Law School

Intentional torts require a volitional act by the defendant and a specific intent to cause harm or offensive contact, or knowledge with substantial certainty that such a consequence will result. This purposeful interference distinguishes them from the unintentional nature of negligence and the focus on the act itself in strict liability.Harmful contact in battery refers to contact that results in physical injury or pain to the plaintiff. Offensive contact, on the other hand, is contact that would offend a reasonable person's sense of personal dignity, even if it does not cause physical harm.A key element required for assault, but not for battery, is that the plaintiff must have a reasonable apprehension of an imminent harmful or offensive contact at the time the defendant acts. In battery, the plaintiff need not be aware of the contact when it occurs.Confinement for false imprisonment involves intentionally restraining the plaintiff to a bounded area through physical barriers, force, threats, or failure to provide a means of escape when there is a duty to do so. Moral pressure or future threats are generally considered insufficient to constitute confinement.Intentional infliction of emotional distress requires extreme and outrageous conduct that exceeds all bounds tolerated by a civilized society and intentionally or recklessly causes severe emotional distress. The threshold for outrageousness may be lowered if the defendant is in a position of power or if the plaintiff is known to be particularly vulnerable.For trespass to land, the intent requirement applies only to the act of entering the land or causing a physical invasion. Knowledge that the land belongs to another is not necessary; even a mistaken belief of ownership does not negate the intent to enter.The key distinction between trespass to chattels and conversion lies in the degree of interference with the plaintiff's personal property. Trespass to chattels involves a less significant interference resulting in dispossession or minor harm, while conversion involves a substantial interference requiring the defendant to pay the full market value of the chattel.The doctrine of transferred intent states that if a defendant intends to commit one of five intentional torts (battery, assault, false imprisonment, trespass to land, trespass to chattels) against one person but instead commits a different one of these torts or affects a different person, the intent transfers. This holds the defendant liable despite the misdirected action.The two broad categories of defenses to intentional torts discussed are consent-based defenses and protective privileges. An example of a consent-based defense is express consent to medical treatment, and an example of a protective privilege is self-defense against an imminent threat of unlawful force.Under the majority rule, deadly force is permissible in self-defense only when the defendant reasonably believes they are facing an imminent threat of death or serious bodily harm. The force used must be proportionate to the threat.

This lecture provides a foundational overview of intentional torts, which require a volitional act and specific intent to cause harm or offensive contact, distinguishing them from negligence. It meticulously defines core intentional torts such as battery, assault, false imprisonment, intentional infliction of emotional distress, trespass to land, trespass to chattels, and conversion, highlighting their key elements and frequently tested nuances. The lecture also comprehensively examines various defenses to intentional torts, including consent-based privileges and protective privileges like self-defense, defense of others, defense of property, and the necessities. Finally, it explains the doctrine of transferred intent and reinforces understanding with hypothetical scenarios, emphasizing the importance of intent and context in determining liability.

Elements of a Crime: A crime generally has two components: the actus reus, the physical or external part, and the mens rea, the mental or internal feature. The actus reus generally includes a voluntary act that causes social harm. Causation links the voluntary act to the social harm. The requirement of a voluntary act is generally an implicit element of criminal statutes supported by common law. In exceptional cases, an omission (failure to act when there is a legal duty) can serve as the basis for criminal responsibility. A duty to act can arise from common law, statute, or contract. Most human acts are considered voluntary, with involuntary acts including reflexive actions, spasms, seizures, and movements during unconsciousness or sleep.Mens rea refers to criminal intent or a "guilty mind". It is the state of mind statutorily required to convict a defendant of a particular crime. The prosecution typically must prove mens rea beyond a reasonable doubt. The Model Penal Code (MPC) categorizes culpable mental states into four levels: purposely, knowingly, recklessly, and negligently.Concurrence (or contemporaneity) is the need to prove that the actus reus and mens rea occurred simultaneously, except in strict liability crimes. The single transaction principle allows a sequence of inevitably linked events to be viewed as one transaction, where mens rea formed at any point during the sequence can suffice.Classification of Crimes: Crimes can be classified in several ways, most commonly as felonies (punishable by death or imprisonment for more than one year) and misdemeanors (lesser offenses usually punishable by a fine or incarceration for less than one year). Crimes are also categorized as inchoate offenses and strict liability offenses. At common law, there were nine major felonies and various misdemeanors.Inchoate Offenses: Inchoate offenses (attempt, solicitation, and conspiracy) involve steps taken toward committing another crime, even if the final harmful result does not occur. Attempt involves preparatory conduct that comes dangerously close to success (common law proximity test) or constitutes a substantial step strongly corroborative of criminal purpose (MPC substantial step test). Solicitation occurs when one intentionally entices another to commit a crime. Conspiracy is an agreement between two or more persons to commit an unlawful act, coupled with an overt act in furtherance of the agreement. The Pinkerton doctrine can hold a conspirator liable for foreseeable crimes committed by co-conspirators. The merger doctrine often prevents conviction for both an attempt or solicitation and the completed offense, but conspiracy typically does not merge. Renunciation or withdrawal may be a defense to inchoate offenses in some jurisdictions.Specific Crimes: Homicide is the unlawful killing of a human being, categorized into murder, manslaughter, and sometimes criminally negligent homicide. Murder is typically defined as unlawful killing with malice aforethought. US law for murder varies by jurisdiction, often with degrees of murder (first, second, sometimes third) and different classifications in the Model Penal Code (purposely/knowingly, reckless, negligent). Property crimes include larceny, embezzlement, false pretenses, robbery, burglary, and arson, each involving different ways property rights are violated.Defenses to Criminal Liability: Defenses are broadly divided into justifications (admitting actus reus and mens rea but claiming the act was legally permissible) and excuses (conceding the act was wrongful but arguing the actor should not be held criminally responsible). Justification defenses include self-defense, defense of others, defense of property, necessity, and law enforcement privilege. Excuse defenses include insanity, intoxication, duress, entrapment, and mistake.The insanity defense concerns the defendant's state of mind, potentially negating mens rea, with various legal tests like the M'Naghten Rule, Durh

A justification defense claims that the defendant's conduct was lawful under the circumstances, while an excuse defense concedes the wrongfulness of the act but argues the defendant should not be held criminally responsible. An example of justification is self-defense; an example of excuse is insanity.The core elements of self-defense include an actual and reasonable belief that the use of force was necessary to prevent the imminent use of unlawful force by another. Deadly force is permissible only when the defendant reasonably believes they are facing an imminent threat of death or serious bodily injury.The majority rule (and the Model Penal Code approach) does not require retreat before using deadly force unless the defendant knows they can avoid the threat with complete safety. The minority rule, or "stand your ground" rule, permits individuals to meet deadly force with deadly force, even if retreat is safely possible, as long as they are in a place where they have a legal right to be.The defense of necessity allows a defendant to commit a crime to avoid a greater imminent harm when no adequate legal alternative is available. Two key limitations are that the defense is generally not available if the defendant caused the situation and is typically not a defense to homicide.The M’Naghten Rule states that a defendant is not guilty by reason of insanity if, due to a mental disease or defect, they did not know the nature and quality of their act, or if they did know it, they did not know it was wrong. The central focus of this test is the defendant's cognitive understanding of their actions and their wrongfulness.Voluntary intoxication, the result of the defendant's intentional consumption of intoxicants, may negate the specific intent required for certain crimes. Involuntary intoxication, which occurs through coercion, fraud, or mistake, is treated more like insanity and may be a defense to any crime if it negates the necessary mental state.Duress can be a valid defense if the defendant committed a crime under the threat of imminent death or serious bodily injury to themselves or others, the threat would overcome the will of a person of ordinary firmness, and there was no reasonable opportunity to escape. It is generally not a defense to homicide.The subjective test for entrapment focuses on the predisposition of the defendant to commit the crime. If the defendant was already inclined to commit the crime and the government merely provided an opportunity, the defense of entrapment will likely fail, regardless of the government's conduct.The general rule is that mistake of law is not a defense; ignorance of the law is no excuse. One recognized exception is when the defendant reasonably relied on an official interpretation of the law by a public official responsible for interpreting or enforcing that law (entrapment by estoppel).Due process guarantees fundamental fairness in the criminal process, which includes the right of a defendant to present a defense. This means defendants must have the opportunity to introduce evidence, challenge the prosecution's case, and have their defenses properly considered by the court and jury.

This lecture provides a comprehensive overview of defenses to criminal liability, categorizing them into justifications, where the act is deemed lawful, and excuses, where responsibility is negated due to factors like incapacity or coercion. It explores specific justification defenses such as self-defense and necessity, and excuse defenses including insanity and duress, detailing their legal standards and variations. The lecture also examines procedural and constitutional limitations, like due process and double jeopardy, which influence the application and availability of these defenses in the legal system. Understanding these principles is crucial for analyzing criminal cases and appreciating the balance between state power and individual rights.

Inchoate offenses are "incomplete" crimes that involve steps taken toward committing another crime, even if the final harmful result never occurs. The three main types discussed are attempt, solicitation, and conspiracy.The two primary elements required for attempt are the intent to commit a specific crime and an overt act that constitutes a substantial step toward its commission. The mental state requires a specific intent to achieve the prohibited result.The proximity test for attempt requires the defendant's actions to be dangerously close to the completion of the intended crime, while the Model Penal Code's substantial step test is more expansive, focusing on conduct strongly corroborative of criminal purpose.Solicitation occurs when a person entices, encourages, commands, or requests another person to engage in criminal conduct, with the intent that the crime be committed. The crime of solicitation is complete the moment the request is made with the requisite intent, regardless of whether the other person acts on it.The actus reus of conspiracy is the agreement between two or more persons to commit an unlawful act, often requiring an overt act in furtherance of the agreement. The mens rea includes both the intent to agree and the intent that the object of the agreement be achieved.Malice aforethought for murder can be established through intent to kill (express malice), intent to cause serious bodily harm resulting in death, depraved heart murder (extreme recklessness), and felony murder (killing during the commission of an inherently dangerous felony).Voluntary manslaughter involves an intentional killing committed in the heat of passion resulting from adequate provocation, without a cooling-off period. Involuntary manslaughter, on the other hand, involves an unintentional killing resulting from criminal negligence or during the commission of a misdemeanor or non-dangerous felony.At common law, battery is the unlawful application of force to another person resulting in bodily injury or offensive touching. Assault can be either an attempted battery or the intentional creation of a reasonable apprehension in the victim of imminent bodily harm.Larceny is the trespassory taking and carrying away of the tangible personal property of another with the intent to permanently deprive the owner of it. It differs from embezzlement, where the defendant initially possesses the property lawfully but then fraudulently converts it.Robbery is defined as the unlawful taking of personal property from the person or presence of another, by force or threat of immediate force, with the intent to permanently deprive. The use of violence or intimidation is the defining characteristic that elevates larceny to robbery.

This lecture on criminal law explores the crucial concepts of inchoate offenses, which are incomplete crimes like attempt, solicitation, and conspiracy. It then transitions to specific crimes against persons, such as varying degrees of homicide, assault, battery, kidnapping, and rape, detailing their distinct elements. Finally, the lecture examines various property crimes, including larceny, embezzlement, false pretenses, robbery, burglary, and arson, highlighting the legal differences between these offenses. The session aims to build upon foundational criminal law principles by applying them to these substantive and preparatory crimes.

The primary objectives of criminal law include deterrence (general and specific), incapacitation, retribution, rehabilitation, and defining societal norms. Unlike civil law, which aims to compensate a wronged party, criminal law operates on behalf of the state to prosecute and punish wrongful acts in the communal interest.Felonies are typically punishable by death or imprisonment for more than one year, while misdemeanors are lesser offenses usually punishable by a fine or incarceration for less than one year. Murder is an example of a malum in se crime because it violates fundamental moral standards, whereas a traffic violation is an example of a malum prohibitum crime because its illegality stems from statute.General intent crimes require the intent to perform the physical act itself, such as intentionally striking someone in battery. Specific intent crimes require an additional subjective intent to bring about a specific result, such as in theft, where the defendant must intend to permanently deprive another of their property.A state generally has jurisdiction to prosecute crimes that either occur within its borders or produce harmful effects within its territory. Concurrent jurisdiction arises when more than one sovereign has the legal authority to prosecute the same conduct. The doctrine of dual sovereignty under the Double Jeopardy Clause allows both federal and state governments to prosecute the same individual for the same conduct without violating double jeopardy protections, as they are separate sovereigns.Actus reus refers to the physical component of a crime, which is a voluntary act or a qualifying omission. An omission can constitute actus reus when there is a legal duty to act, the person is physically capable of acting, and they fail to do so, such as a parent deliberately withholding food from their child.Recklessness is a subjective mental state involving the conscious disregard of a substantial and unjustifiable risk; the defendant must be aware of the risk. Negligence is an objective standard that applies when a person fails to perceive a substantial and unjustifiable risk that a reasonable person would have recognized, regardless of actual awareness.Strict liability crimes are offenses where no mental state is required; the mere commission of the act is sufficient for liability. These types of crimes are most commonly found in regulatory and public welfare areas such as food safety or statutory rape. For example, a vendor selling contaminated food may be held strictly liable regardless of intent.The principle of concurrence requires that the actus reus (the physical act) and the mens rea (the mental state) coincide in time. This is generally required because criminal liability is predicated on the idea that the wrongful conduct was accompanied by a culpable state of mind.Factual cause, or "but-for" causation, means that the harm would not have occurred but for the defendant's act. Legal cause, or proximate cause, addresses whether the result is closely enough connected to the act to hold the defendant criminally responsible, considering factors like foreseeability. An intervening cause might break the chain of legal causation if it is unforeseeable and superseding, meaning it was not a natural or probable consequence of the defendant's actions.A principal is the primary actor who commits the criminal act, while an accomplice is someone who aids, encourages, or assists the principal with the intent that the crime be committed. Accomplice liability requires both an act of assistance and the specific intent that the underlying crime be committed by the principal.

This lecture note from a criminal law course introduces fundamental concepts necessary for understanding criminal liability. It explores the purposes of criminal law, including deterrence and retribution, and classifies crimes based on severity and inherent wrongfulness. The note further details the essential elements of a crime, specifically the physical act (actus reus) and the mental state (mens rea), along with principles of causation and concurrence. Finally, it outlines different forms of criminal responsibility, such as accomplice liability and corporate liability, providing a foundational overview for further study of specific offenses.

The purpose of personal jurisdiction is to ensure that a court has the authority to compel a defendant to appear and litigate in a particular forum. This authority is constitutionally grounded in the Due Process Clause of the Fourteenth Amendment, which requires that a defendant have sufficient connections with the forum state.General personal jurisdiction exists when a defendant's contacts with the forum state are so systematic and continuous that they can be sued there for almost any matter, even if the underlying events occurred elsewhere (e.g., a corporation's principal place of business is in the state). Specific personal jurisdiction arises when the lawsuit stems directly from the defendant's contacts with the forum state (e.g., a contract signed and performed within the state).The two primary bases for federal subject matter jurisdiction are federal question jurisdiction and diversity jurisdiction. Federal question jurisdiction allows federal courts to hear cases arising under the Constitution, federal laws, or treaties, while diversity jurisdiction permits federal courts to hear cases between citizens of different states or between a state citizen and a foreign national, provided the amount in controversy exceeds $75,000.The well-pleaded complaint rule dictates that for a case to fall under federal question jurisdiction, the federal issue must be presented on the face of the plaintiff's properly pleaded complaint. It is not sufficient for a federal question to arise only as a defense or a counterclaim.Venue rules determine the specific district within a court system where a case should be heard, focusing on the convenience of the parties and witnesses, and the location of evidence or the events at issue. Factors determining proper venue often include the defendant's residence, where a substantial part of the events occurred, or where property involved in the lawsuit is located.Following Twombly and Iqbal, a complaint must contain sufficient factual matter, accepted as true, to state a claim to relief that is plausible on its face. This requires more than conclusory statements or a recitation of the elements of a cause of action; the factual allegations must allow the court to draw the reasonable inference that the defendant is liable for the misconduct alleged.When responding to a complaint, a defendant can file an answer, admitting or denying the plaintiff's allegations and asserting any affirmative defenses, or file a pre-answer motion under Rule 12(b) to raise defenses like lack of jurisdiction or failure to state a claim. Asserting affirmative defenses in the answer is crucial because failure to do so can result in their waiver.Under Rule 15, a party may amend its pleading once as a matter of course within 21 days after serving the original pleading, or if the pleading is one to which a responsive pleading is required, 21 days after service of a responsive pleading or 21 days after service of a motion under Rule 12(b), (e), or (f), whichever is earlier.The "minimum contacts" test, established in International Shoe Co. v. Washington, states that for a court to exercise personal jurisdiction over a non-resident defendant, that defendant must have sufficient contacts with the forum state such that the exercise of jurisdiction does not offend traditional notions of fair play and substantial justice. These contacts must be purposeful and related to the claim.The "amount in controversy" requirement for diversity jurisdiction currently stands at more than $75,000, exclusive of interest and costs. This threshold is important because it ensures that federal courts, when exercising jurisdiction based solely on the diverse citizenship of the parties, are addressing cases of sufficient financial significance.