1 Book Cover Here Copyright © 2010, Elsevier Inc. All rights Reserved Chapter 2 Principles of Criminal Liability Criminal Law Ninth Edition

2 Copyright © 2010, Elsevier Inc. All rights Reserved Introduction Before there can be a finding of guilt, the following elements of any crime must be proven: Parties to crimes (at least one), The criminal act or omission (actus reus), The criminal state of mind (mens rea), Causation, and Concurrence. 2.1

3 Parties to Crimes Common Law Principals in the first degree, Principals in the second degree, Accessories before the fact, or Accessories after the fact. Copyright © 2010, Elsevier Inc. All rights Reserved 2.2

4 Parties to Crimes Principals in the First Degree One who actually commits the act that causes a crime to occur. Principals in the Second Degree One who aids or abets a principal in the first degree as he or she commits the criminal act, or incites the commission of the crime, and who is actually or constructively present at the time of the commission Copyright © 2010, Elsevier Inc. All rights Reserved 2.2

5 Parties to Crimes Accessories before the fact are persons who counsel, procure, or command the principal in the first degree to commit a criminal offense, yet who are too far away to have participated in the felonious act. An accessory after the fact is one who receives, comforts, or assists another, knowing that the other has committed a felony, in order to hinder the perpetrator’s arrest, prosecution, or conviction. Copyright © 2010, Elsevier Inc. All rights Reserved 2.2

6 Parties to Crimes Model Penal Code A person is guilty of an offense if it is committed by his or her own conduct or by the conduct of another person for whom he or she is “legally accountable.” An accomplice is one who solicits the commission of an offense, aids in its commission or, having a legal duty to prevent the commission of the offense, fails to make proper effort to prevent it, or his or her conduct is expressly declared by law to establish complicity. Prosecutors must prove that accomplices had the mens rea attached to the crime(s). Copyright © 2010, Elsevier Inc. All rights Reserved 2.2

7 Parties to Crimes Model Penal Code A person commits the offense of accessory after the fact if he or she: Harbors or conceals another; Provides aid; Conceals, destroys, or tampers with evidence; Warns of impending discovery or apprehension; or Volunteers false information to a law enforcement officer. Copyright © 2010, Elsevier Inc. All rights Reserved 2.2

8 Parties to Crimes State Statutes, Codes, and Cases Most state statutes have simplified the concept of culpability and no longer follow the common law principles. Copyright © 2010, Elsevier Inc. All rights Reserved 2.2

9 Parties to Crimes State Statutes, Codes, and Cases An accessory after the fact is generally treated as a separate offense and is accorded different treatment in modern codes. To establish the crime of accessory after the fact, the state must establish: The completed felony was completed by another party prior to any acts engaged in by the defendant, The accessory was not a principal in the commission of the felony, The accessory had knowledge of the felony, and The accessory acted personally to aid or assist a felon to avoid detection or apprehension for the crime(s). Copyright © 2010, Elsevier Inc. All rights Reserved 2.2

10 Parties to Crimes State Statutes, Codes, and Cases Criminal facilitation statutes impose liability for providing aid to someone, knowing that he or she committed or is about to commit an offense. In most jurisdictions, the penalty for facilitation is one level, or class, lower than the substantive offense for which the aid was offered. Copyright © 2010, Elsevier Inc. All rights Reserved 2.2

11 Parties to Crimes Summary The liability of an actor is categorized according to proximity to the offense and the level of participation. In most modern statutes, the only two types of criminal parties are: Party (includes principals and accomplices), and Accessory after the fact In some jurisdictions there is also a lesser crime of Criminal facilitation. Copyright © 2010, Elsevier Inc. All rights Reserved 2.2

12 Criminal Act Requirements In order to find someone guilty of a crime, every element of this formula must be proven: Criminal Act + Requisite State of Mind + Causation + Concurrence (of Act and State of Mind) = Crime The prosecution must show that the person committed an act prohibited by some law, or failed to act when he or she had a legal obligation to do so. Often this principle is referred to as the actus reus. Copyright © 2010, Elsevier Inc. All rights Reserved 2.3

13 Criminal Act Requirements As a rule, legal liability is typically based upon an affirmative physical act by the person charged, but in some instances liability can rest upon a failure to act, if it is determined that a person had a legal obligation to act under the circumstances. Copyright © 2010, Elsevier Inc. All rights Reserved 2.3

14 Criminal Act Requirements Model Penal Code A person is guilty of an offense if it is committed by his or her own conduct or by the conduct of another person for who he or she is legally accountable. An accomplice is one who solicits the commission of an offense, aids in its commission or, having a legal duty to prevent the commission of the offense, fails to make proper effort to prevent it, or his or her conduct is expressly declared by law to establish complicity. Copyright © 2010, Elsevier Inc. All rights Reserved 2.3

15 Criminal Act Requirements Model Penal Code A person commits the offense of accessory after the fact if he or she: Harbors or conceals another; Provides aid; Conceals, destroys, or tampers with evidence; Warns of impending discover or apprehension; or Volunteers false information to a law enforcement officer. Copyright © 2010, Elsevier Inc. All rights Reserved 2.3

16 Criminal Act Requirements State Statutes, Codes, and Cases Most state statutes have simplified the concept of culpability and no longer follow the common law principles. In most modern statutes, the only two types of criminal parties are: Party (including principals and accomplices), and Accessory after the fact. Criminal facilitation statutes impose liability for providing aid to someone, knowing that he or she committed or is about to commit an offense. Copyright © 2010, Elsevier Inc. All rights Reserved 2.3

17 Criminal Act Requirements Summary In order to be convicted of a crime, the accused must have committed a criminal act. The act may involve an actual physical movement, or it may consist of verbal acts. When criminal liability is based upon the defendant’s affirmative act, there usually must be a showing that he or she made some conscious movement. However, possession crimes have been upheld even if there is no proof of a conscious movement. Copyright © 2010, Elsevier Inc. All rights Reserved 2.3

18 Criminal Omission Criminal omission: liability rests upon the failure to act when there is a duty. Jones v. United States The court held that a person who failed to act may be found guilty of homicide, if there existed a duty, declaring: There are at least four situations in which the failure to act may constitute a breach of legal duty. A statute imposes a duty to care for another; One stands in a certain status relationship to another; One has assumed a contractual duty to care for another; and One has voluntarily assumed the care of another, and so secluded the helpless person as to prevent others from rendering aid. Copyright © 2010, Elsevier Inc. All rights Reserved 2.4

19 Criminal Omission Statutory Duty Criminal liability could result if the person charged had the opportunity and ability to perform the act and did not. Other statutory duties may create the potential for criminal liability if their omission results in a death or injury. Copyright © 2010, Elsevier Inc. All rights Reserved 2.4

20 Criminal Omission “Good Samaritan” laws create a duty to render assistance when one citizen sees another in distress. All states have what are called Good Samaritan laws, but they do not create criminal liability. They protect citizens from civil liability if they stop and render assistance to a victim and are sued as a result of their actions. Copyright © 2010, Elsevier Inc. All rights Reserved 2.4

21 Criminal Omission Relationship Duties At common law, certain affirmative duties were placed upon persons with designated relationships. “Filial responsibility” laws create a duty to financially provide for one’s aged and infirm parents if one is able to do so. Copyright © 2010, Elsevier Inc. All rights Reserved 2.4

22 Criminal Omission Contractual Duties Where a person has a contractual duty to protect or care from others and fails to carry out that contractual duty, he or she may be criminally liable for not performing that duty. In the case of People v. Montecino, a nurse was held liable for failing to care for a patient she had been hired to care for. Copyright © 2010, Elsevier Inc. All rights Reserved 2.4

23 Criminal Omission Failure to Continue Care Duties If a person who has no statutory, relationship, or contractual obligation to render aid assumes this obligation, that person must not put the helpless person in such a position as to prevent others from rendering aid. Copyright © 2010, Elsevier Inc. All rights Reserved 2.4

24 Criminal Omission Knowledge and Impossibility Before a person can be held responsible for an omission, knowledge of one’s duty and an opportunity to perform and failure to perform the act must be shown. Copyright © 2010, Elsevier Inc. All rights Reserved 2.4

25 Criminal Omission Summary In order for an omission to create criminal culpability, there must be a duty. Duties are created through statute, relationship, contract, or through undertaking to care for a person in distress. Simple ignorance of the law defining the duty is not sufficient to relieve one of liability. A failure to act cannot create a criminal liability unless Knowledge of facts that give notice to the person that they have a duty to perform, and An ability to perform one’s duty. Copyright © 2010, Elsevier Inc. All rights Reserved 2.4

26 Criminal State of Mind—Mens Rea The criminal intent need not have existed for any length of time before the act, as long as it existed at the instant of the act. Copyright © 2010, Elsevier Inc. All rights Reserved 2.5

27 Criminal State of Mind—Mens Rea Common Law Each crime possessed a mens rea, but the language used in old English cases and early state statutes and cases in this country was not uniform; thus, for instance, the necessary intent for homicide might have been malicious, premeditated, depraved indifference, deprave heart, wanton disregard, or some other term. The mens rea requirement for crimes traditionally falls into one of three categories: specific intent, general intent, or negligence. Copyright © 2010, Elsevier Inc. All rights Reserved 2.5

28 Criminal State of Mind—Mens Rea Specific Intent An intention to commit some act to accomplish a result that is known to be illegal. General Intent Present when a person consciously chooses to do a prohibited act. The only state of mind required is the intent to commit the act constituting the crime. Copyright © 2010, Elsevier Inc. All rights Reserved 2.5

29 Criminal State of Mind—Mens Rea Negligence In common law, negligence is the failure to perform a duty when such conduct is reckless and indifferent to the consequences. Copyright © 2010, Elsevier Inc. All rights Reserved 2.5

30 Criminal State of Mind—Mens Rea Model Penal Code General Requirements of Culpability Minimum Requirements of Culpability Except as provided in 2.05, a person is not guilty of an offense unless he acted purposely, knowingly, recklessly or negligently, as the law may require, with respect to each material element of the offense. Kinds of Culpability Defined Purposely Knowingly Recklessly Negligently Copyright © 2010, Elsevier Inc. All rights Reserved 2.5

31 Criminal State of Mind—Mens Rea Transferred intent Is a doctrine holding that if the defendant shoots or strikes at A, intending to wound or kill him, and unforeseeably hits B instead, he is guilty of the originally intended crime. Copyright © 2010, Elsevier Inc. All rights Reserved 2.5

32 Criminal State of Mind—Mens Rea Summary Mens rea can be defined as criminal state of mind. It is not just intent, although that is one level of mens rea. The four different levels of criminal states of mind that are recognized in the Model Penal Code and many state criminal codes are: Purposely Knowingly Recklessly Negligently Copyright © 2010, Elsevier Inc. All rights Reserved 2.5

33 Criminal State of Mind—Mens Rea Summary The level of mens rea is related to the seriousness of the crime and the degree of punishment. Specific intent can be roughly equated to purposely, and general intent can be roughly equated to knowingly. Transferred intent is a doctrine whereby the offender is charge with the crime that he intended regardless who is actually harmed. Copyright © 2010, Elsevier Inc. All rights Reserved 2.5

34 Causation In order for one who is accused of a crime to be convicted of that crime, the prosecution must show that the act of the defendant constituted a substantial factor in bringing about the result. Conduct is the cause of a result when: It is an antecedent but for which the result in question would not have occurred; and The relationship between the conduct and result satisfied any additional causal requirements imposed by the Code or by the law defining the offense. Copyright © 2010, Elsevier Inc. All rights Reserved 2.6

35 Causation Proximate causation Is a common sense approach to cut off liability even though one’s actions may have actually caused the result or contributed to the result. A person’s action will be defined as the proximate cause of the result when there are not intervening superseding factors that come between the actions and the end result. If there is a superseding intervening factor—an independent act or occurrence that supersedes the defendant’s act as the legally significant causal factor—the defendant’s conduct will not be the legal cause of the result. Copyright © 2010, Elsevier Inc. All rights Reserved 2.6

36 Causation If there is a superseding intervening factor—an independent act or occurrence that supersedes the defendant’s act as the legally significant causal factor—the defendant’s conduct will not be the legal cause of the result. To constitute a superseding cause, the independent occurrence must be: Intervening, Unforeseeable (or unnatural), and The sole direct cause of the result. Copyright © 2010, Elsevier Inc. All rights Reserved 2.6

37 Causation Summary The law is only concerned with proximate causation or legal causation. This is when there is no break in the causal chain between the offender’s action and the result. If there is a superseding intervening factor, then the causal chain is broken and the offender is not responsible for the ultimate result. Copyright © 2010, Elsevier Inc. All rights Reserved 2.6

38 Causation Summary Offender’s action > events that are foreseeable and/or natural > result = proximate causation/culpable Offender’s action > events that are unforeseeable and/or unnatural > result = not proximate/not culpable Copyright © 2010, Elsevier Inc. All rights Reserved 2.6

39 Concurrence—Criminal Act and State of Mind Concurrence Is the meeting or coming together; agreement or union in action; meeting of minds; union in design; consent. Copyright © 2010, Elsevier Inc. All rights Reserved 2.7

40 Attendant Circumstances In some crimes, proof must be offered to show that certain circumstances existed at the time of the act in question. In many instances, these attendant circumstances are listed as elements of the crime. Copyright © 2010, Elsevier Inc. All rights Reserved 2.8

41 Strict Liability Strict liability: culpability that occurs without mens rea; in strict liability crimes, the state need not prove any level of mens rea on the part of the offender. The rationale for strict liability crimes is that, if the prosecution were required to prove the mental element, convictions would be so difficult to obtain that the existence of the criminal statute would not deter the conduct. Copyright © 2010, Elsevier Inc. All rights Reserved 2.9

42 Vicarious Liability Vicarious liability is liability for crimes committed by another person, imposed simply because of the relationship between the parties. It is unnecessary to show that the defendant acted in any way or participated in the offense; it need only be established that the crime was committed by another person and that the defendant stood in the required relationship as stated by statute. Copyright © 2010, Elsevier Inc. All rights Reserved 2.10

43 Lesser Included Offenses All states and the federal courts adhere to the concept that defendants may be convicted of “lesser included offenses.” If a defendant is convicted of a crime of a higher degree, that defendant cannot be convicted of a lesser included offense arising from the same act or omission. Copyright © 2010, Elsevier Inc. All rights Reserved 2.11