Criminal Law - created from Mind Map

Types Felony Misdemeanor Mala Prohibitum Mala in Se Infamous Crimes

Against Property Larceny Embezzlement False Pretenses Theft (Robbery) Bad Checks Credit Card Fraud Larceny by trick (Theft) Exortion Stolen Property Forgery Burglary (Theft) E.g. Moon Case Difference between exortion and robbery

Defenses DefintionTypes of Criminal Defense

Accompliance Liability

Constitutional Issues Expo Facto Laws Rule of lenity Void for Vagueness Doctrine

Types

Elements Actus Reus Mens Rea Concurrance in Time Causation Model Penal Code Strict Liability Specific Intent General Intent Difference b/t Specific and General Intent Crime

Federal Crimes

Inchoate Wharton Rule Crimes Conspiracy Bigamy Conspiracy Incest Gambling Bribery adultery Dueling

Model Penal Code

Against Persons Murder Voluntary Manslaughter Involutary Masnlaughter Battery Assault Mayhem False Imprisonment Kidnapping Rape Bigamy Incest

Purpose for Punishment

Crime Definition: as oppose to civil law, the sovereign punishes a criminal for crimes against society. Criminal Law is based on legislation, which is the abrogation of the common law, and Court statues that punish individuals for committing certain evil or malicious conduct against society. A crime is voluntary [freely chosen], affirmative act that causes harm, done with culpable intent, and defined by a statute Defined by legislative statues and the courts (common law/statues) e.g. Duley Case (shipwreck. Crew eats boy) Kellog case (homeless boy gets arrested) Some Jurisdictions use the Model Penal Code.

In the field of criminal law, there are a variety of conditions that will tend to negate elements of a crime (particularly the intent element), known as defenses. The label may be apt in jurisdictions where the accused may be assigned some burden before a tribunal. However, in many jurisdictions, the entire burden to prove a crime is on thegovernment, which also must prove the absence of these defenses, where implicated. In other words, in many jurisdictions the absence of these so-called defenses is treated as an element of the crime. So-called defenses may provide partial or total refuge from punishment.

What is Accomplice Liability and Criminal Liability? To begin with, criminal liability is needed to prove that a defendant is guilty of a crime.  In order to find a person criminally liable, a court usually needs to prove two things:  First, that the person committed the criminal act in question (“conduct”); and secondly, that they did so with the required criminal mindset (“intent”).  Accomplice liability allows the court to find a person criminally liable for acts committed by a different person.  If a person aids, assists, or encourages another in the commission of a crime, they are said to be an “accomplice” to the crime.  The person who actually commits the act is called the “principal”.  The crime for which an accomplice provides assistance is called the “target crime”. Thus, when determining what is accomplice liability and criminal liability, a court needs to examine factors the conduct and intent of both the principal and the accomplice.  What is Needed to Determine Accomplice Liability? When determining accomplice liability, a court will review several factors.  These include information regarding the accomplice’s: Intent:  The accomplice must have intended that the “target crime” be in fact committed up to completionScope of Liability:  The accomplice will be guilty of the target crime, as well as any other foreseeable crimes that may be committed during the commission of the target crime Also, the accomplice needs to provide active aid, counsel, encouragement, or assistance toward the commission of the crime.  Thus, if a person is present at the scene of a crime, but takes no active steps toward assisting the perpetrator, they will likely not be found an accomplice.  In addition, the principal needs to be aware that the other person is helping them in the commission of a crime.  If the principal doesn’t know of the other person’s assistance, accomplice liability will not be found. What are Some Examples of Accomplice Liability? Some examples that demonstrate what is accomplice liability and criminal liability may include: Serving as a “get-away” driverBeing a “lookout” for cops and witnesses while the crime is being committedLoaning money, weapons, or other objects for use in the commission of the crimeEncouraging the principal to complete the crime Also, accomplice and criminal liability can be found for aid that is given before the crime is completed, as well as after. What happens if the Accomplice Withdraws Their Support? In some cases, accomplice liability may be negated (cancelled) if the accomplice withdraws their support before the crime is completed.  This depends on the nature of the aid that the accomplice contributed in the first place. Under most state laws, if the accomplice provided mere encouragement in the form of words, they will not be held liable if they repudiate or discourage the principal from completing the crime.  However, if the accomplice went beyond mere encouragement and provided active, physical assistance in the crime, they will need to attempt to neutralize any further commission of the crime.  Thus, “withdrawal” is a common defense that is raised when determining what is accomplice liability and criminal liability. Do I Need a Lawyer if I Have Issues with Accomplice Liability and Criminal Liability? If you are involved in any way with accomplice liability charges, you should seek legal assistance immediately.  An experienced criminal defense lawyer can help determine whether you are liable as an accomplice, and whether any defenses may be raised in your favor.  You may wish to hire a criminal defense attorney in your area for legal advice and representation in court. 

Deal with the enumerated powers of the constitution. The government must prove knowledge of enough fact and enough law to constitute concious wrongdoing or mens rea E.g. Jimenez-Torres Gov. charges def of the crime for killing gas station owner  involved in interstate commerce. Dotterwhich: corporation violated a FDAA regulating by tampering food with labels.

An inchoate offense, inchoate offence, or inchoate crime is acrime of preparing for or seeking to commit another crime. The most common example of an inchoate offense is "attempt". "Inchoate offense" has been defined as: "Conduct deemed criminal without actual harm being done, provided that the harm that would have occurred is one the law tries to prevent."[1][2]

a) Purposes for the court   Retribution: Retribution is the theory that punishment is justified because it is deserved (eye for an eye)   Deterrence: People are deterred from actions when they refrain from carrying them out because they have an aversion to the possible consequences of those actions  Rehabilitation: involves an examination of the offense and the criminal a concern for the criminal’s social background and punishment. In other words, how the wrong doer can in fact receive psychological or behavioral assistance.  Equilibrium/balance: For every wrong there got to be some proportionate punishment so we can all live in peace.  b) Purpose for the legislature  Avoiding private Vengeance Regulating otherwise hard to regulate misconduct of the poor (e.g. Kellogg) Defining a society’s values and culture: what was illegal in the past is not illegal anymore e.g. abortion, marijuana consumption, prostitution.    

In the United States, larceny is a common law crime involving theft. Under the common law, larceny is thetrespassory taking (caption) and carrying away (asportation, removal) of the tangible personal property of another with the intent to deprive him or her of its possession permanently. In almost all states, it has become a statutory crime through codification.

Embezzlement is the act of dishonestly withholding assets for the purpose of conversion (theft) of such assets by one or more individuals to whom such assets have been entrusted, to be held and/or used for other purposes.[1] Embezzlement is a kind of financial fraud. Fraudulent: The requirement that the conversion be fraudulent means simply that the defendant wilfully and without claim of right or mistake converted the property to his or her own use.Conversion: Embezzlement is a crime against ownership; that is, the owner's right to control the disposition and use of the property.[3] The conversion element requires a substantial interference with the true owner's property rights (unlike larceny, where the slightest movement of the property when accompanied by the intent to deprive one of the possession of the property permanently is sufficient).[4]Property: Embezzlement statutes do not limit the scope of the crime to conversions of personal property. Statutes generally include conversion of tangible personal property, intangible personal property and choses in action. Real property is not typically included.Of another: A person cannot embezzle his own property.Lawful possession: The critical element is that the defendant must have been in lawful possession of the property at the time of the fraudulent conversion and not have mere custody of the property. If the defendant had lawful possession the crime is embezzlement. If the defendant merely had custody, the crime is larceny.[5]Determining whether a particular person had lawful possession or mere custody is sometimes extremely difficult

Obtaining property by false pretenses. It involves obtaining of property by intentionally misrepresenting a past or existing fact. The elements of false pretenses are: (1) a false representation (2) of a material past or existing fact (3) which the person making the representation knows is false (4) made for the purpose of causing (5) and which does cause (6) the victim to pass title (7) to his property [3] False pretenses is a statutory offense in most jurisdictions; subject matter covered by statute varies accordingly, and is not necessarily limited to tangible personal property - some statutes include intangible personal property and services.

Robbery is the crime of taking or attempting to take something of value by force or threat of force or by putting the victim in fear. At common law, robbery is defined as taking the property of another, with the intent to permanently deprive the person of that property, by means of force or fear.[2] Precise definitions of the offence may vary between jurisdictions. Robbery is differentiated from other forms oftheft (such as burglary, shoplifting or car theft) by its inherently violent nature (a violent crime); whereas many lesser forms of theft are punished as misdemeanors, robbery is always a felony for this reason

Non-sufficient funds (NSF) is a term used in the banking industry to indicate that a demand for payment (a cheque) cannot be honored because insufficient funds are available in the account on which the instrument was drawn. In simplified terms, a cheque has been presented for clearance, but the amount written on the cheque exceeds the available balance in the account. An NSF cheque is often referred to as a bad cheque or dishonored cheque, or more colloquially, a bounced cheque, cold cheque, rubber cheque, returned item, or hot check.

Credit card fraud is a wide-ranging term for theft and fraud committed using acredit card or any similar payment mechanism as a fraudulent source of funds in a transaction. The purpose may be to obtain goods without paying, or to obtain unauthorized funds from an account. Credit card fraud is also an adjunct to identity theft. According to the United States Federal Trade Commission, while identity theft had been holding steady for the last few years, it saw a 21 percent increase in 2008. However, credit card fraud, that crime which most people associate with ID theft, decreased as a percentage of all ID theft complaints for the sixth year in a row.[1] Crimes involving Credit card Fraud: 3.1 Card not present transaction3.2 Identity theft3.2.1 Application fraud3.2.2 Account takeover3.3 Skimming3.4 Carding3.5 BIN attack3.6 Tele phishing3.7 Balance transfer checks

Using a trick, such as lying, to get possession of property is larceny. Larceny by trick is descriptive of the method used to obtain possession. The concept arose from Pear’s Case decided in 1779.[44] The issue was whether a person who had fraudulently obtained possession of personal property (a horse) could be convicted of larceny. The chief impediment to conviction was the doctrine of possessorial immunity which said that a person who had acquired possession lawfully, that is with the consent of the owner, could not be prosecuted for larceny. Clearly the owner of the horse had given the defendant possession of the animal – he had agreed that the defendant could borrow the horse to ride to Surrey.[45] The case would seem to have been cut and dried – the doctrine of possessorial immunity applied and the defendant was therefore not guilty of larceny. The court held that consent induced by fraud was not consent in the eyes of the law. The fraudulent act that induced the owner to transfer possession “vitiated” the consent. This concept of consent broadened the scope of larceny. Before, consent meant the voluntary relinquishment of possession and thus property was wrongfully taken only if the defendant acquired possession by stealth, force or threat of force.

Extortion (also called shakedown, outwresting, and exaction) is acriminal offense of obtaining money, property, or services from a person, entity, or institution, through coercion. Refraining from doing harm is sometimes euphemistically called protection. Extortion is commonly practiced by organized crime groups. The actual obtainment of money or property is not required to commit the offense. Making a threat of violence which refers to a requirement of a payment of money or property to halt future violence is sufficient to commit the offense. Exaction refers not only to extortion or the unlawful demanding and obtaining of something through force,[1] but additionally, in its formal definition, means the infliction of something such as pain and suffering or making somebody endure something unpleasant.[2]

Possession of stolen goods is a crime in which an individual has bought, been given, or acquired stolen goods some other way (other than they themselves having stolen them). In the United States, Receipt of stolen property is a federal crimeunder 18 U.S.C. § 2315, defined as knowingly receiving, concealing, or disposing of stolen property with a value of at least $5,000 that also constitutes interstate commerce (i.e., has been transported across state lines).A person can be found guilty of that offense only if all of the following facts are proven:The person received or concealed or stored or disposed of items of stolen property.The items were moving as, or constituted a part of, interstate commerce.The items had a value in excess of $5,000.The person acted knowingly and willfully.The government must prove beyond a reasonable doubt that the person either received, concealed, stored, sold, or disposed of the stolen property.To be guilty of the offense, a person must know that the property had been stolen, but he need not know that it was moving as, or constituted a part of, interstate commerce. The term "interstate commerce" merely refers to the movement of property from one U.S. state into another; and it is sufficient if the property has recently moved interstate as a result of a transaction or a series of related transactions that have not been fully completed or consummated at the time of the person's acts as alleged.All US states also have laws regarding receipt of stolen property; however, there usually is no minimum dollar amount in many jurisdictions, and, of course, the requirement in Federal law regarding interstate commerce does not apply. Also, in many states (Ohio, for example), the burden to prove criminal intent is not as stringent or is nonexistent.[5] This means that one can be charged with the crime - usually a minor degree of felony - even if the person did not know the item in question was stolen. In the Ohio case of State v. Awad, the goods did not need to actually be stolen, just represented as such.[6]Receiving stolen property and possession of stolen property are treated as separate offenses in some jurisdictions. The distinguishing element is when the person knew that the property was stolen. If the person knew that the property was stolen at the time he received it, the crime is receiving stolen property. If the person did not know the property was stolen at the time she received it but found out after receiving possession, the crime is possession of stolen property.The state must prove that the defendant received or possessed the property for a dishonest purpose. If, for example, the person acquired possession for the purpose of returning the property to its lawful owner, no crime has been committed.See also

Forgery is the process of making, adapting, or imitating objects, statistics, or documents with the intent to deceive. Copies, studio replicas, and reproductions are not considered forgeries, though they may later become forgeries through knowing and willfulmisrepresentations. Forging money or currency is more often calledcounterfeiting. But consumer goods may also be counterfeits if they are not manufactured or produced by the designated manufacture or producer given on the label or flagged by the trademark symbol. When the object forged is a record or document it is often called afalse document. This usage of "forgery" does not derive from metalwork done at a forge, but it has a parallel history. A sense of "to counterfeit" is already in the Anglo-French verb forger, meaning "falsify." A forgery is essentially concerned with a produced or altered object. Where the prime concern of a forgery is less focused on the object itself – what it is worth or what it "proves" – than on a tacit statement of criticism that is revealed by the reactions the object provokes in others, then the larger process is a hoax. In a hoax, a rumor or a genuine object planted in a concocted situation, may substitute for a forged physical object. The similar crime of fraud is the crime of deceiving another, including through the use of objects obtained through forgery. Forgery is one of the techniques of fraud, including identity theft. Forgery is one of the threats addressed by security engineering. In the 16th century, imitators of Albrecht Dürer's style of printmaking improved the market for their own prints by signing them "AD", making them forgeries. In the 20th century the art market made forgeries highly profitable. There are widespread forgeries of especially valued artists, such as drawings originally by Pablo Picasso, Paul Klee, andHenri Matisse. A special case of double forgery is the forging of Vermeer's paintings by Han van Meegeren, and in its turn the forging of Van Meegeren's work by his son Jacques van Meegeren.

Burglary (also called breaking and entering[1] and sometimeshousebreaking)[2] is a crime, the essence of which is illegal entry into a building for the purposes of committing an offence. Usually that offence will be theft, but most jurisdictions specify others which fall within the ambit of burglary. To engage in the act of burglary is toburgle (in British English) or to burglarize (in American English).[3] The breaking and entering the house of another in the night time, with intent to commit a felony therein, whether the felony be actually committed or not.[4][5][6] The common law elements of burglary often vary between jurisdictions. The common law definition has been expanded in most jurisdictions, such that the building need not be a dwelling or even a building in the conventional sense, physical breaking is not necessary, the entry does not need to occur at night, and the intent may be to commit any felony or theft.[9] Burglary is prosecuted as a felony or misdemeanor and involves trespassing and theft, entering a building or automobile, or loitering unlawfully with intent to commit any crime, not necessarily a theft – for example, vandalism. Even if nothing is stolen in a burglary, the act is a statutory offense. Buildings can include sheds, barns, and coops; burglary of boats, aircraft, trucks, and railway cars is possible. Burglary may be an element in crimes involving rape,arson, kidnapping, identity theft, or violation of civil rights; indeed the "plumbers" of the Watergate scandal were technically burglars. As with all legal definitions in the U.S., the foregoing description may not be applicable in every jurisdiction, since there are 50 separate state criminal codes, plus Federal and territorial codes in force.

Extortion (also called shakedown, outwresting, and exaction) is acriminal offense of obtaining money, property, or services from a person, entity, or institution, through coercion. Refraining from doing harm is sometimes euphemistically called protection. Extortion is commonly practiced by organized crime groups. The actual obtainment of money or property is not required to commit the offense. Making a threat of violence which refers to a requirement of a payment of money or property to halt future violence is sufficient to commit the offense. Exaction refers not only to extortion or the unlawful demanding and obtaining of something through force,[1] but additionally, in its formal definition, means the infliction of something such as pain and suffering or making somebody endure something unpleasant.[2] Extortion is distinguished from robbery. In robbery, whether armed or not, the offender takes property from the victim by the immediate use of force or fear that force will be immediately used (as in the classic line, "Your money or your life.") Extortion, which is not limited to the taking of property, involves the verbal or written instillation of fear that something will happen to the victim if he or she does not comply with the extortionist's will. Another key distinction is that extortion always involves a verbal or written threat, whereas robbery does not. InUnited States federal law, extortion can be committed with or without the use of force and with or without the use of a weapon. In Blackmail, which always involves extortion, the extortionist threatens to reveal information about a victim or his family members that is potentially embarrassing, socially damaging, or incriminating unless a demand for money, property, or services is met. The term extortion is often used euphemistically to refer to usury or toprice-gouging, though neither is legally considered extortion. It is also often used loosely to refer to everyday situations where one person feels indebted against their will, to another, in order to receive an essential service or avoid legal consequences. Neither extortion nor blackmail require a threat of a criminal act, such as violence, merely a threat used to elicit actions, money, or property from the object of the extortion. Such threats include the filing of reports (true or not) of criminal behavior to the police, revelation of damaging facts (such as pictures of the object of the extortion in a compromising position), etc. In the United States, extortion may also be committed as a federal crime across a computer system, phone, by mail or in using any instrument of interstate commerce. Extortion requires that the individual sent the message willingly and knowingly as elements of the crime. The message only has to be sent (but does not have to reach the intended recipient) to commit the crime of extortion.

Some guy gets hired as the as treasurer of his fraternity and ends up stealing a bunch of money from it. his excuse? "Oh don't worry my friend, I was going to pay it back"

1)  Affirmative Act (unless the legislature decides the crime to be an omission which the defendant had the physical power to perform e.g. not filing your taxes to the IRS) 2) Voluntary (usually homicide, as oppose to sleep walking, out of reflexes) 3) Coincide w/ mens rea (evil intent) 4) Act causes “harm” causation  (proof of a specified conduct and a specified mental state but often times an actual “harm” is not required, except in homicide cases).   Actus reus, sometimes called the external element or the objective element of a crime, is the Latin term for the "guilty act" which, when proved beyond a reasonable doubt in combination with the mens rea, "guilty mind", produces criminal liability in the common law-based criminal law jurisdictions like the United States of America. In the United States of America, some crimes also require proof of an attendant circumstance. an act does not make a person guilty unless (their) mind is also guilty"; hence, the general test of guilt is one that requires proof of fault, culpability or blameworthiness both in behaviour and mind. The act could involve ommission (failure to pay taxes) a voluntary act or even inactivitity but the criminal act is derived from a special relationship deined by the statue and commone law. e.g. vicarious libaility

Guilty mind: evil intent Not clear in the common law. General Intent & Specific intent

Negligently: a "reasonable person" would be aware of a "substantial and unjustifiable risk" that his conduct is of a prohibited nature, will lead to a prohibited result, and/or is under prohibited attendant circumstances, and the actor was not so aware but should have been. Recklessly: the actor consciously disregards a "substantial and unjustifiable risk" that his conduct is of a prohibited nature, will lead to a prohibited result, and/or is of a prohibited nature.Knowingly: the actor is practically certain that his conduct will lead to the result, or is aware to a high probability that his conduct is of a prohibited nature, or is aware to a high probability that the attendant circumstances exist.Purposefully: the actor has the "conscious object" of engaging in conduct and believes or hopes that the attendant circumstances exist.

E.G. TRD Case. rapist did not reported himself nor change of address. In law, strict liability is a standard for liability which may exist in either a criminal or civil context. A rule specifying strict liability makes a person legally responsible for the damage and loss caused by his or her acts and omissions regardless of culpability (including fault incriminal law terms, typically the presence of mens rea)

Specific intent crime: Mens Rea is irrelevant. Schminkey case: man takesanother mans pick up and kills someone while intoxicated. Issue: was there roberry? held: no, since there was no intent to permanently deprive the owner of the car. Intention is defined in R. v Mohan as "the decision to bring about a prohibited consequence."A person intends a consequence they foresee that it will happen if the given series of acts or omissions continue, and desires it to happen. The most serious level of culpability, justifying the most serious levels of punishment, is achieved when both these components are actually present in the accused's mind (a "subjective" test). A person who plans and executes a crime is considered, rightly or wrongly, a more serious danger to the public than one who acts spontaneously (perhaps because they are less likely to get caught), whether out of the sudden opportunity to steal, or out of anger to injure another. But intention can also come from the common law viewpoint as well.Black's Law Dictionary and People v. Moore state the definition of Criminal Intent as "The intent to commit a crime: malice, as evidenced by a criminal act; an intent to deprive or defraud the true owner of his property."

General Intent Crime: requires mens rea. e.g People v. Sergeant (shaken baby syndrome) where def. claiming mistake of fact must prove that mistake was honest and reasonable.  Crimes of general intent require only that the suspect commit the proscribed act. Unlike specific intent, there is no requirement to intend a proscribed result.Creation of an unreasonable risk of harm (negligence or recklessness) will typically suffice for a general intent crime.General intent crimes are:RapeBatteryKidnappingFalse imprisonment

Keeping track of which crimes are specific intent and which are general intent is easy. Where the aim of an act is to achieve some specific result, you will almost always have a specific intent crime.For instance, in theft and related crimes, the intent is to get some property that is not yours. The intent isn't to grab a purse, the intent is to take possession of the money inside. For murder, you aren't interested in pulling a trigger, but in making another person dead.By comparison, general intent crimes and where the intent is to do an act, not achieve some distinct result. In the crime of kidnapping, the intent is to make off with a person against their will. If the kidnapper issues a ransom notice, then the intent is to get someone's money. That will be a separate crime in the larceny family.

The so-called Wharton's rule (also known as "Concert of Action Rule") regarding conspiracies is relatively simple: Unless the statute specifies otherwise, when two people are required to commit a crime, such as gambling or prostitution, there can be no charge of conspiracy where only two people are involved. The reasoning behind this rule, which has been enacted in many states, is that conspiracies, by their very nature, bring together individuals with different resources and abilities. This group action is dangerous. However, where there are only two people involved in a crime that requires two people to commit it, there is no concerted group action. To prosecute gambling or prostitution as a conspiracy, most states require that more than two people be involved.

U.S. Jurisdiction (Conspiracy) Conspiracy has been defined in the US as an agreement of two or more people to commit a crime, or to accomplish a legal end through illegal actions.[17][18] For example, planning to rob a bank (an illegal act) to raise money for charity (a legal end) remains a criminal conspiracy because the parties agreed to use illegal means to accomplish the end goal. A conspiracy does not need to have been planned in secret to meet the definition of the crime. One legal dictionary, law.com, provides this useful example on the application of conspiracy law to an everyday sales transaction tainted by corruption. It shows how the law can handle both the criminal and the civil need for justice.[A] scheme by a group of salesmen to sell used automobiles as new, could be prosecuted as a crime of fraud and conspiracy, and also allow a purchaser of an auto to sue for damages [in civil court] for the fraud and conspiracy.Conspiracy law usually does not require proof of specific intent by the defendants to injure any specific person to establish an illegal agreement. Instead, usually the law only requires the conspirators have agreed to engage in a certain illegal act. This is sometimes described as a "general intent" to violate the law.Under most U.S. laws, for a person to be convicted of conspiracy not only must he or she agree to commit a crime, but at least one of the conspirators must commit an overt act (the actus reus) in furtherance of the crime. However, in United States v. Shabani the U.S. Supreme Court ruled that this "overt act" element is not required under the federal drug conspiracy statute, 21 U.S.C. section 846.The conspirators can be guilty even if they do not know the identity of the other members of the conspiracy. SeeUnited States v. Monroe, 73 F.3d 129 (7th Cir. 1995), aff'd., 124 F.3d 206 (7th Cir. 1997). In criminal law, a conspiracy is an agreement between two or more persons to commit a crime at some time in the future. Criminal law in some countries or for some conspiracies may require that at least oneovert act must also have been undertaken in furtherance of that agreement, to constitute an offense. There is no limit on the number participating in the conspiracy and, in most countries, no requirement that any steps have been taken to put the plan into effect (compareattempts which require proximity to the full offence). For the purposes of concurrence, the actus reus is a continuing one and parties may join the plot later and incur joint liability and conspiracy can be charged where the co-conspirators have been acquitted or cannot be traced. Finally, repentance by one or more parties does not affect liability but may reduce their sentence.

Murder is the unlawful killing, with malice aforethought, of another human, and generally this premeditated state of mind distinguishes murder from other forms of unlawful homicide (such asmanslaughter). A person who commits murder is called a murderer.[1] Common law definition: when a person, of sound memory and discretion, unlawfully kills any reasonable creature in being and under the king's peace, with malice aforethought, either express or implied.[3] The elements of common law murder are: Unlawful killing of a human by another human with malice aforethought.[4]

Voluntary manslaughter is the killing of a human being in which the offender had no prior intent to kill and acted during "the heat of passion," under circumstances that would cause a reasonable person to become emotionally or mentally disturbed. In the Uniform Crime Reports prepared by the Federal Bureau of Investigation, it is referred to as non negligent manslaughter. Voluntary manslaughter is one of two main types of manslaughter, the other being involuntary manslaughter.

Involuntary manslaughter is the unlawful killing of a human being without malice aforethought, either express or implied. It is distinguished from voluntary manslaughter by the absence of intention. It is normally divided into two categories; constructive manslaughter and criminally negligent manslaughter, both of which involve criminal liability. For example, a person who runs a red light driving a vehicle and hits someone crossing the street could be found to intend or be reckless as to assault or criminal damage (see DPP v Newbury[3]). There is no intent to kill, and a resulting death would not be considered murder, but would be considered involuntary manslaughter

Battery is a criminal offense involving unlawful physical contact, distinct from assault which is the apprehension, not fear, of such contact. In the United States, criminal battery, or simply battery, is the use of force against another, resulting in harmful, offensive or sexual contact.[1] It is a specific common law misdemeanor, although the term is used more generally to refer to any unlawful offensive physical contact with another person, and may be a misdemeanor or a felony, depending on the circumstances. Battery was defined at common lawas "any unlawful touching of the person of another by the aggressor himself, or by a substance put in motion by him."[2] In most cases, battery is now governed by statutes, and its severity is determined by the law of the specific jurisdiction.

At common law, simple battery is a misdemeanor. The prosecutor must prove all three elements beyond a reasonable doubt: an unlawful application of forceto the person of anotherresulting in either bodily injury or an offensive touching.

Modern statutes in the U.S. define mayhem as disabling, disfiguring, such as rendering useless a member of another person's arms or legs. Cal. Pen. Code Sec. 203 The injury must be permanent, not just a temporary loss. Some courts will hold even a minor battery as mayhem if the injury is not minor. Mayhem in the U.S. is a felony.[3]

False imprisonment is a restraint of a person in a bounded area without justification or consent. False imprisonment is a common-law felony and a tort. It applies to private as well as governmental detention. When it comes to public police, the proving of false imprisonment is sufficient to obtain a writ of habeas corpus. Under United States law, the police have the right to detain someone if they have probable cause to believe a crime has been committed, and that the person is so involved, or if the officer has reasonable suspicion that the person has been, is, or is about to be, engaged in criminal activity based on specific and articulable facts and inferences. Shopkeeper's privilege[edit]Many jurisdictions of the United States recognize the common law shopkeeper's privilege, under which he is allowed to detain a suspected shoplifter on store property for a reasonable period of time, with cause to believe that the person detained in fact committed, or attempted to commit theft of store property. The shopkeeper's privilege, although recognized in most jurisdictions, is not as broad a privilege as that of a police officer's, and therefore one must pay special attention to the temporal element – that is, the shopkeeper may only detain the suspected criminal for a relatively short period of time. This is similar to a general right in many jurisdictions of citizen's arrest of suspected criminals by the public in limited circumstances. Shopkeeper's privilege[edit]Many jurisdictions of the United States recognize the common law shopkeeper's privilege, under which he is allowed to detain a suspected shoplifter on store property for a reasonable period of time, with cause to believe that the person detained in fact committed, or attempted to commit theft of store property. The shopkeeper's privilege, although recognized in most jurisdictions, is not as broad a privilege as that of a police officer's, and therefore one must pay special attention to the temporal element – that is, the shopkeeper may only detain the suspected criminal for a relatively short period of time. This is similar to a general right in many jurisdictions of citizen's arrest of suspected criminals by the public in limited circumstances.

In criminal law, kidnapping is the taking away or transportation of a person against that person's will, usually to hold the person in false imprisonment, a confinement without legal authority. This may be done for ransom or in furtherance of another crime, or in connection with a child custody dispute. When it is done with legal authority, it is often called arrest or imprisonment. In some countries such as the United States a large number of child abductions arise after separation or divorce when one parent wishes to keep a child against the will of the other or against a court order. In these cases, some jurisdictions[which?] do not consider it kidnapping if the child, being competent, agrees.

Rape is a type of sexual assault usually involving sexual intercourse, which is initiated by one or more persons against another person without that person's consent. The act may be carried out by physical force, coercion, abuse of authority or against a person who is incapable of valid consent, such as one who is unconscious, incapacitated, or below the legal age of consent

In cultures that practice marital monogamy, bigamy is the act of entering into a marriage with one person while still legally married to another.[1] Bigamy is a crime in most western countries, and when it occurs in this context often neither the first nor second spouse is aware of the other.[2][3] In countries that have bigamy laws, consent from a prior spouse makes no difference to the legality of the second marriage, which is usually considered void.

Incest is sexual activity between family members and closerelatives.[1][2] This may include sexual activity between people in aconsangueous relationship (blood relations), or related by affinity, such as members of the same household, step relatives, those related by adoption or marriage, or members of the same clan orlineage.[3]

Laws that are created after the fact. they are unconstitutional. recoprocical law. 

   Brogan: man questioned by the feds  about bribery. He used exculpatory no. Held: def. perverted Gov. functions, otherwise admissible   Lutter: the def. was a taxicab driver . When a customer, while attempting to rob him, stabbed him in the neck, he took out his handgun and shot and killed the assailant. The Def. was charged with carrying a pistol without a permit in violation of a statute. Lutters claimed that his possession of the handgun without a permit was not prohibited because his taxicab constituted a place of business within the meaning of the exception to the statute.. Held: statue not ambiguous thus rule of lenity didn’t applied.   

Void for vagueness doctrine / statutory interpretation e.g. Nash  (Sherman Anti-Trust case) Kohl (Gideon's passing bibles in school)    It could have chilling effect (law enforcement acting arbitrarily) Courts interpret statues in different ways w/ different results e.g. textualism view, common law view, moral arguments. e.g. some crimes receive harsher punishments despite their similarities based on different interpretation of the law (common law/statuatory) e.g. In re Joseph: kids run off a cliff. Held: def did not murder his friend in suicide attempt. Cleaves: gay man have gay sex and parter kills the other to help em’ commit suicide. Held: def accused of murder  

Main articles: Insanity defense and Mental disorder defense Insanity or mental disorder may negate theintent of any crime, although it pertains only to those crimes having an intent element. A variety of rules have been advanced to define what, precisely, constitutes criminal insanity. The most common definitions involve either an actor's lack of understanding of the wrongfulness of the offending conduct, or the actor's inability to conform conduct to the law.[1] If one succeeds in being declared "not guilty by reason of insanity," then the result frequently is treatment in a mental hospital, although some jurisdictions provide the sentencing authority with flexibility.[2] As further described in [1]criminal defense articles available online. AutomatismMain article: Automatism (law)Automatism is a state where the muscles act without any control by the mind, or with a lack of consciousness.[3] One may suddenly fall ill, into a dream like state as a result of post traumatic stress,[4] or even be "attacked by a swarm of bees" and go into an automatic spell.[5] However to be classed as an "automaton" means there must have been a total destruction of voluntary control, which does not include a partial loss of consciousness as the result of driving for too long.[6] Where the onset of loss of bodily control was blameworthy, e.g., the result of voluntary drug use, it may be a defense only to specific intent crimes.[7] IntoxicationIn some jurisdictions, intoxication may negate specific intent, a particular kind of mens rea applicable only to some crimes. For example, lack of specific intent might reduce murder to manslaughter. Voluntaryintoxication nevertheless often will provide basic intent, e.g., the intent required for manslaughter.[8] On the other hand, involuntarilyintoxication, for example by punch spiked unforeseeably with alcohol, may give rise to no inference of basic intent.Strictly speaking, however, it could be argued that intoxication is not a defence but a denial of mens rea;[9] the main difference being that a defence accepts the mens rea and actus reus of an offence are present. With intoxication, there is no acceptance of the mens rea of the offence. For offences of basic intent, the act itself is criminalised. All that is needed is the intent to do the act. It can therefore be inferred that there is such intent relatively easily; when intoxicated one is not an autometer - there is still control of one's actions. Therefore, intoxication will rarely (if ever) deny the mens rea of crimes of basic intent. With specific intent, the character of the act is criminalised, for the act itself is often objectively innocent. Appropriation of an item is perfectly innocent, yet when one appropriates with the intent to permanently deprive the owner of it, there is a theft. This is much more difficult to prove beyond reasonable doubt, for an intoxicated person may exercise control over his actions but will often lack an understanding of what is being done - without this understanding the necessary intent cannot be proven. Therefore, whilst it is tempting to think of intoxication as a defence, it is more accurate to see it as a denial of the mens rea of an offence - where the mens rea or actus reus is not proven, there is no need for defences.Mistake Of Fact"I made a mistake" is a defense in some jurisdictions if the mistake is about a fact and is genuine.[10] The defense is most often used in conjunction with another defense, where the mistake led the defendant to believe that their actions were justifiable under the second defense. For example, a charge of assault on a police officer may be negated by genuine (and perhaps reasonable) mistake of fact that the person the defendant assaulted was a criminal and not an officer, thus allowing a defense of use of force to prevent a violent crime (generally part of self-defense/defense of person).[11] Necessity/Lesser Harm[An overarching theory of criminal defenses is the doctrine of necessity. Generally speaking, a criminal act can be justifiable if it is necessary to prevent a foreseeable and greater harm than the harm created by the act. For instance, trespassing is generally justified if the defendant only trespassed in order to, for instance, instantaneously attempt to put out a fire on the property, or to rescue someone drowning in a pool on the property. The destruction or death caused by following the law and not trespassing would have been far greater than the harm caused by trespassing. Similarly, most laws forbidding the discharge of firearms in public contain an exception for emergency or defensive use. Necessity generally forms the basis for many other defenses and their favor, such as capacity of office, legal duty and self-defense.Lawful Capacity of Office[edit]This defense is generally available to public servants and first responders such as police officers, firefighters, EMTs etc. It usually protects the first responder from responsibility for otherwise criminal actions that the first responder must perform as an appointed agent of the jurisdiction in the course and scope of their duties. For example, a paramedic who forcibly enters a house or building in answer to an emergency call cannot be charged with breaking and entering. A judge who sentences a man to die for a crime cannot be charged with attempted murder if the convicted man is later exonerated. Such protection is generally limited to acts required in the course and scope of employment, and it does not preclude gross negligence or malicious intent.Legal Duty[edit]This "lawful capacity of office" defense can also apply to civilians who do not hold such a position, but whose assistance is requested by someone who does, such as a police officer. A person who witnesses a criminal being chased by police who yell "stop that man!", and obliges resulting in injury to the criminal, cannot be charged with assault or sued for personal injury. "Good Samaritan" laws generally provide immunity in civil and criminal proceedings to persons who, in good faith, cause injury while attempting to help a person in distress, protecting such persons even in cases where greater harm resulted from the action than would have occurred otherwise.Self defense[edit]Main article: Self-defense (theory)Self-defense is, in general, some reasonable action taken in protection of self. An act taken in self-defense often is not a crime at all; no punishment will be imposed. To qualify, any defensive force must be proportionate to the threat. Use of a firearm in response to a non-lethal threat is a typical example of disproportionate force; however, such decisions are dependent on the situation and the applicable law, and thus the example situation can in some circumstances be defensible, Generally because of a codified presumption intended to prevent the unjust negation of this defense by the trier of fact.Duress[edit]Main article: DuressOne who is "under duress" is forced into an unlawful act. Duress can be a defense in many jurisdictions, although not for the most serious crimes of murder,[12] attempted murder, being an accessory to murder[13] and in many countries, treason.[14] The duress must involve the threat of imminent peril of death or serious injury, operating on the defendant's mind and overbearing his will.[15] Threats to third persons may qualify.[16] The defendant must reasonably believe the threat,[17] and there is no defense if "a sober person of reasonable firmness, sharing the characteristics of the accused" would have responded differently.[18] Age, pregnancy, physical disability, mental illness, sexuality have been considered, although basic intelligence has been rejected as a criterion.[19]The accused must not have foregone some safe avenue of escape.[20] The duress must have been an order to do something specific, so that one cannot be threatened with harm to repay money and then choose to rob a bank to repay it.[21] If one puts himself in a position where he could be threatened, duress may not be a viable defense.[22

Criminal Law

Annotations