Term
|
Definition
1.Utilarian Justification
2.Retributivism |
|
|
Term
| Modern Role of Criminal Statutes- 3 Doctrines of Substantive Criminat Law |
|
Definition
1.Principle of legality
2.Statutory Interpretation/Construction
3.Strict Construction |
|
|
Term
|
Definition
a.looks forward
b.Purpose of law is to maximize net happiness of society
c.Pain inflicted by punishemnet is justifiable if it is expected to result in a redution on the crime that would other wise occur
d.general deterrence „³ less to the rest
f.specific deterence „³ byincapacitaion and intimidation
g.reform |
|
|
Term
|
Definition
a.looks backward
b.just deserts
c.humans possess free will and are to blame |
|
|
Term
|
Definition
-“no crime without law, no punishment without law”; courts cannot create an offense by enlarging a statute, inserting/deleating words or by giving terms unsual meanings
First principle of American Criminal law
Art I §9 no Ex Post Facto; law works prospectively
Keeler court jurisdictional (not my job, legislature is to create, we interpret) and consutional agruments (no expofacto, due process, fair warning) |
|
|
Term
| Statutory Interpretation/Construction |
|
Definition
Statute must give sufficent warning that men may conduct themselves so as to avoid that which is forbidden
Void-for-vagueness „³ vague statutes deny fair notice and provide opportunity to act in an arbitray and discriminatroy manner |
|
|
Term
|
Definition
Lenity
requires strict construction; where criminal law is ambigous, so statute should be interpreted strickly against the government
MPC does not recognize the rule of lenity |
|
|
Term
|
Definition
burden of going forward
produce enough evidence to entitle to an instruction to the jury on the defense
If Prosecutor fails to meet burden of production regarding ANY of the elements, defendant is entitled to a directed verdict of aquittal
If defendant fails to meet burden of producation on affirmative defense the judge will not instruct the jury on the law |
|
|
Term
|
Definition
| must prove beyond a resonable doubt every fact necessary to constitute a crime |
|
|
Term
|
Definition
Prosecutor has the burden of production regarding each element of the crime charged beyond a reasonable doubt
Defendant has the burden of producing evidence pertaining to any affirmative defense |
|
|
Term
|
Definition
Mandatory Rebuttal Presumptions
Mandatory Irrebuttal Presumptions:
Permissive Presumptions
*MPC does not recognize mandatory presumptions, permits permissive presumtptions of criminal offenses |
|
|
Term
|
Definition
requires a finding of the presumed fact upon proof of the basic fact, unless that finding is rebutted by the opposing party.
*MPC does not recognize mandatory presumptions, permits permissive presumptions of criminal offenses |
|
|
Term
| Mandatory Irrebuttal Presumptions |
|
Definition
| requires the jury to find the presumed fact upon proof of the basic fact, even if the opposing party introduces rebutting evidence |
|
|
Term
|
Definition
| A permissive presumption is one in which the factfinder may, but need not, find the existence of the presumed fact upon proof of the basic fact. |
|
|
Term
|
Definition
Actus Reus
Mens Rea
Causation
Social Harm |
|
|
Term
|
Definition
|
|
Term
| Actus Reus - Voluntary - Common Law |
|
Definition
Presumed in statue even if not directly stated
requirement of some type of action to punish for crimes, don’t punish for thoughts alone.
Issue of conditioned response
Use of Alcohol/drugs not a complete defense
voluntary act is a prerequisite to criminal liability- it is an element of every criminal offense- procedural significance |
|
|
Term
| Actus Reus - Voluntary - MPC |
|
Definition
no person may be convicted of a crime in the absence of conduct that “includes a voluntary act or the omission to perform an act of which he is physically capable” 2.01(1)
allocates to the prosecution the responsibility to persuade the factfinder beyond a reasonable doubt of the existence of a voluntary act
defines act as a bodily movement whether voluntary or involuntary |
|
|
Term
|
Definition
failure to act
must be a legal duty not just moral obligation imposed by law or contract and omissions must be direct/immediate cause fo harm (Beardsley)
MPC 2.01 does not differ significantly from the common law |
|
|
Term
|
Definition
Intentionally
Knowingly
Negligently
Recklessly |
|
|
Term
| Mens Rea - Common Law - Intentionally |
|
Definition
Personal intentionally causes the social harm of an offense if:
1. It is his desire to cause social harm
OR
2. He acts with knowledge that the social harm is vitually certain to occur as a result of his conduct |
|
|
Term
| Mens Rea - Common Law - Knowingly |
|
Definition
A person who knowingly causes a particular result or knowingly engages in a specified conduct is commonly said to have “intended” the harmful result
Some crimes require knowledge of a material fact
Wilful blindness (ostrich analogy)deliberatley fails to investigate in order to avoid confirmation of the fact. |
|
|
Term
| Mens Rea - Common Law - Negligence |
|
Definition
Three Factors to consider:
1.the gravity of harm that forseeably would result from conduct
2.The probibility of such harm occuring
3.The reason for taking the risk, the consequences of the defendant in not partaking in the activity.
Criminal negligence requires inadvertent risk-taking (D as a reasonable person should have been aware of the substantial and unjustifiable risk) |
|
|
Term
| Mens Rea - Common Law - Recklessness |
|
Definition
Majority: recklessness requires proof that the actor disregarded a substantial and unjustifiable fact of which he was aware
Recklessness implicates a subjective fault, in that the actor was aware of the substantial and unjustifiable risk and consciously disregarded and proceed with dangerous conduct |
|
|
Term
|
Definition
Purposely
Knowingly
Recklessly
Negligently |
|
|
Term
| Mens Rea - MPC - Purposely |
|
Definition
2.02(2)(a)(i): a person acts purposely if it is his concious object to engage in conduct of that nature or to cause such a result.
2.02(2)(a)(ii): if he is aware of the existance of such circumstances or he believes or hopes they exist |
|
|
Term
| Mens Rea - MPC - Knowingly |
|
Definition
The actor is aware that it is practially certain that his conduct will cause such a result 2.02(2)(b)(ii)
Is aware that his conduct is of that nature or that such attendant circumstances exist.2.02(2)(b)(i)
To deal with wilful blindness the MPC includes a special provision that states knowledge is established if a person is aware of a high probability of attendant circumstances existence, unless he actually believes that it does not exist. |
|
|
Term
| Mens Rea - MPC - Recklessly |
|
Definition
| 2.02(2)(c): Actor consciously disregards a substantial and unjustified risk that the material element exists or will result from his conduct. |
|
|
Term
| Mens Rea - MPC - Negligently |
|
Definition
2.02(d): a persons conduct is negligent if the actor should be aware of a substantial and unjustifiable risk that the material element exists or will result from his conduct.
The defination for substantial and unjustifiable risk is the same as reckessness except that the term reasonable person is substituted for law-abiding person |
|
|
Term
| Reasonable Person - Common Law |
|
Definition
| Objective standard- the D conduct is comparted to external ideal, courts have “subjectivized” the reasonable person- to incorporate some of the mental and physical characteristics of the D |
|
|
Term
|
Definition
Evaluated from the perspective of a person in the actors situation
physical characteristics would apply but hereditary factors and matters of intelligence and temperment would not be held material |
|
|
Term
|
Definition
Strick liability doctrine is a rule of criminal responsibility that authorizes the conviction of a morally innocent person for violation of an offense, even though the crime by defination requires proof of mens rea.Usually public welfare offenses (health, safety, food, drugs) mal in se bad in itself, inherently wrongful mal prohibidum wrong b/c it is prohibited
Lighter penalities; less socail stigma; public welfare offenses Exception: statutory rape - MPC: 2.02 (1)exception, no conviction may be obtained unless the prosection proves some form of culpability regarding each material element of an offense
EXCEPTION 2.05: the voluntary act and mens rea required do not apply to offenses graded as violations rather than crimes. Violations are offenses that cannot result in improsonment or probation but may result in fines |
|
|
Term
| Mistake of Fact - Common Law |
|
Definition
SPECIFIC INTENT crimes: mistake of fact is exculpatory if it negates the particular element of mens rea
-reckless or negligent
GENERAL INTENT crimes: not guilty of a general intent crime if his mistake of fact was reasonable, but guilty if his mistake was unreasonable.
STRICT LIABILITY crimes: under no circumstance does a person’s mistake of fact negate his criminal responsibility for violating a strict liability offense |
|
|
Term
|
Definition
2.02(1): general rule that one is not guilty of an offense unless he acted “purposely, knowlingly, recklessly, or negligently as the law may require with respect to each material offense
EXCEPTION: the defense of mistake of fact is not avaliable if the actor would be guilty of another offense, had the circumstane been as he supposed. 2.04(2) - unlike CL legal-wrong doing doctrine (which maintains that D is guilty of the higher offense in such circumstances) the MPC only permits punishment at the level of the lesser offense |
|
|
Term
| Mistake of law - Common Law |
|
Definition
Ignorance of the law excuses no one - EXCEPTIONS
1.a person is NOT excused if she relies on her own erroneous reading of the law, however, she IS excused if she reasonably relies on an offical statement of the law, later determined to be erroneous, obtained from a person or public body with responsibility for the interpretation administration or enforcement of the law defining the offense. (People v. Marrero)
2.on occasion there may be an exceptional case in which it is so grossly unjust to assume that a citizen is aware of a penal law’s existance that one might expect that a court would provide some common law dispension.SPECIFIC INTENT: defense of Law whether reasonable or unreaonable is a defense if the mistake negates the specific intent in the prosecuted offense. (State v. Varszegi) - NOT a defense in GENERAL or STRICT. |
|
|
Term
|
Definition
2.04(3)(b): If a person believes that her conduct is lawful constitutes a defense if:
1.she relies on an offical, but erroneous, statement of the law
2.the statement of the law is found in a statute, judicial decision, administrative order or grant of permission, or an official interpretation by a public official or body responsible for interpretation administration, or enforcement of the law
3.reliance is otherwise reasonable
Fair Notice: 2.04(3)(a): A D is not guilty of an offense if she does not believe that her conduct is illegal and the statute defining the offense
1.is not known to her; AND
2.was not published or otherwise resonably made available to her before she violated the law |
|
|
Term
|
Definition
| The negation, endangering or destruction of an individual, group or state interest which was deemed socically valuable. |
|
|
Term
| Causation - Actual Cause - Common Law |
|
Definition
1.actus reus- voluntary act or omission that result (aka causes) the social harm - Actual cause : “But For” test
a.but for D’s voluntary act(s) would the social harm have occurred when it did? Prosecution must prove beyond a resonable doubt. ACCELERATION(oxendine v. state) if D caused the result to happen any sooner than it would have.Contribution or Aggravation without Acceleration is insufficent to establish casuation.In some cases there are concurrent sufficient causes (both would have caused the result). |
|
|
Term
|
Definition
| An act that is a direct cause of socail harm is also a proximate cause of it.A direct cause is a force already determined to be an actual cause fo the undesired result. |
|
|
Term
|
Definition
| An independent force that operates in producing social harm, but which only comes into play after the D’s voluntary act has been committed or his omission has occurred. |
|
|
Term
|
Definition
| D’s casual responsibility for ensuing harm is insubstantial in comparison to that of an intervening cause of the victims is a factor to consider in determing whether D’s negligence caused the victim’s death, it is not a defense |
|
|
Term
|
Definition
| Proximate causation is whether the intervening party’s acts were reasonably forseeable. D cannot escape liability if the intervening act was reasonably forseeable, whereas an unforseeable intervening cause is superseding in nature. |
|
|
Term
| Responsive (dependent intervening cause) |
|
Definition
Responsive intervening cause is an act that occurs in reaction or response to the D’s prior wrongful conduct - Responsive intervening cause does not relieve the intital wrongdoer of criminal responsibility, unless the response was highly abnormal or bizarre
-Kibble v. Henderson |
|
|
Term
| Coincidental (independent intervening causes) |
|
Definition
A coincidental intervening cause is a force that does not occur in response to the intitial wrongdoer’s conduct -
The only relationship between the D’s conduct and the intervening cause is that the D placed the victim in a situation where the intervening cause could independently act upon him. |
|
|
Term
|
Definition
| D’s active force has come to rest in a position of apparent safety - the court will follow it no longer (State v. Preslar) |
|
|
Term
| Free and Deliberate - Informed Human Intervention |
|
Definition
| D is far more apt to be relieved of criminal responsibility in the case of a free, deliberate, and informed- a voluntary knowing and intelligent intervening human agent than in the case of the intervention of a natural force or the action of a person whose conduct is not fully free. |
|
|
Term
|
Definition
| Omission will rarely, if ever, serve as a superseding intervening cause. |
|
|
Term
|
Definition
| ACTUAL CAUSE: applies the "but for" rule - To be guilty of an offense a person's conduct must cause the prohibited result. PROXIMATE CAUSE: unlike the CL, the MPC treats the "but for" casuation as the exclusive meaning of casuation in the criminal law. The MPC treats matters of proximate causation as issues relating instead to the actor’s culpability - 2.03(2)(b) and 3(b) deal with situations in which the actual result of the D’s conduct diverges from that which was designed, contemplated, or risked. Not if D was the proximate cause but rather whether it may still be said that D caused the prohibited result with the level of culpability |
|
|
Term
|
Definition
| Does NOT mean murder, it means unlawful killing of human beings - broken down into different catagories; malice aforethought is not considered |
|
|
Term
| Definition of Human Being - Common Law |
|
Definition
A fetus must be born alive to constitute a human being within the meaning of that term in a criminal homicide law - Meadows v. State
MINORITY - some states now treat a viable, or sometimes a nonviable fetus as a human being protected by that jurisdiction's homicide laws |
|
|
Term
| Homicide - Common Law - Death Defined |
|
Definition
TRADITIONAL RULE - a human being was dead when there was a complete and permanent stoppage of the circulation of the blood and the “cessation of the vital functions - Smith v. Smith
MODERN METHOD - death occurs when according to the accepted medical standards the individual experiences an irreversible cessation of breathing and heartbeat OR there is an absence of spontaneous brain activity |
|
|
Term
| Homicide - Common Law - Murder |
|
Definition
| The killing of a human being by another human being with malice aforethought - One who intentionally kills another human being without justification, excuse, or mitigating circumstances is guilty of malice aforethgought. |
|
|
Term
| Homicide - Common Law - Malice |
|
Definition
| Little connection to its non-legal meaning: a person who kills another acts with the requisite malice if she possesses any one of four states of mind - 1. The intention to kill a human being - 2.the intention to inflict grevious bodily injury on another - 3.an extremely reckless disregard for the value of human life - 4.the intention to commit a felony during the commision or attempted commision of which death results |
|
|
Term
| Homicide - Common Law - 1st Degree |
|
Definition
| Homicide that is committed WILLFULLY, DELIBERATELY and PREMEDITATED - Murder typically is SPECIFIC INTENT in the first degree - Prosecutor has the burden of proof the D formed the actual intent to kill another person (NOT reasonable person standard for first degree murder) |
|
|
Term
| Homicide - Common Law - Premeditation and Deliberation |
|
Definition
Premeditation- to think about before hand - Deliberation- synonym for intentional- state of mind free from influence of excitement or passion
-Majority rule: occurs in the twinkling of an eye - Minority rule: Morrin Rule premeditation think before hand, deliberate measure and evaluate
FORRESTER Factors: Premeditation and deliberation relate to mental process and not easily proved by direct evidence so need circumstantial evidence
1.want of PROVOCATION - 2.CONDUCT and STATEMENTS before and after - 3.THREATS and DECLARATIONS before and during - 4.ILL WILL or previous difficulty - 5.LETHAL BLOWS after HELPLESSNESS - 6.BRUTAL manners |
|
|
Term
| Homicide - Common Law - Felony Murder |
|
Definition
| A homicide that occurs during the perpetration or attmepted perpetration of a statutorily enumerated felony. |
|
|
Term
| Homicide - Common Law - Felony Murder - Inherently Dangerous Felony |
|
Definition
| Some courts consider felonies in the abstract- if by its very nature cannot be committed without creating a substantial risk that someone will be killed - Some consider all the facts and circumstances to determine if Inherently Dangerous. MPC uses the list method - lists those Felonies that are under the law. |
|
|
Term
| Homicide - Common Law - Merger |
|
Definition
| The felony murder rule only applies if the predicate felony is independent of or collateral to the homicide. If the felony is not independent then the felony merges with the homicide and cannot serve as the basis for felony-murder conviction |
|
|
Term
| Homicide - Common Law - Felony Murder - Res Gestate |
|
Definition
| Has 2 components - 1.A temporal and geographical proximity requirement (close proximity in terms of time and distance between the felony and the homicide) - 2. A causal aspect (prosecutor must show that was the felonious nature of the conduct that caused the death) |
|
|
Term
| Homicide - Common Law - Killing by a non-felon |
|
Definition
Majority: felony murder rule does not extend to a killing if an adversary to the crime rather than a felon, personally commits the homcidal act.
b.proximate causation- minority: felon is liable for any death proximately resulting form the felony whether the shooter is a felon or third person. |
|
|
Term
| Homicide - Common Law - Second Degree Murder |
|
Definition
Intent to inflict GREAT BODILY HARM- Grevious bodily injury is sometimes judically defined as such injury as is grave and not trivial and gives rise to apprehension of danger to life, health or limb - DEPRAVED HEART - murder is a reckless or extreme reckless homicide
- D involves conduct that manifests such a high degree of INDIFFERENCE to the value of HUMAN LIFE - Default Murder fails as P/D or under manslaughter no adequate provocation but still intentional. |
|
|
Term
| Homicide - Common Law - Manslaughter |
|
Definition
| An unlawful killing of a human being by another human being without malice aforethought. Voluntary, Involuntary. |
|
|
Term
| Homicide - Common Law - Voluntary Manslaughter |
|
Definition
| Intentional Killing committed in “sudden HEAT OF PASSION” as the result of “ADEQUATE PROVOCATION” - words alone do not provoke - does NOT apply to MPC. NO adequate COOLING OFF time - Casual Connection - Reasonable Person: Due to the influence of the MPC jurys are often instructed to test the D reaction to a provocation by the standard of the ordinary person in the actors situation- using age, size and sex of the person only. |
|
|
Term
| Homicide - Common Law - Involuntary Manslaughter (Criminal Negligence) |
|
Definition
An unintentional killing that is the result of “an act, LAWFUL IN ITSELF, but done in an UNLAWFUL MANNER, and without DUE CAUTION and circumstance.
- Gross Negligence, Culpable Negligence, and Recklessness best modern terms for criminal negligence - Involves a gross deviation from the standard of care that reaonable pepole would exercise in the same situation. It is something more than the slight degree of negligence- must be so gross to be deserving of punishment
-reckless- knew and did it anyway, negligent- should have known |
|
|
Term
| Homicide - Common Law - Misdemeanor Manslaughter |
|
Definition
| Unintentional killing that occurs during the commission of a crime that is not a felony - considered involuntary manslaughter. |
|
|
