Criminal Law exam outline F98

1) A- no act, no duty to act

B- caused V to die as he did (but for causation)

- but V would have died earlier (by the train) -- so B prolonged V's life

- prox. cause -- foreseeable that V would crawl into road. less foreseeable that V would by truck driver not paying attention (coincidental intervening cause)

-- did B's mental state reflect gross negligence -- failure to perceive a substantial and unjustifiable risk of V's death under circumstances manifesting a gross deviation from the standard of care of a law-abiding person. B left V in a better position; on the other hand B assumed some responsibility by moving V off the tracks.

-- recklessness? did B actually see the danger of V crawling onto the road?

2) A -- no criminal act

an attempt to commit a criminal act -- the mistake of law/mistake of fact dichotomy -- rejected by the MPC

B- ignorance of the law -- no excuse

-- mistake of fact as to the county

-- is the offense strict liability? no mental state in statute; is a mental state implied? The MPC's default rule is recklessness. But did the legislature intend the offense to be strict liability? No common law counterpart, regulatory in nature, small penalty. However, it does carry jail time

-- if recklessness is implied as a mental state, was B reckless in not knowing where he was? Possibly

3) W -- level of offense

-- reckless murder? perhaps -- reckless with regard to result/extreme indifference to life

-- manslaughter?

-- reckless

-- murder reduced to manslaughter by heat of passion. Fear caused by husband's violence towards her? Was fear/rage reasonable -- taking her circumstances into account? Factors showing not in heat of passion -- retrieval of gun. MPC's relaxed approach to heat of passion.

-- self-defense? Proportional and necessary force? Reasonable -- taking into account her circumstances (having been beaten before)?

-- defense of habitation -- against a burglar ? Necessary? he hadn't gained entrance. Did she reasonably believe he would commit crimes inside the home? Kidnapping? Assault? At least a violation of the EPO?

4) B

-- conspired with A

--, was an accomplice of A in robbery of grocery (assisted A intending that A rob the store)

-- was he an accomplice in the robbery of the customer? He assisted. Did he have the required mental state. C/l position was that an accomplice was liable for the foreseeable crimes of his accomplices. MPC would require that B intend the robbery of the customer.

-- felony murder? depend on construction of statute. If statute construed literally a person (A) was killed in the perpetration of robbery -- B as an accomplice to the robbery could be liable. If, however, the statute is construed to apply only to homicides committed by a robber, or to unjustified homicides. then B would not be liable.

-- reckless murder -- theory that B giving A a loaded gun manifests reckless indifference to human life -- primary (not derivative) liability

C

- did C intend that his car be used in a robbery? Arguable that he knew, but did not intend, that it be so used. Serious crime, however, which argues for liability as a conspirator and accomplice with A and B

-- attempted to stop the robbery. Probably not effective to preclude liability for the conspiracy since conspiracy had occurred (and he was unable to stop the robbery). Probably effective to stop liability for the substantive crime of robbery.

- felony murder - certainly more remote than B. But same arguments

- reckless murder - should be no primary liability - he did not supply the weapon

5) Choice of evils

-- choice between speeding/running light and W having baby in car; reasonable choice from his perspective except:

- he was at least criminally negligent (if not reckless) in creating the emergency

- the mental state for the charged crime is negligence

-- duress -- he couldn't have reasonably believed that she would have killed him

6) Short answer

1) whether a person knows the nature and quality of his acts and knows the difference between right and wrong

2) 7

3) intentional and reckless (Regina. v. Cunningham)

4) extreme emotional disturbance

5) a non-responsive cause; the victim crawls into the road and is struck by a car. The car is coincidental; the driver was not responding to the victim

6) the officer reasonably believes the suspect poses a threat of serious bodily injury to the officer or to others

7) The burden of production: to produce enough evidence to create a jury issue

8) No requirement of a meeting of the minds; sufficient if the defendant believes that the other person is agreeing to criminal activity

9) A state of "learned helplessness" as a result of a pattern of violence & reconciliation. The woman typically does not believe that there is a way "out" of the relationship

10) No -- can't make status a crime