CRIMINAL LAW OUTLINE:
All punishment must be for: (1) past; (2) voluntary; (3) conduct; (4) committed within the
jurisdiction; (5) specified; (6) in advance; (7) by statute.
Justifications of Punishment:
Utilitarianism Retributivism
Punishment is justifiable only by reference to
the probable consequences of maintaining it
as one of the devices of social order.
1. Deterrence
2. Rehabilitation
3. Incapacitation
Punishment is justified on the grounds that
wrongdoing merits punishment. Severity of
the punishment depends on the depravity of
the act.
Actus Reus – The Criminal Act
RULE: A crime requires a criminal or bad act; a state may not criminalize an unlawful intent
that is not connected with an overt act designed to execute the unlawful intent. This may be
satisfied by a (1) criminal act; or (2) failure to act in violation of a pre-existing legal duty.
(1) Act:
a. RULE: The mere intent to commit a criminal act is not enough to satisfy the
element.
i. Proctor v. State:
1. Facts: Selling alcohol was unlawful, defendant convicted for
owning a building with the intent to sell alcohol.
2. Holding: The state may not criminalize an unlawful intent that is
not connected with an overt act designed to execute the unlawful
intent.
3. Rule: The keeping of a place with the unlawful purpose and intent
to sell intoxicating liquors cannot be declared to be a crime
because although it is connected to unlawful intent, there is no
overt act.
4. Reasoning: Unlawful intent in and of itself is a thought and cannot
constitute a crime. The unlawful intent must be connected with
some overt act designed to carry out the unlawful intent. The
defendant was not charged with possession, which is an essential
element in the crime. The lawful ownership of property is not such
an overt act and is not connected to the unlawful intent in such a
way as to constitute a crime.
b. Possession: The act of possession is the circumstance that an object is available to
the actor to use for some action. Possession is a criminal/bad act in itself.
i. EXCEPT: Accessing stuff on the internet
1. State v. Barger
a. Facts: Police found CSA on defendants internet temporary
file cache, nothing about the images identified where they
came from, no way of knowing with absolute certainty
whether the images had been accessed intentionally.
b. Holding: A person who views CSA images on the internet
does not possess or control the images under state law.
c. Reasoning: Statute requires more than accessing material to
possess or control. Just because the computer gave
defendant the ability to print, save, otherwise manipulate
the images, acts of intentionally accessing websites that
contained the images do not constitute possession and
control. Awareness does not equal possession or control. An
object that is within reach is not sufficient without more to
conclude there was constructive possession.
d. DIFFERENCES THAT MAY AFFECT OUTCOME: A
finding of knowing where the images came from and if
they had been accessed intentionally, a different statute that
allows accessing to be considered a crime.
ii. Constructive Possession:
1. RULE: Possession includes constructive possession where the
defendant lacks immediate physical possession of the drugs but has
both (1) the power; and (2) intent to exercise control over the
drugs.
2. United States v. Madonado
a. Facts: Defendant took rat into intended targets hotel room,
made calls to intended target, rat convinced defendant to
leave the room and left the bag with the cocaine in the
room.
b. Holding: Guilty of constructive possession
c. Reasoning: Constructive possession is the power and
intention to exercise control over an object not in one’s
actual possession. One can possess an object while it is
hidden or held by agent. Rat had exclusive control during
period because the drugs had not been paid and were
supposed to be delivered to someone else. Once parties had
left the room the situation changed because the rat
surrendered his actual possession, and the drugs were
secured in the defendants room. Therefore, the defendant
had sufficient power to control the drugs and intention to
exercise that power. (1) The drugs were left with
knowledge and consent while waiting for accomplice; (2)
the drugs were stored for purpose of facilitating their
transfer to intended target.
(2) Omission:
a. RULE: Convicting a defendant of a crime based on omission for a failure to act
requires proof that the defendant (1) and (2) failed to act.had a legal duty to act;
b. Jones v. US:
i. Facts: Children severely neglected by caretakers, did not receive medical
attention, one child died.
ii. Rule: In order for a defendant to be convicted of a crime for the failure to
act, the prosecution must prove that the defendant was under a legal duty
to act.
iii. Holding: Conviction reversed and remanded because jury was not
properly instructed on an essential element of the crime (duty).
iv. Reasoning: A person can be held criminally liable for failure to act where
(1) a statute imposes a duty; (2) where one stands in a certain status
relationship to another; (3) where one has assumed a contractual duty; (4)
where one has voluntarily assumed the care of another and so secluded the
helpless person as to prevent others from rendering aid. Defendant can
only be convicted if there was proof that they were under a legal duty to
feed and provide medical care for the deceased.
Requirements:
1. Harm: Court warns against attempt to criminalize conduct absent injury to a person or
abuse of an institution the law protects.
a. Lawrence v. Texas
i. Facts: Two men were arrested for engaging in sexual conduct in a private
home.
ii. Holding: Not guilty; Adults are free to engage in private conduct in
exercise of their liberty under Due Process
iii. Rule: The Due Process Clause includes a right to liberty in individual
decisions concerning the intimacies of their physical relationship.
iv. THINGS THAT MAY CHANGE THE OUTCOME: what type of harm is
it? is it uniquely subjective? Is there some injury to others (ex; being in
public)
2. Voluntariness:
a. RULE: A criminal act must be voluntary to be subject to criminal liability.
Possession is usually considered voluntary.
i. People v. Newton
1. Facts: Defendant on flight from Bahamas to Luxembourg, had gun,
captain emergency landed at JFK, defendant arrested for violating
NY statute prohibiting individuals from carrying a gun without a
license.
2. Holding: Not guilty – No Actus Reus
3. Reasoning: if the act in question is not voluntary, it is not a
criminal act. Here, defendants act of possessing a firearm in the US
without a license was not voluntary because the flight was never
supposed to land in US. Landing was an interruption not
attributable to voluntary act by defendant. Defendant had no
control over planes unexpected landing in NY and did not
voluntarily carry a gun into the US without a license.
ii. Martin v. State
1. Facts: Defendant convicted of being drunk on a public highway
after being arrested in his home and being taken onto the highway
by police.
2. Holding: Not guilty – No Actus Reus
3. Reasoning: The acts in this case are involuntarily and forcibly
carried to that place by the arresting officer.
iii. People v. Grant
1. Facts: Defendant was at tavern and got into a fight, had a seizure in
jail, has a history of violence and does not remember the incident,
expert witness testified defendant has epilepsy and his conscious
mind could not control his behavior.
2. Rule: Involuntary conduct or automatism is a valid defense in a
criminal proceeding.
3. Reasoning: Involuntary conduct differs from insanity because the
defendant possesses the capacity to understand and control his
conduct but is not conscious of his actions at the time of the
offense. Here, the evidence that during the attack the defendant
was in a state of automatism resulting from his epilepsy and the
subsequent seizure.
b. Anticipating Involuntariness: Anticipating involuntariness can hold someone
criminally liable.
i. Decina: defendant had knowledge of epileptic seizures and hit four people
with a car.
c. Sleepwalking:
i. Toronto Case – Man drove to house and killed someone but was found to
be sleepwalking.
ii. Phoenix Case – Rejected sleepwalking defense after defendant killed his
wife because it resulted from deliberate planning, based on his actions
afterwards that suggested that he was not sleepwalking because a
sleepwalker could not perform such difficult tasks.
Legality:
1. Status Crimes:
a. RULE: A statute that criminalizes a defendant solely based on that person’s status
[as an addict] is a violation of the eighth amendment.
b. Robinson v. California
i. Facts: Defendant convicted of a Cali statute that makes status of narcotic
addiction a criminal offense.
ii. Rule: A statute that imprisons a defendant solely on the account of the
defendants addiction to narcotics is a violation of the eight amendment.
iii. Reasoning: Drug addiction is a disease, punishing and confining a person
for their status of drug addiction is akin to punishing and confining people
for mental illness or physical disease. Imprisoning for status and status
alone and not because of criminal conduct is cruel and unusual.
iv. Concurrence: the mere desire to do drugs and the mere desire to commit a
crime is not a criminal act.
v. Dissent: Conviction was not based solely on status, trial court convicted
because he regularly used drugs prior to arrest. The same evidence proves
he was an addict also proves he regularly used drugs.
c. Johnson v. State – Statutory Construction Case
i. Facts: Mother charged on theory that delivery occurred when the cocaine
she had used passed through the umbilical cord to her children during
delivery.
ii. Reasoning: The legislature never intended for the general drug delivery
statute to authorize prosecutions of those mothers who take illegal drugs
so that a doctor could testify that a tiny amount passed from mother to
child.
iii. Policy: Criminal prosecution of mothers like defendant undermines
Florida’s express policy of keeping families intact and could destroy the
family be incarcerating the mother when alternative measures could
protect and stabilize the family. 11% of women use illegal drugs during
pregnancy; least effective response to the crisis because pregnant women
who are substance abusers may avoid prenatal or medical care for fear of
being detected.
2. Specificity: [Void for Vagueness Principle]
a. RULE: Under Due Process, a statute is unconstitutional on vagueness grounds if
(1) it fails to give adequate notice of the prohibited conduct (2) permits arbitrary
and discriminatory enforcement of the law.
b. Chicago v. Morales
i. Facts: Chicago approved ordinance that prohibits criminal street gang
members from loitering with one another or with other persons in a public
place.
ii. Holding: Ordinance violates due process because it is too vague.
iii. Reasoning: The law may: (1) fail to provide the public with adequate
notice regarding the conflict that is prohibited; and (2) the law may permit
or encourage authorities to enforce the law in an arbitrary or
discriminatory manner.
1. Definition of loitering is too vague because it fails to distinguish
between innocent conduct and the type of conduct meant to be
criminalized. Officers order to disperse does not cure the notice
problem because it is given after the conduct has occurred and is
too vague to where people must disperse and when they are
permitted to reassemble.
2. Ordinance gives police impermissibly broad discretion to
determine when someone is loitering, a definition that could apply
to vast number of people with no harmful intent. Does not apply to
the most potentially dangerous forms of loitering.
3. Illegal Criminal Statutes
a. RULE: Federal courts have no jurisdiction over common law crimes. Federal
courts only have jurisdiction over crimes that have been made crimes by statutory
provisions.
i. United States v. Hudson and Goodwin
1. Reasoning: Federal courts have no jurisdiction over common law
crimes. The power can only be obtained by the result of legislation
by congress that gives the federal courts jurisdiction over cases
involving the crime. Federal courts only have the powers delegated
to them by the Constitution or inherent in the exercise of judicial
powers so the power to define crimes has not been delegated.
b. Crimes in Violation of Statute:
i. RULE: Retroactive judicial application by courts (in statutory crimes)
violates due process because you cannot pass laws that criminalize things
retroactively and for a crime for which the defendant did not receive
adequate warning.
1. Keeler v. Superior Court
a. Facts: Defendant beat his pregnant ex, killing the baby.
Doctor who removed the fetus testified it was mature
enough to be viable.
b. Charge: Charged for murder law that stated: “murder is the
unlawful killing of a human being with malice
aforethought”.
c. Holding: NOT GUILTY
d. Reasoning: The code does not specify whether the term
human being applies to an unborn fetus so the court has to
rely on the intent of the legislature when the code was
passed. The legislature intended that the fetus be born alive.
Even if the legislatures intent is outdated, courts are not
at liberty so substitute for a more modern interpretation
of a statute for (1) separation of powers; (2) due process
reasons. No person may be punished for a crime for
which he did not receive fair warning – cannot pass
laws retroactively.
e. THINGS THAT COULD CHANGE OUTCOME: If it can
be reasoned that it is not changing the law retroactively. A
number of courts have reached the opposite conclusion
from construing their own statutes citing medical
advancements so that the rationale of being born alive no
longer exists.
c. Crimes in Violation of the Common Law:
i. RULE: Retroactive judicial applications by the courts (in common law
crimes) only violate due process or ex post facto when the action is
unexpected and indefensible.
1. Rogers v. Tennessee
a. Facts: Defendant convicted for murder after victim died
after 15 months in a coma. The state followed the common
law year and a day rule where defendant could not be
convicted if the victim did not die within a year and a day
following the act.
b. Holding: Guilty of murder.
c. Reasoning: Ex post facto only applies to legislative acts. In
dealing with common law crimes, courts are often required
to reassess earlier opinions and make changes in response
to new circumstances and facts. Retroactive judicial
applications by the courts of changes in the common law
only violate due process when they are unexpected and
indefensible. Here, the year and a day rule was based on
skepticism of medical science, has been abolished in many
jurisdictions, and has never been the basis for a judgement
in a murder case in the state.
Mens Rea – The Criminal Mind
MPC Mens Rea Rules: (Remember MPC is not the law unless jurisdiction adopts it)
Crimes can be divided into general and specific. This distinction can affect the evidence needed
to prove the crime and the application of certain defenses.
General Intent: Requires that the defendant had an intent to perform the prohibited act, but
the defendant did not have intent to cause any specific result.
- (1) intent to perform the act; BUT (2) no intent to cause a result
Specific Intent: Requires that the defendant had an intent to perform the prohibited act
combined with an intent to bring about the prohibited result.
- (1) intent to perform the act; AND (2) intent to bring about the result
Regina v. Faulkner
Categories of Culpability:
RULE: A person is not guilty of an offense unless he acted purposely, knowingly, recklessly, or
negligently, as the law may require, with respect to each material element of the offense.
1. Purposely
2. Knowingly
3. Recklessly
4. Negligently
5. Strict Liability:
a. People v. Dillard
b. United States v. Wulff
Mistakes:
1. Mistake of Fact:
a. RULE: In most criminal statutes, there is a requirement that a person is aware
that they are committing a crime, even if the statute does not contain a clear mens
rea requirement.
i. Elonis v. USA
ii. EXCEPTION: Mistake of age
1. Regina v. Prince
b. RULE: If a statute includes an explicit mens rea requirement, the requirement
applies to all elements of the offense unless there is clear proof legislative intent
to the contrary.
i. People v. Ryan
2. Mistake of Law:
a. Mistake of Governing Law:
i. RULE: Ignorance of the law is not a valid defense in criminal cases.
1. US v. Baker:
2. Cheek v. US:
3. Hopkins v. State:
a. Facts:
b. Holding:
c. Rule:
d. Policy:
ii. EXCEPTIONS:
1. Honest/Reasonable Mistakes
a. RULE: (from Baker) An honest, reasonable mistake can be
a potential defense [where there is a policy need to make
some sort of exception].
i. Tax Law: “The proliferation of statutes and
regulations has sometimes made it difficult for the
average citizen to know and comprehend the extent
of the duties and obligations imposed by tax laws.”
Someone might make mistakes about something
that applies to them.
2. Reliance on an official statement of the law, afterward
determined to be erroneous.
a. RULE:
b. Commonwealth v. Twitchell
i. Facts:
ii. Holding:
iii. Rule:
iv. Policy:
b. Mistake of Non-Governing Law:
i. RULE: A mistake about an external law that could be an element of a
crime is a possible defense if it negates the mens rea for that element.
ii. People v. Bray
Capacity:
1. Mental Impairment:
a. RULE: A defendant may present evidence of a mental impairment due to mental
disease or defect to negate mens rea.
b. Hendershott v. People
2. Voluntary Intoxication
a. RULE: Voluntary intoxication is a valid defense to crimes requiring a knowing or
purposeful mental state only if the intoxication is so great that the required mental
state was totally lacking.
i. State v. Cameron
b. EXCEPTION: A state may create laws that make it so that voluntary intoxication
cannot be considered as a defense of the mens rea of a material element.
i. Montana v. Egelhoff:
Homicide:
MURDER:
1st Degree Premeditated Intentional Murder
1st Degree Felony Murder
2nd Degree Intentional Murder
2nd Degree Felony Murder
2nd Degree Gross Reckless Murder
MALICE
MANSLAUGHTER:
Voluntary Manslaughter
Involuntary Manslaughter
Vehicular Manslaughter
1. Intentional Homicide
1ST DEGREE MURDER: The killing of another with malice aforethought, in most jurisdictions
with premeditation and deliberation or other aggravating elements.
RULE: To be convicted of first-degree murder, the defendant must have acted with: (1)
premeditation; and (2) deliberation. Proving premeditation requires a showing that the defendant
thought about the act before and reached a definite decision to kill. Proving deliberation requires
a showing that the defendant acted with consideration and reflection.
-United States v. Watson
2ND DEGREE MURDER: The killing of another with malice aforethought that does not qualify
as first-degree murder.
-Franklin v. Franklin
MALICE: A predetermination, or intent, at the time of a killing to willfully take the life of a
human being or an intent to willfully act in a callous and wanton disregard of the consequences
to human life. Implies a mind under the sway of reason. Any killing committed without malice is
manslaughter.
VOLUNTARY MANSLAUGHTER: The defendant has killed a human being with knowledge
or purpose, rather than some gross negligence or recklessness or merely intent to commit some
other crime.
GENERAL RULE: Voluntary manslaughter is the intentional killing of a human being, in the
heat of a sudden and intense emotional state generated by (1) adequate provocation; (2) if the
killing occurs before a reasonable cooling-off period has elapsed.
-(1) Adequate Provocation
oPeople v. Walker
oRowland v. State
oPeople v. Berry
oPeople v. Wu
-(2) Cooling-Off Period
oEx Parte Fraley
2. Unintentional Homicide
3. Capital Murder
Defenses:
Excuses:
1. Mental Illness
