Criminal Law - Prof. Larry Cunningham (St. John's)

General Requirements (All Crimes - Corpus Delicti) Specific Crimes Punishment Theories Retribution General deterrence Specific deterrence Rehabilitation Incapacitation Victims' Rights Actus Reus Mens Rea Causation Legality Concurrence Legislativity Specificity Lenity Prospectivity Publicity Created by statute, not courts Not vague Multiple interpretations favor D Not retroactive Statute is available (1) Voluntary Bodily Movement Jurisdiction Conduct or Consequence occurs in New York (2) Act Omission Possession + Person Property Habitation Public Order Public Administration Drugs Traffic Actual Constructive (1) Legal Duty (2) Knowledge of Facts (3) Ability to Help Criminal Law Analysis Step-By-Step 1. Prima facie case? A. Elements? B. D's behavior met all elements BARD? 2. Lack of justification? 3. Lack of excuse? If yes to all, D is guilty Statute Contract Status (parent/child and spouse/spouse) Voluntary assumption of care Creation of peril Common Law Specific Intent Malice General Intent Strict Liability Desire to do the act AND desire to achieve a particular result Mainly crimes against property, Assault, Murder 1º Acts intentionally OR with reckless disregard of obvious/known risk Murder 2º and Rape Need only be generally aware. Can be inferred from doing action. Most crimes against person Crime requires only an act; no mental state required. Public welfare + Statutory Rape How to Ascertain Elements PL § 15.15 "Conduct" = Actus Reus PL § 15.00(4) and rules of imputation "Circumstances" = e.g., nature of victim ("public servant") "Result" = Causation "Mode of Culpability" = Mens Rea Applies to every material element unless otherwise noted Intention Knowledge Recklessness Negligence Strict Liability Result? Conscious objective is to cause the result Conduct? Conscious objective to engage in the conduct Transferred intent may apply - depends on statute New York Penal Law § 15.05 Conduct? Awareness of it Circumstance? Awareness that it exists Result? Awareness + conscious disgregard of substantial and unjustifiable risk that result will occur Circumstance? Awareness + conscious disgregard of substantial and unjustifiable risk that circumstance exists Must be a gross deviation from standard of care Voluntary intoxication does not negate Result? Should have known of substantial and unjustifiable risk that result will occur Circumstance? Should have known that circumstance exists Must be a gross deviation from standard of care Defenses? Mistake (§ 15.20) Only if factual mistake negates culpable mental state (except knowledge of weight of drugs or age of child) OR Mistake of law due to official misstatement of law in (1) statute (2) administrative order (3) judicial decision or (4) executive estoppel. public servant officially made must be public servant charged with administration, enforcement, or interpretation of statute Voluntary Intoxication (§ 15.05(3)) Not a defense but may negate intent and knowledge. Does not negate recklessness or negligence. Treat and analyze involuntary intoxication under insanity rules. Only applies to result offenses (1) Direct Cause (2) Proximate Cause + Intent not required Sufficient that ultimate harm was reasonably foreseeable But-for causation Inchoate Attempt theory of liability only; not a separate crime Conspiracy Solicitation Conduct Attempts Circumstance and Result Attempts + Specific Intent Can intend SL conduct § 110.10 Look at attendant circumstances as D believed them to be. + Specific Intent Cannot intend unintentional result (if SL - no attempt possible) No intent need be shown as to circumstances (if SL - can have attempt) BUT SEE DEFENSE OF RENUNCIATION Defenses Renunciation (Attempt) (1) Voluntary and complete (2) Avoided commission of crime by: (a) abandoning OR (b) affirmative steps (if necessary) NOT increased risk of detection NOT increased difficulty NOT postpone NOT change victim or objective Accomplice Liability for Conduct of Another (1) D (A) has mental culpability required by crime (2) Solicits, requests, commands, importunes, or intentionally aids P (3) Not "necessarily incidental" Not a separate crime. Theory of imputing liability. BUT SEE DEFENSE OF RENUNCIATION ALSO CHECK FOR CONSPIRACY, SOLICITATION, FACILITATION Facilitation (1) Knowledge (2) Aid by providing means or opportunity for FELONY BUT SEE DEFENSE OF RENUNCIATION Renunciation (Accomplice) (1) Voluntary and complete (2) Substantial effort to prevent crime NOT increased risk of detection NOT increased difficulty NOT postpone NOT change victim or objective Renunciation (Facilitation) (1) Substantial effort to prevent crime Renunciation (Solicitation and Conspiracy) (1) Voluntary and complete (2) Prevented crime NOT increased risk of detection NOT increased difficulty NOT postpone NOT change victim or objective Renunciation (1) D intends P to commit crime (2) Solicits, requests, commands, importunes, or attempts to cause P to commit crime (3) Not "necessarily incidental" BUT SEE DEFENSE OF RENUNCIATION Justification (blue = affirmative; black = regular) Necessity Self-Defense and Defense of 3º Person Defense of Property Citizens' Arrest Law Enforcement Consent Cannot use deadly force to protect property, except if burglary and D is in his own home Can use non-deadly force to make arrest or prevent any crime Can only use deadly force for Murder, Man 1º, Robbery, Forceible Rape, Forcibe Criminal Sexual Assault In either case, must be correct that V = perpetrator Emergency action to prevent imminent harm to self/others D cannot have caused situation Pretrial ruling required MPC: Consent is defense if negates mens rea Consent to bodily injury: (1) not serious, (2) sports related, or (3) justified Ineffective consent when V legally incompetent, obtained by force, duress, etc. BUT SEE DEFENSE OF RENUNCIATION AT CL: CONSPIRACY ALSO FUNCTIONS AS A WAY OF IMPUTING LIABILITY (PINKERTON LIABILITY) NY: NO VICARIOUS LIABILITY—STANDALONE CRIME ONLY (1) intent (2) agreement (note: unilateral rule in NY; bilateral at CL) (3) overt act Duress D engaged in conduct due to coercion Use or threatened use of imminent unlawful force Upon D or 3º person Reasonable person would not have been able to resist Exception: D puts himself in the situation with intent or recklessness Entrapment Penal Law Constitutional D engaged in conduct Induced or encouraged By public servant or agent Methods created substantial risk that crime would be committed by someone not pre-disposed to commit it NOT: merely affording an opportunity "Outrageous government conduct" Don't forget about mistake of law - executive estoppel! Insanity At CL = ordinary defense 1. No defense - pardon instead 2. Wild Beast Test - only excused if did not know what was doing 3. M'Naughten Test (NY) 4. American Law Institute (ALI/MPC) 5. Durham Test - crime caused by mental illness Also check to see if D: is competent to stand trial has diminished capacity (mental illness negates mens rea) As a result of mental disease or defect, D lacks substantial capacity to know or appreciate: 1. nature and consequences of conduct OR 2. that such conduct was wrong "a person is not responsible for criminal conduct if at the time of such conduct as a result of mental disease or defect he lacks substantial capacity either to appreciate the criminality of his conduct or to conform his conduct to the requirements of the law." Homicide Murder Manslaughter 1º Manslaughter 2º Criminally Negligent Homicide Others 1º 2º Intent + Special victims Serving life sentence Previously convicted of Murder Intentional murder during BRAKES felony 2+ murders in same transaction Torture Terrorism Contract killing Serial murder (CL: Premeditation) + D is 18+ Intentional Depraved Indifference Felony Murder BRAKES = Burglary, Robbery, Arson, Kidnapping, Escape, Sexual Offenses Includes flight Proximate cause vs. agency Victim cannot be perpetrator Affirmative defense: (1) did not do the killing; (2) was not armed; (3) did not know anyone else was armed; (4) did not know killing could result. But see affirmative defense of Extreme Emotional Disturbance Intent to Kill + Extreme Emotional Disturbance (cf. CL - Heat of Passion) Intent to inflict serious physical injury But see affirmative defense of Extreme Emotional Disturbance Recklessness Objective Subjective + Sex Crimes Common Law New York Vaginal intercourse Without consent By force or threat of force Summary (all require lack of consent) Rape = intercourse Criminal Sexual Act = sodomy = oral/anal contact Sexual Misconduct = any nonconsensual contact or intercourse, sex with animals or corpses Forcible Touching and Sexual Abuse = touching Course of Sexual Conduct = repeated touchings Rape 1º (Intent - read in by Williams) Sexual intercourse Lack of consent And either Forcible compulsion V is physically helpless V < 11 y/o V < 13 + D is 18+ Forcible compulsion Incapacity to consent (< 17, physically/mentally disabled, prisoners, etc.) Sexual Abuse or Forcible Touching - lack of acquiescence Rape 3º and Criminal Sexual Act - V said "no" and reasonable person would have understood that V said "no" physical force threats Rape 3º Sexual intercourse Lack of consent And either V is incapable of consent for reason other than < 17 D is 21+ and V < 17 No consent for reason other than incapacity Arson Burglary New York Common Law Breaking Entering Dwelling Of Another At Night With Intent to Commit a Felony Arson 5º = intent + damage property + without consent + fire Arson 4º = reckless + burning + building Arson 3º = intent + burning + building Arson 2º = Arson 3º + knows or should have known occupied Arson 1º = Arson 2º + explosive device Common Law Separate Offenses: Larceny (trespassory taking) Larceny By Trick False Pretenses Embezzlement New York Trespassory Taking Embezzlement Trick False Pretense False Promise Larceny By Robbery Larceny + Force or Threat of Force Assault Menacing Reckless Endangerment Kidnapping Coercion Official Misconduct OGA Resisting Arrest Disorderly Conduct Harassment Possession Sale Reckless Driving DWI VTL § 1192(1) = Impaired VTL § 1192(2) = Per Se Intoxication VTL § 1192(3) = Intoxication VTL § 1192(4) = Impairment by drugs the consumption of alcohol had an effect to a degree that diminished physical and mental control to a standard less than that which would be exercised by a reasonably prudent driver if the loss of control was sufficient to cause a markable or high degree of loss of control Types of Errors in Criminal Cases and Their Standard of Review Legal Insufficiency Weight of the Evidence Erroneous Jury Instruction Failure to Submit Requested Lesser Charge Broad arrest powers Can use non-deadly force to make arrest or prevent any crime Can use deadly force to arrest or prevent dangerous felony or burglary etc. Belief must be reasonable as to guilt