DOCSLIB.ORG

1 D` Outline Depot: Common Law Vs. MPC, Tables of When Liable Vs. Not

Total Page：16

File Type：pdf, Size：1020Kb

Download full-text PDF Read full-text
1 D` Outline Depot: Common Law Vs. MPC, Tables of When Liable Vs. Not d` Outline Depot: Common law vs. MPC, tables of when liable vs. not liable. Crim Law Outline 30 states have adopted MPC, but not California. Special verdict: jury finds facts but defers verdict to judge. Common Law MPC Actus reus Potential exception if not -There must be at least one last ingredient in offense voluntary act of D which is physically capable. -Includes: habit, possession, seizures (Decina: had seizure while driving, convicted.) -Does Not Include: reflex or convulsion, hypnosis, sleepwalking Mens rea Crim neg /= civil neg. Use crim neg unless specified otherwise. Omission to Act There must be duty to impose act via law. Dudley v. Stephens (eat boy on boat) A. Deterrance argument (punish to prevent greater evil) fails because would not deter death with more death. B. Retributive argument (punish because morally guilty) fails because alternative would be that 4 people died. Preclude punishments for unsuccessful attempts b/c D did not successfully commit wicked act. C. Consent is not defnse to murder. D. Holding: Yes, murder. E. Law: No Necessity defense exists for murder. Dolinko does not find any of the arguments for punishment persuasive, however. F. Policy: Absolute divorce of law from morality would be of fatal consequence. G. Hypos: Trolley problem (can switch trolley to alternate track and save 3 lives); Surgeon problem (can kill 1 person for his organs to save 4 people) Basic Requirements for Criminal Liability I. Actus Reus: Culpable Conduct A. Can be results oriented. B. Requirement of Voluntary Action 1. Martin v. State: P convicted of public drunkenness when carried out by police. Holding: Involuntary action does not satisfy actus reus! a. Law: criminal law depends on voluntary acts, and here a voluntary appearance was presupposed when in fact P was involuntarily 1 taken out. (Drunkenness is not indicative of involuntary actions; involuntary acts are limited in crim law to spasms, sleepwalking, etc.) b. MPC: Act = bodily movement. Conduct is criminal if includes Martin: bodily act. Body movement that is not product of actor is not voluntary. Involuntary So under MPC, Martin would be convicted. action is d. Does not include violations (A has blackout and runs stop sign defense while driving, still liable for motor vehicle violation because MPC 2.01 does not apply to violations.) e. Policy for not punishing involuntary acts: no utilitarian deterrence benefit for future act; no retributive arg for involuntary acts. c. Hypo: Martin threatened into street by father? Still voluntarily went into street. d. O’Sullivan v. Fisher: Police ordered drunk person into street and then arrested him for public drunkenness. Conviction affirmed. e. People v. Lowe: possession of meth in jail was involuntary b/c brought into jail f. Dolinko: Elements of public drunkenness include (i) being drunk, (ii) public, and (iii) boisterous. Voluntary in just one element is sufficient for voluntary status. Court should have required that all elements be involuntary for involuntary defense to be successful. 2. People v. Newton a. Factual ambiguity: was Newton already injured when he shot Officer Frey? b. Not guilty = guilt not proven beyond reasonable doubt c. Holding: Unconsciousness can be used as homicide defense. (Otherwise there is prejudicial error. Should open possibility of not guilty.) d. MPC: ―Where not self-induced as by voluntary intoxication, unconsciousness is defense to homicide.‖ Newton: e. Rationale: ―People whose involuntary movements threaten unconsciousne others do not present problem of correction.‖ ss is defense f. Voluntary Action must be proved by P; Involuntary Action is aff defense and must be proved by D. So D will want to be charged under Voluntary Action to minimize chance of conviction. g. Habit = voluntary. Hypnosis =/ voluntary. h. People v. Decina: Decina was culpably negligent when he started driving a car and created a risk he shouldn’t have. As a result of that risk, people were killed. His knowledge of self’s epilepsy = voluntary, reckless driving and manslaughter. i. Hypo: Drinking at bar and fought with police, claims unconsciousness due to alcohol? No—intoxication is not defense to homicide. j. Proximate Causation: sufficiently, direct result of your actions. In Martin, ―creating mere opportunity‖ =/ Decina’s ―direct cause‖ . 2 k. Retributive arg: involuntary act happens to people; it is not something that people do. l. Duress is another excuse, separate from involuntary act. Examples: 1) Seizure while driving: voluntary act to drive, knowing have eplipsey 2) But if took necessary precautions, then seizure was not negligent and can mount involuntary defense 3) Voluntarily taking drugs is not excuse. 4) D dragged into post office and voluntarily commits crime. 5) Dragging D involuntarily into street, happens to be drunk 6) Unconscious while shooting police – involuntary movement 7) Mother asleep while killing child – involuntary (somnambulism) Under MPC, hypnotism and habitual acts are involuntary. II. Omissions A. Jones v. United States a. Law: Situations where failure to act is breach of duty: (i) statute imposes duty of care, (ii) special relationship to another, (iii) assumed contractual duty to care for another, (iv) voluntarily assumed care for another and secluded helpless person to prevent others from rendering aid, (v) create harm then have legal duty of care. b. Holding: Jones did not have contract with mother to take care of baby. Jury was not instructed as to needing to find duty of care; jury error. c. Mere thoughts are not considered omissions. B. Pope v. State a. Law: Pope convicted of child abuse: court said Pope did not have supervision duty over child. Pope also convicted of misprision of felony. Maryland says no crime because would impose too broad of duty. Common law says this is a crime. i. Misprison of felony, under federal law, is only a crime when it’s active. b. Holding: Evidence is insufficient to meet requirement for duty of care. Court is not saying that Pope is not required to take care of child; court is saying that proven facts are insufficient. c. ―Commission by Omission‖ – crime is causing something by failure to act. d. Hypo: bystander at poolside watches child drown without liability or duty of care. e. Rationale for No Liabilty Due to Omission: (i) draw line for amount of peril required before liable, and (ii) protection of personal liberty to be free from interference in life (ex: see crashed bystander but do not want to be bothered to call 911) f. Vermont Rule: specific situations in which ―shall give reasonable assistance unless that assistance is provided by others, to extent can give aid without harming oneself‖ 3 C. J. Kleinig, Good Samaritanism III. Mens Rea A. Regina v. Cunningham: D convicted of having old lady next door ingest gas. a. Broad mens rea: blameworthy, morally bad state of mind. This doctrine is inferior to statutes, and is outdated. Narrow mens rea: mental state required by particular crime; knowledge of existing circumstances (recklessness); purpose to injure someone, etc. b. Law: Malice = (i) intent to do harm that was done, (ii) recklessness as to whether such harm should occur or not; (iii) knowledge of risk of harm and recklessness in taking that risk. Malice is not ill will. c. Application: (i) must know gas will harm someone, or (ii) simply maliciously cause someone to ingest gas without knowledge of imminent harm. D convicted b/c had wicked mind to release gas. d. Malice = (i) actual intent to cause the harm that was done, or (ii) forseeing harm. Does this mean foresee ingesting of gas, or of harm caused? Dolinko says ambiguious. e. Common law is messy with terminology, while MPC distinguishes specific intent = (i) with some additional intention; (ii) actual knowledge of some attendant circumstance of crime like bulgarly – against general intent, which is actus reus performed with any intent. f. Ex: theft, bulgarly, and receiving stolen property are all specific intent crimes. But should D intend all elements of each specific crime? g. Hypo: Assisted suicide is intent to commit that crime. h. Cunningham statute: unlawfully or maliciously administer any poison so as to endanger person’s life, or inflict upon person any grievious bodily harm endangering their life. Dolinko says does ―malicious‖ apply to all parts, or just ―administer‖? Ambiguious. i. (i) [factors that relate to jurisdiction] + (ii) [MPC’s material elements which includes negative factors] are used to burden prosecution. But in practice, only material elements(elements which when combined with law results in crime) are used. (Material elements can also be listed in aff defenses to burden D.) j. Social Harm = conduct element (harmful result not necessary; offense is complete regardless of harm) + result elements (offensive result defined by law) + attendant circumstances k. Relevant Material Elements of Cunningham Statute: (i) Conduct: administer poison, or cause poison to be administed, or causing person to take poison. (ii) Result: endangering victim’s life, or inflicting grieveious bodily harm on victim. l. MPC Malice = (i) intending harm, or (ii) forseeing harm and taking action regardless of risk. (i) corresponds to purpose, while (ii) corresponds to reckless. m. So analyzing Cunningham statute under MPC, either Purpose or Reckless combined with (i) or (ii) would satisfy definition of Malice. 4 n. MPC Reckless: consciously disregarding substantial and unjustified risk. Disregarding it is gross deviation from standard of conduct that reasonable person in that situation would observe. o. MPC presumption: mens rea applies to all elements, unless contrary purpose plainly appears (like strict liability of sexual conduct with persons under 10, where no knowledge is required). MPC Purpose: (i) conscious object to engage in conduct of that nature or to cause such a result and (ii) he is aware, or believes, or hopes of such circumstnaces. Subjective desire for element. MPC Knowing: (i) aware that his conduct is of that nature [Attendant Circumstance], (ii) practically certain that his conduct will cause such a result [Result Aspect].
Load more

Recommended publications
  • Penal Code Offenses by Punishment Range Office of the Attorney General 2
    PENAL CODE BYOFFENSES PUNISHMENT RANGE Including Updates From the 85th Legislative Session REV 3/18 Table of Contents PUNISHMENT BY OFFENSE CLASSIFICATION ........................................................................... 2 PENALTIES FOR REPEAT AND HABITUAL OFFENDERS .......................................................... 4 EXCEPTIONAL SENTENCES ................................................................................................... 7 CLASSIFICATION OF TITLE 4 ................................................................................................. 8 INCHOATE OFFENSES ........................................................................................................... 8 CLASSIFICATION OF TITLE 5 ............................................................................................... 11 OFFENSES AGAINST THE PERSON ....................................................................................... 11 CLASSIFICATION OF TITLE 6 ............................................................................................... 18 OFFENSES AGAINST THE FAMILY ......................................................................................... 18 CLASSIFICATION OF TITLE 7 ............................................................................................... 20 OFFENSES AGAINST PROPERTY .......................................................................................... 20 CLASSIFICATION OF TITLE 8 ..............................................................................................
    [Show full text]
  • New York State in Accurately and Consistently Scoring the Static-99
    How to Use This Guide This guide is intended to aid professionals using criminal histories from New York State in accurately and consistently scoring the Static-99. Statutes which could conceivably be construed as sexual or violent in nature are included for scoring items 3, 4, 5 and 7 and are listed chronologically by penal code in Table 1. The rater is cautioned to look closely at the behavior and score only when there is sufficient defensible evidence that a crime was sexual or violent in nature. Table 2 is the Conviction and Sentencing table and can be used to aid in scoring items 3-7. This guide is not intended to replace the full Static-99 Coding Manual. Users must review the entire Static-99 Coding Manual prior to scoring cases. It also strongly recommended that persons coding the instrument attend training conducted by a trainer certified by the authors of the Static-99. A few reminders: • If a particular crime is not listed, it has not been determined to count as a violent or sexual crime for the purposes of this instrument. • When a “Yes” appears in the table, attempts to commit (as defined by statute) any of these crimes count (as do completed offenses). • One should always have a description of the behavior underlying a crime (such as a police report) if there is a possibility the crime could be interpreted in multiple ways (e.g. endangering the welfare of a child). • You should be confident that you can defend your rationale for scoring. It is possible you will have to testify as to your scoring in the future.
    [Show full text]
  • OFFICIAL LIST (Revised –March 2016) NEW YORK STATE OFFICE of CHILDREN and FAMILY SERVICES CRIMINAL HISTORY RECORD ASFA REVIEW
    OFFICIAL LIST (Revised –March 2016) NEW YORK STATE OFFICE OF CHILDREN AND FAMILY SERVICES CRIMINAL HISTORY RECORD ASFA REVIEW STANDARDS I. Social Services Law Section 378-a Subdivision 2, Paragraph (e), Subparagraph (1), Clause A If the applicant has a conviction, at any time, for one of the following crimes, as defined in the New York State Penal Law, then he or she must be disqualified: (i) Child Abuse or Neglect 120.25 – Reckless Endangerment 135.50 – Custodial Interference 255.25 – Incest 3rd Degree 255.26 – Incest 2nd Degree 255.27 – Incest 1st Degree 260.00 – Abandonment of a Child 260.06 – Non-support 1st degree NOTE: There are other crimes, such as assault, which could be child abuse or neglect if the defendant is the parent and the victim is their child. (ii) Spousal Abuse Section 378-a(2)(j) of the Social Services Law defines “spousal abuse” as an offense defined in the following sections, where the victim of such offense was the defendant’s legal spouse: 120.05 Assault 2nd degree 120.10 Assault 1st degree (iii) Crimes Against a Child, Including Child Pornography The following is a list of offenses, in which the age of the victim is a factor: 120.01 – Reckless Assault of a Child by a Child Day Care Provider 120.02 – Reckless Assault of a Child 120.05 – Assault 2nd degree/Subdivision (8) & (9) 120.12 - Aggravated Assault Upon a Person Less than 11 years old 120.55 - Stalking 2nd degree/ Subdivision 4 130.25 – Rape 3rd degree/Subdivision (2) 130.30 – Rape 2nd degree/Subdivision (1) 130.35 – Rape 1st degree/Subdivision (3) 130.40
    [Show full text]
  • Child Endangerment/Failure to Protect Laws
    Child Endangerment/Failure to Protect Laws August 2014 Summary of Content Child endangerment and failure to protect laws create criminal offenses for subjecting minor children to inappropriate or dangerous situations. For example in California a person “having the care or custody of any child [who]… permits that child to be placed in a situation where his or her person or health is endangered, shall be punished by imprisonment.”1 Other state statutes specify types of dangerous situations that must be avoided. For example the Alaska criminal code creates a duty not to leave the child with a non-parent registered sex offender, or continue to leave the child with someone who the guardian knows has previously physically mistreated or had sexual contact with the child.2 This document is a comprehensive compilation of child endangerment statutes from U.S. state, territorial, and the federal jurisdictions. The author purposefully excluded criminal neglect statutes that only codify a parent’s duty to provide food, shelter, clothing, educational needs, and medical need to a child as well as hyperthermia statutes that penalize leaving children in cars unattended. Those statutes are included in separate compilations. This compilation is up-to-date as of the month it was created. However, please note that we recommend checking both case law and current legislation for any possible modifications to the statutes listed below. For further assistance, consult the National District Attorneys Association’s National Center for Prosecution of Child Abuse at 703.549.9222, or via the free online prosecution assistance service http://www.ndaa.org/ta_form.php.
    [Show full text]
  • Chapter 5 Offenses Against the Person Part 1 Assault and Related
    Utah Code Chapter 5 Offenses Against the Person Part 1 Assault and Related Offenses 76-5-101 "Prisoner" defined. For purposes of this part "prisoner" means any person who is in custody of a peace officer pursuant to a lawful arrest or who is confined in a jail or other penal institution or a facility used for confinement of delinquent juveniles operated by the Division of Juvenile Justice Services regardless of whether the confinement is legal. Amended by Chapter 171, 2003 General Session 76-5-102 Assault -- Penalties. (1) Assault is: (a) an attempt, with unlawful force or violence, to do bodily injury to another; or (b) an act, committed with unlawful force or violence, that causes bodily injury to another or creates a substantial risk of bodily injury to another. (2) Assault is a class B misdemeanor. (3) Assault is a class A misdemeanor if: (a) the person causes substantial bodily injury to another; or (b) the victim is pregnant and the person has knowledge of the pregnancy. (4) It is not a defense against assault, that the accused caused serious bodily injury to another. Amended by Chapter 430, 2015 General Session 76-5-102.3 Assault against school employees. (1) Any person who commits an assault as defined in Section 76-5-102, or commits a threat of violence as defined in Section 76-5-107, against an employee of a public or private school, with knowledge that the individual is an employee, and when the employee is acting within the scope of his authority as an employee, is guilty of a class A misdemeanor.
    [Show full text]
  • Elder Abuse Laws
    Elder Abuse Laws Below we have summarized and linked the laws in all 50 states on reporting elder physical abuse. This is not offered as legal advice: please check for updates on your state's statutes and consult a lawyer for advice. Each state’s reporting laws can be found in the center column. This column includes who is a mandatory reporter and what are the penalties if a mandatory reporter fails to report. In the right hand column, the specific civil or criminal statutes that address the penalties for elder abuse. State Reporting Laws Civil or Criminal Statutes Alabama Mandatory reporters Criminal Penalties include the following individuals who have Abuse, Neglect, or Exploitation reasonable belief that a protected person has been abused, neglected, or exploited: all Class A Felony physicians, practitioners of healing arts, and First degree elder abuse and neglect is a caregivers. Class A felony. Section 38-9-8 Section 38-9E-3 Failure to Report Class B Felony Penalties may include imprisonment for not Second degree elder abuse and neglect is a more than 6 months or a fine of $500 or less. Class B felony. Section 38-9-10 Section 38-9E-4 Class A Misdemeanor Third degree elder abuse and neglect is a Class A misdemeanor. Section 38-9E-5 An Alabama-licensed physician, as defined by statute, will not be subject to Section 38-9E-3, 38-9E-4, or 38-9E-5 for acts or omissions representing the practice of medicine. Section 38-9E-12 Alaska Mandatory reporters Criminal Penalties include the following individuals, who in their Endangering Welfare
    [Show full text]
  • Appendix O States Definitions of Child Endangerment As
    Appendix O States Definitions of Child Endangerment as More Severe Than Neglect1 By: Tolulope Adetayo, Rafaela Rodrigues, Monica Bates and Leslye E. Orloff December 27, 20172 This document summarizes the common themes in state definitions of child endangerment and compares the statutory language with child neglect. There are over twenty states in the United States with child endangerment laws, each state providing statutory language that suggests that the former is similar to child neglect. In addition, child endangerment also constitutes child abuse in some states. State laws often categorize child endangerment as placing a child in a situation that might endanger the child's life, health, welfare, morals, or emotional well-being. While neglect focus on failure to meet a child’s basic needs including the failure to provide adequate health care, supervision, clothing, nutrition, housing as well as their physical, emotional needs. Furthermore, the statutory language suggests that the standard of endangerment is more severe than neglect. We developed the list below to help courts identify when other states have statutory language similar to their state statute. When state statutes are similar, case law in one jurisdiction can provide persuasive authority interpreting the statute that may be useful to state courts in a wide range of family court proceedings. The information contained in this document will also be helpful to state court judges issuing findings that immigrant children need as a prerequisite to filing for Special Immigrant Juvenile Status (SIJS). Any state law definition of child endangerment can apply in any state court proceeding for purposes of issuing the required SIJS findings.
    [Show full text]
  • Drug Endangered Children Awareness Training
    NDAA DRUG-ENDANGERED CHILDREN COMPILATION (Last updated March 2011) TABLE OF CONTENTS TABLE OF CONTENTS...............................................................................................................................1 ALABAMA .....................................................................................................................................................8 ALA. CODE § 26-15-3.2 (2011). CHEMICAL ENDANGERMENT OF EXPOSING A CHILD TO AN ENVIRONMENT IN WHICH CONTROLLED SUBSTANCES ARE PRODUCED OR DISTRIBUTED. .....................................................8 ALASKA .........................................................................................................................................................9 ALASKA STAT. § 11.51.110 (2011). ENDANGERING THE WELFARE OF A CHILD IN THE SECOND DEGREE.....9 ALASKA STAT. § 11.71.040 (2011). MISCONDUCT INVOLVING A CONTROLLED SUBSTANCE IN THE FOURTH DEGREE. .......................................................................................................................................................9 ALASKA STAT. § 12.55.125 (2011). SENTENCES OF IMPRISONMENT FOR FELONIES...................................11 ARIZONA .....................................................................................................................................................18 ARIZ. REV. STAT. § 13-3620 (2011). DUTY TO REPORT ABUSE, PHYSICAL INJURY, NEGLECT AND DENIAL OR DEPRIVATION OF MEDICAL OR SURGICAL CARE OR NOURISHMENT OF MINORS; MEDICAL RECORDS; EXCEPTION;
    [Show full text]
  • Getting to Work with a Criminal Record: New York State License Guides 2020 Expanded Edition
    GETTING TO WORK WITH A CRIMINAL RECORD: NEW YORK STATE LICENSE GUIDES 2020 EXPANDED EDITION TABLE OF CONTENTS INTRODUCTION ABOUT THE GUIDES ABOUT THE INSTITUTE FOR JUSTICE AND OPPORTUNITY ACKNOWLEDGEMENTS LICENSE GUIDES BARBER OPERATOR LICENSED SOCIAL WORKER LMSW & LCSW BUS DRIVER PASSENGER & SCHOOL BUS LICENSED PRACTICAL NURSE LPN CERTIFIED NURSE AIDE CNA NOTARY PUBLIC CERTIFIED PUBLIC ACCOUNTANT NURSE PRACTITIONER NP CHAUFFEUR TAXI/UBER/LYFT DRIVER OCCUPATIONAL THERAPIST CHILDCARE/DAYCARE EMPLOYEE OPTOMETRIST COSMETOLOGIST PHYSICAL THERAPIST DENTAL HYGIENIST PHYSICIAN ASSISTANT PA ELECTRICIAN NYC-SPECIFIC RADIOLOGICAL TECHNOLOGIST EMERGENCY MEDICAL SERVICES REAL ESTATE SALESPERSON AND BROKER EMT/CERTIFIED FIRST RESPONDER REGISTERED PROFESSIONAL NURSE RN FIREFIGHTER NYC-SPECIFIC SECURITY GUARD LAWYER TEACHER CERTIFICATES OF REHABILITATION GUIDE GLOSSARY RESOURCES GETTING TO WORK WITH A CRIMINAL RECORD TABLE OF CONTENTS JUNE 2020 INTRODUCTION ABOUT THE GUIDES WHAT ARE THE NEW YORK STATE LICENSE GUIDES? The New York State License Guides explain the process for obtaining licenses in 25, high-demand occupations and professions for people who have conviction records. These guides aim to dispel the myths and misinformation that may discourage people with convictions from pursuing employment and career pathways that are actually available to them. There is a common misconception that a conviction record makes licensing impossible; in fact, 86 percent of people with conviction records who applied for New York State occupational licensing in 2018 were approved.1 Too often, workforce development professionals, academic advisors, and other gatekeepers make choices that immediately diminish economic opportunity; they may channel job seekers with conviction records into particular job tracks, or they may not propose or approve internships and field placements.
    [Show full text]
  • Criminal Child Neglect and Abandonment Laws (Last Updated September 2014)
    Criminal Child Neglect and Abandonment Laws (Last updated September 2014) This compilation includes all criminal statutes which apply in instances where a parent, guardian, or caretaker fails to provide for a child’s basic needs, generally: food, shelter, clothing, educational needs, and medical needs. This does not include drug endangered children, failure to protect, or failure to pay court-ordered child support. This compilation is up-to-date as of September, 2014, but we recommend checking case law and current legislation for any possible modifications. For further assistance, consult the National District Attorneys Association’s National Center for Prosecution of Child Abuse at 703-549-9222 or via the free online prosecution assistance service http://www.ndaa.org/ta_form.php. National Center for Prosecution of Child Abuse National District Attorneys Association 1 Table of Contents Click on the state heading to go to the statutes section. Alabama........................................................................................................................................... 8 ALA. CODE § 12-15-102 (2014). Definitions. ............................................................................. 8 ALA. CODE § 13A-13-4 (2014). Nonsupport. ............................................................................ 12 ALA. CODE § 13A-13-5 (2014). Abandonment of child. ........................................................... 12 ALA. CODE § 13A-13-6 (2014). Endangering welfare of child. ...............................................
    [Show full text]
  • Cases of Depraved Mind Murder: the Problem of Mens Rea
    St. John's Law Review Volume 64 Number 3 Volume 64, Spring/Summer 1990, Article 1 Number 3 More Cases of Depraved Mind Murder: The Problem of Mens Rea Bernard E. Gegan Follow this and additional works at: https://scholarship.law.stjohns.edu/lawreview This Article is brought to you for free and open access by the Journals at St. John's Law Scholarship Repository. It has been accepted for inclusion in St. John's Law Review by an authorized editor of St. John's Law Scholarship Repository. For more information, please contact [email protected]. ST. JOHN'S LAW REVIEW VOLUME 64 SPRING/SUMMER 1990 NUMBER 3 MORE CASES OF DEPRAVED MIND MURDER: THE PROBLEM OF MENS REA BERNARD E. GEGAN* I. INTRODUCTION Some years ago, the New York Court of Appeals decision in People v. Kibbe1 prompted me to write an article discussing de- praved mind murder.2 In addition to murder with intent to kill and felony murder, the New York Penal Law provides that a person is guilty of murder when: "Under circumstances evincing a depraved indifference to human life, he recklessly engages in conduct which creates a grave risk of death to another person, and thereby causes the death of another person."3 In Kibbe, two robbers drove off af- * Whitney Professor of Law, St. John's University; B.S. 1959, LL.B., 1961, St. John's University; LL.M. 1962, Harvard University. The author thanks Professors Frank S. Poles- tino and Charles S. Bobis for their many helpful suggestions. 1 35 N.Y.2d 407, 321 N.E.2d 773, 362 N.Y.S.2d 848 (1974).
    [Show full text]
  • Chapter Five: Mens Rea, Concurrence, Causality
    CHAPTER FIVE: MENS REA, CONCURRENCE, CAUSALITY INTRODUCTION Article 15 of the New York Penal Law concerns mental culpability, which is defined by four levels similar to those provided in the Model Penal Code: intentionally, knowingly, recklessly, and criminal negligence. The minimum requirement for culpability is a voluntary act or voluntary omission. Mental culpability defines the level at which the actor should be held responsible for the voluntary act. According the Court of Appeals of New York, “[t]he underlying conduct, exclusive of the mental element, is the same.”1 The evidence and circumstances surrounding the act determines the defendant’s mental state. According to §15.15(2), “a statute defining a crime, unless clearly indicating a legislative intent to impose strict liability, should be construed as defining a crime of mental culpability.” Section 15.10 states that “if any material element of an offense lacks a mens rea requirement, it is a strict liability crime.” The reader may notice some differences between New York State’s mental culpability labels and the Model Penal Code’s. New York uses “intentionally” in place of the Model Penal Code’s purposeful mental state and criminal negligence in place of negligently. The levels of mental culpability are found in §15.05 of the Penal Law. This chapter will present the statutory provisions of each level of mens rea in descending order of culpability. The chapter will also provide case law examples to provide a better understanding of mens rea. Finally, this chapter will discuss strict liability and causality as they pertain to mens rea.
    [Show full text]