Crim Law Syllabus

Introduction / MPC 1.02(1), 1.02(2)

1. Principles of Punishment
1. Theories of Punishment
2. Penal Theories in Action / MPC 3.02
2. Actus Reus / MPC 1.113(2), 1.113(3), 2.01
3. Mens Rea / MPC 2.02, 2.03(2), 2.03(3), 1.13(10)
1. General Issues
2. Strict Liability / MPC 2.05, 1.04, 2.04, 2.02(9)
3. Mistake and Mens Rea
4. Causation / MPC 2.03
5. Introduction to Homicide / MPC 210.0, 210.1, 210.2
1. Intentional Killings
1. Murder
2. Manslaughter / MPC 210.3(1)(b)
1. Unintentional Killings MPC 210.3(1)(a), 210.4
1. Recklessness and Negligence
2. Felony Murder: Theory / MPC 210.2(1)(b)
3. Felony Murder: In Practice / MPC 210.2(2)(b)

MPC = Model Penal Code

(Note: I know Unintentional Killings should start with a 2 but I haven't been able to figure out how to do that. I'll have to ask the hubby for assistance.)

People v. Navarro (a.k.a. steal wood beams)

People v. Navarro
Appellate Department, Los Angeles County Superior Court, 1979.
99 Cal.App.3d Supp. 1, 160 Cal.Rptr. 692.

Judge Dowds delivered opinion

Facts:

• Defendant was charged with stealing four wooden beams from a construction site
• Jury could have found either
• the beams had been abandoned as worthless and owner would not object to def. taking them
• beams had substantial value, were not abandoned, and he had no right to take them
  

Issue:
Whether a good faith but unreasonable mistake is a defense to a charge?

Holding: Yes. Only reasonable mistakes removes liability from gen. intent. crimes. For specific intent crimes, still has to be good faith, reasonable or unreasonable.

Reasoning:

• Specific intent is negated by good faith
  
• Mistake of reasonable/unreasonableness doesn't matter

Judgment: Reversed

Rule: Mistake of fact

Owens v. State (a.k.a. not driving my car drunk)

Owens v. State
Court of Special Appeals of Maryland, 1992.
93 Md.App. 162, 611 A.2d 1043.

Justice Moylan delivered opinion

Facts:

• Plain. found behind wheel of car in private driveway, intoxicated, with engine running and lights on
• two options:
• either vehicle and driver arrived at driveway from somewhere else
• driver got into vehicle, started up vehicle, and was about to go somewhere
• State's only witness was Trooper Samual Cottman
• responding to complaint about a suspicious vehicle
• found driver asleep behind the wheel of the car
• driver smelled intoxicated when officer woke him up and his speech was "slurred" and "unclear"
• driver would not submit to a blood test for alcohol
• Theory of state's case rests on present stasis on the driveway implies earlier motion on the hwy

Issue:
Is there sufficient evidence to conclude that the plain. was drunk driving?

Holding:
Yes. There is sufficient evidence to conclude that the driver was drunk when driving.

Reasoning:
Court says:

• Plain. was either coming or going
• Driveway were arrest took place did not match driveway listed on the charging document but license never offered into evidence
• Three beer cans (2 consumed, 1 partially consumed) were found in plain.'s vehicle
• suggested evening was ending rather than beginning
• also one is more likely to drink in car than drink outside of car and bring empty cans to car
• Is not a reasonable hypothesis that one would leave the house, get in car, turn on lights, start engine, and then drink enough to pass out in vehicle
• Erratic behavior caused person to report suspicious vehicle which brought trooper to house
• Taken all together, evidence is inconsistent with a reasonable hypothesis of innocence on the part of the plain.

Judgment: Affirmed