Criminal Law (2005 Fall)
II. INTENT
- General Rule - Every element of every offense has a requisite intent, which must be proven before the defendant can be found guilty.
- Cunningham - Ripping out gas meter does not establish intent to release gas which put another in danger.
- Morissette - Statutory silence does not eliminate intent requirement for common law crimes.
- MPC § 2.02
- Purpose
- Conduct – Conscious object to engage in the conduct
- Circumstances – Awareness of circumstances, or believes or hopes such circumstances exist
- Knowledge
- Conduct or Circumstances – Awareness
- Result – Awareness that result is practically certain
- Recklessness (default requisite intent when statutes are silent) – Consciously disregards substantial and unjustifiable risk, gross deviation from law-abiding person
- Negligence – Should be aware of substantial and unjustifiable risk, gross deviation from reasonable person [Santillanes - Criminal negligence different from civil negligence]
- Purpose
- Motive - Irrelevant to criminal liability, important in sentencing
- Subjective vs. Objective Standards
- Subjective – What did the defendant actually intend or know? (purpose, knowledge, recklessness)
- Objective – What should the defendant have reasonably known? (negligence)
- Specific Intent vs. General Intent
- Generally speaking, a specific intent crime requires the defendant to have a specified further purpose.
- Intoxication can be a defense to a specific intent crime.
- Conditional Intent
- Statutes need to be worded carefully. [Holloway – Carjacking defendant intended only to take car, and intention to cause death or serious bodily harm was conditioned on not getting the car]
- Addressed case-by-case
- Willful Blindness
- General Rule – Deliberate ignorance = willful blindness = positive knowledge. [Jewell, narcotics middleman]
- MPC § 2.02(7) - Willful blindness same as knowledge
- Luban Objection – A drug dealer hires 3 couriers, tells them not to look in the trunk, and that 2 carry only clothes. Each now knows of 1/3 probability of drugs, and may believe himself carrying clothes.
- Strict Liability
- General Rule
- Strict liability is used for regulation.
- Early uses in labeling [Balint; Dotterweich]
- Parameters [Morissette - Stealing bomb casings]
- Public welfare health/safety offenses
- New regulatory rather than old “bad” offenses
- Controls a dangerous thing
- Defendant has care and control over potential harm (shifting burden of care to person in control away from public/consumer)
- Small penalties
- Low reputational harms
- Staples – Conviction reversed for defendant who violated firearms statute which would “criminalize a broad range of apparently innocent conduct.”
- X-Citement Video – Conviction reversed for defendant who used underage actress because of grammatical usage separating distribution and age elements.
- Guminga – Criminal penalties based on vicarious liability for employer whose employee served alcohol to minor violate due process; civil penalties better.
- Baker – Speeding defendant with stuck cruise control strictly liable because of voluntary act of engaging cruise control.
- General Rule
- Mistake of Fact
- General Rule – MOF is a defense when it “negatives” the intent requirement.
- MPC § 2.04 – Ignorance or mistake is a defense when it negatives the existence of a state of mind that is essential to the commission of an offense, or when it establishes a state of mind that constitutes a defense under a rule of law relating to defenses.
- Intent Levels
- Purpose – defense
- Knowledge – defense
- Recklessness – defense
- Negligence – defense if “reasonable”
- Strict liability – no defense
- Prince – Defendant’s reasonable mistake of girl’s age no defense against strict liability.
- Olsen – Defendant’s reasonable mistake of girl’s age no defense when act is most serious of degrees established by statute.
- Reading statutory elements
- Bramwell (“lesser wrong”) – Mens rea not required when act is wrong in itself [Prince, majority]
- Brett (“lesser crime”) – No conviction in absence of criminal mind [Prince, dissent]
- Dan-Cohen – Decision rules vs. conduct rules
- Conduct rules speak to general public
- Decision rules speak to legal officials
- Problem of notice
- Kahan – MOF excused only if it negates inference that defendant has failed to internalize social norms.
- Mistake of Law
- General Rule - Mistake of law is no defense. [Marrerro – Federal corrections officer brought handgun to club.]
- When mistake of law acts like mistake of fact:
- If statute makes legal awareness of a fact an element, mistake of law functions like MOF.
- Smith (David) – Defendant who tore up property he thought belonged to him did not have requisite intent for the offense.
- Cheek – Defendant’s honest belief that wages are not income is a defense; but opinion that income taxes are unconstitutional is no defense.
- “Willfully” and “knowingly”
- Should “willfully violate” or “knowingly violate” mean knowledge of existence of law, or normal “knowledge” intent?
- International Minerals – Normal knowledge where defendant transports corrosive liquids
- Liparota – Knowledge of existence of law in food stamp fraud; no criminalizing “broad range of apparently innocent conduct”
- Ratzlaf – Knowledge of existence of law in insufficient funds; writing a check is normally an innocent act
- Bryan – Knowledge of unlawfulness of act sufficient to convict unlicensed firearms dealer
- Reliance
- Reliance on official statement of law is defense
- Recognized sources of reliance:
- Judicial decisions [Albertini - Defendant relied on 9th Circuit decision that his participation in protests was lawful]
- Statutes
- Administrative orders
- Advice of counsel not reliable [Hopkins]
- Limits
- Lambert – Statute requiring registration of out-of-state felons unconstitutional for imposing strict liability without giving notice.
- Cultural Defense – Different cultures have different social norms and may imply different intents.
1 comment:
i love you for putting your notes up on the net for hapless and disorganized crim law students :)
Post a Comment