Criminal Law, Swedlow Hillary 2010 Eva Crawford Pg. 1: Punishment Cases
Criminal Law, Swedlow Hillary 2010 Eva Crawford Pg. 1: Punishment Cases
Criminal Law, Swedlow Hillary 2010 Eva Crawford Pg. 1: Punishment Cases
What is a crime? Any social harm defined and made punishable by law
What is Criminal Law? Public law, those laws protecting society as a whole
What is Punishment? Removal of life cash or liberty etc. punishment is what whatever
society deems it to be.
How does the constitute affect the law? It is the limit of what can be a crime, ex. 14th,
and 8th amendments.
General Issues of proving culpability Specific Intent: crimes require that the accused
INTENT intend both the criminal conduct and its particular
People v. Gentry : result.
Intent can be inferred by the circumstances General intent: crimes require only proof that a
surrounding the crime. defendant intended the particular criminal act,
and not the result.
Defense:
Garnett V. State
Traditionally, statutory rape is a strict liability
crime designed to protect young persons from
the dangers of sexual exploitation by adults, loss
of chastity, physical injury and in the case of
girls, pregnancy.
Mistake of Fact
They are saying that I thought the property was
People v. Navarro: abandoned.
If a person has a good faith belief that he has a 1 They come back to the good faith belief
right to certain property, he is not guilty of 2 And whether that good faith belief is
larceny, even if the belief is unreasonable. reasonable or unreasonable.
Actus Reus
Voluntary Acts
Martin v. State:
A person in not guilty of an offense where
liability is based on involuntary conduct.
State v. Utter
Omissions
People v. Beardsley:
A person owes no legal obligation to another
unless such person is within his custody or care
as a dependent person.
Criminal Law, Swedlow Hillary 2010 Eva Crawford Pg. 6
Homicide
Common Law Pennsylvania Degrees of Murder Model Penal Code
Criminal Law, Swedlow Hillary 2010 Eva Crawford Pg. 7
Homicides Continued
Intentional killings
State v. Guthrie:
There must be some period between the
formation of the intent to kill and the actual
killing which indicates the killing is by prior
design.
Midgett v. State:
Premeditation and deliberation are required
elements of first-degree murder
State v. Forest
Among the circumstances to be considered to
determine whether the Defendant acted with
premeditation and deliberation required for first-
degree murder are: (1) lack of provocation by
the victim; (2) conduct and statements of the
Defendant before and after the killing; (3)
threats and declarations of the Defendant before
and during the killing; (4) ill-will between the
parties; (5) the dealing of lethal blows after the
victim was rendered helpless; and (6) evidence
of the killing being done in a brutal manner.
Manslaughter
Girouard v. State
Homicide Continued
People v. Knoller :
The theory of implied malice is applicable
whenever the defendant is aware that they are
engaging in acts that endanger the life of
another, not just a risk of serious or great bodily
injury.
State v. Hernandez:
A defendant need not be aware of the risk to
others from his conduct to be guilty of
manslaughter.
State v. Williams
The conduct of the defendants should be tested
from a reasonable man standard. If the conduct
of the defendants, regardless of their ignorance,
good intentions and good faith, fails to measure
up to the conduct required of a man of
reasonable prudence, they are guilty of ordinary
negligence because of their failure to use
ordinary caution.
Criminal Law, Swedlow Hillary 2010 Eva Crawford Pg. 9
Rape
Forcible Rape (General)
b. Reasonable Belief
People v. Goetz:
A person may use deadly force in self-
defense if he reasonably believes that said
force is necessary to protect himself.
State v. Wanrow:
The reasonableness of a persons actions
in self-defense must be considered in the
light of her own perceptions of the
situation.
c. Battered Women
State v. Norman:
The killing of a passive victim does not
preclude the defense of self-defenseGeneral
. Defenses Continued
3.Principles of Excuse
Defense of Others
Duress
People v. Karr:
United States
Under the v. Contento-pachon
defense of others concept, a
Duress and necessity
person may kill a person arethreatening
available defenses to
criminal liability
another if he reasonably believes that that
person
Peopleisv.inUnger:
imminent danger of death or
serious bodilyofharm.
The defense An unborn
necessity fetus,to prison
is available
viable or nonviable, is included in theis choosing
escape situations where the prisoner
to break the law to avoid a greater evil.
defense of others.
People v. Anderson
Duress is never a defense to murder, nor can the
defense of duress reduce murder to
manslaughter.
Intoxication
Insanity
State v. Johnson
State v. Wilson
Crimes/Definitions Elements
Burglary: Breaking and entering the dwelling Mens Rea: The intent to commit a felony therein
house of another at night with the intent to
commit a felony therein. Breaking: Create a breach or an opening, (or)
constructive breaking creating an opening by fraud
or threat of force, the felon did not physically do it
but they might as well have.
Malicious burning of dwelling house of Intent to burn or a reckless disregard for a very
another. high risk that burning will occur.
victim.
Inchoate Offenses
Criminal Law, Swedlow Hillary 2010 Eva Crawford Pg. 15
People v. Gentry
The crime of attempt requires intent to do an act
constituting a substantial step toward committing Actus Reus
a crime and a specific intent to commit the crime
attempted.
Bruce v. State
Attempted felony murder is not a crime in
Maryland.
State v. Cotton
The offense of solicitation requires some form of
actual communication from the defendant to Actus Reus
either an intermediary or the person intended to
be solicited, indicating the subject matter of the
solicitation.
State v. Mann;
Solicitation requires the defendant to ask,
entice, induce, or counsel another to commit a
crime.
People v. Carter
Conspiracy is defined as a partnership in
criminal purposes, a mutual agreement or Actus Reus
understanding, express or implied, between two
or more persons to commit a crimin
al act or to accomplish a legal act by unlawful
means.
to that act.
People v. Lauria
The intent of a supplier who knows of the
criminal use to which his supplies are put to
participate in the criminal activity connected with
the use of his supplies may be established by:
(1) direct evidence that he intends to participate,
or (2) through an inference that he intends to
participate based on, (a) his special interest in
the activity, or (b) the aggravated nature of the
crime itself.
People v. Swain
A conviction of conspiracy to commit murder
requires a finding of intent to kill and cannot be
based upon a theory of implied malice.
Commonwealth v. Azim
Once conspiracy is established and upheld, a
member of the conspiracy is also guilty of the
criminal acts of his co-conspirators.
Commonwealth v. Cook
The fact that a defendant may have aided and
abetted a crime does not establish conspiracy,
particularly where the evidence shows that prior
planning was not an inherent facet of the crime.
Furthermore, neither association with a criminal
nor knowledge of an illegal activity constitute
proof of participation in a conspiracy.
People v. Sconce
Once a defendants participation in a conspiracy
is shown, it will be presumed to continue unless
he is able to prove, as a matter of defense, that
he effectively withdrew from the conspiracy.
Withdrawal from a conspiracy requires an
affirmative and bona fide rejection or repudiation
of the conspiracy, communicated to the co-
conspirators. Further, under California law,
withdrawal is a complete defense to conspiracy
only if accomplished before the commission of
an overt act.
Criminal Law, Swedlow Hillary 2010 Eva Crawford Pg. 17
People v. thousand:
Commonweath v. McCloskey
Liability
Accomplice Liability General Principle
State v. Ward :
State v. Hoselton
People v. Lauria:
Riley v. State
State v. Linscott:
State v. V.T.:
Criminal Law, Swedlow Hillary 2010 Eva Crawford Pg. 19
Conspiracy Liability
Vicarious Liability
Commonwealth v. Koczwara:
Corporate Liability
Criminal Law, Swedlow Hillary 2010 Eva Crawford Pg. 20
Theft Offenses
Larceny Larceny
Brooks v. State:
Lund v. Commonwealth:
Mens Rea
People v. Brown:
People v. Davis :
Embezzlement
Rex v. Bazeley:
False Pretenses
People v. Ingram:
People v. Whight: