Criminal Law - 2

Conspiracy

Conspiracy requires a specific intent to achieve the object of the conspiracy, but does not require that the act actually be carried out.

"But for" cause

Means if it weren't for an actor's conduct, the result wouldn't have occurred.

Negligent

Negligence is about risk creation. Negligence is about unconsciously creating risks. The test is completely objective, namely that the actors should have known, even though in fact they did not know, they were creating risks. Also has to create "substantial and unjustifiable risks."

Motive

The reason the criminal committed the crime, but the intent can be different.

Smallwood

intent to kill. evidence was insufficient.

State v. Stark

2nd degree assault with intent to inflict bodily harm--Stark is exposing people to HIV and knows he has it. Intent to inflict to bodily harm. Court affirms convictions.

Intervening Cause

Facts in addition to the cause

Expectation of Privacy

Fourth Amendment protections apply only when an individual's reasonable expectation of privacy has been violated by government authorities (e.g., the warrantless search of a house).

Liability without Fault (Strict Liability)

In strict liability cases, the prosecutor has to prove only that defendants committed a voluntary criminal act that caused harm.

Culpability/Blameworthiness

It is fair and just to punish only people we can blame.

Specific Intent

Some courts limit specific intent to the attitudes represented by subjective fault, where there's a "bad"mind or will that triggers the act. The most common definition of specific intent is general intent "plus."

Exclusionary Rule

Trial courts are required to exclude presentation of any evidence that is obtained as a result of a constitutional violation. If you're allowed to search the floor for stuff and you find weed in a locked attic, that cannot be used as evidence because you were not supposed to search the attic

"Substantial and Unjustifiable Risks"

Criminal recklessness requires more than awareness of ordinary risks; it requires awareness of "substantial and unjustifiable risks."

Criminal statutes (as opposed to civil law)

Criminal statutes are a protection of society, and the violation of a criminal law results in a penalty to the violator such as a fine or imprisonment. Not mutually exclusive to civil law, ex: OJ

Insider Trading

SEC Act and Insider Trading and Securities Fraud Enforcement Act Tough criminal and civil penalties for insider trading, and wrongful acts of their employees of brokerage houses Government has strong authority to pursue insider-trading violations.

Concurrence

refers to the requirement that a criminal intent has to trigger a criminal act in criminal conduct crimes and that criminal conduct has to cause a bad result in bad result crimes.

Objective Fault (criminal liability)

requires no purposeful or conscious bad mind in the actor. Less blameworthiness and some maintain it shouldn't even qualify as a criminal state of mind.

Knowing

"Awareness." In conduct crimes, awareness is clear. In bad result crimes, it's enough that you are aware that your conduct will cause the bad result.

General Intent Plus

"General intent" refers to the intent to commit the actus reus of the crime. "Plus" refers to some special mental element in addition to the intent to commit the criminal act.

Mens rea

"evil state of mind." "Mental element," "mental attitude," state of mind," or "criminal intent." "An act doesn't make the actor guilty, unless his mind is guilty."

Factual Cause

(also called "but for" cause) of death, other bodily harm, and damage to and destruction of property. An empirical question of fact that asks whether an actor's conduct triggered a series of events that ended in causing death or other bodily harm; damage to property; or destruction of property. An actor's conduct triggered a chain of events that, sooner or later, ended in death or injury to a person and/or destruction of property. An objective, empirical question of fact; that's why we call it factual cause. Proving factual cause in almost all real cases is as easy as the no-brainer example of pushing the rock. Proving "but for" cause is necessary, but it's not enough to satisfy the causation requirement. To be sufficient, the prosecution has to prove legal, too.

Legal Cause

(also called "proximate" cause) of death, other bodily harm, and damage to and destruction of property. A subjective question of fairness that appeals to the jury's sense of justice.

People v. Kibbe

...

Proving causation requires proving two kinds of cause:

1. Factual cause 2. Legal Cause

Types of Crimes (2)

1. Felonies: crimes that generally carry longer terms of incarceration, will result in the stripping of certain rights 2. Misdemeanors: crimes that carry shorter terms of incarceration

The Criminal Justice System (2 phases)

1. Investigation 2. Adjudication

Steps of Adjudication (6)

1. Preliminary hearing 2. File indictment, or drop charges due to insufficient evidence 3. Defendant enters plea 4. If no plea agreement is reached, defendant goes to trial 5. Conviction or acquittal of the defendant 6. Sentencing (if convicted)

Mens rea is complex:

1. it is difficult to discover and then prove in court. 2. courts and legislatures have used so many vague and incomplete definitions of the mental element. 3. it consists of several mental attitudes that range across a broad spectrum, stretching all the way from purposely committing a crime you're totally aware is criminal to merely creating risks of criminal conduct or causing criminal harms--risks you're not the slightest bit aware you're creating. 4. a different mental attitude might apply to each of the elements of a crime.

Obstruction of Justice (4)

1. lying to investigators, 2. altering documents, 3. shredding or concealing documents or any media such as videotape, and 4. inducing other witnesses to lie or refrain from cooperating with authorities.

Two main arguments of strict liability

1. strong public interest in protecting public health and safety. 2. the penalty for strict liability offenses is almost always mild (fines, not jail time).

Two-Pronged test for recklessness:

1. was the defendant aware of how substantial and unjustifiable the risks that they disregarded were? (subjective--focuses on a defendant's actual awareness) 2. Does the defendant's disregard of risk amount to so "gross a deviation from the standard" that a law-abiding person would observe in that situation? (objective--measures conduct according to how it deviates from what reasonable people do)

The Model Penal Code

A form of modern criminal law, Nearly two-thirds of states have enacted criminal codes based on the Model Penal Code (MPC) adopted by the American Law Institute (ALI) in 1962.

Knowledge

A person acts knowingly with respect to a material element of an offense when: i. 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 ii. 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.

Negligence

A person acts negligently with respect to a material element of an offense when he 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 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.

Purpose

A person acts purposely with respect to a material element of an offense when: i. if the element involves the nature of his conduct or a result thereof, it is his conscious object to engage in conduct of that nature or to cause such a result ii. [omitted]

Recklessness

A person acts recklessly with respect to a material element of an offense when he consciously disregards 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.

Mistake

According to the MPC, mistake matters when it prevents the formation of a mental attitude required by a criminal statute. It does not work with strict liability cases because there's no mental element in strict liability offenses. In other words, the trail of mistake doesn't have to (in fact, it can't) lead to fault.

Recklessness

Awareness of the risk of causing a criminal result, whereas in "knowingly" it's awareness of causing the result itself. Reckless does not apply to conduct crimes for the obvious reason that you have to be aware you're committing a voluntary act. It can refer to attendant circumstances; for instance, you can be aware that a woman you're about to have sex with is under the legal age. Reckless people know they're creating risks of harm but they don't intend, or at least they don't expect, to cause harm itself. Conscious risk creation is not as blameworthy as acting purposely or knowingly because reckless defendants don't act for the very purpose of doing harm; they don't even act knowing harm is practically certain to follow.

Bribery

Bribery is covered in both federal and state statutes. Note that bribery is an offense that requires only the offer of a bribe. It is not necessary that the transaction actually took place. Dont need to complete the bribe, just offering it can get you in trouble

Production of Business Records

Business records may be classified as private papers protected by the Fifth Amendment. But this protection has been severely narrowed over the last several decades.

Strict Liability (criminal liability)

Can be liable for a crime with or without a "bad mind". Requires the least liability; it holds people accountable for their actions without regard to fault.

Civil Law (as opposed to criminal statutes

Civil laws are designed to compensate parties (including businesses) for damages as a result of another's conduct. Not mutually exclusive from criminal law, ex: OJ

Plain View Doctrine

Courts have also held that the authorities generally do not commit a Fourth Amendment violation where they obtain evidence by virtue of seeing an object that is in plain view of a government agent who has the right to be in the position to have that view.

Searches of Business Premises

Courts reluctant to extend reasonable expectation of privacy rights to the workplace Particularly when the business is highly regulated

Criminal Law (as a opposed to criminal procedure)

Criminal law defines the boundaries of behavior and sanctions for violating those boundaries

Criminal procedure (as opposed to criminal law)

Criminal procedure refers to legal safeguards afforded to individuals (and business entities) during criminal investigations, arrest, trials, and sentencing.

Failure-of-proof defense

Defendants usually present some evidence that the mistake raises a reasonable doubt about the formation of a mental element required for criminal liability.

Ponzi Schemes

Fraudulent investment operation that pays returns to investors from their own money or money paid by subsequent investors rather than from any actual profit earned

Criminal Liability (2 parts)

From a legal perspective a crime has two parts: 1. a physical part whereby the defendant committed an act or omission, and 2. a mental part focusing on the defendant's subjective state of mind.

The Model Penal Code's (MPC's) Mental Attitudes

From most to least blameworthy, the MPC's four mental states are: 1. Purposely 2. Knowingly 3. Recklessly 4. Negligently The MPC specifies that all crimes requiring a mental element (most minor crimes and a few felonies don't) have to include one of these degrees of culpability. Recklessness is the default degree of culpability where codes fail to identify a level of culpability.

Harris v. State

Harris argued he was voluntarily intoxicated, "blacked out," and carjacked a vehicle (unlawful taking of a motor vehicle and second-degree assault). Court of Appeals held that the carjacking is not a specific intent crime and affirmed the trial court's conviction.

Causation

Holding an actor accountable for the results of her conduct. Causation applies only to bad result crimes, the most prominent being criminal homicide. Prosecutors have to prove causation beyond a reasonable doubt.

Mail Fraud Act

In 1990, Congress passed the Mail Fraud Act to give federal prosecutors significant leverage in prosecuting white-collar criminals. The statute criminalizes any fraud where the defrauding party uses the mail or any wire, radio, or television.

Burden of Proof (civil vs. criminal)

In a civil case, plaintiffs need only to prove that the defendant had committed a civil wrong by a preponderance of the evidence: 50.1% he did it, the families can recover In criminal cases, where the stakes may involve an individual's liberty, the standard of proof is much higher; the government must prove their case beyond a reasonable doubt: you cant say for sure that he did it, even if most people think he did

Adjudication

Jurisdictions use either: 1. grand jury system (most systems), or 2. preliminary hearing with magistrate.

Investigation

Once the authorities believe that sufficient evidence creates enough probable cause, they will either obtain an arrest warrant or, more commonly, arrest the suspect by taking him into physical custody, usually based on probable cause

General Principles of Criminal Law (2)

Legality: The principle of legality is a protection of individuals from being charged with some unspecified general offense. Punishment: The principle of punishment is based on the concepts that (1) criminal law acts as a deterrent, (2) it removes dangerous criminals from the population, and (3) rehabilitation is an important part of the criminal justice system

General Intent

Most commonly used in the cases to mean the intent to commit the criminal act as defined in a statute. It is general because it states the minimum requirement of all crimes--namely, that they have to include an intentional/voluntary act, omission, or possession. Not all courts define general intent at the intent to commit the criminal act--this causes confusion.

Individual Liability for Business Crimes

Provides up to 20 years of incarceration for any employee that destroys documents relevant to a government agency investigation.

RICO

Racketeer Influenced and Corrupt Organizations Act The modern trend is for authorities to use the RICO statute in an expansive manner, including criminal business conduct that is not traditionally related to organized crime. RICO laws define racketeering in broad terms, including crimes such as wire fraud, mail fraud, and securities fraud.

Critics of strict liability

Say its too easy to expand strict liability beyond offenses that seriously endanger the public. They're always wary of making exceptions to blameworthiness, which is central to the mens rea principle. It does no good to punish people who haven't harmed others purposely, knowingly, recklessly, or at least negligently. At the end of the day, the critics maintain, a criminal law without blameworthiness will lose its force as a stern moral code.

Principle of Concurrence

Some mental fault has to trigger the criminal act in conduct crimes and the cause in bad result crimes. So all crimes, except strict liability, are subject to the concurrence requirement. Concurrence is an element in all crimes where the mental attitude was formed with purpose, knowledge, recklessness, or negligence.

Model Penal Code

Structure that is adopted by a substantial minority of states. It consists of four states of mind, ranked according to the degree of their blameworthiness: purposely, knowingly, recklessly, and negligently.

Self-Incrimination

The Fifth Amendment provides that no person "shall be compelled in any criminal case to be a witness against himself." An important element to this protection is that it is limited to custodial interrogations. Cops are allowed to lie to you unless you're under custody

FCPA

The Foreign Corrupt Practices Act (FCPA) of 1977 is a criminal statute that was enacted principally to prevent corporate bribery of foreign officials in business transactions. ex: Does this place US companies at disadvantage?

Searches and Arrests

The Fourth Amendment to the U.S. Constitution protects individuals (and businesses) from unreasonable search and seizure. A warrant is usually required before a search takes place (with certain exceptions). A warrant for arrest is generally not required in order to take a suspect into custody.

Speedy Trial Act

The Sixth Amendment provides that in all criminal prosecutions the accused shall enjoy the right to a speedy trial.

Act Requirement

The act requirement, also called by its Latin name, actus reus, requires the government to prove that a defendant's actions objectively satisfied the elements of a particular offense ex: if the case is about murder, the actus reus is the stabbing, shooting, etc.

Defense of excuse

The defendant did something wrong, but her mistake excused her. The mistake prevented the formation of a culpable state of mind; there is no crime because the mental element is missing. Mistakes raise a reasonable doubt that the required mental element for criminal conduct is present.

Mental Requirement

The mental element, also called by its Latin name, mens rea, which translates literally into "guilty mind," refers to the general requirement that the defendant have a requisite degree of culpability with regard to each element of a given crime ex: if two people go out shooting and one shoots the other, you cant charge the guy for murder

Purposely

The most blameworthy mental state. Purpose means having the "conscious object" to commit crimes. Example: common-law burglary, the burglar has to break into and enter a house for the very purpose (with the conscious object) of committing a crime after the burglar gets inside.

Cause in fact (part 1-element of causation)

consists of the objective determination that the dependent's act triggered a chain of events that ended as the harmful result, such as death in homicide.

Legal cause (part 2-element of causation)

consists of the subjective judgment that it's fair and just to blame the defendant for the bad result.

Subjective Fault (criminal liability)

fault that requires a "bad mind" in the actor. Frequently linked with immorality. Most blameworthy.

Velazquez v. State

is it fair to blame Velasquez? No, a policy question--its a value's choice.

People v. Armitage (1987)

is it fair to hold driver of the boat criminally responsible for death os his passenger? the intervening act is dependent on the chain of events created. "an unforeseeable intervening cause, an extraordinary..."

State v. Jantzi

is this knowing assault? knowing is almost intent but it is not the result of what he wants. this was reckless. practically certain that harm will occur.

Defenses (2 major, 2 less common)

major: 1. self-defense: need to be in fear of imminent harm, suspect cannot be retreating at the time of the act 2. mental incapacity: if you did not understand the effects of your actions less common: 3. duress: if someone holds a gun to your head and tells you to do something illegal, that may be a defense 4. intoxication

Confessions

only direct evidence of mental attitude. However, defendants rarely confess their true intentions, so proof of their state of mind usually depends on indirect (circumstantial) evidence.

State v. Loge

open container case. public health and safety notions. 5 days in jail: probation. level of knowledge or not is irrelevant, he took control of truck--> strict liability. Dissent: legislature must be clear about omitting blameworthiness. Knowledge is not a requirement of strict liability. Concurrence: -criminal conduct causing criminal harm. -if intent is formed after act, no concurrence. -has to occur/be trigger of criminal act.