Criminal Law Tutoring Session 4

March 9, 2011

Overview

Criminal law system Trial procedure

Defining criminal conduct

Legality Proportionality Actus reus Mens rea Mistake of fact Strict liability Mistake of Law Actus reus Mens rea Reform issues Premeditation Provocation

Unintended killings Felony-murder Death penalty

Evidence basics Burden of proof Advantages Disadvantages Blame Justifications

Juries

Significance of the resulting harm

Causation Attempt Complicity Corporate liability Conspiracy Justifications Excuses Insanity

Issues in punishment

Group culpability

Rape

Retribution Utilitarianism Vengeance

Principles of exculpation

Homicide

Sentencing

Where we are now

Criminal law system Trial procedure

Defining criminal conduct

Legality Proportionality Actus reus Mens rea Mistake of fact Strict liability Mistake of Law Actus reus Mens rea Reform issues Premeditation Provocation

Unintended killings Felony-murder Death penalty

Evidence basics Burden of proof Advantages Disadvantages Blame Justifications

Juries

Significance of the resulting harm

Causation Attempt Complicity Corporate liability Conspiracy Justifications Excuses Insanity

Issues in punishment

Group culpability

Rape

Retribution Utilitarianism Vengeance

Principles of exculpation

Homicide

Sentencing

Rape: Actus Reus

Degrees of rape Some legislatures have different grades of rape Act of penetration alone can satisfy force requirement in some jurisdictions

Example: In the Interest of M.T.S.: Penetration alone satisfied statutes force requirement.

Easier to prove the cases that do feature force Most jurisdictions have moved to some degree toward only requiring lack of consent

Rape: Actus Reus

What about when the victim consents because she had the wrong information? (example: the D lied)

People v. Evans: D told the victim he was a psychologist and took her back to his apartment. She thought she was participating in an experiment. Boro v. Superior Court: D posed as doctor and told woman she was dying of a rare blood disease, and only sex with the D would cure her. She consented because she thought she was dying.

These courts found no compulsion or threat and acquitted the Ds.

Rape: Mens Rea

Remember, there has to be a mens rea for each actus reus element
Actus Reus Conduct assault Mens Rea Knowledge

AC

consent/force

Knowledge of lack of consent

Result

(pregnancy, serious bodily injury)

Rape: Mens rea

Main issue is mens rea of consent Knowledge of consent at issue much more often than knowledge of the sex act

Can still have the I was so drunk/was asleep/unconscious and didnt know cases

Majority rule: D needs reasonable belief that the victim consented

People v. Mayberry: Ds honest and reasonable belief that victim consented is a defense Commonwealth v. Sherry: Nurse says that doctors took her from party involuntarily, but they say she consented. Court says this belief wasnt reasonable.

Rape: Mens Rea

Minority rule: Need affirmative proof of consent, not reasonable belief

Commonwealth v. Fischer Case featuring conflicting testimony. Ds Defense at trial was that he believed he had victims consent. Court affirms conviction, says no mistake of fact defense allowed.

This is basically strict liability for rape. Most courts are uncomfortable with that.

Rape: Reform issues

Marital exemption

Old rule: Man couldnt rape his wife

Justifications: Marriage is a contract; archaic notions of husband as lord of the manor Most states now do not allow for this People v. Liberta: Man attacked his estranged wife, then tried to claim marital exemption. Court held that if they were separated, that defense didnt work.

Courts started to move away from the martial exemption

Problems of corroboration

Mostly gone. Why require this for rape and no other crimes?

Rape: Reform Issues

Rape shield laws

Prevent victims past sexual history from becoming part of testimony Federal Rules of Evidence also address this Exception: When the evidence is relevant to Ds right to present own defense

State v. DeLawder: D sought to include evidence of victims past sexual activity (supposedly pregnant by another man). Court found that Dss right to present a defense outweighed her right to be protected from embarrassment and allowed evidence.

Evidence of prostitution or of false report in the past sometimes allowed Evidence of victims psychiatric profile not allowed

Government of the Virgin Islands v. Scuito: Man gave woman a ride home. She said he attacked her; he said she was high and consented. D wanted psych exam. Judge denied it

Homicide

Crime of degrees: first-degree murder, second-degree murder, manslaughter

Murder/manslaughter is the big divide Jurisdictions can have further gradations Modern translation: Look at the mens rea in the statute Mens rea usually differentiates the degree of homicide

Classic definition: Killing with malice aforethought

Homicide

Casebook gives different examples of statutes MPC definitions

Murder = purposely

or knowingly OR recklessly with extreme indifference to human life OR homicide that would otherwise be murder but was committed in state of extreme disturbance

Manslaughter = recklessly

Homicide

Premeditation helps with grading of homicides How much time is required for premeditation? Some. Sometimes not very much.

Commonwealth v. Carroll: Man shot wife in the back of the head one night while lying in bed. Appealed first-degree murder. About 5 minutes went by between wife saying something mean and D shooting her. Court: Can premeditate in not very much time. State v. Guthrie: Co-workers hit D in nose with a towel, he lost temper and stabbed co-worker with knife. D testified that he had a panic attack and nose obsession. Jury instructions read: Intent to kill need only have existed for an instant. Court takes issue with that: Premeditation takes some time.

Homicide: Provocation

Standard for provocation is objective. What would incite a reasonable D, not this particular D

Majority view: Only a few things suffice

Extreme assault or battery Mutual combat Ds illegal arrest Injury or serious abuse of a close relative Sudden discovery of spouses adultery

Girouard v. State: Words dont count.

Homicide: Provocation

Minority view: Words are enough

Maher v. People: 1862 case where D shot man in bar after learning man had committed adultery with his wife. Court said there wasnt sufficient cooling time and provocation still applied.
MPC 210.3 Was D emotionally disturbed (subjective) and was that reasonable (objective)?

MPC rejects provocation for extreme emotional disturbance

Test is both objective and subjective:

Homicide: Unintended Killings

Provocation can distinguish murder from manslaughter So can differences in the mens rea

For murder,

Malice Intent knowledge Recklessness negligence

For manslaughter

Homicide: Unintended Killings

Some factors in determining if an unintended killing rises to manslaughter Nature of the risk. Is it inherent to the activity/conduct?

Flying a plane riskier than riding a bike. Could set up greater liability.

Awareness of the conduct: Knowing the risk and choosing to run it

Casual behavior vs. behavior one is intentionally focused on performing

Foreseeability. How likely is the bad result? (someones death) Political/social desirability. Is the behavior sanctioned?

Homicide: Unintended Killings

Commonwealth v. Welansky: D operated the Cocoanut Grove nightclub in Boston, where there was horrible, deadly fire in 1942. D guilty of involuntary manslaughter. Court said the duty of care was violated in this case, and what must be intended is wanton or willful conduct, not the result. People v. Hall: D skied into victim. He died of injuries. D charged with felony reckless manslaughter. D was skiing too fast and taking moguls improperly, testified he couldnt stop. Reasonable person could have concluded death would result from his actions. Commonwealth v. Malone: D and victim were young teens. They found a gun, loaded it and were playing Russian roulette in a diner. D had gun up against victims side, pulled trigger. D claimed that he didnt intend there to be a bullet and didnt actually intend to shoot his friend. Court affirmed murder conviction.

Homicide: Unintended Killings

Some areas of special exposure Vehicular manslaughter

Some jurisdictions have a nearly strict liability standard United States v. Fleming: D drove very, very drunk. Hit victims car, and she died. D said he wasnt aware of the risk. Court said that D took reckless disregard of human life. State v.Williams: Parents didnt take child to doctor in time. Court focused on period when parents knew something was wrong and could have taken child in, and determined that conduct rose to manslaughter. Upheld conviction.

Legal guardianship of a child

Coming up

Next office hours: Wednesday, March 16, 11 a.m. in the caf Next tutoring session: Wednesday, March 30, 11 a.m. room 206 E-mail: janna.fischer@colorado.edu