Standard of Proof

Beyond a Reasonable Doubt

                                                            1.  High standard of proof because jury has so much power

                                                            2.      Meaning of reasonable doubt?

                                                            1.      Jurors believe the facts as proven by the prosecution and understand that, under law, the defendant has committed a crime, but for some reason, decide to acquit the defendant.

                                                            2.      Jury has the right to nullify because of double jeopardy.

1. Retributivism – defeat of the wrongdoer at the hands of the victim that symbolizes the correct relative value of wrongdoer and victim. 

i. Majority today!

 ii. Problem: victimless crimes

2. Utilitarianism – purpose of all laws is to augment total happiness of the community. Cost benefit analysis.

1. Principle of legality prohibits judicial crime creation

   2. Void for vagueness forbids wholesale legislative delegation of lawmaking authority to the courts.

i. Leaves too much discretion to the courts.

3. Rule of strict construction says that judicial interpretation of unclear statutes should be biased in favor of the accused.

i. Conduct (voluntary act)

ii. Causation

 iii. Harmful result

a. Statute imposes a duty

b. Certain status relationship with another. c. Assumed a contractual duty of care for another.

d. One has voluntarily assumed the care of another and so secluded the helpless person as to prevent others from rendering aid.

e. Person creates a risk of harm to another.

a. Intentionally: conscious objective purpose is to accomplish result or engage in conduct.

b. Knowingly: consciously aware that such result is practically certain to be caused by conduct.

c. Most jurisdictions mean intentionally or knowingly even when mens rea only says intentionally.

a. General intent when no mental state in definition of crime. Specific intent is an offense in which mental state is listed. 

b. Specific intent is used if the mens rea element is intent or knowledge and general intent is for crimes with recklessness or negligence mental states.

1. intention by the actor to commit some future act, separate from the actus reus (possession with intent to sell) OR

2. Proof of the actor’s awareness of an attendant circumstance (intent to sell obscene literature to a person under the age of 18). OR

3. Proof of a special motive OR purpose for committing the actus reus (offensive contact upon another with intent to cause humiliation.

a. Section 2.02 (most influential section of MPC)

i. each material element of offense has to be proven with some specified mental state. Material elements such as: (1) nature of forbidden conduct;

(2) attendant circumstances;

(3) result of conduct.

Mens Rea- MPC

Four mental states

1.Purposely

2. Knowingly

3. Recklessly

4. Negligently

(a) A person who acts purposely with respect to a material element of an offense when:

(i) If the element involves the nature of his conduct or a result thereof, it is his conscious object to engage in the conduct of that nature to cause such a result; and

 (ii) If the element involves the attendant circumstances, he is aware of the existence of such circumstances or he believes or hopes that they exist.

(b) A person acts knowingly with respect to a material element of an offense when:

(i) If the element involves the nature of the conduct or the attendant circumstances, he is aware that his conduct is of that nature of that such circumstances exist; and

 (ii) If the element involves a result of his conduct, he is aware that it is practically certain that his conduct will cause such a result.

a. A person acts recklessly with respect to a material element of an offense when he consciously disregards a substantial and unjustifiable risk that the material element exists or will result from his conduct. The risk must be of such a nature and degree that, considering the nature and purpose of the actor’s conduct and the circumstances known to him, its disregard involves a gross deviation from the standard of conduct that a law-abiding person would observe in the actor’s situation.

i. Still a degree of awareness.

a. MPC 2.02(7): When knowledge of the existence of a particular fact is an element of an offense, such knowledge is established if a person is aware of a high probability of its existence, unless he actually believes that it does not exist. 

i. Some states have not adopted this MPC Willful Blindness provision

 ii. How to prove Willful Blindness

1. If there are overt physical acts to show that someone was deliberately trying to avoid the knowledge, (easier)

2. Psychological avoidance (purposely cutting off your own curiosity) is harder to prove.

a. Generally need mens rea unless public welfare offenses.

b. Minor violations of liquor laws; pure food laws; anti-narcotics; motor vehicles and traffic regulations; sanitary; building and factory laws.

c. Mens rea requirement is dispensed with because the collective interest of trying to avoid these things outweighs the individual interest. 

d. Strict liability for non – public welfare offenses -> statutory rape.

a. Rule: If no specific intent is required for guilt of the offense charged, a mistake of fact will not be recognized as an excuse unless it was based upon reasonable grounds. On the other hand, because of the requirement of a specific intent to steal there is no such thing as larceny by negligence. 

b. Rule: If it’s a general intent crime, mistake has to be both reasonable and in good faith (honest) to be a defense. If specific intent crime, only has to be in good faith.

i. For general intent crimes, a reasonable mistake of fact ordinarily negates the culpability required for the offense.

ii. Sometimes, a court will permit conviction of a defendant whose mistake was reasonable if the defendant was culpable according to the “moral wrong” doctrine.

iii. Moral wrong doctrine: looks at behavior through D’s eyes and what he thought he was doing and if that behavior is morally wrong, then court will convict him.

Mean rea- Legal Wrong Doctrine

(CL and MPC

i. Statute 1 provides that it is a felony to furnish particular contraband to a person under the age of 18. Statute 2 says it is a misdemeanor to furnish the contraband to a person 18 or older.

ii. If D furnishes the item to a 17 year old whom he reasonably believes is 18, legal wrong doctrine says D can be charged for the felony despite his reasonable belief. If behavior was illegal anyway, punish for the higher crime. 

 iii. MPC 2.04(2) although ignorance or mistake would otherwise afford a defense to the offense charged, the defense is not available if the defendant would be guilty of another offense had the situation been as he supposed. In such case, however, the ignorance or mistake of the defendant shall reduce the grade and degree of the offense of which he may be convicted to those of the offense of which he would be guilty had the situation been as he supposed. 

1. MPC only allows conviction of what mens rea matches up with.

Mens Rea- Mistake (or ignorance) of law

(MPC)

a. MPC 2.04 Ignorance or Mistake

i. Dogmatic common law maxim that ignorance of the law is no excuse.

ii. (3) A belief that conduct does not legally constitute an offense is a defense to a prosecution for that offense based upon such conduct when . . . 

(b) he acts in reasonable reliance upon an official statement of the law, afterward determined to be invalid or erroneous, contained in (i) a statute or other enactment. 

iii. Note: Exception to no excuse rule: reasonable reliance or entrapment by estoppel

iv. Note: MPC 2.04(3)(b): defense if defendant acts in reasonable reliance upon an official statement of the law, afterward determined to be invalid or erroneous, contained in (i) a statute or other enactment; (ii) a judicial decision, opinion, or judgment; (iii) an administrative order or grant of permission; or (iv) an official interpretation of the public officer or body charged by law with responsibility for the interpretation, administration or enforcement of the law defining the offense.

i. But for test: But for the D’s voluntary acts would the social harm have occurred when it did? If no, the defendant is the actual cause of the result. 

a. Accelerating the result 

i. Rule: accelerating a result –

If D’s conduct accelerates the death, even slightly,

the D is said to be a cause in fact of the death. 

b. Substantial factor test

i. Two separate acts occurring at the same time each sufficient to cause the resulting harm. Fails the But-for test.

ii. If D’s conduct was a substantial factor in bringing about result, they are held liable. Actual cause is met. Drexler says “when and as it did” to the but for test.

iii. D only has to be “a” cause not “the” cause.

c. Note: Don’t confuse causation with mens rea. You can have causation without having the appropriate mens rea. You still need both elements!

i. A person or event cannot be a proximate cause of harm unless he/it is an actual cause, but a person or event can be an actual cause without being the proximate cause. 

ii. These issues arise when something happens between D’s voluntary act and the social harm. 

iii. Question to ask: When is the intervening event so out of the ordinary that it no longer seems fair to say that the social harm was caused by the defendant’s conduct?

iv. If an intervening cause does relieve defendant of responsibility, it is

A. Intentional Killings – Voluntary Manslaughter

1. Murder – (exam tip: malice is assumed if you prove intent).

i. 1st degree -premeditation/deliberation and intent to kill

ii. 2nd degree – intent to kill or serious bodily harm

2. Manslaughter – “heat of passion.”

i. Definition: An intentional homicide, done in a sudden heat of passion, caused by adequate provocation, before there has been a reasonable opportunity for the passion to cool.

Homicde- CL Manslaughter (Int.)

Rule

i. Adequate provocation.

1. Traditional provocation categories:

a. Extreme assault or battery

b. Mutual combat

c. Defendant’s illegal arrest

d. Injury or serious abuse of close relative

e. Sudden discovery of a spouse’s adultery

ii. Killing must have been in heat of passion.

iii. Sudden heat of passion – no time to cool.

iv. Causal connection between provocation, the passion, and the fatal act. 

          1. Strictest view is that the five categories are the   only adequate provocation and words alone are never enough.

         2. Some states will allow “informational words” to be enough for provocation, but not assaulting words.

Homicide- CL Manslaughter

(adequate provocation)

a. Strictest View: if the provocation does not fall into one of the five enumerated categories, no manslaughter defense. 

b. Objective view: Might consider other categories of provocation but in determining whether a reasonable person would have been provoked, the only determination that is subjective is whether the defendant actually lost control. The issue of gravity of provocation and whether defendant exercised ordinary self control are objective inquiries. 

c. Modern trend/England approach: Looks at defendant’s subjective circumstances in determining whether the defendant lost control and the gravity of the provocation. Whether defendant exercised ordinary self control is an objective inquiry except we take into account age and sex. (minority)

Homicide- MPC Criminal Homicide

a. Statutory language: affirmative defense to murder in 2nd degree where the “defendant acted under the influence of extreme emotional disturbance for which there was a reasonable explanation or excuse.”

b. Extreme emotional disturbance is an outgrowth of the heat of passion defense. How different?

i. no mentioning “time to cool off.” No requirement that it be immediate. MPC recognizes that emotions can build over time (stewing).

ii. Like a hybrid between heat of passion and insanity (enough to mitigate to manslaughter)

Homicide- CL Unintentional

i. Civil liability/negligence

ii. Gross deviations (wanton or reckless disregard of human life) – involuntary manslaughter

iii. Life endangering acts so reckless that they manifest a wanton indifference to human life – depraved heart murder (or abandoned and malignant heart in California).