CCJS230 Study Guide Ch 4 Liability without Fault Strict Liability Based on the voluntary act alone U S Supreme Court has upheld power of legislatures to make strict liability crimes Support Criticism To protect public health and safety To make clear they are imposing liability without fault Strong public interest in public health and safety these laws arose out of industrial revolution and aimed at protecting workers and citizens from ills of manufacturing mining commerce etc Penalty is usually but not always mild Too easy to expand strict liability beyond offenses that endanger the public It does no good to punish people who do not act purposefully knowingly recklessly or negligently Criminal law without blameworthiness loses its appeal as a moral code State v Loge Facts Loge defendant was cited for open bottle after officers found an empty can of beer in the vehicle he was driving Loge argued the vehicle was his father s and he did not know it was in the vehicle Issue Whether the trial court and court of appeals erroneously interpreted the statute as not requiring proof of knowledge Law unlawful for the driver of a motor vehicle when the owner is not present to keep or allow to be kept in a motor vehicle when such vehicle is upon the public highway any bottle or receptacle containing intoxicating liquors or 3 2 malt liquors which has been opened Holding No Knowledge is not required under this statute The legislative intent was to not require knowledge because it is more important to consider the significant danger to the public that open containers of alcohol pose Dissent unreasonable expectations of drivers unclear legislative intent Concurrence Some mental fault has to trigger the conduct conduct crimes Some mental fault has to trigger the conduct and the cause in bad result crimes Causation prove criminal liability Distinguish between two types of causation both are necessary in order to Factual cause but for causation actual causation except for causation Legal cause proximate cause Factual Cause Did the actor set into motion a chain of events that ended in the result If so they are a factual cause of the result But for the actors conduct the result would not have occurred Necessary to prove that actor was factual cause of the harm in order to show criminal liability BUT it is not sufficient to prove criminal liability Taken to logical extreme almost anything can be the factual cause Ex Had his mother not given birth the defendant would not have been in the place to hit the victim Legal Proximate Cause Asks whether it is fair to hold defendant responsible for the harm Factors in the fairness determination include o Whether the result was forseeable from the conduct o Whether some other factor contributed to the harm intervening harm o Whether the intervening factor was a natural occurrence don t generally break off liability When an intervening cause cuts off liability because it is more fair to attribute harm to it it is said to be a superseding cause Intervening Acts o Victims acts o Defendants acts o Someone besides the defendant and victim o Nonhuman sources natural disasters or occurrences Coincidental intervening causes breaks chain of legal cause unless criminal harm was forseeable Responsive intervening acts reactions to conditions created by defendants actions People v Armitage Facts Armitage the defendant had been drinking and drove a boat that was capsized Maskovich the defendant s friend tried to swim to shore but drown Issue Whether Armitage s actions were the proximate cause of the death of the victim Holding Yes Court concluded that the victim s attempt to swim ashore after defendant s reckless boating resulted in a capsized boat was a natural and continuous sequence arising from defendant s acts Contributory negligence of the victim is not a defense Velazquez v State Facts Velazquez the defendant and Alvarez engaged in a drag race Both vehicles were unable to stop at the end of the road Alvarez was thrown out from the vehicle and died Issue Were Velazquez s actions the legal cause of Alvarez s death Holding The Court held that the defendant was not the proximate cause of victim s death Their participation was mutually agreed on activity People v Kibb Facts Kibbe the defendant and Krall codefendant gave Stafford a ride with the intent to rob him After finding he had no money they threw him from the vehicle While standing in the middle of the road Blake a college student struck and killed Stafford Issue Did Kibbe and Krall legally cause Stafford s Death Holding Yes Kibbe and Krall were the proximate cause of the victims death The death could have been foreseen as being reasonably related to the acts of the defendant and Krall Ignorance and Mistake Mistake is a defense when it negates the mens rea Characterized as either A defense of excuse A failure of proof of defense can t prove the requisite mental state Model Penal Code mistake matters when it prevents the formation of a mental attitude required by a criminal statute Mistake cannot negate criminal liability for strict liability crimes because they do not require mens rea State v Sexton Facts Sexton defendant fired a gun killing Matthews Sexton did not believe there were bullets in the gun Issue Whether the trial jury should have instructed the jury that the state bore the burden of disproving the defendant s mistake of fact defense Holding No The jury should have been instructed if the prosecutor did not meet the burden to establish that the defendant knew the gun was loaded then the defendant should be acquitted of manslaughter Model Penal Code Ignorance or mistake as to a matter of fact or law is a defense if The ignorance or mistake negates the purpose knowledge belief recklessness or negligence required to establish a material element of the offense Ch 5 Defenses to Criminal Liability Justification Defenses defendants admit responsibility but claim that what they did was right under the circumstances Excuse Defenses defendants admit that what they did was wrong but claim they are not responsible Proving Defenses in Court Affirmative defenses require the defendant to raise the issue and put on some evidence supporting his or her claim burden of production Failure of Proof Defenses require the defendant only has to raise a reasonable doubt about the prosecutions proof of just one element in the crime Perfect Defenses v Imperfect Defenses Perfect Defenses Allow defendant to escape all criminal liability