Beruflich Dokumente
Kultur Dokumente
1
For Fall 2012 class Crim Law Outline B Crim Law
(5th Ed.) Dressler Prof Brooks
C. Necessity....16
D. Defense of Property......16
E. Defense of Others..17
F. Duress......17
G. Entrapment...18
H. Intoxication...18
I. Insanity....19
I. Chapter 1: INTRODUCTION
A Burden of Proof on the Prosecutor
B Jury Nullification
1. Not a right, but the power of the jury
a Butler asks for African Americans to use jury nullification as a tool of self-determination, and an operational
strategy to confront what he perceives to be pervasive racial inequities in the criminal justice system
b Black jurors have a moral obligation to exercise their power in the best interests of the black community.
2
For Fall 2012 class Crim Law Outline B Crim Law
(5th Ed.) Dressler Prof Brooks
c Jury nullification was created to combat tyranny. Juries are represented by a community and if they decide to
nullify, then they are in a sense the people overruling the tyranny of an unjust law.
2. Butler Analysis
a Non-violent
i Victim: Option to nullify, but still no presumption. Apply a contextualized judgment. Left solely to
jury discretion.
ii Victimless: In favor of nullification. Presumption in favor of it. Every presumption may be weighed
and disproved
b Violent
i For violent crimes, they act as a normal juror would
ii No presumption for nullification unless someone can prove to the jury that nullification should happen,
then it should happen.
3. Kennedy: People should not take the law into their own hands, or we become a government of men as a
replacement to a government of laws
3
For Fall 2012 class Crim Law Outline B Crim Law
(5th Ed.) Dressler Prof Brooks
c Rehabilitation: Punishment may help reform criminal, lessening desire to commit crime and become a
happier, more productive person.
d Incapacitation: Preventing destructive acts by physical confinement or limits on the actor
C Retributivism
1. Generally
a Kant: You cannot use a person as a means to an end
b Just Desserts: It is inherently good to punish if it is deserved
c Moral Actor: Moral wrongs by a person exercising free will creates guilt that can only righted by a
punishment
d Looks back on the wrong and punishes individuals
e Proportional: Punishment should never be greater than what is deserved, even if it would deter many.
f Justice: The punishment of individuals restores the equilibrium of benefits and burdens in society
D Assaultive Retribution (Prof. Murthy): a "we should treat criminals as rather like noxious insects to be ground under the
heel of society".
E Protective Retribution: The wrongdoer has a right to be punished and absolved of their guilt.
F Positive Retributivist
1. Guilt is both a necessary and sufficient condition for punishment.
2. A wrongdoer must be punished for his culpable wrongdoing, even if it deters no future crime
G Negative Retributivist
1. Innocent should never be punished, guilt is necessary condition of punishment.
4
For Fall 2012 class Crim Law Outline B Crim Law
(5th Ed.) Dressler Prof Brooks
a Statute(s) of Limitations
b Jurisdiction or Venue
c Disconnected from the harm or evil
d Justification or excuse
B Types of Reus Elements
1. Act the actions that are necessary to prove the culpability/guilt of the crime. (usually verbs)
2. Resultant outcome or consequence of an act
a Causation must be analyzed whenever discussing results
3. Attendant Circumstances context elements, circumstances that surround the 's acts that are required for culpability'
C Voluntary acts must be voluntary and must actually cause the result
1. Common Law - Some type of physical movement or physical activity, voluntary, or involuntary. Can include
Failure to act
a Involuntary Act: Distinguishing voluntary from involuntary acts.
i Dad was convicted of manslaughter because he voluntarily acted by consuming alcohol. He argued it
was an involuntary response, but this didn't fly with the court
b Voluntary Act: Martin v. State - public drunkeness
i Any Person (Attendant Circumstances - A.C.)
ii While intoxicated or drunk (A.C.)
iii Appearing (Act) in public (A.C.)
iv Where one or more persons are present (A.C.)
v Manifests a drunken condition, boisterous or indecent, loud and profane discourse (Act)
c Omissions: "Negative Acts" - People v. Beardsley - took his mistress to a hotel room, drinking party, she
overdosed on morphine tablets, he had no duty to act
i Duty to act created by:
A Statue. ex. Requirement to file a tax return
B Contractual Duty you have assumed through a legal contract to care
C Special Relationship - Spouses, Parent/Child, Master/Seaman
D Seclusion of the person in need if you've increased risk of harm
E Creation of Danger - if you create the risk of harm, then you create the duty to care.
2. Distinguishing Acts from Omissions (Barber v. Superior Court) "Although there may be a duty to provide life
sustaining machinery in the immediate aftermath of cardiac-respiratory arrest, there is no duty to continue its use
once it has become futile in the opinion of qualified personnel
3. Actus Reus Crimes
a Result Crimes: The law punishes because of an unwanted outcome such as the death of another person or the
destruction of a dwelling house.
b Conduct Crimes: The law prohibits specific behavior, such as driving under the influence of alcohol or
solicitation to commit murder.
D MPC 2.01 - Requirement of Voluntary Act, Omission as Basis of Liability, Possession
1. 2.01(1) Voluntary Act - Any act performed by actor except for reflex or convulsion; a bodily movement during
unconsciousness or sleep; conduct during hypnosis; a bodily movement conscious or habitual.
5
For Fall 2012 class Crim Law Outline B Crim Law
(5th Ed.) Dressler Prof Brooks
6
For Fall 2012 class Crim Law Outline B Crim Law
(5th Ed.) Dressler Prof Brooks
b Contribution to the Social Harm (The act was small compared to the intervening act which relieves of
culpabilit) (De Minimis)
c Foreseeability of the intervening cause
i Responsive (shoot victim, victim goes to hospital, hospital is negligent, victim dies) is proximate cause
VERSUS
ii Coincidental (shoot victim, victim goes to hospital, crazy man in emergency room stabs victim 35
times, victim dies) is not proximate cause
iii 's mens rea (intent to commit a crime will almost always establish proximate cause)
iv Apparent Safety Doctrine - Victim leaving danger relieves 's culpability
v Free and Deliberate, Informed Human Intervention (Victim chooses danger)
vi Omissions of Others (They are almost never superseding causes)
3. The Velazquez Test - Drag Racer (Common Law) Policy Question of culpability --> was it fair to put the cause on
? (beyond the scope)
4. The MPC Test 2.03 Focuses on the mens rea result.
a Not too remote or accidental to have a just bearing
b Purposely/Knowingly: Element is established if result is within the purpose/contemplation of action. Also if:
i You intend to injure one person, but in fact injures another, or if harm actually caused is less severe
than what you intended.
ii Result is the same kind of injury or harm that you intended, but is not too remote from action to be
foreseeable.
c Recklessly/Negligently: Element is established if actor is aware or should have been aware of result. Also if
i Same as 1a
ii Same as 1b
7
For Fall 2012 class Crim Law Outline B Crim Law
(5th Ed.) Dressler Prof Brooks
C Threats and declarations of the D before and during the course of the occurrence giving rise to the
death of the deceased
D Ill-will or previous difficulty between the parties
E The dealing of lethal blows after the deceased has been felled and rendered helpless
F Evidence that the killing was done in a brutal manner (CA courts say quite the opposite)
ii A felony murder committed when the felony is inherently dangerous or listed by statute
iii Second Degree Murder
iv (a). All murder without premeditation and deliberation,
v (b). Depraved heart murder
2. Model Penal Code
a Purpose or Knowing (murder)
b Recklessness plus Indifference (murder)
i Similar rule to Felony Murder Rule.
ii In the commission of listed felonies, a may be presumed to have extreme indifference to have value
of human life. A judge will then allow this presumption to go to a jury (unless the wholly negates the
presumption) to be able to establish that the defendant had a general extreme indifference to the value
of human life (murder).
c Recklessness (manslaughter)
d Extreme Emotional Disturbance (manslaughter)
e Negligence (negligent homicide)
3. Defenses to mitigate culpability from murder to manslaughter
a Heat of passion - Common Law
i Step 1: Evidence that external provocation produced a subjective loss self-control by the , and that
this loss of self-control in fact cause the killing
ii If yes, Step 2: Evidence that the provocation was objectively "adequate" to produce the 's loss of self-
control
A Objective analysis of the gravity of the provocation and the loss of self-control response
1. Discover Adultery
2. Mutual combat
3. Assault and Battery
4. Injury or Abuse of close relative
5. Resisting an unlawful arrest (old rule, no JDx (jurisdiction))
B Some jurisdictions "words alone" do not satisfy (Girouard)
C Stand-alone provocation, not end in series
D Holley - A different reasonable person test fir HoP inquiry
1. Test: "Actor's situation" might be legally relevant
a In measuring gravity of the provocation to the reasonable/ordinary person
b In assessing the level of self-control to be expected of a reasonable/ordinary person
i Sex and age only? Courts are divided
8
For Fall 2012 class Crim Law Outline B Crim Law
(5th Ed.) Dressler Prof Brooks
ii Most courts have been unwilling to consider any of the 's psychological
characteristics, e.g. hothead
E Many jurisdictions have no distinction between reasonable person for HoP inquiry
iii If yes Step 3: Would reasonable person not have a "cool off" between provocations and killing
iv If yes, Step 4: Trial judge must inform jury of the HoP defense and the jury decides steps 1-3's
b Extreme Emotional Disturbance - MPC (Casassa)
i Step 1: Evidence that subjectively experienced emotional disturbance and that the disturbance
caused the killing.
A Not Necessary for provocation to be external
B Could be end of long-term, internal, or even inaccurate operations of 's mind.
C Fit of passion or loss of self-control not necessarily satisfactory evidence
D Must be "mental or emotional trauma of significant dimensions."
ii If yes, Step 2: The trial just must inform the jury of the defense and the jury"
A Decides the answer to Step 1, and:
B Decides whether a reasonable explanation or excuse exists for the 's EED
1. Jury examines the EED from the 's perspective, regardless of inaccurate perceptions.
2. May not consider:
a "Idiosyncratic moral values"
b Peculiar temperament
c Tendency to extremism
3. "Reasonable explanation or excuse" is whether the emotional disturbance and killing
warrants mercy. (Reasonable version of that person)
a e.g. was the "white" father who believed black people had an infectious disease and
when he saw his daughter with a black person he killed them.
C Unintentional Killings
1. Common Law
a Intent to Cause Grievous Bodily Injury/Harm
b Felony Murder Rule
i In general: Felony (already in progress) + Killing (while committing the felony) = Murder
ii People v. Fuller
A First Degree because it is in the first degree statute
iii Debate
iv Limitations
A The inherently dangerous felony (People v. Howard)
1. Abstract: looking at the statute
2. Case Specific: case fact analysis of dangerousness
B Second Degree non-enumerated felonies
C The Independent Felony (or Merger) (People v. Smith)
1. When the felony is assaultive in nature then the felony merges with the homicide and
cannot be the basis of a felony murder
9
For Fall 2012 class Crim Law Outline B Crim Law
(5th Ed.) Dressler Prof Brooks
10
For Fall 2012 class Crim Law Outline B Crim Law
(5th Ed.) Dressler Prof Brooks
11
For Fall 2012 class Crim Law Outline B Crim Law
(5th Ed.) Dressler Prof Brooks
1. Common Law
a Elements
i Sexual Intercourse defined as "Any penetration, however slight, admission not required" e.g. CA Penal
Code 263
ii With a woman
iii Not the 's wife (revoked in all jurisdictions)
iv Without her consent
A Red light traditional victim focus where it must be proved that the victim revoked consent
B Green light modern approach where the must prove consent was obtained
C Words and Conduct can convey consent or lack thereof.
v By force or fraud:
A To establish the requisite force for rape the was required to prove:
1. The use or threat of force likely to cause death or serious bodily injury;
2. A kidnapping, OR
3. Victim's earnest/utmost resistance to a 's conduct (until exhausted or overpowered, or
otherwise unable to resist)
B Traditional View of Force
1. Historically: Rape is a "crime against the purity or chastity of a woman." Thus, "thus
burden on protecting that chastity fell on the woman, with the State offering its protection
only after the women demonstrated that she has resisted sufficiently." MTS, pgs 439
2. Modern: Active resistance the only way objectively to establish the crime independent of
the victim's word?
3. Disregards substantial evidence that resistance can increase risk of further physical harm
or death
C Modern Approach to Force
1. Several Jx's (jurisdictions) have abandoned any resistance requirement, and instead define
force as a "forcible compulsion," which keeps the focus on the 's conduct
2. Some states still retain some form of a resistance requirement, sometimes requiring a
"reasonable resistance"
vi Marital Rape Exception: A General Rule until 1970s, and now abandoned in all 50 states but remnants
remain in the form of:
A A discrete offense with different sentence
B Special "prompt report" aka S.O.L.
C Force requirement, even when not required
D May apply to non-intercourse sex offenses
B Rape: MPC
1. Elements
a Sexual intercourse "any penetration, however slight, admission not required." MPC 213.0(2)
b By a man with a woman
c Not the 's wife if
12
For Fall 2012 class Crim Law Outline B Crim Law
(5th Ed.) Dressler Prof Brooks
13
For Fall 2012 class Crim Law Outline B Crim Law
(5th Ed.) Dressler Prof Brooks
4. Excuses: All the elements are met and the harm is achieved and the act is not justified, however, the , because of
their condition at the time of the offense suggests that she she has not acted through a meaningful exercise of free
will and therefore is not an appropriate subject for criminal liability
5. Non-exculpatory public policy defense
B Self Defense Justification
1. Common Law (Peterson windshield wiper shooting case)
a Threat of deadly force
b Threat is unlawful
c 's use of force is necessary to defeat this threat
i Proportional
A Must not use deadly against non-deadly force
B The threat of force is viewed in light of all circumstances/characteristics
ii Duty to retreat
A Must retreat only if retreat can be done in complete safety
B Castle Doctrine: No duty to retreat in home unless from cohabitant
iii Initial aggressor
A Must not be first to threaten deadly force
iv Imminence
A The threat is in front of
d If a 's subjective belief in these factors are reasonable (Goetz)
i Known physical movements of the actors
ii 's subjective knowledge of the aggressors
iii Actors' known physical attributes
iv Prior experiences that could provide a reasonable basis for a 's
2. MPC 3.04
a Elements
i Actor subjectively believes
ii Immediately necessary (Norman)
iii To protect oneself
iv From unlawful force
v On the present occasion
b Available: Self-defense may be used when:
i Actor believes necessary to prevent:
A Death
B Serious Bodily Harm
C Kidnapping
D Rape
c Limitations: a person may not use self-defense when:
i Force was used while being arrested
ii Actor subjectively knows the other person is protecting property,
14
For Fall 2012 class Crim Law Outline B Crim Law
(5th Ed.) Dressler Prof Brooks
15
For Fall 2012 class Crim Law Outline B Crim Law
(5th Ed.) Dressler Prof Brooks
16
For Fall 2012 class Crim Law Outline B Crim Law
(5th Ed.) Dressler Prof Brooks
17
For Fall 2012 class Crim Law Outline B Crim Law
(5th Ed.) Dressler Prof Brooks
18
For Fall 2012 class Crim Law Outline B Crim Law
(5th Ed.) Dressler Prof Brooks
iii Incomplete attempts: defendant purposely engaged in any act or omission that, under circumstances as
defendant believed them to be, constituted a substantial step in a course of conduct planned to
culminate in the crime.
4. Defenses to Attempts
a Impossibility: attempts a crime that cannot be committed
i Factual: objective is criminal but an unknown factual circumstance makes commission of the crime
impossible
A believes the conduct is criminal
B Still might be chargeable because moral culpability is present
C Man engages with 17 year old, believing her to be 16, she is actually 17, and the legal age is 17 =
factual impossibility
ii Legal: 's objective does not constitute a crime
A Complete defense to attempt charge
iii Example: statutory rape - a man engages with 17 year old woman believing her to be 17 and believing
the legal age to be 18 even though it is 17 = legal impossibility
iv MPC: looks only to what the thought the attendant circumstances (A.C.) to be
B Conspiracy
1. Define: An agreement to commit a crime
2. Merger: No merger, discrete from substantive crime
3. Common Law
a Actus Reus: Unlawful agreement between 2 or more persons
i Plurality Rule: Must have at least two people agree and in some Jx a person cannot be
ii Overt Act: An act that affects the object of the conspiracy or that has a tendency to further the
objective
A Doesn't have to be an unlawful act, could be a completely innocent event (e.g. a phone call to set
up a meeting)
b Mens Rea: Specific Intent
i Intent to partner with others, AND
ii Intent to accomplish the unlawful objective
c Pinkerton Rule: each member of a conspiracy is liable for all crimes committed by other members of the
conspiracy:
i That were reasonably foreseeable result of the conspiracy and,
ii Committed in furtherance of the conspiracy
d Abandonment
i Must actually help legal authorities to stop the target offense to claim a defense
ii If you join a conspiracy midway through, you are only liable for the actions that occur after you joined.
4. MPC: 5.03 requires an agreement by the defendant, therefore someone can be convicted of conspiracy even if the
other person is acquitted.
a Withdrawing: must do more than just say, count me out
i Must do something that thwarts the success, ex. Informing police, that come and prevent crime
19
For Fall 2012 class Crim Law Outline B Crim Law
(5th Ed.) Dressler Prof Brooks
Retribution
20
For Fall 2012 class Crim Law Outline B Crim Law
(5th Ed.) Dressler Prof Brooks
Under retributivist justifications for punishment there must be guilt in order for punishment to be justified, and if guilt does
exist then punishment should be made,
Utilitarianism
Under utilitarian punishment theory, punishment is an evil, which is only just, is there is greater good to be produced from the
punishment. The good gained comes in the forms of specific deterrence, general deterrence, rehabilitation, or incapacitation.
Murder
(CL) Murder at common law is the unlawful killing of a person by another human being with malice aforethought. The
element of malice aforethought can be met through: (1) the intent to kill; (2) the intent to inflict serious bodily injury/harm; (3)
depraved heart/indifference; or (4) felony murder, i.e. murder that occurs during the commission of a felony.
(MPC) Under the MPC murder is the criminal homicide committed purposely, knowingly, or with extreme indifference to
human life. Murder is a result of crime which requires that the result of death to be proven to be actually caused and
proximately caused by the defendant.
Murder #1
(CL) Most jurisdictions break murder into two degrees; first-degree murder and second-degree murder. First-degree murder is
the unlawful killing of a human being with malice aforethought, along with either premeditation and deliberation, or and
enumerated felony that meets the Felony Murder Rule. Felony Murder exists when the death of a person occurs during the
commission of an inherently dangerous felony. (Howard) At common law this included Burglary, Arson, Robbery, Rape, and
Kidnapping.
Manslaughter
(CL) Under the common law manslaughter is established when the defendant is
(MPC)
Attempt
(CL) Under the common law, attempt is a specific intent crime, where the defendant must (1) specifically intent to commit the
under lying crime; and (2) intend to commit the acts that constitute the actus reus of the attempt. The actus reus of an attempt is
one that comes dangerously close to completing the crime. Often referred to as the dangerous proximity test, which extends
the requisite proximity for an attempt based upon the seriousness of the intended crime, mere preparation is insufficient for
attempt
Conspiracy
21
For Fall 2012 class Crim Law Outline B Crim Law
(5th Ed.) Dressler Prof Brooks
A conspiracy occurs where two or more people agree to commit an unlawful act and at least one performs an overt act in
furtherance of the agreement.
Accomplice Liability
Accomplice liability occurs when a person either aids, abets, or assists a person in the commission of a crime.
Insanity Defenses
The four major insanity approaches used by most jurisdictions are: (a) MNaghten Test; (b) Irresistible Impulse Test; (c) and
the MPC Test
Under the MNaghten Test, a defendant may be found not guilty by reason of insanity if his actions were the product of a
mental disease of defect such that he did not know right from wrong or was unable to understand the nature of his actions.
Under the Irresistible Impulse Test, the defendant may be found not guilty by reason of insanity if their actions were the
product of mental disease or defect such that the defendant was unable to control his actions. In this approach, the defendant
may know that his actions were wrong, but the mental disease or defect he had caused him to be unable to resist the criminal
act. It has been stated that such a defendant would be unable to resist performing the criminal act even if there was a policeman
standing at his shoulder
The MPC (Model Penal Code) Approach combines the MNaghten Test and the Irresistible Impulse Test such that a defendant
may be found not guilty by reason of insanity if they were either unable to understand right from wrong OR were unable [to]
resist performing the criminal act as discussed in the Irresistible Impulse Test supra (above)
9 Steps
Step 2: Identify the rule, but dont waste time stating the rule.
Step 3: Summarize the elements of the rule that are easily satisfied by the facts.
Step 4: State the sticking point on which this issue turns, i.e. the ambiguity in the facts that makes it a difficult question
22
For Fall 2012 class Crim Law Outline B Crim Law
(5th Ed.) Dressler Prof Brooks
Step 5: Apply one or more of the four types of Analysis to the problem:
1. Reasoning by Analogy: Case law suggests that these facts (would/would not) satisfy the (element)
2. Balancing Test: The following factors weigh in determining whether the (element) is satisfied
3. Judicial Test: Courts have applied the following test to prove whether the (element) is satisfied.
4. Policy: The underlying policy of the rule (is/is not) furthered by its application in this scenario. (Cite policy)
State v. [Defendant]
Crime 1:
Paragraph 1: ISSUE/RULE
Issue statement. Rule proof paragraph. Court will likely find that
Paragraph 2: ANALYSIS
- State issue with current determinative facts (e.g. Here, we are told that Mel desired to commit homicide and
formulated a plan to kill.)
- The prosecution will argue
- The defense, however, will contend
- [Defendant] (is/is not) likely guilty of [crime]
Paragraph 3: TRANSITION/CONCLUSION
- The court will find that based on these arguments that
- However, the court may find that
State v. [Defendant]
Crime 2:
Paragraph 1: ISSUE/RULE
Issue statement. Rule proof paragraph. Court will likely find that
Paragraph 2: ANALYSIS
- State issue with current determinative facts (e.g. Here, we are told that Mel desired to commit homicide and
formulated a plan to kill.)
- The prosecution will argue
- The defense, however, will contend
- [Defendant] (is/is not) likely guilty of [crime]
Paragraph 3: TRANSITION/CONCLUSION
- The court will find that based on these arguments that
- However, the court may find that
23