Black Letter Outline on Criminal Law
Author:
Dressler, Joshua
Edition:
5th
Copyright Date:
2023
25 chapters
have results for black letter outline on criminal law
Perspective 41 results (showing 5 best matches)
- Over time, the “study aid market” has improved tremendously. Now, outlines published by the major law publishers are written by experts in the field. This does not mean that the outlines are error-free, any more than any other source of information. And, beyond a minor error here or there, legal experts in any subject will differ at times on matters of law. That said, today, students can use outlines, such as those in the Black Letter Series, with confidence. Some will be better than others in one way or another ( , clearer; provide better examples; and/or cover more precisely the topics your particular professor has chosen to cover), but generally they are reliable. But that moves us to the more important point: you must not misuse study aids, such as outlines.
- BUYING THIS BLACK LETTER OUTLINE
- One of the best sources of help is a “hornbook” or legal text in the field. Some are primarily written for lawyers, others are aimed at students. Like an outline, they explain the general principles of law, but they do so in greater depth than is possible in an outline. If your professor does not suggest a legal text, I recommend that you ask students who have already taken the course for advice on what text they found useful. Not too surprisingly, I would suggest my treatise,
- , there are certain broad principles or concepts of criminal law that you are apt to need all semester. Become familiar with them, so that you can use them when you need them. In this Outline, I call them the “tools” of the Criminal Law, and they are covered in Part One. They include: (1) theories of punishment; (2) the principle of legality; (3) the concept of proportionality; and (4) burdens of proof.
- It is accurate. I have taught criminal law for more than forty years. I have written a great deal in the field. You can use this outline with a high degree of confidence.
- Open Chapter
Part Six. Defenses to Crime: Justifications 75 results (showing 5 best matches)
- As you will see, there are two major categories of defenses: justification defenses and excuse defenses. (There are other categories, but don’t worry about them for now.) Regarding justification defenses, most criminal law casebooks focus almost exclusively on defenses involving use of force. Therefore, this Outline, too, will usually center on deadly force.
- We have reached the last justification defense. Indeed, this defense—called “necessity” at common law and “choice of evils” in the Model Penal Code—is properly characterized as the “residual justification.” That is, the justification claim being raised. The “necessity/choice-of-evils” defense only is relevant in rare cases that simply do not fit the usual justification defenses. Typically, “necessity” is raised when the actor violates the letter of the law because some emergency threatens the actor or another, and none of the usual defenses apply to the subject. For example, the defense might arise if a defendant trespasses on another’s land to avoid a tornado. Or perhaps the defendant purposely uses force against an innocent party, and not against an apparent aggressor, for some arguably justifiable reason. None of the other defenses, all of which focus on the use of physical force upon a wrongdoer, are relevant to these examples. We need a backup defense. These examples, which...
- This harsh rule—permitting the use of deadly force to effectuate an arrest, when necessary, for any felony—was justified at early common law on the ground that the felon, by committing the crime, forfeited his right to life. Forfeiture, it was argued, occurred because common law felonies back then were capital offenses! Therefore, the killing of a
- required to retreat from her own home. This rule is based on the ancient common law view of the house as one’s “castle”—a natural sanctuary from external aggression.
- In most common law-based jurisdictions, a defendant who acts on the basis of an
- Open Chapter
Part Eleven. Rape (Sexual Assault) 42 results (showing 5 best matches)
- Let me start by discussing criminal homicide. Criminal homicide laws have barely changed over the centuries. Yes, we have moved from the common law to statutes and, yes, statutes vary. But one aspect of the crime has never changed: the of criminal homicide—the killing of a human being by another human being—has not changed since the beginning of time. It is the definition used in every country and in every culture. Defenses to criminal homicide vary by culture and over time, but the has not changed. So, why in the world am I discussing criminal homicide here? I do so because I want you to sense how different the topic discussed in ...is changing. In the first few editions of this Outline this chapter was entitled, simply, “Rape.” Now we include “Sexual Assault” in the title because many states have renamed the crime. It is quite possible in the future “rape” will no longer be the way society describes this topic. So much is changing. And, because attitudes about the topic... ...Law...on
- belief that the female voluntarily consented to the intercourse. This is consistent with traditional mistake-of-fact doctrine, as explained in Part Four of this Outline. However, some courts, while accepting the rule just stated, provide that a defendant is not entitled to an instruction on mistake-of-fact in the absence of evidence at trial of equivocal conduct on the alleged victim’s part. . Thus, if the rape defendant claims that the complainant quite willingly consented to the intercourse, but she testifies that he had to beat her to obtain intercourse, the defendant will not be permitted to claim mistake-of-fact, as he has not introduced evidence of equivocal conduct on her part. If the jury accepts his testimony, she consented (and thus the of rape did not occur); if the jury accepts her testimony, there is no basis for him to claim a reasonable mistake on his part.
- Forcible rape is the primary rape topic you will discuss in class. In large part this is because, historically, most rape prosecutions have been based on claims of force (even if the definition of “force” has loosened over time). Another reason for the emphasis on forcible rape is, simply, that the common law did not criminalize many forms of nonforcible sexual intercourse; indeed, this is one of the criticisms of the common law. Why should the law focus almost exclusively on harm, and not also consider other forms of coercion—economic, reputational, and the like—used to obtain sexual contact? Today, sexual assault statutes are moving into these areas. The more modern statutes cover cases such as intercourse obtained with a person who is greatly intoxicated; intercourse with one who suffers from a mental disability that renders consent invalid; intercourse obtained by threatening to tell the media embarrassing information about the person; and so on. Currently, case law in these...
- Many states that have reformed their law have re-named the offense “sexual assault” or “sexual battery.” These reform offenses typically prohibit forms of forcible sexual penetration, and not simply vaginal intercourse, in a single offense. They also tend to be gender-neutral: male-on-male and female-on-female sexual penetration is included, as is nonconsensual female-on-male sexual penetration. Also, some states prohibit “sexual contact”—undesired contact that does not result in penetration—as a lesser degree of the offense or a separate offense.
- MPC § 213.0(2)(f)(i). Examples of such physical harm are provided, such as a burn, black eye, or bloody nose. In contrast, “aggravated force or restraint” is a “physical act or physical restraint that inflicts or is capable of inflicting death, serious bodily injury, or extreme physical pain, or that confines another for a substantial period in a place of isolation other than under color of law.” MPC § 213.0(2)(f)(ii).
- Open Chapter
Capsule Summary 306 results (showing 5 best matches)
- The common law rule used to be that an accessory before the fact could not be convicted of a more serious offense, or a higher degree of an offense, than that for which the principal was convicted. This rule is breaking down. Even in an earlier era, however, most courts treated criminal homicides differently: on the proper facts, courts were and are prepared to convict an accomplice of a higher degree of criminal homicide than the perpetrator. See the Main Outline for an example.
- The Supreme Court justifies the subjective version of entrapment on the ground that Congress did not intend its criminal sanctions to be applied to innocent persons induced by government officials to commit criminal offenses. See the Main Outline for the criticisms of the subjective test.
- There is no single common law test of when an attempt occurs. Typically, the common law tests focus on how close the actor is to completing the target offense. See the Main Outline for examples of each test.
- The law is split on this issue. Most courts, however, will not convict a person unless she acts with the sometimes one can infer purpose from knowledge. See the Main Outline for examples.
- Please see the Main Outline for clarification of certain inartfully drafted, but critically important, aspects of the MPC criminal attempt statute.
- Open Chapter
Part Two. Actus Reus 28 results (showing 5 best matches)
- We begin now to build the “criminal law house.” In this and the next three Parts of this outline, we will talk about the “elements”—or ingredients—of a crime.
- In a society such as ours, premised on individual liberties and limited government interference in our lives, the criminal law should be used to prevent persons from causing positive harm to others, but it should not be used to coerce people to act to benefit others. Put another way, the criminal law—as distinguished from our religious and moral teachings—is limited to punishing the most serious moral wrong -doings. The criminal law is not intended to punish people for not being virtuous.
- The criminal law does not punish people for conduct or omissions. It punishes people for conduct or some omissions After all, it is the harm to society that the criminal law seeks to deter and/or deserves retributive redress by way of punishment. The voluntary act is the
- A person is not ordinarily guilty of a criminal offense unless his conduct includes a voluntary act. This is a common law principle, and it is also the position of the Model Penal Code, which first codified the common law principle. MPC § 2.01(1).
- does as she is ordered. Despite the deadly threat, the law treats the theft as a result of a voluntary act by will likely be acquitted of the theft on the ground of duress, a criminal law defense, but the “voluntary act” requirement (which, again, is an element of an offense) is satisfied.
- Open Chapter
Part Eight. Inchoate Conduct 126 results (showing 5 best matches)
- Most states that are based on the common law treat a criminal attempt as a lesser offense than the target crime. Often a criminal attempt is punished about one-half as severely as the target offense. Thus, if the maximum penalty for rape is 20 years’ imprisonment, attempted rape would carry a maximum penalty of 10 years.
- As the second “intent” noted above shows, “attempt” is a specific-intent offense, even if the target crime is general-intent. Thus, rape is a general-intent crime, whereas attempted rape is specific-intent in nature. Thus, all of the rules discussed in this Outline regarding specific-intent offenses apply to criminal attempts.
- The MPC law of conspiracy has had mixed results. Some aspects of it have been influential and resulted in movement away from common law doctrines discussed above. Other features have had much less impact. The Code “criminal conspiracy” provision—Section 5.03—is long and very complicated. If your professor intends to focus on it, look at it carefully in your casebook.
- Courts have long struggled to identify the point at which conduct moves from the preparatory stages to one of perpetration. Thus, there is no single common law test, but rather several tests that courts consider. Most, but not all, of the common law tests focus on how close the actor is to completing the target offense. In considering the various tests below, it is well to remember the special competing concerns that apply to inchoate conduct: the danger of arresting and convicting innocent persons; and the law enforcement need to prevent real criminal conduct from coming too close to fruition.
- The plurality rule makes sense if one focuses on the supposed special dangers of conspiracies. If what makes a conspiracy more dangerous is the extra person involved in the criminal enterprise, then the fact that one of the “conspirators” is an undercover police officer negates the special dangerousness. On the other hand, the fact that one party feigns agreement, is insane, or is otherwise incapable of committing the offense, does not render the other person (the one with the genuine criminal intent) less dangerous or less culpable. And the preventive law enforcement purpose of conspiracy law—giving the police the chance to respond early—is sometimes frustrated by the plurality requirement.
- Open Chapter
Part Four. Mens Rea and Mistakes of Fact or Law 46 results (showing 5 best matches)
- On January 2, 2023, a state supreme court rules that a criminal statute prohibiting conduct is unconstitutional. In reliance on that opinion, on January 3, 2023, reasonably relied on the court’s original interpretation of the law (that the criminal statute was invalid),
- with an official “opinion letter” stating that it is legal to do acts in reliance on this letter. Subsequently, a court rules that the Attorney General’s legal interpretation was incorrect, should be acquitted: she acted on the basis of an official interpretation of the law issued by a person with authority to render such an opinion.
- Frequently, defendants will claim that they should not be convicted of an offense because they made a mistake. They may have been mistaken about some fact (attendant circumstance) or about the law (either the criminal law for which they have been charged, or some other law relevant to the prosecution).
- In general, knowledge of the law is not an element of an offense. Moreover, a mistake of law—even a reasonable one!—does not ordinarily relieve an actor of liability for the commission of a criminal offense. Thus, this is a much tougher rule than the mistake-of-fact rules considered above.
- A person is not guilty of a criminal offense if, at the time of the offense, he reasonably relied on an official statement of the law, later determined to be erroneous, obtained from a person or public body with responsibility for the interpretation, administration, or enforcement of the law defining the offense. MPC § 2.04(3)(b);
- Open Chapter
Part One. Introductory Principles 83 results (showing 5 best matches)
- There is a lot of important material in Part One. I will start by giving you an overview of the criminal law—a brief sketch of what matters in the study of the criminal law. I will then turn in Section II to the “tools” of the criminal law, by which I mean the overarching principles or concepts that you are apt to need all semester to help understand and evaluate the criminal law doctrine you are learning. If one thinks of the criminal law as if it were a house, these are the tools one needs to construct that house and to evaluate its worth. We cover these critically important tools for building the Criminal Law house in this Part.
- the criminal law. They said they were the law, which implied that there was pre-existent criminal law. The criminal law was understood to derive from moral principles that existed independent of the judges, perhaps from God. For our purposes, however, we can say that the roots of American law are found in the judge-made law of English soil. For the most part, British common law became early American common law. Over time, American judges reshaped some of the common law to fit American needs and values.
- Think of the Criminal Law as a structure. To build that structure you need tools. And, unless you have built a house before, you need to understand how the tools work and when you need to use them to build the house. Here, then, are the tools you need in your class to better understand and evaluate the law—the Criminal Law house—you are learning.
- Limits on the Criminal Law
- “What distinguishes a criminal from a civil sanction and all that distinguishes it, . . . is the judgment of community condemnation which accompanies and justifies its imposition.”
- Open Chapter
Part Ten. Criminal Homicide 90 results (showing 5 best matches)
- The English common law defined “homicide” as “the killing of a human being by a human being.” In American common law, it is “the killing of a human being by human being.” Thus, the first definition, but not the second, treats suicide as a form of homicide. We will focus on the American version. Notice, too: “homicide” is a legally neutral term. A homicide may be justifiable, excusable or criminal.
- The MPC provides that a person is guilty of criminal homicide if she takes the life of another human being purposely, knowingly, recklessly, or negligently. MPC § 210.1(1). Unlike the common law, the Code divides criminal homicide into
- Try making a list of all of the ways the Model Penal Code criminal homicide provisions differ from the common law and/or modern criminal homicide statutes.
- , a car driver, fails to stop at a stop sign, in violation of a traffic law, and strikes and kills (On the facts, assume ’s conduct did not constitute criminal negligence.) is guilty of manslaughter because the accidental death occurred during the commission of an unlawful act, a violation of the traffic law.
- In the early medically unsophisticated common law era, courts were concerned that if a death occurred too long after the initial attack, the factfinder would be unable to determine reliably whether the death was the result of natural or criminal causes. Therefore, an arbitrary line was drawn: it was considered unfair to hold the defendant responsible for the death if a year and a day passed.
- Open Chapter
Part Seven. Defenses to Crime: Excuses 86 results (showing 5 best matches)
- The insanity defense is the most controversial defense in the criminal law, yet it is the most ancient. Especially when a person is acquitted on insanity grounds in a high-profile case—such as when John Hinckley was acquitted on grounds of insanity in the attempted assassination of President Ronald Reagan in the 1980s—there are public calls for abolition of the defense.
- At common law person is never for his criminal conduct on the ground that he became
- Another interesting feature overlaying the defense is the disparate approaches of lawyers and mental health professionals to matters of mental illness. Psychiatrists, as scientists, tend to look for causal explanations for criminal conduct, which leads them to focus on the actor’s environment (such as parental upbringing or abusive treatment) or genetic predispositions to crime, and thus away from the “free will” premise of the criminal law. They believe that persons with mental illness should be treated, not punished, and they consider it odd to talk about “justice” when dealing with “sickness.” Therefore, there is a never-ending tension between the law and psychiatry, and the proper role of juries versus experts, in deciding guilt or innocence.
- Few terms in the criminal law cause more confusion than that of “diminished capacity.” Some confusion lies in the fact that the term “diminished capacity” is used by courts to describe two different categories of cases in which a person suffering from a mental disability—but one less severe than would entitle the person to successfully assert a defense of insanity—may be partially (or, occasionally, fully) exculpated for his criminal conduct.
- The Supreme Court justifies the subjective version of entrapment on the ground that Congress did not intend its criminal sanctions to be applied to innocent persons induced by government officials to commit criminal offenses.
- Open Chapter
Table of Contents 86 results (showing 5 best matches)
Part Three. Mens Rea 60 results (showing 5 best matches)
- The criminal law punishes some forms of risk-taking. But it is important to keep in mind that life is filled with risks, and we all must (and in some cases, wisely) take risks in our lives: to drive on the freeway or fly in an airplane, to go to law school, to undergo surgery; and so on. But our risk-taking may also jeopardize others. Therefore, risk-taking is properly divisible into various types: justifiable risk-taking; unjustifiable risk-taking that may properly result in tort damages; and unjustifiable risk-taking that may also result in criminal punishment. The latter form of risk-taking is itself divisible into two types: “negligent” risk-taking and “reckless” risk-taking.
- “Malice” has a specialized definition in the context of common law murder, the of which is “malice aforethought.” This special definition is considered later in this Outline.
- Once ones determines that the risk-taking is unjustified, a matter that in an actual trial will be determined by the factfinder (typically, a jury), the analytical issue that remains is whether the risk-taking constitutes civil-level negligence; criminal-level negligence; or criminal-level recklessness. Unfortunately, there are no bright lines to separate these three categories. Even worse, there is no single accepted common law definition of the terms “criminal negligence” and “recklessness.” Indeed, unfortunately some courts, especially long ago, use(d) the latter two terms interchangeably. Mercifully, more and more statutes and courts have come to accept the definitions set out in the Model Penal Code, as explained in Section III below.
- The criminal law should not punish people for negligence. One who acts negligently does not choose to cause harm, so she does not deserve punishment—sue her in torts, but do not stigmatize and condemn her as a criminal wrongdoer. And, if a person does not intend to cause harm and is unaware of the riskiness of her conduct, she probably cannot be deterred; moreover, she certainly cannot be deterred if, due to mental incapacity, she is incapable of living up to the objective standard.
- Although the preceding argument is accurate in many circumstances, it somewhat overstates the case. Some persons may be accident prone; although they cannot help what they do, they represent a danger to the community that may merit the application of the criminal law.
- Open Chapter
Part Nine. Complicity 42 results (showing 5 best matches)
- The common law rule used to be that an accessory before the fact could not be convicted of a more serious offense, or a higher degree of an offense, than that for which the principal in the first degree was convicted. This rule is breaking down. Even in an earlier era, however, most courts treated criminal homicides differently: on the right facts, courts are prepared to convict an accomplice of a higher degree of criminal homicide than the perpetrator.
- Note the relationship between the MPC complicity provisions and the law of attempts. The Code goes well beyond the common law by permitting an accomplice to be convicted of criminal attempt, if she attempts to aid in commission of an offense,
- Based on criminal homicide doctrine discussed later in this Outline,
- There are four common law categories of parties to criminal offenses. Nearly every state has abolished these categories but the terminology persists in judicial opinions.
- The MPC handles the common law issue discussed earlier—liability for a crime of recklessness or negligence—with the following provision: A person who is an accomplice in the commission of the that causes a criminal
- Open Chapter
Part Twelve. Theft 44 results (showing 5 best matches)
- In very early English history, the criminal law prohibited only the forcible taking of property, , robbery. Later, the law was extended to punish non-violent takings, , larceny. The law of larceny, however, has not developed smoothly. Courts devised various complicated legal fictions regarding the crime. On the one hand, they used fictions to narrow the scope of the crime to reduce the use of the death penalty that was the punishment for most larceny convictions. On the other hand, the judges cooperated with the economic power interests of the time to expand larceny law in certain contexts to meet changing economic conditions.
- One other point: the Model Penal Code, while consolidating many property offenses under the category of “theft,” recognizes various theft offenses, such as “Theft by Unlawful Taking or Disposition” (§ 223.2); “Theft by Deception” (§ 223.3); “Theft of Property Lost, Mislaid, or Delivered by Mistake” (§ 223.5); “Theft of Services” (§ 223.7); and others. Most professors focus on the common law, with a more cursory look at the MPC provisions. Therefore, we will emphasize the historic common law.
- Case law is scant, but apparently a thief’s belief regarding the value of property is irrelevant at common law. That is, a thief is guilty of grand or petty larceny, depending on the objective value of the property. In contrast, the Model Penal Code provides that a person is guilty of grand theft, even if the property is worth less than $500 (the Code cut-off line), if he believed it was worth more. MPC § 223.2(2).
- Notice the unfair position the law sometimes places the prosecutor. The line between larceny and non-larceny may depend on whether an employee intended to steal property before or only after he received it from the third person. Yet, there is virtually no way to know when the intent was formed; nor is there any difference in culpability or dangerousness of the offender.
- The common law provides that there is a clue to ownership of mislaid property: because it was misplaced, rather than lost, the owner knows where it is, and is considered likely to return to pick it up once he notices that he has forgotten it. The implication of this is that the lawfulness of the finder’s conduct depends entirely on his state of mind when he takes possession of the property from the owner: if he takes the
- Open Chapter
Appendix A. Answers to Review Questions 73 results (showing 5 best matches)
- Using the example provided in the Outline, a person cannot be convicted of the crime of defamation, as there is no such crime, although it is a tort and wrongful act. But an agreement between two persons to defame another is a crime (of conspiracy)! So, apparently it is worse for two people to agree to defame than it is for one actually to do it. Is that crazy, or what? But nearly all states (if not all) now requires that the agreement be to commit a criminal offense.
- Not guilty under the MPC; probably guilty under the common law.
- Hmmm. Let’s see. (Of course, your list and mine may differ, depending on whether you subdivide some of the differences.) Here is my list: (1) The MPC divides criminal homicide into three crimes, rather than two. (2) The critical distinction between common law murder and manslaughter—the presence or absence of “malice aforethought”—does not apply under the Code. (3) There are no degrees of murder in the MPC, unlike many non-Code statutes. (4) The MPC does not have the felony-murder rule. (5) The MPC does not recognize unlawful-act manslaughter. (6) The MPC treats inadvertent risk-taking homicides as “negligent homicide,” whereas the common law treats such homicides as involuntary manslaughter. (7) The EMED provision of the MPC differs considerably from the common law provocation doctrine in that: (a) the common law forms of adequate provocation are rejected; (b) the “words alone” rule is abolished; (c) the “reasonable cooling off” rule is abolished; (d) the issue is simply whether...
- As the Outline points out, some courts have effectively negated the element of premeditation by saying that “no time is too short” to constitute premeditation. But, if the term is treated seriously, as many courts do, a second or two would not be long enough to premeditate and deliberate (to reflect meaningfully and calmly on the pros and cons of committing the crime), so this person would be guilty of a wilful killing that is neither premeditated nor deliberate. So, the murder would be second-degree.
- It is true the officer could use deadly force at original common law because the defense applied to all felonies. But, most jurisdictions, including the Model Penal Code, would not permit Officer Jane to end Embezzler’s life as the offense is not a violent one. And there is another reason why “ ” is the right decision. The Fourth Amendment can’t be ignored, and the cases in the Outline would almost certainly hold that Officer Jane’s use of force here is excessive,
- Open Chapter
Title Page 3 results
Appendix C. Answers to Essay Questions 39 results (showing 5 best matches)
- The statute provides no definition of manslaughter, so we must use the common law. The common law consists of voluntary manslaughter (heat of passion) and involuntary manslaughter (criminal negligence, and unlawful-act doctrine). There are no facts here that suggest heat-of-passion, so this clearly cannot be voluntary manslaughter.
- This is straight-forward: the social harm of criminal homicide is the death of another human being. Here we have a death of the child. No more needs to be said. You score a few points on the exam, but it isn’t worth more time that this: you have shown the professor you know what the social harm is of murder.
- So, you can move rather quickly to the defenses, and the one obvious defense issue here is self-protection (§ 3.04). On a real exam you would have that section in front of you. The professor would give you the provision. I did not give it to you here, so you are at a distinct disadvantage. All you have is your memory of what I taught in the Outline. So, don’t be too upset that you don’t remember everything. If you had § 3.04 in front of you, it would be easier.
- The MPC provisions I used here are not the ones discussed in the Outline. These are the original 1962 provisions. But, as noted earlier, part of the skill of being a lawyer is taking the statutes as you find them.
- when a statute uses common law terminology without defining the terms, you ordinarily use common law definitions.
- Open Chapter
Criminal Law 1 result
Appendix B. Sample Essay Questions 38 results (showing 5 best matches)
- Writing a Criminal Law Examination
- Before you try out one of the sample essay questions, here are a few pointers for answering a criminal law essay question.
- Discuss Donald’s criminal responsibility, if any, for the death of his son pursuant to this homicide statute. You may assume that the state otherwise applies common law doctrine. You may also assume that no affirmative defenses apply to these facts.
- By looking at the outline or notes you prepared before starting to write your answer ( , you can decide when you will need to stop discussing an issue and move on. That is a far better situation than saying at the end of your exam answer (as some of my students have done over the years): “Sorry, Professor, I ran out of time.” Remember, everyone taking the exam is in the same predicament, so don’t panic when you can’t say everything you want on every issue.
- Examination-taking is an art. Very bright students—and future fine lawyers—can do poorly on a test because they have not studied adequately or . . . have not learned the art of examination-taking. The reality is that although a student who does not have a good grasp of the law cannot do well on an examination, a student who understands the law in its full complexity will do less well than (s)he should if (s)he has not yet learned how to take law school examinations.
- Open Chapter
Index 22 results (showing 5 best matches)
Summary of Contents 14 results (showing 5 best matches)
Part Five. Causation 20 results (showing 5 best matches)
- In the real world, a hypothetical like the last one—two people, entirely independently of each other, shooting a victim simultaneously—is more a law-professor’s dream (and student nightmare?) than reality. Indeed, one may wonder whether experts could provide the type of precise testimony hypothesized here. In reality if two people shoot the victim at the same time, they are likely working in concert—co-conspirators, according to concepts discussed elsewhere in this Outline. If they
- The discussion that follows focuses on common law analysis of “proximate causation” doctrine. As with any “what is morally just” analysis, there is no single or straightforward answer. The drafters of the Model Penal Code have another way of handling the issue. They treat “proximate causation” as an issue of culpability, rather than causation. (Technically, the only “causal” issue under the Code is the but-for test discussed above.) The MPC issue is whether the defendant can be said to have purposely, knowingly, recklessly, or negligently (whichever is relevant in a particular case) caused “a particular result,” if the “result” occurs in an odd or unexpected manner. This is essentially asking the same question as the common law does with “proximate causation” analysis (as you will see below). And the Code takes all of the common law factors discussed below and basically rolls them into a single, explicitly policy-oriented question for the jury: Was “the actual result . . . too...
- Causation in the Law
- the actual cause of the harm and, therefore, is not guilty of the offense. In a sense, “yes” (yes, it would have occurred anyway, when it did) means “no” (no criminal liability).
- , he may be convicted of some form of criminal homicide (assuming no defense).
- Open Chapter
Appendix D. Glossary 18 results (showing 5 best matches)
- At common law, in murder prosecutions, a person acts with “malice” if she unjustifiably, inexcusably, and in the absence of any mitigating circumstance, kills a person with any one of four mental states: (a) the intention to kill a human being; (b) the intention to inflict grievous bodily injury on another; (c) an extremely reckless disregard for the value of human life (often called “depraved heart” at common law); or (d) the intention to commit a felony during the commission or attempted commission of which a death accidentally occurs (the “felony-murder rule”).
- Criminal homicide.
- The killing of a human being by another human being. A homicide may be criminal or lawful.
- Incomplete or unsuccessful. The crimes of attempt, solicitation and conspiracy are example of inchoate criminal conduct.
- Common law.
- Open Chapter
West Academic Publishing’s Emeritus Advisory Board 14 results (showing 5 best matches)
- Arthur J. Kania Dean and Professor of LawVillanova University Charles Widger School of Law
- Professor of LawUniversity of Houston Law Center
- Dean & Professor of LawUniversity of Maryland Carey School of Law
- Professor of Law, University of Houston Law Center
- Professor of Law, Yale Law School
- Open Chapter
- Publication Date: June 28th, 2023
- ISBN: 9798887863597
- Subject: Criminal Law
- Series: Black Letter Outlines
- Type: Outlines
-
Description:
Black Letter Outlines are designed to help a law student recognize and understand the basic principles and issues of law covered in a law school course. Black Letter Outlines can be used both as a study aid when preparing for classes and as a review of the subject matter when studying for an examination. Each Black Letter Outline is written by experienced law school professors who are recognized national authorities in their subject area.
This Outline covers the basic components of all crimes, as well as defenses to crimes. The offenses of criminal homicide, sexual assault, and the theft crimes are covered in detail. The Outline covers common law doctrine, modern statutory trends, and the Model Penal Code.
