Defendant convicted for taking metal casings off gov’t property (defendant claims he thought they were abandoned no intent to purposefully /knowingly steal them) Mere omission of mention of intent doesn’t mean that element is eliminated (may be inherent in some statutes) Allows for criminal liability for social harm alone Courts have strong presumption against strict liability offenses Doesn’t address moral culpability Fair notice problem Factors for the application of Strict Liability No mens rea specified in the statute Regulates health, safety, or welfare Omissions (duty imposed by law) Defendant is in position to prevent harm and it is reasonable to expect defendant to do so Imposed with penalties, light stigma Crime not rooted in CL Legislative policy undermined by mens rea At minimum, MPC requires a mens rea of recklessness (for homicide) Allows for strict liability for offenses designated as “violations” not “crimes” Light penalties for violations Transferred Intent Basic rule the same for CL and MPC Ex. People v. Scott Defendant charged with murder & attempted murder by shooting at park, sprayed bullets) Defendants had intent to kill and killed, also attempted the life of another, should be punished at the same level as if they had hit their target. Transferred intent allowed for homicides. Regina v. Pembliton Defendant throws rock at person, hits and breaks window. No indication that he knew window was there, court decides he can’t be held responsible. Mental state not attached (defendant didn’t mean to break window, not his intent). No transferred intent for crimes unless homicide. BASIC RULE: intent to cause one kind of harm cannot serve as proof of the intent to cause another kind of harm Exception: homicide offenses 2.02(2) When purposefully or knowingly causing a particular result is an element of the offense, the element is not established if the actual result is not within the purpose/contemplation of the UNLESS: (a) the actual result differs from that designed/contemplated only in the respect that a different person/property is injured/affected OR that the injury/harm would have been more serious/extensive than that caused (b) the actual result involves the same kind of injury/harm as that designed/contemplated and is not too remote or accidental in its occurrence to have bearing on the
sympathy with his loss of self-control Learning of adultery, observing cheating by trivial battery also inadequate to constitute provocation Ex. People v. Ambro Defendant wants to mitigate to voluntary manslaughter for stabbing and killing his wife. Court rules that wife provoked defendant adequately to mitigate (they had been fighting for seven years, threatened to take his children away, called him an alcoholic. Court rules her conduct = serious provocation). Modern Approach “Reasonable Person” Test – jury must find that: Defendant actually in heat of passion Heat of passion was provoked by act/event that would have also provoked a reasonable person in the defendant’s shoes to lose self-control Defendant did not have sufficient time to “cool off” between provocative event and killing, AND Reasonable person in defendant’s shoes would not have had time to cool off Must be causal connection Provocation passion killing Victim is either provoker or acting in concert with provoker “Reasonable Person” Not the ideal person Takes into account fact that people make mistakes, may be provoked Doesn’t include unique characteristics about defendant (temper, bad judgment) Does include demographics (age Embraces certain cultural norms but not others Ex. People v. Berry Defendant killed wife after she came back from Israel, told him she was in love with another man, wanted divorce. Went to apt. to talk to her, she began screaming, he strangled her with telephone -chord. situation under the circumstances as he believes them to be. Extreme Mental or Emotional Distress (EMED) Subjective test (not entirely – reasonable from the viewpoint of the actor in circumstances the way he sees them) Could be emotional (heat of passion) OR Mental (diminished capacity) Differences from CL Provocation EMED is broader, require: Period of cooling off Specific provocative act (can be combination of acts) Need not be at provoker Individual history more likely to be considered under EMED Trend in CL to consider reasonableness in increasingly subjective manner Ex. People v. Dumlao Defendant extremely jealous, convinced that his wife was having an affair with her brother. Began arguing in front of her family, fighting with brother-in-law, took out his gun and shot and killed mother-in-law. rules that evidence sufficient for manslaughter instruction (still up to jury determination) based on doctor’s testimony about defendant’s diagnosis of paranoid personality disorder. Extremely persistent, suspicious and paranoid.
How close did defendant come to completing crime? If defendant crosses line of preparation and comes into dangerous proximity to the targeted offense guilty of attempt Focuses on how much is yet to be done Deterrent, but in a way that allows defendant to turn back and not complete offense Court is concerned with culpability Had there NOT been failure on defendant’s part of interference by law enforcement defendant would have committed offense Ex. People v. Rizzo Defendants driving around in car, looking for the man they planned to rob (did not find him). Entered building and were arrested for attempted robbery Court rules the defendants did not come within a dangerous proximity because they did not find the intended victim (they entered the building and he wasn’t there, money wasn’t actually available) Their acts were not near enough to commission that in all reasonable probability the crime would have occurred if law enforcement had not intervened (crime would not have occurred either way because the victim was not present) Unequivocal Test Beyond mere preparation Asks question – does conduct demonstrate unequivocal (unmistakable, indisputable, undeniable) intent to commit No other alternatives to defendant’s conduct Focuses on what was left to be done Ex. People v. Staples Defendant convicted of attempted burglary for renting office space above bank vault and beginning to drill through floor. LL noticed, informed police (f) possession, collection/fabrication of materials to be used in commission of the crime, at or near place contemplated, if serves no other lawful purpose (g) soliciting innocent agent to engage in conduct constituting an element of the crime (3) Conduct Designed to Aid Another in Commission of Crime: Person who engages in conduct designed to aid another to commit crime that would establish complicity if crime were committed by the other person, is guilty of attempt, even if the crime is not committed or the attempt is not made by the other person. (4) Renunciation of Criminal Purpose When the conduct of a person would = attempt, there is an affirmative defense available if: Defendant abandoned his effort to commit the OR Otherwise prevented its commission MUST be complete and voluntary renunciation of criminal purpose Not considered voluntary if motivated by: Increased probability of detection OR Apprehension that makes accomplishment more difficult Decision to postpone criminal conduct until more advantageous time OR Transfer criminal effort to another but similar objective/victim PUNISHMENT Same for completed crimes and attempted crimes Ex. Attempted murder = murder MPC doesn’t reward failure Substantial Step Test Two part test: Did defendant meet act requirement?
Convictions of implied malice murder require finding that defendant intended to do some act dangerous to human life (not the same as express intent to kill) Can’t find that there was agreement to kill when intent is implied People v. Lauria Defendant runs telephone operating service – question is whether he knew/had knowledge of prostitution sufficient for conviction of conspiracy (is knowledge enough?) Court says that there isn’t enough evidence to infer defendant had intent to promote their activities: He didn’t charge them proliferated rate Prostitutes didn’t account for majority of his clients There was still possibility they were using the service for legitimate purposes not enough to find purpose ** you can infer knowledge when there is dangerous offense (serious crime exception) Actus Reus for Conspiracy Requires agreement to participate in the criminal enterprise Actual aid is NOT required (unlike accomplice liability) Act of agreement proven through circumstantial evidence Most jurisdictions require overt act in furtherance of conspiracy may be relatively minor and still in the preparatory phase (ex. Telephone call) demonstrates firmness of criminal intent closer to mere preparation Bilateral Approach must be agreement between two or more people agreements must be genuine seeking to address criminality if only one person is in agreement no actual threat of criminal activity Ex. v. Pacheco Unilateral Approach state wants to punish those who have genuine criminal intent conspiracy committed when person agrees to proceed in criminal manner potential for abuse state plays active role in creating offense becomes chief witness in proving crime at potential for to manufacture crime elements of unilateral conspiracy satisfy solicitation/attempt, still allows for some punishment of defendant when “conspiring” with undercover police officer. Person is guilty of conspiracy with another person/persons if, with purpose of promoting or facilitating its commission, he: