Taylor Thompson

Criminal Law Outline, Page 1
Criminal Law outline.....................................................................................................................................1
OVERVIEW OF CRIMINAL JUSTICE SYSTEM....................................................................................1

The Big Questions of Criminal Law................................................................................................................1
Why do we have criminal law?........................................................................................................................1
What makes a good penal code? Specificity v. breadth and flexibility...........................................................1
Structure of the Criminal Justice System.........................................................................................................1
Flexibility of the system...................................................................................................................................2
Criminal Procedure..........................................................................................................................................2
Habeas Corpus.................................................................................................................................................2
WHY DO WE PUNISH?—PURPOSES AND LIMITS OF PUNISHMENT...........................................2

Purposes and Goals of Punishment..................................................................................................................2
Incarceration.....................................................................................................................................................3
Deterrence.........................................................................................................................................................3
Retribution........................................................................................................................................................3
Rehabilitation...................................................................................................................................................3
DEFINING CULPABILITY..........................................................................................................................3
Basic Elements of a Crime...............................................................................................................................3
ACTUS REUS—CULPABLE CONDUCT..................................................................................................4

Actus Reus defined...........................................................................................................................................4
Actus Reus: The Requirement of the Act.........................................................................................................4
Circumstances..................................................................................................................................................4
Causation..........................................................................................................................................................4
Result................................................................................................................................................................4
Defenses............................................................................................................................................................4
Illustration: Burglary........................................................................................................................................4
VOLUNTARINESS........................................................................................................................................5
Proctor v. State (OK 1918)...............................................................................................................................5
Martin v. State (AL 1944)................................................................................................................................5
People v. Grant (IL 1977).................................................................................................................................5
People v. Newton (CA 1970)............................................................................................................................5
OMISSIONS....................................................................................................................................................5
Act and Failure to Act: Crimes of Omission and Status Crimes.....................................................................5
Jones v. United States (DC 1962).....................................................................................................................5
STATUS OFFENSES......................................................................................................................................6
General comments............................................................................................................................................6
Robinson v. California (U.S. 1962) STEWART, J..............................................................................................6
Powell v. Texas (U.S. 1968).............................................................................................................................6
Pottinger v. Miami (FL 1992)..........................................................................................................................6
Comparison of Pottinger and Robinson...........................................................................................................7
Comparison of Pottinger and Powell...............................................................................................................7
Johnson v. State (FL 1992)...............................................................................................................................7
LIMITATIONS ON PUNISHMENT OF CULPABLE CONDUCT..........................................................7

PROPORTIONALITY...................................................................................................................................7
Solem v. Helm (US 1983) POWELL, J...............................................................................................................8
Harmelin v. Michigan (U.S. 1991)...................................................................................................................8
LEGALITY.....................................................................................................................................................8
Keeler v. Superior Court (CA 1970) MOSK, J..................................................................................................8
After Keeler, the California legislature amended the statute to include feticide............................................9
SPECIFICITY.................................................................................................................................................9
Ricks v. District of Columbia (DC 1968).........................................................................................................9
Papachristou v. Jacksonville (US 1972) DOUGLAS, J.......................................................................................9
MENS REA—THE GUILTY MIND............................................................................................................9

History..............................................................................................................................................................9
Purpose.............................................................................................................................................................9
Bad thoughts.....................................................................................................................................................9
STRICT LIABILITY.....................................................................................................................................9
Strict liability and the Model Penal Code......................................................................................................10
United States v. Balint (U.S. 1922) TAFT, C.J...............................................................................................10
Speidel v. State (AK1969)..............................................................................................................................10
United States v. Park (U.S. 1975) BURGER, C.J.............................................................................................10
Morissette v. United States (U.S. 1952) JACKSON, J......................................................................................11
CATEGORIES OF CULPABILITY...........................................................................................................11
Regina v. Faulkner (U.K. 1877).....................................................................................................................11
Other courts have permitted a looser standard than natural-and-probable...................................................11
Model Penal Code § 2.02(2). Definitions of Culpability...............................................................................11
MISTAKE......................................................................................................................................................12
Model Penal Code § 2.04. Ignorance or Mistake..........................................................................................12
(1) Ignorance or mistake as to a matter of fact or law is a defense if:..........................................................12
(a) the ignorance or mistake negatives the purpose, knowledge, belief, recklessness or negligence required to
establish a material element of the offense; or...............................................................................................12
(b) the law provides that the state of mind established by such ignorance or mistake constitutes a defense.12
Mistakes of Fact............................................................................................................................................12
General comments..........................................................................................................................................12
State v. Guest (AK 1978)...............................................................................................................................12
Mistakes of Law............................................................................................................................................12
United States v. Baker (5th Cir. 1986)...........................................................................................................13
Long v. State (DE 1949).................................................................................................................................13
Commonwealth v. Twitchell (MA 1993)........................................................................................................13
Cheek v. United States (U.S. 1991) WHITE, J................................................................................................13
Lambert v. California (U.S. 1957) DOUGLAS, J.............................................................................................13
CAPACITY FOR MENS REA....................................................................................................................14

Insanity...........................................................................................................................................................14
Voluntary Intoxication....................................................................................................................................14
RAPE.............................................................................................................................................................14
Definition........................................................................................................................................................14
Proof................................................................................................................................................................14
Marital, Relationship and Date Rape.............................................................................................................15
Actus reus—FORCE, NONCONSENT, AND RESISTANCE..................................................................15

People v. Barnes (CA 1986) BIRD, C.J...........................................................................................................15
State v. Rusk (MD 1981)................................................................................................................................15
MENS REA...................................................................................................................................................16
People v. Mayberry (CA 1975).......................................................................................................................16
HOMICIDE...................................................................................................................................................16
Homicide under the common law..................................................................................................................16
Contemporary gradations...............................................................................................................................16
Kansas Statute (1995)....................................................................................................................................17
Alabama Code (1995)....................................................................................................................................18
California Penal Code (1995)........................................................................................................................18
Sample jury instructions.................................................................................................................................18
What to look for..............................................................................................................................................19
INVOLUNTARY MANSLAUGHTER.......................................................................................................19
Definition........................................................................................................................................................19
Negligence......................................................................................................................................................19
Vehicular Manslaughter.................................................................................................................................20
Misdemeanor Manslaughter...........................................................................................................................20
VOLUNTARY manslaughter.......................................................................................................................20
Reasons for recognizing mitigation...............................................................................................................20
Guiding questions...........................................................................................................................................21
Provocation under the Model Penal Code......................................................................................................21
Adequate provocation.....................................................................................................................................21
People v. Walker (IL 1965).............................................................................................................................22
Rowland v. State (MS 1904)..........................................................................................................................22
People v. Tapia (CA 1988)..............................................................................................................................22
Cultural Relativism and the Reasonable Person............................................................................................22
MURDER......................................................................................................................................................23
Intent to kill....................................................................................................................................................23
Malice.............................................................................................................................................................23
Intentional Murder (Second Degree)..........................................................................................................24

Francis v. Franklin (U.S. 1985) BRENNAN, J.................................................................................................24
Proper jury instructions with respect to intent...............................................................................................24
Commentary to Model Penal Code § 210.2. Purposeful or Knowing Homicide..........................................24
EXTREME RECKLESSNESS (Second-degree Murder)........................................................................24

Russian Poker—Commonwealth v. Malone (PA 1946).................................................................................25
Killer Dentist—People v. Protopappas (CA 1988)........................................................................................25
Killer Dog—Berry v. Superior Court (CA 1989)...........................................................................................25
Intent to do serious bodily injury—Commonwealth v. Dorazio (PA 1950)...................................................25
Vehicular murder—People v. Watson (CA 1981)..........................................................................................26
AGGRAVATED MURDER..........................................................................................................................26
FIRST-DEGREE MURDER........................................................................................................................26
Aggravating elements.....................................................................................................................................26
Proof................................................................................................................................................................26
PREMEDITated murder (first degree)......................................................................................................27

United States v. Watson (DC 1985)................................................................................................................27
“Cold blood” test—Austin v. United States (DC Cir. 1967)..........................................................................27
“Fully formed purpose” test—Commonwealth v. Scott (PA 1925)...............................................................27
Insanity and capacity for premeditation—Commonwealth v. Gould (MA 1980).........................................28
FELONY MURDER.....................................................................................................................................28
Inherently dangerous felonies........................................................................................................................28
Mens rea for first-degree felony murder........................................................................................................28
State’s burden.................................................................................................................................................28
Theoretical foundations..................................................................................................................................28
Felony Murder Found.....................................................................................................................................29
Felony Murder not Found...............................................................................................................................29
Rationale.........................................................................................................................................................29
Counterarguments..........................................................................................................................................29
Virtual Strict Liability—People v. Stamp (CA 1969)....................................................................................29
Immediate flight—People v. Gladman (NY 1976)........................................................................................29
One Accomplice Killed by Another—People v. Cabaltero (CA 1939)..........................................................30
Felon Causes Own Death—People v. Ferlin (CA)........................................................................................30
Cop Shoot Cop—People v. Hickman (IL 1973).............................................................................................30
Accomplice Killed by Robbery Victim—People v. Washington (CA 1965) TRAYNOR, C.J..........................30
CAPITAL MURDER/THE DEATH PENALTY.......................................................................................30

HISTORICAL INTRODUCTION..............................................................................................................31
Before Furman................................................................................................................................................31
Furman v. Georgia (U.S. 1972) 5–4 per curium............................................................................................31
Woodson v. North Carolina (U.S. 1976) 5–4 STEWART.................................................................................31
Gregg v. Georgia (U.S. 1976) 7–2 STEWART, POWELL, & STEVENS..............................................................31
Coker v. Georgia (U.S. 1977) 7–2 WHITE......................................................................................................31
implementation.............................................................................................................................................31
Bifurcated trials..............................................................................................................................................31
Burden of Proof..............................................................................................................................................32
POLICY CONSIDERATIONS....................................................................................................................32
Crafting a statute............................................................................................................................................32
AGGRAVATING CIRCUMSTANCES.......................................................................................................32
Some specific factors......................................................................................................................................32
MITIGATING CIRCUMSTANCES...........................................................................................................33
May not be limited by statute to a specific list—Lockett v. Ohio (U.S. 1978) BURGER, C.J........................33
Eddings v. Oklahoma (U.S. 1982) POWELL, J...............................................................................................33
CATEGORICAL LIMITS...........................................................................................................................33
The Mens Rea Limit: A Reprise on Felony Murder.......................................................................................33
Age of Defendant............................................................................................................................................33
Mental capacity—very low standard..............................................................................................................34
Victim-Race Discrimination and the 8th Amendment—McCleskey v. Kemp (U.S. 1987) POWELL, J........34
COUNSEL IN CAPITAL CASES...............................................................................................................34

Stephen B. Bright. “Counsel for the Poor: The Death Sentence not for the Worst Crime but for the Worst Lawyer.”
........................................................................................................................................................................34
ATTRIBUTION OF CRIMINALITY........................................................................................................34
ATTEMPT.....................................................................................................................................................34
PUNISHMENT FOR ATTEMPT...............................................................................................................34

Why Punish Attempt?.....................................................................................................................................34
Retributivist perspectives:..............................................................................................................................34
Utilitarian perspectives:.................................................................................................................................35
The Emergence of Attempt Liability..............................................................................................................35
Criteria............................................................................................................................................................35
How early to intervene?..................................................................................................................................35
Punishment.....................................................................................................................................................35
MENS REA/ACTUS REUS.........................................................................................................................36
THE ACTUS REUS OF ATTEMPT...........................................................................................................36

Preparation vs. Attempt—People v. Murray (CA 1859)................................................................................36
The “substantial step” test —Model Penal Code § 5.01. CRIMINAL ATTEMPT.............................................36
Subjectiveness of the act requirement in practice—McQuirter v. State (AL 1953)......................................36
“Proximity to success” test—People v. Rizzo (NY 1927)..............................................................................37
DEFENSES to attempt.................................................................................................................................37
Abandonment.................................................................................................................................................37
Impossibility...................................................................................................................................................37
COMPLICITY..............................................................................................................................................38
Introduction....................................................................................................................................................38
Complicity under the common law................................................................................................................38
Complicity today.............................................................................................................................................38
Thorny Issues..................................................................................................................................................38
Elements of complicity...................................................................................................................................39
Abandonment defense—MPC § 2.06(6)(c)...................................................................................................39
THE ACCESSORIAL ACT (actus reus)....................................................................................................39

State v. Tally (AL 1894).................................................................................................................................39
Why is no but-for analysis required?.............................................................................................................39
MENS REA OF COMPLICITY.................................................................................................................40

Community of purpose...................................................................................................................................40
Minority approach..........................................................................................................................................40
Majority approach..........................................................................................................................................40
Mens rea with respect to principal’s criminal intent and mens rea with respect to facilitative effect of accomplice’s
conduct—People v. Beeman (CA 1984).........................................................................................................40
Mens rea with respect to principal’s criminal intent and mens rea required for principal’s crime—Wilson v. People
(CO 1939).......................................................................................................................................................40
Rex v. Othello.................................................................................................................................................40
Rex v. Iago......................................................................................................................................................40
CONSPIRACY..............................................................................................................................................41
Introduction....................................................................................................................................................41
Comparison between Conspiracy and Attempt..............................................................................................41
Comparison between Conspiracy and Complicity.........................................................................................41
Elements of conspiracy...................................................................................................................................41
Agreement requirement..................................................................................................................................41
Overt act requirement.....................................................................................................................................41
Withdrawal/abandonment..............................................................................................................................42
THE NATURE OF CONSPIRACY............................................................................................................42

State v. Verive (AZ 1981)...............................................................................................................................42
“Unilateral conspiracy”..................................................................................................................................42
THE MENS REA OF CONSPIRACY........................................................................................................42

With limited exceptions, state must show two components:.........................................................................42
People v. Lauria (CA 1967)............................................................................................................................43
THE Scope of conspiracy’s net....................................................................................................................43

The Pinkerton rule..........................................................................................................................................43
Proving the scope of an agreement................................................................................................................44
Hypothetical bank robbery conspiracy...........................................................................................................44
Conspiracy charge has big advantages for the state......................................................................................44
Conspiracy model examples...........................................................................................................................45
THE RICO STATUTE AND THE FRONTIER OF CONSPIRACY......................................................45

The Statute......................................................................................................................................................45
Elements.........................................................................................................................................................45
Penalties..........................................................................................................................................................45
Forfeiture........................................................................................................................................................45
§ 1961. Definitions.........................................................................................................................................46
§ 1962. Racketeering activities......................................................................................................................46
Elements of proof of substantive crimes........................................................................................................46

§ 1964. Civil remedies...................................................................................................................................46
Section 1962(a) Violations.............................................................................................................................46
Section 1962(b) Violations.............................................................................................................................46
Section 1962(c) Violations.............................................................................................................................46
justification and excuse................................................................................................................................47

Why have a justification defense?..................................................................................................................47
Why have excuse defense?.............................................................................................................................47
Four defenses..................................................................................................................................................47
Burden of Proof..............................................................................................................................................47
Distinguishing justification and excuse.......................................................................................................47

Wrongdoing....................................................................................................................................................47
Legality...........................................................................................................................................................48
Third parties...................................................................................................................................................48
Defensive Force.............................................................................................................................................48
General comment...........................................................................................................................................48
Justifiable Homicide.......................................................................................................................................48
Defensive Force and the Battered Spouse......................................................................................................49
Reprise on the Reasonable Self-Defender......................................................................................................50
The self-defense standard applied by most courts is a mixed standard.........................................................50
CRIMINAL LAW OUTLINE
OVERVIEW OF CRIMINAL JUSTICE SYSTEM
The Big Questions of Criminal Law

Society v. Individual
Values
Social Control & Order
Ensuring the rights of the accused
Ensuring the safety of the community
Dealing with the most emotional issues of rights and justice
Minimizing infringements on individual freedom.
Why do we have criminal law?

mechanism for social order
guide to behavior
restriction on state power
system of norms and values
safety
providing examples of both proscribed and desirable behavior
punishing wrongdoing
providing national identity
standardization of punishment
Criminal law defines and declares the limits and structure of state power.
What makes a good penal code? Specificity v. breadth and flexibility

Where laws come from is critical to their legitimacy and quality.
Notice
Specific definitions of right and wrong.
Vagueness can mean constitutional trouble.
Structure of the Criminal Justice System

Burden on the state
The bears the burden of proof beyond a reasonable doubt.
Burden on the accused
The accused is not required to prove innocence; innocence is presumed.
Defense counsel can challenge evidence, subpoena, bring witnesses, make arguments.
Trial by jury:
Unanimity
Division of legal and factual decision-making powers

Lay perspective
Closer to society, culture, and local norms
Ability to nullify
Flexibility of the system

Cases are decided individually.
Mitigating factors are considered.
Record of prior offenses
Remorse
Nature of offense and likelihood of repeat for the particular offense
Victim’s feelings
Penal resources
Damage caused to public by the crime
Politics
The prosecutor has flexibility in deciding whether to charge, what to charge, and whether to plea bargain.
The judge has flexibility in sentencing.
The police have flexibility in their conduct and their strategies.
The correctional system can parole or release early.
Juries can nullify.
Criminal Procedure
State supreme courts can decide federal and constitutional questions.
Habeas Corpus
Protected by Article III.
Only place in criminal law where state defendants can get federal review below the Supreme Court level.
28 U.S.C. § 2254 is the jurisdictional statute that gives prisoners the right to file petitions for writs of habeas
corpus in District Court.
Because they are trial courts, District Courts can conduct factual hearings with respect to federal legal questions
about imprisonment (but not on matters previously adjudicated).
District Court must review petitions for writ of habeas corpus on the merits; they cannot simply pass on review
(unlike the Supreme Court).
District Court can grant writ, deny writ, or remand for resentencing.
WHY DO WE PUNISH?—PURPOSES AND LIMITS OF PUNISHMENT
Purposes and Goals of Punishment

Retribution
Incapacitation (a utilitarian goal)
Segregation (a retributive goal)

Rehabilitation (an individual goal)
Deterrence (both general and specific)
Countering recidivism
People respond to it
Denunciation: definition of norms
Maintenance of state power and political control; the monopoly on violence.
Political ends, such as masking economic inequalities, war on drugs.
NB: Punishment is a social choice. We don’t have to punish. Alternatives, such as incentives and rewards are
theoretically possible.
Incarceration
Achieves retributive goal of segregating the dangerous, not the utilitarian goal of incapacitating the dangerous.
Protection of others.
Deterrence
As currently applied, it doesn’t work, at least not fully.
Success depends on:
Information
Free will
Logic/reason
Economic rational choice
Capacity and possibility of making another choice
Costs will be perceived as costs by the individual
General
Discouraging future unwanted acts by anyone.
Specific
Discouraging future unwanted acts by a specific person.
Retribution
Goal: just deserts, redressing wrongs, making victims whole, making society whole, preventing vigilantism
(monopoly on power of retribution), vengeance.
Assuring proportionality.
Rehabilitation
DEFINING CULPABILITY
Basic Elements of a Crime

Punishment must be for (1) past (2) voluntary (3) bad (4) conduct (5) specified (6) in advance (7) by statute.
Actus reus + mens rea + circumstances + causation + result – defenses = crime
ACTUS REUS—CULPABLE CONDUCT
Actus Reus defined

Past, voluntary (avoidable) conduct within the jurisdiction, specified in advance (notice; avoiding vagueness) by
statute.
Actus Reus: The Requirement of the Act

There must be an act, not the likelihood of an act.
(Non-act crimes do not change the philosophical requirement of an act.)
The act can consist of an attempt or of steps taken.
The entire system is conceptually predicated upon the notion of self-control.
Penalties for losing self-control within prescribed codes of permissible behavior (values).
Mere urges to transgress do not pass the threshold of criminality; the act of transgressive loss of self-control is the
point at which we punish.
Herbert Packer
Punishing conduct constrains us from pure utilitarian prophylaxis.
Punishing conduct permits us to define a line of criminality and to hold people accountable when they that line but
to permit freedom as long as they don’t.
Mens Rea is necessary but not sufficient
Otherwise, we would negate the importance of choice and self-control.
Circumstances
Circumstances may determine whether conduct is criminal.
Causation
Conduct must still cause the offense.
Result
Often the result need not be harmful and/or there need not be any victim.
Defenses
Act may be justified or excused.
Involuntariness: Insanity, Compulsion; Automatism, etc.
Illustration: Burglary
“It is unlawful to break into a dwelling or enter such dwelling without permission with the intent to commit a[ny]
crime.”
If the dwelling is occupied at the time, the offense is first-degree burglary.
If the dwelling is unoccupied at the time, the offense is second-degree burglary.
The prior intent requirement means, in theory, one could get off if the intent to commit a crime came after the
entry.
VOLUNTARINESS
Proctor v. State (OK 1918)

{Defendant “kept a place” and intended to sell booze (during Prohibition) but no allegation that he ever actually
sold liquor.}
“Keeping a place”— expressed but unexecuted intent —is not enough of an act.
Punishing intent alone raises liberty concerns.
There must be an overt illegal act.
Martin v. State (AL 1944)

{Cops arrested D in his home, took him into street, charged him with being drunk in public. Statute said “Any
person who, while intoxicated, appears in any public place and manifests a drunken condition by
boisterous or indecent conduct, or loud and profane discourse, shall, on conviction, be fined.”}
No voluntary act.
NB: Literal voluntariness is slippery.
People v. Grant (IL 1977)

{D had psychomotor epilepsy—prone to seizures and violent outbursts. D threw himself on officer and was
arrested. D had seizure later and was hospitalized. Jury was instructed on insanity, but not on “automatic”
behavior.}
No voluntary act, no crime.
Lack of conscious control over acts precludes criminal responsibility.
Court careful not to conflate involuntariness with insanity.
Distinction between involuntariness and insanity
Involuntariness—acquittal.
Insanity—possible civil commitment.
Involuntariness is an affirmative defense.
People v. Newton (CA 1970)

{Cop shot Huey in stomach at close range. Huey shot and killed another cop. Huey claimed defense of involuntary
action due to automatism. Experts testified that gunshot that penetrates body cavity is likely to produce
profound reflex shock reaction.}
“Reflex shock condition” may make action involuntary.
OMISSIONS
Act and Failure to Act: Crimes of Omission and Status Crimes

Omission in the face of a legal duty constitutes actus reus.
Liability is tied to relationship between the defendant and the victim.
Jones v. United States (DC 1962)

{Mother of illegitimate kid placed baby in D’s care, in D’s home. Baby died of malnutrition.}
Only omission of legal duties, not moral duties, is criminal conduct.
The actus reus element is the omission itself.

The mens rea element is the negligence of a legal duty.
Most jurisdictions apply four categories of legal duty, rooted in common law:
statutory duty
status-based duty
contractual duty
voluntary assumption of care of an individual and seclusion of that individual from others
(Narrow categories mitigate jury inclination to convict for what feels like irresponsibility.)
STATUS OFFENSES
General comments
Criminalizing status may mean people can be in a position of continuous guilt.
Logically, this could mean infinite prosecution and permanent punishment.
[It seems that crimes be preterit as opposed to imperfect. That is, they must have determinate locations in time,
with both beginnings and ends.]
Robinson v. California (U.S. 1962) STEWART, J.

{D arrested under CA statute that made it a crime to “be addicted to the use of narcotics.”}
Statute improperly punishes addiction, an illness, which may be contracted involuntarily.
Offends 8th Amendment.
Future propensity to commit a crime (such as drug use) cannot be criminal.
Powell v. Texas (U.S. 1968)

{D charged under TX statute that makes it a crime to “get drunk or be found in a state of intoxication in any public
place.” D relies on Robinson, arguing affliction with disease of alcoholism, making his conduct
involuntary.}
Robinson defense rejected.
Powell had a choice and chose to be drunk in public (mens rea).
Criminal sanction was for public behavior (actus reus), not for alcoholism (status), a disease.
Policy concern behind statute: public health and safety.
(Act requirement looser here than in Robinson or Grant.)
WHITE, J., (concurring): If it can’t be a crime to have an irresistible compulsion to use drugs, how can it be a crime
to yield to the compulsion?
Pottinger v. Miami (FL 1992)

{Class-action on behalf of homeless arrested for performing life-sustaining activities in public such as sitting,
standing, eating, drinking, etc.}
Conduct inseparable from status.
Status involuntary.
Acts are necessary; homeless have no meaningful choice in where or whether to perform them.
Arrest for performing otherwise lawful, harmless acts they are compelled to perform in public punishes them for
being homeless.
Offends 8th Amendment.
Comparison of Pottinger and Robinson

Homelessness is a status that no one voluntarily chooses.
Comparison of Pottinger and Powell

Pottinger concerned not just status, but specific acts that violated Miami ordinances.
No health and safety issue in Pottinger.
Pottinger is a lower-court case.
Entirely different conduct.
Johnson v. State (FL 1992)

{Mother charged with “delivery” of drugs to newborns through umbilical cord in seconds between birth and
severing of cord.}
Conviction overturned as absurd, as contrary to legislative intent and public interest.
Lenity Rule: Ambiguous statute should be read narrowly and in light most favorable to defendant.
Possible defense arguments:
punishment for addiction (status)
punishment for pregnancy (status)
punishment for being a woman (status)—this is a crime no man can commit
act was non-volitional; even if ingestion was volitional (arguable), delivery was not
Possible prosecution arguments:
the timing of ingestion makes it at least knowing, if not volitional
policy concern for not permitting this conduct
punishment is for the act, not for the status
following Grant logic, she knew the propensity, she knew the results from previous experience (drug-addicted
baby)
she chose to take the drugs, knowing from her first pregnancy that doing so could result in delivery
LIMITATIONS ON PUNISHMENT OF CULPABLE CONDUCT
PROPORTIONALITY
General comments
Judiciary defers very heavily to legislative and executive with respect to proportionality.
The area of egregious error where the courts will step in is very small.
The Supreme Court has been extremely tentative in assessing proportionality, especially in non-capital cases.
Proportionality is one of the places where the lack of uniform criminal code shows its problems.
Solem v. Helm (US 1983) POWELL, J.

{D had 6 prior non-violent felony convictions. SD recidivism statute permitted sentencing for a Class 1 felony for
any felony conviction beyond 3. D received maximum Class 1 sentence: Life in prison without possibility
of parole.}
Sentence was grossly disproportionate to the crime, in violation of the 8th Amendment.
Three-prong test for gauging proportionality:
(1) Gravity of offense vs. harshness of penalty.
(2) Sentences imposed on other criminals in the same jurisdiction.
(3) Sentences imposed for commission of same crime in other jurisdictions.
[Under Harmelin, only if sentence fails (1) are (2) and (3) considered.]
Harmelin v. Michigan (U.S. 1991)

{Automatic sentence of life without parole for possession of 672 g. of cocaine. D argued automatic sentencing
unconstitutional for excluding mitigating factors.}
Sentence deemed not disproportionate.
SCALIA, J. (for majority)
Automatic sentencing only unconstitutional for capital crimes.
SCALIA, J. (joined only by REHNQUIST, C.J.)
8th Amendment doesn’t require proportionality.
KENNEDY, J. (for 3-Justice plurality)
Five principles that guide proportionality considerations:
(1) Sentencing requirements for individual crimes is a matter for the legislature, which weighs policy goals.
(2) 8th Amendment does not mandate any one penological theory.
(3) “State sentencing schemes may embody different penological assumptions, making interstate comparison of
sentences a difficult and imperfect enterprise.”
(4) Review should be as objective as possible, meaning type of imprisonment is easier to assess than term.
(5) 8th Amendment does not require strict proportionality between crime and sentence; it forbids only extreme
sentences that are ‘grossly disproportionate’ to the crime. (Citing Solem.)
LEGALITY
Keeler v. Superior Court (CA 1970) MOSK, J.

{D killed his ex-wife’s unborn fetus by battery and was charged with murder.}
To permit conviction by defining an unborn but viable fetus as a “human being” for purposes of CA murder statute
would violate the fair-warning requirement since it would be an enlargement of the crime from what was
intended at enactment.
The only exception would be if the enlargement were foreseeable to the defendant.
Fair-warning requirement is a due-process matter.
Only legislatures can expand the criminal law.
Judicial enlargement would constitute creation of an ex post facto law.
After Keeler, the California legislature amended the statute to include feticide.
SPECIFICITY
Ricks v. District of Columbia (DC 1968)

{D convicted under incredibly vague vagrancy law.}
Statute held unconstitutional.
5th Amendment due-process problems: Vagueness and lack of fair warning.
There must be a reasonable degree of guidance and notice to citizens, cops, and courts.
Too much free rein to cops to define criminality at will.
Imprecise statutes fail the fair-warning rule.
Ordinary people must be able to know and understand what’s prohibited.
The line must be clear—there can be no room for speculation.
Notice requirement not held simply because cops had previously told her of the statute.
Papachristou v. Jacksonville (US 1972) DOUGLAS, J.

Vagrancy law struck down for vagueness and for punishing status.
Mostly nouns, not verbs.
MENS REA—THE GUILTY MIND
History
Only in the late 18th century did this element emerge as essential.
Purpose
Limiting punishment to those morally blameworthy.
Bad thoughts
Desire to harm others or violate social duty.
Disregard for welfare of others or for social duty.
STRICT LIABILITY
General comments
Intent is not required.
Liability for actual or potential effects without regard to fault.
Generally public welfare offenses (safety, health, etc.) where it seems there’s no other way to protect the public
Generally for offenses that are mala prohibita, not mala in se.
Usually relatively minor.
Usually punishable by fines and/or less than one year in jail.
Most jurisdictions have some strict liability offenses, but they are usually limited.
Examples
Speeding
some weapons offenses
statutory rape
carnal knowledge
tax violations
food-quality laws
miscellaneous misdemeanors.
Strict liability and the Model Penal Code

The Model Penal Code is opposed to strict liability offenses.
It employs a scheme of culpability and mental states and sees criminal responsibility as requiring choice and
awareness of consequences.
United States v. Balint (U.S. 1922) TAFT, C.J.

{Appeal by U.S. of quashing of indictment for failing to state a mental element in case charging violation of the
Narcotic Act.}
Public welfare offenses need not contain a mental element.
5th Amendment doesn’t require all criminal statutes to include mental element.
Congress decided the possible injustice of subjecting an innocent seller to penalty was justified by the greater
interest in preventing exposure of innocent purchasers to dangerous drugs.
High risk of the activity provides the basis for putting the burden on the defendant to know the law and that there
is no mental element.
The risk itself satisfies the notice requirement—duty to inquire when engaging in highly risky activities.
Speidel v. State (AK1969)

“Public welfare” cases are a narrow class “caused primarily by the industrial revolution, out of which grew the
necessity of imposing more stringent duties on those connected with particular industries, trades,
properties, or activities that affect public health, safety or welfare.”
United States v. Park (U.S. 1975) B URGER, C.J.

{President of Acme Markets charged with allowing food stored for interstate shipment to become contaminated, a
federal offense. Knew about and did not remedy unsanitary conditions. Claimed he delegated that
responsibility.}
Criminally liable.
Statute is regulatory in nature.
Notions of individual blameworthiness and personal choice abandoned because of public interest in high-quality
food.
Public interest justifies imposing highest standard of care on distributors.
D violated duty to know and to ensure that contamination did not take place.
Morissette v. United States (U.S. 1952) JACKSON, J.

{D convicted of conversion of government property under statute that doesn’t explicitly require mental element.}
The mere omission of any mention of mental element will not be construed as eliminating that element from the
crime it defines.
This crime was clearly not in the public-welfare offense category.
CATEGORIES OF CULPABILITY
Regina v. Faulkner (U.K. 1877)

{Defendant, a sailor, sought to steal rum on board his ship. In the process, he struck a match, igniting the rum and
destroying the ship. Charged with feloniously, unlawfully, and maliciously setting fire to the ship. Crown
argued that felonious intent to steal was sufficient to satisfy intent to burn the ship.}
For the established mental element of felony A to eliminate the need to establish the mental element of felony B,
felony B must be the natural and probable consequence of felony A.
Other courts have permitted a looser standard than natural-and-probable.
Model Penal Code § 2.02(2). Definitions of Culpability
A person acts [1] with respect to [2]:
[1] [2]
Circumstance Result Conduct
Purposely when he is aware of such when it is his conscious object when it is his conscious object
circumstances or hopes they to cause such a result to engage in conduct of that
exist nature
Knowingly when he is aware that such when he is aware that it is when he is aware that his
circumstances exist practically certain that his conduct is of that nature
conduct will cause such a
result
Recklessly when he consciously when he consciously
disregards a substantial and disregards a substantial and
unjustifiable risk that the unjustifiable risk that the
material element exists material element will result
from his conduct
Negligently when he should be aware of a when he should be aware of a
substantial and unjustifiable substantial and unjustifiable
risk that the material element risk that the material element
exists will result from his conduct
MPC mens rea provisions are largely accepted for analyzing intent issues.
Purposely
Actor’s conscious objective, positive desire, is to cause such a result.
Knowingly
Although the result is not the actor’s conscious objective or positive desire, the actor is practically certain her
conduct will cause such a result.
Recklessly
Actor consciously disregards a substantial and unjustifiable risk.
Negligently
Actor should have been aware of a substantial and unjustifiable risk.
Since the actor was not aware of the risk, however, negligence is usually not criminally punishable.
The old specific intent and general intent categories

Specific intent corresponds with Purposely and Knowingly.
General intent corresponds with Recklessly and Negligently.
MISTAKE
Model Penal Code § 2.04. Ignorance or Mistake
(1) Ignorance or mistake as to a matter of fact or law is a defense if:
(a) the ignorance or mistake negatives the purpose, knowledge, belief, recklessness or negligence required
to establish a material element of the offense; or
(b) the law provides that the state of mind established by such ignorance or mistake constitutes a defense.
MISTAKES OF FACT
General comments
May negative the requisite mental state.
The defense is not available in strict liability situations, since it is about mental element.
State v. Guest (AK 1978)

{Defendants had sex with a 15-year-old, thinking she was at least 16.}
Honest and reasonable mistake as to age of “victim” is an affirmative defense to statutory rape and negatives the
mental element.
Statutory rape not a public welfare crime, so without intent, there is no crime.
N.B.: While this is also the Model Penal Code’s view, the majority of jurisdictions reject mistake of fact as a
defense to statutory rape and define it as a strict liability offense.
Evidence problems with testimony of minors.
Protection of minors.
Deterrence.
MISTAKES OF LAW
General comments
Generally not a valid defense.
Exceptions
Justifiable reliance, particularly on officials.
Wholly passive conduct (omission) with respect to a law not widely known where there is no probability of
learning of the law.
We want to reward knowledge, not ignorance of the law.
Ignorance is treated as more blameworthy than mistake.
Due-process requirement of notice protects against being caught in violation of crazy, unforeseeable new laws.
United States v. Baker (5th Cir. 1986)

{Defendant dealt in counterfeit watches, knowing the watches to be counterfeit, but claimed not to know that his
conduct was, as of 1984, illegal.}
Ignorance of the law is no excuse.
Long v. State (DE 1949)

{After his attorney told him is AR divorce would be valid in DE, D remarried. Convicted of bigamy.}
Ignorance of the law is a valid excuse where defendant made diligent, good faith, appropriate effort to learn the law
and received incorrect information from a reliable source.
[Full Faith and Credit clause might have worked; she likes the idea.]
Commonwealth v. Twitchell (MA 1993)

{Christian Scientist parents relied on erroneous AG opinion about the legality of not providing medical treatment
to their kids, as a result of which they did not seek medical treatment and their kid died. Convicted of
involuntary manslaughter.}
Where defendants diligently attempt to obey the law and rely on an official interpretation of the law that proves to
have been wrong, they may assert an affirmative defense of “entrapment by estoppel.” (The government’s
official interpretations estop it from holding people to a different standard.)
Cheek v. United States (U.S. 1991) WHITE, J.

{D argues he’s not guilty of willful tax evasion because he believes income taxes are unconstitutional, wages are
not income, and he was not a taxpayer within meaning of IRS.}
Belief that law is unconstitutional
Irrelevant—he knew of duty to pay and chose to ignore it.
A person’s own judgment that law is unconstitutional is not a defense.
Belief that wages ≠ income
Relevant—even a morally virtuous person could have made such a mistake.
Interpretation of an individual interpretation as inapplicable is a defense in tax cases. (Court has since limited this
defense.)
Lambert v. California (U.S. 1957) DOUGLAS, J.

{D convicted of violating statute requiring all people previously convicted of a felony to register with cops when
they enter the state. Did not know of the requirement.}
Due process does not permit conviction of a crime of which one has no knowledge and no reasonable probability of
acquiring such knowledge.
Statute offended Due Process Clause of 14th Amendment.
Conduct was entirely passive—a crime of omission.
Balint not on point—no reason to suspect possibility of an ordinance.
D was given no opportunity to comply once she was informed of the ordinance.
Holmes: “A law which punished conduct which would not be blameworthy in the average member of the
community would be too severe for that community to bear.”
CAPACITY FOR MENS REA
Insanity
People v. Wetmore (CA 1978) TOBRINER, J.
{D had history of mental illness. He entered apt. belonging to another, thinking it was his apt., put on the man’s
clothes, and acted as though nothing was amiss. Convicted of burglary. D argues that mental illness
prevented him from forming the requisite mens rea to commit the crime.}
Evidence of diminished capacity is admissible at the guilt phase even if it is also evidence of insanity (which is
admissible only at sentencing).
We don’t want to punish people who don’t understand wrongfulness of their conduct.
Today most jurisdictions permit insanity evidence to negative intent element in specific-intent crimes
(“diminished-capacity defense”), resulting in acquittal.
For general-intent crimes, insanity can only come in for lack of guilt for reason of insanity, usually resulting in
civil commitment.
Voluntary Intoxication
State v. Cameron (NJ 1986)
{D sought to introduce evidence of voluntary intoxication as a defense to multiple charges stemming from a fight.
Trial court refused to permit such evidence and D was convicted.}
Voluntary intoxication may be a defense for crimes requiring purposeful or knowing conduct (specific-intent
crimes), but degree of intoxication must be so extreme as to render the person incapable of purposeful or
knowing conduct.
Because specific-intent crimes usually have lesser included offenses requiring only general intent, voluntary
intoxication won’t get one off the hook entirely.
RAPE
Definition
Traditional definition.
Vaginal intercourse by force or threatened use of force.
Absence of consent.
These are the basic elements in MPC § 213.1.
Proof
Burden used to be essentially on the woman
She had to show that she resisted to the maximum extent of her ability.
She had to find corroboration of her testimony.
Recently, the burden on the woman has been reduced.
Largely because of feminist impact on the law.
Prosecutrices no longer are subject to cross examination.
Corroboration requirement abolished.
Resistance is now seen as often futile or counterproductive and as of little value in showing nonconsent.
Now it’s more her word against his.

Rape shield laws prevent introduction of evidence about a woman’s sexual past.
Marital, Relationship and Date Rape

24 states consider rape within marriage a lesser offense; 15 have abolished the distinction.
Several extend some impunity to live-in non-marital relationships.
Force is a central evidentiary problem in these cases.
ACTUS REUS—FORCE, NONCONSENT, AND RESISTANCE
General comments
Force
If force is to be an element, the term must be defined.
Force at least provides good evidence of lack of consent.
A force requirement would afford some protection to the accused.
Consent
What must be proved, consent or nonconsent?
Is consent a defense or is nonconsent an element?
Both the actions of the accused and the responses of the complainant are considered.
Complainant’s conduct is still an issue.
People v. Barnes (CA 1986) B IRD, C.J.

{They knew each other, had hung out. On this occasion, he acted belligerent, threatened her, and demanded sex.
She complied out of fear for her safety.}
Court of Appeal incorrectly dismissed for lack of evidence of “measurable resistance”
No requirement that she resist.
Nonconsent can be satisfied by finding of reasonable and genuine fear of physical violence.
State v. Rusk (MD 1981)

{They met in a bar, she drove him home, he took her car keys, he coaxed her up, she was terrified, she went up,
she submitted and they had sex, she left and went to the police.}
Both force and nonconsent are an essential elements.
Court defined force as “acts and threats of the defendant . . . reasonably calculated to create in the mind of the
victim—having regard to the circumstances in which she was placed—a real apprehension, due to fear, of
imminent bodily harm, serious enough to impair or overcome her will to resist.”
Evidence of reasonably grounded fear can obviate need to show resistance.
Reasonableness is a fact question.
MENS REA
People v. Mayberry (CA 1975)

{Considerable violence beforehand. She finally submitted. D argues he honestly and reasonably believed she had
consented.}
If a defendant has a reasonable and bona fide belief that a prosecutrix has voluntarily consented, he does not
possess the requisite intent for conviction of rape.
Jury will still decide whether it beliefs him.
HOMICIDE
Homicide under the common law

Malice
The dividing line between murder and manslaughter
Intent to cause, or willingness to undertake a serious risk of causing, the death of another, when that intent or
willingness is based on an immoral or unworthy aim.
Gradations have to do with extent of risk, awareness of risk, and unworthiness of the motivating aim.
Categories
Murder
Unjustified killing with malice.
Unjustified killing manifesting
Purpose to cause death; or
Intent to inflict serious bodily harm; or
Extreme recklessness with regard to a serious risk of harm to another’s life in the context of such immoral or
unworthy motives as to suggest callous indifference to life; or
Willingness to undertake even a tiny risk of death in the course of a felony (Felony Murder).
Manslaughter
Unjustified killing without malice
Contemporary gradations
Murder
First-degree murder
Intentional and premeditated; or
Felony murder
Second-degree murder
[NB: MPC has eliminated degrees because they arose in order to isolate cases in which capital punishment would
be automatic.]
Manslaughter
Voluntary manslaughter
Intentional killing without malice because killer
Acted in the heat of passion after “adequate provocation”; or

Acted in the honest but unreasonable belief that the killing was necessary for self-defense.
Involuntary manslaughter
Unintentional killing committed recklessly or highly negligently.
Some states also have a misdemeanor-manslaughter rule that functions like the felony-murder rule.
Some states further subdivide it into
Reckless manslaughter
Negligent homicide
Some states have a separate rule for vehicular homicide
Kansas Statute (1995)

Murder in the first degree
Intentionally and with premeditation; or
In commission, attempt, or flight from an inherently dangerous felony.
<Death or life imprisonment.>
Murder in the second degree
Intentionally; or
Unintentionally but recklessly manifesting extreme indifference to human life.
<12–14 years>
Voluntary manslaughter
Intentionally
Upon a sudden quarrel or in the heat of passion; or
Upon an unreasonable but honest belief that circumstances existed that justified deadly force.
<6–7 years.>
Involuntary manslaughter
Unintentionally
Recklessly; or
In the commission, attempt, or flight from a misdemeanor or a felony that is not inherently dangerous perpetrated
to protect life or safety; or
During the commission of a lawful act in an unlawful manner.
<4–5 years.>
Vehicular homicide
Unintentionally
In the operation of a motor vehicle in a manner which
Creates an unreasonable risk of injury to the person or property of another; and
Constitutes a material deviation from the standard of care which a reasonable person would observe under the
circumstances.
Alabama Code (1995)

Murder
With intent to cause death does cause death; or
Under circumstances manifesting extreme indifference to human life, recklessly engages in conduct which creates
a grave risk of death to another person and causes the death of another person; or
In the course of committing, attempting, or fleeing from of one of various felonies.
<Death or life imprisonment>
Manslaughter
Recklessly causes death of another; or
Causes death of another under circumstances that would constitute murder except that act is due to sudden heat of
passion caused by legally recognized provocation and before a reasonable time for passion to cool and
for reason to return.
<2–20 years; 10–20 if a deadly weapon is used.>
Criminally negligent homicide
Causes death by criminal negligence.
<Misdemeanor—no more than 1 year in jail or at hard labor, except 1–10 years if drunk driving.>
California Penal Code (1995)

Murder
Unlawful killing with malice aforethought.
Intentional killing with express or implied malice constitutes malice aforethought.
First-degree murder
With destructive device or explosive or poison
Lying in wait
Torture
Willful, deliberate, and premeditated
Felony-murder (including drive-bys)
All others.
Sample jury instructions

First-degree murder
Definition
Specific intent to kill; and
Malice; and
Premeditation and deliberation.
Government must prove
Defendant inflicted the injury from which decedent died; and
Defendant acted with malice at the time; and

Defendant acted after premeditation; and
Defendant acted after deliberation.
Defendant acted with malice at the time; and
Defendant was not acting in the heat of passion caused by adequate provocation.
Manslaughter
Definition
Unlawful killing without malice; or
In the sudden heat of passion caused by adequate provocation.
Defendant acted without legal justification or excuse in the heat of passion caused by adequate provocation.
What to look for

Act Possible level of homicide Evidence must show
Intentional killing 1st degree murder premeditation and deliberation
2nd degree murder impulsive act
Voluntary manslaughter heat of passion and adequate provocation
Unintentional killing 2nd degree murder Extreme recklessness
Involuntary manslaughter Should have been aware of or consciously disregarded
risk—gross negligence; or misdemeanor
INVOLUNTARY MANSLAUGHTER
Definition
Unintentional killing with state of mind of recklessness, negligence, or gross negligence.
Or misdemeanor manslaughter.
Negligence
State v. Williams (WA 1971)
{Indian child with toothache turned into abscess, eventually caused death. Parents treated with aspirin, didn’t
realize gravity, and feared loss of child to welfare agency. Convicted of involuntary manslaughter.}
Conviction upheld on the basis of an “objective” standard for determining negligence.
Comparison of Williams and Twitchell
Williams was more a mistake than the careful attempt to obey the law in Twitchell.
In both cases parents sought to do what was best for their child.
The typical standard not the simple negligence in Williams.
The typical standard is:
Gross negligence or recklessness; and
A greater likelihood of particularly serious harm; and

Actual awareness of that risk or at least a greater likelihood of awareness of that risk.
Gross negligence is really rather subjective; juries get some discretion.
Vehicular Manslaughter
Porter v. State (FL 1956)
{Drove through stop sign at 60–65 mph on unfamiliar road, killing another driver.}
Conviction reversed.
Because it’s so common to run stop signs, it’s not gross negligence.
[Standard found in custom.]
Vehicular manslaughter is typically placed under the heading of involuntary manslaughter.
Misdemeanor Manslaughter
United States v. Walker (DC 1977)
{D dropped unlicensed pistol and it went off, killing someone.}
Convicted of involuntary manslaughter on misdemeanor-manslaughter theory.
Burden on prosecution is to show the underlying misdemeanor and causal relationship between that infraction and
the death.
There need not be any negligence in the death itself.
Misdemeanor-manslaughter rule is rarely used.
Usually limited to mala in se violations.
Not applied to strict-liability misdemeanors.
Mens rea for underlying misdemeanor obviates need for mens rea for the homicide.
VOLUNTARY MANSLAUGHTER
General comments
An intentional killing is reduced to voluntary manslaughter where there has been adequate provocation to cause
the defendant to act in the heat of passion.
Pure, reasonable self-defense, is justified, excusable, and completely exculpatory. If the conduct falls below that
standard, it leads to manslaughter.
Reasons for recognizing mitigation

Partial justification.
Retributivist view: Provoked killing merits less punishment.
Utilitarian view: We only seek to deter excessive responses to provocation.
Partial excuse.
Retributivist view: Provocation mitigates culpability.
Utilitarian view: Acts in the heat of passion are less vulnerable to deterrence and such killers are less dangerous
than those who kill without provocation.
Guiding questions
What is adequate provocation?
How immediate must it be?
When is the response to provocation response unreasonable (criminal)?
How flexible are we in defining the reasonable person?
Provocation under the Model Penal Code

Two essential requirements:
Adequacy (Objective).
Provocation must be adequate.
Reasonable-person standard.
With few exceptions, mere words are not enough.
[Almost every jurisdiction concurs that mere words are not enough.]
Causation (Subjective).
Defendant must have in fact been provoked and acted in response to such provocation, not from any previous
intention to kill.
State of mind must be assessed.
Cooling-off time is also relevant.
Adequate provocation
First, did decedent’s conduct amount to adequate provocation?
Second, was the defendant’s response reasonable?
If the answer to either is negative the killing is a murder, not a manslaughter.
Under common law, adequacy was held to an objective/reasonableness measure.
The objective component protects predictability.
[No longer true??]
Categories of adequate provocation at common law
Physical battery.
Man witnessing wife committing adultery.
Father witnessing son being sodomized.
Categories of adequate provocation today are broader
Battered woman syndrome, battered spouse syndrome, &c.
Who decides?
In some jurisdictions, judge first decides whether there may have been adequate provocation.
In others, such as CA and PA, all evidence about provocation goes immediately to the jury, there are no arbitrary
guidelines, and the judge stays out of the determination of adequacy of provocation.
Jury Instructions [Do I have these backwards??]
Subjective instruction
Courts tend to permit the jury to apply a subjective test for adequacy of provocation, asking them to place
themselves in the place of the accused, considering personal factors of the accused.
In some jurisdictions, courts also inject some objective guidelines regarding reasonableness.
Objective instruction
Courts usually instruct the jury with an objective standard regarding restraint and self-control.
People v. Walker (IL 1965)

{Decedent was armed, belligerent, violent, drunk, persistent. He harassed D and his friends, demanded they
gamble, and came at them repeatedly with a knife. D hit decedent in the head with a brick, knocking him
out. D then took decedent’s knife and, as friends told him not to, D cut decedent’s throat.}
D stated his intent to kill but was in the heat of passion.
Court found the lack of a “cooling-off period” to be critical.
Courts treat a break in the action, removal from the situation, and an opportunity to cool down, as evidence of
greater culpability.
Court felt it wasn’t the moral equivalent of premeditation.
Rowland v. State (MS 1904)

{D witnessed his wife committing adultery. In a fit of rage, he shot at the man, but hit and killed his wife instead.
Appeals murder conviction.}
A man finding his wife in the act of adultery is adequate provocation.
If he responds instantly with deadly force, the grade of homicide is reduced from murder to manslaughter.
Deliberate design in conditions of adequate provocation is manslaughter.
People v. Tapia (CA 1988)

{Defendants, heroin addicts, had been beaten, threatened, assaulted on multiple occasions by their supplier. After
several threats to kill them, they ambushed and killed him instead.}
Proper instruction was manslaughter, not murder.
Prolonged fear can provide sufficient provocation to support a manslaughter verdict under a heat-of-passion theory.
Anger is not the only intense emotion that may support a heat-of-passion theory.
Cultural Relativism and the Reasonable Person

People v. Wu (CA 1991)
{Chinese immigrant had bad relationship with father of her illegitimate son. Very depressed. Discovered father was
treating son poorly. Decided to kill him and herself so she could care for him in the afterlife. Killed son
and attempted suicide. Has no memory of killing her son. Convicted of second-degree murder.}
Reversed and remanded for new jury instructions
Fugue state
She was entitled to a jury instruction on unconsciousness, because of evidence that she acted in a fugue state.
If the jury accepts the fugue defense, that would mean a verdict of not guilty (no intent).
Culture
She was entitled to a jury instruction that he jury may take into account the considerable testimony about her
culture and how it affected her mental state.
If it accepts the culture defense, that could lower the charges (different intent).
A defendant’s cultural background and beliefs may be taken into account in assessing her possession of the
requisite mental element of a crime.
Cultural issues and differences from Williams
We make allowances for angry responses to emotional offenses.
Counsel in Wu was attempting to expand the ways in which provocation can be understood.
Counsel in Williams was much less concerned with use of culture to explain away lack of intent.
Tough issues raised by Wu
Shifting, fluid standard of reasonableness based on “culture.”
Cultural mitigation is extremely difficult to assess.
Cultural mitigation can undermine the predictability that is crucial for fairness.
What constitutes a culture?
MURDER
Intent to kill
Intentional killing with express or implied malice establishes the “malice” or “malice aforethought” necessary for
murder.
Malice
California Penal Code (1995) definitions
Express malice
Deliberate, manifest intent unlawfully to kill.
Implied malice
No considerable provocation; or
Circumstances show extreme recklessness (“abandoned and malignant heart”).
Possible evidence of malice
Witness testimony of prior but recent statements of intent.
Conscious disregard of risk.
Manifest indifference to value of human life.
Circumstances.
Insufficiency of provocation.
Past relationship of the parties.
Weapon used.
Overkill.
Particular characteristics of the defendant (sharpshooter, golden-gloves champ, etc.)
Defendant’s past is generally inadmissible
May be admitted for motive, signature (identity, mistaken identity, common scheme), and certainly at penalty
phase.
INTENTIONAL MURDER (SECOND DEGREE)
Francis v. Franklin (U.S. 1985) BRENNAN, J.

{D, convict, seized guard’s gun, escaped, took hostage, knocked on doors demanding a car. Decedent said he had
no car and slammed door. Gun went off, killing decedent. D immediately confessed, insisted killing was
an accident, that he had no intent to kill. Circumstantial evidence of lack of intent: slamming of door,
trajectory of second bullet, immediate confession, lack of injury to anyone else along the way despite
ample opportunity.}
Burden to prove intent remains at all times on prosecution.
Defendant bears no burden to disprove intent to kill—no presumption of intent.
Bad jury instruction: Rebuttable presumption that acts are a product of will, consequences are intended.
Due Process Clause of 14th Amendment prohibits jury instructions that shift burden of proof on the critical
question of intent in a criminal prosecution.
Proper jury instructions with respect to intent

Must not shift burdens to defendant.
Must be specific to this defendant and these facts.
Must not lower the standard of proof.
Must not undermine presumption of innocence.
Must not permit presumptions of intent (though inference is another matter).
Commentary to Model Penal Code § 210.2. Purposeful or Knowing Homicide.

Both are murder if unjustified and unexcused and unmitigated by mental or emotional disturbance or provocation.
No useful distinction between purpose and knowledge as mental elements.
To say that a person is presumed to intend the natural or probable consequence of their acts is misleading, though
courts do it often.
Prosecution must establish that defendant acted (1) with conscious objective of causing death of another or (2) at
least with awareness that the death of another was practically certain to result from the act. (This may be
established circumstantially.)
EXTREME RECKLESSNESS (SECOND-DEGREE MURDER)
General comments
Extreme recklessness is considered the moral equivalent of intent.
Extreme recklessness is more than mere recklessness, more than gross negligence.
How to distinguish extreme recklessness (second-degree murder) from gross negligence(involuntary
manslaughter)?
Actor’s awareness of the risk.
Conduct without social utility.
Inherently reckless conduct, such as Russian roulette.
Pattern and practice in face of evidence of extreme risk.
Use of a weapon.
Russian Poker—Commonwealth v. Malone (PA 1946)

{D killed friend while playing “Russian Poker.”}
Second-degree murder conviction upheld.
Gross recklessness.
Death was likely.
Death was reasonably to be expected.
Total absence of social utility.
Combination of these establishes malice.
Malone Hypotheticals
Didn’t pull trigger but gun went off anyway: involuntary manslaughter.
Put the bullet in the wrong chamber by mistake: negligent homicide.
Paid no attention to which chamber he put the bullet in: murder.
Killer Dentist—People v. Protopappas (CA 1988)

{Dentist killed three patients with anesthesia. Knew that the patients were unusually sensitive to anesthesia. Left
them in care of unqualified people.}
Second-degree murder convictions on basis of implied malice upheld.
Knowing the clear risk and in violation of professional standards of care, defendant repeatedly acted with extreme
recklessness.
The pattern served as evidence of extreme recklessness, the basis for implied malice.
Killer Dog—Berry v. Superior Court (CA 1989)

{Defendant warned neighbors his dog was a killer. Dog was tethered but fence was ajar. Defendant kept dog to
guard pot plants. Toddler wandered in and was killed.}
Second-degree murder instruction allowed on grounds of awareness that conduct was life-threatening and
antisocial.
Court applied two-part test for second-degree murder for an unintentional killing.
(1) Extreme indifference to the value of human life, as evidenced by probability that conduct will result in death.
(2) Awareness either of the risks or of the illegality of the conduct.
(Ultimately convicted of involuntary manslaughter.)
Intent to do serious bodily injury—Commonwealth v. Dorazio (PA 1950)

{Former boxer beat rival union activist to unconsciousness, then returned and beat him to death.}
Second-degree murder conviction upheld.
Intent to inflict serious bodily harm need not go so far as intent to do permanent or fatal injury in order to meet the
mens rea for second-degree murder if the assailant employs a deadly weapon.
Vehicular murder—People v. Watson (CA 1981)

{Drunk driving resulting in death.}
Second-degree murder charge available for drunk driver who causes fatal car accident.
Evidence supports implied malice.
Going to a bar in a car meant he “must have known” he would drive later and so willfully drinking to intoxication
satisfied the intent element.
BIRD, C.J. (dissenting): This conduct happens all the time and rarely produces death. Danger of overbreadth.
AGGRAVATED MURDER
FIRST-DEGREE MURDER
General comments
First-degree murder carries the most severe penalties, usually mandatory minimums of 20–25 years.
Killing with intent is second-degree murder unless aggravating factors can be established to up it to first-degree
murder.
Aggravating elements
Premeditation.
Deliberation.
Some states use other elements to elevate to first-degree murder
CA: Torture, Ambush, Poison, Explosives, etc.
Proof
Premeditation
Evidence of planning or preparing
Prior statements
Motive
Stalking
Murder weapon
Manner and circumstances of killing
Relationship between the parties
Deliberation
Reflection
Passage of time—some jurisdictions say seconds are not enough.
Lack of provocation, heat of passion, hot blood, aggravation.
PREMEDITATED MURDER (FIRST DEGREE)
United States v. Watson (DC 1985)

{Defendant fled cops investigating auto theft. Cop came in with gun drawn, attempted arrest, said, “Do you want
me to blow your motherfucking head off?” Defendant struggled, knocked gun away, immobilized cop,
retrieved gun. Cop said, “It’s not worth it,” twice. Defendant rose up and killed cop with a single shot to
the chest.}
First-degree murder conviction upheld.
State must prove
Premeditation
Defendant planned and calculated.
Deliberation.
Defendant gave thought to the idea and reached a definite decision, made a choice to kill.
Defendant weighed the idea, gave it a second thought, considered it, didn’t act impulsively.
No specific amount of time is necessary but some appreciable time must elapse between formation of the design to
kill and the actual execution of the design.
Time need not be long; a pause is enough.
Intent (malice).
Circumstantial evidence may form basis for inferring intent.
Evidence must be sufficient to persuade, not compel.
[Given the evidence of hot blood and reasonable basis for fear, this case might have been voluntary manslaughter
were the victim not a cop. KTT amazed no second-degree instruction.]
“Cold blood” test—Austin v. United States (DC Cir. 1967)

Discusses deliberation, quoting CARDOZO: “There can be no intent unless there is a choice, yet . . . the choice
without more is enough to justify the inference that the intent was deliberate and premeditated.”
Usually cold blood suggests deliberation and lack of impulse.
Hot-blooded first-degree murder
Even in hot blood there can be the intent for first-degree murder if there is some appreciable time during which
there is further thought and considering, if the killing isn’t spontaneous.
“Fully formed purpose” test—Commonwealth v. Scott (PA 1925)

{Cop killing. “Are you carrying any moonshine?” “This is what I have for you.” Bang.}
“It is the fully formed purpose, not the time, which constitutes the higher degree” of murder.
First-degree murder, perhaps because:
Defendant knew the cop would ask him next.
Defendant was carrying a gun.
Defendant’s statement suggests rehearsal.
No significant provocation.
Insanity and capacity for premeditation—Commonwealth v. Gould (MA 1980)

{Paranoid schizophrenic convinced he had to kill girlfriend because she was “impure.” First-degree murder
conviction because he failed to establish inability to appreciate wrongfulness or to exercise restraint.}
Capacity for intent does not establish capacity for premeditation.
Evidence of voluntary drug or alcohol use is permitted for this same purpose.
FELONY MURDER
General comments
Felony murder is the only way an unintentional homicide can be a first-degree murder.
U.S. is virtually the only western country to still permit the most serious sanctions for accidental killings.
Abolished in U.K. in 1957.
Common criticisms include overbreadth, transference/substitution of intent, etc.
Partly in response to criticisms, courts have limited scope to exclude deaths of participants, to require
foreseeability, etc.
Inherently dangerous felonies

When someone is killed in the perpetration of an inherently dangerous felony, most jurisdictions permit a first-
degree felony murder charge.
Inherently-dangerous felonies usually include kidnapping, rape, arson, burglary, robbery, and distribution of drugs.
Escape from prison and grand theft are not inherently-dangerous felonies.
Mens rea for first-degree felony murder

Intent to commit the felony substitutes for intent to kill.
State’s burden
State must prove the felony and the causal link.
Theoretical foundations
Agency theory (the leading theory)
On is liable only for one’s own acts and for those of one’s accomplices in furtherance of perpetration of felony.
Most states follow this theory
Critique
May be too narrow because it excludes foreseeable deaths.
Proximate-cause theory (a minority theory)
Liability where felony is the proximate cause of the death.
A few states have held onto this theory.
Critiques
But felonies are the proximate cause of many deaths that don’t reach the felony murder threshold.
Since this is criminal law and not tort, we’re dealing with moral culpability, so proximate cause isn’t enough.
Overinclusive.
Protected-person theory (a minority theory)
Liability only extends to innocent (protected) persons killed.
Critiques
Assigns different values to different lives.
A certain arbitrariness and attenuation of act, mental element.
Felony Murder Found

Defendant and co-defendant commit felony (armed robbery). Victim has heart attack and dies. Stamp.
Defendant and co-defendant commit felony (burglary). Cop kills cop. Hickman.
Defendant and co-defendant commit felony. Victim kills innocent. Payne.
Co-defendant kills co-defendant during felony. Cabaltero.
Felony Murder not Found

Co-defendant commits arson and kills self in the process. Ferlin.
Defendant and co-defendant commit felony (armed robbery). Victim kills co-defendant. Washington.
Defendant and co-defendant commit felony. Police kill victim.
Rationale
Deterrence is the usual argument.
Counterarguments
These deaths are so rare that deterrent effect probably doesn’t exist.
Felony already has adequate deterrence.
Possibility that a felon can receive the maximum punishment we have for the acts of an accomplice.
Virtual Strict Liability—People v. Stamp (CA 1969)

{Decedent died of heart attack after armed robbery. Underlying heart condition.}
Felony murder upheld.
Foreseeability is irrelevant.
You take your victims as you find them.
Divided expert testimony on causation.
[Weak case for involuntary manslaughter because of lack of foreseeability.]
Immediate flight—People v. Gladman (NY 1976)

{Police killing during escape 15 minutes after armed robbery.}
Killing in immediate flight from a qualifying felony is felony first-degree murder.
Tests
Homicide and felony at same location?
How far apart?
How much time since felony?
Had loot been secured?
Had felon reached temporary safety?
Were police or others in pursuit?
Generally, the criteria still go to the jury for determination of fact.
One Accomplice Killed by Another—People v. Cabaltero (CA 1939)

{Armed robbery. One accomplice shoots at two workers on the scene. Another accomplice, in anger, kills the first
accomplice. Third accomplice got felony murder.}
Any killing by one engaged in a qualifying felony is first-degree felony murder.
Killing need not be done in the furtherance of the offense.
Felon Causes Own Death—People v. Ferlin (CA)

{Felon killed himself in course of arson.}
Accomplice cannot be charged with first-degree felony murder.
Killing oneself is not a homicide.
[Some jurisdictions have allowed first-degree felony murder charges in such cases.]
Cop Shoot Cop—People v. Hickman (IL 1973)

{Cop killed cop as they were attempting to prevent escape of felon.}
first-degree felony murder conviction upheld.
Court looks to legislative history of felony-murder statute.
A killing “by a third person trying to prevent the commission of the felony” is intended to be covered by the statute.
[Court equates “escape” and “commission.”]
Accomplice Killed by Robbery Victim—People v. Washington (CA 1965) TRAYNOR, C.J.

{Defendant’s accomplice killed by robbery victim.}
First-degree felony murder conviction reversed.
Killing was not committed by defendant in perpetration or attempt of felony. Therefore, defendant lacked malice
aforethought.
Foreseeability is not enough.
Such a conviction would have negligible deterrent value.
If decedent had shot first, it would have gone the other way.
[Washington seems to contradict Hickman.]
CAPITAL MURDER/THE DEATH PENALTY
General comments
38 states have death penalty for first-degree murder
All have separate statutes that spell out substantive criteria and trial procedures for determining whether someone
convicted of first-degree murder should get the death penalty.
1997: highest number of executions since W.W.II.
>3,000 on death row.
Disproportionately black, Latino, and poor.
More than half the executions since 1976 have been in FL, TX, and LA.
HISTORICAL INTRODUCTION
Before Furman
First-degree murder meant eligibility for death penalty.
Little guidance in sentencing.
Furman v. Georgia (U.S. 1972) 5–4 per curium

Supreme Court struck down death penalty.
BRENNAN and MARSHALL found it incompatible with evolving standards of human dignity and had no deterrent
value.
DOUGLAS, STEWART, and WHITE found defects in sentencing and application, wanton and freakish imposition,
randomness.
BURGER, BLACKMUN, POWELL, & REHNQUIST dissented.
Woodson v. North Carolina (U.S. 1976) 5–4 STEWART

Mandatory death penalty unconstitutional way around problems with discretionary statute.
Need for particularity.
WHITE, BURGER, BLACKMUN, & REHNQUIST dissented.
Gregg v. Georgia (U.S. 1976) 7–2 STEWART, POWELL, & STEVENS

New GA statute upheld.
WHITE had switched sides.
Can be constitutional if procedurally sound: Separate penalty phase, rigorous appellate review, rational procedure
for guiding the jury in weighing aggravating factors and mitigating circumstances.
BRENNAN and MARSHALL dissented.
Coker v. Georgia (U.S. 1977) 7–2 WHITE

Death penalty limited to first-degree murder (plurality).
BURGER and REHNQUIST dissented.
IMPLEMENTATION
Bifurcated trials
At penalty phase, jury must be unanimous in finding aggravating factors, but they need not be unanimous in which
aggravating factors are decisive.
Must be unanimous in finding that aggravation outweighs mitigation.
Must reach the same result but need not reach it in the same way.
If unanimity is not reached, some states retry that phase, others apply life sentence.
In a number of states, life recommendations can be overridden by the judge.
This is very common in Florida and North Carolina.
Jury must be death qualified.
This is accomplished during voir dire before the initial empanelling of the jury.
The impact of this is to get pro–death penalty juries.
Burden of Proof
State must show aggravating factors.
Defense may show mitigating factors.
Some states permit defendant to make a statement without cross examination.
Some states permit “victim-impact statements”—family members testifying about the loss.
Some jurisdictions don’t permit victim’s family to tell the jury they oppose the death penalty. The 10th Circuit does
permit this testimony.
POLICY CONSIDERATIONS
Crafting a statute
Should mitigating factors be delineated like aggravating factors are?
AGGRAVATING CIRCUMSTANCES
General comments
Enumerated by statute
Typically 2–20 factors.
While the idea is individuality of sentence and determination, the generalizations in the statutes make this difficult.
Some specific factors

The murder itself
First-degree felony murder
Murder while avoiding arrest or escaping from custody
“Heinous, atrocious, and cruel.”
Big struggle to unpack this traditional language.
CA has given up and struck this language.
In hindrance of governmental functions
For pecuniary gain
Committed in jail
Multiple victims
Previous violent-felony convictions
Nonstatutory aggravating factors
Psychological evaluations
Victim-impact statements
MITIGATING CIRCUMSTANCES
General comments
No clear consensus on how to weigh mitigating and aggravating factors.
Quantitative or qualitative?
In 1989, FL S.Ct. overturned a death sentence where there was only one aggravating factor and ten mitigating
factors.
May not be limited by statute to a specific list—Lockett v. Ohio (U.S. 1978) BURGER, C.J.
{Defendant was getaway driver for robbery. Accomplice accidentally killed. Did not foresee killing. Convicted of
felony first-degree murder. Trial judge excluded the mitigating factor she argued—that she did not cause
or intend the death—because it didn’t fit the three mitigating factors enumerated in Ohio’s death penalty
statute.}
Individualized sentences are required by the 8th and 14th Amendments.
Sentencing of capital defendants must not be less particularized than sentencing of non-capital defendants.
Jury should not be precluded from considering any aspect of defendant’s character or record, or the circumstances
of the offense, proffered as mitigation.
Eddings v. Oklahoma (U.S. 1982) POWELL, J.

{Trial court excluded mitigating evidence of minor defendant’s turbulent family history and abuse-filled childhood
as irrelevant to immediate circumstances of the crime. Appeals court held evidence was properly excluded
because it did not “excuse” his behavior.}
Court may determine weight of proffered mitigating evidence but may not give it no weight.
“Just as the state may not by statute preclude the sentencer from considering any mitigating factor, neither may the
sentencer refuse to consider, as a matter of law, any relevant mitigating evidence.”
CATEGORICAL LIMITS
The Mens Rea Limit: A Reprise on Felony Murder

Tison v. Arizona (U.S. 1987) O’CONNOR, J.
{Sons arm convict father and cellmate for prison escape. On the lam, they rob a family of four. Father and cellmate
murder the family. Sons do not assist directly but do nothing to stop. They didn’t actually kill nor did
they intend to. Convicted of felony murder and sentenced to death. Court relied on an expansive theory
of “intent to kill.”}
8th Amendment does not prohibit death penalty for a defendant whose participation is major and whose mental
state is reckless indifference to human life.
After Tison:
Minimal intent for death penalty for accomplice convicted of first-degree felony murder: Reckless indifference to
human life.
Minimal intent for death penalty for actual killer convicted of first-degree felony murder: Negligence.
Age of Defendant
Thompson v. Oklahoma (U.S. 1988)
Execution of defendants under 16 (at time of crime) is beyond the realm of decency.
To determine “evolving standards of decency,” S.Ct. looked at how state legislatures (supposed embodiment of
popular opinion and will) wrote statutes.
Then they looked at the statistics of application of the statutes to determine what would be considered consistent
with popular standards and what would not.
Stanford v. Kentucky (U.S. 1989) SCALIA, J.
Execution of defendants 16 and 17 years-old (at time of crime) is within the realm of decency.
Execution of those who were juveniles when they committed their crimes does not necessarily violate 8th
Amendment.
Both evolving standards of decency and the standards at the time the 8th Amendment was adopted (execution for
7-year-olds theoretically legal) are relevant.
Mental capacity—very low standard.
Victim-Race Discrimination and the 8th Amendment—McCleskey v. Kemp (U.S. 1987) POWELL, J.
{Petition for writ of habeas corpus on 8th Amendment Cruel and Unusual and 14th Amendment Equal Protection
grounds. Baldus study: death penalty more likely where defendant is black and/or decedent is white.
District Court found study irrelevant; 11th Circuit found it inadequate. Sentenced to death.}
Evidence fails to show discrimination in his particular case.
Showing that the system is discriminatory isn’t enough—otherwise we’d have to reexamine everything.
He must show that discrimination made it more likely than not that he’d get the death penalty.
Constitution doesn’t require consistent results.
BRENNAN (dissenting): Court has abdicated its responsibility and fears too much justice.
COUNSEL IN CAPITAL CASES
Stephen B. Bright. “Counsel for the Poor: The Death Sentence not for the Worst Crime but for the Worst
Lawyer.”
Many get death penalty because of the poor quality of their representation, not because of their crime. Often their
lawyers lack skill, resources, commitment, competence, and good faith.
ATTRIBUTION OF CRIMINALITY
ATTEMPT
PUNISHMENT FOR ATTEMPT
Why Punish Attempt?

Primarily for prophylaxis and to permit early intervention.
Also, to some degree, deterrence and establishment of codes of conduct.
Retributivist perspectives:
For
Why should the morally irrelevant factor of luck protect one from punishment?
Against
There should be no punishment without wrongdoing.
We take harm into account in other areas, why not here?
We don’t punish harmless negligence or recklessness, so why malevolence?
Utilitarian perspectives:
For
Maximizes deterrence, which depends on predictability, unaffected by luck.
Against
Those who fail are less dangerous so there’s less value in punishing them.
Vagueness of conduct undermines predictability.
The Emergence of Attempt Liability

Not until the late 18th century, hand in hand with the development of the element of intent, did the common law
begin to punish attempts.
Since then, the threshold has gotten lower and lower until today it is fairly stable at a threshold that makes it fairly
easy to convict for attempt.
Criteria
Mens rea
Defendant must exhibit mental culpability.
Usually an intent to cause harm is required.
Actus reus
Some significant conduct must manifest the bad thoughts.
How early to intervene?

The inherent tension.
Early enough prevents crime.
Too early tramples the Constitution.
We need strong prediction that crime will be committed if not interrupted.
Black-letter law
Threshold is the point at which mere preparatory activity ends and a substantial step is taken.
Punishment
Typically less than punishment for a success.
Reduced sentence gives incentive to not follow through.
Evidentiary problems.
Punishment for actual harms—retributive.
MENS REA/ACTUS REUS
THE ACTUS REUS OF ATTEMPT
Preparation vs. Attempt—People v. Murray (CA 1859)

{Convicted of attempted contract of incestuous marriage with niece.}
There must be evidence of more than intent and preparation.
Attempt is the direct movement toward the commission after the preparations are made.
Attempt must be manifested by acts which would end in the consummation of the particular offence, but for the
intervention of circumstances independent of the will of the party.
The “substantial step” test —Model Penal Code § 5.01. CRIMINAL ATTEMPT.
Acting with the kind of culpability otherwise required for the crime.
A purposeful act or omission constituting a substantial step in a course of conduct planned to culminate in the
crime.
Conduct must strongly corroborate criminal purpose.
Some illustrative acts: lying in wait; stalking; enticing; reconnoitering; unlawful entry; fabrication or possession of
specially designed or unlawful materials; recruiting.
Emphasis is on the acts accomplished, not on what remains to be done before success.
Something of a blend of proximity and unequivocality tests.
Tests rejected by the drafters:
Physical proximity—act proximate to completed crime.
Dangerous proximity—nearness of danger, greatness of harm, degree of apprehension felt, nearness to
completion.
Indispensable element—anything indispensable to the crime not yet under the actor’s control is exculpatory.
Probable desistance—seemed to require judgment that actor reached a point at which it was unlikely they’d turn
back—not workable in practice.
Abnormal step—where the normal citizen would stop—but who’s to judge and how?
Unequivocality—act that is unequivocally aimed toward a completed crime.
Res ipsa loquitur—too subjective.
Most commonly used tests today: substantial step and dangerous proximity.
Subjectiveness of the act requirement in practice—McQuirter v. State (AL 1953)

{Black man convicted of “attempt to commit assault with intent to rape.” Only evidence against him was police
testimony that he told them once in custody that he’d intended to rape a white woman. Defendant denied
it. There was no real act except walking; prosecutrix testified that he followed her, he testified that he was
merely walking toward the black neighborhood.}
Evidence was enough to get to a jury and to sustain a verdict of guilty.
Court stressed validity of taking social norms and standards, including racial ones, into account.
Implication: certain black behavior can be construed by whites as off limits.
“Proximity to success” test—People v. Rizzo (NY 1927)

{Defendant and accomplices looked all over for man with payroll but never found him. Fully planned to rob him.
Two were armed. Police grew suspicious and made arrests. Convicted of attempt to commit first-degree
robbery.}
Attempt should be limited to acts “which are so near to its accomplishment that in all reasonable probability the
crime itself would have been committed, but for timely interference.”
There can be no attempt if the opportunity to commit the crime never arises.
DEFENSES TO ATTEMPT
Abandonment
People v. Staples (CA 1970)
{Defendant rented office above bank vault, began drilling, but never completed hole before landlord alerted police.
Sworn statement indicated that he began to think the plan was crazy and abandoned it. Charge of
attempted burglary.
Once acts reach the attempt stage, abandonment is not exculpatory.

At that point, abandonment is no different from any other intervening event.
Arguments for the abandonment defense
Provides incentive to desist.
Takes account of differences in moral culpability.
Availability of the abandonment defense
Not available under traditional common law.
Many jurisdictions continue to deny it.
Where available, abandonment must be at a relatively early stage and often fails.
Both NY Penal Code and MPC recognize it as a complete defense when it is voluntary and complete. Some other
jurisdictions are moving in this direction.
What is not abandonment
Involuntary abandonment (discovery, equipment failure, etc.).
Abandonment based on fear of discovery or apprehension.
Postponement.
Impossibility
Booth v. State (OK 1964)
{Defendant agreed to buy stolen property from thief but thief was arrested before the transaction. Police set up a
sting and arrested defendant. At trial, defendant argued that since the property was recovered by the
police before the sting, it was no longer stolen. Convicted of attempt to receive stolen property.}
Legal impossibility defense accepted; conviction reversed.
If the completed act would not be a crime, the attempt cannot be either.
Legal Impossibility
The act, if completed, would not be illegal.
Attempt is not a crime.
Factual Impossibility
The intended crime cannot be completed because of a physical or factual condition unknown to defendant.
Attempt is a crime.
There’s practically no agreement on what is a legal impossibility and what is a factual impossibility.
MPC solution is to abolish the defense by defining an attempt as conduct which would be criminal if circumstances
were as the actor believed them to be. MPC § 5.01.
COMPLICITY
Introduction
Not a crime in and of itself—Depends on another offense, committed by another person.
One cannot be charged with complicity—One is charged with the crime itself.
Complicity is an alternate way of charging someone with a particular crime.
Complicity under the common law

The common law distinguished four roles:
principals in the first degree (e.g., killer);
principals in the second degree (e.g., aider or abettor);
accessories before the fact (provided the gun); and
accessories after the fact (helped escape).
Accessories could only be charged if a principal had already been convicted.
Accessories could only be charged with a crime of which a principal had been convicted.
Complicity today
Prior conviction of a principal is no longer required, but there must be proof that another person committed a
crime.
In four states the old law still remains that an accomplice cannot be tried if a principal isn’t.
The only remaining vestige of the common-law roles is accessory after the fact.
All other players are now tried as principals and can be tried in the jurisdiction where the crime occurred,
regardless of where their part was played.
Sentences are the same and no legal distinction is drawn with regard to culpability.
Accomplices may be charged with any crime a principal may be charged with, even if that principal is in fact
charged with a lesser offense.
MPC approach: “A person is legally accountable for the conduct of another when he is an accomplice of the other
person in the commission of the crime.”
Thorny Issues
Must accomplice’s conduct in any way cause the crime?
Must mens rea of accomplice and of principal be the same?
State v. Foster (CT 1987) says yes; MPC says no.
If act and mental state are different, why is it not always a distinct crime?
When can accomplice be liable and principal not?
When can inducer be liable and actor not (“perpetration by means”)?
Elements of complicity
Actus reus
An act in assistance.
Conduct must go beyond mere presence, even if only slightly.
Exceptions
Lookouts, people providing “emboldening” support, people whose presence increases the likelihood of completion
by creating the impression of unequal odds.
Mens rea
Community of purpose.
Communication between actors is unnecessary, though helpful to establish community of purpose.
Community of purpose may be inferred by conduct.

Beeman: Mere knowledge is not enough; there must also be intent to commit, encourage, or facilitate.
Abandonment defense—MPC § 2.06(6)(c)

Actor must terminate complicity and either deprive it of its effectiveness or inform the police or attempt to prevent
the crime.
Actor must take clear steps to prevent commission of the crime.
THE ACCESSORIAL ACT (ACTUS REUS)
State v. Tally (AL 1894)

{Defendant’s brothers in law set out to murder man who had sex with defendant’s sister. Defendant sent telegram
in attempt to intercept warning telegram sent by target’s brother. Charged with aiding and abetting
murder.}
Although defendant did not encourage, command, etc., the homicide, or enter into any conspiracy to murder the
decedent, he did aid and abet the murder.
He acted in a way as to further the killers’ attack.
His act contributed to the murder (even if it was not a necessary contribution).
He would not be liable if his act did not contribute to the murder.
Why is no but-for analysis required?

Both mens rea and actus reus are established.
Punishing this sort of conduct does have a deterrent effect.
MENS REA OF COMPLICITY
Community of purpose
Intent to aid in the commission of the crime, to facilitate the crime, or to encourage the commission of the crime.
Minority approach
Accomplice must “share in” or “know of” principal’s purpose or intent.
Majority approach
A different mens rea for accomplices than for principals:
Knowledge or purpose that one’s conduct will have the effect of facilitating or encouraging the crime.
The four principal mens rea standards for accomplices
Mens rea with respect to principal’s criminal intent only.
Mens rea with respect to principal’s criminal intent and mens rea with respect to facilitative effect of accomplice’s
conduct.
Mens rea with respect to principal’s criminal intent and mens rea required for principal’s crime.
Mens rea required for principal’s crime and mens rea with respect to facilitative effect of accomplice’s conduct.
The second clause in the two-prong standards is also called the “intent to aid or abet.”
Mens rea with respect to principal’s criminal intent and mens rea with respect to facilitative effect of
accomplice’s conduct—People v. Beeman (CA 1984)
{Defendant provided accomplices with considerable information in order to set up the burglary. Promised to sell
the stolen goods and in fact received them. Did nothing to stop the crime. Not present during commission.
Convicted of multiple crimes on aiding and abetting theory.}
State must prove that accomplice knew perpetrators’ intent and rendered aid with intent or purpose of committing
or encouraging or facilitating commission of the targeted offense.
Mens rea with respect to principal’s criminal intent and mens rea required for principal’s crime—Wilson v.
People (CO 1939)
{Defendant boosted burglar into the building and then ran off to get the cops. Convicted of burglary and larceny on
aiding and abetting theory}
An accomplice who lacks the criminal intent required for the principal’s crime cannot be guilty of that crime.
A feigned accomplice acting with the purpose of entrapping a principal is not criminally liable.
Rex v. Othello
First-degree murder: premeditation and deliberation, malice (intent to kill), actual killing.
Second-degree murder: hot blood, malice (express—intent to kill), actual killing.
Voluntary manslaughter: murder with sufficient provocation (XVI-century adultery; more than mere words:
handkerchief), heat of passion, actual killing.
Rex v. Iago
Aiding and abetting: encouragement, “Kill her in her bed,” plants handkerchief.
Mental state: intends to have Othello to kill Desdemona (“Kill her in her bed”).
Clear community of purpose: planting the idea, assisting in the preparation.
We can convict Othello of voluntary manslaughter, and convict Iago of first-degree murder. What matters is
whether the principal may be charged with a crime, not whether they are so charged or convicted.
If Othello acted immediately and so cannot be charged with first-degree murder, Iago can still be charged with
first-degree murder because he had the full mens rea. [It was almost as though Iago was the principal and
Othello the accomplice.]
CONSPIRACY
Introduction
Conspiracy is an inchoate or preparatory crime—the underlying intended crime need not take place.
Conspiracy is an instrument to establish wide vicarious liability.
Comparison between Conspiracy and Attempt.

Unlike attempt, conspiracy is a group crime—it requires at least two participants.
Both punish arguably harmless conduct that falls short of accomplishing crimes.
The act requirement for conspiracy is less substantial than for attempt.
Because all that is needed to establish conspiracy is an agreement and an overt act, cops can intervene at an earlier
stage in conspiracy than in attempt.
Comparison between Conspiracy and Complicity.

Conspiracy tends to bring a lower penalty than complicity, because complicity involves a completed crime.
Unlike complicity, conspiracy is a crime in itself, not a way of committing a crime.
Like conspiracy, complicity is a means of getting people for the crimes of their coconspirators, not merely their
own direct acts.
One can be convicted of both complicity and conspiracy.
Elements of conspiracy
Mens rea
Agreement.
Intent to promote the objective of the conspiracy.
Actus reus
Overt act.
Agreement requirement
Agreement may be inferred on the basis of the overt act requirement.
The conspirators don’t all have to enter the agreement; there can be “constructive agreement” based on acts.
Where the agreement can be conclusively demonstrated without reference to an act, some jurisdictions waive the
overt act requirement.
Overt act requirement

At common law, there was no requirement for an overt act.
Most modern jurisdictions require an overt act (except for aggravated crimes, such as drug trafficking).
The overt act must be a move beyond the plan or agreement, toward implementation.
The act requirement is less substantial than for attempt; the line between preparation and criminal liability is
drawn earlier.
Merely preparatory acts may be enough in some jurisdictions, so long as they are more than the formation of the
agreement itself.
A few states require more of the overt act, more like the substantial step of attempt.
One act is sufficient to cover all conspirators.
The act can be equivocal, unsuccessful.
The purpose of the overt act is to demonstrate the conspiracy.
A very few jurisdictions require no act at all.
Withdrawal/abandonment
Much easier to establish than with complicity.
Defendant must make clear an intent to withdraw.
Telling only one coconspirator of intent to withdraw is enough.
As long as there’s some evidence of intent to withdraw, defendant need demonstrate no further act.
But defendant is still liable for the crime of conspiracy and for any crimes under committed by any member of the
conspiracy before defendant’s withdrawal.
THE NATURE OF CONSPIRACY
State v. Verive (AZ 1981)

Primary focus of the crime of conspiracy is the agreement itself, the collusion, secrecy, and resulting threat to
society posed by such an agreement.
The act requirement provides evidence of a step toward execution of the illicit agreement.
Any act sufficient to corroborate the existence of the agreement and to show that it is being put into motion is
enough to support the charge.
The act may be just a part of preliminary arrangements to commit the crime.
It merely has to show things have gone beyond a mere meeting of the minds.
“Unilateral conspiracy”
A single member of a conspiracy may be indicted and/or convicted.
As long as defendant intended to enter into conspiracy, defendant can be convicted, even if other “conspirators”
didn’t so intend.
Traditional view required that conspiracies be “bilateral”; that is no longer the case.
THE MENS REA OF CONSPIRACY
With limited exceptions, state must show two components:

(1) Intent to enter into the conspiracy.
(2) A particular level of purpose, knowledge, or awareness.
People v. Lauria (CA 1967)

{Defendant ran answering service used by call girls. Sting. Defendant and three prostitutes indicted for conspiracy
to commit prostitution. Dismissed for lack of reasonable or probable cause. People appeal. Affirmed.}
Mere knowledge of another’s criminal activity does not constitute conspiracy to further that activity.
In order to establish criminal liability of a supplier of lawful goods or services put to unlawful use, the state must
show:
1. Knowledge of the illegal use of the goods or services (ordinarily a straightforward fact question) and
2. Intent to further that use. Such intent may be established by:
(a) direct evidence (such as advise to criminal actors) or
(b) circumstantial evidence from which an intent to further a criminal enterprise may be inferred (such as the sale
itself and its surrounding circumstances).
(c) inference based on special interest in the activity or the aggravated nature of the crime itself.
Special interest: Mere knowledge may provide basis for inference of intent by virtue of special interest where:
(1) defendant has acquired a stake in the venture, or
(2) no legitimate use of the goods or services exists, or
(3) the volume of business with the criminal actors is grossly disproportionate to any legitimate demand or
amounts to a high proportion of seller’s total business.
Aggravated crimes:
Mere knowledge that goods or services supplied will be used to commit felonies may be sufficient basis for
inference of intent to further that use.
Mere knowledge that goods or services supplied will be used to commit misdemeanors is not sufficient basis for
inference of intent to further that use.
The distinction is based on different degrees of duty.
Other felony/misdemeanor distinctions are grounded in different degrees of duty:
It is a crime to withhold knowledge of a felony (misprision of felony) but not a misdemeanor.
It is a crime to aid in the escape of one charged with a felony (complicity) but not a misdemeanor.
THE SCOPE OF CONSPIRACY’S NET
The Pinkerton rule

Pinkerton v. United States (U.S. 1946)
A party to a conspiracy may be responsible for a substantive offense committed by one of the conspirators in
furtherance of the conspiracy even though that party doesn’t participate in the substantive offense or
even know about it.
United States v. Diaz (7th Cir. 1988)
{Appeal of drug conviction based on DEA sting: conspiracy to distribute cocaine, possession and distribution of
cocaine, and use of a firearm in relation to the commission of a drug trafficking crime (a penalty
enhancement). Defendant was unarmed but one of his several coconspirators was carrying a gun (which
he didn’t use). Defendant alleges firearm conviction based on the conspiracy charge was improper.
Affirmed.}
Firearm violation may be imputed to other members of a conspiracy under the Pinkerton rule.
Each conspirator may be liable for acts of every other conspirator in furtherance of the conspiracy.
State’s burden under the Pinkerton rule:
(1) A crime was committed, and
(2) The crime was committed within the scope and in furtherance of the conspiracy and was a natural and
reasonably foreseeable consequence of the conspiracy, and
(3) The defendant was a member of the conspiracy.
Under the Pinkerton rule, incarcerated conspirators who do not actually withdraw from a conspiracy can still be
liable for offenses committed after their incarceration.
Proving the scope of an agreement

Implications from steps taken, nature of investment.
Records of communications.
Plea bargain for a conspirator.
Hypothetical bank robbery conspiracy

A is organizer and ringleader.
A hires B to rob bank 1.
A hires C to rob bank 2.
B and C do not meet face to face but both know they’re members of larger conspiracy, know of each other, and
know of each other’s assignments.
At A’s instigation, D, knowing of conspiracy, steals car for use in robberies.
B and C perform their robberies.
B uses D’s stolen car.
Party liable Conspiracy to rob banks? Bank robbery or auto theft (accomplice theory)?
A Yes Yes
B for C’s robbery Yes No
D for robbery of bank 2 Yes No
D for robbery of bank 1 Yes Yes
B & C for D’s theft Yes No
Conspiracy charge has big advantages for the state
It is a very big net, much bigger and more powerful than complicity.
Ability to join defendants into a single trial, where the full scope of criminal activity is presented to the jury as a
package.
Where state’s case is stronger against some defendants than against others, it is more likely to convict all than if
they were tried separately.
Turning someone state’s evidence (they don’t even have to testify—an exception to the hearsay bar).
Extending the statute of limitations if there is a continuing conspiracy—clock starts running from the time of the
last overt act, not the time of the conspiracy.
Conspiracy model examples

“Rimless wheel”—no single conspiracy
Drug supplier uses multiple sellers who are wholly independent and unaware that there are any other sellers.
In this case, there are multiple conspiracies and the sellers cannot be charged with one another’s crimes—a rimless
wheel.
But even if they don’t know one another, if they have reason to believe there are other sellers, then there is one
conspiracy—the spokes are connected.
Chain of conspiracy
Drug supplier works with distributor, who in turn works with seller.
If there’s interdependence, there’s one conspiracy.
If there’s no evidence of interdependence, there are multiple conspiracies.
THE RICO STATUTE AND THE FRONTIER OF CONSPIRACY
The Statute
Passed in 1970.
Original target: the mob. United States v. Salerno (2d Cir. 1988).
Means:
Strengthening the legal tools in the evidence-gathering process;
Establishing new penal prohibitions; and
Providing enhanced sanctions and new remedies.
Elements
Conviction under RICO is fairly easy. All the state must establish is:
(1) Agreement on an objective.
(2) Involvement in an enterprise.
As long as the participants know about the existence of the enterprise and are participants in it, the rimless wheel
becomes rimmed.
Unlike traditional conspiracy, foreseeability is not necessary.
It’s a lasso that can capture many participants at many levels in an enterprise and many different kinds of criminal
activity.
Penalties
Often worse than under other statutes.
Forfeiture
Property can be seized upon probable cause before actual conviction.
Defendant cannot get it back even if acquitted.
This is supposedly constitutional because showing of probable cause constitutes due process.
§ 1961. Definitions.
(1) “Racketeering activity”—long list of acts preceded with the phrase “any act or threat involving murder,
kidnaping, . . .” etc. An enormously wide net.
(4) “Enterprise”—any individual or entity.
(5) “Pattern of racketeering activity”—at least two acts of racketeering activity within ten years of each other.
§ 1962. Racketeering activities.

(a)–(c) substantive crimes.
(d) inchoate crime of conspiracy.
Elements of proof of substantive crimes

(1) pattern of racketeering activity, and
(2) involvement in an enterprise that is engaged in or affects interstate commerce.
§ 1964. Civil remedies.

These are largely equitable but also legal (treble damages).
Civil RICO case need not wait for criminal conviction and need not be based on a racketeering injury but can be
based on any other particular predicate act.
§ 1962(c) also provides that criminal RICO conviction estops defendant from litigating the violation of a
subsequent civil case.
Section 1962(a) Violations

Investment or laundering of racketeering profits by any individual in interstate commercial enterprises.
Under this subsection—as distinct from § 1962(c)—the individual and the enterprise may be one and the same
entity.
Act may be rather passive.
Section 1962(b) Violations

Racketeering activity such as bribery or extortion directly aimed at acquiring or infiltrating an otherwise legitimate
enterprise.
Section 1962(c) Violations

Racketeering activity that springs from the business affairs of an enterprise, that corrupts an enterprise from
within.
The enterprise need not be a commercial one.
The enterprise itself need not be a legitimate one.
A commercial enterprise may be no more than a sole proprietorship.
White-collar crime prosecutions under § 1962(c) have seen big growth, e.g., insider trading.
RICO can be used against both big and little fish; the individual may be a low-level player, as long as their work is
necessary to the enterprise’s operations.
First amendment issues are raised when the enterprise is a political one.
But the S.Ct. has held that any fundraising makes an enterprise not strictly political.
And in a concurrence, SOUTER, J. said the economic motive test was neither necessary nor desirable to ensure that
RICO didn’t trample protected speech.
JUSTIFICATION AND EXCUSE
General comments
These are defenses based on desert or utility arguments.
They are arguments that, in spite of the act and the mental state, the defendant should not be punished.
They are fact-based arguments that the defendant can make after the state has proven the act plus the mental state.
They are not refutations of the state’s proof.
Why have a justification defense?

We don’t want to deter the behavior.
The behavior has social utility.
Why have excuse defense?

We shouldn’t punish what we cannot deter.
We punish voluntary conduct.
Four defenses
Force.
Insanity.
Necessity.
Duress. This is a defense of last resort.
Burden of Proof.
Because the criteria of justification are part of the criminal law’s proscriptive norms, the burden of proof beyond a
reasonable doubt on justification defenses is usually placed on the state.
Until lack of justification is proved, a crime is not established.
DISTINGUISHING JUSTIFICATION AND EXCUSE
Wrongdoing.
Justification
In committing the offense, a social interest was advanced or right was vindicated sufficient to counterbalance the
offense.
Actor did no wrong.
The offensive act didn’t constitute wrongdoing.
The conduct was right.
Excuse
Circumstances limited voluntariness so as to render conduct neither morally blameworthy nor susceptible to
deterrence.
Actor not responsible for the act.
The conduct was wrong but the actor was blameless.
Legality.
Justification
Conduct rules/standards that permit responsible choices by actors and decision rules/standards that permit
discretionary application of the law.
Knowledge of justifications ought to play a part in actors’ decisions about their conduct, so justifications should be
public and prospective but need not be specific.
More flexible than other parts of criminal definitions; application requires more discretion.
A way of setting aside an overbroad rule in order to account for circumstances.
Sometimes legislated, sometimes judicially developed.
Excuse
Decision rules/standards that permit discretionary application of the law.
Knowledge of excuses should have no impact on actors’ conduct.
Third parties.
Justification
Since the conduct is at bottom right, third parties may perform the same conduct and ought not to interfere with or
attempt to stop it.
Justification may extend to other parties.
Excuse
Third parties ought not to perform the same conduct and may try to stop it.
Excuse does not extend to other parties; they must be individually excused (and may not be).
DEFENSIVE FORCE
General comment
Allowance for human tendency to protect our own life or that of another.
Defensive force is a complete, exculpatory defense.
Justifiable Homicide
People v. La Voie (CO 1964)
{Defendant’s car was rammed by another car with four occupants and he was pushed for some distance, through a
red light. The four then got out of their car and threatened him. He had a licensed gun. He shot the one
who was advancing toward him, killing him. Defendant charged with [second-degree (express malice)]
murder. Directed verdict for defendant on grounds that evidence established justifiable homicide.}
One who has reasonable grounds for believing one is in imminent danger of being killed or receiving great bodily
harm, and who does so believe, may act on such belief in self-defense, even to the point of killing if
necessary, even if one’s belief of danger or of the extent of danger turns out to have been mistaken.
Two-part test for justifiable homicide.
Actual belief. (Subjective.)
Reasonable grounds for that belief. (Objective.)
In ND—and in Proposed New Federal Criminal Code and MPC—a mistake would render the conduct excused but
not justified.
“Imperfect defense”
Actual belief without reasonable grounds: voluntary manslaughter.
Two-part test is met but conduct is an overreaction: voluntary manslaughter.
Defensive Force and the Battered Spouse

State v. Leidholm (ND 1983)
{Long-term abuse and alcoholism in marriage. One night after an argument turned violent before husband went to
sleep, wife stabbed him to death in his sleep. Convicted of manslaughter. Reversed and remanded with
new jury instructions.}
Self defense
Person must actually and sincerely believe that the conditions exist which give rise to a claim of self-defense.
And person must reasonably believe that circumstances exist which permit use of defensive force.
The job for the jury is to decide whether the defendant’s belief was reasonable, regardless of whether it was correct.
The standard is subjective: What was reasonable for the defendant in her circumstances and considering such
contextual issues as battered-woman syndrome?
If belief is unreasonable, conviction on full offense.
If belief is reasonable, act is justified (acquittal).
If reasonable but mistaken, act is excused (lesser included offense).
If mistake was reckless, manslaughter.
If mistake was negligent, negligent homicide.
[Most jurisdictions don’t break it down and just convict for manslaughter.]
Battered woman syndrome

This is relevant to the mental element and to the subjective determination of the reasonableness of defendant’s
reaction and conduct.
It helps us understand the retreat question, the imminence question, etc.
It must remain within self-defense though—it wouldn’t cover proactive execution of batterer in order to save
herself.
It is subsumed under a proper self-defense instruction and need not be separately instructed.
Duty to retreat
This, too, should be evaluated from the subjective standpoint of the defendant.
If it was reasonable for her to retreat (leave) rather than exercise deadly force, then the killing was not justified.
But there’s no duty to retreat from a cohabitant.
As long as she felt retreat was not possible, she had no duty.
Lesser-included-offense instruction
A lesser-included-offense instruction is necessary where a self-defense instruction is given since reasonableness but
mistake is a possible outcome.
The subjective standard
Factors to consider: History. Relative size. Battered-spouse evidence (e.g., learned helplessness). Gender.
Psychological information.
It is not purely subjective: Defendant’s belief in need to use deadly force must be reasonable for a person in her
circumstances—objective.
Reprise on the Reasonable Self-Defender

People v. Goetz (NY 1986) WACHTLER, C.J.
{Appellate Division dismissed attempted murder and assault counts because prosecutor indicated to the grand jury
that the reasonableness standard for self defense was objective. Order vacated and counts reinstated.}
The reasonableness standard for self defense is an objective one.
Citizens may not set their own standards for conduct, no matter how aberrational or bizarre their thoughts, so long
as their thoughts are reasonable to them.
That would allow a legally competent but deluded defendant to kill or visit violence on others with impunity.
[Essentially what Goetz’s supporters wanted.]
Objective standard means ordinary person in defendant’s circumstances, which do take into account prior history of
being victimized, understandable fear, etc.
The self-defense standard applied by most courts is a mixed standard

1. Subjective portion: Was defendant afraid for life/limb?
2. Objective portion: Was fear reasonable?

Taylor Thompson

Uploaded by

Copyright:

Available Formats

Taylor Thompson

Uploaded by

Document Information

Original Description:

Copyright

Available Formats

Share this document

Share or Embed Document

Sharing Options

Did you find this document useful?

Is this content inappropriate?

Copyright:

Available Formats

Taylor Thompson

Uploaded by

Copyright:

Available Formats

Criminal Law Outline, Page 1

Criminal Law outline.....................................................................................................................................1

OVERVIEW OF CRIMINAL JUSTICE SYSTEM....................................................................................1

WHY DO WE PUNISH?—PURPOSES AND LIMITS OF PUNISHMENT...........................................2

ACTUS REUS—CULPABLE CONDUCT..................................................................................................4

LIMITATIONS ON PUNISHMENT OF CULPABLE CONDUCT..........................................................7

MENS REA—THE GUILTY MIND............................................................................................................9

CAPACITY FOR MENS REA....................................................................................................................14

Actus reus—FORCE, NONCONSENT, AND RESISTANCE..................................................................15

Intentional Murder (Second Degree)..........................................................................................................24

EXTREME RECKLESSNESS (Second-degree Murder)........................................................................24

PREMEDITated murder (first degree)......................................................................................................27

CAPITAL MURDER/THE DEATH PENALTY.......................................................................................30

COUNSEL IN CAPITAL CASES...............................................................................................................34

PUNISHMENT FOR ATTEMPT...............................................................................................................34

MENS REA/ACTUS REUS.........................................................................................................................36

THE ACTUS REUS OF ATTEMPT...........................................................................................................36

THE ACCESSORIAL ACT (actus reus)....................................................................................................39

MENS REA OF COMPLICITY.................................................................................................................40

THE NATURE OF CONSPIRACY............................................................................................................42

THE MENS REA OF CONSPIRACY........................................................................................................42

THE Scope of conspiracy’s net....................................................................................................................43

THE RICO STATUTE AND THE FRONTIER OF CONSPIRACY......................................................45

Elements of proof of substantive crimes........................................................................................................46

justification and excuse................................................................................................................................47

Distinguishing justification and excuse.......................................................................................................47

CRIMINAL LAW OUTLINE

OVERVIEW OF CRIMINAL JUSTICE SYSTEM

The Big Questions of Criminal Law

Why do we have criminal law?

What makes a good penal code? Specificity v. breadth and flexibility

Structure of the Criminal Justice System

Division of legal and factual decision-making powers

Flexibility of the system

WHY DO WE PUNISH?—PURPOSES AND LIMITS OF PUNISHMENT

Purposes and Goals of Punishment

Segregation (a retributive goal)

Basic Elements of a Crime

ACTUS REUS—CULPABLE CONDUCT

Actus Reus defined

Actus Reus: The Requirement of the Act

Proctor v. State (OK 1918)

Martin v. State (AL 1944)

People v. Grant (IL 1977)

People v. Newton (CA 1970)

Act and Failure to Act: Crimes of Omission and Status Crimes

Jones v. United States (DC 1962)

The actus reus element is the omission itself.

Robinson v. California (U.S. 1962) STEWART, J.

Powell v. Texas (U.S. 1968)

Pottinger v. Miami (FL 1992)

Comparison of Pottinger and Robinson

Comparison of Pottinger and Powell

Johnson v. State (FL 1992)

LIMITATIONS ON PUNISHMENT OF CULPABLE CONDUCT

Solem v. Helm (US 1983) POWELL, J.

Harmelin v. Michigan (U.S. 1991)

Keeler v. Superior Court (CA 1970) MOSK, J.

Ricks v. District of Columbia (DC 1968)