Crim Law Levenson Spring 2013

8/10/2019 Crim Law Levenson Spring 2013

1/29

CRIMINAL LAWOutline

I. INTRODUCTIONA. Theories of Punishment

(Punishment is what distinuishes !riminal law from other t"#es of law$%. PURPO&'& O PUNI&)M'NT

a. R'TRI*UTIONi. Theor"+

Criminals deser,es to -e #unished an e"e for an e"eii. Criti!ism+

Intentionall" in/i!ts #ain when it !annot -e shown that #unishment will#romote the reater oodCannot undo damae'n!ouraes re,ene*ased on so!iet"0s !on!e#t of ,enean!e1 not the ,i!tim0s (,i!tim !ouldfori,e !riminal1 -ut so!iet" won0t re!oni2e that$Cost ,s. -ene3t (does the -ene3t outweih the #unishment of the !rime

REGINA v. DUDLEY & STEPHENSDudley and Stephens killed and ate thei !ell"# $e# %e%e #hilestanded at sea in "de t" suvive until thei es$ue. Deteen$e'ehailitati"n' and in$apa$itati"n #ee n"t eas"ns t" punish e$ause "the aity "! su$h a situati"n' ut the $"ut punished the% !" etiuti"it #as ne$essay t" send a %essa)e that thei $"ndu$t #as #"n).*H"#eve' they e$eived a li)ht senten$e.+

-. D'T'RR'NC'e!i3! deterren!e (dis!ouraes !riminal from re!idi,ism 4 a re#eato5ense$6eneral deterren!e (dis!ouraes so!iet" from !ommittin o5ense$

i. Theor"+Utilitarian ser,es so!iet" -" ma7in an e8am#le out of !riminals

ii. Criti!ism+Is onl" e5e!ti,e for rational !riminals ine5e!ti,e for !rimes moti,ated -emotionIm#ro#erl" #unishes someone to -ene3t others (9ant0s arument$It is hard to :ude how mu!h of a #unishment is ne!essar" to deter witho,er #unishin

U.S. v. ,ERG-ANA aiphilanth"pist #as i%pis"ned !" -edi$aid !aud. ,e)%an #an"t dan)e"us' n" #as he likely t" $"%%it a)ain' ut the $"ut #anted

set an e/a%ple !" )eneal deteen$e' s" that "the pe"ple #"uld n"t$"%%it the sa%e $i%e. *0hite $"lla $i%es ae the %"st deteale"1enses e$ause "1endes typi$ally $al$ulate the isks and ene2ts "!thei a$ti"ns.+

!. R')A*ILITATIONi. Theor"+

Attem#ts to ;38< !riminalsii. Criti!ism+

ends so!iet"0s resour!es on those who don0t deser,e themAssumes !riminals want or are a-le to -e 38edAssumes that so!iet" 7nows what is for !riminals0 own ood

d. INCAPACITATION


2/29

i. Theor"+Renders !riminal in!a#a-le of !ommittin another !rime (im#risonmente8e!ution$

ii. Criti!ism+Criminals are often e,entuall" freedInsu=!ient resour!es to alwa"s do thisCrimes !an o!!ur in #rison

*. Theories of Crime%. Determinin &o!iet"0s >alues

Criminal laws are -ased on so!iet"0s ,aluesA !ourt must determine if a law e8#resses the !urrent ,alues of so!iet" or thoof the #ast,30ERS v. HARD0I45

In 6789' the Supe%e 4"ut uled the Ge")ia:s $i%inali;ati"n "! s"d"%y#as deeply ""ted in the nati"n:s hist"y and taditi"n' s" it did n"t vi"latedue p"$ess.

LA0REN4E v. TE>?' the Supe%e 4"ut "vetuned ,"#es v. Had#i$k. Alth"u)h the

!a$ts #ee essentially the sa%e' it e$")ni;ed that s"$iety:s values had$han)ed and that statutes $"uld n"t si%ply e ased "n a $etain eli)i"n %"al standad.

?. >i!timless CrimeThe !ommon moral -onds of so!iet" :ustif" !riminali2in what miht otherwis-e !onsidered a ,i!timless !rime*e!ause all !rimes are !onsider o5enses aainst so!iet"1 the ,i!tim0s !onsentnot a defense to most !rimes

@. Daners of O,er!riminali2ina. O,er!harin (ma7es enfor!ea-ilit" di=!ult !auses dis!riminator" enfor!eme-. Disres#e!t for laws

!. Misuse of law enfor!ement resour!esd. In,asion of !onstitutional rihts

C. Lealit"%. Prin!i#le+

A person may not be punished unless his conduct was defned ascriminal beore he actedNot all harmful or immoral a!ts !onstitute a !rime (onl" if the" are s#e!i3!all"#rohi-ited -" law$

?. Rationale+Pro,ides noti!e as to what is unlawfulCon3nes dis!retion of #oli!e and !ourts in enfor!in laws and #unishin

!riminals@. Constitutional su##ort+

Prohi-ition aainst -ills of attainder or e8 #ost fa!to lawsDue Pro!ess !lause

SHA0 v. DIRE4T3R 3@ PU,LI4 PR3SE4UTI3NSIn this ,itish $ase' de!endant #as $"nvi$ted "! $i%es ass"$iated #ith thepuli$ati"n "! a die$t"y "! p"stituted e$ause it #as a $"nspia$y t" $"upuli$ %"als.B This va)ue $ha)e all"#s the $"ut t" dete%ine "n a $aseCy$ase asis #hat is $i%inal. This #as upheld y ,itish $"ut' ut #"uld havevi"lated le)ality pin$iples in the U.S.

D. Criminal usti!e &"stem%. elonies1 Misdemeanors1 >iolations


3/29

a. elonies(#unishment of more than one "ear in :ail$

-. Misdemeanors(#unishment of less than one "ear in :ail$

!. >iolations(#unishment is a 3ne$

?. Malum in se ,s. Malum #rohi-itum

a. Malum in se(;-ad in itself


4/29

(actions done by habit are considered voluntary$ii. Possession

(possession is not an act unless possessor !new he had controlthe item or a sucient amount o time to have been able toterminate his possession$

d. &tret!hin the a!tus reus*" e8tendin the #eriod of the a!tus reus1 an a!t that miht otherwise -e

,iewed as in,oluntar" is deemed ,oluntar"PE3PLE v. DE4INA

De!endant #h" kne# he #as suFe$t t" epilepti$ atta$ks de$ided t"dive any#ay. 0hile divin)' he had an atta$k and killed an"the.De!endant $"%%itted a v"luntay a$t #hen he de$ided t" dive #ith$"nditi"n.

?. OMI&&ION&a. 6eneral Rule+

There is no legal duty to help someone acing harm; thereore,ailure to act only constitutes an actus reus when there is somespecifc duty to act

P3PE v. STATEDe!endant #itnessed the eatin) "! a $hild and !ailed t" $"%e t" the$hild:s aid' s" the $hild died. 4"ut uled that de!endant:s eas"ns !" ninte!ein) #ee ielevant she had n" spe$i2$ duty t" $"%e t" the $hilaid.

NE0 ,ED@3RD RAPE 4ASEA #"%an #as )an)Caped in !"nt "! a )"up "! pe"ple at a a' ut theystandes #ee n"t held liale.

5ITTY GEN3ESE 4ASEA #"%an #as staed t" death #hile seveal pe"ple #at$hed and !ailedhelp. A!te t#enty %inutes' s"%e"ne $alled p"li$e' ut #"%an died.

Spe$tat"s: !ailue t" assist #as n"t $i%inal.3NES v. UNITED STATES

Ten %"nthC"ld ay' unelated t" de!endant' died #hile it and its %"the#ee livin) in de!endant:s h"use. De!endant had %eans t" $ae !" it #as n"t held liale !" ay:s death e$ause he had n" le)al duty t" $a!" $hild.

-. Rationale+Althouh there ma" -e a moral o-liation to a!t1 there is no leal dut"

!. &u##ort+&u##orts Ameri!an tradition of freedomo!uses attention on #er#etrator of !rime rather than -"stander

A,oids ris7 to 6ood &amaritansd. Criti!ism+

No moral di5eren!e -etween failin to hel# someone fa!in !ertain harm aa!ti,el" !ausin harmMa" em-olden ,iolators to !ommit !rimes -e!ause the" 7new #eo#le are nreuired to assist ,i!tims

e. "#ceptions$i. %tatutory duty

(a !riminal or !i,il statue ma" !reate a dut" to a!t$ii. %tatus relationship


5/29

(relationshi# must -e ,oluntar" e.1 #arent to minor1 s#ouse to s#ousemaster to a##renti!e1 shi# master to !rew and #asseners1 inn7ee#er todrun7 !ustomers1 not si-lin to si-lin or !hild to #arent$PE3PLE v. ,EARDSLEY

A #"%an' n"t ,eadsley:s #i!e *they #ee havin) an a1ai+' t""k a !ad"se "! %"phine #hile stayin) #ith ,eadsley' ut he did n"t $all !"help. ,eadsley #as n"t held liale e$ause it #as an in!"%al

elati"nship' s" he had n" le)al duty "! $ae.iii. &ontractual agreement

(e.1 -a-"sitter1 lifeuard1 nursin home !areta7er$i,. Voluntary assumption o care o another

PE3PLE v. 3LIERDe!endant "u)ht an int"/i$ated %an h"%e #ith he !"% a a an)ave hi% a sp""n t" help in)est he"in. -an passed "ut' utde!endant etuned t" a #ith"ut atte%ptin) t" help hi%. She late!"und hi% still un$"ns$i"us ut !ailed t" help hi%. De!endant )uilty inv"luntay %anslau)hte e$ause she v"luntaily t""k a pes"n unat" pevent ha% t" hi%sel! a#ay !"% the puli$ and int" he pivate

$ae.,. 'utting victim in peril

(on!e a #erson #uts ,i!tim in #eril1 a dut" to hel# is triered$3NES v. STATE

De!endant:s ape "! a 6= yeaC"ld )il ti))eed a duty !" hi% t" savhe #hen she Fu%ped int" a $eek t" kill hesel!

*. M'N& R'A(!ul#a-le mental state$Acts alone do not constitute a criminal oense, even i they cause harmThere is no crime without a vicious will4 mental state reuired for !rimeREGINA v. 4UNNINGHA-

De!endant al%"st asphy/iated a #"%an #hen he t"e a )as %ete "1 a #alladF"inin) he uildin). De!endant did n"t kn"# that )as seeped th"u)h#"%an:s #all. Statute eJuied de!endant t" a$t %ali$i"usly. Alth"u)hde!endant a$ted #i$kedly' t" a$t %ali$i"usly he had t" have !"eseen that hisa$ts %i)ht $ause ha% and nevetheless en)a)e in the%.

REGINA v. @AUL5NERSail" #ent t" a ship:s h"ld t" steal u%. He lit a %at$h t" see #hat he #asd"in)' ut a$$identally $aused the u% and ship t" $at$h 2e. De!endant $"u"nly e !"und )uilty "! %ali$i"usly settin) 2e is he $"nsideed the isk "! a 2"$$uin) and dise)aded it.

%. Rationale+

Pur#oses of #unishment rel" hea,il" on the #remise that the more adeendant intends to commit a wrongul act, the more that personshould be punished

?. MPC Le,els+a. PURPO&'L

Defendant0s oal or aim is to enae in #arti!ular !ondu!t or a!hie,e !ertaresultsCommon law terminolo"+ intent to1 with s#e!i3! intent1 intentionall"

-. 9NOWIN6LDefendant is #ra!ti!all" !ertain that his !ondu!t will !ause a !ertain resultCommon law terminolo"+ intentionall"1 willfull"UNITED STATES v. E0ELL


6/29

Du) de!endant did n"t l""k in a se$et $"%pat%ent s" he $"uld $lai%that he did n"t kn"# he #as tansp"tin) %aiFuana. 4"ut !"und$"nstu$tive kn"#led)e ased up"n delieate i)n"an$e.

ewell *octrine$ unless he deliberately avoided !nowledge o acrime, deendant is not responsible or it

!. R'C9L'&&LDefendant !ons!iousl" disreards a su-stantial and un:usti3a-le ris7 that h

!ondu!t will ha,e a !ertain resultThis is the minimum level or most crimes if the statute is silent onmens rea1 assume re!7lessnessCommon law terminolo"+ eneral intent1 mali!iousl"

d. N'6LI6'NTLDefendant is unaware that his !ondu!t -ears a !ertain ris71 -ut a reasona-#erson would -e aware of this ris7Common law terminolo"+ without due !are1 nelientl"

e. &TRICT LIA*ILIT(No mens rea$O5ense does not reuire defendant to su-:e!ti,el" reali2e the ris7 that he

ta7in defendant is uilt"1 e,en if he honestl" and reasona-l" -elie,ed his!ondu!t was #ro#erProse!ution does not need to show mens reaIn!ludes #u-li! welfare o5enses (!on!ernin #u-li! health and safet"$ and!ommon law moralit" o5enses (statutor" ra#e1 -iam"1 adulter"$Usuall" reser,ed for minor1 reulator" o5enses with minimal #unishmentsRationale+

Deters ris7" -eha,iorRe!oni2es that #u-li!0s welfare is #aramount'ases #rose!ution -urden

Criti!ism+

Can defeat #ur#oses of #unishment (if defendant did not reali2e he wasdoin an"thin wron1 no #oint to deterren!e1 et!.$

UNITED STATES v. D3TTER0EI4HDe!endant' pesident "! a pha%a$euti$al $"%pany' #as $"nvi$ted "!shippin) %isanded and adulteated p"du$ts. Alth"u)h thee #as n"eviden$e that de!endant kne# " sh"uld have kn"#n that the p"du$tshad een %isanded' he #as held $i%inally esp"nsile e$ause the$i%e did n"t eJuie %ens ea.

-3RISSETTE v. UNITED STATESDe!endant $ha)ed #ith stealin) )"ven%ent "% $asin)s' e he$lai%ed he did n"t kn"# they still el"n)ed t" the )"ven%ent K he

th"u)ht they had een aand"ned. Statute $"n$enin) this d"es n"tspe$i!y %ens ea' ut $"ut uled that the %ee "%issi"n "! intent in astatute d"es n"t %ake the $i%e sti$t liaility. *@" $"%%"n la# "1ensthe assu%pti"n is a)ainst sti$t liaililty.+

UNITED STATES v. STAPLESDe!endant $ha)ed #ith p"ssessin) an une)isteed 2ea%' ut he didn"t eali;e that his )un had the $haa$teisti$s ne$essay t" %ake issuFe$t t" e)istati"n eJuie%ents. Statute did n"t e/pli$itly have a%ens ea eJuie%ent' ut Supe%e 4"ut uled it $"uld n"t e sti$tliaility e$ause vi"lati"n "! the statute had a vey hash penalty *tenyeas i%pis"n%ent+.

STATE v. GU-INGA


7/29

De!endant "#ned a estauant #hee a #aitess #as $au)ht sevin)al$"h"l t" a %in". Statute i%p"sed liaility "n "#ne even th"u)h he #n"t die$tly inv"lved in the "1ense and thee #as n" p""! that he kne#the pa$ti$es. *This is $alled vi$ai"us liaility.+ 3n evie#' the $"nvi$ti#as "vetuned e$ause it "e t" hash "! a penalty t" e sti$t liaility

@. Material 'lements(elements that relate dire!tl" to the harm souht to -e #re,ented -" law$

If an element has a mens rea reuirement assined to it1 it is a material elementNonmaterial elements are also !alled :urisdi!tional elements

E. MI&TA9' O ACTa. 6eneral Rule+

+gnorance or mista!e o act precludes criminal liability i themista!e means the deendant lac!ed a mental state essential to thcrime charged

-. Rationale+Mista7e of fa!t is a !laim that defendant did not ha,e mens rea ne!essar" all material elements of the !rime and thus !annot -e held lia-le

REGINA v. PRIN4E

De!endant $"nvi$ted "! takin) an un%aied )il unde 69 yeas "ld "ut "! p"ssessi"n and a)ainst the #ill "! he !athe. De!endant elieved )il #as #hen she #as eally 6. 4"ut !"und %ateial ele%ents t" e *6+ takin) th)il *=+ #ith"ut he !athe:s pe%issi"n. Sin$e it did n"t 2nd de!endant:skn"#led)e "! )il:s a)e t" e %ateial' %istake "! !a$t de!ense did n"t h"ld*-istake "! a)e is )eneally n"t a de!ense.+

0HITE v. STATEDe!endant $"nvi$ted "! aand"nin) his pe)nant #i!e. De!endant $lai%eddid n"t kn"# his #i!e #as pe)nant. 4"ut dete%ined the %ateial ele%e"! the statute t" e that he aand"ned his #i!e' s" it #as ielevant that hedid n"t kn"# she #as pe)nant.

UNITED STATES v. @E3LADe!endants atte%pted t" " %en #h" tuned "ut t" e unde$"ve @,Ia)ents. De!endants #ee $ha)ed #ith assaultin) a !edeal "$e.De!endants: $lai% that they did n"t kn"# thei vi$ti%s #ee !edeal "$e!ailed e$ause it #"uld have een #"n) t" assault any"ne.

F. MI&TA9' O LAWa. 6eneral Rule+

ista!e or ignorance o law is generally not a deense-. Rationale+

The law #resumes e,er"one 7nows its reuirements -e!ause the laws are-ased on so!iet"0s standards for moral !ondu!t

!. "#ceptions$i. *eendant misled by ocial authority(relian!e on an in,alid statute G

misreadin of law is insu=!ient relian!e on :udi!ial de!ision relian!e onadministrati,e order relian!e on o=!ial inter#retation$

ii. ecause o ignorance or mista!e o law, deendant lac!s mens reaor crime

(mista7e is a defense if the mista7e neates the mens rea ne!essar"disareement with law is insu=!ient$REGINA v. S-ITH

De!endant #as $ha)ed #ith da%a)in) an"the pes"n:s p"pety' he %istakenly elieved that unde the la# the p"pety he dest"yedel"n)ed t" hi%. ,e$ause de!endant had t" kn"# that the p"pety


8/29

el"n)ed t" s"%e"ne else' his %istake as t" the le)al status #as ade!ense.

LIPAR3TA v. UNITED STATESDe!endant $ha)ed #ith unauth"i;ed use "! !""d sta%ps' ut he didn"t kn"# that the #ay he #as a$Juiin) !""d sta%ps #as ille)al.,e$ause the statute eJuies that the de!endant kn"# that hisa$Juisiti"n is ille)al' %istake "! la# is a de!ense.

4HEE5 v. UNITED STATESDe!endant $"nvi$ted "! #ill!ully !ailin) t" 2le !edeal ta/es' utde!endant $lai%ed that he h"nestly elieved he #as n"t eJuied t"pay ta/es. -istake "! la# de!ense h"lds e$ause he did n"t #ill!ullyvi"late statute. Alth"u)h de!endant #as pe%itted t" use %istake "la# as a de!ense' he #as $"nvi$ted e$ause $"ut dete%ined that h#as t"" #ellCin!"%ed t" tuly think that he did n"t have t" pay ta/e$"ut elieved his a$ti"ns t" e a p"test and n"t a %istake. *5n"#ile)al "li)ati"ns and $h""sin) n"t t" !ul2ll the% d"es n"t Juali!y as%istake "! la#.+

iii. -ac! o reasonable notice o the law

(due #ro!ess reuires that defendant ha,e su=!ient noti!e as to what a!onstitute a ,iolation of the law this is a ,er" narrow e8!e#tion$LA-,ERT v. 4ALI@3RNIA

De!endant #as $ha)ed #ith !ailin) t" e)iste as a $"nvi$ted pes"neJuied up"n aival in L"s An)eles. She had n" n"ti$e "! this status" the $"ut all"#ed he %istake "! la# e/$epti"n.-ambert e#ception re.uires$

*eendant/s conduct is wholly passiveThere was no actual notice o the lawThe violation involves a regulatory oense

i,. &ultural *eenses

(defendants are e8#e!ted to li,e a!!ordin to the standards of !ondu!t the !ommunit" in whi!h the" li,e1 so !ultural defenses are rarel" allowe-ut the" ma" mitiate defendant0s #unishment$

III. )OMICID'A. De3nition+

Unlawful 7illin of another human -ein%. A&T0% 1"0%$ 2illing

(earHandHaHda" rule+ under !ommon law1 death must o!!ur within a "ear and a dof defendant0s a!ts to !onstitute 7illin most :urisdi!tions ha,e a-andoned thisreuirement1 -ut it remains in for!e in federal !ourts$

?. "3% 1"A

a. alice aorethought 4 murder-. 5ross negligence 4 manslaughter

@. &+1&0%TA3&"$ another human beinga. etus (not a human -ein unless laws s#e!i3!all" state otherwise$-. &ui!ide (7illin of oneself assisted sui!ide ma" -e homi!ide$!. Infanti!ide (7illin a "oun !hild$d. Patri!ide (7illin one0s #arents$

*. L'>'L& O )OMICID'%. MURD'R

(all murders reuire #roof of mali!e$a. 6+1%T7*"51"" 01*"1

('1""*+TAT+83)


9/29

i. 1e.uires cool, deliberate thoughtii. %ome courts e.uate 9premeditation: with 9purposeul: (&arroll

approach); other courts re.uire proo o purposeul deadly conducwith a preconceived design (Anderson approach)

iii. There is no time too short(in -etween shots is su=!ient$i,. Di5erent a##roa!hes+

(%$&arroll approach

1ule$ Any cool, deliberate thought, even i ormed in a matter oseconds, is sucient to demonstrate premeditation (As lon as#rose!ution #ro,es that the defendant a!ted with the !ons!ious #ur#os7ill the ,i!tim.$@a$ts( In 4a"ll' de!endant killed his #i!e' #h" had een ausin) thei$hilden and #as upset that the de!endant #"uld e leavin) h"%ee$ause "! #"k. A!te a p"ta$ted a)u%ent' the $"uple #ent t" ed.A!te thinkin) !" 2ve %inutes a"ut #hat his #i!e had d"ne t" thei$hilden' de!endant ea$hed !" the )un that his #i!e kept at the head "thei ed !" p"te$ti"n. He sh"t his #i!e t#i$e in the a$k "! the head'#apped up he "dy' and du%ped it in a des"late pla$e.

(?$Anderson approach1ule$ 'remeditation re.uires pree#isting reCyeaC"ld )il t" death. vi$ti% #as !"und hidden in he h"%e' nude' and staed "ve 9> ti%esDe!endant had een stayin) at the h"%e' and #as dinkin) and lied t"

!a%ily %e%es as they tied t" lean the #heea"uts "! the %issin)vi$ti%. De!endant:s 2stCde)ee %ude $"nvi$ti"n #as evesed due t"insu$ient eviden$e "! pe%editati"n.

(@$'& approach1ule$ All intentional !illings are murder The acts underlying t!illings are used as aggravating and mitigating circumstances sentencing

,. Defenses+(%$DIMINI&)'D CAPACIT

Defendant ma" arue in!a#a!it" to #remeditate -e!ause of a#s"!holoi!al disorder.

(?$INTOICATION6enerall" not a defense1 -ut if defendant is so into8i!ated that he !annform the !ool1 deli-erate thouhts ne!essar" for #remeditation1into8i!ation ma" #re!lude 3ndin of mens rea.

-. %"&83*7*"51"" 01*"1(A-+&")i. +ntent to !illii. +ntent to cause serious bodily harmiii. 5ross rec!lessness

6ross re!7lessness ,s. re!7lessnessConsider manitude of ris7 ,s. so!ial utilit" of !ondu!t


10/29

Manitude of Ris7 (foreseea-ilit" of harm to ,i!tim1 seriousness ofharm$&o!ial Utilit" of Condu!t (!ost of a,oidan!e1 !ondu!t0s -ene3t toso!iet"$

43--3N0EALTH v. -AL3NEDe!endant sh""ts and kills the vi$ti% duin) a )a%e "! Russian R"ulettDe!endant !"und )uilty "! %ude' even i! he neve intended t" kill "

sei"usly inFue the vi$ti%. It is su$ient i! the de!endant kn"#s his$"ndu$t inv"lved an una$$eptaly hi)h isk "! death.

i,. &atchall category$ i there is insucient evidence o premeditatio(or frst7degree murder) or provocation (or manslaughter), butdeendant !nowingly !illed, second7degree murder is the deault

,. &"non"mous #hrases+ mali!e1 e8treme indi5eren!e to human life1 re!7lessand wanton disreard1 ross de,iation from the standard of !ondu!t1de#ra,ed indi5eren!e1 de#ra,ed and malinant heart

?. MAN&LAU6)T'Ra. V8-03TA1= A3%-A05>T"1

(>"AT 86 'A%%+83?'18V8&AT+83)

i. 'rovocation(%$Actual heat o passion

(defendant must a!tuall" -e #ro,o7ed$(?$-egally ade.uate provocation

(limited to those situations in whi!h a reasona-le #erson miht ha,e -esimilarl" #ro,o7ed$

&ommon law$*eendant could only claim provocation under circumstances(e.1 e8treme assault or -atter" on defendant or !lose relati,e1 mutu!om-at1 dis!o,er" of s#ouse0s adulter"$@ords alone are insucient

GIR3UARD v. STATEDe!endant staed his #i!e in esp"nse t" he insults e)adinhis se/ual aility' ut the $"ut dee%ed this insu$ientp"v"$ati"n t" Fusti!y stain).

odern law$8bective (reasonable person with no particulariBed

characteristics)%emiobective (reasonable person with deendant/sphysical characteristics, including gender and age)%ubective (reasonable person in deendant/s situation he believes it to be); '& standard

(@$Absence o cooling time(too mu!h time !annot ha,e ela#sed -etween the time of #ro,o!ation athe a!t of 7illin if too mu!h time has #assed1 #rose!ution ma" arue tdefendant0s rea!tion was #remeditated1 !onstitutin 3rstHderee murde&ommon law$

udges could decide not to give provocation ury instruction the time between provocation and act o !illing were so longthat the deendant was not li!ely to be in the heat o passion

odern law$ury must determine whether sucient cooling time haselapsedurors may consider$


11/29

-ong7smoldering reaction1e!indling doctrine

ii. "#treme emotional distress(%$'& approach$

A !illing which would otherwise constitute murder is reducedmanslaughter i it is committed under the in8+&+*")

i. 5ross negligence(Ordinar" nelien!e is usuall" insu=!ient for !riminal homi!ide$5ross negligence (as opposed to ordinary negligence)$(%$*eendant was not aware o the ris! ta!en(?$1is! greatly outweighed the social utility o the conduct

43--3N0EALTH v. 0ELANS5YDe!endant "#ned a ni)ht$lu that had inadeJuate e%e)en$y e/and #as )eneally $"#ded and unsa!e. 3ne ni)ht' #hen the "#n#as in the h"spital' a a "y a$$identally stated a 2e y li)htin%at$h nea !"% tale de$"ati"ns. The 2e spead' tappin) andkillin) %any pat"ns and e%pl"yees. De!endant #as $"nvi$ted "

inv"luntay %anslau)hte. The $"ut held that' even th"u)hde!endant #as appaently una#ae "! the isk at the $lu and #an"t even pesent #hen the 2e "$$ued' he #as )"ssly ne)li)enits "peati"n.

Contri-utor" nelien!e is not a defenseDI45ERS3N v. STATE

De!endant #as speedin) is his $a #hen he s%ashed int" vi$ti$a' killin) hi%. Even th"u)h vi$ti% had een ne)li)ent as t"#hee he paked his $a' the de!endant #as )uilty "!%anslau)hte.

O-:e!ti,e ,s. su-:e!ti,e


12/29

O-:e!ti,e fo!uses on what the reasona-le #erson in defendant0ssituation would do1 -ut defendant0s situation enerall" does notin!lude one0s reliion (e.1 Christian &!ientists0 use of #ra"er insteof medi!ine to !ure illness !ould -e !onsidered rossl" nelient$

ii. 1ec!lessnessConsider ross ,s. ordinar" re!7lessness (if ross1 it !onstitutes se!ondH

deree murder$

C. 6"-83=701*"1%. *octrine$ + a deendant causes a death during the commission o a elo

the prosecution need not prove that the deendant acted with an intent!ill(Defendant is uilt" of ;!onstru!ti,e murder< -e!ause the intent to commthe elony substitutes the intent to !ill or cause grievous bodily harm.$6elon is strictly liable or all !illings committed personally or by anaccomplice in the course o the elony

?. *oes not re.uire mens rea@. Alternative approach to prove murderE. '& reects this rule

PE3PLE v. STA-P

De!endant "ed vi$ti% at )unp"int. Sh"tly a!te de!endant ed' vi$ti%died "! a heat atta$k. Even th"u)h thee #as n" eviden$e that de!endan#anted vi$ti% t" die' de!endant #as still esp"nsile !" %ude.

REGINA v. SERNEDe!endant #as $ha)ed #ith %ude "! his s"n e$ause de!endant set 2ehis h"%e t" $"lle$t insuan$e %"ney "n it and his s"n. 4"ut instu$ted thFuy that de!endant #as )uilty "! %ude i! he a$ted #ith eithe kn"#led)ethat his a$ti"ns #"uld kill *%ali$e+ " an intent t" $"%%it a !el"ny *!el"nyC%ude+. *Nevetheless' Fuy !"und hi% n"t )uilty.+

F. 1e.uirements$a. 6elony must be inherently dangerous to human lie

i. *angerous in the abstract(!onsider the felon" in the a-stra!t otherwise it will -e alwa"s !onsidereddanerous -e!ause death o!!urred$

ii. *angerous as committed(some !ourts e8amine !aseHs#e!i3! !ir!umstan!es1 whi!h ma7es it moreli7el" to 3nd the felon" to -e danerous$PE3PLE v. PHILLIPS

De!endant' a $hi"pa$t"' !a$ed %ude $ha)es a!te de!audin) a $hilpaents int" payin) hi% !" he teat%ent instead "! "ptin) !" su)ey.@el"nyC%ude #as "1eed t" Fuy' ut this #as evesed "n appeale$ause the undelyin) !el"ny' )and the!t' is n"t inheently dan)e"us

hu%an li!e.-. erger doctrine$ 6elony must be independent rom the !illing

(without this1 all felonies in,ol,in a death would -e murder$i. &onsider purpose o elony

(if #ur#ose is other than 7illin or ra,el" harmin ,i!tim1 it is inde#endenA121 automatically .ualiy or frst7degree murder$

urglaryArson1obbery2idnapping1apeayhem


13/29

ii. &onsider danger o elony+(%$Least danerous felonies

(inelii-le -e!ause of ;inherentl" danerous< limitation$(?$Most danerous felonies

(inelii-le -e!ause of ;inde#endent felon"


14/29

De!endant #as the )eta#ay dive in a "ey. 0hile his $"C!el"ns #ee"in) a st"e' "ne "! the vi$ti%s sh"t "ne "! the $"C!el"ns. Unde a)en$ythe"y' de!endant #"uld n"t e liale !" $"C!el"n:s death' ut unde vi$ai"usliaility he #as $"nvi$ted "! %ude.

D. +%*""A3817A3%-A05>T"1(0nlawul Act doctrine$%. ust as the elony7murder rule substitutes or proving intent in a murde

case, the misdemeanor7manslaughter rule may be used as a substitute proving the mens rea or an involuntary manslaughter charge

'. CAU&ATION(Onl" !onsidered in the !onte8t of those !rimes reuirin a s#e!i3! result -ut wherethe result is too distant from defendant0s a!ts to #unish him for that !rime s#e!i3!a%. A!tual Cause

(-utHfor !ause$a. Was defendant a lin7 in the !hain of e,ents that led to the harmful resultJ

(Would the harmful e,ent not ha,e o!!urred -ut for defendant0s a!tsJ$PE3PLE v. A43STA

De!endant led p"li$e "n a hi)hCspeed $hase' duin) #hi$h t#" heli$"ptes

$ashed. De!endant liale !" the deaths "! the heli$"pte passen)es. A2ndin) "! p"/i%ate $ause #as app"piate. *,ut' the $"ut evesed thel"#e $"ut ulin) "n a di1eent asis 2ndin) insu$ient eviden$e "! %ali$t" supp"t a $"nvi$ti"n !" %ude+.

?. Pro8imate Cause(leal !ause$a. Was defendant0s a!t a su=!ientl" dire!t !ause of harm to warrant im#osin

!riminal lia-ilit"Ji. Con!urrent !ausesii. A!!eleration theor"

-. Was the harm foreseea-leJ

PE3PLE v. ARM3NDe!endant set 2e "n 2!th "" "! a uildin). A sepaate 2e "ke "ut the se$"nd "" "! the uildin)' #hi$h led t" the death "! a 2e2)hte.4"ut !"und "th utC!" and p"/i%ate $ause.

PE3PLE v. 5I,,EDe!endants "ed a dunken vi$ti% and le!t hi% hal!Cnaked y the "ain suC!ee;in) te%peatues. A passin) tu$k stu$k and killed vi$ti%.4"ut !"und "th utC!" and p"/i%ate $ause. *De!endant did n"t nee!"e see e/a$tly h"# ha% #"uld "$$u' he "nly needed t" !"esee thatha% $"uld "$$u.+

i. >ulnera-ilit" of ,i!tim

(defendant ta7es his ,i!tim as he 3nds him1 so unusual ,ulnera-ilities orwea7nesses are no e8!use$

ii. Transferred intent(if defendant intends to hurt one #erson -ut instead harms another1 his int

to in:ure is su=!ient$iii. Additional harm

(if defendant intends to harm one ,i!tim -ut hurts another more seriousl"1is res#onsi-le for the more serious harm !aused$

!. Inter,enin A!tsi. Did an inter,enin a!t o!!ur to -rea7 the !hain of !ausationJ

(%$Was the inter,enin a!t foreseea-leJ(?$What t"#e of inter,enin a!t o!!urredJ


15/29

(a$A!ts of nature(do not usuall" -rea7 the !hain$

(-$Medi!al maltreatment(do not usuall" -rea7 the !hain1 unless intentional or rossl"

in!om#etent$(!$ Inter,enin disease

(do not usuall" -rea7 the !hain$

(d$A!ts of the ,i!tim(i$ >i!tim0s ,oluntar" a!ts

(!an -rea7 the !hain1 e,en if o##ortunit" for harm was i,en -"defendant$

(ii$>i!tim0s in,oluntar" a!ts(do not usuall" -rea7 the !hain$

(iii$ >i!tim0s es!a#e attem#ts(do not usuall" -rea7 the !hain -e!ause the" are seen as

in,oluntar"$(e$Additional Per#etrators

(some !ourts hold -oth #er#etrators lia-le other !ourts hold 3rst

#er#etrator for attem#t and the se!ond for the !om#leted !rime$@. '& Approach

a. *eendant is only liable or crime he had mens rea to commit-. MPC is not ,er" rele,ant for this -e!ause most states do not ha,e statutor"

reuirements for !ausationI>. Anti!i#ator" O5enses

A. ATT"'T%. 5eneral 1ule$

ens 1ea C Actus 1eus D 1esult?. ens 1ea$ purposeul or specifc intent

(7nowlede is insu=!ient1 -ut it !an -e used to show #ur#ose$

@. Actus 1eus$ substantial step toward completion o crimea. irst ste#

(insu=!ient to esta-lish attem#t$-. Last ste#

(this is su=!ient to esta-lish attem#t1 -ut waitin until the last ste# ma" -e tlate$

!. Danerous Pro8imit"i. )ow man" ste#s did defendant ta7eJii. )ow mu!h more a!tion was ne!essar" to !om#leteJiii. Wh" didn0t the harm o!!urJi,. )ow mu!h harm would ha,e resultedJ

,. )ow serious was the #ros#e!ti,e harmJPE3PLE v. RIMM3

De!endant d"ve a"und t" 2nd a pay"ll $lek t" ". He #as a%ed andpepaed t" $"%%it "ey' ut p"li$e appehended hi% e!"e he $"uld2nd his p"spe$tive vi$ti%. De!endant #as n"t )uilty e$ause his a$ts #e%ee pepaati"n.B

d. Uneui,o!alit" test(;res i#sa louitor< 4 ;the fa!ts s#ea7 for themsel,es


16/29

(:ur" instru!tions+ ;su-stantial ste# stronl" !orro-ati,e of defendant0s intentE. Punishment

a. ay be charged up to a elony-. 'unishment or attempt usually carries a lighter punishment than th

crime itseli. defendant0s a!ts !aused less harm to so!iet" than the a!tual !rime would

ha,e

ii. en!ouraes !riminals to a-andon e5orts -efore !om#letin !rime!. '& ma!es attempt punishable to the same e#tent as the completed

crime (-e!ause defendant had the mens rea of the !rime$1 e8!e#t for !rimes#unisha-le -" death or life im#risonment

d. *ad thouhts are insu=!ient deendant must have ta!en a substantialstep toward completion o the crime

F. Most states do not re!oni2e attem#ted felon"HmurderK. Defenses to Attem#t+

a. A*ANDONM'NT(defendant who re#ents and deserts e5orts to !ommit a !rime ma" tr" to rais

this defense$

i. '& recogniBes abandonment i all these (&AV) occur$(%$&omplete renunciation

(defendant must not -e moti,ated -" a de!ision to #ost#one !riminal!ondu!t until a more ad,antaeous time or to transfer the !riminal e5oto another #ros#e!ti,e ,i!tim$

(?$Abandon eorts beore the crime is completed(@$Voluntary renunciation

(fear of ettin !auht !annot moti,ate defendant someone else !anno#re,ent defendant from !ommittin !rime defendant must ha,e a sin!!hane of heart$

-. IMPO&&I*ILIT

(arises when a defendant has done e,er"thin #ossi-le to !ommit a !rime -uune8#e!ted fa!tual or leal !ir!umstan!es #re,ent the !rime from o!!urrin$i. 5eneral rule$

-egal impossibility is a deense, actual impossibility is notii. -egal impossibility+

(possible deense$(%$Defendant !ons!iousl" tries to ,iolate the law -ut there is no law

#rohi-itin his -eha,ior(a$Defendant #erforms an a-ortion that she thin7s is illeal1 -ut it turns

out that a-ortion is illeal in that :urisdi!tion(-$Defendant -elie,es the ta8 dedu!tion he is ta7in is illeal1 -ut the

dedu!tion is a!tuall" leal(?$Defendant0s !ondu!t miht otherwise ,iolate the law1 -ut he ma7es a

mista7e as to the leal status of some as#e!t of his !ondu!t(a$Defendant re!ei,ed unstolen #ro#ert" that he thin7s is stolen(-$Defendant shoots at a !or#se that he -elie,es to -e a li,e #erson

iii. 6actual impossibility+(no deense$(%$;had the !ir!umstan!es -een as defendant -elie,ed them to -e1 would

there ha,e -een a !rimeJ. ACCOMPLIC' LIA*ILIT

(all people who assist in the commission o a crime should be held accountabto some degree, or that oense$A. AID'R A*'TTOR

%. Parti!i#ants in !rime+a. Prin!i#al in the 3rst deree

(a!tual #er#etrator of the !rime$-. Prin!i#al in the se!ond deree

(#erson who aided and a-etted the #rin!i#al -" -ein #resent or near-"$!. A!!essor" -efore the fa!t

(#erson who hel#ed #re#are for the !rime$d. A!!essor" after the fa!t

(#erson who1 7nowin that a felon" had -een !ommitted1 re!ei,ed1 relie,ed1!omforted1 or assisted the felon not !onsidered an aider and a-ettor$

?. odern approacha. %ame punishment or all e#cept accessory ater the act-. A!!essor" after the fa!t is less !ul#a-le!. Prin!i#als need not -e !on,i!ted

@. Actus 1eus$ act o encouragementE. ens 1ea$ purpose to have crime succeed

(lowered to nelien!e for nelient !rimes$F. Consider when determinin #ur#ose+

a. Conne!tion -etween #rin!i#al and a!!om#li!e

-. &ta7e in the ,entureK. ere presence is insucient. @ords alone can be sucient, i the purpose is to encourage. @illul blindness is sucient

HI45S v. UNITED STATESDe!endant #as a$$used "! %ude !" alle)edly en$"ua)in) his !iend t" kthe vi$ti%. De!endant $lai%ed he #as n"t tyin) t" en$"ua)e the %ude4"ut evesed his $"nvi$ti"n e$ause' t" e )uilty "! aidin) and aettin)'de!endant %ust speak " a$t #ith pup"se t" en$"ua)e " assist an"the the $"%%issi"n "! a $i%e. @"$us %ust e "n de!endant:s pup"se #henuttein) the #"ds' n"t "n the e1e$t "! de!endant:s $"ndu$t "n the pin$ip

. -iability or all reasonably oreseeable oenses


18/29

(a!!om#li!e is lia-le for all reasona-l" foreseea-le !rimes that result from his a!or su##ort$

PE3PLE v. LUPARELL3De!endant asked !iends t" "tain in!"%ati"n a"ut his !"%e l"ve at an$"st. The !iends ended up killin) a pes"n in an e1"t t" "tain thein!"%ati"n' s" de!endant #as $"nvi$ted "! %ude e$ause the killin) #aseas"naly !"eseeale )iven de!endant:s eJuest.

*. CON&PIRAC(areement -" two or more #ersons to !ommit a !rime1 whether or not the !rime is

su!!essful$%. 'lements

a. Actus 1eus$ agreementi. "#press or implied agreementii. Agreement with un!nown parties

(all #arties to !ons#ira!" do not need to 7now ea!h other it is su=!ient fodefendant to 7now he is areein with others to !ommit a !rime$

-. ens 1ea$ intent to agree; purpose to commit actPE3PLE v. LAURIA

De!endant an a teleph"ne ans#ein) sevi$e used y p"stitutes. De!endkne# p"stitutes used his sevi$e !" thei usiness' ut $"ut uled thatkn"#led)e al"ne #as insu$ient t" estalish the %ens ea !" $"nspia$y.P"se$ut"s needed t" p"ve de!endant had a stake in the ventue ""the#ise had pup"se t" !a$ilitate $i%e.

!. 8vert Act re.uirement(some :urisdi!tions reuire an a!t -" an of the !ons#irators to set the !ons#ira

in motion$?. Conseuen!es

a. &u-stanti,e Conseuen!esi. &onspiracy is a separate crime

(if two #eo#le aree to !ommit a !rime and then !ommit it1 the" are ea!huilt" of !ons#ira!" as well as the su-stanti,e !rime$

ii. &onspiracy punishes preparatory conduct(mere a!t of areein to !ommit a !rime is su=!ient for !ons#ira!"!ons#ira!" is an in!hoate !rime that #unishes at the earliest stae of#lannin$

iii. &onspirators have co7conspirator liability ('in!erton liability)(on!e a defendant :oins a !ons#ira!"1 he is res#onsi-le for all a!ts of the !o!ons#irators done within the s!o#e of the !ons#ira!"1 e,en if there is note,iden!e of a!!om#li!e lia-ilit" not retroa!ti,e1 so defendant !annot -e!hared with !rimes !ommitted -efore he :oined !ons#ira!"$

-. Pro!edural Conseuen!esi. Cons#ira!" !hare :oins multi#le defendants for trial

!. Duration of Cons#ira!"(!ons#ira!" remains in e5e!t until it has -een a-andoned on until its o-:e!ti,

ha,e -een a!hie,ed$i. Withdrawalrenun!iation

(sinle !ons#irator !an limit his lia-ilit"$(%$Common law does not allow a-andonment or renun!iation on!e a #ers

:oins a !ons#ira!"1 he has no defenses(?$A-andonment

(a$Defendant must tell his !oH!ons#irators of his a-andonment1 or tell lenfor!ement of the !ons#ira!" and his #arti!i#ation in it


19/29

(-$This does not undo lia-ilit" for #re,ious in,ol,ement in !ons#ira!"(@$Renun!iation

(a$Defendant must thwart the !ons#ira!" (:ust attem#tin to sto# it isinsu=!ient$

(-$This allows defendant to a,oid !ons#ira!" !hare altoether(!$ This does not undo lia-ilit" for #re,iousl" !ommitted su-stanti,e !rim

d. &!o#e of Cons#ira!"

(When defendant is in,ol,ed in a !ons#ira!" of whi!h he is :ust a small #art h!an -e lia-le for all !ons#ira!ies if there is a !ommon ,enture orinterde#enden!e1 e,en if he doesn0t 7now all of his !oH!ons#irators$i. @heel conspiracy

(%$6or members o a wheel responsible or each other/s acts, theremust be a rim enclosing the individual spo!es involved in a crimthrough the same middleman

53TTEA53S v. UNITED STATES?= de!endants used the sa%e "ke t" "tain !alse l"ans' ut "the thathat "ke' %any de!endants had n" individual $"nne$ti"n. 4"ut !"unthe% t" e inv"lved in individual $"nspia$ies' n"t "ne la)e $"nspia$y

ANDERS3N v. SUPERI3R 43URTIlle)al a"ti"nist paid 6 pe"ple t" e!e pe)nant #"%en t" hi%. 4"uuled that all pe"ple #ee inv"lved in "ne $"nspia$y' even th"u)h theydidn:t ne$essaily kn"# ea$h "the' e$ause they all shaed the $"%%"inteest "! keepin) the a"ti"nist in usiness.

ii. &hain conspiracy(%$Although members o a chain conspiracy may not !now one

another, they !now there must be someone at each o the variostages or the scheme to wor!

(?$&ourts consider whether there is some evidence that the groupo each level !now the overall scope o the conspiracy and bene

rom itUNITED STATES v. ,RUN3

88 pe"ple $ha)ed #ith "ne $"nspia$y t" i%p"t' sell' and p"ssessna$"ti$s. 4"ut !"und that thee #as "ne $"nspia$y e$ause ea$hde!endant kne# he #as #"kin) al"n) a $hain "! individuals en)a)ed ins$he%e t" distiute du)s.

iii. Mi8ed !ons#ira!"(!ons#ira!" !an ha,e elements of -oth a wheel and a !hain !ons#ira!"$

e. Parties(some #eo#le ma" not ualif" as #arties to a !ons#ira!"$i. 5ebardi 1ule

(can/t have a conspiracy when one o the two people involved is thvictim, designed to be protected by law)

ii. @harton 1ule(i a crime, by defnition, re.uires two or more people, conspiracycannot be added to a conviction or the substantive crime)

iii. ilateral Approach(i co7conspirators have no intent to commit crime, they cannot beheld or conspiracy Actual danger is irrelevant; only mens reamatters)

i,. 0nilateral ('&) Approach(i a person thin!s he is involved in a conspiracy, but he actually isnot, he can be held liable)


20/29

>I.D''N&'&A. U&TIICATION

(e,en thouh defendant !aused some harm1 i,en the #arti!ular situation fa!in hihe made the so!iall" !orre!t de!isions$%. &'LHD''N&'

a. Rationale+When someone0s life is threatened1 he ma" ta7e ne!essar" ste#s to #rote!t h

life if someone must die1 it is -etter that it -e the aressor who hasdemonstrated antiso!ial !ondu!t

-. &ommon -aw$i. >83"%T A3* 1"A%83A-" 6"A1

(%$&onsider deendant/s$(a$'hysical attributes(-$1elevant !nowledge o attac!er(!$'rior e#periences

(?$A!tor0s -elief need not -e !orre!t(Im#erfe!t selfHdefense+ if defendant has an honest -ut unreasona-le-elief in the need to 7ill1 or he uses more for!e than is reasona-l"

ne!essar"1 defendant0s !rime is mitiated to G ,oluntar" or in,oluntar"1de#endin on :urisdi!tion G manslauhter$

(@$'& applies a subective standardPE3PLE v. G3ETM

G"ets sh"t !"u y"uths he th"u)ht #ee tyin) t" assault hi% "n a Ne#Y"k su#ay. He $lai%ed he a$ted in sel!Cde!ense' ut n"ne "! the y"utdisplayed a #eap"n. De!endant $lai%ed his !ea "! the y"uths #as asup"n a$e' %anneis%' and his past hist"y "! ein) %u))ed. 4"utupheld a se%i"Fe$tive standad' instu$tin) the $"ut t" $"nside aeas"nale pes"n in de!endant:s situati"n.

(E$*ATT'R'D &POU&' &NDROM'

(a$Nature of s"ndrome+Runs in !"!les of minor a-use1 serious atta!7s1 and reuests offori,eness

(-$Not alwa"s a!!e#ted as :usti3!ation1 -ut the relationshi# !an at leas!onsidered when determinin how a reasona-le #erson would ha,erea!ted

STATE v. 5ELLYDe!endant killed he husand #ith a pai "! s$iss"s and unsu$$ess!us"u)ht t" "1e eviden$e "! the atteed sp"use synd"%e t" supp"he sel!Cde!ense $lai%. H"#eve' the appellate $"ut held that su$heviden$e sh"uld have een ad%itted e$ause the husand had

epeatedly aused his #i!e and' at the ti%e "! the killin)' #asapp"a$hin) he in a theatenin) %anne. Eviden$e "! atteed sp"usynd"%e $"uld have helped Fuy de$ide #hethe the #i!e h"nestly aeas"naly !eaed !" he li!e.

(F$Other s"ndromes ma" -e #resented as attem#ted :usti3!ationii. ++3"3T A3* 03-A@60- T>1"AT

(%$Rationale+9illin is onl" :usti3ed when the defendant has not other alternati,e thato use for!e aainst another

(?$&ommon -aw Approach$(a$8bective standard(-$3o preemptive stri!es


21/29

STATE v. S4HR3EDERA 67Cyea "ld in%ate staed his "lde $ell%ate' #h" had theatenet" %ake a punkB "ut "! hi% y %"nin). The $"ut !"und that thee#as n"t eviden$e "! i%%inent theat' s" de!endant #as n"t entitled use sel!Cde!ense.

(!$ Possi-le e8!e#tion for -attered s#ouse (s#ouse ma" -elie,e threat isimminent without an o,ert threat at that moment$

STATE v. N3R-AN,atteed #i!e killed he husand in he sleep' ut she #as deniedthe sel!Cde!ense instu$ti"n e$ause the $"ut applied the "Fe$tistandad instead "! %akin) an e/$epti"n !" he.

(@$'& Approach$(a$%ubective standard(-$1ela#es imminency re.uirement; it is sucient i actor

reasonably believe that the use o deensive orce asimmediately necessary (does not re.uire an actual assault)

(E$*eendant may never deend himsel against lawul (eg, policeorce

iii. '18'81T+83A- 1"%'83%" (38 "E&"%%+V" 681&")(%$A person may only use orce that is necessary(?$Deadl" for!e ma" onl" -e used in res#onse to a threat of death or serio

-odil" harm(@$or!e ma" onl" -e used aainst atta!7er(E$6enerall"1 defendant is not res#onsi-le for a!!idental in:ur" of an inno!

third #art" if defendant a!ted in selfHdefense1 unless defendant wasnelient or re!7less

(F$'& Approach$(a$Allows deadly orce or threat o 9death, serious bodily harm

!idnapping, or se#ual intercourse compelled by orce or thre

(-$"#pands deense to include threats o crimes that could easiescalate into threat o deadly orce or serious bodily harm

i,. *0T= T8 1"T1"AT(%$Rationale+

&elfHdefense should onl" -e used when a-solutel" ne!essar"(?$Onl" arises when defendant uses deadl" for!e(@$If defendant !annot safel" retreat1 there is not dut" to do so(E$&astle 1ule$ deendant has not duty to retreat when attac!ed in

his own home,. 38 +3+T+A- A551"%%+83

(%$Rationale+

or!e is onl" :usti3ed when defendant is for!ed to defend himself he!annot enerate the ne!essit" to 7ill

UNITED STATES v. PETERS3NDe!endant sa# 5eitt and !iends stippin) his $a. De!endant #ent int" h"use' pulled "ut a )un' and theatened 5eitt and !iends. 5eitt #ielded#en$h' s" de!endant sh"t hi%. De!endant $lai%ed sel!Cde!ense' ut it#as e!used hi% e$ause he #as the initial a))ess" #hen he theaten#ith the )un.

(?$A #erson ma" -e an instiator without -ein the initial aressor initiaaressor is the 3rst #erson to es!alate a !onfrontation -" use orthreatened use of for!e a #erson is not an aressor is his !ondu!t1 al-#ro,o!ati,e1 is lawful


22/29

(@$Defendant who rea!hes safet" and intentionall" returns to a s!ene of,iolen!e is not entitle to selfHdefense

(E$Initial aressor ma" use nonHdeadl" for!e(F$Initial aressor ma" re!laim riht to use selfHdefense -" !ommuni!atin

his intent to withdraw from !onfrontation and sin!erel" attem#tin to dso

(K$'& Approach$

(a$+nitial aggressor only loses the privilege o sel7deense is heprovo!es the use o orce with the purpose o causing death serious bodily harm

?. D''N&' O OT)'R&1 PROP'RT1 LAW 'NORC'M'NTa. D''N&' O ANOT)'R

i. &ommon -aw Approaches$(%$1easonableness standard$

(a$aority approach(-$Allows the use o orce when deendant reasonably believes

such orce is necessary to deend a third person rom animminent, unlawul attac!

(?$Alter ego rule$(a$inority approach(-$1e.uires that the deendant 9stand in the shoes: o the pers

he was deending(!$Thus, deense o another is only authoriBed is the person bei

deended had the right to use deensive orceii. '& Approach$

(%$Allows deense o another when the deendant believes the useorce necessary (subective)

(?$>owever, the deendant is responsible or any rec!lessness ornegligence

-. D''N&' O PROP'RTi. &ommon -aw Approach$

(%$("arly law allowed deadly orce to prevent elony, even ust toprotect property)

(?$*eadly orce may only be used to protect human lie, not prope(@$>owever, i there was also threat to a person (eg, resident

present when his house is burglariBed), deadly orce may be usPE3PLE v. 4E,ALL3S

De!endant set up spin) )un in his )aa)e t" p"te$t his p"pety. 0het#" una%ed y"uths "ke int" the )aa)e' the spi) )un sh"t "ne in th!a$e. De!endant #as $ha)ed #ith assault #ith a deadly #eap"n. 4"u

denied de!endant:s $lai% "! de!ense "! p"pety and pes"n. ,e$ausede!endant #as n"t pesent at the ti%e "! the eakCin' he $"uld n"t $laisel!Cde!ense' and $"ut uled that deadly !"$e %ay n"t e used s"lely tp"te$t p"pety.

ii. '& Approach$(%$*eadly orce is only allowed in certain situations when$

(a$A person is being dispossessed o his dwelling(-$An intruder is committing a elony against the deendant/s

property (eg, burglary or arson) and has used deadly orceagainst the deendant


23/29

(!$An attempt to use orce, other than deadly orce, to prevent elony would e#pose deendant to substantial ris! o seriousbodily harm

!. LAW 'NORC'M'NTi. A##rehendin Misdemeanants

(%$(both common law and '&)(?$-aw enorcement may use only nondeadly orce

(@$ut i criminal threatens the lie o the arresting ocer, the omay act in sel7deense

ii. A##rehendin elons(%$8ld common law allowed law enorcement to use deadly orce t

prevent the escape o an unarmed suspected elon(until Tenness,. 6arner$

TENNESSEE v. GARNERP"li$e esp"ndin) t" a esidential u)lay sa# a y"un) %an eein)una%ed !"% the h"use. 0hen the y"un) %an !ailed t" esp"nd t" a$"%%and t" halt' an "$e sh"t and killed hi%. The $"ut held that thuse "! !"$e #as n"t Fusti2ed e$ause the suspe$t #as una%ed.

(?$3ow common law$(a$"vidence that the elon is armed(-$"vidence that the elon ust committed a crime involving

violence(@$'& Approach$

(a$Restri!ts use of e8treme for!e to felon" arrests(-$Allows a law enorcement deense only when$

(i$ *eendant is authoriBed to act as a police ocer or isassisting people whom he believes are authoriBed to do so

(ii$ There is no substantial ris! o inury to innocent bystande(iii$ 8ender posed a substantial ris! o death or serious

bodily harm@. N'C'&&IT

(!hoi!e of lesser of two e,ils$a. Rationale+

If defendant is fa!ed with a !hoi!e of e,ils1 and he !hooses the one least harmto so!iet"1 he is not deser,in of #unishment

-. Courts are relu!tant to a##l" the ne!essit" defense to intentional homi!idesi. Ma:orit" a##roa!h+

No ne!essit" defense in intentional homi!ide !asesii. Minorit" a##roa!h+

Ta7in fewer li,es to sa,e more li,es

iii. MPC a##roa!h+Allows use of a ne!essit" defense in homi!ide !ases as lon as a lessernum-er of li,es is lost to sa,e reater num-er of li,es

!. '!onomi! ne!essit" alone is insu=!ientd. If a defendant is for!ed -" for!es of nature to !ommit a !riminal a!t1 ne!essit

(not duress$ is the #ro#er defensee. &ommon -aw "lements$

i. &hoice o evils(%$Choi!e is ordinaril" -etween immediate #h"si!al harm and !ommittin

!rimeii. 3o apparent legal alternatives


24/29

(%$Ne!essit" defense is a last resort if there is a lawful alternati,e1 defendmust sele!t it

iii. +mmediate threat(%$If threat is in the future1 defendant has time to 3nd an alternati,e

i,. &hose lesser harm(%$Most im#ortant element(?$O-:e!ti,e standard from so!iet"0s #oint of ,iew1 defendant must #i!7 th

lesser e,il,. 3ot sel7created

(%$Defendant !annot !reate ne!essit" and then use ne!essit" defense to,iolate law

,i. 3o contrary legislation(%$If there has alread" -een a leislati,e :udment that a #arti!ular ne!ess

does not outweih so!iet"0s su##ort for a !ertain law1 defendant ma" n!laim ne!essit"

f. '& Approach$i. *roader than !ommon law+

(%$3o imminency re.uirement

(a$Imminen!" is merel" a fa!tor to -e !onsidered when determinin ifthere was a lawful alternati,e

(?$3o absolute prohibition on sel7created necessity(a$Ne!essit" ma" a##l" to selfH!reated situations1 -ut defendant ma" -

#rose!uted for nelient o5enses -e!ause he was nelient in !reatthe situation (e.1 defendant with ne!essit" defense to arson ma" -e!hared with !riminal mis!hief for his nelient a!ts$

(@$ay be applied in homicide prosecutions(a$While most !ommon law :urisdi!tions do not allow the ne!essit"

defense in homi!ide situations1 MPC does not #ut su!h limitations onthe do!trine

PE3PLE v. UNGERDe!endant #as theatened y "the in%ates #ith ape and death' ut he did seek the help "! pis"n auth"ities e$ause he !eaed etaliati"n. Instead'de!endant es$aped. Auth"ities appehended hi% t#" days late. De!endant#as entitled t" ne$essity instu$ti"n *e$ause it #as e!"e the ,ailey $ase+.

UNITED STATES v. ,AILEYDe!endant:s es$aped !"% Fail and atte%pted t" use a ne$essity de!ensee$ause "! the dan)e"us $"nditi"ns they !a$ed in pis"n. H"#eve' a!te thees$ape' they $"ntinued t" evade the la#' s" they #ee n"t )iven ne$essityde!ense.+n order or necessity to apply to escaped inmates, they must

surrender to authorities as soon as they reach saety*. 'CU&'

%. DUR'&&a. Another #erson0s use of for!e or threat of for!e !om#elled defendant to !omm

a !rime-. Onl" another human -ein !an !ause duress!. Ne!essit" ,s. Duress

(usti3!ation ,s. '8!use$i. Ne!essit"Fusti2esa defendant0s a!tions -e!ause the defendant made the

riht !hoi!e i,en the !hoi!e of e,ils fa!in himii. Duress e/$usesa defendant0s -eha,ior -e!ause the threats -" another

#erson de#ri,ed the defendant of a fair o##ortunit" to e8er!ise free will


25/29

d. Rationale+Relie,es a defendant of lia-ilit" if he was for!ed to !ommit a !rime -e!ause ha!ted without a fair o##ortunit" to e8er!ise free will and therefore is notdeser,in of #unishment (#ur#oses of #unishment would not -e met$

e. &ommon -aw "lements$i. Threat o death or serious bodily harm

('&$ Threat o unlawul orce)

(%$MPC ena!ted a slidin standard+ the reater the !rime1 the more seriouthe threat must -eSTATE v. T3S4AN3

A $hi"pa$t" e$eived $alls and n"tes #ith )eneal theats "! inFuya)ainst hi% and his #i!e i! he did n"t help in a s$he%e t" su%it!audulent insuan$e !"%s. Unde $"%%"n la# the theats %ay n"have een spe$i2$ en"u)h t" the ne$essay theat "! death " sei"u"dily ha% ne$essay !" duess' ut unde the -P4 $"de' de!endan#as all"#ed duess de!ense.

ii. +mminent threat('&$ 3ot a re.uirement)

UNITED STATES v. 43NTENT3CPA4H3NDu) deales theatened a 4"l"%ian ta/i dive and his !a%ily i! he didn"t s%u))le $"$aine. The $"ut ela/ed the i%%inen$y eJuie%ent anheld that de!endant $"uld $lai% a duess de!ense e$ause he had n"teas"nale avenue "! es$ape. This app"a$h is si%ila t" the -P4 vie#i%%inen$y.

UNITED STATES v. @LE-INGAn a%y "$e #as $"utC%atialed !" $"lla"atin) #ith the ene%y.De!endant $lai%ed that the ene%y theatened t" send hi% "n a death%a$h i! he did n"t $"lla"ate. ,e$ause i! #as n"t $lea #hen he #"ulstat the %a$h " that the %a$h #"uld lead t" death' de!endant #as n

entitled t" asset the duess de!ense.iii. Against deendant or a close riend or relative

('&$ Against any person)i,. &reating such ear that a reasonable person would yield,. *eendant did not put himsel in situation

('&$ *eendant did not rec!lessly create situation),i. 3ot available or homicide

('&$ Available or homicide)f. '!onomi! duress or threat to re#utation are not a!!e#ta-le for duress defens. Court ne,er :usti3es the 7illin of an inno!ent1 e,en if a #erson is under e8tre

duress and for!ed to 7ill we don0t et to !hoose whose life is more ,alua-le

h. Im#erfe!t duress+i. In some :urisdi!tions1 duress !an -e used to mitiate a homi!ide from mur

to ,oluntar" manslauhterii. Rationale+

Defendant who 7ills under duress is a!tin under e8treme emotional distrei. Courts are di,ided on whether duress is a defense to felon"Hmurder

?. IN&ANITa. Mental disorder whi!h #ro,ides a full defense to a !riminal !hare-. Ma" #re!lude defendant from -ein tried or e8e!uted for an o5ense!. To determine e8isten!e of mental defe!t+

i. Clear s"m#tomsii. )istor" of mental #ro-lems


26/29

iii. Medi!al dianosisi,. &in!erit" of !ase,. Num-er of similar !ases (not man" #eo#le would ualif"$,i. Did not -rin u#on self,ii.Controlla-ilit",iii. &tima (and other #oli!" !on!erns$

d. Com#eten!"

i. Insanit" !onsiders mental state at time of !rime1 -ut !om#eten!" !onsidermental state at time of trial

ii. Defendant must -e a-le to+(%$Consult with law"er(?$Understand #ro!eedins

iii. In!om#eten!" rulin results in+(%$Defendant0s !ommitment to a mental fa!ilit" until it is determined whet

he will -e!ome !om#etent to stand trial(?$If defendant is unli7el" to -e!ome !om#etent1 !riminal #rose!ution is

dro##ed and !i,il !ommitment is #ursuede. Rationale (for Insanit"$+

Punishin an insane #erson does not ful3ll #ur#oses of #unishment (e8!e#tin!a#a!itation and reha-ilitation1 whi!h are addressed -" institutionali2indefendant$

f. >er" di=!ult and rare for defendant to win with an insanit" defense. A=rmati,e defense (-urden of #roof on defendant defendant is #resume san

-e!ause otherwise all #rose!utors would ha,e to #ro,e sanit" as well as uilth. &ommon -aw$ /3aghten 1ule

i. *eendant must be presumed saneii. *eendant must prove$

(%$At the time o the act(?$>e had disease or disorder o the mind

(@$%uch that he did not !now$(a$3ature and .uality o the act; or

(e.1 defendant thin7s he is sli!in a melon1 -ut he is a!tuall" sli!inhead$

(-$That the act was wrong(result of mental defe!t1 not a result of mista7e of law$STATE v. 4RENSHA0

De!endant killed his #i!e "n thei h"ney%""n. He $lai%ed he dide$ause she had een un!aith!ul and his -"s$"vite eli)i"us !aithpes$ied death as the penalty !" adultey. H"#eve' de!endankne# that s"$iety #"uld 2nd the killin) #"n) e$ause he t""k

a$ti"ns t" hide the killin) and es$ape dete$ti"n. Even th"u)h hispes"nal %"ality san$ti"ned the killin)' de!endant #as n"t le)allinsane e$ause he kne# that his a$ti"ns #ee le)ally and %"ally#"n)' a$$"din) t" s"$iety.

i. '& %tandard$i. *eendant must be presumed saneii. *eendant must prove

(%$At the time o the act(?$>e has disease or disorder o the mind(@$%uch that he lac!ed substantial capacity to$

(a$Appreciate wrongulness o conduct (!oniti,e$; or(-$To conorm conduct (,olitional$


27/29

81(E$*eifc &ommand81(F$+rresistible +mpulse Test

(defendant is leall" insane if1 due to a mental disease or defe!t1 he woha,e -een una-le to sto# himself from !ommittin !rime1 e,en if there -een a #oli!eman at his el-ow at the time$

UNITED STATES v. LY3NSReFe$ts iesistile i%pulse test' dee%in) all i%pulses esistile.3the#ise' pe"ple $"uld ause this de!ense. 4"ut uled that a tulyinsane pes"n #"uld !ail "the pats "! insanity test' s" this pat isunne$essay.

:. MPC rela8ed !ommon law uidelines reuires a##re!iation of wronfulness-e"ond !ommon law0s 7nowlede reuirement

7. M0Nahten fa,ors #rose!ution MPC fa,ors defendant@. DIMINI&)'D CAPACIT

a. Partiall" e8!uses !rime it is a mitiation (defendant !ould -e !hared withlesser !rime$

-. Contro,ersial defense whi!h has -een a-andoned -" man" :urisdi!tions!. Rationale+

Claims defendant was su5erin from a !ondition whi!h #re,ented him fromformin the mens rea for !rime !ommitted

d. Insanit" ,s. Diminished Ca#a!it"+i. If defendant1 for whate,er reason (e.1 does not ha,e a medi!all" re!oni2

mental diseasedefe!t1 or !ourt determined he had su=!ient 7nowlede an!ontrol !a#a!it" reardin the !rime$1 !annot !laim insanit"1 he !an tr"diminished !a#a!it"

e. rawner Approach$i. 8nly allows diminished capacity to decrease specifc intent to

general intentii. There must be a lesser crime to hold deendant responsible or

f. @ilco# Approach$i. *oes not accept diminished capacity

. '& Approach$i. Allows diminished capacity or any crimeii. 6or general intent crimes, diminished capacity would reduce charg

to no crimeE. INTOICATION

a. Rationale+Defendant !annot ha,e formed mens rea for !rime

-. 6enerall"1 into8i!ation e,iden!e is not !onsidered rele,ant unless it is of su!hand e8tremel" hih deree that it !ould #rodu!e a !om#lete ;#rostration of thfa!ultiesoluntar" into8i!ation is not a defensePE3PLE v. H33D

De!endant #as $ha)ed #ith assault #ith a deadly #eap"n. ,e$auseassault d"es n"t eJuie a s"phisti$ated intent' the $"ut deniedv"luntay int"/i$ati"n as a de!ense.

F. 'NTRAPM'NTa. Defendant ma" -e e8!used of !riminal -eha,ior -e!ause o,ernment unfairl"

indu!ed him to !ommit !rime-. Rationale+

Pur#oses of #unishment do not a##l" -e!ause defendant was indu!ed to !om!rime

!. A=rmati,e defense (-urden on defense$d. "lements$

i. +nducement by government ocial or inormantii. Possi-le standards+

(%$'redisposition standard(su-:e!ti,e standard$(a$*eendant was not predisposed to commit crimeUNITED STATES v. RUSSELL

0hen de!endant had the #illin)ness and eadiness t" eak the la#'the %ee !a$t that a )"ven%ent a)ent p"vided a !av"ale"pp"tunity is n"t entap%ent *e$ause de!endant #as pedisp"sed $"%%it $i%e+.

(-$'8!e#tion when outraeous o,ernment !ondu!t !reated the !rimefrom -einnin to end

(?$5overnment inducement(o-:e!ti,e standard$


29/29

(a$5overnment/s conduct would have induced a law7abidingperson to commit crime

PE3PLE v. ,ARRAMADe!endant #as $ha)ed #ith sellin) he"in t" unde$"ve na$"ti$sa)ents. 0hile de!endant #as in a det"/ $ente' a)ents used a !e%ade$"y t" pessue hi% int" %akin) sale. De$"y %ade $"nstanteJuests t" )et hi% t" su$$u%. Given the $"ndu$t "! the "$e' $"

held that an entap%ent de!ense #as all"#ed e$ause the)"ven%ent:s $"ndu$t #"uld have indu$ed a la#Caidin) pes"n t"$"%%it a $i%e.

(-$California standard(@$'& %tandard$

(a$&ourt decides based on obective standard (because ury maydisapprove o government tactics)

>II. RAP'A. A&T0% 1"0%$ %e# without consent by orce, threat, or when incapacitated*. Defendant0s honest mista7e of !onsent used to -e an a!!e#ta-le defense1 -ut now

standard is o-:e!ti,e+ would a reasona-le #erson ha,e 7nown that there was not

!onsentC. De!eit does not ualif" for ra#e if ,i!tim !onsented unless ,i!tim did not reali2e se8

was o!!urrin (e.1 do!tor sa"s he is insertin an instrument -ut a!tuall" insertshimself$

Documents

Crim Law Levenson Spring 2013