crim law: jan 25 class notes

jan 25 2010 crim law.

actus reus.

a crime contains two components (1) the physical/external part of the crime and (2) the mental/internal part of a crime

result crime

conduct crime

martin v. state

martin did not appear in public voluntarily. therefore, because his act is not voluntary, he cannot be found a criminal actor.

two questions:

1. what is a voluntary act?

2. when can an omission count as an act?

voluntary act = MPC 2.01(2)(d) "a bodily movement that... is... a product of effort or determination"

state v. utter

did anyone believe utter's defense? utter didn't present enough evidence to establishautomatism.

what if his claim had been true?

what acts are not considered voluntary?

1. sleepwalking

2. seizures

3. other "unconscious" movements

people v. decina

continuum: driving ------- seizure -------- harm

a seizure is not a punishable act.

driving up on the curb was negligent but is not causation of the harm.

driving the car with a seizure was the act that lead to the harm.

causation can be created by proving decina knew or should have known that he was likely to have a seizure while driving.

mental state requirement is usually the core question of criminal cases.

why don't we punish involuntary acts?

the acts are not deterrable

the acts are not a culpable choice

someone who knows that they are a at risk for being a dangerous sleepwalker, or who know that they are prone to seizures may have some culpability. but we can't hold people

omissions.

hypo.

david wants to kill his roommate victor, but has not yet figured out how. ne morning, as victor is making his morning coffee, david realizes that victor is mistakenly putting rat poison instead of sugar into the coffee. david knows that the rat poison is lethal, but he says nothing. after a few sips, victor grabs his throat, gasps "call 911," and collapses. david does nothing. about 30 minutes later, victor dies. is david guilty of murder?

people v. beardsley (aka, "are you drinking with blanche again?")

beardsley says that he has no duty owed to the deceased. beardsley is not responsible for bringing about burn's death and owed her no duty just because she was in his home, but did he have a duty to take steps for her protection?

when does the law impose a duty to act?

statutory (tax filing, and only few others that are reporting duties)

misfeasance/creation of peril (if you create a problem

protector relationship (spouse/spouse and parent/child ONLY)

voluntary assumption of care/ seclusion

contractual relationship (dr/patient, babysitter/child, lifeguard/swimmer - but must have the contract)

case n.b. -- US v. knowles: "in the absence of such obligations, it is undoubtedly the moral duty of every person to extend to others assistance when in danger, and, if such efforts should be omitted by anyone when they could be made without imperiling his own life, he would by his conduct draw upon himself the just censure and reproach of good men; but htis is the only punishment to which he would be subjected by society."

2 types of manslaughter, voluntary and involuntary