My Outline 1

8/17/2019 My Outline 1

1/35

12/01/2014

Elements of Criminal Conduct

Sources of Criminal Law

• Common Law: almost never followed anymore but is still important

• Statutory interpretation (uses common law)

o Absent a definition to the contrary, it usually believed that the use of a common lawterm in a statue retains it meaning

o Common law can also fill gaps in statutes

• MC

o !hen adopted by a state it is binding

o "therwise it is persuasive

#$sable on the e%am as persuasive

• &ypes of elements: '*(+): an element of an offense means such conduct or such attendant

circumstance or such result of conducto Conduct: what does or how acts

-g enters, restrains, ta.es, ma.es

o Circumstances: bac.ground facts,, conte%t, state of affairs

static facts A dwelling, belonging to another, at night, under /, not open to public

o 0esults: effects of what does

Causes death, causes bodily in1ury, brings about

$sually more about an end result that can be gotten there in multiple

ways $ses common sense


2/35

• &ypes of crime:

o Malum in se: crime that is bad and of itself (morally wrong)

o Malum prohitum: crime that is bad because it is prohibited

resumption

• 2ature of resumption

o

Sometimes it is hard to prove an element of a crimeo Conte%t will determine whether this is good enough to presume the element

o resumptions says: whenever 3 fact(s) are proven, a factfinder must (or may),

presume 4 4 is usually an element of the crime charged

-g intent to .ill

"nly evidence is that the pic.ed up a loaded gun, pointed it in 56s

direction, and fired it

!here this evidence is found the 1ury may find intent7

o 8may9 find permissive presumption

it is really an inference ; not a rule that formally shifts the burden of proff

an inference is rational if, and only if, the presumed fact (4) more than li.ely

than not flows from the basic fact

o MC

Allows permissive

) that causes, (*) social harm


3/35

• !hy we don6t unish &houghts

o Actus reus is premised on the belief that it is morally wrong to punish people for

unacted?upon intentionso 5iolate living in a free society

• 5oluntary Act

o

@eneral rule: generally, a person is not guilty of a crime unless her conduct includes avoluntary act ew criminal statues e%pressly provide for this re=uirement, but it is there as

an implicit element

Common law proof: See Martin v State: was charged with

violation of an offense that provided that 8any person who, whileinto%icated or drun., appears in any public place7and manifests adrun.en condition Bshall be convicted of an offense9D the courtinterpreted the word 8appears9 to presuppose a voluntary appearancein public, which was not proven at 6s trial

• Case doesn6t use the voluntary act doctrine to dismiss the

case ; because there was an act7EE

o 8&he Act9 an 8Act9 is simply, a bodily movement, a muscular contraction

pulls a trigger, raiser an arm, blin.s her eyes, turns ignition .ey,

wal.s An act involves physical, although not always visible behavior

• &al.ing

-%cludes the internal mental processes of thin.ing about, or of developing an

intention to do a physical act (eg 8mental acts9) Aspects

Fodily movement may not count

•


4/35

• &hat is part of the 8social harm9

Some thin. that the act must be voluntary

• Most disagree with this see below (MC)

85oluntary9

8Movement of the body which follow out volition (will)

•

A voluntary act involve the use of the human mind D aninvoluntary act involves use of the human brain, without theaid of the mind

• 4ou (no matter what your mind frame was) told you body to

do what happenedEEEEI

• includes most movements so it is easier to define what is

involuntary


5/35

o 0easonable 1ury could have inferred was

unconscious

• $nconscious: still aware, able to grab gun and shoot, shoc.

refle%es, etc

See Cogdon, p >> (somnambulism)

• A%ed daughter while asleep to protect from Horean war

• Rule: acts committed while sleepwal.ing are involuntary

&ime? raming

&he does not have to show that every act was voluntary (or even

the last act), it only needs to show that the defendantDs conductinclude a voluntary act

Frings the =uestion of how long bac. do you have to go to find the

voluntary act, because people have obviously committed voluntaryacts before

• -g if you .ill someone while sleeping, you committed the

voluntary act of brushing your teeth7

•

o .new he was epileptic, consciously chose to drive

o Charged with operation of a vehicle resulting in

deatho

Rule: acts committed during epileptic seiJure areinvoluntaryo Rule: if .nows he suffers from epilepsy,

consciously chooses to disregard potentialconse=uences acted voluntarily

o Key: how broad or narrow is the time frameE

Crimes of possession

8inchoate9 crimes because they are incomplete ; there real purpose

is to provide the police with the basis for arresting those whom theysuspect will later commit a socially in1urious crime

the voluntary act is .nowingly receiving or procuring the property or

that he failed to dispossess himself of the ob1ect after he became

aware of its presence


6/35

5oluntary Act: MPC

§ 2.01(1): 2eed 8a voluntary act or the omission to perform an act of

which he is physically capable9 § 1.13(2): 8Act9? 8bodily movement whether voluntary or

involuntary does not define voluntary acts, but does enumerate bodily

movements that are involuntary

• § 2.01(2)(d): refle%es, convulsions, conduct during

unconsciousness, sleep, or due to hypnosis, and generally anconduct that 8is not a product of the effort of determinationof the actor, either conscious or habitual

• § 2.01(!): 8possession9 is an 8act9 if the possessor either

.nowingly obtained the ob1ect possess or .new she was incontrol of it 8for a sufficient period of time to have been ableto terminate7possession9

o See Fradshaw: ?commercial truc. driver crosses

Canadian border into !ashington with lbs of

mari1uanaD 2o evidence that the truc.er was awarethat the drugs were hidden in his truc.D !ashingtonSupreme Court upheld conviction for possession ofillegal drugs re1ecting argument that awareness isinherent in concept of possessing an item

o States differ

o "mission or actE section

-%ception

• ' >NO(): &he 8act9 re=uirement does 2"& apply to

8violations9 (offenses for which the ma%imum penalty is afine or civil penalty

• -g if you fall asleep while driving and run a stop sign, it

does not matter• Concedes that the fairness in this is lac.ing, but they

determined that litigating the involuntary?act claims wouldundermine effective law enforcement

• "missions

o Sub1ect to a few limited e%ceptions, a person has no criminal law duty to act to

prevent harm to another even if he can do so at no ris. to himself, and even if the person imperiled may lose her life in the absence of assistance

Criminal law distinguishes between an act that affirmatively causes harm,

and the failure of a bystander to ta.e measures to prevent harm Criticisms: morally repugnant, lac.s social cohesion

0ationale: problem with drawing the line ; how many people should beconvicted (would allow the police a lot of discursion

roblems proving mens rea ; can6t infer people6s intent very easily

Gow do you .now someone who heard screams thought it wassomething else

roblem with causation ; can6t determine if not calling for help

actually caused the death At that rate everyone would be guilty fornot helping -g not giving money to a homeless man

• 0ead more about causation re=uirements


7/35

eople often misconstrue what they see ; eg might ruin an

undercover operationo -%ception to the 2o?liability rule

Common Law uty to Act: 8Commission by "mission9 (!hen there is a

duty to act) Status relationship

• $sually founded on the dependende of one party on the

other, or on their interdependence

• -g parents to their monr childrenD married couple to one

anotherD and masters to their servantso See Kones v $nited States:

o Rule: "ne of t#e elements of an omission crime a

$ury must find to #a%e e&isted in order to find t#e

defendant 'uilty is t#at t#ere as a le'al duty of

care oed t#e %ictim y t#e defendant.

o Rule restated: E%en if you satisfy all elements of

crime* ut if you satisfy t#em y %irtue of an

omission* t#en you are not 'uilty unless t#ere is aduty to act re+uired y a statute

o acts: N?month?old Anthony Lee @reen, was placed

with the defendant &he defendant was a familyfriend of the baby6s mother, Shirley @reen Shirley@reen lives with the defendant for an uncertainamount of time


8/35

o -g negligently in1ures 5, has a common law

duty to render aid to 5 >N(*) ; failure to report a dangerous fire

(>) "ther sources: the duty to act is “otherwise imposed

by law”

•

include duties arising under civil law (torts or contracts) PSee ope v State: Rule: ,#e common la rule of t#e -nited

tates does not im/ose a duty to tae affirmati%e action u/on

ystanders in emer'ency situations if t#ey are not res/onsile for

t#e situation


9/35

acts: efendant Ms Koyce L ope too. Melissa 2orris and her *

month old infant into her house one riday after church services 2orris was suffering from mental illness and would go throughviolent religious frenJy "n Sunday afternoon, 2orris went intofrenJy, claimed she was @od, and asserted that Satan had invaded her child


10/35

%oluntaryomission part of the actus reus is implicit in the definition

&he rest of the red ma.es up the social harm of the actus reus

• &ells us what society does not want to occur

• &he .illing is a result of conduct that incluces a voluntary act

or an omission (when there is duty to act)

mens rea Social harm of an offense (common law or statue) may consist of wrongful

conduct, wrongful results, or both

Moreover, the offense will always contain 8attendant circumstances9

(8circumstances9) elemts 2eed to be able to distinguish between 8conduct,9 8result,9 and 8attendant

circumstance9 elements in the definition of a crime

o 8Conduct9 -lements (or 8conduct9 crimes)

some crimes are defined, at least in part, in terms of harmful conduct

Garmful results are not re=uired

-g 8intentionally dri%in' under t#e influence of alco#ol9

&he words in bold describe the actus reus of the offense

More specifically, they state the social harm of the crime ; thewrongful conduct of driving a car in an into%icated condition (whichconduct implicitly must include a voluntary act)

Conduct crime because no harmful result is re=uired to be guilty of

the offense ; the offense is complete whether or not anyone or any property is tangible in1ured because of the into%icated driving


11/35


12/35

ifferent levels or degrees of mens rea culpability

$sually specified in the crime: eg 8the intentional .illing79

uns/ecified: rec.less is the default or minimum

0egina v aul.ner, p >O

Q tried to steal rum from ship6s hold, lit match to see, fire destroyed

ship Gad no mens rea with respect to lighting the fire

Rule: mens rea must be with respect to the specific crime in =uestion


13/35

•


14/35

'roblem: ) F escapes unscathedDand

• (*) an unintended victim, C, suffers the harm for F

0


15/35

!illful blindness

• () Aware of a high probability of the e%istence of the fact in

=uestion

• (>a) ta.es deliberate action to avoid confirmation of the fact

(affirmative step)D or

•

(>b) purposely fails to investigate in order to avoidconfirmation of the facts

• See $S v Kewell: is guilty of 8willful blindness9 where

he agreed to drive 36s car into the country although he washighly suspious that drugs had been concealed in it, and he purposely avoided loo.ing in the truc. or elsewhere becausehe was afraid that it would confirm his suspicions

• issent Rule:

o Awareness that there is a high probability that a fact

e%istso &a.e deliberate steps to avoid .nowledge

o $nless actually believe the circumstances is not

present PPSee @lobal?&ech v S-F, p >R>

• Hnowing patent infringement (federal)

• 7illful lindness: sub1ectively believe high probability a

fact e%ists

o &a.e deliberate actions to avoid learning of that fact

• osner: p >O*, active blindness not 1ust passive blindness

(burry head ) MC: § 2.02(8)

• -%cludes willful blindness

o -g throw air condition out of window

• Key: no culpability in cases of low probabilityo -g * suitcases, only of them actually has drugs

o 8!illfully9

an 8act done with a bad purpose9 or with 8an evil motive9


16/35

may also connote an 8intentional violation of a .nown legal duty9

or 8 a purpose to disobey the law9

often use conte%t to determine

in most circumstances, an intentional wrongdoer acts with a bad purpose or

evil motive, and with .nowledge that he is violating the law, so it does notmatter which meaning of 8willful9 is applied

merges into mista.e of law: because if you thin. the law is one thin., you are

not willfully disobeying it (purpose to disobey the law) See Mista.e of Law

o 82egligence9 and 80ec.lessness9

0is.?ta.ing

() desirable or at least neutral ris.?ta.ing

(>) ris.?ta.ing that 1ustifies civil liability (8civil liability9)

(*) ris.?ta.ing that crosses the civil line and 1ustifies criminal

liability (8criminal negligence9) and () even more culpable ris.?ta.ing (8rec.lessness9)

some courts have sometimes used the terms 8negligence9 and 8rec.lessness9

interchangeably, particularly before the advent of the MC CAS-

82egligence9 ?? "FK-C&


17/35

• (*) the burden ; or loss? to the of desisting from the ris.y

conduct, which is simply another way of evaluating thereason for ta.ing the ris.

8Civil v Criminal9

civil negligence ordinarily is considered an inappropriate predicate

by which to define criminal conduct

• See Santillanes v State:

criminal responsibility usually needs criminal negligence

Criminal negligence is conduct that represents a gross deviation from

the standard of reasonable care

• See State v GaJelwood

A person is criminally negligent if he ta.es a substantial and

un1ustifiable ris. of causing the social harm that constitutes theoffense charged

80ec.lessness9 SG"$L 2"& be e=uated with criminal negligence

unishing 2egligence

"pponents: can6t punish people for what is not on their mind

• oes not act as deterrence roponents: at least sometimes, blame is 1ustified on the ground that

the negligent actor6s failure to perceive the ris.iness of his conductconstitutes 8culpable indifference9 to the rights and interests of thosearound him

•


18/35

80ec.lessness9 ?? S$FK-C&


19/35

Also loo.s at the grammatical flow of the statue

8A person is guilty of a felony if he Bdoes 3 with the intent

of Bcausing 4 and T9 Gere, the term 8intent9 probablymodifies 4 and T, but not 3

mens rea terms usually doesn6t go bac.wards

4-, in 3?Citement the court held that .nowingly did apply to

whether the girl was a minor

Court did not want to choose grammar over basic

assumptions of criminal law

4asic ;ssum/tion: presumption in favor of a scienter Bmens

rea re=uirement should apply to -ACG of the statutoryelements that criminaliJe "&G-0!


20/35

() includes an intent or purpose to do some future act, or to achieve

some further conse=uence (ie special motive for conduct), beyondthe conduct or result that constitutes the actus reus of the offense "0

• eg burglary is a specific?intent crime because committed

the actus reus alone does not satisfy the crime (>) provides that the actor must be aware of a statutory attendant

circumstance An offense that does not contain one of these featuresis termed 8general intent9

• 3?Citement videoE

-g general intent: battery? 8intentional application of unlawful

force upon another9 ? the definition does not contain any specificintent &he only mental state re=uired is intent to 8apply unlawfulforce upon another9 (the actus reus of the crime)

MPC Mens Rea

o Strictly 8elemental9 approach to the concept

o § 2.02(1): rovides that, e%cept in the case of offense characteriJed as 8violations9

(civil penaltyIfine) a person may not be convicted of an offense unless 8he acted

purposely, .nowingly, rec.lessly, or negligently, as the law may re=uire, with respectto each material element of the offense9

the code re=uires the prosecution to prove that the defendant committed the

social harm of the offense ; indeed, each material ingredient of the offense ;with a culpable state of mind, as set out in the S-C


21/35

o Aside: essentially applies 8transferred intent:9 (2"&

0-A) ' >N*(>)(a): when purposely causing particular result is an element of an offense, thatelement is established if 8the actual result differsfrom that designed or contemplated7, only inrespect that a different person or different property9

is harmedo Also, the Code provides that a defendant is not

relieved of liability for an offense if less harm occursthat it was the actor6s conscious ob1ect to cause -gif 6s conscious ob1ect is to .ill two persons, but heonly succeeds in .illing one, 8purpose9 isestablished

o *ut , if intends to .ill 3 an instead .ills 3 and 4,

6s purpose to .ill 3 would not apply as to y, because he has caused more, not less, harm than wasdesigned 6s liability, if any for 46s death wouldhave to be based on a different state of mind directly

related to 4, perhaps on the ground that firing a gunat 3 in 46s pro%imity constitutes a rec.lessness as to46s safety (MA4F- $S-$L LA&-0)

• 8urposely9 is a mental state comparable to the first ; only

the first ; of the two alternative common law definitions ofthe word 8intentional9 (not .nowingly)

o eg the bombing his wife and praying for others

e%ample (CL: purpose to .ill wifeintent, .nowingto .ill passengersintent, MC: purpose to .ill wife,no purpose to .ill passengers)

o (2"& 0-A) 8urposely9 with respect to

conditional results: eg threatens to .ill 5, thedriver of an automobile, unless 5 relin=uishes thecare to

' >N>(R): when a particular purpose is an

element of n offense, the ement iseastablished although the purpose isconditional, unless the condition negativesthe harm or eveil sought to be prevented bythe law defing the offenseE See ressler pg fn*>

!ith 0espect to Attendant Circumstances

• § 2.02(2)(a)(ii): A person acts 8purposely9 with respect to

attendant circumstances if he 8is aware of the e%istence ofsuch circumstances or he believes or hopes that they e%ist9 aware or hopes

• -g if enters an occupied structure in order to commit a

felony inside, he has acted 8purposely9 regarding theattendant circumstance that the structure was occupied if hewas aware it was occupied or hoped it would be

8Hnowingly9 ?? S$FK-C&


22/35

• § 2.02(2)()(ii): A result is 8.nowingly9 caused if the

actror 8is aware that it is practically certain that his conductwill cause such result9

o eg airplane hypo: nowingly .illed 56s fellow

passengers, assuming was aware that his bombthat his bomb would almost certainty .ill those on board

o


23/35

§ 2.02(d): 82egligent:9 A person6s conduct is 8negligent if the actor

8 should be aware of a substantial and un1ustifiable ris. that the materialelement e%ists or will result from his conduct9 ; ("FK-C&


24/35

Since there M$S& be some form of culpability for each material

element of an offense, if it the mens rea isn6t specified itautomatically is 8purposely, .nowingly, or rec.lessly9

' >N>(*): !hen the definition of a criminal offense is silent regarding a

matter of culpability as to a material element of the offense (as the above burglary offense) The material element “is satisfied if a person acts purposely, knowingly, or recklessly.”

-g burglary 8enter an occupied structure with purpose to commit a

crime therein9

• 0ec.lessly, .nowingly, purposely: C"2$C& of entering

• 0ec.lessly, .nowingly, purposely: A&&-2A2&

C


25/35

• Md++* (authoriJing conviction of a >N?year?old male with

an , who had consensual intercourse with anunderage femaleD holding that the male6s mista.e regardingte girl6s age was immaterial

• Absence of mens rea for the A&&-2-2&

C) &hose who engage in ris.y activity will act willgreater caution in light of the strict liability nature of the law (*) an in=uiry into theactor6s mens rea 8would e%haust courts, which have to deal with thousands of 8minor infractions every day9

o Alternative to Strict Liability: continue to define public welfare offenses in strict

liability terms, but permit a 8lac. of mens rea9 affirmative defense -g if a person sold li=uor to a minor, she would be convicted unless she

showed strong evidence that she too. reasonable care to determinecustomer6s age

See 0egina v City of Sault Ste Marie (Canada): Compelling

grounds for three categories of offenses:

• Mens rea, consisting of some positive state of mind such as

intent, .nowledge, or rec.lessness, must be proved by the prosecution

• 2o necessity for the prosecution to prove mens reaD doing

the prohibited act prima facie imports the offense, lea%in' ito/en to t#e accused to /ro%e #e too all reasonale care

• Absolute liability where it is not open to the accused to

e%culpate himself by showing that he was free of faulto Constitutionality of Strict Liability

See $S v Falint (SL staute)

( was indicted for the sale of narcotics (opium and cocoa) without a

re=uired form from the government id not allege .new he sold prohibited drugs &he ma%imum penalty for the strict?liability publicwelfare offense was O years imprisonment

Rule: 2o scienter Bmens rea re=uirement under a statue if the

purpose of the statue would be obstructed by such a re=uirement

• Congress decided protecting innocent purchasers was more

important ; thus the crime should be strict liability

o Seller better able to .now, difficult to prove

.nowledge ; helps protect consumers

See $S v otterwiech: (SL statue)


26/35

convicted of mislabeling products even though no evidence of

mens rea bIc the statute did not re=uire mens reaD similar languageregarding the weighing of the costs and benefits of applying strictliability

• 2ot a traditional crime

• rotect consumers

Compare $S v Morissette (2o SL)

was convicted of conversion of government property that he

believed had been abandoned &he statue did not e%pressly re=uire proof of an intent to steal property Gowever, because the statueevolved from the common law offense of larceny, which containssuch a re=uirement, the Supreme Court construed the conversionstatue as re=uiring specific intent

• // (2o SL)

convicted under 2ational irearms Act for possessing an

unregistered firearm defined by the act &he gun was capable offiring automatically due to a metal part which usually prevents theweapon from firing automatically being finled down said hedidn6t .now that the weapon fired automatically and that the weaponhad never fired automatically when he used it Statute is silentregarding mens reas for the violation convicted over his re=uestthat the 1ury be instructed that he must .now that the gun would fireautomatically

&radition of gun ownership, no mens rea criminaliJe a lot of

behavior @uns are part of society do not put Q on notice (li.e grenade)

Rule: absent clear intent from Congress, presumption of mens rea

re=uirement in any statute defining a felony offense Morissette indiciaE (SL, no SL, no SL, SL)

See @uminga

See Lambert v California: the Court overturned Ds conviction for failing to

register with the city of Los Angeles as a prior convicted felon, as re=uired pursuant to a strict?liability ordinance of which was unaware 2otwithstanding the usual rule that ignorance of the law is no e%cuse, theCourt reversed the conviction on 8lac. of fair notice9 due process grounds

See


27/35

o MPC Approach to Strict Liability

' >N>(): provides that, sub1ect to one e%ception, no conviction may be

obtained unless the prosecution proves some form of culpability regardingeach material element of an offense

-%ception: ' >NO: provides that the voluntary act and mens rea re=uirements

need not apply to offenses graded as 8violations,9 rather than crimes985iolations are offenses that cannot result in imprisonment or probation, butmay result in fines9 (U VONN)

MC is strongly against strict liability

#different outcomes for statutory rape and some drug offenses

Mista.es of acto eg shoots and .ills 5, believing he is .illing a wild animal

o eg carried away property belonging to 5, incorrectly thin.ing that he has

permission to ta.e ito -ach actor was either unaware of, or mista.en about a fact pertaining to an element

of the offense for which he might be prosecutedo efinitions:

8


28/35

Specific intent crimes developed the rule that a mista.e of fact is

e%culpatory if it negated the particular element of mens rea ; the8specific intent9 ; in the definition of the offense

• Common law adopted an elemental approach to mista.es

@eneral intent crimes ; that do not include a specific?intent element ; sought

to determine if the actors mista.e negated his moral culpability for the crime /ulpability approach to mista.es

&oday this is unnecessary because modern penal codes typically include

mens rea in the definition of all felonies and serous misdemeanors &he -lemental approach should be followed with all non? strict liability

crimes today Strongly influenced by the MC

F$& to common law still does have the two approached foto

mista.es ; depending on whether the offense characteriJed is ageneral ;intent or specific?intent crime

##&he first step in analyJing a mista.e ;of?fact claim in a 1urisdiction that

follows common law doctinr is ti identify the nature of the crime for which

the defendant is being prosecuted%


29/35

Ac=uittal follows from the fact that a person may not be convicted of

an offense unless every element thereof, including the mental?stateelement (eg the intent to steal) is proven, which cannot occur if thedefendant was genuinely mista.en

"n the other hand, if receives cocaine instead of heroin, and is prosecutes

for 8.nowingly receiving a controlled substance9 ; a specific?intent offense

(to the actor6s awareness of the attendant circumstance of receiving acontrolled substance) ; he is guilty, notwithstanding the mista.e, because hiserror, whether reasonable or unreasonable, does not negate the re=uisitespecific intent

Ge .new that he was receiving a controlled substanceD he was only mista.en

regarding its nature (cocaine v heroin)o @eneral?


30/35

• -ven though the person who did it intentionally was much

more culpable than the person with the unreasonable belief,they are punished the same

o Moral?!rong octrine (controversial and increasingly uncommon)

Rule: "nce can ma.e a reasonable mista.e regarding an attendant

circumstance and yet still demonstrate moral culpability worthy of punishment

Fasis: 8&here should be no e%culpation for mista.e where, if the

facts had been as the actor believed them to be, his conduct wouldstill be7immoral9 essentially, the intent to commit an act that isimmoral furnishes the re=uisite culpability for the related, butunintended, outcome

See 0egina v rince: was charged or 8unlawfully ta.ing or causing to be

ta.en, any unmarried girl, being under the age of R years, out of the possession and against the will of her father or mother9 ; &he girl in=uestion was , but the 1ury found that honestly and reasonably believedthat she was /

Framwell:

# irst, apply the reasonableness test, if it is reasonable then move to

the moral?wrong test Second, what did thin. he was doing: 8&a.ing an /?year?old girl

out of the possession and against the will of her parents9 &hird, evaluate the morality of the conduct, based on the facts the

actor reasonable believed them to be: Gere the ta.ing of an / yearold against her parent6s will was selfevidently wrong imputes

.nowledge to that he acting immorally 0ule: a person who .nowingly performs a morally wrong act assumes the

ris. that the attendant factual circumstances are not as they reasonable appear to be and that, therefore, his conduct is not only immoral but also illegal

&he doctrine is triggered when the defendant6s conduct would beimmoral had the situation been as he supposed

• -g if the girl was homeless and he was ta.ing her 8for her

protection9 that would 2"& be a immoral act triggering thedoctrine

roblems:

2o consensus on 8moral wrongness9

5iolates Legality octrineWconflate immoral and illegal by ma.ing

certain acts illegal that the legislature did not ma.e illegal


31/35

• rosecution must show absence of genuine belief girl X

o Lesser CrimeILegal !rong octrine

-g !hat if a state provides that se%ual intercourse by an adult with a person

under the age of > constituted first?degree rape, but it is the lesser offense of second?degree rape if the victim is older than > but under the age of R

Assume that reasonably believes that the person with whom he is

having se%ual intercourse is years old, but in fact the victim is Should be convicted of first or second degree rapeE

Rule: ): Moral wrong and lesser crime doctrines continue to be

important in offenses involving minors, se%ual behavior, andIor drugs

eople v "lsen (+/)W is convicted of child molestation on a victim whois only * years and N months old claimed that he did not brea. into thetrailer and that the se% was consensual and girl said she was R Courtupheld conviction despite a mista.e of age for reasons

Statute ma.es clear that didn6t intend for reasonable mista.e to be a

defense ublic policy to protect young children

Lesser crime argument???mista.e of fact relating to the gravity of an

offense will not shield deliberate defender from full conse=uences ofthe wrong actually committed???assumes that would guilty ofstatutory rape even if girl was over as believed

Severity of punishment

2"&-: CA, unli.e most states, crime of statutory rape allows reasonablemista.e of age as a defense but for more serious offense of child molestation,no mista.e of age defense

o MPC Mista.e of act (-lemental approach)

' >N>(): "ne is not guilty of an offense unless he acted 8purposely,

.nowingly, rec.lessly, or negligently, as the law may re=uire, with respect toeach material element of the offense9

&here is a mens rea re=uirement for each element of an offense

§ 2.0!(1): rovides that a mista.e is a defense, if it negates the mental state

re=uired to establish any element of the offense


32/35

eg from the e%ample in the lesser crime doctrine of first degree rape

> or less, second degree rape or less is the victim is *, the MC would convict them for second degree

rape based on 6s state of mind another eg: poaching deer but end up .illing a person punished

for poachingMista.e of Law

o Common Law

Sub1ect to very limited e%ceptions, ignorance of the law e%cuses no one

2either .nowledge nor rec.lessness or negligence as to whether conduct

constitutes an offense, or as to the meaning of an offense, is ordinarily anelement of that offenseD therefore it follows that thee is typically no mens reaelement of an offense capable of being negated by an actor6s ignorance ofmista.e of the law

0ationales:

Certainty of the Law: the law is easy to .now

Avoiding sub1ectivity in the law

eterring lying about what the person .new

-ncouraging legal .nowledge

o -%ceptions to the @eneral Strict Common Law 0ule

0easonable reliance (e%cuse)

Rule 2" defense: 0eliance on "ne6s own interpretation of the law:

A person is not e%cused for committing a crime if she relies on herown erroneous reading of the law, even if a reasonable person ; evena reasonable law trained person ; would have similarlymisunderstood the law

• See eople v Marrero 24 (a federal corrections officer, was

arrested for poession of a loaded gun, in violation of a statuethat prohibited the carrying of handgun without a permit

sought dismissal of his indictment on the ground that the lawe%pressly e%empted peace officers from liability under thestate

• &he statutory definition of 8peace officers9 included any

official or guard of 8any state prion or of any penalcorrectional institution ??? As a federal corrections officer claimed he believed that he was e%empt under the law

• 6s reading of the statue was not unreasonable, indded the

trial 1udge agreed 2onetheless an appellate court concludedthat he was not a 8peace officer9 within the meaning off thestatue

• 2o one is ever e%cused for relying on a personal ;even

reasonable? misreading of a statue 0ule: 0eceiving advice from private council is not a defense

Rule: A person is e%cused for committing a criminal offense if she

reasonably relies on an official statement of the law, later determinedto be erroneous, obtained from a person or public body withresponsibility for the interpretation, administration, or enforcementof the law defining the offense

• 2arrowly applied &o be 8official9 the statement must:


33/35

o Fe contained in a statue later declared to be

invalided

o > A 1udicial decision of the highest court in the

1urisdiction, later determine to be erroneousD or

eg Can6t act on decisions that are pending

in the Supreme Courto * An official, but erroneous, interpretation of the

law, secured from a public officer in charge of itsinterpretation, administration, or enforcement, suchas the Attorney @eneral of the state or in the case offederal law, the $nited States

Must be official, eg can6t be the attorney

general telling you at the bar ublic wor.s can6t tell you about the rules of

the road, etc air 2otice (e%cuse)

At common law, it is said that 8every one is conclusively presumed

to .now the law9 &his means not only that citiJens are presumed tounderstand the law, but more fundamentally to be aware of thee%istence of each criminal law

&here are occasional cases in which it is so grossly un1ust to assume

that a citiJen is aware of a penal law6s e%istence that the court givessome leeway

See Lambert v California: the Court overturned 6s conviction for

failing to register with the city of Los Angeles as a prior convictedfelon within O days of being there, as re=uired pursuant to a strict?liability ordinance of which was unaware 2otwithstanding theusual rule that ignorance of the law is no e%cuse, the Court reversedthe conviction on 8lac. of fair notice9 due process grounds

Although it appear that this ruling could open up fraudulent claims of not .nowing the law, the court saw this is an atypical scenario

• &his situation deals with conduct that is wholly passive ;

mere failure to register


34/35

More often, a defendant6s lac. of .nowledge of, or misunderstanding

regarding the meaning or application of, another law ; typically, anon?penal law ; will negate the mens rea element in the definition ofthe criminal offense

-g is charged with rape after he has nonconsensual se%ual

intercourse with 5 At the time of his actions, believed that 5

legally was his wife, thus ta.ing his conduct outside the rape law,which prohibits nonconsensual intercourse with a female 8not hiswife9


35/35

Strict liability doctrine:

• a rule of criminal responsibility that authoriJes the conviction of a morally innocent person

for violation of an offense, even though the crime, by definition, re=uires proof of mens rea

• -g the rule that a person who is ignorant of, or who misunderstands the meaning of a

criminal law may be punished for violating it, even if her ignorance or mista.e of la wasreasonable

• See Mista.e of Law

•

Documents

My Outline 1