Crim Law Outline Fall 2011 (Armstrong) I. Principle of Legality a.

) Legality There can be no crime or punishment without law Rules To be a crime it must offend substantive law (statute) If language in statute is clear and unambiguous, a judge cannot rely on legislative intent or history in attempt to interpret differently. If language is not clear and ambiguous, a judge can rely on intent and past history for interpretation. The Legality principle provides that a person can be convicted or punished of a crime if there is no pre-existing law saying so. Today, this means that such laws should be enacted by legislature and not judges. It should be clear enough for a reasonable person to understand and not too broad that would cause confusion. Keeler v. Superior Ct (Sup Ct of CA) 1970 Facts - shoved his knee into victim after he found out that she was pregnant from her current lover after they had recently broke up. The unborn but viable fetus had a 75-96% chance of survival according to expert testimony. Fetus died from blow with a head fracture. Holding - was found not guilty bc the statute at that time in CA did not address a fetus as a human being. The statute only made it a crime of murder to kill a human being and not an unborn fetus. City of Chicago v. Morales (US Sup Ct) 1999 Facts - City passed an ordinance in order to prevent the growing gang problem in the communities. The problem was that the ordinance was very vague and too broad and was alleged to violate due process. Holding - the majority held that it did violate citizens rights bc it merely stated at the police officers discretion, to target a gang member on the street for being in that area too long. Majority suggested re-writing the ordinance to be more specific and narrow. Muscarello v. US (US Sup Ct) 1998 Facts - had a firearm in his car while making a drug sale. The law stated that person carrying a firearm during a drug sale carried a minimum prison sentence of 5 yrs. Holding - Majority held that the language in the statute was not limited to a person carrying a fireman to only mean on his person. It could also mean in his car and possession overall.

II. Actus Reus The physical, or external, component to a crime. It is objective Elements 1.) Voluntary act or omission 2.) Social Harm a.) Voluntary Act (CL and MPC) i. a voluntary act is a movement of the human body that is, in some sense, is willed and directed by the actor ii. willed bodily movement by actor Ex: A points a gun and shoots B iii. Coerced Act- still voluntary but likely to will have a duress defense. iv. Involuntary Act- are acts that person has no conscious control over. (Ex: Sleepwalking) State v. Utter (App Ct Wash 1971) Voluntary act Facts - was drinking all day and doesnt remember stabbing his son in the chest possibly bc he was in the military. claims it was involuntary bc he blacked out and did not act with the mental capacity to voluntarily stab his son. Holding - If there was substantial evidence to support claim then it should have been instructed to the jury, but since there was no such evidence since caused his own state of unconscious by drinking so much, judgment was affirmed. PH - Trial Ct- Convicted of manslaughter by jury App Ct- Affirmed Legal Duties- Are imposed by law and omission of the duty can be chargeable. Based on Relationship (Ex: Parent has duty to feed and shelter their child) Statutory Duty- might provide legal duties in certain circumstances (prevent std) Contractual Duty- (Ex: Nursing home, lifeguard, babysitter etc.) Voluntary Assumption of care- Ex: Helping someone but in doing so you seclude others from rendering aid Creation of Risk- Ex: you push someone in a lake when they dont know how to swim. Person has a legal duty to save them. People v. Beardsley (Sup Ct Mich 1907) Omissions- negative acts Facts- was spending the weekend with his sucia. They were drinking heavily, and the sucia decided to take morphine tablets while intoxicated cause she was stupid. He knew she had taken the pills but instead sent her to the basement and asked the tenet living in the basement to watch over her. Sucia never woke up, died of OD.

 Holding- was not guilty bc he did not have a legal duty to watch over her just bc she was in his house he merely had a moral duty that the law does not view as punishable. The omission by was not the immediate and direct cause for her death. III. Mens Rea Mens Rea means guilty mind or wrongful purpose. It is the state of mind needed for along with an act to convict a person of a crime. Common Law Mens Rea applies only to material element 1. Intentionally 2. Knowingly 3. Recklessly 4. Negligently 1. Intentional mens rea- a person commits the crime with intent to do so Conscious objective is to cause the result if he knew the result was virtually certain to occur bc of his conduct Transferred Intent if the result is diff only bc the it happened to a diff victim, still had intention (Ex: A intends to shoot B but misses and hits C instead) Regina v. Cunningham (Ct of Crim App) Eng 1957 Mens Rea in General Facts- moved in with his future mother in law in a house that had been converted in a duplex. went into basement and tried to steal the gas meter casing a gas leak that got into mother in law (victim) side of the duplex almost killing her. Holding- The judgment was reversed bc the Ct held that the trial Ct should have instructed the jury to ask themselves if the danger caused was foreseeable. did not act with malice aforethought, that is what is needed to sustain a mens rea conviction. Conviction quashed People v. Conley (Ill App Ct) 1989 Mens Rea Intent Facts- approached targeted victim after a high school party and demanded a beer. Victim refused so threw a wine bottle at him but missed and hit real victim in the face. Victim sustained permanent serious damage. was charged and convicted of aggravated battery. appealed Holding- Affirmed. had full intention to cause harm (even though it was transferred intent), the intent was also inferred from his words, weapon used, and the force of the blow. Two Kinds of Intent 1. Specific Intent- Requires other knowledge besides the actus reus to commit another offense. Ex: Possession of dugs w/ intent to distribute

 2. General Intent- intent just to violate the statute. Ex: possession of drugs 2. Knowingly Mens Rea Is aware of the fact Correctly believes the fact exists; or Suspects that the facts exist and purposely avoids learning if her suspicion is correct. (Willful Blindness) Examples: A person knowingly receives stolen property if a. she saw it being stolen (aware) b. she correctly belives it was stolen bc of low price c. she suspects it being stolen but says dont tell me where you got it (willful blindness) State v. Nations (App Ct Missouri) 1984 Knowingly willful blindness Facts- owned a strip club and had just hired a new dancer that police thought was under age. claims that she had asked the dancer for ID but she said that she would give it to her in a minute. Shortly after police arrived and took the dancer who was really 16 yrs old. Holding- Judgment against was reversed bc even though the law in the state does punishes for willful blindness to the fact it does not punish for mere recklessness to the fact. Prosecutor could not prove beyond a reasonable doubt that actually knew the dancer was underage. Flores v. US (Sup Ct US 2009) Knowingly- problems in statutory interpretation Facts- In 2000 (Mexican citizen) presented his employer with fake papers so that he could remain in the country to work. The fake papers did not belong to anybody. In 2006 however, he presented diff papers using someone elses SS#. Fed statute mandated a mandatory 2 yr prison sentence for anyone who knowingly transfers means of ID of another person. contends he didnt know they belonged to someone else. Holding- Ct ruled that govt must prove that did in fact know that the papers belonged to someone else. Language in statute was in plain English. Strict Liability- most common are public welfare offenses traffic & motor vehicle regulations, liquor laws, anti narcotics etc. statutory rape Staples v. US (US Sup Ct 1994 Facts- After a search warrant, ATF and police found with a modified AR-15 rifle to be fully automatic. was indicted on Fed charges unlawful possession of machinegun. argues that the govt must prove beyond a reasonable doubt that he knew it was modified. Govt argues that bc the nature of the Fed act, the mens rea element is not necessary to prove.

 Holding- Penalty was too high to be considered strict liability. The language in the Firearms Act is not clear on exception to the mens rea element to make this a strict liability crime. Conviction was reversed and remanded. Garnett v. State (App Ct Maryland 1993) Knowingly -Strict Liability Facts- is a 20 yr old retarded person who has the mental capacity of a 12 yr old. He went to a friends house to make a call, the friend (14 yr old girl) tells him to come through her window into her room. They have sex and 9 months later she gives birth to his child. claims he did not know she was only 14 yrs old. Convicted of 2nd deg rape Holding- App Ct affirmed judgment, bc the statute makes no reference to knowledge in statutory rape cases. It considered strict liability People v. Navarro (LA County App Ct 1999) Mistake in Fact Facts- went to a construction site and took beams of wood thinking they were being left out to throw away as trash. was charged with grand theft. appeals Holding- Jury was instructed that only if they thought a reasonable man would have made the same mistake under the same circumstances then they could find him innocent. The good faith mistake in fact negated the other specific intent mens rea element. Judgment reversed in favor of People v. Marreo (Ct App NY 1987) Mistake or Ignorance of the Law Facts- was a fed prison guard in Connecticut. He was arrested in NY for carrying a loaded unlicensed firearm. claimed he thought he could have bc he was a peace officer. Trial Ct dismissed but App Ct reversed. Holding- statute only applies to state guards in NY, not fed prison guards from out of state. The Ct viewed as simply being ignorant of the law, not seeing it as an honest mistake. MPC does not have specific or general intent. Cheek v. US (US Sup Ct 1991) Mens rea Facts- didnt file his taxes for bc he honestly thought he didnt have to. He was indicted and on 10 fed violations. claims he didnt willfully do it on purpose that would negate the mens rea needed for indictment. Holding- Remanded Side notes- this is a specific intent crime. Willfully (mens rea of knowledge and intention) attempted to evade (actus reus) to pay taxes. Mistake in fact defenses reasonable of reliance fair notice diff law

IV. Causation Cause in fact plus proximate cause. Use (but for) test See Supp Oxendine v. State (Sup Ct Del 1987) Actual Cause Cause in Fact Facts- gf pushed his son in the bathtub causes microscopic tears in his intestines. knew the gf beat the child when he got home. The next morning beat the child, later that day the child started complaining of pains. The did nothing and while the gf was taking him to the hospital he died. convicted of manslaughter, he appealed. Holding- Reversed conviction and remanded for sentencing to assault in the 2nd deg, bc they could not prove beyond a reasonable doubt that the second beating by caused the injury to speed up the childs death. Doctors could not prove with certainly that caused the injury to speed the death therefore no manslaughter could be allowed. Use substantial factor test