1 Regina v. Faulkner (1877) p.

63 -

August 30, 2011

-

-

-

-

-

Procedural o Faulkner asked for acquittal- denied o Faulkner charged with setting fire to ship- convicted o Faulkner appeals Facts o Faulkner went to bulkhead to steal rum o Cut hole in rum barrel and rum spilt out o Upon trying to plug hole, a lighted match caught flame to the rum o Faulkner burned his arms and neck  the ship was completely destroyed o Faulkner arrested and tried Issue o Is someone who commits a felony responsible for a resulting felonious act that was not intended or reasonably foreseeable? Rule o The intention of the accused forms an element in the crime to the extent that the defendant intended to do the crime, it was a necessary consequence of another committed crime, or having a probable result that should’ve been foreseen. Analysis o Under the Malicious Injuries to Property Act (sec. 51), the act committed must be done:  Willfully  Intentionally o Direction given to jury was erroneous  Did not willfully burn the ship  The ship catching fire was not a foreseeable consequence of stealing the rum Holding o Faulkner did not intend to set fire to the ship. Reversed. State v. Jackowski (2006) p. 69 Procedural o Jackowski arrested and convicted for disorderly conduct o Jackowski appeals Facts o Jackowski participated in anti-war demonstration in a street intersection o Stood in intersection praying and holding sign with anti-war slogans and images o Police repeatedly asked Jackowski to leave intersection  Arrested after refusal with 11 other members o All arrested were charged with disorderly conduct Issue o Did the defendant act with the requisite criminal intent? Rule o A jury must be given the chance to decide if the intent is criminal or not. Analysis

-

-

-

not cause public annoyance or inconvenience o The law makes a distinction between intentional and knowing acts o Jury was not able to decide if Jackowski’s intent was to cause public annoyance/inconvenience Holding o Erroneous direction was given to the jury. is consciously aware of the existence of facts which makes his conduct unlawful.2 August 30. while not having the actual intent to accomplish a specific wrongful purpose. went to hospital to get kids help o Arrested for 1st degree murder Issue o Did Ducker “knowingly” endanger her kids? Rule o Knowing is applicable to the situations in which the accused. State v. Ducker (1999-2000) p. he used a fake social security card with his real name and false number o Unbeknownst to him. it was also harmless  Instruction did not relieve the State’s burden of proof  Instruction added more burden of proof to State o The evidence is sufficient to sustain conviction Holding o Decision Affirmed Flores-Figueroa v. 2011 - o Jackowski intended to only protest the war. Analysis o While the instruction to the jury was erroneous. the social security number belonged to someone else o Arrested for identity theft Issue . 81 - - - - - - - - Procedural o Flores-Figueroa convicted of aggravated identity theft o Flores-Figueroa appeals Facts o Flores-Figueroa is a citizen of Mexico o To ensure employment. United States (2009) p. Reversed.73 Procedural o Ducker charged with 2 counts of 1st degree murder from aggravated child abuse o Found guilty of 2 counts of aggravated child abuse  Sentenced 36 years (18 for each crime) o Ducker appeals Facts o Ducker drove to hotel where her boyfriend was staying  Left 13 and 23 month olds in car with windows rolled up o Stayed at the hotel for 9 hours o Did not mention she had kids in the car o When left hotel.

possesses. any person who “knowingly transfers.000 fine Staples appeals.” is guilty of aggravated identity theft o The verb “knowingly” applies to the whole sentence. Tobacco and Firearms (BATF) search Staples home  Find AR-15 rifle with modifications Had parts modified from M-16 which made it capable to be an automatic weapon Did not register modified weapon with BATF Staples arrested for unlawful possession of registered machine gun (§5861(d)) Does the defendant need to know of the particular characteristics that make his weapon a statutory firearm? Although a statute does not mention a mens rea requirement. belonged to “another person. or uses. in fact. possessed. possesses. the court can impute mens rea to the offense. “Knowingly” applies to:  Transfers. Common-law requires mens rea in statutory crimes even if not stated  Offenses that require no mens rea are generally disfavored Not wanting to construe a statute to dispense mens rea where doing so would “criminalize a broad range of apparently innocent conduct” - Facts o o o o o Issueo Rule o Analysis o o . or uses without lawful authority. a means of identification of another person. or used. 2011 Does the statute require the Government to show that the defendant knew that the “means of identification” they unlawfully transferred. AND  Identification of another person o The burden of proof to establish that Flores-Figueroa “knowingly” used the identification of another person lies with the defense o The defense did not prove that Flores-Figueroa “knowingly” used another’s identity Holding o Reversed Staples v. United States (1994) p. Analysis o According to a federal criminal statute.3 o August 30. 87 - Procedural o o Staples convicted  Sentenced 5 years and $5.affirmed National Firearms Act imposes strict registration requirements for “firearms”  Firearms.any weapon which shoots more than 1 shot by the single function of the trigger Bureau of Alcohol.” - Rule o - - The prosecution must be able to prove that a defendant knew that the identification he used belonged to another person in order to claim aggravated identity theft.

Staples was ignorant to the characteristics of his weapon and therefore did not knowingly poses a gun that was unregistered under §5861(d). the penalty imposed under a statute has been a significant consideration in determining whether the statute should be construed as dispensing with mens rea Silence does not suggest that Congress dispensed with mens rea for the element of §5861(d)  Emphasized having a narrow holding If Congress intended to make outlaws of gun owners who were ignorant to the specifics of their weapons. Reversed o Holding o . 2011 An item that is “dangerous” does not necessarily suggest that it is not innocent Historically.4 o o o August 30. they would’ve spoken more clearly to that effect.

language such as “with the intent” or “for the purpose of”  Arson statute requires only an intent to do the act that causes the harm The fact that reckless burning is a lesser offense of arson is also not dispositive Court of Appeal’s judgment reversed and remanded Tennessee v.won People appeal August 30.5 People v.“when the definition of a crime consists of only the description of a particular act. Hatcher (2010) p. 2011 o o o Issue o Rule o o Analysis o Atkins was drunk for most of the day Atkins admits:  Placing weeds in pile. Arson is a general intent crime Voluntary intoxication has no relevance in a “general intent” crime  General intent. but not a general intent crime. pouring “chainsaw mix” on pile and lit.5 mile stretch of land Fire marshal opined that the fire was intentionally set  Not started in clear area  No evidence that the fire started accidentally or any attempt to put out Atkins charged with arson of forest land Is evidence of voluntary intoxication admissible on the issue of whether Atkins formed the required mental state for arson? Voluntary intoxication is admissible in a specific intent crime.burned 2. 104 Procedural o o o Facts o o Atkins found guilty of arson Atkins appeals. Atkins (2001) p. 111 o o Holding o - Procedural o o Hatcher convicted for crimes Hatcher appeals Hatcher released from Juvenile Custody - Facts o .107) Court deems arson as a “general intent” crime  Arson statute does not have the language that typically denotes specific intent crimes.  Fire got out of hand  He and his brother tried to put it out  Panicked and fled the scene Fire could not be controlled for 3 days. we ask the whether the defendant intended to do the proscribed act” (p. without reference to intent to do a further act or achieve a future consequence.

found Hopson on porch holding tv Hopson claimed she knew owners & had permission to be there Officers noticed broken windows & blood on Hopson Owners indicated did not know Hopson nor gave permission to be there Hopson arrested & charged with burglary and criminal mischief Contends she was “thwarting a burglar of another man. Cayetano Padierna” Was Hopson given an erroneous trial because a mistake-of-fact instruction was not given to the jury? The lack of mistake-of-fact instructions did not deprive the appellant of the right to have the jury consider her defense “Mistake-of-fact” is where a defendant who thought that at the time of the offense charged. 116 - Rule o - Analysis o o - Holding o - Procedural o o Hopson convicted of burglary and criminal mischief Hopson appeals Police summoned to property on suspicion of burglary Upon arrival. Hopson v. Hatcher and others went to apartment The men opened fire with multiple guns. There must be evidence that the intoxication deprived the accused of the mental capacity to form specific intent. the person reasonably believed that they acted to prevent a crime The jury was squarely required to decide whether Hopson acted with either the intent to commit theft or with the intent to prevent theft - Facts o o o o o o o - Issue o - Rule o - Analysis o o . The only proof of Hatcher’s intoxication came from statements to the police No evidence demonstrates that intoxication deprived Hatcher the mental capacity for the crimes committed Trial Judgment affirmed. killing 1 and injuring others Hatcher arrested and admitted to being present at shooting Hatcher charged with  1st degree premeditated murder  1st degree felony murder  2 counts of attempted 1st degree premeditated murder August 30.6 o o o o That evening. 2011 - Issue o Is Hatcher’s intoxication evidence enough to release him of the mens rea requirement of his crimes? Proof of intoxication is not a defense to a charge of committing a specific intent crime. Texas (2009) p.

was actually 13 (claimed to be gay) Exchanged phone # and sometimes would discuss “sexual stuff’ Breathette and Beth decided to meet. took to her place Did sexual things over the course of their weekend Got into fight over phone while at work.it is unlawful for a person to create.401(2) . 2011 Freeman agreed to sell cocaine to Hatcher Hatcher was cooperating with government Hatcher gave Freeman $200 for cocaine Freeman gave Hatcher acetaminophen.101(27) – “simulated controlled substance” means a substance which is not controlled substance but is represented as such. or possess with intent to deliver… a simulated controlled substance…  §204. 123 - Analysis o o o Holding o - Procedural o o Breathette convicted of taking indecent liberties with a minor Breathette appeals Breathette and Beth met over Myspace  Breathette was 19 (openly lesbian)  Beth claimed to be 17. 121 Procedural o o Facts o o o o o Issue o Rule o Freeman convicted of selling a simulated controlled substance Freeman appeals August 30. North Carolina v. Freeman would not be innocent of wrongdoing if he had knowledge of what he sold  Knowingly represented the substance as cocaine The fact that Freeman was fooled as much as his customers is no defense to the charge Trial Judgment affirmed. Iowa v. Breathette fired from job Breathette kicked Beth out of her apartment - Facts o o o o o o .7 Holding o Trial Judgment affirmed.Breathette picked Beth up. Freeman (1990) p. Breathette (2010) p. Iowa Code §204.not a controlled substance Freeman arrested and charged with selling a simulated controlled substance Can Freeman be convicted of delivering a simulated controlled substance when he believed he was delivering and intended to deliver a controlled substance? Representing and delivering an uncontrolled substance as a controlled substance commits the offense of delivery of a simulated substance regardless of whether they believed the substance was controlled or not. deliver.

United States v. 129 - Procedural o o Scarmazzo arrested of manufacturing/dispensing/possessing controlled substance United States requests a motion in limine  “motion in limine”.C.  No mens rea requirement as to the complainant’s age Public policy protects children underage even with a good faith belief that the child is over the designated age Trial judgment had no error. 130 - Facts o o - Issue o Rule o Analysis o o - Holding o - Procedural o o DeCastro convicted of resisting an order to stop motor vehicle DeCastro appeals DeCastro witnessed a police officer driving recklessly Stopped behind officer to take down license - Facts o o . DeCastro (1996) p. 1 count of first degree kidnapping.Affirmed. Hawaii v.a pretrial request that certain inadmissible evidence not be referred to or offered at trial Scarmazzo arrested for manufacturing/dispensing/possessing marijuana Scarmazzo appeals because he thought he was dealing with legally declared medicinal marijuana Is ignorance of a law a viable defense? The ignorance of the law or a mistake of law is no defense to criminal prosecution. Scarmazzo (2008) p. Gen. §14-202. Is mistake of age a valid defense to the offense of indecent liberties? August 30.1 only requires that the complainant be “under the age of 16” at the time of the conduct constituting the offense of taking indecent liberties.8 o Issue o Rule o Analysis o o Mistake of age is not a defense applicable to taking indecent liberties. 1st degree sexual offense and attempted 2nd degree sexual offense o Holding o Beth was underage and Breathette had sexual relations N. 2011 Charged with 2 counts of taking indecent liberties with a minor. The government is not required to prove the Defendant was aware of or intended to violate the law Neither good faith nor mistake as to the enforceability of the law is a defense Motion in limine Granted. Stat.

§1448(b)  Any prohibited person… who knowingly possesses. if based upon a mistaken view of legal requirements. is a mistake of law Mistake of law is no excuse Trial Judgment affirmed. a 911 telephone operator is not “the public officer or body charged by the law with responsibility for the interpretation. acting under color of his official authority. 2011 Were DeCastro’s actions legal due to the instruction he received from the 911 operator? A 911 telephone operator is not authorized to make an “administrative grant of permission” HRS §701-1027(1) states  A person commits the offense of resisting an order to stop a motor vehicle if he intentionally fails to obey a direction of a peace officer. owns or controls a deadly weapon while so prohibited shall be guilty of possession of a deadly weapon by a person prohibited” Courts never informed Kipp that the “not applicable” notion was incorrect with respect to the prohibition against future possession of a deadly weapon - Facts o o o o - Issue o Rule o Analysis o o .9 o o o o Issue o Rule o Analysis o DeCastro claims officer was confrontational so he called 911 911 operator gave DeCastro permission to leave scene Officers chased DeCastro till he eventually pulled over DeCastro arrested for resisting an order to stop motor vehicle August 30. Under HRS. administration or enforcement of the law” A defendant’s error as to his authority to engage in particular activity. C. 137 o o o Holding o - Procedural o o Kipp convicted of 3 counts of Possession of a Deadly Weapon Kipp appeals Police went to Kipp’s home investigating a “man with a gun” complaint Found a handgun. Delaware (1998) p. ammunition and 2 hunting bows Kipp’s criminal record has him as a person prohibited from possessing deadly weapons Kipp’s criminal record resulted from plea to Assault in the 3rd degree (1990)  Kipp testified that he was told he would not be prohibited from possessing weapons Was there a valid mistake of law involved in the case? The mistake of law defense is based upon the principles of fundamental fairness 11 Del. purchases. 2 shotguns. Kipp v. to stop his vehicle.

2011 A defendant is not charged with knowledge of a penal statute if he is misled concerning whether the statute is not being applied Kipp presented a proper and complete mistake of law defense .10 o o Holding o Trial Judgment reversed August 30.

11 Staples v. 87 Procedural o Facts o Issue o Rule o Analysis o Holding o . United States (1994) p. August 30. 2011 .

Sign up to vote on this title
UsefulNot useful