Chapter 3 Criminal Law

Knowingly

A person acts knowingly with respect to a material element of an offense: if the element involves the nature of his conduct or the attendant circumstances, he is aware that his conduct is of that nature or that such circumstances exist; and if the element involves a result of his conduct, he is aware that it is practically certain that his conduct will cause such a result.

Purposely

A person acts purposely with respect to a material element of an offense: if the element involves the nature of his conduct or a result thereof, it is his conscious objective to engage in conduct of that nature or to cause such a result; and if the element involves the attendant circumstances, he is aware of the existence of such circumstances, or he believes or hopes that they exist.

Transferred Intent

Billy and his brother Ronnie get into an argument at a crowded bar. Billy balls up his fist and swings, aiming for Ronnie's face. Ronnie ducks and Billy punches Amandain the face instead. Billy did not intend to batter Amanda. However, it is unjust to allow this protective action of Ronnie's to excuse Billy's conduct. Thus Billy's intent to hit Ronnie transfers in some jurisdictions over to Amanda. Billy can also be charged with attempted battery, which is assault, of Ronnie, resulting in twocrimes rather than one under the transferred intent doctrine.

Pressumptions

A presumption of law is not evidence nor should it be weighed by the fact finder as though it had evidentiary value. Mandatory presumptions, generally referred to as irrebuttable or conclusive presumptions, can be unconstitutional under the Due Process Clause because such a presumption allows the prosecution to avoid proving an element. The presumption of innocence until proven guilty is a rebuttable presumption, which means it may be overcome by evidence proving otherwise.

Failure to Act

A small percentage of crimes in criminal codes are crimes of omission—failure to act when a duty or obligation is imposed Examples of crimes of omission found in state criminal codes: Failure to report the death of a child Failure to report the location of a human corpse Failure by a parent or guardian to provide adequate food, clothing, shelter, or medical care to a child under the person's care Failure to submit to a Breathalyzer or other similar test when lawfully requested to do so by a police officer Failure of one involved in an accident to remain at the scene Homicide by omission Failure to act if a person is in a contractual agreement and a person is harmed

Negligently

Actor should be aware of a substantial and unjustifiable risk that the material element exists or will result from his conduct. The risk must be of such a nature and degree that the actor's failure to perceive it, considering the nature and purpose of his conduct and the circumstances known to him, involves a gross deviation from the standard of care that a reasonable person would observe in the actor's situation. Emily has an eight-month-old daughter named Taylor. Hank moves in with Emily, Taylor, and Taylor's siblings in their California home. One day, Hank offers to care for Taylor while Emily goes to work. When Emily returns, Taylor is screaming and seriously burned on her bottom and side. Hank says that he gave her a bath, but the water got too hot. A couple months later, Taylor's arm breaks when Hank tries to pull her from Emily's arms. A month after that, Taylor receives a black eye while in Hank's care. At another point, he screams in her face while she is crying. Emily confides in friends that she, Taylor, and her other children are afraid of Hank, and that she is considering leaving him. Her friends tell her that she shouldn't be entrusting Taylor's care to Hank. Taylor eventually dies from severe beating and shaking injuries suffered while in Hank's care. Medical examination shows that Taylor also had preexisting injuries from other incidents of abuse. Prosecutors charge Hank for Taylor's death. They also charge Emily with felony child endangerment, a crime in California that can be committed through criminal negligence. Although Emily never directly injured Taylor, a jury convicts her and an appellate court upholds her conviction. The court explains that a jury could have reasonably determined that Emily satisfied the criminal negligence standard, described as "aggravated, culpable, gross, or reckless conduct that is such a departure from what would be the conduct of an ordinarily prudent or careful person under the same circumstances as to be incompatible with a proper regard for human life." The court explains that criminal negligence occurs when a reasonable person in the defendant's position would have been aware of the relevant risk, and that a jury could have considered the risk to Taylor obvious

Possession Alone as a Crime

All states make the possession of certain objects a criminal offense Types of possession: Actual Constructive Possession is one of the rights of ownership, but ownership does not need to be proved in criminal statutes

Scienter (Knowledge)

Although the terms mens rea and scienter are sometimes used interchangeably, many jurisdictions define scienter as knowledge that an act is illegal. Scienter can be the basis of specific intent in some statutes. So a statute that makes it a crime to "willfully file a false tax return" may require knowledge that the tax return includes false information and that it will be unlawful to file it. 1 If the prosecution fails to prove beyond a reasonable doubt that the defendant knew his or her conduct was illegal, this could nullify scienter, and the prosecution cannot prove specific intent.

Recklessly

Conscious disregard of a substantial and unjustifiable risk that the material element exists or will result from his conduct. The risk must be of such a nature and degree that, considering the nature and purpose of the actor's conduct and the circumstances known to him, its disregard involves a gross deviation from the standard of conduct that a law-abiding person would observe in the actor's situation.

Actus Reus

Crime is an intentional act or omission of an act: An act must occur for there to be a crime. There are different acts for different parties to crime A party to a crime could be: a person who actually and physically commits the crime a person who conspires in the planning of the crime or orders that the crime be committed, OR a person who aids and assists in the commission of the crime In some situations, failure to act can constitute a criminal offense

Conviction of a Crime

Elements must be proven "beyond a reasonable doubt" to convict someone of a criminal offense (although exceptions exist to the necessary elements) Proof beyond a reasonable doubt means that it is not enough to prove that it is probable that an element of the crime is true. The proof must be such that a reasonable person would agree that the elements of a crime are present. For civil offense the elements have to be proven only "beyond the preponderance of the evidence" Beyond the Preponderance of the Evidence means "more likely than not"

Essential Elements of a Crime

Elements of a typical criminal offense: Actus reus: The actual act Mens rea: The intent Scienter: Knowledge The requirement that the mental intent and prohibited act must both be present in crimes requiring mental fault is called "concurrence." Some exceptions to these elements being necessary to convict: crimes without mental fault (mens rea) failure to act can constitute a crime knowledge of wrong doing is not always necessary

People v decina

Facts: Defendant (∆) suffered from epileptic seizures. While driving he had an attack, causing the car to travel at a fast and reckless rate of speed, ultimately striking and killing 4 people. Issue: Whether a person who suffers a known medical condition operates a motor vehicle and causes death is criminally liable for the deaths? Holding: Yes Procedure: ∆ was convicted of Criminal negligence in the operation of a vehicle causing death. App Division reversed in part and ordered a new trial. ∆ and People appealed. Decision was affirmed, ∆'s conviction stands. Rule: ∆'s conduct manifested a disregard of the consequences which may result from his act, and this renders him liable (criminal negligence).

Holloway v u.s.

Facts: ∆ threatened to harm or kill the driver if the car was not turned over. ∆ did not kill the driver. Carjacking statute required the actor to have "intent to cause death or serious harm". Issue: whether the phrase "intent to cause death or serious bodily harm" requires the Government to prove that the ∆ had an unconditional intent to kill or harm in all events, or whether it merely requires proof of an intent to kill or harm if necessary to effect a carjacking. Holding: No - only requires proof of threat to effectuate carjacking. Procedure: Case is before SCOTUS (for this opinion) - district court and court of appeals affirmed. Rule: The specific intent to commit an act can be found even where the intent is conditioned upon something such as a victim failing to comply with the ∆'s instructions

Examples of crimes where scienter is required:

In assault on a law enforcement officer, knowledge that the victim is a law enforcement officer In refusing to aid a law enforcement officer, knowledge that the person requesting assistance is a law enforcement officer In receiving stolen property, knowledge that the property received is stolen property In harboring or aiding a felon, knowledge that the person aided is a felon

Mens Rea: The Guilty Mind

In most criminal codes, the actus reus must be accompanied by the mens rea Different "degrees": Purposely Knowingly Recklessly Negligently S.C. has not held that mens rea be proven but, if required by a state, must be proven beyond reasonable doubt.

Intetionally, Knowingly, Recklessly

Intentionally "Intentionally" or "with the intent to" means, the defendant's goal was to cause the end result or engage in that conduct. So, the defendant knew what they were doing, and wanted to achieve the criminal result. Intentionally, knowingly, and recklessly Knowingly "Knowingly" means, a defendant is aware of their conduct. But, it does not require that the defendant know the conduct is unlawful. Recklessly "Recklessly" means, a person is aware of a substantial risk, but consciously disregards it.

Motive

Mens Rea (intent) and motive are sometimes thought of as being the same, however, the law contains a clear distinction between the two: Intent is the mental purpose or design to commit a specific act (or omission). Usually an element of crime. Motive is the cause, inducement, or reason why an act is committed. Motive is seldom made an essential element required for a criminal conviction. Motive evidence can be used by the prosecution as an aid in obtaining a conviction or to rebut a defense offered by a defendant.

Year-And-A-Day Murder Rule

On March 15, Jim slips poison into Steve's drink. Steve survives after medical treatment but has to fight off many infections because of a weakened immune system. On June 5 of the following year, Steve dies from the flu. Prosecutors charge Jim with second degree murder, but the trial court dismisses the charge because of the state's year and a day rule. Because Steve died more than a year and a day after Jim poisoned him, no homicide charges can be brought. Prosecutors appeal to the highest court in the state, but that court affirms the trial court's holding. Because of the rule's long history in the state, the court refuses to abolish it retroactively. The court suggests that the legislature might wish to re-examine the rule and abolish it going forward.

Presumption of Innocence

Places the burden of proof in criminal cases on the prosecution Presumption overcome on elements of the crime only by proof beyond a reasonable doubt

Presumptions and Inferences:

Presumption: facts "presumed" to be in existence because of proof of other facts (sometimes called predicate facts) Inference: permissible conclusion that can be drawn from the proof of certain facts A common inference used in criminal trials is that persons intend (desire) the natural and probable consequences of their deliberate acts. Sane and Competent: Designed to place burden on defendant to prove lack of criminal responsibility. Burden to prove sanity or competency is very seldom placed on the prosecution.

Strict Liability

Strict liability crimes do not require a "guilty mind." Simply committing the act is all that is needed. If the legislature wants to set a strict liability offense, it must say so clearly. Very rare, usually applied in public welfare offenses. ABC Construction company is building a road through a rural area when it encounters a rocky promontory. Although the area is rather close to a housing district, they decide to blast away the rock. A child, playing in a yard two blocks away is hit by a piece of flying rock, causing a deep laceration. ABC Construction was just going about its business, and took the usual precautions for such blasting, so negligence isn't an issue. The activity of blasting, however, carries with it inherent dangers, including flying debris. The child's parents may sue the construction company for the child's medical bills, as well as his pain and suffering, as ABC Construction is strictly liable in the situation.

Proximate Cause or Causation:

Proximate cause relates to the relationship between an event and an injury. In the context of the law, there must be a sufficient relationship between an event (or act) and a resulting injury in order to prove legal responsibility (known as 'liability'). This concept is known as causation. There are two types of causation: cause-in-fact causation and proximate cause. Cause-in-fact causation can be best described as a 'but-for' chain reaction: But for the action, the injury would not have occurred. For example, but for Jane turning left at the red light, the car crash would not have happened. While cause-in-fact causation is a relatively straightforward concept, proximate cause is harder to define. If someone suffers an injury that they believe was caused by another person's actions, the injured party (the plaintiff) may want to sue the actor (the defendant) for damages like medical bills or lost wages. But in order to prevail in court, the plaintiff must prove that the defendant is liable for his injuries. The same concept applies in a criminal prosecution - that is, the government must prove that the defendant caused the victim's injury or death. This is where proximate cause comes into play. The proximate cause of an injury is the event or act closely related to the injury. This doesn't mean that the act in question must be the closest in time to the injury. Instead, it must be the primary, or predominant, cause of the injury. In order to prove that a defendant is liable for the plaintiff's injury, there must be proof that the defendant's action was the proximate cause of the injury. Since any action can set off a long sequence of unforeseeable consequences, proximate cause limits the scope of a defendant's liability.

Strict Liability Crimes

Sometimes these crimes are referred to as regulatory crimes. Knowledge that the act was unlawful is not an element of the crime (e.g. sale of alcohol to a minor) The state does not have to prove the mens rea (intent) element for these types of offenses Government must prove that an act did occur In enacting statutes to enforce rules having to do with public safety, modern legislative bodies often choose not to create "true" crimes, but rather to enact statutes that do not require any proof of mens rea. Examples: Traffic laws Laws on liquor sales Laws on purity of food Hunting laws Laws on protecting children Laws on narcotics offenses Knowledge that the act was unlawful is not an element of the crime (e.g. sale of alcohol to a minor) Offenders not thought of as traditional criminals

Types of Mens Rea

Specific Intent: Party intended for the desired results to occur. Links mental state or purpose to forbidden act. Must prove mental fault for different parties to a crime General Intent: Party did not intend for specific results to occur, but should have known better. No requirement of intended results If a degree of mental guilt is made an element of the crime by law, the prosecutor must prove this essential element of the crime. Specific Intent: Examples of specific intent crimes include the following: Assault - knowingly attempting to cause or causing physical harm to another person. Burglary - knowingly entering a property with the intent of taking things that belong to someone else. General Intent: In other words, the person committing the crime that did not think of the consequences and how they would affect others. Examples of general intent crimes can include rape, assault, battery, manslaughter, arson, and driving under the influence.

Statutes & Scienter

Statute may state it is a crime to "wrongfully introduce" drugs to a military installation: The prosecution must show that the accused knew that they were introducing the drugs to the military installation.

ExceptionS to Mens Rea

The U.S. Supreme Court has never created or announced a doctrine requiring proof of mens rea in all crimes and in all cases. The states are generally free to create criminal laws that do not require proof of mens rea or to create criminal laws requiring different degrees of mental fault or mental guilt. Exceptions to the mens rea element include: Felony Murder Doctrine Strict Liability Crimes Possession Crimes Mens Rea (Mental Element behind an act) has 3 components:- Volition - physical act done with your free will. Motive - Why you did the act. (It's basically the reason like vengence or anything). Intention - What result are you trying to achieve. So your Physical Act + Mental Element makes one criminally responsible. However the exception to this rule is called strict liability in Criminal law where the law itself say that one's act would be considered a crime irrespective of whether he had the mental element to do that crime. Examples - Kidnapping and Abduction, Waging the war against the Govt of India, Preparation to mint counterfeit notes, stamp and coins of govt of India etc.

Concurrence

The act (actus reus) and the intent (mens rea) must be joined and exist concurrently (i.e., must occur at the same time). The intent must lead to the actual act.

Culpable Omissions

There are certain instances in which there is a legal duty for someone to act; their failure to do so may make them legally responsible for any harm that occurs due to their inaction. For example, someone with financial power of attorney has a fiduciary duty to the grantor to act in their best interests; if the person with the PoA fails to pay the rent of the grantor's house, and that person is evicted or the property is repossessed, the person holding the PoA may be held culpable for such an omission. Another common situation occurs when someone has a special duty to assist someone else and chooses not to — such as an EMT who comes across an accident scene; due to their special training, they may be legally required to render aid, whereas an average person would have no such duty. Actions which are required by a specific set of policies or procedures put in place to regulate certain professions may also give rise to culpable omissions — for example, an attorney who fails to inform his client that there was an offer for settlement of their claim is failing to meet their ethical duties to the client, and might be culpable for such an omission if the case falls apart or the client loses.

Not a crime...

Thoughts alone are not crimes Pure accident is not a crime

Knowledge and Purpose

United States v. U.S. Gypsum Co., U.S. Supreme Court stated that in the case of most crimes, "the limited distinction between knowledge and purpose has not been considered important." In United States v. Bailey, the U.S. Supreme Court stated that in a "general sense, 'purpose' corresponds loosely with the common-law concept of specific intent, while 'knowledge' corresponds loosely with the concept of 'general intent.'"

Willful Blindess Rule

Willful Blindness Rule: the trial judge can instruct the jury to find "knowledge" if it finds the defendant deliberately avoided learning the facts The U. S. Supreme Court has held that under that rule, for willful blindness to serve as a substitute for actual knowledge: the defendant must subjectively believe that there is a high probability that a fact exists AND the defendant must take deliberate actions to avoid learning of that fact In such a case, with respect to that element, the statute becomes one of "strict liability."