long criminal law outline

7/31/2019 Long Criminal Law outline

1/25

Class outlineTuesday, June 28, 2011

6:28 PM

I. Introductory Material

A. Basic Principles & Theories of Punishment, Presumption &

Burdens

B. Intro to Legality, Statutory Interpretation & Canons of

Construction

Legality - Notice - no judicial crime creationi.(strict) statutory construction/interpretation

1.Plain meaning2.Canons of construction3.Legislative history/intent

ii.Vagueness/ambiguity doctrine - Void for VaguenessIf there is an issue with notice/legality, must apply rule of lenity

Lenity - too ambiguous

i.Notice - reasonable person wouldn't know it's illegalii.Unfettered discretion - police get to decide who is offending and who isn'tGoals of Interpreting Statutei.Respecting "plain language" of statutory text

ii.Discerning and effectuating the intent of the legislature/votersiii.Making sure interpretation in one case doesn't contradict interpretation in another caseRules for Interpreting Statutes ( Canons of Statutory Construction)i.Interpreter should always begin with text of statute itself

ii.Statutes should be interpreted in such a way as to avoid constitutional problemsiii.Noscitur a sociis - the meaning of doubtful terms or phrases may be determined by

reference to their relationship with other words or phrases

iv.Ejusdem generis - where general words follow a specific enumeration of person orthings, the general words should be limited to persons or things similar to those

specifically enumerated

v.Rule of Lenity - all doubts when reading a criminal statute should be resolved in favor of

the defendant due to liberty at stake and presumption of innocence

II. Constitutional Limits


2/25

Greg Rule Same crime / different state Different crime / same state

A. 14th Amend. Due Process: Void for Vagueness

Void for Vaguenessi.Notice

OR

ii.Unfettered Discretion(curing one may not have an effect on the other)

B. 8th Amendment

Proportionality test always used in 8th amendment cases

*** When not death penalty, more narrow principle of proportionality

i.Evolving standards of decencyii.Justification

Objective indicca National consensus (numbers in states) Proportionality analysis

Gravity of offense v. harshness of punishment

Other crimes, same jurisdiction Same crime, other jurisdictions

C. 14th Amend. Equal Protect

14th Amendment - Equal Protection Clause Strict scrutiny Discrimination (racial) "discriminatory purpose"

Discrimination Standard ofReview

Interest/Objective/Reason

Means

Race/origin Strict Scrutiny Compelling Interest Narrowly Tailored (least

restrictive)

Gender Intermediate

Scrutiny

Important government

interest

Substantially related


3/25

------------------- ------------------------- -------------------------------------- --------------------------------------

Everything else Rational Basis Legislative Reasonable

Heightened scrutiny = greater than rational basis Must prove purpose/intent to move from rational basis to stricter form of scrutiny Any sign of purposeful discrimination

III. Actus Reus (The Act)

A. Introduction

Act

Can't be compelled

Voluntary

Omissions

B. Exploring Actus Reus

1. Interrogating Voluntariness

Voluntariness - decision made through both objective and subjective assessment -

not black or white.

Unconscious - negates voluntary act Diminished capacity - negates mens rea Unconscious defenses go towards voluntariness of Actus Reus, NOT mens rea Unconsciousness must not be self-induced

Liability

Voluntary act or omission when capable

NOT voluntary acts:

1. Reflex/convulsion2. Movement during sleep/unconsciousness3. Conduct during or resulting from hypnosis4. Otherwise not a product of actor's effort whether conscious or habitual

iii. Cannot be based on omission accompanied by action unless:1. Omission is ok by law2. Duty to perform is imposed by law

iv. Possession IS an "act" so long as the person was aware they were inpossession

2. Criminalizing Status?


4/25

3. Omissions

a) Duty to Act

Liability for Omissions

If defendant had a legal duty to act and was physically capable of acting Must cause social harm Defendant must act with the requisite mens rea

Law generally doesn't criminalize failure to act EXCEPT:

Special relationship - husband/wife, parents/children Contract - contractual duty to care for elderly person Statutory duty - duty to pay taxes Defendant creates risk of harm Voluntarily assumes care when otherwise wouldn't have duty

b) Good Samaritan Statutes

Good Samaritan rule - impose statutory duty to rescue or call for help when

knowing someone needs help.

IV. Mens Rea (Guilty Mind)

A. Intro to Culpability

Mens Rea

Morally blameworthyCulpable mental state

B. Mens Rea and Statutory Interpretation

Common law Model Penal Code

General intent

Specific Intent

No distinction

between general/specific

Willfully

Maliciously

Corruptly

Intentionally

Knowingly

Recklessly

Purposely

Knowingly

Recklessly

Negligently


5/25

Negligently

(MANY terms)

C. Intro to the Intent Doctr. & Knowledge


Conscious object -

Cause some result or harm

Purposely

Knowledge to a virtual certainty Knowingly (practical certainty)

Model Penal Code - cannot punish if he believed not something wrong

Common law - can punish for not knowing but should have known

Shortcuts to infer intent

Natural and probably consequences doctrine

May be deduced from surrounding circumstancesKnowledgeCommon law - a person knows of a fact if he either is aware of that fact OR correctly

believes the fact existsStatutory - (equating positive or actual knowledge with willful blindness or deliberate

ignorance)D. Transferred Int. (Cont.)

Transferring Intent Intent to do one thing (steal rum), cannot be used as a substitute for intent to do another

thing (burn ship) But, intent for killing can be transferred when original target was missed and bystander

was killed Strict liability - crime which government need not prove any mental state, ie statutory

rape

When a statute is silent re mens rea, presumption is that a mental state is required forcriminal liability

E. Specific v. Gen. Intent

Common LawStrict liability - intention doesn't matter


6/25

General intent - did something illegal intentionally, even if didn't know it was illegalSpecific intent - did something wrong, knowing it was illegal or immoral, with purpose if

something bad

F. Strict Liability Offenses

V. Mistake & Ignorance

A. Mistake of Fact

involves a situation where you are ignorant of a fact relating to an element relating toyour offense. Garnett is an example of Mistake of Fact case.

As long as it's not a strict liability offense, based on some mistake of fact, mens reaelement can be negated.

Whether defense is negated will depend on general or specific intent, and if mistake isreasonable or not.Contemporary rule

General Intent -- voluntary commission of morally blameworthy act

Specific Intent -- " " " "

AND

Understanding of wrongfulness of actAND

For achievement of further consequenceOR

Intent to do another/future actGeneral Intent Good faith AND reasonable

Specific Intent Good faith

Legal/Moral Wrong DoctrineIf your actions with the mistake would still be illegal, you are still culpable.

If your mistake would make you guilty of a lesser crime, the jurisdiction has the choice of

punishing at the level of the more severe crime.

Model Penal Code 2.04If the mistake negates the mens rea term of the statuteLegal wrong doctrine as practiced by model penal code - if conduct as mistaken would

still be an offense, you cannot claim mistake, but will not be punished at the level of

the more severe crime.

iii.Mistake of law (typically not a defense or will not negate mens rea) can exoneratewhere


7/25

1.There was no publication of the law2.Estoppel

B. Mistake of Law

Ignorance of the law is no excuse (generally). EXCEPT

Common Law:

i.Entrapment by estoppel (reasonable reliance) - if you are told by someone who hasduties for administration and enforcement of the law that your action is legal, you

cannot be charged for it.

ii.Crimes where knowledge (of illegality) is an element of the offenseiii.Lack of fair notice (status crimes)Model Penal Code 2.04

C.L. Mistake ofFact

MPC 2.04 Ignorance/Mistake

CL Mistake of Law

Some fact of the case

(fact of consequence)

person is mistaken on

No general/specific intent Generally, ignorance of the law

is no excuse

General Intent - Good

Faith and reasonable

Ignorance or mistake that

negates the mens rea.

Specific Intent - good

faith (can be

unreasonable, but notcrazy). Navarro

Bell - Legal/moral

wrong doctrine (if

your mistake is still

part of a crime, you

can be held

responsible for the

more severe crime)

(not really difference

between legal and

moral wronganymore)

Legal Wrong Doctrine - you

don't get benefit of claiming

mistake defense if your conductwould still be different or lesser

crime, BUT you will be punished

at the level of the lesser

offense. (Bellwould have only

been punished for prostitution

under MPC)

Estoppel

1. Statute/enactment2. Judicial opinion3. Administrative order4. Reliance on a person who

Exceptions:

1. Estoppel (Marrero andClegg) If through legal

announcement or through

someone who has


8/25

has enforcement/

interpretation/

administrative duties

under statute

interpretation or

enforcement duties you're

told not illegal

Actual or apparentauthority.

2. Fair Notice (ie failure toregister as sex offender)3. Knowledge of

unlawfulness (Cheek and

Bryant)

Only difference between MPC

and CL estoppel = apparent

authority

1. Entrap. by Estoppel

i.Entrapment by estoppel (reasonable reliance) - if you are told by someone who hasduties for administration and enforcement of the law that your action is legal, you

cannot be charged for it.

2. Ignor. & Mens Rea

3. Fair Notice Exception

VI. Causation

A. Intro to Actual (But for) & Proximate (Legal) Cause

i. Actual Cause (but for)ii. Proximate Cause (legal cause) -

Whether there were intervening superseding circumstances that were foreseeable

(and basic fairness principle). Both culpability and foreseeability involved.o Actual/Cause in fact ("but for" cause) (antecedent to events, set chain in motion)o Legal/Proximate cause - determination process. Way of asking question where somebody

sets the chain in motion, is it still fair to hold them responsible given the way events

unfold. Ultimately a fairness question. Some superseding event that could not have beenforeseen. That the harm would result in that way.

o ****** But for AND Proximate cause (not just but for reasons) (Not an either or - needBOTH)

o For proximate cause - NO intervening and superseding events, AND fairnesso Apparent safety doctrine - if someone sets in motion but for cause, and you reach a point

of safety at some point, that breaks the chain of causation. If a place is a place of

apparent safety is discretionary.


9/25

o Intervening causes - acts or events that come after the defendant's act but before thesocial harm and also contribute causally to the social harm

B. Concurrence of Elements

ConcurrenceTemporal

Motivational

Concurrence - link between commission of actus reus and maintenance of mens rea. If

don't have both elements at same time, can have lack of temporal concurrence.

VII. Offenses: Homicide

A. Intro to HomicideCommon law definitionUnlawful, unexcused, unjustified killing of a human being

Common law rule of year and a day - victim has to die within year and a day of the harm

being created.

Model Penal CodePurposeful, knowing, negligent, or reckless causing the death of another human being

Malice : how to provei.Intent to kill (ie deadly weapon rule)

ii.Intent to do great/serious bodily injuryiii.Depravity - malignant heart Implied maliceiv.Felony intent (fake intent related to another crime)

B. Intentional Killings

1. Murder (Exp. Malice); Degreesi.Common law (malice)

Express malice (intent to kill/intent to do serious bodily injury) Distinction of degrees (1st and 2nd)

Premeditation/deliberation 1st degree FMR 2nd degree FMR

WA statute 1st degree 2nd degree

Know how premeditation/deliberation work to distinguishii.MPC


10/25

2.10 A murder - knowing or purposeful homicide No degrees of murder

Degrees of felony2. Manslaughter (Vol.)

1.Common law (w/o malice) Voluntary

Provocation Categorical Reasonableness

Mere words Time framing Personal background factors in terms of reasonableness

2.MPC

210.3(1) No distinction between voluntary/involuntary

Extreme Emotional Distress - turns murder into manslaughter Objective reasonableness Subjectivity? (Hybrid)

a) Provocation Categorical

o Stopping someone in commission of felonyo Crime against a loved oneo Stopping an illegal arresto Mutual combato Discover your lover in the adulterous moment

Reasonablenesso Provokedo Remain under the provoking influence during the event

Normal common law rule - mere words rule - words not enough to provoke

b) Ext. Emot. Dist. & Alt. Rule(s)

WA Statuteo Murder 1st degreeRCW 9A.32.030- premeditationo Murder 2nd degreeRCW 9A.32.050- other than premeditatedo Intentional/unlawful killing of a fetusRCW 9A.32.060(form of manslaughter, 1st

degree)o WA has depravity, no merger doctrine, no provocation

C. Unintentional Killings

1. Depraved Heart (Imp. Malice)


11/25

Common law (worded any way as long as explains poor risk calculation Type/level of mens rea required (Knoller) Subjectivity?

MPC 210.2(1)(b)

Reckless with extreme indifference to human life3. WA StatuteRCW 9A.32.030- Extreme indifference to human life

1st degree (odd, most are 2nd degree)2. Manslaughter (Invol.)1.Common law (involuntary)

Culpable or criminal negligence (greater than simple)2.MPC 210.3(1)(a)

Homicide that is reckless withoutextreme indifference to human lifeWA Statute

1.No voluntary/involuntary

2.1st degreeRCW 9A.32.060- recklessness3.2nd degreeRCW 9A.32.070- criminal negligence (involuntary)

3. Felony Murder Rule (FMR)1.Common law

1st Degree (enumerated/listed) 2nd Degree (Common Law)(all other felonies)

2.MPC 210.2(1)(b)

Reckless/extreme indifferenceDuring the commission of listed felonies

Limits on FMR

Felony intent is not intent for murder, simply intent to commit felony.

4. Limits on FMRInherently dangerous felonies (2nd degree/common law)

a.In the abstract? Ie is meth dangerous to manufacturei. CA - high probability

ii. GA - risk of deathb.On the facts/under the circumstances? Ie was that particular felon in possession

doing so in a dangerous way?

Res Gestaea.Commission

i. Not just the actual event but up until when you get into place oftemporary safety

ii. Limits on time/place/"...in furtherance"b.Causation analysis

i. Only care about but-for?ii. Requiring a measure of direct causation --> proximate cause


12/25

Merger (which felonies can be predicate for FMR without merging with felony murder)(Lesser Included offenses)

a.Predicate felony must be independentb.Predicate felony must not be integral to homicide offensec.Rules:

i. No lesser included offenseii. No assaultive conduct

Third Partya.Proximate cause rule - if the death results from the crime and was reasonably

forseeable, can be held liable

b.Agency rule - you are responsible from the deaths that result from the acts ofyou or your cofelons. Canola

c.Alternatives:i. Jurisdictional gun battle rule - first shot is the proximate cause, no

matter whose shot caused the murder

ii. Provocative act murder - anything that is provoking that causes a gunbattle is proximate cause for the murder

Differences in WAWA - anomolies Depravity = murder Most jurisdictions have provocation or EED in manslaughter - not WA. Seems to

purposely remove provocation or EED. WA manslaughter 1st and 2nd degrees basically both involvuntary

WA RulesRes Gestae - in furtherance of and immediate flight therefrom

Agency rule - WA uses agency rule rather than proximate cause rule, with some an

allowable defense if meet 4-prong test

Malice is imputed (inferred) during the commission of an inherently dangerous. Doesn't

need to be there. But rules on how it's imputed (recklessness, criminal negligence, etc)

may change depending on the jurisdiction.

Murder - most forms of homicide are lesser included offenses

VIII. Sexual Offenses

A. Introduction

B. Forcible Rapeo Forcible Rape - the carnal knowledge of a woman, not the perpetrator's wife, forcibly and

against her willo Forcible Rape = General Intent Crimeo Move from forcible compulsion standard

Force = violence


13/25

Resistance Consent

o Moving to only consent standard Questions of mistake Consent can be inferred - does not have to be explicit, as long as suggests to

reasonable person that consent is not being withheld.o Some statutes still include force necessary to achieve the act, which can mean as little as

penetrationo Consent can be withdrawn at any time. Once consent is withdrawn, the person has to

stop within a reasonable time.The Question of Force

The Quest. Of Consent

C. SodomyHas no force or non-consent elements

IX. Criminal Law Defenses

A. IntroductionCase in chief defenses failure of proof defenses prima facie defenses Defendant argues prosecution failed to meet burden of proof on at least one

essential element of the crime (mens, actus, causation, concurrence) All defendant has to do is raise a reasonable doubt about existence of one element Unconsciousness and most mistakes = case in chief defenses

Affirmative defenses Defense admits government met its burden of proof Defense argues defendant should be acquitted for some other reason Defendant bears burden of proof for affirmative defenses Typical burden of proof for affirmative defense = preponderance of the evidence

B. Justifications

Self DefenseNecessity - must be necessary to use force

Imminence - cannot be that threat was abstract, must be imminent

Proportionality - measure of how much violence, response cannot be excessive

relative to the threat

Cannot be initiating aggressor - doesn't just mean the violence used, threat first

could be enough


14/25

All of these measured through reasonableness standard. Subject to choice of objective vs. subjective

Must have had an honest and reasonable belief thata.Was threatened with imminent threat of unlawful force, ANDb.That the force used was bot necessary to repel the threat AND proportional to

the threat

Not absolute requirement (defendant does not have to be correct in the belief)Simply need to reasonablybelieve in need to act in self-defense

Self Def. & BWS Self Def. & the Reasonable Man?

Imperfect Self Def. & Defense of OthersImperfect Self Defense

Honestly believe that force is necessary but belief is unreasonable

Someone attacks with nondeadly force and wrongfully escalate by using deadly

force Just like self-defense, but your reasonable-meter is off. Barnes thinks it's like

applying mistake-of-fact to the self-defense argument. Instead of being mistaken

about an element of the offence, here you are mistaken about an element of the

defense.Defense of Others (Justification) When a person uses fore against another person to defend a third person

thought to be in imminent danger of unlawful attack Still requires:

o Triggering condition (third person under unlawful attack)o Necessity requiremento Proportionality requirement

Also requires defendant honestly and reasonably believes the force used wasnecessary to protect third person from imminent unlawful attack.

Act at Peril Rule - defendant who came to third person's rescue did so at hisown peril - if he had no right, he had no defense

Particular Status Relationship Rule - Third person had to be a close relative,servant or employee.

Most jurisdictions got rid of Act At Peril Rule and Particular Status RelationshipRule

Def. of Habitation & Defense of Property

Original common law rule permitted on occupant of the dwelling to use any forcenecessary, including deadly force, if he reasonably believed the force was necessary

to prevent an imminent unlawful entry


15/25

Some jurisdictions still follow common law, but modified to restrict use of deadlyforce to cases where intruder is going to commit unlawful entry AND commit a

felony or cause other injury to occupants of the dwelling Other common law jurisdictions - deadly force may be used ONLY if reasonably

believes intruder is going to commit unlawful entry AND forcible felony or kill or

cause serious bodily harm Generally not allowed to use deadly force in defense of property

Necessity

Common Law Model Penal Code 3.02

6 factors

1. Harm avoided greater than harmcaused

2. Legislature hasn't previouslyprecluded as defence

3. Requires causal connectionbetween illegal act and harm

4. No effective legal alternative5. Clear & imminent6. Can't be responsible for the

original danger

1. Harm avoided greater than harmcaused

2. Code doesn't provide another defenseto use instead

3. Can't have been legislative purpose toexclude4. If an offense where mens rea term is

reckless or negligent, can't use as a

defense.

Imminence requirement No imminence requirement

May not use as justification to

homicide (except under FMR for the

underlying felony)

Doesn't say that you can or can't use as

justification for homicide

C. Excuse Defenses

1. Duress


1. Imminent Death or great bodilyinjury

2. Reasonable fear threat will becarried out if you don't commit thecrime

3. No reasonable opportunity toescape the harm

1. Coerced through unlawful force (obj?)(person of reasonable firmness)

2. No available fornegligence/recklessness conduct

3. No spousal coercion defense4. Doesn't preclude 3.02 (necessity)

Difference between necessity and duress

Necessity - choice between two harms for the lesser harm


16/25

Duress - choice taken away

2. Intox./Addiction

Common law Model Penal Code 2.08

Early common law - was not a

defense

Modern Common law:

a. Involuntary (someone slipped mea ***)

Defense regardless of crimedistinction

b. Voluntary (Atkins/Frey) Specific intent - potential defense General intent - no defense

New trend - discontinuevoluntary intoxication defenses

1. Voluntary intoxication - negates anelement of the crime (mens rea)

2. Recklessness caviat3. Intoxication not a disease4. Involuntary intoxication (insanity)

General Intent Cannot use evidence of intoxication

Specific intent Can use evidence of intoxication to negate mens rea of crime

3. Culture?No persay cultural defenseo Mitigation (charge down and/or give lesser punishment)

1. Can negate the mens rea (question of mistake/ignorance of the law)o Claims of:

1. Reasonableness2. Provocation3. Ignorance/mistake

o Temporary insanity4. Insanity

Guilty but mentally ill. Sentences in mental hospitals usually longer than sentence

would have been in prison.

Common law MPC

M'Naghten rule:

1. Nature/quality of acts2. Wrongfulness

Lack of substantial capacity

Lack of capacity conform/control self (impulses)

Know Appreciate


17/25

5. Diminished CapacityDefendant who cannot prove he was insane at time of crime will seek to introduce

evidence of mental illness as way of mitigating or eliminating responsibility for

crime.

1.Negates mens rea

2.Mitigating the offense

3.Mitigating punishment

Don't have to pick one over the other for insanity/diminished capacity. BUT,

diminished capacity will allow someone to go free. Insanity puts them in a mental

hospital.

X. Inchoate Offenses

** Common Law Model Penal Code

Actus Reus Act v. mere preparation (what's leftto be completed)

Substantial step (what's been completed)

Mens Rea Specific intent - same (or narrower)intent as used for target crime

attendant circumstances standard (mens

rea as def believes the circumstances to be,

whether he's correct or not)

Proximity Physical proximity - nearness tocompleting (not necessarily

geographically)

Dangerous proximity

Nearness Dangerousness/harm

Fear/apprehension

Abandonment can't abandon once you commit anact in furtherance

can abandon during nearly any step but

must be voluntarily (not because of fear of

apprehension).

Impossibility See Factual/Legal impossibility no "impossibility" - Something that mightfall under factual impossibility in CL is still

chargeable under MPC. Depends on facts

as defendant BELIEVED them to be.

Solicitation cannot be convicted of solicitation ifit's not communicated

can be convicted of solicitation even if it's

not communicated

A. Attempts


18/25

1. Intro, Actus Reus & Abandonment

2. Mens Rea

3. Impossibility Def. (Common law)

Legal Impossibility Factual Impossibility

Pure - conduct not criminalized (ie

belief with a 17 year old is against the

law)

Mistake of fact (ie belief that a 15 year

old is in the bed but not)

Hybrid - some sort of factual mistake

regarding legal status of one of the

attendant circumstances makes it

impossible for crime to be committed

(ie belief that a 25 year old ispretending to be 15)

B. SolicitationAttempted solicitation = double inchoate crime

Intents:

1.To solicit assistance

2.That target offense be completed

Typically merges with target offense. (If convicted of attempt or target crime, cannot beconvicted of solicitation)

If you ask someone to do something and it's achieved, you're convicted of target offense.

If they don't achieve it, can be convicted of attempt and solicitation.

C. Conspiracy

1. IntroCriminalizes act of entering into an agreement to do something criminal

Two intents:1. Intent to enter agreement2. Intent to commit the target crimeRule Choice

1. Agreement2. Agreement + overt act *** Used by most jurisdictions now.


19/25


20/25

XI. Accomplice Liability

A. Introduction & Common Law Appr.

Specific Intent Crime

Principles1. 1st degree - person who actually committed the acts constituted the offense or used an

"innocent instrumentality" to commit the offense

2. 2nd degree - person who intentionally assisted the commission of the crime in thepresence ofthe principle 1st degree

i. Actual presence (inside the bank during the robbery)ii. Constructive presence (accomplice outside the bank watching for police)

Accessories1. Before the fact - intentionally assisted in commission of the crime, but not present when

crime committed (ie person who buys the guns)

2. After the fact - helped principle 1st degree and accomplices avoid arrest, trial, orconviction

B. Modern Approach Liability: Accomplice v. Principal

MPC 2.06 Complicity1. You are responsible when:

i. You dupe someoneii. If you agree to conspiracy for something you are vicariously responsible for actions

of others

iii. Is when you are an accomplice, such as: purpose of promoting and facilitating, yousolicit such other person to commit a crime. If you aid agree or attempt to aid the

person committing. If you have a legal duty to prevent, you fail to make proper

effort. The law has explicit language.

XII. Theft Offenses


21/25

A. IntroductionCommon law - different categories of crimes listed under theft. Must charge with

particularity. Must offer evidence or proof of the particular theft offense charged.

B. Theft By CategoryLarcenytrespassory taking of another with intent to deprive. If later don't intent to

permanently deprive, then no longer larceny.

(larceny v. grand larceny only used for punishment issues and only based on

amount, usually $500 threshold)

Larceny by trickdifference between possession and custody:

1. Possession - right to do with property plus what you wish to do with it2. Custody - just physical control of the property Involves committing the larceny through some form of deceit.

o IE receiving the item under some false pretenses, but intend to deprivethe person of the possession the whole time

Constructed possessiono Employer delivers property to agento Owner of property mispalces or loseso Owner delivers property as part of agreement in owner's presence

Breaking Bulk doctrineo Actually did give away constructed possessiono Don't have larceny by tricko Didn't give possession of everything - gave packages but content of

packages remain with owner.Embezzlement give something to someone where they are supposed to take care of it or

return it, but instead convert it to their own possessiono Intentional conversion of property of anotehr by somenoe already in

lawful possession or by soeone it has been entrusted to.o No deceit involved in taking possession of the item.

False Pretenseso Makes a distinction between possession and titleo Requirements:

Make a false statement of fact That false statement causes victim to pass title of property to you,

where defendant knows statement is false and intends to defraud

the victim Difference between possession and title iscustody. Possession

includes custody, title does not have to. Only works for things that society has clearly designated a role for

titleDifference between larceny by trick and false pretences:


22/25

o If you get possession by deceit, it's larceny by tricko If you get title by deceit, it's false pretenses

C. Theft (Consolidated)MPC Consolidation 220

221 - Burglary222 - Robbery (aggravated)

223 - Theft and related offenses

Consolidation - any of forms of theft that follow can be proof of theft

223.2 - Unlawful taking - (CL Larceny) (no *permanent* intent to deprive)

223.3 - Theft by deception (CL Larceny by trick/embezzlement/false pretenses) -

obtaining property of another by deception

223.4 - Extortion - purposesly obtaining property of another by threatening

223.5 - Loss or mislaid - to what extent you're responsible when something is lost or

mislaid - knowledge - must take reasonable steps to restore to owner

D. Aggravated Offenses(felonious taking of person property from his/her person or immediate presence

accomplished through use of force)

BurglaryBurglary (structure)

Voluntary/intentional entry (unlawful) in a building with felonious intent

Common Law

(unlawful) Entry

Structure

Felonious intent

RobberyRobbery (person)

larceny but with using force or fear against a person

a. Felonious intentb. Force or putting in fearc. Taking and carrying away property

m. REVIEWWord Limits:

Exam questions:

Short answer: 45% of grade

1. 500 words2. 500 words3. 750 wordsEssay: 55% of grade


23/25

Ambiguity (Lenity)

v.

Void for Vagueness

Ambiguity/Lenity

(more than one meaning or a confused premise)

Statutory construction - court looks at statute to figure out what legislature meant. When we

can't figure out what they meant, that's where lenity comes in.

Void for vagueness particular type of ambiguity - jurisdiction criminalizes something most common people

think is innocent behavior (not criminal). Overbroad - criminalizes things that will catch a

lot of people who don't mean to be caught by the statute Notice problem Enforcement - arbitrary enforcement

Mens Rea Questions

Statutes that don't appear to have a specific mens rea term - should that be

read as strict liability or general intent? With exception of some rare statutes ie statutory rape, almost all statutes will be at least

general intent.

Strict liability will only be such if it has strict liability language in the statute If there are no specific mens rea terms at all, it's probably a general intent. Barnes will

probably put a bracketed term to indicate level of mens rea required thoughCan you argue mistake for any strict liability?

NO - Can't negate a mens rea term that doesn't exist.

What is mens rea term for MPC 213 "if he compels"MPC for rape/sexual assault

Compels stands in for forcible compulsion - purposeful conduct

Comparative Questions

Common Law WA MPC

Degrees:

Murder1:

1. Premed/delib2. Special means3. Felony murder

(enumerated)

Murder2: (all other)

1. Express malice(intent without

Murder1:

1. Premed/delib2. Depravity3. FMR

(enumerated)

Murder2:

1. All other notpremed

2. Provoked killing

No degrees for homicide


24/25


25/25

c. General intent -good faith +

reasonable

Mistake of Law

a. Not believing yourconduct is criminal

b. Generally not adefense

c. Estoppel (relianceon apparent

authority)

Legal/Moral wrong:

If already knew doing

something else wrong in

addition to crime, will be

charged at the greater

crime.

If already knew doing something else

wrong in addition to crime, will be

charged at the lesser crime

If don't believe conduct is criminal, can be

absolved when:a. Unpublished lawb. Reasonable reliance

a. Statute/enactmentb. Judicial opinion/judgmentc. Admin order/grant of

permission

d. Official interpretation ofpublic official with

admin/enforce authority

WA is a MPC state for MPC,

Using the 4 MPC words

Express malice

Thibeault decision

1. Entry2. Structure3.

License/permission4. Felonious intent

long criminal law outline

Documents