This action might not be possible to undo. Are you sure you want to continue?
meet beyond reasonable doubt standard for every material element.
2/11/2010 12:29:00 PM
GENERAL RULE OF MISTAKE: Modern approach to mistakes is that any mistake that negates the mental element required by the statute is a failure of proof that requires acquittal because prosecution has failed to
MISTAKE OF FACT
Mistake of fact is a mistake as to one of the material elements of a statute. Handout 13: Selling Alcohol to Minors What kind of mistake did the defendant make? Reckless, Negligent, Purposeful, or Knowingly? Does D’s mistake as to V’s age preclude conviction? o Reasonable mistake would be one in which V looked mature for her age, has a perfectly reasonable ID that she shows to D, then there is no negligence or recklessness. o Negligent mistake is one where he should have been aware of V’s age and his mistake was grossly unreasonable. Negligent mistake even if D genuinely believes V is 21, but it is unreasonable for him to think so. o Reckless mistake is one where D is consciously aware that V is underage, but convinces himself that she is 21 and disregards the warnings that she is not 21 (i.e. she says she left her ID home, etc). But this mistake is a genuine mistake and it is not a purposeful breaking of the law. Reckless mistake: conscious awareness of risk. Negligent Mistake: Not conscious of a risk (gross deviation) Suppose the statute was that “whoever knowingly sells alcohol to a minor shall be guilty of a felony?” o D wouldn’t be liable since he did not know to a practical certainty that she was not 21 But if no mistake required, then strict liability. If mens rea of the D is lower than that required by statute, then that negates the mens rea requirement and acquittal is proper.
In general: Ignorance or mistake of law is no excuse. Page 227 Note 8 A person is guilt of burglary if he enters (conduct; reckless) a building or occupied structure (attending circumstances; reckless) with purpose to commit a crime therein unless the actor is privileged to enter (attending circumstance; reckless). (a) Mens rea not present since it wasn’t with purpose to commit a crime
Common Law treatment of mistake of law For specific intent, any type of mistake is excusable if and only if it negates the specific intent part of the crime o D takes V’s property, thinking it belongs with him and he is charged for larceny. If D made a mistake and thought it was his, then he lacked the specific intent, thus he is not guilty of larceny, although he may be liable for a lesser crime, such as trespass. For general intent, only a reasonable mistake exculpates the defendant, not otherwise. o Rape is a general intent crime at common law. D has nonconsensual crime with V, but believes he is having consensual sex with a prostitute. If D reasonably believed she consented, then he is not guilty and is thus exculpated. But, if he unreasonably believe she consented, then he is liable. Even tort negligence would not be exculpatory.
MISTAKE OF LAW Usually not talking about a situation where there is a difference in interpretation of the law between the court and the D, but it is more a situation where there is a reasonable mistake where D was not aware of the law. General modern approach is not to divide between general and specific intent. The modern rule is reflected in MPC 2.04, any mistake acquits. o o 2.09(2): in absence of mens rea term, the default rule is that the defendant’s knowing of the offense is not an element. Ask if any mistake negates the mens rea requirement There is a negligence standard for mistake of law. D bears burden of proof that he was not negligent in his lack of awareness of the law A legitimate policy question.
U.S. v. Baker Ignorance of a law is no excuse People v. Bray In 1969 D plead guilty to being an accessory after the fact in Kansas. He was sentence to two years probation which he completed. Later he moved to California where he held several different jobs. On different job applications asking whether he had ever been convicted of a felony he wrote conflicting things. Basically he did not know if his probation in Kansas was considered conviction of a felony. Issue: Is ignorance or mistake of fact is a defense to the crime. Prosecutor must prove he was convicted of a felony in the past in order to prove a felon in possession of a concealable firearm. First must prove if D had knowledge of his felony status. Trial court refused to instruct the jury that D must know he is a felon to be convicted under the statute. Ct. of App. awards retrial because of trial court’s error. Status of felon a mistake of fact or mistake of law? It’s both. o It’s a question of law because we need to know how felon is defined. o The status of a felon is an attending circumstance Lessons Learned: o Mistake of governing law (mistake about the very law he is being prosecuted under) v. mistake of non-governing law (mistake about some ancillary legal issue such as civil law, i.e. in this case how Kansas defines misdemeanor) Hopkins v. State Hopkins says he misconstrued the statute because he relied on the state attorney’s claim that he would not violate any law by advertising him marriage business. Trial court not allowing the mistake as a defense Question of whether this is a good faith effort to make sure that he was not violating a statute Although he did take pre-emptive effort to go to a lawyer, evidence shows that he probably knew that he was violating the law. As a policy concern, don’t want to let Ds go scotch free just because they went to a lawyer. Green v. State (1877) Commonwealth v. Twitchell
Jury should be allowed to consider evidence showing he made credible efforts to study and understand before reaching mistaken conclusion of law. In this case. your conduct and words effectively made your roommate the owner of the cap o What kind of mistake is this? fact or law? can you be convicted? Cheek v. MPC 2. Mistake of law as to element 2 (property of another). you can have it. not from reckless failure to provide medical attention Why did Twitchell’s nonetheless get a remand? And what differentiates this case from Hopkins? o Difference in authority relied on. there is no mistake that would negate any of the elements. that you were unaware that it’s a crime to destroy inexpensive property belonging to another person o What kind of mistake is this? fact or law? can you be convicted? Mistake of governing law. but being a generous soul. 273. now suppose that you originally received both of the caps as gifts. because she knowingly did each of the elements. you hand one to your roommate. c. without him ever knowing that you’d borrowed it. under Michigan law. United States: D attended classes on why taxes are unconstitutional and charged for willful tax evasion. The parents of a seriously ill two and one-half year old child had a common law duty to seek medical treatment for their child. Mistake as to non-governing law. and you deliberately take both caps to school. based on your mistaken understanding of property and contract law. Example from Handout 14: “Whoever knowingly destroys (conduct.” Unfortunately. Section 1. again knowingly travels forward) shall be guilty of a felony” Suppose your roommate’s out of town. He didn’t believe that wages were part of income tax and moreover. in fact. and you destroy both caps suppose further. the violation of which. a statute concerning child support and care. if their conduct was wanton or reckless. you think that you still legally own the cap because you gave it to your roommate for no consideration and without written transfer of title. could support a conviction of involuntary manslaughter in the child's death. and not apply to foreclose the parents' prosecution for involuntary manslaughter 273. L. knowingly) the property of another (AC. Good faith misunderstanding negates willfulness. thought income taxation was unconstitutional. but then you had that frustrating criminal law class. Willfulness means D knew of a legal duty and chose to voluntarily and intentionally disregard it. however. intending to return your roommate's cap later. and not really needing two identical caps. Section 1 is only insulating you from neglect.08(2): not an element of the statute to know the law . Does Cheek’s actual beliefs that wages were not part of taxes and that income taxation is unconstitutional. who is designated as an authority in interpreting the law. and the spiritual healing provisions of G. knowingly travels forward because no break in the sentence) without consent (AC. remarking. “here. Here it is an attorney general.
negates mens rea. due to self-induced intoxication. S. says that under the circumstances. The court remanded the case for further proceedings consistent with the decision of this court. Now imagine. But the court did hold that the defendant's belief that wages are not income can be introduced as defense and it is up to the jury to decide whether these beliefs are honest. that there was no need to submit voluntary intoxication evidence to the jury Voluntary intoxication can somehow a defendant from forming a purpose or knowing a fact and if so. VOLUNTARY INTOXICATION See Handout #15 MPC 2. then someone who isn’t aware of the risk shouldn’t be as culpable as someone who is consciously aware of the risk. he had been involved in civil cases challenging the constitutionality of taxation and never won. there is no element that can be proved beyond a reasonable doubt.C. killing him. Hypothetical Imagine you have defendant drunk at a bar playing darts. But. in this case looks at objective evidence and finds that her faculties were not so obscured by the wine that she couldn’t form any purpose. and in his intoxicated state. doesn’t realize he doesn’t have aim and throws a dart and it hits the artery of a bystander. he is guilty. Policy question raised by voluntary intoxication: Do we want to equate these two scenarios? o In the drunk case. But what level of intoxication need there be for a court to submit evidence of voluntary intoxication to the jury. But.C. then negates any purpose or knowing mens rea. it kills a bystander. Is court usurping the role of the factfinder here? o Court is worried that a jury would misinterpret “voluntary intoxication” in its legal nature Viewing the evidence in a light most favorable to the defendant because there was not enough evidence for a jury to find that she was sufficiently intoxicated to negate mens rea. his unawareness because of intoxication makes him reckless. The IRS code is complex enough that it cannot be taken that everyone understands the terms. and thus an acquittal is proper. a sober defendant who knows he has bad aim and disregards the risk that he will hit someone and throws a dart and again. and thus. Cameron S. and thus. if the actor. then any mistake that negates the mens rea absolves the defendant of liability. there is not conscious awareness.08 If D can show that he was intoxicated (even voluntarily). such unawareness is immaterial. But. is unaware of a risk of which he would have been aware had he been sober. must show that he recklessly caused death of another.08(2): When recklessness establishes an element of the offense. To charge defendant. State v. Thinking of it from a retributive standpoint. TAKE AWAY: If the statute is defined in such a way that the defendant has to know of the law. not if the statute requires recklessness or negligence MPC 2. He was criminally negligent. So the defendant's unconstitutional argument is not an innocent mistake and can not be used as a defense. . and thus he was willful.
D shoots V in the head. Analysis should always begin with is there a but for cause. X stabs V. D stabs V. A responsive intervening cause does not break the chain of events unless it was unforeseeable and abnormal. Oxendine v. There’s a way of dealing with such situations while modifying the “but for” test. intervening cause. that seems logically incoherent. Facts: Defendant’s girlfriend physically abused his child and that resulted in a serious abdominal injury to the child. If something would have happened regardless of defendant’s actions. Neither is but for cause. rather. V dies in ten minutes. but he did not accelerate the actual death. Very fact intensive. Not a matter of applying consistent principles to the facts. D also liable for accelerating death. except that V dies in 15 minutes. Simultaneously. it’s a policy or normative judgment. V dies instantly. Then the defendant came home from work and physically beat up the child. X shoots V in the heart. D did not because X did not accelerate death. D intentionally shoots V in the leg. Acceleration Test for Liability: But for Defendant’s conduct. A coincidental cause breaks the chain of events unless it is foreseeable. Defendant claims that he should be acquitted because the state could not prove beyond a reasonable doubt that his abuse caused the death of his son or accelerated the death of his son He may have aggravated the injuries. V would died instantly from either wound. would the victim have died when he died? X intentionally stabs V in the chest. o X is factual causation.2/11/2010 12:29:00 PM Factual Causation “But For” Causation Arise only in cases where you have two or more actors who simultaneously or subsequently cause a prohibited result and difficult to say who should be held liable. o X is factual causation. o Both substantial factors. Neither would by itself would kill V. Second factor: An event is a factual cause if and only if but for defendants conduct would the proscribed social harm that the statute sought to prevent happened when it did? For proximate causation. Simultaneously. an event that possibly breaks the chain of events is called a superseding. V would not died from this wound by itself. Same as above. V will died from loss of blood in 15 minutes. o o o Concurrent sufficient causes. State Questions on page 216 (Dressler) . A coincidental cause is one that would have happened anyways. Now the defendant appeals and argues that the child’s death was the result of his girlfriend’s actions and his actions did not cause the death of the child. The child stomach got swollen and soon the child died in the hospital. V dies from loss of blood from the two wounds. Substantial factor test not good enough? Proximate Causation A person can be a factual cause and not be a proximate cause at all. Sloane says it’s a legal fiction. Simultaneously. An event has to be a factual cause for it to be a legal cause. But. in reality less of an issue that what it is made out to be sometimes. State’s experts could not give conclusive testimony that Defendant accelerated his son’s death. then the defendant is not a factual cause of the harm. The defendant was charged and convicted for manslaughter.
Deliberate and Informed Human Intervention Doctrine: Criminal law does not hold person responsible for resulting harm if there is an intervening cause that springs from free. original wrongdoer no longer responsible for any ensuing harm. What is the effect of these events on Kibbe’s liability? Responsive intervening acts do not break the chain of causation unless they are highly unforeseeable and highly abnormal. why not bad to hold mother liable. cannot be resolved always with black letter rules. they should not escape criminal responsibility even if an unforeseeable event intervened. Intended Consequence Doctrine Any intended consequence of an act is proximate. Given all the circumstances. Any intended consequence of an act is proximate. With proximate cause we are trying to pinpoint liability. Regina v. deliberate and informed human intervention . policy judgment. Isn’t it irrational to walk in the middle of the road in the middle of the night? So is that a defense for Kibbe. With attenuated circumstances. X. LaFarve Test: The controlling question for such intervening causes are whether the ultimate result was foreseeable to the original actor and whether the victim failed to do something easily within his grasp that would have extricated him from danger. is it just to hold the defendant liable or is the result so remote. Good case for indicating why causation matters. Question is whether the risk was foreseeable. fearful of another shot. Apparent Safety Doctrine: When a person reaches a position of safety. Even though there are two intervening causes. Is it but for that action he would not have been run over. Coincidental causes: would have happened whether or not the initial cause happened and will break the chain of causation unless they are foreseeable. Kibbe v. Blake running him over while speeding (coincidental cause). If an intentional wrongdoer gets what the result they wanted in the general way they wanted. cause so as to relieve an earlier wrongdoer of criminal responsibility? Omissions: no matter how unforeseeable an omission may be. o X and V steal property from D’s riverfront home. Depending on what we determine the level of causation is determines how many years they will be sentenced. When the victim could have removed herself from harms way and doesn’t the chain of causation is broken. In general why do we disfavor proximate cause when there is attenuated circumstances. it will not cut off liability of an earlier positive act. dives into the water (responsive cause). Proximate cause is a normative. D fires two shots at the boat. V drowns. seeking to kill or scare the miscreants. it is difficult to pinpoint the person liable. caused the boat to capsize (responsive cause). Henderson Intervening “but for” causes: Victim wandering out to the middle of the road (a responsive intervening cause). Page 221. Free. o Can an omission ever function as a superseding intervening. The thieves flee in a boat. question 5. Michael.
Chain broken.MPC Approach 2.03(3) deals with crimes defined by recklessness or negligence. Free. 2. Catch-all Exception: The extent or seriousness of damage is different than the defendant contemplated or intended. Court: Victim killed himself. Issue is responsibility. State: Idiotic drag race. not causation. who is the one who should be held culpable for the harm done. Responsive ?– Yes. unless Minor Differences Exception: The actual result differs only in that the identity of person is different. . or identify or property is different. Foreseeable? Yes?. The extent or seriousness of damage is different than the defendant contemplated or intended. victim made decision on own to continue reckless driving. o Element of a crime is not established if the actual result is not among the risks that defendant was aware of (reckless) or should have been aware of (negligent). but Victim decides of his own accord to turn around after race and begin to race and kills himself. they reached apparent safety once race ended. V killed himself by his own reckless driving. about policy. unless Velasquez v.03(2) deals with crimes defined by purpose or knowledge o Proximate causation exists if actual result is within the purpose or contemplation of the defendant when he or she acted. when sole basis for imposing liability is D's participation in race? Defendant a but for cause? Yes. Held: If reckless conduct is agreed on knowingly and voluntarily. Should not impose liability for just being a participant Issue isn’t really causation. Apparent safety? Yes. It would be unjust to hold D criminally responsible for his death. talking more about normatively. victim would not have died when he did because there would not have been a race. deliberate & informed human intervention? Yes. The actual result differs only in that the identity of person is different. Highly abnormal? No. D is not proximate cause of V's death for manslaughter if he has nothing to do with it otherwise. May driver of car in reckless and illegal drag race be convicted of vehicular homicide for death of other driver. or identify or property is different.
What is really essential is that Defendant reflects and contemplates the effects of their actions. Malice Afterthought at Common Law: o Purposefully or knowingly causing death (Express Malice) o o o Purposefully or knowingly causing grave bodily harm (Implied Malice) Depraved Heart Murder (Implied Malice) Felony Murder (Implied Malice) MPC: Manslaughter is reckless killing. U. D did not mean to shoot V. where do we draw the line in sufficient time as a matter of law. Involuntarily manslaughter – Reckless or negligent manslaughter.Homicide Intro 2/11/2010 12:29:00 PM Homicide itself is not criminal. But. v. All forms of homicide have the same actus reus (a killing of one human being by another). So. o Evidence that there was no intent: Every other person encountered during escape indicates lack of disposition to use force. After conviction. another tribunal decides whether to impose death penalty. Francis v. must show that D gave “thought before acting to the idea of taking a human life and reached a definite decision to kill.S. notwithstanding that evidence. giving it second thought” o o There has to be some interval between thought and act.” Deliberation is proved by demonstrating that the accused acted with “consideration and reflection upon the preconceived design to kill. murder. fact that he already faces life in prison for previous crimes. Murder (post 1972) o 1st degree: Death penalty eligible (not automatic because unconstitutional). but that presumption is rebuttable. looks for car and points guns at people in the way. Watson Premeditation: o To prove premeditation. execution. turning it over in the mind. o But could reasonable have found all elements beyond reasonable doubt. motive to kill. . Changing the levels of homicide depends on mens rea. Homicide may include killing in self-defense. Jury has said there is sufficient evidence that there was intent to kill. why is the court looking at this case on appeal? o There is a presumption that someone of sound mind intends the harm they caused. Man slams door and the gun goes off and victim gets shot and dies. therefore no intent. Was that sufficient time to deliberate? To what extent should defendant’s panic matter? A contingency plan is still a plan. in light most favorable to prosecution? Look to prior knowledge of guns. That’s problematic because that presumption may confuse the jury because unconstitutionally shifts the burden to the defendant which goes against the Due Process Clause which requires the State to prove elements beyond a reasonable doubt. Officer here said twice that killing the cop wasn’t worth it. o 2nd degree: life term Voluntary manslaughter – killing after adequate provocation or upon sudden heat of passion or based on honest but unreasonable belief of need to use self-defense. reaches someone's house and demands car. Franklin Prisoner visits dentist for checkup.
Factors to consider if premeditation happened: o Evidence of prior threats of hostility between the accused and the victim. Murder MPC 210. Voluntary Manslaughter: Manslaughter: Homicide constitutes manslaughter when: o It is committed recklessly Homicide which would otherwise be murder. Evidence of the defendant’s behavior before the killing The origin of the murder weapon. Is premeditated defendant more dangerous to society? Premeditator selects effective means and premeditates in such a way that he is likely to succeed. she becomes distraught and stabs husband. what possibility is there that a layperson will be able to differentiate. 337 A few seconds is all that case law requires. If premeditation is so under-defined. Higher penalties deter. Legality principle problem. o o Premeditated murders harder to catch. Impulsive killing? Man thinks wife is having affair. an interruption and subsequent continuation of the killing. but committed under influence of extreme mental or emotional disturbance for which there is reasonable explanation or excuse. o o o o o o Physical attack (unless V entitled to use self-defense) Mutual combat Threat of extreme physical attack Unlawful arrest Witnessing adultery Violent sexual assault on close relative . Are we comfortable with leaving the decision to the jury to distinguish between premeditation and “mere” intent. o o o o Evidence of a motive.2 (b): Takes last two categories of common law murder and folding them into one. which suggested a purposeful or reasoned killing. What about mercy killing? Less blameworthy. for example. The manner and circumstances of the killing. Why punish more for premeditated killings? o More blameworthy. Provocation in Common Law: Person must in fact be provoked and the ordinary person in that situation would have been provoked and not have cooled off? Adequate Provocation: Better term: 'Mitigated murder:’ D does have mens rea required for murder (purpose/knowledge) but D has been provoked in some mitigating manner. but may be rebutted. Categories of Adequate Provocation: o Provocation must arise from act of V or D must so believe. but the difference between premeditation and “mere” intent is a matter of life or death. Cardozo on Premeditation pg. Extreme indifference is presumed. Says its also murder when reckless killing with extreme indifference to human life.
Objective Provocation for Partial Justification: o Objective: Provocation must be adequate from reasonable person standard. but murder. If provocation turns ordinary man to kill because of irresistible passion. Subjective v. how flexible ought they to be? Should it take into account cultural. o Subjective Provocation: Must consider whether characteristics of individual actor would make them more or less likely to react to provocation. At common law. cuts him. Walker Facts: V provokes D into a knife fight. 10 months later. D kills V. o o o o Partial Justification Under the doctrine of partial justification penalty is being reduced because the law thinks that his actions were not as wrong as they would have been if there was no provocation. Killer may be wholly. All we know is that Walker was provoked and acted in the heat of passion. Cooling Time Ex Parte Fraley Facts: V kills D's son. age. D subdues V. Really what is meant here in terms of the reasonable standard is what an “ordinary man” would do. How much cooling time is too much? Should there be categorical rules or flexible standards? o If we do use standards. . the defendant is only going to receive partial justification instructions to the jury if the following two elements are met: o o Actual provocation (subjective) Reasonable person in the situation would have been provoked. Partial justification – just overreaction. Killing is manslaughter if killing occurs during course of a fight and killer's blood has had no time to cool. Causes reasonable person to lose self-control. Issues: What constitutes provocation? And how immediate does the killing have to be after the provocation to make it manslaughter rather than murder. (objective) No self-defense argument because the victim was already unconscious. then cuts him with his own knife. o Serious provocation turns murder into manslaughter. etc? Is manslaughter adequate partial justification or partial excuse? People v. mistaken in ascribing bad conduct to V. Rules for common law partial justification: o Must come from Victim o o o Words themselves not adequate provocation Victim's defensive force against D's initiating force not provocation D must have strong evidence that wrong he avenges really occurred Partial Excuse Must act immediately after provocation Victim need not have been the cause of provocation Victim's defensive force against D's initiating force can be a provocation. though understandably. Held: There was a cooling off period of 10 months between so no manslaughter.
Reprovocation Should there be a doctrine of reprovocation Why don’t we recognize the idea of slow burn. premeditated revenge – this is what the legislature is trying to protect against. But couldn’t all revenge be in fit the category of the straw that broke the back – wont defendants always make that argument that this was just slow burn and not revenge? – but juries aren’t stupid – good at assessing credibility – according to professor – Rowland v State – 1904 – CL Becky is wife and lives with fried Husband arrives to see wife hears Thorn’s voice Hears thorn say make haste Backroom – they are in the act of adultery – very clear trying to do something Doctrinal holding – simply the court says – adultery is a classic category of provocation that would led to voluntary manslaughter at common law – and goes further by making his shooting mistake of hitting his wife – doesn’t matter – can shoot either or the wife or husband – Question – transferred intent – if it wasn’t allowed to voluntary shoot wife – and he did this mistakenly – do you transfer intent – is this murder or involuntary manslaughter – Doctrine here – should it be accepted? – that this is a categorical rule? – we would think that ppl would react if they saw their wife or husband do that – especially at this time – they say its only right that husband should do this – does this send a troubling normative message – that its alright to kill? – Texas it was actually completely justified – that’s a problem .If reasonable person would have cooled off before killing occurred. Case – humiliated victim by sodomy when the defendant was unconscious – ugangy? (find in book – note case I think) He brags about his exploits and people start taunting defendant in the course of two weeks Provocative act – could it not be the immediate provocative act but the whole course of two weeks – slow burn theory – could say he killed only after the insult that was made was the one that finally broke the camel’s back At common law – this slow burn theory wasn’t allowed – should we allow this theory ?– given what we know how people actually act – people do let anger just build up inside and then the policy consideration – old traditional rule seems to reward those that fly into range immediately rather than protect those they try to restrain themselves and just cant – make sense psychologically – Remember – categorical approach the judge has more power and decides whether provocation by matter of law compared with a more flexible approach – let the jury sympathizes with defendant – allow slow burn Courts worried that slow burn would be a proxy for revenge killings – that’s why not a category at common law that is allowed – is this a worry? – slow burn to be said to be reprovocation rather than revenge Isn’t revenge if it happened immediately? – are we saying provoked action is equal to revenge what is the distinction – revenge killing – more of designed. passion is held to have subsided even if person is actually enraged.
should it be? Jenn’s q – would it be better to say it’s a single crime – homicide and then grade it – constitutional reasons and procedural reasons – If they have different penalty scheme then it has to be different crimes But what we are talking here is just whether it takes sentence down – questioning if the length of relationship the strength of the relationship should lessen sentence. Berry – modern approach Many states adapt the MPC to different categories to the common law Very disturbing interesting case Israeli women are fucking crazy – that’s what we learn from this case She married man and then three days went to Israel Came back and told defendant about relationship with Yako (Paige’s dreamboy) Fighting with him. says she might be pregnant by yako Then later went to movie and heavy petting Went home. p.Victoria Norris – often times these killings are due to separation cases – that’s why the killing occurs because their love ones leave and therefore the sentencing goes down Is the problem with doctrine – deeply sexist doctrine that assumes roles for men and women or deeper problem? – is it no longer limited to legal spouse but someone who you had been a long term partner with – even homosexual relationship – we believe that there is partial excuse . taunting him with yako. 358 Traditional categories – limited categories we talked about yesterday and remember words could never be provocation Note 9 –potential new categories – thinking of it as a partial excuse – ppl are so worked up that they don’t have the ordinarily amount of reason that they would normally have Sandy defrauds lee and then lee shoots him dead – voluntary manslaughter? – it is provocation – what message are we trying to send? – trying to say its reasonable to do this – lessen your sentence when someone just wrongs you in this way – is this the right message Sandy racists and doesn’t promote lee because black – very wrong but we have the law to redress this – other ways to do this – legal rules – legal avenues Either of these could be worse or better. But we don’t allow this by allowing adultery does this say this is different? – Is there something about adultery? – Make argument that relationship wrongs evoke more passionate responses then money crimes or racial wrongs? Nick thinks a better way is not categorically have rules but look at the circumstances – leave it up to the jury up to the circumstances – very close to the MPC People v. promised sex and then refused saying she was saving herself for yako Led him to choke her . Should we allow long term non-martial relationships under this rule? – question of norms – Issue – changing view from hurting someone’s property to just talking about relationships – the law cant separate from the social norms from society – so if we do proceed with this rule then we are making statements about marriage and if we repeal it also says something That’s why people get worked up about gay marriage – says something if the state puts the stamp on it – something about our views.
Passion cannot be revenge but it can be anger.using this taunting in the secret hope that he would kill her – How does he know that – he never met her If that’s true then why did she go to the police after he first choked her Is this appropriate – the footnote he isn’t very credible So is the story plausible? If we aren’t sure is the doctor’s role relevant or should be excluded as a matter of law? – What did he tell us about defendant – were looking at his state. –Policy and social norms Pro – abolition of rules Jury control Flexibility Categories are arbitrary – allow evolving sentiment of social norms to make culpability determinations – jury decisions . Is the cali rule better or worse then the CL rule we were looking at? Is it too broad? – any passion can be considered potential provocation One of the major issues – too much discretion to the jury – then potentially uneven precedent – based on the jury you get different decisions – little notice Maybe opened ended category – racist kills black man – kills him because he is provoked angry that he is black – worry under such a broad standard this could bring murder down to manslaughter – opened the door and say anything can be provocative or traditionally should we say there are certain things as a society that we just don’t want to let in. is this standard based on partial justification or partial excuse –– is the idea that Rachel partially justified her strangulation or given what she did it is a little understandable for what defendant did and therefore we are sympathetic … believe that an ordinary person could act that way Court is certainly saying partial excuse – Rule for someone just leaving you categorically not allowed for provocation – psychological being left by a loved one could arise this passion however Whats the doctor’s role in this case – he says Rachel was suicidal. fear or another violent.the problem with this type of testimony – any time to bring expert on the stand the jury gives the expert more authority then he sometimes merits. intense emotion and it can be WORDS contrary to CL It can happen over a long period of time – cooling period is not so important here – it only goes to whether it is reasonable for the person to still be provoked Overall. 360 – Cali standard – what is the inquiry for the jury in cali provocation law here? – opposite to the CL does the evidence – generate the heat of passion – that would naturally be aroused in the mind of the ordinarily reasonable person – this is the standard what was the defendant’s reason at the time of the act – 2 weeks after the first taunting .was his reason so obscured by passion – not revenge – so disturbed that it would render ordinarily reasonable man to act from passion rather than judgment Rule approach to a standard approach – right here Some limits of the jury – ex.She went to hospital Really the slow burn scenario – slowly irritating defendant to a certain point that he strangles her p.
religion.control of defendant Appropriate for sex.Con – abolition of traditional rules Traditional control – not to leave it up to the arbitrary nature of the jury – different decisions based the decisions of a wrong jury Have uniformity and consistency Have notice – these things will deemed adequate provocation Legislature could add and subtract based on social norms MPC – 1065 – approach Homicide – voluntary manslaughter if committed under the influence of extreme mental or emotion disturbance where there is a reasonable excuse – same as cl there has to be some provocation (well mental disturbance) – problem objectivity is render ambiguous by How is reasonable defined MPC standard is subjective: From the viewpoint in the actor’s situation (what does that encompass) under the circumstance as he believes them to be (not reasonably believes them to be) – Drafters say its supposed to be ambiguous.control Think of level of control – if he is hot-tempered – do we judge me to the standard of a reasonable hot tempered person? – start taking these things into account you might lose this standard all together. Ordinary person – MPC – a lot more subjectivity – explanation that makes his actions somewhat excusable given the facts as he believed them to do – very subjective – standard is a sympathy standard – rather than measuring against reasonable person in idealized setting – you are measure what the defendant thought at that time Here it has to be ordinary or less – its extreme mental or emotional – by definition someone who is mental disturbed aren’t reasonable Question What sorts of individualized facts about defendant matter Actors situation Gravity of the provocative situation – how provoking to the defendant Or level of self control of the defendant given the provocation Or both Normally we only look at the (MPC only looks to the ) gravity but not to evaluate the extent of self. culture to be looked at – anything affects reasonableness – if you make a racial joke then it goes into standard if a black guy gets provoked Also considers Defendant’s history to see if there is something that would make it more hottempered But don’t take level of self.control . height. In terms of alcohol – reasonable drunk person standard? – part of the actor’s situation? Age – take into account that kids have less self-control – even though self-control isn’t taken into account in the mpc generally? Might be appropriate with children Question of what the situation involves – the actors situation What kind of circumstances can invoke loss of self. but it is a mercy or sympathy approach. weight.
The defendant's conduct and claimed lack of perception. There is a reasonable basis upon which the jury could have found that the defendant failed to perceive the risk inherent in his actions. claimed he could stop a follower's heartbeat and breathing and plunge knives into his chest without any injury to the person. In one particular type of ceremony. Commonwealth v. That would constitute negligent homicide. Simple tort negligence usually never suffices in most jurisdictions today. Manslaughter means one of two things: reckless killing or a killing committed under extreme distress to which the killing was a reasonably reaction. together with the belief of the victim and defendant's followers. Remember that the MPC that there is no involuntary or voluntary manslaughter under the MPC. defendant. the wounds from the hatchet and three knives which defendant had inserted into him caused his death. driving above the speed limit. Involuntary Manslaughter: Hypothetical: o Imagine driver driving 40 mph in 30 mph zone. Welanksy Not mere simple negligence. purportedly exercising his powers of "mind over matter". However ineptly. Welansky willfully and negligently failed to appreciate the risk. maybe the court is trying to find a balance between these two extremes.Spectrum of rule vs standards Question can they react to a slow burn or just a case of defendant has to react to the provocation when it happened Should we abolish voluntary manslaughter? Should there be a mitigated standard for other crimes besides homicide? If someone is deeply upset and provoked and commits a crime other than homicide.e. One of the three central beliefs of this religion is "mind over matter". Court is sort of applying the Hand Formula: probability of harm x gravity harm – social benefit. but what about mens rea? Should this be strict liability? Did he assume the risk of something like this happening since he did block the fire doors intentionally. born in Arabia and moved to Westchester and belongs to the Sudan Muslim sect. Williams . Strong: D. 57 years old. When defendant performed this ceremony on decedent. There was testimony that he had successfully performed this ceremony on previous occasions.. should the penalty be mitigated just as it would be in homicide? Why only limit it to the severest of crimes? People v. would justify a verdict of guilty of criminally negligent homicide. if accepted by the jury. State v. It suffices that an ordinary normal man under the same circumstances would have realized the gravity or danger. o Don’t want to punish so severely conduct that reasonable persons in society do (i. Looks down at his radio and runs into a bike rider. but also not gross negligence because he was there most nights and he wouldn’t put himself in such grave danger. looking at the radio.
but actually commits crime Y (murder) and courts transfer mens rea from X to Y) Felony murder viewed as strict liability crime. But who is the reasonable person? Is it an Indian person? Is it a reasonable person with only 6th grade education? Should it matter that they didn’t have health insurance? Or does the reasonable standard make no allowances for Defendants characteristics? A good case to illustrate that we should ask whether criminal law is the right method to achieving the intended social goal? Think about causation. Depraved Heart Common law phrases that show up in cases like these. The defendants were charged and convicted with manslaughter for negligently failing to supply their 17 month old child with necessary medical attention. the child died. Commonwealth v. It is more like criminal homicide that shows such a grave disregard for human life that we are justified in treating it as murder. Ways of interpreting “depraved heart” o Objective risk creative o o o Subjective awareness of the risk Pointlessness of risk Especially blameworthy motives Depraved heart malice Mayes v.” don’t tell us much about what a jury should be looking for. It is more of a normative judgment. such as “malignant heart. Almost all states have abolished the felony murder standard The original idea was transferred intent (D wants to commit crime X. Malone What puts this in the same category as Mayes? Does it matter what the probability of death would be Felony Murder Final category of implied malice based on the crime itself. People: Defendant should have been aware of the risk. Their young child had a tooth infection and the defendants failed to provide medical attention to the child and within 2 weeks. Would the death had occurred when it did even if the parents brought the child to the doctor? Remember causation and mens rea are distinct elements. The conduct of the defendants was tested from a reasonable man standard. Non-inclusive presumption of extreme indifference to human life . Kentucky still have felony murder. Furthermore. The defendants testified that they were scared to take the child to the doctor because they did not want to lose the child to the welfare office. Michigan. But is it really strict liability? These crimes are such that the defendant should reasonably anticipate the harm and failure to recognize that harm is negligence. Defendants (husband and wife) were poorly educated and young couple. Will having a rule of felony murder deter the commission of the felony? o Statistics on Page 424 4 jurisdictions Hawaii. the defendants stated that they thought that the child was suffering from a simple tooth infection and they gave aspirin to the child to lower his pain.
” If you look at the crime and see if there is a non-dangerous way of committing the crime. it is a joint venture. NJ doctrine excludes accomplices from felony murder liability. That death was not the conscious object of his actions. Want to deter felons from committing crimes in dangerous ways. Doctrine effectively correlates felony murders with 1st degree murderers Only applies to inherently dangerous felonies. no felony murder. isn’t it that where there are more than one participants. State v. but. Martin D sets a small fire. Foreseeability requirement as a better standard? . Perverse if you have someone who commits larceny and the victim dies during that larceny. want them to commit their crimes with reduced risk of harm Retributive aspect: those who kill during felonies are more blameworthy. then not an inherently dangerous crime. then subject to felony murder. but a larger fire occurs killing a guest at a party. but if you have someone coming in to commit the killing. if there is. but what is “inherently dangerous.
is it possible to describe what the D did (actus rea) and with what state of mind. Raises some key questions. Maybe woman freezes up and can’t react Should resistance be required? o Victim has an obligation of self-help if we require duty to resist Lack of Affirmative Expression of Consent In the Interest of M. Resistance is now evidence of non-consent. but not necessary Resistance could be dangerous to the woman because it could exacerbate harm Disputed facts. Not reasonable or earnest resistance because she didn’t even say no one time. reckless.S.1 default mens rea is recklessness Traditional common law elements of rape: Sexual intercourse Without V’s consent By force or threat of force That’s met with V’s resistance Provided V is not D’s wife. o How mens rea and actus rea interact? o 2/11/2010 12:29:00 PM Is the law vehicle to shape social norms? Should it be? Or is that an improper role of the law? In rape. says he finds the victim very sexually attractive and says will you take off your clothes? She does even though she doesn’t want to.T. Scary too lower the standard too far because the punishment for rape is so severe.Rape Introduction: Apart from homicide. the main issue is the actus rea. What is man’s mens rea in regards to the woman’s consent? To what degree does the D need to be aware. D denies any threatening gestures towards her. MPC 213 MPC 213. Dorsey Reasonable or Earnest Resistance What is a reasonable standard? Whose reasonableness? Objective standard What if the facts are: a man who comes into the elevator. Barnes Resistance sufficient. State Requirement of “Utmost Resistance” People v. without a constant focus on what the victim did and with what state of mind? Brown v. or negligent to the woman’s consent? What is right balance to be struck? Given the complexities of sexual communications. Rape by Extortion . not dispositive anymore. People v. it is one of the most deplorable crimes.
and thus no conviction o If purpose or knowledge is requirement. etc. Fake doctor tricks woman into having sex with him Rape is sex where “person is unconscious of the nature of the act. Fraud in factum – Victim not aware of the nature of the act. . but she knew what she was doing. but consents by fraud/trick Mens Rea for Rape Regina v. Fischer Guy has sexual relations with female earlier in day. People Not that the victim is unaware that she is having sex. Commonwealth v. Many competing stories about the second sexual encounter. even if unreasonable. But if rape requires intent. and this is known to the accused. Issue in the case: (Ineffective assistance of counsel – (1) lawyer has to act like there's no counsel. Prosecutes for rape. (2) but for counsel's ineffectiveness. tells friends. screams. Rape by Fraud Boro v. not guilty. o Mistake of fact negates mens rea. guy has sex again – is very rough. Wife struggles. instead inserts penis) Fraud in the inducement – Victim aware of nature of the act. But House of Lords says they had to know because no reasonable jury would find that any reasonable person would believe Morgan’s story. if mistaken about consent. physically holds her down. ANY mistake – even reckless/unreasonable – will acquit because negates required mens rea. Everyone has sex with wife. consents to something else (doc says he's inserting metal object. reasonable lawyer never expected to say what the law will be) Standard of review for ineffective counsel: o An underlying issue of arguable merit o o The absence of a reasonable strategy on the part of counsel in acting or failing to act Prejudice as a result of counsel’s action or inaction. even sleeping through trial won't necessarily hurt. There is forensic evidence because there was sperm on her sweater. Mlinarich How can age be irrelevant? What sort of non-physical coercion would have satisfied the court’s majority. D would've won.” What is nature of the act? She knew she was having sex. D's admit they were mistaken about consent – perhaps even unreasonably. But when he truly believes she says no. Later. he stops. Elements: o Sexual intercourse o o Non-spousal “forcible compulsion” Do we want to punish rape by extortion the same as rape by force Commonwealth v. Testimony from her friends that victim was very tense and anxious after the incident. Tells guys wife enjoys rape fantasies. Morgan – Husband meets 3 guys at a bar. Woman immediately seeks treatment.
and as stated in Williams. More predominant in non-stranger rape cases. Forcible compulsion. aren’t we making the mens rea requirement for the D at least negligent. o Such compulsions bring in mens rea elements and allow for mistake of fact defenses Conviction upheld though because of the procedural mistake of defendant’s attorney On the merits of the case though: o Still a situation of force being used. in any case. where force is used.compulsion by use of physical. intellectual. on the issue of consent. moral. Reckless as to her consent. Focus should mainly be on whether man had mens re vis a vis woman’s consent. Therefore. either express or implied. Placing burden on D not to be negligent. PA rule – must forcibly resist in some way. 'Moral' / 'emotional' / 'psychological' compulsion could result in cases where boyfriend pressures girl into sex.Argument: D made mistake of fact. even if she says no. negligent mistake and reasonable mistake are OK. emotional or psychological force. If mens rea is recklessness – consciously disregard a substantial and unjustifiable risk. Mans mental state primary concern? If it is. consent is irrelevant If consent is to be shown by actions or words. . you have to get evidence from the victim. Maybe the right solution is as stated in Barnes. Court: Consent vitiated by force. then in effect. We insist on something that requires something much less than earnest resistance.
Mens Rea for Attempt Actus Reus of Attempt: When is there enough attempt to convict? Do we punish attempts or not? Less AR desire / \ only State v. Incapacitation prevents them from trying the crime again. o Actus reas problem: Has he gone far enough to perpetrate an event To be guilty of attempt. If we could be punished for mere thoughts the scope of punishment for attempt crimes would be huge.2/11/2010 12:29:00 PM Introduction: 1) Why punish attempts if no harm materialized? Deterrence. Why might police want rule of attempt? So they could intervene before harm is done. Lyerla Teens in car lay with man by not letting his car pass. defendant must intend to commit a crime of negligence or recklessness. Prevention by a rule of attempt. But by hypothesis. Don’t want police to be paralyzed until the crime occurs. or setting up bomb. preparation / \ / \ more conduct Preperation v. We don’t have evidence that there are fixed intentions or mere day dreams. but not to destroy building or cause death. Retribution 2) Assume we do punish attempts. why punish them less severely than the actual materialized crime. . that doesn’t make sense because how can you intend to be negligent or reckless? People engage in reckless activity all the time. Incentive to desist Appeasement of victims/society – less of a problem b/c victims not harmed. Hypothetical: what happens if man recklessly fires machine gun into crowded house but no one dies? Bomber intends to set off a bomb to scare people. But. Convicted of 1st degree murder under deprave heart murder and attempted 2nd degree murder for the two injured kids. if someone is already attempting. Bullets kill driver. not intended to kill. other kids injured in crash. Pervasiveness of “moral luck” Attempt causes a sense of insecurity among communities. From utilitarian: because we want to intervene before crime happens. Man fires gun at car. then they weren’t deterred. o Mens rea issues Defendant caught as he was loading gun. Attempt initial attempt / \ all conduct except final act More AR complete attempt crime / \ complete crime _________________________________________________________________________ thought some conduct Why do we not punish mere thoughts? No evidence that the crime will go through.
requested witness to get a magistrate . Murray Steps D taken: eloped. declarations.People v.
This is a defense because what are you charging them with? Actus reus is missing. Thousand: D saying that they are trying to charge him for distribution to a minor.S. someone who thinks its illegal to sell to beer to someone under 21. Thus. but there are two exceptions. Factual impossibility not a defense Distinction between factual and hybrid legal impossibility is really facetious People v. Activity is not proscribed by the criminal law at all or it may be prescribed. Pure or True Legal Impossibility Fictional crimes. but the defendant is mistaken about the scope of the law. Trend among most jurisdictions is now that impossibility is not a defense. but the law is really under 18 and he sells it to someone who is 20. Application of the principle of legality. How are these different from situations where try to bribe a juror who isn’t a juror? o Means they’ve chosen are manifestly harmless for the crime.e. Pure Legal Impossibility: Modern rule is that impossibility is just not a defense to attempts.Impossibility Booth Court trying to apply common law rule as an impossibility defense An attempt is legally impossible if had the defendant’s actions been carried out it would not have amounted to a crime. or say there is no case. i. he is trying to use legal impossibility. Hybrid v. 1. But. because easy to rephrase legal impossibilities as factual impossibilities. 2. Inherently Impossible Attempts Two brothers who attempt to slay a judge who convicted one of them by putting pins in a voodoo doll. could easily rephrase this as factual impossibility. Or. let it go forward. MPC: Trial judge can mitigate sentence. The supposed minor is a cop. but there is no minor. . thinking it’s a crime. but it isn’t. someone smuggles foreign currency into the U.
words . or by any means sufficient to incite. just a way of committing a crime Wilson v. At common law. but the punishment is the same as the principal actor. People Actus Reus: Aid and Abetting Mens rea is up for debate because some say purpose others say knowledge. aiding and abetting can entail very little action (nodding of approval). by acts. Ochoa The evidence of aiding and abetting may be as broad and varies as are the means of communicating thought from one individual to another.2/11/2010 12:29:00 PM State v. encourage or instigate commission of the offense or calculated to make known that the commission of an offense already undertaken has the aider’s support or approval. Complicity not a crime within itself. Do we want to have someone who is not pre-authorized help be an accomplice for persons he wants to turn in? o What about justifications? . Accomplice has to share the same mens rea with the principal.s gins. Community of purpose. conduct.
In the circumstances at the time. how does it differ from MPC In MPC and minority common law jurisdictions more subtle scheme for analyzing mistakes in thes contexts How individualized do we want to be? Can jury consider the race of the individuals? What is the relevance of racial statistics? . this means that this is a question of law. (Minority common law distinctions). Goetz Looks a lot more like anger than self-defense Why did appellate division quash the indictment. Problems with subject test: Do we account for Defendant’s idiosyncratic beliefs Analysis here.04 Absence of the requirement of imminent as in common law. o Can self-defender retreat? MPC 3. What does he believe. but unreasonable belief would under common law not be held as a valid defense.2/11/2010 12:29:00 PM Self-Defense Conceived of as a justification. Requirements for self-defense: o Proportionality: Eye for an eye? o Deadly forced threatened? Defendant must believe he is in imminent harm Revenge or retaliation is not self-defense Right of self-defense for an innocent person is preferred Rule v. Policy-wise. People v. today some common law jurisdictions provide that it is a partial defense MPC 3. the person seeking self-defense justification chose the lesser evil.11: Substantial threat. can’t question it. o o Must accept legislatures decision. not what does he reasonably believe? Imperfect self-defense. Act utilitarianism Self defense has to be necessary: imminent use of force on the defendant Imminent threat has three components: o Person has to accept the law of self-defense as it is in his jurisdiction. Someone acting in self-defense must believe subjectively that necessary to avoid lethal force. An honest.
This action might not be possible to undo. Are you sure you want to continue?
We've moved you to where you read on your other device.
Get the full title to continue reading from where you left off, or restart the preview.