Criminal Law

Actual Provocation

"Passion" with which D acted is typically RAGE And it would have arisen the rage in the average, reasonable person! It must be real and immediate . . . not a provocation that MIGHT happen in the future Threats of FUTURE VIOLENCE do not count!

Actus Reus

Criminal Act

Culpability

Culpability = the extent to which a Defendant's mens rea (coupled with their actus reus) demonstrates he/she deserves punishment

Material Element

Human Being....No pets allowed

Some types of mistakes don't matter

If Pam actually possess cocaine, but thought it was heroine She is mistaken to a fact (that she possesses cocaine), but it is IMMATERIAL to her forming the requisite MENS REA for the crime (possessing a controlled substance)

Conclusion: All SI crimes are GI crimes, but not all GI crimes are SI crimes,

LOOK FOR WORDS, ACTIONS OR DEEDS

Mistake

Look at the effect the particular mistake has on D's MENTAL STATE, and examine whether the D was prevented from forming the requisite mental state for the crime because of the mistake Whether Fact or Law

Mens Reas

Purposefully Knowingly Recklessly, or Negligently

Affirmative Defenses-Quit/Fail Intent

Quit His Intent Abandonment/Renunciation Fail His Intent Impossibility

Misdirected Anger

Rule Reaction must be reasonable and directed at the party related to triggering the sudden provocation

Affirmative Defenses

Two Categories Justifications Self Defense Defense of Others Necessity Abandonment/Impossibility Excuses Duress (Coercion) Entrapment Insanity Mistake of Fact Intoxication (Involuntary)

Self-Defense

Use of Force is Justifiable -- when committed for the following purposes: 1) Prevent a FORCIBLE offense against your person Self Defense Defense of Others 2) Prevent a FORCIBLE offense or trespass to property in a person's lawful possession Defense of Property

Unconsciousness

Where the subject physically acts in fact, but is not, at the time, conscious of acting

Complete but Imperfect

all the necessary acts are completed, but the attempt fails for some reason shoot to kill you, but wearing a bullet proof vest and you don't die attempted murder shoot to kill you, but the bullet misses or the gun misfires attempted murder

Voluntary Manslaughter

recognizes homicide without malice circumstances mitigate D's intent STILL MUST SHOW INTENT TO KILL

Limitations-Initial Aggressor

"A Person who is the aggressor or who brings on a difficulty cannot claim the right to self-defense unless he withdraws from the conflict in good faith and in such a manner that his adversary knows or should know that he desires to withdraw and discontinue the conflict" "D Must be ENTIRELY free from fault in provoking the altercation"

Medically Prescribed Intoxication

D takes drugs prescribed by Physician But, they have the affect of Intoxicating the D D . . . MUST TAKE DRUG ACCORDING THE PRESCRIPTION! To Raise This Defense, D Must Meet . . . 3 Requirements . . . by a preponderance of the Evidence 1) D must not know, or have reason to know, that he is likely intoxicating himself 2) Prescribed Drug MUST be cause of D's Intoxication 3) D, due to intoxication, is temporarily insane

Imminence

Death or GBH must be Impending Based on Reasonableness of D's Belief Measured by Time At that Moment Measured by Belief D's Belief of Imminence Must be Objectively Reasonable This is a Really Tricky Analysis . . . YOU MUST REASONABLY ANALYZE THE FACTS!! Limitations Death or GBH that Will Occur in the Future is Not Imminent Possibility that D will Kill/Attack You Later is Not Enough WHY??? 1) Not Practical Certainty Attack Will Occur 2) Possibility to Leave to Prevent Future Attack 3) Too Great Possibility of Intervening Acts

Words as Reasonable Provocation

Defendants who kill in response to provocative words -- insults, slurs, and taunts -- find difficulty raising a voluntary manslaughter defense words conveying information of a fact which constitutes adequate provocation when that fact is observed would constitute adequate provocation

Factual v. Legal Impossibility

Difference of Analysis & Lynchpin of the Two Turns on D's Intent Ask the question 1) What does D intend to do? a) To Commit a Crime that is in fact a crime, but D is unaware of some fact that prevents him from carrying out his/her intent D fails at his intent due to some fact Factual Impossibility No Defense!!! To Put it Mildly: Look for a D who basically sucks at being a criminal!! b) To commit a crime that is in fact not a crime, but D does not know this D succeeds in carrying out his intent, but has not committed a crime Legal Impossibility Defense (in some jurisdictions) Consider our drug dealer 1) Intends to sell cocaine to a buyer, which unbeknownst to him, is sugar The act the D wanted to commit (sell cocaine) was prohibited under criminal law, but the D was unable to accomplish his intent because of some fact unknown to the D Factual Impossibility! No Defense 2) Intends to sell refined sugar to a buyer who in fact is drug dealer The Act the D intended to commit (sell sugar ) was not a crime, so fact that he attempted to sell it to a drug dealer (or even an undercover officer posing as a drug dealer), makes the attempt Legally Impossible!! D has a defense of L/I because even if he did everything he intended, he would not have committed a crime Might have done something stupid that would normally get him killed, but he has not committed a crime

2.01(3) Limits Liability for Omissions

Expressly Made a Basis for Liability Or Duty to Act Imposed by Law

Agency Doctrine

FM does not extend to a killing although growing out of the commission of the felony, if DIRECTLY ATTRIBUTABLE to the act of someone other than the D or those associated with him Thus, if killing is directly attributable to the act of another, other than the D, then he cannot be charged with FM RATIONALE NOT RIGHT TO CHARGE SOMEONE WITH ACT COMMITTED BY SOMEONE WHO WAS NOT A PART OF THE AGENCY PARTNERSHIP/AGREEMENT ESPECIALLY IF THAT SOME COMMITTED MURDER LAWFULLY Justifiable Homicide Self Defense Defense of Others Citizens Arrest

Malice

General Malevolence, or cold-blooded desire to injure Found in underlying motive rather than the actual intent of the actor Intent to Kill a victim Intent to cause grave bodily harm Gross Indifference to the Risk of Death or the great bodily harm to the victim

General Structure of Homicide Cases

General Structure of Homicide Crimes The Actus Reus Killing TWO WAYS An Affirmative Taking of Someone's Life Express Malice Omission if there is a legal duty established special relationship contract Implied Malice When Does Death Occur Depends on the Jurisdiction Moment Heart Stops

Find Specific Intent to commit particular crime

1) Test: Would D have been guilty of a crime if his intention had been fully consummated? Neither Gross Negligence nor constructive Intent will suffice Need Specific Intent to commit the uncompleted crime 2) S/I need not be stated. If it is, somewhere in the evidence then you have enough. It can be proven either by direct evidence or may be inferred from the circumstances I.E. An attempt to kill can be inferred from the use of a dangerous weapon 3) it is irrelevant whether there is a factual impossibility of committing the intended offense An attempted homicide may fail because the gun used is defective or was loaded mistakenly with blanks

Types of Involuntary Intoxication

1. Coerced Intoxication 2. Pathological Intoxication 3. Innocent Intoxication 4. Medically Prescribed Intoxication

Inchoate Crimes

1. Complete but Imperfect 2. Incomplete

Can find specific intent by...

1. D's words/conduct 2. attendant circumstances 3. intentional use of deadly weapon

Separate Degrees of Homicide

Focus on the D's Mens Rea before, during and after crime

Required Intent Requirements of Inchoate Crimes

For Attempted Crimes Must Satisfy Two Things Requisite "intent" for the Attempt Specific Intent AND . . . Requisite Intent/Elements for the Underlying Crime Based on the Statute . . .

Recklessly

GENERAL INTENT D "knows there is a substantial risk involved, and CONSCIOUSLY DISREGARDS IT And DISREGARDING is a gross deviation from the standard of conduct that most Law-Abiding citizens would follow!! LAW ABIDING PERSON = REASONABLE PERSON

Negligently

GENERAL INTENT D "should be aware of a substantial risk" Failure to recognize it is a gross deviation from the standard of conduct that a reasonable law abiding citizen would follow!

Duress/Coercion

"AGAINST MY FREE WILL" defense!! A defendant who raises a defense of duress or coercion has actually done everything to constitute the actus reus of the crime and has the mens rea because he or she INTENDED to do it in order to avoid some threatened or actual harm by a third party. Thus, some degree of culpability already attaches to the defendant for what was done. although, if the reason for acting is EXCUSED this may reduce the sentence AND WOULD ALSO HAVE OVERWHELMED THE WILL OF A PERSON OF ORDINARY COURAGE thus rendering otherwise VOLUNTARY behavior completely INVOLUNTARY Difference between the two . . . Duress = speaks to a mental state that someone put you in to make you act against YOUR FREE WILL . . . you had no choice!!! . . . yes i signed the contract but it was under duress because he was Blackmailing me or was holding my family as ransom! Coercion = speaks to a physical act . . . to physically make someone do something which they are unwilling to do . . . Yes i signed the contract, but he grabbed my hand and made me move the pen or coerced me by putting a gun to my head!! DO NOT APPLY IN HOMICIDE CASES

Duties

1) Statute Imposes Duty to Act File Income Taxes Register for the Draft 2) Status Relationship Imposes a Duty to Act Parent/Child 3) Contractual Relationship Imposes a Duty to Act LifeGuard/Drowning Person, Doctor/Patient Police Officer and Firemen?? Caretaker/Babysitter? 4) Voluntary Assumption to Care for Another prevents others from Rendering Aid. Cannot Undertake to Assist Another and then Quit, if it would leave person in a worse situation prior to the Undertaking 5) Place Victim in Harms Way Have an Affirmative Duty to Act Cannot push person into pool and then watch them drown.

Test for Inchoate Crimes

1) Find the Specific Intent to commit a particular crime 2) Find the Overt Act done in furtherance of accomplishing the crime 3) Lynchpin to the Analysis: Detect the difference BW Abandonment vs. Mere Postponement

5 points to evaluate Self-Defense

1) Honest AND Reasonable Fear of Death or GBH 2) Imminence 3) Proportionality 4) Initial Aggressor 5) Duty to Retreat

Initial Aggressor v. Responsive Aggressor

1) Initial 1) Defendant cannot claim SD if they act "first" Might even include "firing the first shot" even if the victim was armed. Confusion by Jurisdictions Does Not Apply to Traditional S/D Analysis Only Applies When D sets Acts in Motion Then Wants to Claim S/D 2) Responsive Responding to Victim 1) Must be reasonable response to the act Cannot go beyond what is reasonably required to prevent harm to himself

Provocation Time Elapse

1) Passion must arise at the time of the offensive contact/conduct and the killing must be against the person who actually caused the provocation Or someone closely related 2) Stronger Case if D kills IMMEDIATELY following the Provocative act!! IF D experiences provocative act, but then leaves to buy gun, ammunition, load gun, and return, it arguably should not be Manslaughter. 3) Must be such as naturally and instantly to produce in the minds of ordinary people the highest level of exasperation An Ordinary Reasonable Person must have responded the same way Be Careful not to Use a SUBJECTIVE standard here no one cares if it might not have caused YOU to be PERSONALLY to be provoked 4) Look for sudden rage, resentment, or terror rendering the mind incapable of cool reflection. If the D leaves the scene or otherwise has time to think about event, and in the process of thinking blood boils, then it is not Manslaughter 5) Violent Slaps to the Head Get a Free Pass on this one!! Will always be considered enough provocation Still have to explain why!!!

Aforethought

1) Question of Premeditation or skillful planning of the emurder 2) Inferred from the Facts

Felony Murder

1. Does not require that the D actually have the intent to kill. Instead it supplants his intent to kill from his intent to commit the felonious act (Theory of Transferred Intent). Rationale: Some acts are so dangerous that it is foreseeable that someone could get killed during their commission. 2. Could be considered "bad luck" murder doctrine. BC we are holding the D accountable for unplanned things going wrong! 3. The idea is that the person who decides to commit a felony should be held strictly liable if death occurs whether he intended it or not. 4. Main Punishment Goal is Deterrence 1. Specifically deter persons (and co-felons) from committing felonies Deter People from engaging in serious felonies by holding them liable for all the carnage regardless if the killing is negligent or accidental 2. Generally deter people (and co-felons) from committing crimes Deter criminal behavior in general by letting D know that they will be accountable whether intended or not

Defense argument: No premeditation

1. Insufficient Time Between Act and Thought 2. No proof of "planning" 3) No Malice bc D actions were bought on by Impulse from a sadistic nagging wife

Duress Requirements

1. The threat must be of serious bodily harm or death Threats to YOUR PROPERTY are not allowed!! 2. The threatened harm must be greater than the harm caused by the crime i.e. threatening someone's life vs. stealing money! LIFE for LIFE exchange does not work would raise to many complex issues about HOW TO VALUE HUMAN LIFE!! 3. The threat must be immediate and inescapable Future Threats Do Not Count! 4. The defendant must have become involved in the situation through no fault of his or her own This usually comes up in Conspiracy cases . . . . particularly against gang members or mobsters

Objectives of Actus Reus

1. To Learn How the Law Defines Crimal Acts 2. To Determine how the Law Distinguishes Voluntary Acts from Involuntary Acts 3. Discuss the Importance of the Act Requirement in the Criminal Statutes

Malice(cont.)

1. particular ill will 2. wickedness of disposition 3. hardness of heart 4. wanton conduct 5. cruelty 6. recklessness of consequences

Factors Required to Show Killing was Necessary

1. possibility of retreat 2. excitement and confusion of the occasion 3. a lesser amount of force or a possibility of retreat 4. previous knowledge of the assailant's bad character

To Use Deadly Force

2) FORCE committed in a) self-defense by one who b) Honestly and reasonably believes that he is in c) imminent danger of losing life or receiving GBH and that KILLING is d) necessary to save himself from danger Burden shifts to the D and he/she MUST PROVE ALL 4 ELEMENTS 1) D Acted in Defense Of Self 2) Premised Upon a Honest and Reasonable Fear 3) Of Imminent Death or GBH 4) D's USE OF FORCE was No More than Necessary (Proportional) to Thwart the DANGER/GBH Two Limitations 5) Aggressor Initial Responsive 6) Retreat Castle Doctrine

Involuntary Intoxication(Specific Intent)

ALWAYS A DEFENSE

Find Overt Act in furtherance of accomplishing crime

Act must be beyond "mere preparation" to commit the offense Look for the "crossing point" Also known as "substantial step" Preparation defined as "devising or arranging of the means necessary to commit the crime." Planning, no matter how detailed or devious, is nothing more than mere preparation Mere Preparation Difference b/w overt act and mere preparation is one of degree Look for substantial Steps 1) How far has the D gone in completing the criminal act? 2) What has D done? How far has D gone in satisfying his criminal intent?? 3) Need not be the ultimate step or last possible act prior to full commission of the crime

Active Participation v. Mere Involvement

Active participation includes firing a gun or pushing the plunger on a hypodermic needle - the final overt act that causes death. Furnishing the means to commit suicide, on the other hand, constitutes mere involvement in events preceding a suicide and does not rise to the level of murder.

Year and a Day Rule

Acts like a statute of Limitations on Criminal Homicide . . . killing not a murder if more than one year and day intervene between the injury and the death of the victim

Affirmative Defenses

Affirmative Defenses The defendant concedes that he committed the alleged acts, but he proves other facts which, under the law, either justify or excuse his otherwise wrongful actions, Burden of Proof on D to establish his/her defense Preponderance of the Evidence Beyond a Reasonable Doubt

Mens Rea Defenses

Affirmative v. Mitigation Defenses

MPC 2.01(1) 2.01(1) Limits Criminal Liability to persons engaged in a VOLUNTARY ACT or OMITTING TO PERFORM AN ACT OF WHICH THE PERSON IS PHYSICALLY CAPABLE.

An Act is not involuntary simply because the actor did not mean to do it or did not desire the outcome Instead, an act is voluntary because the D engaged in some muscle movement coupled with a state of mind. If someone is not conscious of what he is doing . . . then there can be no act!! And the MPC defines those acts that are considered INVOLUNTARY for you so that you do not have to guess!!

Two Main Approaches to Abandonment

Approach 1) Common Law Rule -- NO ABANDONMENT once you move beyond the substantial step, there is no turning back. The attempt itself is a completed crime, therefore not possible to un-commit it!! Rule: when the steps reach the stage of constituting an attempt, there can be no exculpatory abandonment because it is one of the purposes of the criminal law to protect society from those who want to injure it Approach 2) Modern Trend (MPC) -- Abandonment a Possibility Allows abandonment when it is truly voluntary 1) Must be voluntary and complete!!! And can occur beyond the substantial step mere postponement will not suffice 2) MPC Goes a little further Must not only be a voluntary and complete renunciation the crime, the D must also outwardly manifest a SINCERE CHANGE OF HEART Defense is Unavoidable once the D "puts in motion events that he is Powerless to stop" D gains no immunity when he fires and misses All he can do is not fire a second shot

Sometimes Third

As in PA generally killing of all other kinds w malice Gross reckless disregard will suffice-no aforethought needed

Inchoate Crimes

Attempted but failed to achieve their ultimate goal/ criminal acts Not every criminal succeeds at crime: 1) Some try their best and Fail 2) Some change their mind and stop short of their goals 3) Some get caught before they can complete their crimes. INSTEAD: we punish thoughts when they are coupled with a substantial act towards completing that thought Specific Intent + Substantial Step in Furtherance of that Intent!!

Proximate Cause Theory

D liable for "any death proximately resulting from the unlawful activity -- notwithstanding the fact that the killing was by one resisting the crime." Typical PC analysis based on Foreseeability of harm in any act that you place in motion through a chain of events.

Manslaughter

Closest To General Intent Analysis for Homicide Generally thought to be killings w/o malice Voluntary Involuntary

Honest but not Reasonable

Consider some Examples in Context of Criminal Law Consider: Man sees a co-worker who he has had uncomfortable encounters with in the past at a company picnic waving a plastic knife at him. Because of previous run-ins, he believes co-worker will try and attack him. He therefore shoots and kills him. Is his belief HONEST? Most probably so, based on past circumstances of previous run-ins Is his belief REASONABLE? Most certainly NOT!! The only threat was a plastic knife and it did not warrant the use of deadly force

Wrong but Reasonable

Consider: A D sees a person point a gun at him and shoots first to avoid injury. The gun later turns out to be a starter pistol. Is his belief HONEST? YES, a gun was pointed at him. Is his belief REASONABLE? YES, he is not required to be correct but only to establish that most people would fear for their life if a gun (although it later turns out to be a toy) is pointed at them Tamir Rice

Battered Woman's Syndrome

Courts, however, have allowed evidence of the Abuse as a "Special Consideration" in Self Defense Cases Where Psychologist/Psychiatrists have agreed that the Cycle of Abuse is Legally Relevant to the D's Mental State and Her Actus Reus Thus, it turns basic S/D Analysis into a Subjective" one as opposed to the purely traditionally Objective one.

Shifting SD Doctrine

Creates the Problem of the "Shifting SD Doctrine" Ask: Does D's actions turn the initial attacker into a Victim? Examples: Winning the Fight "D continues to punch and kick victim even though victim fell to the ground and D's first punch had stopped Victim." "D was in control of situation, victim, who appeared to be unconscious, was completely defenseless, and D continued beating victim" "Although D initially was fighting to prevent being shot, he kicked and stomped unconscious victim and had to be physically restrained by friend"

Shooting a Dead Body: Factual v. Legal Impossibility

D fires five shots into the head two to five minutes after another person shot the victim three times Turns on what did he intend to do? Shoot a Live Person? But the person is actually dead, then this a factual impossibility Shoot a Dead Person? i.e. put more bullets into a corpse Then this is a legal impossibility

Coerced Intoxication

D forced to ingest alcohol or drug D is forced to swallow LSD at gunpoint Not Held Liable For their Acts because NO INTENT TO CONSUME DRUGS/ALCOHOL!

Innocent Intoxication

D is unaware that he is ingesting alcohol or a drug Someone spikes D's drink or medication with LSD Complete Defense to G/I Crimes UNLESS D KNEW at time that he took the drug that the effects were unpredictable i.e. D offered Molly at a party but doesn't know what it is . . . D then told it is a "little happy pill." He may be unwitting as to what the pill is but he cannot claim involuntary intoxication on the grounds that he did not know what the effect of the unknown substance

Death

Discussion. This case follows the trend among U.S. courts that death can be either a cessation of cardiorespiratory function or a cessation of brain function. Generally, the courts will utilized a two tier approach where death is determined first by the traditional method of cessation of cardiorespiratory function, but it may be determined by cessation of brain function if the victim is being kept alive by medical technology.

Mitigating Defenses

Disproves an Element of the Prosecutions Case No Burden of Proof on the D

Felony Murder

Either as principal or accomplice Commission Of . . . Attempt to Commit . . . Flight After Committing . . . Specific Enumeration Robbery, Rape, Deviate Sexual Intercourse by Force or Threat of Force, Arson, Burglary, or Kidnapping In PA you cannot force someone to have sex through a Threat!

Provocation

Heat of Passion/blood Hot headed reaction without time to cool down This is your Manslaughters Adequate/Reasonable Before reasonable time allowed for the blood to cool Must be such that it might render Ordinary Men, of fair average disposition, liable to act rashly or without due deliberation

First Degree

Highest Level of Criminal Culpability and Highest Level of Punishment Involves Conscious Desire to Act and Achieve the Result Specific Intent Analysis

Honest and Reasonable Fear

Honest as a Subjective Standard Reasonableness as an Objective Standard Criteria: D's conduct is justified only when society, which would be represented by the jury, agrees with D! In these instances, "special circumstances" particular to the D are only enough to establish HONEST belief, unless the jury would have reacted/acted in the same manner as the D, given the same situation. Test: Does D's belief reflect what most of society would believe if faced with the same circumstances? If so, then it is a reasonable one. Standard asks you not to claim what you "personally" would have done, but what would most of society have done? CAVEAT: A Belief can be HONEST but not REASONABLE INSTEAD, FOCUS ON THE REASONABLENESS OF THE D'S BELIEF!! Important Limitation: You can be Wrong . . . and Still Be Reasonable

Factual Impossibility-Attempt

Impossibility of fact is no defense to attempt Occurs when D intends to commit a crime, but some fact prevents the D from succeeding "But for that fact, the crime would have been committed" D wants to kill people with bomb, but bomb wont explode or people have been evacuated D wants to kill with anthrax, but unbeknownst to her, the anthrax is talcum powder D wants to distribute cocaine, but unbeknownst to her, it turns out to be refined sugar mixed with flour Factual impossibilities (failed bomb, talcum powder, refined sugar) preclude the target crime from being achieved but for that fact, the crime would have occurred NO DEFENSE!!!

BWS Second Issue: Imminence

How does a pattern and history of abuse affect the Imminence Requirement in SD analysis Limited Situations SD is limited to those situations where the D faces imminent, or immediate, threat of physical harm In which the D is allowed to defend themselves until the threat no longer exists. And if the threat is to life or GBH, then the D is justified in committing a homicide to guard himself. Original Interpretation Objective standard was strictly applied, requiring that the threat be present at the very moment that the defendant defends themselves Required CERTAINTY: Which didn't make sense b/c you can be wrong and still be reasonable under modern SD law Now, the test is whether a reasonable person would have believed the threat from the victim was imminent Remember A preemptive strike is illegal force used to soon while a retaliation against a successful aggressor is illegal force used too late Imminence defined "immediate danger, such must be instantly met, such that cannot be guarded by calling for the assistance of others for protection." MPC: 3.04: "immediately necessary for the purpose of protecting himself against the use of unlawful force. . . on the present occasion." No Alternatives There must be no alternative to using force against the other person if the threat is not imminent, then the D is required to use alternative, usually lawful, measures to avoid the conflict Non-Confrontational B/W Cases Ct says, "where torture appears interminable and escape impossible, the belief that only death of the batterer can provide relief may be reasonable in the mind of the person of ordinary firmness"

Cooled Passion

If the jury finds either that the D blood had cooled, or that a reasonable person's blood would have cooled, murder charge cannot be mitigated to manslaughter Consider Cases, Elapsed Time

Homicide

If there is a dead body....someone is going to jail. Dead demands responsibility

Detect difference between Abandonment v. Mere Postponement

In order to ABANDON their Attempted crime, and thus avoid punishment D must declare unequivocally that his intent to commit the charged crime is gone Declaration can be seen in the acts as well as words Look for the D to FULLY QUIT AND RENOUNCE his/her SPECIFIC INTENT!!! Mere Postponement is never enough: PUTTING IT OFF UNTIL LATER!! Neither is abandonment b/c of detection CAN'T QUIT JUST BEFORE YOU GOT CAUGHT! Especially after you have taken the substantial step!!

So, on exam look to see

Is D being charged with an attempted crime that he actually completed If yes, then the Attempt charge is illegitimate!!!

Justification v. Excuses

Justification Acts which the law does not condemn, but even welcomes. The D's Actus Reus is not wrongful because it is JUSTIFIED at its inception through to completion Focus is on the "Act" Excuse The Act is wrong, and even should be condemned, but the D should not be subjected to punishment because of his psychological or emotional involuntariness. The D's Actus Reus is wrongful, but no justice would be served in punishing the D -- thus we EXCUSE the behavior. Focus on the "Actor"

Feticide

Killing of a fetus

Infanticide

Killing of an infant

Patricide

Killing of one's parents

Limitations on Felony Murder

Limitation 1: Inherently Dangerous Felonies Limitation 2: Agency Doctrine/Proximate Cause Limitation 3: PA Analysis Subscribes to Proximate Cause Theory Includes killings by Police Officers who resist the crime Except when a police officer kills a co-felon (Commonwealth v. Redline, 137 A2d 472 (Pa. 1958) Rationales 1) killing is justifiable 2) co-felons's lives are less valued 3) felons assume risk of dying Killings by victims/bystanders who resist the crime

Involuntary Intoxication(General Intent)

MAY BE A DEFENSE D can establish that 1. He was in an incapacitated mental state (intoxicated); and Does not solely have to be alcohol 2. he arrived at that state involuntarily without knowledge that he was intoxicating himself

Voluntary Intoxication(Specific Intent)

MIGHT BE A DEFENSE IT DEPENDS ON IF THE D WAS TOO DRUNK TO FORM THE REQUISITE MENTAL STATE TO commit a S/I Crime!!

Pathological Intoxication

Medication/Alcohol has an unexpected "Grossly Excessive" effect D takes aspirin but was unaware that the aspirin would produce an unnatural affect on him as LSD would on others. NOT HELD LIABLE FOR THEIR ACTS, BC DEFENDANT NOT AWARE OF SPECIAL SUSCEPTIBILITY

Adequate and Reasonable Provocation

Note 3: Adequate/Reasonable Provocation At Common Law, only a limited number of events were deemed sufficient to provoke the Reasonable Person (1) a serious assault or battery; (2) witnessing an act of adultery by one's wife; (3) mutual combat; (4) unlawful arrest; (5) commission of a crime against a close relative party related to triggering the sudden provocation PA Agrees With this Interpretation

Necessity

NECESSITY IS KNOWN AS THE "CHOICE OF Lesser EVILS" DEFENSE and is ALSO A MENS REA DEFENSE! Defendants relying on this defense usually argue that they should not be held criminally culpable because their conduct was NECESSARY to prevent some greater harm Similar to Duress, because the D is allowed to commit what would otherwise be a criminal act in order to save his own life Thus, we typically classify it as a JUSTIFICATION A Necessity defense usually arises when the D is faced with two situations and chose to break the law at the expense of the other greater peril Even well drafted statutes cannot account for every real-life situation. Sometimes, unexpected circumstances FORCE or MAKE IT NECESSARY for people to engage in illegal behavior If the D is faced with 2 evils and choses the one that is less harmful to the MOST of society

Voluntary Intoxication(General Intent)

NOT A DEFENSE SINCE G/I CRIME focus on the ACT . . . What Matters is the ACT OF GETTING VOLUNTARILY INTOXICATED! Therefore, you complete the requisite state of mind simply by engaging in the RECKLESS OR NEGLIGENT ACT of voluntarily intoxicating Yourself! Since some crimes are defined by the commission of the act, the fact that the D did not intend to commit them is of no consequence

Insufficient Time

Not Enough Time between Thought and the Criminal Act RULE: Premeditation Does not Require a Long Time. In fact, the law fixes no length of time to form Specific Intent Circumstances of the Crime Indicate No Planning Rule: Jury Question, Circumstances do not negate Premeditation

Exception to Duty

Not Required to Place Yourself in Harms Way to Prevent the Harm to Another Omission based on fact that you might die if you render aid, even if you have a legal duty to do so, will not satisfy Actus Reus of a crime.

Legal Impossibility

Occurs when the D intends to commit a crime which later turns out not to be a crime And it is not a fact that prevents the commission, but instead the law prevents criminal culpability D intends to Speed on the autobahn no speed limit D intends to Steal napkins from McDonalds items are free D intends to sell refined sugar as if it were cocaine no crime to sell sugar COMPLETE DEFENSE!!

Omissions

Omissions punishes a failure to Act, which in itself constitutes an Act A Voluntary Movement of the Muscles under the Control of the Mind A Failure to Act (Omission) When One is Under a Duty to So.

Proportionality

Only Allowed To Use the required amount of force necessary to repel the attack Raises Question of how much force/violence is necessary to "truly" defend oneself Is basically a question of "Excessive Force" If Defendant's use of force is excessive (i.e. attacker has been repelled but D still fights), then right to claim SD goes away. Common Question: How does one measure Proportionality??? IF I BRING A KNIFE . . . CAN YOU PULL OUT A GUN? absolutely!! IF I BRING FISTS . . . CAN YOU BRING A GUN? WHAT IF I AM A PRO BOXER/MMA FIGHTER AND MY HANDS ARE REGISTERED AS LETHAL WEAPONS?? Yes

Mens Rea

Ordinarily, acts alone do not constitute a criminal offense, even if they cause harm GENERAL RULE: All Criminal Acts Must Be Accompanied By One Of Several Particular Mental States In Order To Constitute A Crime. Only with the Mens Rea as it Relates to the Interests of Others Specifically, If One Acted With PURPOSE or KNOWLEDGE of harming others OR . . . With DISREGARD OF A RISK that results in harming others

Inherently Dangerous Felonies

People v. Howard (Cal. 2005) Felony must be one that is considered inherently Dangerous "By its very nature . . . cannot be committed without creating a substantial risk that someone might be killed"

Cycles of Abuse

Phase One Tension-Building Stage battering male engages in minor battering and verbal abuse of the woman, brought on by fear, tension, and attempts to be placating to stave off more serious violence Phase Two Acute-Battering Stage More Serious Violence Occurs Phase Three Contrition and Loving Behavior Stage Marked by forgiveness and protestations of devotion with promises to seek professional help

Prior Knowledge?

Prior knowledge of a condition that might render your ability to operate a dangerous automobile successfully is significant to whether you acted with negligence

Voluntary Manslaughter

Provocation or imperfect self defense If at time of Killing, acting under sudden or intense passion resulting from serious provocation by 1) the individual Killed; or Killing spouse 2) Another whom the actor endeavors to kill but he negligently or accidentally causes the death of the individual killed Rule Reaction must be reasonable and directed at the party related to triggering the sudden provocation PA Agrees With this Interpretation PA Model No Limitation on the TYPE of Provocation

Impulse reactions

Pyschiatrist Argued . . . Court did not accept because of D's own words following his arrest and at his trial. RULE: D's own words and actions establish a "plan" because they were deliberate 1. Remembered a Gun 2. deliberately took it down 3. deliberately fired two shots into head of his sleeping wife

Intoxication

Question of Intoxication as an Defense to Mens Rea really depends on what the D is being charged with A Specific Intent Crime General Intent Crime AND How the D is Intoxicated Voluntarily Involuntarily Differences b/w Witnesses observations of D and his own account of his state of intoxication D able to write "Stick up" note shortly before robbery...

Involuntary Manslaughter

Reckless or Gross Negligence Death Occurs

2.01(2): 4 Bodily Movements that Are Deemed Involuntary

Reflex or Convulsion Unconscious Acts/Sleep Hypnosis/Hypnotic Suggestion Not a Product of the effort or Determination of the Actor (i.e. Forced Hand Movement) Grade School "stick on the shoulder" example

General Intent

Requires only a showing that D desired to commit the act (as opposed to cause the consequences) which served as the actus reus of the crime. Ex. Public Drunkeness(Appears)

Specific Intent

Requires that D, in addition to bring about the actus reus, he must have specifically desired to satisfy the crime!!. Ex. Simple Burglary ( intent to commit a felony or theft therein) Must enter into the dwelling with the (specific) intent to commit a felony or theft therein

Aggressive Driving

Rule: Aggressive Driving Not intended for VM Fails "Reasonable Person" Standard Although an ordinary person would have been angered by being cut-off in traffic A reasonable person would not have pursued engaged in pursuit and ego-inspired act of mutual road rage

Purposefully

SPECIFIC INTENT Conscious Desire to Cause the Result

Knowingly

SPECIFIC INTENT D (might not consciously desire) but is practically Certain of the Result

BWS Third Issue: Initial Aggressor

Simply, the D used Deadly Force first . . . If she fought back while she was under attack, then no problem with SD analysis In State v. Norman . . . Judge Martin (dissenting) noted, "At no time is the defendant entitled to use self-defense if he/she was the initial aggressor."

Withdrawal or Retreat

Simply: The right to self-defend ends when you are no longer losing the battle 1) Person who is aggressor cannot claim SD unless he withdraws from the conflict in good faith or in a manner that his adversary knows or should know that he desires to withdraw. Remember: A Good Faith Retreat does not mean that you cannot re-defend yourself if necessary. Look for words or deeds that the D no longer wants to engage the conflict

States differ w/Retreat

Some States Make it Explicit in the Language of the Statute "the actor knows that he can avoid the necessity of using such force with complete safety by retreating . . ." (A) the actor is not obliged to retreat from his dwelling or place of work, unless he was the initial aggressor or is assailed in his place of work by another person whose place of work the actor knows it to be; Other states claim it is encompassed in the language of Common Law self defense It presumes that it is understood within the "necessary" language of S/D Remember, in order for a homicide to be justifiable at Common Law, it must be "necessary" and it can't be "necessary" if there is a possibility to retreat

Adultery as a Reasonable Provocation

Statute/common law based

Second Degree

Still High Level of C/C and High Level of Punishment Usually Involved Some Interpretation of Conscious Desire to Act, but Not Necessarily a Desire to Bring About the Result Specific Intent/General Intent Modified Analysis Felony Murder Statute

Duress v. Necessity

The Presence of a "Threat" by a Third Party! Necessity can be raised only when the defendant committed the act as a result of physical forces of nature Duress is raised when the defendant committed his acts as a result of threats by another person

Rationale for Heat of Passion

There are some events that a person might experience that might temporarily suspend their good judgment not to harm others If the events are so provocative . . . Then we could say the defendant acted temporarily insane As long as once the provocative act ceases so also does the defendants mentally incapacitated state Then we will mitigate the murder charge to a Manslaughter charge

Castle Doctrine

There is no need to retreat inside your own Castle . . . Meaning in a space/home/business as long as you have a lawful right to be there Recently states have extended the castle Doctrine to allow Citizens to Stand their Ground in the general public Meaning that the castle doctrine's duty to retreat is extended to the general public and is the common law duty to retreat is completely abrogated. But, still must satisfy a traditional SD analysis There must be a threat of death or GBH Must be Defending yourself or your property Must be Imminent Danger The only thing that changes . . . is no duty to retreat

Requirements of Necessity

a) Faced with a choice between 2 evils b) he had no reasonable alternative; c) there is IMMINENT HARM d) D chose the lesser harm Some States additionally require . . . 1) D ceases to engage in the prohibited conduct as soon as the danger passes and Thus, with the "drunk driver" example cited above, the necessity defense will not be recognized if the defendant drove the friend to the hospital and then drove home afterwards (i.e. did not cease breaking the law as soon as the greater evil was over) or if some other reasonable alternative was available to him. such as an Ambulance Service 2) D did not himself create the danger he sought to avoid. And probably because his drunken state was voluntary

BWS First Issue: Honesty and Reasonableness

What are the ISSUES related to measuring reasonableness in cases of BW who shoot an abusive, but sleeping, spouse Sub-Issue #1: By which standard of reasonableness should we judge women who are in abusive relationships and what are the special issues affecting those self-defense situations? If, Objective Standard Then are we being fair to the special circumstances, or special proclivity, that arise out of the nature of abusive relationships? If, Subjective Standard How do we set limits on what might be considered an "unmeasurable" mental state and does such standard fly in the face of what should be required to use deadly force?

BWS Fourth Issue: Retreat

Why doesn't she just leave Remember . . . It can't be necessary if the D has a means of retreat So . . . don't kill him while he was asleep . . . just get in the car and leave!

Is there a situation in which unconscious acts will be considered to be acts?

YES Unconsciousness matters as a complete defense if the D self-induces the unconscious state?

Incomplete

some but not all the acts necessary to complete the crime are performed catch you when you pull the gun out, but before you shoot it attempted murder WE WILL FOCUS ON THIS ONE FOR OUR DISCUSSIONS/EXAM!!

No proof of planning

time and place, difficulty of removing the body, lack of escape plan all dictate that he did not plan this killing that is a jury question!!