1

CRIMINAL LAW OUTLINE

 Common Law vs MPC

 Actus Reus vs Mens Rea

o Actus Reus: Conduct part of the crime (Body)
o Mens Rea: Intent part of the Crime (Mind)

 Right to Jury Trial

o People v. Sullivan (What Right Do Defendants Have to Jury Trial?)
o Duncan v. Louisiana (Why is Right to Jury Trial So Important?)

 Jury Nullification
o State v. Ragland (Arguments for/against jury nullification?)
o State v. Williams (Power v. Right to Nullify?)
o Race-Based Jury Nullification? Butler v. Liepold (views)

 Justifications for Punishment (Why Do We Punish?)

o Utilitarian v. Retributive Justifications (For Punishment)
 Utilitarian – Believes society should punish people because doing so furthers some
purpose or benefits society as a whole in some way
 Four types of utilitarian justifications:
 General Deterrence – Punishing one offender helps deter others from committing crimes
 Specific Deterrence – Punishing one offender makes them less likely to recidivate,
especially if punishment more severe second time around
 Incapacitation – Punishing offender removes them from society (incapacitates
him) thereby preventing future crimes when they’re away
 Rehabilitation – Punishing offender helps rehabilitate them so they become good
member of society
 Retributive – Punishment is justified because the defendant deserves it
o Queen v. Dudley/Stephens (through lens of utilitarian v retributive punishments)

 Voluntary Acts and Omissions

o Martin v. State (Cops move drunk man to freeway and arrest; one should only be held liable
to conduct person voluntary did not forced or moved to do)
o State v. Utter
 Voluntary Act = Consciously willed bodily movement
 Voluntary Acts use the brain and mind whereas involuntary acts involve only the brain
 Wink vs A Blink
 Acts carried out whilst in a voluntarily induced state of unconsciousness may still be
voluntary acts (killing your son when blacked out)
 2
o MPC - VOLUNTARY ACTS
o MPC 1.13(2) (Act Defined) – “act” or “action” is a bodily movement whether voluntary or
involuntary
o MPC 1.13(3) (“Specified”) - “Voluntary” has the act specified in Section 2.01
o MPC 2.01 – A person is not guilty of an offense unless his liability is based on conduct which
includes a voluntary act
o MPC 2.01(2) (Negative Definition of Voluntary) The following are not voluntary acts within
the meaning of this section:
o (a) A reflex or convulsion
o (b) Bodily movement during unconsciousness or sleep
o (c) Conduct during hypnosis
o (d) A bodily movement that is otherwise not the product of the effort or the
determination of the actor, either conscious or habitual
o Note for “voluntary”: For both the MPC and the Common Law, the actor’s conduct has to
“include” a voluntary act. The defendant’s conduct does not all have to be voluntary (getting
drunk and murdering your son)
o People v. Decina (Choice of Narrow vs Broad Time-Frame)

 OMISSIONS
o People v. Beardsley
 Facts: Man and woman party too hard in guys and she OD’s on morphine and he’s
charged with not taking care of her
 Common Law Rule Regarding Omissions Liability (For Manslaughter)
 (1) One is liable to be charged for manslaughter if he fails to fulfill a duty he owes
to another person and that failure causes the other person’s death
 (2) The neglected duty must be a legal duty not a moral one
 (3) The omission to perform the duty must be the immediate and direct cause of
their death
 Court found no legal duty in this case for man to take care of woman (ie not married)
 Such duties come from: Statutes, “Status”, Contracts, Voluntary Assumption of Care, and Risk
Creation
 Barber v. Superior Court (Doctors who took brain-dead patient off life support; charged with
murder)

 ACTUS REUS
 “Actus Reus” has three elements
 Conduct (Voluntary Act/Omission)
 Result (if any)
 Attendant Circumstances – Conditions that must be present, in conjunction with the
conduct and result elements, in order to constitute a crime

 MENS REA
 Mens Rea Definition – Particular mental state defendant must have in mind w regard to the
social harm element of a crime (result or conduct) in order to be guilty of a crime
o MPC uses this narrow definition
 3
 Regina v. Cunningham
 People v. Conley
o In Conley/MPC, intent means having conscious objective to bring about a result
o In Common Law, intent means “conscious objective” OR “knowledge that the result is
virtually certain to occur”

 DOCTRINE OF TRANSFERRED INTENT

o Doctrine of Transferred Intent – Doctrine that allows for defendant’s “felonious” intent to be
transferred from the intended victim to the actual victim
 Can only be transferred from two different victims not two different types of social
harm
 Doctrine generally found to be unnecessary – “legal fiction” used to reach what is
regarded with virtual unanimity as a just result
 Based on assumption that in its absence the perpetrator could escape liability
because didn’t kill intended victim
 No requirement of unlawful intent to kill intended victim; just intent to kill a
person

 GENERAL VS SPECIFIC INTENT OFFENSES

 General Intent Offenses – The only mens rea required for general intent offenses are those
that relate to the conduct/specific element of the crime
o Can be explicit or implicit
 Specific Intent Offenses – Specific Intent offenses require a mental state ABOVE AND
BEYOND the mental state required with respect to the actus reus part of a crime
o There are three general types of specific intents:
1. A special intent to commit a future act
2. A special motive or purpose
3. A special awareness of attendant circumstances
 Note: If a statute contains no mental state terms at all, then the offense as a whole is a
general intent offense where the mens rea element is not explicit or possibly a strict liability
offense
 Formula For Distinguishing General Intent and Specific Intent Offenses:
1. If the statute requires proof of
i. A special intent to commit a future act
ii. A special motive or purpose
iii. A special awareness of attendant circumstances
Then it is a specific intent offense
 Otherwise it is a general intent crime (or possibly strict liability offense)

 MPC APPROACH TO MENS REA

ELEMENTAL APPROACH TO MENS REA (MPC)

 MPC 2.01(2) “…A person is not guilty of an offense unless he has acted purposely,
knowingly, recklessly, or negligently . . . with respect to each material element of the
offense”
 4
 “Material elements”: Conduct elements, result elements, attendant circumstance
elements
 (So under the MPC, a person isn’t guilty of a crime unless they can prove they acted
“purposely, knowingly, recklessly, or negligently” with respect to each material element of
the offense? Example?)

FOUR CULPABILITY TERMS

 MPC 2.02(2)(a) (PURPOSELY)
o A person acts purposely with respect to a conduct or result element of a crime if is their
“conscious objective” to engage in conduct of that nature or to cause such a result
o A person acts purposely with respect to an attendant circumstance if he is aware of the
existence of such circumstance or believes/hopes that they exist
o “Purposely” same as “intentional”?
 MPC 2.02(2)(b) (KNOWINGLY)
o A person acts knowingly with respect to a conduct or attendant circumstance element if
he is aware that his conduct is of that nature or that such attendant circumstances exist
o A person acts knowingly with respect to a result element if he is aware that it is
practically certain that his conduct will cause such a result.
 MPC 2.02(2)(c) (RECKLESSLY)
o A person acts recklessly with respect to a material element . . . when he consciously
disregards a substantial and unjustified risk that the material element exists or will
result from his conduct
o The risk must be of such a nature and degree that . . . its disregard involves a gross
deviation from the standard of conduct that a law-abiding person would observe in the
actor’s situation
 MPC 2.02(2)(d) (NEGLIGENTLY)
o A person acts negligently with respect to a material element [of a crime] . . . when they
should be aware of a substantial and unjustified risk that the material element exists or
will result from his conduct (but aren’t) (Took risk accidentally)
o The risk must be of such a nature and degree that the actor’s failure to perceive it . . .
involves a gross deviation from the standard of care that a reasonable person would
observe in the actor’s situation
 Note: Under the MPC, there is no distinction between general intent crimes and specific
intent crimes
 Note: If the statute is silent, must at least be reckless

 WILLFUL BLINDNESS
 State v Nations
o Issue: What does “knowingly” mean with respect to attendant circumstance?
o MO code same as MPC 2.02(2) (Above)
o But also MPC 2.02(7): When knowledge of the existence of a particular fact is an
element of an offense, such knowledge is established if a person is aware of a HIGH
PROBABILITY of its existence UNLESS that person ACTUALLY BELIEVES that it does not
exist
 2.02(2)(c)(Recklessness) and 2.02(7)(“Willful Blindness”) are almost the same
 5
 For attendant circumstance analysis only, MPC’s definition of recklessness (2.02(2)(c))
is the same as 2.02(7) (Willful Blindness) AND MPC’s definition of Knowledge (2.02(2)(b)).
So, if a prosecution team can prove that a defendant is reckless with an attendant
circumstance, they can also prove that the defendant has knowledge with respect to an
attendant circumstance via 2.02(7) (Willful Blindness)

 Common Law Definition of Willful Blindness:

1. The defendant subjectively believes there is a high probability that a fact exists AND
2. The defendant takes deliberate actions to avoid learning that fact

STATUTORY INTERPRETATION/CONSTRUCTION
 Flores-Figueroa v United States

STRICT LIABILITY
 Definition
 Case

MISTAKE OF FACT
 Mistake of Fact occurs generally when an actor is unaware of or mistaken about A FACT that
relates to an element of the crime (a fact that would make his act criminal)
 As a result of this, the actor lacks the mens rea for the crime and therefore is not guilty of the
crime
 Mistake of fact NEGATES the Mens Rea element of a crime and so the actor is not guilty of the
crime

MISTAKE OF FACT: COMMON LAW

 For General Intent crimes, Mistake of Fact is a defense (meaning it negates the required Mens
Rea). If the mistaken belief is a genuine/honest belief and is reasonable.
 For Specific Intent crimes, Mistake of Fact is a defense (meaning it negates the required Mens Rea)
if the mistaken belief is genuine/honest belief. Mistaken belief does not have to be reasonable to
be exculpatory (for specific intent crimes under common law).

MISTAKE OF FACT ANALYSIS (COMMON LAW)

 Analyze: Is the offense general intent, specific intent, or strict liability?

 (If Specific Intent) Ask: Does the mistake relate to the specific intent element of the offense?
o If yes, then the mistake of fact can be used as a defense to negate the specific intent and
exculpate the defendant (assuming mistake is genuine/honest belief)
o If no, (RARE) then treat offense as general intent offense
 (If General Intent) Ask: Was the actor’s mistake reasonable or unreasonable?
o If reasonable, then the mistake CAN be used as a defense to negate mens rea and exculpate
the Defendant (assuming the mistake of fact is genuine/honest belief)
 Note: If the jurisdiction applies the moral or legal wrong doctrine, then even a
reasonable mistake of fact may not negate mens rea
 6
o If unreasonable, the mistake of fact does not negate the mens rea and the Defendant
may be exculpated
 (If Strict Liability) When strict liability, no mens rea required and mistake of fact never
defense—it becomes irrelevant
 People v Navarro

MPC MISTAKE OF FACT

 MPC 2.04(1) “Ignorance or mistake as to a matter of fact . . . 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”
 Note: Under the MPC, mistake of fact must also be a genuinely held belief

MISTAKE OF LAW
`
COMMON LAW MORAL WRONG DOCTRINE
 Moral Wrong Doctrine – Reasonable Mistakes are NOT a defense and thus do not negate Mens
Rea for General Intent crimes IF one’s conduct is IMMORAL
o Only applies for General Intent crimes (where mistake of fact is a defense if mistake
genuine/reasonable)
 To apply, simply ask “If everything was exactly as the defendant believed them to be, would
defendant’s conduct be immoral?”
o If yes, (under the moral wrong doctrine) then D is strictly liable for their conduct

COMMON LAW LEGAL WRONG DOCTRINE

 Legal Wrong Doctrine – Reasonable mistakes are not a defense and thus do not negate mens
rea for General Intent crimes if one’s conduct is ILLEGAL
 Only applies for General Intent crimes
 To apply, simple ask “If everything was exactly as the defendant believed, would defendant’s
conduct be ILLEGAL?
o If yes, defendant strictly liable for their conduct

MPC LEGAL WRONG DOCTRINE

 MPC 2.04(2) – The Mistake of Fact defense is not available if the defendant would be guilty of
another offense had the situation been as he supposed
 The grade of the offense gets reduced (heightened?) to whatever level is consistent with
the Defendant’s mistaken belief
 MPC makes you guilty of whatever crime you thought you were committing
 2.04(4)

MISTAKE OF LAW
 Mistake of Law occurs when an actor makes a mistake about what the law means
(misinterpretation)
 COMMON LAW: Mistake of Law is not a defense (with three exceptions)
o Exception 1: Reasonable Reliance
 7
 Common Law & MPC: An actor is not guilty of an offense when he reasonably relief
on an official statement of the law later determined to be incorrect contained in an
interpretation of a public official who is charged with responsibility for interpretation
or enforcement of the law.
 Can know official statement of the ultimately only by highest court of applicable law
 Legality principle = no retroactive law enforcement (Person can’t be punished for
behavior unless behavior was defined as criminal before he did it)
 Codified in MPC under MPC 2.04(3)(b)
 EXCEPTIONS TO REASONABLE RELIANCE (Where Mistake of Law Not a Defense Under
Reasonable Reliance)
1. Relying on One’s Own Personal Mistaken Interpretation of the Law (Even When
Reasonable) as In Marrero
2. Relying on Incorrect Advice Given By An Attorney
o Exception 2: Lack of Notice
 Ignorance of the law is not generally an excuse under the Common Law and MPC
 However, there is an exception to this for Mistake of Law: The Fair Notice Exception
(from Lambert)
 Fair Notice Exception: People have the right (under Due Process) to fair notice of
what conduct is prohibited before they are prosecuted
 Due Process creates a requirement of fair notice
 Notice required when there is a penalty for “mere failure to act” and there
are no circumstances to alert the defendant of their duty to act
 Especially true when behavior (outlawed) is wholly passive and they are
unaware of any wrongdoing
o Exception 3: Lack of Mens Rea
o Cheek v. United States (Genuinely didn’t think had to pay taxes case)
o Lack of Mens Rea when a specific intent is part of the law can negate that element
and allow for mistake of law
o Common Law: Mistake of Law is a defense if the law requires proof of the
defendant’s awareness of the law (like a specific intent crime) and the defendant’s
mistake about what the law says/is negates that specific intent
 The defendant’s mistake need not be REASONABLE
o Under MPC 2.02(9), knowledge of the application of the law against the defendant
(that the law says something is wrong and applies to the defendant) not an element
of an offense unless specifically says so.
o So, defendant can get a mistake of law defense as long as honestly believes
that the law does not apply to him (as in tax case)
 Mistake of Law also not defense under MPC
o MPC 2.02(9) ??

CAUSATION
 Typically actus reus has four elements (now): 1) Conduct element 2) Result element 3) Attendant
circumstance element 4) causation element (now) if there is a result element
 Causation elements come up when there are result elements (practically speaking) (usually in
homicide cases)
 8
 Note: In order for a defendant’s conduct to have caused the prohibited result, the
defendant’s conduct must be both:
1. A cause-in-fact of the result
2. The proximate cause of the result
 To determine whether defendant’s conduct is a “cause-in-fact” courts typically apply the “but-for”
test
 “But-for” test: Ask: “but-for” the defendant’s voluntary act (or culpable omission), would the
result have occurred when it did? If no, then defendant is a “but-for” cause
 The “but-for” test is used in all common law jurisdictions
 When dealing with multiple actual causes:
 For causes that accelerate the result (such as death), the but-for test will help identify
causes-in-fact
 For concurrent sufficient causes (such as two separate gunshots to one head at a time), the
but-for test does not help you identify the causes-in-fact.
 Concurrent sufficient causes arise when either act alone would have been sufficient
to cause the result that occurred when it did
 In these cases, you must use the substantial factor test (makes each act a cause-in-
fact to the murder)
 Substantial factor test: “Was defendant a substantial factor in causing the harm (to the victim)?”
(For concurrent sufficient causes)
 The MPC also uses the “but-for” test
 MPC 2.03(1)(a) – “Conduct is the cause of a result when (A) it is an antecedent but-for
which the result in question would not have occurred”
 Common Law and MPC have same definition for cause-in-fact then

 For Concurrent Sufficient Causes, however, the MPC does NOT use the substantial factor test
 Instead, the MPC simply characterizes the result differently: “A death from two blows” as opposed
to simply “a death.”
 By this test, both D1 and D2 are causes-in-fact and can both be convicted

PROXIMATE CAUSE
 People v Rideout (Where test for proximate test comes from)
 For defendant’s conduct to be a proximate cause, the victim’s injury must be the “direct and
natural result” of the conduct
 To make this proximate cause determination, ask “Was there an intervening cause that
superseded the defendant’s conduct such that the causal link between the defendant’s
conduct and the victim’s injury is broken?”
o An intervening cause that supersedes breaks the causal link
o Otherwise, D is proximate cause (if no)
 There is otherwise no bright line test for proximate causation. Just factors:
1. Foreseeability of the Intervening Cause
 Idea: Intervening events that are reasonably foreseeable do not cut the causal chain;
unforeseeable intervening events are superseding
 Under this factor, an analysis test:
 9
1. Identify the Intervening Cause
o Intervening Cause is just another But-For cause that occurs between the
defendant’s conduct and the victim’s injury
2. Determine whether the intervening cause is a Responsive Intervening Cause or a
Coincidental Intervening Cause
3. Determine whether your intervening cause supersedes or not based on the rules
that apply for Responsive Intervening Cause or Coincidental Intervening Cause
 Responsive Intervening Cause: An intervening cause that happens as a
response to or in reaction to the Defendant’s prior conduct
o The RIC does not sever the causal link between the defendant’s
conduct and the prohibited result unless the responsive event is both
unforeseeable AND highly abnormal/bizarre/out of the ordinary
 Coincidental Intervening Cause: An intervening cause that does not
happen as a response to or in reaction to the defendant’s prior conduct
o The only way in which the defendant’s conduct and the intervening
cause are related is that the defendant’s conduct placed the victim in
a situation where the intervening cause could independently act
upon him (puts victim in the “wrong place, wrong time”)
o CIC’s generally sever the link between defendant’s conduct and
victim’s injury unless foreseeable
2. Apparent Safety Doctrine
 If the victim can be free from the immediate harm that the defendant’s conduct put
the victim in but the victim voluntarily rejects this option then the causal link is
severed and the defendant is not the proximate cause
3. Free, Deliberate, and Informed Human Intervention
 The causal chain between the defendant’s conduct and the prohibited result is more
likely to be cut if the intervening factor is a human being who has acted freely,
deliberately, and in an informed manner
4. De Minimis Contribution to the Prohibited Result
 If the defendant’s conduct played only a de minimis (minimal) causal role in bringing
about the prohibited result relative to the causal role played by the intervening
cause, then the defendant’s conduct is not the proximate cause.
 Instead the intervening cause, which plays a more substantive causal role in bringing
about the result, is the proximate cause
5. Intended Consequences Doctrine
 This doctrine provides that if an intentional wrongdoer gets what they wanted—the
result they wanted in the general manner they wanted—they should not escape
criminal liability even if an unforeseeable event intervened
6. Omissions
 Most of the time, intervening omission of another actor will not sever the chain
 The MPC does not have a proximate cause analysis. It instead has a mens rea analysis
 It replaces the six common law proximate cause factors with one single question: Was the
actual result “too remote or too accidental in its occurrence to have a just bearing on the
actor’s liability or on the gravity of the offense?”