Statutory Interpretation
Textualist and Purposivist
True or False: American law recognizes both status crimes and thought crimes
False! Wisconsin v. Mitchell and Robinson v. CA both show that our law does not recognize criminal actions based on the status/type of person or (solely) the thoughts of a person.
MPC Mens Rea Elements
Purposely
Knowingly
RecklesslyNegligently
State the CL homicide scheme
Murder-- first, second, implicit malice (felony murder, depraved heart murder, intent to inflict serious bodily injury)
Voluntary Manslaughter-- doctrine of provocation
Involuntary Manslaughter-- kill with criminal negligence
Three exceptions to the general rule for mistake of law
(1) One who reasonably relies on an interpretation of law based on official government statements
(2) Knowledge of the crime is a mens rea element and element is not here
(3) Person who lacks fair notice of an imposed legal duty can violate due process
How a textualist would support their argument? Purposivist?
(Textualist) Using ordinary, plain meaning of the words; Using dictionaries of evidence of plain meaning; Use surrounding context (words, statutory provisions)
(Purposivist) Using statute purpose as driving factor, reliant on legislative history for evidence; References the text in addition to external context
Voluntariness
Actus Reus can only be fulfilled with voluntary acts i.e. voluntary movements wielded by the actor (Martin v. State-- drunk man)
Name the case attached to this rule: The mens rea element of a statute can apply to both the jurisdiction element and culpability element.
United States v. Yermian
What is the difference between first and second degree?
CL Attempt vs MPC Attempt defense
CL attempt focuses on where the actor shifted from mere preparation to the overt act, requiring an intent for both the underlying crime and acting beyond mere preparation
MPC attempt focuses on whether substantial steps were taken toward the culmination of the offense. Successful show of MPC attempt may warrant an abandonment defense if it is a good faith abandonment
Contradicting cases based on the court's statutory interpretation: what cases and why do they differ?
Smith v. U.S. and Watson v. U.S.
Courts found that use equates to active or operative use. Majority said that Smith actively used the gun when trading it for drugs but Watson was not actively using the gun by receiving it.
Name the five scenarios when an actor has a legal duty to another
1) Special relationship (spouses/ parent-child)
2) Contractual relationship
3) Statutory relationship
4) Defendant creates the risk of harm to the victim5) Defendant inserts themself in harm; adopts risk of harm to assist victim
What happens when the statute does not have a mens rea element written in (150 point BONUS: what are the default mens rea elements associated?)
Court is to determine whether one is to be read in or if the law is a regulatory strict liability crime.
Common law reads in willfully, Model Penal Code reads in recklessness.
How can felony murder be applied? Explain elements if necessary
Inherently dangerous action (categorical rule, per se)
Res Gestae (underlying crime + murder) (1) must be proximity to the felony and the homicide (2) must be a casual connection between the felony and the homicide
What is the M'Nagthen test
Defendant must show that at the time of the action, due to a mental illness or defect, he did not know what he was doing or if he did know of his actions, he was unaware that what he was doing is wrong
What was the decision in Flores-Figueroa? Why?
Court found that based on the structure and plain meaning of the statute (textualist approach), the government was required to prove the defendant knew the identification used in their identity fraud act did in fact belong to another person. Court said the purpose did not lend to the general understanding of both the statute as a whole and the language used.
What are the three elements of Model Penal Code actus reus
Conduct, results, and attendant circumstances
Common Law Doctrine of Transferred Intent
The accused is deemed as culpable and society equally harmed when defendant intends to cause harm to one and actually causes harm to another. Justice is achieved when crime has same intent regardless of identity of the victim.
Model Penal Code Homicide Scheme
Murder, Manslaughter, Negligent Homicide
Name 3 of the 7 MPC ยง5.01 examples of substantial steps (+300 points to name all 7)
(a) lying in wait for victim
(b) enticing or seeking to entice the victim to go to potential crime location
(c) searching for place to carry out act
(d) unlawful entry into presumed crime location
(e) in possession of materials to be used during crime, items designed for unlawful use or cannot serve lawful purpose in this scenario
(f) possession, collection, or fabrication of materials to be employed in act
(g) soliciting an innocent party to carry out an element of criminal act
What was the decision in People v. Montoya? Why?
Court found Montoya was guilty of violating the identity theft statute based on purposivism. The purpose of the law was to protect civilians from the economic and social harms of identity fraud and Montoya caused such harm onto innocent civilians.
The difference between Robinson v. CA and Powell v. TX/ City of Grants Pass v. Johnson
The statutes in Powell and Grants Pass criminalize actions, not the status of an individual. Even if these actions are commonly associated with a class/type of person or commonly performed by a class/type of person, it is legal to criminalize actions.
What factors do mens rea required statutes have? What factors do strict liability statutes have?
Mens rea: common law derived, purpose = to punish bad action, identifiable victims, positive aggression, malum in se, heavy penalty
Strict liability: modern regulatory offense, purpose = protect public safety/health/welfare, no direct injury to victim, merely creates danger/risk, malum prohibitum, light penalty
If you are unable to prove provocation for voluntary manslaughter, what is the actor likely guilty of?
Murder-- first or second degree depending on facts
Why was self defense allowed in People v. Goetz and not State v. Stewart?
In Goetz the court found all elements of self defense as well as finding it reasonable for Goetz to have this reaction based on his background.
Stewart could not have this defense because she failed to prove she was in imminent danger at the time of the murder