Professional Documents
Culture Documents
Criminal Notes
Criminal Notes
Dudley v. Stevens
Necessity (extreme hunger) does not
justify murder. Starving sailors eat the
flesh of one of their own.
Lawrence v. Texas
A law classifying homosexual intercourse
as illegal sodomy violated the privacy and
liberty of adults to engage in private
intimate conduct under the 14th
amendment. Two men arrested after found
to be engaged in sodomy.
Commonwealth v. Mochan
Court can uphold a conviction for
misdemeanor based only in common law.
An act that outrageous decency and
injurious to public morals is a
misdemeanor under common law. An
arrest made for making very indecent
phone calls.
United States v. Bergman
Reputation and age may be taken into
account, but court will still punish for
general deterrence and to not depreciate
the seriousness of crime. A good man in
his old age committed Medicare fraud.
Martin v. State
Convictions require a voluntary act.
Drunken man arrested and taken by police
to a highway where he was arrested for
public drunkenness.
People v. Newton
Unconsciousness is an allowed defense to
homicide. Newtons shot in stomach and
supposedly became unconscious and then
killed a police officer.
Jones v. United States
Omission of a duty owed to another may
be liable for homicide. Critical issues of
fact must be passed on to the jury.
Defendant failed to take care of a 10
month illegitimate baby who died.
Main issue was that jury did not get to decide the
unconsciousness issue.
Cogdon case woman acquitted after axing her
daughter to death when asleep.
Decina case woman liable for knowing and not
taking epilepsy pills, leading to an epileptic attack
and crashing
-Policy: We have a right to personal freedom, but
also the freedom to waive that freedom and assume a
duty.
Pope v. State
Moral duty w/o legal duty to act precludes
liability. Pope watched as a mother abused
the mothers child (both living with her),
leading to their death.
Barber v. Superior Court
Euthanasia is an omission (of treatment)
and not liable for murder. A doctor has no
legal duty to continue futile life support.
Family asked doctors to take patient in
vegetative state off life support.
Regina v. Cunningham
Redefining, malice requires 1) intent to do
the particular kind of harm or 2)
recklessness despite forseeability of harm.
Appellant stole a gas meter, releasing
noxious gas and endangering his future
mother-in-law.
State v. Hazelwood
Negligence is when one fails to perceive
an unjustifiable risk that a result will
occur. Criminal negligence requires
greater risk, and you dont need to be
aware of the risk. Conviction reinstated;
captain (was drunk) ran ship into reef and
spilled oil.
United States v. Jewell
Willful blindness is not an excuse (for not
looking in a known compartment
regarding possession). Knowledge
established if aware of a high probability
of existence. Defendant was convicted of
knowingly transporting marijuana in a car
from Mexico to the US.
Regina v. Prince
No statement of mens rea in a statute can
be strict liability (instead of recklessly).
Some acts are wrong and forbidden in
itself. Defendant a girl under 16 from her
father and claimed he didnt know the
age.
-malicious = reckless
-unlawful = theres no defense
Regina v. Faulkner Conviction quashed; a sailor
stealing run from ship but burned the entire ship. He
could not be guilty of acting maliciously (recklessly)
unless he considered the risk of a fire and
disregarded it.
-culpability how criminally responsible, is tied to
your mental state
-Applied only ordinary negligence (not criminal),
since criminal punishment should be imposed only
when conduct is something society can deter
Santillanes v. New Mexico defendant cut 7 year
old nephews neck. Applied criminal negligence.
wrong
-If its jurisdictional element, we dont care
United States v. Feola
AR (assault) + MR (knowledge) + Circumstance [1)
Knowledge of victims official identity
person 2) federal officer], crime to knowingly assault
must be proved to convict on conspiracy
fed. officer
to assault officers. Defendants tried a
-To see if it is a material element, in this order, look
narcotics rip off and charged with
at 1) language of statute 2) legislature intent 3)
conspiring to assault and assaulting
policy (to provide maximum protection, or conduct
federal officers.
was wrong)
-Policy (from dissent) different crimes should have
different punishments, if they are punished different
then they should know of it and can be deterred
-Jurisdictional = prosecutor does not have to prove
defendant knew it
Morissette v. United States
Jurisdictional vs. Strict liability
Defendant must have knowledge of the
-Argued didnt need to know it was government
facts that made conversion wrongful.
property strict liability part
Strict liability does not apply where the
-General rule crimes require mens rea
offense is not a public welfare offense.
-Exceptions strict liability (S/L)
Mere mission of mens rea from statute
-For S/L, you look at 1) statutory language 2) legal
does not make it strict liability (general
history
presumption is against it), it doesnt mean -S/L crime indicia public welfare (health &
anything. Junk convicted of taking bomb
welfare, highly regulated areas, small penalties, not
casing and argued he did not know it
like common law crimes (mala prohibitum), high
belonged to government.
volume
-Criticism making criminals out of regulatory
crimes
Staples v. United States
-charged with possession of unregistered firearm
If a statute doesn't mention a mens rea
-government argued it was a strict liability crime for
requirement, the Court must infer intent of unregistered
legislature and can impute a mens rea.
-argued S/L here can overdeter
Strict liability is generally reserved for
-defense to S/L, S/L can knock out mens rea, but you
crimes with light punishments (not the 10 can argue actus reas
years imprisonment here). Defendant
-MPC rejects S/L because its all about culpability
possessed unregistered firearm, claimed
and mens rea
he did not know it was automatic.
State v. Guminga
Criminal penalties of imprisonment under
vicariously liability violate due process,
but may be liable to fines/suspensions.
Strict liability carried too heavy of a
penalty for this conviction. Waitress
delivered alcoholic beverages to minors
and employer was charged.
State v. Baker
Defendant argues despite strict liability
Lambert v. California
Knowledge of a statute is generally
required to convict someone of a notice
offense (a passive act). Defendant, a felon,
was convicted of failing to register
pursuant to a California statute requiring
registration.
Homicide
Commonwealth v. Carroll
A brief space of time is immaterial if the
killing was in fact intentional, willful,
deliberate and premeditated.
Premeditation only requires defendant
acted deliberately or purposely. Defendant
pleaded guilty to the murder but he argued
he suffered a psychiatric disorder and
killed impulsively.
State v. Guthrie
There must be some length of time that
lapses between the intent to kill and the
actual murder. Defendant had psychiatric
problems and stabbed coworker after
coworker hit him in the nose (a sensitive
body part).
People v. Anderson
Premeditation and deliberation is required
for first degree murder, despite shocking
nature of the crime. A preconceived
design is required instead of an explosion
of violence for 1st degree murder.
Defendant stabbed (60 times) and killed a
10 year old girl many times as he chased
her around the house.
Girouard v. State
-if you know the law but disagree with it, does not
negate exception 1) negates mens rea
-willfully means knowingly in this case
-without authority/unauthorized, key indicator of
mistake of law exception 1) negating element of the
defense
Maher v. People
It is a question of fact (for the jury)
whether the defendant was provoked by
knowledge of an adulterous relationship
between his spouse and the victim. This
provocation may include anything that
causes ordinary men to act rashly.
Defendant, after learning that his wife was
having sexual intercourse with the victim,
walked into a saloon and non-fatally shot
the victim in the ear.
People v. Cassassa
Extreme emotional distress (EED)
requires 1) act under the influence of EED
(subjective), and 2) a reasonable
explanation or excuse for the defendant's
EED (objective). Defendant stalked then
killed his ex-girlfriend and claimed
extreme emotional disturbance.
Commonwealth v. Welansky
A criminal (instead of civil) liability exists
for unintended homicide depends on 1) a
higher likelihood of harm, 2) risk of a
particularly serious harm, and 3) actual
awareness, or greater likelihood of
awareness, of that harm. A fire broke out
in the night club due to the lack of
available exits, a great number of people
died and owner found guilty of
involuntary manslaughter.
People v. Hall
Reckless manslaughter requires one to
recklessly cause death of another. One
must disregard a substantial and
unjustifiable risk. Specific facts of case
hold he was skiing too fast, creating a
substantial and unjustifiable risk.
Defendant flew off a knoll while skiing.
He collided with victim who died.
State v. Williams
Under Washington statute, crime
committed if death if proximate result of
only simple or ordinary negligence.
Ordinary negligence requires caution
exercised by a man of reasonable
prudence under similar conditions. Child
died after parents did not supply necessary
medical attention.
Commonwealth v. Malone
Malice there is an act intentionally done
by the defendant, in reckless and wanton
disregard of the consequences. So long as
the act itself was intentional, it is
irrelevant that the death of the victim was
unintended. If there is malice, one is liable
for murder. Defendant kills his friend
while playing russian roulette.
United States v. Fleming
A drunk driver can be convicted of
murder, even where there is a separate
vehicular manslaughter statute. Malice
may be established by reckless and
wonton conduct that is a gross deviation
from a reasonable standard of care.
Defendant was speeding and driving
State v. Canola
A felon cannot be charged with felony
murder for the death of a co-felon, caused
by the act of one other than the felon
himself or those associated with him.
Defendant is charged with felony murder
when a co-felon was shot and killed by a
jewelry store owner during an armed
robbery
Tison v. Arizona
Major participation in the felony
committed along with reckless
indifference to human like satisfies the
Emmund culpability requirement (for the
death penalty). While trying to break a
relative in jail, defendants partners shot
down an innocent family that stopped to
help them when their car broke down.
People v. Acosta
Proximate cause looks at whether the
result highly extraordinary and
foreseeable. Defendant stole a car and
police chased him for over 40 miles. He
was accused of murder resulting from two
helicopters that collided during the chase.
People v. Arzon
Conduct doesnt have to be sole and
exclusive factor in the victim's death. One
is criminally liable if his conduct was a
sufficiently direct cause of the death.
Defendant set fire a building to prevent
druggies from using it. Fireman who tried
to rescue died but from a second fire that
appeared independently.
People v. Campbell
Suicide excludes homicide; giving a
person a gun to kill himself is not murder.
Smallwood v. State
Attempted murder requires a specific
attempt to kill. Additional evidence is
required to support an intent to kill,
exposing rape victims to a risk of HIV
alone is insufficient. Defendant raped
several women. He was aware that he was
HIV positive and did not use a condom.
People v. Rizzo
In determining what acts constitute
attempt, the law considers acts so
immediately near to its accomplishment
that in all reasonable probability would
have led to the crime itself without
interference. Defendant was driving with
three accomplices looking for a guy with
$1,200 but didnt and was arrested for
attempted robbery.
McQuirter v. State
The jury must be satisfied beyond a
reasonable doubt that defendant intended
to have sexual intercourse. Social customs
-Chain conspiracy
-United States v. Borelli a wheel and chain
conspiracy
-again can argue that even the local drug dealers are
competitors, they are tied to each others success
since the importer needs all of them to stay in
business
United States v. Peterson defines self defense 1)
when necessity begins and before it ends, 2)
necessity appears necessary, 3) must exist a threat of
unlawful and immediate deadly force 4) believed by
the defendant
federal officer.
Public Committee Against Torture v. State
of Israel
The General Security Service (GSS) does
not have the authority to torture in certain
ways, and that judgment for this will be
suspended for a year.
State v. Toscano
We hold that duress is an affirmative
defense to a crime other than murder, and
that it need not be based upon an alleged
threat of immediate bodily injury.
Defendant was convicted of conspiring to
defraud insurance companies and argued
duress for the safety of his family.
MNaghtens Case
The MNaghten Test is an insanity test. A
defendant is not culpable if at the time of
the criminal act if as a result of a mental
diseases, he did not know the nature of the
act he was doing or did not know what he
was doing was wrong. Defendant believed
he was the victim of an international
conspiracy and shot a guy.
Blake v. United States
MPC adapted, where a substantial (rather
than complete) lack of capacity was
required for the insanity defense either to
appreciate the criminality or to conform
his conduct to the requirements of law.
Defendant robbed a bank and pleaded
insanity.
United States v. Lyons
A person is not responsible for criminal
conduct on grounds of insanity only if at
the time of that conduct, as a result of a
mental disease or defect, he is unable to
appreciate the wrongfulness of that
conduct. Defendant was convicted of
several narcotics violations and claimed
that he was unable to conform to the law
due to a drug addictions.
State v. Crenshaw
The court concluded that the defendant
knew his acts were morally wrong and
illegal and thus his personal belief cannot
7.
8. Notephysician removes heart when patient is brain dead, but law defines death as
cessation of heart function, conviction for intentionally killing patient?
9. Punishment for strict liability = cruel and unusual punishment? Youve done nothing
wrong.
10. Jurisdictional vs. Strict liability? Morsette case, knowing taking casing of air force, or
staples case, proving unregistered firearm is jurisdictional or strict liability.
11. Strict liability, not like common law crimes, must be mala prohibitum? Common law
crimes are mala in se?
12. Knowingly when strong suspicion and avoids learning the truth, reckless or knowledge?
13. Mens rea multiple personality disorder
14. When do we use MPC vs. common law, strict liability or something since theres two
opinions for everything
15. Where does the reasonable person play into criminal law, mental physical disabilities,
children, professionals, is it different from the reasonable person in tort law
16. What do you mean when you have us say the law giveth, taketh away
17. Causation?
18. Can lawyers and law students sit on the jury?
19. Every injury caused that does not lead to a instantaneous death = omission?
20. Omission requires physical capability? Use impossibility/insanity as defense? Fear
insufficient?
21. Try your best to do duty and fail?
22. Does every crime require social harm (actual dmg not needed)?
23. Technical defense, when waiving jury = issue of law instead of issue of fact?
24. Can mistake of fact apply to negligence (or reckless), since mistake of fact works even if
belief is unreasonable, while negligenceis based on a reasonably care, also negligence
requires no intent
25. What you need to know is what makes your conduct wrong, does that include morally
wrong conduct, or also legally?
26. Marrero case, dont all personal misreadings of material element statute negate the mens
rea (unless strict liability, or you misread jurisdictional element),
27. Ignorance of the law is not a defense, but since it negates material element exception,
then ignorance of all material elements is a defense
28. Regarding jurisdictional elements, under common law youre held for the greater crime
even w/o mens rea, but under MPC youre held for the lesser crime (since it rejects
MPC)?
29. Regarding strict liability there is no mistake defenseat all
30. Killing non-provoking victims, is there mistake of fact defense? no
31. Welansky case, owner prosecuted for club fire, does it matter he was not really in charge
of everything. What if his employees blocked the exits, replaced the material with
flammable things over series of years and he didnt really know?
a. Is he being held criminally vicariously liable?
b. Can you be criminally liable for the criminal acts of third parties, a patient of a
doctor tells the doctor he will call someone, doctor does nothing and someone
dies
32. From today regarding involuntary manslaughter, you ask in step one if theres a
substantial and unjustifiable risk, what is the same question? Step one you look at
negligence, then you look at if its gross
a. (magnitude of harm > social utility then its gross?)
33. Intent to kill (malice) vs. purpose (Carrol standard murder 1)
34. Mastery of the law?
35. Look at Alice hypo
36. Set a trap, and I know it, and its murder?, take something from the left of the podium
37. What is your glannon guide? in the library
38. Lets say you were drunk driving, and you get home safely. The police for some reason,
was talking to the bartender or some other source who said you drank and then drove.
Can they go to your door and arrest you?
39. Clarify on what atmosphere of malice constitutes for the provocation act doctrine create
the atmoshphere
40. When looking at homicide do we also have to separately look at mens rea, or is like
analysis of the varying levels of homicide already include mens rea
41. Mens rea of knowingly, is that murder 2?
42. For a state that punishes the same for the attempt and the crime, can you get a death
penalty for attempt?
43. Practice midtermsand sample student answers?, like 20 or well 19 years would be nice
44. When youre provoked and you kill the wrong person, most courts do not recognize
manslaughter when youve killed the wrong person under heat of passion right?
a. Why dont they use transferred intent under common law?
45. Why is illegal arrest a legally adequate provocation?
46. Oh and to double check, adultery as a legally adequate provocation applies to women too
right in theory even though always male?
47. Distinction between a manslaughter with a long smoldering (when talking about a
cooling time), if youre long smoldering isnt that sort of like first degree murder? Youve
clearly premeditated the murder during this smoldering time where anger built up?
a. I mean since a good number of murderers have a motive and therefore make an
argument they provoked whoever to kill
48. Under the extreme emotional disturbance standard, cant that apply to a good number of
1st degree murders, since when you premeditate someone, youre automatically are
considered under an emotional disturbance (otherwise you wouldnt kill someone), isnt
technically everyone whos murdering (1st degree at least) someone under an emotional
disturbance and had a reason
a. Like in the Carroll case, when he shot his wife, he clearly had a reason and he was
obviously under extreme emotional disturbance
49. Generally, regarding felony murder, do we still look at causation? Is it simply no mens
rea needed or complete strict liability? I know courts look at proximate cause when
looking at whos acts and the agency theory,
50. If you attempt to kill someone, and theyre injured and paralyzed or something and kill
themselves later, youre generally liable? Or is that something arguable?
51. Regarding the arson hypo, fire breaks out from a spark, do you have a legal duty to put
out the fire?
52. Why is it a year and a day rule, why not just a year?
a. If you want to infect someone with HIV, then youre not liable for murder? HIV
takes many years to kill
53. 2 ppl shoot, each bullet would have killed in an hour, but with 2 bullets they both die in 5
minutes, regarding actual causation, do we look at but for their death? Or but for their
death in 5 minutes?
54. 2 people shoot at a guy with an arrow, but only one arrow hits, and they use the same
type of arrow, are they both responsible?
55. So when death is obvious (A shoots B) what do you say about proximate cause?
56. Complimentary human action, does that break the link or does it just depends?, arguable
57. Diff between mistake of fact and factual impossibility? Try to shoot the deer, but turned
out to be a man versus trying to shoot the man but it was a deer
58. Voodoo is factual impossibility?
a. How do we analyze impossibility if technically all legal impossibility can be
factual impossibility?
59. If someone is guilty under the dangerous impossibility doctrine for simply being
negligent, what do we have to analyze, just that a reasonable person should have known
the risk?
60. 3344Regarding shield cases, can that be argued as kidnapping and thus an inherently
dangerous felony?
61. Attempt, it only merges with the actual crime when the crime is complete right?
a. If you try to rob and someone dies, you are still guilty of attempted robberty,
b. But if you kill someone are you liable for assault/battery?
c. How about if youre guilty for 1st degree murder, can you be guilty of an
attempted second degree murder?
75. For the merger doctrine, where the felony must have a purpose other than murder, there
cant malice or it merges, does that include the gross recklessness definition of malice?
(exam)
76. How do research assistants for professors work?
77. For felony murder inherently dangerous limitation, you look at the statute in the abstract
versus the act in the abstract?
78. Do you have sample student answers or at least grading rubrics for the sample exams on
the library? 1999, fall 2001, spring 2001, spring 2003, and any more since youve been
teaching like 20 years
79. Glannon guide, named after Joseph Glannon?
80. Does drunk driving generally (in real life) end up as murder 2 or involuntary
manslaughter or is that something that totally depends and is arguable
81. Choice of evils for necessity does the evil basically limited to death or serious bodily
harm or serious property harm
82. Can you also bring in experts for battered woman syndrome cases when the duress
defense is used (we talked about it for self defense), but theres like an
imminence/reasonableness factor for duress
83. Is intoxication a type of diminished capacity?
84. Under the MPC, diminished capacity can be a full defense? If it drops from a general
defense down to like nothing?
85. Is diminished capacity kind of like imperfect insanity defense, if youre missing elements
for insanity it drops down to diminished capacity
86. Does every duress case lead to a colorable issue of necessity? Is there always necessity
when there is a duress, because under duress you are forced to choose between someone
dying and you commiting a crime (someone dying), every duress situation gives you a
choice of evils
87. When choosing lesser evils, you have to choose the least most evil right? Like if you had
to choose between like destroying 5 houses, 4 houses, and 3 houses, you have to choose
the 3 houses right? You cant be like I chose the 4 houses over the 3 because my house
was in the 3?, better yet choose between 5 and 3 and 3, and your house is one of 3
88. Does the federal approach to entrapment strongly favor the prosecution since if the
defendant commited the crime, then you automatically have a strong argument that he
was predisposed to commiting the crime?
a. Can entrapment be used for strict liability crimes? Or does it matter which
approach is taken?
89. Provocation Act doctrine where defendant creates an atmosphere of malice, that also
applies if one of your co-felons starts the shooting right?
90. In determining whether it is specific or general intent crime, one of the things we look at
was the historical name, what does that mean?
a. Is there is a jurisdictional element in the statute, does that generally mean it is
more of a general intent crime?
91. Where theres an insanity problem, do we have to prove that the defendant is competent
to stand trial
92. If you know with virtual certainty that people will die, the only levels of murder that
suffice would be gross reckless for murder 2 and involuntary manslaughter right?
93. If youve taken the last step for attempt, that satisfies all the other tests as well.
94. Irresistible impulse test do we look at whether the defendant had no control at all? Or
just that he had no control even with police there, since a police could be at his elbow, but
he wanted to shoot the guy regardless of whether he was going to get caught
95. Law enforcement defense, can only be used by police?
96. Can you argue you thwarted the crime by going to the police?
97. Can I get participation points for moving the podium?