Class outline

Tuesday, June 28, 2011 6:28 PM

I. Introductory Material A. Basic Principles & Theories of Punishment, Presumption & Burdens B. Intro to Legality, Statutory Interpretation & Canons of Construction
Legality - Notice - no judicial crime creation
i.(strict) statutory construction/interpretation 1. Plain meaning 2. Canons of construction 3. Legislative history/intent ii.Vagueness/ambiguity doctrine - Void for Vagueness If there is an issue with notice/legality, must apply rule of lenity Lenity - too ambiguous i.Notice - reasonable person wouldn't know it's illegal ii.Unfettered discretion - police get to decide who is offending and who isn't

Goals of Interpreting Statute
i.Respecting "plain language" of statutory text ii.Discerning and effectuating the intent of the legislature/voters iii.Making sure interpretation in one case doesn't contradict interpretation in another case

Rules for Interpreting Statutes ( Canons of Statutory Construction)
i.Interpreter should always begin with text of statute itself ii.Statutes should be interpreted in such a way as to avoid constitutional problems iii.Noscitur a sociis - the meaning of doubtful terms or phrases may be determined by reference to their relationship with other words or phrases iv.Ejusdem generis - where general words follow a specific enumeration of person or things, the general words should be limited to persons or things similar to those specifically enumerated v.Rule of Lenity - all doubts when reading a criminal statute should be resolved in favor of the defendant due to liberty at stake and presumption of innocence

II. Constitutional Limits

Greg Rule
 

Same crime / different state Different crime / same state

A. 14th Amend. Due Process: Void for Vagueness
Void for Vagueness
i.Notice OR ii.Unfettered Discretion (curing one may not have an effect on the other)

B. 8th Amendment
Proportionality test always used in 8th amendment cases *** When not death penalty, more narrow principle of proportionality i.Evolving standards of decency ii.Justification  Objective indicca  National consensus (numbers in states)  Proportionality analysis Gravity of offense v. harshness of punishment
 

Other crimes, same jurisdiction Same crime, other jurisdictions

C. 14th Amend. Equal Protect
14th Amendment - Equal Protection Clause
  

Strict scrutiny Discrimination (racial) "discriminatory purpose"

Discrimination Standard of Review
Race/origin Gender Strict Scrutiny Intermediate Scrutiny

Interest/Objective/ Reason
Compelling Interest Important government interest

Means
Narrowly Tailored (least restrictive) Substantially related

negates voluntary act Diminished capacity . 2. Introduction Act Can't be compelled Voluntary Omissions B. Actus Reus (The Act) A. Reflex/convulsion 2.     Unconscious .----------------------------------------Rational Basis Legislative Reasonable Heightened scrutiny = greater than rational basis Must prove purpose/intent to move from rational basis to stricter form of scrutiny Any sign of purposeful discrimination III. Exploring Actus Reus 1. Criminalizing Status? . Otherwise not a product of actor's effort whether conscious or habitual Cannot be based on omission accompanied by action unless: 1. Interrogating Voluntariness Voluntariness .decision made through both objective and subjective assessment not black or white. Movement during sleep/unconsciousness 3. iv.------------------Everything else    ------------------------. Conduct during or resulting from hypnosis 4. Duty to perform is imposed by law Possession IS an "act" so long as the person was aware they were in possession iii. NOT mens rea Unconsciousness must not be self-induced Liability Voluntary act or omission when capable NOT voluntary acts: 1.negates mens rea Unconscious defenses go towards voluntariness of Actus Reus.-------------------------------------. Omission is ok by law 2.

duty to pay taxes Defendant creates risk of harm Voluntarily assumes care when otherwise wouldn't have duty      b) Good Samaritan Statutes Good Samaritan rule .contractual duty to care for elderly person Statutory duty . IV. Mens Rea and Statutory Interpretation Common law General intent Specific Intent Model Penal Code No distinction between general/specific Willfully Maliciously Corruptly Intentionally Knowingly Recklessly Purposely Knowingly Recklessly Negligently . Intro to Culpability Mens Rea Morally blameworthy Culpable mental state B.3. Mens Rea (Guilty Mind) A.impose statutory duty to rescue or call for help when knowing someone needs help.husband/wife. Omissions a) Duty to Act Liability for Omissions If defendant had a legal duty to act and was physically capable of acting  Must cause social harm  Defendant must act with the requisite mens rea  Law generally doesn't criminalize failure to act EXCEPT: Special relationship . parents/children Contract .

Negligently (MANY terms) C.cannot punish if he believed not something wrong Common law . ie statutory rape When a statute is silent re mens rea.crime which government need not prove any mental state. (Cont. Intro to the Intent Doctr. Intent Common Law Strict liability . & Knowledge Common law Conscious object Cause some result or harm Knowledge to a virtual certainty Model Penal Code Purposely Knowingly (practical certainty) Model Penal Code . Gen.intention doesn't matter . cannot be used as a substitute for intent to do another thing (burn ship) But. intent for killing can be transferred when original target was missed and bystander was killed Strict liability . Transferred Int.) Transferring Intent     Intent to do one thing (steal rum). presumption is that a mental state is required for criminal liability E.(equating positive or actual knowledge with willful blindness or deliberate ignorance) D.can punish for not knowing but should have known Shortcuts to infer intent Natural and probably consequences doctrine May be deduced from surrounding circumstances Knowledge Common law . Specific v.a person knows of a fact if he either is aware of that fact OR correctly believes the fact exists Statutory .

If your mistake would make you guilty of a lesser crime. and if mistake is reasonable or not. with purpose if something bad F.Mistake of law (typically not a defense or will not negate mens rea) can exonerate where .did something illegal intentionally. Strict Liability Offenses V. Whether defense is negated will depend on general or specific intent. Mistake & Ignorance A.if conduct as mistaken would still be an offense."    " " AND Understanding of wrongfulness of act AND For achievement of further consequence OR Intent to do another/future act " General Intent Specific Intent Good faith AND reasonable Good faith Legal/Moral Wrong Doctrine If your actions with the mistake would still be illegal. Mistake of Fact    involves a situation where you are ignorant of a fact relating to an element relating to your offense. Contemporary rule General Intent -. Garnett is an example of Mistake of Fact case. As long as it's not a strict liability offense. you cannot claim mistake. iii. Model Penal Code 2. knowing it was illegal or immoral.voluntary commission of morally blameworthy act Specific Intent -.04 If the mistake negates the mens rea term of the statute Legal wrong doctrine as practiced by model penal code . mens rea element can be negated. the jurisdiction has the choice of punishing at the level of the more severe crime. even if didn't know it was illegal Specific intent . based on some mistake of fact. but will not be punished at the level of the more severe crime.did something wrong. you are still culpable.General intent .

Reliance on a person who Exceptions: 1.Crimes where knowledge (of illegality) is an element of the offense iii. you cannot be charged for it.you don't get benefit of claiming mistake defense if your conduct would still be different or lesser crime. (Bell would have only been punished for prostitution under MPC) Estoppel 1. but not crazy). There was no publication of the law 2. Mistake of Fact MPC 2.Good Ignorance or mistake that Faith and reasonable negates the mens rea. Navarro Bell . Administrative order 4.if you are told by someone who has duties for administration and enforcement of the law that your action is legal.Lack of fair notice (status crimes) Model Penal Code 2. you can be held responsible for the more severe crime) (not really difference between legal and moral wrong anymore) Legal Wrong Doctrine .L.good faith (can be unreasonable. EXCEPT Common Law: i. Estoppel (Marrero and Clegg) If through legal announcement or through someone who has . Estoppel B.Legal/moral wrong doctrine (if your mistake is still part of a crime. ii. Statute/enactment 2. Specific Intent .1. ignorance of the law is no excuse Some fact of the case No general/specific intent (fact of consequence) person is mistaken on General Intent . Judicial opinion 3.04 C.04 Ignorance/ Mistake CL Mistake of Law Generally. BUT you will be punished at the level of the lesser offense. Mistake of Law Ignorance of the law is no excuse (generally).Entrapment by estoppel (reasonable reliance) .

interpretation or enforcement duties you're told not illegal  Actual or apparent authority. 2.if someone sets in motion but for cause.if you are told by someone who has duties for administration and enforcement of the law that your action is legal. you cannot be charged for it. ****** But for AND Proximate cause (not just but for reasons) (Not an either or .NO intervening and superseding events. Fair Notice (ie failure to register as sex offender) Knowledge of unlawfulness (Cheek and Bryant) Only difference between MPC and CL estoppel = apparent authority 1.has enforcement/ interpretation/ administrative duties under statute 2. set chain in motion) Legal/Proximate cause .determination process. o o o .need BOTH) For proximate cause . by Estoppel i. AND fairness Apparent safety doctrine . If a place is a place of apparent safety is discretionary.Entrapment by estoppel (reasonable reliance) . Ignor. o o Actual Cause (but for) Proximate Cause (legal cause) Whether there were intervening superseding circumstances that were foreseeable (and basic fairness principle). That the harm would result in that way. and you reach a point of safety at some point. Way of asking question where somebody sets the chain in motion. is it still fair to hold them responsible given the way events unfold. Some superseding event that could not have been foreseen. & Mens Rea 3. that breaks the chain of causation. Actual/Cause in fact ("but for" cause) (antecedent to events. ii. Causation A. Entrap. 3. Ultimately a fairness question. Intro to Actual (But for) & Proximate (Legal) Cause i. Both culpability and foreseeability involved. Fair Notice Exception VI.

Intentional Killings 1. Concurrence of Elements Concurrence Temporal Motivational Concurrence . negligent.Felony intent (fake intent related to another crime) B. unexcused. Model Penal Code Purposeful. Offenses: Homicide A. knowing.Common law (malice)  Express malice (intent to kill/intent to do serious bodily injury)  Distinction of degrees (1st and 2nd)  Premeditation/deliberation  1st degree FMR  2nd degree FMR  WA statute  1st degree  2nd degree  Know how premeditation/deliberation work to distinguish ii. unjustified killing of a human being Common law rule of year and a day . Malice).link between commission of actus reus and maintenance of mens rea. Degrees i. Murder (Exp. VII. can have lack of temporal concurrence.Depravity . Intro to Homicide Common law definition Unlawful.Intent to do great/serious bodily injury iii. If don't have both elements at same time.acts or events that come after the defendant's act but before the social harm and also contribute causally to the social harm B. or reckless causing the death of another human being Malice : how to prove i.malignant heart Implied malice iv.Intent to kill (ie deadly weapon rule) ii.victim has to die within year and a day of the harm being created.o Intervening causes .MPC .

) 1.060 (form of manslaughter.32.other than premeditated Intentional/unlawful killing of a fetus RCW 9A. 1st degree) WA has depravity.3(1) No distinction between voluntary/involuntary Extreme Emotional Distress . Rule(s)  WA Statute o o o o Murder 1st degree RCW 9A.030 . Depraved Heart (Imp.MPC        210.050 . Malice) .Common law (w/o malice)  Voluntary  Provocation Categorical Reasonableness  Mere words  Time framing  Personal background factors in terms of reasonableness 2.10 A murder .knowing or purposeful homicide  No degrees of murder  Degrees of felony 2.32.turns murder into manslaughter Objective reasonableness Subjectivity? (Hybrid) a) Provocation   Categorical o Stopping someone in commission of felony o Crime against a loved one o Stopping an illegal arrest o Mutual combat o Discover your lover in the adulterous moment Reasonableness o Provoked o Remain under the provoking influence during the event Normal common law rule . 2.words not enough to provoke b) Ext.premeditation Murder 2nd degree RCW 9A. Emot. no merger doctrine. Manslaughter (Vol. no provocation C. & Alt. Unintentional Killings 1.32. Dist.mere words rule .

.recklessness 3.high probability ii. CA .070 .MPC 210.Extreme indifference to human life  1st degree (odd.32. Commission i. Causation analysis i.1st degree RCW 9A. Limits on time/place/".No voluntary/involuntary 2.MPC 210.2(1)(b)  Reckless with extreme indifference to human life WA Statute RCW 9A. Requiring a measure of direct causation --> proximate cause .Common law (involuntary)  Culpable or criminal negligence (greater than simple) 2. Only care about but-for? ii. Felony Murder Rule (FMR) 1.060 . 4. GA . Limits on FMR Inherently dangerous felonies (2nd degree/common law) a. 3.) 1.Common law  1st Degree (enumerated/listed)  2nd Degree (Common Law)(all other felonies) 2. Common law (worded any way as long as explains poor risk calculation  Type/level of mens rea required (Knoller)  Subjectivity? MPC 210. On the facts/under the circumstances? Ie was that particular felon in possession doing so in a dangerous way? Res Gestae a. Manslaughter (Invol. most are 2nd degree) 2.030 . simply intent to commit felony. In the abstract? Ie is meth dangerous to manufacture i.3(1)(a)  Homicide that is reckless without extreme indifference to human life WA Statute 1.in furtherance" b..2nd degree RCW 9A. Not just the actual event but up until when you get into place of temporary safety ii.risk of death b.2(1)(b) Reckless/extreme indifference During the commission of listed felonies Limits on FMR Felony intent is not intent for murder.32.criminal negligence (involuntary) 3.32.

WA uses agency rule rather than proximate cause rule. Alternatives: i. No assaultive conduct Third Party a. Doesn't need to be there. Provocative act murder . Introduction B.anything that is provoking that causes a gun battle is proximate cause for the murder  Differences in WA WA . criminal negligence. forcibly and against her will Forcible Rape = General Intent Crime Move from forcible compulsion standard  Force = violence .in furtherance of and immediate flight therefrom Agency rule . But rules on how it's imputed (recklessness. Proximate cause rule . Rules: i. Agency rule . WA manslaughter 1st and 2nd degrees basically both involvuntary WA Rules Res Gestae . Predicate felony must be independent b. no matter whose shot caused the murder ii.you are responsible from the deaths that result from the acts of you or your cofelons.not WA. Forcible Rape o o o Forcible Rape .Merger (which felonies can be predicate for FMR without merging with felony murder) (Lesser Included offenses) a. Jurisdictional gun battle rule . with some an allowable defense if meet 4-prong test Malice is imputed (inferred) during the commission of an inherently dangerous. Seems to purposely remove provocation or EED. No lesser included offense ii. not the perpetrator's wife. etc) may change depending on the jurisdiction.anomolies    Depravity = murder Most jurisdictions have provocation or EED in manslaughter . Sexual Offenses A.most forms of homicide are lesser included offenses VIII.the carnal knowledge of a woman. can be held liable b. Canola c.first shot is the proximate cause.if the death results from the crime and was reasonably forseeable. Murder . Predicate felony must not be integral to homicide offense c.

actus. Of Consent C. which can mean as little as penetration Consent can be withdrawn at any time. Introduction Case in chief defenses      failure of proof defenses prima facie defenses Defendant argues prosecution failed to meet burden of proof on at least one essential element of the crime (mens. as long as suggests to reasonable person that consent is not being withheld.does not have to be explicit.measure of how much violence.doesn't just mean the violence used.must be necessary to use force Imminence . response cannot be excessive relative to the threat Cannot be initiating aggressor . Sodomy Has no force or non-consent elements IX. threat first could be enough .cannot be that threat was abstract.   The Question of Force The Quest. Once consent is withdrawn.o o o Resistance Consent Moving to only consent standard  Questions of mistake  Consent can be inferred . must be imminent Proportionality . Criminal Law Defenses A. the person has to stop within a reasonable time. Justifications Self Defense Necessity . causation. concurrence) All defendant has to do is raise a reasonable doubt about existence of one element Unconsciousness and most mistakes = case in chief defenses Affirmative defenses     Defense admits government met its burden of proof Defense argues defendant should be acquitted for some other reason Defendant bears burden of proof for affirmative defenses Typical burden of proof for affirmative defense = preponderance of the evidence B. Some statutes still include force necessary to achieve the act.

if he had no right. Was threatened with imminent threat of unlawful force. he had no defense Particular Status Relationship Rule . That the force used was bot necessary to repel the threat AND proportional to the threat Not absolute requirement (defendant does not have to be correct in the belief) Simply need to reasonably believe in need to act in self-defense    Self Def.All of these measured through reasonableness standard. subjective Must have had an honest and reasonable belief that a. Act at Peril Rule . & BWS Self Def. servant or employee. here you are mistaken about an element of the defense.Third person had to be a close relative. & Defense of Others Imperfect Self Defense    Honestly believe that force is necessary but belief is unreasonable Someone attacks with nondeadly force and wrongfully escalate by using deadly force Just like self-defense. if he reasonably believed the force was necessary to prevent an imminent unlawful entry . but your reasonable-meter is off. Barnes thinks it's like applying mistake-of-fact to the self-defense argument.defendant who came to third person's rescue did so at his own peril . Most jurisdictions got rid of Act At Peril Rule and Particular Status Relationship Rule Def. Instead of being mistaken about an element of the offence. Defense of Others (Justification)       When a person uses fore against another person to defend a third person thought to be in imminent danger of unlawful attack Still requires: o Triggering condition (third person under unlawful attack) o Necessity requirement o Proportionality requirement Also requires defendant honestly and reasonably believes the force used was necessary to protect third person from imminent unlawful attack. including deadly force.  Subject to choice of objective vs. AND b. of Habitation & Defense of Property  Original common law rule permitted on occupant of the dwelling to use any force necessary. & the Reasonable “Man”? Imperfect Self Def.

No spousal coercion defense 4. but modified to restrict use of deadly force to cases where intruder is going to commit unlawful entry AND commit a felony or cause other injury to occupants of the dwelling Other common law jurisdictions .choice between two harms for the lesser harm . Clear & imminent 6. If an offense where mens rea term is reckless or negligent. Can't have been legislative purpose to exclude 4. Doesn't preclude 3.02 1. Harm avoided greater than harm caused 2. Code doesn't provide another defense to use instead 3. Harm avoided greater than harm caused 2. No imminence requirement Doesn't say that you can or can't use as justification for homicide C. Legislature hasn't previously precluded as defence 3. No reasonable opportunity to escape the harm Model Penal Code 1. Requires causal connection between illegal act and harm 4.  Some jurisdictions still follow common law. Reasonable fear threat will be carried out if you don't commit the crime 3. No effective legal alternative 5. No available for negligence/recklessness conduct 3. Duress Common law 1.deadly force may be used ONLY if reasonably believes intruder is going to commit unlawful entry AND forcible felony or kill or cause serious bodily harm Generally not allowed to use deadly force in defense of property  Necessity Common Law 6 factors 1. Imminent Death or great bodily injury 2. Coerced through unlawful force (obj?) (person of reasonable firmness) 2. Can't be responsible for the original danger Imminence requirement May not use as justification to homicide (except under FMR for the underlying felony) Model Penal Code 3. can't use as a defense.02 (necessity) Difference between necessity and duress Necessity . Excuse Defenses 1.

Provocation 3. Voluntary intoxication .Duress . Intox. Can negate the mens rea (question of mistake/ignorance of the law) o Claims of: 1.negates an element of the crime (mens rea) 2. Culture? No persay cultural defense o Mitigation (charge down and/or give lesser punishment) 1.discontinue voluntary intoxication defenses General Intent Specific intent 1. Reasonableness 2.potential defense  General intent . Common law M'Naghten rule: 1. Involuntary (someone slipped me a ***)  Defense regardless of crime distinction b. Wrongfulness Know MPC Lack of substantial capacity Lack of capacity conform/control self (impulses) Appreciate . Ignorance/mistake o Temporary insanity 4. Involuntary intoxication (insanity) Model Penal Code 2./Addiction Common law Early common law . Insanity Guilty but mentally ill. Nature/quality of acts 2. Intoxication not a disease 4.was not a defense Modern Common law: a.choice taken away 2. Sentences in mental hospitals usually longer than sentence would have been in prison.no defense  New trend . Recklessness caviat 3. Voluntary (Atkins/Frey)  Specific intent .08 Cannot use evidence of intoxication Can use evidence of intoxication to negate mens rea of crime 3.

Negates mens rea 2. BUT. no "impossibility" . whether he's correct or not) Actus Reus Mens Rea Proximity Abandonment can't abandon once you commit an Impossibility See Factual/Legal impossibility Solicitation cannot be convicted of solicitation if it's not communicated A. Insanity puts them in a mental hospital.Something that might fall under factual impossibility in CL is still chargeable under MPC. ** Inchoate Offenses Common Law Act v.5. diminished capacity will allow someone to go free. can be convicted of solicitation even if it's not communicated Model Penal Code Substantial step (what's been completed) attendant circumstances standard (mens rea as def believes the circumstances to be.same (or narrower) intent as used for target crime Physical proximity .Mitigating the offense 3. X.Mitigating punishment Don't have to pick one over the other for insanity/diminished capacity. 1. Depends on facts as defendant BELIEVED them to be. mere preparation (what's left to be completed) Specific intent . Attempts .nearness to completing (not necessarily geographically) Dangerous proximity  Nearness  Dangerousness/harm Fear/apprehension act in furtherance can abandon during nearly any step but must be voluntarily (not because of fear of apprehension). Diminished Capacity Defendant who cannot prove he was insane at time of crime will seek to introduce evidence of mental illness as way of mitigating or eliminating responsibility for crime.

Impossibility Def.some sort of factual mistake regarding legal status of one of the attendant circumstances makes it impossible for crime to be committed (ie belief that a 25 year old is pretending to be 15) Factual Impossibility Mistake of fact (ie belief that a 15 year old is in the bed but not) B.To solicit assistance 2. Agreement + overt act *** Used by most jurisdictions now.1. Solicitation Attempted solicitation = double inchoate crime Intents: 1. C.That target offense be completed Typically merges with target offense. cannot be convicted of solicitation) If you ask someone to do something and it's achieved. Intent to commit the target crime Rule Choice 1. Intro. can be convicted of attempt and solicitation. . Intent to enter agreement 2. Actus Reus & Abandonment 2. you're convicted of target offense. If they don't achieve it.conduct not criminalized (ie belief with a 17 year old is against the law) Hybrid . Mens Rea 3. (Common law) Legal Impossibility Pure . Agreement 2. (If convicted of attempt or target crime. Conspiracy 1. Intro Criminalizes act of entering into an agreement to do something criminal Two intents: 1.

Mens Rea Like attempt.each party may be liable for substantive criminal offenses committed by a co-conspirator during the course and in furtherance of the conspiracy. Where substantive offense differs from precise nature of ongoing conspiracy but facilitates implementation of its goals Alvarez expanded Pinkerton to include reasonably foreseeable but originally unintended substantive crimes 5.agreement where only one person required to know what's really going on Bilateral . Applies: 1. . Where substantive crime is also a goal of the conspiracy 2. Pinkerton Rule Pinkerton . Shape of Conspiracy How Many Conpiracies For overarching conspiracy. The Agreement Unilateral . must be specific with intent/mens rea requirement for conspiracy. must know or should have known that the other conspiracies must exist in order to complete the target offense.Unilateral WA .bilateral 3.2.agreement where both parties are on the same page and know what's going on MPC . 4.

or conviction Accessories 1. Introduction & Common Law Appr. Accomplice Liability A. 1st degree .intentionally assisted in commission of the crime. Modern Approach Liability: Accomplice v.helped principle 1st degree and accomplices avoid arrest. you solicit such other person to commit a crime. 1.06 Complicity XII.person who intentionally assisted the commission of the crime in the presence of the principle 1st degree i. You dupe someone ii. such as: purpose of promoting and facilitating. Is when you are an accomplice. but not present when crime committed (ie person who buys the guns) After the fact . If you have a legal duty to prevent. Principal You are responsible when: i. B. Constructive presence (accomplice outside the bank watching for police) Before the fact . If you agree to conspiracy for something you are vicariously responsible for actions of others iii. you fail to make proper effort.XI. Actual presence (inside the bank during the robbery) ii. The law has explicit language. Specific Intent Crime Principles 1. Theft Offenses . trial. 2. 2. If you aid agree or attempt to aid the person committing. MPC 2.person who actually committed the acts constituted the offense or used an "innocent instrumentality" to commit the offense 2nd degree .

Embezzlement  give something to someone where they are supposed to take care of it or return it. (larceny v. Theft By Category Larceny trespassory taking of another with intent to deprive. Must charge with particularity. B. Possession includes custody. where defendant knows statement is false and intends to defraud the victim  Difference between possession and title is custody. Custody .different categories of crimes listed under theft. but instead convert it to their own possession o Intentional conversion of property of anotehr by somenoe already in lawful possession or by soeone it has been entrusted to.gave packages but content of packages remain with owner.A. Possession . Must offer evidence or proof of the particular theft offense charged. usually $500 threshold) Larceny by trick difference between possession and custody: 1. If later don't intent to permanently deprive.just physical control of the property  Involves committing the larceny through some form of deceit.right to do with property plus what you wish to do with it 2. but intend to deprive the person of the possession the whole time  Constructed possession o Employer delivers property to agent o Owner of property mispalces or loses o Owner delivers property as part of agreement in owner's presence  Breaking Bulk doctrine o Actually did give away constructed possession o Don't have larceny by trick o Didn't give possession of everything . then no longer larceny. o o False Pretenses Makes a distinction between possession and title Requirements:  Make a false statement of fact  That false statement causes victim to pass title of property to you. o No deceit involved in taking possession of the item. o IE receiving the item under some false pretenses. grand larceny only used for punishment issues and only based on amount.  Only works for things that society has clearly designated a role for title Difference between larceny by trick and false pretences: . Introduction Common law . title does not have to.

500 words 3.Unlawful taking .Theft and related offenses Consolidation . larceny but with using force or fear against a person Felonious intent Force or putting in fear Taking and carrying away property m.4 .o o If you get possession by deceit.Burglary 222 . it's larceny by trick If you get title by deceit.Theft by deception (CL Larceny by trick/embezzlement/false pretenses) obtaining property of another by deception 223. 500 words 2.must take reasonable steps to restore to owner D. b.3 . it's false pretenses C.Robbery (aggravated) 223 . c.2 . REVIEW Word Limits: Exam questions: Short answer: 45% of grade 1. Aggravated Offenses (felonious taking of person property from his/her person or immediate presence accomplished through use of force) Burglary Burglary (structure) Voluntary/intentional entry (unlawful) in a building with felonious intent Common Law (unlawful) Entry Structure Felonious intent Robbery Robbery (person) a.any of forms of theft that follow can be proof of theft 223.to what extent you're responsible when something is lost or mislaid . Theft (Consolidated) MPC Consolidation 220 221 .5 .Extortion .(CL Larceny) (no *permanent* intent to deprive) 223.Loss or mislaid .knowledge .purposesly obtaining property of another by threatening 223. 750 words Essay: 55% of grade .

All other not premed 2. Special means 3. Strict liability will only be such if it has strict liability language in the statute If there are no specific mens rea terms at all. Premed/delib 2. Express malice (intent without WA Murder1: 1. When we can't figure out what they meant.criminalizes things that will catch a lot of people who don't mean to be caught by the statute Notice problem Enforcement .purposeful conduct Comparative Questions Common Law Degrees: Murder1: 1.arbitrary enforcement Mens Rea Questions Statutes that don't appear to have a specific mens rea term . Depravity 3. Provoked killing MPC No degrees for homicide . Overbroad .Can't negate a mens rea term that doesn't exist.court looks at statute to figure out what legislature meant. that's where lenity comes in.jurisdiction criminalizes something most common people think is innocent behavior (not criminal). almost all statutes will be at least general intent.Ambiguity (Lenity) v. What is mens rea term for MPC 213 "if he compels" MPC for rape/sexual assault Compels stands in for forcible compulsion .should that be read as strict liability or general intent?    With exception of some rare statutes ie statutory rape.  Void for vagueness    particular type of ambiguity . Felony murder (enumerated) Murder2: (all other) 1. Void for Vagueness Ambiguity/Lenity (more than one meaning or a confused premise) Statutory construction . it's probably a general intent. Premed/delib 2. Barnes will probably put a bracketed term to indicate level of mens rea required though Can you argue mistake for any strict liability? NO . FMR (enumerated) Murder2: 1.

don't get the defense Invol Intox/Pathological a. Involuntary (culpable negligence) Intoxication: Invol intox (defense to any crime) Vol intox 1. then what Is deemed morally wrong by society's standards Mistake of Fact a. Criminal negligence Manslaughter: 1. general intent crime .if you could have appreciated Risk while sober. Recklessness (w/o indiff) 2. Mitigated from murder (EED) Manslaughter: 1. Voluntary (provocation/heat of passion) 2. Unborn child Manslaughter2: 1.no defense 2. When negates mens rea b.may negate mens Current trend: no defense for Vol Intox Attempt: CL test for Actus Reus  What remains to be done  Nearness to accomplishment Legal (hybrid)/Factual Impossibility Always specific intent Insanity: Knowledge of nature/quality and wrongfulness If doesn't say legal or moral wrong. premed) Implied malice (depravity) CL felony murder Manslaughter1: 1. If negates an element of crime (normally mens rea) 2. impossibility not available Insanity: Lack of capacity to appreciate (more forgiving than knowledge Lack ability to conform conduct Allows you to choose between legal or moral wrong Mistake of law/fact = defense a. Reckless conduct 2. Specific intent good faith Vol Intox 1. Recklessness caveat . 3. Specific intent crime . Looks like insanity defense Attempt: Substantial step towards  What you've done  Corroborates criminal purpose Depends on facts as you believed them. Mistake about one of the elements of the crime b.2. Statute creates specific mistake defense Legal/Moral wrong: .

Reasonable reliance a. Not believing your conduct is criminal b. Unpublished law b.General intent good faith + reasonable Mistake of Law a. will be charged at the greater crime. 2. Statute/enactment b. Estoppel (reliance on apparent authority) Legal/Moral wrong: If already knew doing something else wrong in addition to crime. Official interpretation of public official with admin/enforce authority WA is a MPC state for MPC. 3. Judicial opinion/judgment c. 4. Thibeault decision Entry Structure License/permission Felonious intent . If already knew doing something else wrong in addition to crime. Admin order/grant of permission d. can be absolved when: a. Using the 4 MPC words Express malice 1. c. will be charged at the lesser crime If don't believe conduct is criminal. Generally not a defense c.

Sign up to vote on this title
UsefulNot useful