Understanding Criminal Liability: General Elements of Crimes and Parties Involved - Prof. , Study notes of Criminal Law

Download Understanding Criminal Liability: General Elements of Crimes and Parties Involved - Prof. and more Study notes Criminal Law in PDF only on Docsity! Crim. Law 3250 Fall 2012 Melton OUTLINE LESSON FIVE THE GENERAL ELEMENTS OF CRIMES AND PARTIES TO CRIMES LESSON ORIENTATION: Chapter Four in the text OVERVIEW: In the first part of this lesson we will conclude our examination of the essential elements of crimes in general, by expanding on many concepts that we have previously discussed and introducing some new concepts. In following lessons we will discuss specific elements of particular crimes. In the second part of this lesson we will consider parties to crimes. There are ways in which a person can have criminal law liability based upon the commission of a crime by someone else. One such way is to be an accomplice to a crime. The common-law approach to this type of liability (complicity liability) as well as modern statutory approaches to this topic is the focus of this lesson. An additional way that liability might be imposed is based solely upon the relationship between the parties. “Vicarious liability” is also discussed in this lesson. The topic of conspiracy to commit a crime will be discussed in a subsequent lesson. LEARNING OBJECTIVES:  Understanding the concept of general elements and specific elements of crime  The requirements for an act with examples of acts and how an omission to take action may be considered an act  How possession may be a criminal act and types of possession  The requirement of a criminal state of mind  An examination of various approaches to criminal intent  The principles of concurrence and causation  A few words about motive  An examination of the parties to a crime  The common law classification scheme of parties to a crime  Problems with the common law concepts of parties to a crime  Classifications of participants under modern criminal statutes Page 1 of 10  Discussion of the acts and mental states required for accomplice liability  The distinctions between accomplice liability and vicarious liability DISCUSSION: THE GENERAL PRINCIPLES OF CRIMINAL LIABILITY The elements of a crime consists of those things the prosecution must prove to convict a person of crime. In terms of general principles (or elements), there are really two types of crimes: 1. Crimes of criminal conduct. Requires proof of three general elements: 2. Crimes of criminal conduct causing criminal harm. Requires proof of five general elements: THE REQUIREMENT OF AN ACT Actus reus: the physical, external component of a crime. Bad thoughts alone are not enough to constitute a crime. Why? Two aspects of actus reus: 1. a voluntary act or failure to act when there is a legal duty to act, 2. social harm The principle of manifest criminality: Remember, a person’s status must be distinguished from conduct. Robinson v. California and Powell v. Texas Negative acts or acts of omission may result in criminal responsibility. There are two general types of criminal omissions: Regarding an omission to act, there are two approaches to defining the legal duty to rescue strangers: 1. American bystander rule: 2. Good Samaritan rule: Page 2 of 10 If a crime requires proof of a result, the prosecution must also prove that the defendant’s conduct was the legal cause of that result. Problems of causation often arise in homicide cases where the prosecution must prove a causal relationship between the defendant’s act and the victim’s death. Two types of causation and both must be proved before liability may be imposed. 1. factual causation 2. legal causation MOTIVE An often mentioned and somewhat misunderstood concept in the criminal law particularly from the standpoint of its portrayal in movies, etc. Motive is not: Motive may: PARTIES TO CRIMES The parties to a crime are the persons who can be held criminally responsible for the crime. In any criminal offense, there may be several persons or groups that play distinct roles before, during and after the offense. Collectively, these persons are called parties to the crime. In short, you are responsible for your own acts and you may be held criminally responsible for a criminal act committed by another person. This is called complicity liability. Complicity liability extends to anyone who has encouraged (incited), or assisted (abetted) the perpetration of a crime, or one who at common law has hindered apprehension of the perpetrator. In broad terms, the principal is the person who actually commits the crime. An aider and abettor is one who shares criminal responsibility with the principle and who is either actually present or constructively present at the commission of the crime. An accomplice is a person who has a role in the commission of a felony and as a result is subject to the same punishment for its commission. The accomplice includes an aider and abettor but is a broader term that also includes someone Page 5 of 10 who assisted in the commission of the crime without regard for whether the person is either actually present or constructively present at the time the crime is committed. THE COMMON LAW CLASSIFICATION SCHEME OF PARTIES TO A CRIME There are four common law categories of parties to criminal offenses. Nearly every state has abolished these categories, yet the terminology continues to appear in some judicial decisions. The common law parties to a felony were: 1. Principal in the first degree 2. Principal in the second degree 3. Accessory before the fact 4. Accessory after the fact The common law classification scheme applied only to felonies. With respect to a misdemeanor, all parties were held to be a principles, although conduct that would make one an accessory after the fact to a felony would not be criminal when the post-aid was to a misdemeanor offender. PROBLEMS WITH THE COMMON LAW APPROACH TO PARTIES TO CRIME The classification scheme presented many procedural difficulties but if these difficulties could be overcome, then a person in any one of the four categories could be convicted and subjected to the penalties authorized for the commission of the felony. The technical difficulties tended to shield accessories from punishment despite overwhelming evidence of their criminal assistance. Some believe that that the resort to such procedural technicalities was designed to limit the application of the death penalty, which at early common law was the penalty for all parties to any felony. See: LaFave, Criminal Law 5th Ed. §13.1 (2010) The problem with accessory after the fact and the punishment associated with such came by virtue of his involvement only after the felony was committed. Thus he was not truly an accomplice in the felony. This category became distinct from the others and remains so today. Accordingly, one who is an accessory after the fact is considered to have obstructed justice and is generally subjected to different and lesser penalties than the other parties. Other technical problems: Page 6 of 10 1. Problems with criminal jurisdiction 2. Variance between the charge and the proof 3. Conviction of the principle was required CLASSIFICATIONS OF PARTICIPANTS UNDER MODERN CRIMINAL STATUTES See: Tenn. Code Ann. § 39-11-401 and 402 The Model Penal Code §2.06 Under modern criminal statutes, most of those who would be parties to crimes under the common law are still made guilty of the crimes, but the technical difficulties have been largely abolished. Under most modern statutes, persons who provide assistance after the crime are no longer guilty of the crime, rather such persons are usually made guilty of a separate offense that usually carries a lower penalty. There are fewer pleading and proof problems: See: State v. Barnes, 954 S.W.2d 760 (Tenn. Crim. App. 1997) Conviction of the principal may not be required: THE ACTS AND MENTAL STATES REQUIRED FOR ACCOMPLICE LIABILITY Accomplice liability requires proof that the defendant committed the requisite acts (i.e. incited or abetted), that he had the required mens rea, and that the person who was incited or abetted actually committed the offense. The defendant must have directly or indirectly encouraged or facilitated the commission of the offense. A person “abets” the commission of an offense if he assists in its completion in any significant way. It need not be shown that “but for” the aid the principal would not have been able to complete the crime. See: Middleton v. State, 217 S.W. 1046 (Tex. 1919) State v. Lord, 84 P.2d 80 (N.M. 1938) There is some difference of opinion regarding the mens rea required for accomplice liability. The issue is twofold: 1. Whether he must have the mens rea required for the crime, and Page 7 of 10