Cases
Montana v. Egelhoff
The defense of drunkenness has no root in the American common law tradition and thus a state is not required to recognize it. A State is only required to recognize principles of procedure so rooted in the traditions and conscience of our people as to be ranked fundamental.
What is the heat of passion defense and what are the circumstances it can be used in?
Please give two examples of when a heat of passion defense may be used.
Heat of passion is a common law defense that reduces an intentional or depraved heart murder down to voulanatary manslaughter. Generally the circumstances it could be used in were situations where a person was provked to an extent that a reasonable person would find murder was somehow justified.
Examples of this included discovery of someone discovering their spouse cheating or a heated argument where the defendant lost control and killed another person and did not have a chance to cool off.
What is the equivalent of depraved heart murder, greivous bodily harm, and felony murder at modernized common law?
These are all forms of 2nd degree murder in modernized common law jurisdictions (with the exception of California where some forms of depraved heart murders can be 1st degree murder.
Lucas kills his wife Holland after walking in on her she was having an affair with Harrison. He is charged with 1st degree murder. Assume this is a modernized common law jurisdiction. What defense(s) are available to him?
Heat of passion defense is available as a defense to bring down the charge to voluntary manslaughter.
Lawrence v. Texas
The Constitution protects the right to exercise of personal rights free from criminalization under the Due Process Clause of the 14th Amendment. A state is not free to criminalize conduct that would deprive a person of their substantive due process rights.
Furthermore, moral justifications alone are not legitimate reasons to criminalize conduct. It must pass the rational interest test.
Are mere insults enough to raise a EED defense?
No, mere insults are not enough to raise an EED defense.
In New York what is the equivalent of voulantary and invoulantary manslaughter?
In New York, this equates to 1st degree manslaughter and 2nd degree manslaughter.
Lucas wanted to borrow to go to Cane's Andre's car, so he took his keys while he was in the bathroom and got Cane's for the two of them. Andre was furious and after taking the Cane's he had gotten both of them called the police who subsequently charged Lucas with robbery. What defenses are available to Lucas?
1. Robbery is the inappropriate charge to bring because Lucas did not use violence to obtain the vehicle. The correct charge to bring would be larceny at best.
2. Lucas can raise a defense that he did not have the specific intent to steal the car - since larceny is is a specific intent crime where the prosecution must prove that the defendant intended to deprive the owner of possession of their personal property.
In re Winship
A state must prove that a crime was committed beyond a reasonable doubt regardless of whether the person is an adult or juvenile.
It is a constitutional protection to require the prosecution to prove a crime beyond a reasonable doubt.
What is the small fry defense?
Individuals who possess knowledge of a crime and may be part of a conspiracy, but whose role in the crime is so insignificant or innocuous, cannot be charged with conspiracy due to their lack of sufficient decision-making power. This is known as the small fry defense. For example, in United States v. Casperson a person whose role in a conspiracy was limited to taking notes at meetings and keeping track of potential investors could not be charged with conspiracy. This was because her role was too small and they held no decision-making power and their role in the scheme did not rise to the level of knowing and affirmative participation.
What is the difference between mala probitum crimes and mala in se?
Please articulate the case(s) that deal with the difference between the two.
Mala in se crimes are crimes that are wrong by nature (ancient common law crimes). Mala in prohibitum crimes are crimes that are wrong because they are illegal or regulatory offenses in a certain jurisdiction.
US v. Morissette and US v. Wulff articulate the differences between the two.
Ella is an avant-garde artist living in NYC who believes that the world doesn’t appreciate true creativity. To make a statement, she fills a briefcase with paint and hurls it off a balcony from a twenty-story building at the opening night of her exhibit, yelling, “Art must be felt!” The briefcase lands on a bystander’s head named Harrison, killing him instantly.
At trial, Ella insists she didn't intend to kill anyone — only to “challenge societal norms.”
What category of homicide, if any, might Dolores be charged with under traditional common law and under the MPC? Analyze her mens rea and whether this constitutes depraved heart murder.
Under traditional common law she may be charged with depraved heart murder and murder by recklessness (invoulantary manslaughter). Even though she did not necessarily intend to kill anyone her actions amounted to a conscious disregard of an unreasonable risk to human life. Her actions also could more likely be seen as murder due to recklessness of her person. Depraved heart murders and involuntary manslaughters only required a general intent to commit the action resulting in the persons death.
Under the MPC she can be charged with 1st degree murder because she could be found to have acted recklessly under circumstances manifesting an extreme indifference to the value of human life. She may also be charged with manslaughter under MPC 210.3 because she committed the defense recklessly.
U.S. v. Armstrong
Presumption of regularity supports prosecutorial decisions in the absence of clear evidence that they have improperly discharged their duties.
The claimant must show the enforcement of the law (1) had a discriminatory effect and (2) that it was motivated by a discriminatory purpose.
To establish discriminatory effect the claimant must show that prosecution was directed at similarly situated individuals, who may have not been prosecuted.
Describe the fundemental differences between the insanity defense and diminshed capacity.
Insanity is an affirmative defense to be raised by the defendant and proved by a preponderance of the evidence. Sanity is a question of fact to be determined by the jury. When a defendant prevails on an insanity defense the defendant evades criminal charges and is typically committed to a mental institution until they are presumed sane. Using an insanity defense a defendant must prove (1) volitional incapacity and/or (depending on the jurisdiction) (2) moral incapacity.
Diminished capacity is an affirmative defense that does amount to legal insanity but may prove that the defendant did not have the mental state for specific intent or other intent required for the predicate crime, In contrast to an insanity defense dimished capacity does not result in acquittal - it only results in a reduced sentence. A defendant also need only prove that they did not have the mental state requisite to complete the crime as opposed to any volitional or moral incapacity.
In New York what is the difference between first degree murder and second degree murder?
2nd degree murder is everything else including premeditated murder, depraved heart murder, and felony murder.
Andre and Ella, both stressed-out law students, devise a plan to steal the dean’s secret stash of imported espresso. They meet in the law library and agree to break in the next day. Andre comes to campus with equipment to break in but leaves before doing anything. Ella forgets the plan entirely and oversleeps.
Campus police arrest Andre with charge him with conspiracy and attempt.
Under the MPC , has Andre or Ella committed conspiracy or attempt?
Under the MPC Andre but likely not Ella can be charged with conspiracy but both likely cannot be charged not attempt. At the MPC conspiracy happens when two or more people agree to commit a crime and an overt act is taken to commit such a crime. Attempt requires a substantial step towards the commision of the crime.
Here bringing equipment to campus in anticipation of commiting the predicate crime is a susbtantial step, and both Ella and Andre agreed to commit the crime, but Andre took an overt act towards its commission. Without more facts Ella cannot be charged with either conspiracy or attempt because she had not taken an overt act towards the commision of the crime or taken a substantial step towards its commission.
US v. Wulff
Felonies or crime with a severe penalties that would besmerch the reputation, or are derivative of a common law crime require mens rea elements.
The elimination of the element of criminal intent does not violate the due process clause of the Fifth Amendment where (1) the penalty is relatively small, and (2) where conviction does not gravely besmirch.
When can you use the defense of intoxication and are states required to recognize it?
Because the common law did not recognize voluntary intoxication as a defense, the Court has held that states are not required to allow intoxication as a defense. Because an intoxication defense was no fundamentally rooted in common law it was not a defense that states were required to recognize under Due Process.
It is a common law defense if a murder occurs where the actor was not intoxicated of their own volition – otherwise known as involuntary intoxication. Involuntary intoxication was a complete defense to any crime if the intoxication happened under the circumstances amounting to duress or coercion and goes to such an extent that the mind of the defendant was incapable of understanding the criminal nature of his act.
In contrasts voulantary intoxication is never an excuse at common law and can only be used to disprove specific intent, to knock levels of murder down potentially to manslaughter. See Errington and Other Cases.
Holland goes insane and decides to bomb Andre's condo in California killing him and all of the residents in the building. What charges can the prosecution levy against her?
She can be charged with both first degree and second degree murder in California, for both Andre's death and the residents in the building. Depraved heart murder in California can be first or second degree murder depending on the weapon used. In the case at hand, Holland's use of a bomb was a heavy grade weapon and therefore can be considered first degree murder. The prosecution can also levy charges for second degree murder, because second degree murder in California encompasses all manners of depraved heart murders.
Ella and Sam agree to sabotage a rival hotdog cart by spraying it with a foul-smelling chemical. Before they can act, Sam backs out although he did purchase the chemicals for Ella to use. Ella carries out the plan alone and gets arrested.
Ella may be charged with the the crime for the sabotage and Sam may be charged as a co-conspirator and an accomplice to the crime.
Sam did nothing to thwart the crime and therefore is still liable as a co-conspiracy.
Jacobson v. U.S.
Entrapment occurs if a defendant expressed an interest in an activity before it was made illegal but, once it was made illegal, he refrained from engaging in it until the government induced the actor to partcipate in the illegal activity.
What is a defense for the crime of possession of a prohibited object?
Mere possession. Mere posession is not enough to sustain a conviction of a prohibited object, the prosecution must show actual or constructive possession.
Juliette is a pilot and gets wasted before flying a plane. She subsequently crashes the plane but miraculosuly survives along with a few other passengers. She is charged with attempted murder, and is charged under a statute which criminalizes being drunk while flying a plane, the penalty of which is life in prison. The statute does not require the prosecution to prove mens rea.
Articulate all defenses Juliette could raise.
She cannot be charged with attempted murder because of the fact that she did not act with specific intent to kill anyone when she flew the plane and because she was drunk - thereby negating the specific intent even if she could be charged.
The statute is likely constitutional because criminalizing negligence as a strict liability offense is permissible when the conduct being criminalized involved is inherently dangerous conduct that would result in people dying or getting seriously injured if not followed.
Lucas is competing in a high-stakes salsa dance competition. During the finals, rival dancer Sam “accidentally” kicks Carlos in the shin. Lucas, convinced Mateo is trying to sabotage him, pulls a 2-inch Swiss Army knife from his costume (standard for his routine) and lunges. Sam pulls out a decorative fan and blocks the attack. Nobody dies, but Lucas is charged with attempted murder.
Lucas claims self-defense, saying Sam was aggressive throughout the competition and “looked like he was going to strike again.”
Analyze whether Lucas can claim self-defense (perfect or imperfect) under New York law. Also, determine whether his actions constitute attempted mnurder.
Lucas cannot claim perfect self-defense and it is unlikely he would prevail on a theory of imperfect self-defense but he could make the argument depending on more specific facts (were the prior instances of conflict, ect.).
It is unclear whether this would constitute an attempt because the prosecution would have to prove he had the specific intent to kill Sam during the salsa contest. Here, based on the facts it only appears he may have been trying to injure him (which may constitute greivous bodily harm murder which at New York law is equivalent to 1st degree manslaughter).
Regina v. Faulkner
What is the law of self defense at common law?
At common law, the purpose of the law of self-defense was to minimize and control violence. If an actor were to use deadly force against another actor, they were entitled to use deadly force to defend themselves, as long as you were not able to retreat. The duty at common law was to “retreat to the wall” before you were entitled to respond with deadly force.
If someone attacks you with deadly force and you respond with deadly force after being unable to retreat this is considered reasonable force. Similarly, if someone attacks with non-deadly force and you respond with non-deadly force, this is also a reasonable response. It is an unreasonable response if you respond with deadly force to a non-deadly attack or if the force was otherwise unnecessary.
In MPC jurisdictions what is the difference between manslaughter and criminal homicide?
Manslaughter in MPC jurisdictions were homicides commited recklessly or under EED for which there is a reasonable excuse.
Negligent homicides on the other hand includes homicides that are committed negligently (something that arises to something higher than tort negligence). This typically includes DUI deaths.
Harrison is charged with attempted murder after stabbing a man at a bus stop, claiming that his invisible friend, “Captain Blaster,” ordered the attack to save the world from aliens. In reality he stabbed Lucas. A psychiatrist testifies that Jordan suffers from paranoid schizophrenia but knew stabbing was “technically illegal” — he just thought it was morally justified.
Assume this is a modernized common law jurisdiction which adheres to the majority rule for the insanity defense. Articulate all charges and defenses Harrison would bring.
He would be charged with 1st degree murder, second degree murder, and voulantary manslaughter.
He may still bring an insanity defense because insanity defense may be brought of the basis of the actor believing it was a morally justified reaction (moral incapacity). He can also bring a diminished capacity defense in conjunction with the moral incapacity defense.
Rehaif v. U.S.
Placement of where the word knowingly is in a statute matters a great deal for matters of interpretation.
Here, the word "knowingly" modified the word "violate" a statute, indicating he had to know he was violating the statute criminalizing gun ownership for undocumented immigrants.
What is entrapment and what are the differences between the subjective and objective test?
Entrapment is a defense available to the defendant when the government engages in the inducement of an otherwise innocent person to commit a crime they otherwise would not commit. The elements of the crime may be present but the law states that the defendant should not be convicted because of the inducement.
Under the objective test the government weighs the degree of government involvement and does not take into account the actor’s predisposition to commit a crime. Once there has been a certain amount of government misconduct in the inducement of the actor to commit an illegal act the government may not sustain a conviction. Owen Roberts one of the most famous Supreme Court justices of the 20th century. in his concurring opinion advocated for the objective test because the purpose of the objective test is to deter police misconduct.
Under the subjective test, in assessing an entrapment defense both the defendant’s predisposition to criminal activity and the government’s misconduct are weighed against each other. Factors that go into assessing an actor’s predisposition to commit criminal activity include: (1) defendant’s readiness and willingness to commit a crime if a good opportunity presents itself (2) defendant’s ready knowledge of how to commit the crime (3) comments prior to the commission of the crime which demonstrate a propensity to commit the crim
What are the four different types of mens rea murders at Model Penal Code and how do they differ?
Purposefully: Acting with intent to cause a specific result.
Knowingly: Acting with knowlegde that your actions will cause a certain result.
Recklessly: A person acts recklessly with respect to a material offense when he consciously disregards a substantial and unjustifiable risk that the material element exists or will result from his conduct. The risk must be of such a nature and degree that, considering the nature and purpose of the actor's conduct and the circumstances known to him, its disregard involves a gross deviation from the standard of conduct that a law-abiding person would observe in the actor's situation.
Negligently: A person acts negligently when he should be aware of a substantial and unjustifiable risk or will result from his conduct.
Agent Osgood, posing as a shady barista, encourages Harrison (a struggling student who deals drugs to help pay for law school) to help move “a small package of espresso” for some cash. Trevor initially refuses but gives in after the agent calls him “too scared to be successful.” When Trevor makes the delivery, he’s arrested — the espresso was actually laced with cocaine. He is also charged with possession of cocaine.
What are the defenses he can raise?
Under the objective test he may raise an entrapment defense because it is likely impermissible police misconduct.
Under the subjective test for entrapment you could argue either way. He was already predisposed to deal cocaine so a court may take that into consideration.
He may also be charged with posession on a theory of constructive presence or actual possession. He can raise a defense that he did not "knowingly" possess the cocaine but this would likely fail.
Staples v. U.S.
Criminal statutes imposing severe criminal punishments that do not impose scienter requirements specifically are presumed to require the prosecution to prove mens rea.
What is the fundemental difference between a law being void for vagueness and the Rule of Lenity?
The Rule of Leneity is used when a criminal aw could be interpreted in two ways. In these circumstances a court must apply the version of the criminal law that would yield less severe penalties.
A law is void for vagueness on the otherhand when a law is so ambigously vague as to not put a person of reasonable intelligence on notice that a law is criminalizing criminal conduct. In these cases the defendant can evade criminal penalties entirely.
Lucas is insanely jealous and believes his husband Andre is cheating with another man. One day he walks in on Andre having an affair. He does not say anything. After two weeks he finally goes and kills his lover. Afterwards, e confronted Andre about it, after having a few beers, and the two get into a violent altercation which results in Andre's death.
Assume this occured in California. What charges is Lucas most likely to be charged with and what is the likelihood of conviction?
Lucas is most likely to be charged with 1st degree murder for the death of Andre's lover, and 1st degree and 2nd degree murder for Andre's death as well as 1st degree manslaughter.
He is likely to be convicted of 1st degree murder for the death of Andre's lover and likely to be convicted of 1st degree murder for Andre's death as well, although he could in theory be convicted of 1st degree manslaughter by succesfully pleading a heat of passion defense.
An intoxication defense would not work here, since there was clear indication and contemplation of killing Andre beforehand.
Three friends — Andre, Sam, and Holland — hatch a plan to break into an abandoned glass-blowing factory and steal rare sculptures rumored to be worth millions. They meet twice to plan and divide roles: Andre disables the alarms, Sam grabs the art, and Holland drives the getaway car. During the break in a fire starts. A homeless man secretly living inside the factory dies from smoke inhalation during the fire.
Articulate all charges and defenses available to the parties and what the outcome to each is. Assume this is a MPC jurisdiction.
They can all be charged with conspiracy to commit burglary as well as being charged with burgalary. They also all can be charged with felony murder in the 1st degree as this is a felony viewed as inherently violent. The prosecution would also likely bring a charge for reckless homicide.
U.S. v. Alvarez
Criminalization of simple negligence is not unconstitutional where mere negligence may be so dangerous as to require the criminal punishment of the negligent person.
Additionally, some crimes don't require mens rea but consist only of forbidden acts or omissions, especially when the statute concerns public safety.
This is a doctrine avaliable when a criminal law violates Due Process rights, because it criminalizes private conduct that would be otherwise permissible under the Due Process Clause. What is this? What case does this come from?
Rational basis theory. All laws must have a rational basis not guided merely by moral intuitions to criminalize otherwise lawful behavior. This was the reason the law in Lawrence v. Texas was struck down.
At MPC what are the four different levels of mens rea for homicides?
Please describe them in detail.
A person acts purposefully with respect to a material element of an offense when: 1) if the element involves the nature of his conduct or a result thereof, it is his conscious object to engage in conduct of that nature or to cause such a result; and 2) if the element involves the attendant circumstances, he is aware of the existence of such circumstances or he believes or hopes that they exist. This is akin to a specific/premediated requirement at common law.
Knowingly: A person acts knowingly with respect to a material element of an offense when: 1) if the element involves the nature of his conduct or the attendant circumstances, he is aware that his conduct is of that nature or that such circumstances exist; and 2) if the element involves a result of his conduct, he is aware that it is practically certain that his conduct will cause such a result. This is akin to a general intent element at common law. Most states do not like knowingly and instead use the word intentionally because of the ambiguity of the word (ex: do you have to know or is there some sort of evil connotation).
Recklessly: A person acts recklessly with respect to a material offense when he consciously disregards a substantial and unjustifiable risk that the material element exists or will result from his conduct. The risk must be of such a nature and degree that, considering the nature and purpose of the actor's conduct and the circumstances known to him, its disregard involves a gross deviation from the standard of conduct that a law-abiding person would observe in the actor's situation.
Negligently: A person acts negligently when he should be aware of a substantial and unjustifiable risk that the material element exists or will result from his conduct. The risk must be of such a nature and degree that the actor's failure to perceive it, considering the nature and purpose of his conduct and the circumstances known to him, involves a gross deviation from the standard of care that a reasonable person would observe in the actor's situation. This includes blissful ignorance.
Juliette lives in a jurisdiction where theft of an outline is a first degree felony. There is an enhanced penalty for actors who steal outlines if they do it while drunk, or if they have had alcoholic beverages prior or shortly after the offense is committed (voters passed this referendum because they hated drinking and wanted to discourage drinking in general). Juliette steals Harrison's outline while she is drunk and when he walks in on her stealing it out of terror of being discovered she strikes him over the head with her ConLaw book and flees. Harrison dies as a result and she is charged with 1st degree and 2nd degree murder, attempted burgalary, assault, felony murder, and an enhanced penalty for being drunk while commiting the offense.
Her accomplice, Sam who was present at the time of the murder, is charged as a principal and the enhanced penalty as well, because he hid Juliette after she steals Harrison's outline, and because while he was hiding her he had a few beers.
Articulate any defense(s) available to them.
For the question assume this occurs in New York, but they have adopted the California code for accomplicehood liability.
Juliette can raise a defense for the statute enabling the enhanced penalty being void for vagueness since it does not specify what "prior to the offense means". In the alternative she can raise a defense based on the Rule of Leneity. Although enhanced penalties are permissible for drunkedness a statute still has to be specific enough to alert the defendant as to what conduct is criminalized.
For the murder 1st degree murder is an impermissible charge to bring in New York because Harrison is not a police officer. Felony murder and assault are also impermissible to bring under the merger rule, because if the defendant is charge with both the predicate felony and the greater offense - she can only be charged with one or the other. She can also raise a defense for EED, even though she was engaged in a felony at the time, because a jury could in theory find it was a "mutual affray".
For attempted burglary, she can raise an intoxication defense, because attempt is a specific intent crime.
Sam can raise the same defense as the offense being void for vagueness for the enhanced penalty. He also cannot be charged as a principal since his role in the murder was merely hiding Juliette not aiding and abetting the felony.
Finally, the enhancement can be challenged on grounds of it potentially violating the Due Process Clause of the 14th Amendment, because it criminalizes consuming alcohol because it criminzalizes private conduct merely because people morally disapprove of it.