m doctrine. d) The felony must have been the direct or proximate cause 4. Canola – victim of a robbery shot the co-felon. c) Proximate cause rule – deaths caused by 3rd parties CAN be attributed to the co-felons. Apart from f-m rule. when their action is in response to a provocation by the victim. and the co-felon shot the victim. (2) Otherwise. Others have held that the building portion makes them independent. Martinez (pipe bomb exploded in the car). but can be less provocation. (1) State v. (4) Works to find liability where there isn’t any in f-m. (2) Has to be reasonably provocative though OUTSIDE the felony itself. Easier to hold them liable. because an agent did not kill him – the victim killed him. But-for the fact that they engaged in the felony. US v. since these almost always involve and assault. you just succeed in removing the required element of malice (3) Robberies and burglaries are split – some states hold that. b) Agency rule – felons are ONLY liable for deaths directly caused by the felons or agents of the felons. (1) Sortof like self-defense. Sortof justified. Can the other felons be held liable for the death? Yes. The other co-felon was charged with both deaths. there can’t be f-m. Superior Court – one of the felons was killed by the victim of the robbery (who was not hurt). no one will be dead. Both died. because that death was…. . Different theories of f-m liability a) All theories agree that all the felons can be held liable for a victim’s death at the hands of one of the co-felons. d) Vicarious liability – quite similar to the depraved heart idea.c) Felony must be independent of the homicide (1) Can’t bootstrap – like putting a f-m charge on an assault with a deadly weapon. (2) But as the life of the co-felon isn’t completely worthless. as the felony was still the proximate cause of the death. Any death during a felony which comes out of self-defense provoked by one of the felons.
.V. a) People v. if you intended to harm the person. I think that. 2. Welansky – fire in the club that killed so many people. and it was a foressable result that people would not be able to get out during a fire. whether or not intended. b) People v. Forseeability and coincidence 1. probable. the doors would not have been locked. Hence foreseeability. What you need for causation 1. Stamp – robber who gives the man a heart-attack. and harm resulted.03(2)&(3) 3.03(1)(a) 2. and the harm became greater than what you intended. Retributive – there is more sense that a person deserves punishment if they “caused” an the social harm. it had to be in the actor’s mind for crimes of purpose and knowledge. we use the two tests of but-for and foreseeability. Thin-skull doctrine. Proximate cause is a result that is natural. b) Non-deadly assault on a hemophiliac will get a murder charge? c) Assaulting a Jehovah’s witness who chooses not to take blood will get a murder charge. Acosta – the man driving recklessly on the ground in a police chase was found to be the proximate cause of the deaths resulting from a police helicopter collision. ‘But-for’ test – who is in the “zone” of causation – MPC §2. foreseeable a) In MPC. C. If you didn’t intend to harm at all – if you were negligent. Philosophy of causation 1. we don’t care if the actual result was foreseeable. just had to be reasonably foreseeable for crimes of recklessness & negligence §2. Utilitarian – want to deter dangerous action. Common law & intervening causes a) Responsive intervening causes are not a defense b) Coincidental intervening cause is a defense c) Voluntary intervening cause is a defense d) Gross negligence intervening is a defense B. 2. The owner was found to be the proximate cause of the death – ‘but-for’ his instructions. Causation A. but don’t want to make society unable to function because they won’t take any risks. a) People v.
even though they were killed by a second fire set below the defendant’s fire. Kervorkian – he set everything up. court held she was under duress and not responsible for her actions. the person who caused the harm is still the proximate cause. e) Omission is not an intervening cause 5. took pills to try to kill herself. 3. not deadly. and was not taken by him to a hospital or home for several days. Although she tried to kill herself. But the court held that the process was “too complicated” to determine cause. and the doctors were grossly negligent. (3) Stephenson case – woman was kidnapped. Subsequent Actions that Recklessly Risk the Result – why are these different from the voluntary section? . raped. (2) If the wound was not bad. ‘But-for’ the defendant’s fire. then the original actor is held liable b) If the intervening cause was coincidental and unforeseeable. c) Voluntary choice on part of victim (1) Michigan v. they would not have been in the building. d) Medical malpractice (1) If a person was badly wounded and the doctors failed to save him. Warner Lambert – company which had been warned about the danger of an explosion had that explosion. Intervening Causes a) If the intervening cause was reasonably foreseeable/responsive. Arzon – the man who set fire to a building was found to be the proximate cause of the deaths of the firemen. 4. (4) Remember to separate from thin skull doctrine. then we hold him responsible.c) People v. and sold him the gun. Still found to be a free-will choice of the victim. and it was foreseeable that they would respond. then that can be said to be an intervening cause (3) Generally. Corporations are rarely found criminally liable a) People v. but the victims chose to die (2) Campbell case – man convinced a drunk man it was a “good idea” to kill himself. then the original actor is not held liable (1) Man who was robbed left on side of road and hit by a car (2) Man who was assaulted is then killed in the hospital by a rampaging maniac. if the defendant did INTEND death.
One case found one racer’s death not to be the other racer’s responsibility. The victim’s death was the ‘but-for’ and foreseeable result of threatening him. and it was a foreseeable result. State – an HIV-positive man who raped three women was not found guilty of attempted murder. VI. MPC (and some states) – it should be exactly the same punishment 3. The guys with bats were held liable for his death. Kern – guy ran across a highway trying to get away from men with baseball bats. Death was not the foresseable result of his actions. Proving specific intent – mens rea for attempt 1. What’s the punishment for attempt? 1. b) People v. which would be a way to infer intent. another case found the death of one racer and the girl he hit to be the other racer’s responsibility. Drizin’s attempt spectrum Conceiving the crime Mulling it over Decides to do it Starts the prep Completes the prep Begins to commit Completes crime B. Modern common law – lower punishment than had the crime been completed 2. Attempt A. not the driver. c) Russian Roulette – all the participants in the game were held liable for the one who died as a result. the less likely it will happen d) Retributive – we punish according to the degree of blame – no action requires some punishment.a) Drag racing – would not have been doing it but-for the other racer. C. Point of punishment? a) Deterrence – make the point that this is unacceptable to even think about b) Incapacitation – they are just as dangerous to society as had they done it c) Prevention – the earlier we stop the crime. Victim was then hit by a car. but not as much as had it been committed. Held to be an activity that wouldn’t have been done but-for the participation of the others. . The result has to be foreseeable in the actions taken to infer intent a) Smallwood v.
he: (a) purposely engages in conduct which would constitute the crime if the attendant circumstances were as he believes them to be. Preparation a) Where does preparation stop and attempt start? (1) English common law said the person must have taken the last possible step before commission (2) Modern English law says that the first step in commission of a multi-step crime (like slow poison) constitutes attempt. OR (c) purposely does or omits to do anything which. The standards of proof are higher than for an actual crime. OR (b) when causing a particular result. (2) Equivocality test – if the actions could have been innocent.” b) Preparation is needed to show intent (1) Proximity test – had to be sufficiently close to their goalt (a) People v. it would be murder. thinking they were the girl. (b) McQuirter v.2. (3) US is all over the place (4) MPC §5. acting with the kind of culpability otherwise required for commission of a crime. does or omits to do anything with the purpose of causing or with the belief that it will cause such result without further conduct on his part. because there wasn’t enough evidence of him with any girl. had they succeeded in killing. Rizzo – guys who planned to rob a man and lay in wait for him. under the circumstance as he believes them to be. then it doesn’t show intent (a) Drizin doesn’t like this one. State – black man convicted of attempt to rape after following a woman down the street in Alabama in the 1950’s. a) Just because. is no guarantee that they will be convicted of attempted murder because they didn’t succeed. They were too far from their goal (b) Duke case – detective solicited a child sex offender online by impersonating a girl and getting him to meet the police. Could not convict of attempt. 3.01(1) – “A person is guilty of an attempt to commit a crime if. but never even saw him. . Not found guilty of attempt. is an act or omission constituting a substantial step in the court of conduct planned to culminate in his commission of the crime.
Jackson – Robbery planned. caught them around the corner from the bank with masks and weapons in the trunk. The objective test of the reasonable person applies! . Convicted for attempt. 3. police got word. VII. Common law does not recognize abandonment. Abandonment 1. Self-defense and necessity are the main justifications B. 2. Self Defense 1.§5.01(4) a) Abandonment must be voluntary & complete b) Not a defense if you back off because there is less chance of success. MPC recognizes limited . (3) MPC test . In the 4 part test. D. c) Not a defense if you postpone it. What is justification 1.(c) US v.§5. Justification A. Tough defense to use. When can you use it? a) Upon threat of deadly force that was b) Imminent c) And Unlawful d) When you believed you were in imminent danger of death or serious harm e) And you believed the response was the only option to save yourself 2.01(2) (a) right in the middle of equivocality & proximity (b) “strongly corroborative of the actor’s criminal purpose” (c) No more workable. you did not do the social harm 2.
Exceptions to self-defense a) You must retreat if you know you can without risk of being harmed . Some argue that the threat is always imminent in these relationships. it’s not a defense (incomplete self-defense) b) Under common law minority view.§3. Battered women a) Have to take the position of a reasonable person in a battered woman’s shoes b) Battered women kill in three scenarios: (1) Kill during confrontation – can often claim self-defense (State v. as in NY.3.04(2)(b)(ii)(1) b) Not if you are the aggressor (1) Some states make the defense completely void if you started the confrontation .04(2)(b)(ii) (1) You have to know it is completely safe (2) You are not expected to risk harm by retreating .04(2)(c) (3) This usually does not apply to defending your own home .04(1) d) Goetz – man shot and killed 4 boys who he believed were trying to rob him.§3. the use of deadly force is justified if the person believes they are being robbed 4. Are objective and subjective beliefs really any different? 5.§3. He was acquitted. it should be voluntary manslaughter – no malice c) MPC does not require a reasonableness standard . plus the belief of no other choice is harder to sustain. (3) Kill husband through contracting another man – has never been allowed to claim self-defense. Norman). Goetz had a history of being mugged. What if the belief was unreasonable? (Goetz) a) Under common law. It definitely requires forethought and imminence is hard to prove.§3. c) Why they should be allowed to bring in BWS: (1) Establishes credibility of seemingly irrational lifestyle (2) Explains why they did not retreat from beatings in their life (3) They may have had more of an understanding of when the threat was deadly than the average person – they had plenty of experience 6. Kelly) (2) Kill during non-confrontation (often sleep) – can rarely claim self-defense as the harm is not imminent and there is some forethought (State v. but admitted the killing was intentional.
(2) Other states hold that it is partial self-defense if you started the confrontation.02 3. but the other person escalated it to deadly force. §3. What do you need in order to use it? a) Choice of evils b) There is imminent harm c) The act has a causal link between the actions and stopping the harm d) There were no legal alternatives 2. MPC is close to common law §3. Williams – homeless break into abandoned buildings) d) Medical might get through (Hutchins – man grew marijuana to relieve painful symptoms of medical condition) 4. . Prison escapes a) In addition to the above 4 requirements: b) The prisoner is expected to return to the authorities immediately c) There cannot be violence committed during the escape VIII.04(2)(b)(i) C. Leno – volunteers illegally distributing needles to drug addicts against a statute) b) Reduction of civil rights during war – (Israel – torture will not be allowed) c) Homeless have a hard time (Borough of Southwark v. Excuses A. Necessity 1. Involuntary a) Only a defense at Common Law if the defendant is so intoxicated that he is complete unaware of actions. It’s a hard defense to use! a) Civl disobedience has a hard time (Schoon – war protest in the IRS. Kingston b) MPC §2. Intoxication 1.08(4) – an affirmative defense if actor lacked capacity to appreciate the conduct’s criminality or to conform to the law.
01 – “lacks substantial capacity either to appreciate the criminality of his conduct or to conform his condut to the requirements of law.08(2) – not a defense to crimes of recklessness d) Can be used to mitigate a sentence e) Can be used as an element of defense at common law & MPC for specific intent crimes.” (1) Right in between M’Naghten & irresistible impulse . (1) Therefore. g) All decisions regarding intoxication must be reasonable. (2) Very extreme. self-defense doesn’t allow intoxication defenses – requires two steps that use reason.2. Hood f) Prosecutors counter by breaking down the crime into each element to demonstrate attempt.08(1) – not a defense unless it negates the element of offense c) MPC §2. (3) No room for volitional difficulties b) Irrisistible impulse test (1) Lightest of the tests (2) Can be temporary (3) Can be volitional as well as cognitive c) MPC test §4. Voluntary a) Not a defense to general intent in common law b) MPC §2. Rarely a workable defense 3. B. totally incapacitated. Insanity 1. Three tests for insanity a) M’Naghten test (1) cognitive deficiency. The law presumes sanity – it’s an affirmative defense 2.
4. Diminished capacity is similar to “guilty but mentally ill” and can be pled in the alternative a) Allows juries not to give the death penalty to the mentally ill or retarded b) Allows juries to make more individualized decisions c) In reality. . is just a middle ground that allows jury to put them in prison 7. Guilty but mentally ill – new half-way that still sends the person to prison 6. 5. Punishment for insanity a) Some states have mandatory incapacitation at a mental institution b) Others have psychiatrists recommend c) Not always easy to be released – people get confined indeifinitely. After Hinkley was acquitted under MPC test. many common laws have returned to M’Naghten.