This action might not be possible to undo. Are you sure you want to continue?
Chapter 1 A. A Case Study in Punishment Regina v. Dudley & Stephens
The Purposes of the Criminal Law The Ds, Thomas Dudley and Edwin Stephens and two other gentlemen, Mr. Brooks and the victim, Richard Parker, were stranded on a boat for several days. When it appeared that the whole party would likely die of thirst and starvation, the Ds decided to sacrifice Mr. Parker, who would not have survived much longer, for the good of the rest. As necessary the circumstances seemed where sacrificing one’s life would save the rest, that itself does not justify murder. The fact that Dudley and Stephens chose the weakest person to be the victim also does not justify that Parker could not have survived. Instead, by killing him, it is only making certain that he had no chance of survival. Private necessity does not justify murder, except in the case of self-defense.
B. Purposes of the Criminal Law What is a Crime?
Treatment instead of Punishment?
M.P.C. Statement of Objectives
5 Generally Recognized principals of punishment
System of Social Control
Chapter 2 A. The Act Requirement M.P.C. and voluntary Acts.
An “act that the law makes punishable; the breach of a legal duty treated as the subject matter of a criminal proceeding.” Some crimes require one to do some act while other crimes require one to refrain from doing some act. Moral condemnation is a unique sanction because it inflicts suffering on individuals even when the conduct is otherwise efficient. Indeed, the condemnation is moral in character precisely because we are blaming an individual for preferring pleasure to pain in a situation where he should be obeying the categorical imperative. While invocation of a penal sanction necessarily depends on past behavior, the object is control of the harmful conduct in the future. ―Resentment (perhaps even some hatred) is a good thing,‖ forgiveness of wrongdoers is overvalued in our culture, and there is little room for mercy in the sentencing of wrongdoers (or those involved in sentencing and punishing offenders should ―keep their sentimentality to themselves for use in their private lives with their families and pets.‖). The leading alternative to criminalization would be to provide that people who behave badly should simply be treated as sick people to be cured rather than as bad people to be condemned and punished. What would happen if the laws said, ―if you do something wrong, you will merely be treated as a sick person and we will try to cure you?‖ Compare that to, ―You are a bad person, everyone should know that you are bad, you will be punished to the extent that you’re crime deserves if you commit one.‖ Deterrence is negative, whereas the purposes of law are positive. Many crimes are undeterrable. The grim negativism and the frequent seeming futility of the criminal law when it is considered simply as a means of preventing undesired behavior no doubt help to explain why sensitive people, working at close hand with criminals, tend so often to embrace the more hopeful and positive tenets of curative-rehabilitative philosophy. The purposes of criminal law sanctions—just punishment, deterrence, incapacitation of the dangerous, and rehabilitation. The purposes frequently conflict. A choice must be made to follow one purpose at the expense of another. The major goal of the criminal law is to forbid and prevent conduct that threatens substantial harm to individual or public interests and that at the same time is both unjustifiable and inexcusable. Subsidiary themes: Subsidiary goals: --to subject those who are disposed to commit --to promote the correction and rehabilitation of offenders, crimes to public control, within a scheme that safeguards them against excessive, disproportionate or arbitrary punishment, --to prevent the condemnation of conduct that is without fault, --to give fair warning of the possible dispositions for criminal offenses, and --to give fair warning of the conduct declared to be criminal, and --to differentiate among offenders with a view to just individualization of treatment. --to differentiate between serious and minor offenses on reasonable grounds. Utilitarian Theory 1. General Deterrence Punish one to deter others 2. Specific Deterrence Punish to deter that person 3. Incapacitation Prevent them from committing more crimes 4. Rehabilitation Treat/teach defendant so they won’t commit more crimes Retributive Theory 5. Retribution Punishment for what they did—repayment or revenge Determining what someone deserves—Two factors: 1. Harm—What were the results of their actions? 2. Culpability—What choice did the defendant make? Achieve socially desirable ends Preserve fundamental individual liberty Maintain a system of property ownership Protect and enable the operation of the state/government The Requirement of a Voluntary Act An essential element of just punishment is the requirement of a voluntary act or omission. § 2.01. Requirement of Voluntary Act; Omission as Basis of Liability; Possession as an Act. (1) A person is not guilty of an offense unless his liability is based on conduct that includes a voluntary act or the omission to perform an act of which he is physically capable. (2) The following are not voluntary acts within the meaning of this Section: (a) a reflex or convulsion; (b) a bodily movement during unconsciousness or sleep;
if the possessor knowingly procured or received the thing possessed or was aware of his control thereof for a sufficient period to have been able to terminate his possession.Michael Mroczka—Criminal Law 2 Criminal Liability Martin v.P.C) Fulcher v. He beat up is cell mate. by virtue of relationship to another. Imprisonment for a short amount of time is not cruel and unusual punishment when considered in the abstract. that liability was conflicting as to how long and as to for failure to act may only be imposed where the person who whether or not D was paid to take care of the failed to act had a legal duty to perform such act. State Robinson v. Defense of unconsciousness is He had concussion and traumatic an affirmative defense. highway after police officers forcibly removed One cannot be blamed for an act he was forced to perform. Act must be voluntary. either conscious or habitual. Robinson was found the state or been guilty of any anti-social behavior there. Found unconscious in a permanent brain damage was an affirmative defense and was ditch. even one day in prison would be cruel and unusual punishment for the ―crime‖ of having a common cold. the violation must be voluntary. (d) a bodily movement that otherwise is not a product of the effort or determination of the actor. For possession crimes. knowledge is an act—but what is meant by knowledge? D drank 7-8 shots of whiskey at bar after The trial court properly received and considered evidence of previously drinking at home. For example. him from his home and placed him on the The accusation of drunkenness in a designated public pace road. California (c) conduct during hypnosis or resulting from hypnotic suggestion. However. was forcibly carried to that place. within the meaning of this Section. United States Duty to Act . Does not remember anything after unconsciousness resulting from a concussion with no walking out the door. cannot be established by proof that the accused while in an intoxicated state. (3) Liability for the commission of an offense may not be based on an omission unaccompanied by action unless: (a) the omission is expressly made sufficient by the law defining the offense. Omissions Jones v. if required o Voluntary bodily movement Result. It also child. D claims he got unconsciousness absent a plea of "not guilty by reason of into a fight in the restroom them left to find a mental illness or deficiency" because the defense of friend. Appellant. Booked for public intoxication and a defense separate from the defense of not guilty by reason of disturbing the peace.C. D’s friend had a 10-month-old child who was Omission of an act is only punishable where the duty placed with D. one must act or fail to act when required to do so. To be punished. with D for some time. infliction of cruel and unusual punishment in violation of the Eighth and Fourteenth Amendments. D protect a child where that person is not a child’s parent or was charged and convicted with involuntary guardian manslaughter based on his failure to provide for the child.P. even though he has never touched the drug within of narcotics. A California statute makes it a criminal A state law which imprisons an individual for being addicted offense for a person to be addicted to the use to drugs. automatism—doesn’t have conscious and willful control of actions. or (b) a duty to perform the omitted act is otherwise imposed by law. mental illness or deficiency. State Actus Reus and Conduct(M. Common Law Model Penal Code Actus Reus (Act) (includes attendant Conduct (includes causation) circumstance and causation) Attendant Circumstance. Should the judge have told it must find beyond a reasonable doubt that D was under a legal duty to provide for the child? A legal duty can be imposed by statue. D failed to provide for the child and illustrates the difficulty of convicting a person of failure to such failure resulted in the child’s death. if required Mens Rea (Mental State) No Justification or Excuse (Defenses) o Specific Intent State of Mind for each of the first three o Malice o Purposefully (intentionally) o General Intent o Knowingly o (No mental state needed for strict o Recklessly liability crimes) o Negligently No Justification or Excuse (Defenses) D was charged with being drunk on a public To be convicted of a crime. where one has assumed a contractual duty to care for another and B. Muscular contraction resulting from one’s will or an external manifestation of one’s will. they feel the issue should not be considered in the abstract. however the evidence This case reflect the position taken by the M. (4) Possession is an act. is an guilty of the offense. The mother lived in the house neglected is a legal duty and not merely a moral obligation.
Malice—When a defendant acts intentionally or with reckless disregard of obvious known risks. for failing to prevent future acts of abuse by her husband. General Intent—Defendant need only be generally aware of the factors constituting the crime. it also covers situations where a person has a duty toward a child and exposes the child to a foreseeable risk of abuse. 4. . (a) Purposely. The parent must knowingly act in disregard of the facts giving rise to a duty to protect and act. The defendant has knowledge of it. Specific Intent—When the crime requires not just the desire to do the act. Different mental states might be required for each element. a person is not guilty of an offense unless he acted purposely. o Statutory Rape There are four M. but also the desire to achieve a specific result Specific Intent Crimes o Assault o First degree. A mental state is required for each element of the crime. mental states 1. (Just doing the act. as the law may require. Strict Liability—Absence of a mental state—no intent crimes (act only crimes) Public Welfare Offenses—Regulatory or morality offenses that carry a small penalty.02. General Requirements of Culpability.C. etc.). When a special relationship exists between persons. The State does not limit its application to individuals that directly inflict the abuse. whom she knew was abusing their two kids. social policy may impose a duty to protect and this would be considered a sufficient legal duty. 3.C. o Corrupting the morals of a minor o Selling adulterated food o Selling Alcohol or Tobacco to a Minor o Speeding. premeditated murder o Embezzlement o False pretenses o Larceny o Robbery o Forgery o Burglary o Solicitation o Conspiracy o Attempt 2. Recklessly—When the defendant is aware of and consciously disregards a substantial and unjustifiable risk (Intentionally taking a bad risk). recklessly or negligently. Knowingly—Defendant is aware of his conduct or aware of the circumstances. Severe Penalty—there is only one strict liability crime that carries a severe penalty.Michael Mroczka—Criminal Law 3 where one has volunteered to care for another and in doing so secluded the person in manner that prevents others from rendering aid. knowingly.P. (2) Kinds of Culpability Defined. Williquette The Appellee was charged with child abuse. (1) Minimum Requirements of Culpability. He need not intend a specific result. State v. A parent who fails to take any action to stop child abuse can be prosecuted as a principal under the statute.P. Mental States Mens Rea There are four common law mental states 1. § 2. with respect to each material element of the offense. 2. A person may be found guilty of an offense when his omission to act produced a specific result if the person has a legal duty to act and when he can physically perform the act. Negligently—When a defendant should have known about a substantial and unjustifiable risk (crime of being stupid).05. Malice Crimes o Murder o Arson 4. Chapter 3 Common Law Mental States M. Except as provided in Section 2. Purposefully (Intentionally)—The defendant has a conscious objective to cause a specific result or to engage in a particular conduct (It is what the D meant to do. General Intent Crimes o Battery o Rape—Forcible Rape o Kidnapping o False Imprisonment 3.
unless the condition negatives the harm or evil sought to be prevented by the law defining the offense. At common law. without distinguishing among the material elements thereof. (d) Negligently. A requirement that an offense be committed willfully is satisfied if a person acts knowingly with respect to the material elements of the offense. (4) Prescribed Culpability Requirement Applies to All Material Elements. he is aware of the existence of such circumstances or he believes or hopes that they exist. arguing that the trial court improperly instructed the jury to consider whether defendant was "practically certain" that her conduct would cause public inconvenience or annoyance. One cannot be convicted for an act that is the unintended and unforeseeable consequence of a lesser offense. The disorderly conduct statute. Jackowski D. A person acts negligently with respect to a material element of an offense when he should be aware of a substantial and unjustifiable risk that the material element exists or will result from his conduct. knowingly or recklessly. When knowledge of the existence of a particular fact is an element of an offense. D was convicted of disorderly conduct. When a particular purpose is an element of an offense. explaining in its definitions that "intentionally" or "with intent" means purposely. recklessly or negligently. unless a contrary purpose plainly appears. Recklessness and Knowledge." Instead. A person acts recklessly with respect to a material element of an offense when he consciously disregards a substantial and unjustifiable risk that the material element exists or will result from his conduct. A. such provision shall apply to all the material elements of the offense. When the culpability sufficient to establish a material element of an offense is not prescribed by law. crimes committed "purposely" and those committed "knowingly" would both have been specific intent offenses. (10) Culpability as Determinant of Grade of Offense. he is aware that his conduct is of that nature or that such circumstances exist. (5) Substitutes for Negligence. such element is established if a person acts purposely. A person acts knowingly with respect to a material element of an offense when: (i) if the element involves the nature of his conduct or the attendant circumstances. (9) Culpability as to Illegality of Conduct. such element also is established if a person acts purposely.Michael Mroczka—Criminal Law 4 A person acts purposely with respect to a material element of an offense when: (i) if the element involves the nature of his conduct or a result thereof. unless a purpose to impose further requirements appears. D appealed the conviction. (c) Recklessly. it uses the two terms interchangeably. and (ii) if the element involves the attendant circumstances. a sailor. was trying to steal some rum when he lit a match and accidentally set the boat on fire. Neither knowledge nor recklessness or negligence as to whether conduct constitutes an offense or as to the existence. Legislative Patterns of Criminal Intention Regina v. (6) Requirement of Purpose Satisfied if Purpose Is Conditional. involves a gross deviation from the standard of care that a reasonable person would observe in the actor's situation. when she was charged with intentionally causing public inconvenience or annoyance. When the grade or degree of an offense depends on whether the offense is committed purposely. However. (3) Culpability Required Unless Otherwise Provided. such element also is established if a person acts purposely or knowingly. The risk must be of such a nature and degree that. unless the definition of the offense or the Code so provides. When the law defining an offense prescribes the kind of culpability that is sufficient for the commission of an offense. and it does not indicate a departure from the MPC’s approach to mens rea. knowingly or recklessly with respect thereto. contains the words "with intent" and not "purposely. knowingly. he is aware that it is practically certain that his conduct will cause such a result. When recklessness suffices to establish an element. considering the nature and purpose of the actor's conduct and the circumstances known to him. (8) Requirement of Willfulness Satisfied by Acting Knowingly. under the MPC knowingly is not purposefully. and (ii) if the element involves a result of his conduct. meaning or application of the law determining the elements of an offense is an element of such offense. such element also is established if a person acts purposely. The risk must be of such a nature and degree that the actor's failure to perceive it. unless he actually believes that it does not exist. it is his conscious object to engage in conduct of that nature or to cause such a result. considering the nature and purpose of his conduct and the circumstances known to him. (b) Knowingly. The MPC does not differentiate between "with intent" and "purposely. its disregard involves a gross deviation from the standard of conduct that a lawabiding person would observe in the actor's situation. its grade or degree shall be the lowest for which the determinative kind of culpability is established with respect to any material element of the offense. Faulkner State v. When the law provides that negligence suffices to establish an element of an offense. When acting knowingly suffices to establish an element. the element is established although such purpose is conditional. (7) Requirement of Knowledge Satisfied by Knowledge of High Probability." This is a purely semantic distinction. such knowledge is established if a person is aware of a high probability of its existence. .
in which event negligence with respect to such elements constitutes sufficient culpability and the classification of the offense and the sentence that may be imposed therefore upon conviction are determined by Section 1. or property. D Staples was convicted under the National Firearms Act. Statute for aggravated child abuse: A person knowingly. D argued that he did not know that the gun would fire automatically. insofar as a legislative purpose to impose absolute liability for such offenses or with respect to any material element thereof plainly appears. or (b) offenses defined by statutes other than the Code.5-2.C. knowingly strapped her children in the car (conduct). When Culpability Requirements Are Inapplicable to Violations and to Offenses Defined by Other Statutes. A rational trier of fact could find that D knew the ages of her children (circumstances). The Court distinguishes this offense from the public welfare/strict liability offenses and reasons that there has been a long tradition of widespread lawful gun ownership by private persons in this country. Atkins D argued that evidence of his voluntary intoxication was admissible to show that he lacked the requisite mental state for arson.8 miles. D was outside drinking and noticed that there were a lot of weeds. unless the requirement involved is included in the definition of the offense or the Court determines that its application is consistent with effective enforcement of the law defining the offense. without reference to intent to do a further act or achieve a future consequence.Michael Mroczka—Criminal Law 5 State v. the crime is deemed to be one of specific intent. and (b) although absolute liability is imposed by law with respect to one or more of the material elements of an offense defined by a statute other than the Code. This intention is deemed to be a general criminal intent. The US Dist Ct for D. He piled weeds poured gas. (1) The requirements of culpability prescribed by Sections 2.01 and 2. and was aware that her conduct was reasonably certain to cause harm or injury to her children (result of conduct). The mens rea requirement extends to the "aggravated identity theft" statute's defining element -. holding that "knowingly" had to modify "means of identification of another person. courts ask whether the defendant intended to do the proscribed act. while not having the actual intent to accomplish a specific wrongful purpose. and then lit them on fire. treats a child under 18 years of age in such a manner as to inflict injury or neglects such a child as to adversely affect the child’s health and welfare… and such abuse results in serious bodily injury. The arson statute. The fire spread rapidly burning for 3 days for 2. When the definition refers to defendant's intent to do some further act or achieve some additional consequence. There was no evidence D actually knew the alien registration number on the card he had belonged to another person (fake card)." The government appealed. well intentioned citizens to a possible 10 year term of imprisonment if what they genuinely and reasonably believed was a conventional semiautomatic turns out to have worn down into or modified into an automatic. granted D’s motion to dismiss a count of aggravated identity theft under. Intoxication & Drugged Condition People v. the offense constitutes a violation.‖ M. United States Absent a clear Congressional statement that mens rea is not a required element of an offense. Instead the Court should construe the statute in light of the rules embodied in the common law which require some mens rea as an element of an offense. the culpable commission of the offense may be charged and proved. (2) Notwithstanding any other provision of existing law and unless a subsequent statute otherwise provides: (a) when absolute liability is imposed with respect to any material element of an offense defined by a statute other than the Code and a conviction is based upon such liability. When the law defining an offense prescribes the kind of culpability that is sufficient for the commission of an offense." and thus. unless a contrary purpose plainly appears. C. other than by accidental means.P. United States v.that the means of identification used belongs to another person. knowingly neglected them over the next nine hrs (conduct). Ducker D left her children in the car when she went to her boyfriend’s for about 10 hrs. B. is consciously aware of the existence of facts which make his conduct unlawful. Therefore the Court rests it opinion on the rationale that ―it is unthinkable that Congress intended to subject such law-abiding.02 do not apply to: (a) offenses that constitute violations. This interpretation is manifest from the fact that the statute is implicated if a person causes to be burned .05. the government had to prove D knew the "means of identification" he possessed actually belonged to "another person.C. but rather requires only an intent to do the act that causes the harm. does not require an additional specific intent to burn a structure. Effect of Absolute Liability in Reducing Grade of Offense to Violation. without distinguishing among the material elements thereof.04 and Article 6 of the Code. Villanueva-Sotelo Knowing is applicable to the situations in which the accused. forest land. Strict Liability Staples v. When the definition of a crime consists of only the description of a particular act. which criminalizes the possession of a weapon that is capable of automatically firing. Strict Liability § 2. such provision shall apply to all the material elements of the offense. the Court should not dismiss with such requirement.
(3) Intoxication does not. Strict liability—No mistake will ever be a defense. knowledge.Michael Mroczka—Criminal Law 6 M. recklessness or negligence required to establish a material element of the offense. Mistake of Fact Mistake of Fact Under the Common Law Mistake of Fact Under the M. § 2. and consciously disregarded a substantial mistake of fact a defense to reckless and unjustifiable risk that a killing would result from his manslaughter? conduct.04. where the mistake precludes the existence of the mental state which convicted defendant of delivery of a necessary to commit the crime.C. (ii) a judicial decision. if the actor. A person who delivered a substance that was controlled substance. the ignorance or mistake of the defendant shall reduce the grade and degree of the offense of which he may be convicted to those of the offense of which he would be guilty had the situation been as he supposed. or property. If his mistake would make it that he did not consciously disregard a substantial and unjustifiable risk then he cant. (2) Although ignorance or mistake would otherwise afford a defense to the offense charged. forest land. belief. Defendant challenged a judgment from the Mistake of fact is a defense to a crime of criminal intent only Iowa District Court for Pottawattamie County. Is gun was not loaded. the defense is not available if the defendant would be guilty of another offense had the situation been as he supposed. (c) ―pathological intoxication‖ means intoxication grossly excessive in degree. (4) Intoxication that (a) is not self-induced or (b) is pathological is an affirmative defense if by reason of such intoxication the actor at the time of his conduct lacks substantial capacity either to appreciate its criminality [wrongfulness] or to conform his conduct to the requirements of law. (2) When recklessness establishes an element of the offense. the tendency of which to cause intoxication he knows or ought to know. would have made the act done innocent. is unaware of a risk of which he would have been aware had he been sober.” Rather. Mistake isn’t technically a defense—It is really just saying that they don’t have the required mental state. unreasonable. Intoxication. In such case. not a controlled substance. or (iv) an official interpretation of the public officer or body charged by law with responsibility for the interpretation. At common law an honest simulated controlled substance. New Jersey v. Sexton Iowa v. afterward determined to be invalid or erroneous. however. (5) Definitions. Does the defendants mistake negate the mental Purposefully—Did he mean to do it? state? Knowingly—Did he know what he was doing? Recklessly—Was he aware of the risk? Negligently—Was the risk unreasonable? § 2. contained in (i) a statute or other enactment.01. administration or enforcement of the law defining the offense. (iii) an administrative order or grant of permission. but who knowingly represented the substance as a controlled substance. Freeman . due to self-induced intoxication. then he can convicted of reckless manslaughter. in itself.P.08. Where an intoxication or drugged condition defense exists. Ignorance or Mistake. constitute mental disease within the meaning of Section 4. D claimed that he mistakenly believed the gun If the defendant was reckless in forming the belief that the was not loaded when he killed his friend. which was not a good defense. (1) Ignorance or mistake as to a matter of fact or law is a defense if: (a) the ignorance or mistake negatives the purpose. or (b) the law provides that the state of mind established by such ignorance or mistake constitutes a defense. to which the actor does not know he is susceptible. defense depends on the mental state for the General Intent and Malice—Only reasonable mistakes can be crime and whether it was reasonable or a defense. on Intoxication any structure. it was actually which. unless he introduces them pursuant to medical advice or under such circumstances as would afford a defense to a charge of crime. He thought he and reasonable belief in the existence of circumstances was selling cocaine. (b) ―self-induced intoxication‖ means intoxication caused by substances that the actor knowingly introduces into his body. (4) The defendant must prove a defense arising under Subsection (3) of this Section by a preponderance of evidence.P. (3) A belief that conduct does not legally constitute an offense is a defense to a prosecution for that offense based upon such conduct when: (a) the statute or other enactment defining the offense is not known to the actor and has not been published or otherwise reasonably made available prior to the conduct alleged. In this Section unless a different meaning plainly is required: (a) ―intoxication‖ means a disturbance of mental or physical capacities resulting from the introduction of substances into the body. committed the Degree of Intoxication D. (1) Except as provided in Subsection (4) of this Section. is a acetaminophen (Tylenol). or (b) he acts in reasonable reliance upon an official statement of the law. given the amount of the intoxicant.C. such unawareness is immaterial. it is not sufficient simply to demonstrate the use of alcohol or drugs or even the fact that a defendant was demonstrably “high. intoxication of the actor is not a defense unless it negatives an element of the offense. Whether a defendant’s mistake of fact will be a Specific Intent—Any mistake can be a defense. opinion or judgment. the defendant must be so intoxicated and/or drugged that he or she is not capable of possessing the specific intent at issue. to be able to successfully use this defense. if true.
to which there is no defense. the more likely it is to be defendants acting independently commit foreseeable two separate acts that cause the prohibited result. foreseeable Intervening Acts Will break the chain of causation if de minimis in nature (struck by lightning) Intended Consequences Doctrine—any intended consequence of an act is proximate. and (b) the relationship between the conduct and result satisfies any additional causal requirements imposed by the Code or by the law defining the offense. unless it is result. not that they knew the act was unlawful or criminalized by statute. on Causation Causation Proximate or Legal Causation Actual Cause “But For” Causation—‖The result Is the actual cause sufficient to impose criminal would not have happened in the absence liability? of the defendant’s conduct. and Informed Human Choice—a defendant is not the proximate cause of a result if a free. Under the MPC it can be but it is very difficult. unless the response is bizarre occurred. DeCastro Kipp v. Mistake of law is no excuse. Statutory rape is a strict liability offense.‖’ Usually focus on the foreseeability of the harm Substantial Factor Test—Two More dangerous the activity. Dependent (Responsive) Independent (Coincidental or Superseding) Does not usually break the chain of Placed the victim in the situation where the other cause causation. (1) Conduct is the cause of a result when: (a) it is an antecedent but for which the result in question would not have occurred. and informed act of another human being intervenes.Michael Mroczka—Criminal Law 7 Rhode Island v. or (b) the actual result involves the same kind of injury or harm as that designed or contemplated and is not too remote or accidental in its occurrence to have a [just] bearing on the actor's liability or on the gravity of his offense. Delaware D was pulled over when a police officer was “harassing” him. I’m guessing the defendants were selling drugs. the element is not established if the actual result is not within the purpose or the contemplation of the actor unless: (a) the actual result differs from that designed or contemplated. When he signed the plea form. Where the crime requires only knowledge. as the case may be. but that is the only relationship between the or abnormal. Causal Relationship Between Conduct and Result. § 2. we no longer consider that defendant a proximate cause. Ignorance or mistake of law is not a defense to a crime that does not require a showing that the defendants know the illegality of the conduct of which he is charged. not willfulness. (1) The State conceded that defendant presented a proper and complete mistake of law defense.C. Ignorance or mistake of the law is no defense. the government need only prove the defendants knew they were performing an act. it would be unfair actor & the victim to hold the actor responsible for the Will often break the chain of causation. (2) When purposely or knowingly causing a particular result is an element of an offense. Scarmazzo D had sex with a girl believing she was 16 when in fact. Chapter 4 Test for Actual Causation Intervening Acts (Jury Question) M. He called 911. and either defendant’s conduct alone would have been sufficient to result in the prohibited result.P. (3) When recklessly or negligently causing a particular result is an element of an offense. Divergence Between Result Designed or Contemplated and Actual Result or Between Probable and Actual Result. Apparent Safety Doctrine—once the danger from the defendant is no longer present. that portion of the form was marked N/A. The operator told him that he could leave. and thus. Deliberate. and (4) defendant had been misled by the State to believe that he was not a person prohibited. but defendant was not charged with knowledge of a penal statute if he was misled concerning whether the statute was not being applied. she was 13. most often applied when the intent and the results match. Mistake of Law United States v. D plead guilty to an earlier crime and was told that his plea would not prohibit him. (2) ignorance of the law was not a defense to a crime. deliberate.03. only in the respect that a different person or different property is injured or affected or that the injury or harm designed or contemplated would have been more serious or more extensive than that caused. then both are responsible. the element is not . (3) a mistake of law defense was appropriately recognized where defendant demonstrated that he had been misled by information received from the State. Yanez E. offense of delivery of a simulated controlled substance regardless of whether the person believed that the substance was controlled or not controlled. D was a person prohibited from possessing deadly weapons but he didn’t know that he was. The question is: did the victim reach ―apparent safety‖? Free. Hawaii v.
That she would try to take her own life. Though D was driving recklessly at a speed far above the The victim was killed when he swerved into a legal limit. woman was at all times in the custody and absolute control of D and the possibility that D would attempt to rape her again was a pressing and overwhelming concern at the time she swallowed the pill. collided with pursuit of a fleeing suspect was not a highly extraordinary each other. in people. They walked out of the When a person inflicts a wound on another which is room. The accomplice can be guilty even if the principle has a valid defense. it was the way it was treated that or surgeon contributes to the death affords no defense to a killed him. committed suicide with a poison irresponsible for her actions in ingesting a poison pill pill in order to forego facing further physical insomuch as D had created an environment which impelled and emotional abuse. mistake. of which he should be aware unless: (a) the actual result differs from the probable result only in the respect that a different person or different property is injured or affected or that the probable injury or harm would have been more serious or more extensive than that caused. Two police helicopters.Michael Mroczka—Criminal Law 8 Stephenson v. V died the next day. o Negate assistance (go to the police etc. A woman. one of the helicopter operators might second degree murder on the basis that his act in a negligent manner. The action of steering his car into a lane of oncoming traffic was that of the decedent himself and was not forced upon him by D. was the natural and probable consequence of the abuse D had subjected her to. Principles & Accessories Liability for the Conduct of Others established if the actual result is not within the risk of which the actor is aware or. for collision. charge of homicide. The rape. Accomplice Liability 1. in the case of negligence. D and the victim were racing on the highway. who had been kidnapped by the The woman whom D abducted was rendered mentally Defendant. Complicity Accomplice liability Principle—The person who commits the crime Accomplice—The person who helps —What makes someone an accomplice? Act—aiding or encouraging the principle Mental—with the intent that the crime be committed Accomplice is guilty of whatever crime the principle commits. or calculated to destroy life. the fact that the abdomen. Acosta Commonwealth v. D was playing cards. or (b) the actual result involves the same kind of injury or harm as the probable result and is not too remote or accidental in its occurrence to have a [just] bearing on the actor's liability or on the gravity of his offense. lane of oncoming traffic. (4) When causing a particular result is a material element of an offense for which absolute liability is imposed by law. D says it wasn’t negligence. decedent himself was engaged in willful lane of oncoming traffic in order to pass D’s recklessness by participating in the race and swerving into a car. it was within the realm of likelihood that. State People v. the element is not established unless the actual result is a probable consequence of the actor's conduct. including attempted her to the act and from which she could not escape. Persons who are not accomplices Mere presence does not make one an accomplice Mere knowledge does not make one an accomplice Members of the protected class cannot be accomplices Victims cannot be accomplices Withdrawal—How do you get out of accomplice liability? If they encouraged—they must discourage to withdraw If aided—discouraging is not enough—must take affirmative steps to prevent the crime from happening. or lack of skill of an attending physician the shot. D could have foreseen such a actions in evading police caused the helicopter consequence arising from his own reckless conduct.) Accessory After the Fact (Knowing may be enough) Defendant must assist the principle who has already committed a felony . which reason his actions were a proximate cause of the collision. just as if the accomplice did it—also guilty of foreseeable crimes committed by the principle. Decedent’s decision to race his car in a lane of oncoming traffic was the actual cause of his death – not D’s own reckless driving. from D. resulting in the deaths of three outcome. —Does the accomplice’s guilt depend upon the principles guilt? Accomplice can be guilty even if the principle is never arrested or prosecuted. V came out and D shot him in the dangerous. D was convicted on three counts of the heat of such a chase. assisting in the highThe collision of two police helicopters during the course of a speed pursuit of D’s automobile. Rather. Root People v. McGee Chapter 5 A.
Michael Mroczka—Criminal Law 9 with knowledge that the crime has been committed and with the intent to help the principle avoid arrest or conviction (obstruction of justice etc. Special Rules Principals can be tried in any order. 2. that offense does not merge with the principle offense. by themselves or with some instrument. Accessories Those who either laid the groundwork for or assisted after the commission of the crime Accessories before the Fact .P. The principal in the 2d degree must be close enough to render aid to the principal in the 1st degree if necessary M. Alaska New Hampshire v. (2) meth in his sock.P.06. 2. See Model Penal Code § 2. D traveled with another to deal drugs. Patricia committed no affirmative act in furtherance of the crime. D had D (1) associated himself with the unlawful venture. (MPC Sec.). counsels. Mental state: When causing a particular result— the degree of culpability required for that particular element is required.knowing of the commission of the crime. is accessories after the fact.C. induces.06) —No requirement exists that a principal be convicted before any secondary party to be convicted Separate. When an actor assists another only after the substantive criminal offense has taken place. is a principle. United States Act: ―purpose‖ of promoting or facilitating commission of the offense. assisted or encouraged others. committed the crime. D had gone on the trip twice participated in it as something he wished to bring about. Accessories After the Fact Baker v. or procures its commission. No distinctions remain between different degrees of principals. and Cannot be convicted of a more serious offense than the principal. Complicity. Must always be at least one principal in first degree for a crime to have occurred Presence may be actual or construct Actions may be taken through innocent agent Principals in the Second Degree Those who aided. bank robbery.C. (1) A person is guilty of an offense if it is committed by his own conduct or by the conduct of another person . in committing the crime. Accessories cannot be tried before a principal (although they could be tried jointly).aided or assisted before the commission without actual or constructive presence at the scene. D and some friends wanted free pizza by Whether D personally struck the delivery man or not. without a problem. the indictments provided D adequate notice to prepare a defense to principle or accomplice liability. less serious. Abolition of the degrees of parties and general rule of liability based on actions of preparation or assistance and the purpose of promoting or facilitating commission of the offense. however. Having sufficiently charged D as a principle. harboring a fugitive after a bank robbery.06(3). or between principals and accessories (except accessories after the fact). and before and received $100 for each trip. e. Texas United States v. That they were captioned accomplice charges does not alter the explicit language of the indictments that put D on notice that he could be convicted as either a principle or an accomplice. Santana The M. and were actually or constructively present at the scene. aided afterwards in escaping punishment or avoiding detection. abets. One significant exception. with any results. Liability for Conduct of Another.3) MPC Elements of Accomplice Liability Common Law Actus reus: Assistance. commands.g. § 2. and Complicity Just being there and sitting in the truck does not make you an accomplice. Principles and accessories Principals in the First Degree Those who actually. The Act of Aiding or Encouraging Lane v. he was ordering them for delivery and then robbing a principle in the commission of a robbery. 242. Sinbandith Whoever directly commits any act constituting an offense defined in any law of the US. the delivery person. aid. or aids. substantive crime for being an accessory after the fact—Hindering Apprehension or Prosecution (See MPC Sec. Accessories after the Fact . encouragement of the criminal enterprise Mens Rea: Intent to bring about the criminal result Standefer v. (3) sought by his actions to make it succeed. The merger of principles and accessories has occurred in all American jurisdictions.
an accomplice in the conduct causing such result is an accomplice in the commission of that offense if he acts with the kind of culpability. or (b) the offense is so defined that his conduct is inevitably incident to its commission. Also. or (iii) having a legal duty to prevent the commission of the offense. if any. (2) A person is legally accountable for the conduct of another person when: (a) acting with the kind of culpability that is sufficient for the commission of the offense. expensive purchases with credit cards belonging to another.Michael Mroczka—Criminal Law 10 for which he is legally accountable. (5) A person who is legally incapable of committing a particular offense himself may be guilty thereof if it is committed by the conduct of another person for which he is legally accountable. (7) An accomplice may be convicted on proof of the commission of the offense and of his complicity therein. he (i) solicits such other person to commit it. or (b) he is made accountable for the conduct of such other person by the Code or by the law defining the offense. with respect to that result that is sufficient for the commission of the offense. but only if you specifically intend to accomplish the particular result Chapter 6 Attempt A. V. a person is not an accomplice in an offense committed by another person if: (a) he is a victim of that offense. Mens Rea State v. or (c) he is an accomplice of such other person in the commission of the offense. (6) Unless otherwise provided by the Code or by the law defining the offense. 3. The Intent to Promote or Facilitate Crime Hawaii v. New Hampshire v. or (ii) gives timely warning to the law enforcement authorities or otherwise makes proper effort to prevent the commission of the offense. (3) A person is an accomplice of another person in the commission of an offense if: (a) with the purpose of promoting or facilitating the commission of the offense. or (b) his conduct is expressly declared by law to establish his complicity. he engages in conduct constituting a substantial step toward commission of the . D selected or assisted in selecting the merchandise that was purchased. for lack of intent. and the means to commit the crime must be in the same place) MPC—Conduct that is a substantial step toward the commission of the crime and strongly corroborative of a criminal purpose. (4) When causing a particular result is an element of an offense. Maestas A person is guilty of an attempt to commit a crime if. D was free on count one because he was just present in the store and there was not evidence that he did anything to encourage etc. acting with the kind of culpability otherwise required for the commission of the offense. unless such liability is inconsistent with the purpose of the provision establishing his incapacity. Girlfriend made numerous. or (ii) aids or agrees or attempts to aid such other person in planning or committing it. D dominated the exchange with the sales clerk. o Obtaining illegal items that can be used to commit the crime is a substantial step that corroborates the criminal purpose The state appealed from an order by the trial court (Utah) dismissing. Merritt D and girlfriend went shopping. he causes an innocent or irresponsible person to engage in such conduct. fails to make proper effort so to do. D aided in committing fraud by picking out the merchandise and distracting the sales clerk from closely examining the credit cards while the merchandise was being purchased. especially at the moment the sale was completed. or (c) he terminates his complicity prior to the commission of the offense and (i) wholly deprives it of effectiveness in the commission of the offense. a charge of attempted murder against the defendant after a jury found him guilty for Mental State—The specific intent to commit the crime There are no attempt versions of o Reckless crimes o Negligent crimes o Felony Murder It is possible to attempt intentional or knowing crimes It is also possible to attempt malice crimes or general intent crimes or strict liability crimes. Soares To be guilty as an accomplice. a person must act with the intent of promoting or facilitating the commission of the crime. though the person claimed to have committed the offense has not been prosecuted or convicted or has been convicted of a different offense or degree of offense or has an immunity to prosecution or conviction or has been acquitted. Attempt Act Common Law—Conduct that gets dangerously close to the commission of a crime (dangerous proximity test—D. or both. In the other transactions.
01. Peaslee Actus Reus of Attempt at Common Law. Renunciation is not complete if it is motivated by a decision to postpone the criminal conduct until a more advantageous time or to transfer the criminal effort to another but similar objective or victim. (f) possession. 1. renunciation of criminal purpose is not voluntary if it is motivated. by circumstances. .) "Unequivocality" (or res ipsa loquitur) test – an attempt occurs when a person’s conduct. (4) Renunciation of Criminal Purpose. Conduct shall not be held to constitute a substantial step under Subsection (1)(c) of this Section unless it is strongly corroborative of the actor's criminal purpose. 3.Michael Mroczka—Criminal Law 11 shooting at a police officer from a speeding vehicle. or (c) purposely does or omits to do anything that. affect the liability of an accomplice who did not join in such abandonment or prevention. D placed a latter against a fence in the rear of The tools.) "Dangerous proximity" test – an attempt occurs when the defendant’s conduct is in "dangerous proximity to success. (g) soliciting an innocent agent to engage in conduct constituting an element of the crime.06 if the crime were committed by such other person. acting with the kind of culpability otherwise required for commission of the crime.) "Last act" test – an attempt occurs at least by the time of the last act but this test does not necessarily require that each and every act be performed on every occasion. is an actor omission constituting a substantial step in a course of conduct planned to culminate in his commission of the crime. D offered to pay someone to light it. (3) Conduct Designed to Aid Another in Commission of a Crime. and Attempt offense. Criminal Attempt. that are specially designed for such unlawful use or that can serve no lawful purpose of the actor under the circumstances. shall not be held insufficient as a matter of law: (a) lying in wait. in whole or in part. Without negativing the sufficiency of other conduct. 5. A person is guilty of an attempt to commit a crime if. Gibson B. the following. (b) enticing or seeking to entice the contemplated victim of the crime to go to the place contemplated for its commission. § 5. although the crime is not committed or attempted by such other person. the travel. 6.) "Indispensable element" test – an attempt occurs when the defendant has obtained control of an indispensable feature of the criminal plan. and they drove towards the building and then he changed his mind. A mere collection and preparation of materials in a room for the purpose of setting fire to them. collection or fabrication serves no lawful purpose of the actor under the circumstances. (d) unlawful entry of a structure. if strongly corroborative of the actor's criminal purpose. that increase the probability of detection or apprehension or that make more difficult the accomplishment of the criminal purpose." or when an act "is so near to the result that the danger of success is very great. collection or fabrication of materials to be employed in the commission of the crime. however. People v. vehicle or enclosure in which it is contemplated that the crime will be committed. (2) Conduct That May Be Held Substantial Step Under Subsection (1)(c). standing alone. he: (a) purposely engages in conduct that would constitute the crime if the attendant circumstances were as he believes them to be. (c) reconnoitering the place contemplated for the commission of the crime. was a substantial enough step and a department store. He had burglary tools on the mental state to constitute attempted burglary. is guilty of an attempt to commit the crime.C. under the circumstances as he believes them to be. unaccompanied by any present intent to set the fire. (e) possession of materials to be employed in the commission of the crime. would be too remote. or (b) when causing a particular result is an element of the crime. 2. does or omits to do any thing with the purpose of causing or with the belief that it will cause such result without further conduct on his part. (1) Definition of Attempt. it is an affirmative defense that he abandoned his effort to commit the crime or otherwise prevented its commission. etc. him. The establishment of such defense does not. There was substantial evidence from which the jury could have concluded that defendant aimed and fired at the sergeant and also that he did so intentionally or knowingly. if the indictment had been properly drawn. unambiguously manifests his criminal intent. A person who engages in conduct designed to aid another to commit a crime that would establish his complicity under Section 2. However. if such possession. Within the meaning of this Article." 4. D constructed and arranged combustibles in a building in a way that they were ready to be lighted. at or near the place contemplated for its commission.) "Physical proximity" test – the defendant’s conduct need not reach the last act but must be "proximate" to the completed crime. D could have been convicted of attempt when he solicited the other person to light the fire.P. not present or apparent at the inception of the actor's course of conduct. under circumstances manifesting a complete and voluntary renunciation of his criminal purpose. searching for or following the contemplated victim of the crime.) "Probable desistance" test – an attempt occurs when the defendant has reached a point where it was unlikely that he would have voluntarily desisted from his effort to commit the crime. When the actor's conduct would otherwise constitute an attempt under Subsection (1)(b) or (1)(c) of this Section. M. Actus Reus Commonwealth v.
D. However. A person is guilty of an attempting a crime by doing an act toward its commission but by reason of being interrupted or prevented fails in the execution of the same. the Court noted that he never found his intended victim. An attempt consists not only of an intent to commit a particular crime. the law will consider those acts only as tending to the commission of the crime. Abandonment State v. People v. Colorado D was charged with conspiring to kidnap his Court adopted the unilateral approach to conspiracy. D shot a dummy deer and was convicted of taking a deer out of season. If D believed him to be alive then there is attempted murder. o MPC—Unilateral Rule—Can have a conspiracy if two people reach an agreement even though one of them doesn’t really intend that the crime be committed (undercover cop). Completion of the crime is not necessary. which are so near to its accomplishment that in all reasonable probability the crime itself would have been committed but for timely interference. State v. D attempted to buy them. Impossibility State v. Rizzo Defendant was convicted of attempted robbery. Mens Rea Palmer v. Inciting. D argues that it was impossible for them to be convicted because they did not shoot a deer. Conspiracy to commit reckless manslaughter would require the accused to possess the specific intent to achieve . Workman D decided to commit a robbery. at the time he was arrested. D was convicted of conspiracy to commit reckless manslaughter. The jury could believe that D believed V to be alive. counseling. Jaffe People v. Two individuals may not be convicted of conspiracy where they have committed a crime that necessarily requires the participation of two individuals.22. but some overt act designed to carry out such intent. Abandonment can occur only before a substantial step is taken. Rojas Police were selling “stolen” goods. D did these. Same as above. Unilateral-Bilateral Conspiracies Miller v. Vicarious Liability—A member of a conspiracy is guilty not only of conspiracy. D shot a dummy deer out of season. Under ex-wife. Guffey It is no offense to attempt to do that which is not illegal. The criminality of the attempt is not destroyed by the fact that the goods. A. advising. but of all foreseeable crimes committed by coconspirators. urging. him. D called Powell and asked him to help the original approach he would have been not guilty. Factual Impossibility is not a defense to attempt. Curtis People v. C. Factual Impossibility A claim that it was impossible to commit the crime because of some circumstance beyond the defendant’s control. D could not have known that the property possessed the character of stolen property when it had not in fact been acquired by theft. and conspiracy liability focuses on specifically intended results rather than conduct. lost their stolen status. unknown to defendants. Chapter 7 Conspiracy Solicitation Conspiracy An agreement between two or more people to commit a crime plus an overt act in furtherance of that crime. he never found the targeted individual he wanted to rob. Powell was now working as an agent. Legal Impossibility A claim that it was impossible to commit the crime because what the defendant was trying to do was not illegal Legal impossibility is a defense to attempt—but it almost never happens Defendant believes that he is doing something illegal when in fact what he is doing is not illegal. Wyoming Wharton’s Rule B. Can you have one person conspiracy? o At Common Law. or shoot at a deer. Conspiracy is always a specific intent crime. Powel told law enforcement. In Defendant’s case. thinking that they were stolen. or commanding another to commit a crime with the intent that the person solicited commits the crime (specific intent). They waited outside a gas station with a . Attendant saw them. No—there must be an actual meeting of two guilty minds. There was no deer.Michael Mroczka—Criminal Law 12 People v. therefore there was no attempt to take a deer. that there was no way in his present situation to actually commit the robbery. (Specific Intent) The crime is in the agreement plus an overt act. having been recovered by the police had. The acts that can legally constitute an attempt must actually come or advance very near the accomplishment of the intended crime. Dlugash Impossibility D shot V in the head after he was already shot and on the ground for a while. D did not know if he was alive or dead. the crime is in the asking. For the crime of attempt.
as provided in Section 210. criminal homicide constitutes murder when: (a) it is committed purposely or knowingly.2. arson.Michael Mroczka—Criminal Law 13 an unintentional death. or an attempt to commit. Felony must be separate from the killing itself 4. or (b) it is committed recklessly under circumstances manifesting extreme indifference to the value of human life. or flight after committing or attempting to commit robbery. Words alone can never be adequate provocation Involuntary Manslaughter—Unintentional killing o Killing committed with criminal negligence o Killing committed during a crime that is not felony murder (misdemeanor murder) Felony Murder—Any killing committed or caused during the commission of or attempt to commit a felony Six limitations to felony murder 1.6]. E. The threatening confrontation. Intent to Kill 2. Defendant must be guilty of the underlying felony 2. (2) Murder is a felony of the first degree [but a person convicted of murder may be sentenced to death. This demonstrates deliberation.P. § 210. Intentional Killings State v. along with the showing of a gun is the type of provocation that could cause a reasonable person to lose control. kidnapping or felonious escape. Renunciation or Withdrawal Chapter 8 Homicide Homicide Common Law Homicide Crimes Murder—Causing the death of another person with malice aforethought o Malice—Means 4 specific things under CL 1. Voluntary Manslaughter State v. A. burglary. Such recklessness and indifference are presumed if the actor is engaged or is an accomplice in the commission of. Death must be foreseeable 6. State v. Davis 2. Victim must not be a co felon o Felony Murder imposes vicarious liability—all co felons will be responsible for a death caused by one of the felons o In most states. which is a legal and logical impossibility. Redmond . and Murder Deliberation and premeditation may be as instantaneous as successive thoughts of the mind. Murder. D made the decision to use the weapon he was carrying when he was confronted by his intended robbery victim.3(1)(b). Killing must be during the felony or during the immediate flight from felony (escape) 5. all that matters is that one of the felons caused the death Minority jurisdictions say act actual killing must be done by one of the felons. Model Penal Code Homicide Crimes Murder—three forms o Intent to kill o Extreme recklessness o Felony murder—6 felonies Burglary—Robbery—Arson—Kidnapping—Escape—Sexual Assault Manslaughter o Intentional—An intentional kill committed under the influence of extreme emotional disturbance o Reckless Killing—Aware of and consciously disregards a substantial and unjustifiable risk Criminally Negligent Homicide—The defendant should have known about the substantial and unjustifiable risk. Felony must be inherently dangerous 3. (1) Except as provided in Section 210. An intent to inflict great bodily harm 3.C. Ramirez M. Felony Murder o First degree murder—Premeditated and Deliberate (actually created by statute) Manslaughter Voluntary manslaughter—An intentional killing committed in the heat of passion after adequate provocation o Must be provocation that would arouse a sudden and intense passion in the mind of an ordinary person and where the defendant did not have time to cool off. rape or deviate sexual intercourse by force or threat of force. Extreme recklessness—Depraved heart—Extreme indifference to the value of human life 4.
(1) Criminal homicide constitutes manslaughter when: (a) it is committed recklessly. Iniguez D sold a house that he knew fumes leaked from the heated driveway. (2) Manslaughter is a felony of the second degree. D said it wasn’t during the rape so its not felony murder His conduct manifested extreme indifference to the value of human life. McCoy Vehicular manslaughter Chapter 10 Sex offenses When a defendant commits an intentional murder but does so under circumstances which he or she has an honest belief that fits within the parameters of a legal defense. Said she was afraid so she just laid there. Negligent Homicide (1) Criminal homicide constitutes negligent homicide when it is committed negligently. Powell People v. While burglarizing a home. Felony Murder Mares v. except that the belief is unreasonable. Manslaughter. Wyoming People v. (2) Negligent homicide is a felony of the third degree. D raped and murdered a prostitute. Felony murder It is felony murder People v. or (b) a homicide which would otherwise be murder is committed under the influence of extreme mental or emotional disturbance for which there is reasonable explanation or excuse. Negligent homicide based on negligence per se. D was allegedly screwing around with a gun and shot his wife in the head.4. V was attacked by D’s dogs and killed. 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. Unintentional Killings 1. D’s partner killed an old lady.3. Unpremeditated Murder State v. Rape and Sexual Assault Forcible Rape—Sex without the victims consent accomplished by force or by threat of force.Michael Mroczka—Criminal Law 14 MPC and Manslaughter § 210. Portillo 3. Gross negligence In a number of jurisdiction—applies to death caused by the negligent operation of a motor vehicle. Involuntary Manslaughter State v. or when the victim is unconscious Statutory Rape—Having sex with someone under the age of consent —Strict liability —MPC—allows a reasonable mistake to be a defense if age were plausible to make mistake--Minority D raped V while she was laying on his wife couch on her stomach. Imperfect defense B. D hit V with his van while speeding. Here are the relevant requirements of rape statutes from several different jurisdictions: . Burley 2. Brooks State v. told them it worked fine. § 210.
or fear of immediate and unlawful bodily injury on the person or another.Michael Mroczka—Criminal Law 15 1. . and compels such person to submit by force and against the person’s will. violence. where it is accomplished against a person's will by means of force. Massachusetts: Whoever has sexual intercourse with a person. or compels such person to submit by threat of bodily injury is guilty of rape 2. 4. 3. California: Rape is an act of sexual intercourse accomplished with a person not the spouse of the perpetrator. duress. Georgia: A person commits the offense of rape when he has carnal knowledge of a female forcibly and against her will. Alaska: An offender commits the crime of sexual assault in the first degree if the offender engages in sexual penetration with another person without consent of that person. menace.
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 listening from where you left off, or restart the preview.