ࡱ > {` bjbjFF : , , "* h ` ` ` ` 0 0 0 8 h l ^ l 4 S ~ Ѹ T % , S S S S S S S $ (` h b S T S T T S ` ` \^ D D D T ` " S D T S D D H r 1Q ` sQ 0 K N UQ L r^ 0 ^ K : d V d 1Q d 1Q $ Q j D ? Q Q Q S S ^ Q Q Q ^ T T T T ď ̚ d ̚ ` ` ` ` ` ` Another law school course outline brought to you by: The Internet Legal Research Group HYPERLINK "http://www.ilrg.com/" http://www.ilrg.com ILRG Law School Course Outlines Archive HYPERLINK "http://outlines.ilrg.com/" http://outlines.ilrg.com LawRunner: A Legal Research Tool HYPERLINK "http://www.lawrunner.com/" http://www.lawrunner.com OUTLINE DETAILS: Author: Anonymous School: Harvard Law School Course: Criminal Law Year: Fall, 2004 Professor: Steiker Text: Criminal Law and Its Processes: Cases and Materials (7th ed., 2001)Text Authors: Kadish, Schulhofer NOTICE: This outline is copyright 2005 by the Internet Legal Research Group, a property of Maximilian Ventures, LLC, a Delaware corporation. This outline, in whole or in part, may not be reproduced or redistributed without the written permission of the copyright holder. A limited license for personal academic use is permitted, as described below. This outline may not be posted on any other web site without permission. ILRG reserves the exclusive right to distribute this outline. THIS OUTLINE IS SUBJECT TO ADDITIONAL TERMS AND CONDITIONS LOCATED AT: HYPERLINK "http://www.ilrg.com/terms" http://www.ilrg.com/terms. USAGE NOTICE AND DISCLAIMER: Although the Internet Legal Research Group has tried to assemble the best possible outlines, WE MAKE NO WARRANTIES AS TO THE ACCURACY OF THE INFORMATION THIS OUTLINE CONTAINS. THIS OUTLINE IS PROVIDED TO YOU AS-IS. USE IT AT YOUR OWN RISK, AND DO NOT RELY ON IT FOR LEGAL ADVICE. IF YOU NEED LEGAL HELP, PLEASE CONTACT A QUALIFIED ATTORNEY IN YOUR JURISDICTION. As this outline has been written by a law student, it may contain inaccurate information. Furthermore, some law schools have policies that permit law students to take outlines into final exams so long as the student actually wrote the outline. If your law school has such a policy, you are expressly prohibited from representing any of the outlines contained in this archive as your own. If you are not sure of your law school's policy, you should contact the appropriate staff at your school. Otherwise, the Internet Legal Research Group genuinely hopes you derive benefit from this outline. SUBSTANTIVE CRIMINAL LAW TOC \o "1-3" \h \z HYPERLINK \l "_Toc92957917" I. Introduction and the purposes of punishment PAGEREF _Toc92957917 \h 2 HYPERLINK \l "_Toc92957918" A. Regina v. Dudley and Stevens (Queens Bench 1884, P135) PAGEREF _Toc92957918 \h 2 HYPERLINK \l "_Toc92957919" II. General Common Law Requirements PAGEREF _Toc92957919 \h 3 HYPERLINK \l "_Toc92957920" C. Causation PAGEREF _Toc92957920 \h 7 HYPERLINK \l "_Toc92957921" 1) Reasons for Causation requirements- Two people A and B each shoot at victims X and Y; as soon as A shoots X, overcome w/ remorse and tries to save him, but X dies anyway; B shoots Y and is happy about it, but Y somehow lives; A convicted of capital murder and executed; B is not; What explains difference? PAGEREF _Toc92957921 \h 7 HYPERLINK \l "_Toc92957922" 2) Three categories of causation problems that often arise: PAGEREF _Toc92957922 \h 8 HYPERLINK \l "_Toc92957923" III. Homicide PAGEREF _Toc92957923 \h 9 HYPERLINK \l "_Toc92957924" B. Intended Killings PAGEREF _Toc92957924 \h 11 HYPERLINK \l "_Toc92957925" 1) First degree PAGEREF _Toc92957925 \h 11 HYPERLINK \l "_Toc92957926" 2) Mitigation and Manslaughter PAGEREF _Toc92957926 \h 11 HYPERLINK \l "_Toc92957927" C. Unintended Killings PAGEREF _Toc92957927 \h 13 HYPERLINK \l "_Toc92957928" 1) Risk creation = Murder PAGEREF _Toc92957928 \h 13 HYPERLINK \l "_Toc92957929" 2) Risk creation = Manslaughter PAGEREF _Toc92957929 \h 13 HYPERLINK \l "_Toc92957930" a. CL: Commonwealth v. Welansky (Massachusetts, 1944, r425) PAGEREF _Toc92957930 \h 13 HYPERLINK \l "_Toc92957931" b. MPC manslaughter and negligent homicide PAGEREF _Toc92957931 \h 14 HYPERLINK \l "_Toc92957932" i. Manslaughter- Recklessness is standard for equivalent of involuntary manslaughter. Recklessness under MPC requires not only substantial risk but also conscious awareness of risk while common law requires only the substantial risk without awareness. MPC trying to serve theory of retributionpunish person who is aware of risk. Can also better deter people who are aware of risk as opposed to people who are unaware PAGEREF _Toc92957932 \h 14 HYPERLINK \l "_Toc92957933" c. Tort Negligence: State v. Williams (Washington, 1972, r431) PAGEREF _Toc92957933 \h 14 HYPERLINK \l "_Toc92957934" D. Felony Murder- originated w/ English system where all felonies were capital offenses; homicide now only capital offense, but FM rule remains; trend has been to limit rule, not eliminate it; problem is that liability not linked to culpability PAGEREF _Toc92957934 \h 14 HYPERLINK \l "_Toc92957935" IV. Rape PAGEREF _Toc92957935 \h 17 HYPERLINK \l "_Toc92957936" A. History PAGEREF _Toc92957936 \h 17 HYPERLINK \l "_Toc92957937" B. Issues PAGEREF _Toc92957937 \h 17 HYPERLINK \l "_Toc92957938" C. Traditional common law definition: rape= sex + force (or threat of force) + non-consent. PAGEREF _Toc92957938 \h 17 HYPERLINK \l "_Toc92957939" D. Modern Case Law PAGEREF _Toc92957939 \h 17 HYPERLINK \l "_Toc92957940" V. Justification and excuses PAGEREF _Toc92957940 \h 20 HYPERLINK \l "_Toc92957941" A. Self-Defense PAGEREF _Toc92957941 \h 20 HYPERLINK \l "_Toc92957942" B. Necessity and Duress PAGEREF _Toc92957942 \h 23 HYPERLINK \l "_Toc92957943" C. Insanity: An Excuse- PAGEREF _Toc92957943 \h 26 HYPERLINK \l "_Toc92957944" VI. Expanding Liability PAGEREF _Toc92957944 \h 28 HYPERLINK \l "_Toc92957945" A. Attempt- Of 3 key doctrines of crim law, something is missing( (1) causation; no harm caused and (2) actus reus in some cases PAGEREF _Toc92957945 \h 28 HYPERLINK \l "_Toc92957946" B. Complicity PAGEREF _Toc92957946 \h 30 HYPERLINK \l "_Toc92957947" C. Conspiracy- Crime of agreement to do another crime; PAGEREF _Toc92957947 \h 33 HYPERLINK \l "_Toc92957948" VII. Sentencing PAGEREF _Toc92957948 \h 37 HYPERLINK \l "_Toc92957949" A. Types of sentencing regimes: PAGEREF _Toc92957949 \h 37 HYPERLINK \l "_Toc92957950" B. Purposes of Punishment: US v. Bergman (SDNY, 1976, r140) PAGEREF _Toc92957950 \h 37 HYPERLINK \l "_Toc92957951" C. 8th Amendment: Harmelin v. Michigan (US SC 1991, r283) PAGEREF _Toc92957951 \h 37 HYPERLINK \l "_Toc92957952" VIII. Constitutional Constraints of Def of Crimes PAGEREF _Toc92957952 \h 38 HYPERLINK \l "_Toc92957953" A. Ban on Status Crimes PAGEREF _Toc92957953 \h 38 HYPERLINK \l "_Toc92957954" B. Requirement of a Clear Statement PAGEREF _Toc92957954 \h 38 HYPERLINK \l "_Toc92957955" I. Self-Incrimination PAGEREF _Toc92957955 \h 39 HYPERLINK \l "_Toc92957956" A. Interrogations PAGEREF _Toc92957956 \h 39 HYPERLINK \l "_Toc92957957" B. Future of Miranda PAGEREF _Toc92957957 \h 41 HYPERLINK \l "_Toc92957958" II. Search and Seizure PAGEREF _Toc92957958 \h 42 HYPERLINK \l "_Toc92957959" A. The Scope of 4th Amendment Protection PAGEREF _Toc92957959 \h 42 HYPERLINK \l "_Toc92957960" 2) What is a Seizure? PAGEREF _Toc92957960 \h 44 HYPERLINK \l "_Toc92957961" B. The Exclusionary Rule PAGEREF _Toc92957961 \h 45 HYPERLINK \l "_Toc92957962" C. Exceptions to the Exclusionary Rule PAGEREF _Toc92957962 \h 46 HYPERLINK \l "_Toc92957963" D. Probable Cause and Warrant Requirements PAGEREF _Toc92957963 \h 51 HYPERLINK \l "_Toc92957964" E. Exceptions to the Probable Cause and Warrant Requirements PAGEREF _Toc92957964 \h 52 I. Introduction and the purposes of punishment Regina v. Dudley and Stevens (Queens Bench 1884, P135) Facts: Four men trapped on boat at sea w/ little food. Captain Dudley and his first mate Stevens decided to kill Parker the cabin boy and eat him to save the rest of them. Brooks did not assent. Dudley and Stevens charged w/ murder, but sentences to death are commuted to 6 mos. Can see major issues of criminal law in this case( mens rea, actus reus, causation (would boat maker be negligent), parties (accomplice and conspiratorial liability), grading of offenses, category of offenses, sentencing, systemic issues and policy issues B. Purposes of punishment: 1) Deterrence- general or specific; from Benthams theory of utilitarianism- humans driven by seeking pleasure and avoiding pain; also to channel human desire for revenge and prevent vigilante activity Need equation where T