ࡱ> ceRSTUVWXYZ[\]^_`ab` ё bjbjss : f8L000FvvvQQQ$@hm4QQ44vvF4'vv47 v$ kF :\0IvDv DtDQ"sQQQQQQ4444  CRIMINAL LAW OUTLINE Sklansky, Fall 2007 How to Approach Criminal Law. 1 Problem of Punishment. 4 Role of Juries. 5 Basic Principles Actus Reus. 8 Acts of Omission. 10 Mens Rea 12 Exception I. Statutory Intention & Public Welfare Offenses. 13 Exception II: Ignorance of the Law. 15 Levels of Culpability. 17 Homicide Involuntary Manslaughter. 22 Voluntary Manslaughter. 24 Murder, Generally. 26 Unintentional/Depraved Heart Murder. 27 Intentional Murder (1st and 2nd Degree). 28 Felony Murder. 31 Causation. 38 Rape Actus Reus 42 Mens Rea 45 Prosecutorial Discretion 47 Statutory Rape 49 Auxiliary Doctrines Attempt 52 Aiding & Abetting (accomplice group liability) 59 Corporate Criminality (vicarious group liability) 67 Conspiracy (vicarious group liability) 71 Affirmative Defenses Justification vs. Excuse 81 Justifications Self-Defense 81 Defense of Property/Habitation 89 Necessity 91 Excuses Duress 95 Intoxication (exception) 99 Insanity 104 Diminished Capacity 111 Law & Discretion in the Criminal Process Sentencing 114 Plea Bargaining 121 How to Approach Criminal Law ORIGINS OF PRINCIPLES OF CRIMINAL LAW: Philosophical bases (e.g., why punish?) Statutes adopted in other places (that other states choose to adopt) Model penal code Originally promulgated in 1962; revised in 1981 Common law (even though criminal law is overwhelmingly statutory) Why common is law still relevant even though criminal law today is predominantly statutory Statutes often written with common-law precepts in mind Common-law precepts often guide judges in interpreting ambiguous parts of statutes The US SC often imposes constitutional requirements using common-law precepts (i.e., constitutionalizes common law precepts) THEMES: Analogical thinking: What is this case like, and what isnt it like? Is the raft situation comparable to another? Is it like two guys clinging to a plank where one pushes the other off to survive? Is it like self-defense? Lumping versus splitting: Are we creating a new category (splitting) or fitting the case into an existing one (lumping)? If multiply categories, cause chaos because of uncertainty regarding punishment, and if call it murder, conjoin moral condemnation to new crime even though you blur distinction between degrees of murder. In Dudley and Stephens, defense doesnt want to create new category because might lessen likelihood of acquittal. Prosecution also doesnt want to create new category because wants crime to be murder to send a signal More and more splitting in law of homicide and more and more lumping in law of rape as time passes. One-step-at-a-time versus look-before-you-leap: Tension between deciding just one thing at a time (the case in front of you) or everything at once (thinking about what the effects of your decision will be) Contrast with civil law, in which principles are set (casuits = Jesuits) and which forces case to either be fit in or distinguished. Severability of Sanction: Sanction different from the verdict (guilty or not guilty) Executive pardons, commutes, and prosecutes, for example, compromising the actual messagethis crime is completely and utterly badsent to society at large. In Dudley, not clear you can get the moral benefit of joining murder with cannibalism unless the degree of punishment is identical regardless of the exact circumstances of the murder itself. In James, transfer of decisionmaking power (imposition of sentence) from judges to Congress In Dudley, transfer of decisionmaking power (guilt or innocence) from jury to judge by way of special verdict Dilemma of Judgment: Tension between understanding (sympathizing) and standing in judgment. We can explain it and comprehend it, but we must still judge as the rules demand. (But then there is such things as jury nullification) Who are we to judge another human being? Interaction between statutes, common law, constitution (federal and state), and MPC Generally speaking, MPC seeks for criminal liability to track subjective liability. For final: Themes of the course: Odd status of criminal law as a statutory field suffused with common law principles. Why? Statutes written with common law precepts in mind (depends on which ones were emphasized in the class). Supreme Court imposes restrictions on criminal law that track common law precepts. Institutional power allocationhow power is divided between judges and legislatures Purposes of punishment Ongoing debate about how and to what extend criminal liability should be tied to subjective culpability Accomplice liability, reduced sentences for attempt, etc. MPC: four levels ( incredibly influential ( note how approach keeps running into difficulties, sometimes dealing with fact that we do not think it matches actual liability and that subjectivity doesnt always matter. Equality and difference Dilemma of judgment Pull of sympathy and counter-pull that justice must be done, that dangers would multiply if we are lax here. Continual effort to make rules for thingsand running into situations where rules do not work. Role of lawyers Review: Objective / subjective Recklessness / negligence Malice / premeditation Voluntary manslaughter / involuntary6 manslaughter Provocation / self-defense Necessity / duress Justification / excuse Mistake of law / mistake of fact Legal impossibility / factual impossibility Cognitive / volitional ISSUES TO CONSIDER WHEN EVALUATING A CASE: Substantive: What is the purpose of punishing this particular act? What is the purpose of criminal law? What kinds of cases are important to designate as criminal (as opposed to civil)? Procedural: How do we decide substantive issues? Who decides substantive issues WHY PUNISH? FOUR THEORIES Retribution (deontological) (doing justice): Punishment justified because people deserve it Backward looking: Justifies punishment based on what happened in the past Kant: Categorical imperative demands that punishment be for specific crime, and nothing else. Otherwise, using criminal, a human, as mean to an end, an act forbidden. Kant called this retaliation. Moore: Punishment justified by the moral culpability of the one who receives it The moral culpability of an offender also gives society the duty to punish Hart: Analysis of retributive justice: Person punished only if he has voluntarily done something wrong. Punishment must match wickedness of original offense. The return of suffering is in itself just or morally good: mysterious piece of moral alchemy. Utilitarian: Punishment justified because of the useful purposes it serves Forward looking: Justifies punishment based on the positive consequences that will follow Deterrence: We make crime costly and shift the cost-benefit analysis. Bentham: If the apparent magnitude of pain be greater than the apparent good resulting from an act, he will be absolutely prevented from performing it (and the mischief that would have resulted from that act will also be prevented) Two types: Specific: Deter specific person from committing crime (e.g., take ice cream from kid and he learns never to do this again if he wants ice cream) General: Deter society in general from committing the particular crime (e.g., wife learns similarly though not punished) Problems: Assumes that rational actor exists, that all calculate (Bentham), but . . . For it to work, three conditions must be true: (1) knowledge of the rule; (2) perception of cost-benefit; and (3) willingness to employ such knowledge. None of those can be proven true, mainly because of the disorder, dysfunction, and irrationality of deviant behavior Incapacitation: We punish because it minimizes chances for further crime because criminal now in prison (locking people up keeps them from committing more crimes) Emphasis today seems to be on incapacitation Rehabilitative: We correct criminals conduct and thereby reform them, both deterring and making their further actions unlikely. Lost support in the latter half of the 20th century because . . . Right: Too soft Left: Too hypocritical (it is for your own good . ..) Expressivist (Message) Durkheim: The real function of punishment is to maintain and sustain the common moral consciousness(punishment reinforces social norms) Stephens: Predicated on hatred as it thereby united society and maintains the cohesion of society (punishment as proper institutional expression of vengeance) Main effect is therefore to have its effect upon honest people. Creates agreement, so in a sense a false unity, and destabilizes proper moral sense. Mixed theory: Hart Combines retribution and utilitarianism: Two necessary conditions for punishment to make sense: Criminal must deserve it There must be some good purpose for punishing (accomplishing some good) Some modern retributivists see the crime as providing license to punish, not necessarily demanding a punishment equal in severity. Some also see a certain maximum in punishable imprisonment as affecting enough deterrence while also being wholly appropriate to the crime Problem of Punishment RELEVANT CASES Regina v. Dudley and Stephens, 14 Q.B.D. 273, 1884 (act committed was clearly murder because the killing was deliberate and planned; government acting to reverse custom by attaching stigma of murder) Regina v. Dudley and Stephens, 14 Q.B.D. 273, 1884 Facts: Crew stranded, 1000 miles from sea, July 8-july 28th; rescue unexpected, though hoped for. Dudley decides to kill boy on July 25th. Stephens assents, Brooks objects (see actus reus for why Brooks is not charged.). Boy is uninformed/not told. Procedural history: Jury hands down a special verdict. Special verdict: Finding of facts, not judgment of law. Why a special verdict? Prosecutors in Home Office wanted to revise the custom of the sea, which would not have sanctioned cannibalism of this sort. (Would explain captains easy willingness to indulge in it.) Jury might return a general verdict of not guilty because custom of the sea accepted the practice of cannibalism. Because special verdict given, judge therefore sentences, his prime design, and holds against Stephens and Dudley. Brook uninvolved as he did not endorse the action undertaken. Holding & Reasoning (Lord Coleridge): Act committed was clearly murder because the killing was deliberate and planned. Dismiss the following two excuses: Temptation is not sufficient. Duty to die is not sufficient because boy did not choose to die, it was chosen for him. Necessity In this case, the defendants committed murder in order to satisfy their want. Surely, if it is a crime to steal to satisfy want, it is a crime to murder in order to satisfy want. There is no an absolute or qualified right to preserve ones life, meaning that the killing of another unoffending person to satisfy ones need is not justified by necessity To preserve ones life is a duty, but sometimes sacrificing ones life may be an even higher duty ROLE OF JURIES: Allocation of Responsibility OVERVIEW: Jury Trials (found the verdict = jury) Derived from common law + acts as check on government oppression Right to a jury trial: Duncan v. Louisiana, 391 U.S. 145 (1968), had established constitutional right to jury. Based on due process clause of 14th amendment, not 6th amendment Reasoning: Because of the 14th Amendments due process clause, which says that no state may deprive a person of life, liberty, or property without due process of law, all defendants have a right to a jury trial in criminal cases which, were they to be tried in federal court, would come within the 6th Amendments guarantee of a speedy and public jury trial in criminal cases) Duncan raised, but did not answer, the question of what may be deemed a petty offense that doesnt qualify for the 6th amendments guarantee of a jury trial. A later Court decision, however, held that no offense for which a prison term of more than six months can be imposed may be termed petty Defendants being tried for offenses for which imprisonment may be more than six months have a right to a jury trial, whether or not imprisonment is actually a likely result Reasonable doubt standard: Jury must convict beyond a reasonable doubt (on ALL elements of the offense (In Re Winship, 297 U.S. 358 (1970)), in which juvenile was convicted by a preponderance of the evidence): Criteria for measuring reasonable doubt: Average person with regular common sense. Based on this evidence, do you have to violate rules of logic (be completely irrational) in order to find guilt beyond a reasonable doubt? Affirmative defenses do not necessarily have to be proven beyond a reasonable doubt (favor "). On a directed verdict question: A judge must rule for the " if no reasonable jury could possibly find the " guilty If a reasonable juryman must necessarily have a reasonable doubt about the " s guilt, the judge must acquit But if a reasonable juryman might fairly have a reasonable doubt or fairly not have one, the case must go to the jury So, only if reasonable mind must of necessity conclude innocence can the judge direct a verdict of acquittal Jury nullification: Refers to a rendering of a not guilty verdict by a trial jury, disagreeing with the instructions by the judge concerning what is the law, or whether such law is applicable to the case, taking into account all of the evidence presented Juries have right to acquit despite the facts, and government cannot appeal an acquittal though a convict can appeal a conviction. United States v. Dougherty, 473 f.2d 1113 (1972)): Juries can nullify, but " does not have a right to have the jury informed of their power to do so. Reasoning: If jurors informed of power to nullify, it is likely that such power may be more often and more casually invoked. The danger of excessive rigidness is not as great as the danger of removing the boundaries of constraint expressed by jury instructions. Also, to explicitly tell jurors they can nullify places too great a burden on them, turns jurors into mini-legislators that fashion the rule that condemns. Also doesnt allow jurors to justify unpopular verdicts by saying they were merely following the judges instructions Apprendi v. New Jersey, 530 U.S. 466 (2000), extended doctrine of jurys power, specifying that jury must find facts that are used to increase the length of your sentence. Jury is key definer/finder of fact. RELEVANT CASES Duncan v. Louisiana, 391 U.S. 145, 1968 (constitutional right to trial by jury in state cases) In Re Winship, 297 U.S. 358, 1970 (jury must convict you of all elements of the crime beyond a reasonable doubt) United States v. Dougherty, 473 f.2d 1113, 1972 (courts do not have to inform juries of right of nullification) Apprendi v. New Jersey, 530 U.S. 466, 2000 (jury key finder of fact) James v. United States, 127 S.Ct. 1586, 2007 (an attempted crime meets residual criterion for act under ACCA) James v. United States, 127 S.Ct. 1586 (2007) (intertwining of state and federal laws) Differences from Dudley: Not bracketing punishment. Punishment at forefront. Depends on statute and precedent, not authorities. Modern criminal law is overwhelmingly statutory; a lot comes from MPC, 1962. Certain principles, some from philosophy, some wholly derived from statute, some from common law, still dominate. Common law shapes in three ways: Influences way statutes are drawn up. SCs constitutional limits on state statutes often derive from common law. Common law ideas often influence courts interpretation of statute. Common law is our legal heritage. No fact-finding at appeals stage. Facts: The Armed Career Criminal Act (ACCA), 18 U.S.C. 924(e) provides that a defendant convicted of possession of a firearm, in violation of 924(g), is subject to mandatory sentence of 15 years imprisonment if the defendant has three prior convictions for (1) violent felony or (2) serious drug offense. Violent felony means any crime punishable by imprisonment for more than one year that has as an element the use, attempted use, or threatened use of force against another or is burglary, arson, or extortion, or involves the use of explosives, or involves other conduct that presents a serious potential risk of physical injury to another. James admitted to the three felony convictions listed in his federal indictment. All parties agree that attempted burglary does not qualify as violent felony. Procedural History: Case brought in federal district court against " for possessing a firearm after having been convicted of a felony, " lost. During sentencing, government argued " was subject to ACCA s 15-year mandatory minimum requirement because of his three prior felony convictions. " objected that his attempted burglary conviction did not qualify as a violent felony under the statute Issue: Is attempted burglary a violent crime as defined by the ACCA? District Court held that attempted burglary is a violent felony. Court of Appeals affirmed. Holding & Reasoning: Attempted burglary, as defined by Florida law, falls within ACCAs residual provision for crimes that otherwise involve conduct that presents a serious potential risk of physical injury to another. Therefore, James did commit three crimes that fit the ACCA criteria and does deserve the 15-year minimum sentence. (1) As long as an offense is of a type that presents a serious potential risk of injury to another, it satisfies the requirements of ACCAs provision for increasing sentence; (2) Florida law, as expressed in Jones v. State, 608 so.2d 797 (1992), considers attempted burglary any overt act directed toward entering or remaining in a structure or conveyance; (3) Such conduct presents a serious potential risk of injury to another (confrontation, etc.). Court looks to statute rather than facts of Jamess case because Apprendi says that if you have a situation where facts may increase the sentence, the jury must decide those facts (an appellate court may not) BUT, FL doesnt have a statute about attempted burglary. FL does, however, have a state court decision that narrows attempt to require/involve an overt step to actually carrying out the crime (more than mere preparation) (***) Thomass Dissent: Notes that in Aprendi v. New Jersey, 530 U.S. 466 (2000), and United States v. Booker, 543 U.S. 220 (2005), court reasoned that judges cannot make a finding that raises a sentence beyond that which could have been lawfully imposed by reference to facts found by the jury; the categorization of an attempted burglary as a crime under the residual ACCA provision is just such a conflation, as the District Court resolved this DISPUTED FACT in favor of the government. BASIC PRINCIPLES Actus Reus (Acts of Commission/Affirmative Acts) Definition of actus reus: Criminal must commit a criminal act; thought by itself is insufficient. This required act is called actus reus, which, generally, must be an affirmative physical act. Actus reus is seemingly not part of the Constitution, but majority in Powell notes that it is an important judicial tool that the court have historically used (i.e. common law). In Robinson, court implied that any statute that clearly violates the actus reus requirements would violate the 8th amendment. Unless a statute explicitly acts outside the actus reus principle, its assumed the statute acts within that principle Rationale for actus reus requirement Assures the evil intent of the man branded a criminal has been expressed in a manner that will harm society, i.e. he has actually acted and caused real harm (we cant just criminalize thought!) No substantial likelihood of deterrence by threat of sanction because hes already done it (or is in the midst of a multi-step crime) An identifiable occurrence, i.e. something has actually been done. Thought can be part of the definition of a crime, but cannot be punished exclusively. Similarly, status cannot be by itself criminalized. Mere status not sufficient for actus reus (see Robinson v. California) because: Logically, it is not necessarily true that a person with a certain status or propensity will actually commit those acts. Thus, until committed, conviction for status would amount to punishing for intent, a clear violation of actus reus requirement. However, once one has acted, even if status makes the act more likely (if not foreseeable), person can be convicted of the act itself, just not the status. HOWEVER, states can criminalize acts that follow from a particular status (e.g., drug possession) To qualify as an actus reus, acts of commission (affirmative acts) must be conscious and volitional (voluntary) movement (see People v. Newton) Movement: Act = physical movement of defendants body, with consequences of act classified as results. Volitional (based on People v. Newton): Reflexive acts or any acts where full control not in evidence do not meet criteria. This includes unconsciousness (see MPC 2.01(2)(b) and People v. Newton). BUT, if " responsible for his unconscious state, there can still be an actus reus. For example, if defendant starts a fight, then is rendered unconscious in its midst and kills another during that unconscious state, he has committed an act of criminal homicide. ALSO, if unconscious state was foreseeable, can still be actus reus (e.g., someone with seizures should def. not drive and can be convicted of a criminal act despite their status as diseased). HOWEVER, this requirement does not rule out conviction for crimes committed under compulsion Rationale for requirement of voluntariness: Law cannot hope to defer involuntary movement People whose involuntary movements present health or safety problems need therapy, not jailtime, to ameliorate the dangers they pose (criminalizing involuntary acts is like criminalizing status) (***) When evaluating whether a defendant is criminal liable, must therefore check: Was he conscious when he acted? Was the act itself volitional? (see actus reus definition) RELEVANT CASES Martin v. State, 31 Ala. App. 334, 17 So. 2d 427, 1944 (public appearance must be voluntary to satisfy actus reus requirement: if cops force you out, cannot be charged for public drunkenness) Robinson v. California, 370 U.S. 660, 1962 (conviction for status violates 8th amendment; see note above for relation to actus reus) Powell v. Texas, 292 U.S. 514, 1968 (a person can be convicted of a crime requiring a particular act, even if the act is itself closely related to his status; example, alcoholic practicing public intoxication) People v. Newton, 8 Cal. App. 3d 359, 87 Cal. Rptr. 394, 1970 (unforeseen unconsciousness, involuntary unconsciousness, in the midst of incident make defendant not punishable for incidents consequent criminal act) Act Must Be Voluntary Martin v. State, 31 Ala. App. 334, 17 So. 2d 427, 1944 (AL) Facts: Alabama statute declares: Any person who, while intoxicated or drunk, appears in any public place where one or more persons are present " was arrested at home and then taken to highway by officer, where " manifested drunkenness Holding & Reasoning: Appearance in public must be  a voluntary appearance (see actus reus description):  . . . the accused was involuntarily and forcibly carried to that place by the arresting officer [italics are mine]. An actus reus must be voluntary (unless one of the exceptions) Act Must be Conscious People v. Newton, 8 Cal. App. 3d 359, 87 Cal. Rptr. 394, 1970 (CA) Facts: Officer Frey stopped a car driven by Newton. Altercation ensued after Frey ordered Newton out. Heanes shot at Newtons midsection. Newton claims that this shot rendered him unconscious of his subsequent acts, including his fatal shots at Frey. At trial, " called doctor who testified a shot to the abdomen can cause a person to lose consciousness, as " Newton testified happened to him. Jury not told unconsciousness is a defense to homicide, and convicted Newton of  voluntary manslaughter. Court of appeals reversed. Holding & Reasoning: Where not self-induced (as by voluntary intoxication or the equivalent), unconsciousness is a complete defense to the charge of criminal homicide Unconscious here means that the subject physically acts in fact but is not, at the time, conscious of action Even in absence of statute, could have been based on common law principle of actus reus (guilty act) or labeled it unconstitutional (8th Amendment, selectively incorporated via the due process clause of the 14th into state constitutions, and which would have been interpreted according to actus reus by most courts). Cannot Criminalize Status Robinson v. California, 370 U.S. 660, 1962 (CA) Facts: Robinson had been a drug user. California statute makes it a criminal offense for a person to be addicted to the use of narcotics (have the status of a druggie). No actual act specified or needed under this statute. Holding & Reasoning: The CA statute effectively criminalizes a status (being a narcotics addict). A law that punishes an individual merely for his status inflicts on that person a cruel and unusual punishment in violation of the Constitution An addict can violate the CA law whether or not he has ever actually used drugs in CA. Powell v. Texas, 292 U.S. 514, 1968 (TX) Facts: Powell was arrested and charged with being in a state of public intoxication in a public place, in violation of Texas Penal Code, Article 477 (1952. Powell presented evidence that alcohol was a disease and that his drinking was moved by a compulsion. However, doctor specifically noted that first drink was a voluntary exercise of his [Powells] will. Judge found against him. Holding & Reasoning: While Powell might have the status of an alcoholic (see Robinson v. California), being prosecuted for the act of being drunk in public is permissible because drinking in public (the guilty act) was volitional and conscious movement (see doctors testimony). I.e., the statute criminalizes behavior, not status (an alcoholic, though perhaps addicted to alcohol, still has power not to get drunk in public) Court advances several arguments: If Powell cannot be convicted of crime, murdered moved by a compulsion to kill cannot be convicted. An impossible and heinous situation! Doctors cannot even agree on whether alcoholism is a disease. Impossibly complex to inquire into each defendants personality and identify whether a compulsion exists. Dissent: Alcoholism is a condition Powell had no capacity to change or avoid, so to convict him is a Cruel and Unusual Punishment Acts of Omission/Negative Acts Test for Criminal Liability for an Act of Omission A " is criminally liable for an act of omission if (see Jones v. United States and People v. Chapman, 28 N.W. 896, 1886)(theories do not come from statute; theyre derived wholly from common law, see People v. Beardsley, 150 Mich. 206, 113 N.W. 1128): (1) He was under a legal duty to act (most important factor), (an omission is not an act unless theres a legal obligation to act) IMPORTANT: A moral duty is insufficient for criminal liability. Purpose: Notion places reasonable and discernible limits on liability for omissions. (2) He had the necessary knowledge, and If defendant does not know about the facts underlying the duty, not liable; however, might still have a duty to know the facts and be criminally liable for failing to exercise reasonable care in learning the facts. (3) It would have been possible for the him to act (or reasonably possible to obtain help of others) Mother might not be able to feed kids, but has a legal duty to file for welfare so as to obtain the needed funds. Situations in Which Legal Duties Arise Duties based upon relationship of parties (parent-child, cop-pedestrian, husband-wives, innkeeper-guest, captain-passengers, but not man-woman or adult-child) Statutory duties (filing taxes, duty of spouse to support another, etc.) Constitutional due process demands that criminal statutes be sufficiently specific and precise so as to give fair warning of the required conduct (Winters v. United States, 333 U.S. 507, 1948). Contractual duties (Ill take care of your kid for the weekend) Duties arising from voluntarily undertaking task (i.e. refusal to continue a voluntary assumption of care can constitute a criminal act) Duties based on creation of peril Duties to control conduct of others (employer may have duty to prevent employees from committing an illegal act while doing employers work) General Reluctance for adopting strict Good Samaritan (anti-omission) Law Open-ended standard is difficult to apply in a consistent method Reduction of personal freedom Laws pose an unacceptable threat to the privacy of victims, especially in cases of sexual offenses. Laws might reduce good deeds, as people might be reluctant to even trywhy invite them into my house? If she hits her kid, Im at fault; I should probably just let them starveto aid: Another concern may be the bystanders reluctance to become obligated to testify in court or fear of retaliation of the person reported. RELEVANT CASES Jones v. United States, 308 F.2d 307, 1962 (to be criminally liable, a jury has the necessity for finding a legal duty of care) Pope v. State, 284 Md. 309, 396 A.2s 1054, 1979 (there is no legal duty to act to save an infant if you have not voluntarily taken responsibility of the child; moral duty alone does not produce a legal duty) Legal Duty Requirement Jones v. United States, 308 F.2d 307, 1962 Facts: Anthony Lee Green, a 10-month-old child, was placed with ". " had ample means to provide Green with food and medical care, but did not, resulting in the child s death " s involuntary manslaughter conviction overturned because judge did not inform jury that it must find that Jones had a legal duty  to supply food and necessities to Anthony Lee. Holding & Reasoning: A " is criminally liable for an act of omission only if the omitted duty is a legal duty and not merely a moral obligation. Pope v. State, 284 Md. 309, 396 A.2s 1054, 1979 (MD) Facts: " Pope invited Norris, who was suffering from mental illness, and Norris s daughter into her home because they had no place else to go. While Norris was in " Pope s home, under the throes of her mental illness, Norris savagely beat her daughter, resulting in her daughter s death. " Pope did not to stop the beating, call authorities, or seek medical assistance " Pope was convicted of child abuse under a MD statute that said a person can be convicted of child abuse if the person was: A parent or adoptive parent of, in loco parentis of, or responsible for the supervision of a minor under the age of 18 AND: By act of commission or omission accountable for abuse to the child Dispute centers on whether " was legally responsible for the child such as will bring her under the class of persons classified under the MD child abuse statute Holding & Reasoning: There is no legal duty to act to save an infant if you have not voluntarily taken responsibility of the child. A moral duty is not equivalent to a legal duty. Courts conclusion: No reasonable jury could conclude that the crime described in the statue actually transpired (substantive right of judges). Mother was always there. Pope had no right to usurp the role of the mother even to the extent of responsibility for the childs supervision. Revealingly, court dismisses misprision of felony (failure to report a felony) as applicable (this was a common law crime): We believe that the common law offense is not acceptable by todays standards. (This is an old common law feature that is not part of any US code, or even the MPC.) MPC 2.01, which allows you to be guilty of an omission if you were physically capable, also, in section 3, requires that the omission is expressly made sufficient by the law defining the offence; or (b) a duty to perform the omitted act is otherwise imposed by law. If law doesnt expressly make it so, then not acting cannot be a liability under the MPC Mens Rea Introductory example: Simpson Examine Nevada statute (always do this first in state cases): Nevada Revised statues 200.380: Robbery is the unlawful taking of personal property from a person of another . . . What does unlawful means? Is it unlawful because it isnt yours? What if it is yours? Is it unlawful if violence is used? Possible meanings: Taking what isnt yours Vigilante justice (use of force, whether yours or not) State-sanction for taking (b/c unlawful would be redundant if we held it to mean violent taking, as the rest of the statute defines violent taking). Definition of mens rea: defined as guilty mind, as in what the defendant was thinking at the time he committed the actus reus. In seeking, analyze intent, not motive: (Did he want to kill her? Not, why did he want to kill her? Motive is irrelevant to mens rea analysis.) Note: When a crime requires proof of intent, prosecutions must prove beyond a reasonable doubt the element of intent. Remember, juries must convict beyond reasonable doubt on all factors of the crime. Rationale for mens rea requirement Deterrence: How can you deter people who dont know theyve done anything wrong? Rehabilitation: How can you rehabilitate people dont know theyve done anything wrong? Retribution: Its unfair to punish people who dont know theyve done anything wrong? Expression: Public policy concerns dont justify punishing people if they dont know theyve done anything wrong Elements of a Crime (Important Overview) Material element: Those characteristics (conduct, attendant circumstances, result of the conduct) of the actors behavior that, when combined with the appropriate level of culpability, will constitute the offense Mens rea must be determined with regard to each material element of a crime Types of elements (not all required for each crime, and there may be multiple for a given crime): Conduct (necessary for the crime to be committed) Attendant circumstances (necessary for the crime to be committed E.g., for statutory rape, the fact that one party was under 16 or 15 Results of conduct (necessary for the crime to be committed E.g., for homicide, death Jurisdictional elements General rule is strict liability, so mens rea for jurisdictional elements not relevant (***) Excpetions to mens rea requirement Exception 1 to need for mens rea: clear statutory direction Exception 2 to need for mens rea: public welfare offences/strict liability Exception 3 to need for mens rea: ignorance of law Exception to exception: Cheek (mens rea required) Exception to exception: Smith (mens rea required) Exception to exception: Lambert (mens rea required) (***) Mens Rea Analysis (i.e., determining what mens rea is required to get a conviction for a particular crime) (1) Determine material elements of the crime. Material elements of an offense which require mens rea involve . . . Conduct (conscious object) Result (conscious object) Attendant circumstances (knowledge) Remember, material element in cases do not usually require mens rea (2) Determine which type of mens rea is required with respect to each material element. (A) First, check the terms of the offense itself (what does the statute actually say?) If the statue doesnt indicate whether or not mens rea is required, we assume it is (because mens rea is a fundamental common law principle) ( courts often read common law principles into statutes. (B) Second, in event of ambiguity, apply the MPC defaults (recklessness, usually). Mens Rea, Exception I: Statutory Intention & Public Welfare Offenses Strict liability: Liability without culpability (i.e., without mens rea) Strict liability applies, generally, to malum prohibitum offenseswrong because it is a crime (e.g., public welfare offenses) Requirements for Strict Liability to Follow Strict liability follows when the legislature has manifested a clear statutory intent that mens rea is not required (see Staples v. U.S.). A strict liability crime is suggested by the following characteristics (see Morissette v. United States, 342 U.S. 246): New statutory offense (cant be from common law, like robbery, etc.) Does not involve direct and positive infringement on the rights of other persons Broad regulatory scheme Relatively light penalty Proof of mens rea would impede implementation of legislative purpose Strict liability is unlikely to follow from a common law crime Public Welfare Laws (***) Public welfare or regulatory offenses impose strict liability if they regulate items that are potentially harmful or injurious. Theres no presumption that you should interpret a statute in order to require mens rea when it deals with a public welfare offense Court tend to interpret statutes to be public welfare offenses that dont require mens rea when: The proscribed action carries with it an inherent danger The statute attaches a low penalty Categories of public welfare laws: Selling misbranded consumer drugs (Dotterweich) Sales of impure food Illegal sales of intoxicating liquor Selling restricted narcotics (Balint) Selling unregistered grenades (Freed) NOTE: US SC has made a distinction between public welfare laws and felonies; basically, if youre accused of a felony, proving mens rea is required in order for conviction RELEVANT CASES United States v. Balint, 258 U.S. 250, 1922 (strict liability applies to regulatory crimes (public welfare offenses); therefore, no mens rea required.) United States v. Dotterwiech, 320 U.S. 277, 1943 (strict liability justified by need to preserve public from an innocent but standing in responsible relation to a public danger individual (i.e. individual must be dealing with dangerous device)) Morissette v. United States, 342 U.S. 246, 1952 (omission of intent in a statute does not annul mens rea requirement for common law crimes; establishes the checklist for determining strict liability) Staples v. United States, 511 U.S. 600, 1994 (for strict liability to apply, one must establish that the legislature intended to impose that kind of liability so as to avoid convicting innocent persons) Regina v. City of Sault Ste. Marie, 85 D.L.R 3d 161, 1978 (Canadian case; does express great dislike for absolute strict liability) Strict Liability and Regulatory Crimes United States v. Balint, 258 U.S. 250, 1922 (US) Facts: Defendants indicted for violating Narcotics Act by selling derivatives of opium and coca leaves without the order form required by the act. Prosecution did not allege that " s knew they were violating the law. Holding & Reasoning: Strict liability applies to regulatory crimes (public welfare offenses); therefore, no mens rea required. The purpose of the law " s violated was to require every person selling drugs to ascertain whether or not what theyre selling falls into the category of drugs prohibited by the statute. Congress weighed the risk of subjecting an unknowing party to prosecution against the evil of exposing innocent purchases to the dangers of the drug United States v. Dotterwiech, 320 U.S. 277, 1943 (US) Facts: Dotterwiech unknowingly sold drugs with incorrect manufacturer label. He and his company were prosecuted for shipping misbranded or adulterated products in interstate commerce in violation of the Federal Food, Drug, and Cosmetic Act. Holding & Reasoning: Strict liability justified because act placed burden on a person innocent, but standing in responsible relation to a public danger (i.e. no mens rea required because " was dealing with dangerous device).  The statute places burden on he who at least has some opportunity to discover the mislabeling, rather than throwing it out to a helpless public. Omission of Intent from a Statute Does not Annul the Mens Rea Requirement Morissette v. United States, 342 U.S. 246, 1952 (US) Facts: Morissette took spent bomb casings that been lying unused. Government sues him under law making it a crime to knowingly convert government property. Holding & Reasoning: Omission of intent in a statute does not annul mens rea requirement for common law felonies (infamous crimes) (stealing, larceny, etc.) I.e., mens rea (intent) is a necessary element for any felony (infamous crime; one not purely regulatory) Crimes of strict liability (i.e., that do not require mens rea) generally arise from situations of public welfare where the accused is in a position to prevent some public harm with no more care than society might reasonably expect and no more exertion than it might reasonably exact from one who assumed his responsibilities. I.e., crimes of strict liability generally relate to statutory regulations, not infamous crimes. Strict Liability Attaches to a Crime Only Where Legislature Indicates It Should Staples v. United States, 511 U.S. 600, 1994 (US) Facts: Staples was in possession of an unregistered firearm modified so as to be automatic, didnt know gun had been so modified. Statute made possession of an unregistered automatic firearm punishable by up to 10 years in prison, was silent on the mens rea requirement. Staples sought an instruction to the jury that the government had to prove that he knew that the gun would fire automatically. Request refused, and jury convicted. Holding & Reasoning: For strict liability to apply, one must establish that the legislature intended to impose that kind of liability (so to avoid convicting innocent persons (those unaware of their conducts illegality)) I.e., for strict liability to apply for a felony offense, Congress must have made a clear statement that mens rea is not required. Essentially, prosecutor must somehow prove that legislature regarded items as potentially harmful or injurious and wanted them regulated. (Use checklist from Morissette.) Court reluctant to construe statute so as to criminalize a broad range of apparently innocent conduct (buying of guns). Court says buying a gun is a simple transaction (and many people own guns) that should not alert the buyer to the probability of strict (liability) regulation (like buying a car). Idea is that with public welfare offenses, a " knows he is dealing with a dangerous device of a character that places him  in a responsible relation to a public danger, and thus may be placed on notice to possibility of strict liability. This is not a public welfare offense. Regina v. City of Sault Ste. Marie, 85 D.L.R 3d 161, 1978 (NOT CONTROLLING as this is a MODERN CANADIAN CASE) Facts: The City of Sault Ste. Marie was charged with pollution in violation of a statute and held strictly liable. Holding & Reasoning: Although the public interest is involved, mens rea should still be proved unless expressly provided by the legislature. Absolute liability violates fundamental principles of penal liability. Three new categories created: (1) offenses for which mens rea must be proven, (3) offenses of absolute liability in which defendants is not able to exculpate himself by showing he was free of fault, and (2) public welfare cases in which prosecution doesn t have to prove mens rea but "t can raise due care as an affirmative defense. Justification for absolute liability in regulatory cases: Absolute liability is the most effective way of ensuring compliance with minor regulatory legislation (encourages people in a position of responsibility over dangerous items to discover and maintain standards of safety), and the social ends to be achieved are of such importance as to override the unfortunate by-product of punishing those who may be free of moral guilt. Mens Rea, Exception II: Ignorance of the Law Mistake of Fact (generally a defense) Ignorance or mistake of fact will generally prevent criminal liability if it negates mens rea (MPC makes no distinction between mistake of law or fact). Defendant can consequently be acquitted if there is reasonable doubt, based on actual evidence of mistake of fact, as to whether he had requisite mens rea. NOTE: No defense to a strict liability crime. These mistakes must still be reasonable. (Raises due process concerns, as prosecution doesnt necessarily have to prove all elements of the crime and can instead rely on reasonableness criterion.) Misake of Law (generally not a defense) Generally, ignorance of the law is not an excuse Rationale: If you know you can get off if you dont know the law, if you never read any laws (dont know any law), you can never be convicted When ignorance of the law is an excuse (exception to the exception): (1) Where the legislature says knowledge of the prohibition is a necessary element of the crime (i.e., where ignorance of the law negates one of the required elements; where theres a clear direction that ignorance of the law is an excuse) (see Cheek) E.g., tax evasion statutes, which often require that in order to violate the provision you have to know about the provision NOTE: Its not a defense, however, that you failed to file taxes because you think income taxes are unconstitutional So, even when statutory misunderstanding is a defense, constitutional misunderstanding is not (2) Where an element of a crime depends on knowledge of a collateral legal rule (see Smith) (3) Where " was mistaken about the applicable law and consequently believed his conduct was not proscribed, and (A) " s mistaken belief was reasonable, and (B) The law "  broke was later declared unconstitutional, or (C) The " relied on a judicial decision decriminalizing his conduct, or (SPLIT) an opinion of an agency with responsibility for administering or enforcing the law (i.e., if you call the EPA, and they tell you something, you then do it; you would have a legitimate ignorance of law defense.) (4) Where the crime was an act of omission, was committed by someone not working in an industry that should place her on notice as to the possibility of heightened restrictions, and was malum prohibitum, not mala in se (see Lambert) RELEVANT CASES Lambert v. California, 355 U.S. 225, 1957 (ignorance of law when such an ignorance is likely and negates mens rea is a valid defense) Regina v. Smith (David), 2 Q.B. 354, 1974 (ignorance of law can be based on an honest and unjustified belief. (see category (1)) People v. Marrero, 69 N.Y.2d 382, 507 N.E.2d 1068, 1987 (an ignorance of law defense can depend on statute later overturned but not on mistaken reading of always valid law) Cheek v. United States, 498 U.S. 192, 1991 (ignorance of law, if it negates the mens rea of a crime as defined in statute (willful in statute), can be a valid defense even if it is unreasonable) Ignorance of law an excuse when the law says ignorance of the law is an excuse Cheek v. United States, 498 U.S. 192, 1991 Facts: Cheek was convicted of willfully failing to file a federal income tax return. He claimed two things: (1) taxes were unconstitutional, and (2) he had held the mistaken belief, from studying tax laws, that he did not have to pay his taxes. Tax law expressly requires that the tax avoidance be willful. Holding & Reasoning: Ignorance of law, if it negates the mens rea of a crime as defined in statute (willful in statute), can be a valid defense even if it is unreasonable. In this case, an unreasonable, good-faith misunderstanding of the statute could negate the willfulness requirement Ignorance of law is justifiable defense if the mens rea of the crime requires awareness of the law. (tax laws do.) Court finds Cheek willfully violated the tax law because he knew what the law was and knew he was violating it. Willfully violating a law means knowing precisely what the law is and violating it anyway Belief of unconstitutionality is not relevant as an ignorance of law defense. Ignorance of law an excuse where an element of the crime depends on knowledge of a collateral legal rule Regina v. Smith (David), 2 Q.B. 354, 1974 Facts: Smith prepared to leave his apartment. In the process, he damaged some wood panels to retrieve stereo wiring. Both the wiring and the wood panels had been of his own construction. He was charged with violating an act that makes it criminal to  destroy or damage any property belong to another without  lawful excuse. Holding & Reasoning: Conviction reversed because " didn t know that a different law said the damaged property did not in fact belong to him Ignorance of law can be based on an honest and unjustified belief. (see category (1)) Ignorance of law an excuse where " was mistaken about the applicable law and consequently believed his conduct was not proscribed, and (other requirements) People v. Marrero, 69 N.Y.2d 382, 507 N.E.2d 1068, 1987 (NY) Facts: Marrero was an federal corrections officer. Marrero read statute that said that peace officers were exempt from registering their weapon. He believed himself to be so defined under the statute. Statute defines peace officers to include correctional officers of any state correctional facility or of any penal correction institution. Trial court at first agreed. Court of Appeals disagreed, stating that any penal institution meant a state penal institution. Holding & Reasoning: An ignorance of law defense can depend on statute later overturned but not on mistaken interpretation of relevant unturned statute. (i.e. Marreros interpretation on law is not a legitimate ignorance of law defense as he misinterpreted it, and he cannot raise it.) Misunderstanding of the law may not excuse criminal conduct except where the mistaken belief is founded upon (1) a statute or (2) an interpretation of a statute offered by a public official charged with enforcing or interpreting that statute. Where mistake is founded upon a statute, such mistake is a valid defense only where the statute was afterward (after the act) determined to be invalid or erroneous (because it conflicts with another law, etc.). Reasoning: To allow " s who commit crimes by virtue of misunderstanding a law would encourage mistakes about the law rather than respect for and adherence to (and study of) the law. Notably, dissent takes particular issue to principle of ignorance of the law is no excuse. Sklansky: Marrero convicted because he was being cute Ignorance of law an excuse when crime was an act of omission, was committed by someone not working in an industry that should place her on notice as to the possibility of heightened restrictions, and was malum prohibitum, not mala in se Lambert v. California, 355 U.S. 225, 1957 (US) Facts: Lambert had been convicted of several crimes. She moved to Los Angeles at one point. She did not register as required by law. She claims to have been unaware of the law itself, and committed no further crime (or any positive action to begin with in LA). State chares her with violating Section 52.39 (requires registration by convicted felon within 5 days of moving to LA). Holding & Reasoning: Criminal liability because of an omission, without proof that defendant had knowledge of the law, violates due process. (Hearkens back to cases on omission.) Essentially, ignorance of law, if it negates mens rea of crime, can be a defense. Partially predicated on defendant being unlikely to be aware of legal duty. Applied test (1) concerning mistake of law, as statute did not require defendants to know of it and ignorance negates mens rea. " s  illegal acts were passive (i.e., broke law by not registering), whereas most laws that exclude elements of knowledge or intent are for active criminal violations (commissions) (***) We accept the ignorance of law standard when there is, as in this case, a confluence of events: No proof of intentional violation. Malum prohibitum (wrong because it is a crime, rather than crime because it is wrongmalum in se) Not regulatory crime. Resembles status offence. Dissent: There are many laws that dont require knowledge of wrongdoing that have been sustained because the purpose of the laws is to achieve some social betterment rather than punish the offender Mens Rea: Levels of Culpability Traditional Mens rea Categories General intent (intent to commit the act): Apply when (1) specific intent not required by terms of the crime and (2) criminal negligence is not sufficient. (Examples: rape and mayhem.) Can be inferred from defendants doing of prohibited conduct. (If you voluntarily do an act, can be presumed to have intended such an act.) Some crimes require that defendant must also have knowledge (+general intent). Specific intent (intend to do something beyond the act itself (which is covered by general intent)) Example: Burglary. Burglary consists of two thingsbreaking in and taking something. The breaking in would count as general intent; the taking would be specific intent. Therefore, burglary is a specific intent crime. Tend to consist of activity in preparation; therefore, specific intent is required to provide assurance that defendant would engage in more serious crime if stopped. Attempted burglary: Cops stop you as you break in, and arrest you for it because burglary was the more serious crime (not trespass) that you intended (further act) once breaking in (initial act). (***) Unlike general intent, requires actual proof, which can be circumstantial. This is because specific intent cannot be inferred from the initial act. (Maybe I really did intend just to trespass so as to sleep in anothers warm bed rather than steal their jewelry . . . prosecutor must prove my intent to steal.) Criminal negligence (act done without awareness of facts but with gross lack of care): Involves breach of duty owed by reasonable person . . . But there must be a high probability of harm and a great degree of unreasonableness Malice (act done without legal excuse or justification; dont need to actually hate the person) Courts sometimes require willfulness, deliberation, and knowledge of law and therefore its violation. Taxes, for example: Government must prove you knew your duty to pay and chose not to. Essentially, under statute, prosecutor must prove defendants knew of law and were expressly violating it (innocently doing so because of lack of knowledge not enough). Elements of a Crime (Important Overview) Material element: Those characteristics (conduct, attendant circumstances, result of the conduct) of the actors behavior that, when combined with the appropriate level of culpability, will constitute the offense Types of elements (not all required for each crime, and there may be multiple for a given crime): Conduct (necessary for the crime to be committed) Attendant circumstances (necessary for the crime to be committed E.g., for statutory rape, the fact that one party was under 16 or 15 Results of conduct (necessary for the crime to be committed E.g., for homicide, death Jurisdictional elements General rule is strict liability, so mens rea for jurisdictional elements not relevant Elements of a Crime and Culpability Unless some element of mental culpability is proved with respect to each material element of the offense, no valid criminal conviction may be obtained Culpability must be addressed separately with respect to each material element Different crimes will require different mens rea as specified in statute. If a statute says a certain kind of culpability applies to an offense, take it to mean that that kind of culpability applies to all the elements of the offence, unless otherwise specified Also, if statute does not specify the mens rea required, at least recklessness for all elements will be required (see elements of offense above). Look at example and exercises on pages 226-227. (***) Levels of Culpabilty Under the MPC (MPC 2.02) Purpose: conscious desire or object to engage certain conduct or cause certain result (subjective) If a law requires purpose as mens rea, proving purpose for all elements of the crime will justify conviction. Knowledge: A certain awareness that something will result (subjective) If a law requires knowledge as mens rea, proving either knowledge or purpose for all elements of the crime will justify conviction Recklessness: Consciously ignoring an awareness of substantial and unjustifiable risk (i.e., consciously disregarding a a substantial and unjustifiable risk of which one is aware) (indifference; must know, if not, then negligent). Essentially, you proactively ignore knowledge (subjective) Done with knowledge there was a risk an injury would occur such that his disregard involves a gross deviation from the standard of conduct a law-abiding person would observe in the actors situation If a law requires recklessness for mens rea, proving purposes, knowledge, or recklessness for all elements of the crime will justify conviction IMPORTANT: MPC requires at least recklessness for all elements of the crime for criminal liability. Criminal Negligence: Situation where a reasonable person would have been aware he was creating a risk (objective) I.e., A person acts negligently if he inadvertently creates a substantial and unjustifiable risk of which he ought to be aware Criminal negligence, because of the different nature of the criminal brand, is higher than civil negligence: considering the nature and purpose of the actors conduct and the circumstances known to him, the negligent action must be a gross deviation from the [standard] of care that would be exercised by a reasonable person in his situation. [Remember, MPC drafters wanted only the first three used to determine criminal liability. Produced this definition of criminal negligence to make sure simple negligence would not be used.] Criminal recklessness v. criminal negligence: Recklessness is a conscious awareness while negligence involves circumstances in which a reasonable person should have been aware. Lower levels of culpability: Civil Negligence: A person acts negligently when he fails to perceive an unjustifiable risk that a result will occur; the risk must be of such a nature and degree that the failure to perceive it constitutes a deviation from the standard or care a reasonable person would observe in the situation Difference from criminal negligence: Deviation from standard of care a reasonable person would observe is not gross Strict Liability: No mens rea required at all (liability based solely on the actus reus)t (***) Determining Culpability (Mens Rea Analysis) (1) Determine material elements of the crime. Material elements of an offense which require mens rea include: Conduct (conscious object) Result (conscious object) Attendant circumstances (knowledge) Remember, attendant circumstances in cases do not usually require mens rea (2) Determine which type of mens rea is required with respect to each material element. (A) First, check the terms of the offense itself (what does the statute actually say?) If the statue doesnt indicate whether or not mens rea is required, we assume it is (because mens rea is a fundamental common law principle) ( courts often read common law principles into statutes. (B) Second, in event of ambiguity, apply the MPC defaults (recklessness, usually). RELEVANT CASES Regina v. Cunningham, 2 Q.B. 396, 1957 (at least foresight of harm alleged (British case; MPC: recklessness) or actual intent (MPC: purpose) required to meet mens rea requirement for conviction of crime) Regina v. Faulkner, 13 Cox. Crim. Cas. 550, 555, 557, 1877 (criminal liability attached only where the defendant is shown to have contemplated the actual harm that resulted from his conduct; mens rea for each element and each specific crime.) Santillanes v. New Mexico, 115 N.M. 215, 849 P.2d 358, 1993 (criminal negligence is required for a criminal conviction in light of the moral condemnation and social opprobrium [that] attach to the conviction of a crime (contrast with Alaskan court decision in State v. Hazelwood)) State v. Hazelwood, 946 P.2d 875, 1997 (Alaskan court chooses to not utilize gross deviation distinction between criminal and civil negligence; contrast with Santillanes v. New Mexico) Malice = at least recklessness Regina v. Cunningham, 2 Q.B. 396, 1957 (NOT CONTROLLING as this is a MODERN BRITISH CASE) Facts: Cunningham went into cellar and removed gas meter from the gas pipes and stole it. In so doing, he released gas into the adjoining house. Next-door neighbor was almost asphyxiated. Judge informed jury that the statute, which used the word maliciously, equaled wickedness. Holding & Reasoning: At least foresight of harm alleged (MPC: recklessness) or actual intent (MPC: purpose) is required to meet mens rea requirement for conviction of crime (here, poisoning). More specifically, malice is not merely wickedness, but rather an actual intention to do the particular kind of harm or recklessness as to whether such should occur. The question, then, is not merely whether " removed the gas meter, but whether " foresaw that removing the meter might harm the neighbor and yet did so anyway. Therefore, there was enough mens rea for larceny, but not enough mens rea for poisoning. Regina v. Faulkner, 13 Cox. Crim. Cas. 550, 555, 557, 1877 (ENGLAND) Facts: Faulkner went to ship to steal rum. In the process of stealing the rum, he lit a match so as to see and accidentally set the rum on fire. The ship burned. Holding & Reasoning: Criminal liability attached only where the defendant is shown to have contemplated the actual harm that resulted from his conduct. Willfulness required. (i.e. like in Cunningham, recklessnessignoring probability of harmor purposeactual intent to cause harmor knowledgecertain awareness of harmmust be proven for every element of the actual crime committed to meet the mens rea requirement.) Example: If you throw a rock at a person with the intent to harm them and instead break a window, you cannot be guilty of damage to property. The mens rea criteria must be proven for every element of the common law offense. You have to have a separate mens rea for each element of the act. Criminal vs. Civil Negligence State v. Hazelwood, 946 P.2d 875, 1997 (ALASKA) Facts: Captain run ship (Exxon Valdez) into reef. He was convicted of criminal negligence. Negligence standard used, however, was civil, meaning that the state did not have to prove a gross deviation from the care (see MPC), simply that accused failed to perceive a substantial and unjustifiable risk that a particular result will occur. Holding & Reasoning: Traditional negligence standard, not the MPCs gross deviation standard, is sufficient for a criminal liability. Arguments for: 50 yard rule this will keep people far from negligence by causing them to be exceptionally careful Arguments against: punishing negligence doesnt deter; criminal stigma is imposed without criminal culpability. Criminal vs. civil negligence: Civil negligence: A person acts negligently when he fails to perceive an unjustifiable risk that a result will occur; the risk must be of such a nature and degree that the failure to perceive it constitutes a deviation from the standard or care a reasonable person would observe in the situation Criminal negligence: Like civil negligence, but criminal negligence requires a greater risk, such that the failure to perceive constitutes a gross deviation from the standard of care a reasonable person would observe in the situation. In essence, criminal negligence is negligence so gross as to merit not just damages, but also punishment Santillanes v. New Mexico, 115 N.M. 215, 849 P.2d 358, 1993 (NM) Facts: Santillanes cut his nephews neck with a knife during an altercation. He was convicted of child abuse under a statute stating, negligently . .. causing . . . a child to be . . . placed in a situation that may endanger the childs life or health . . . Holding & Reasoning: Criminal negligence is required for a criminal conviction in light of the moral condemnation and social opprobrium [that] attach to the conviction of a crime (contrast with Alaskan court decision in State v. Hazelwood) This holding is directly opposed to the Alaska ruling, which comes 4 years later; specifically, the court noted how, before branding a person a criminal, the accused should be proven to have the mental state warranting such contempt. Homicide Common LawMPC Purpose/knowledge  Murder (malice) (Intent) (Depraved heart) Kinds: 1st Degree (premeditation) 2nd Degree Felony-murder  Murder (Purpose/knowledge) (Extreme indifference to human life) w/provocation  Voluntary manslaughter (Provocation) Voluntary manslaughter (Emotional disturbance)  Recklessness  Involuntary manslaughter (Wanton)  Involuntary manslaughter (Recklessness) Negligence  Negligent homicide (Criminal Negligence)  IMPORTANT: Homicide has only one element, the result element (death of another person), so we need only address the " s culpability with respect to that result element Involuntary Manslaugher Involuntary manslaughter is statute based, and although the MPC does have a designation, case law is confused on how to exactly to define, specifically, must it be reckless as defined by the MPC or grossly negligent as defined by the MPC? An act is involuntary manslaughter if there was no intent to kill (definition of involuntary) and if: (1) Common law: It is the result of wanton conduct Common law does not have a separate negligent homicide category, so an act that would be considerd to be criminally negligent under the MPC may be considered involuntary manslaughter under the common law (see Welansky) Acts under this subcategory do not have to be unlawful, i.e. an unintentional killing caused by the commission of any act, lawful or unlawful, in a criminally negligent manner is involuntary manslaughter (see People vs. Welansky). MPC: It is the result of reckless conduct: MPC employs a different set of definitions (applicability is confused as local case law does not clearly distinguish between the two types below): Involuntary manslaughter = reckless actions leading to a killing (so use standard of recklessness as defined in mens rea ): A killing is manslaughter if the actor was reckless, that is, if he consciously disregarded a substantial and unjustifiable risk. Criminally negligent homicide = criminally negligence actions leading to a killing (so use standard for criminal negligence as defined in mens rea ): A killing is negligent homicide when a person should have been aware of such a risk and his failure to perceive it . . . involves a gross deviation from the standards of care a reasonable person would observe in the actors situation. Repetition: Criminal recklessness v. criminal negligence: Recklessness is a conscious awareness while negligence (usually) involves gross deviation from what a reasonable person should have been aware. Problems with MPCs distinctions: Practicality: how do we prove defendant knew of the risk? The question of the reasonable person: Why do we use this standard? How do you determine who a reasonable person is in a particular state or what a reasonable person would do? Moral culpability: Why does learned knowledge decrease culpability but ignorance does not? Would a non-evil person act this way? (2) It is caused during the commission of an unlawful act that is not a felony (misdemeanor, for example). Therefore, involuntary manslaughter might consist of either of these two types depending on states case law and/or statute: Unintentional reckless killing: Depends on individual statutes. In general, requires recklessness or gross negligence. (Welansky) Unintentional grossly negligent/negligent killing: Sometimes separate crime of negligent homicide; vehicular homicide, etc)(Williams) RELEVANT CASES: Involuntary Manslaughter Commonwealth v. Welansky, 315 Mass. 383, 55 N.E.2d 902, 1944 (involuntary manslaughter = reckless intentional omission (non-act) due to legal duty to act; applies only to Massachusetts) State v. Williams, 4 Wash. App. 908, 484 P.2d 1167, 1971 (involuntary manslaughter = ordinary negligence; similar to State v. Hazelwood, see mens rea ) People v Hall, 999 P.2d 207, 2000 (involuntary manslaughter = reckless intentional action; accords with Commonwealth vs. Welansky but definition applied to action rather than omission) Commonwealth v. Welansky, 315 Mass. 383, 55 N.E.2d 902, 1944 (MA) Facts: Welansky owned a club called the New Cocoanut Grove. On November 16, 1942, he was in the hospital. A fire began in his club and killed 400-500 people. Three of the emergency exist were in obscure locations, poorly marked and accessible only to knowledgeable employees. A screen and dining tables blocked one other exit. The other was kept regularly locked. Holding & Reasoning: Involuntary manslaughter could consist of conduct that is wanton & reckless since grave danger must have been apparent & the defendant must have chosen to run the risk rather than alter his conduct. IMPORTANT: Court holds " knew the risk he was creating (hence recklessness) through his omission (***) Use of verb  chosen implies a conscious choice, i.e. recklessness:  at common law conduct does not become criminal until it passes the borders of negligence and gross negligence and enters into the domain of wanton or reckless conduct. Wallanskys actions would be defined as involuntary manslaughter under the MPC due to their recklessness. In this particular case, the court seemingly conflates recklessness and criminal negligence and muddies any clear distinction; the opinion is very unclear, very shaky, and very weak. People v Hall, 999 P.2d 207, 2000 (CO) Facts: Hall, a ski instructor, flew off a knoll and collided with Allen Cobb. Cobb died as a result of the hit. Hall was skiing too fast for the conditions, according to trial court. Colorado had adopted the distinction between criminally negligent homicide and involuntary manslaughter suggested by the MPC; therefore, must determine if Hall acted recklessly or simply negligently. Holding & Reasoning: Manslaughter requires recklessness, defined as having consciously disregarded a substantial and unjustifiable risk that death could result from his actions (follows MPC definition exactly); therefore, trial court should have allowed jury to hear prosecutor s evidence for involuntary manslaughter as well as criminally negligent homicide. Court: We may reasonably infer " was aware of and consciously disregarded the risk his actions were creating, as " was a ski instructor and thus probably knew that by skiing so quickly and out of control he might collide with and kill another person Accords with Commonwealth vs. Welansky, which is still law in Massachusetts. Hall occurred in Colorado. Only difference is that Welansky dealt with a reckless non-act (i.e. an omission) and Hall deals with a reckless action. State v. Williams, 4 Wash. App. 908, 484 P.2d 1167, 1971 (WASHINGTON) Facts: Husband and wife do not take baby, sick for two weeks, to doctor. Baby dies from tooth infection. Both husband and wife provided baby with aspirin but feared to go to the doctor because the child might be taken away although they had gone before and considered just such an option during the 2 weeks. Trial court wrote: The defendants were ignorance. They did not realize how sick the baby was. The baby showed physical signs of sickness: Holding & Reasoning: Ordinary negligence is enough to convict of involuntary manslaughter when defendants failed to provide medical care to 17-month old when he developed infection and he died. Williams actions would be defined as criminally negligent homicide under the MPC due to the gross deviation from standards of care that parents would provide in such a situation. (Partially indicted by their own realization that a doctor would be the best option.) This is no longer the law in Washington. Voluntary Manslaughter An act is voluntary manslaughter if there was an actual intent to kill (definition of voluntary, so as to distinguish from involuntary manslaughter) and if: Common Law: There was provocation of the kind that would cause a reasonable person to lose control and act rashly (in th heat of passion) and without reflection (see People v. Cassassa). Adequate provocation is provocation that would lead a reasonable person to violence (that is, to act based on passion rather reason or judgment) The idea is that there are times/situations that would lead an ordinary person to lose control Use objective standard (reasonable person) to determine this factor. The defendant must have, in fact, been provoked, and the provocation must have caused the defendant to kill the victim (see People v. Cassassa). Use subjective standard (this particular defendant) to determine this factor. This requirement would guard against an accumulated set of offenses resulting in an ultimate response of manslaughter; the provocation itself did not cause the killing, only the combined weight of previous provocations. HOWEVER, some courts do consider the culminating event and the earlier preceding events in combination to determine provocation (see note below). States are divided on whether voluntary manslaughter defense is available if the person killed wasnt actually the one who caused the provocation (i.e., if the killer made a mistake in killing the victim) Interval between provocation and killing cannot have been long enough for passions to cool, and Use objective standard (reasonable person) to determine this factor. Prior suspicions that motivated conduct can sometimes be regarded a having provided sufficient cooling time (see Commonwealth v. LeClair). An action committed the same day but several hours after the actual provocation is murder, as sufficient cooling time did exist (see United States v. Bordeux). The defendant must not have actually cooled off during the interval. Use subjective standard (this particular defendant) to determine this factor. (***) Traditional provocationcategories (see Girouard v. State): Extreme assault or battery upon the defendant Mutual combat Defendants illegal arrest Injury or serious abuse of a close relative (not friend) Sudden discovery of a spouses adultery (this tends not to qualify anymore) Importantly, these three cannot count as provocation: Anger Embarrassment Mere words The need for and value of provocation is hotly debated: Is it sexist? Women seldom kill their unfaithful male partners, but males seemingly have a ready-made excuse with this doctrine. Is it homophobic? A homosexual advance might constitute provocation, but such a killing might also be, illogically, a hate crime. (Courts have ruled that a provocation defense is not valid as matter of law in such situations; see People v. Garcia and Commonwealth v. Pierce). MPC: The killer acted under the influence of an extreme mental or emotional disturbance for which there is reasonable explanation of excuse Applies the reasonableness standard to the disturbance, not the reasonableness of the action, i.e. was the disturbance itself reasonable in light of the circumstances (does not apply to the conduct itself or to any psychological condition that induced the mental state, but rather to the mental state (e.g., suspicion-based rage) that led to the killing itself): The reasonableness of the explanation or excuse is to be determined from the viewpoint of a person in the actors situation under the circumstances as he believes them to be This doesnt, however, mean you take into account individual psychology ( its the external factors relating to the viewpoint and circumstances that matter MPC seems to desire a discussion. Notice that in People v. Cassassa court did not discuss the issues. RELEVANT CASES: Voluntary Manslaughter Maher v. People, 10 Mich. 212, 81 Am. Dec. 781, 1862 (provocation must be such as might render persons of average disposition liable to act rashly, without deliberation, and from passion rather than judgment; very subjective test and therefore not conventional common law application) People v. Cassassa, 49 N.Y.2d 668, 404 N.E.2d 1310, 1980 (court distinguishes between the need for an objective standard to determine the reasonableness of the disturbance and a subjective test to determine individual defendants mental state; see distinctions above) Girouard v. State, 321 Md. 532, 583 A.2d 718, 1991 (words may never constitute adequate provocation; softened in many jurisdictions) Maher v. People, 10 Mich. 212, 81 Am. Dec. 781, 1862 (MI) Facts: Maher entered saloon in an agitated manner and shot Hunt. Maher did this act after seeing his wife and Hunt enter the woods together. Upon entering the bar, Maher was told by a friend that his wife had slept with Hunt yesterday. Trial court considered this evidence inadmissible, and Maher was convicted of assault with intent to murder. Holding & Reasoning: Provocation must be such as might render persons of ordinary disposition liable to act rashly, without deliberation, and from passion rather than judgment; moreover, Sufficient or reasonableness of provocation is an issue of fact that the jury must decide. Decision departs from common law position that only a few particular circumstances can serve as legally adequate provocation. People v. Cassassa, 49 N.Y.2d 668, 404 N.E.2d 1310, 1980 (NY) Facts: Cassassa kills a woman he was dating after she breaks up with him. This killing was preceded by a number of bizarre actions on the part of the defendant, including breaking in so as eavesdrop and lying naked in her empty bed. He was charged with second-degree murder. At trial, defendant argued that he was under the influence of an "extreme emotional disturbance" at the time of the killings, in order to reduce the conviction to manslaughter. Holding & Reasoning: Note: NY had adopted a law classifying voluntary manslaughter that mirrored the MPC standard. NY law said:  It is an affirmative defense to a crime of second-degree murder where the " acted under the influence of an extreme emotional disturbance for which there was reasonable explanation or excuse. The affirmative defense of "extreme emotional disturbance" is judged by both a subjective and objective standard. (Lower court affirmed.) Whether the defendant did in fact act under an extreme emotional disturbance is determined by a subjective standard. Whether there was a "reasonable explanation or excuse" for the defendant's disturbance is determined by an objective standard. Girouard v. State, 321 Md. 532, 583 A.2d 718, 1991 (MD) Facts: Girouard was.arguing with his wife. Their marriage had long been rocky. Joyce taunted Steven. Steven eventually killed her with a knife. Steven then cleaned his hands and attempted suicide. Not succeeding, he called the police and admitted to murdering his wife. Holding & Reasoning: For provocation to be adequate to mitigate crime from second-degree murder to manslaughter, it must be calculated to inflame the passions of a reasonable man and tend to cause him to act for the moment from passion rather than reason The standard to be applied is one of reasonableness; it does not focus on the " s mental health and other psychological factors Mere words may never constitute adequate provocation. Rule has been softened in many jurisdictions as words may  disclose provocative happenings like the taunts of the victim in Girouard (words acting as proxy; like contacts acting as presence in civil procedure). Murder, Generally Common law Murder, always, requires malice afterthought, which means either: Intent Intent to kill Intent to inflict great bodily injury, even if one did not consciously desire anothers death. Intent to commit a felony Intent to resist lawful arrest Conduct so reckless it demonstrates a depraved heart (depraved heart murder/malignant and abandoned heart) Something you do thats so risky or is risky in a way that demonstrates you have a depraved heart (extreme indifference towards the value of human life) ( depraved heart murder Unintentional murder: Acting in the face of unusually high risk that conduct will cause death or serious bodily injury; traditionally, the risk must be so great that ignoring it demonstrates an abandoned and malignant heart or a depraved mind (see Commonwealth v. Malone). MPC Murder requires either: Purpose/knowledge Extreme indifference towards the value of human life Paradox: If a woman drives through a schoolyard and kills fifteen students as a result of fiddling with her cell phone, she cannot be convicted of murder, but if a kindhearted woman kills her mother so as to relieve her suffering, she is guilty of murder. Unintentional/Depraved Heart Murder (examples: Russian roulette, firing bullets into crowd, etc.) To repeat, unintentional murder is defined as: Acting in the face of unusually high risk that conduct will cause death or serious bodily injury. Essentially, unintentional murder requires extreme recklessness, as evidenced through a conscious disregard of extremely high risk of causing death with weak (or non-existent) justification (higher degree of recklessness than necessary for involuntary manslaughter): While most cases are ambiguous, subjective and actual awareness of risk seems to be necessary; however, the standard of a reasonable person will most often be used, i.e. you should have been aware of such a high risk because it is so very likely/possible (see Commonwealth v. Malone). Exception made in the MPC and most common law courts for a killing caused by voluntary intoxication: In accord with Fleming, the great majority of American courts have held that egregiously dangerous driving can support a conviction for murder. (See United States vs. Fleming.) More than mere negligence or recklessness is thus required, as negligence would be negligent homicide and recklessness would be manslaughter. (***; dominant definition) MPC 210.3 abandons such terminology (malice, depraved heart ) (possibly too subjective and/or too judgmental regarding character) and instead says: unintentional murder is a killing committed recklessly under circumstances manifesting extreme indifference to the value of human life Idea is that the extreme indifference towards human life the actors recklessness evidences is tantamount to the extreme indifference to human life that purposeful or knowing homicide demonstrate Drafters aware of the problems of moral intuitions; for example, in this statute, the use of extreme indifference pushes against our moral instincts. Reasons for: maybe afraid of undermining drug laws or endless excuses. Dont want to create excuses that could lead to grave consequencesplenty of drunk drivers (Well, it cant be that bad; they dont call it murder.) Dangers & weaknesses: creeping character concerns, constant battle to differentiate cases, perpetual creation of new categories (if we have reckless manslaughter, we must have something worse for murder, and so on) RELEVANT CASES: Unintentional Murder/Depraved Heart Murder Commonwealth v. Malone, 354 Pa. 180, 47 A.2d 445, 1946 (an act of gross recklessness for which one must reasonably anticipate death = malice = murder) People vs. Borden, 72 Cal. App. 3d 603, 616, 1977 (an omission of gross recklessness for which one must reasonably anticipate death = malice = murder; distinguish from Welansky, in which there was a lack of awareness rather than a purposeful omission) United States vs. Fleming, 739 F.2d 945, 1984 (drunk driving = depraved disregard for human life = malice) Commonwealth v. Malone, 354 Pa. 180, 47 A.2d 445, 1946 (PA) Facts: " loaded a cartridge into a chamber of a revolver to play  Russian roulette with a friend. " shot gun three times and it went off, killing his friend. " had loaded cartridge into a chamber such that the gun should not have gone off until the fifth shot. Thus, " did not  expect gun to go off Holding & Reasoning: An act of gross recklessness for which one must reasonably anticipate that death is the likely result amounts to the malice necessary for murder. When an individual commits an act of gross negligence for which he must reasonably anticipate death is likely to result, he exhibits malice towards that person, though he does not intend for the death to result. People vs. Borden, 72 Cal. App. 3d 603, 616, 1977 (CA) Facts: Father does not feed his baby. Evidence shows that father was aware that baby was starving to death. He admits to not caring and did nothing to feed the baby for 2 weeks. Holding & Reasoning: Applies Malones reasoning to an act of omission: An omission of great recklessness for which one must reasonable anticipate that death is the likely result amounts to the malice necessary for murder. Distinction from Welansky: Welanksys actions revealed a lack of awareness, not absolute indifference in the face of the certainty of death and a consequent refusal to act. United States vs. Fleming, 739 F.2d 945, 1984 (DC) Facts: " is driving at speeds variously estimated between 70 and 100 miles per hour. Speed limit is 45 miles per hour, at most. Fleming several times drives in the opposing lane in order to avoid traffic congestion. Fleming eventually lost control of his car and hit a Mrs. Haley. His blood alcohol level was .315. Holding & Reasoning; Drunk driving = depraved disregard for human life = malice necessary for murder, and was here demonstrated both by drinking and driving and manner of driving. This is the general standard applied to drunk drivers by the MPC and hence most American courts. An awareness could be provenand has beforeby the fact that in driving his car to a bar, Fleming must have known that he would have to drive it later unless he had surrendered his keys. Intentional Murder (1st and 2nd Degree) Division into 1st and 2nd degree first occurred in Pennsylvania in 1794; therefore, division is purely a creation of American statutes and has no direct common law antecedents. These statutes are state-issued, so distinctions might obviously be different in different states. First degree murder Premeditated killing: intent formed with some reflection, deliberation, reasoning, or weighing. Two approaches for determining premeditation (usu. identified in the statute): (1) Premeditation = intent to kill (premeditation and actual action can occur as instantaneously as successive thoughts), i.e. long time for premeditation not actually needed (see Commonwealth v. Carrol, PA ). Under this formulation, premeditation can take place in the instant before you pull the trigger; thus, premeditation doesnt differ from intent to kill (premeditation is intention to kill) (2) Premeditation requires actual consideration/reflection (Guthrie, WV ) Problem with requiring actual consideration for 1st degree murder (as in Guthrie, WV): How reliable is premeditation as a test for distinguishing the very worst form of murder? Maybe lack of premeditation reveals callousness and depravity so extreme that no hesitation is required, making non-premeditated murders worse the premeditated ones (in which the killer agonized about the decision, evidence that the decision was aberrational or that the killer had a tortured conscience rather than exceptional depravity) Also, may be under-inclusive of particularly brutal murders as in Anderson where the killer appeared to have just gone berserk MA has 3 categories of first-degree murder: Traditional premeditated murder Murders of extreme atrocity or cruelty Murder committed during the commission or attempted commission of a crime punishable with death or imprisonment for life (felony murder) Effect: Accepts WV definition of premeditation and makes an allowance for barbarous crimes as defined by reasonable persons (seemingly)(so Anderson would have been convicted) How do we show premeditation & first-degree murder? Heinousness of crime, cruelty Vulnerability of victim Number of people killed Relationship of trust between victim and aggressor Remorse and acceptance of responsibility are mitigating factors Arguments against premeditation: Taking time to consider crime may reflect guilt as to whether to kill or not May exculpate people that are acting irrationally May exculpate extremely heinous crimes in a state of passion/rage Arguments for premeditation: One who premeditates deserves higher punishment (retributive) The prospect of death penalty is more likely to deter people who plan their crimes than impulsive actors (utilitarian) Second degree murder Any murder not specifically made first-degree murder. RELEVANT CASES: Intentional Murder Commonwealth v. Carrol, 412 Pa. 535, 194 A.2d 911, 1963 (first approach to premeditation; in PA, intent = premeditation, no need for substantial time) People v. Anderson, 70 Cal. 2d 15, 447 P.2d 942, 1968 (in CA, three kinds of evidence support a finding of first degree murder: planning activity, facts about the defendants prior relationship or behavior with the victim which might indicate a motive to kill, and evidence regarding the nature or manner of the killing which indicate a deliberate intention to kill according to a preconceived design) State v. Forrest, 321 N.C. 186, 362 S.F.2d 252, 1987 (killing was done with cold calculation, even if the goal was the prevention of fathers further pain, and therefore was premeditated) State v. Guthrie, 194 W. Va. 657, 461 S.E.2d 163, 1995 (second approach to premeditation; in WV, there must be some evidence that the defendant considered and weighed his decision to kill for the State to establish premeditation; contrast with Carrol) Commonwealth v. Carrol, 412 Pa. 535, 194 A.2d 911, 1963 (PA) Facts: Beginning in 1959, Carrols wife began psychiatric treatment. Carrol bought a gun for his wife and left it, as a result of her insistence, beside the bed. After examining his childrens injuries, which were caused by his wife, he argued with his wife. After she had gone to bed (five minutes after fight), he grabbed the pistol and shot her twice in the head. Cannot argue manslaughter because words are not sufficient provocation. Holding & Reasoning: In PA, premeditation is required for 1st degree murder, but no time is too short and conscious purpose to bring about death is sufficient. Many courts follow this approach; for example, Arizona statute states: premeditation exists when such knowledge [that he will kill another human being] precedes the killing by any length of time to permit refection. Distinction with Cassassa? Reasonableness of distress here far less understandable than in Cassassa (making it intentional murder rather than unintentional). In that case, defendant snapped; here, he was cool and methodical, even if thought of it only momentarily. People v. Anderson, 70 Cal. 2d 15, 447 P.2d 942, 1968 (CA) Facts: When victims older brother and mother came home, they discovered that Anderson just in his slacks and blood on the kitchen floor and living room couch. Anderson claimed that he had only cut himself, but brother and mother found victims body under some boxes and blankets on the floor. Holding & Reasoning: Three kinds of evidence support a finding of first degree murder (CA): Planning activity Facts about the defendants prior relationship or behavior with the victim which might indicate a motive to kill Evidence regarding the nature or manner of the killing which indicate a deliberate intention to kill according to a preconceived design. In this case, manner suggested an explosion of violence rather than a preconceived design to kill. State v. Forrest, 321 N.C. 186, 362 S.E.2d 252, 1987 (NC) Facts: Forrest took pistol with him on visit to his hospitalized, terminally ill father. Sobbing with emoting, he killed his father with a single shot. He was convicted of first-degree murder. Holding & Reasoning: Despite noble intention, Forrest premeditated the killing of his father and is thus guilty of first-degree murder. Evidence of premeditation and deliberation in connection with defendant's shooting of his terminally ill father was sufficient to support first-degree murder charge; defendant's father was lying helpless in hospital bed when defendant shot him four separate times, and defendant admitted that he had thought about putting his father out of his misery because he knew he was suffering. NOTE: It should be noted that, under the MPC, this would have been categorized as voluntary manslaughter (emotional distress that a reasonable person would understand). State v. Guthrie, 194 W. Va. 657, 461 S.E.2d 163, 1995 (WV) Facts: Guthrie had a complex about his nose. Steven was poking fun at Guthrie, who appeared to be in a bad mood. Steven slapped Guthrie in the nose several times with a dishtowel. Guthrie pulled a knife from his pocket after Steven made fun of him for taking his gloves off and walking towards him, and stabbed Stevens to death. Cannot argue manslaughter because words are not sufficient provocation (i.e., what happened in this case would not have provoked a reasonable person to murder). Holding & Reasoning: In WV, there must be an opportunity for some reflection on the intention to kill after it is formed . . . there must be some evidence that the defendant considered and weighed his decision to kill. Any other intentional killing, by its spontaneous and nonreflective nature, is second-degree murder. I.e., instantaneous premeditation and momentary deliberation are not satisfactory for proof of first-degree murder Reasoning: To allow the state to prove premeditation and deliberation by only showing that the intention came into existence for the first time at the time of such killing [as done in PA in Carrol] completely eliminates the distinction between the two degrees of murder. Reasonableness of distress here far less understandable than in Cassassa (making it intentional murder rather than unintentional). In that case, defendant snapped; here, he was cool and methodical, even if thought of it only momentarily. Felony Murder Definition of felony murder: A killing committed during a felony (a predicate felony). Requires but-for causation, i.e., the predicate felony must have been the direct cause of the death General thoughts: (***) Usually, these felonies are listed in the relevant statute; if not, they should not be considered an aspect of first-degree murder. CHECK STATUTE. Common examples include rape, robbery, arson, burglary, kidnapping, mayhem, and sexual molestation of a child. Statutes often use the term murder; however, murder has been read, mostly, as meaning simply killing. Comparable to strict liability crimes. Dispenses with the mens rea but not with the actus rea element of homicide Example of classic felony murder statute: NC, 14-17: A murder which shall be perpetrated by means of a nuclear, biological, or chemical weapon of mass destruction as defined in G.S. 14288.21, poison, lying in wait, imprisonment, starving, torture, or by any other kind of willful, deliberate, and premeditated killing, or which shall be committed in the perpetration or attempted perpetration of any arson, rape or a sex offense, robbery, kidnapping, burglary, or other felony committed or attempted with the use of a deadly weapon shall be deemed to be murder in the first degree. Notice use of the word murder at the statutes beginning. NC, CA, and federal government (USC 1111) interpret murder in this statute as homicide (i.e. killing): a common law rules that the statute is considered to have codified. In NC case, arson definition was considered met because lighting a mattress was willful and malicious because it shows a wanton disregard for life. (Could also be justified under PA interpretation of premeditation in Carrol.) Differing state interpretations: Michigan Supreme Court interpreted similar statute to say that prosecution must still prove that its murder. To counter, prosecutor could argue that the conduct is so reckless as to show a depraved heart/extreme indifferent to human life. Arguments for the felony-murder rule (1) General deterrence from committing felonies (see People v. Washington), and (2) Discourages use of violence during commission of felonies (see People v. Washington) and carelessness. (3) Incapacitates dangerous people. (4) Expresses gravity of loss and condemnation. (5) Forfeiture of right to calibrated sentence (6) Simple desertSimons argument: . . . an actors culpability for an action is made greater by the fact that it occurs in the common of another culpable act, and that the felony-murder rule is an example of that happening. I.e., knowingly creating a risk of death while committing a criminal act is more culpable behavior than knowingly creating a risk of death in the context of an innocent or less culpable act Argument against the felony-murder rule Impossible to assure that there is no chance of anothers death during any action (Macaulay). Violates basic principle of just punishment: Rule converts accidental death into first-degree murder, wholly disproportionate to the wrong for which defendant is personally responsible (Fletcher). No evidence that homicides which the evidence makes accidental occur with disproportionate frequency in connection with specified felonies (MPC). It remains indefensible in principle to use the sanctions that the law employs to deal with murder unless there is at least a finding that the actors conduct manifested an extreme indifference to the value of human life (MPC). Limitations on felony murder All states require that the killing must be caused in perpetration of the predicate felony. Courts have uncertainly defined perpetration; most have settled on either: (1) During the commission of the crime (for arson, for example, it would be during the life of the fire). or (2) During felons immediate flight from the crime Use of human shield would trigger felony murder (see Taylor v. State and Keaton v. State). Some, but not all, states require that the death was foreseeable result of the felony (see King v. Commonwealth). Inherently dangerous felony requirement: Some, but not all, states require that the predicate felony was inherently dangerous (see Regina v. Serne, People v. Stewart, CA, and People v. Phillips). Two sub-definitions of dangerous: (1) Inherently dangerous per se (in the abstract) (CA, Phillips): Always dangerous when evaluated in the abstract The approach looks at the felony as defined in the abstract, apart from how it was committed in the particular case (2) Inherently dangerous as committed (more common, Hines): When the felony as committed created a: (A) foreseeable risk or (B) high probability of death. (two variations) Merger doctrine: Some, but not all, states require that the predicate felony be somewhat independent of the killing (see People v. Burton) Mechanics: If there is one distinct purpose, so that the murder cannot be considered a separately motivated/distinct act, then the felony merges and defendant can only be charged with murder, not felony murder. If, however, the felony and murder are two distinct actions with two distinct or unrelated purposes, then the felony does not merge, and defendant can be charged with felony murder. I.e., the merger doctrine only applies when the underlying felony (e.g., assault) is an inseparable part of the murder itself. Deaths resulting from conduct that had a wholly independent felonious purpose (i.e., one that did not involve harm to the victim, e.g., robbery) do not fall under the merger doctrine and are thus still amenable to felony-murder conviction (i.e., punishing for felonies that are not themselves independent would grossly expand the felony murder rule) Rationale for the merger doctrine: Otherwise, all intentional killings resulting by means of a deadly weapon (assault with a deadly weapon) would be felony-murder regardless of the circumstances and could never be mitigated to manslaughter, since all killings with a deadly weapon include in fact assault with a deadly weapon Paradox (criticism): A felony murderer who kills someone unintentionally in the midst of committing a felony automatically gets felony murder and a harsh sentence, while an intentional murderer cannot be so easily convicted, as we must prove mens rea, etc. Result is therefore that unintentional killings get treated as badly as coldly intentional murders. Test: Is the felony included in fact of the homicide? Is the felony independent of the homicide? Killings not committed in furtherance of the felonious objective (Agency theory): Some, but not all, states require the defendant himself (or his agent/accomplice) must cause the death, exempting for instance, " from felony murder if pursuing police officer kills someone.  A common formulation of this requirement is that the result must have been the natural and probable consequence of the defendant s action (see People v. Stamp, Commonwealth v. Williams, and State v. Canola). HOWEVER, an increasing number of courts argue otherwise, asking only for a but for showing (proximate cause theory): was the killing, no matter by whose hand, a foreseeable risk of the commission of the felony? (See dissent in People v. Burton, State v. Canola, and People v. Gilbert). This is the rule in NY: Person is guilty of murder if someone dies in the furtherance of [designated felonies] WI: Felony murder liability when a person causes the death of another human being while committing or attempting to commit [designated felonies] NJ: In the course and in furtherance [of the crime] any person causes the death of any person other than one of the participants. (passed in response to reversal of conviction in State v. Canola). Co-felons death: courts also divide on whether defendant should be held liable for felony murder or not, and many states that use the proximate-cause theory in felony murder have exceptions for deaths of cofelons. NJ statute noted above does not seem to consider felons life significant in triggering felony murder rule (stated in State v. Williams; rebutted in U.S. v. Martinez). Rationale: The purpose of the felony-murder rule is to protect the innocent during the commission of a felony. Maybe death of cofelon considered justifiable homicide? IMPORTANT: If felony murder rule seems not to apply, ascertain if defendant can be convicted of murder under other murder categories, i.e. awareness of high risk of death and/or gross indifference. MPC abolishes felony murder and instead relies on extreme indifference formula. (***) However, it does say that say that if any of the usual predicate felonies exist, they create rebuttable presumption (assumption of truth) that the required indifference and recklessness for murder existed. MI and England have also abolished the rule as well. RELEVANT CASES: Felony Murder Regina v. Serne, 16 Cox. Crim. Cas. 311, 1887 (British: an act (1) known to be dangerous and (2) likely in itself to cause death = sufficient predicate felony for felony murder) Commonwealth v. Williams, 133 Pa.Super.104, 1 A.2d 812, 1938 (similar to Stamp; causal connection between felony and killing required for felony murder) People v. Washington, 62 Cal.2d 777, 402 P.2d 130, 133, 1965 (purpose of felony-murder rule: deterrence of felons from killing negligently or accidentally) (***) People v. Phillips, 64 Cal. 2d 524, 414 P.2d 553, 1966 (case specific: theft is not a sufficient predicate felony for felony murder conviction unless specified by statute; general: California cases had previously ruled that the felony-murder rule could be triggered only by felonies inherently dangerous to life) People v. Gilbert, 63 Cal. 2d 690, 408 P.2d 365, 371, 1966 (felony-murder rule is unnecessary) People v. Stamp, 2 Cal. App. 3d 203, 82 Cal. Rptr. 598, 1969 (killing that is the direct causal result of a felony = felony murder) Mills v. State, 13 Md. App. 196, 282 A.2d 147, 1971 (misdemeanor as predicate for involuntary manslaughter; predicate misdemeanor must be a crime of malum in se and NOT malum prohibitum to support a conviction of involuntary manslaughter) (***) People v. Burton, 6 Cal. 3d 375, 491 P.2d 791, 1971 (elucidation of merger doctrine; summary includes history of CA debate on mergers validity) State v. Williams, 254 So. 2d 548, 5505-551, 1971 (murder of co-felon is not felony murder; contrast with U.S. v. Martinez) People v. Henderson, 19 Cal. 3d 86, 560 P.2d 1180, 1977 (S.Ct. of CA: two principles: (1) violent restraint does not by itself amount to a danger to human life for felony murder, and (2****) all factors of a crime should seemingly involve life-endangering conduct) State v. Canola, 73 N.J. 206, 374 A.2d 20, 1977 (use of agency theory for felony murder) People v. Aaron, 409 Mich. 672, 299 N.W.2d 304, 1980 (Michigan specific; abolishes felony murder rule as legislature had not made its position clear; contrast with Dillon) People v. Dillon, 34 Cal. 3d 441, 668 P.2d 697, 1983 (CA specific; as California legislature has repeatedly codified the felony murder rule, no common law basis to dismiss as in Aaron and therefore rule remains; contrast with Aaron) King v. Commonwealth, 368 S.E.2d 704, 1988 (for felony murder, the death was foreseeable result of the felony) State v. Stanislaw, 153 Vt. 517, 573 A.2d 286, 1990 (misdemeanor as predicate for involuntary manslaughter; predicate misdemeanor must rise to the level of criminal negligence) U.S. v. Martinez, 16 F.3d 202, 1994 (killing of co-felon by another should be felony-murder; contrast with State v. Williams) People v. Stewart, 663 A.2d 912, 1995 (predicate felony = inherently dangerous felony as determined by jury) Hines v. State, 267 Ga. 491, 578 S.E.2d 868, 2003 (an inherently dangerous felony sufficient to underlay a felony murder conviction is either (1) dangerous per se or (2) by its circumstances creates a foreseeable risk of death) Regina v. Serne, 16 Cox. Crim. Cas. 311, 1887 (ENGLAND) Facts: Serne willfully set fire to a house and shop so as to collect insurance. Two boys were killed. Holding & Reasoning: An act known to be dangerous to life and likely in itself to cause death, done for the purpose of committing a felony which causes death, is sufficient predicate act to merit a conviction for felony murder. Commonwealth v. Williams, 133 Pa.Super.104, 1 A.2d 812, 1938 (PA) Holding & Reasoning: Similar to People v. Stamp: causal connection between felony and killing required for felony murder. People v. Washington, 62 Cal.2d 777, 402 P.2d 130, 133, 1965 (CA) Holding & Reasoning: Purpose of felony-murder rule is to deter felons from killing negligently or accidentally by holding them strictly responsible for killing they commit. Inherently Dangerous in the Abstract People v. Phillips, 64 Cal. 2d 524, 414 P.2d 553, 1966 (CA) Facts: At a medical center, parents were advised to consent to immediate removal of a childs cancerous eye as the only means of saving or prolonging her life. Phillips, chiropractic doctor, induced parents not to undertake the surgery and instead charged them $700 for his treatment. Child died in six months. " charged with felony murder because child s death was a proximate cause of this larceny. Holding & Reasoning: Theft ( grand theft medical fraud in this case) is not a sufficient predicate felony for felony murder conviction, unless specified by statute. An inherently dangerous felony is one that is dangerous to life in the abstract, without reference to the facts of this case. Because grand theft medical fraud can be committed in many ways which are not inherently dangerous, it is not an inherently dangerous felony. California cases had previously ruled: The felony-murder rule could be triggered only by felonies inherently dangerous to life. Decision shows great wariness with felony murder rule: Indeed, the rule . . . had been subjected to severe and sweeping criticism. Expansion of such a problematic rule by the courts thus becomes itself problematic: Once the Legislatures own definition is discarded, the number or nature of the contextual elements which could be incorporated into an expanded felony terminology would be limitless (demonstrated weakness of rulewe proved that Phillips had acted with a depraved heart). People v. Gilbert, 63 Cal. 2d 690, 408 P.2d 365, 371, 1966 (CA) Holding & Reasoning: No necessary need for the felony-murder rule: When the defendant or his accomplice, with a conscious disregard for life, intentionally commits an act that is likely to cause death, and his victim or a police office kills in reasonable response to such act, the defendant is guilty of murder [i.e. implied malice murder as good a label as felony murder]. People v. Stamp, 2 Cal. App. 3d 203, 82 Cal. Rptr. 598, 1969 (CA) Facts: Stamp robbed a bank. After the robbery, Honeyman suffered chest pains, collapsed, and died of a heart attack. Honeyman was described as obese and unhealthy; however, doctors testified that the fright induced by the robbery was too much of a shock to Honeymans system. Holding & Reasoning: If homicide is the direct causal result of the robbery, felony murder rule applies. Whether or not the death was the natural and probable result of the crime is immaterial. Mills v. State, 13 Md. App. 196, 282 A.2d 147, 1971 (MD) Holding & Reasoning: Predicate misdemeanor must be a crime of malum in se as opposed to malum prohibitum to support a conviction of involuntary manslaughter. Merger Doctrine People v. Burton, 6 Cal. 3d 375, 491 P.2d 791, 1971 (CA) Facts: Burton killed someone in the midst of committing an armed robbery, convicted of felony murder. Burton argued on appeal that his offense was not distinct from the murder itself and that therefore he could have only been convicted of murder, not felony murder: He claims that armed robbery is an offense included in fact within the offense of murder, and under the rule announced in People v. Ireland, such offense cannot support a felony-murder instruction. Holding & Reasoning: Merger occurs when there is a single course of conduct with a single purpose; otherwise, person committing one of the six enumerated felonies has earned a felony murder conviction. Two different tests referenced in decision: Is felony independent of the homicide (i.e., did the felony have a purpose that was independent of an intent to kill)? If yes, felony murder; if not, merger. Is the felony included in fact of the homicide? If yes, merger; if not, felony-murder. Holding: The purpose of " s felonious conduct was to rob a bank. Though accomplished by use of a deadly weapon, " s purpose in committing the underlying felony was not solely to commit the assault that resulted in death. Thus, " is amenable to conviction under the felony-murder rule Court s explanation of the merger rule:  In the normal case, burglary is also undertaken with an independent felonious purpose [there is one purposeto stealwith an unintended ultimate resultdeath] . . . In such instances the felony-murder rule would apply to burglary as well, even if burglary was accomplished with a deadly weapon. However, in Wilson, the entry was coupled with the intent to commit assault with a deadly weapon [there was one purpose to the breaking into killeven though it was two legal crimesassault and burglary] . . . we were thus presented with the exact situation we faced in Ireland, namely a single purpose, a single course of conduct, except that in Wilson the single course of conduct happened to include an entry, and thus technically became burglary. History: California court is terribly conflicted in this and later merger cases: People v. Mattison (1971) Court employs independent-purpose test and affirmed the conviction, by finding that the defendants act had a purpose independent of any intent to kill. People v. Hanson (1995): Court disparages independent-purpose test though it affirmed the conviction, noting the surreal quality of its result: By that test a felon who acts with a purpose other than specifically to inflict injury upon someonefor example, with the intent to sell narcotics for a financial gainis subject to greater criminal liability for an act resulting in death than a person who actually intends to injure the person of the victim. People v. Robertson (2004): Court returns to independent-purpose test and affirms conviction for defendant who discharged a firearm in a grossly negligent manner and killed someone (he was trying to frighten them from stealing his hubcaps). Dissent expressed the same concern as the majority in Hanson, specifically over the irony that an accidental killing became murder because defendant denied having an intent to kill: Thus, in cases involving intentional assaultswhere there is likely evidence of premeditation and malicethe People must prove every element of the crime. In cases where evidence of malice is likely to be absent or highly equivocal, the second-degree felony-murder rule makes proof of malice unnecessary and imposes murder liability for what might otherwise be manslaughter. Robertson could have been convicted of negligent discharge of a firearm (felony) and involuntary manslaughter or even murder (gross recklessness). Death of a Cofelon State v. Williams, 254 So. 2d 548, 5505-551, 1971 (FL) Holding & Reasoning: Death of co-felon should not trigger felony-murder as statute is primarily designed to protect the innocent public. Notably, murder of a co-felon by another felon could still be considered premeditated murder or a lesser degree of unlawful homicide. Still, it should not result in the application of the felony-murder rule. Contrast with U.S. v. Martinez. State v. Canola, 73 N.J. 206, 374 A.2d 20, 1977 (NJ) Facts: Canola and three others attempted to rob a store. Cofelon and owner got into a scuffle, owner killed cofelon and cofelon killed owner. Canola was convicted of felony murder for the murder of the owner and his cofelon. Holding & Reasoning: Court strikes down murder charge for killing of coconspirator and affirms agency theory: It appears to us regressive to extend the application of the felony murder rule beyond its classic common-law limitation to acts by the felon and his accomplices, to lethal acts of thirds persons not in furtherance of the felonious scheme. I.e., " not guilty of felony murder of cofelon, when cofelon was killed by someone not acting in furtherance of the felonious intent (a victim) Expresses distaste for felony murder rule:  Its survival to modern times when other felonies are not thought to be as blameworthy as premeditated killings is discordant with rational and enlightened views of criminal culpability and liability. People v. Henderson, 19 Cal. 3d 86, 560 P.2d 1180, 1977 (CA) Holding & Reasoning: Supreme Court of CA: Unlawful restraint of another does not necessarily involve the requisite danger to human life for a felony-murder conviction and that the statutory factors elevating the offense to a felonyviolence, menace, fraud, or deceit do not all involve conduct that life endangering. Two principles: (1) violent restraint does not by itself amount to a danger to human life for felony murder, and (2****) all factors of a crime should seemingly involve life-endangering conduct. People v. Aaron, 409 Mich. 672, 299 N.W.2d 304, 1980 (MI) Holding & Reasoning: This Michigan court abolished felony murder rule as the statute was not specific and common law is for them to define/expand: We believe it is no longer acceptable to equate the intent to commit a felony with the intent to kill, intent to do great bodily harm, or wanton and willful disregard of the likelihood that the natural tendency of a persons behavior is to cause death or great bodily harm. People v. Dillon, 34 Cal. 3d 441, 668 P.2d 697, 1983 (CA) Holding & Reasoning: California court expressly rejects Aaron as subsequent reenactments by the California legislature had demonstrated an intent to codify the felony-murder rule. King v. Commonwealth, 368 S.E.2d 704, 1988 (VA) Facts: King and copilot were transporting 500 pounds of marijuana in a light plane. The plane got lost in fog and crashed. Copilot died. Holding & Reasoning: As the crash was not foreseeable, felony murder is inappropriate. However, the court noted that, in contrast, a finding of proximate causation might have been possible if the crash had resulted from flying the plane at low altitude to avoid detection. State v. Stanislaw, 153 Vt. 517, 573 A.2d 286, 1990 (VT) Holding & Reasoning: Predicate misdemeanor must rise to the level of criminal negligence to support a conviction for involuntary manslaughter. U.S. v. Martinez, 16 F.3d 202, 1994 (7th Cir.) Holding & Reasoning: Better rule of law under felony-murder statute is that death of felon, whether by his own hand or that of another felon, in course of any felonies listed in felony-murder statute, is felony-murder: The lives of criminals are not completely worthless, so their deaths should not be considered nonevents for sentencing purposes. Contrast with State v. Williams. Felony Inherently Dangerous in the Manner in Which it was Committed People v. Stewart, 663 A.2d 912, 1995 (RI; predicate felony = second degree murder) Facts: Tracy Stewart went on a crack binge for two to three days, during which she didnt feed her child. Child died of dehydration. Tracy had committed felony of permitting a child to be a habitual sufferer of food and proper care by not feeding her child Tracy contended that wrongfully permitting a child to be a habitual sufferer is not inherently dangerous felony and cannot therefore serve as the predicate felony to a charge of second-degree murder. Holding & Reasoning: An inherently dangerous predicate actnecessary for felony murderis to be determined by the jury judging if a felony is inherently dangerous in the manner and circumstances in which it was committed. I.e., when determining whether a felony (related to a felony-murder charge) was inherently dangerous, the trier of fact should look to the facts and circumstances of the particular case to determine if the felony was inherently dangerous in the manner and circumstances in which it was committed (not whether it was inherently dangerous in the abstract) Rationale: A number of felonies may not appear inherently dangerous to life in the abstract (e.g., prison escape) but may in fact be committed in such a manner as to be inherently dangerous to life (i.e., prison escape with a huge gun) Hines v. State, 267 Ga. 491, 578 S.E.2d 868, 2003 (GA) Facts: After an afternoon of drinking, Hines went hunting with his friends. Hines, previously a felon, was not legally permitted to have and/or use a firearm. Hearing a gobble at dusk, Hines shot 80 feet away and unintentionally hit and killed his friend. He was convicted of felony murder; predicate felony was possessing a firearm as a convicted felon (similar to Lambert, to a degree; however, felons are informed of this law upon release.) Hines argues on appeal that possession of a firearm by a convicted felon while turkey hunting was not an inherently dangerous felony Holding & Reasoning: For a " to be convicted of felony murder, " must have unintentionally killed someone while committing a  inherently dangerous felony. An inherently dangerous felony sufficient to underlay a felony murder conviction is either (1)  dangerous per se or (2)  by its circumstances creates a foreseeable risk of death Thus, depending on the facts (circumstances) of the case, possession of a firearm by a convicted felon can be an inherently dangerous activity. In " s case, " had been drinking, it was dusk, and he took an unsafe shot (he knew other hunters were in the area) at a target he had not positively identified. Thus, his violation of the law against possession of a firearm by a convicted felon in this case created a foreseeable risk of death and was thus inherently dangerous under the felony-murder statute, Dissent (Sears): an inherently dangerous felony should be one that is dangerous per se or that carries a high probability that [a human] death will result. This distinction will make sure that the felony-murder rule is not  inappropriately expanded by  reducing the seriousness of the act . . .   Given the facts of the case, one cannot say that " s action created a high probability that death would result. At most " was negligent in his shooting. NOTE: Since MPC makes distinction for drunk driving, categorizing it as involuntary manslaughter, Hines s drinking could still be used against him. Causation Definition: Causal relationship between defendant s conduct and victims death Two types: (1) factual or (2) proximate. Both factual and proximate causation must be proven for liability to be imposed for a specific crime. Factual (but for) Causation Must prove that defendants actions were the actual cause of the result (but for defendant actions result would have been different) Usually read to require that defendants actions be a substantial factor in bringing about the result. Usually, negligence of victim does not establish lack of causation (McFadden); however, it can sometime constitute a superseding factor (see Commonwealth v. Root). Proximate Causation + must prove that an expected (or foreseeable) result of defendants actions transpired. More specifically, result occurred as a natural and probable consequence of an act and without intervening factors sufficient to break the chain of causation occurred. Even if manner of death not anticipated, defendants actions are sufficient proximate causes. (mere encouragement is enough (Atencio)) If victim s only alternative, because of " s actions, lead to victim s death, and it was foreseeable that that alternative would lead to the victim s death, there s causation (because " is the very reason the victim had no choice) (Kern) Intervening-act doctrine: If an intervening voluntary human act between " s conduct and the victim s actual death is actually what causes the death, " s conduct is not a sufficiently direct cause of the death to make " criminally liable for the death (even if there s  but for causation) To break the chain of causation, the intervening act/factor must be: Set in motion after defendants act, So if death a result of preexisting condition made fatal by initial act (i.e. stabbing a hemophiliac), defendants initial act still the proximate cause. Unforeseeable by the defendant at the time of his act, So if death results from foreseeable response to defendants initial act (suicide in response to torture), defendants initial act still the proximate cause. The sole major cause of the result, and So if defendants action combines with another to kill their victim, defendants initial act still the proximate cause. Independent of the defendants original act. So if death results from foreseeable response to defendants initial act (suicide in response to sexual abuse), defendants initial act still the proximate cause. Alternate approaches: MPC: Defendant causes the result unless the manner in which it occurred is too remote or accidental to have a just bearing on defendants liability. Acosta: Causation lies unless the result is highly extraordinary in light of the circumstances. This is a very loose test; helicopter accident during police chase not considered highly extraordinary, even though expert who had testified hadnt ever heard of such a crash before Implication seems to be that a result is highly extraordinary if it is not foreseeable RELEVANT CASES: Causation Commonwealth v. Root, 403 Pa. 571, 170 A.2d 310, 1961 (PA)(if defendant did not force fatal actions (i.e. not the sole direct cause) upon the deceased and the deceased's death was the result of his own reckless actions, proximate causation does not exist (i.e. idea of intervening factors). Commonwealth v. Atencio, 345 Mass. 627, 189 N.E.2d 323, 1963 (MA) (defendants concerted action and cooperationmutual encouragement in a joint enterprisesufficient proximate cause in light of the certain possibility of death each time) State v. McFadden, 320 N.W.2d 608, 1982 (IW) (different than Root despite similar facts; if defendants acts were contributing and substantial factors in bringing about anothers death and such a death was a foreseeable result, each such act is regarded in law as a proximate cause) People v. Campbell, 124 Mich. App. 333, 335 N.W.2d 27, 1983 (MI) (hope and verbal incitement is not enough to satisfy causation) People v. Kern, 545 N.Y.S.2d 4, 1989 (NY) (if defendants action leaves but one reasonable alternative and that reasonable alternative could foreseeably result in death, their actions constitute the proximate cause) People v. Acosta, 284 Cal. Rptr. 117, 1991 (CA) (results of actions must be highly extraordinary to not count as proximate causes) People v. Galle, 573 N.E.2d 569, 1991 (NY) (drug dealer is responsible for actions of his customers; his selling is sufficient proximate cause for others deaths, etc.) Commonwealth v. Root, 403 Pa. 571, 170 A.2d 310, 1961 (PA) Facts: Root accepted deceaseds challenge for a drag race. During race on a clear night, deceased, trying to pass defendant, swerved his car to the left, cross the highways white diving line, and drove his automobile on the wrong side of the highway head on into the oncoming truck. Holding & Reasoning: If defendant did not force fatal actions (i.e. not the sole direct cause) upon the deceased and the deceased's death was the result of his own reckless actions, proximate causation does not exist (i.e. idea of intervening factors). I.e., " was not the direct cause of the deceased s death; the deceased s suicidally swerving into oncoming traffic was the cause of his death (i.e., the victim brought about his own death; " didn t force victim to swerve into oncoming traffic). Dissent: Focuses on the but-for nature of " s acts in relation to the victim s death Commonwealth v. Atencio, 345 Mass. 627, 189 N.E.2d 323, 1963 (MA) Facts: Deceased and " s were drinking wine and playing Russian roulette. " s both went first, nothing happened; " passed gun to victim and on victims turn gun went off and he died.. Holding & Reasoning: Defendants concerted action and cooperationmutual encouragement in a joint enterprisesufficient proximate cause in light of the certain possibility of death each time. Mere encouragement, if sufficiently reckless, is enough for causation to lie. But for " s reckless encouragement, victim would likely not have played and thus not have died. While " s may have had no duty to prevent the victim from playing, they did have a duty not to cooperate or encourage the victim to join them in the game. There were more than merely present at the victims death Court distinguishes its ruling on Russian roulette from the other rulings on drag racing, in which much is left to the skill, or lack of it, on the competition. State v. McFadden, 320 N.W.2d 608, 1982 (IW) Facts: McFadden and deceased undertake a drag race. Deceased loses control of automobile and swerves into lane of oncoming traffic. Holding & Reasoning: Specifically distinguished from Root: If defendants acts were contributing and substantial factors in bringing about another s death and such a death was a foreseeable result, each such act is regarded in law as a proximate cause. So, " guilty because (1) the deaths were a foreseeable result of " s actions, and (2) Reckless conduct on the part of the victim that contributed to his own death does not absolve the " of criminal liability Despite similar facts, Court disparages Root and its logic:  The Root court opined that  legal theory which makes guilt or innocence of criminal homicide depend upon such accidental and fortuitous circumstances as are now embrace by modern tort laws encompassing concept of proximate cause is too harsh to be just. We do not agree. Proximate cause is based on the concept of forseeability. Unlike Root, court here prefers to keep tort standard of proximate cause when determining whether " s recklessness was a sufficiently direct cause of the victim s death to warrant criminal liability People v. Campbell, 124 Mich. App. 333, 335 N.W.2d 27, 1983 (MI) Facts: Basnaw and Campbell are drinking heavily. Campbell knows that Basnaw has slept with his wife. Campbell encourages Basnaw to kill himself. He gives Basnaw a gun with five shells and then leaves. Basnaw thereafter kills himself. Holding & Reasoning: Where defendant did not kill or intend to kill, but only supplied a weapon in the hopes that the victim would commit suicide, the defendant cannot be said to be the cause of the victims death. Hope and verbal incitement is not enough to satisfy causation. Reasoning: The term suicide (the killing of a person by himself) by definition excludes homicide. People v. Kern, 545 N.Y.S.2d 4, 1989 (NY) Facts: Group of white youths are chasing several blacks with bats. One of the black men runs into the highway to get away and is killed. Holding & Reasoning: If defendants action leaves but one reasonable alternative and that reasonable alternative could foreseeably result in death, their actions constitute the proximate cause (i.e., are a sufficiently direct cause to warrant liability). People v. Acosta, 284 Cal. Rptr. 117, 1991 (CA) Facts: Acosta is stopped by two cops while he is in a stolen car. He races away and, as a result, a chase commences. During chase, two police helicopters collide. FAA representative claimed that he had never heard of a midair collision between two police helicopters involved in tracking a ground pursuit. Holding & Reasoning: Defendants actions constitute proximate cause if (1) but for the " s actions the victim would no have died, and (2) the death was  a possible consequence which reasonably might have been contemplated ; HOWEVER, Defendant s actions do NOT constitute proximate cause if the results are  highly extraordinary in light of the circumstances. Two-part standard: Result must be Highly extraordinary, In light of the circumstances As Acosta engaged in a police chase (the circumstances), the possibility of police helicopter pilots acting negligently and killing others is not highly extraordinary; rather it is possible: It was a possible consequence which reasonably might have been contemplated. Given the emotional dynamics of any police pursuit, there is an appreciable probability that one of the pursuers, in the heat of the chase, may act negligently or recklessly to catch the quarry. That no police helicopters had before collided is more a comment on police flying skill than on the probabilities involved. Not felony murder because not necessarily defined as a felony (court def: inherently dangerous, and evading police is not a dangerous felony, though it is a felony under CA law). Dissent: The occupants of the helicopters were surely not within the range of apprehension of a fleeing criminal on the ground. " would have been responsible for injuries caused by his actions to those traveling on the same roads as him, but the pilots were simply not in the  zone of danger People v. Galle, 573 N.E.2d 569, 1991 (NY) Holding & Reasoning: Drug dealer is responsible for foreseeable, though freely chosen, acts of his purchaser. Rape Rape: Actus Reus Definition: Actus reas of rape has two or three definitional elements (depending on the jurisdiction) (1) Sexual act of some kind. (2) Without consent. (3) Done with force or threat of force (not all jurisdictions have a force requirement (e.g., MD, CA)) Majority formulation (force requirement retained): Sexual intercourse (slightest penetration will do) With woman (attendant circumstance) (currently abandoned) Not married to the defendant (attendant circumstances) (currently abandoned) Without consent Giving/revoking of consent: For example, if defendant resists during the early portion and then consents before actual act of intercourse, she/he is deemed to have consented fully. However, if defendant revokes consent and retains the revocation at any point, even in the middle of intercourse, there is no consent. Resistance: (***) In some jurisdiction, victim must offer some resistance (exceptions include statutory rape, attack from behind, etc.)(see People v. Warren). In some jurisdictions, resistance to the utmost is required In others, oral rejection suffices Many jurisdictions no longer formally require a resistance requirement, though courts in those jurisdictions still consider resistance (or its absence) as highly probative on the question of whether the victim consented Levels of non-consent: Forcibly or by threat of force overcoming resistance Without consent Against the will By fraud or trickery Below a certain age or related to Incest and underage sexual contact where there cannot be consent Marital exemption: Marital exemption: Says there cannot be rape in marriage (there can never be lack of consent in marriage) About half of states have revoked the marital exemption (see People v. Libreta) Other half retain qualified versions of the martial rape exemption. MPC retains the marital exemption By force or threat of force Must be threat of bodily harm or physical force. Force cannot be the act of penetration itself; it must be, for majority of courts, force used to overcome the resistance of the female (see Gibbins v. State). Threats of a nonphysical nature will not count as force or forcible compulsion: from Susan Estrich, Absent evident that the defendant used force or threats to overcome the will of the victim . . . such general fear was not sufficient to show that the defendant used the force required to support a conviction of rape. Fear must be a reasonable fear of force, not simply fear of a consequence. Rationale for force requirement: Without force, there really is no rape. Force is proxy for lack of consent (requirement of force requires objective evidence of non-consent) Force is a proxy for mens rea. A robust force line is a good way for marking off when sex is off-limits Force can show subjective culpability (subjective culpability is inherent in the use of force) Minority formulation (no force requirement): Dispense with the force requirement and treat all nonconsensual sex as rape (see State v. Rusk and People v. Barnes) Often, however, even States where the force requirement has been eliminated, judges will look at resistance as highly probative to the question of whether there was consent. RELEVANT CASES: Actus Reus (rape) State v. Smith, 85 N.J. 193, 1981 (NJ) (similar to Libreta; marriage exception is abolished) State v. Rusk, 289 Md. 230, 424 A.2d 720, 1981 (MD) (minority, similar to Barnes; physical resistance not always required for evidence of nonconsent) People v. Warren, 113 Ill. App. 3d 1, 446 N.E.2d 591, 1983 (IL) (similar to Alston; to have the actus reus of rape, victim must physically resist if it is within her power) People v. Libreta, 64 N.Y.2d 152, 1984 (NY) (similar to Smith; marriage exception is abolished) Weishaupt v. Commonwealth, 227 Va. 389, 315 S.E.2d 847, 1984 (VA) (similar to Libreta and Smith; narrow abolishment of marriage exceptionwife must establish that marriage has de facto ended) State v. Alston, 310 N.C. 399, 312 S.E.2d 470, 1984 (IL) (similar to Warren; to have the actus reus of rape, victim must physically resist if it is within her power) People v. Barnes,, 42 Cal. 3d 284, 1986 (CA) (minority, similar to Rusk; physical resistance not always required for evidence of nonconsent) Gibbins v. State, 495 S.E.2d 46, 1997 (GA) (definition of force for rape actus reusforce = force to induce act, not the force of the act itself) State v. Smith, 85 N.J. 193, 1981 (NJ) Holding & Reasoning: Marriage exception is no longer to be read into state statute. (***) State v. Rusk, 289 Md. 230, 424 A.2d 720, 1981 (MD) Facts: A guy runs into two girls at a bar and strikes up a conversation with one of them. He asks for a ride home from the one hes talking to, and she obliges. When she stops in front of his house, he takes her keys and invites her in. She doesnt want to go in, but eventually yields because he has her keys. Once inside, she becomes scared and she asks to leave a number of times, to which he responds by lightly choking her and then having sex with her. At one point, she asks whether he would let her go, if she did what he wanted (fellatio and coitus). She had taken some of her own clothes off. She immediately reports the rape to the police @ 3:15 A.M. Holding & Reasoning: Physical force to overcome resistance is not always required; merely creating an aura of violence through words, conduct, & demeanor (i.e., threat of force) is adequate to constitute the actus reus of rape. Lack of consent to intercourse (such as would substantiate claim of rape) is generally established through proof of resistance or proof that victim failed to resist because of fear. The degree of fear necessary to obviate the need to prove resistance is defined as a fear of death or serious bodily harm, or a fear so extreme as to preclude resistance, which would well nigh render her mind incapable of continuing to resist, or a fear that so overpowers her mind that she does not dare resist. Such fear must be reasonably grounded. Jury must determine the reasonableness of this fear:  The reasonableness of Pat s apprehension of fear was plainly a question of fact for the jury to determine. Dissent (Cole): Prefers a bright line rule: Saying no is not enough. A victim must resist unless the " has objectively manifested his intent to use physical force to accomplish his purpose. Judge thinks that a physical confrontation is only way to manifest lack of consent: There are no acts or conduct on the part of the defendant to suggest that these fears were created by the defendant or that he made any objective, identifiable threats to her which would give rise to this womans failure to flee, summon help, scream, or make physical resistance. Only noted force = squeezing of victims neck People v. Warren, 113 Ill. App. 3d 1, 446 N.E.2d 591, 1983 (IL) Facts: Victim was biking along reservoir. Warren stopped her. Victim attempted to leave, but Warren then grabbed her and carried her into the woods. The victim did not scream, fight back, or attempt to flee. Holding & Reasoning: Failure of victim to resist when it is within her power conveys impression of consent regardless of mental state. State v. Alston, 310 N.C. 399, 312 S.E.2d 470, 1984 (IL) Facts: Alston encountered his victim at her place of work (school). He said that he would fix her. He led her to a friends house, and when she told him she did not want to have sex, he pulled her up from the chair, took off her clothes, pushed her legs apart, and penetrated her. Holding & Reasoning: Consent induced by fear of violence is void; however, victim must still provide some evidence of resistance. People v. Libreta, 64 N.Y.2d 152, 1984 (NY) Facts: Wife obtained an order of protection from husband. During a visit with his son, husband threatened to kill her and forced her to have sex. New York statute regarded couples living apart as not married. Holding & Reasoning: Marriage exception cannot and should not exist: A marriage license should not be viewed as a license for a husband to forcibly rape his wife with impunity. Defines rape as a degrading, violent act which violates the bodily integrity of the victim and frequently causes severe, long-lasting physical and psychic harm. Weishaupt v. Commonwealth, 227 Va. 389, 315 S.E.2d 847, 1984 (VA) Holding & Reasoning: Narrower than Smith and Libreta but effective diminution of exception: court abolished exemption for those cases in which wife conducted herself in a manner that establishes a de facto end to the marriage. People v. Barnes,, 42 Cal. 3d 284, 1986 (CA) Holding & Reasoning: Lack of physical resistance not required for rape as victim could have frozen: Subjectively, however, she may be in a state of terror . . .These findings . . . suggest that lack of physical resistance may reflect a profound primal terror. Gibbins v. State, 495 S.E.2d 46, 1997 (GA) Holding & Reasoning: Force in rape is the force used to overcome the females resistance, not the actual sexual act. Rape: Mens Rea Mens rea for rape focuses around the consent element: Negligence I.e., to avoid liability, error in regards to consent must be reasonable and honest (objective standard) Most common level of culpability in US (e.g., Massachusetts in Sherry and Nebraska) This level of culpability allows a mistake defense: " not guilty if: (1) He had a reasonable, genuine belief that the victim was consenting (objective standard), and (2) The facts are such that his mistake was objectively reasonable (Tyson) BUT, this raises the problem of miscommunication and timing of withdrawal of consent (before penetration, before ejaculation, etc.) Recklessness (subjective standard) Level of culpability required in AK and England, also the MPC default standard (MPC doesnt specify the mens rea for lack of consent?) Problem: Incredibly difficult to determine if " was aware of the risk that the victim was not consenting Strict Liability Idea is that if there was force or threat of force, it s usually clear there was no consent (Fischer) Standard in PA and MA (Lopez and Simcock) No mistake defense allowed : " guilty even if he had a reasonable belief that the victim consented Rationale for strict liability in rape: Aggressor is in a good position to ask for consent Sends message you need to use extra caution Damage (to individual and society) done by rape significant enough to have strict liability RELEVANT CASES: Mens Rea of Rape Regina v. Morgan, 1976 A.C. 182, 1976 (ENGLAND) (culpability for rape= recklessness) Commonwealth v Sherry, 386 Mass. 682, 437 N.E.2d 224, 1982 (MA) (culpability for rape= negligence; later changes) Reynolds v. State, 664 P.2d 621, 1983 (AL) (culpability for rape= recklessness) Commonwealth v. Simcock, 31 Mass. App. 184, 1991 (MA) (rape = strict liability offense) State v. Tyson, 619 N.E.2d 276, 1993 (IN) (to avoid conviction for rape, defendant must (1) honestly and in good faith believe consent has been given, and (2) the facts were such that such a mistake was objectively reasonable) Commonwealth v. Fischer, 721 A.2d 1111, 1998 (PA) (rape = strict liability offense) State v. Gangahar, 609 N.W.2d 690, 693, 2000 (NE) (culpability for rape= recklessness) Commonwealth v. Lopez, 745 N.E.2d 961, 2001 (MA) (rape = strict liability offense) (NOT CONTROLLING as this is a MODERN BRITISH CASE) Regina v. Morgan, 1976 A.C. 182, 1976 (ENGLAND) Holding & Reasoning: Defendant must know of absence of consent or is willing to proceed without caring whether victim consents to be guilty of rape (recklessness). Commonwealth v Sherry, 386 Mass. 682, 437 N.E.2d 224, 1982 (MA) Facts: Victim is at a party with s at a party (three doctors) Her version: She talked to them at a party, where she was forced into a bathroom with one of the  s, but nothing happened. Eventually, they coerced her into leaving the party and going to Rockport Once they get to Rockport, she asks to go home, but the doctors say no. She is led into a bedroom and the three men take off her clothes. She told them to stop, but they did not. They say stop playing games and proceed to bang her in succession. Defendants version: There was consensual sex At trial, the defendants accordingly ask for a jury instruction that there was a mistake of fact ( the " s were mistakenly under the impression that the victim wanted to have sex with them Holding & Reasoning: The defense of mistake of fact for rape requires such a mistake to be reasonable and in good faith (strict liability---how is this strict liability?). Any resistance by a rape victim is enough to manifest lack of consent when the resistance demonstrates her lack of consent is honest and real (i.e., a rape victim is not required to resist by physical force). Actual knowledge of [the victims] lack of consent is NOT required (i.e. the requirements for recklessness level of culpability). Reynolds v. State, 664 P.2d 621, 1983 (AL) Holding & Reasoning: Jury must considered the defendants understanding of the totality of the circumstances . . . therefore, the state must prove that the defendant acted recklessly (recklessness) Commonwealth v. Simcock, 31 Mass. App. 184, 1991 (MA) Holding & Reasoning: Standard far more stringent that in Sherry: There can be no honest and reasonable defense to mistake of fact in rape (strict liability). State v. Tyson, 619 N.E.2d 276, 1993 (IN) Holding & Reasoning: To avoid conviction for rape, defendant must (1) honestly and in good faith believe consent has been given, and (2) the facts were such that such a mistake was objectively reasonable. Commonwealth v. Fischer, 721 A.2d 1111, 1998 (PA) Facts: Fischer and female engage in intimate conduct. According to Fischer, victim acted aggressively during this first encounter. After this first act, the two separated. Two hours later, they again found themselves in Fischers dorm room. According to victim: Fisher locked the door, pushed her unto the bed, straddled her, and forced his penis into her mouth. She repeatedly said no. She struck him in the groin and escaped. According to Fischer: She told him it would have to be a quick one. He engaged in the behavior she had earlier exhibited. Upon hearing her say, No, I honestly dont, he stopped. They continued to kiss and fondle. Victims friends testified that victim was shaken and upset afterwards. Holding & Reasoning: When an individual uses force or threat of force to have sex with someone not his spouse and without that persons consent he has committed rape. The " s belief as to the victim s state of mind (i.e., whether or not " actually thought victim was consenting) is not material. So, mistake of fact defense not available for rape involving actual force (strict liability): (Williams)  If the element of the defendants belief as to victims state of mind is to be established as a defense . . .then it should be done by our legislature . . . we refuse to create such a defense . . . (strict liability) Particular emphasis on violence of this case: This is a case of a young woman alleging physical force. State v. Gangahar, 609 N.W.2d 690, 693, 2000 (NE) Facts: Hatfield is an undercover police officer posing as a job applicant at a hotel. Gangahar took her to a hotel room. He attempted to kiss and fondle her. Hatfield repeatedly told him to stop and pulled away. Holding & Reasoning: Mens rea of rape requires that the victim resist in such a manner so as to make their refusal: (1) genuine, (2) real, and (3) reasonably made known to the actor (recklessness). Commonwealth v. Lopez, 745 N.E.2d 961, 2001 (MA) Holding & Reasoning: Once actus reus of rape is proven, no need for culpability (strict liability) Subjective culpability is inherent in the action. Prosecutorial Discretion & Rape Prosecutorial Discretion General rule: Court refrains from questioning the discretionary decisions of prosecuting authorities (see Inmates of Attica Correctional Faculty) Prosecutorial discretion virtually unlimited in US, contrast with England (in which a decision explaining why must be issued) Rationale: Separation of powers (see State ex rel. Unnamed Petitioners v. Connors): Prosecutors are executive branch, judges judicial EXCEPTION: Special prosecutors, although appointed by judges, are still officials of the executive branch with discretion not to file charges. Private prosecutions (People v. Municipal Court) + judge-initiated prosecutions ( are regarded as violating this principle (generally) Judicial incapacity to supervise prosecutors decisions due to imponderables (see Inmates of Attica Correctional Faculty) Idea is that courts lack proper competency to review decision to or not to prosecute Possible reasons for broad prosecutorial discretion in charging decisions: Federal prosecutors are not specifically trained for their positions and cannot count on promotion within a bureaucratic hierarchy (lack of expertise and continuity) Different levels of funding for local, state, and federal prosecutors (lack of resources) Because of severe sentencing (less willing to charge unless certain of guilt) Prosecutors are elected, so accountable to the people (so were not so worried about abuse of power?) Prosecutorial Discretion & Rape Rape-specific instances of discretion: Prosecutors traditionally refuse to go forward in the absence of physical force or resistance. Rationale (Bryden): Difficulty of proving non-consent in light of ambivalence, sudden decisions, and changes of mind: In some cases, even an omniscient fact finder could not describe the womans subjective state of mind as either consent or nonconsent. Result: (Bryden) Inevitability, the [requirement or proving force] permits some unwanted sexual encounters to go unprosecuted. In US, rape victim cannot instigate a private prosecution In European states, however, a rape victim can instigate a prosecution/challenge a prosecutors decision not to prosecute (M.C. Bulgaria) NOTE: In Bulgaria, ECHR found emerging international consensus on rape: Actus reus is violation of sexual autonomy, sexual intercourse without consent (no force requirement) Mens rea: " has to be aware of a lack of consent, so even recklessness not enough: knowledge required) Differs from US in that: (1) No force requirement (2) Mens rea is knowledge Inmates of Attica Correctional Faculty v. Rockefeller, 477 F.2d 375, 1973 (2d) Facts: An inmate uprising occurred in September 1971. Prisoners alleged that correctional officers intentionally killed some of the inmates. Prisoners also allege that the Deputy State Attorney General appointed by the Governor Rockefeller has not investigated the crimes supposedly committed by the officers. Holding & Reasoning: Federal courts uniformly refrain from overturning, at the request of a private person, discretionary decisions of federal prosecuting authorities not to prosecute persons regarding whom a complaint of criminal conduct has been made. Despite that pointThe complaint does allege a sufficient threat of selective and discriminatory prosecution of the plaintiff inmates to meet the standing requirement. Reason: The manifold imponderables which enter into the prosecutors decision are not easily reviewed by the judiciary ( inherent juridical incapacity to supervise Also, concern about information being released that might damage people who were under investigation but ultimately not charged State ex rel. Unnamed Petitioners v. Connors, 401 N.W.2d 782, 1987 (WI) Holding & Reasoning: Statute allowing judge to order prosecution violates the separation of powers requirements of the state constitution. People v. Municipal Court, 103 Cal. Rptr. 645, 1972 (CA) Holding & Reasoning: Private prosecutions violate the separation of powers requirements. Morrison v. Olson, 487 U.S. 654, 1988 Facts: Independent counsel law permits a panel of three federal judges to appoint a special prosecutor to pursue charges against high officials in the executive branch. Attorney general cannot interfere. Holding & Reasoning: Not a violation of separation of powers as the attorney general retained the power to remove the independent counsel for good cause and the prosecutor had discretion on whether to file charges, i.e. Attorney general was still in charge though judges had appointed the prosecutor, and The prosecutor could act independently of judiciarys opinion. M.C. v. Bulguria, ECHR 39272/98, 2003 (European Court of Human Rights) Facts: M.C. was approached by three men, one of whom she knew (A). She agreed to go with them on the conditions that she would be back home by 11 PM. The three men, with MC, went to a reservoir. One of the men forced her to have sex with him. She was then taken to another house, in which A forced her to have sex with him. Prosecutor refused to prosecute as the use of force had not been established beyond a reasonable doubt. Holding & Reasoning: Particular definition of rape (emerging international consensus; however, unclear if European courts would generally accept knowledge standard over recklessness/negligence) Actus reus = sexual penetration without consent given voluntarily Use of force is not required. Mens rea = intention to affect sexual penetration and knowledge of lack of consent (knowledge standard under MPC; significantly higher than average American standard of negligence) Difference from US: No requirement of force Mens rea of knowledge. Limited prosecutorial discretion (relative to American standard): Prosecutor is required to prosecute any nonconsensual sexual act, including in the absence of physical resistance by the victim. Little was done, however, to test the credibility of the version of the events proposed by  and A.  Authorities must nevertheless explore all the facts and their conclusions must be centered on the issue of non-consent. Prosecutor should have proceeded. Statutory Rape Definition (fundamentally a misnomer, as all rape is statutory today) Actus Reus Intercourse with a female under the age of consent (varies by state) Age limit exists as a bright line rule to limit judicial discretion. Mens Rea: Generally strict liability (see Regina v. Prince). Rationale: Moral wrong principle: If someones already doing something wrong (knows theyre in dangerous territory, were not going to allow them to claim theyre not criminally liable because they didnt think they had passed some magic line I.e., if a person knows theyre doing something questionable, and it turns out what they were doing actually was illegal, they should be held criminally liable Sklansky calls this dangerous territory the creep zone (i.e., anyone having sex with someone really young is in the creep zone Mistake of law is never a defense Mistake of fact may be a defense, depending on the jurisdiction (i.e., if mens rea is negligence, not strict liability) In most states the mens rea is strict liability (so no mistake of fact defense), but in some its only negligence (so if mistake is reasonable, no mens rea) MPC: permits affirmative defense showing that the rapist reasonably believed the victim was over the age of consent as it defeats the required mens rea (i.e., mistake of fact defense allowed, but only if mistake is reasonable) NOTE: England has abandoned Prince rule, instead opting for recklessness Restrictions on harshness: Some jurisdictions permit affirmative defense showing that the rapist reasonably believed the victim was over the age of consent as it defeats the required mens rea (i.e., mistake of fact defense allowed, but only if mistake is reasonable) (stand taken by MPC). Some jurisdictions reduce seriousness of offense if only a small age difference exists between the parties. Developments prompting reconsideration: Mandatory sentencing laws a punishment far too extreme for not necessarily an evil act Lawrence v. Texas If fornication cannot be criminalized, the moral wrong aspect for statutory rape disappears. Why should something not a crime all of a sudden become a crime when one partner makes a mistake about the other partner s age? (i.e. state lacks ability to punish underlying activity, so, logically, should not have power to regulate it) If the act the " intended to commit cannot be made illegal, what is the lesser crime (under the lesser legal crime theory)? RELEVANT CASES: Statutory Rape Regina v. Prince, L.R. 2 Cr. Cas. Res. 154, 1875 (England) (statutory rape = strict liability for malum in se crime of rape (strict liability usually applied to malum in prohibitum), i.e. reasonable belief immaterial for an act wrong in itself) State v. Guest, 583 P.2d 836, 1978 (AL) (in line with B (A Minor) but contrast with Prince and Garnett; strict liability for statutory rape = unconstitutional) Owens v State, 724 A.2d 43, 1999 (MD) (in line with Prince and Garnett but contrast with B (A Minor) and Guest; rape = strict liability) Garnett v. State, 332 Md. 571, 1993 (MD) (in line with Prince and Owens but contrast with B (A Minor) and Guest; rape = strict liability) B (A Minor) v. Director of Public Prosecutions, 1 All E.R. 833, 2000 (England) (contrast with Prince; rape should not be a strict liability offense and instead depend upon defendants belief, i.e. recklessness standard) Regina v. Prince, L.R. 2 Cr. Cas. Res. 154, 1875 (landmark in common law mens rea analysis)(England) Facts: Annie Phillips was 14 at the time. She had told the defendant she was 18. Prince took her away. His belief was honest and reasonable. Holding & Reasoning: Mistake of fact as to victims age is no defense against to statutory rape charge as rape is an act wrong in itself (i.e. morally wrong)(strict liability standard). The court does not allow for a defense of mistake of fact in the element regarding the girl s age The court seems to believe that since she is a young girl, it is wrong per se to take her, and therefore, the  does so at his own peril The  knew that the child was under the domination of her father ( it is wrong to take her away Effectively, the court is criminalizing the conduct of the  not so much for knowingly taking a girl under the age of 16, but for taking a young girl away from the protection of her father (which act is forbidden by the statute, if the attendant circumstance of age is met) Dissent: As defendant acted on reasonable belief, he did not have the culpable mens rea:  There is no conviction for a crime in England in the absence of a criminal mind or mens rea. " believed he had committed no crime, not a lesser crime. State v. Guest, 583 P.2d 836, 1978 (AL) Holding & Reasoning: Strict liability for rape = unconstitutional Garnett v. State, 332 Md. 571, 1993 (MD) Holding & Reasoning: Uphold Prince: It [statutory rape] is in the Courts opinion a strict liability offense. Statutory history makes clear legislature intended it to be a strict liability offense, and any provision introducing an element of mens rea should be made by the legislature rather than by judicial fiat. Accordingly there is no allowance for a mistake-of-age defense. Purpose: . . . strict liability defense designed to protect young persons from the dangers of sexual exploitation by adults, loss of chastity, physical injury, and, in the case of girls, pregnancy. Dissent advocates a recklessness standard instead. Owens v State, 724 A.2d 43, 1999 (MD) Holding & Reasoning: Opposed to Guest, in line with both Garnett and Prince: Strict liability standard for statutory rape justified due to states overwhelming interest in protecting children from these risks. B (A Minor) v. Director of Public Prosecutions, 1 All E.R. 833, 2000 (England) Holding & Reasoning: Abandons strict liability standard in Prince for statutory rape and instead advocates use of recklessness standard: R v. Prince is out of line with the modern trend in criminal law which is that a defendant should be judged on the facts as he believes to be. Court prefers honest belief standard to reasonable belief standard: If a belief was in fact held, its unreasonableness, so far as guilt or innocence is concerned, is irrelevant Auxiliary Doctrines Attempt An inchoate offence: Crime of preparing for or seeking to commit another crime. A true inchoate offence occurs when the intended crime is not perpetrated since the Doctrine of Merger prohibits convicting for both, except for conspiracy. Mens Rea Purpose (intent) (1) to commit the acts that constitute the actus reus of the attempt and (2) to carry out the target offense (specific intent) (ex, for attempted murder, murder), even when some lesser mens rea (e.g., recklessness) would suffice for conviction of the attempted offense Thus, " can be convicted of murder (for depraved heart recklessness) and simultaneously acquitted of attempted murder (because he lacked specific intent to kill, was only reckless) Thus (Majority rule), no such thing as attempted involuntary manslaughter or attempted reckless murder, since attempt requires the purpose to carry out the target offense, which, for homicide, means an actual intent to cause death. Involuntary manslaughter and reckless murder by definition lack the specific intent to kill Reasoning: Contradiction in terms (Haw. S.Ct; State v. Holbron) But we change meaning of malice, so why not change meaning of attempt? Slippery slope are all reckless drivers guilty of attempted murder or attempted involuntary manslaughter? EXCEPTION: Thomas, in which there is a recognition of attempted reckless m/s; nonexistence outside this case; Arkansas allows attempted felony murder Exceptions, when knowledge may suffice: For really serious crimes (CA and 7th Circuit) For money laundering and terrorism acts (18 U.S.C. 2339A(a), etc.) MPC: " acts  with the purpose of causing or with the belief that his conduct will cause the prohibited result Example: A bomber sets a bomb in a plane intending to blow it up but not necessarily wishing that the pilot die as well. Bomb does not go off. He is guilty of attempted murder, as he had the belief that his conduct might cause anothers death. IMPORTANT: Even when you have the mens rea for attempt (i.e., you want to commit the crime), you still must have an actus reus (not enough merely to want to do something) Actus Reus Hypos: X decides to kill Y, X buys a gun and bullets, X loads gun, X searches for Y, X sees Y, X walks stealthily toward Y, X aims the gun at Y (Can change his mind up to and including this point), and X fires the gun Y. When has enough of an attempt been made? Generally, the actus reus for attempt is a substantial step that progresses sufficiently towards the commission of the crime (or at least sufficiently beyond mere intent) Contrast with conspiracy, which merely requires an overt act Mere preparation does not equal attempt Different tests (increasing distance from the actual crime itself): Last proximate act (see Eagleton): You have to carry out the last possible step in order to be guilty of attempt This approach is the old approach and has been universally rejected (Barker). Rationale: Until last moment, " still have locus penitentiae (time to change of heart) Dangerous proximity (see Rizzo): Criminal attempt must be close enough that the crime would have been committed in all reasonable probability but for timely interference PROBLEM: How do you determine how close is close enough? PROBLEM: Idea is to give time to repent, but if thats our goal, why not use the last proximate act test? MPC/Substantial step strongly corroborative of intent (see Jackson): " must have taken a  substantial step towards the commission of the crime Substantial step: A step that is  strongly corroborative of the firmness of the " s intent So, two parts: (1) act constituting a substantial step, and (2) act strongly corroborate the defendants criminal purpose, though it need not establish purpose by itself Gaining wide acceptance (1/2 states). Now the majority test List of potentially substantial steps: Lying in wait, searching for, or following the presumed victim. Enticing or seeking to entice the contemplated victim to the place where the crime is to be committed. Reconnoitering the place where the crime is to be committed. Unlawfully entering a structure, vehicle, or enclosure Possessing materials to be employed in the commission of the crime as long materials specifically designed for unlawful use or have no lawful purpose. Possessing, collecting, or fabricating materials to be used in the commission of the crime at or near the place Soliciting an innocent agent Most courts do not find attempt if the victim/target had not been specifically identified Year-and-a-day rule (common law): If it takes more than a year and a day for someone to die because of your action, youre not guilty of murder Defenses to Attempt Impossibility Traditional rule (common law) (1) Legal impossibility is a defense, but Person who thinks he is committing a wrong but is not actually doing anything wrong because what hes doing isnt against the law cannot be convicted of attempt (see Jaffe). (2) Factual Impossibility is not a defense: Person who does something he thinks is illegal based on an incorrect set of facts (i.e. there is no actual chance that he will succeed in committing the crime because of facts/circumstances he doesnt know) can be convicted of attempt Distinction between legal and factual impossibility: Factual impossibility: Said to occur when extraneous circumstances unknown to the actor or beyond his control prevent the consummation of the intended crime Legal impossibility: Said to occur where the intended acts, even if committed, would not amount to a crime (i.e., when the consequence resulting from the intended act does not amount to a crime_ MPC: Two parts: (1) Keeps defense of impossibility in case to true legal impossibility, i.e., in case of mistake about what the law actually is E.g., trying to smuggle in shoes you thought were prohibited (2) Characterizes a mistake about attendant circumstances as factual impossibility and thus as not a defense I.e., with regards to mistakes about attendant circumstances, if you take a substantial step to commit a crime strongly corroborative of intent to commit that crime, which would be a crime if the attendant circumstances were as you believed them to be, that constitutes attempt E.g., NY law: It is no defense to a charge of an attempted crime to say the attempt was, under the circumstances, impossible of commission, if such a crime would have been committed had the attendant circumstances been such as the person believed them to be Legal impossibility still a good defense because attendant circumstances dont include what you think the law is In situations in which it is blatantly obvious that the defendants chosen method could not possibly result in the crime (for example, voodoo on the body of a judge), two responses: MPC: Judge can mitigate the offense MN: Makes exception for impossibility if what " tried to do would have been clearly evident to a person of normal understanding This shifts focus of analysis to actor s mental frame of reference and away from  undue dependence upon external considerations. Premise of provision is that what was in the " s own mind should be the standard for determining his dangerousness and, hence, liability Effect: Sweeps a lot of people into the attempt category (e.g., someone who shoots at a decoy thinking its real is guilty) In most states (2/3) and nearly all the federal courts of appeals, the MPC Approach (5.01) is dominant (see Dlugash) Berrigan ( legal impossibility = defense Oviedo ( defendants belief = immaterial; objective act must be criminal. BUT, legal/factual impossibility distinction still holds in California and Ohio (maybe)(see Jaffe, Rojas, and Collin Abandonment (see Ross and McNeal) When a " is convicted of an attempted crime, he s held criminally liable even though we can never be sure he would have taken those additional steps. To minimize potential for unfairness, some courts insist that threshold for criminality be placed close to the last act, with result being that some criminal are freed who almost certainly would not have repented. One way to avoid this dilemma is to recognize abandonment (sometimes called renunciation) as a complete defense Generally, in most circuits its an open question as to whether or not abandonment/renunciation is a defense Common law: No defense of abandonment MPC: Abandonment is a defense when: (1) Abandonment is entirely voluntary (i.e., didnt abandon merely because committing the crime turned out to be more difficult than you thought it would be, and (2) The abandonment is complete, i.e., decision to abandon not simply a postponement. Penalties Attempt generally punished less than target offense. Common law made attempt a misdemeanor. CA sets penalty at sentence authorize for target offense; other states treat similarly. MPC 5.01: Attempt is same grade and degree as target offense, except that attempting a first-degree felony is a second-degree felony. A substantial minority of states follow MPC in equalized punishment. Arguments for a lower penalty for attempt: Gratifies natural public feeling (James Fitzjames Stephen) Less wrong to avenge with the unsuccessful criminal (retributivist) Failed would-be crooks less dangerous because less skillful If no completed crime, harder to know intent Maybe want to give incentive to stop Arguments against a lower penalty for attempt: Attempter just as subjectively culpable as successful crooktheir intent is the same (Stephen J. Morse). Gratifying public feeling not a justification for punishment (Hart). The principle of proportionality does not decree that the severity of punishment be proportionate to the offenders good or bad luck, but rather to his blameworthiness (Feinberg) MPC commentary suggest point of highest penalties is deterrence, not justice, and dont need to deter attemptdeterring target offense is enough. Examples, show the problem/paradox of attempt Example 1: A, B, C: arrange to assemble a bomb and kill people. A changes his mind: Not guilty of any crime Rationale: Thinking is not a crime. Even vile thoughts dont count. C succeeds: Guilty of murder B tries but his bomb fails: Guilty of attempted murder PROBLEM W/ATTEMPT: B Does everything that C does, but his bomb fails, not of his own accord, and because of this hes guilty only of attempt Perhaps this is why MPC usually punishes attempt the same as a successful crime. Example 2: A messes up the fuse and the bomb goes off at nightA wanted people to die. B arranges for bomb to explode at night but bomb instead explodes in the dayonly wanted to blow up building and not kill anybody. B guilty of, at least, involuntary manslaughter or maybe murder. A guilty of attempted murder. Penalty much lower for A for attempted murder even though his intent was to kill. Rationale: Justice for victims (more to avenge when someone hurt?) ( Retributive BUT, should aimless luck be our great distinctive difference? Under deterrence, we would punish both equally And, under rehabilitative, we would punish both equally Exam Tips If defendant misunderstood the law, legal impossibility defense. If defendant believed he could cause a crime, factual impossibility and no defense. If defendant mistakenly believed the surrounding circumstances were such as to make his intended actions a crime, factual impossibility and no defense. RELEVANT CASES: People v. Jaffe, 185 N.Y. 497, 78 N.E. 169, 1906 (NY) (rejected in most states and federal courts, CA and OH exceptions; classic statement of legal impossibility) Thacker v. Commonwealth, 134 Va. 767, 1922 (VA) (attempted murder = specific attempt to kill) People v. Rizzo, 246 N.Y. 334, 1927 (NY) (dangerous proximity test) People v. Dlugash, 41 N.Y.2d 725, 363 N.E.2d 1155, 1977 (NY) (abandons distinction between legal and factual impossibly and adopts MPC standard) United States v. Berrigan, 482 F.2d 171, 1973 (3d cir) (in line with Collins, Jaffe, Rojas; rejects MPC abolishment of impossibilities and permits legal impossibility as a defense) United States v. Oviedo, 525 F.2d 881, 1976 (5th cir) (rejects MPC emphasis on defendants belief: For guilt of criminal attempt, the acts performed, without any reliance on the intent, mark the defendants conduct as criminal) United States v. Jackson, 560 F.2d 112, 1977 (2d cir)(uses MPC standard for defining attempt: substantial step strongly corroborative of intent) United States v. Joyce, 693 F.2d 838, 1982 (8th cir) (if the intention is abandoned before a substantial step necessary for the commission of the crime, no attempt has happened) People v. Thomas, 729 P.2d 972, 1986 (CO) (only case of attempted felony murder: guilty of attempt felony murder, as (1) CO statute allows but didnt require result, and (2) purpose of intent is to ID cases likely to cause harm, and cases of recklessness belong in that category) People v. McNeal, 393 N.W.2d 907, 1986 (MI) (similar to Ross, though different result: abandonment must be voluntary) Ross v. State, 601 So. 2d 872, 1992 (MS) (similar to McNeal, though different result: abandonment must be voluntary) United States v. Harper, 33 F.3d 1143, 1994 (3d cir) (contrast with Jackson: Making an appointment with a potential victim is not of itself such a commitment to an intended crime as to constitute an attempt, even though it may make a later attempt possible) State v. Holbron, 80 Haw. 27, 1995 (attempt = intent to kill) Smallwood v. State, 343 Md. 97, 680 A.2d 512, 1996 (MD) (attempted murder = specific intent to kill; even if result of action would have been death and crime murder, unless that was the intent, until someone dies one cannot be convicted of murder or attempted murder) State v. Hinkhouse, 139 Or. App 446, 1996 (OR) (distinguish from Smallwood; defendant both lied and acknowledged dangers of sex, and is thus guilty of attempted murder as intent and awareness of danger could be implied) Jones v. State, 689 n.E.2d 722, 1997 (IND) (attempted murder = specific intent to kill) People v. Jaffe, 185 N.Y. 497, 78 N.E. 169, 1906 (NY) Facts: Defendant is charged with attempting to receive stolen goods. Defendant believed that he was purchasing stolen cloth, but it was not actually stolen. The owner of the cloth had given it to the police for the purpose of catching defendant attempting to purchase the cloth. Holding & Reasoning: If a person intends to commit an act that would not be a crime if it were consummated, the person cannot be convicted of an attempt (legal impossibility). I.e., believing that something youre doing is a crime when it in fact is not a crime does not make what youre doing a crime Distinction between legal and factual impossibility: Legal impossibility: What youre doing wouldnt be a crime if you carried it out, even though you believe it would be (i.e., the reason you cant consummate your crime is because it isnt a crime in the first place) Factual impossibility: What youre doing would be a crime if you carried it out, but youre prevented from carrying it out b/c of facts unknown to you that render completion of the crime impossible (i.e., the reason you cant consummate your crime is because facts as they are prevent you from doing so) (***) The distinction between impossibilities here made is still the rule in California even though most states have rejected impossibilities and settled on the MPC evaluation of defendants mindset (see Dlugash). Examples of preservation of distinction: State v. Collins (Ohio) and People v. Rojas (Ca) Thacker v. Commonwealth, 134 Va. 767, 1922 (VA) Facts: Drunken man shoots at a tent. Bullet misses the woman Holding & Reasoning: Attempted murder requires a specific intent to kill; had he hit the woman, he would have been guilty of murder, but as he did not, no attempt. People v. Rizzo, 246 N.Y. 334, 1927 (NY) Facts: Would-be robbers drive around looking for guy with payroll. They never find him. Holding & Reasoning: No attempt as criminal attempt must be close enough to accomplishing crime so that in all reasonable probability the crime itself would have been committed but for timely interference. United States v. Berrigan, 482 F.2d 171, 1973 (3d cir) Facts: " was in prison and sent letters outside the prison without, he thought, the warden s knowledge and consent (though warden really knew). Holding & Reasoning: " not guilty of attempting to send letters without warden s knowledge and consent because the result of his actions was not illegal (because warden in fact knew of " s actions) Rejects MPC abolishment of impossibilities:  Simply stated, attempting to do that which is not a crime is not attempting to commit a crime. In line with Collins, Jaffe, Rojas; Not in line with Dlugash. United States v. Oviedo, 525 F.2d 881, 1976 (5th cir) Facts: " made drug deal to sell heroin, but what he actually sold was something else (not a controlled substance) Holding & Reasoning: " not guilty because what he did wasn t criminal Rejects MPC emphasis on defendant s belief: To be guilty of criminal attempt, the acts performed, without any reliance on the mens rea, must mark the defendant s conduct as criminal. The act should be unique. Not in line with Dlugash. People v. Dlugash, 41 N.Y.2d 725, 363 N.E.2d 1155, 1977 (NY) Facts: Three men were in an apartment, and an argument ensued over late rent. One man shoots another three times in the head, probably killing him. After a 3-5 minute interval, Dlugash shoots the victim 5 times in the head Holding & Reasoning: Abandons distinction between legal and factual impossibly and adopts MPC standard: "... A person is guilty of an attempt when, with intent to commit a crime, he engages in conduct which tends to effect the commission of such crime. It is no defense that, under the attendant circumstances, the crime was factually or legally impossible of commission, if such crime could have been committed had the attendant circumstances been as such person believed them to be. Thus, if defendant believed the victim to be alive at the time of the shooting, it is no defense to the charge of attempted murder that the victim may have been dead. United States v. Jackson, 560 F.2d 112, 1977 (2d cir) Holding & Reasoning: Uses MPC standard for defining attempt: substantial step strongly corroborative of intent to commit the attempted crime Reasons for: Fair standard: . . . would preclude attempt liability with its accompanying harsh penalties for relatively remote preparatory acts, and . . . this approach will broaden the scope of attempt liability by focusing on what the actor has already done and thus make convictions easier to obtain I.e., shift focus from what remains to be done to what has been done Corrects weaknesses of last proximate act test: At the same time, however, by not requiring a last proximate act or one of its various analogues it would permit the apprehension of dangerous persons at an earlier stage than the other approaches without immunizing them from attempt liability. United States v. Joyce, 693 F.2d 838, 1982 (8th cir) Facts: Joyce flew into Missouri to meet with Gebbie and an undercover agent, Robert Jones. Joyce wanted to buy cocaine, but when handed the package, he returned it, asking agent to open it. The package was half opened, and agent asked Joyce to present his money. Joyce again returned it, and asked Jones to open the full package. Joyce said he would not present his money until he sees the whole package. Joyce eventually refused to buy the cocaine at all. Holding & Reasoning: If the intention is abandoned before a substantial step necessary for the commission of the crime, no attempt has happened. Courts says that while " professed a  desire to purchase cocaine, he never attempted to carry through with that desire by producing money to purchase and ultimately possess the cocaine. Court says all there was was a  preliminary discussion to buy cocaine that broke down and that " never took a substantial step strongly corroborative of his intent to commit the crime (e.g., producing money)  We fail to see how an increased awareness of the risk of apprehension [i.e., tip that Jones was actually a DEA agent] converts what would otherwise be mere preparation into an attempt. People v. Thomas, 729 P.2d 972, 1986 (CO) Facts: Man fires three shorts at a man he believed to be a fleeing rapist. Two of the shots struck the man. Thomas claimed one of the shorts had been fired accidentally and that the other two were warning shorts. Holding & Reasoning: Guilty of attempt felony murder, as (1) CO statute allows but didnt require result, and (2) purpose of intent is to ID cases likely to cause harm, and cases of recklessness belong in that category. People v. McNeal, 393 N.W.2d 907, 1986 (MI) Holding & Reasoning: Defendants abandonment must be voluntary: Defendant can therefore not renounce his action because of unexpected resistance. Ross v. State, 601 So. 2d 872, 1992 (MS) Holding & Reasoning: Defendants abandonment must be voluntary: Defendant did not fail in his attack. No one prevented him from completing it. The victim did not sound an alarm. She successfully persuaded Ross, of his own free will, to abandon his attempt. United States v. Harper, 33 F.3d 1143, 1994 (3d cir) Facts: " set a  bill trap by withdrawing money from an ATM but failing to remove the cash, then waited near guns and ammo for technicians to come so they could rob them of the money in the ATM. Arrested before technicians got there. Holding & Reasoning: Contrast with Jackson: Making an appointment with a potential victim is not of itself such a commitment to an intended crime as to constitute an attempt, even though it may make a later attempt possible. (i.e. crime too far in the future90 minutes or so) (dangerous proximity test) MPC would not reach the same result, as a substantial step can include enticing or seeking to entice the contemplated victim to the place where the crime is to be committed; unlikely that Jackson court would either. State v. Holbron, 80 Haw. 27, 1995 Holding & Reasoning: Attempt charge requires proof of an intent to kill; therefore, as the essence of involuntary manslaughter is unintentional killing, such a charge is a contradiction in terms. HOWEVER, could have attempted voluntary manslaughter: Extreme provocation + intent to kill = (vol manslaughter) + (attempt) Smallwood v. State, 343 Md. 97, 680 A.2d 512, 1996 (MD) Facts: Smallwood raped and robbed 3 women. He knew he had AIDs and had been warned about having safe sex. He did not wear a condom during his attacks. Holding & Reasoning: Although Smallwood would have been guilty of depraved heart murder if victim died, as he had no intent to cause death, he could not be convicted of attempted homicide. Attempted murder requires a specific intent to kill. " s specific intent, was only to rob and rape his victims, not kill them. That by raping them he knowingly exposed them to the risk of HIV is not sufficient grounds to infer an intent to kill. Court seems to find that raping someone when you have HIV is not recklessness enough to demonstrate an extreme indifference to the value of human life. State v. Hinkhouse, 139 Or. App 446, 1996 (OR) Facts: Hinkhouse slept with several women. Hinkhouse was infected with AIDS. He did not use condoms and failed to disclose his statute to his victims. MOREOVER, Hinkhouse deliberately concealed his AIDS status (lying) and acknowledged that, if he had AIDS, having sex would transmit the virus. Holding & Reasoning: Distinguish from Smallwood: As defendant both lied and acknowledged the probable consequence of sexual relations, he is guilty of attempted murder. In Smallwood, defendant neither lied nor expressed such knowledge. Jones v. State, 689 n.E.2d 722, 1997 (IND) Holding & Reasoning: Attempted murder requires a specific intent to kill. Aiding & Abetting Accomplice Liability (Group Liability, Part I) General Principles This is where crime gets committed but " isn t person who committed that crime ( where " helped the committer, where the person was a lookout, etc. Accomplice derives liability from primary party with whom he has associated himself (principal in the first degree) We say that accomplice liability doesnt depend on causation because (1) otherwise we would be absolving the principal of their culpability and (2) if accomplice liability depended on causation, wed have to ask whether the assistance was necessary (i.e., but-for causation) for the crime to be committed Accomplice liability allows us to deal with facilitation without having to worry about causation We say aiding and abetting is the same grade of offense as the crime actually committed I.e., Accomplice may be convicted of any offense committed by the primary party w/ accomplices intentional assistance. Differences in culpability dealt with via sentencing discretion or through reduction for those who played a minor role. Aiding and abetting is not a separate offense (unlike attempt) Old Formulation Party definitions: Principal in the first degree: actual perpetrator Principal in the second decree: those who (1) incite or abet the commission of the crime and (2) who are actually or constructively present Accessory before the fact: Those who (1) incite and abet the commission of a felony but (2) are not actually or constructively present at the commission of the offense Accessory after the fact: Those who (1) receive, comfort, or assist another, (2) knowing that he has committed a felony (3) in order to hinder the perpetrators arrest, prosecution, or conviction. Old rule: (1) Conviction of principal was necessary, and Under modern law, no need to convict principal. (2) Could not be convicted of higher offense than principal (i.e. could not be convicted of murder for aiding and abetting a failed murderand thus murder itselfwhile accomplice convicted of attempted murder). Under modern law, could be convicted of attempted murder and principals not (as a result of abandonment); HOWEVER, the perpetrators guilt must be proven as part of the case against the accomplice. Specifically, although accessory after the fact and conspiracy are still punished differently, the punishment is the same for all types. Modern Formulation (MPC and most states) Complicity is not a separate offense with its own penalty, but rather a way of committing the substantive offense However, offense of accessory after the fact maintained as a separate offense with its own penalty, regardless of the substantive offense committed by the criminal Mens Rea General Rule (common law and MPC) (1) Specific intent (true purpose) to aid in the crime (or conduct that is basis of offense), and IMPORTANT: A person who does not intend to encourage the commission of a crime is not an accomplice even if his words had the effect of encouraging the crime (see Hicks). Also, accomplice has to know that the act he is aiding and abetting is illegal (see Wilcox) (2) Mens rea of underlying offense (whatever crime principal is charged with; e.g. if primary party charged with burglary, accomplice must intend that primary party enter a dwelling with the intent to commit a crime) Majority rule (MPC): allows conviction for crime even if mens rea of the underlying offense is not purpose but recklessness or negligence. Analyze cases in terms of intent to aid in conduct that forms basis of offense + mental state that forms basis for offense. NOTE: The MPC is silent on the mens rea required for attendant circumstances in complicity cases Minority rule: No convictions for crime that require recklessness or negligence because one cannot intend to promote the commission of a reckless or negligent crime MPC says that when causing a particular result is an element of the offense, mens rea for accomplice is only the level of culpability required for the commission of the underlying offense Feigning Accomplice: a feigning accomplice cannot be held liable for principals crimes because feigning accomplice has (1) specific intent to aid (2) but NO mens rea of underlying offense (see Wilson: feigning accomplice intended to aid robber but did not intend owner to be permanently deprived of his property; therefore, no mens rea of robbery) Mens rea required for (1) intent to aid (purpose or knowledge?): Majority rule: intent to aid requires purpose (knowledge alone insufficient) Gladstone: " lacked purpose of promoting the sale of drugs, lacked purpose and association with the venture, so not an accomplice in the sale MPC 2.06(3)(a): an accomplice is one who acts with the purpose of facilitating or promoting the offense. First MPC definition, which required only knowledge (not purpose, was rejected) rejected. First draft said an accomplice was one who knowingly substantially facilitated its commission. Substantially had been added because of concern about the line between suspicion and knowledge Exceptions (lesser mens rea): (1) Some jurisdictions have special rules/separate crimes: Criminal facilitation (NY Penal Code): separate crime with lesser penalty; requires only intent to aid with knowledge that the aid probably is supporting a crime (i.e., required purpose is only to aid, not to further the crime) Knowledge + Substantial Facilitation (old MPC draft, used by some states) Knowledge + Nature of the Crime (see (2) below) (2) Different rules for more serious crimes: In some jurisdictions, purpose is required to convict of lesser offenses but knowledge suffices to convict of major crimes (see Fountain) (3) Money laundering; material aid to terrorists: 18 U.S.C. 1957 (money laundering of amount >$10,000), material assistance to terrorists require only knowledge that aid is facilitating the criminal act Campbell even says that all thats needed for conviction of money laundering is knowledge that the transaction is designed to conceal the moneys origin) Occasionally handgun possession in course of a violent crime or drug trafficking fall under this category (see Johnson, Powell, and Medina) (4) Natural and probable consequences doctrine (rejected by MPC): Accomplice guilty of any crime committed by his accomplices that was a natural and probable consequence of the intended crime (see Luparello and Marr) I.e., liability is extended to reach the actual crime committed, not the intended crime, under theory that aiders and abettors responsible for the criminal harms they have reasonably and foreseeably put into motion Accomplice guilty despite absence of purpose to commit the crime actually committed NOTE: Concurrence in Luparello distinguishes between natural and probable and reasonably foreseeable (5) Crimes with a result element (adopted by MPC): When causing a particular result is an element of the offense, mens rea for accomplice liability is only the level of culpability required for the commission of the underlying offense MPC 2.06(4) A person is an accomplice in the commission of the offense if: (1) he was an accomplice in the conduct that caused the result of the offense, and (2) he acted with the culpability regarding the result that is sufficient for offense I.e., if accomplice has both (A) the purpose of encouraging or facilitating the conduct that leads to the result and (B) the mens rea required for that conduct, accomplice is liable for the crime E.g., McVay: " was reckless in telling the captain and engineer to run the boiler too hard. Captain and engineer were negligent in running the boiler too hard, as a result of which the boiler burst, killing passengers. Captain and engineer guilty of negligent homicide, and " guilty of aiding and abetting the negligent homicide as an accomplice in causing the boiler to be run too hard (his mens rea was recklessness, which is higher than the required mens rea, negligence) Significance for felony murder: An accomplice that aids in commission of felony (accomplice in conduct) can be held responsible for any accidental death (result) caused by the principal during felony under FM (no mens rea as to result in FM) (***) The mens rea required for complicity vs. attempt under the MPC: With regards to the result element, MPC requires purpose for attempt but whatever mens rea is needed for the commission of the charged crime for complicity (see McVay: mens rea of crime sufficient for conviction as an accomplice). With regards to attendant circumstances, MPC requires the mens rea necessary for the completed crime for attempt but purpose for complicity (this contradicts what I have above). Hornbook suggests mens rea for attendant circumstances in complicity should be the mens rea required for conviction of the underlying crime (common law); MPC is silent on the matter Actus Reus IMPORTANT: No but-for causation required NOTE: You dont need much for actus reus (see Wilcox ( applauding at illegal jazz concert) NOTE: If accomplice is present but doesnt do anything, in order for there to be liability there needs to have been a preexisting conspiracy (Stand Rowe case) Traditional (majority) rule (see Wilcox and Tally): Aid must be significant though not substantial. Three elements: 1) Actual aid required, but amount of aid is irrelevant 2) Not guilty if aid is ineffectual 3) Aid does not need to be the but-for cause of crime. IMPORTANT: Person liable of aiding and abetting only if principal actually commits a crime MPC 2.06 3(a) (minority) attempt to aid is sufficient, even if ineffectual. Actus reus exists if ": (1) Solicits (whether actually succeeds or not because of deafness, etc. is irrelevant) principal to commit the offense, or (2) Aids, agrees to aid, or attempts to aid principal in the planning or commission of the offense; or Provision that attempting to aid & abet qualifies as aiding & abetting unique to the MPC. So, no requirement that any crime actually be committed; accomplice can be guilty of attempting to commit a crime (by attempting to aid & abet the crime) that was never even attempted by the principal (3) Has a legal duty to prevent commission of the offense but fails to do so Quick determination: To convict of target offense for aiding and abetting, defendant must . . . Directly or indirectly encourage or facilitate the commission of the offense, Perpetrator must be aware of encouragement. Presence at scene of crime by itself does not constitute incitement (i.e. cheering while a friend rapes a woman); however, prior agreement = sufficient encouragement. Assist in any significant way, and Not required to prove that without such aid the perpetrator would have failed (but-for causation not required). Perpetrator does not need to know of the assistance. Communications unnecessary. Actually impact the perpetrator. Under the MPC, liability can be based on an attempt to aid, i.e. defendant need not actually provide effective assistance. RELEVANT CASES: Aiding & Abetting Hicks v. United States, 150 U.S. 442, 1893 (SCt.) (encouragement = accomplice, and (1) perpetrator does not need to know of this encouragement, and (2) aiding party must have knowledge that aids and encourages the perpetrator) State ex rel. Attorney General v. Tally, Judge, 102 Ala. 25, 1894 (AB) (irrelevant whether accomplice communicates with principals or was the but-for cause of the crime to be judged an accomplice) State v. McVay, 47 R.I. 292, 1926 (RI) (if actions contribute to negligence which results in death, can be held guilty of crime as an accomplicelesser mens rea than purpose for resultMPC agrees) United States v. Peoni, 100 F.2d 401, 401, 1938 (2nd Cir)(source of definition of aiding & abetting used in Nissen and Gladstone: (1) defendant must aid and abet, (2) possess the requisite mens rea (purpose), and (3) the person incited and abetted must actually commit the offense) Wilcox v. Jeffry, 1 All E.R. 464, 1951 (ENGLAND)(actus reus for aiding & abetting= minimal) State v. Gladstone, 78 Wash. 2d 306, 474 P.2d 274, 1970 (WA) (to aid and abet, defendant must in some sort associate himself with the venture, participate in it as in something that he wishes to bring about, and seek by his action to make it succeed.) People v. Luparello, 187 Cal. App. 3d 410, 231 Cal.Rptr. 832, 1987 (CA) (natural probable test; disliked by MPC) United States v. Johnson, 886 F.2d 1120, 1989 (9th Cir) (for drug trafficking/violent crimes, under natural and probable consequences doctrine, accomplice does not need to be aware of perpetrators secondary crimes) United States v. Powell, 929 F.2d 724, 1991 (DC Cir) (contrast with Johnson; for drug trafficking/violent crimes, under natural and probable consequences doctrine, accomplice must have some certainty regarding additional infractions of perpetrator) State v. Ayers, 478 N.W.2d 606, 1991 (IW) (In an involuntary manslaughter case, accomplice liability exists only if the act was done in furtherance of a common design, or in prosecution of the common purpose, for which the parties were assembled or combined together) United States v. Campbell, 977 F.2d 854, 1992 (4th Cir) (for aiding & abetting money laundering, knowledge sufficient mens rea) State v. Travis, 497 N.W.2d 905, 1993 (IW) (contrast with Ayers; in an involuntary manslaughter case, accomplice liability exists only if defendant assented or lent countenance and approval to the criminal act either by an act of participation in it or some manner encouraging it prior to or at the time of commission) United States v. Medina, 32 F.3d 40, 1994 (2nd Cir) (contrast with Johnson and Powell; rejects natural and probable doctrine with regards to handgun possession of perpetrator) State v. Marr, 342 N.C. 607, 1996 (NC) (rejection of natural and probable consequences test: convictions only valid for consequences that were within the area which the defendant procured, counseled, commanded, or encouraged) Roy v. United States, 652 A.2d 1098, 1998 (DC) (probable result in regards to actual consequence, more stringent than probable and natural test as it extends that to only a specific element, i.e. result) Hicks v. United States, 150 U.S. 442, 1893 (SCt.) Facts: One morning, Stand Rowe rode out with a Winchester rifle and stopped five feet from the main road. Colvard and Hicks rode out towards Stand and, upon seeing him, trotted forwards. Stand Rowe rode out into the road and halted. All three man eventually came together. At one point, Hicks said, Take off your hat and die like a man, to Colvard. Stand shot and killed Colvard. Holding & Reasoning: Judge gave directions mistaken on both counts No evidence that " said the words with the intent to induce Stand to kill, so not guilty of aiding and abetting Mens rea for aiding and abetting = purpose (1) Encouragement, even if not accompanied by physical aid, is sufficient to render on an accomplice. (2) Perpetrator does not need to have knowledge of this encouragement; (3) However, to encourage, aiding & abetting party must have purpose to encourage or assist the perpetrator: . . . the acts or words of encouragement and abetting must have been used by the accused with the intention of encouraging and abetting . . . Actus reus must be more than mere presence (cant be being there reus) If theres a prior conspiracy, however, action at the scene/time of the crime is unnecessary for liability b/c theres already liability from the prior conspiracy State ex rel. Attorney General v. Tally, Judge, 102 Ala. 25, 1894 (AB) Facts: Ross had seduced Tallys sister-in-law. Her brothers, the Skeletons, followed Ross to the nearby town to kill him. Tally went to the local telegraph office and there learned that Rosss friends were sending him a warning message. Tally ordered telegraph operator to not send the message. Skeletons caught up with and killed Ross. Holding & Reasoning: " s actions made it easier for killers to kill victim by preventing " from receiving the warning. That killers might have been successful even had victim been warned is irrelevant, so " guilty of being an accomplice to the murder To be convicted for aiding & abetting, it is irrelevant whether 1) " communicated with principals or 2) was  the but for cause of the crime (as in Wilcox)  It is quite sufficient if the aid facilitated a result that would have transpired without it. What if telegraph operator disregarded the message? Common Law: No accomplice liability( because judge didnt succeed (aiding and abetting one step away, attempting one step away, put them together youre too far away from crime) Must ACTUALLY SUCCEED IN AIDING AND ABETTING (example, if you yell, person hears you, and he then kills someone) MPC: Yes accomplice liability, because he attempted to aid and abet (2.06(3)(a))(so applies to ineffective aid and ineffectively communicated abet) Commentaries of the MPC, which does define solicitation as encouragement (5.02) and expressly states that failure to communicate does not reduce complicity in crime (so shouting at deaf man would still count) What if message delivered but victim fought them off? Common law: In old common law, principal must be convicted of crime for person aiding and abetting to also be convicted. Therefore, it is necessary for the Skeleton to actually succeed. MPC: (5.01)even if murder failed (and theyre guilty of attempted murder), he can still be convicted of attempted murder for aiding and abetting Why can Tally be so punished for abetting as having committed the murder but the actual murderers can desist and be guilty only of attempt? What if the Skeleton abandoned their plan Common law: No b/c crime abandoned. Still depends whether abandonment is recognized (last step test v. step strongly corroborative of criminal intent vs. dangerous proximity test) MPC: 5.01Tally still guilty b/c complicity would be established if crime had been committed . . . but, like in common law, the skeletons are not at all. What if Judge Tully commits his aid after victim had already been killed? Common law: No b/c legal impossibility & factual impossibility MPC: No because crime had already been committedhe could not possibly contribute. But could be convicted as an accomplice. Would not be guilty an accomplice if he later agreed to keep queit or dispose of their guns . . . Why the distinction between after (no aiding and abetting) and before (aiding and abetting? Maybe because once the crime has been committed, youre no longer capable of participation . . . but how did wilkins actually participate? Mayeb in a small consequential way . .. and afterwards is impossible . . . actions prior to show desire for crimes occurrence; afterwards, such a motivation cannot be deduced State v. McVay, 47 R.I. 292, 1926 (RI) Facts: " counseled and commanded captain and engineer to negligently create more steam than the boiler could handle, knowing that their doing so could endanger human life. The boiler of the steamer Mackinac burst, killing a number of people Captain and engineer convicted of involuntary manslaughter founded on their criminal negligence in operating the boiler at an unsafe level; " convicted of aiding and abetting their involuntary manslaughter Holding & Reasoning: In an involuntary manslaughter case, it is possible for someone to be an accessory before the fact, if actions contribute to negligence which results in the death of human beings I.e., possible to aid and abet the doing of a lawful act in a negligent manner, so possible to be convicted of aiding and abetting a crime that cannot by its nature be incited before the crime is committed (because the mens rea of the crime is only negligence) United States v. Peoni, 100 F.2d 401, 401, 1938 (2nd Cir)(not discussed in class) Holding & Reasoning: Source of definition of aiding & abetting used in Nissen and Gladstone: (1) defendant must aid and abet, (2) possess the requisite mens rea (purpose), and (3) the person incited and abetted must actually commit the offense = actions carry an implication of purpose attitude towards [the crime]. Wilcox v. Jeffry, 1 All E.R. 464, 1951 (ENGLAND) (Not controlling, but Sklansky used this as example for actus reus requirement) Facts: Wilcox met Coleman Hawkins, an American jazz musician, at the airport. Wilcox went to his concert Wilcos wrote an article on Hawkins for his jazz periodical. At the time, Englnad had a law against forbidding employment of aliens. Holding & Reasoning: Actus reus for complicity = minimal encouragement = does not need to be the but-for cause of the crime State v. Gladstone, 78 Wash. 2d 306, 474 P.2d 274, 1970 (WA) Facts: Thompson, a police informant, went to Gladstone to purchase marijuana. Gladstone replied that he did not have any to sell him but volunteered the name of Kent as someone who did have enough and was willing to sell. He provided Thompson with Kent s address and, at Thompson s reques,t drew a map. Holding & Reasoning: No evidence that " intended for informant to be purchase the marijuana, so no specific intent To aid and abet, defendant must in some sort associate himself with the venture, participate in it as in something that he wishes to bring about, and seek by his action to make it succeed. I.e., there needs to be a nexus between the accused and the party hes charged with aiding and abetting Court quotes this formulation from Nissen v. United States and also on United States v. Peoni. Real problem: lack of purposive attitude under Learned Hands formulation in Peoni. Dissent: " knew what would happen, so had specific intent. United States v. Fountain, 768 F.2d 790, 1985 (7th Cir) Holding & Reasoning: For aiding & abetting, purpose sufficient mens rea to convict of lesser crimes, but knowledge suffices to convict of major crimes. People v. Luparello, 187 Cal. App. 3d 410, 231 Cal.Rptr. 832, 1987 (CA) Facts: Luparello wanted to find Terri, his former lover who was now married to another. He told his friends that he wanted information at any cost. Friends eventually got and killed Martin, ex wifes husband. Holding & Reasoning: For aiding & abetting, purpose = intentionally (1) encouraging or (2) assisting or (3) influencing the nefarious act = NATURAL PROBABLE TEST for mens rea (exception to purpose culpability): Abettor bears responsibility for any criminal harms they have naturally, probably, and foreseeably put in motion = natural and reasonable consequences of aid Natural and probable consequence test: Liability is extended to reach the actual crime committed, not the intended crime, under theory that aiders and abettors responsible for the criminal harms they have reasonably and foreseeably put into motion I.e., aider and abettor guilty not of the offense he intended to facilitate or encourage, but also of any reasonably foreseeable offense committed by the person he aids and abets Dissent: Pointedly question the transformation from probable and natural consequences to natural and reasonable, a tort concept. Questions the natural and probable consequence rule of accomplice liability as inconsistent with more fundamental principles of our system of criminal law. It would permit liability to be predicated upon negligence even when the crime involved requires a different state of mind. United States v. Johnson, 886 F.2d 1120, 1989 (9th Cir) Holding & Reasoning: Under natural and probable consequences doctrine, accomplice to a violent crime/drug trafficking may also be charged as an accomplice to the possession of a firearm regardless of awareness of perpetrators possession. Contrast with Powell and Medina. United States v. Powell, 929 F.2d 724, 1991 (DC Cir) Holding & Reasoning: Under natural and probable consequences doctrine, accomplice to a violent crime/drug trafficking may also be charged as an accomplice to the possession of a firearm only if he is aware as a practical certainty of perpetrators possession. Contrast with Johnson and Medina. State v. Ayers, 478 N.W.2d 606, 1991 (IW) Facts: Ayers sold a gun to a 16 year old who did not possess a permit. Afterwards, the kid brought the gun to a party and accidentally shot and killed a friend. Holding & Reasoning: No accomplice liabilty In an involuntary manslaughter case, accomplice liability exists only if the act was done in furtherance of a common design, or in prosecution of the common purpose, for which the parties were assembled or combined together. Contrast with Travis. United States v. Campbell, 977 F.2d 854, 1992 (4th Cir) Holding & Reasoning: For aiding & abetting, knowledge sufficient mens rea for money laundering: textbook writes, People carrying on normal business can be convicted of money laundering if they become of the criminal activities of their clients, or even if they merely look the other way. If they arent cautious enough, they face prosecution for a serious felony. State v. Travis, 497 N.W.2d 905, 1993 (IW) Facts: Travis, knowing his motorcycle is faulty, encourages and rides with his friend. Although Engler was driving recklessly, Travis did nothing to stop him. Holding & Reasoning: " didn t only assent to friend s driving, he initiated it. While riding as passenger " failed to provide sufficient instruction or tell driver to slow down or drive with caution. He thus countenanced through participation driver s reckless driving In an involuntary manslaughter case, accomplice liability exists only if defendant (1) assented or (2) lent countenance and approval to the criminal act either by (a) an act of participation in it or some manner (b) encouraging it prior to or at the time of commission. Distinguished from Ayers: (1) no subsequent involvement by Ayers, and (2) Ayers was nowhere near the scene of the crime. United States v. Medina, 32 F.3d 40, 1994 (2nd Cir) Holding & Reasoning: Rejection of natural and probable consequences doctrine in accomplice to handgun cases: The language of the statute requires proof that he [accomplice] performed some act that directly facilitated or encouraged the use or carrying of a firearm. Contrast with Johnson and Powell. State v. Marr, 342 N.C. 607, 1996 (NC) Holding & Reasoning: Rejection of natural and probable consequences test: convictions only valid for consequences that were within the area which the defendant procured, counseled, commanded, or encouraged. Roy v. United States, 652 A.2d 1098, 1998 (DC) Facts: Victim (police informant) approached " and asked to buy a handgun. " referred victim to Ross, who robbed Ross at gunpoint (" not present) " convicted of aiding and abetting armed robbery (crime " intended was illegal sale of a handgun, a misdemeanor) Holding & Reasoning: " s conviction overturned because, while armed robbery might be a conceivable result of illegal sale of a firearm, it would not reasonably ensue in the ordinary course of events as a natural and probable consequence of " s actions PROBABLE RESULT with regards to CONSEQUENCES TEST, more stringent test than that set in Luparello: Accomplice responsible for those consequences (i.e. crimes) that occur  in the ordinary course of things = Events  that reasonably ensue from the planned events, not what might conceivably happen, and in particular suggests the absence of intervening factors. Corporate Criminality Vicarious Liability (Gourp Liability, Part II) Vicarious liability, Accomplice Liabilty, and Strict Liability Compared Vicarious v. Accomplice and strict liability v. vicarious liablity Vicarious liability based on relationship to perpetrator; accomplice liability is based on having affirmatively participated in the offense (however one defines affirmatively) Strict liability eliminates the mens rea requirement, but vicarious liability eliminates the actus reus requirement. NOTE: Corporate criminal liability does not absolve the individual of criminal liability Policy Concerns Re: Corporate Criminality Pro: Although at common law corporations were not liable, they are regarded as a person, and just as a person enjoys certain privileges and is criminally responsible, so should corporations. If we say a corporation can do something, why cant we hold it accountable for its actions? Cities can be held criminally liable, though such cases are old in US (still done in England and Cannada, see Regina v. City of Sault Ste. Marie) It can be difficult to convict individuals acting in the course of their employment, so easier to prosecute the corporation Deterrence effect in changing company culture/ethos (see sanctions) Criminal indictment usu. much more damaging than bringing of a civil suit In such an environment, can employee be alone responsible for acts subtly encouraged by his employers? Juries seem to recognize this in convicting company but not any person So massive that criminal sanctions provide extra incentive to be judicious Civil remedies might simply not be sufficiently large and easily underwritten. Stigma of criminal sanction makes it clear that company violated the law, while . . . Lawsuits, being common and possibly minimal, would simply be categorized as quarterly loss. Maybe only effective way to enforce important regulatory schemes (MPC 2.07). Con: Effects non-blameworthy persons (depending on theory), i.e. employees and shareholders. (a corporation is a fiction; it cant suffer; people, however, can) No practical way for overall corporation to police every agent. Detracts from concentration on persons directly responsible. Prosecutorial discretion is really only check. George Lynch, in Crime and Custom in Corporate Society, argues that determination of moral blameworthiness should be decisive in such deliberations. Over-inclusive/under-inclusive (Jennifer Moore) Over-inclusive: Corporation culpable even when it has done everything to prevent criminal act. Under-inclusive: Culture creates the crime, but no one to impute, so not all criteria met, so no criminal liability. Prosecutorial Discretion Many prosecutors exercise charging discretion to forgo corporate prosecution when the corporation itself is the primary victim of the offense (e.g., Enron) because in such cases corporate liability can further injure innocent parties like shareholders and employees already injured by the criminal activity Approaches for Corporate Liability Common law (old approach): Corporations cannot be convicted of crimes; only human beings can Respondeat superior (modern approach) (New York, Hilton, and Standard Oil): A corporation is criminally liable for a crime: (1) Committed by an employee or agent Only necessary to prove some agent of corporation committed a crime (not a specific agent) Thus, easier to prove corporate " committed criminal act than individual " (2) Within the scope of his employment Essentially means act occurred while offending employee was carrying out a job-related activity (act counts even if specifically forbidden by a superior and occurred despite good faith efforts by corporation to prevent the crime) (see Hilton) (3) With the intent to benefit the corporation There doesnt have to be actual benefit, only intended benefit (see Sun-Diamond) NOTE: Liability under respondeat superior also obtains if, after a crime has been committed, corporation subsequently approves of it, even if employee commits crime without intent to benefit corporation and does so acting outside the scope of his employment (corporation culpable of approving act, not committing it, in this case) Alternative approaches: Control group (MPC 2.07(1): NOTE: Broad liability for regulatory offense or minor infractions; however, legislative intent to impose liability must plainly appear in statute (malum prohibitumregulatory crimes, usually strict liability offenses for offenders) I.e., MPC allows corporate liability for infractions when legislative intent to impose liability on corporations for particular infractions plainly appears Criminal liability for malum in se only if: Perpetration was authorized, performed, or recklessly tolerated by (1) Board of directors or (2) high managerial agent (an officer or agent having duties of such responsibility that his conduct may fairly be assumed to represent the policy of the corporation) acting on behalf of corporation within the scope of his office or employment Limitations on reach of rule: Due diligence defense exonerates completely, i.e. officer having supervisory authority over the subject matter of the offense had acted with due diligence to prevent commission. (b) Corporation liable for failure to discharge specific duties imposed upon it by law. (c) High managerial agent must have acted with intent to benefit the corporation PROBLEM with this approach: No incentive for high-level managers to discover criminal acts of low-level employees because then whole company liable (ethos approach seeks to rectify this problem) Compromise Approach (see Beneficial) (method for defining scope of employment) Corporation criminally liable for crime of an agent if it had given perpetrating agent (1) enough authority and responsibility to act for the corporation in (2) handling the particular corporation business, operation, or project in which (3) he was engaged at the time he committed the criminal act. I.e., asks whether the perpetrator was authorized to act for the corporation as they were doing at the time of the offense(not in committing the crime, but in doing the duties related to the criminal offense) Ethos (corporate policy) approach: Concentrate on internal culture, and ask: Does the corporations policies/culture encourage law breaking? Was criminal act reflective of corporate policy/culture? Holds corporation liable if its corporate personality or ethos encouraged agents of the corporation to commit the criminal act. I.e., corporation punished if it has a lawless ethos Envisions corporation itself as a culpable entity, with an identity independent of its specific employees. Rewards corporations that make an effort to educate and motivate their employees to follow spirit and letter of the law Sanctions Possible sanctions: receivership, injunctions, revocation of charter, legislation RELEVANT CASES: Corporate Criminal Liability New York Central & Hudson River Railroad Co. v. United States, 212 U.S. 481, 1909 (NY) (classic statement of the respondeat superior approach) Standard Oil v. United States., 307 F.2d 120, 1962 (5th Cir.) (requirement that employee seek to benefit the corp. for corp. criminal liability) Commonwealth v. Beneficial Finance Co., 360 Mass. 1888, 1971 (MA) (elaboration of compromise theory) United States v. Hilton Corp., 467 F.2d 1000, 1972 (9th Cir.) (criminal corp. liability exists even if corporation expressly forbid employees actions) United States v. Sun-Diamond Growers of California, 138 F.3d 961, 1997 (DC Cir.) (even if actions resulted in loss, if criminal act undertaken to benefit corp. in some way, corp. criminal liability exists) New York Central & Hudson River Railroad Co. v. United States, 212 U.S. 481, 1909 (NY) Facts: Elkins Act forbade railroads from charging less than their posted rates. Railroad company and one of its employees still did so. Holding & Reasoning: Corporation criminally liable if (1) the act is done for the benefit of the principal and (2) while the agent is acting within the scope of his employment in the business of the principal. Seminal case b/c first to recognize criminal liability of corporation: . . . the benefit of the corporations of which the individuals were but the instruments. Rationale: Since a corporation acts through its officers and agents, those officers and agents purposes, motives, and intent are just as much those of the corporation as are those officers and agents acts. Also, to not hold corporations criminally liable for violations like the one in this case would essentially take away the only effective means of preventing and correcting the abuses here aimed at (in which the corporation benefits) Standard Oil v. United States., 307 F.2d 120, 1962 (5th Cir.) Holding & Reasoning: A purpose to benefit the corporation is necessary to bring the agents action within the scope of his employment. Commonwealth v. Beneficial Finance Co., 360 Mass. 1888, 1971 (MA) Facts: Two employees of " s subsidiaries bribed and conspired to bribe state banking officials Holding & Reasoning: Compromise Approach: Corporation criminally liable if it has given the perpetrating agent  enough authority and responsibility to act for the corporation in handling the particular corporation business, operation, or project in which he was engaged at the time he committed the criminal act. I.e., for corporate liability to obtain, criminal act doesnt have to have been committed by a high-level employee; rather, standard is merely that person committing criminal act must have authority from organization to handle the particular business in which he was engaged at the time he committed the criminal act Contrast with Christy-Pontiac. United States v. Hilton Corp., 467 F.2d 1000, 1972 (9th Cir.) Facts: Despite being forbidden to do so by the company expressly, employee illegally provided preferential treatment to suppliers who paid their assessments. Holding & Reasoning: Corporation criminally liable even if employee was acting contrary to company policy and/or express instructions of his superiors. Policy underlying corporate criminal liability: Liability for the company as a whole rather than liability for the individual actor is more effective b/c (1) identifying the individual responsible is difficult and (2) individuals conviction and punishment is far less effective than punishment of business as a whole (1) . . . that such liability is necessary to effectuate regulatory policy . . . (2) Moreover, the strenuous effort of defendants to avoid conviction, particularly under the Sherman Act, strongly suggest that Congress is justified in its judgment that exposure of the corporate entity to potential conviction may provide a substantial spur to corporate action to prevent violations by employees. State v. Christy Pontiac-GM, 354 N.W.2d 17, 1984 (MN) Facts: Corporate " convicted of theft and forgery based on fraudulent activities of employees in retaining for the corporation rebates intended for the purchaser Holding & Reasoning: Corporation criminally liable only if (1) The agent was acting within the scope and course of his or her employment, having the authority to act for the corporation with respect to the business conducted criminally, (2) Acting (at least in part) in furtherance of corporate interest, and (3) Acts were authorized, tolerated, or ratified by corporate management Circumstantial evidence sufficient for factor (4). Liability might exist if official policy says otherwise, i.e. was it encourage by management. United States v. Sun-Diamond Growers of California, 138 F.3d 961, 1997 (DC Cir.) Facts: An employee of Sun Diamond devised a fraudulent scheme to support the congressional campaign of the brother of the secretary of agriculture, Mike Espy. Employee was responsible for lobbying on the corporations behalf. Effots resulted in loss to the company, i.e. no monetary benefit. Holding & Reasoning: Corporation criminally liable if employee acted in an attempt to further its interest even if no actual benefita loss, actuallyresulted (demonstration of reach of respondeat superior approach) Conspiracy Vicarious Liability (Grouo Liability, Part III) Vicarious liability, Accomplice Liabilty, and Strict Liability Compared Vicarious v. Accomplice and strict liability v. vicarious liablity Vicarious liability based on relationship to perpetrator; accomplice liability is based on having affirmatively participated in the offense (however one defines affirmatively) Strict liability eliminates the mens rea requirement, but vicarious liability eliminates the actus reus requirement. NOTE: Corporate criminal liability does not absolve the individual of criminal liability Conspiracy vs. Attempt Attempt requires a substantial step (proximity) All you need for conspiracy is an agreement that one or more conspirators will carry out a crime (may also need an overt act, but the overt act requirement is minimal) Much lower actus reus requirement than for attempt or solicitation How Conspiracy Works (Extends Criminal Liability in Two Ways) Participants: (1) Can be convicted of the object crime and conspiracy (separate inchoate crime) ( a form of complicity NOTE: At common law, the conspiracy merged with the completed crime into one offence. (2) Incur liability for crimes committed by other members of the conspiracy Crimes for Which a Conpsirator Is Liable Pinkerton Doctrine: (see Pinkerton for test; reaffirmed in Brigham, Coltherst ) A coconspirator is liable for any illegal acts: (1) Committed by a coconspirator Essentially, substantive crimes of coconspirators (2) During and in furtherance of the conspiracy (not the same as substantial step tests used in aiding & abetting) Conspirators not liable for any substantive act committed before entrance into conspiracy (see Blackmon). However, conspirators are responsible even when they do not know all the participants (see James) (3) That were a reasonably foreseeable consequence of the conspiracy Variations: Pinkerton+: Some jurisdiction drop the during and in furtherance of the conspiracy requirement and extend liability to all crimes that are reasonable foreseeable consequences of a conspiracy, even if not in furtherance of a conspiracy (see Brigham, CA (Chucky case)) Some jurisdictions restrict reasonably foreseeable consequence to probable consequence or not too remote (see Bridges, Diaz, and Alvarez) Alternatives: Some jurisdictions reject Pinkerton liability altogether(see McGee and Stein) MPC 2.06(3)(a): Rejects Pinkerton (because it says liability should track subjective culpability) and instead imposes accomplice liability on conspirators for substantive crimes of coconspirators only when strict conditions are met: (1) Solicits (whether actually succeeds or not b/c of deafness, etc.) conspirator to commit the offense (2) Aids or agrees to aid or attempts to aid conspirator in the planning or commission of the offense; (3)Has a legal duty to prevent commission of the offense but fails to make a proper effort to do so, or (4) His conduct is expressly declared by law to establish his complicity. NOTE: These conditions identical to those applied to aiding & abetting, so aiding and abetting includes conspiracy under the MPC Mens Rea Generally, purpose (MPC 5.03): (1) Purpose to agree, and (2) Purpose to promote or facilitate the commission of the substantive offense The express requirement of purpose resolves the common law debate (see Lauria): a conspiracy does not exist if a provider of goods or services is aware of, but fails to share in, another person s criminal purpose. Purpose may be inferred from knowledge of the illicit activity and (1) " s special interest in the activity s successful conclusion, or " s special interest may itself be inferred when (a) " has acquired a stake in the venture (financial benefit from successful completion of conspiracy) (b) No legitimate use for the goods or services exists, or (c) The volume of business with the buyer is grossly disproportionate to any legitimate demand, or when sales for illegal use amount to a high proportion of the sellers total business (i.e., a suppliers special interest may be inferred from quantity of business done) (2) The aggravated nature of the crime itself I.e., positive knowledge that products being put to criminal use doesnt establish intent to further a misdemeanor, but may establish intent if its a felony Thus, if crime not serious, merely showing that defendant knew he was furthering an illegal purpose does not count. However, as one court has suggested, the more serious the crime, the more likely the "-supplier will be found a conspirator simply upon proof of knowledge Generally, no requirement that conspirators know that the object of their agreement is illegal (mistake of fact not a defense; see  corrupt motive ) NOTE: Does not determine what culpability, if any, is required regarding the attendant circumstances of the substantive offense Current trend, however, is toward parity between requirements for conspiracy and for the substantive offense on the issue (thus, if ignorance of the law is no defense with respect to the substantive offense, it is likewise no defense to a conspiracy charge Alternatives: Sometimes knowledge is sufficient to constitute mens rea (see Lauria (prostitution ring case) and Freemen (shrimp boat case) This is especially true when the crime is more serious (see above) Corrupt motive: knowledge that the object of the agreement is illegal (see Powell) I.e., to be criminal, a conspiracy must be animated by an intention to engage in wrongful conduct At common law, the object of the crime had to be illegal. Many modern courts reject this approach (including the MPC), saying it is akin to a mistake of law (i.e., conspirators dont realize the action is a crime) Actus Reus Each conspirator must do (1), but only one must do (2) (see Pinkerton) (1) Enter into an agreement to commit the substantive crime (see Ianelli) (actus reus is the agreement itself), and The agreement may be implied from the parallel, cooperative actions of the parties, and may even be tacit, i.e., not overt or made without any communication (see Interstate, knowing that concerted action was contemplated and invited, the distributors gave their adherence to the scheme and participated in it). The ambiguity in the meaning of agreement has caused much debate and resulted in different treatment in different courts (see ) MPC: Four types of agreement: (1) commit an offense; (2) attempt to commit an offense; (3) solicit another to commit an offense; or (4) aid another person in the planning or commission of the offense The object of the conspiratorial agreement must be a criminal offense (***) The agreement must be between the parties; MPC requires only an agreement by the parties, i.e. can be convicted even if coconspirators are actually undercover agents (2) Overt act that effects the object of the conspiracy or had a tendency to further the objective (Dissent in Hyde: one of a character that manifests a purpose . . . that the object of the conspiracy should be accomplished) NOTE: Not substantial step, as in attempt In some jurisdictions, can be merely preparatory (i.e., doesnt matter how remote the overt act is from the actual crime, so long as it is done in furtherance of the conspired-for purpose) Other jurisdictions, however (like ME), require more substantial steps Overt act not required for all crimes, such as federal narcotics crimes under the Federal Narcotics Act (see MPC, 5.03(5))(see Whitefield) MPC: overt act required for conspiracy to commit a misdemeanor or a felony of the third degree, but no overt act required for first and second-degree felonies Common law lacked an overt act requirement (i.e., entering into the criminal agreement was enough) (see Mulcahy) IMPORTANT: Conduct can be punishable as conspiracy at points much further back in the stages of preparation than the point where liability begins to attach for attempt Scope of conspiracy: If there is only one agreement, there is only one criminal conspiracy regardless of how many crimes are intended to be committed. Chain & Link: If series of overlapping transactions is shown (such as sale of narcotics), the situation will often be construed as involving one overall agreement, but only if (1) each link (one transaction = one linked) knows that other links are involved and (2) have a general interest in the success of the overall series. If both conditions met, everyone in the chain is liable However, If parties are unaware (violation of 1) or indifferent (violation of 2), each party in a transaction is a coconspirator only with the other parties to that transaction. Wheel & spoke: each spoke is regarded as conspiring only with the hub HOWEVER, courts have responded by manufacturing idea of a rim, which ties the spokes to each other (see Interstate Circuit). Defenses to Conspiracy Impossibility of success: No defense Abandonment (Withdrawal) Crimes committed during membership in the conspiracy: Common law: No defense MPC & other modern statutes: Possible defense, only if conspirator does something that thwarts the crimes success (MPC 5.03: manifesting a complete and voluntary renunciation) Crimes committed after withdrawal from the conspiracy Common law and MPC: Possible defense, if conspirator has made a clear renunciation, which requires: (1) Communication of renunciation to coconspirators (2) With enough time for other conspirators to reevaluate (3) Effect prevention of the target crime NOTE: S/L on conspiracy begins to run the moment one withdraws from one Advantages of Conspirator Liabliity Flexibility in prosecution Provides an incentive to monitor and control excessively harmful activity by groups themselves. Can be convicted of two crimes (increased punishment) Can prosecute wherever an overt act occurred (choice of venue) Can use coconspirators words against each other (hearsay exemption) Allows prosecutor to attack large insulated organizations in which group leaders may be hard to get at Easier to make complex case concerning whole entity rather than individual defendants Criticims of Pinkerton Doctrine Its repugnant to our system of jurisprudence to impose punishment, not for the conspired-for crime to which " is a party, but for substantive offenses in which " did not participate RELEVANT CASES: Rex v. Murphy, 173 Eng. Rep. 502, 1837 (source of Coleridge instructions to jury permitting conviction for conspiracy based on an inferred tacit agreement) Mulcahy v. The Queen, L.R. 3 E. & I. App. 306, 1868 (no common law requirement for an overt act) People v. Powell, 63 N.Y. 88, 1875 (corrupt motive = objective must be known to be illegal) Interstate Circuit Inc. v. United States, 306 U.S. 208, 1939 (conspiratorial agreement may be tacit without communication) Pinkerton v. United States, 328 U.S. 640, 1946 (Pinkerton rule for co-conspirator labiality: (1) reasonable forseability and (2) in furtherance of conspiracy) Yates v. United States, 354 U.S. 298, 1957 (requirement and purpose of overt act) People v. Lauria, 251 Cal. App 2d 471, 1967 (the more serious the crime, the more likely the defendant supplier should be found a conspirator simply upon proof of knowledge) Ianelli v. United States, 420 U.S. 770, 1975 (agreement = essential element of conspiracy) United States v. James, 528 F.2d 999, 1976 State v. McGee, 49 N.Y.2d 48, 1979 (rejection of Pinkerton) United States v. Alvarez, 755 F.2d 830, 1985 (coconspirator cannot be merely a minor participant) United States v. Blackmon, 839 F.2d 900, 1988 (cannot be held liable for substantive offences committed prior to participation in conspiracy) United States v. Morse, 851 F.2d 1317, 1988 (all participants in a conspiracy need not know each other; all that is necessary is that each know that it has a scope and that for its success requires an organization wider than may be disclosed by his personal participation) People v. Brigham, 216 Cal. App. 3d 1039, 1989 (reaffirmation of Pinkerton criterion (1): if illegal act was reasonably foreseeable, coconspirator liable) State v. Bridges, 133 N.J. 447, 1993 (slightly modified Pinkerton decisioncriminal acts must be the probable consequences of the conspiracy) United States v. Scotti, 47 F.3d 1237, 1995 (similar to Camerano: Despite full knowledge of the circumstances, purpose is still required for conspiracy) State v. Diaz, 237 Conn. 518, 1996 (identical to Bridgescriminal acts cannot be too remote as consequences) Commonwealth v. Camerano, 677 N.E.2d 678, 1997 (similar to Scotti: Despite full knowledge of the circumstances, purpose is still required for conspiracy) United States v. Garcia, 151 F.3d 1243, 1998 (negative response to tacit agreement in Interstate: an inference of an agreement is permissible only when the nature of the acts would logically require coordination and planning) State v. Stein, 1244 Wash. 2d, 2001 (rejection of Pinkerton) United States v. Wall, 225 F.3d 858, 2000 (coconspirators act must be illegal) State v. Coltherst, 263 Conn. 478, 2003 (reaffirmation of Pinkerton; resembles Bridges) Whitfield v. United States, 543 U.S. 209, 2005 (no overt act requirement should be read into statute that does not icnldue it) Rex v. Murphy, 173 Eng. Rep. 502, 1837 Holding & Reasoning: Source of Coleridge instructionsand implicitly contains idea of tacit agreementstill given to juries in regards to conspiracy: If you find these two people pursued by their acts the same object, often by the same means, one performing one part of an act and the other another part of the same act, so as to complete it, with a view to the attainment of the object which they were pursuing . . . [= conspiracy]. KEY: No need to prove an express coming together and an express agreement. Mulcahy v. The Queen, L.R. 3 E. & I. App. 306, 1868 Holding & Reasoning: In common law, conspiracy does not require some overt act: when two agree to carry it into effect, the very plot is an act in itself, and the act of each of the parties, promise against promise, actus contr actum, capable of being enforced, if lawful, punishable if for a criminal object or the use of criminal means People v. Powell, 63 N.Y. 88, 1875 Holding & Reasoning: Leading common law precedent on corrupt motive: to be criminal, a conspiracy must be animated by an intention to engage in wrongful conduct (corrupt). Interstate Circuit Inc. v. United States, 306 U.S. 208, 1939 Facts: Interstate and Consolidated entered into an agreement with each of the eight distributors, specifying on what the terms on which each theaters would exhibit their films. This included a minimal price and particular restraint on when to show. The contract with each distributor was individual; however, all 8 distributors knew the other 7 were having the same demands made, and it would make no economic sense for one distributor to agree to the deal assuming not every other distributor would as well. Therefore, common sense suggested conspiracy, but two problems (wheel & spokes): (1) the distributors did not necessarily conspire with each other, no agreement being evident, and (2) their conduct could easily be described as merely parallel. Holding & Reasoning: Landmark ruling and principleconspiracy may exist if there is no communication and no express agreement, provided that there is a tacit agreement reached without communication (solves wheel & spokes problem). It is enough to constitute a conspiracy that, knowing illegal concerted action was contemplated and invited, the parties adhered to and participated in that action An unlawful conspiracy may be formed without simultaneous action or agreement on the part of the conspirators (a conspiracy may exist if there is no communication and no express agreement between the parties, provided there is a tacit agreement reached without communication) Evidence permissible to prove such a tacit agreement: Wholly circumstantial, inviting inference (parallel conduct, as in Twombly). Pinkerton v. United States, 328 U.S. 640, 1946 Facts: Walter and Daniel Pinkerton were brothers who lived a short distance from Daniels farm. They were tried for tax evasion tied to bootlegging. Both were convicted even though one was in prison during the conspiracys duration. Holding & Reasoning: Each member of a conspiracy is liable for those crimes committed by other members that were (1) reasonably foreseeable result of the conspiracy and (2) were committed in furtherance of the conspiracy. Actus reus = (1) overt act + (2) an unlawful agreement Yates v. United States, 354 U.S. 298, 1957 Holding & Reasoning: The function of the overt act in a conspiracy prosecution is simply to manifest that the conspiracy is at work and is neither a project sill resting solely in the minds of the conspirators nor a fully completed operation no longer in existence. In a separate cases dissent (Hyde. v. United States), Holmes clarifies the problems with the notion of an overt act: There must some dangerous proximity to success . . . on the other hand, the essence of conspiracy is being combined for an unlawful purposeand if an overt act is required it does not matter for how remote the act may be from accomplishing the purpose, if done to effect it; that is, I suppose, in furtherance of it in any degree. People v. Lauria, 251 Cal. App 2d 471, 1967 Facts: Lauria ran an answering service. Some prostitutes used his service. Lauria got arrested along with several prostitutes and was indicted for conspiracy to commit prostitution, but the trial court set aside the indictment. The People appealed. Holding & Reasoning: To establish the mens rea necessary to convict a supplier of conspiracy (i.e. purpose/intent), the supplier must have both: (1) Knowledge of the illegal use of the goods or services, and (2) Intent to further that use A suppliers intent to further the conspiracy (illegal use) must be proved by either: (a) Direct evidence that he plans to participate in the criminal activity of another, or (b) An inference that he intends to participate, based on: (i) The suppliers special interest in the activity, which interest may be inferred when: (A) The supplier has acquired a stake in the venture (B) No legitimate use for the goods or services exists, or (C) The volume of business with the buyer is grossly disproportionate to any legitimate demand, or when sales for illegal use amount to a high proportion of the sellers total business (i.e., a suppliers special interest may be inferred from quantity of business done) OR: (ii) The aggravated nature of the crime itself (i.e., positive knowledge that products being put to criminal use doesnt establish intent of supplier to further misdemeanor, but may establish intent if its a felony) Ianelli v. United States, 420 U.S. 770, 1975 Holding & Reasoning: Agreement remains the essential element of the crime. United States v. James, 528 F.2d 999, 1976 Holding & Reasoning: And, it is black letter law that all participants in a conspiracy need not know each other; all that is necessary is that each know that it has a scope and that for its success requires an organization wider than may be disclosed by his personal participation. State v. McGee, 49 N.Y.2d 48, 1979 Holding & Reasoning: Pinkerton is repugnant to our system of jurisprudence, where guilty is generally personal to the defendant . . . United States v. Freemen, 660 F.2d 1030, 1981 Facts: Cowboy leaves port with Freemen (the cook) and several others. After several hours of sailing, captain diverts the ship towards Nicaragua, where they pick up marijuana. The ship was loaded while Freemen and his mates looked on. The Cowboy soon sails back to the US, but gets stopped by Coast guard. Freemen gets convicted of conspiracy to smuggle. Holding & Reasoning: Akin to Lauria and Morse, but in contrast with Camerano and Scotti (which wanted to a higher mens rea): Despite no overt act or even proof of Freemens intent, conspiracy valid charge: The probable length of time of the voyage, . . the large quantity of marijuana on board, which made it indisputable that defendants had knowledge of the marijuana, and the necessarily close relationship between the captain and his crew were factors from which the jury could reasonably find guilty beyond a reasonable doubt. The court thus used a culpability level of knowledge for a serious infraction, as suggested in Lauria. United States v. Alvarez, 755 F.2d 830, 1985 Facts: Undercover agents from the Bureau of Alcohol, Tobacco, and Firearms met in a room with drug dealers. Upon this last dealers arrival, shootout started. Three less major players convicted of murder as part of the conspiracy: lookout, person who introduced undercover agents to drug ring leader, motel operators who served as translator during negotiations that led to shootout. Holding & Reasoning: Court finds the three not to be minor players. Also, murder was a reasonably foreseeable consequences b/c (1) conspiracy was designed to effect sale or a large quantity of drugs, which (2) leads to inference that " s knew (a) at least some of their number would be carrying weapons and (b) deadly force would be used, if necessary, to protect the conspirators interest Although court agreesmay represent an unprecedented application of Pinkertonconvictions legitimate because: (1) Shootout was reasonably foreseeable, even if an originally unintended substantive crime. (***) (2) They were not minor participants in the conspiracy. In footnote 27, majority specially notes that minor participants should not prone to the same degree of vicarious liability as others: In our view, the liability of such minor participants must rest on a more substantial foundation than the mere whim of the prosecutor. (2) has been developed and used by other courts as a way of restraining Pinkerton. United States v. Blackmon, 839 F.2d 900, 1988 Holding & Reasoning: With regards to substantive offences, a defendant cannot be retroactively liable for offenses committed prior to his joining the conspiracy. United States v. Morse, 851 F.2d 1317, 1988 Facts: Morse sold a plane to Colding for $115,000. At first he was planning to sell it for $80,000. Plane was suited for smuggling. Morse had never registered his purchase of the plane, much less the sale. He had been informed that the plane had been used ot smuggle marijuana but chose not to act. Holding & Reasoning: Starkly in contrast with both Camerano and Scotti: though purpose and knowledge unclear at time of sale, activity supporting a conspiracy charge need not be illegal in and of itself and could still support a conviction. People v. Brigham, 216 Cal. App. 3d 1039, 1989 Facts: Brigham and Bluit sought out to kill Chucky. While searching, Brigham identified a person as Chucky. As the pair crept closer, Brigham realized it wasnt Chucky. He said, Dont do it . . . its not Chucky. Bluit did it anyway, reasoning that otherwise no one would respect them. According to court, Bluit had a known tendency for violence. Holding & Reasoning: If illegal act was reasonably foreseeable, coconspirator liable for his conspirators act. State v. Bridges, 133 N.J. 447, 1993 Facts: At a birthday party, Bridges got into an argument with Strickland. Bridges left, yelling that hed get help. Bridges found his friends and together they picked up guns so as to keep Stricklands supporters at bay while Bridges and him fought. At the party, Bridges began fighting with Strickland. Bridgess friends merely stood by. When a member of the crowd hit one of Bridges friends, they opened fire. Holding & Reasoning: Bridges guilty via conspiracy liability because it was a foreseeable risk and probable and natural consequence of bringing armed goons to a party that one of the goons might intentionally fire at somebody. Crime attached to defendant via conspiracy cannot be too far removed or too remote from the objectives of the conspiracy to constitute a just basis for imposing criminal liability ( . . . if they are reasonable foreseeable as the necessary or natural consequences of the conspiracy. The substantive crime need not have been in " s contemplation at time " entered into the conspiracy (***) More specifically, the acts themselves must not simply be foreseeable as possible; they must be regarded as probable. Reasoning: Conspirator liability broader than accomplice liability, which requires that " actually foresee and intend the result of her act, though, conspirator liability does require close causal connection between conspiracy and substantive crime United States v. Scotti, 47 F.3d 1237, 1995 Facts: Scotti threatened to break Egnats legs and burn down his house unless he paid off his debt. Scoti then asked Rodriguez to help arrange a mortgage for Egnat. Rodriguez did so, knowing that Egnat had been forced and threatened Holding & Reasoning: Similar to Camerano: Despite full knowledge of the circumstances, purpose is still required for conspiracy ( Scotti let off. State v. Diaz, 237 Conn. 518, 1996 Holding & Reasoning: The consequences must be more than tangential: The nexus between defendants role in the conspiracy and the illegal conduct of the coconspirator may be so attenuated or remote that it would be unjust . . . Identical to Bridges in this regard. Commonwealth v. Camerano, 677 N.E.2d 678, 1997 Facts: Camerano permitted Howell to erect a garden enclosure in which Howell planned to grow marijuana. Camerano certainly knew this, especially as he was receiving an inflated rent impossible for a legal rental. Holding & Reasoning: Intent is the requisite mental state for conspiracy, not mere knowledge or acquiescence. ( Camerano let off Runs counter to the implicit theory in Lauriaknowledge sufficient for less serious crimes. United States v. Garcia, 151 F.3d 1243, 1998 Facts: A member of a gang starts talking smack to another. Other members of the gangs join in. Eventually, guns are pulled and shooting break out. Garcia was seen shooting but no evidence that he wounded anyone. Holding & Reasoning: Testimony that gang members agreement to back each other up during a fight at most establishes a characteristic of gangs, not a specific agreement on the part of the member to accomplish an illegal objective An inference of an agreement is permissible only when the nature of the acts would logically require coordination and planning. Seemingly limits both Murphy and Interstate, although in both cases the actions conducted would have logically followed only from coordination and planning. United States v. Wall, 225 F.3d 858, 2000 Holding & Reasoning: Requirement for an illegal act: coconspirator cannot be held liable under Pinkerton for his partners legal possession of a gun. State v. Stein, 1244 Wash. 2d, 2001 Holding & Reasoning: Pinkerton is inconsistent with the mens rea requirement of the states statutory provisions on accomplice liability. State v. Coltherst, 263 Conn. 478, 2003 Holding & Reasoning: Reaffirmation of Pinkerton (although echoes Bridges): When the defendant has played a necessary part in setting in motion a discrete course of criminal conduct, he cannot reasonable complain that it is unfair to hold him vicariously liable, under the Pinkerton doctrine, for the natural and probable results of his conduct . . . Whitfield v. United States, 543 U.S. 209, 2005 Holding & Reasoning: No overt act requirement should be read in statute in light of settled principle of stautory construction that, absent contrary indication, Congress intends to adopt the common law definition of statutory terms. Affirmative Defenses (***) Affirmative defense: a defense for an action that the defendant has the burden of proof (just as the prosecutor has the burden of proof for all elements of the offense) A " is entitled to an instruction on a defense if he present some credible evidence in support of the claim (i.e., if the judge determines a jury could reasonably be persuaded to accept the defense on the basis of the evidence introduced) Justification vs .Excuse Both suggest the existence of considerations that negate culpability even when all elements of the offense are clearly present. Distinctions (see J.L. Austin): Justification (ex. self-defense): Accepts responsibility but denies it was bad; not morally wrong. Describes quality of defendants act. Excuse (ex. insanity): Admits it was bad but denies responsibility; morally wrong but not blameworthy Describes status/capacity (or lack thereof) of the defendant. Self Defense (Justification) Requirements (Generally) (see Peterson) NOTE: " carries burden of proof for an affirmative defense General rule: Use of force is justified by an objectively reasonable belief that force is necessary to protect against imminent, unlawful use of force against oneself or another (1) Objectively reasonable belief that force is necessary to defend Reasonable belief: objective standard; i.e., whether " s conduct was that of a reasonable man in " s situation (see Goetz and Ha). PROBLEM: What standard for  reasonableness? Purely rational person, or Average person ( man on the clapham omnibus /  man in the street ) Reasonable not necessarily the same as typical, although if it is, race-based generalization might become basis for self-defense (for example, man with guns thoughts: Most muggers on subways are black . . . and hes black . . . so I should shoot him if he looks at me threateningly and comes over) Takes account of " s knowledge and circumstances, but not " s biases or syndromes (2) Threatened physical harm I.e., the threatened harm must be physical, not emotional or verbal (3) Danger of harm must be immediate or imminent (depending on the jurisdiction) (***) MPC 3.04(2): Somewhat modified (relaxed) imminence requirement; " must believe that force is immediately necessary; therefore, 3.09(2),  a honest or genuine belief [though unreasonable] by defendant to need for deadly force (i.e. acting negligently or recklessly in maintaining such a belief)= negligent homicide Not influential in state statutory reform. NOTE: For battered spouse syndrome, see last bullet point in this section. (4) Threatened harm must be unlawful (5) Force is necessary to prevent harm NOTE: If force used in self-defense is deadly (i.e. meant or likely to cause death or serious bodily injury), defendant must: (a) reasonably believe that the victim was about to inflict death or serious bodily injury, and (b) None of the restrictions on use of deadly force (see below) can apply: (***) Principle of proportionalitythere is no defense available for the use force beyond which reasonably appeared necessary to prevent the threatened harm (MPC 3.04(1))(see Peterson). Retreat rule Castle exception (exception to exception for cotenants) Initial aggressor rule Perfect vs. Imperfect Defense Perfect defense: Self-defense is considered a perfect or complete defense because, if successful, acquittal results. Imperfect defense (to murder): In some jurisdiction, if amount of force used was unnecessary or the belief of immediate harm was sincere but objectively unreasonable (or, if non-deadly aggression who is met with deadly force fails to retreat when he could have), self-defense is not fully established and is instead an incomplete defense Result: Mitigates murder to manslaughter; similar to killing in the heat of passion. MPC: If " uses deadly force in self-defense, and his belief about the imminence of danger and necessity of self-defense is wrong and was recklessly or negligently formed, " may be convicted of the type of homicide charge requiring only a reckless or negligent (as the case may be) criminal intent I.e., MPC say self-defense defense is available whenever the actor herself subjectively believes that the necessary circumstances are present, but unavailable in a prosecution for an offense for which recklessness or negligence suffices to establish culpability Restriction on Use of Deadly Force in Self-Defense Retreat Rule: (states are split on its applicability) Common-law rule: A person could use deadly force in self-defense only after exhausting every chance to flee, when he had his  back to the wall Basic retreat rule (MPC 3.04(2)(ii), Abbot, Smiley, and common law): If " resorts to deadly force, may not raise self-defense defense if " could have safely retreated from the encounter If only moderate (non-deadly) force used, retreat rule doesnt apply Actor must know he can retreat with complete safety (subjective standard) If not, he can kill in self-defense. ALTERNATIVE: True man/stand your ground rule: Actor can meet force with force, including deadly force, even when retreat is possible. Adopted by 15 states since 2005 These laws effectively overrule the common law, Smiley, Abbot, and the MPC. A true man who is without fault is not obliged to fly from an assault EXCEPTION: Castle Doctrine: No duty to retreat if you are in your home (MPC 3.04(2)(b)(ii)(1) and majority)(see Tomlins and Glowacki) Applicable to both states with retreat requirement and those without Definition of home varies by jurisdiction (can include building, yard, car) EXCEPTION (to the exception): A minority of jurisdictions require retreat if attacked by co-occupant (see Gartland Arguments for/against retreat rule: Reasons for: Use of force unnecessary if you can retreat Reasons against: You should not be forced to retreat when attacked, unaware of possibility of retreat; hard for court to tell afterwards; victim shouldnt have to prove ability to retreat; true man rule Non-Aggressor Rule: An initial aggressor does not get the benefit of self-defense in that same encounter (restriction does not apply to future encounters) (see Peterson, Mayes, Allen). Initial aggressor: Person who first threatens to use force HOWEVER, initial aggressor can regain right to self-defense by: (1) Withdrawing from the fight completely, and (2) Successfully communicating withdrawal to other party Amount of intial aggression necessary in order to lose privilege of self-defense: Majority rule: Aggressor has no self-defense privilege even when his minor provocation is met by a grossly excessive response Minority limitation: A few states allow a non-lethal aggressor to respond with deadly force provided he has exhausted every reasonable means to escape the danger other than the use of deadly force MPC limitation on the rule: Under MPC 3.04, the actor loses the self-defense defense only if he had provoked the response by actions undertaken with the purpose of causing death or serious bodily harm In general statement of non-aggressor rule, the aggression does not need to have deadly purpose). Therefore, under the MPC the non-aggressor rule is more limited, as it requires something more from the aggressor than unmotivated aggression. Free from fault: Some courts take the free from fault requirement quite far, holding that the commission of any crime causally related to the fatal result will forfeit the privilege of self-defense, even when the crime itself does not provoke the victims threatening conduct (see Mayes) Whether or not right of self-defense lost through initial aggression usu. a question for a jury to decide Battered Spouse Syndrome and Self-Defense Note: compare with provocation cases, as in Carrol, where case facts mirror Sandsevidence of gender bias in determining reasonableness? Salient features: Cycle of violence and learned helplessness (womans ability to perceive cycle explains why outside party might not realize that the spouse is now again in extraordinary danger) (see Walkers research). PROBLEM: Self-defense privilege seems not to apply to battered spouse cases because of: (1) Reasonableness of belief (see Schroeder, Norman, Ha and Sands) Could call the cops, utilize them, but if world has been constrained by abuse, your decision to kill might make objective sense in just such a world. (2) Imminence requirement (see Schroeder, Norman, Ha and Sands) Maybe the standard should be inevitability rather than imminence (3) Necessity of use of force (absence of any physical barrier) To an outside observer, force may not have seemed necessary RESPONSES: Expert testimony on syndrome Response to jurys skepticism about nature/degree of abuse. But, as in Goetz, statistics/probabilities can be misused and misinterpreted, and subjective culpability cannot so necessarily be adduced. Consideration of " s position, inc. such factors as spouse s specific experience, disadvantageous position of women, and spouse s physical or psychological features. Elimination/modification of imminence requirement, i.e. foreseeable future harm or simple abolition (see Norman dissent, Janes, and Robinson) Allowing a reduction for provocation? Limiting of broad police/prosecutorial discretion over enforcement of restraining order and domestic violence (trend is towards limiting prosecutorial discretion over whether to go forward on a domestic violence charge). Some women rights activities oppose limiting of prosecutorial discretion as being overtly paternalistic (i.e., notion being that we cant trust women to bring cases forward themselves) See previous notes on American reluctance to impose liability on prosecutors for choosing not to act. Empowerment of women/men (builds on castle exception / no retreat rule) ( whenever life threatened in your own home/bodyand threat means?you may respond with murderous force (moral argument) As a general societal principle, would greatly expand private police powers and possibly destabilize order. Reform efforts General reform efforts for self-defense. Redefining reasonableness Vulcan vs. man on the street Eliminating or redefining imminence. MPCimmediately necessary Inevitability standard Eliminating or restricting retreat rule (stand your ground laws). Reforms are often may statutorily RELEVANT CASES People v. Tomlins, 107 N.E. 496, 1914 (NY) (castle exception to self-defense) United States v. Peterson, 483 F.2d 1222, 1973 (Ct.App.DCCir) (specifies the elements necessary for a defense of self-defense; aggressor loses right of self-defense) State v. Abbot, 36 N.J. 63, 1969 (NJ) (self-defense is only nullified by an opportunity to retreat when (1) defendant resorts to deadly force and (2) he knows that he can avoid the necessity of using such force w/ complete safety by retreating) State v. Schroeder, 199 Neb. 822, 1978 (NE) (though a battered spouse, threat must still be imminent for valid self-defense; in line with Norman, Sands) People v. Goetz, 68 N.Y.2d 96, 1986 (NY) (use of objective standard Ds conduct must be that of a reasonable man in Ds situation) State v. Norman, 324 N.C. 253, 1989 (NC) (though a battered spouse, threat must still be imminentand not foreseen at some future datefor valid self-defense; in line with Schroeder, Sands, and Ha) Robinson v. State, 417 S.E.2d 88, 1992 (SC) (rejects imminency standard and instead relies on Norman dissentif torture appears interminable and escape impossible (i.e. foreseeable), self-defense valid; contrast with Schroeder, Sands, Robinson, and Ha) Ha v State, 892 P.2d 184, 1992 (ASK) (though a battered spouse, threat must still be imminentand not foreseen at some future date (inevitable)for valid self-defense; in line with Schroeder, Sands, and Norman and NOT with Robinson) State v. Janes, 121 Was. 2d 220, 1993 (WA) (for battered spouses, loosening of imminency requirement for inevitable future harm idea; in line with Robinson and Norman dissent, but not with Ha, Schroeder, Sands, and Norman) Allen v. State, 187 P.2d 79, 1994 (OK) (as in Peterson and Mayes, if a person by provocative behavior initiates a confrontation, even with no intention of killing the other person, she loses the right of self-defense) State v. Gartland, 694 A.2d 564, 1997 (NJ) (minority cotenant exception to castle exception to common law retreat) Jahnke v. State, 682 P.2d 991, 1998 (WY) (as in battered spouses, for instances of child abuse, threat must be imminent; similar to spousal idea in Schroeder, Sands, Ha, and Norman) Commonwealth v. Sands, 262 Va. 724, 2001 (VA) (though a battered spouse, threat must still be imminent and induced by some overt act; in line with Schroeder, Ha, Sands, and Norman and NOT with Robinson, Jahnke, Janes, or Norman dissent) Mayes v. State, 744 N.E.2d 390, 2001 (IN) (extension of forfeiture idea in Allen and Petersonany tangential act forfeits self-defense) State v. Glowacki, 630 N.W.2d 392, 2001 (Minn) (castle exception) State v. Smiley, 927 So. 2d 1000, 2006 (FL) (if retreat possible, self-defense not valid justification) People v. Tomlins, 107 N.E. 496, 1914 (NY) Holding & Reasoning: Castle exception to common law retreat: It is not now and never has been the law that a man assailed in his own dwelling is bound to retreat. If assailed there, he may stand his ground and resist the attack. Cardoza would extend it to a father killing his son. Echoed in Tomlins, contrast with Gartland. State v. Abbot, 36 N.J. 63, 1969 (NJ) Facts: A fight ensued between Abbot and Nicholas, neighbors. Although Abbott landed the first punch, jury could find Nicholas was the aggressor. Michael Scarano, the father of Nicholas, then came towards Abbot with a hatchet. Abbott wrested the hatchet from Michael. All the Scaranos were hurt. Holding & Reasoning: As in Smiley and common law, self-defense is only nullified by an opportunity to retreat when (1) defendant resorts to deadly force and (2) he knows that he can avoid the necessity of using such force w/ complete safety by retreating. One who is wrongfully attacked need not risk injury by retreating. MPC: Deadly force in self-defense is not justifiable if the actor knows he can avoid the necessity of using such force with complete safety by retreating. One need not risk injury by retreating, even though he could escape with something less than serious injury ( nice calculations not required) Issue isn t whether in retrospect " could have escaped unharmed. Rather, the question is whether " knew the opportunity was there (and inquiry in to this question includes the  attendant excitement of the incident) If he does not resort to deadly force, one who is assailed may hold his ground whether the attack upon him of deadly or some lesser force ( thus, the question of whether " should retreat arises only if " used deadly force United States v. Peterson, 483 F.2d 1222, 1973 (USCt.App.DCCir) Facts: Peterson saw the deceased, Keitt, and two others stealing windshield wipers from his wrecked car. Peterson went out to confront the three men and there was a verbal exchange. Peterson came back to his house and armed himself. Just as Keitt and the other men were about to leave, Peterson went out of his house and pointed his gun at the men and ordered them not to move. Keitt came at the defendant with a lug wrench and the defendant shot and killed Keitt. The trial court found the defendant as the aggressor and the jury convicted the defendant. Now the defendant appeals and argues that he shot Keitt out of self-defense. Holding & Reasoning: An affirmative unlawful act reasonably calculated to produce an affray foreboding injurious or fatal consequences is an aggression which, unless renounced, nullifies the right of homicidal self-defense. I.e., when a person provokes or is the initial aggressor, he cannot later claim his actions to be taken under self-defense: Hence, when he adjusted his gun and stepped unto the areaway, he had every reason to believe that his presence there would provoke trouble. We think his conduct in adjusting his revolver and going into the areaway was such as to deprive him of any right to invoke the plea of self-defense. If a person withdraws from the original confrontation and lets his opponents know about it through words or actions, then he is no longer the aggressor. Use of deadly force in self defense expressly requires (1) actual or apparent threat of deadly force (2) that is unlawful and immediate (3) defender must believe that he is in imminent peril of death or serious bodily harm and (4) belief must be reasonable and in good faith. Later echoed in Allen. Elements of the affirmative defense of self-defense: No less than a concurrence of these elements will suffice. The right of self defense arises only when necessity begins, and ends with the necessity (proportionality principle) I.e., the defender must have believed that he was in imminent peril of death or serious bodily harm, and that his response was necessary to save himself therefrom There must have been a threat, actual or apparent, of the use of deadly force against the defendant. The threat must have been unlawful and immediate. NOTE: These beliefs must not only have been honestly entertained but also objectively reasonable in light of the surrounding circumstances State v. Schroeder, 199 Neb. 822, 1978 (NE) Facts: 19 year old inmate stabbed his older cell-mate while other was asleep. Deceased had a reputation for sex and violence, threatened Schroeder, and promised to sell his debt to another or make a punk out of him. Holding & Reasoning: As in later Norman and Sands, threat must be imminent for self-defense to be valid: The problem in this case is that there was no evidence to sustain a finding that the defendant could believe an assault was imminent except the threat that Riggs had made before he went to bed. I.e., " cannot invoke self-defense when he has made a preventive assault involving the use of deadly force where there has been nothing more than threats Dissent: Are we really to expect " to stay awake all night, every night waiting for the attack? People v. Goetz, 68 N.Y.2d 96, 1986 (NY) Facts: On Saturday afternoon, December 22, 1984, three black males approached Goetz. At the time, people greatly feared a growing crime wave. Both these facts produce incredibly uncomfortable and unanswered questionswas it because they were black? Would Goetz have responded the same, despite the crime wave, if they were white? Was a general fear sufficient justification to reasonably belief an imminent robbery? Goetz had been robbed before and was carrying an unlicensed .38 caliber pistol. One of the boys went up to Goetz and said, Give me five dollars. None of the boys displayed a weapon. Goetz got up and began firing, continuing to fire once all had been incapacitated or fleeing (i.e., once the immediate danger was over). He thereupon got off before the next stop and fled. He eventually turns himself in. Before grand jury, prosecutor instructed the jury that they were to determine whether the defendants conduct was that of a reasonable man in defendants situation. (objective) Defendant appeals that instruction, instead asking for was it reasonable to him (subjective). Holding & Reasoning: Incredibly famous case Endorse objective standard: use of physical force justified if a person might reasonably believe it necessary in defendants situation: . . . a determination of reasonableness must be based on the circumstances facing the defendant or his situation. Whether a "  reasonably believes something in the above rules is determined by whether " s conduct was that of a reasonable man in the " s situation Reasoning: Interpreting the statute to say  reasonably believe means that " s belief must have been  reasonable to him (" s contention) would hardly be different from requiring only a  genuine belief. Result would be that (1) " s own perceptions could completely exonerate him from any criminal liability and (2) citizens would be able to set their own standards for the permissible use of force (essentially) Defendants past experiences may, however, be taken into account, including: Anything the defendant knew about the assailant The physical attributes of everyone involved Any prior experiences the defendant had that could provide a reasonable basis for a belief that another persons intentions were to injure or rob him or that the use of deadly force was necessary under the circumstances. Complicated because of three factors: (1) odd procedural posture (court of appeals looking at before conviction), (2) standard for self-defense should be subjective or objective (doesnt seem to matter; prosecutor did get objective definition), (3) racism and New York crime wave. Even after court endorsed objective standard, Goetz was acquitted by jury for murder, although he was held civilly liable. Today, could be convicted of voluntary manslaughter. State v. Norman, 324 N.C. 253, 1989 (NC) Facts: Norman was badly abused by her husband. He frequently punched and kicked her, threw beer bottles and other objects at her, burned her with cigarettes or hot coffee, and prostituted her. She refused to press charges on multiple times. He was once chased into the house by a sheriffs deputy after she tried to commit suicide, and when she went to a social service office to sign up for welfare so as to avoid further prostitution, he dragged from the office and beat her. " s husband s beating worsened in the days before she killed him. She brought the baby to a neighbor s house and then returned and shot her sleeping husband. Holding & Reasoning: (1) As in Schreoder and Sands, for self-defense to be valid, threat must be imminent, i.e. victim must be in immediate danger, such as must be instantly met, such as cannot be guarded against by calling for the assistance of others or the protection of the law. Court expressly avoids ruling on the necessity of the killing. (2) A defendants subjective belief of what be inevitable at some indefinite point in the future does not equate to what she believe to be imminent. Therefore, testimony about such indefinite fears concerning what her sleeping husband might do at some point in the future did not tend to establish a fearreasonable or otherwiseof imminent death or great bodily harm at the time of the killing. Court worries that Court of Appeals standard, which would allow a perfect self-defense defense, justifies taking life, not on a reasonable belief that doing so is necessary to prevent grave imminent bodily harm, but on a purely subjective speculation that the decedent would probably present a threat of life at a future time and that " would not be able to avoid the predicted threat Dissent: For battered spouse, threat is imminent, even if not immediate:  For the battered wife, if there is no escape, if there is no window of relief or momentary sense of safety, then the next attack, which could be the fatal one, is imminent . . .Properly stated, the question is not whether the threat was in fact imminent, but whether defendants belief in the impending nature of the threat, given her circumstances as she saw them, was reasonable in the mind of a person of ordinary firmness. Robinson v. State, 417 S.E.2d 88, 1992 (SC) Holding & Reasoning: Relies on Norman dissent and echoes its standard for battered spouses: Even when the batterer is absent or asleep . . ., where torture appears interminable and escape impossible, the belief that only the death of the batterer can provide relief may be reasonable in the mind of a person of ordinary firmness. Ha v State, 892 P.2d 184, 1992 (ASK) Facts: Dangerous thug from clan with reputation for carrying out threats threatened to kill ". " felt going to the police would be useless, so caught up with thug and shot him in the back. " convicted of murder. Holding & Reasoning:  Inevitable harm is not the same as imminent harm. A reasonable fear of future harm does not authorize a person to hunt down and kill an enemy. ( even though they accept the objective reasonability of Has fears. Voices fears of self-defense doctrine minus imminency requirement implied in majority opinions in Sands, Schroeder, and Norman. State v. Janes, 121 Was. 2d 220, 1993 (WA) Holding & Reasoning: Loosening of imminence requirement by states (in line with dissents in Norman and maj in Robinson): A threat, or its equivalent, can support self-defense when there is a reasonable belief that the threat will be carried out. Allen v. State, 187 P.2d 79, 1994 (OK) Facts: Leathers, leaving her home with Allen, hit Allen with a rake. Although she was bleeding, Allen got into a car and chased after Leathers. When Allen caught up, she parked the car and walked towards Leathers vehicle. Allen then saw Leathers walking forwards with the rake. Allen then turned around to her car and retrieved a gun. When Leathers got suspiciously close, Allen shot her. Holding & Reasoning: Here, " re-initiated the encounter knowing roommate was upset and thus that possibility of confrontation was strong As in Peterson and Mayes, if a person by provocative behavior initiates a confrontation, even with no intention of killing the other person, she loses the right of self-defense. Allen, by going back and grabbing a gun and chasing Leathers, initiated the whole proceedings. Despite Leathers and the rake, she thus forfeited her right of self-defense. State v. Gartland, 694 A.2d 564, 1997 (NJ) Holding & Reasoning: Cotenant exception to castle exception to common law retreat (minority view): Homeowner must flee if possible once attacked by the co-occupant. Jahnke v. State, 682 P.2d 991, 1998 (WY) Facts: 16-year-old boy waited with his shotgun for his parents to return and shot his father dead as he entered the house. Father had subjected the boy to extreme physical and psychological abuse Holding & Reasoning: As in Norman, Schroeder, Sands, and Ha, for self-defense, threat must be imminent (not spousal abuse case, rather child abuse): To permit capital punishment to be imposed upon the subjective conclusion of the individual that prior acts and conduct of the deceased justified the killing would amount to a leap into anarchy. Voices fears of self-defense doctrine minus imminency requirement implied in majority opinions in Sands, Schroeder, Ha, and Norman. If battered person evidence has any role at all, its in assisting the jury to evaluate the reasonableness of the " s fear in a case involving the recognized circumstances of self-defense. Dissent: In line with Norman dissent and Robinson majority  When the beatings of 14 years have or may have caused the accused to harbor types of fear, anxiety, and apprehension with which the non-brutalized juror is unfamiliar and which result in the taking of unusual defensive measures which, in the ordinary circumstances, might be thought about as premature or excessive . . .then expert testimony is necessary. Commonwealth v. Sands, 262 Va. 724, 2001 (VA) Facts: Thomas began beating his wife approx 2 yrs after they were married in 1983. Eventually, abuse became daily occurrence. On day of killing, Thomas follows Sands to the backyard during an argument, pushed her down several concrete steps, seized a gun, and fired two shots into the ground near her. Sands never took any action because she feared Thomass retaliation. She did ask her parents to help, but they were injured in a car accident and werent able to help ( notions of claustrophobia evidence in Norman not apparent here (insular community, no way out . . .). She eventually shot him after another day of beatings and threats. Holding & Reasoning: To invoke self-defense, the threat must have been imminent As in Norman and Schroeder, for threat to be imminent, it must be induced by an overt act: Nevertheless, even when viewed in the light most favorable to the defendant, the evidence fails to reveal any overt act by her husband that presented the imminent danger at the time of the shooting. Mayes v. State, 744 N.E.2d 390, 2001 (IN) Facts: Mayes and his girlfriend were having an argument. She left the house, and he pursued her into the street. He thought she was grabbing a gun from her purse, and thus shot her. " was carrying a gun without a license, a misdemeanor Holding & Reasoning: Extension of forfeiture idea in Peterson and Allen to unprovoking act: the commission of any crime causally related to the fatal result will forfeit the privilege of self-defense, even when the crime does not provoke the victims threatening conduct. State v. Glowacki, 630 N.W.2d 392, 2001 (Minn) Holding & Reasoning: Castle exception to common law retreat against co-resident (majority view): Homeowner may stand his ground and use deadly force even against a co-resident. Contrast with Gartland, in line with Tomlins. State v. Smiley, 927 So. 2d 1000, 2006 (FL) Facts: Smiley was a cabdriver paid in advance. He drove an intoxicated man home, and when the man came out, an argument ensued and the victim advanced towards Smiley with a knife. Smiley was in the car still and could have driven away; instead, he drew a gun and shot the man. Holding & Reasoning: As in Abbott and common law, if retreat at all possible, self-defense not valid for subsequent killing. HOWEVER, Smiley might have gotten off after the passage of a Florida statute called the Stand Your Ground statute, which stated: A person who is not engaged in an unlawful activity and who is attacked in any place where he or she has a right to be has no duty to retreat . . . Defense of Property/Habitation (Justification) Defense of Property Use of non-deadly force: Justified only if reasonable belief that it is necessary to prevent imminent unlawful dispossession Use of deadly force: Justified only if necessary to aovid immediate danger of death or bodily harm (see Sydnor) Defense of Habition (Home): Narrow view: Use of deadly force justified only when threat of severe bodily harm (i.e., when intruder intends to commit a forcible felony) (see Ceballos, maybe Sydnor, MPC 3.06(3)(d)) Cannot use a device that causes harm indiscriminately In response to decision like Ceballos, many states adopted the moderate and broad views below, thereby permitting deadly force to prevent or terminate any felonious entry to any unlawful entry. Moderate view: Use of deadly force justified when: (1) Reasonable belief that another is attempting to commit a burglary (or other non-forcible felony) and (2) Deadly force is necessary to stop the burglary. Broad view: Use of deadly force justified whenever someone is unlawfully entering your house. Whenever someone unlawfully enters your house, there is a rebuttable presumption that you have reasonable fear. (CO, FL) E.g., California and its Home Protection Bill of Rights: Any person using force intended or likely to cause death or great bodily injury within his or her residence shall be presumed to have held a reasonable fear of imminent peril of death or great bodily injury to self, family, or a member of the household when that force is used against another person, not a member of the family or household, who unlawfully and forcibly enters or has unlawfully and forcibly entered the residence and the person using the force knew or had reason to believe that an unlawful and forcible entry occurred. (***) Issues specific to these laws: Reasonable fear? Unlawfully and forcibly enters? Justified presumption of guilt on possibly innocent intruder? IMPORTANT: Moderate and broad views entail a lower burden of proof than self-defense RELEVANT CASES People v. Ceballos, 12 Cal. 3d 470, 1974 (CA) (the use of deadly force cannot be justified solely for the protection of property) Sydnor v. State, 776 A.2d 669, 2001 (MD) (for deadly force to be justified in self-defense, it must then and there be necessary to avoid imminent danger of death or serious bodily harm to the victim of the offence) People v. Ceballos, 12 Cal. 3d 470, 1974 (CA) Facts: " set up a trap gun in his garage to prevent burglaries from occurring. Two teenagers looked inside an saw nobody present. They removed the lock with a crowbar and as one opened the door was hit in the face with the bullet. The victim admitted he was intending on taking " s property. Holding & Reasoning: (1) Homicide is justified when resisting any attempt to murder, commit a felony, or do some great bodily harm upon a person, or when committed in defense of habitation, property, or person, against one who manifestly intends or endeavors to commit an atrocious crime attempted to be committed by force (court specifically defines felony as such to avoid permitting indiscriminate killing of burglars). When the character of a crime and the manner of its perpetration do not reasonably create a fear of great bodily harm (when the crime is not forcible and atrocious), there is no cause for the exaction of human life A " is not protected from liability merely because the intruder s conduct is such as would justify the ", were he present, in believing the intrusion threatened death or serious bodily injury (2) Therefore, the use of deadly force cannot be justified solely for the protection of property. (a) There must be imminent chance of great bodily harm or death. Peairs, (LA) Facts: Japanese student rings wrong doorbell wearing costume, wife comes to door and screams, husband comes to door with gun, student doesnt speak English, but waves hands at and approaches ", while " meanwhile yells  freeze. Japanese student didn t understand instruction to stop, nor did he see gun b/c he d lost a contact Holding & Reasoning: LA statute allows use of deadly force based on a reasonable belief that an intruder is  likely to use any unlawful force against a person in the dwelling while committing a burglary of the dwelling " acquitted of murder charges Sydnor v. State, 776 A.2d 669, 2001 (MD) Facts Anthony Jackson approached Sydnor. Jackson robbed him and hit him over the head. Sydnor, with friends, eventually fought back. Jackson attempted to flee, but Sydnor shot him. Prosecution asked jury to consider robbery and shooting as separate crimes; dissent objects. Holding & Reasoning For deadly force to be justified in self-defense, it must then and there be necessary to avoid imminent danger of death or serious bodily harm to the victim of the offence. Dissent: As robbery consists of taking and carrying away, the shooting of a robber then running away can still count as self-defense. Necessity (Justification) Kind of a catchall defense/makeshift category for situations where self-defense or defense of habitation doesnt apply Idea is that situation calls for an exception to the criminal prohibition that the legislature could not reasonably have intended to exclude (i.e., in breaking the law, youre preventing a greater evil) Definition: Accused acted in the reasonable belief that perpetration of the offense would prevent the occurrence of a greater harm or evil (see Dudley for general discomfort with rule, MPC 3.02). An uncomfortable doctrine that is regarded as residual (see Williams for common judicial reluctance) Often asserted in conjunction with duress: Even if I wasnt justified (necessity), I had an excuse (duress). Uncomfortableness with the Necessity Defense Why were uncomfortable with the necessity defense: Pandoras box: Once we say that following a statute does more harm than good, everyones going to say they needed to violate the statute, and were going to need to adjudicate it Thus, law in most jurisdictions havent rejected the necessity defense, but have hemmed it in with all sorts of limitations E.g., most state provisions (ex. NY) that permit a necessity defense allow it only if no other doctrine applies; therefore, it is often unavailable for those situations where self-defense is the customary defense or is the only statutorily permitted defense (i.e. homicide by battered spouse). We wont listen to necessity defense in case that appears to be self-defense or defense of property case Perverse? Guilty because not close enough to get self-defense, but too close to self-defense to get necessity (the catchall doctrine) Requirements Majority formulation (common law): Balancing Test (1) Objectively reasonable belief that prohibited act would prevent greater harm Thus, must be direct relationship (causal link) between prohibited conduct and prevented harm (2) Greater actual harm threatened, i.e., harm to be prevented must in fact be greater (not enough that " believes it s greater) (objective standard) (MUST WIN THIS ARGUMENT for necessity to hold, lesser evil must be argued and won) (3) Threatened harm is imminent (for example, NY 35.05) (4) No less harmful alternative available (i.e., no lesser evil available, see MPC) IMPORTANT: Necessity defense UNAVAILABLE if: (a) (***) Homicide has occurred Why not applicable to self-defense situations/battered spouse syndrome) (see Dudley) NOTE: MPC permits self-defense in homicide situations. (b) (***) Legislature has already considered the separate choice of evils, expressly or implicitly, in criminalizing the violated act For example see Medical Necessity below and Leno (c) " occasioned or developed the situation requiring the choice of evils NOTE: MPC bars necessity defense only if " recklessly [or higher level of culpability] placed himself in or caused the situation (d) Economic distress (see Williams) Example: NY statute (35.05) requires that the conduct be emergency measure to avoid imminent injury, a requirement essentially identical to self-defense. NOTE: Some jurisdictions limit the necessity defense to emergencies created by non-human factors MPC formulation (MPC 3.02: Justification generally, choice of evils)contrast with NY Statute: (1) Belief that action is necessary to avoid the greater evil (not just that it possibly might avoid it) (2) Harm sought to be avoided greater than that sought to be prevented by law defining offense (MPC Comments says the harm sought to be prevented by the law defining the offense may be viewed broadly) (3) No imminence requirement IMPORTANT: Necessity defense UNAVAILABLE if: (a) Law or legislative purpose clearly bars necessity justification. (b) Accused recklessly [or a higher level of culpability] brought about or placed himself in a situation in which it was probable that he would be subjected to a choice of evils and recklessness or negligence suffices to establish culpability for the offense NOTE: MPC (unlike most states and commentaries) permits necessity defense for homicide, when the killing results in a net saving of lives (e.g., if a whole town will be saved by the destruction of a farm, and one destroys the farm, necessity is available as a defense.) Other Specific Limitations on Necessity Defense Escape from prison Lovecamp sets up criteria for necessity defense for prison escapees; Unger advocates case-by-case application/determination (i.e., the five factors go to the weight and credibility of " s testimony about the necessity): Immediate, specific threat of death or great bodily harm No time for complaint to authorities or previous attempts futile No time or opportunity to resort to courts No evidence of force or violence towards prison personnel or other innocent people. Prisoner immediately reports to proper authorities when safe from immediate threat (see Bailey). This requirement is universal Medical necessity Leno: No necessity defense to justify distribution of needles w/o prescription to prevent HIV spread (no imminent danger, legislative decision on point) Hutchins: No necessity defense for medical use of marijuana (Fed. Statute makes drug use illegal and government has overriding interest in regulating drug use) Some states allow necessity defense for medical use of marijuana for serious illnesses. State level: ProSowell v. State (FL) and CA law, antiState v. Polling (WV) On federal level, federal law prohibiting use trumps all state laws yet applies only to prosecutions under that specific statute (28 U.S.C. 841(a)(1))(see United States v. Oakland Cannabis Buyers Cooperative). Political necessity (see Schoon): Requirements to invoke necessity defense in case of political necessity: Faced with choice of evils and chose lesser evil (point of view unclear). Acted to prevent imminent harm. Direct relationship btw conduct and harm (why indirect civil obedience fails) No legal alternatives to violating the law (why indirect civil obedience fails) Necessity defense is never appropriate in case of indirect civil disobedience (violation of a law not the object of protest) because: (1) There are legal alternatives, and Echoes MPC idea that if state statute bars the defense, necessity defense cannot be invokedthe system has been made to account for such things legally, so necessity cannot be a defense for actions done in opposition to an open legal systematic path. (2) Relationship between conduct and harm too indirect (conduct alone does not abate evil) RELEVANT CASES Regina v. Dudley and Stephens, 14 Q.B.D. 273, 1884 (introduction and disavowal of necessity defense in homicide case) People v. Unger, 66 Ill. 2d 333, 1977 (for prison escape, Lovecamps criteria must be applied case-by-case) Borough of Southwark v. Williams, 2 All E.R. 175, 1971 (economic distress insufficient ground for necessity) United States v. Bailey, 444 U.S. 394, 1980 (for prison escape, necessity defense requires prompt return to prison officials after the end of threat) Commonwealth v. Hutchins, 410 Mass. 726, 1991 (necessity cannot support defiance of federal drug laws) United States v. Schoon, 971 F.2d 193, 1992 (necessity defense inappropriate for indirect civil disobedience) Commonwealth v. Leno, 415 Mass. 835, 1993 (if statute expressly forbids necessity defense, defense cannot be raised even if necessity exists) Regina v. Dudley and Stephens, 14 Q.B.D. 273, 1884 Facts: Crew stranded, 1000 miles from sea, July 8-july 28th; rescue unexpected, though hoped for. Dudley decides to kill boy on July 25th. Stephens assents, Brooks objects. (See actus reus for why Brooks is not charged.). Boy is uninformed/not told. Holding & Reasoning (Lord Coleridge): Necessity not valid for homicide as a defense: To preserve one's life is generally speaking a duty, but it may be the plainest and the highest duty to sacrifice it. [...] It is not correct, therefore, to say that there is any absolute or unqualified necessity to preserve one's life. Dudley famous for its establishing the precedent on the use of 'necessity' as a criminal defense, and for its use of the 'slippery slope' argument in formulating its holding against such a defense. The American case cited in Dudley, States v. Holmes, also discounted necessity defense, specifying that the choosing of the victim should have been by lotIn no other way than this or some like way are those having equal rights put on equal footing. People v. Unger, 66 Ill. 2d 333, 1977 Facts: Unger was serving a prison term. At one point, a fellow inmate consistently threatened him, including the brandishing of a blade and threatening phone calls. After being transferred to the prisons honor farm, he walked off. He was later caught. Holding & Reasoning: (1)(classic definition) Necessity is justification if the accused was without blame in occasioning or developing the situation and reasonably believed such conduct was necessary to avoid a public or private injury greater than the injury that might reasonably result from his own conduct. (2)(case-by-case application) Lovercamp stringent test to prison escape situations proposes relevant factors go to the credibility of the defendants testimony and therefore ought to be judged by the fact finder. Borough of Southwark v. Williams, 2 All E.R. 175, 1971 Facts: Homeless family in dire straits breaks into some empty houses and became squatters. When Borough brought an action for eviction, they claimed necessity. Holding & Reasoning: Economic distress is not sufficiency for a necessity defense; the damage must be both great and imminent. Lord Denning voices the common fear of necessitys expansion: Else necessity would open the door to many an excuse. United States v. Bailey, 444 U.S. 394, 1980 Holding & Reasoning: A prerequisite for invoking the necessity defense in a prison escape case is that the defendant make a bona fide effort to surrender or return  as soon as the duress or necessity had lost its coercive force. Commonwealth v. Hutchins, 410 Mass. 726, 1991 Facts: " suffered from progressive systemic sclerosis, a terrible disease for which there s no cure. " ingested marijuana, which he claimed produced a remarkable remission. " raised necessity defense at trial for illegal possession and cultivation of marijuana Holding & Reasoning: Apply balancing test to victims pain/misery and state interest in enforceability of drug laws: In our view, the alleviation of the defendants medical symptoms, the importance to the defendant which we do not underestimate, would not clearly and significantly outweigh the potential harm to the public were we to declare that the defendants cultivation of marihuana and its use for his medicinal purposes may be punishable. United States v. Schoon, 971 F.2d 193, 1992 Facts: Protestors objecting to the governments financing of a war in El Salvador gained admittance into an IRS office, splashed fake blood on the walls, and obstructed operations. Indirect civil disobedience: Willful violation of a law or interference with a government policy that is not itself the object of protest (as opposed to direct civil disobedience) Holding & Reasoning: Necessity defense is never appropriate in case of indirect civil disobedience (violation of a law not the object of protest) because: (1) There are legal alternatives, and The possibility that Congress will change its mind is sufficient in context of the democratic process to make lawful political action a reasonable alternative to indirect civil disobedience. (2) Relationship between conduct and harm too indirect (conduct alone does not abate evil) A court must also judge the likelihood that an alleged harm will be abated by the taking of illegal action . . . (3) The mere existence of a governmental law or policy cannot constitute a legally cognizable harm Commonwealth v. Leno, 415 Mass. 835, 1993 Facts: Massachusetts passed a statute prohibiting distribution of hypodermic needles without prescription. Despite the law, defendant passed out needles in an effort to combat the spread of AIDS. Holding & Reasoning: If state statute permits no defense (i.e. strict liability offense), necessity cannot be raised as one: Whether a statute is wise or effective is not within the province of the courts . . . Also, conviction upheld because the harm " s sought to prevent was  debatable and speculative rather than  clear and imminent Duress (Excuse) By invoking this defense, we do not say that " made the right choice, simply that the choice made eminent sense at that moment (i.e., that otherwise law-abiding people might well have done the same in the circumstances) Idea is that we excuse crime when caused by coercion or fear that would cause a person of ordinary firmness to yield Coercing party held responsible for the coerced actors conduct and therefore may be convicted of the offense committed Definition: A person is coerced by another person into committing a crime (DO IT OR ELSE THREAT) (1) By threat of imminent death or serious bodily injury (2) .To which a person of reasonable fortitude may have yielded (Cant be a scaredy catsource of great debate) Often overlaps with necessity defense. Does not require that harm to be avoided be greater than harm caused (as required in necessity). NOTE: Duress must have been caused by another person (cannot be naturally occurring) NOTE: Some states say if the source of peril was the DO IT OR ELSE command of another person, the only possible defense is duress, but if the source of the peril is anything else, necessity but not duress may be a defense (MPC takes this view) NOTE: Battered spouses syndrome fails this defense because the husband is not coercing her into killing himself. Requirements Common law formulation (see Toscano) (1) Present, imminent and impending threat (most jurisdictions require this).by another person Narrow (see Fleming) vs. broad interpretation (i.e. future but essentially guaranteed harm counts; see Contento and Ruzic) Generally, if harm is in the future, accused has a duty to escape or seek police assistance In common law, imminence was regarded as an absolute prerequisite to the availability of a duress defense. (2) Of death or serious bodily harm (i.e., must be threat of deadly harm) Harm of property or slight injury insufficient (incl. economic distress) No specification that threat must be such as to coerce a person of ordinary firmness because threat already required to be so severe (3) Aimed at the accused or someone close to them Threat cannot be aimed at accuseds property. Must be at a specific living entity. (4) Reasonable belief that the threat was genuine LIMITATION: No threat serious enough to excuse killing another Most states (and England) observe this standard (not the MPC) (see Prosecutor for debate between the two sides). MPC formulation (MPC 2.09): Gets rid of most traditional common law requirements (1) (Severity of threat): Threat much be such that a reasonable person of ordinary firmness in defendants situation would be unable to resist (objectively defined) This standard substitutes for the deadly threat requirement re: severity of the threat Situation is defined as wholly objective, i.e. actors eight, height, size, strength, age, etc., and does not take account of temperament (i.e. cowardice); MPC opposes individualizing the reasonable person of ordinary firmness standard Also would counter battered womans syndrome, as it is wholly subjective, but some courts allow it as indicative of defendants mindset. (2) No imminence requirement (unlike in self-defense) Rather, MPC treats imminence of the threat as only one factor to be considered in determining whether " s conduct was  that of a person of reasonable firmness in his situation Because no imminency requirement, duress defense available on the basis of an earlier threat by the coercer Thus, no duty to escape or seek police assistance (3) Threat or use of any unlawful force (need not be death or serious bodily harm) BUT, threat must arise from another person, not from some natural condition (4) Threat aimed at accused or another person NOTE: Silent on whether homicide of another is allowed; probably allowed Limitations on Duress Defense Usually a complete defense Duress defense not applicable if: Accused committed homicide. Courts split in regard to felony murder. Sometimes showing of duress will reduce the charge to manslaughter (imperfect self-defense) rather than perfect self-defense. IMPORTANT: MPC (and NY) does allow duress as a defense to murder Accused subjected himself to duress. MPC: (as paralleled in Necessity, defense is unavailable if accused recklessly [or a higher level of culpability] placed himself in a situation in which it was probable that he would be subjected to duress E.g., gang member who joined a gang having a vague hint of possible future crimes is later forced to commit a robbery. Duress unavailable (see Regina v. Sharp. ) BUT defense is available if defendant has negligently run an unreasonable risk of incurring duress, unless negligence is sufficient for culpability for the charged offense E.g. gang member who joined a gang not having such a vague hint is forced to commit a murder. Duress is available. See Regina v. Shepherd. Threatened force is not bodily Natural conditions created the duress (i.e., duress must be human created) (see hypos pg. 842): Rationale: to say otherwise would leave it open in every criminal case for the accused to argue that reasonable people in " s situation would lack the will to act otherwise than the " did Wife acts under husband s direction (feminist perspective). Atrocities under international law (see Erdemovic) The Standard of a Reasonable Person of Ordinary Firmness Most jurisidctions require this standard without qualification (no allowance for cowardice or mental defect) (see Johnson). English courts have suggested accepting the cowardly idea. Some disagree (and turn conservative on issue)law as setting standards of conduct which you yourself might not be able to meet but which you nonetheless uphold (i.e. you would brand yourself a criminal) ( Fitzsimmons (see DudleyBut a man has no right to declare temptation to be an excuse, though he might himself have yielded to it. (even comment to 2.09 accepts this idealaw as fashioning of values and character) It is, after all, an excuse, meaning we accept it as morally wrong. Counter reasoning: no message sent /effect induced if we would have all done the same . . . But, such punishment makes it clear that the law would not tolerate it and that you are expected to use legitimate means, creating, as all admit, a certain normal response range. Could be done through making punishment for such things extreme (penalty = life sentence / death penalty). Or for simply branding them as criminals (enough of a deterrence, as in Dudley, in which sentence was nearly meaningless). Some states permit an allowance for mental defect (see DeMarco and Zernack). English Law Commission has agreed: Threats directed against a weak, immature or disabled person may well be much more compelling than the same threats directed against a normal healthy person RELEVANT CASES: United States v. Fleming, 23 C.M.R. 7, 1957 (Military) (contrast with Contento; extreme interpretation of imminence) State v. Toscano, 74 N.J. 421, 1977 (NJ) (criteria for duress defense) United States v. Contento-Pachon, 723 F.2d 691, 1984 (9th) (contrast with Felming; more relaxed interpretation of imminence Regina v. Sharp, 3 W.L.R. 1, 1987 (contrast with Shepherd; recklessness in joining a gang will prevent later duress defense) Regina v. Shepherd, 86 Cr.App.R. 47, 1988 (Contrast with Sharp; negligence in joining gang will not prevent later duress defense) Zelenak v. Commonwealth, 475 S.E.2d 853, 1996 (VA) (compare to DeMarco and contrast with Johnson, personality disorder permitted in making duress defense) Prosecutor v. Erdemovic, No. IT-96-22-A, 1997 (ICTY) (split opinion on legitimacy of murder under duress) Regina v. Ruzic, D.L.R. 4th 358, 1998 (EU) (if future harm certain, sufficient imminence for duress) Commonwealth v. DeMarco, 570 Pa. 263, 2002 (PA) (compare to Zelenak and contrast with Johnson; mental defect can be considered in duress defense) United States v Johnson, 416 F.3d 464, 2005 (6th C) (contrast with Zelenak and DeMarco; reasonable person standard holds even if person has a mental defect) State v. B.H., 183 N.J. 171, 2005 (NJ) (reasonable person standard holds for determination of defense, but subjective factors can be considered for assessing defendants credibility) United States v. Fleming, 23 C.M.R. 7, 1957 (Military) Facts: POW in Korea who made propaganda against US for fear of having to walk north 200 mi. w/o shoes which would have led to death Holding & Reasoning Contrast with Contento, extreme interpretation of imminenceAccuseds resistance had not brought him to the last ditch; the danger of death or great bodily harm was not immediate. State v. Toscano, 74 N.J. 421, 1977 (NJ) Facts Mobsters in New Jersey threatened Dr. Joseph Toscano, a chiropractor. " helped with medical insurance fraud scheme; prepared false medical reports others used to defraud insurance companies He did not use any occasion to call the police, hoping that they would simply go away. He received no compensation for his services. Holding & Reasoning Elaborating traditional rule for duress defense, duress shall be a defense to a crime other than murder if the defendant engaged in the conduct because he was [1] coerced to do so by [2] the use of, or threat to use, unlawful force against his person or the person of another, which [3] a person of reasonable firmness in his situation would have been unable to resist. Court drops common law standard of heroism (which said the threatened injury must induce such a fear as a man of ordinary fortitude and courage might yield to ) in favor of standard based on " s character and situation United States v. Contento-Pachon, 723 F.2d 691, 1984 (9th) Facts: Colombian defense that traffics drugs into US under fear that his family may be killed although he did not contact authorities. He could have contacted authorities in Columbia or Panama, but felt that cops were corrupt and that his familys life would anyway be endangered. Holding & Reasoning: Contrast with Fleming, uses a more relaxed interpretation of duress: Contento-Pachon had reason to believe that Jorge would carry out his threats . . . They were not vague threats of possible future harm. For escapability to bar a duress defense, the opportunity to escape must have been reasonable Regina v. Sharp, 3 W.L.R. 1, 1987 Holding & Reasoning Compare with Shepherd: Where defendant voluntarily, and with knowledge of its nature, joined a criminal organization or gang which he knew might bring pressure on him to commit an offense and was an active member when he was put under such pressure [recklessness], he cannot avail himself of the defense of duress. Regina v. Shepherd, 86 Cr.App.R. 47, 1988 Holding & Reasoning Compare with Sharp: If the nature of criminal enterprise is such that the defendant had no reason to suspect he will be forcibly prevented from withdrawing, and trouble materializes unexpectedly, [negligence] the defense remains available. Zelenak v. Commonwealth, 475 S.E.2d 853, 1996 (VA) Holding & Reasoning: Unlike in Johnson, akin with DeMarco, defendants evidence of multiple personality disorder admissible as it reveals whether the accused acted out of a subjectively reasonable fear. Prosecutor v. Erdemovic, No. IT-96-22-A, 1997 (ICTY) Facts: Erdemovic was a low-ranking soldier in the Serbian army. He testified that when members of the unit were ordered to shoot the civilians, he refused. However, he was then told, essentially, if he wouldnt shoot them, he would be shot. Holding & Reasoning (3-2): Majority: Duress cannot be a defense to an atrocity / murder as solider or combatants are expected to exercise fortitude and a greater degree of resistance to a threat than civilians . . . Is there any limit to the number of people you may kill to save yourself or your family? Minority: Duress is appropriate in such a situation as soldiers are not expected to uphold standard of behavior which require mankind to perform acts of martyrdom, and brand as criminal any behavior falling below those standards. Regina v. Ruzic, D.L.R. 4th 358, 1998 (EU) Facts: A 21-year old woman carries heroin into Toronto. She claims that a man named Mirokvic, a known killer, had stabbed her arm and had threatened to do something to her mother if she refused to carry the drugs. She did not tell the police because she did not trust the authorities (like Contento-Pachon). Holding & Reasoning If person believes that the threat will be carried out, he/she has no realistic choice, even though the threat is not immediate and the threatener was not present when she committed the offense. ( action were involuntary, not physically but morally. Commonwealth v. DeMarco, 570 Pa. 263, 2002 (PA) Holding & Reasoning Unlike in Johnson, a persons verifiable mental deficiency is a relevant consideration in determining duress: . . . it must ultimately base its decision on whether that person would have been able to resist if he subjectively placed in the defendants position . . . The fact that a defendant suffers from a gross and verifiable mental disability . . . is a relevant consideration. United States v. Johnson, 416 F.3d 464, 2005 (6th C) Holding & Reasoning Unlike in DeMarco, a mentally deficient person must still be judged according to the MPCs reasonable person standard for the validity of a duress defense: Unlike . . . non-mental disabilities, mental deficiency or retardation is difficult to identify, more difficult to quantify, and more easily feigned . . . State v. B.H., 183 N.J. 171, 2005 (NJ) Holding & Reasoning Although the reasonable person criterion is meant to be an objective standard, battered spouse syndrome (and presumable other such personalized evidence) is relevant to a defendants subjective perception of a threat from her abuser and thus her credibility. Intoxication Generally, not an affirmative defense (like duress, necessity, or self-defense) Sklansky calls intoxication an anti-defense The central issue with intoxication is how far were going to go in excluding evidence of intoxication as defense to rebut the intent element of a crime NOTE: Reference mens rea section for traditional categories of specific and general intent. Intoxication vs. Self-defense/necessity/duress While involuntary intoxication may be a defense (but only when it approximates insanity; see MPC/common law provisions below), voluntary intoxication is not. Can be used to mitigate sentencing, as some states do, but not favored as a doctrine (see Egelhoff). Nonetheless, note connection between voluntary intoxication restrictions and restrictions on applicability of the trio of affirmative defenses: If you induce the circumstances that lead to the crime (e.g., in duress, if you placed yourself in a position likely to lead to coercion), you are generally held liable. Definition: (MPC/standard def.): [debilitating] Disturbance of mental or physical capacities resulting from the introduction of substances to the body Hence, extended to drugs as well, as attempted to with prescription medication in Garcia Voluntary Intoxication Never an affirmative defense (unless the intoxication has been for so long it has resulted in fixed insanity) I.e., temporary insanity resulting from intoxication is never an affirmative defense, but fixed insanity is Can, however, be a defense in that it can negate one of the elements of an offense (usu. intent element) (though often still inadmissiable) When evidence of voluntary intoxication is admissible to negate intent (mens rea): Majority (2/3 of states)/Common law: Voluntary intoxication can be used to negate intent element of a specific intent crime, but not a general intent crime I.e., Voluntary intoxication can negate (1) only a specific intent if one is required by the crime charged and (2) the intoxication negates that specific intent. If crime one of general intent, intoxication never a defense (see Hood). States following this approach set a high threshold for admissibility of evidence of intoxication in connection with specific intent crimes: Generally, intoxication evidence is not considered relevant unless it is of such an extremely high degree that it could produce a complete prostration of the faculties; evidence short of this is deemed incapable of negating specific intent and therefore is inadmissible BUT, many courts disagree (including CA) with this distinction, and do not permit voluntary intoxication as a defense even for specific intent crimes (see Stasio). MPC 2.08(2): Voluntary intoxication can be used to show the absence of the state of mind required for the crime, provided that state of mind requires proof of purpose of knowledge (see Egelhoff). Specific/general intent dichotomy ignored HOWEVER, if the required culpability is recklessness, even if defendant is unaware of the risk involved because he is voluntarily intoxicated, his unawareness is immaterial to the guilt, recklessness in drinking so much being sufficiently proximate (so, naturally, certain degrees of murder or manslaughter would be exempt). Evidence of intoxication not admissible to negate negligence, since negligence considers what a reasonable person would have done, meaning that why you were negligent (because I was drunk) is immaterial. Criticized (on the left) by Stephen J. Morse for using an intent for a non-crimedrunkennessto approximate an intent to commit an actual crime: An agent will not be consciously aware while becoming drunk that there is a substantial and unjustifiable risk that he or she will commit a particular crime when drunk. Dispensed with by such decisions as Egelhoff. Involuntary Intoxication Definition of involuntary: Common law: Involuntary = (1) Defendant did not know the substance ingested was intoxicating, OR (2) if she consumed it knowing that it was intoxicating under direct and immediate duress MPC: Involuntary = (1) Not self induced OR (2) pathological, which means (a) intoxication is unusually excessive in proportion to the amount of the substance consumed AND (b) " did not know she was unusually susceptible Always admissible to show lack of required mental state (i.e., to negate mens rea or intent, even for general intent crimes) Affirmative defense only if: by reason of such intoxication the actor at the time of his conduct lacks substantial capacity wither to appreciate its criminality [wrongfulness] [legislatures get a choice] or to conform his conduct to the requirements of law. According to Sklansky, this is essentially insanity, an impossibly hard thing to prove, and actually mirrors how many jurisdictions define insanity. I.e., involuntary intoxication an affirmative defense only if you meet the test for legal insanity NOTE: While voluntary intoxication only an affirmative defense for fixed insanity resulting from prolonged intoxication and not for temporary insanity, involuntary intoxication is an affirmative defense for temporary insanity Reasons for Reluctance to Permit Intoxication as a Defense NOTE: These reasons are all closely connected to the possibility of greater acquittals (see Egelhoff): Legal trends have been increasingly inhospitable to the defenses of both voluntary and involuntary intoxication . . . Accused still had choice (unless you were utterly incoherently drunk) Could be impossible to prove intent for prosecution Dangers of empathy by jury for such a common condition Too many crimes connected to intoxication Note that in many rape cases, victims drunkenness is considered to have negated any intent to have sex that they could possibly have, while here, drunkenness negates nothing. The source might be this simple reason, a reluctance to permit intoxication to be used as an excuse to get out of a crime when it is such a massive factor for so very many. Dangerous as conscious murderer (retributive, rather than deterrence)(see Stasio) Drunkenness merely allows you to reveal already latent intent that would be dangerous/criminal once manifested. Akin to punishing thought crimes, something we are also skittish about. RELEVANT CASES: State v. Booth, 169 N.W.2d 869, 1969 (IO) (common law rule: voluntary intoxication = insanity = to be defense) People v. Hood, 1 Cal. 3d 444, 1969 (CA) (if crime one of general intent, voluntary intoxication not a defense, but if crime of specific intent and that intent is negated by the voluntary intoxication, it is a defense) People v. Rocha, 479 P.2d 372, 1971 (CA) (in CA, assault is a general intent crime to which, under Hood, voluntary intoxication is not a defense) State v. Stasio, 78 N.J. 467, 1979 (NJ) (more restrictive than Hood: voluntary intoxication cannot be used regardless of whether crime is one of general or specific intent) State v. Cameron, 514 A.2d 1302, 1986 (NJ) (for voluntary intoxication to be valid, it must approximate complete prostration of faculties, i.e. insanity or senselessness; idea brought up in Stasio dissent) Swisher v. Commonwealth, 506 S.E.2d 763, 1998 (VA) (compare to Stasio; voluntary intoxication almost never a defense, besides for first-degree murder) Montana v. Egelhoff, 518 U.S. 37, 1996 (USS.Ct.) (supreme court divides on significance of law defining murder as one committed purposely or knowingly and statute banning an intoxication defense; plurality essentially says defense can be barred under one of two possible reasoning, neither of which is convincing) People v. Garcia, 113 P.3d 775, 2005 (CO) (prescription medicine = involuntary intoxication) State v. Booth, 169 N.W.2d 869, 1969 (IO) Holding & Reasoning: Common law rulevoluntary intoxication is a defense only when it produces a permanent conditions sufficient to meet the test for legal insanity, that is, a substantial incapacity either to appreciate the criminality of an offense or to conform to the law. People v. Hood, 1 Cal. 3d 444, 1969 (CA) Facts: Hood had gotten incredibly drunk and resisted attempts by police officer to arrest him. In the process, he shot the police officer in the foot. He was charged with assault, which is, usually, a general intent crime. HOWEVER, in CA, it was regarded as specific intent because it is really assault with intent to commit battery The problem with assault is that it can be reasonably classified as both a crime of general intent (intent to commit a violent act) and general intent (intent to inflict injury) Holding & Reasoning (Traynor): (1) Distinction between specific and general intent crimes: General intent: Intent to commit a crime only to commit that particular act, without intent to accomplish a future act or particular consequence through commission of that crime Specific intent: Intent to commit some criminal act in order to accomplish a future act or achieve some additional consequence/result (2) IF crime is one of general intent, voluntary intoxication is no defense, as drunk man is still capable of forming an intent to do something simple, unless he is so drunk that he has reached the stage of unconsciousness. (3) IF crime is one of specific intent, voluntary intoxication might be a defense: The difference between formulating an intent to commit a battery [general intent] and formulating an intent to commit a battery for the purpose of raping or killing [specific intent] may be slight, but it is sufficient to justify drawing a line between them and considering evidence of intoxication in one case and disregarding it in the other. People v. Rocha, 479 P.2d 372, 1971 (CA) Holding & Reasoning: Assault = general intent crime even though recklessness is insufficient and intention to injure must be proved= therefore, intoxication evidence immaterial. State v. Stasio, 78 N.J. 467, 1979 (NJ) Facts: " was convicted of assault with intent to rob. " was intoxicated at the time of the crime. Holding & Reasoning: Evidence of " s voluntary intoxication inadmissible, even though crime was one of specific intent Rejecting the distinction between specific and general intent in permitting intoxication defense as discussed in Hood; voluntary intoxication cannot be used to negate mens rea at all because . . . Retributive, rather than deterrent, purposes of criminal law: The demands of public safety and the harm done are identical irrespective of the offenders reduced ability to restrain himself due to his drinking . . . Intoxication may, however, be used as a mitigating factor Dissent: It makes no sense to say someone committed assault with intent, e.g., to rob even though he never, in fact, intended to rob anything Different moral culpability attached to drunken and sober acts: A person who intentionally commits a bad act is more culpable than one engages in the same conduct without an evil design. Also, the intoxication defense is incredibly hard to use and thus unlikely to be abused: What is required is a showing of such a great protestation of the faculties that the requisite mental state was totally lacking. State v. Cameron, 514 A.2d 1302, 1986 (NJ) Holding & Reasoning: Intoxication evidence is not to be considered unless it is of such an extremely high degree that it could produce a complete prostration of the faculties. Echoes dissents second pt. in Stasio. Regina v. Kingston, 4 All E.R. 373, 1994 (ENGLAND) Facts: Penn lured a 15 year old boy to his flat. He then drugged Kingston, who abused the boy sexually thereafter, i.e. involuntary intoxication. Holding & Reasoning: Court: Involuntary intoxication is a legitimate defense because: (1) The purpose of the criminal law is to inhibit, by proscription and by penal sanction, anti-social acts which the individual may otherwise commit . . . (2) The law is therefore not meant to punish inclination, simply acts (thought crimes): Having pedophiliac inclinations and desires is not proscribed; putting them inot practice is .. (3) If a drug surreptitiously administered causes a person to lose his control of his inhibitions and for that reason form an intent which he would not otherwise have formed, the law should exculpate him because the operative intent is not his. House of Lords reverses lower court: As (1) involuntary intoxication does not negate mens rea because an intoxicated " still possesses the intent to perform the criminal act and (2) allowing a defense of involuntary intoxication would cause insurmountable prosecutorial problems, a defense of involuntary intoxication not allowed: The drug is not alleged to have created the desire to which the respondent gave way, but rather to have enabled it to be released. Allowing this defense would lead to  insurmountable evidentiary problems. A " would only have to assert that he was  not the sort of person to have done this kind of thing, and to suggest an occasion on which some kind of drug might have been administered to him for the jury to be given the question of disinhibition. And by its nature the defense would be one which the prosecution would often have no means to rebut. Rather than allowing a defense of disinhibition, prefers a tailored choice of sentence Swisher v. Commonwealth, 506 S.E.2d 763, 1998 (VA) Holding & Reasoning: Echoes Stasio majorityintoxication evidence excluded even on the issue of specific intent, except for first-degree murder cases. Montana v. Egelhoff, 518 U.S. 37, 1996 (USS.Ct.) Facts: Montana statute defined deliberate homicide as killing knowingly or purposely. However, Montana statute also forbade the using of intoxication as a defense unless involuntary. MT SC decided as it would under the MPC: evidence of intoxication is clearly . . . relevant to the issue of whether [defendant] acted knowingly and purposely, and the rule precluding consideration of that evidence had in effect relieved [the State] of part of its burden to prove guilt beyond a reasonable doubt. Holding & Reasoning: Scalia (4): Statute does not violate due process, as it does not offend a fundamental principle of fairness. Decision seems to undermine idea that prosecution must prove every element of an offence beyond a reasonable doubt. Ginsburg (swing): Montana statute did not exclude evidence relevant to a required element of the offense, because the intoxication provision effectively redefined deliberate homicide It is either knowing/purposefully killing or that killing that would have been purposeful/knowing but for involuntary intoxication. Avoids interjecting herself into dispute between OConnor and Scalia. OConnor (4): Statute violates requirement that the prosecution prove every element of an offense beyond a reasonable doubt. Direct counter to Scalia. Effective result = statute upheld, intoxication not being permitted as defense to deliberate murder. People v. Garcia, 113 P.3d 775, 2005 (CO) Holding & Reasoning: Court permitted the defense of involuntary intoxication for prescription medication (here, shock from insulin injections). Why? Involuntary intoxication = complete defense: An accused who successfully asserts the defense of involuntary intoxication is held morally blameless, and is at once returned to society as a free person. Insanity (Excuse) Insanity defense seeks to allow those who have satisfied all the elements of the crimeactus reus and mens reato get off Unlike others, leads to a unique verdict (not guilty by reason of insanity/NGRI), equivalent to being acquitted, but forced to go to a mental institution, from which you could leave, upon proof of sanity, within one year or never. Traditionally, would simply be free, though with possible civil liability. NOTE: Most states place the burden of proving insanity on the " (rather than placing the burden on the prosecution to disprove insanity) HOWEVER, a substantial minority place the burden on the prosecution (in these jurisdictions, burden of production placed on ", but burden of persuasion placed on prosecution) Definition: " at the time of the crime was so impaired by mental illness or retardation as to be insane within the meaning of the law.  Insane defined according to several prominent tests. General presumption of sanity. Today, " bears the burden of proof, although, if he does introduce some such testimony, judge is required to give an insanity defense direction to the jury. The Meaning of Wrong (see Crenshaw) NOTE: MPC provides two possibilitieswrongfulness or criminality, i.e. morally wrong or legally wrong. Court are to determine the use, so . . . Generally, legally wrong Some jurisdictions, morally wrong, which is relatively broader as a defense, as it permits acquittal if defendant believed his action to be morally right even if not legally right. Most qualify this broad standard by asserting that the action must be morally acceptable according to general societal standards (see Serravo) (and inasmuch as general societal standard cohere with legal standards, legally wrong = morally wrong) The Meaning of Disease Defining disease (see Guido): 5 used definitions Durham: Jury decides Guido: Pure effects test of disease inherent to MNaugthen McDonald: Abnormal mental defect impacting behavioral controls American Bar Association: Impairments of mind, whether enduring or transitory, or mental retardation which substantially affected the mental or emotional processes of the defendant at the time of the alleged offense. American Psychiatric Association: The terms mental disease or mental retardation include only those severely abnormal mental conditions that grossly and demonstrably impair a persons perception or understanding of reality and that are not attributable primarily to the voluntary ingestion of alcohol or other psychoactive substances. Diseases not covered: Battered spouse syndrome, compulsive gambling disorder, postpartum disorders, multiple personality disorders, posttraumatic stress disorders, alcohol and drug addictions, homosexual panic, and sexual disorders such as pedophilia, sadism, and masochism. The Psychopath Exception (Caveat Paragraph) in MPC The MPC 4.01(2) the caveat paragraph states that the terms mental disease or defect do not include an abnormality manifested only by repeated criminal or otherwise antisocial conduct. BUT, see Wade v. United States: It is practically inconceivable that a mental disease or defect would, in terms of paragraph (2) be manifested only by repeated criminal or otherwise antisocial conduct. The Mask of Sanity: Rules out those cases in which delinquency and crime have been adopted as a positive way of life in which the person is an enemy of society but is capable of being a loyal and stable member of a delinquency gang. Although the patient outwardly presents a convincing mask of sanity and a mimicry of human life, he has lost contact with the deeper emotional accompaniments of experience and with its purposiveness. (***) All the pertinent symptoms of the accused should be put before the court and jury and the accuseds criminal responsibility should be developed from the totality of his symptoms. A court of law is not an appropriate forum for a debate as to the meaning of abstract psychiatric classifications. Deific Decree Exception Deific decree exception: If " believed God personally commanded him to do something ( direct message from God ), " has an affirmative defense Exception to the general rule (in many courts) that if you know what you re doing is illegal you can t raise an insanity defense The standard is acting under a direct command from God, not merely with God s approval Determining Legal Insanity (1) At the time of the crime, was the " suffering from: (a) Mental illness or disease, or MPC: The  illness or  disease cannot be manifested only by repeated criminal or otherwise antisocial conduct (b) Mental retardation IMPORTANT: The disabling condition, however its defined, must be attributable to a mental defect or disease If yes to any, proceed to (2); if no to all, no defense. (2) Did the impairment so affect the defendant as to meet the legal definition of insanity? Cognitive tests (a) MNaugthen Test (TWO variants): A " is to be acquitted only if, at the time of the crime and as a result of his mental illness, he either (1) Did not know the nature and quality of the his act, or Sklansky: The  not knowing the nature of his conduct element is generally unnecessary because someone who doesnt know the nature of his conduct cannot possibly have the intent to commit the crime hes charged with (2) Did not know that the act was wrong [i.e. legally wrong or morally wrong, depending on court] Some states emphasize only prong (2)(see Clark). Still mainly adhered to (inc. in Texas, CA, Indiana, etc.) Criticism: Under MNaghten, " s loss of control is irrelevant. As long as defendant could think and reason about his conduct, he cannot use the defense. Therefore, results in convictions of people who cannot control their actions but knew them to be wrong (thereby failing the cognitive, and only, test under MNaugthen). Also, in centering its formulation on knowledge, the standard does not lend itself to application to emotional abnormalities (i.e., when cognition of wrong does not penetrate to the affective level) Volitional (loss of control) tests: (b) Irresistible impulse test (developed in response to MPC): Even if the " knew what he was doing was wrong, if the crime was the result of an irresistible impulse caused by a mental disease or defect, " has a defense I.e., " has a defense when he acted under an insane impulse that overcame his will to avoid the crime. (c) MPC test (adopted in Blake) Three clear distinctions with M Naugthen: Substantial, appreciate, and conform No longer widely endorsed. Adopts a two pronged test: " is NGRI if at the time of the crime (1) by reason of a mental defect or disease (legally defined) (2) he lacked the substantial capacity to either: (A) Appreciate the criminality [wrongfulness] of his conduct (MNaugthens cognitive test; HOWEVER, the use of appreciate allows us to include the possibility that defendant did know but did not realize the true weight of his actionsi.e. broadens MNaghten to cover affective defects), or (B) Conform his conduct to the requirements of law (volitional prong that counters the danger of MNaugthen by using conform instead of did not know) Substantial capacity: A capacity of some appreciable magnitude when measured by the standard of humanity in general, as opposed to the reduction of capacity to the vagrant and trivial dimensions characteristics of the most severe afflictions of the mind (MPC commentaries) Rationale for MPC test (criticizes both irresistible impulse and MNaugthen): Complete impairment is not workable as a standard in light of psychological analyses that show that disorientation is closer to a graded scale with marks along the way. Thus, deprivation of a substantial capacity is a better standard To meet these difficulties, it was thought that the criterion should ask if the defendant as a result of mental disease or defect was deprived of substantial capacity . . . Criticism of both tests: Few people are actually rendered incapable of refraining from engaging in conduct they know is criminal. It is impossible to prove a loss of substantial capacity in any convincing manner; therefore, it could result in jury confusion and thereby unjustified acquittals. (d) Product test (Durham) (NH): " has a defense if his crime was the  product of a mental impairment (see State v. Fichera). When we say  product, we mean but-for causation (the causal link between the mental illness and the act is the key) PROBLEM: How do we determine that the disease actually factually produced this result? Seems too vague (i.e. juries could come out differently based on similar facts). Also, Doesnt this kind of mean that anyone who commits an atrocious crime will get off because the fact that they committed an atrocious means theres something wrong with them ADVANTAGE: The test is very simple Used to be widely adopted, but now only relevant in NH (NH leaves it to the jury to decide if the criminal conduct was a  product of mental defect or disease) CURRENTLY FAVORED TEST (***)(e) M Naugthen Reformed/MPC Bisected (see Lyons and Clark) Rejects the  knowing of M Naugthen and the second prong (volitional) of the MPC: " is NGRI if at the time of that conduct, as a result of a mental disease or defect, he is unable to appreciate the nature and quality or wrongfulness of that conduct. (requires clear and convincing evidence) NOTE: Use of appreciate rather than know ( must know that what youre doing is legally or morally wrong ( which means, essentially, that despite the bisection of MNaugthen, the two prongs still exist. This is the current federal standard 18 U.S.C. 17(a) uses this version of MNaghten (appreciate rather know) but also adds the requirement for a SEVERE mental disease or defect (vs. just a mental disease) as included in MPC. The American Bar Association, the American Psychiatric Association, and National Conference Commissioners on Uniform State Laws also endorse this standard. (f) Deific decree exception: If " believed God personally commanded him to do something ( direct message from God ), " has an affirmative defense Exception to the general rule (in many courts) that if you know what you re doing is illegal you can t raise an insanity defense (g) Mens rea See diminished capacity, 8. If no under each test, no defense; if yes, depends on jurisdiction. Arguments for/against the Insanity Defense Arguments for the defense: Moral blameworthiness not equal (Wexler, a drafter of MPC)should we really categorize those who are incapable of knowing right or wrong as criminals? Individualizing punishment reinforces individual responsibility. Effective way of diverting proper persons into their proper placesmental health clinics. Actual acquittals due to defense are minimal to nonexistent (see dissent in Blake). Actual schizophrenic reactions (delusions) exist and make actual regard for the general societal implication minimal. Arguments against the defense: Opens too many doors (Morris)they are so many people who can claim a mental illness as the source of their crime, their illness derived from such things as bad parenting, abusive parents, etc. Remember, unlike provocation, it is a complete defense, permitting someone to get off entirely even though we do not really consider it insanity. NHs response? Send it entirely to the jury (see Durham Test). Not a useful way of diverting those who need treatment into more treatment-oriented institutions. Does not really benefit impaired offenders, as they spend as much time in prison as otherwise. Favors wealthier defendants. There is little basis for withholding condemnation of those whose mental illness causes them to act criminally when those whose deprived economic and social background causes them to act criminally are condemned Determinations of insanity impossible to make even under limited MNaghten test (i.e. ARBITRARY). Though possibly easier under NHs test. Applying standards is sometimes time consuming and often confuses jurors. Expresses fear of experts as making judgments of law (S.Ct. recognizes the validity of this fear in Clark). Trends re: the Insanity Defense Current climate: Abolished in Kansas, Montana, Nevada, and Utah Not regarded as fundamental right under due process clause as it has not been so long established (for contrary reason see Finger; for support see Clark); i.e., abolishing insanity defense doesnt violate the Constitution Federal law: Currently the reformed MNaghten standard There is little evidence that different formulations of the insanity defense produce different results in practice RELEVANT CASES: MNaugthen Case, 10 Cl. F. 200, 1843 (traditional insanity rule) McDonald v. United States, 313 F.2d 847, 1962 (DC) (definition of mental disease) State v. Guido, 40 N.J. 191, 1963 (NJ ) (definition of mental disease in purely effects terms; does NOT include moral insanity or emotional insanity) Blake v. United States, 407 F.2d 908, 1969 (5th Cir) (adoption of MPC standard) State v. Crenshaw, 98 Wash. 2d 789, 1983 (WA) (for religious instruction to defeat MNaugthen test, deific decree, i.e. a direct personal command from God, must be alleged) State v. Cameron, 100 Wash. 2d, 1983 (WA) (use of deific decree insanity defense) United States v. Lyons, ()*DFIJ_bcqtu0 5 = > Z ȼwwl^Rwhtht 5CJaJhtht 5>*CJaJht ht CJaJhhhCJaJht 5>*CJaJht ht 5CJaJht 5CJaJht h2R5CJaJht CJaJh3c5CJaJhCQh2R5CJaJhu]h9m|h9m|5CJ aJ h9m|5CJ aJ hm9>*CJHaJHh">*CJHaJHhu]hu]>*CJHaJH )*Jcu 5 > [ v & F $ gdt & F $ gdt & F $ gdt & F $ gdt gdu]$a$gd9m|$a$gdu]j Б Z [ u v       : ; L M ` a k }    - = L N n o {     ´´´ht htCJaJhtht5CJaJhtht5>*CJaJhtCJaJhtht 5CJaJhtht 5>*CJaJht ht CJH*aJhhhCJaJht CJaJ=    ; M a l  . = M o | & F $ gdt & F $ gdt & F $ gdt & F $ gdt & F $ gdt     : ; b  R 82 & Fgd & F & Fgd3lt & Fgd3lt & Fgd3lt & Fgd  & Fgd gdu] & F $ gdt   : ; b Q ` 2żч|tktcXtXcktctcOch6CJaJhhCJaJhCJaJhm9>*CJaJhm9CJaJhm95CJ\aJ hm95>*B*CJ\aJphh hCJ\aJh h3ltCJ\aJh3lth3ltCJ\aJh3ltCJ\aJh h CJ\aJ h5>*B*CJ\aJphhm95CJ\hm9B*CJ2ph hu]hu]hu](Zu6_e7 & F & F & F & Fgdz^ & F & F & Fgd(Vsx~569>4C^_%Gde/0汥挆}}yyhm9 jhm9CJ hm9CJhm95CJ\aJhz^hz^6CJ\aJhz^hz^CJ\aJhz^hz^5CJ\aJhm96CJ]aJhLThLTCJaJhLTCJaJhm9>*CJaJhm9CJaJhCJaJh6CJaJ/Lc w"9lBP & F & F & F & F & F & FBOP 123QRSnyz1 2 4 6 o s ~  طŬ؞ؖؖ؁vk؊hm96CJ]aJhLThm9CJaJhLT6CJaJhLThm96CJaJhLTCJaJhLThm95>*CJaJh5CJ\aJhhm95CJ\aJhCJaJhm95CJ\aJhm9CJaJhm95B*CJ\aJph hm95>*B*CJ\aJph*3RSn3  !!!$"l"T#_##k$u$ & F & F & FgdLT & F & FgdLT & F & F & F !!!!!$"."9"P"l"s"u"S#T#_#g######$6$8$=$%%!&?&z&&&&T'V'v'w''''''''2(V(W(_(ŽννŽνhLThtkCJaJhm95CJ\aJhtk5>*CJaJhm9CJH*aJhm9>*CJaJhtkhtkCJaJhtkCJaJhtk6CJaJhCJaJhLThm95CJaJhLThm95>*CJaJhLTCJaJhm9CJaJ2u$$%{&&n''''W(a((;))))**f**x+y+z+ & Fgd & Fgd & Fgd & F & F & F & Fgdtk & Fgdtk & F_(`((()))))))))e*f*x+y++++++++m,n,,,,,,,,,*-,---𲨞yyjyyycycy hm9CJH*hm95>*B*CJ\ph hm9CJhm96CJ]hm9>*B*CJphhm9B*CJphhm9B*CJ2phh!B*CJ2phhm95CJ\hhCJaJh6CJaJhtk5>*CJaJhtkhm95>*CJaJhCJaJhm9CJaJhtkCJaJ$z+{+|+}+~+++++m,n,,,---- .$.. & Fgdtk & Fgdtk & F h^hgdtk & F gdr & F & F h^h & Fgdtk$a$--.->-N-T-^-_----------- . .#.$.%..//./V/w/ 0100000011(1222ٛ|lhX[hm95B*CJ\phhX[hX[5B*CJ\phhm95>*B*CJ\phhm95B*CJ\ph hX[CJ hm9>*CJ htk>*CJhtkhtkCJhtkhm96CJhtkhtk>*CJhm95CJ\htk5CJ\hm96CJ] hm9CJ htkCJ(.W/ 010001)11222222222 p<^p`< & FgdX[ & F 8gdr & FgdX[ & F p^gdX[ & F p^ & F & F hh^h & F @ p ^ gdX[22!3"3*3U333333333334'4)4:4<4F4G4P4Q4R4c4e4r5t55556686^6a667ſ||r|fh~h~5>*CJh~h~6CJh~h~CJH* h~6CJhm95CJH*\hm96CJ]h~h~CJ h~CJ h~5CJhm95CJ\ hm9CJhm95B*CJ\phhm95>*B*CJ\phhm9B*CJphhm9B*CJ2phh!B*CJ2ph&2!3"3U333G45677p888N9 :N::;\<< & Fgd` & Fgd` & FgdB8 & FgdB8 & FgdB8 & FgdB8 & Fgd~ & Fgd~ & F & F$a$77777888!8%88M9N9:: :H:N:::::::<<<<<====>>>>Ό𠙠{uunueu\hm95CJ\hm96CJ] hm9>*CJ hm9CJhB8hm95CJhB8hB85CJhB8hB8CJ] h,~CJ]h,~h,~CJ]hB8>*CJ] h,~CJ h`CJh`h`CJhB85CJ\hB86CJ] hB8>*CJ hB8CJhB8hB8CJ hB8CJ]hB85CJ]$<=>?BBBBCCC&DkDDD1EJEEwFFF GrGG & F & F & F & F$ & Fa$$a$ & FgdB8 & Fgd~ & F & F>??????`@d@@@?ABAAAABB&B*BBBBBBBBC CCCPC`CeCCCCC&D*B*CJ\phh5CJ\hm956CJ\]hm9>*B*CJphhm95CJ\hm96CJ]h~h~CJ] h~CJ]h~6CJ] hm9CJh,~h~>*CJ h~CJ6E0EBEHEEEEEEEqGrGGGIJJJtJuJJJJLLMMJNKNPNRNNNNNNOOOO6O:O;OFPJPPPû⵬􏂏yhB8hB8CJhm95B*CJ\phh=5B*CJ\phhQhQCJ hQ6CJh=h=CJ h=CJhm9CJaJh=h=5CJ\h=hm9>*CJhj5CJ\hm95CJ\hm96CJ] hm9CJ hQCJ.GGHJuJJJKNNNNOFPRRSU & FgdQ & F 8^ & F 80`0 & Fgd= & Fgd= & Fgd= & F 88^8gd= & F 88^8 & F h0`0PPQQQQ RRGRORWRdRRR2SSSSSSST+TATBT,UKUZUUUUUUVVVVƧ~tjhm9B*CJphhqOB*CJph hqOhqO>*B*CJ(aJ(phhqO>*B*CJ(aJ(phhm9B*CJ2phh!B*CJ2phhm956CJ\]hm96CJ]hm95CJ\h,~h,~CJ h,~6CJ h,~CJ hQCJhB8hB8CJ hm9CJ hB8CJ$UUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUVVVV $ & F a$gdqO$a$gdqO$a$VVVVVVVVVVVWWWWWWWWWWWrXtXuXXXXY÷í÷÷÷àth^UKhqOhm9CJ\hqO>*CJ\hqO5>*CJ\hqOhqO5CJ\hChqO5>*CJ\hChm95>*CJH*\hChm956>*CJ\]hChm95>*CJ\hm95>*CJ\hm956CJ\]hm95CJ\hqOhm9>*B*CJphhqOhm95>*CJ\hqOhde>*CJ\hqOhm9>*CJ\VWtXuXX\YY(Z~ZZZ[[\\]]]^_`a $ & F a$gdC$a$gdqO $ & F a$gdqO $ & F a$gdqO$a$gdqO $ & F a$gdqO $ & F a$gdqOY[YYYYYZZZZZ[[[ \'\5\A\\\\\\\]]]"]F]J]L]O]h]ƽtk_ShChm96>*CJh h~>*CJ\hC>*CJ\hChm9>*CJ\hCh~>*CJ\hqOhqO5CJ\hChC56>*CJ\hChC5>*CJ\hC5CJ\hde5CJ\hm956CJ\]hqOhde>*CJ\ hqOCJ\h~5CJ\hm95CJ\hqO5CJ\ h]t]|]~]]]]]^^,^L^B_H_j___```aaaaaaaaaa#bִֽֽ֧֍ք{n_n_nVhA5CJ\hChC56>*CJ\hChC5>*CJ\hC5CJ\hde5CJ\hdehde5>*CJ\h~hm95>*CJ\h~h~5>*CJ\hj5CJ\hqOhm95>*CJ\hm956CJ\]hm95CJ\h~5CJ\hChm96>*CJhChA6>*CJaa$bRbccjcccccdeefffg%ggh$ & F a$$ & F a$$a$$ & Fa$$ & Fa$$a$$a$gdqO $ & F a$gdqO $ & F a$gdqO $ & F a$gdC#b$bRbbcicjccccccc dd>dHddddddddeee-e/e*B* CJphhqOhqO>*B* CJphhm95CJH*\ hm9CJhm9>*B*CJphhm9B*CJphhm956CJ\]hm95CJ\hqOhm95>*CJ\hqOhm9>*CJhqO5CJ\hAhA5CJ\hAhA5CJhAhACJ(fg$glgsg{gggghhhLiXiliiiii=j{j|jjjjjjj;k*B*CJ\ph%hChC56>*B* CJ\phhC56>*B* CJ\phhC5>*B* CJ\phhdeB*CJphhm9B*CJphhde5CJ\hm956CJ\] hm9CJhm95CJ\&hh=j|j}jjjj*B*CJ\ph"hqOhqO5>*B* CJ\phhqO5>*B* CJ\phhC5>*B* CJ\ph hCCJH*hC6CJ] hCCJh hC5>*B*CJphh hC5B*CJphhC5B*CJphhC5CJ\qqrrsssttttuMvovv9wwRxTxVxxxx$a$gdC$a$ & F gd  & F  & F  & F  & F gdde & F  & F qqqr9r:rrrrrrr sssstttu1u:uJuuuuuLvMvwĻ~oobPbї"h h 5>*B*CJ\phh 5B*CJ\phhm95>*B*CJ\phhm956B*CJ\]phhm95CJ\ hm9CJhm95>*B*CJ\ph hdeCJhdehdeCJhdehm9CJhm95B*CJ\phhde5B*CJ\phhdehde5B*CJ\ph"hdehde5>*B*CJ\phwwwwNxVxxxxxZy\y`ybylyyyyFzYz|zzzzzzz÷~r~r~r~h\RIRh{5CJ\hAhm9CJ\h{hm9>*CJ\hAhACJ\hm956CJ\]hm95CJ\h{hm9CJ\h{h{6>*CJ\h{h{5>*CJ\h{h{>*CJ\hChC>*CJ\hC>*CJ\hCB*CJphhC>*B*CJ(aJ(ph hm9CJh h CJ h 6CJ h CJx|zzB{{{||q}t}}<~~I9ƀǀSrہ" $ & Fa$gd{ $ & Fa$gd{$a$gd{$ & Fa$$ & Fa$$ & Fa$z{ {{&{={Y{z{{{{{{{|||||||||p}q}t}}}~~~~0ƀǀ~qe~hm956CJ\]h{hm956CJ\h{>*CJ\h{5CJ\h{hA>*CJ\h{hm9>*CJh{hm9>*CJ\h{h{>*CJ\hAhACJ\h{hm95CJ\hAhA5>*CJ\hAhm95>*CJ\hm95CJ\hA5CJ\&!#2HW]ÄЄBZ"z|։؉ͻ񢛢xfYhm95B*CJ\ph"hAhA5>*B*CJ\phhAhA5B*CJ\phhA5B*CJ\ph hACJ hACJ\hAhACJ\hm95>*B*CJ\ph"h{h{5>*B* CJ\phh{5>*B* CJ\phhm96CJ]hm9>*B*CJphhm95CJ\ hm9CJ""#2ʄф\ЌʍŽJG\ & FgdD[ & FgdD[ & F & FgdA & F gdA & F$a$ *.ΌЌʎJpEF\CFKNҔܔĕٕەѿםםז׌~pf׿זזh{B*CJphh{>*B*CJ(aJ(phhS]>*B*CJ(aJ(phhD[B*CJph hm9>*CJ hjCJhm95>*B*CJ\phhm95B*CJ\phhm95CJ\hD[hD[CJ hD[CJ hm9CJhD[hD[CJ\ hD[CJ\hAhACJ\ hACJ\(%Kܔ#;r b & F pgd9q & Fgd{gd{ & F & F & F & F$a$ & FgdD[ & F !|#̛ޛߛ+-.xoh^h^hD8hD8CJ\ hD8CJ\hD85CJ\ h6lCJ\ hyCJ\hLhyCJ\hD8hy5CJ\hy5CJ\hQf5>*CJ\h9qh9qCJhQf5>*CJh{5>*CJh{5CJ\h{h{5CJ h{>*CJh{6CJ] h{5CJ h{CJ hm9CJ ̛.`$>Vם`Ǟ & Fgdy & Fgdygdy & FgdD8 & FgdD8 & Fgd6l & FgdQfgdQfgd{ & Fgd9q.5`wǜ#%=֝ם`kŞƞǞ-.0Ļ}thyhyCJhy5>*CJ\hy5CJ\hyhy5CJ\ h6lCJhy6CJ] hyCJh,ehy6CJh{5>*CJhy5>*CJhyhy5>*CJhLhD8CJ\ hD8CJ\hD8hD8CJ\hD8hD8>*CJ\)/0ϟ2Lrg-Ȣɢgd9q & Fgd9q & Fgdy & Fgdy & Fgdy & Fgdy & Fgdy & Fgdygdy & Fgd{Οfg-1ǢȢɢ٢?w;xngng^X h9qCJh9qh9qCJ h9qCJ\h9qh9qCJ\h1eh1eCJ h1eCJ h1e6CJh9q5>*B*CJ\ph"h9qhm95>*B*CJ\phhh5>*B*CJ(aJ(phh9q5>*B*CJ(aJ(phhyhy5>*CJ\ jhyhyCJ hyCJhyhyCJhyhy>*CJ 16DäؤXΥϥ "#*80̧46ABߠߚߚ}}vv h9q6CJh1eh1e>*CJh9qh1e6CJh9qh1eCJ h1eCJh1ehm96CJ h9q>*CJh9qh9qCJ h9qCJh9qhm9CJ h,eCJ hm9>*CJhm96CJ] hm9CJ hhCJh9qh9q5>*CJh9q5>*CJ.äYqϥ#1ͧCX}ɨuv & Fgd9q & F @ gd9q & Fgd1e & Fgd1e & Fgd9q & Fgd9q & F & F¨Ǩըtuv9IN/?D۫ܫ ̬ެ./0Vth*35>*B* CJphh1e5CJ\^Jh1e5CJ\ h1eCJh1e6CJ]h1ehm95CJ\ hm9>*CJhm95CJ\ hm9CJhm96CJ]hm9>*B*CJphhm95>*B*CJ\ph h9q6CJ h9qCJh9qh9qCJ'vܫ/0WĮƯ4jq\qT[ & F & F pgd,e & F & F & Fgd1e & F$a$VWn~8®ĮƯ4P`ijo}\q<XxѾڧњzzkh*35>*B* CJ\phhwhwCJ\ hwCJ\hm95>*B*CJ\phhw5B*CJ\ph hwCJ h,eCJ\h,eh,eCJ\hm95B*CJ\ph h,eCJhm95CJ\ hm9CJhm95>*B*CJ\phh*3h*35>*B* CJph':JY \ouv$M"1H;gööٰmggg huCJ"h1eh1e5>*B* CJ\phh1e5>*B* CJ\phhwhwCJhwhm9CJhwhw5B*CJ\ph hwCJhw5B*CJ\phhm95B*CJ\phhm95CJ\ hm9CJhm95>*B*CJ\ph"h*3h*35>*B* CJ\ph%[ ,3<E Za & Fgd1egd1e & F pgdp & F & F & Fgdu & F & F pgdw & F & FgkAE.9Xx $&YZ_Z0xoohuh1eCJh1e5B*CJ\phh1e5B*CJ\phh1e5CJ\ h1eCJh1e5>*B*CJ\phhphp6CJ hpCJhphpCJhm96CJ] hm9CJhp5B*CJ\phhm95B*CJ\phhu5B*CJ\ph%aZ3d,-UYV & FgdkM & Fgdh & F & FgdJG & FgdJGgdJG pgd1e & Fgd1e & Fgd1e & Fgd1eTXZ]"$239GIcd+,-FITUx{Ƽݯݯݢݯݙݯݙӄ}vmvavXhkMhhCJhhhh>*CJ\hh6CJ\ hhCJ\ hJGCJ\hJG56>*CJ\hJG5CJ\hm95CJ\hm95B*CJ\ph hpCJ hm9>*CJhJGhm9>*CJhJGhJG5>*CJ\hJG5>*CJ\ hm9CJhm95B*CJ\phh*35>*B*CJ(aJ(ph!.0:WY\^<>OTUVFK XZdf/׽׽ƲƟ׊׽Ёunnh h3CJ hhCJ\hhhh>*CJ\h3>*CJ\h\=>*CJ\hkMhkM>*CJ\ hkMCJ\hkMhkMCJ\aJhkMhkMCJaJh\=6CJ\hkMhkMCJ\ h3CJ\ h\=CJ\h3hkM6>*CJ\h3hkM>*CJ\hh>*CJ\(VG<tu'< & FgdQf & FgdQfgdQf & F & F & F & F$a$ & Fgd3 & FgdJG & FgdkM "5:Xrtu־tb"h\=hQf5>*B* CJ\phhQf56>*B* CJ\phhQf5>*B* CJ\ph hm9>*CJ hm9CJhm95CJ\hm96CJ]hm9>*B*CJphhm95>*B*CJ\phh\=6CJ\ h\=CJ\h\=6>*CJ\h\=h\=6>*CJ\h\=h\=>*CJ\$'<HJK2EF]kvռ뭠pa[R[L hL~CJhm95CJ\ hm9CJhm95>*B*CJ\ph"h\=h\=5>*B* CJ\phh\=5>*B* CJ\phhLhQf5B*CJphhQfhQfB*CJphhQfhQf5B*CJphhLhQfCJ\hQf5>*B*CJ\phhQf5B*CJ\phhQf5CJ\ hQfCJhQf5>*B*CJ\ph<KFqxXr8:9v}CNcn6V & F & F & F & F & FgdQf & FgdQfr 8:|#89Jl{Ncmn46?TVϐrkb[ hkM>*CJhL~hL~CJ hL~6CJhL~hm95B*CJphhL~hL~5B*CJphhm95>*B*CJ\ph"hQfhQf5>*B* CJ\phhQf5>*B* CJ\phhm95>*B*CJ\phhm95B*CJ\phhQfhQfCJ hQfCJhm95CJ\ hL~CJ hm9CJ#@A.]dbdhjYoQRrsgd6lgd1e & Fgdh & Fgdh & Fgdhgdh & F@A #-.ESbfi ij0=CPQR\q̹̹̪rch1e5>*B*CJ(aJ(phh6l5>*B*CJ(aJ(phhqYhh6CJhqYhhCJ hh6CJhh5CJ\ hhCJhh5>*B*CJ\ph%h\=h\=56>*B* CJ\ph"h\=h\=5>*B* CJ\phh\=5>*B* CJ\phhh5B*CJ\ph hkMCJ$qrs.=?24s ;*,-4_v"$<ƽͳӧӖhD8h6l>*CJ\hD8h6lCJ\ h6lCJ\hLh6lCJ\hD8h6l5CJ\h6l5>*CJ\hyh6lCJ h6l>*CJ h6lCJh6l5CJ\h6l5>*CJhm95B*CJ\phh1e5B*CJ\ph2P.rxe-_#=Ugd6l & Fgd6l & Fgd6l & Fgd6l*h1WX׻|sfZMhD[h6l5>*CJ\hyh6l5>*CJhyh6l5>*CJ\h6l5>*CJhD8h6l5CJ\hKh6l>*CJ hK>*CJhKh6l5>*CJ\hKh6l>*CJaJh6l5CJ\ h6lCJhD8h6l>*CJ\hD8h6lCJ\hD8h6l5>*CJ\h6l5>*CJ\ h6lCJ\hLh6lCJ\hX$^I?0ID & FgdK & FgdK & Fgd6l & Fgd6lgd6l^jlwx!*7?HI;?Rd /¶|o|o|hLh6l6>*CJ\hLh6l>*CJ\hLh6lCJ\ h6lCJ\ hK>*CJhKhK>*CJhKhK6>*CJhKhK5>*CJhKhKCJhLh6l>*CJhD[h6l6CJ hKCJhD[h6l5>*CJ\ h6lCJ h6l>*CJ**BI`bjku!*+,CFKUft]^b   ~t~~~t~~~~hyh6l>*CJhyh6lCJhK6CJ\ hKCJ\hphKCJ\hKhK5>*CJ\hK5>*CJ\hK5CJ\hKh6l5CJ\h6l5CJ\hLh6l>*CJ h6l>*CJh6l5>*CJ\ h6lCJhJ.h6lCJ-DGu^  * + :    & FgdK & Fgd1e$a$gdQf & Fgd6l & Fgd6l & Fgd6l & Fgd6l & Fgd6l & Fgd6lgd6l & FgdK & FgdK    * + : N \ a       < A B    0 5 6     & 6 ;     ýumbmýbýýh1e5CJ\^Jh1eCJ^Jh1e6CJ]^JhK5CJ\ hKCJhK5CJ\aJhKCJaJhK6CJ]aJ h1e>*CJh1e5CJ\ h1eCJh1e6CJ]hQf>*B*CJphh6l5B*CJ\ph h6lCJhyh6lCJ jhyh6lCJ#     KR h}+^@ & FgdK & FgdK & FgdKgdK & Fgd1e & Fgd1e & Fgd1egd1e & Fgd1e & F gd1e    JPh}'*+>Ee¼򼏁vm\ThKCJaJ hK5>*B*CJ\aJphhuh1eCJh;!5>*CJaJhuh1e5>*CJaJh1eCJaJh1e5>*B*CJ\phh1e5B*CJ\phh1e5CJ\ h1eCJh1e5>*B*CJ\ph"hKhK5>*B*CJ\ph3fhK5>*B*CJ\ph3fh1e5B*CJ\phhv@*?%&ٸىvleYlelYlehphK6CJ\ hKCJ\hphKCJ\hphKCJ^JhKCJ^JhKCJOJPJQJ^JhK5>*B*CJ\ph"hKhK5>*B*CJ\ph3fhK5>*B*CJ\ph3fhKhKCJhK6CJ]hK5B*CJ\ph hKCJhK5CJ\hK5CJ\aJ".*?&34u|{m & F gd1e & F gd1egd1e & F gdK & F gdK & F pgdK & F gdK & F gdKgdKl{234Mku|z0YlmZ [ \ e f g r v   п}sicZNcAhm95B*CJ\phfhm9>*B*CJphhm95CJ\ hm9CJhm9B*CJphhm9B*CJ2phhS]B*CJ2phh1e6CJ]h1e5B*CJ\ph h1eCJh1e5CJ\h1e5CJ\^Jh1eCJ^J h1e5>*B*CJ\^Jph hS]5>*B*CJ\^Jph hKCJ\hphK5>*CJ\hphKCJ\m[ e f g r v  $$Ifa$ $$Ifa$$a$ & F gd1ev w x       ZQQHHHHH $$Ifa$ $$Ifa$kd$$IflFpA%5 0%    4 lap          %!3!6!E!^!l!!!!!!!":"f"j"l"##߀si_Uh%EB*CJphhSiB*CJphhm9B*CJphh}a(5B*CJ\phhm95B*CJ\phh}a(5B*CJ\ph33hm95B*CJ\ph33hUSE5B*CJ\ph3fhm95B*CJ\ph3fhm95B* CJ\phhm9B*CJph3f hm9CJH* hm9CJhm95B*CJ\phfhUSE5B*CJ\phf         !5!6!gkd$$IflFpA%5  0%    4 lap $$Ifa$ 6!7!E!F!G!^!l!m!!!!$If $$Ifa$ $$Ifa$ !!!!!!!!!!!!pgggggggggg $$Ifa$kd$$IflFpA%5  0%    4 lap !!!"""":"f"h"pjjaaaaaa $$Ifa$$Ifkd$$IflFpA%5  0%    4 lap h"j"l"####$O%ec^^^VNN$ & F!a$$a$gd%E$a$kdd$$IflFpA%5 0%    4 lap####$ %%*%,%:%E%G%K%M%O%S%T%_%`%t%z%%%R&X&`&a&b&&&3'F'L'Q'ҸzqgqaUңhm956CJ\] hm9CJhc E56CJ\hpq5CJ\h}a(5>*CJ\hf5>*CJ\hc E5CJ\hfhf>*CJ\hf>*CJ\hfhf5CJ\hf5CJ\ hm9>*CJhm95>*CJ\hm95CJ\h%E5CJ\h%E>*B*CJ(aJ(phh!>*B*CJ(aJ(ph!O%P%T%`%%b&L'Q'w' ()*d+++p,,,b- & F!gdUSE & F!gdUSE $ & F!a$gdf $ & F!a$gdf $ & F!a$gdUSE$ & F!a$ $ & F!a$gdc E $ & F!a$gdf$a$gdfQ'e'm'w'z' ($(|(()0)))))****+-+8+b+d++++,,1,3,l,n,o,,,-D-a-b-c-n----ۼ۲۲۲۬۲ۼyr hm9>*CJhm9>*CJ\ hm9CJ\ hUSECJ\hUSE5CJ\hc EhUSE6CJhc EhUSECJ hUSECJhm95>*CJ\ hm9CJhm956CJ\]hUSEhm95>*CJ\hm95CJ\hj5CJ\hf5>*CJ\hf5CJ\,b-c--f...//p0+1,1n1u11224W66|7}77$a$gdc E$ & F#a$$ & F#a$$ & F#a$$ & F"a$$a$ & F!gdUSE--.Z.b.f.t......./1/Q/V/r/z/////00J0^0b0j0p00000000,1D1d1u111 22222222C3424ɽ贽Ӵ贫蝔hT5CJaJhm95CJaJhm9B*CJ\aJphhj5CJ\hm95CJ\hm956CJ\]hm9B*CJphhm9>*B*CJphhm96CJ] hm9CJ hm9>*CJhm95>*CJ\524:4444V5V6W666666{7|7}77777&9;9r9}994;f;;;4<=2=d===>>L>P>q>r>崨wkkkhThc E5CJ\hc E>*B*CJphhc EB*CJph hc ECJhc E5CJ\hc E56CJ\]hc E>*B*CJph hm9CJhm95CJ\hm95>*CJaJhm9B*CJ\aJphhm95CJaJ hm95CJhT5CJaJhT56CJaJ(778\8&9;9$;=q>r>>>"??|@@>AJBuBvBBBgdc E$ & F#a$$ & F$a$$ & F$a$$a$ $ & F#a$gdc E $ & F#a$gdc E $ & F#a$gdc Er>>>>????|@@@@=A>AdAAIBJBuBvBBBBBBBBBBB!C#C*C+C7C9C?CCC忴맘ulff hfCJhf5>*CJhfhm95>*CJ hm9>*CJ hc ECJhc Ehc E5CJhc E5>*B*CJ(aJ(phhm95B*CJ\phhm95>*CJaJhm95CJaJhm9B*CJphhm95>*CJ\hT5CJ\ hm9CJhm95CJ\hm9>*B*CJph%B+C,C9CCDD'EE FF|GIHHH}I JgJJJ'K5KPK & F%$ & F"a$ & F%gdf & F%gdUSE & F% pgdUSE & F%gdfgdf & F%CCDCNCOClCCCCCCCDDEE'E@EVElEpEEEE FFFFF|GHHIHQHrHHHHaIxIJJ3JKJLJOJgJJJJJJJJJJKƽϫܫܫܴܫܫܫ܍hm956CJ\]hf5CJ\hfhm9CJhm95CJ\hUSEhUSECJhUSEhm9CJhm96CJ] hUSECJ hm9>*CJ hm9CJ hfCJhfhm95>*CJhfhf5>*CJ6PKKK LLL+LcLLMMNNOPFQQQQQRT$ & F"a$$a$^ & F%gdUSE & F% pgdUSE & F%gdf & F%gdfgdf & F% & F%KKK LL%LMMMMMMNNNmNNNNNNNZOOOOOOPPPPEQFQxQQն~~xoxocoxZhf6CJ] jhUSEhUSECJhUSEhUSECJ hUSECJ h4CJhUSEhUSE56>*CJhUSE5>*CJhUSEhf5>*CJhfhfCJ hf>*CJhfhf>*CJhf5>*CJhfhf5>*CJ hfCJhm96CJ] hlBmCJhlBmhm95CJ hm9CJ hf4CJ#QQQQQQQQRRR S)S.STTT1T5TTTTTTTTT#V8VSVtV8WWWWWWXDXFXYYYhZZƽƽƽ轱ƽ觝ƽ轔臽~hf45CJ\h>&hm95;CJ\h>&5CJ\h>&B*CJphhm9B*CJphhS]>*B*CJphhm95CJ\hm956CJ\]hm9B*CJphhm9>*B*CJph hm9CJhf56CJ\] hfCJ,TTTTTTT UUUU#V8VV*B*CJ(aJ(phhm956CJ\]hf4B*CJphhf4hf4B*CJphhm9>*B*CJph hm9CJhm95B*CJ\phhm9>*B*CJphhm9B*CJphhm95CJ\hf45CJ\hf4hf45>*CJ\(\ ]]]]]^^`adbebwbxbbbbb:cTcscc & F) @ gdUSE & F)gdUSE & F) & F)gdUSE$ & F'a$$ & F'a$$a$$ & F(a$xbbbbbbbbbbscccccydzdddeeeeeeee f ffggg4g5gϺÜÕyl]lhlBm5>*B*CJ(aJ(phhlBm5B*CJ\phhm90JCJhf40J5CJ\hlBmhlBmCJ hlBm>*CJhlBm5>*CJhm96CJ] jhUSEhUSECJhUSEhUSECJ hlBmCJ hV*CJ hUSECJ hm9>*CJhm95CJ\ hm9CJhUSEhUSE5>*CJhUSE5>*CJ"cdeeeee fgg5gtgughi4jNkkmm}n^o8p & F+gd~ & F+ & F+ & F)gdlBm & F)gdlBmgdlBm & F)gdlBm & F) @ gdlBm5g6g7gsgtgugg3hGh^hhhh5i@iCiTiti{ij3j4jjjjjjj1kJkMkNkkkl*CJhm90J>*CJ hf4CJh~hj5>*CJ hlBmCJhm95CJ\hm96CJ]hm95>*CJ\ hm9>*CJhlBm0JCJ hm9CJhm90JCJhm95B*CJ\ph-nnnn7p8p9p]psptpppppp q qq8q=qqq rr@r`rjrrrsJshsjsls t&tttjunuuuuuv$v9vLvRvSvYvv͡͡͡͡⻔hm95>*B*CJ\phhm95B*CJ\phhf4hf4CJhm95>*CJ\ hm9>*CJhm95CJ\hm96CJ] hf4CJhm95>*B*CJ\ph hm9CJhm90JCJhlBm0JCJhf40JCJ38p9ptp qrrr^slsuuv^w_wwwxLxax,yyyz,z+|O| & F* & F*gdf4 & F* gdf4 & F*vv[w]w^w_wpwwwwwLxaxixoxxxxx,y=yEyyy z(z,zDzzz{{{{O|d||||||||}&~'~̽̽̽̽̽̕ÞyhlBm5B*CJ\phh~5>*B*CJ\phhm96CJ]hm95>*B*CJ\phhm956B*CJ\]ph h~CJhm95CJ\ hm9CJhm95>*B*CJ\phhm95B*CJ\phh~h~CJ\ h~CJ\-O|d|}i}&~'~O~P~hijklmn3ā & F,gdlBm & F,gdlBm & F,gdlBm & F,gdlBmgdlBm & F, & F, & F* & F* & F*'~<~>~D~F~N~O~P~_~a~g~i~hin7VX¼~wqwh_SGh62h625CJ\h62hm95CJ\h62hm9CJh62h62CJ h62CJ h62>*CJ hm9>*CJh62hm95>*CJhlBmhlBm5>*CJhlBm5>*CJhS]5>*CJ hlBmCJ hm9CJH* hm9CJhm95B*CJ\phhlBm5B*CJ\ph&hlBmhlBm5>*B*CJ(H*aJ(phhlBm5>*B*CJ(aJ(phJgÁāȁށ   @BX_f&'V^¸–vvmgmm hZ,CJh62h62CJh- h- CJ h- 6CJh- h- CJH* h- CJ h626CJh62h626CJ h62>*CJh62hm9>*CJh62h62>*CJ h62CJhlBmhlBm6CJhlBmhlBmCJ hlBmCJh626CJ] h62CJ]hm96CJ] hm9CJ'߄>?s4Uԇ3q6gdlBm & F,gdlBm & F,gdlBmgd62 & F,gd62 & F, pgd62 & F,gd62ބ߄ "?4S1FHYZr$)@ASsx5;>?@ҿңғҊҀҊœҊҀҊғҀhm95>*CJ\hm95CJ\hm96CJ] hm9>*CJ h62>*CJhlBmhlBm5>*CJhlBm5>*CJ hlBmCJ hm9>*CJ h~CJ hm9CJh626CJ] h62>*CJh62h62CJ h62CJh625>*CJ167ZA?@}9NߏԐőƑ-B  & F. & F. & F- & F- & F- & F* !@VXs!Hg9NVtvޏߏʐҐƑؑڑגؒޒ,B    +;<ƸƔƔƔƔيhm95>*CJ\hm95>*B*CJ\ph hrB{CJhm95B*CJH*aJphhm95B*CJaJphhm95B*CJ\ph h- CJhm95CJ\ hm9CJhm96CJ]hm95>*B*CJ\ph65<;ޚ!jkgdqbC^ & F- & F-gd-  & F- & F- & F-͕ϕo ØŘ`by:;ښޚ̸ꐉvvh- 5B*CJ\ph h62CJ h62>*CJh62hm9>*CJ h- CJhm96CJ]hm95>*B*CJ\phhm90J5>*CJ\hrB{0JCJhm90JCJhm95B*CJ\phhm95CJ\hm95>*CJ\ hm9CJ hrB{CJ* !(U[Þijkķyoib\VJhqbChm95>*CJ hqbCCJ h>:"CJ h0N5CJ h0NCJh0Nhm95CJhqbChqbCCJhqbC5>*B*CJ(aJ(phhm95>*CJ\hm96CJ] hm9CJ h- CJ h- 6CJh- h- 5>*CJ\h- h- CJ\ h- CJ\hm95B*CJ\phh- 5B*CJ\phh- h- 5B*CJ\phk%pq˦ܧ ש5 & F/gdqbC & F/gdm9 hh^h`gdm9 & F/gdqbCgdqbC%&8@R[opqʦ˦_swxܧާ ֩שtuhqbChqbCCJhhm9>*CJhqbChqbC5>*CJhqbC5>*CJhm96CJ] hqbCCJ hHCJ hm9>*CJhm95CJ\hqbC5CJ\h0Nh0N6CJh0Nh0NCJ h0NCJ hm9CJ6tu;ݭ: 1I'mַ׷^gdS] & F/gdSi & F/gdSi & F/gdqbC & F/gdqbCgdqbC^gdqbC & F/gdqbC9;<AK]ܭ!&5o׮خٮ-3BDW_qɯʯίЯدٯۯܯ ~ hqbC5CJh0kh0kCJ hqbC6CJ h0kCJhqbChqbC5CJhqbCh0k5CJhqbChm95CJ h5CJ hCJhqbCh5>*CJ hm9>*CJhm96CJ] hqbCCJ hm9CJ801@AiűHMuƳʳҳK&'1JUXlmtu`hַ׷۷<{vhSih~5>*CJhS]hS]CJ h"5CJ h|Z5CJhSih"6CJhSih">*CJh"h"CJ h"CJ hSiCJhSihm9>*CJhm96CJ] hm9>*CJ hCJhqbCh5>*CJ hm9CJ h0kCJ hqbCCJ-׷ݷ<TD 6Q*ab5j & F0 & F/gdSigdSi & F/ & F/gdqbC & F/gdqbC & F/gdqbC & F/gdSi & F/gdSi{ȸԸո߸Fl0hoz%):TYaӽDJ  0\Zky갡͕ hqCJ h0NCJ hHuCJhm95CJ\hHuhm9>*CJhm96CJ]hSihm95CJ h&#PCJ hSiCJhm95>*CJ\ hm9>*CJ hm9CJ h&#P5CJhSi5>*CJ76AWi*Bbp5Mms~ j#@E,ʾʯАЙАЙЙАЙАЉАЙАЙАЙАЉ hm9>*CJhm95CJ\hm96CJ]hm95B*CJ\phhm95>*B*CJ\phhHhSi5>*CJ hSiCJ hm9CJ hHuCJh&#Ph&#P6CJh&#Ph&#PCJ h&#PCJhHuh&#P>*CJ6j{$yz.EZ & F2 & F1 & F1 & F0 & F2,1E#?DNQ!&'/OT$("#$5EJ}6øíhm90J6CJ]hm90J5CJ\hm90JCJhm90J5CJ\hm90J6CJ]hm95CJ\hm96CJ] hm9>*CJ hm9CJD68]vxy.7x;DEYZetuv dhPR|ŶŦŗ h~CJ"hHuhHu5>*B*CJ\ph3fhHu5>*B*CJ\ph3fhm956B*CJ\]phhm95>*B*CJ\phhm95B*CJ\phhm95>*B*CJ\phhm95CJ\ hm9>*CJ hm9CJhm96CJ]2R|O`i'H & F5 & F5 & F2 & F2gd~ & F2 & F2|01MNO:=@_`hikt&'庮򏉡xi``hm95CJ\hm95>*B*CJ\ph hm9>*CJhm95>*CJ\ h~CJ"h~hm95>*B*CJ\ph hm9CJ hqCJ\h~h~>*CJ\h~h~CJ\"h~h~5>*B*CJ\phhm95>*B*CJ\phh~5B*CJ\phhm95B*CJ\ph%(W(Zk չժvih"5B*CJ\ph"hXhm95>*B*CJ\phh(2hm96CJ h~CJ"hHuhHu5>*B*CJ\ph3fhHu5>*B*CJ\ph3fh0N5B*CJ\phhm95>*B*CJ\phhm95B*CJ\phhm95CJ\ hm9CJhm95>*B*CJ\ph);u8t " & F4 & F4 & F4 & F4 & F2 & F208Ft"hn"4]^pq򿶬uc"hHuhHu5>*B*CJ\ph3fhHu5>*B*CJ\ph3fhm95CJ\h"hm96CJ h"CJhm96CJ] hm9CJh"h"6CJh"h"CJ h">*CJh"5B*CJ\ph"hXhm95>*B*CJ\phhX5B*CJ\phhm95B*CJ\ph%]^q3(]dDY  & F2 & F2 & F2 & F5gdHu & F5gdHu & F5gdHugdHu & F5 & F5 & F5 & F4q2$(7Sb03DY_ 뽷yrfh!YhHu5CJ\ hHuCJ\hHu5>*B*CJ\ph"h!YhHu5>*B*CJ\phhHu5B*CJ\ph hHu>*CJhHu5CJ\ hHuCJhHu5>*B*CJ\phhm96CJ]hm95B*CJ\phhm95CJ\ hm9CJhm95>*B*CJ\ph"#nq2N',-/UWez }FHXZg޿޿޿޿ީީ޿޿޿ޘhm90JCJhm90J5CJ\ hm90J5>*B*CJ\ph h^9CJhm956B*CJ\]phhm95CJ\hm95>*B*CJ\ph hm9>*CJ hm9CJhm95B*CJ\phhm95>*B*CJ\ph4 ez|}GHw & F5 & F5 & F2 & F2 & F2gnpwS;<M] ^s;?ľvfWhm95>*B*CJ\phh^9hm95B*CJ\phh^9h^9CJ h^9CJ"hHuhHu5>*B*CJ\ph3fhHu5>*B*CJ\ph3fhm95>*B*CJ\phhm96CJ] hm9CJhm95B*CJ\phhm90J5B*CJ\phhm95CJ\hm90J5CJH*\hm90J5CJ\<^s@>L   Z  Hp & F3gdHu & F3gdHu & F3gdHugdHu & F3gdx & F3gd^9 & F3 & F3?@F.gil5<d>H ޺ުޞwqhhhXhxhHu5B*CJ\phhxhHuCJ hqCJhHu6CJ]hHu5CJ\ hHuCJhHu5>*B*CJ\phhHuhx5CJ\ hxCJ\hx6CJ\hxh^95CJ\hxhx>*CJ\hxhx6CJ\hxhxCJ\hxh^9CJ\h^95B*CJ\phH 0 4 ~     (   Z b   HDFHnprñêzqe_PGhqbChHuCJhHu5>*B*CJ(aJ(ph hm9CJh=hHu5CJ\h=hHuCJ hqCJhHu5CJ\ hHu>*CJ hHuCJhxhHu6CJhxhHuCJ\ hHuCJ\"hxhHu5>*B*CJ\phhxhHu5B*CJ\phhHu5>*B*CJ\phhHu56B*CJ\]phhHu5B*CJ\phpr@P_`txSxK & F6gdHu & F6gdHu & F6gdHu & F6gdHugdHu?@ELMPdFZ_`st!$%辱蝔胾zqzzdZhhm96CJhhm95>*CJ\hZr>*CJ\hm9>*CJ\ hHuCJ\hm96CJ\]hW6CJ\ hWCJ\hZrhm95>*CJ\hHuhm95>*CJ\hHu5>*CJ\hm95>*CJ hL5CJ hm95CJhm95CJ\ hm9CJ\ hm9CJhHuhm95CJ#%@AK\  R! 069q()ȸȫءߑ߈~wwndn^ hm9CJhhCJ\hCJ\] hLCJ\hm96CJ\]hm9>*CJ\h>*CJ\ hCJ\hWhWCJ\hhW5>*CJ\h()6CJ\ ht^CJ\ h()CJ\hW6CJ\ hWCJ\ hm9CJ\hhm95CJ\hhm95>*CJ\ _u q) !"N#'$$W%X%%%%&&' & F9 & F8 & F: & F; & F9 & F6gd & F6 & F6gdHu & F6gdHu & F6gdHu6 9       !!!!!!!!$"H"k"n""""""#####)#-#0#1#L#M#N#]#n#x#y#####%$&$'$7$L$W$$ļ̬̬̬̬̣ģģģģģĚhm95CJaJhm9>*CJaJ hm9>*CJhm9>*CJaJhm9CJaJhm9CJaJ hm9CJhm95CJ\hm96CJ]hm95B*CJ\phhm95>*B*CJ\ph<$$$$$T%W%X%l%%%%%&&&&& '$'''A'g''''(((@())´sh\hQhWhWCJaJhWhL6CJaJhWhLCJaJ"hLhm95>*B*CJ\phhm95>*B*CJaJph#hWhm95>*B*CJaJphhm95B*CJaJphhm95B*CJaJphhm95>*CJ\hm95>*B*CJ\phhm95B*CJ\ph hm9CJhm96CJ]hm95CJ\')**+(+F,[,W-9000 11@1113468999 & F9 & F;gd() & F;gdW & F; & F;gdW & F; & F9gdL & F9)))***+(+J+++,A,E,Z,[,,, -V-..*.r/x/900011?1@1~nd]dQdhWhW6CJ\ hWCJ\hWhWCJ\hWhm95B*CJ\phhW5>*B*CJ\phhm95>*B*CJ\phhm95B*CJ\phhWhWCJ hWCJhm95CJ\ hm9CJhm95>*B*CJ\phhLhm96>*CJ\hLCJaJhL6CJaJhWhL>*CJ\@1111112V2\2223t333455@5H5666688$9n9999&:':R:T::::övmhm95CJaJhm95>*B*CJ\phh()h()CJ h()6CJ h()CJhm96CJ]"hWhW5>*B*CJ\phhW5B*CJ\phhm95B*CJ\ph"hm956>*B*CJ\]phhm95>*B*CJ\phhm95CJ\ hm9CJ%9:::;;)<*<+<U<\<<<==>>>G?\?0A;BRBpBID & F7 & F7gd() & F7 & F7 & F9gd() & F9 & F9 & F9:::;;;;;;;;;;;;;<<<<(<)<*<+<9<K<Z<r<}<<򴨝~o`ZQZKZ h()CJhm95CJ\ hm9CJhm95>*B*CJ\phhS]5>*B*CJ\phhm95B*CJ\phh()h()CJ\h()CJaJh()h()CJaJh()h()6CJaJh()hm95B*CJ\ph#h()hm95>*B*CJaJphhm95B*CJ\phhm95>*B*CJaJphhm95B*CJaJph<<<<< =/=0=3=P=q=======>>>>>R>T>>>G?\?p?z?????ԳԥԘ|mm`h()5B*CJ\phhm95>*B*CJ\phhm95>*B*CJ\phhm95B*CJ\phhm95B*CJ\phh()5B*CJaJphhm95>*B*CJaJph#h()hm95>*B*CJaJphhm95B*CJaJphhm95CJaJhm95CJ\ hm9CJ h()CJ!?@p@@@A&A0A^AzAAA:B;BQBRBoBpBBBC C C-CCCIDJDDDE(EEEEFFLGPGpGGǵǵǨǨǛyjhm95>*B*CJ\ph hZr6CJhZrhZrCJ hZrCJ h()CJ hm9CJh()hm9B*CJphh()h()B*CJph"h()hm95>*B*CJ\phh()hm95B*CJ\phhm95B*CJ\phh()5B*CJ\phh()5>*B*CJ\ph(IDDEPGRGGGFHGHMH^H_HHHH`IaIIIJPJ`J & F<gd 1  & F<gd;gd;gd 1  & F; & F; & F7gdZr & F7 & F7gdZrGGGFHGHHHMH]H^H_HkHHHHHH`IaIjIuIIIIIII}qh_UKh 1 h 1 5CJh 1 hm95CJh;5>*CJh 1 5>*CJh 1 hm95>*CJh;CJaJ h;CJ h;>*CJh;5>*CJ\aJh;>*CJaJh;5>*CJaJ h 1 CJh 1 h 1 CJh 1 5>*B*CJ(aJ(phhm9B*CJ2phh!B*CJ2phhm95B*CJ\ph hm9CJhm95CJ\III7J8JPJWJ_J`J{J|JKKKKK,L?L@L{L|LLLzM{MNN_N`NrNyqii`Uh 1 5>*CJaJh;h;CJh;CJaJh-{SCJaJh-{Sh-{SCJaJh;CJ]aJh 1 h;CJh;6CJ]aJ h;5CJh;hm9CJaJ hm9CJhm9CJaJ h;CJh 1 hm95CJaJh 1 hm95CJh 1 h 1 5CJh 1 hZr7CJaJh 1 hm97CJaJ`J|JKKK@L|LL{MMMMMMN`NsNN-OqOOOOPR & F<gd; & F<gd; & F<gd; & F<gd; & F<gd 1  & F<gd 1 rNsNNNNOO+OSOpOqOOOOOOPP6PiPpPPQQRR7RRSSSSSS仴qeWh;h;5>*CJaJh;hZr>*CJaJh;hm95>*CJaJh;h;CJh;CJaJh 1 h;>*CJaJh;6CJ]h 1 h;CJ h;CJ h;>*CJh 1 h;5CJhm9CJaJhm96CJ]aJ hm9CJ h 1 CJh 1 CJaJh 1 6CJaJh 1 h 1 CJaJ!R8RaRRR.SSSS0TTTUaUUVWWmXXYYY & F> & F? & F<gd;gd; & F<gd; & F< pgdr & F<gd; & F<gd;SSST TTT.T/T0TTTUU!U+U7U>UaUnUUUUUUUV-V7VCVIVVVVVVVWWWW>WHWTW[WaWfWWWWX XXmX~XXXXXҕҞhm95CJ\hm96CJ]hm95CJ\aJhm95B*CJ\aJph hm95>*B*CJ\aJph hm9CJhm96CJ]aJh-{SCJaJhm9CJaJh;hm9>*CJaJ:XXXX YY%YYYYYYYY Z ZZ;ZJZKZLZOZZZZZ[/[3[5[\\x\z\\\}]]]]շĨՊ|nhKBq5B*CJaJphh.5B*CJaJphhm95B*CJaJphh.CJaJhZrCJaJhm95>*B*CJ\phhm95B*CJ\ph hm95>*B*CJ\aJphhm95CJ\hm96CJ]hm95CJ\aJ hm9CJhm9CJaJ'YY Z ZEZLZ[\\\]_ abaDbccc#d*ddd eeeeef & F= & F= & F= & F=]]_a aa,a`aaaaaBbCbDbbbbb@c`ccccd"d#d(dLdNdadcdd eͿ͈ͥͥͥͥwlc]]c h-{SCJhm95CJ\hm95CJ\aJ hm95>*B*CJ\aJph hm9CJh.h.6CJaJh.h.CJaJh.CJaJhm9CJ\aJh.CJ\aJh.hm96CJ\aJhm9CJaJhm95B*CJaJphhKBqhKBq5B*CJphhKBqhm9B*CJph! e3eCebe|eeeeeeeeeefff[g]gnggggggghh\hqhiiiiii j jjj$j+jjjjjk k k!kllĹİݪݰĹİݪݪݰĹİ̏Ĺhm96CJ]aJhm956B*CJ\]ph h-{SCJhm95CJ\hm95CJ\aJhm9CJaJ hm95>*B*CJ\aJph hm9CJhm95>*B*CJ\phhm95B*CJ\ph3fff\g]ggg\hqhiiii jjj k!kllBlWlllllllgd; & F= & F=l'l8lAlBlWlllllllm m mKm`mvmmmmlovoApMpNprrrssssʽzqjaXaXjR hG;CJhMMhMMCJhMM5>*CJ hMM6CJh;6CJ] hMM>*CJ hMMCJh;5>*CJ h;CJh;h;CJh;5>*B*CJ(aJ(phhS]5>*B*CJ(aJ(phhZr5B*CJ\phhm9B*CJphhm95B*CJaJphhm95CJ\ hm9CJhm95>*B*CJ\ph lm mvmm"nnzoApNpdpprrsstuhuu*B*CJ\phhm95B*CJ\phhm9CJaJhm95CJ\hm96CJ] hm9CJ hMM5CJhMMhMM>*CJ hMM6CJ hMMCJ?_vv&wvwwxy\yyyyyz*zzzzzz{p||H~~) & F@ & F@ & F@ & FB & FC*zTzVzzzzzz{{6}8}f}l}~~F~G~~~~~()րāοݶݮݮݮݶ}i& *hh5B*CJ\aJphh5B*CJ\aJphhm95B*CJ\aJph jhm9CJaJhCJaJhm9CJaJhm95CJ\hm95>*B*CJ\phhS]5>*B*CJ\ph hm9CJhm95>*B*CJ\phhm95B*CJ\ph#րׂ]^ST*+Uj$%W^Mb  2 & FA & FA & F@ & F@ & F@Ղׂ\]^o7BRSkÄɄ)*9Kij#$òå}nn}_M_n}_n#hm956B*CJ\]aJphhm95B*CJ\aJphhm95>*B*CJ\phhm95>*CJ\hm95CJ\hm95>*B*CJ\ph hm9CJhm95B*CJ\ph hm95>*B*CJ\aJphhm95B*CJ\aJphh5B*CJ\phhh5B*CJ\phhhm95B*CJ\ph$<M\܆߆ƇȇOQÈ2G ЋҋԋŌ01BYh{܍ލ9ƴƧyyh56B*CJ\ph"hhm95>*B*CJ\phhm95B*CJ\phh5B*CJ\ph"hh5>*B*CJ\phhh5B*CJ\ph hG;CJ hCJhm95CJ\ hm9CJhm95>*B*CJ\ph/2GŌ01cj9N3Hʏˏ# & FEgdZ, & FEgdZ, & FEgdZ,^gd16 & F@ & F@ & F@9NV׎܎)Hʏˏ !r!"#羸ګ{ohbYhhm96CJ] h_CJ hZ,>*CJhZ,hZ,5>*CJhZ,5>*CJhB95>*CJ hZ,CJhZ,hZ,CJhZ,5>*B*CJ(aJ(phh165B*CJ\ph hm9CJhm95>*B*CJ\phh5B*CJ\phhm95B*CJ\phhm956B*CJ\]phhm95CJ\#7=iE^ʒْ 34ӓT\֔$03H7=>?C]hy͗ӗ"o|Șﾵﾑ hB96CJhB9hm9>*CJ hm9>*CJhB9hB95>*CJhB95>*CJ hB9CJ h16CJ h_CJ jhm9CJ hZ,CJ h_CJ]hm96CJ] hm9CJhZ,hm95CJ9#/4ԓ|֔$37~Ș. & FEgdB9 & FE pgdB9 & FEgdB9 & FE & FEgdB9 & FEgd16 & FEgd16 & FEgdZ, & FEgdZ,ȘҘӘ-.6XTV/15Jm64XYZ5ȵ൙vmh_h_CJh_h_CJ\h_hm9CJ jhm95B*CJ\phhm95>*B*CJ\phh_5B*CJ\phhm95B*CJ\ph h_CJhm95CJ\hm95>*B*CJ\ph hm9CJ hB9CJhB9hB9CJhB9hB9>*CJ( TV5J6 Qfޠߠ-qr^ & FG & FG & FE & FE & FE & FEgdB9 & FEgdB95GKQfޠߠ,-pqbcezТBڣ!&dfե ۦ1ܰϡܺܺϡϡϡϺܺܺϺϡϕ hm9>*CJ hCx CJ h_CJhm95>*B*CJ\phhm95>*CJ\ hm9CJhm95>*B*CJ\phhm95B*CJ\phhm95CJ\hm9>*B*CJphhm95>*B*CJ\ph8rBezB٣ڣ!(kեۦƧާ; & FD & FD & FD & FD & FF & FF & FF1:ާ:pXZvxzƬ֬ڬƹޛ|si\h16hm95>*CJ\h165>*CJ]h166CJ]h16h165>*CJh165>*CJh16hm95CJ h16CJh16h16CJh165>*B*CJ(aJ(phhZr5B*CJ\phhm95CJ\ h_CJhm96CJ] hm9CJhm95B*CJ\phhm95>*B*CJ\ph!XZxzTڬѭq+[\gdS] & FHgds # & FHgds # & FHgds # & FHgds # & FHgd16gd16 & FDڬ(PЭOZjp %&*+.]fyİ.4NZ[]jq h+CJhm96>*CJ] hm9>*CJ hm9CJ hS]CJhs #hs #5>*CJ\hs #6CJ]hs #hs #6CJ]hs #hs #>*CJ hs #6CJhs #hs #6CJhs #hs #CJhs #5>*CJ hs #CJ hs #>*CJ.\]xqVWwl ah  & FI & FI & FI^ & FHgd+ & FH & FHgdS]q̴RSTVWevwٶ+lzƷ˷ҷ (2@FKRepuzhm95CJ\hm95B*CJ\phhm95>*B*CJ\phh+hm9B*CJ\phh+hm9CJ\h+h+CJ\ h+CJ\h+5>*CJ\ hs #CJ hYCJ hm9CJhm96CJ]7̸Ҹ׸ܸO_cel} (-EMWfȺʺa:<hjnzʼxhYCJaJ jhm9CJaJmHsHhm9CJaJmHsHhm9CJaJhm9B*CJaJphhm95B*CJ\phhm95B*CJaJphhm95CJaJ hYCJhm95>*B*CJ\phhm95CJ\hm96CJ] hm9CJ. 2(=jkl?Tdy~34 & FJ & FJ & FJ & FI & FIz$&(r'(<=ijkl|~೤schm956B*CJ\]phhS]5>*B*CJ\phhm95>*B*CJ\phhm95>*CJ\hm95CJ\hm95>*B*CJ\phhm95B*CJ\ph hY6CJhm96CJ] hYCJhYhm96CJ hm9CJhm9CJaJhYCJaJhY6CJaJ&f%4>?T_dxBDTXdy~345IJ~zvihm95B*CJ\phhm9h!h+h+CJ\hm96CJ]hm956B*CJ\]phhm95CJ\hm95>*B*CJ\ph hm9>*CJ hm9CJhm95>*B*CJ\phh+h+5B*CJ\phh+5B*CJ\phhm95B*CJ\ph)4IJRShCDM#lwaP & FWgdu & FKgdu & FKgdu & FKgdu & FKgdu & FKgdwHs & FKgdwHs & FL & FLgdwHsJQRSVg (*?CDLMNTU2BDn#)¶}qkkdkk[huhuCJ h6CJ hCJhwHsh5>*CJh2H56>*CJh2H5>*CJhwHshm95>*CJhyhhm956>*CJhyhhwHs56>*CJhwHshwHs5>*CJhwHs5>*CJ hm9>*CJhm95CJ\ hm9CJ hwHsCJhwHshwHsCJhwHs5>*B*CJ(aJ(ph )5789:lulr BDPh"FHL`cn跮蟘蟌|s|i]huhwHs6CJ]huhwHsCJ]huhm9CJhuhm9>*CJ h\2lCJhuhm95>*CJ hm9CJH* hm9CJhwHshuCJhu5>*CJ hu5CJhu6CJ] hu6CJhuhwHs>*CJhuhu>*CJ hwHsCJ huCJhuhuCJhuhwHsCJ$c% 5yv$<uPR & FKgdI0 & FKgdI0 & FKgdu & FKgdI0 & FKgdu & FKgdI0gdu & FKgdwHs & FKgdu %P`  45Dwxy`lv"$ĽĠĽ}}tjt}}j}}`huhuCJ]huhu>*CJhuhuCJ huCJhhu5CJhuhu5>*CJ hwHsCJ]hI0hI0CJ]hI0>*CJ]hI05>*CJ] hI0CJ] hI0CJhuhu5>*hu5>*CJ] huhwHshu6CJ] huCJ]huhwHsCJ]%$JV`;<tu#NnQRyQRfvѺ|sg^hyhhm9CJh\2lhm95>*CJhyh5>*CJhyh56CJ]hI0hI0>*CJhI05>*CJhI0hI0CJ] hI0CJhI0huCJ] hu>*CJ huCJ] hu6CJhu5>*CJhuhuCJ]huhu>*CJhu6CJ] huCJhuhu5>*CJ!]kRv 'S0P & FKgd  & FKgd  & FKgdyh & FKgdyhgdyh & FKgdI0 & FKgdI0 & FKgdu & FKgdI0 &'+>?@BCMPRS!#/07;NOPeWdľܷқıvvvmhyh5>*CJh<,bhyhCJh<,bhyh6>*CJhyhhyhCJ hyh>*CJ h 5CJhm96CJ] h([CJ hm9CJ h >*CJ hyhCJ hyh6CJ h 6CJh|Lhm95CJ h CJh h CJh 5>*CJhyhhm95>*CJ*@F|}3wZdv:dľ~ h>*CJ h>*CJhhCJ h5CJhh>*CJ hCJh|Lh CJh h CJ h CJh h 5>*CJ hm9CJhyhhyhCJh hyh>*CJh h >*CJ h >*CJ hyhCJ/@}wZ[G & FK gd & FKgdyh & FKgd  & FKgd  & FKgd & FKgd & FKgd  & FKgd  & FKgd  & FKgdyhY[GLty(.Z]knɽ떐~x~n~x~xhh6CJ hCJhhCJhm96CJ] hm9CJhhm95>*CJh 6>*CJ] h >*CJh h >*CJh h >*CJ] h CJ] jh CJh 6CJ]h 5CJ\ h CJhhCJ hCJ*'DMWrsvwx39:>QYaju S[]h㩝㝃yh3]h3]>*CJh\2lhm95CJh3]hm9>*CJ h3]CJh3]hm95>*CJ h3]5CJhhm9>*CJhh6>*CJhh>*CJ h5CJhhm95>*CJ hm9CJhhCJ hCJ h>*CJ/Ms:SJ2W7 & FKgd3] & FK & FKgd3]gd3] & FKgd & FKgdyh),H=>Wah68#$%(isٿﹰ駛h3]h3]>*CJ h3]5CJh3]h3]5CJh3]h3]5>*CJh3]5>*CJhIhICJ hICJ hwHs6CJ h3]6CJ h6CJ h\2lCJ hwHsCJh3]h3]6CJ h3]CJ hm9CJh3]hm9>*CJ2fGy,}"#-n[\ & FKgd3] & FQ & FQgd3] & FQgd3] & FQ & FQ & FQgd3]FG),7lmopq|}"#,-:O{\l{ &59hm96CJ]hm95>*B*CJ\phh3]hm95>*CJh3]5>*CJhm95CJ\ jhm9CJ hm9>*CJhm95>*CJ\ h\2lCJh3]hm95CJ h3]CJ hm9CJ:\lmBo!:%)gsO  ,  & FPgd([ & FP[$\$ & FN & FP9:?m|AB[ky-FXmno!1AEFJ:J\`aerv$%<LZip)9GKgys hm9>*CJhm96CJ]hm95CJ\ hm9CJYsO]oz%'     + , _ i 5 < > ? h x            :ƴƧ{ h<,bCJh([h([CJ\h([h([5CJ\h([h([5B*CJ\phh([5B*CJ\ph"h([hm95>*B*CJ\phhm95B*CJ\ph h([CJhm95>*B*CJ\phhm95CJ\ hm9CJhm96CJ]0, a 9 i ?       8MgdS] & FPgd|L & FP & FM & FM & FP & FP & FPgd([ & FPgd([:S 7LM Ll8:pRXr&DPƷƭނނނނ{ h|L5CJhm96CJ]h|L5B*CJ\phh|Lh|L5CJ\hS]5CJ\h|Lh|LCJ\h|L5CJ\ hCJhm95CJ\hm95>*B*CJ\ph hm9CJhm95B*CJ\phhm95>*B*CJ\ph-:XDR(R/KLkkU4I & FM & FP[$\$ & FPgd|L & FP & FP & FPP(PR$&/@GHKL] jk hk˾zzrzk hm9>*CJhOCJaJh|LCJaJhm9CJaJhm95>*B*CJ\phhm96CJ]h|L5B*CJ\phhm95>*B*CJ\phhm95B*CJ\phh|Lh|L5CJ\ h<,bCJ\h|Lh|LCJ\ hm9CJhm95CJ\h|Lh|LCJ'kq|U&IWZ[/3<=>lfhjn˾thhYhS]5>*B*CJ\phh6B*CJph33hh5B*CJ\ph33hB*CJph33hm95B*CJ\ph33hm9>*B*CJph33hm9B*CJph33h5B*CJ\phhm95B*CJ\phhm95CJ\hm95>*B*CJ\ph hm9CJh|Lhm95>*CJh|Lhm95CJ"I[>ijklmn s!! "&%Q&R&|&^ & FO & FOgd & FO & FO & FMgd & FM & FM & FMa c ~    '!:!*CJ h<,bCJhm95>*B*CJ\phhm95>*CJ\hhCJ\ hCJ\hm95>*B*CJ\phhm95B*CJ\ph hCJ hm9CJhm95CJ\<|&&&U'j'3(4(`(u(((( )5)b)X*Z***M,b,-\.].^._.. & FMgd & FM & FM & FM***M,b,p,w,d-f-~--->.E.]._.o.}..I///////0(0*0h0j000W1222׺ץ~ץ~xxkahIhICJ\hI5B*CJ\ph hICJhm95>*B*CJ\phhS]5>*B*CJ\phhm96CJ] hm9CJh5>*B*CJ\phh5B*CJ\phhm956B*CJ\]phhm95B*CJ\phhhCJ\h5CJ\hm95CJ\#..I/////000W113Z4[444"555_6666677^ & FMgdI & FM & FM & FM22p23Y4Z4[4m4444444!5"55555_6b6k6666667777_7a78żŶŶżżڦŝżڎŁre\h_45>*CJh_45B*CJ\phh_45>*B*CJ(aJ(phhm95B*CJ\phhm95>*B*CJ\phhm96CJ]hm956B*CJ\]ph h<,bCJhm95CJ\ hm9CJhm95>*B*CJ\phhm95B*CJ\ph hICJ\hIhICJ\ hOCJ\!7`7a7t7(9:;;;;;;;;;q<<(=)=9=L== >>~??? & FR & FRgdS] & FPgd_4 & FPgd_4gd_48889:;;:;;;;;;;p<q<<===(=)=5=6=7=8=9=L=i===== >%>m>o>>>~??????@@'AŹ尧{u h<,bCJhm95CJ\h<,bhm9>*CJ hm9>*CJ hm9CJh_4h_45>*CJh_45>*CJh5>*CJh_4h_46>*CJh_4h_4>*CJh<,bh_4>*CJ hS]CJ h:rCJ h_4CJ jh_4h_4CJh_4h_4CJ.??@ABB>BBTCUC^CCCDDEF.GGHIZJ & FRgd>:" & FRgddR & FRgdnu & FRgd!m & FR & FRgd_4gd_4 & FR & FR'A/A1AHAIAWAAAAAAAABBBcBBBSCTCUC]C^CtCwCzCCCCCCCCCCCCCǢЛzpdh_4hm95>*CJh_4hm9>*CJh:rhm95>*CJ h`>*CJ hm9CJ\ h_45CJ hm95CJh_4h_45>*CJhnuh`>*CJh`h`CJ h`CJh_45>*CJ h_4CJhm95>*CJ\hm95CJ\hs5CJ\ hm9CJ hm9>*CJ'CCCCCCC D DDDDDDDDDDEEEEEQF|FFFF.G=G@GGHHH»µ嫤坑uoh_Y hdRCJhdRhdRCJ h!m6CJ hnuCJh`h!m6>*CJh`h!m>*CJ h!mCJh!mh!m5>*CJ h!m5CJ hm9>*CJhm96>*CJ] hsCJ h>:"6CJ h>:"CJhm96CJ] hm96CJ h:rCJ hm95CJ hm9CJh_4hm95>*CJh:r5>*CJ"HQIWIIIIIIIJ J&JXJZJtJxJJJJJK KKKLL1L4L5L6LoLqLrLsLxLyLLLLLMM̹̍zvpip h1 >*CJ h1 CJhm9hm95>*CJ\h>:"5CJ\hm95CJ\ h<,bCJ hm9CJ\h1 hm95>*CJh<,bhm9>*CJh>:"h>:"5CJh>:"5>*CJ h>:"CJ h1 5CJ h>:"5CJh>:"hm95CJ hm95CJhm96CJ\ hm9CJ)ZJJLsLL0MMMMNOKOPPhQQRSSaTNUBV & FRgds & FRgds & FRgd!m & FRgd1  & FRgd1  & FRgd1  & FRgd>:" & FRgd>:" & FRgd>:"MMMMMMMMMNNNNNNO:OJOKOcOvOxOOOOOOPPP2PiPjPPPPgQhQQQQQQQQˠ˜˖ˌ{rrrh!m6CJ]h!mh!m>*CJ h!m6CJh!mh1 >*CJ h!mCJh1 h1 6CJh1 h1 6>*CJh1 h1 5>*CJh1 h1 >*CJH* h1 CJh1 h1 CJ h1 h1 h1 h1 >*CJ hsCJ hs5CJ h1 5CJ,QQ#R$R0R3RRRRRRRRRRSSSS TT`TaTTTTTTTTTTTMUNUZUUUUUV"VAVBVIVfVVVVVWW W辴讥脮hshsCJ h!m6CJ h!m5CJh!mh!m>*CJhdRh!mCJ h!mCJh]Whs6CJh]WhsCJhshs>*CJ hs6CJhs5>*CJ hs>*CJ hsCJ hs5CJhsh!m>*CJ4BVW[\ ]]^^___l___`` aBafaaabc & FRgdnu & FR & FR & FR & FRgdnugdnu & FRgd  & FRgd!m & FRgd!m & FRgds & FRgd!m WX[[[1\8\l\r\\\\] ]!]/]>]Q]V]_]g]]]]^^!^"^0^f^k^^^^^3_]_^___˾˾~xxrlrx hIBCJ h CJ hnuCJ h`CJh[hm95CJhm96CJ]hnuhm96>*CJ]hnuhm9>*CJhnuhm95CJ hm9CJhnuhnu5>*CJ\hnu5CJ\ h!m6CJ h!mCJ h!m5CJh!mhs>*CJ hsCJ hs6CJ&__i_l_____``````````` a a&a,a7aAaEaOaPaeaialarauaaaaaaaaa$bbb c*cNcjc񕪋{u h`CJh\chnuCJ hnu>*CJhnuhnu>*CJhnuhm96>*CJhnuhm9CJhnuhm9>*CJ hm9>*CJ hJ CJhnu6CJ] hnu5CJ hm95CJ jh>:"hnuCJ hnu6CJ hnuCJ hm9CJhnu5>*CJ.jcnccccccccccdd@dBdMdRdYd\djdkddde5efeeeeff#f-f.f7f;fEfqfufffffgg g8gJgUggg)h8hhhhhhhhm95B*CJ\phhm95>*B*CJ\ph h:rCJh>:"h>:"CJ h\cCJ hJ >*CJ hm9>*CJhJ hm96>*CJhJ hm9>*CJ hCJ hm9CJ hJ CJ h`CJ:cCddfeeefeff:" & FRgdJ  & FRgdnu & FRgdnuhiiiii jjjjjj-k5kZkpkkkkkkkkkkkl lullllllllmmmmnnDn\nmntnvn|noo3oCoQo`ogop#p5p?pppq q"q#q*CJ hdRCJhm95CJH*\hm95CJ\ hm9CJhm96CJ]RjZkullmDnop#qqrsxtDuEuxuuuv>wx8yz & FS & FS & FS^ & FT vv^v`gdr & FT vv^v`gdrrrrrrrrrrrrrr ssss's.s3s9sssssxttttttCuDuEu[ukuwuxuu2v4vavcvvvvw=wxx^ytyzzzzIzJz鷪hm9B*CJphhm95>*B*CJ\phhm95B*CJ\phhdRhdRCJ\ hdRCJhm95>*B*CJ\phhm95CJH*\hm96CJ]hm95CJ\ hm9CJ hm9>*CJ9zJzJ{{7|8|9||||}}}́΂?ԃۄ(ކ & FSgdO & FSgdO & FS & FS & FS & FW & FSJz}zzzzzI{J{{{6|7|8|9|g|v||||m}o}}~(<V\Ǡyssyj]]Mhm956B*CJ\]phhO5B*CJ\phh\ch\cCJ hOCJhm95CJ\hm95>*B*CJ\phhS]5>*B*CJ\phhdRB*CJphhdRhm9B*CJphhm9B*CJph hm9CJhdR5B*CJ\phhdR5>*B*CJ\phhm95>*B*CJ\phhm95B*CJ\ph LNdʁ(*+?@EH]Ӄ U12È8;8FU_eFLpͽīīĢ͍͇͜͜͜͜~~t~h[h[6CJh[h[CJ h[CJhm95>*B*CJ\ph hOCJhOhOCJhO5CJ\ jhm9CJ hO5CJhm95CJ\ hm9CJ"h\chm95>*B*CJ\phhO5B*CJ\phhm95B*CJ\ph-ކ2|78_f֍rّ & FS & FSgd[ & FS gd[ & FS & FSgdO & FSgdO & FS & FSpr5U ّ &,56Vrz);IJƹssfs]hJ5CJ\h;z5B*CJ\phhm956B*CJ\]phhm95CJH*\hm95>*B*CJ\phhdRhdR5B*CJ\phhdR5B*CJ\phh[5B*CJ\phh[hm9CJhm95>*B*CJ\phhm95B*CJ\ph hm9CJhm95CJ\ h[CJ$?A;EFMHLڗ=TawyzЙfh–}}sjc hdRCJ\hdR6CJ\hm95>*CJ\hm96CJ]hdRhdR5B*CJ\phhdR5B*CJ\phhdRhdRCJ\ hdRCJhm95>*B*CJ\phhm95B*CJ\phhm956B*CJ\]ph hJCJ hm9CJhm95CJ\hm956CJ\]&FMڗzЙhlܚ QX'< & FWgddR & FW & FS & FSgddR & FS & FShl̚Кښܚ4BZj GPQXٜ&<؝qÞŶŦŶŜŜŶŶymh]W5B*CJphh]Wh]W5>*B*CJphh]Whm9B*CJph h]WCJhm9B*CJphhm956B*CJ\]phhm95>*B*CJ\phhm95B*CJ\phhm95CJH*\hm95CJ\ hm9CJhm95>*B*CJ\ph hm9aJ%HQР&;=>s~ͤԤr & FS & FS & FSgd]W & FSgd]W & FSÞHPQ %&;(.39>Uers-[}äͤr`~۹۹ۊۊ۹۹ۊۊ۹ۄ۹ۄ{hdRhdRCJ hdRCJhm96CJ]hm95>*B*CJ\phhm95B*CJ\phhm95CJH*\hm95CJ\hm95>*B*CJ\phhm9B*CJph hm9CJh]Wh]W56B*CJphh]Wh]W5B*CJph0~Ŧ̦ΦӦԦ5EFGVhr0NR^bϬӬrrrrrhm95>*B*CJ\phhdR5B*CJ\phhdRhdRCJ\hS]hS]CJhm9B*CJph h;zCJhm956B*CJ\]phhm95CJH*\hm95CJ\hm95>*B*CJ\phhm96CJ] hm9CJhm95B*CJ\ph,ԦFGry˨1ӭ̮-6 & FSgdS] & FS & FS!&ӭ{ˮڮ,-"6Dưʰ:<fLȳԳ$24ݼݼݼݼݩh[h[6CJh[h[5CJ\ h[CJh[h[CJhm95CJH*\hm95CJ\hm95>*B*CJ\phhm96CJ] hm9CJhm95>*B*CJ\phhm95B*CJ\ph16DZ<f4Եζ϶[ ݸ޸߸  & FUgd & FUgds[ & FU & FUgd & FS & FS & FSgd[ & FSgd[ & FSҵԵ!$0;_Ͷζ϶ȷ -5Gjtڸݸ޸ܮ{rh[hU{ hs[CJhhm96>*CJ]hhm9>*CJhm96CJ] hCJhh5>*CJh5>*CJhhCJh5>*B*CJ(aJ(phh5B*CJ\ph"h[hm956B*CJ\phhm95>*B*CJ\ph hm9CJhm95B*CJ\phhm956B*CJ\]ph޸  C̹)*78|ƻ\ar8B  $%WXY|ӲөӣӜӣӻӻӻӻٓ}wnwhs[hs[CJ hs[CJ hs[>*CJhs[5>*CJ hBCJhBhBCJ hm9>*CJ h-CJh-h-CJhm96CJ] hCJhhCJhm95CJ\ hm9CJhh5>*CJh3bq5>*CJh5>*CJhS]5>*CJ*̹*8|ƻviɽ:k4  %X & FUgdBgd & FUgd & FUgd- & FUgd & FUgdXY|U{['?]GVq & FUgds[ & FUgds[ & FUgds[ & FUgds[ & FU  gds[ & FUgds[ & FU pgds[ & FUgds[ "#%36TUYzMSYZ_&'>?ƿ߶ЬИߘИЂж{ hs[5CJhh6CJ] hB6CJ hBCJhs[hh>*CJhhhh6CJhs[hs[>*CJhhhhCJ h->*CJhhhh>*CJ hhCJhm96CJ] hs[>*CJ hs[CJ hm9CJhs[hm95>*CJ].?YZ]cdGM#-/8=QZlv 8Ef3<PTU[ꠗ~ꇼhm96CJ] h-CJhs[hm95CJhBhBCJ hBCJhs[hm9>*CJh-hm95>*CJ hm9>*CJhm95CJ\hs[5CJ\hX.hX.CJ hX.CJ hs[CJ hm9CJ hs[>*CJhs[5>*CJ1:h:)J|abl & FUgd- & FUgd- & FUgd- & FUgd- & FUgds[ & FUgds[ & FUgds[[\x $)LPZ!qDG{|`bkl㲬ݣݸhm95>*B*CJ\phhX.h-CJhX.hX.CJ hIBCJ hX.CJh-5>*CJh-h-5>*CJh-h-CJ hm9>*CJ h-CJ hm9CJh-hm95>*CJh-hm95CJ3)9Cz{  2ENr  <L[&04=? %'Cڽڽʞʞʮڽhh5>*CJ\hhhhCJ hh6CJhm95>*B*CJ\phhm95B*CJ\ph hhCJhm95CJH*\hm95CJ\hm96CJ] hm9CJhm95B*CJ\ph:{ r 074.C & FSgdB^gdh & FSgdh & FS & FS & FS & FVV`"79BGN_rvpǺyly\MhB5>*B*CJ\phhX.hX.5B*CJ\phhX.5B*CJ\phhB5B*CJ\ph"hBhm95>*B*CJ\ph%hBhm956>*B*CJ\phhm95>*B*CJ\phhm95B*CJ\phhm95>*CJ\hm95CJ\hBhBCJ\hBhB5>*CJ\hB5CJ\ hm9CJ29lxz+QM*+| & FS & FSgdX. & FSgdX. & FS & FS & FS")+2#jklvz+IMNP̵̆}qh̵[hX.5B*CJ\phhX.5CJ\hX.hX.5CJ\hX.hX.CJhX.hm95CJhhhhCJ hhCJ hm9>*CJhm95>*B*CJ\phhm95B*CJ\phhm95CJH*\hm95CJ\hm95>*B*CJ\phhhhm95>*CJ\hm96CJ] hm9CJ#"MO'+]m|Az|}!3V߻ߟulbhh3bq>*CJh3bq6CJ]hh3bq5>*CJh3bq5>*CJ h3bqCJh3bq5>*B*CJ(aJ(phh3bq5B*CJ\phhm95>*B*CJ\ph hBCJ hIBCJhm95>*B*CJ\phhm95CJ\ hm9CJhX.5B*CJ\phhm95B*CJ\ph$|_{|}Gn;I  & FX & FX & FX & FUgd3bq & FUgd3bqgd3bq & FS & FSV`l",:;GHIN WXhⶰ⪰zmzdh/X5CJ\h3bqh3bq5>*CJ\h3bq5>*CJ\h/X5>*CJ\h3bq5CJ\ jhm9CJhohm9>*CJ hm9CJ hoCJh3bqho>*CJ h&'CJh3bqh3bqCJh3bqh3bq>*CJh3bq5>*CJ h3bqCJhh3bq>*CJhh3bq6>*CJ]& WX"T35P & FRgd}o & FXgd/X & FXgd/X & FXgd/X & FXgd/X & FXgd3bq & FXgd3bq & FXgd3bq & FX!"STX&._b˿˿ק}v h}o6CJ h}oCJ h/X6CJ h/X>*CJh/Xh/X>*CJh}oh/X5>*CJh/Xh/X5CJ\h3bqh/X5CJ\h/Xh3bq5CJ\h}oh3bq>*CJ\ h/XCJ\ h3bqCJ\h3bqh3bq5CJ\h/X6CJ] h/XCJ.iprv| &HPANRamO\ýyh/Xh/X>*CJ h/X>*CJ hm9>*CJ hm96CJh}ohm9>*CJh<hm956>*CJ]h<hm95>*CJ hm9CJh}ohzT5>*CJh/X5CJ\ h/XCJ]h/X6CJ]h/Xh/X5CJ\ h/XCJ h}oCJ/"&efj*0zwmg[hRh}$5>*CJ h<CJhR6CJ\]hRhR6>*CJhRhm9CJh<hR5>*CJhRhR>*CJhRhRCJ hRCJh}oh}oCJ h}o5CJhR5>*CJh}oh}o>*CJh}oh}o5>*CJh}o5>*CJ h}oCJ hm9CJh/Xh/X>*CJ Pfz_u[\ & FXgdR & FXgd}$ & FXgd}$ & FXgd}$ & FXgd}$ & FXgdR & FXgd}o & FXgd}ogd}o & FRgd}o  2!"^_d$3ʨxobhRh}$5>*CJ\h|PPh}$CJh}$h}$>*CJ\h|PPh}$>*CJ\h|PPh}$CJ\ h}$CJ\ h}$>*CJ h}$CJ h}$5CJh|PPh}$5>*CJh}oh}$CJh|PPh}$>*CJh}$h}$56>*CJhRh}$>*CJhRh}$5>*CJh}$5>*CJ&2<>JntuJ[hr[jt})*8Zhou{}ƼƳƳ̛̛̤yryiyhm96CJ] hm9>*CJ hm9CJhRhm95>*CJh}$h}$CJ h}$CJ]h}$6CJ]h}$5>*CJ h<CJhmihRCJh<hR>*CJ hRCJ h}$CJh|PPh}$6CJ\ hsZ~CJ\h|PPh}$CJ\h|PPh}$CJ h}$CJ\&\j*} :I   & FXgdsZ~ & FXgdsZ~ & FXgd}$ & FXgd}$gd< & FXgd}o & FXgdR & FXgdR & FXgd}$ & FXgd}$ & FXgd|PP}CWd~   &LSVӹӳӳͧ|u|ocZh}$6CJ]h}$h}$5>*CJ h}oCJ hsZ~6CJ hsZ~CJ h}$CJhsZ~h}$>*CJh<h<5>*CJh<5>*CJ h<CJ hoCJ hjCJhRhm9>*CJhRhR>*CJ hRCJ hm9CJhRhRCJhRhR>*CJ\hRhRCJ\ hRCJ\ Vx{~!+-:=?I|fj $ 6 >    Żﬥyphm/hsZ~CJhsZ~h}$CJ hsZ~6CJh}$h}$5>*CJhsZ~hsZ~>*CJ hsZ~CJ hsZ~5CJhsZ~5>*CJ h@:!CJh}$h}$CJ] h}$CJ]h}$6CJ] h}$>*CJh}$5>*CJh}$h}$5CJ h}$CJh}$h}$>*CJ)   5  P Q h  2jd :p;q & FXgdQb & FXgdQbgd3bq & FX & FX & FXgdsZ~ & FXgdsZ~ & FXgdsZ~ & FXgdsZ~   /         4 5 ?      P Q d       2s)dm 񛔛񛔛shsZ~hsZ~5>*CJ h3bqCJhm96CJ] hoCJ hm9>*CJ hm9CJhsZ~hm95>*CJhm/hm/>*CJh}ohsZ~CJ hsZ~6CJ hsZ~>*CJ hsZ~5CJhsZ~5>*CJhsZ~6CJ]hsZ~hsZ~>*CJ hsZ~CJhsZ~hsZ~CJ- 89opz|~"+,8;q|m-w붪붪듍~hzThzTCJ hzTCJ hsZ~CJ h9CJ hm9>*CJhQbhm9>*CJhQbhQb5>*CJhQbhQb56>*CJhQbhm95>*CJhQbhQb6>*CJ hQb>*CJhQbhQbCJ hQbCJ hm9CJhQb5>*CJ1 CmWx[2 & F] & F^ & F_ & FXgdQb & FXgdQbgdQbgdsZ~ & FXgd9 & FXgdQb ).Z[ky~12L\abk"#3JO,BRWeuz %1AQVirhm95CJ\ hm9CJhm96CJ]hm95B*CJ\phhm95>*B*CJ\phP2#,W1X` B!!!'"""""$$$% & FZ & FZ & FZ & F]WXev{  _ ` w     A!B!P!a!f!t!}!!!!!!!!!! """%"'"A"Q"V""""""$$$%%;%>%X%%%\&l&z&&&̽ hm96CJhm95>*B*CJ\phhm95B*CJ\phhm95>*B*CJ\phhm95CJ\hm96CJ] hm9CJC%%[&\&&&2'3'p'w'l(p)d*y*M++-=-----.. & FY & FY & FZ & FZgdm/ & FZ & FZ & F\ & F\ & F[ & F[&&&&&''"'1'3'['k'w' ("(k(l(((((o)p) *-*c*y****)+L+M+^,`,,,---ивиЩиви}}k}"hm/hm/56B*CJ\phhm/hm/5B*CJ\phhm/5B*CJ\phhm956B*CJ\phhm/hm/CJ hm/CJhm95CJ\hm95>*B*CJ\ph hm9CJhm95>*B*CJ\phhm95B*CJ\phhmi5B*CJ\ph'------P.R.../////00G0q0{000001/1112222233:3;3A33334ƶƧƧƧٖٖwhm95B*CJ\aJphhm/CJaJhm9CJaJhm90JCJaJ hm9>*CJhm95>*B*CJ\phhm956B*CJ\]phhm95B*CJ\ph hoCJhm95CJ\hm95>*B*CJ\ph hm9CJhm96CJ])..////002222;333{444/5556 & FZgdmi & FZgd|d & FZgd|d & FZ & FZ & F[ & F[ & FY & FY & FY44\4z4{4444444435B555556H7k77777C8ϿςueueuSuChmihmi5B*CJ\ph"hmihmi5>*B*CJ\phh|dhmi5B*CJ\phhmi5B*CJ\ph h|d5>*B*CJ\aJphh|d56>*B*CJ\phh|d5>*B*CJ\phh|d5B*CJ\phh|dh|d5B*CJ\phh|d5B*CJ\aJphhm95B*CJ\aJph#hm956B*CJ\]aJph6S6677|8}8~88888&9;9B:C:f:{::: ;';f;T<< & F\ & F\ & FY & FYgd|d & FZgdmi & FZgdmiC8O8s8y8z8{8|8}8~8888889!9:9;9A:B:Q:a:z:{::::: ;;';-;Q;e;f;t;; < <S<T<<<ľ{rlll hmiCJhm96CJ]hm956B*CJ\]phhm95B*CJ\phhm95CJ\ hm9CJhm95>*B*CJ\phhm9CJaJ h|dCJh|d5B*CJ\phhmi5B*CJ\phhmihmi5B*CJ\ph"hmihmi56B*CJ\ph*<<>??3?:??@@=DD EOEaFFFFFGGGGGH=H & FY & FY & FY & FY & F\ & F\ & F\<<<<<<<<<<<R=T=a===>>>>>>>>???.?:?l????????@@@@@=DDDDͼͶͭ͘͘͞Ͷ٘و~hzThzTCJ\ hzTCJ\hzThzTCJ hzTCJhm95>*B*CJ\phhm96CJ] h@:!CJhmihm9>*CJ hm9>*CJ hm9CJ hmiCJhm95CJ\hm956B*CJ\]phhm95B*CJ\ph-DDDD E E!E$E&E8ENEFFFFFFFGGGGGHHII$I*IcIIIIIIIIJJ;JҺҫҢҫҢҢppfëҢhm9B*CJph hm95>*B*CJ\aJph#hm956B*CJ\]aJphhm95B*CJ\aJphhm95CJ\hm95>*B*CJ\phhm96CJ]hm95>*B*CJ\ph hm9CJh@:!5B*CJ\phhm95B*CJ\phhzT5B*CJ\ph'=HHHHIIJJ,KkKKKKLLLYMMMNOPQSS & FYgdzT & FY & FYgdo & FY & FY & F\ & F\;J=JvJwJJJJJJKKK+K,KjKKKKKKLJLLLuLwLLL2M4MXMYMMMMMNNNNN:O;OOOeOfOOOPP뿸ީީޙީީތ|hoho5B*CJ\phho5B*CJ\ph jhm95B*CJ\phhm95>*B*CJ\ph hoCJ\hohoCJ\ hoCJhm95>*B*CJ\phhm95B*CJ\phhm95CJ\ hm9CJ hzTCJ0PPQQQQQRRSSSSSSS TgThTTTTUUUoUpUUUUUUUVlVVVVVVVV쭠쭠qhhm96CJ]hm95>*B*CJ\ph jhm95B*CJ\phhm956B*CJ\]phhm95B*CJ\phhm95CJ\hm95>*B*CJ\phhzThzT6CJhzThzTCJ hzTCJ hzT6CJ hm9>*CJ hm9CJho5B*CJ\ph(ST ThTTTUUUUUVVVVVKWWW=XXXXX*YY^ & FZ & FY & FY & FZ & FZVVWW*X+X=XdXjXXXXXXYY]Y_YYYZ[[$[)[3[[[[[[P\`\i\k\y\\\\\]].]?]X]Y]j]t]]]U^^^q^hm956B*CJ\]phhzT5B*CJ\phhm/hm/CJ hm/CJhm95>*B*CJ\phhm96CJ] jhm95B*CJ\phhm95B*CJ\ph hm9CJhm95CJ\4YYZ[[[[[j\k\\\]]D]Y]^^^^____$a$  & F[ * & F[^ & FY & FY & FZ & FZq^^^^^^^^_____ asbtbbb-c:cOcPc{c|c}ccccccccc>dd޹}sisib h>*CJhh&>*CJhh>*CJh&'5>*B*CJ(aJ(ph hPCJ hP>*CJ hCJh&'5B*CJ\phhm95B*CJ2\phh!5B*CJ2\phhm95>*B*CJ\phhm95CJ\ hm9CJhm95B*CJ\phhm95>*B*CJ\ph"_ atbb c-ccc@dddddJeeffhiFiikl & Fagd6 & Fagd6 & Fa & Fa & Fagdgd & F` & F` & F` & F`gdddd*e6eFeHeJeeee1fCffffffffhNhjhlhthhhhhhhhкyocyZZQhm95CJ\hm96CJ]h6h5>*CJh6h5CJh6hm95>*CJ hm9>*CJ hm9CJhh5>*CJhSfh5>*CJhh>*CJ hCJhh>*CJ\h6>*CJ\h>*CJ\h5>*CJ\h5B*CJ\phh5>*B*CJ(aJ(phhii*CJ hm9>*CJ heCJ hm95CJh6h65>*CJh6h65CJh6hm95>*CJ hm9CJh6>*CJ\h65CJ\ h6CJh3)h6>*CJh6h6CJ\h6h6>*CJ\h6h65CJ\ h6CJ\+llfmnGptppp qqq6rrr6sMsNslsst9uu & FagdHY & Fagd6 & Fagd6 & Fagd6 & Fagd6 & Fa & Fa & Fagd6 & Fa,o`orooFpGpsptpzppppppppp qqq2q8qEqOq^q`qqqqqqqqqqqqqr5rrrrrsss5s8sLsMsNsksls|sշժՠ̋h6h65>*CJhm96CJ]h6h6>*CJ h6>*CJ hSfCJhfhm95>*CJh6h6CJh65>*CJ h6CJ hm9CJ\ h6CJ\hm95CJ\ hm9CJ hm9>*CJ6|sssstttt#tAtItOtftrt~tttuu!ubuuuv^vjvvvwFwLw#x)xKx(y)y\y]y~u~l`hh5>*CJh5>*CJhBhBCJ hBCJhHYhB>*CJ\h3)hBCJ\ hHYCJ\hHYhB5>*CJ\ h{CJhHYhHY5>*CJhHYhm95>*CJhHYhm9>*CJhHYhHY>*CJ hHYCJ hHY>*CJ h6>*CJ hm9CJ h6CJ%u#x)y*y]yyFz{%|o|||!}A}}}}\~~~b & FagdCK & FagdCK & FagdCK & Fa & Fa & FagdHY & Fa & FagdtT & Fagd & FagdB & FagdB]yiyjyyyyFzjzzzzzzzz {t{{{{"|%|&|+|0|4|C|I|X|Z|m||||ུத{qg^hCKhCKCJhSfhm9>*CJhHYhm95CJhSfhHY56>*CJhHYhHY5>*CJhHYhm9>*CJ hm9CJhHYhHY>*CJ hHYCJhm95CJ]hm956CJ hHY5CJhtThtTCJhHYhtT>*CJ hm95CJ hCKCJ hm9>*CJhHYhm95>*CJ!|||} }A}q}w}y}~}}}}}}}}}}~F~M~R~Z~[~\~j~n~o~~~~~)TYaԸԱԨԨԨԒԒԒxhCKhm95>*CJ hm95CJ hm9>*CJ hm9CJhCK>*CJ\ hCKCJ\hCK6CJ] hCK>*CJhCK5>*CJhCKhCKCJhCK56CJ] hCKCJ hCK5CJhCKhCK>*CJhtThCKCJhCKhCK5>*CJ.bG*|?ʇ & Fagdfgdf & FagdSf & Fagdf & FagdCK & Fagdf & Fagdf & Fa & Fa & Faހ%&',46;=BGX)*{|҂ U_emoڃۃ Z5=¸¯۟ۨ۟۟۟zhCKhm9CJhCK5>*CJhCKhCKCJhCKhCK>*CJhtThCKCJ hCK>*CJhfhfCJh3?uhf5CJ hfCJhfhf5CJhm96CJ] hCKCJ hm9>*CJ hm9CJ hCK5CJhCKhm95CJ0=>fg}~u|>?EMQkqȇɇʇ   (PȾ屫znng`g`g` hm9CJ\ hfCJ\hfhm96CJ]hfhm9>*CJhfhm9CJhfhfCJhfhf5>*CJhf5>*CJ hfCJ hSfCJ h3?u6CJh3?uh3?u6CJh3?uh3?uCJh3?uh3?u5CJhfh3?u5CJ h3?uCJhCKhm9CJ hm9CJ hCKCJ%Pz &79;@E߉=JfOTыfz#%K Nsu޳ޭާޭޭޭޭޭޞ jhm9CJ h"\CJ hRNCJhm96CJ]hfhf>*CJ hm96CJhfhm9>*CJ hf>*CJ hm9CJ hfCJ hm95CJ hm9CJ\ hfCJ\>G߉bފDы.%K*L {|ϑ & Fa & FagdRN & FagdRN & Fagdf & Fagdf & Fa & FagdfĐ  {|ΑϑMQϒߒ  %5IΓ͔ؓٓה5;=BCDScmǕȕו˿򛢛򶑶hm95>*CJ\ hm95CJhm956CJhm95CJ\aJhm95CJ\hm956CJ\]hm9>*B*CJphhRNhRN5>*CJhRN5>*CJ hRNCJ hm9CJ hm9>*CJ7/F DȕvU/ZGϜy$ & Fca$$ & Fha$$a$^ & FagdRN & Fa & Faוؕt}gprwyBKMRX_ltuv 3@BGMTUcr|}./@P츪hm956CJ\]aJhm95CJ\aJhm956CJ\] hm9>*CJhm956CJ hm95CJ hm9CJhm95CJ\hm956CJ\CPZÚǚ͚8ACHJMRYZop~#%+-27=FGUgqΜϜ 3<xyz}hm9>*B*CJphhS]>*B*CJphhm956CJ\] hm95CJ hm9CJ\ hm9>*CJhm956CJhm9B*CJphhm95CJ\ hm9CJ>yz{|}Ǟ$-I^N\z,j $ & Fda$gde $ & Fda$gdtT$ & Fda$$ & Fda$$ & Fda$$a$ƞǞў؞$Y[,-H^djMNաڡ<\^z|@J,ڹڹ㜏ssshtThe6B*CJphhtTheB*CJphhtThtTB*CJphhehm95CJ\ hm96B*CJ\]aJphhe5CJ\hm9>*B*CJphhm956CJ]aJhm95CJ\hm95CJaJ hm9CJhm9B*CJ\aJph*,H@BP>x 01Fųsgs[Ohm9B*CJaJphhtTB*CJaJphhtTB*CJ\phhtThtTB*CJ\phh&5CJ\aJhm95CJ\aJ hm9CJhm9>*B*CJphhm95CJ\"htThe5>*B*CJ\phhtThe>*B*CJ\ph jhtThe5>*CJ\htThtT5>*CJ\htThe5>*CJ\jx1FOiku689elCX$ & Fba$$ & Fba$$a$ & F gd3) & F  & F $ & Fea$$ & Fea$$ & Fea$NOhiy~Ojkrtu5689K[lBCWXdööö}}qðjذc} hm9CJ\ hS5CJhm9>*B*CJphhm9B*CJphh3)h3)5B*CJ\phh3)5B*CJ\phh3)hm95CJ\ hm9CJhm95B*CJ\phhm95CJ\hm956CJ]aJ hm95CJhm95CJaJhm9B*CJaJphhm9B*CJ\ph"djotop >fz0>B *wx¶ķŷ;ͱ͕~qe\~\~\~S\~\~h"\5CJ\hm95CJ\hm9>*B*CJphhm95B*CJ\ph hm9CJhShS5CJ hS5CJhShm956CJhehS6>*B*CJphheheB*CJphhehe>*B*CJphhehSB*CJphhShm9CJ hm95CJhm9B*CJphhm96B*CJph Xp0#*xŷ bx,6 $ & Fba$gd3)$ & Fba$$ & Fba$$a$ $ & Fba$gdS$ & Fba$YZ~ܸ  abw+VZ*,>B¾ľ26vjvcvc h3)5CJh3)h3)56CJh3)h3)5CJh3)h3)5CJ\h3)h3)56CJ\ h3)h3)>*B*CJaJphh3)h3)B*CJaJphh3)hm9B*CJaJphhm95>*CJ\hm9>*B*CJphhm9B*CJph hm9CJh3)5CJ\hm95CJ\&6FuvBDln %5GT^Zbкбб٥ٞ닂xhBhB5CJhm95>*CJ hm95CJhm96B*CJph hm9CJ\hBhB5CJ\hB5CJ\hm9>*B*CJphh3)h3)5CJhm95CJ\ hm9CJhm9B*CJaJphhm9B*CJphh3)B*CJph+vDnb"#HO$ & Fba$$ & Fba$$a$$ & Fba$ $ & Fba$gd3)bprt@g0!".=Hyz~ob jhm9B*CJphhehm9>*B*CJphhS]hS]CJ he5CJhehe5CJ heCJhm96B*CJphhm9B*CJph hm9CJ\ hm9CJhm95CJ\hm9>*B*CJph hm9>*CJhm95>*CJ hB5CJ hm95CJhBhm956CJ#OBCnhi:dLZ  $ & Fea$$ & Fea$$ & Fea$$a$$ & Fba$$ & Fba$$a$gdS] $ & Fba$gde"')28>BCRdnhiw "Mmp 4dfLXżżyhm9B*CJaJphh3?uh3?u5CJ h3?u5CJhtT5CJ\hm96B*CJphhm9B*CJph hm9CJ\hm95CJ\hm9>*B*CJphhm95>*B*CJphhm956CJ hm95CJ hm9CJhm9>*B*CJph+Xhr|YZ  +J `%"%÷ޭʙޓޭvvvl`hm9>*B*CJphheB*CJphhm96B*CJph he5CJhehe5CJ heCJ hm9CJ\hm95>*B*CJphhm9B*CJphhm9>*B*CJph hm95CJhm95CJ\hm95CJ\aJ hm9CJhm9B*CJaJphhm96B*CJ]aJph$ 5J %D   9@hz$ & Fba$ $ & Fba$gde$ & Fba$ $ & Fba$gde$ & Fba$$ & Fda$$ & Fda$$a$ 08B'I  !/@g8>z𿳧wp hm9CJ\hm96CJ] jhm9CJ hBCJhB5CJ\ hm9CJhm95CJ\hm9>*B*CJphhS]>*B*CJphhm95>*B*CJphhehm95>*CJ h"\5CJhehe5CJ he5CJ hm95CJhm956CJ)z67ah6efHxyZ$^a$$ & Fda$$ & Fda$$ & Fda$$ & Fea$$ & Fea$$a$$ & Fba$$ & Fba$!*EG]i567EWh46n &ǻǻǴǨ{tj^O^hm96B*CJ]aJphhm9B*CJaJphh3?uh3?u5CJ h3?u5CJh3?uhm9CJh3?u5CJ\hm9>*B*CJph hm9CJhm95CJ\hm9>*B*CJph hm95CJhm96B*CJphhm9B*CJphhBhB5B*CJ\phhBhB>*B*CJ\phhBhBB*CJ\ph&08VX367_dfw15GHV^mtwxyYZ;<ĸĥįĥįįxgx hm96B*CJ\]aJphhm9B*CJ\aJphhtT5CJ\hm956CJ\]h3?uB*CJphhm9B*CJphhm95CJ\hm9>*B*CJph hm9CJh9B*CJaJphhm9>*B*CJaJphhm9B*CJaJphhm96B*CJ]aJph(<WXb[,[ & Fagdb & Fagdb & Fagd6 & Fagd6 & Fagd6$a$$a$gd6$ & Fda$$ & Fda$<=WX".0N~|pg`Vh6hm9>*CJ hm9CJ]hm95CJ]h6h65>*CJh66CJ\h6CJ\]h6h6CJ]h6h6CJh65CJ] h6>*CJ h6CJh65>*CJ hm9CJhm9B*CJphhm9CJaJh6>*B*CJ(aJ(phh6CJaJh95CJ\hm95CJ\!49AIOabcZ[hj "*,69VZ^{t hbCJ]hbhb5CJaJhbhb>*CJhbhm9>*CJhbhm95>*CJh6h6>*CJ hbCJhm95CJ]h6h6CJh6CJ\]hm96CJ\hm9CJ\] h_CJh6hm9>*CJ hm9CJ h6CJ-B>Z[ ".7IKZl~٬٢٢Ҙyppyppphm95CJ\hm956CJ\]hm9>*B*CJph hm95CJhbhm9>*CJhbhb>*CJhbCJ\aJhb5CJ\aJhb5CJ\hb5CJaJ hb>*CJ hbCJhbCJ\]hbhm95CJaJ hCJ hm9CJ*JKZ@j#fg$ & Ffa$ $ & Ffa$gd3?u$ & Ffa$$ & Ffa$$a$$ & Fca$$a$^ & Fagd6 & Fagdb&@j"`.c~!"#'bcgkq`JLTVtY[赩yrkk hm95CJ hm9CJ\hm9>*B*CJph h5CJhhB*CJphhh5CJ hCJh>*B*CJphhS]>*B*CJphh3?uh3?u5CJ h3?u5CJhm9>*B*CJphhm9B*CJph hm9CJhm95CJ\h3?u5CJ\*ghijkx`TV,678R$ & Fga$$ & Fga$ $ & Faa$gd $ & Faa$gd $ & Faa$gd$a$[8l5678QRU      % ,     / 0 1 |vmmi_X hbCJ\hnhm9CJ\hm9hm96CJ] h@CJhC'h@5CJ hC'CJhC'hC'CJhnhnCJ hnCJhnB*CJphhn>*B*CJ(aJ(ph h!5CJhhm956CJ hm9CJhhm9>*B*CJ\phhm9B*CJ\ph hm9CJ\ hm95CJ!R  [  0 1 ^  E   Skf? & Figd%E  & Figd44 & Figdb & Figdbgdb & Figdn & Fi1 ^   E L     RS  ;Ojkҽuooiob\ h%E CJ hm9>*CJ hlMCJ h44CJhnhm9>*CJ hnCJhm96CJ] hm9CJhn>*CJ\hm95CJ\hnhn5>*CJ\hn5>*CJ\ hnCJ\h44hbCJ\hb hbCJhbhbCJ\hbhb>*CJ\ hbCJ\hb5>*CJ\"(fxfn*4?Jlmq efgúݺݭݭֺ֒֒͜{ֺͺhm95>*CJ\h%E hm96CJ\]h%E hm9CJ\h%E h%E CJ\ h%E 5CJ h44CJ hm9>*CJhm95CJ\h%E 5>*CJ\h%E 5CJ\ h%E CJ\ hm9CJ h%E CJh%E h%E 56CJh%E h%E 5CJ-?mN$%Uigd44 & FigdQQY & FigdQQY & Fi & Figd%E  & Fi & Fi<f23LMNRh|ukddd] h%E >*CJ hm9CJ\h%E 5>*CJ\ hJH5CJ hJHCJhJHhm95CJhm96CJ] hm9CJh%E hm95CJ h%E CJhm95CJ\ hQQYCJ\h%E h%E >*CJ\h%E 5CJ\hC'5CJ\ h%E CJ\h%E h%E 6CJ\]h%E h%E CJ\hCa5CJ\ hq)M^ !2ELMlm"#ᙏቂ{uuuuuu hm9CJ hQQY>*CJ hxY>*CJ hxYCJhQQYhQQYCJ\ hQQYCJ\ hQQY5CJhC'hm9CJ hm9CJ]hm95CJ] h%E CJ] hQQYCJ]hCahQQYCJhQQYhQQY>*CJ hQQYCJh%E h%E CJ h%E >*CJh%E 5>*CJ,#$%TUiqrz<>ksuvﺍxoh__ﺓhm96CJ\ h44CJ\h44hm9CJhm956CJ\]hm95CJ\ hW CJ hCaCJhm96CJ] h44>*CJhm956>*CJ hm9>*CJ hm9CJhm956CJhm96CJ\] hm9CJ\h44h445>*CJh445>*CJ h44CJh44hm95CJ%~>k f  !!!A"a"""##$%%%% & Fk^ & Fi & Fi & Fi & Figd44 & Fi  ( H   O!!!!!!!! ","#$$$%2%4%C%H%%%%%%%%%&&(&.&c&d&|&}&&&&&''"'('a'x'''''''''^(hm9>*B*CJphhm95>*B*CJ\ph"hm956>*B*CJ\]phhm95CJ\ hbCJhm96CJ]hm96CJ\ hm9CJ h44CJ hCaCJ>%%d&&a''_(`(((())*+,,,,n---///0 & Fj & Fj & F & F & F & Fk^(_(`(}(((((((()))!)1)3)H)R)S)u)))***++++,,,,,,,,,,------].`..״律״}}hm95>*B*CJ\phhm9>*B*CJphhm95>*B*CJ\ph hm9>*CJ hm9aJhm95B*CJ\phhm96CJ] hCaCJ hm9CJH*hm95CJ\hm95>*B*CJ\ph hm9CJhm9B*CJph0..///(////// 0000003111111111|3333333440565566g666677777ἰἰἰἂxhC'hm9>*CJ hC'CJhC'hC'CJ hC'5CJhm95CJ\hm95>*B*CJ\phhm9>*B*CJph hm9CJhm956B*CJ\]phhm95>*B*CJ\phhm95B*CJ\ph"hCahm95>*B*CJ\ph/00m000311111|3~333655677778P9e99 & Fi & FjgdC' & Fj gdC' & Fj & Fj777777888O9P9e999:::/;;;<< << <.<3<4<;<< ==>>>>>ƽְְߕְvlv]h=5>*B*CJ(aJ(phhC'h0zCJ\hC'hCaCJ\ hS]CJhxYhxY5B*CJphhxY5B*CJphhm95>*B*CJ\phhm95B*CJ\phhC'hC'CJ hC'CJhC'hC'6CJhm95CJ\ hm9CJhm95>*B*CJ\phhm9>*B*CJph$9::0;;<<< < <4<;<<< ==>>>S@@@AAAAgd= & F & Fj & Fj & FigdxY & Fi & Fi>>?J??@Q@R@S@@@AAAMAOAUAVAYA`AaAsAAAAAAAAA B9BOBQBRBxByB~BBBBBC1C7C컵桗}}wmwh[Bh[B>*CJ h[BCJ hm95CJh=h=5CJh=5CJ\h=h=>*CJ h=>*CJ h2CJ hm9>*CJ hKCJh=hm9CJ h=5CJ h%CJ hCoCJh}h}CJ h}CJ h=CJ hm9CJh=5B*CJ\ph*AABQBRByBB1C'DDDDD.EEFtFFGGGHHHH & Flgd2 & Fl & Flgd= & Fl^gd= & Flgd= & Flgd=7CgCtCCC&D'DDDDDDDDDDDDDDDDDDDEE-E:EAEEEEEFFtFyF{FFFFʾʡ񡕡||rk hm9>*CJh2h2>*CJhm96CJ] h2CJh=hm9>*CJh=hm95>*CJ hm9CJhm96CJ\ hm9CJ\ hm95CJh2h=5>*CJh2hm95>*CJh=h=5>*CJh.'5>*CJ h}CJ h=CJh}h}CJ)FFFFFGGGGGGGGGGGGGHHH+H@HGHHHTHHHHHHH I IIIIMIɿ岩ypibib hm9CJ\ h2CJ\h25CJ\h2h25>*CJ\h2hm95>*CJ\hm96CJ] hxYCJ h%>*CJh%5>*CJ h%CJ hm9>*CJh2hm9>*CJh2h2>*CJ h2CJ h[BCJ hKCJ hm9CJh2hm9CJh2hm9>*CJ\%HHOII?KKLdMNPNNNOfOgOOOOOPPPPQgd[B & FlgdCo & Flgd2 & Flgdn[ & Flgd} & Fl & Fl & FlMINIOITIjIpIIIIIIIIIIIIIMJNJWJXJJJK>KgKKKKKKLLLbMdMNTNeNhNiNwNyNſ}wnwh}h}CJ h}CJh2hm95>*CJ\ hn[CJ h[BCJ h2CJh2hm95>*CJ h[B>*CJh[Bh[BCJ hm9>*CJ hm9CJhm9>*CJ\h2>*CJ\h[Bh[B>*CJ\ h[BCJ\ h2CJ\ hm9CJ\ hm95CJ+yNNNNNNNO#O4OTOfOgOOOOOOOOOOOOOOPPPPPPPPP˿}vl`lh[BhxY5>*CJh[BhxY>*CJ h[B>*CJ h VCJh[BhCo5>*CJ hxYCJh[Bh[B>*CJh[B5>*CJ\h.'h[B5>*CJ\h[B>*CJ\h.'hm9>*CJ\h.'hm9CJ\h.'h[BCJ\h[B5>*CJ h[BCJ hCoCJ h2CJ hm9CJ"PPPPPQ'Q4Q>QQQ-RMRPR_RbRcRsR|RRRRRRSSSkSSSSSSSSSSSTTT@TBTDTZTUUﾲ݈wh}h}CJ\ h[BCJ\h}hm95CJ\h[B5CJ\hm95CJ\h[Bh[B>*CJ\hn[hn[5CJ\hn[>*CJ\ hCoCJhm96CJ] hm9>*CJ h[BCJh[Bh[B5>*CJ hm9CJh[Bhm9>*CJ.QdRSSSDTUVOVPVQVRVSVTVUVVVVWJWX5YYGZ & Flgd[B & Flgd[B & Flgd[Bgd[B & Flgd} & Fl & Fl & Flgd[B & FlUDVMVNVOVPVVVVVVVVVVVW WW:WXX X)X/XIYKYZ[2[=[i[p[u[|[(\B\C\E\S\U\ȼtehm95>*B*CJ\phhm9>*B*CJphhm95B*CJ\ph h`KCJhm95>*CJ\ hKCJ jhm9CJh[Bhm9>*CJ h[BCJh[Bh[B5>*CJh[B5>*CJhS]5>*CJ h[B>*CJh[Bhm9CJ hm9>*CJhm96CJ] hm9CJ'GZZ2[[C\E\U\\]] ^^'___`%aaabbbbhc$ & Fga$$ & Fga$$ & Fma$$a$ & Flgd[B & Flgd[B & Flgd[BU\m\|\\\\\\\\\]]1]A]H]J]L][]b]]]]]]]] ^ ^^/^4^C^H^^^^^^^^^^&_'_>_P_\__________ ``'`2`:`L`S``````````````$a%a2aBahCo5CJ\hm95CJH*\ hm9CJH* hm9CJhm95CJ\hm956CJ\]PBaLaaaaabbbbbbbbc'cZcccgchcicycccccddddffggghεΦεΞvi\hCohCoB*CJphhCohm9B*CJphhCohCoCJhCohCo5CJ hCo5CJ hm95CJ hm9CJ\hm9B*phh}hm9>*B*CJphhm9>*B*CJphhm96B*CJ]phhm9B*CJphhm9>*B*CJphhm95B*CJ\phhm95CJ\ hm9CJ#hcicccdffghhLiZi/jjjkkl l+l?l~mmmm $^a$gd}$ & Fga$$ & Fga$$ & Fga$$a$hhhi6iDiHiZijjjjjkkkkkkll ll&l?lLlTlglrlxllll:mFm}m~mУ֔uh\h}>*B*CJphh}hm9B*CJphh}h}6B*CJ\phh}h}B*CJ\phh}h}>*B*CJphhm95B*CJ\phhm9>*B*CJphhm96B*CJ]ph hm9CJH* hm9CJhm95CJ\hm9>*B*CJphhm9B*CJphhCoB*CJph$~mmmmmmnnnnnnnnoooooooo%p&pPpqppppp/q0qqqqq rgrrrrrssss)s7s묢|hm95CJH*\h Vhm9>*B*CJ\phh Vh V56CJh Vh V5CJh Vhm9B*CJphh V5CJ\hm9>*B*CJphhm96B*CJ]phhm9B*CJph hm9CJhm95CJ\hm9>*B*CJph/mnnnnoooopppq rrr"s)s[tot4umunuuu6w$ & Fga$ $ & Fga$gd V$ & Fga$$a$$ & Fga$7sVsYscsdsesZtottt4u5umunuuuuuuuu v5w6w7wOw_wfwhwwwwxxxxxxxyyyyyyyyyz zzսձդդ߱ߝդձߓ h@CJh@>*B*CJ(aJ(phh@B*CJph hm9CJH*hm96B*CJ]phhm9>*B*CJph jhm95CJ\hm9>*B*CJphhm9B*CJph hm9CJh V5CJ\hm95CJ\hK5CJ\26w7wlwwxxxxyyy z zZzz{{{|{{I||}}~ & Fngdli & Fngdligdli & Fgdli & F$ & Fga$$ & Fga$$a$zzZzzz{{%{/{7{{{|{{{||||2}B}w}}}}}}}}}}}}}~~~~~~~~~jkm׿׬ѥל|v| hnICJhnIhnICJ hnI>*CJ hu>*CJhu5>*CJhS]5>*CJ hliCJ\ hli5CJhlihli5>*CJhli5>*CJhm96CJ] hm9CJ hliCJhYRhYRCJ hYRCJ hCJ h@CJ h@6CJ.~~~~~~~kgVDLvˈ & FngdP6C & FngdP6C & Fngdu & Fngdu & FngdnI & Fngdligdli^gdli & Fngdli gl€À݀߀ 5;>UVā;?D|䌃yr huCJ\huhuCJ\hu5CJ\huhu5>*CJ\h=huCJhu6CJ]huhliCJhuhu5>*CJhuhu>*CJ hu>*CJhu5>*CJhYRhYR6CJ huCJ hYRCJ hYR6CJhuhuCJ)%9?GKLv}ȅUcefyz012=NdhüüüèÂ|sl|e|ü hli>*CJ hu5CJhli5>*CJ hliCJhu6CJ]hP6ChuCJ\hP6ChP6CCJ\hP6C5CJ\hP6C5>*CJ\hu5>*CJ\ hu>*CJ huCJhuhuCJhu56CJ\]hu5CJ\huhu5>*CJ\huhu>*CJ\'2LPH./jIĐ&ؒH & FogdYR & FogdYR & FngdYR & FngdYR & Fn & FngdnI & Fngdu & Fngdli & Fngdligdli026@X06)*+JKL`diȌOPōGH-ʯіvofohnI6CJ\ hnICJ\hnIhYRCJ hYRCJ\hYRhuCJ huCJ\huhuCJ\hu5>*CJ hnICJ hYRCJhYRhli5>*CJhli5CJ\ hli>*CJ hliCJhli5>*CJhlihliCJhu5CJ\ huCJ hu>*CJ'-./ijƏΏϏߏIRXxВ֒.œ/3 }*:KO!%7=ɘ٘5лзЙЙЙЙЙЙЙЙhm95CJ\hm9B*phhm95>*B*\phhm9 hn[CJ hCJhm96CJ] hm9CJ hYRCJhYRhYR5>*CJhYR5>*CJ hliCJhuhnICJ;}*ɘ&'Qfhir' & Fjgdd) & Fjgdd) & Fj & Fj & Fp57FQefgwy(*ߛdh%&'>Lr "1\̠Πֹ۠ɤ~oohm95>*B*CJ\phhd)hd)5B*CJ\phhd)hd)5CJ\hd)hd)6CJhd)hd)CJhd)hd)6>*CJhd)hd)>*CJ hd)CJhm95B*CJ\ph hm9CJhm95CJ\hm95>*B*CJ\phhm9>*B*CJph+' ȡq9ԧէۨܨ^ & Fjgdd) & Fj & Fj & Fj & Fjgdd)۠:ZǡDHIagpq實ؖzzka實hd)hm96CJh=h=5B*CJphhm95>*B*CJ\phhd)5B*CJ\phhm956B*CJ\]phhd)hd)CJ hd)CJ hd)5CJhm95>*B*CJ\phh=5B*CJ\phhm95B*CJ\ph hm9CJhm95CJ\hm9>*B*CJph#89RѧѨר?A-2ORVྯྯঙ{ueh>h>5B*CJ\ph hMCJhm95>*B*CJ\ph h>CJhm96CJ]hm95B*CJ\phhm95CJ\hm95>*B*CJ\phhm9>*B*CJphhd)hm9>*CJhd)hm95>*CJ hm9CJ hd)CJhd)hd)CJhd)hd)6CJ%ܨR4Iͳγ4 & Fjgd> & Fj & Fj & Fjجެ^)4HPVγTV~ධthm956B*CJ\]phhm95>*B*CJ\phhm9>*B*CJphh>h>CJ\ hm9>*CJ h>CJhm95B*CJ\phh>h>5B*CJ\phh>5B*CJ\ph hm9CJhm95CJ\h>hm95B*CJ\ph,طڷ13<Al  !"#4zʻɺްviviv`h h CJh h 6CJ\]h h CJ\ h CJ\hm95B*CJ\phh >*B*CJ(aJ(phhS]>*B*CJ(aJ(phh B*CJphhm95>*B*CJ\phhm9>*B*CJphhm95CJ\ hm9CJhm95B*CJ\phhm95>*B*CJ\ph$4||}<  "#Ӽ gd  & Fqgd  & Fqgd  & Fq & Fq$a$ & Fj & Fj & Fjʻ Ӽټ̿&,.^=>HIJWX^l|vlhm95>*CJ\ h*CJh hm9CJh 6CJ\ h CJ\h 5>*CJ\h 5CJ\h h CJhnI5CJ\hm95CJ\ hm9>*CJh hm95CJ h 5CJh h 6CJh h CJ h CJ hm9CJ h CJ* >Y #Tj%$%\ & Fq^gd  & Fq & Fqgd gd  & Fq & Fqgd lmn{}x !#8>TZ]jor$%#$*ȼڵsh 5>*CJ\aJh hm95>*CJ\aJh 5CJ\aJhm9CJaJhm95CJ\aJh 6CJ] h CJ]hm956CJ\]hm95CJ\h 5>*CJhm96CJ] hm9>*CJhm95>*CJ\ h CJ hm9CJ(*4[\`c"%:<@t564nܸԭܸԸԸԧԞzzztkh hghsVCJ hsVCJh hgh hgCJh hgh hg5>*CJh hg5>*CJ h hgCJh hghm9CJ hm9CJhm96CJ]aJh CJaJh hm9>*CJaJhjCJaJhm9CJaJhm95CJ\aJh 5>*CJ\aJhm95>*CJ\aJ)@1HL\J & Fqgd? & Fqgd? & Fqgd,; & Fqgd,; & Fqgd,;gd  & Fqgd hg & Fqgd hggd hg & Fq & Fq:~1GHSLU\`jopqt~Ϳ㓍~rk_h,;hm95CJ\ h,;5CJh,;hm95>*CJh,;hm956>*CJ] h?CJ h?5CJhm95CJ\ hRCJhR56>*CJ\hR5>*CJ\ h,;CJ\ h,;>*CJh,;hm9CJ h,;CJ hm9>*CJ hm9CJh h 5>*CJh 5>*CJaJ" >@BFJ^|} QZ\bkl B02',3ﶪypjah_h_CJ h_CJhm96CJ] hYCJhm95CJ\h,;56CJ\h,;5CJ\h,;hm96>*CJ\]h,;hm9>*CJ\h,;>*CJ\h hm9>*CJh,;h,;CJ h,;CJ hm9>*CJ h CJh,;hm9>*CJ hm9CJhm95>*CJ\&J}Q\,:R.Hlf & Fqgd  & Fqgd  & Fqgd  & Fqgd,; & Fqgd,; & Fqgd,; & Fqgd? & Fqgd? & Fqgd?8Wb8:*DNPT`f~!'(<@FGHJLVf¸ݱץללݕ݌ױױׂhm95>*CJ\h hm9CJ h >*CJhm96CJ]h hm95>*CJ hm9>*CJh?h >*CJh h CJh,;hm95>*CJ hm9CJ h CJ h?CJh h 5CJ h?5CJ h_CJ3f"12>?@Ifiklq¶¶έΡxqkbkh_h_CJ h_CJ h_6CJh hm9>*CJh hm95>*CJhm95>*CJ\h?CJ\]hm956CJ\]h 5CJ\h h >*CJ\h hm9>*CJ\hm95CJ\h hm9CJ\h?hm95CJhm96CJ] hm9CJ h CJ#".9:;?UXYcf|Xhj6V`%/|齱阑xh?hm95>*CJ\h?hm9>*CJ\ hsV>*CJ hsVCJ h?CJh?h 56>*CJh?hm95>*CJh?h 5>*CJ hYCJh hm9>*CJhm96CJ] hm9>*CJ hm9CJ h CJh h >*CJ/V``%8v. & Fqgd hg & Fqgd hg & Fqgd? & Fqgd? & FqgdsV & Fqgd? & Fqgd  & Fqgd  & Fqgd ,~  *48FPR`bj~S]bx뷭ʭ}}h?hm9>*CJ\h?hm9CJ\h?h?CJ\ hsVCJh?hR5CJh?hm95CJh?h?5CJhm96CJ]h?hm95>*CJh?h?5>*CJhA\5>*CJ hm9CJ h?CJh?h?CJ/./hr$*Cuv4d-stuƽƶƣƣwwkƣbYh hg5CJ\h hghm9CJh?hm95>*CJh hgh hgCJh hgh hg>*CJ h hgCJh hgh hg5>*CJ h hgCJ\hm95CJ\hm95>*CJ\ hm9>*CJhm96CJ] hm9CJ h?CJh?hm9CJh?hm96CJ\]h?hm9CJ\ jh?hm9CJ\!.tuRF2t5R&opgd? & FqgdR & Fq & Fq & Fq & Fqgd hg & Fqgd?u;@R%&gpdiopKQchXYZhijy 'Uľ߸־ľľ}hm95>*B*CJ\ph h CJ hR6CJhRhR6CJh?h?5>*CJh?5>*CJ h?CJ hRCJhRhRCJhm95CJ\hm96CJ] hm9CJ h hgCJh hgh hg>*CJh hg5>*CJ\.YZjD E ^E E E !F (F F G G AH BH wH  & Fr & Fr^ & Fs & FqgdR & FqUV[\ <FD D D D D )D .D D D D D D D E E %E 0E ^E nE E E E E E E E F F (F `F bF F F F G G G G BH [H kH vH wH ⴥhm95>*B*CJ\phhm95B*CJ\ph h_CJhm95>*B*CJ\phUhm95CJH*\hm95CJ\hm96CJ] hm9CJ h_6CJA 731 F.2d 243, 1984 (5th Cir) (overrules Blake; adoption of first prong of MPC / revised MNaugthen and rejection of full MPC standard) People v. Serravo, 823 P.2d 128, 1992 (CO) (wrong in MNaugthen standard refers to moral wrong as derived from societal norms) Finger v. State, 27 P.3d 66, 2001 (NEV) (insanity defense as inherent in due process) Clark v. Arizona, 126 S.Ct. 2709, 2006 (US) (insanity defense is beyond the due process clause; using only (2) of MNaugthen is a legitimate insanity test) MNaugthen Case, 10 Cl. F. 200, 1843 Facts: MNaugthen had shot the secretary to the prime minister. He, at the time, believed that he was being persecuted and followed. Evidence was introduced showing that he was obsessed with delusions and suffered acute insanity. Holding & Reasoning: A defendant is to be acquitted only if, at the time of the crime and as a result of his mental illness, he either (1) did not know the nature and quality of the his act or (2) did not know that the act was wrong [i.e. legally wrong or morally wrong, depending on court] (cognitive test). McDonald v. United States, 313 F.2d 847, 1962 (DC) Holding & Reasoning: A mental disease or defect includes any abnormal condition of the mind which substantially affects mental or emotional processes and substantially impairs behavior controls. State v. Guido, 40 N.J. 191, 1963 (NJ) Facts: Guido emptied a revolver into her sleeping husband after he refused to break off an affair. At trial, it turned out that: Defense experts original report found that Guido was sane at the time of the killing. Subsequently revised his opinion to state that Guido was insane. Prosecution used this evidence to claim that the defense was thus a fraud perpetrated by the defense In reality, the change occurred b/c the doctors misunderstanding was based on an incorrect knowledge of the law, which was later amended Holding & Reasoning: A disease, for the purposes of the insanity defense, is demonstrated by the effects of that disease which would impair the moral requirements for culpability. The real issue is that the MNaghten rule does not identify the disease which will excuse, but rather stresses a specific effect of disease Accordingly, the traditional charge of the MNaghten rule to the jury does not attempt to say what is meant by disease, and there is a rather universal reluctance to assay a definition. Emotional or moral insanity is attributed to moral depravity or weakness and not mental defect or disease and therefore will suffice for a legal insanity defense, even if " s rage was so blinding that he did not really appreciate what he was doing or that it was wrong. Blake v. United States, 407 F.2d 908, 1969 (5th Cir) Facts: Blake, coming from a well-to-do family, had been in and out of mental institutions his entire life, including stints of electoshock therapy. He calmly robbed a bank one day. Holding & Reasoning: Under common law (Davis) insanity rule, " guilty, but under MPC formulation, " NGRI (because " lacked a  substantial capacity to conform his conduct to the requirements of the law) Adopts MPC test: defendant is NGRI if he lack substantial capacity to either (1) Appreciate the criminality [wrongfulness] of his conduct, or (***) This is the MNaugthens cognitive test with a major caveat. The use of appreciate allows us to include the possibility that defendant did know but did not realize the true weight, i.e. it broadens MNaghten. (2) Conform his conduct to the requirements of law (volitional prong that counters the danger of MNaugthen). State v. Crenshaw, 98 Wash. 2d 789, 1983 (WA) Facts: Crenshaws Muscovite faith mandated that he kill his unfaithful wife. He thereafter killed her. Holding & Reasoning: Analysis (MNaugthen)(1) Crenshaw suffered a sufficient impairment, (2) Crenshaw understood the nature and quality of killing his wife, (3) he knew that killing her was legally wrong, and (4) his faith commanded him, NOT a direct command from God: This is not the same as acting under a deific command Wrong under the MNaghten test means legally wrong, not morally wrong Reasoning: This makes sense because in this case legal wrongfulness is synonymous with moral wrongfulness If wrong meant moral wrong judged by the individuals own conscience, this would seriously undermine the criminal law, b/c it would allow one who violated the law to be excused from criminal responsibility solely b/c, in his own conscience, his act was not morally wrong Ones personal religious beliefs do not meet the deific decree exception State v. Cameron, 100 Wash. 2d, 1983 (WA) Holding & Reasoning: Deific decree permissible insanity defense. Possible reasons: no one would withstand a punitive infinitely powerful God, etc. Concurring opinion sees no real difference between decree and muscovite faith in Crenshaw. United States v. Lyons, 731 F.2d 243, 1984 (5th Cir) Facts: Lyons became addicted to drugs prescribed for several painful ailments. This affected his brain psychologically and results in mental impairment according to several experts. Holding & Reasoning: (1) Court overrules its full adoption of the MPC standard in Blake. (i.e., rejects the volitional prong of the MPC standard) (2) Instead, it adopts the first prong of the MPC / MNaugthen reformed standard that a person is not responsible for criminal conduct on the grounds of insanity only if at the time of that conduct, as a result of a mental disease or defect, he is unable to appreciate the wrongfulness of that conduct. Reasoning for rejecting the volitional prong: Many psychiatrists now admit they have no scientific basis for measuring the difference between an irresistible impulse and an impulse merely not resisted Volition standard leads to increased risks of fabrication as experts and jury asked to speculate on " s capacity to control himself Testimony about volitional control more likely to confuse jurors than testimony about appreciation of wrongfulness Volitional and cognitive tests quite similar Prosecutors requirement of proving beyond a reasonable doubt that " did have the capacity to conform his conduct to the requirements of the law is all but impossible given the current murky state of medical knowledge Dissent: Endorses using a subjective test to determine defendant s sanity The concern about manipulation of the lack of control by reason of insanity test is largely misplaced. Research indicates it is rarely invoked and even more rarely successful. Concerned that the majority rule will result in the conviction of at least some who are not morally responsible and the punishment of some for whom retributive, deterrent, and rehabilitative penal goals are inappropriate People v. Serravo, 823 P.2d 128, 1992 (CO) (the meaning of wrong) Holding & Reasoning: (1) Under MNaugthen, wrong refers to moral wrong: Court rejects formalistic legalism of formulation that says wrong means legal wrong (2) Incapable of distinguishing right from wrong refers to persons cognitive inability to distinguish right from wrong as measured by a societal standard of morality, even though the person may be aware that the conduct in question is criminal. Finger v. State, 27 P.3d 66, 2001 (NEV) Facts: Finger acknowledged that he intended to kill his mother. His excuse, however, was paranoid schizophrenia. Holding & Reasoning: Insanity defense is a well established and fundamental principle under the due process clause of both the US and Nevada constitutions. Contrast with Clark. State v. Weirlein, 1997 (WI) (Psychopath exception) Holding & Reasoning: Court overturned conviction based on trial court s exclusion of doctor s testimony that " suffered from antisocial personality disorder, on grounds that the doctor s diagnosis went far beyond that of an abnormality manifested only by repeated criminal or otherwise antisocial conduct Clark v. Arizona, 126 S.Ct. 2709, 2006 (US S.Ct.) (discussed in diminished capacity too) Facts: Clark was diagnosed as a paranoid schizophrenic. He shot a police officer and killed him. He was convicted of first-degree murder. Attendant results of statute included killing a police officer (knowing / intent) and the officer being in the line of duty (reckless). See Ariz. Rev. Stat. 13-1105(A)(3). Also changed verdict: not NGRI but guilty except insane (so get automatically committed). Holding & Reasoning: Insanity defense not constitutionally protected (thus can be abolished if states choose) (1) Upheld Arizonas insanity test ((2) of MNaugthen), which defined insanity solely in terms of the defendants capacity to know whether his act was wrong or right (and not knowledge of the quality / nature, i.e. appreciation of) (***) Contrast with Finger, in which Nevada permitted a similarly afflicted manparanoid schizophreniathe defense. Regards the Arizona statute as forcing defendant to channel all his evidence about mental defect towards one defense, providing consolidation, an eminently commonsense procedure. (2) Rejected the notion of insanity defense as inherent to due process. (***) Counter-argument (made in dissent): Allows prosecutors to get away with convictions based on a mens rea they could not completely prove by allowing psychological evidence for insanity but for nothing else, as it would always be able to negate mens rea. Tied closely to presumption of innocence. (***)(3) Why insanity defense possibly appropriate in this particular case: Cognitive incapacity is itself enough to demonstrate moral incapacity. Literally do not know what youre doing (cognitive) enough to prove that it is equivalent to not knowing what youre doing is wrong (moral) (i.e. if you do not appreciate, you do not know). Why trial judge permitted evidence of insanity to be introduced. For (4), see diminished capacity . Diminished Capacity (Excuse) Like insanity minus Definition: Essentially a method, like the insanity tests, of using mental defect/illness as a clear defense Idea is that The defendants capacity is so diminished that she could not have formed the requisite mens rea (see Brawner and Battalino). Like insanity, usually proven by relying on psychiatric testimony. Diminished Responsibility Defense that reduces seriousness of crime (i.e., still culpable, but less culpable/responsible) E.g., intentional killing reduced from murder to manslaughter Not the law in MA Diminished Capacity Not an affirmative defense, but a way of negating the mental state required to be guilty of an offense (like intoxication) No special rule needed to introduce diminished capacity evidence; rather, absence of a special rule prohibiting introduction of such evidence is what you need(so its very similar to voluntary intoxication) State of the law: Most states do not impose special restrictions on the use of mental health evidence to rebut a required mens rea MPC: 4.02(1): Would admit evidence of mental illness whenever relevant to whether defendant had state of mind required for the offense. No limitation limiting evidence only to specific intent offenses or insanity defense Some 13 states, on the other hand, do Variety of restrictions: Total ban: Like AZ, bar all use of mental health evidence to negate mens rea; confine mental health evidence to a determination of sanity I.e., allow evidence of mental disease or diminished capacity to prove an insanity defense, but not to negate mens rea Mental-disease and capacity evidence  channeled or restricted to one issue and given effect only if the " carries the burden to convince the fact-finder of insanity Rationale for this view: Allowing evidence of mental disease to negate mens rea will mean that the insanity defense will rarely ever be gotten to (end-run around the insanity defense) and commitment is required only upon a finding of not guilty by reason of insanity (***) Prevailing view with regard to 18 U.S.C. 17 (see on insanity)(see Twine) Capacity evidence: Like WI, other jurisdictions prohibit the use of mental health evidence to establish lack of capacity to form a mental state, but allow such evidence on the issue of whether the " in fact had the relevant mental state I.e., evidence of diminished capacity allowed to show lack of mental state, but not allowed to show lack of capacity to form a mental state Common evidence rule (Federal evidence rule, CA): Experts aren t allowed to express an opinion about whether a " s mental disease or defect prevented " from having the required mental state Specific intent: Like CA (Wetmore), allows mental health evidence to negate mens rea for reasons other than lack of capacity, but only where the required mens rea is a specific intent rather than a general intent NOTE: Common rule is that mental health evidence allowed to negate specific intent only in situations where a lesser general intent crime is included in the charge (i.e., where " can still be convicted of a lesser general intent crime, see McCarthy) Difference Between Insanity and Diminished Capacity Burden of proof: For insanity, the burden of proof is on the defendant. For diminished capacity, burden of proof on prosecutor (not an affirmative defense, so prosecutor must still prove mens rea with respect to each element of the crime) Commitment Insanity = forced commitment Diminished capacity = no mens rea = so scott free RELEVANT CASES: Battalino v. People, 118 Colo. 587, 1948 (CO) (like later Brawner, defines diminished capacity) United States v. Brawner, 471 F.2d 969, 1971 (US Ct. App. DC) (relies on Battalino; defines diminished capacity) McCarthy v. State, 372 A.2d 180, 1977 (CA) (contrast with Wetmore; if a crime consists of specific and general intent, annulling specific intent could still allow conviction if crime includes a lesser general intent offense) United States v. Twine, 853 F.2d 679, 1988 (9th Cir) (18 U.S.C. 17=if lack mens rea b/c of mental defect, defense) People v. Wetmore, 22 Cal. 3d 1318, 1978 (CA) (contrast with McCarthy; if specific intent disproved by mental defect, cannot be convicted of a lesser general intent offense included in crime) Clark v. Arizona, 126 S.Ct. 2709, 2006 (US S.Ct.)(discussed in insanity section) (diminished capacity defense not constitutionally required) Battalino v. People, 118 Colo. 587, 1948 (CO) Holding & Reasoning: As in later Brawner, statement of diminish capacity defense: Evidence of the condition of the mind may be introduced to show the absence of any deliberate or premeditated design [specific intent]. United States v. Brawner, 471 F.2d 969, 1971 (US Ct. App. DC) Holding & Reasoning: Statement of defense of diminished capacityevidence required, negation of mens rea, distinction w/insanity M Naghten defense) Evidence of the condition of " s mind may be introduced, not to establish insanity, but to negative specific intent (show it was lacking), i.e., to negative a specific mental condition that is an element of the crime (e.g., deliberation or premeditation) Cites Battalino. Bases decision, partially, on the incoherence of permitting a defendant to properly argue that voluntary drunkenness removed his capacity to form a specific intent but an involuntary mental disease could not do the same. McCarthy v. State, 372 A.2d 180, 1977 (CA) Holding & Reasoning: Diminished capacity might negate specific intent but not necessarily general intent of crime charged: Acceptance of the doctrine requires that there be some lesser included offense which lacks the requisite specific intent of the greater offense charged. Otherwise, the doctrine of diminished responsibility becomes an impermissible test of criminal responsibility. United States v. Twine, 853 F.2d 679, 1988 (9th Cir) Holding & Reasoning: Interpretation of 18 U.S.C. 17: But Congress did not intend to eliminate a defendants ability to disprove guilt with mental defect evidence [that negates mens rea]. People v. Wetmore, 22 Cal. 3d 1318, 1978 (CA) Holding & Reasoning: If crime charged requires specific intent, defendant cannot be convicted if diminished capacity proven: If a crime requires specific intent, a defendant who, because of mental disease or defect lacks that intent, cannot commit that crime. Contrast with McCarthy, as this court does not allow defendant to be convicted of a general intent crime when specific intent disproved as a result of diminished capacity. Voices fear later included in Clark that diminished capacity defense, if successful, gives freedom to people who should be sent to a mental asylumand dismisses it by emphasizing that such a position suggested the requirement of legislation, not the defenses abolition. Clark v. Arizona, 126 S.Ct. 2709, 2006 (US S.Ct.)(discussed in insanity section) Facts: Clark was diagnosed as a paranoid schizophrenic. He shot a police officer and killed him. He was convicted of first-degree murder. Attendant results of statute included killing a police officer (knowing / intent) and the officer being in the line of duty (reckless). See Ariz. Rev. Stat. 13-1105(A)(3). Also, changed verdict: not NGRI but guilty except insane (so get automatically committed). Holding & Reasoning: (4) Even though  evidence tending to show that a " suffers a mental disease and lacks capacity to form mens rea, the states decisionto permit the introduction of such evidence only for insanityis legitimate. WHY? Evidence of mental disease, then, can easily mislead; it is very easy to slide from evidence that an individual with a professionally recognized mental disease is very different, into doubting that the has the capacity to form mens rea, whereas that doubt may not be justified. (***) Dissent: Expresses doubt about majoritys stand, as a condition dispositive of the lack of mens rea should lead to acquittal, the prosecutor not being able to prove an essential feature of the crime: While the State contends that testimony regarding mental illness may be too incredible or speculative for the jury to consider, this does not explain why the exclusion applies in all cases to all evidence of mental illness. Law & Discretion in the Criminal Process Sentencing Still greatly in flux Until recently, there were almost no rules for judges to follow on sentencing Now, variety of legislative and judicial reforms (see below) HRC Hostage Taker & Sentencing.. Class E felony: maximum of 7 yrs, minimum of probation per felony count; charged with 5 felonies Terms can always run consecutively; only if felonies merge must they run concurrently But what should his sentence actually be? Long sentence: Protect citizens Caused some discernible harm People still traumatized. Dangerousconvictions and deterrence didnt previously work Express social condemnation Deter others / deter him (is he deterrable?) Dont want to encourage vigilantism as a way to start a conversation / seek publicity ( motive kind of blameworthy Short (or no) sentence: Prison wont help him. Might even make him more dangerous. Knowledge about the prison system? Fake bomb is not as harmful. Option of civil commitment Already served time for previous crimes. He had tried to seek help beforehand / efforts reduce culpability. Waste of resources Motive is not blameworthy He did not have as much of ability / understanding as some one who The Sentencing Process, Generally NOTE: Most states are still like NH, give the judge unlimited and virtually unreviewable sentencing discretion (i.e., can sentence anywhere between the minimum (nothing) and the maximum) NOTE: Statutory maximum constitutes an absolute maximum beyond which no judge may go without jury finding facts necessary for increased penalty; judge can still sentence for less than minimum without having to go to jury for approval of mitigating factor. General standard of proof in sentencing: proof is by a preponderance of the evidence (Williams) EXCEPTION: Any fact necessary to increase penalty for a crime beyond the prescribed statutory maximum must be submitted to a jury and proved beyond a reasonable doubt (Blakely) NOTE: Although a jury must find any facts necessary to increase the maximum term of a sentence, the right to jury trial does not apply to facts that increase only the minimum term (i.e., facts to increase the minimum term must only be established by a mere preponderance of the evidence at the sentencing hearings) (Harris v. US, US SC, 1986) Type of Evidence that May be Admitted: Generally, no restrictions on the evidence that can be used during sentencing (Williams Difference between type of evidence admissible at trial vs. at sentencing (Williams): Information highly relevant to sentencing, such as evidence of " s background and past crimes, is properly excluded from trial because the trial is concerned solely with the issue of guilt of a particular offense Hearsay, prior bad acts, character witnesses, confidential evidence, and unsubstantiated reports not subject to cross examination are all admissible (Williams) In sentencing, judges often rely primarily on reports by probation officers IMPORTANT: Williamss holdingthat the federal constitution does not bar reliance on confidential information and unsubstantiated reports not subject to cross-examination at sentencingremains undisturbed, except for capital cases PROBLEM: " cannot cross-examine the sources (see Weston for gross injustice of this feature) " can only rebut through denial, which doesn t defeat  preponderance of the evidence standard) Exception: Capital crimes When sentencing is for a capital offense, judge cannot rely on unsubstantiated reports (of probation officers) (Gardner) Reforms: Most states now allow felony " s to review the pre-sentence report, or at least most portions of it, prior to sentencing Federal rules of criminal procedure guarantee the " unrestricted access to the  pre-sentence report, but allows judge to receive other information in a separate document not made available to the defense, and the defense only receives judge s summary of the information excluded from the report BUT, " still cannot cross-examine the sources Fatico hearing: Before relying on pre-sentencing report, judge holds an evidentiary hearing on the allegation, permitting evidence from report only if corroborated BUT, threshold for admissibility still significantly less than at trial Must comport with due process requirements: (1) " must have effective counsel during sentencing (see Mempa) (2) In capital cases, judge cannot rely on unsubstantiated reports (Gardner) (3) Any fact necessary to increase penalty for a crime beyond the prescribed statutory maximum must be submitted to a jury and proved beyond a reasonable doubt (Blakely) NOTE: Although a jury must find any facts necessary to increase the maximum term of a sentence, the right to jury trial does not apply to facts that increase the minimum term (i.e., facts to increase the minimum term must only be established by a mere preponderance of the evidence at the sentencing hearings) (Harris v. US, US SC, 1986) Concerns About Discretionary Sentencing Until recently, there were almost no rules for judges to follow on sentencing IMPORTANT: Most states are still like NH, give the judge unlimited and virtually unreviewable sentencing discretion Arguments against discretionary sentencing: Potential for abuse of power Too idiosyncratic and arbitrary Ineffective deterrence since criminal does not actually know what the punishment for possible crime would be Reforms to Reduce Sentencing Discretion Most states are like NH ( give the judge unlimited and virtually unreviewable sentencing discretion Mandatory minimums: A true mandatory minimum requires filing of the most serious charge and prohibits bargaining. Discretionary minimums: Require a given sentence only in the event of conviction on a given charge (and thus constrain judges, not prosecutors) Most so-called mandatory minimums adopted today are actually theses discretionary minimums Used most often for drug offenses, sex offenses, firearm offensesACCA and drug abuse act of 1986 Given the drawbacks of mandatory minimums, no American legislature has attempted to extend that approach beyond a few crimes such as drug crimes, firearms offenses, and sex offenses against children Unlike statutory maximums, have not been demarcated by Supremes, see McMillan and Barker) Racial element: Rarely used on whites, but often used on minorities 1/10 of drug amount (incl. cocaine) required for maximum gets you mandatory minimum, but with crack cocaine the ratio is only 1/100 Sentencing Guidelines (Presumptive sentencing) Sentencing commission drafts guidelines that judges are either required or encouraged to follow in making sentencing decisions Guideline sentencing is significantly more detailed and comprehensive than statutory minimums and maximums Can be either (depending on jurisdiction) (1) voluntary: The judge need not apply the sentencing rules at all (2) advisory: The judge required to perform guidelines calculations, but not required to sentence in conformity with the result, or (3) mandatory: Judge required to follow the sentencing guidelines, unless some good reason not to In many jurisdictions, judges sentencing decision can be reversed for unreasonableness, so gives judges incentive to sentence within the guidelines (sentencing within the guidelines considered presumptively reasonable Federal Sentencing Guidelines: Why Sentencing Reform Agency created? Federal criminal law is sprawling and unorganized. Constant modification requiring experts was projected. Insulation from politics How the federal sentencing guidelines work: Under the guidelines, a judge may consider: (1) The nature and circumstances of the offense and history and (2) Characteristics of the defendant (3) The need for the sentence to be imposed To reflect the seriousness of the offense, to promote respect for the law, and to provide just punishment for the offense To afford adequate deterrence to criminal conduct To protect the public from further crimes of the defendant To provide the defendant with needed education or vocational training, medical care, or other correctional treatment in the most effective manner Once a district court has determined a " s sentencing range, he retains effectively unfettered discretion to sentence within that range However, to sentence outside the range, the judge must justify the departure on certain limited grounds There must be an aggravating or mitigating circumstance of a kind, or to a degree, not adequately taken into considering by the Sentencing Commission in formulating the guidelines These circumstances include: criminal history, criminal livelihood, and substantial assistance to authorities IMPORTANT: both the rules determining the guideline range and those governing the judges departure authority are made enforceable by a right of appeal given to both parties Positives/Negatives of sentencing guidelines: Positive effects of sentencing guidelines: Abandoned rehabilitative model of punishment. Truth in sentencing Reduces unwarranted disparity. (***) Due process brought to sentencing by requiring that sentencing judges find facts and apply guidelines to those findings and making the guidelines legally binding and enforceable via a process of appellate review. Under guidelines, Both DEFENDANT and PROSECUTION could appeal. Problems with sentencing guidelines: Ignores substantial human element, both meting out incredible moral condemnation for the not necessarily blameworthy and thereby reduces condemnatory effect of criminal punishment. Perhaps robs criminal law of some of its ability to communicate moral condemnation of the individual offender Focuses easily quantifiable factors, rather than distinct ones. I.e., guideline approach cannot eliminate unwarranted disparity without eliminating justified disparity as well By virtue of their visibility and understandability, political pressure exists to revise upwards. Discretion, overall, still remains, especially in prosecutors hands. Indeed, merely shifts discretion from judges to prosecutors (since judges no longer able to offset abuse of discretion by prosecutors Violates separation of powers (see United States v. ONeill). Recent changes re: sentencing guidelines Restrictions on the use of guidelines: US SC has said either: (Blakely) (1) If no guidelines, judge can have unlimited sentencing discretion (with a statutory maximum), or (2) If there are guidelines, for the judge to above them, his reason for doing so (i.e., the factors supporting his decision to depart) must have been found by the jury What this means is that if there are sentencing guidelines, every fact relevant to the sentence must be found by the jury IMPORTANT: This does not apply to sentencing lower than the maximum, or for factors that increase the minimum, only for sentencing above the maximum (", not government, has right to a jury) (see McMillan and Barker) Federal sentencing guidelines now advisory (Booker) US SC in Booker made FSG advisory and said an appeals court may set aside the sentencing decision of a lower court, whether within the guideline range or not, only when the sentence was found to be unreasonable So, no longer any rebuttable presumption that sentencing outside the guidelines is unreasonable Other Questions What has the effect of jurisprudence been? Are we playing around with the separation of powers? RELEVANT CASES: Williams v. New York, 337 U.S. 2412, 1949 (US S.Ct.) (Wide discretion in sentencing right of judge) Mempa v. Rhay, 389 U.S. 128, 1967 (US S.Ct.) (Right to adequate counsel in sentencing hearing) United States v. Weston, 448 F.2d 626, 1971 (9th Cir.) (Exhibits gross injustice of pre-guidelines sentencing regime) Gardner v. Florida, 430 U.S. 349, 1977 (US S.Ct.) (Overturns Williams in capital cases) United States v. Fatico, 603 F.2d 1053, 1979 (2nd Cir.) (Fatico hearing; in sentencing hearing, judge can question sources of pre-sentence report and ask for collaboration) Skipper v. South Carolina, 476 U.S. 1, 1986 (US S.Ct.) (in capital sentencing, states must consider good behavior after arrest) McMillan v. Pennsylvania, 477 U.S. 79, 1986 (PA) (right to jury does not apply to factors that increase the minimum sentence, but are for increasing of the maximum) United States v. Thompson, 190 F. Supp 2d 138, 2002 (MA) (relies on Pereira; for family circumstances to mitigate sentence, must be extraordinary) Blakely v. Washington, 542 U.S. 296, 2004 (US S.Ct.) (if states have guidelines, to depart above the guideline, jury must find the necessary factors) State v. Shattuck, 704 N.W.2d 131, 2005 (MIN) (for higher sentencing range, jury must find beyond a reasonable doubt the relevant factors) United States v. Booker, 543 U.S. 220, 2005 (US.S.Ct) (federal guidelines unconstitutional if mandatory; essentially made them advisory) State v. Barker, 705 N.W.2d 768, 2005 (MINN) (factors triggering minimum sentence must be found by jury) United States v. Pereira, 465 F.3d 515, 2006 (2d Cir.) (underlying basis for Thompson; circumstances = extraordinary = irreplaceable = to cause reduction in sentence) United States v. ONeill, 437 F.3d 654, 2006 (7th Cir.) (judges rejecting plea agreement and proceeding to trial on charges more severe than prosecutor thinks merited violates separation of powers) State v. Foster, 845 N.E.2d 470, 2006 (OH) (to avoid state consequence of Booker, made state guidelines voluntary) Williams v. New York, 337 U.S. 2412, 1949 (US S.Ct.) Facts: Williams was convicted of first-degree murder. The jury recommended life imprisonment. No NY law specified the exact penalty to be given. Indeterminate sentencing regime; difference with later Blakley, which did deals with a statute laying down an EXPRESS maximum. Relying on unsubstantiated reports not available for cross-examination by defendant, judge instead imposes a sentence of death. These reports classified Williams as a liar, burglar, emotionally unstable, and remorseless. On the other hand, they were based on hearsay evidence and unproven allegations recorded by probation officers. Holding & Reasoning: 2 major ptsdiscretion & freedom on how to exercise discretion (1) Under common law, sentencing judge could exercise wide discretion in the sources of types of evidence used to assist him in determining the kind the extent of punishment to be imposed within limits fixed by law. (2) Highly relevantif not essentialto his selection of an appropriate sentence is the possession of the fullest information possible concerning the defendants life and characteristic. (3) Sharp distinctions are justified as: No criminal is identical. Retaliation is not the goal; rather reformation and rehabilitation (strangely, this theory, as used here, results in a harsh sentence). (***)(4) The US constitutions due process clause does not restrict the view of the sentencing judge to the information received in open court. I.e., Due process does not require that sentencing evidence conform to the same evidentiary standards as trial evidence (viz., that a " be able to confront sentencing witnesses) Dissent: disagrees with this last contention:  But, in a capital case, against the unanimous recommendation of a jury, where the report would concededly have not been admissible at the trial, and was not subject to examination by the defendant, I am forced to conclude that the high command of due process were not obeyed. Mempa v. Rhay, 389 U.S. 128, 1967 (US S.Ct.) Holding & Reasoning: In sentencing hearing, defendant must be provided with adequate legal counsel. United States v. Weston, 448 F.2d 626, 1971 (9th Cir.) Facts: Weston is convicted of transporting 537 grams of heroin. Pre-sentence report asserted " was chief drug smuggler for the western Washington area, but didn t disclose the sources of these assertions, so " had no way to rebut except through denial(b/c didn t know who was making the allegations, so couldn t challenge them), which failed to meet the preponderance of the evidence standard required and judge sentenced " to harsh sentence Holding & Reasoning: Judge accepted report and sentenced her to the maximum. Gardner v. Florida, 430 U.S. 349, 1977 (US S.Ct.) Holding & Reasoning: In capital cases, Williams is overturned judge may not use a confidential pre-sentence report. Information provided is still highly restricted. United States v. Fatico, 603 F.2d 1053, 1979 (2nd Cir.) Facts: Presentence report described " as upper echelon figure in organized crime but didnt identify the source of that info (obviously). Judge held Fatico hearing that allowed FBI agents to report the hearsay accusations, but only if the government also offered significant corroboration. 7 FBI agents testified 17 informants independently told them " was involved in organized crime, and judge accepted the testimony and imposed harsh sentence Holding & Reasoning: THE TEST: Before relying on pre-sentencing report, judge should hold an evidentiary hearing on the allegation, permitting evidence from report if corroborated. Still significantly less than the threshold required to prove guilt at trial. Skipper v. South Carolina, 476 U.S. 1, 1986 (US S.Ct.) Holding & Reasoning: States are constitutionally required to allow sentencing authority to consider a defendants good behavior after arrest in context of capital sentencing. McMillan v. Pennsylvania, 477 U.S. 79, 1986 (PA) Holding & Reasoning: While a jury must find any facts necessary to increase the maximum term of a sentence, the right to a jury trial does not apply to facts that increase only the minimum term. Contrast with Barker. United States v. Thompson, 190 F. Supp 2d 138, 2002 (MA) Facts: Thompson was sentencing to a term of imprisonment of 60 months. This was a downward departure of 17 months based on his extraordinary family circumstances. These circumstances included his prior outstanding moral character (proving for his children, working, contributing to church, etc.) . Holding & Reasoning: Under congressional authorization, extraordinary family circumstances justify downward revision of sentence. Extraordinary = irreplaceable; usually not extended to typical family situations (i.e. working spouse with two children) or family needs that are special but frequently occurring. Cites Pereira for this conclusion. Blakely v. Washington, 542 U.S. 296, 2004 (US S.Ct.) Facts: Blakely was convicted of second degree kidnapping. Maximum was ten years imprisonment. State sentencing guidelines suggested a standard range of 48-53 months. Judge, however, imposed a sentence of 60 months on the grounds that defendant had been deliberately cruel. The statute for kidnapping contained no such expression. Holding & Reasoning: (1) If state does not have sentencing guidelines, judge may freely send for any amount of time up to the statutory maximum (preserves judicial discretion) (2) HOWEVER, if guidelines exist, for judge to depart beyond them, his reason must have been found by the jury Scalia worries that allowing judge to impose exceptional sentence on the basis of evidence not submitted to the jury would weaken the role of the jury in our system Dissent (OConnor): Under majority opinion, facts historically taken into account by sentencing judges (e.g., drug quantity, role in the offense, risk of bodily harm) all must now be charged in an indictment or submitted to the jury, or the state must bear the additional expense of a separate, full-blown jury trial during the penalty phase B/c state not likely to always do either of these things (b/c of expense and complexity), the result will be an inevitable increase in judicial discretion and plea bargaining (b/c of resultant decrease in number of trials Dissent ( Breyer): predicted three consequences: first, legislatures could prescribe exactly the same sentence for all possible variations of a crime -- an automatic five-year sentence for all robberies, for instance. This system has the "intolerable" effect of imposing the same sentence on people commit their crimes in vastly different ways. Second, states could return to indeterminate sentencing, in which the authorized range of punishment for crimes is very broad. But such systems were criticized (rightly, in Breyer's view) for their excessive disparity and unfairness. There would be less "reason" in an indeterminate sentencing system than in the guidelines system Washington had adopted. Third, the guidelines systems currently in force would remain, and the jury-trial requirement would be grafted onto them. If the prosecution is going to be required to introduce aggravating factors at trial in order to retain possibility of an exceptional sentence, this will put a " in the untenable position of have to contest material aggravating factors in the guilt phase of their trials (how can a constitution guaranteeing due process put " s in the position of arguing  I did not sell drugs, and if I did, I did not sell more than 500 grams ) State v. Shattuck, 704 N.W.2d 131, 2005 (MIN) Holding & Reasoning: Jury is required to find the facts, beyond a reasonable doubt, necessary to trigger a higher sentencing range. United States v. Booker, 543 U.S. 220, 2005 (US.S.Ct) Holding & Reasoning: Federal sentencing guidelines are unconstitutional (essentially made sentencing guidelines advisory). State v. Barker, 705 N.W.2d 768, 2005 (MINN) Holding & Reasoning: wH H H ;I *B*CJ\phhm95B*CJ\phhm95B*CJ\aJphhm95CJ\aJhm95CJ\ wH H ;I R R R S T  & Fr & Frgds2M & Fr & Fr & FrdO hO O P P P Q Q 4Q >Q Q =R >R mR R R R R R R R S S S S S T T T +T >T IT JT QT T T T T T T U U ֶ涇xr춇 hRCJhm95>*B*CJ\phhm956B*CJ\]ph hm9>*CJhm96CJ]hm95>*B*CJ\phhm95B*CJ\ph h_CJ\h_h_6CJ\h_h_CJ\ h_CJ hm9CJhm95CJ\hm95CJH*\)T T JT QT T T U DV V W X X 7X LX xX X (Y )Y ^Y eY Y Z .Z Z [  & Fr & Frgds2M & Frgds2M & Fr & FrU U V V #V 0V 2V 5V DV MV V V V V V V W W X X +X 6X 7X KX LX wX xX X X X X X X Y ⸮yynan[[a hs2MCJhm95B*CJ\phhm95B*\phhm95CJ\ hm9CJhm95>*B*CJ\phhs2Mhs2M5B*CJ\ph hs2MCJ\hs2Mhs2MCJ\hs2Mhs2M6CJ\hR5>*B*CJ\phhR56B*CJ\phhR5B*CJ\phhRhm95B*CJ\ph!Y $Y 'Y )Y ?Y OY VY XY eY Z .Z 8Z AZ kZ pZ sZ Z Z Z [ [ [ [ [ [ [ \ \ \ Z^ \^ @_ B_ &` ,` Pa \a a c 񏉀vlchRhRCJh_hm96CJh_h_6CJh_h_CJ h_CJ h_6CJhm95>*B*CJ\phh_5B*CJ\phhm956B*CJ\]phhm95CJH*\hm95CJ\hm95>*B*CJ\phhm95B*CJ\ph hm9CJhm96CJ]&[ \ \ \^ B_ _ Pa a b c c c c kd ce de e e e f f f f  & Fr & Fr$a$ & FrgdR & Fr gdr & Fr & Frgd_ & Fr pgd_c c c c c c c c c c c d jd kd d _e `e be de se e e f f f f f f f f f h j j /j Aj zj {j j j ĴĮĕĊtmdhs2Mhs2MCJ hs2M5CJhs2M5>*B*CJphhm96CJ]hm95B*\phhm95>*B*CJ\phhm9B*CJph hs2MCJhm956B*CJ\]phhm95B*CJ\phhs2M5CJ\hm95CJ\hm95>*B*CJ\phhm9B*ph hm9CJ'f f f g j j {j j j k k l 'l l lm m n n p p nq q q q q gd hg & Fr & Fr & Fr & Fr & Frgds2M & Frgds2Mgds2Mj j j j k k k k k l 'l l l l lm m m n n Jo Ro o o p p ;q iq q q q q q q r r r r (r *r }r r r ˻ztm hu|CJ\ hu|CJ h hg5CJhm95B*CJ\phh hg5>*B*CJ(aJ(phh!5>*B*CJ(aJ(ph h hgCJhm96CJ]hm956B*CJ\]phhm95B*CJ\phhR5B*CJ\ph hDCJhm95CJ\ hm9CJ hRCJ)q q q r r }r s Ns Os is s t t t 0t t zu u u v v w  & Ftgd6  & Ftgd6  & Ftgdu| & Ftgdu| gdu| & Ft & Ft & Ftgd hgr r r r r r s s s Ms Ns Os hs is s s t t t t t .t /t 0t t t t t t t t t t t u u 9u Iu yu zu u u u u u u v v 4v ־ͥĕĕ֥֮ւ{ h6 5CJh6 5>*CJh6 h,O>*CJhu|hu|6CJ h,OCJh,Oh,OCJ hu|5CJhu|h6 CJ h6 CJhu|hu|CJhu|5>*CJ hu|CJhm96CJ] hm9CJhm95CJ\hm956CJ\]04v x Rx x `y by y y y )z *z 8z }z z { { !{ #{ 4{ { { (| 6| r| t| | | »ݻݻ}sihu|h,O6CJh,Oh,O6CJhu|6CJ]hu|5CJ\h,Ohu|CJ\hu|hu|5>*CJ\hu|>*CJ\h,Ohu|>*CJ\ hu|CJ\ h,OCJhu|h,O5>*CJh,Oh,OCJ hu|CJh6 h6 5>*CJ h6 CJh6 h6 >*CJ)w w w [ c   ƒ ؃ * : @ T y ĸ}wwwwww hm9CJhu|h,O>*CJ hu|CJh6 h6 5>*CJh6 h,O5>*CJh6 h,O>*CJh,Oh,OCJhu|h,O5>*CJh,Oh6 CJh6 h6 6CJh6 h6 CJh6 5>*CJ h6 6CJh6 h6 >*CJ h6 CJ, Ä ʄ ΄ ӄ Ԅ Մ    & E ] m q r Dž ׅ ۅ ܅  2 † Ć Ɔ ̆  / 3 4 9 H P ˇ ܇  Y l } ɿ岢hm956B*CJ\]phhm95B*CJ\phhm95CJH*\hm95CJ\hm95>*B*CJ\phhm9 hm9CJ hGVCJ h6 CJhm96CJ]@ E ˇ X Y d e n 6 I ( ) * U j ގ ߎ  ) ԏ  & Fr & Fr & Fu & Fu & Fu & Fv c d } H Z l n  T 6 < E ( ) * ; K O P T U i j ݎ     ( ) ӏ ԏ 򻬜݄zpllhm9hm95CJH*\hm95>*CJ\hS]5>*B*CJ\phhm96CJ]hBhB5>*B*CJphhBhB5B*CJphhBhm9CJhm956B*CJ\]phhm95CJ\hm95>*B*CJ\ph hm9CJhm95B*CJ\ph*ԏ Տ   Ȓ ɒ  ! | d Η o p gdfJ$a$p^p & Fr & Fr & Fr & Fu & Fu & Fuԏ        Ց ڑ G H ǒ ْ   ! Q S { | b . 6 Η ( n o p q ˩˙땑h6 B*CJphhm9h!hm956B*CJ\]phh,O5B*CJ\ph h,OCJ hBCJhm96CJ]hm95B*CJ\phhm95>*CJ\hm95CJ\ hm9CJhm95>*B*CJ\ph1 H I g ˚ ̚   ! R ' (   ; < 9 : ; Q \ ] ˞  l  + ⡘Ӄ}w}mhm95>*CJ\ h CJ h[CJh[h7@5CJh[hfJ5>*CJh7@55>*CJh[5>*CJhfJ hfJhfJ jhfJCJ h4CJ hm9CJhfJ5>*CJ h7@5CJh7@5h7@5CJ hfJCJh6 B*CJphh6 >*B*CJ(aJ(ph' H I k ̚ $ R a r  0  < X ȝ ܝ  & FgdfJ & FgdfJ & FgdfJ & F & FgdfJgdfJ & Fܝ : ; ]   x ) U u j  & F}gd7@5 & F}gd{$ & F}gd{$ & F}gd{$ & F} gd[ & Fgd  & Fgd  & F & Fgd[gdfJ & F & FgdfJ+ ? A O l m n v w x ݠ  ' ( ) / m t С ס ޡ e q  ι{rkb\ h7@5CJh{$h[CJ h[5CJh[5>*CJ h CJh<Xh 6CJh<Xh CJh h CJh6CJ\h h >*CJ\ h CJ\h hm95CJ\h[6CJ\ h[CJ\h[hm95>*CJ\h[hm9CJ\hm95CJ\h[5>*CJ\" J R ¤ إ ڥ        5 6 W Z ^ _ i k s u ̦ Ԧ / l P \ j | ٦٦٦ُٙن}sh{$h{$;CJh{$6CJ]hh{$CJhh{$6CJ h CJ h7@55CJ h{$5CJ h7@5CJ\h[h7@55CJ\h7@55CJ\h]@"h{$CJ h{$6CJ h{$CJh7@5h7@5CJ h7@56CJ h7@5CJh7@5h7@55CJ* Щ L | ~ ت ڪ   : < @ ! ' 2 e f Ů Ʈ    8 9 żۼۼ۲۩۩{h 5CJ\h 5>*CJ\h h CJ\ h CJ\h h >*CJh h CJh h 5CJhh{$CJ hwxZCJ h >*CJh{$6CJ] h CJ h{$>*CJ h{$CJh{$h{$CJh{$5>*CJ- Ʈ  :  7  w N O w gd7@5 & F}gd7@5gd  & F}gd  & F}gd  & F}gd  & F}gd  & F}gd{$ & F}gd{$ B r | ~ İ     N ֱ  , . 5 6 7 = { Ʋ ղ ٲ n z ׳  + v ô M N O v ުh[h7@5CJ h7@5CJh7@5h7@5CJh 5>*CJh7@55>*CJ h CJ hCJh<Xh 6CJh<Xh CJh6CJ\h h >*CJ\h h CJh 6CJ\ h CJ\h >*CJ\2v w ۵ ܵ A B P Q i j l > @ h ø Ѹ  ȹ ; < պ ޺   ! # ͽٴٴٽ٪١| ho 85CJh<Xho 8CJ hCJhhCJ ho 8CJho 85>*CJh}^0h}^0CJ\h}^06CJ] h}^0>*CJhh}^0CJh}^0h}^05>*CJ h}^0CJ jh[h}^0CJh[h}^0CJh7@5h7@55>*CJ0w ܵ Q @ i ø  < Ѻ  ּ   & Fxgdo 8 & Fxgdo 8 & Fxgdo 8 & F}gd}^0 & Fxgd}^0 & Fxgd}^0 & Fx gd}^0 & Fxgd}^0 B R ռ ּ p q   *    J K ^ ` ~  [ \ m n 깯깝ꐇꐇ}tho 85CJ\ho 8ho 8CJ\hm95CJ\ hm9CJ ho 8>*CJho 8h<X5>*CJ h<XCJho 8h<X>*CJh<Xh<XCJ hwxZCJho 8ho 85>*CJ hv>*CJ hvCJh<Xho 8CJ ho 8CJ ho 85CJho 85>*CJ- N ˽ 8 ]  5 p     K _   & Fxgdv & Fxgdv & Fxgdv & Fxgdo 8 & Fxgdo 8 & Fxgd<X & Fxgdo 8 & Fxgdo 8 \ y ' ?  / V w M gdv & FxgdfQ & Fxgdv & Fxgdv & Fxgdv & Fxgdv & Fxgdv x y & ' Q \ { > ?    . / ; U V n u v w c g r   + 0 C hv6CJhvhv5CJ\ hv>*CJhv5>*CJhm96CJ]hv5CJ\ hvCJhvhm95CJ\hm95CJ\ ho 86CJ h]@"CJho 85CJ\ ho 8CJho 8hm95CJ\ hm9CJ3C W d k m q r ^ p x   p  ? K L M Ǿǭ{ob\ hm9CJhvhv5>*CJ\h<XhfQ5CJ\ hfQCJ\hfQhv5CJ\hvhv>*CJ\h<XhvCJ\hv6CJ\ hvCJ\hv5>*CJ\hv5CJ\hvhv5CJ\ hv6CJ hvCJhfQhvCJhfQhfQ>*CJ hfQ>*CJ hfQCJ!   . g l $ E 9   O V c  & Fw & Fw & Fw$a$$ & F|a$ & F|p^p & Fxgdv   - . D S W    ! g z { k l    # $ : I Y D E ] k | 8 9 S hm9CJH*hm956CJ\]hm96CJ]hm95>*B*CJ\ph hm9CJhm95CJ\NS ` m       / ? C O V  " _ c ? A  @ s O l ĽĮĨʞĨʑhm95>*B*CJ\phhm95B*CJ\phhm95>*CJ\ hCJhm95>*B*CJ\ph hm9CJH* hm9CJhm95CJ\hm956CJ\]hm956CJ\]aJhm9CJaJhm95CJ\aJ0c l v   K R   & Fz & Fz$ & Fya$$ & Fya$$a$ & Fwgd & Fwgd & Fw & Fw & Fw   k l  v  , ; ? B D K R     @ ɹɯ}tttؓhhCJ hm9CJH*hm95>*B*CJ\phhm9B*CJphhm9>*B*CJph hCJhhm96CJhh5>*B*CJphhh5B*CJphhm95B*CJ\phhm95CJ\ hm9CJ hwxZCJ hfQCJ*  D F g < f V $ & Fa$$ & Fa$$ & Fa$$ & F{a$ $ & F{a$gd$ & F{a$$ & Fya$$ & Fya$$ & Fya$$a$@ P D F v x f g < f r V y L O v ߉}qhm956CJ\]hm9>*B*CJphhm95>*B*CJ\phhB*CJph h5CJhh5CJ hCJ hm9CJH* hm9CJhm9>*B*CJphhm95B*CJ\phhm95CJ\hm9B*CJphhm96B*CJ]ph,  {   g h i j   $ & Fa$$ & F~a$$ & F~a$$ & F~a$$a$$ & F ^`a$gdr$ & Fa$  H O h j F H     G I F H 圓}qhhNhm9CJhNhN5CJ\hNhN56CJhNhN5CJhg5CJ\h<Xh<X5CJ\h<X5CJ\hm95>*B*CJ\phhS]5>*B*CJ\phhm956CJ\]hm9B*CJphhm95CJ\ hm9CJhm9>*B*CJph( H  8 9 f { \ \ \ $ & F ^`a$gdr$ & Fa$$ & Fa$$a$$ & F~a$ $ & F~a$gdN $ & F~a$gdN $ & Fa$gd<X   8 9 I Z ^ ` d z { \ \ \ \ \ \ \ \ ] ] #] 3] G] H] R] Z] ] ] %^ P^ Q^ R^ k^ z^ ~^ ؽ˥؅؅ؽhm96B*CJ]phhm9CJaJhm95CJ\aJhm9>*B*CJphhm956CJ\]hm9>*B*CJphUhm95B*CJ\phhm9B*CJphhm95CJ\hm95>*B*CJ\ph hm9CJ4Sixth Amendment violated when the facts triggering a mandatory minimum sentence are neither admitted nor proved before a jury at trial but instead are established by a preponderance of the evidence at the sentencing hearing. Contrast with McMillan. United States v. Pereira, 465 F.3d 515, 2006 (2d Cir.) Holding & Reasoning: Source of Thompson reasoning: At the very least, the case law requires a showing that the defendant is irreplaceable before his circumstances are considered extraordinary = must show that defendants incarceration will inflict extraordinary harm on third parties United States v. ONeill, 437 F.3d 654, 2006 (7th Cir.) Holding & Reasoning: Judges rejecting plea agreement and proceeding to trial on charges more severe than prosecutor thinks merited violates separation of powers. State v. Foster, 845 N.E.2d 470, 2006 (OH) Holding & Reasoning: To avoid problem noted in Booker, made state guidelines advisory. Plea Bargaining Idea is that " trades right to force a trial for prosecutor s right to seek the maximum sentence Mechanics No real law on plea bargaining: Prosecutors have the same sort of discretion in charging that judges used to have in sentencing Any plea bargain has to be accepted by a judge: a hearing is held, where the judge is supposed to conclude the " is guilty, and that there s a factual basis for the plea Judges rarely depart from sentencing recommendations given by prosecutors in plea bargains Only real restriction on prosecutorial discretion in plea bargaining: Prosecutor cannot be vindictive in charges if plea bargain is not struck or accepted (Bordenkircher) What this means is that prosecutor can only threaten additional charges merited by the facts, but cannot threaten charges not justified by the present facts (see Hayes). This also means that a prosecutor cannot bring a greater charge for a later indictment because the " in an earlier indictment refused to plea bargain NOTE: Dissent in Hayes posits a broader meaning of  vindictive: Charges are vindictive if, according to prosecutor, they are unreasonable, even if merited by the facts. That a charge may be sustained by the facts but is not charged is evidence that that charge is unreasonable (otherwise the prosecutor would have charged it initially) PROBLEM: Creates incentive for prosecutors to be overcharge in their initial charges in order to scare " in bargaining/give themselves a greater bargaining chip (note Blackmuns dissentfear of coercion). Could get rid of problems by simply insisting on having trials for everything (likely impossible). Other solutions: Different statutory punishment, Bazelon solution in Scott, judicial review of charging decisions (like we did with sentencing), Powells dissent Arguments for/against Plea Bargaining Arguments for: Efficiency: Saves necessary time and effort, especially with judges, defenders, and prosecutors who have full caseloads Burger: If every criminal charge were subjected to a full-fledged trial, the state and feds would need to multiply by many times the number of judges and court facilities Essential component of administration of justice (see Santobello v. New York) Positional argument: Scott v. United States: If the sentence expectations of suspects is the same before accepting a guilty plea and a reduced sentence or just pleading innocent, there is no chilling effect upon the exercise of the right to trial, as they are not being deprived of any opportunity. Economic argument: As with a contract, if both parties accept the deal, it is assumed they did it for their best interest. Why otherwise would they have dealt? Administration: Look at Lynchs piece: Prosecutor really trying to determine whether the evidence truly demonstrates guilt and if so what sentence is appropriate, so often talk with defense attorneys rather than acting wholly arbitrarily. However, adversarial nature can interfere with such nobler efforts. Suggests need for institutional checks. Arguments against: Efficiency: The additional resources required if there were no plea bargaining (another courtroom, extra judges) are actually quite minimal (see Albert W. Alschuler): To multiply these resources five times, or ten . . . would require no more than the building and staffing of a single new courthouse . . . Whats the line between a prosecutor engaging in bargaining b/c he is willing to take a sure half loaf (whatever that is) rather than to await the outcome of a trial and doing so b/c his limited resources convince him he must deter " s from demanding a trial? Economic argument: Buyer s remorse exists in contracts & agents of either party are influenced by their own private interests (for example, getting rid of enormous caseload), i.e. both sides might lack sufficient zeal (see Stephen J. Schulhofer). Structural argument: Potential for divergent interests between the prosecutor and the public she represents and between the defense attorney and the client he represents Arbitrariness: David Lynch tells story of two counties in which prosecutors randomly thought of which sentence would be appropriate and then found a fitting crime. Solution: forces prosecutors to show that some number of other defendants in actually similar cases within the same state have been convicted of the same crime (see William J. Stuntz) Different Approaches to Plea Bargaining Philadelphia System: Defendants receive no inducement to plead guilty but gain sentencing concessions by waiving their right to a jury and accepting a bench trial. Advantages: " retains most fundamental rights while increasing economy. US Attorneys Manual: Issues still center on whether plea bargaining amounts to circumventing legislative intent 9-27.300 Selecting Charges -- Charging Most Serious Offenses: if you can prove the most serious charge, you should charge it. 9-27.400 Plea Agreements Generally: only if you have serious doubts about ability to win. Two exceptionsdifferent crime has similar sentence and higher ups are willing to sign off on agreement. Does NOT allow you to really bargain away the most serious offense. Lots of debate about this rule. HOWEVER, additional language sort of undercuts in 9-27-300: However, a faithful and honest application of the Sentencing Guidelines is not incompatible with selecting charges or entering into plea agreements on the basis of an individualized assessment of the extent to which particular charges fit the specific circumstances of the case, are consistent with the purposes of the Federal criminal code, and maximize the impact of Federal resources on crime. Thus, for example, in determining "the most serious offense that is consistent with the nature of the defendant's conduct that is likely to result in a sustainable conviction," it is appropriate that the attorney for t\ 3] H] Q^ R^ ^ ^ ._ /_ Z_ o_ _ _ _ _ ` ` ` a c & F pgd gd & Fgd gdfQ$ & Fa$$ & Fa$$ & Fa$$ & Fa$$ & F~a$$ & F~a$$a$~^ ^ ^ ^ ^ /_ ?_ P_ T_ V_ X_ n_ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ ` ` ` ` ` ` a Ba Va a a c c (d *d தwmc] hCJhh>*CJh h >*CJhhm95>*CJh5>*CJh h CJ h CJhfQhfQCJhm9B*CJphhfQ>*B*CJ(aJ(phhm9B*phhm96B*CJ]phhm95>*B*CJ\phhm9B*CJphhm95CJ\ hm9CJH* hm9CJ"c c d ;e f g &i bj j ik jk k k l l m ?n n ?p Rp q s t  & Fgd)9 & Fgd)9 & Fgd)9gd)9 & Fgd & Fgd & Fgd & Fgd *d +d Id _d d d d d d d d d d d e e e +e 1e 6e ;e ]e f f f f f f f 8g jg zg |g g g g g g Rh Th &i :i \i i i ˺⪡⛑⡊wqܴ h#xCJh)9hm96>*CJ hm9>*CJ hCJ]h h >*CJ h CJhm96CJ]hm96>*CJ] h)9CJ h>*CJhhm9>*CJhh>*CJ h6CJ hCJ hm9CJhhm95>*CJhh5>*CJ,i j 3j 4j j j j j k k #k 9k Xk \k ]k ^k ik jk k k k l l l l l m m %m &m 'm =m ?n Qn n n n ?p Rp \p q q s s :s *CJ h)95CJhhCJ hqwCJ hqw5CJhqw5>*CJh)9h)96CJ]h)9h)9CJh)95>*CJh)96CJ] h CJhm96CJ] hm9CJ hCJ h)9CJ3t /u u v v v \w |x `y .z :{ \{   , ! W ^  & FZ & FZ & F & Fgd  & Fgd  & Fgd & Fgd & Fgdgd)9 & Fgdqw & Fgdqw & Fgd)9*B*CJ\ph hm9>*CJU h CJhm95CJ\h hm9>*CJ hCJ hm9CJhh>*CJhhm9>*CJhh)95>*CJh5>*CJ h)9CJhqw5CJ\hqwhqw>*CJ\ hqwCJ hqw5CJ(he government consider, inter alia, such factors as the Sentencing Guideline range yielded by the charge, whether the penalty yielded by such sentencing range (or potential mandatory minimum charge, if applicable) is proportional to the seriousness of the defendant's conduct,. .. RELEVANT CASES: Bordenkricher v. Hayes, 434 U.S. 357, 1978 (U.S.S.Ct) (prosecutor may threaten additional charges, for not pleading guilty, if those charges are actually merited based on the known facts; otherwise, vindictive and violating due process clause) Bordenkricher v. Hayes, 434 U.S. 357, 1978 (U.S.S.Ct) Facts: Hayes was indicted for passing a forged instrument for $88.30. In negotiation, prosecutor threatened to bring additional charges under Kentucky Habitual Criminal Act if Hayes did not accept a plea. Hayes choose not to plead guilty, and accordingly, the prosecutor charged him under the Habitual statute. Under that statute, he was sent to life in prison (grossly excessive!). Holding & Reasoning: If a prosecutor does no more than present the defendant with the unpleasant alternatives of foregoing trial or facing charges on which he was plainly subject to prosecution, he has not acted vindictively enough to violate the due process clause. Dissent (Blackmun): As prosecutor himself deemed the additional charges unreasonable, it cannot be regarded as not vindictive.     PAGE 2 PAGE 69 CRIMINAL LAW, Sklansky Fall 07 PAGE  PAGE 69 ^ # $ ׏ 1 N i j k m n p q s t v w } ~  Ǒ ȑ ʑ ˑ ̑ ͑ ϑ Б ё ɿh]~0JCJ h]~CJhY~0JmHnHuh]~h]~0JmHnHu h]~0Jjh]~0JUh7jgjh7jgUh#xhm9CJ hCJhm95B*CJ\phhm95CJ\ hm9CJ4 $ ؏ j l m o p r s u v $a$ $h]ha$gdu] &`#$gd}'h]hgdu] &`#$gdP & FZgd#x & FZ & FZ ̑ ͑ Α ϑ Б ё  & FZgd#x $h]ha$gdqsh&`#$]hgdqs$&`#$a$gdqs &`#$gd}'h]h &`#$gdqs &`#$gdqs$a$gdY~8 001h:pu]/ =!"#$% $$If!vh5555#v#v5#v:V l 0%5555/ 4p$$If!vh5555#v#v5#v:V l  0%55554p $$If!vh5555#v#v5#v:V l  0%55554p $$If!vh5555#v#v5#v:V l  0%5555/ 4p $$If!vh5555#v#v5#v:V l 0%55554p@@@ NormalCJ_HaJmH sH tH F@F  Heading 1$@&5>*B*\phD@D  Heading 2$@&5B*\phfJ@J  Heading 3$$@&a$5B*\ph3f:@:  Heading 4$@&5\J@J  Heading 5$$@&a$5B*\phN@N  Heading 6$$@&a$5B*CJ2\phDA@D Default Paragraph FontVi@V  Table Normal :V 44 la (k(No List 2>@2 Title$a$5\>@>  Footnote TextCJaJ@&@ Footnote ReferenceH*4 @"4 Footer  !.)@1. Page Number<J@B< Subtitle$a$ 5CJ\6U@Q6 Hyperlink >*B*ph0Oa0 documentbody4@r4 Header  !0O0 groupheading<O< informationalsmallB^@B Normal (Web)dd[$\$$O$ spelleLC@L Body Text Indent *^*CJaJFV@F FollowedHyperlink >*B* phz )*Jcu5>[v;Mal.=Mo|:;bR82 ( Z u 6 _e7Lc w"9lBP3RSn3$lT_ku{nW a ;!!!!""f""x#y#z#{#|#}#~#####m$n$$$%%%% &$&&W' (1((())))*********!+"+U+++G,-.//p000N111#223r3q4457|8}888]99:::::+; <A<g<<=?=F=r>?@l@@A@BBBBCEFkGZI[I\I]I^I_I`IaIbIcIdIeIfIgIhIiIjIkIlImIIIIIIwJK"L#LHL MMM,NbNcNN/OONPPPEQQxRSITTTUUUV8VuVvVVEWWXyYzYYYY]ZZZ[[[[3\:\\]+^F^[^^\_`````aaaabcCcJccIdddde}ff)giggYhZh[hzh{hhi/jrjjjk/lllllmmynnGoioooAppp qRrSrbrrsssstt^usuu&v-vwxxxwyy/zzU{{|}}}}} ~~Sk89OA@ۃ^҅Tn݆ކDć*_`шGb|@]B8>?SݏaĐ CsӑMD ٕ_`dqOƜ$9-ٟڟ*\cl'u#PfզܦH]է p !NOPv߬ЭԮѯM°!}Wzcds}*?jqƹ:WX4Iig uLp&+G ./O{ P.4m!]hi$s}FG|P>mGv1tt$93t>?]nRq187L)!"#.234FGHXarsz()@XYZ[hij  ? 3U B|,"     ,   * 1    A") 6=k  j^8f' n  !!5"w""""#S######e$|%}%% &x'(((-).)/)V)s*+,,, ,C,J,,,4---\..:/;/y//0?1T123344@4G4R5g56 777778C8J8Y8888^9:&;';+;C;U;;<<<<<=>?@]AB`CCDEEEFGGG-H4H]IrIJJJKKKKKLYMZMMMNNNOOPPPPQQQQQQQQRbRRSBTTVW=W]WW XXXXY'Y?YrYYY ZRZZZZf[g[|[[[[q\^^___`maaa]b7cRcCdDdddeefffgxgygggxhhij0k1kmktkl\mqmno%pqq%q&qqqqr syssss;v*wx#y$yIyyz)zZzzn{,|-|U||x} ~~~n([,b}:DžTU[΋ڍ7ʎגT/w# {,8?ˡGH:;`</DեhWXW^sΫq78q"[b-B'ȱ"@hW](M.Ctʿ߿,35J0 st#$hl6K'P@l|+:@w>8UzS()kr$95nAHu!*1/0H]IJz>UsLIJPabcdScC~      " c v  0 t     ;d13d p HOG&-     !!!!_"`"""_#t#$$$$%%%&$&''E'Z'''''''((y(()u))D*Q*g**W+h+++[,,,,?-@-b--).y../0_000001-1111122@2N2P34414455o666!76777"87888899999:::;;<<<=7?????u@@@sAtAAAB`@ӓ2Y9~)eQKߙQ}ƚٜ8ݝJΞ"̟o͠W<ϣǧӨ ?G\qɮ,3k<Clm67L˴̴ t˷5˸]^#0@Xɽʽ˽̽ͽν  ӿfIVW%&^e FGv}K LM`hYIlJstDM&-3Lh/J.{b.T-XfC6~gc8{jL%&F};<^ABDUS k   K    C    /6X~}ek<r-Ku,R~    !!!""C"J"w###$%w%%& &B&W&&&%',''((p)i*+%++,,,--..G.\.R/v/w////F0[0r0W1o1p11133F3M333333446666677782888 9'99#:8:;;<<<<=`=>>>>>>>???/@@=AAA{BBCnCCD DDE?EpE F9FFGG*G]H^HHHZIII&JMJ@KoKK M$MBM,NNN;OVOOPMPkPQwQQRRTTU/UpUUaVVFWGWQWWWW`XXWYYZZ[[e[[[u\]^^_(_____?`T`|abbbc cccSddee#g$gZgaggh8hh4i~iijjcjjjFkkkblcldllll.mmUnnnnnooo"p0ppp>q?qhqqq r;rrs|ssstluzuuvwww7xxxxxxMy$zhzzzF{{||\}}m~QC߂2߄a*p-1\ϊwxYC  "Gab0jܑݑ~8ϔД|ݕ9SS٘yAڜHĞQ()PeTUݣޣϨs>E(=CDo}BCovl<[ Eճ $-B|}ķŷstֹW:O¿2;<j>Eq i~]^`a(= ( 070wiV4GHp9YL BF&M-x3@x'F{5kGn|e4y:^dZTd\o:zQ56EnFhixleHE0^     3 4 5 6 7 b w L      MwP./ovZCn #<%/c&*& ' P W   !B"8##B$$$%d&(Q((()*W+X+++D,d--..#/d//02w4x4445566666677_8`8889999:;:;O;;w<&='=R=g===#>*>>>B@@AA(C)C*C+CYC`CCDEEE0FVGWGGG;HqHHIIIIhJJJJJzKKK\LwMxMMMM;NNNNOO{PPQLQQ&R{TTTTUjUkUzUUVVW WW)X>XYZs[[\\\\\\*\1\r]]N^l^m^^^^M___o````aaVbWbcccc dTdeefggggg-hh"iuiij/jPjjjdkkkell*mmmTno=ojoopqqqrrs\sss>t\totuuvPv'wIwwwwLxx"yIyFzzzz({{|||n}}}0~7~~0Xv><=cj f{wx OdІFGs[\8ST7r͎@я؏<jגLēœ(bՔ֔` -S-BD̚ ӛzÝO6ԟ's $Fb JoD'FbӦԦզ֦צئ٦ڦΧt˪7Ǭɬ٬Nz bc2ܴdxͷη &; kl  DYIP:UnYZDX]^_lmPQCDEFG^>D .^_xR0H'^;sN[,TCQn I^$+d#+@:A&}tGGH{FM?V<{@\STUVWijRS0  \ R S m    .  Yonof1.= {:4pH'd/S. ( !!""##$$A%%^&'5''-(S)#*H*++7,,,,*-+-V-q-.K...t//V00*11122@3k33%4&4F4W44d5566 6b66N77L88>99:::::];;;<<-=B===>">>>>7??&@;@@iA%B:C;CpCwC)D>DDBEE^FFFGGjGGHHdIuJJJJK.KKKKLLfLLLbMNN`OOWPP^QQYR9S:SSS!TUUBUIUUUUWVmVnVVVWW2X9XXXmYYY7Z#[[Q\\]c^%_i________4``aa aaaaaabb1cCcc@dddd^ee{fgghSijjkkl)l`lmm/mambmrmmCn$ooXpppq)qqq0rErrsstttttkvlvvvawbwwwxDyUzVzzz {2{{?|T|,}K~[~'(34JՀրY߁8t0HɃUiDŽȄ 4WIc܍^Zΐ[WXГEqEp7֘Z ugɛÜTmŝ+Wў>ПXv-M*kGeǦ ԧ$ER̩ت H}~Qǭ̮L0@yzõCiC*D̹\TU%^پ()[pѿ=D @U#88?g|aShsoN34bw2%./g|  7L8>,WR oYF7*+,-9PXYZ[\]^ghiuvwx{8000 0 0 0 0 0u 0u 0u 0 0 0 0 05 05 05 05 05 05 05 0 0 0 0 0 0 0M 0M 0M 0M 0 0 0 0. 0. 0. 0 0| 0| 0| 0| 0 0 00000 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 000 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0  0  0 0l  0l  0l  0l  0 0  0  0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0O 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 00 0 0. 0. 0. 0 0 000 0? 0Z? 0Z? 0Z? 0? 0Z? 0k? 0k? 0k? 0? 0k? 0k? 0? 0? 0@? 0@? 0? 0W? 0W? 0k? 0? 0k? 0? 0? 0? 0? 0? 0C ? 0C ? 0C ? 0? 0~!? 0!? 0!? 0!? 0~!? 0~!?0?0?0?0?0?0?0?0?0?0? 0?0?0? 0? 0? 0? 0? 0? 0? 0? 0? 0%? 0%? 0? 0? 0'? 0'? 0'? 0? 0? 0?0?0?0?0?0?0?0?0?0?0? 0? 0? 0+? 0+? 0+? 0+? 0? 0/? 0/? 0\0? 0\0? 0/? 0/? 01? 01? 01? 01? 0? 0^3? 0^3? 04? 0?0?0? 0? 0? 0? 0? 0?0?0? 0? 0:? 0:? 0;? 0 <? 0 <? 0 <? 0 <? 0? 0+=? 0+=? 0+=? 0+=? 0? 0? 0? 0? 0+=? 0? 0B? 0B? 0C? 0C? 0B?0?0?0?0?0?0?0?0?0?0?0?0?0?0?0?0?0?0?0?0?0?0?0?0? 0? 0I? 0?0?0? 0? 0? 0? 0}M? 0}M?0?0? 0? 0? 0O? 0?0?0? 0? 0? 0Q? 0Q? 0? 0 ? 0T? 0T?0?0? 0 ? 0 ?0?0? 0? 0? 0? 0?0?0?0? 0? 0Y? 0Y? 0? 0Z? 0Z?0?0?0? 0? 0\? 0\? 0\? 0\? 0? 02^? 02^? 02^?0?0?0? 0? 0`? 0`? 0`? 0? 0a? 0a?0? 0? 0/c? 0/c? 0c? 0/c? 0? 0d? 0d? 0d? 0if? 0if? 0if? 0d?0?0?0?0?0? 0? 0h? 0i? 0i? 0h? 0j? 0h? 0k?0?0? 0? 0? 0Xm? 0? 0? 0? 0?0?0? 0? 0? 0 ? 0 ?0?0? 0? 0?0?0?0? 0? 0s? 0s? 0? 0Ju?0? 0? 0v? 0v? 0w? 0w? 0v? 0? 0cy? 0cy? 0z? 0z? 0z?0?0?0?0? 0? 0}? 0? 0~? 0~? 0~?0?0? 0?0?0? 0? 0? 0? 0?0?0? 0? 0ǃ? 0? 0? 0? 0|? 0? 0? 0? 0Z?0?0? 0? 0? 0? 0? 0? 0?0?0? 0? 0? 0? 0? 0? 0? 0? 0? 0,? 0?0?0?0? 0? 0?0?0? 0? 0? 0? 0? 0? 0? 0?0?0? 0? 0? 0? 0M? 0M? 0? 0 ? 0 ? 0 ? 0 ? 0 ? 0?0?0? 0? 0? 0? 0? 0?0?0?0? 0? 0? 0? 0~? 0~?0? 0? 0? 0? 0x? 0x?0?0?0? 0? 0p? 0p? 0? 0? 0? 0?0?0?0? 0? 0H? 0H? 0H? 0? 0? 0? 0ܢ? 0? 0?0? 0? 0? 0? 04? 0I? 0I? 04?0?0?0?0?0? 0? 0b? 0?0?0? 0? 0? 0? 0{? 0? 0? 0? 0{? 0{? 0i? 0i? 0i? 0{?0?0? 0? 0? 0? 0?0?0?0? 0? 0V? 0? 0? 0? 0? 0?0?0?0? 0? 0ػ? 0ػ? 0? 0 ? 0 ?0?0?0? 0? 0ݾ? 0ݾ? 0ݾ? 0? 0? 0? 0? 0? 0?0?0?0? 0? 0? 0? 0? 0? 0? 0? 08? 08? 0? 0? 0? 0? 0? 0? 0?0?0?0?0? 0? 0;? 0;? 0;? 0 ? 0? 0? 0? 0? 0 ? 0? 0? 0 ? 0? 0?0?0? 0 ? 0 ? 0s? 0s? 0? 0s? 0? 0s? 0?0?0? 0? 0y? 0? 0? 0? 0i?0?0? 0? 0h? 0? 0<? 0? 0? 0? 0? 0? 0? 0? 0? 0? 0? 0? 0? 0?0?0? 0? 0? 0? 0? 0? 0? 0? 0? 0`? 0?0?0? 0? 0? 0? 0?0?0?0? 0? 0? 0? 0? 0? 0? 0? 0?0? 0? 0? 0? 0`? 0u? 0`?0?0?0? 0? 0y? 0y? 0? 0? 0? 0? 0? 0>? 0>? 0?0?0? 0? 0? 0? 0? 0#? 0#?0?0?0? 0? 0? 0? 0?0?0? 0?0?0?0?0?0?0?0?0?0? 0?0?0?0? 0? 0?0?0? 0?0?0? 0?0?0?0? 0? 0?0?0? 0?0?0?0? 0?0?0? 0? 0?0?0? 0? 0?0?0?0? 0? 0?0?0?0?0?! 0?! 0?0?0?0?! 0?! 0?! 0?0?! 0?! 0?! 0?! 0?! 0?! 0?! 0 ?! 0 ?! 0 ?0?0?0?0?! 0?! 0?0?0?" 0?" 0?" 0?0?0?# 0?# 0 ?# 0 ?# 0?# 0 ?# 0 ?# 0 ?# 0 ?0?0?# 0?# 0?# 0?# 0?# 0?# 0?# 0?# 0?0?0?$ 0?$ 0"?$ 0"?$ 0"?$ 0?$ 0?# 0?$ 0?0?0?0?% 0?0?0?% 0?% 0?% 0?% 0?% 0?% 0?% 0?% 0?% 0?% 0?% 0?% 0?% 0?% 0?% 0!?" 0?% 0!?% 0!?% 0!?% 0!?% 0!?% 0?% 0?#?% 0?#?% 0?#?% 0?% 0#?% 0#?0?0?% 0?% 0o%?% 0o%?% 0d'?% 0o%?0?0?0?" 0?" 0?" 0?0?0?0?0?& 0?& 0/,?& 0/,?& 0/,?& 0/,?& 0?& 0-?& 0-?& 0-?0?0?( 0?( 0e/?( 0e/?( 0?( 0+1?( 0+1?( 0p2?( 0p2?0?0?' 0?' 0,4?' 0?' 0>5?' 0>5?' 0>5?0?0?0?0?) 0?) 07?) 0/8?) 0/8?) 0/8?) 0/8?) 07?) 08?) 08?0?0?) 0?) 0;?) 0;?) 0?0?0?0?0?+ 0?+ 0?+ 0r=?+ 0r=?+ 0?+ 0?+ 0IA?+ 0IA?+ 0IA?+ 0IA?0?0* 0E* 0E* 0E0E0E* 0E* 0HE* 0E* 0IIE* 0IIE0E0E* 0E* 0KE* 0KE* 0E* 0KE* 0KE0E0E* 0E* 0yME* 0yME* 0E* 0NE* 0NE* 0NE0E0E0E, 0E, 0PE0E0E0E0E0E0E0E, 0E, 0QE, 0NRE, 0RE, 0NRE, 0.TE, 0yTE, 0QE, 0VE, 0VE, 0VE, 0VE0E, 0E, 0XE, 0XE, 0XE, 0XE, 0XE, 0E, 0YE, 0YE, 0YE, 0E, 0ZE, 0ZE0E0E, 0E0E0* 0 [- 0[* 0 [* 0 [0[0[- 0[- 0_[- 0_[- 0[- 0a[- 0a[- 0a[- 0#c[0[0[. 0[. 0kd[. 0[- 0a[- 0e[- 0e[- 0e[- 0vf[0[0[- 0[- 0g[- 0[- 0dh[- 0dh[- 0dh[0[0[- 0[- 0Yk[- 0Yk[- 0[- 0Hm[- 0Hm[- 0n[- 0Hm[0[0[0[0[0[0[/ 0[/ 0[/ 0[/ 0[/ 0[0[0[/ 0s[/ 0s[/ 0s[0[0[/ 0[/ 0[/ 0[/ 0[/ 0 [/ 0 [/ 0vz[0[0[/ 0 [/ 0 [/ 0 [/ 0[0[0[/ 0[/ 0~[/ 0Z[/ 0Z[/ 0~[/ 0[/ 0[/ 0[/ 0[/ 0[/ 0[/ 0[/ 0[/ 0[/ 0&[/ 0[/ 0[0[/ 0[/ 0A[/ 0A[/ 0[/ 0[/ 0[/ 0[/ 0[/ 0[/ 0[/ 0~[/ 0[0[0[/ 0[/ 0[0[0[0 0[0 0[0 0[2 0[2 0[0 0[0 0[0 0[0 0[2 0[2 0[2 0[0 0[0 0[0 0 [0 0 [0 0 [0 0 [0[0[1 0[1 0$[1 0[1 0[0[0[2 0[2 0[0[0[2 0[2 0v[0[0[0[2 0[2 0[2 0[2 0[2 0[2 00[2 0[2 0[2 0T[0[0[5 0[5 0[0[0[2 0 [2 0C[2 0C[2 0C[2 0 [2 0][0[0[2 0 [2 0][0[0[0[4 0[4 0G[4 0G[4 0[4 0[4 0[4 0[4 0[4 0[4 0[4 0,[4 0,[4 0[4 0C[4 0C[4 0C[4 0[4 0[0[0[0[5 0[5 0[5 0/[5 0[0[5 0[5 0Ͼ[5 0Ͼ[5 0[5 0[5 0˿[5 0[0[0[0[2 0 [2 0[2 0[0[0[0[2 0 [2 0![0[0[2 0[2 0[0[0[2 0[2 0[2 0[2 0}[2 0[0[0[2 0[2 0[0[0[5 0[5 0[5 0[0[0[0[3 0[3 0[3 0[3 0[3 0v[3 0v[3 0X[0[3 0[3 0[3 0[3 0[3 0[3 0"[3 0"[3 0"[3 0t[3 0"[3 0r[3 0r[3 0"[0[0[0[0[6 0[6 0[0[0[6 0[6 0[6 0[0[0[6 0[6 0[6 0[6 0[6 0[6 0&[6 0k[6 0&[6 0,[6 0&[6 0[6 0&[6 0[6 0[6 0w[6 0w[6 0$[6 0$[0[0[9 0[; 0[: 0[9 0[9 0[8 0[8 0[0[0[9 0[9 0[9 0[9 0[9 0[9 0[9 0[0[0[; 0[; 0W[; 0[; 0[; 0%[; 0[0[0[; 0[; 0-[; 0-[; 0[; 0[; 0[; 0[; 0[0[0[9 0[9 0[9 0[9 0[9 0[9 0[9 0[0[0[0[9 0[9 0[9 0[9 04[0[0[7 0[7 0f[7 0f[7 0[7 0[7 0[7 0[7 0[7 0[7 0_[7 0[7 0[0[0[; 0[; 0[0[0[0[0[0[< 0[< 0[< 0[0[0[< 0[< 0[< 0[< 0[< 0?[< 0O[< 0O[< 0?[< 0[< 0[< 0[< 0[< 0?[< 0j [< 0j [< 0j [< 0j [< 0j [< 0j [< 0?[< 0O [< 0O [< 0O [< 0O [< 0[< 0 [< 0 [< 0 [< 0 [< 0[< 0[< 0[< 0[< 0[0[0[< 0[< 0 [0[0[? 0[? 0[? 0[> 0[> 0[> 0[> 0[> 0[0[0[= 0[= 0[0[0[= 0[= 04[= 04[= 04[= 0[= 0[= 0[= 0[= 0[= 0t[= 0t[= 03[0[0[= 0[= 0[= 0[= 0[= 0[0[0[= 0[= 0 [= 0 [= 0[= 0![0[0[= 0[= 0x"[= 0[= 0K#[= 0K#[0[0[= 0 [= 0$[0[0[= 0 [= 0%[0[0[= 0 [= 01'[0[0[0[0[0[@ 0[@ 0'[@ 0'[@ 0'[@ 0'[@ 0([@ 0([@ 0a)[@ 0'[@ 00*[@ 00*[@ 00*[@ 0'[@ 0C+[@ 0C+[@ 0C+[@ 0C+[@ 0G,[@ 0G,[@ 0G,[0[0C 0,-C 0,-C 0,-C 0,-C 0,-C 0,-C 0,-B 0,-0,-0,-0,-0,-@ 0,-@ 01,-0,-0,-0,-0,-@ 0,-@ 01,-@ 01,-@ 0,2,-@ 0,2,-@ 01,-@ 03,-@ 01,-@ 0,-@ 04,-@ 04,-@ 05,-0,-0,-@ 0,-@ 0 7,-0,-0,-A 0,-A 08,-0,-0,-A 0,-A 08,-0,-0,-@ 0,-@ 09,-@ 09,-@ 09,-@ 0:,-@ 09,-@ 0;,-@ 09,-@ 0,-@ 0<,-@ 0<,-@ 0=,-0,-0,-@ 0,-@ 0?,-@ 0?,-@ 0,-@ 0@,-0,-0,-@ 0 ,-@ 0A,-@ 0A,-0,-0,-0,-0,-E 0,-E 0cB,-E 0,-E 0vC,-E 0C,-E 0C,-E 0vC,-E 0E,-E 0,-E 0E,-E 0E,-E 0E,-E 0E,-0,-0,-E 0,-E 0 H,-E 0 H,-E 0,-E 0,-E 0RJ,-E 0J,-E 0J,-E 0J,-E 0K,-E 0K,-0,-0,-E 0,-E 0L,-E 0L,-E 0,-E 0M,-E 0M,-E 0M,-E 0uO,-E 0uO,-0,-0G 0PG 0PP0P0G 0tQG 0QtQ0tQ0tQF 0tQF 0.RtQF 0.RtQF 0tQF 0RtQF 0StQF 0StQ0tQ0tQD 0tQD 0TtQD 0TtQD 0TtQD 0tQD 0jVtQD 0VtQD 0-WtQD 0VtQD 0VtQD 0GXtQD 0GXtQD 0jVtQD 0XtQD 0XtQD 0XtQD 0XtQ0tQ0tQ0tQ0tQ0tQ0tQH 0tQH 0tQ0tQ0tQH 0tQH 0U[tQH 0[tQH 0[tQH 0[tQH 0tQH 0tQH 0]tQH 0]tQH 0tQ0tQ0tQH 0tQH 0 `tQH 0 `tQH 0tQH 0atQH 0atQH 0 btQ0tQ0tQI 0tQI 0tQI 0tQI 0tQI 0tQ0tQ0tQI 0tQI 0htQI 0htQI 0tQI 0htQI 0htQI 0]itQI 0]itQI 0]itQI 0htQ0tQ0tQJ 0tQJ 0ltQ0tQ0tQ0tQJ 0tQJ 0EmtQJ 0ZmtQJ 0ZmtQJ 0EmtQ0tQ0tQJ 0tQJ 0otQ0tQ0tQJ 0tQJ 0qtQJ 0qtQ0tQX0tQ0r0r0rL 0rL 0srL 0sr0r0rK 0rK 0srK 0srK 0urK 0wrK 0wrK 0urK 0rK 0xrW 0rK 0rK 0CyrK 0r0r0rK 0rK 0rK 0n|rK 0n|rK 0rK 0~}rK 0}rK 0}rK 0~}rK 0~rK 0~rK 0~}rK 0(rK 0(rK 0(rK 0(rK 0rK 0rK 0rK 0rK 0rK 0rK 0rK 0(rK 0rK 0r0r0rK 0rK 0grK 0wrK 0rK 0wrK 0qrK 0wrK 0rK 0rK 0grK 0rK 0#rK 0.rK 0#rK 0rK 0XrK 0rK 0rK 0rK 0rK 0rK 0rK 0grK 0ɏrK 0ɏrK 0ɏrK 0 rK 0*rK 0*rK 0*rK 0*rK 0rK 0r0r0rK 0 rK 0 rK 0 rK 0 rK 0r0rK 0rK 0krK 0krK 0krK 0krK 0krK 0rK 0rK 0rK 0rK 0r0r0rQ 0rQ 0rQ 0=rQ 0rQ 0rQ 0ϚrQ 0ϚrQ 0rQ 0rQ 0rQ 0rQ 0rQ 0xrQ 0xrQ 0xr0r0rK 0rK 0rK 0r0r0rP 0rN 0rN 0rN 0rN 0rN 0rN 0rN 0rN 0rN 0rN 0 rN 0 rN 0 rN 0 rN 0 rN 0r0r0r0rP 0rP 0+rP 0rP 0HrP 0]rP 0HrP 0xrP 0xrP 0HrP 0r0r0rM 0rM 0rM 0rM 0Wr0r0rM 0rM 0(rM 0rM 0r0r0rP 0rP 0r0rP 0rP 0#rP 0#rP 0rP 0r0r0rP 0rP 0rP 0rP 0`rP 0`rP 0r0r0rP 0rP 0նrP 0rP 0rP 0̷rP 0̷rP 0r0r0rM 0rM 0rM 0rM 0rM 0rM 0rM 0rM 0r0r0r0r0r0r0rO 0rO 0rO 0rO 0rO 0rO 0rO 0Rr0r0rM 0rM 0rM 0rM 0rM 0r0r0rM 0rM 0rM 0r0r0rM 0rM 0lrM 0r0r0rM 0 rM 0rM 0 rM 0rM 0r0r0r0r0rM 0 rM 0rM 0rM 0r0r0rM 0 rM 0JrM 0 rM 0rM 0rM 0rM 0r0r0rM 0rM 0brM 0brM 0rM 0rM 0r0r0rM 0rM 0r0r0r0r0rP 0 rP 0 rP 0rP 0r0r0r0r0r0rP 0 rP 0rP 0rP 0 r0r0rR 0rR 0rR 0rR 0rR 0rR 0rR 0rR 0rR 0rR 06rR 06r0r0rR 0rR 0r0r0rR 0rR 0rR 0rR 0rR 0rR 09rR 0rR 09rR 09rR 09rR 0rR 08rR 0yrR 0yrR 0TrR 0rR 0rR 08rR 0rR 0rR 0rR 0rR 0rR 0rR 0NrR 0NrR 0rR 0@rR 0@rR 0@rR 0rR 0rR 0rR 0rR 0rR 0rR 0"rR 0"rR 0Sr0r0rR 0rR 0rR 0 rR 0 rR 0rR 0$rR 0$rR 0$rR 0$rR 0 rR 0VrR 0VrR 08rR 08rR 0Vr0rR 0 rR 0rR 0trR 0trR 0rR 0rR 0rR 0rR 0rR 0r0r0rT 0rT 0rT 0rT 0rT 0rT 0rT 0rT 0rT 0rT 0 rT 0 rT 0 rT 0 rT 0 rT 0r0r0rS 0rS 0rS 0rS 0rS 0W rS 0W rS 0 rS 07 rS 07 rW 0rW 0r0r0r0rS 0rS 0rS 0rS 0rS 0rS 0nrS 0nrS 0nrS 0irS 0rS 0irS 0rS 0nrS 0(rS 0(rS 0rS 0nrS 07rS 0arS 07rS 0nrS 0rS 0rS 0nr0r0rS 0rS 0rS 0rS 0rS 0rS 0r0r0rS 0rS 0r0r0rS 0rS 0 rS 0 rS 0rS 0t!r0r0rS 0 rS 0/"rS 0 rS 0c#rS 0c#rS 0#rS 0#rW 0/ rW 0r0r0rS 0 rS 0.&r0r0rS 0 rS 0'rS 0 rS 0'rS 0'rS 0'rS 0\)rS 0'rS 0+rS 0+r0r0rS 0rS 0,rS 0,r0r0rS 0rS 03.rS 0H.r0r0rS 0rS 0/rS 0/rS 0rS 020rS 020rS 0^0r0r0rS 0rS 01r0r0rS 0rS 023rS 023r0r0r0rS 0rS 03rS 03rS 04r0r0rS 0rS 06rS 06r0r0rS 0rS 0 8r0r0rS 0rS 0 9rS 0 9rS 0rS 0:rS 0:rS 0 ;r0r0r0r0rU 0rU 0 =rU 0 =rU 0r0r0r0r0r0rU 0rU 0>rU 0?rU 0?rU 0>rU 0>rU 0)ArU 0)ArU 0>rU 0gBrU 0>rU 0CrU 0>rU 0rU 0DrU 0DrU 0DrU 0DrU 0+ErU 0DrU 0ErU 0Er0r0rU 0r0r0rU 0rU 0rU 0HrU 0FIrU 0FIrU 0HrU 0JrU 0HrU 0,KrU 0HrU 0rU 0LrU 0MrU 0.MrU 0MrU 0NrU 0NrU 0NrU 0BOrU 0BOrU 0NrU 09PrU 09PrU 09PrU 0MrU 0LrU 0yRrU 0yRrU 0LrU 0TrU 0TrU 0TrU 0TrU 0UrU 0Ur0r0rU 0r0r0rV 0rV 0rV 0rV 0rV 0r0r0rS 0rS 0[rS 0[rS 0rS 0[rS 0[rS 0[r0r0rS 0rS 0^r0r0rS 0rS 0_rS 0rS 0+`rS 0+`rS 0har0r0rS 0rS 0crS 0rS 0crS 0crS 0?drS 0?drS 0?dr0r0rS 0 rS 0FgrS 0!rS 0grS 0grS 0grS 0grS 0 irS 0 ir0r0rS 0"rS 0OjrS 0OjrS 0#rS 0vkr0r0r0r0r0rU 0 rU 0lrU 0lrU 0 r0r0rU 0 rU 0 rU 0nr0r0rX 0rX 0prX 0prX 0pr0r0rX 0rX 0TqrX 0qrX 0qrX 0qrX 0'rrX 0'rrX 0qrX 0TqrX 0srX 0srX 0rX 0XurX 0XurR 0rR 0rR 0rR 0rR 0r0r0rX 0rX 0xrX 0xrX 0xrX 0xrX 0zrX 0TzrX 0zrX 0zrX 0zrX 0zrX 0{|rX 0{|rX 0{|rX 0xrX 0xrX 0~rX 0rX 0orX 0}rX 0orX 0=rX 0=rX 0=r0r0rX 0rX 0ׂrX 0rX 0rX 0rX 0MrX 0rX 0ׂrX 0 rX 0 rX 0 rX 0 rX 0rX 0 rX 0r0rX 0rX 0drX 0drX 0rX 0rX 0drX 0/r0r0rX 0rX 0 rX 03rX 0MrX 0MrX 03rX 0NrX 0rX 0rX 0rX 03r0r0rX 0 rX 0 rX 0 rX 0 rX 0rX 0ߒrX 0r0r0rX 0r0r0r_ 0r^ 0r] 0r] 0r] 0r] 0r] 0r] 0r] 0r] 0r] 0r] 0 r] 0 r] 0 r] 0 r] 0 r] 0r] 0r] 0r] 0r] 0r] 0r] 0r0r0rZ 0rZ 0<rZ 0Qr0r0r[ 0r[ 0ur0r0r\ 0r\ 0r0r0rZ 0rZ 0ޤrZ 0ޤrZ 0ޤrZ 0rZ 0ҧrZ 0ҧrZ 0ҧrZ 0ҧrZ 0ur0r0rY 0rY 0*rY 0*rY 0rY 0rY 0)r0r0r[ 0r[ 0[r[ 0[r0r0rZ 0rZ 0[rZ 0[rZ 0rZ 0XrZ 0mrZ 0mrZ 0XrZ 0GrZ 0GrZ 0rZ 01rZ 01rZ 01rZ 01rZ 0r0r0r0rY 0rY 0r0r0rY 0rY 0r0r0rY 0rY 0Էr0r0r\ 0r\ 0r\ 0r\ 0r\ 0r\ 0r\ 0r0r0rY 0rY 0rY 0rY 0rY 0&rY 0&rY 0rY 0rY 0~rY 0&r0r0rY 0rY 0Vr0r0r\ 0r\ 0*r\ 0*r\ 0*r\ 0*r\ 0*r\ 0r\ 0Ur0r0rY 0rY 0yrY 0yrY 0 rY 0r0r0rY 0 rY 0rrY 0rrY 0rrY 0 rY 0rY 0rY 0rY 0rY 0r0r0rZ 0rZ 0rZ 0rZ 0rZ 0rZ 0r0r0rY 0 rY 0rY 0r0r0rZ 0rZ 0rZ 0rZ 0rZ 0rZ 0r0r0rZ 0 rZ 0rZ 0rZ 0 rZ 0rZ 0rZ 0r0r0rY 0 rY 0r0r0rY 0rY 0r0r0rY 0rY 0\r0r0r[ 0r[ 0r0r0r0r` 0r` 0r0r` 0r` 0r` 0%r` 0Er` 0%r` 0r0r0r0r0ra 0ra 0ra 0ra 0ra 0ra 0sra 0sra 0sra 0ra 0ra 0ra 0ra 0ra 02ra 0ra 0ra 0ra 0ra 09ra 09ra 0ra 0ra 0ra 0r0r0ra 0ra 0ra 0ra 02ra 0ra 0r0r0ra 0ra 0!ra 0!ra 0ra 0ra 0ra 0!ra 0Zra 0hra 0hra 0hra 0!ra 0ra 0ra 0ra 0ra 0!ra 0&ra 0&ra 0ra 0Pra 0Pra 0Fra 0Fra 0Pra 0ra 0ra 0ra 0ra 0ra 0Hra 0Pr0r0ra 0ra 0ra 0ra 0pra 0ra 0pra 0ra 0pra 0&ra 0 ra 0ra 0ra 0ra 0ra 0ra 0=ra 0ra 0ra 0ra 0ra 0r0r0ra 0 ra 01ra 0Zra 01ra 0ra 0ra 01ra 0 r0r0rh 0rc 0rc 0rc 0rc 0rc 0rc 0rc 0rc 0rc 0rc 0 rc 0 rc 0 rc 0 rc 0 rc 0r0r0r0r0r0rd 0rd 0N rd 0c rd 0c r0r0rd 0rd 0 rd 0 rd 0rd 0rd 0rd 0rd 09rd 09rd 09r0r0re 0re 0[re 0[re 0[re 0re 0re 0re 0re 0re 0r 0Zr 0(r 0r 0(r 0(re 0r0r0r0rb 0rb 0 rb 0rb 0rb 0rb 0r0r0rb 0rb 0< rb 0< rb 0 rb 0< rb 0< rb 0< rb 0< rb 0< rb 0rb 0$rb 0$rb 0$rb 0$rb 0'rb 0'rb 0'rb 0$rb 0$r0r0rb 0rb 0m+rb 0m+rb 0m+rb 0m+rb 0rb 0-rb 0.rb 0-rb 0P/rb 0P/rb 0-r0r0rb 0rb 04r0r0rb 0rb 06r0r0r0rb 0rb 06rb 06r0r0rb 0 rb 0w8r0r0re 0re 09re 09re 09re 0re 0&;re 0&;re 0;r0r0rd 0rd 0>=r0r0rb 0 rb 0>rb 0 rb 0>rb 0>rb 0.@rb 0>rb 0sAr0r0r0r0rb 0 rb 0ECrb 0ECrb 0ECrb 0ECrb 0 rb 0Erb 0Er0r0re 0re 0mGre 0mGre 0re 0]Hr0r0rd 0rd 0Ird 0Ir0r0rd 0rd 0Jrd 0Jrd 0rd 0Krd 0Kr0r0r0r0ra 0 ra 0 r0r0ra 0ra 0Nra 0Nra 0ra 0gPra 0gPra 0ra 08Qra 08Qra 0Rra 0gTra 0gTra 0gTra 0r0r0rc 0rc 0r0r0rf 0rf 0Vrf 0Vrf 0rf 0Xrf 0*Xrf 0*Xrf 0Xrf 0_[r0r0r0r0r0r0ra 0ra 0\ra 0ra 0^]ra 0s]r0r0rg 0rg 0^rg 0^rg 0^rg 0rg 0_rg 0_r0r0r0ri 0ri 0r0r0ri 0wari 0war0r0ri 0ri 0 dri 0ri 0dri 0dri 0dr0r0ri 0ri 0gri 0gri 0gri 0whri 0gri 0gri 0gri 0iri 0jri 0jri 0iri 0jri 0iri 0kri 0iri 0gri 0gri 0ri 0wmri 0wmri 0wmri 0wmri 0)ori 0)ori 0wmr0r0ri 0ri 0qri 0qri 0qri 0qri 0qri 0qri 0sri 0ri 0Htri 0Htri 0Htri 0uri 0uri 0ri 0wri 05wri 05wri 05wri 05wri 0wri 0xri 0yri 0xr0r0k 0zk 0k 0k 0k 0k 0k 00Z}0Z} 0Z} 0~Z} 0~Z} 0Z} 0Z} 0Z} 0bZ}0Z}0j 0)j 0O)j 0O)j 0)j 0R)j 0R)0)0j 0dj 0dj 0dj 0dj 0;dj 0;d0d0j 03j 0_3030j 0Hj 0vHj 0vHj 0Hj 0|H0H0j 0@j 0l@j 0l@j 0@i 0w@i 0@i 0t@i 0@i 0^@i 0@0@0000j 0 j 0j 0j 0 j 0j 000 0 0 000l 0l 0l 0N0l 0l 0l 0l 0l 000l 0l 0l 0?l 0l 0?l 0l 0l 0l 0l 0l 0l 0l 0l 0l 0ml 0l 0l 0ml 0;l 0ql 0;l 0ml 0l 0ml 0m00l 0l 0l 0l 02l 02l 02l 0l 06l 0[l 0[l 0ԣl 0l 0l 02l 0l 000000000l 0l 0l 0l 0l 0l 0l 0l 0l 0l 000m 0m 0m 0m 0m 0m 0m 0m 0m 0m 0 m 0 00g 0g 0g 0g 0 00g 0g 0g 0g 0g 0Pg 0P00g 0g 0g 0g 0g 0g 0'g 0'00g 0g 0z00g 0 g 000g 0 g 0000g 0 g 05g 05g 0 g 0&g 0Ag 0&00g 0 g 0qg 0g 0g 000g 0g 000g 0g 000g 0g 000000 0 0Y 0Y 000n 0n 0n 000n 000000n 0n 0Jn 0n 0n 0n 0 n 0 n 0 n 0n 0n 0n 0n 0 n 0 00n 0n 0dn 0dn 0n 0n 0n 0n 0400n 0n 0 n 0 n 0 n 0 n 0Jn 0 o 0o 0'00p 0p 0p 0p 0p 0p 0p 0p 000j 0 vj 0v0v0j 0 j 0j 0j 0j 0j 0 j 0j 0j 0j 0j 000j 0 j 05 00j 0j 0j 0j 0sj 0sj 0j 0j 0sj 0j 000j 0j 0j 0,00j 0j 0&j 0j 0j 0j 0j 0j 0j 0`j 0`j 0`00j 04j 0g4040j 0j 02j 02j 0j 0+j 0Bj 0+j 0(j 0(j 0+j 0j 0+00j 0j 0j 0000000q 0q 0q 0q 0q 00q 0q 0?q 0?q 0?00q 0q 0q 0q 0 00q 0q 0Y q 0Y q 0Y q 0Y q 0Y q 0q 0E00q 0Eq 0q 0Eq 0q 0 00q 0 q 0q 000q 0 q 0q 0q 0q 0q 0q 0 q 0&q 0q 0q 0 q 0q 04q 0q 0q 0q 0q 0q 0&q 0q 0?q 0q 0q 0q 0q 0q 0q 0q 0q 0q 0!q 0!q 0!q 0q 0#q 0#q 0&q 0$q 0$q 0%q 0$q 0$q 0&q 0'q 0(q 0'q 0*q 0*q 0&q 0+q 0&q 0,q 0&00q 0 q 0B-q 0B-q 0B-q 0B-q 0B-q 0 q 0`/q 0/q 0B0q 0`/q 0`/q 0`/q 01q 0`/q 02q 0`/q 0W300q 0q 024q 024q 024q 02400s 0s 0s 0s 0s 0s 0s 0s 0s 0s 0 00r 0r 0:r 0:r 0r 0;00r 0r 0=00r 0r 0>r 0>r 0k>r 0k>r 0k>r 0k>r 0r 0@r 0@r 0@r 0@00r 0r 0\Cr 0r 0Dr 0Dr 0Dr 0.Er 0D00r 0r 0Fr 0r 0VGr 0VGr 0VGr 0Hr 0VG00r 0 r 0Jr 0Jr 0J00r 0 r 0Lr 0Lr 0 r 0Lr 0Lr 0Lr 0Nr 0Nr 0Nr 0Nr 0Nr 0Lr 0JQr 0JQ00r 0 r 0kSr 0kS00r 0 r 0.Ur 0.Ur 0r 0Ur 0U00r 0r 0V00r 0r 0Xr 0Xr 0Xr 0Xr 0r 0Yr 0Yr 0#Zr 0#Zr 0Yr 0=\r 0Yr 0]r 0O^r 0Y0000t 00t 0t 0_t 0 `00t 0t 0 at 0 a00t 0t 0t 0t 0ct 0/ct 0ct 0ct 0ct 0dt 0dt 0Jet 0dt 0dt 0dt 0gt 0gt 0dt 0i00t 0t 0lt 0lt 0t 0lt 0l00v 0v 0v 0v 0v 0v 000u 0u 0q00u 0u 0ru 0ru 0ru 0r000u 0u 0t00r 0r 0v00u 0u 0|wu 0wu 0|w00r 0r 0zr 0zr 0zr 0{r 0r 0+|r 0@|r 0+|r 07~0X0000 0 0 000 0 0 0 0 0ˁ 0ˁ 0ˁ 0ˁ 0ˁ 0ˁ 0ˁ 0 0 04 04 04 04 04 04 04 0400 0 0 0 0 0} 0} 0} 0 } 0x} 0 } 0 } 0 } 0 } 0w} 0} 05} 0} 0ȍ} 0э} 0э} 0ȍ} 0} 0} 0} 0} 0} 0G00} 0} 0} 0} 01} 01} 0100x 0x 0x 0x 0x 0 x 0x 0x 0x 0} 0x 0x 0Fx 0wx 0Fx 0ax 0ax 0ax 0Fx 0Fx 0x 0x 0x 0x 0x 0Yx 0x 0x 0x 0x 0x 0x 0x 0Yx 0Yx 0Dx 0Dx 0Yx 0Fx 0~x 0x 0x 0x 0x 09x 0~x 0Wx 0~x 0Wx 0x 0Wx 0Wx 0x 0Wx 0Fx 0x 0x 0x 0x 0x 0x 0x 0x 0Ī0x 0x 000| 0| 0| 0| 0| 0| 0| 0| 0| 0| 0 | 0 | 0 | 0 | 0 | 000w 0w 0w 0w 0w 0w 0w 0w 0w 0w 0w 0w 0w 0w 000y 0y 0n00z 0z 0 z 0 z 0z 0ž00y 0y 0Gy 0\00{ 0{ 0){ 0){ 0{ 0{ 000 0 0,00 0 0 0$00~ 0~ 0$~ 0$~ 0k~ 0~ 0S~ 0h0000 0 0 0 0 0? 0? 0~ 0S~ 0~ 0S~ 0:00 0 0N00 0 0 00 0 0 000~ 0~ 000 0  0S00 0  0#000 0 00 0 0 0z 0 0 0 0 0l 0 0 000 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0k 0~ 0k 0k 0k 0[00 0 0 0 0 0 0 000 000Z 0 Z 0Z 0Z 0Z 0Z 0 Z 0mZ 0@0h00@0h00@0h00@0h00@0@0@0@0@0@0@0@0@0@0@0@0@0@0@0@0@0@0@0@0h00x )*J:;b2 ( Z u 6 _e7Lc w"9lBP3RSn3$lT_ku{nW a ;!!!!""f""x#y####m$n$$$%%%% &$&&W' (1((())))***!+"+U+++G,-.//p000N111#223r3q4457|8}888]99:::::+; <A<g<<=?=F=r>?@l@@A@BBBBCEFkGZI[IIIIIIwJK"L#LHL MMM,NbNcNN/OONPPPEQQxRSITTTUUUV8VuVvVVEWWXyYzYYYY]ZZZ[[[[3\:\\]+^F^[^^\_`````aaaabcCcJccIdddde}ff)giggYhZh[hzh{hhi/jrjjjk/lllllmmynnGoioooAppp qRrSrbrrsssstt^usuu&v-vwxxxwyy/zzU{{|}}}} ~~Sk89OA@ۃ^҅Tn݆ކDć*_`шGb|@]B8>?SݏaĐ CsӑMD ٕ_`dqOƜ$9-ٟڟ*\cl'u#PfզܦH]է p !NOPv߬ЭԮѯM°!}Wzcds}*?jqƹ:WX4Iig uLp&+G ./O{ P.4m!]hi$s}FG|P>mGv1tt$93t>?]nRq187L)!"#.234FGHXarsz()@XYZ[hij  ? 3U B|,"     ,   * 1    A") 6=k  j^8f' n  !!5"w""""#S######e$|%}%% &x'(((-).)/)V)s*+,,C,J,,,4---\..:/;/y//0?1T123344@4G4R5g56 777778C8J8Y8888^9:&;';+;C;U;;<<<<<=>?@]AB`CCDEEEFGGG-H4H]IrIJJJKKKKKLYMZMMMNNNOOPPPPQQQRbRRSBTTVW=W]WW XXXXY'Y?YrYYY ZRZZZZf[g[|[[[[q\^^___`maaa]b7cRcCdDdddeefffgxgygggxhhij0k1kmktkl\mqmno%pqq%q&qqqqr syssss;v*wx#y$yIyyz)zZzzn{,|-|U||x} ~~~n([,b}:DžT[΋ڍ7ʎגT/w# {,8?ˡGH:;`</DեhWXW^sΫq78q"[b-B'ȱ"@hW](M.Ctʿ߿,35J0 st#$hl6K'P@l|+:@w>8UzS()kr$95nAHu!*1/0H]IJz>UsLIJPabcdScC~      " c v  0 t     ;d13d p HOG&-     !!!!_"`"""_#t#$$$$%%%&$&''E'Z'''''((y(()u))D*Q*g**W+h+++[,,,,?-@-b--).y../0_000001-11122@2N2P34414455o666!76777"87888899999:::;;<<<=7?????u@@@sAtAAAB`@ӓ2Y9~)eQKߙQ}ƚٜ8ݝJΞ"̟o͠W<ϣǧӨ ?G\qɮ,3k<Clm6L˴̴ t˷5˸]^#0@Xɽʽ  ӿfIVW%&^e FGv}K LM`hYIlJstDM&-3Lh/J.{b.T-XfC6~gc8{jL%&F};<^ABDUS k   K    C   /6X~}ek<r-Ku,R~    !!!""C"J"w###$%w%%& &B&W&&&%',''((p)i*+%++,,,--..G.\.R/v/w////F0[0r0W1o1p11133F3M333446666677782888 9'99#:8:;;<<<<=`=>>>>???/@@=AAA{BBCnCCD DDE?EpE F9FFGG*G]H^HHHZIII&JMJ@KoKK M$MBM,NNN;OVOOPMPkPQwQQRRTTU/UpUUaVVFWGWQWWWW`XXWYYZZ[[e[[[u\]^^_(_____?`T`|abbbc cccSddee#g$gZgaggh8hh4i~iijjcjjjFkkkblcldllll.mmUnnnnnooo"p0ppp>q?qhqqq r;rrs|ssstluzuuvwww7xxxxxxMy$zhzzzF{{||\}}m~QC߂2߄a*p-1\ϊwxYC  "Gab0jܑݑ~8ϔД|ݕ9SS٘yAڜHĞQ()PeTUݣޣϨs>E(=CDo}BCovl<[ Eճ $-B|}ķŷstֹW:O¿2;<j>Eq i~]^`a(= ( 070wiV4GHp9YL BF&M-x3@x'F{5kGn|e4y:^dZTd\o:zQ56EnFhixleHE0^     3 4 b w L      MwP./ovZCn #<%/c&*& ' P W   !B"8##B$$$%d&(Q((()*W+X+++D,d--..#/d//02w4x4445566677_8`8889999:;:;O;;w<&='=R=g===#>*>>>B@@AA(C)CYC`CCDEEE0FVGWGGG;HqHHIIIIhJJJJJzKKK\LwMxMMMM;NNNNOO{PPQLQQ&R{TTTTUjUkUzUUVVW WW)X>XYZs[[\\*\1\r]]N^l^m^^^^M___o```aaVbWbcccc dTdeefggggg-hh"iuiij/jPjjjdkkkellmmTno=ojoopqqqrrs\sss>t\totuuvPv'wIwwwwLxx"yIyFzzzz({{|||n}}}0~7~~0Xv><=cj f{wx OdІFGs[\8ST7r͎@я؏<jגēœ(bՔ֔` -S-BD ӛzÝOԟ's $Fb JoD'bӦԦΧt˪7Ǭɬ٬Nz bc2ܴdxͷη &; kl  DYIP:UnYZDX]^_lmPQCD^>D .^_xR0H'^;sN[,TCQn I^$+d#+@:A&}tGGH{FM?V<{@\STijRS0  \ R S m    .  Yonof1.7,3F4W44d556LLbMNN`OOPaddgjH ^WXEM*kGeǦ soN8>*+,-9PXYZ[\]u{:00 0:@0@000 0 0 0 0 0A 000 0 0! 0! 0! 0! 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0c  0c  0 0t  0 0 0)  0?  0?  0)  0)  0)  0  0.  0)  0)  0Y 0)  0)  0 0L 0L 0L 0L 0L 0L 0L 0L 0L 0 L00 0 0 0 0 0 0c 0c0 0 0 0 0 0 0E 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 09 0 0  0  0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 01 01 0 00000 000 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0  0  0 0 0f# 0f# 0f# 0 0 00000 0 0 0& 0' 0& 0& 0 0* 0 + 0+ 0+ 0 + 0* 0- 0- 0- 0- 0 0. 0. 0N0 000 0 0 0 0 000 0 016 016 06 0w7 0w7 0w7 0w7 0 08 08 08 08 0 0 0 0 08 0 0= 0= 0K? 0K? 0=000000 0 0E 000 0 0 0 0H 0H00 0 0 0tJ 000 0 0 0L 0L 0 0  0O 0O00 0  0 00 0 0 0 0000 0 0U 0U 0 0U 0U000 0 0xW 0xW 0xW 0xW 0 0Y 0Y 0Y000 0 0-\ 0-\ 0S\ 0 0] 0']0 0 0^ 0^ 0&_ 0^ 0 0` 0` 0` 0a 0a 0a 0`00000 0 0c 0d 0d 0c 0f 0c 0g00 0 0 0h 0 0 0 000 0 0 0  0 00 0 0000 0 0?o 0?o 0 0p0 0 0kq 0kq 0r 0r 0kq 0 0t 0t 0tu 0tu 0tu000 0 02y 0 0z 0z 0z00 000 0 0 0 000 0 0 0 0@ 0@ 0Ԁ 0@ 0[ 0@ 000 0 0 0 0 0 000 0 0@ 0C 0C 0C 0 0 0 0 0000 0 000 0 0 0 0 0 0 000 0 0 0 0 0 0 0d 0d 0d 0d 0d 000 0 0 0 0 0000 0 0 0 0֒ 0֒0 0 0ޔ 0 0Е 0Е000 0 0ȗ 0ȗ 0 0h 0h 0h000 0 0 0 0 0 0V 0V 04 0V 0V0 0 0 0 0 0 0 000000 0 0 000 0 0 0 0ө 0 0 0 0ө 0ө 0 0 0 0ө00 0 0 0 0000 0 0 0 0 0 0 0000 0 00 00 0 0x 0x000 0 05 05 05 0 0  0  0  0  0 000 0 0] 0] 0] 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0j 0j 0j 0j 00000 0 0 0 0 0  0. 0. 0r 0. 0  0 0 0  0 000 0  0  0 0 0_ 0 0 0 0=00 0 0 0 0 0 000 0 0 0 0 0 0^ 0^ 0^ 0 0? 0? 0? 0? 0 0 0 000 0 0 0u 0u 0u 0G 0 0 0 000 0 0 0 0000 0 0K 0K 0 0h 0h 0+ 0h0 0 0 0 0 0 0000 0 0 0 0 0* 0* 0* 0* 0 0 00 0 0t 0t 0 0z 0z00000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000! 0! 0000! 0! 0`! 0`0! 0! 0Q! 0w! 0w! 0w! 0Q! 0d! 0d! 0d0000! 0Q! 0Q00" 0" 0" 000# 0# 0n# 0n# 0# 0# 0# 0# 000# 0# 0f # 0f # 0f # 0# 0 # 0 # 0 00$ 0$ 0z$ 0z$ 0z$ 0$ 0># 0N$ 0>000% 000% 0% 0% 0% 0% 0% 0% 0% 0% 0% 0% 0 % 0 % 0 % 0% 0" 0% 0% 0% 0% 0% 0% 0% 0% 0% 0% 0% 0% 000% 0% 0 % 0 % 09"% 0 000" 0" 0" 000& 0& 0'& 0'& 0'& 0'& 0& 0`(& 0u(& 0`(00( 0( 08*( 08*( 0( 0+( 0+( 0C-( 0C-00' 0' 0.' 0' 00' 00' 000000) 0) 02) 03) 03) 03) 03) 02) 03) 0300) 0) 05) 05) 00000+ 0+ 0+ 0E8+ 0E8+ 0+ 0+ 0<+ 0<+ 0<+ 0<0 0* 0v@* 0v@* 0v@0v@0v@* 0v@* 0Bv@* 0v@* 0Dv@* 0Dv@0v@0v@* 0v@* 0Ev@* 0Ev@* 0v@* 0Fv@* 0Fv@0v@0v@* 0v@* 0LHv@* 0LHv@* 0v@* 0Iv@* 0Iv@* 0Iv@0v@0v@0v@, 0v@, 0Kv@0v@0v@, 0v@, 0Lv@, 0Mv@, 0lMv@, 0Mv@, 0Nv@, 0HOv@, 0Lv@, 0Qv@, 0Qv@, 0Qv@, 0Qv@0v@, 0v@, 0wSv@, 0wSv@, 0wSv@, 0wSv@, 0wSv@, 0v@, 0lTv@, 0lTv@, 0lTv@, 0v@, 0NUv@, 0NUv@0v@0v@, 0v@0v@ 0* 0 oV- 0oV* 0 oV* 0 oV0oV0oV- 0oV- 0ZoV- 0ZoV- 0oV- 0q\oV- 0q\oV- 0q\oV- 0]oV0oV0oV. 0oV. 09_oV. 0oV- 0q\oV- 0z`oV- 0z`oV- 0z`oV- 0DaoV0oV0oV- 0oV- 0mboV- 0oV- 02coV- 02coV- 02coV0oV0oV- 0oV- 0'foV- 0'foV- 0oV- 0hoV- 0hoV- 0YioV- 0hoV0oV0oV0oV0oV0oV0oV/ 0oV/ 0oV/ 0oV/ 0oV/ 0oV0oV0oV/ 0]noV/ 0]noV/ 0]noV0oV0oV/ 0oV/ 0oV/ 0oV/ 0oV/ 0 oV/ 0 oV/ 0DuoV0oV0oV/ 0 oV/ 0 oV/ 0 oV/ 0oV0oV0oV/ 0oV/ 0yoV/ 0(zoV/ 0(zoV/ 0yoV/ 0oV/ 0oV/ 0{oV/ 0|oV/ 0{oV/ 0}oV/ 0}oV/ 0oV/ 0i~oV/ 0~oV/ 0i~oV/ 0_oV/ 0i~oV/ 0oV/ 0oV/ 0oV/ 0soV/ 0soV/ 0[oV/ 0[oV/ 0[oV/ 0soV/ 0KoV/ 0oV0oV0oV/ 0oV/ 0oV0oV0oV0 0oV0 0oV0 0oV2 0oV2 0oV0 0oV0 0oV0 0oV0 0oV2 0oV2 0oV2 0oV0 0oV0 0oV0 0 oV0 0 oV0 0 oV0 0 oV0oV0oV1 0oV1 0oV1 0oV1 0WoV0oV0oV2 0oV2 0oV0oV0oV2 0oV2 0BoV0oV0oV0oV2 0oV2 0ToV2 0ToV2 0oV2 0oV2 0oV2 0oV2 0oV2 0!oV0oV0oV6 0oV6 0QoV0oV0oV2 0 oV2 0oV2 0oV2 0oV2 0 oV2 0*oV0oV0oV2 0 oV2 0*oV0oV0oV0oV5 0oV5 0oV5 0oV5 0oV5 0oV5 0oV5 0oV5 0oV5 0oV5 0oV5 0oV5 0oV5 0oV5 0oV5 0oV5 0oV5 0oV5 0oV0oV0oV0oV6 0oV6 0oV6 0oV6 0oV0oV6 0oV6 0oV6 0oV6 0oV6 0oV6 0oV6 0oV0oV0oV0oV2 0 oV2 0oV2 0oV0oV0oV0oV2 0 oV2 0oV0oV0oV2 0oV2 0oV0oV0oV2 0oV2 0oV2 0oV2 0JoV2 0_oV0oV0oV2 0oV2 0oV0oV0oV6 0oV6 0\oV6 0\oV0oV0oV0oV3 0oV3 0uoV3 0uoV3 0oV3 0CoV3 0CoV3 0%oV0oV3 0oV3 0oV3 0oV3 0oV3 0oV3 0oV3 0oV3 0oV3 0CoV3 0oV3 0AoV3 0AoV3 0oV0oV0oV0oV0oV7 0oV7 0oV0oV0oV7 0oV7 0oV7 0oV0oV0oV7 0oV7 0^oV7 0^oV7 0oV7 0oV7 0oV7 0=oV7 0oV7 0oV7 0oV7 0oV7 0oV7 0voV7 0oV7 0IoV7 0IoV7 0oV7 0oV0oV0oV: 0oV< 0oV; 0oV: 0oV: 0oV9 0oV9 0oV0oV0oV: 0oV: 0}oV: 0}oV: 0oV: 0oV: 0oV: 0oV0oV0oV< 0oV< 0)oV< 0oV< 0oV< 0oV< 0oV0oV0oV< 0oV< 0oV< 0oV< 0oV< 0oV< 0oV< 0oV< 0RoV0oV0oV: 0oV: 0oV: 0oV: 0oV: 0oV: 0oV: 0oV0oV0oV: 0oV: 0{oV: 0oV: 0oV0oV0oV8 0oV8 07oV8 07oV8 0oV8 0moV8 0moV8 0XoV8 0XoV8 0moV8 00oV8 0moV8 0moV0oV0oV< 0oV< 0oV0oV0oV0oV0oV0oV= 0oV= 0oV= 0oV0oV0oV= 0oV= 0oV= 0oV= 0oV= 0oV= 0oV= 0oV= 0oV= 0_oV= 0koV= 0koV= 0_oV= 0oV= 0:oV= 0:oV= 0:oV= 0:oV= 0:oV= 0:oV= 0oV= 0oV= 0oV= 0oV= 0oV= 0oV= 0RoV= 0ooV= 0RoV= 0RoV= 0oV= 0oV= 0oV= 0 oV= 0 oV0oV0oV= 0oV= 0 oV0oV0oV@ 0oV@ 0oV@ 0oV? 0oV? 0oV? 0oV? 0oV? 0oV0oV0oV> 0oV> 0soV0oV0oV> 0oV> 0oV> 0oV> 0oV> 0oV> 0oV> 0oV> 0oV> 0oV> 0DoV> 0DoV> 0oV0oV0oV> 0oV> 0oV> 0oV> 0oV> 0oV0oV0oV> 0oV> 0yoV> 0yoV> 0oV> 0oV0oV0oV> 0oV> 0HoV> 0oV> 0oV> 0oV0oV0oV> 0 oV> 0oV0oV0oV> 0 oV> 0 oV0oV0oV> 0 oV> 0"oV0oV0oV0oVA 0oVA 0"oVA 0"oVA 0"oVA 0"oVA 0#oVA 0#oVA 0/$oVA 0"oVA 0$oVA 0$oVA 0$oVA 0"oVA 0&oVA 0&oVA 0&oVA 0&oVA 0'oVA 0'oVA 0'oV0oV 0D 0'D 0'D 0'D 0'D 0'D 0'D 0'C 0'0'0'0'0'A 0'A 0+'0'0'A 0'A 0,'A 0,'A 0,'A 0,'A 0,'A 0.'A 0,'A 0'A 0/'A 0/'A 0T0'0'0'A 0'A 01'0'0'B 0'B 02'0'0'B 0'B 03'0'0'A 0'A 04'A 04'A 04'A 05'A 04'A 0Z6'A 04'A 0'A 07'A 07'A 08'0'0'A 0'A 0:'A 0:'A 0'A 0b;'0'0'A 0 'A 0\<'A 0q<'0'0'0'0'F 0'F 0.='F 0'F 0A>'F 0L>'F 0L>'F 0A>'F 0?'F 0'F 0@'F 0@'F 0@'F 0@'0'0'F 0'F 0B'F 0B'F 0'F 0'F 0E'F 0E'F 0E'F 0E'F 0F'F 0F'0'0'F 0'F 0ZG'F 0ZG'F 0'F 0H'F 0H'F 0H'F 0@J'F 0@J'0' 0H 0iKH 0KiK0iK 0H 0?LH 0xL?L0?L0?LG 0?LG 0L?LG 0L?LG 0?LG 0M?LG 0M?LG 0M?L0?L0?LE 0?LE 0O?LE 0O?LE 0O?LE 0?LE 05Q?LE 0KQ?LE 0Q?LE 0KQ?LE 0KQ?LE 0S?LE 0S?LE 05Q?LE 0WS?LE 0WS?LE 0WS?LE 0WS?L0?L0?L0?L0?L0?L0?LI 0?LI 0?L0?L0?LI 0?LI 0 V?LI 0TV?LI 0_V?LI 0TV?LI 0?LI 0?LI 0X?LI 0X?LI 0?LI 0?LI 0Z?LI 0Z?LI 0?LI 0i\?LI 0i\?LI 0\?L0?L0?LJ 0?LJ 0?LJ 0?LJ 0?LJ 0?L0?L0?LJ 0?LJ 0b?LJ 0b?LJ 0?LJ 0ic?LJ 0~c?LJ 0'd?LJ 0'd?LJ 0'd?LJ 0ic?L0?L0?LK 0?LK 0g?L0?L0?LK 0?LK 0h?LK 0#h?LK 0#h?LK 0h?L0?L0?LK 0?LK 0j?L0?L0?LK 0?LK 0k?LK 0k?L0?LZ0?L0m0m0mM 0mM 0mmM 0mm0m0mL 0mL 0nmL 0nmL 0DpmL 0qmL 0qmL 0DpmL 0mL 0smY 0mL 0mL 0smL 0m0m0mL 0mL 0mL 0vmL 0vmL 0mL 0wmL 04xmL 04xmL 0wmL 0MymL 0MymL 0wmL 0zmL 0zmL 0zmL 0zmL 0p|mL 0p|mL 0p|mL 0p|mL 0p|mL 0p|mL 0p|mL 0zmL 0mL 03m0m0mL 0mL 0mL 0mL 0mL 0mL 0mL 0mL 0mL 0mL 0mL 0mL 0mL 0mL 0mL 0^mL 0˄mL 0^mL 0^mL 0XmL 0XmL 0mL 0mL 0mL 0BmL 0BmL 0BmL 0 mL 0mL 0mL 0mL 0mL 08mL 08m0m0mL 0 mL 0 mL 0 mL 0 mL 0m0mL 0mL 0mL 0mL 0mL 0mL 0mL 0mL 0mL 0mL 0mL 0m0m0mR 0mR 0vmR 0mR 0vmR 0vmR 0KmR 0KmR 0mR 0cmR 0cmR 0mR 0mR 0mR 0mR 0m0m0mL 0mL 0mL 0m0m0mQ 0mO 0mO 0mO 0mO 0mO 0mO 0mO 0mO 0mO 0mO 0 mO 0 mO 0 mO 0 mO 0 mO 0m0m0m0mQ 0mQ 0mQ 0mQ 0ĥmQ 0٥mQ 0ĥmQ 0mQ 0mQ 0ĥmQ 01m0m0mN 0mN 0mN 0mN 0Ӫm0m0mN 0mN 0mN 0mN 0m0m0mQ 0mQ 0 mQ 0mQ 0mQ 0mQ 0dmQ 0dm0m0mQ 0mQ 0imQ 0mQ 0ۯmQ 0ۯmQ 0!m0m0mQ 0mQ 0PmQ 0mQ 02mQ 0GmQ 0GmQ 02m0m0mN 0mN 0mN 0mN 0mN 0mN 0mN 0"mN 0m0m0mP 0mP 0fmP 0fmP 0mP 06mP 06mP 0ɺm0m0mN 0mN 0?mN 0?mN 0mN 0m0m0mN 0mN 0#mN 08m0m0mN 0mN 0mN 0m0m0mN 0 mN 0%mN 0 mN 0mN 0%m0m0mN 0 mN 0DmN 0DmN 0 m0m0mN 0 mN 0mN 0 mN 0XmN 0XmN 0XmN 0Mm0m0mN 0mN 0mN 0mN 0mN 0mN 0m0m0mN 0mN 0m0m0m0m0mQ 0 mQ 0 mQ 0VmQ 0VmQ 0 mQ 0^mQ 0^mQ 0 m0m0mS 0mS 0mS 0mS 0mS 0mS 0mS 0;mS 0EmS 0;mS 0mS 0m0m0mS 0mS 0m0m0mS 0mS 0mS 0>mS 0>mS 0mS 0mS 0mS 0mS 0mS 0mS 0mS 0mS 0mS 0mS 0mS 00mS 00mS 0mS 0NmS 0lmS 0lmS 0lmS 0NmS 0NmS 0mS 0mS 0NmS 0mS 0mS 0mS 0NmS 0mS 0mS 0mS 0mS 0mS 0mS 0m0m0mS 0mS 0mS 0 mS 0 mS 0mS 0mS 0mS 0mS 0mS 0 mS 0mS 0mS 0mS 0mS 0m0mS 0 mS 0mS 00mS 00mS 0mS 0UmS 0UmS 0UmS 0mS 0Bm0m0mV 0mV 0mV 0mV 0mV 0mV 0mV 0mV 0mV 0mV 0 mV 0 mV 0 mV 0 mV 0 mV 0m0m0mT 0mT 0mT 0mT 0mT 0mT 0mT 0mT 0mT 0mY 0mY 0m0m0mT 0mT 0mT 0mT 0mT 0mT 0) mT 0) mT 0) mT 0$ mT 0Z mT 0$ mT 0} mT 0) mT 0 mT 0 mT 0mT 0) mT 0mT 0mT 0mT 0) mT 0pmT 0pmT 0) m0m0mT 0mT 0mT 0mT 0mT 0]mT 0]m0m0mT 0mT 0}m0m0mT 0mT 0>mT 0>mT 0mT 0/m0m0mT 0 mT 0mT 0 mT 0mT 0mT 0mT 0mY 0mY 0m0m0mT 0 mT 0m0m0mT 0 mT 0 mT 0 mT 0!mT 0!mT 0!mT 0#mT 0!mT 0$mT 0$m0m0mT 0mT 0&mT 0&m0m0mT 0mT 0'mT 0(m0m0mT 0mT 0H)mT 0H)mT 0mT 0)mT 0)mT 0*m0m0mT 0mT 0O+m0m0mT 0mT 0,mT 0,mT 0mT 0-mT 0-mT 0.m0m0mT 0mT 0f0mT 0{0m0m0mT 0mT 01m0m0mT 0mT 02mT 02mT 0mT 03mT 03mT 04m0m0m0m0mW 0mW 06mW 06mW 0m0m0mW 0mW 08mW 08mW 08mW 08mW 08mW 0:mW 0:mW 08mW 0<mW 08mW 0<mW 08mW 0mW 0=mW 0=mW 0=mW 0=mW 0>mW 0=mW 0?mW 0?m0m0mW 0m0m0mW 0mW 0mW 0~BmW 0BmW 0BmW 0~BmW 0CmW 0~BmW 0DmW 0~BmW 0mW 0FmW 0FmW 0FmW 0FmW 0jHmW 0HmW 0HmW 0HmW 0HmW 0jHmW 0ImW 0ImW 0ImW 0FmW 0FmW 0-LmW 0-LmW 0FmW 0NmW 0NmW 0NmW 0NmW 0KOmW 0KOm0m0mW 0m0m0mX 0mX 0mX 0mX 0mX 0m0m0mT 0mT 0TmT 0TmT 0mT 0AUmT 0VUmT 0AUm0m0mT 0mT 0Xm0m0mT 0mT 0YmT 0mT 0YmT 0YmT 0[m0m0mT 0mT 0\mT 0mT 0]]mT 0]]mT 0]mT 0]mT 0]m0m0mT 0 mT 0`mT 0!mT 0amT 0amT 0amT 0amT 0bmT 0bm0m0mT 0"mT 0dmT 0dmT 0#mT 0+em0m0m0m0m0mW 0 mW 0fmW 0fmW 0 m0m0mW 0 mW 0 mW 0hm0m0mZ 0mZ 0imZ 0imZ 0im0m0mZ 0mZ 0 kmZ 0YkmZ 0kmZ 0YkmZ 0kmZ 0kmZ 0YkmZ 0 kmZ 0bmmZ 0bmmZ 0mZ 0 omZ 0 omS 0BmS 0BmS 0BmS 0BmS 0Bm0m0mZ 0mZ 0drmZ 0drmZ 0rmZ 0rmZ 0smZ 0 tmZ 0NtmZ 0NtmZ 0NtmZ 0smZ 00vmZ 00vmZ 00vmZ 0drmZ 0drmZ 0xmZ 0mZ 0$zmZ 02zmZ 0$zmZ 0zmZ 0zmZ 0zm0m0mZ 0mZ 0y|mZ 0|mZ 04}mZ 0|mZ 0~mZ 0|mZ 0y|mZ 0mZ 0mZ 0mZ 0mZ 0mZ 0mZ 0m0mZ 0mZ 0mZ 0mZ 0mZ 0mZ 0mZ 0͇m0m0mZ 0mZ 0 mZ 0шmZ 0mZ 0mZ 0шmZ 0mZ 0"mZ 0"mZ 0"m0m0mZ 0 mZ 0 mZ 0 mZ 0 mZ 0mZ 05mZ 0m0m0mZ 0m0m0ma 0m` 0m_ 0m_ 0m_ 0m_ 0m_ 0m_ 0m_ 0m_ 0m_ 0m_ 0 m_ 0 m_ 0 m_ 0 m_ 0 m_ 0m_ 0m_ 0m_ 0m_ 0m_ 0m_ 0m0m0m\ 0m\ 0m\ 0m0m0m] 0m] 0˛m0m0m^ 0m^ 0Cm0m0m\ 0m\ 04m\ 04m\ 04m\ 0m\ 0(m\ 0(m\ 0(m\ 0(m\ 0ˣm0m0m[ 0m[ 0m[ 0m[ 0m[ 0jm[ 0m0m0m] 0m] 0m] 0m0m0m\ 0m\ 0m\ 0m\ 0m\ 0m\ 0êm\ 0êm\ 0m\ 0m\ 0m\ 0Lm\ 0m\ 0m\ 0m\ 0m\ 0Lm0m0m0m[ 0m[ 0om0m0m[ 0m[ 0m0m0m[ 0m[ 0*m0m0m^ 0m^ 0m^ 0m^ 0m^ 0m^ 0Im^ 0^m0m0m[ 0m[ 0m[ 0m[ 0m[ 0}m[ 0}m[ 0m[ 0m[ 0ҹm[ 0}m0m0m[ 0m[ 0m0m0m^ 0m^ 0~m^ 0~m^ 0~m^ 0~m^ 0~m^ 0m^ 0m0m0m[ 0m[ 0;m[ 0;m[ 0 m[ 00m0m0m[ 0 m[ 0m[ 0m[ 0m[ 0 m[ 0hm[ 0hm[ 0Km[ 0Km[ 0hm0m0m\ 0m\ 0pm\ 0pm\ 0pm\ 0m\ 0[m0m0m[ 0 m[ 0m[ 0m0m0m\ 0m\ 0Om\ 0Om\ 0m\ 0&m\ 0;m0m0m\ 0 m\ 06m\ 06m\ 0 m\ 0 m\ 0 m\ 0 m0m0m[ 0 m[ 0>m0m0m[ 0m[ 0m0m0m[ 0m[ 0m0m0m] 0m] 0@m0m0m0mb 0m0mb 0mb 0mb 0mb 0mb 0mb 06m0m0m0m0mc 0mc 0mc 0\mc 0mc 0mc 0mc 0mc 0mc 0mc 0\mc 0mc 0\mc 0Emc 0mc 0Emc 0\mc 0\mc 0vmc 0mc 0mc 0smc 0smc 0ymc 0sm0m0mc 0mc 0mc 0mmc 0mc 0mmc 0m0m0mc 0mc 0mc 0mc 0mc 0mc 0mc 0mc 0Tmc 0bmc 0bmc 0bmc 0mc 0mc 0mc 0mc 0mc 0mc 0 mc 0 mc 0mc 0Jmc 0Jmc 0@mc 0@mc 0Jmc 0mc 0mc 0mc 0}mc 0mc 0Bm0m0mc 0mc 0mc 0mc 0mc 0Xmc 0mc 03mc 0mc 0mc 0 mc 02mc 0=mc 0=mc 02mc 02mc 0mc 02mc 0mc 0mc 02mc 0m0m0mc 0 mc 0mc 0mc 0mc 0 mc 0 mc 0mc 0 m0m0mj 0me 0me 0me 0me 0me 0me 0me 0me 0me 0me 0 me 0 me 0 me 0 me 0 me 0m0m0mf 0mf 0mf 0mf 0m0m0mf 0mf 0Nmf 0Nmf 0mf 0zmf 0mf 0zmf 0mf 0mf 0m0m0mg 0mg 0 mg 0 mg 0 mg 0mg 0b mg 0b mg 0Bmg 0Bmg 0Bm 0Um 0m 0%m 0m 0mg 0Bm0m0m0md 0md 0md 0md 0tmd 0md 0tm0m0md 0md 0md 0md 0md 0md 0md 0md 0md 0md 0md 0!md 0Nmd 0Nmd 0!md 0md 0md 0md 0!md 0!m0m0md 0md 0"md 0"md 0"md 0"md 0md 0%md 0%md 0%md 0&md 0&md 0%m0m0md 0md 0 ,m0m0md 0md 0-md 0md 0h.md 0h.m0m0md 0 md 00m0m0mg 0mg 0&1mg 0&1mg 0&1mg 0mg 02mg 02mg 0<3m0m0mf 0mf 04m0m0md 0 md 05md 0 md 0a6md 0a6md 07md 0a6md 09m0m0md 0 md 0:md 0:md 0:md 0:md 0 md 0R=md 0R=m0m0mg 0mg 0>mg 0>mg 0mg 0?m0m0mf 0mf 0'Amf 0EPVYh]#bfnqwz.Vgq   #Q'-24r>CCKQZxb5gnv'~@{,6|qg?H %$)@1:<?GIrNSX] els*z$9#Ș51ڬqzJ)$9s:Pk*228'ACHMQ W__jchrJzphÞ~޸?[V}V  &-4C8<D;JPVq^dh,o|s]y|=PוP,d6bX&<[1 h#^(.7>7CFMIyNPUU\Bah~m7sz-5۠ʻl*fuUwH dO U Y c j r 4v | ԏ + v C S @ ~^ *d i @BCEGHJLMORXZ\]_acdfhjkmoprtvwy{|~   !"$&()+,.0235689;<=?ABDEGHJKMOPRTUWXY[]_`bcdfhikmoprstvxy{|~   !"$%')+-@BCEI u$z+.2<GUVahqx"v[aV<D mv  6!!!h"O%b-7BPKT\c8pO|6k׷jp'9ID`JRYfl_v2#r\ 4\, I|&.7?ZJBVcjzކ6X| P\ 2%.6<=HSY_lubyjXO zgR?%09AHQGZhcm6w~'ܨ4 J.wH T [ f q w ԏ ܝ w   c  \ c t ё   !#&)+-/2479<?ADFIKNPQSTUVWY[^`begilnqsuxz}   #%'*-/147:>@CFILNQSVZ\^aegjlnquwz}   #&(*,?ADJKБ  !$KRV]`h!!! !8@0(  B S  ?9s= :s=KK{KK{9*urn:schemas-microsoft-com:office:smarttagsplace8*urn:schemas-microsoft-com:office:smarttagsCity k$(*-.0 T%Y% 007799g<k<2A8ABByDDEFIIIIIIwJ|J}JJKKKK1L6L7L;LNNNNPPPPRRRRSSSSWU_U[[[[\"\\\____````}}GKLO6:;>*./2#$'\`adLPQTfj/347݉ ŊɊʊ͊8<=@jopzHLMP,014fqˑёx|}/347:>OYǝ˝̝ϝcghkVZ[^Y]^aVZ[^0458!%49:D۸߸y}~dhil ;?@C6:;>Wa(,-0aefi6:;>(,-0p{OSTWtxy|  $)8C.3(0"$G"\"b"j"))G4O4P4[4LLuS{S``A`G`pn}nssssssssx x_g;E$PW\cſSZah!(nr'19@17pveiV[nstx' . s z   :AZ_`d W^#()-FKLPj"q"$$'%.%'!'''''''****++0022??,@4@@@AAAAHHIIIIJ(J:K?K@KDKKKKK=LALBLELQQTTAWFWGWKWWWWWXXXXZZ_[c[4]<]#^'^(^+^d^h^i^l^^^^^____````WdZdddddddggh h hhAjBj`jajjjl!l"l%l|llllPnTnUnXnt tLtQtRtVtttttWw[wfwmwzzzz4{9{:{>{l{q{||||}}~~KRT\Җۖ'"ܨ~´ɴ9=>A06;> PY}!QUVY_cdgLPQT7;<?LPQT  "mv59:=#$'lq-125 @DEH$&*+.+/03lpqt&+,07=!NWs{ S Z B I b i  # $ '     ; ? "Y]^a#ostw] e     !!K!R!!!!!_#g#:%@%o%t%%%&&&&&& '','5'(((()*L*W*o*t*i0q0111133w;;<<<<W=_=2>6>7>:>o>t>u>y>@@HHKKMMMMNNBXLXFkLkDlNlllll%m-mnnnn=nBnCnGnooooRq]qqqxxyyŀƀɀπՀsz}Ɗ͊| ,SZRXyX`Zc#U\chinot  MSv|ðFG$*KSX^y}~|[b>@hm7=RY;CwX`QZiq%*219 CI}9>^ d         A H L S     t{_mbg;@%...77 88i8n8880=8==>n@w@HHIIIIvJ~JJJoNtNNNNNYOaOiOoOOOQQUUUVVV\#\m^s^^^^^<_B_cdrr@wFwb{l{{{}}~~~~ńekIP!&+^gAJȦѦ''W^߭OV¯$OV[b@HoxIP߷v}"+PYdiZd8=RZy}~)139KQ   hly (=C  IRpx-6#_ i 5%<%'(F(P(,,,,554666H9O9::CCEEHHDSKSwVV]]] ]]]]]````````cccceee eeeeeffff_jcjdjgjjjjjllllHmLmMmPmVm[mrm{mmmmmn$npotouoxonprppppp5qy>DDwXXn[u[^^bcjbjCnGnU_3G=Aշֹ Wi-7>@vy/"$*;  #9)!,!7$@$B$$((!+'+x6|6H<O<JJKYLnWpWWW~/~~~~~އkwǯY0)v{Ecq --::cSgSWX XXeYgYA`D`kkppVzzzz{{afWǭV̮ϲѲ۲@wyzU)Z< ?`cV^/f)-8XX]]itx{333333333333333333333333333333333333333333333333333333333333333333333333333333333333333333333333333333333333333333333333333333333333333333333333333333333333333333333333333333333333333333333333333333333333333333333*Jl;27Lc BP3nT_kunW a !!""##$$%% &$&&& (1((()))//V88::<=?=F=l@@BBII#LHLWVVzYYYYZZ\:\+^[^``aaCcJcdd}ffg)gppSrbrssst^usu&v-vwyy} ~@kATކG?Ss$9\c'#@fզܦH]dsj}jq+:4ILi $LG G|17 XV)s* ,C,G4l4g56 77<<NOOPRS}ʎ8n.0tK>r$C0 t %&$&&88:d/eg$hyWyYǧf"hS  4  J"w#&%'//66>>DE`XXe[[^_bcjcjmUnCU}}tֹj> i0x3F 7 #< J!#6$B$$(Q(*!+X+66;w<JJK\L WW}0~~\77ȯ Y1;n}F,+-:::SSW2XXFYPY4``klpqVzz2{{{րXM*ìǭW̮LzU)[= @bN()-8^fituvvww{ (YZtu9:KLjk+-JLmny{\\ԦڦDGTWtt)-89XX^^fhhituvvww{m.p hvdqnUgZbU(I K̞¨gIVJ<);B  #$s NBR JE2 ` E Xި Z-S h* Y ^ zD&> J &>0kkYTrzX†|+[TAG$ҙLF`MpGINI)̥KQA0 lN@/@V;a#)c &;tm"j"L P"v,lT$icX%jf t%F3&jPl&Dr";J',v%' U(DUt"(*b*P&(*.f55,P<-JnV(-~>i.zƜZw. }C|.XB''/s1_/$5RY_0DCJ&1,'2LWnn3>R)3F~L4p~FQN4prk4FN7sn7nn<7^V8f<8J(n8Fz9a479zj4f4:@,dPd:>EK:$2H jq>bD?Ur?2b@GtS@|s)Ad&HA*bhKA$3Bd F&C~$WC,rtCX'yDX)jEدr"FxiW{-G$  ItTPKqL^alL.}Mg#M"=M!Hx5Oz&{"PTs72P>6a+Q[eQH>}FRvRUKBS*MOSF=vV*T(lVr5 jWVܮ iXoYkXNtk_?ZxClZRS<;[>.>P[x g]8dUJ^ Iw`@>"Aa&$apcJE!f<8flq~Obsg.qRzh`A$6*hՄ\h6_&"Lnh.Z_4ki|B70mGn0No^i{;pp\Hq&k[ r"Yxr00pOs*](v/[sbqbgv.EGv**~w QkUxgO"xdhyYdVB{0L}" }Tp1=~@p fiLh hh^h`OJQJo(h 88^8`OJQJo(oh ^`OJQJo(h   ^ `OJQJo(h   ^ `OJQJo(oh xx^x`OJQJo(h HH^H`OJQJo(h ^`OJQJo(oh ^`OJQJo(h hh^h`OJQJo(h 88^8`OJQJo(oh ^`OJQJo(h   ^ `OJQJo(h   ^ `OJQJo(oh xx^x`OJQJo(h HH^H`OJQJo(h ^`OJQJo(oh ^`OJQJo(h hh^h`OJQJo(h 88^8`OJQJo(oh ^`OJQJo(h   ^ `OJQJo(h   ^ `OJQJo(oh xx^x`OJQJo(h HH^H`OJQJo(h ^`OJQJo(oh ^`OJQJo(h hh^h`OJQJo(h 88^8`OJQJo(oh ^`OJQJo(h   ^ `OJQJo(h   ^ `OJQJo(oh xx^x`OJQJo(h HH^H`OJQJo(h ^`OJQJo(oh ^`OJQJo(h hh^h`OJQJo(h 88^8`OJQJo(oh ^`OJQJo(h   ^ `OJQJo(h   ^ `OJQJo(oh xx^x`OJQJo(h HH^H`OJQJo(h ^`OJQJo(oh ^`OJQJo(h hh^h`OJQJo(h 88^8`OJQJo(oh ^`OJQJo(h   ^ `OJQJo(h   ^ `OJQJo(oh xx^x`OJQJo(h HH^H`OJQJo(h ^`OJQJo(oh ^`OJQJo(h hh^h`OJQJo(h 88^8`OJQJo(oh ^`OJQJo(h   ^ `OJQJo(h   ^ `OJQJo(oh xx^x`OJQJo(h HH^H`OJQJo(h ^`OJQJo(oh ^`OJQJo(h hh^h`OJQJo(h 88^8`OJQJo(oh ^`OJQJo(h   ^ `OJQJo(h   ^ `OJQJo(oh xx^x`OJQJo(h HH^H`OJQJo(h ^`OJQJo(oh ^`OJQJo(h hh^h`OJQJo(h 88^8`OJQJo(oh ^`OJQJo(h   ^ `OJQJo(h   ^ `OJQJo(oh xx^x`OJQJo(h HH^H`OJQJo(h ^`OJQJo(oh ^`OJQJo(h hh^h`OJQJo(h 88^8`OJQJo(oh ^`OJQJo(h   ^ `OJQJo(h   ^ `OJQJo(oh xx^x`OJQJo(h HH^H`OJQJo(h ^`OJQJo(oh ^`OJQJo(h hh^h`OJQJo(h 88^8`OJQJo(oh ^`OJQJo(h   ^ `OJQJo(h   ^ `OJQJo(oh xx^x`OJQJo(h HH^H`OJQJo(h ^`OJQJo(oh ^`OJQJo(^`OJQJo(hH  ^ `OJQJo(hHo ^`OJQJo( ^`OJQJo( ^`OJQJo(oh ^`OJQJo( PP^P`OJQJo(   ^ `OJQJo(o ^`OJQJo(h hh^h`OJQJo(h 88^8`OJQJo(oh ^`OJQJo(h   ^ `OJQJo(h   ^ `OJQJo(oh xx^x`OJQJo(h HH^H`OJQJo(h ^`OJQJo(oh ^`OJQJo(h hh^h`OJQJo(^`5B*o(ph()hpLp^p`L.h@ @ ^@ `.h^`.hL^`L.h^`.h^`.hPLP^P`L.h hh^h`OJQJo(h 88^8`OJQJo(oh ^`OJQJo(h   ^ `OJQJo(h   ^ `OJQJo(oh xx^x`OJQJo(h HH^H`OJQJo(h ^`OJQJo(oh ^`OJQJo(h hh^h`OJQJo(h 88^8`OJQJo(oh ^`OJQJo(h   ^ `OJQJo(h   ^ `OJQJo(oh xx^x`OJQJo(h HH^H`OJQJo(h ^`OJQJo(oh ^`OJQJo(h hh^h`OJQJo(h 88^8`OJQJo(oh ^`OJQJo(h   ^ `OJQJo(h   ^ `OJQJo(h xx^x`OJQJo(h HH^H`OJQJo(h ^`OJQJo(oh ^`OJQJo(h hh^h`OJQJo(h 88^8`OJQJo(oh ^`OJQJo(h   ^ `OJQJo(h   ^ `OJQJo(oh xx^x`OJQJo(h HH^H`OJQJo(h ^`OJQJo(oh ^`OJQJo(h hh^h`OJQJo(h 88^8`OJQJo(oh ^`OJQJo(h   ^ `OJQJo(h   ^ `OJQJo(oh xx^x`OJQJo(h HH^H`OJQJo(h ^`OJQJo(oh ^`OJQJo(h^h`OJQJo(hH88^8`OJQJo(hHopp^p`OJQJo(hH@ @ ^@ `OJQJo(hH^`OJQJ^Jo(hHo^`OJQJo(hH^`OJQJo(hH^`OJQJ^Jo(hHoPP^P`OJQJo(hHh hh^h`OJQJo(h 88^8`OJQJo(oh ^`OJQJo(h   ^ `OJQJo(h   ^ `OJQJo(oh xx^x`OJQJo(h HH^H`OJQJo(h ^`OJQJo(oh ^`OJQJo(h hh^h`OJQJo(h 88^8`OJQJo(oh ^`OJQJo(h   ^ `OJQJo(h   ^ `OJQJo(oh xx^x`OJQJo(h HH^H`OJQJo(h ^`OJQJo(oh ^`OJQJo(h hh^h`OJQJo(h 88^8`OJQJo(oh ^`OJQJo(h   ^ `OJQJo(h   ^ `OJQJo(oh xx^x`OJQJo(h HH^H`OJQJo(h ^`OJQJo(oh ^`OJQJo(h hh^h`OJQJo(h 88^8`OJQJo(oh ^`OJQJo(h   ^ `OJQJo(h   ^ `OJQJo(oh xx^x`OJQJo(h HH^H`OJQJo(h ^`OJQJo(oh ^`OJQJo(h hh^h`OJQJo(h 88^8`OJQJo(oh ^`OJQJo(h   ^ `OJQJo(h   ^ `OJQJo(oh xx^x`OJQJo(h HH^H`OJQJo(h ^`OJQJo(oh ^`OJQJo(h hh^h`OJQJo(h 88^8`OJQJo(oh ^`OJQJo(h   ^ `OJQJo(h   ^ `OJQJo(oh xx^x`OJQJo(h HH^H`OJQJo(h ^`OJQJo(oh ^`OJQJo(h hh^h`OJQJo(h 88^8`OJQJo(oh ^`OJQJo(h   ^ `OJQJo(h   ^ `OJQJo(oh xx^x`OJQJo(h HH^H`OJQJo(h ^`OJQJo(oh ^`OJQJo(hhh^h`OJQJo(hHh 88^8`OJQJo(oh ^`OJQJo(h   ^ `OJQJo(h   ^ `OJQJo(oh xx^x`OJQJo(h HH^H`OJQJo(h ^`OJQJo(oh ^`OJQJo(808^8`0o(. ^`hH. pLp^p`LhH. @ @ ^@ `hH. ^`hH. L^`LhH. ^`hH. ^`hH. PLP^P`LhH.h hh^h`OJQJo(oh 88^8`OJQJo(oh ^`OJQJo(h   ^ `OJQJo(h   ^ `OJQJo(oh xx^x`OJQJo(h HH^H`OJQJo(h ^`OJQJo(oh ^`OJQJo(h hh^h`OJQJo(h 88^8`OJQJo(oh ^`OJQJo(h   ^ `OJQJo(h   ^ `OJQJo(oh xx^x`OJQJo(h HH^H`OJQJo(h ^`OJQJo(oh ^`OJQJo(h hh^h`OJQJo(h 88^8`OJQJo(oh ^`OJQJo(h   ^ `OJQJo(h   ^ `OJQJo(oh xx^x`OJQJo(h HH^H`OJQJo(h ^`OJQJo(oh ^`OJQJo(h hh^h`OJQJo(h 88^8`OJQJo(oh ^`OJQJo(h   ^ `OJQJo(h   ^ `OJQJo(oh xx^x`OJQJo(h HH^H`OJQJo(h ^`OJQJo(oh ^`OJQJo(h hh^h`OJQJo(h 88^8`OJQJo(oh ^`OJQJo(h   ^ `OJQJo(h   ^ `OJQJo(oh xx^x`OJQJo(h HH^H`OJQJo(h ^`OJQJo(oh ^`OJQJo(h ^`OJQJo(h ^`OJQJo(oh pp^p`OJQJo(h @ @ ^@ `OJQJo(h ^`OJQJo(oh ^`OJQJo(h ^`OJQJo(h ^`OJQJo(oh PP^P`OJQJo(h hh^h`OJQJo(h 88^8`OJQJo(oh ^`OJQJo(h   ^ `OJQJo(h   ^ `OJQJo(oh xx^x`OJQJo(h HH^H`OJQJo(h ^`OJQJo(oh ^`OJQJo(h hh^h`OJQJo(h 88^8`OJQJo(oh ^`OJQJo(h   ^ `OJQJo(h   ^ `OJQJo(oh xx^x`OJQJo(h HH^H`OJQJo(h ^`OJQJo(oh ^`OJQJo(h hh^h`OJQJo(h 88^8`OJQJo(oh ^`OJQJo(h   ^ `OJQJo(h   ^ `OJQJo(oh xx^x`OJQJo(h HH^H`OJQJo(h ^`OJQJo(oh ^`OJQJo(h hh^h`OJQJo(h 88^8`OJQJo(oh ^`OJQJo(h   ^ `OJQJo(h   ^ `OJQJo(oh xx^x`OJQJo(h HH^H`OJQJo(h ^`OJQJo(oh ^`OJQJo(808^8`0o(. ^`hH. pLp^p`LhH. @ @ ^@ `hH. ^`hH. L^`LhH. ^`hH. ^`hH. PLP^P`LhH.h hh^h`OJQJo(oh 88^8`OJQJo(oh ^`OJQJo(h   ^ `OJQJo(h   ^ `OJQJo(oh xx^x`OJQJo(h HH^H`OJQJo(h ^`OJQJo(oh ^`OJQJo(h^h`OJQJo(hH^`OJQJo(hHopp^p`OJQJo(hH@ @ ^@ `OJQJo(hH^`OJQJ^Jo(hHo^`OJQJo(hH^`OJQJo(hH^`OJQJ^Jo(hHoPP^P`OJQJo(hHh hh^h`OJQJo(h 88^8`OJQJo(oh ^`OJQJo(h   ^ `OJQJo(h   ^ `OJQJo(oh xx^x`OJQJo(h HH^H`OJQJo(h ^`OJQJo(oh ^`OJQJo(h hh^h`OJQJo(h 88^8`OJQJo(oh ^`OJQJo(h   ^ `OJQJo(h   ^ `OJQJo(oh xx^x`OJQJo(h HH^H`OJQJo(h ^`OJQJo(oh ^`OJQJo(h hh^h`OJQJo(h 88^8`OJQJo(oh ^`OJQJo(h   ^ `OJQJo(h   ^ `OJQJo(oh xx^x`OJQJo(h HH^H`OJQJo(h ^`OJQJo(oh ^`OJQJo(h hh^h`OJQJo(h 88^8`OJQJo(oh ^`OJQJo(h   ^ `OJQJo(oh   ^ `OJQJo(oh xx^x`OJQJo(h HH^H`OJQJo(h ^`OJQJo(oh ^`OJQJo(h hh^h`OJQJo(h 88^8`OJQJo(oh ^`OJQJo(h   ^ `OJQJo(h   ^ `OJQJo(oh xx^x`OJQJo(h HH^H`OJQJo(h ^`OJQJo(oh ^`OJQJo(h hh^h`OJQJo(h 88^8`OJQJo(oh ^`OJQJo(h   ^ `OJQJo(h   ^ `OJQJo(oh xx^x`OJQJo(h HH^H`OJQJo(h ^`OJQJo(oh ^`OJQJo(h hh^h`OJQJo(h 88^8`OJQJo(oh ^`OJQJo(h   ^ `OJQJo(h   ^ `OJQJo(oh xx^x`OJQJo(h HH^H`OJQJo(h ^`OJQJo(oh ^`OJQJo(h^h`OJQJo(hH^`OJQJ^Jo(hHopp^p`OJQJo(hH@ @ ^@ `OJQJo(hH^`OJQJ^Jo(hHo^`OJQJo(hH^`OJQJo(hH^`OJQJ^Jo(hHoPP^P`OJQJo(hHh hh^h`OJQJo(h 88^8`OJQJo(oh ^`OJQJo(h   ^ `OJQJo(h   ^ `OJQJo(oh xx^x`OJQJo(h HH^H`OJQJo(h ^`OJQJo(oh ^`OJQJo(h hh^h`OJQJo(h 88^8`OJQJo(oh ^`OJQJo(h   ^ `OJQJo(h   ^ `OJQJo(oh xx^x`OJQJo(h HH^H`OJQJo(h ^`OJQJo(oh ^`OJQJo(h hh^h`OJQJo(h 88^8`OJQJo(oh ^`OJQJo(h   ^ `OJQJo(h   ^ `OJQJo(oh xx^x`OJQJo(h HH^H`OJQJo(h ^`OJQJo(oh ^`OJQJo(h hh^h`OJQJo(h 88^8`OJQJo(oh ^`OJQJo(h   ^ `OJQJo(h   ^ `OJQJo(oh xx^x`OJQJo(h HH^H`OJQJo(h ^`OJQJo(oh ^`OJQJo(h hh^h`OJQJo(h 88^8`OJQJo(oh ^`OJQJo(h   ^ `OJQJo(h   ^ `OJQJo(oh xx^x`OJQJo(h HH^H`OJQJo(h ^`OJQJo(oh ^`OJQJo(h hh^h`OJQJo(h 88^8`OJQJo(oh ^`OJQJo(h   ^ `OJQJo(h   ^ `OJQJo(oh xx^x`OJQJo(h HH^H`OJQJo(h ^`OJQJo(oh ^`OJQJo(hh^h`OJQJo(hHh ^`OJQJo(oh   ^ `OJQJo(h   ^ `OJQJo(h xx^x`OJQJo(oh HH^H`OJQJo(h ^`OJQJo(h ^`OJQJo(oh ^`OJQJo(h hh^h`OJQJo(h 88^8`OJQJo(oh ^`OJQJo(h   ^ `OJQJo(h   ^ `OJQJo(oh xx^x`OJQJo(h HH^H`OJQJo(h ^`OJQJo(oh ^`OJQJo(h hh^h`OJQJo(h 88^8`OJQJo(oh ^`OJQJo(h   ^ `OJQJo(h   ^ `OJQJo(oh xx^x`OJQJo(h HH^H`OJQJo(h ^`OJQJo(oh ^`OJQJo(h hh^h`OJQJo(h 88^8`OJQJo(oh ^`OJQJo(h   ^ `OJQJo(h   ^ `OJQJo(oh xx^x`OJQJo(h HH^H`OJQJo(h ^`OJQJo(oh ^`OJQJo(h hh^h`OJQJo(h 88^8`OJQJo(oh ^`OJQJo(h   ^ `OJQJo(h   ^ `OJQJo(oh xx^x`OJQJo(h HH^H`OJQJo(h ^`OJQJo(oh ^`OJQJo(hh^h`OJQJo(hHh ^`OJQJo(oh   ^ `OJQJo(h   ^ `OJQJo(h xx^x`OJQJo(oh HH^H`OJQJo(h ^`OJQJo(h ^`OJQJo(oh ^`OJQJo(h hh^h`OJQJo(h 88^8`OJQJo(oh ^`OJQJo(h   ^ `OJQJo(h   ^ `OJQJo(oh xx^x`OJQJo(h HH^H`OJQJo(h ^`OJQJo(oh ^`OJQJo(h hh^h`OJQJo(h 88^8`OJQJo(oh ^`OJQJo(h   ^ `OJQJo(h   ^ `OJQJo(oh xx^x`OJQJo(h HH^H`OJQJo(h ^`OJQJo(oh ^`OJQJo(h hh^h`OJQJo(h 88^8`OJQJo(oh ^`OJQJo(h   ^ `OJQJo(h   ^ `OJQJo(oh xx^x`OJQJo(h HH^H`OJQJo(h ^`OJQJo(oh ^`OJQJo(h^h`OJQJo(hH^`OJQJo(hHopp^p`OJQJo(hH@ @ ^@ `OJQJo(hH^`OJQJ^Jo(hHo^`OJQJo(hH^`OJQJo(hH^`OJQJ^Jo(hHoPP^P`OJQJo(hHh^h`OJQJo(hH88^8`OJQJo(hHopp^p`OJQJo(hH@ @ ^@ `OJQJo(hH^`OJQJ^Jo(hHo^`OJQJo(hH^`OJQJo(hH^`OJQJ^Jo(hHoPP^P`OJQJo(hHh hh^h`OJQJo(h 88^8`OJQJo(oh ^`OJQJo(h   ^ `OJQJo(h   ^ `OJQJo(oh xx^x`OJQJo(h HH^H`OJQJo(h ^`OJQJo(oh ^`OJQJo( ^`OJQJo(88^8`OJQJo(hHo pp^p`OJQJo( @ @ ^@ `OJQJo( ^`OJQJo(oh ^`OJQJo( ^`OJQJo( ^`OJQJo(o PP^P`OJQJo(h hh^h`OJQJo(h 88^8`OJQJo(oh ^`OJQJo(h   ^ `OJQJo(h   ^ `OJQJo(oh xx^x`OJQJo(h HH^H`OJQJo(h ^`OJQJo(oh ^`OJQJo(hh^h`OJQJo(hH ^`OJQJo(o pp^p`OJQJo( @ @ ^@ `OJQJo( ^`OJQJo(oh ^`OJQJo( ^`OJQJo( ^`OJQJo(o PP^P`OJQJo(h hh^h`OJQJo(h 88^8`OJQJo(oh ^`OJQJo(h   ^ `OJQJo(h   ^ `OJQJo(oh xx^x`OJQJo(h HH^H`OJQJo(h ^`OJQJo(oh ^`OJQJo(h hh^h`OJQJo(h 88^8`OJQJo(oh ^`OJQJo(h   ^ `OJQJo(h   ^ `OJQJo(oh xx^x`OJQJo(h HH^H`OJQJo(h ^`OJQJo(oh ^`OJQJo(h hh^h`OJQJo(h 88^8`OJQJo(oh ^`OJQJo(h   ^ `OJQJo(h   ^ `OJQJo(oh xx^x`OJQJo(h HH^H`OJQJo(h ^`OJQJo(oh ^`OJQJo(h hh^h`OJQJo(h 88^8`OJQJo(oh ^`OJQJo(h   ^ `OJQJo(h   ^ `OJQJo(oh xx^x`OJQJo(h HH^H`OJQJo(h ^`OJQJo(oh ^`OJQJo(h hh^h`OJQJo(h 88^8`OJQJo(oh ^`OJQJo(h   ^ `OJQJo(h   ^ `OJQJo(oh xx^x`OJQJo(h HH^H`OJQJo(h ^`OJQJo(oh ^`OJQJo(h hh^h`OJQJo(h 88^8`OJQJo(oh ^`OJQJo(h   ^ `OJQJo(h   ^ `OJQJo(oh xx^x`OJQJo(h HH^H`OJQJo(h ^`OJQJo(oh ^`OJQJo(h hh^h`OJQJo(h 88^8`OJQJo(oh ^`OJQJo(h   ^ `OJQJo(h   ^ `OJQJo(oh xx^x`OJQJo(h HH^H`OJQJo(h ^`OJQJo(oh ^`OJQJo(h hh^h`OJQJo(h 88^8`OJQJo(oh ^`OJQJo(h   ^ `OJQJo(h   ^ `OJQJo(oh xx^x`OJQJo(h HH^H`OJQJo(h ^`OJQJo(oh ^`OJQJo(h hh^h`OJQJo(h 88^8`OJQJo(oh ^`OJQJo(h   ^ `OJQJo(h   ^ `OJQJo(oh xx^x`OJQJo(h HH^H`OJQJo(h ^`OJQJo(oh ^`OJQJo(h hh^h`OJQJo(h 88^8`OJQJo(oh ^`OJQJo(h   ^ `OJQJo(h   ^ `OJQJo(oh xx^x`OJQJo(h HH^H`OJQJo(h ^`OJQJo(oh ^`OJQJo(^`OJQJo(hH  ^ `OJQJo(hHo ^`OJQJo(h  ^ `OJQJo(hH ^`OJQJo(oh ^`OJQJo( PP^P`OJQJo(   ^ `OJQJo(o ^`OJQJo(h hh^h`OJQJo(h 88^8`OJQJo(oh ^`OJQJo(h   ^ `OJQJo(h   ^ `OJQJo(oh xx^x`OJQJo(h HH^H`OJQJo(h ^`OJQJo(oh ^`OJQJo( ^`OJQJo(88^8`OJQJo(hHo pp^p`OJQJo( @ @ ^@ `OJQJo( ^`OJQJo(oh ^`OJQJo( ^`OJQJo( ^`OJQJo(o PP^P`OJQJo(h hh^h`OJQJo(h 88^8`OJQJo(oh ^`OJQJo(h   ^ `OJQJo(h   ^ `OJQJo(h xx^x`OJQJo(h HH^H`OJQJo(h ^`OJQJo(oh ^`OJQJo(h hh^h`OJQJo(h 88^8`OJQJo(oh ^`OJQJo(h   ^ `OJQJo(h   ^ `OJQJo(oh xx^x`OJQJo(h HH^H`OJQJo(h ^`OJQJo(oh ^`OJQJo(h hh^h`OJQJo(h 88^8`OJQJo(oh ^`OJQJo(h   ^ `OJQJo(h   ^ `OJQJo(oh xx^x`OJQJo(h HH^H`OJQJo(h ^`OJQJo(oh ^`OJQJo(h hh^h`OJQJo(h 88^8`OJQJo(oh ^`OJQJo(h   ^ `OJQJo(h   ^ `OJQJo(oh xx^x`OJQJo(h HH^H`OJQJo(h ^`OJQJo(oh ^`OJQJo(h hh^h`OJQJo(h 88^8`OJQJo(oh ^`OJQJo(h   ^ `OJQJo(h   ^ `OJQJo(oh xx^x`OJQJo(h HH^H`OJQJo(h ^`OJQJo(oh ^`OJQJo(h^h`OJQJo(hH88^8`OJQJo(hHo pp^p`OJQJo( @ @ ^@ `OJQJo( ^`OJQJo(oh ^`OJQJo( ^`OJQJo( ^`OJQJo(o PP^P`OJQJo(h hh^h`OJQJo(h 88^8`OJQJo(oh ^`OJQJo(h   ^ `OJQJo(h   ^ `OJQJo(oh xx^x`OJQJo(h HH^H`OJQJo(h ^`OJQJo(oh ^`OJQJo(h hh^h`OJQJo(h 88^8`OJQJo(oh ^`OJQJo(h   ^ `OJQJo(h   ^ `OJQJo(oh xx^x`OJQJo(h HH^H`OJQJo(h ^`OJQJo(oh ^`OJQJo(h hh^h`OJQJo(h 88^8`OJQJo(oh ^`OJQJo(h   ^ `OJQJo(h   ^ `OJQJo(oh xx^x`OJQJo(h HH^H`OJQJo(h ^`OJQJo(oh ^`OJQJo(h hh^h`OJQJo(h 88^8`OJQJo(oh ^`OJQJo(h   ^ `OJQJo(h   ^ `OJQJo(oh xx^x`OJQJo(h HH^H`OJQJo(h ^`OJQJo(oh ^`OJQJo(h hh^h`OJQJo(h 88^8`OJQJo(oh ^`OJQJo(h   ^ `OJQJo(h   ^ `OJQJo(oh xx^x`OJQJo(h HH^H`OJQJo(h ^`OJQJo(oh ^`OJQJo(h hh^h`OJQJo(h 88^8`OJQJo(oh ^`OJQJo(h   ^ `OJQJo(h   ^ `OJQJo(oh xx^x`OJQJo(h HH^H`OJQJo(h ^`OJQJo(oh ^`OJQJo(h 88^8`OJQJo(oh ^`OJQJo(oh   ^ `OJQJo(h   ^ `OJQJo(h xx^x`OJQJo(oh HH^H`OJQJo(h ^`OJQJo(h ^`OJQJo(oh ^`OJQJo(h hh^h`OJQJo(h 88^8`OJQJo(oh ^`OJQJo(h   ^ `OJQJo(h   ^ `OJQJo(oh xx^x`OJQJo(h HH^H`OJQJo(h ^`OJQJo(oh ^`OJQJo(h hh^h`OJQJo(h 88^8`OJQJo(oh ^`OJQJo(h   ^ `OJQJo(h   ^ `OJQJo(oh xx^x`OJQJo(h HH^H`OJQJo(h ^`OJQJo(oh ^`OJQJo(h^h`OJQJo(hH^`OJQJ^Jo(hHopp^p`OJQJo(hH@ @ ^@ `OJQJo(hH^`OJQJ^Jo(hHo^`OJQJo(hH^`OJQJo(hH^`OJQJ^Jo(hHoPP^P`OJQJo(hHh hh^h`OJQJo(h 88^8`OJQJo(oh ^`OJQJo(h   ^ `OJQJo(h   ^ `OJQJo(oh xx^x`OJQJo(h HH^H`OJQJo(h ^`OJQJo(oh ^`OJQJo(h^h`OJQJo(hH88^8`OJQJo(hHopp^p`OJQJo(hH@ @ ^@ `OJQJo(hH^`OJQJ^Jo(hHo^`OJQJo(hH^`OJQJo(hH^`OJQJ^Jo(hHoPP^P`OJQJo(hHh hh^h`OJQJo(h 88^8`OJQJo(oh ^`OJQJo(h   ^ `OJQJo(h   ^ `OJQJo(oh xx^x`OJQJo(h HH^H`OJQJo(h ^`OJQJo(oh ^`OJQJo(h hh^h`OJQJo(h 88^8`OJQJo(oh ^`OJQJo(h   ^ `OJQJo(h   ^ `OJQJo(oh xx^x`OJQJo(h HH^H`OJQJo(h ^`OJQJo(oh ^`OJQJo(h hh^h`OJQJo(h 88^8`OJQJo(oh ^`OJQJo(h   ^ `OJQJo(h   ^ `OJQJo(oh xx^x`OJQJo(h HH^H`OJQJo(h ^`OJQJo(oh ^`OJQJo(hh^h`OJQJo(hHh88^8`OJQJo(hHoh   ^ `OJQJo(h   ^ `OJQJo(h xx^x`OJQJo(oh HH^H`OJQJo(h ^`OJQJo(h ^`OJQJo(oh ^`OJQJo(h 88^8`OJQJo(oh ^`OJQJo(oh   ^ `OJQJo(h   ^ `OJQJo(h xx^x`OJQJo(oh HH^H`OJQJo(h ^`OJQJo(h ^`OJQJo(oh ^`OJQJo(h^h`OJQJo(hH ^`OJQJo(o pp^p`OJQJo( @ @ ^@ `OJQJo( ^`OJQJo(oh ^`OJQJo( ^`OJQJo( ^`OJQJo(o PP^P`OJQJo(h hh^h`OJQJo(h 88^8`OJQJo(oh ^`OJQJo(h   ^ `OJQJo(h   ^ `OJQJo(oh xx^x`OJQJo(h HH^H`OJQJo(h ^`OJQJo(oh ^`OJQJo(h hh^h`OJQJo(h 88^8`OJQJo(oh ^`OJQJo(h   ^ `OJQJo(h   ^ `OJQJo(h xx^x`OJQJo(h HH^H`OJQJo(h ^`OJQJo(oh ^`OJQJo(h hh^h`OJQJo(h 88^8`OJQJo(oh ^`OJQJo(h   ^ `OJQJo(h   ^ `OJQJo(oh xx^x`OJQJo(h HH^H`OJQJo(h ^`OJQJo(oh ^`OJQJo(h hh^h`OJQJo(h 88^8`OJQJo(oh ^`OJQJo(h   ^ `OJQJo(h   ^ `OJQJo(oh xx^x`OJQJo(h HH^H`OJQJo(h ^`OJQJo(oh ^`OJQJo(h hh^h`OJQJo(h 88^8`OJQJo(oh ^`OJQJo(h   ^ `OJQJo(h   ^ `OJQJo(oh xx^x`OJQJo(h HH^H`OJQJo(h ^`OJQJo(oh ^`OJQJo(h hh^h`OJQJo(h 88^8`OJQJo(oh ^`OJQJo(h   ^ `OJQJo(h   ^ `OJQJo(oh xx^x`OJQJo(h HH^H`OJQJo(h ^`OJQJo(oh ^`OJQJo(8^`OJQJo(hHpp^p`OJQJo(hHo  ^ `OJQJo(hHxx^x`OJQJo(hHHH^H`OJQJ^Jo(hHo^`OJQJo(hH^`OJQJo(hH^`OJQJ^Jo(hHo^`OJQJo(hHh hh^h`OJQJo(h 88^8`OJQJo(oh ^`OJQJo(h   ^ `OJQJo(h   ^ `OJQJo(oh xx^x`OJQJo(h HH^H`OJQJo(h ^`OJQJo(oh ^`OJQJo(h hh^h`OJQJo(h 88^8`OJQJo(oh ^`OJQJo(h   ^ `OJQJo(h   ^ `OJQJo(oh xx^x`OJQJo(h HH^H`OJQJo(h ^`OJQJo(oh ^`OJQJo(h hh^h`OJQJo(h 88^8`OJQJo(oh ^`OJQJo(h   ^ `OJQJo(h   ^ `OJQJo(oh xx^x`OJQJo(h HH^H`OJQJo(h ^`OJQJo(oh ^`OJQJo(h hh^h`OJQJo(h 88^8`OJQJo(oh ^`OJQJo(h   ^ `OJQJo(h   ^ `OJQJo(oh xx^x`OJQJo(h HH^H`OJQJo(h ^`OJQJo(oh ^`OJQJo(h 88^8`OJQJo(h ^`OJQJo(oh   ^ `OJQJo(h   ^ `OJQJo(h xx^x`OJQJo(oh HH^H`OJQJo(h ^`OJQJo(h ^`OJQJo(oh ^`OJQJo(h hh^h`OJQJo(h 88^8`OJQJo(oh ^`OJQJo(h   ^ `OJQJo(h   ^ `OJQJo(oh xx^x`OJQJo(h HH^H`OJQJo(h ^`OJQJo(oh ^`OJQJo(h hh^h`OJQJo(h 88^8`OJQJo(oh ^`OJQJo(h   ^ `OJQJo(h   ^ `OJQJo(oh xx^x`OJQJo(h HH^H`OJQJo(h ^`OJQJo(oh ^`OJQJo(h hh^h`OJQJo(h 88^8`OJQJo(oh ^`OJQJo(h   ^ `OJQJo(h   ^ `OJQJo(oh xx^x`OJQJo(h HH^H`OJQJo(h ^`OJQJo(oh ^`OJQJo(h hh^h`OJQJo(h 88^8`OJQJo(oh ^`OJQJo(h   ^ `OJQJo(h   ^ `OJQJo(oh xx^x`OJQJo(h HH^H`OJQJo(h ^`OJQJo(oh ^`OJQJo(h hh^h`OJQJo(h 88^8`OJQJo(oh ^`OJQJo(h   ^ `OJQJo(h   ^ `OJQJo(oh xx^x`OJQJo(h HH^H`OJQJo(h ^`OJQJo(oh ^`OJQJo(h hh^h`OJQJo(h 88^8`OJQJo(oh ^`OJQJo(h   ^ `OJQJo(h   ^ `OJQJo(oh xx^x`OJQJo(h HH^H`OJQJo(h ^`OJQJo(oh ^`OJQJo(h hh^h`OJQJo(h 88^8`OJQJo(oh ^`OJQJo(h   ^ `OJQJo(h   ^ `OJQJo(oh xx^x`OJQJo(h HH^H`OJQJo(h ^`OJQJo(oh ^`OJQJo(h hh^h`OJQJo(h 88^8`OJQJo(oh ^`OJQJo(h   ^ `OJQJo(h   ^ `OJQJo(oh xx^x`OJQJo(h HH^H`OJQJo(h ^`OJQJo(oh ^`OJQJo( hh^h`OJQJo( 88^8`OJQJo(o ^`OJQJo(   ^ `OJQJo(   ^ `OJQJo(o xx^x`OJQJo( HH^H`OJQJo( ^`OJQJo(o ^`OJQJo(h hh^h`OJQJo(h 88^8`OJQJo(oh ^`OJQJo(h   ^ `OJQJo(h   ^ `OJQJo(oh xx^x`OJQJo(h HH^H`OJQJo(h ^`OJQJo(oh ^`OJQJo(h hh^h`OJQJo(h 88^8`OJQJo(oh ^`OJQJo(h   ^ `OJQJo(h   ^ `OJQJo(oh xx^x`OJQJo(h HH^H`OJQJo(h ^`OJQJo(oh ^`OJQJo(h hh^h`OJQJo(h 88^8`OJQJo(oh ^`OJQJo(h   ^ `OJQJo(h   ^ `OJQJo(oh xx^x`OJQJo(h HH^H`OJQJo(h ^`OJQJo(oh ^`OJQJo(h hh^h`OJQJo(h 88^8`OJQJo(oh ^`OJQJo(h   ^ `OJQJo(oh   ^ `OJQJo(oh xx^x`OJQJo(h HH^H`OJQJo(h ^`OJQJo(oh ^`OJQJo(h hh^h`OJQJo(h 88^8`OJQJo(oh ^`OJQJo(h   ^ `OJQJo(h   ^ `OJQJo(oh xx^x`OJQJo(h HH^H`OJQJo(h ^`OJQJo(oh ^`OJQJo(808^8`0o(. ^`hH. pLp^p`LhH. @ @ ^@ `hH. ^`hH. L^`LhH. ^`hH. ^`hH. PLP^P`LhH.h hh^h`OJQJo(h 88^8`OJQJo(oh ^`OJQJo(h   ^ `OJQJo(h   ^ `OJQJo(oh xx^x`OJQJo(h HH^H`OJQJo(h ^`OJQJo(oh ^`OJQJo(h hh^h`OJQJo(h 88^8`OJQJo(oh ^`OJQJo(h   ^ `OJQJo(h   ^ `OJQJo(oh xx^x`OJQJo(h HH^H`OJQJo(h ^`OJQJo(oh ^`OJQJo(h hh^h`OJQJo(h 88^8`OJQJo(oh ^`OJQJo(h   ^ `OJQJo(h   ^ `OJQJo(oh xx^x`OJQJo(h HH^H`OJQJo(h ^`OJQJo(oh ^`OJQJo(h hh^h`OJQJo(h 88^8`OJQJo(oh ^`OJQJo(h   ^ `OJQJo(h   ^ `OJQJo(oh xx^x`OJQJo(h HH^H`OJQJo(h ^`OJQJo(oh ^`OJQJo(h hh^h`OJQJo(h 88^8`OJQJo(oh ^`OJQJo(h   ^ `OJQJo(h   ^ `OJQJo(oh xx^x`OJQJo(h HH^H`OJQJo(h ^`OJQJo(oh ^`OJQJo(h hh^h`OJQJo(h 88^8`OJQJo(oh ^`OJQJo(h   ^ `OJQJo(h   ^ `OJQJo(oh xx^x`OJQJo(h HH^H`OJQJo(h ^`OJQJo(oh ^`OJQJo(h hh^h`OJQJo(h 88^8`OJQJo(oh ^`OJQJo(h   ^ `OJQJo(h   ^ `OJQJo(oh xx^x`OJQJo(h HH^H`OJQJo(h ^`OJQJo(oh ^`OJQJo(h hh^h`OJQJo(h 88^8`OJQJo(oh ^`OJQJo(h   ^ `OJQJo(h   ^ `OJQJo(oh xx^x`OJQJo(h HH^H`OJQJo(h ^`OJQJo(oh ^`OJQJo(h hh^h`OJQJo(h 88^8`OJQJo(oh ^`OJQJo(h   ^ `OJQJo(h   ^ `OJQJo(oh xx^x`OJQJo(h HH^H`OJQJo(h ^`OJQJo(oh ^`OJQJo(h hh^h`OJQJo(h 88^8`OJQJo(oh ^`OJQJo(h   ^ `OJQJo(h   ^ `OJQJo(oh xx^x`OJQJo(h HH^H`OJQJo(h ^`OJQJo(oh ^`OJQJo(h hh^h`OJQJo(h 88^8`OJQJo(oh ^`OJQJo(h   ^ `OJQJo(h   ^ `OJQJo(oh xx^x`OJQJo(h HH^H`OJQJo(h ^`OJQJo(oh ^`OJQJo(h hh^h`OJQJo(h 88^8`OJQJo(oh ^`OJQJo(h   ^ `OJQJo(h   ^ `OJQJo(oh xx^x`OJQJo(h HH^H`OJQJo(h ^`OJQJo(oh ^`OJQJo( ^`OJQJo( ^`OJQJo(o pp^p`OJQJo( @ @ ^@ `OJQJo( ^`OJQJo(oh ^`OJQJo( ^`OJQJo( ^`OJQJo(o PP^P`OJQJo(h hh^h`OJQJo(h 88^8`OJQJo(oh ^`OJQJo(h   ^ `OJQJo(h   ^ `OJQJo(oh xx^x`OJQJo(h HH^H`OJQJo(h ^`OJQJo(oh ^`OJQJo(h^h`OJQJo(hH88^8`OJQJo(hHo pp^p`OJQJo( @ @ ^@ `OJQJo( ^`OJQJo(oh ^`OJQJo( ^`OJQJo( ^`OJQJo(o PP^P`OJQJo(h^h`OJQJo(hH88^8`OJQJo(hHopp^p`OJQJo(hH@ @ ^@ `OJQJo(hH^`OJQJ^Jo(hHo^`OJQJo(hH^`OJQJo(hH^`OJQJ^Jo(hHoPP^P`OJQJo(hHh hh^h`OJQJo(h 88^8`OJQJo(oh ^`OJQJo(h   ^ `OJQJo(h   ^ `OJQJo(oh xx^x`OJQJo(h HH^H`OJQJo(h ^`OJQJo(oh ^`OJQJo(h hh^h`OJQJo(h 88^8`OJQJo(oh ^`OJQJo(h   ^ `OJQJo(h   ^ `OJQJo(oh xx^x`OJQJo(h HH^H`OJQJo(h ^`OJQJo(oh ^`OJQJo( hh^h`OJQJo( 88^8`OJQJo(o ^`OJQJo(   ^ `OJQJo(   ^ `OJQJo(o xx^x`OJQJo( HH^H`OJQJo( ^`OJQJo(o ^`OJQJo(fi"x$a6*ha#Pl&kUxAUJ^D?QN4(lVk_?ZXxrD&> C|.JE!fKA* ;w`Hqwm"(=M1=~+QcPd:<-UgK:/[sg]gU(J&18f%'ObsgGnb@c kkYhytS@YkXL4 };Z-S `KqLU($WCClZMOS"+}FRY \h #F&C>i.0pOsjWZw.^V8r"F z>G lyD E gvKBShvdGvRzhicX%[ rAa}M_0L(-AG3&b*<;[rtCP"s)AI)4:x5OLnh@/I Kn7E9o$s R)34kiE2 79^ ,'2 I;ppf55,P[y< <=vVtm"&{"P(n8 <  tm"tm"l J<;J'-3<1_/QA0{-G<80R 0jq>8Ur?J<7JQ03BVB{0&(*L}0N70B''/[72P'n3'lT$KL t%k4J #M iX70m?0W`50                                                                                                   <ou                  V                                                    rо                                                                               ЂX                                                                                                  ЂX                 r؞                                                                      r                                                              r                                            r                                   rо                 ou                xQ                                                                                                  <ou                 ou                                                    rКou                                                                                                                            r؞                r                                                              rh.j                                                                                                                                                                                  ЂX                                                                                                                                      r؞       rh.j                                  :9JN!!Y;zCx -  1 J W 1 ?<"\>[*};byAWBqs[MMI`{$@9hC' %E @:!;!>:"]@"s # U#}$>&&'.'}a()Z,J.X.}^0(2*34_4f4&57@5o 8B8D89)9B9^9m9,;G;$<^<=[BBIBBCP6CqbCc EUSEJGJHkgHnI`K|LMs2MkMRNZUNqO&#P|PPRRYRdR-{StTzT VsV*W@W<XiXHYQQYqYxYwxZ([[X[S]Ca<,b\c|d,e1efQfSf hg7jg hyhSimi0ktk\2l!mlBm}oppq9qKBq3bqswHs3ltu3?uHunuqw0z{{rB{9m|sZ~9pV+s Qb*6 <Kj6lj3]_6YCvZr2HXBn`cL~6i%E|Zjhh]Wu]t GVH_d)\=BCKdeA\,~"fQQOquqsu >#x44()t3?P@}'Z,x "V*16m/62g"I0Co60NlM3)/X 2"_SD_en[t^=,OPdR]~Lz^Kf~PR|YFa~TLT bY~@_u|=O3cfJ:r.[6 %QrL~=lio&w-D[ 2RYh%:!"#.23G(YZi w'78<bRcTKLYZbcijkltu]y]z]~]```````````````qqqq  "#%&459:<IJ_`fgyz'~',,,,,,,,BBB-- %&'d-d.1267;< A B H I W YZ[\]^hiklrscccccc++++GGJJJJJJ88$%'(+,8BCDOQVWefhjklrs{|ΐΑΟΠ``Ӻӻbbbbbbb@@@@@z`@`:`x@`>`@`L`@`^`@`h`@`l`@`x`@`````` @```@``l@``@``@``@```@``@``@``(@`"`H@`4`l@`:`|@`Z`@```@`r`t`@`z`@``x@``@``@``@`` `@``$@```4@`(`X@`.``@`2`l@`8`t@`@`@`F`@```@`n`@`r`@`|`@``@``@``8@``X@``l@````@``@``@``@``@```@``@````0@`"`$`L@`*`X@`2`h@`8`t@`J`@`X`@`b`@`x`@`~``@`` @``0@``8@``X@```l@``@``@``@``@``@``0@`B`@`P`@```@`d`@`h`@`l`n`@`v`@`z`@`` @```P @``l @``` @`` @`` @`` @`` @`` @`` @`` @`` @``` @``$ @``, @``< @`2`4`l @`>` @`L` @`T` @`d` @`h` @`` @``H @``\ @``d @``` @``` @`` @`` @``` @`` @`` @`` @`@`N `P `@`^ `@`h `@`x `@`| `@` `@` `@` `,@` `L@` ` ` `\@` `d@` `@` `@` `@` ` `@` `@` `@`@`` `@`f `h `@`r `@`x `@`@UnknownG:Ax Times New Roman5Symbol3& :Cx Arial;Wingdings9GaramondG5  jMS Mincho-3 fg?5 :Cx Courier New"1h&ƊG% y  y  4d   2qHX ?Q2Part I: Problem of PunishmentAmir Shachmurove Chris Batest                           ! " # $ % & ' ( ) * + , - . / 0 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 : ; < = > ? @ A B C D E F G H I J K L M N O P Q R S T U V W X Y Z [ \ ] ^ _ ` a b c d e f g h i j k l m n o p q r s t u v w x y z { | } ~  Oh+'0 $0 P \ ht| Part I: Problem of PunishmentAmir ShachmuroveNormal Chris Bates71Microsoft Office Word@G@ĩD@L'bFy՜.+,0 hp|       Part I: Problem of Punishment Title  !"#$%&'()*+,-./0123456789:;<=>?@ABCDEFGHIJKLMNOPQRSTUVWXYZ[\]^_`abcdefghijklmnopqrstuvwxyz{|}~      !"#$%&'()*+,-./0123456789:;<=>?@ABCDEFGHIJKLMNOPQRSTUVWXYZ[\]^_`abcdefghijklmnopqrstuvwxyz{|}~      !"#$%&'()*+,-./0123456789:;<=>?@ABCDEFGHIJKLMNOPQRSTUVWXYZ[\]^_`abcdefghijklmnopqrstuvwxyz{|}~      !"#$%&'()*+,-./0123456789:;<=>?@ABCDEFGHIJKLMNOPQRSTUVWXYZ[\]^_`abcdefghijklmnopqrstuvwxyz{|}~      !"#$%&'()*+,-./0123456789:;<=>?@ABCDEFGHIJKLMNOPQRSTUVWXYZ[\]^_`abcdefghijklmnopqrstuvwxyz{|}~      !"#$%&'()*+,-./0123456789:;<=>?@ABCDEFGHIJKLNOPQRSTVWXYZ[\]^_`abcdefghijklmnopqrstuvwxyz{|}~      !"#$%&'()*+,-./0123456789:;<=>?@ABCDEFGHIJKLMNOPQRSTUVWXYZ[\]^_`abcdefghijklmnopqrstuvwxyz{|}~      !"#$%&'()*+,-./0123456789:;<=>?@ABCDEFGHIJKLMNOPQRSTUVWXYZ[\]^_`abcdefghijklmnopqrstuvwxyz{|}~      !"#$%&'()*+,-./0123456789:;<=>?@ACDEFGHIKLMNOPQdRoot Entry FCkFfData M1TableUWordDocument: SummaryInformation(BDocumentSummaryInformation8JCompObjq  FMicrosoft Office Word Document MSWordDocWord.Document.89q