PART 1 - CHAPTER 3 Types of Offenses

• Jurisdiction: United States

Chapter 3 Types of Offenses

CHAPTER OBJECTIVES

After reading this chapter, you should be able to:

■ Discuss the purpose of the Model Penal Code and explain how it relates to state criminal law statutes.
■ Identify the major categories used to classify different types of criminal laws and give examples of the crimes included in each classification.
■ Explain the process judges use when they interpret criminal statutes.

INTRODUCTION

Chapters 1 and 2 provided a brief overview of the criminal justice system, the people who participate in that system, and the basic principles upon which the system is based. In this chapter, we take a closer look at some of the most common types of criminal offenses.

A. THE MODEL PENAL CODE

Although there are many similarities among the criminal codes of the states and that of the federal government, there are also many differences. In this chapter, we utilize the Model Penal Code¹ to illustrate the type of behaviors that are classified as crimes by most states. You need to compare these provisions with those that have been adopted in the state in which you will be working. Criminal codes are divided into subsections that identify and differentiate specific crimes and related punishments.

B. OFFENSES INVOLVING DANGER TO THE PERSON

The Model Penal Code and many state criminal codes start with a listing of offenses involving danger to people. They typically include various types of homicides, assaults, rape, kidnapping, and false imprisonment.

1. HOMICIDE

"Thou shalt not kill" is perhaps the most frequently referenced section of the Ten Commandments. But who does it refer to, and what does it actually mean? Does it mean that slaughterhouses can't kill cattle to provide steaks or hamburgers? Does it mean that the police cannot shoot to kill a terrorist trying to drive a tanker truck into a high-rise building? Does it mean that a soldier cannot fire a missile at an enemy artillery site? Does it mean that a pilot cannot drop a bomb in an area that may include civilians? Does it mean that a doctor cannot administer a fatal drug to a prisoner who was convicted of multiple murders? The point is that although it represents a noble ideal, "Thou shalt not kill" is too ambiguous to serve as an enforceable criminal statute.

Contrast the wording of the commandment with the language of Section 210.1(1) of the Model Penal Code, which states: "A person is guilty of criminal homicide if he purposely, knowingly, recklessly, or negligently causes the death of another human being."

Unlike the biblical command, this provision explicitly requires the victim be a "human being." It is thus clear that slaughterhouse employees are not subject to the statute when they kill cattle. But what about a situation in which someone causes the death of a fetus while it is still in the womb? That question is addressed in Section 210.0 of the Model Code, which defines a human being as "a person who has been born and is alive."² However, some states, such as Illinois (a state in which abortion is legal), have created special crimes such as intentional homicide of an unborn child,³ voluntary manslaughter of an unborn child,⁴ and involuntary homicide manslaughter and reckless homicide of an unborn child,⁵ to fill this gap.

Criminal codes also are divided into subsections that identify defenses to criminal charges. For example, Section 2.10 of the Model Penal Code states: "It is an affirmative defense that the actor, in engaging in the conduct charged to constitute an offense, does no more than execute an order of his superior in the armed services which he does not know to be unlawful," and Section 3.03(d) relieves people of criminal responsibility when they are following "the law governing the armed services or the lawful conduct of war." Other parts of Section 3.03 release police and official executioners of criminal responsibility when their conduct is required or authorized by "(a) the law defining the duties or functions of a public officer or the assistance to be rendered to such officer in the performance of his duties; or (b) the law governing the execution of legal process; or (c) the judgment or order of a competent court or tribunal; . . . or (e) any other provision of law imposing a public duty." We will discuss these and other defenses in greater detail in Chapter 7.

Most criminal codes subdivide homicide into crimes with labels such as murder, manslaughter, and negligent homicide. The primary difference between them is typically related to the state of mind of the perpetrator. (See the discussion of mens rea in Chapter 2.) Murder generally requires that the act has been committed purposefully or knowingly, but it may also include some situations where it can be shown the person acted recklessly "under circumstances manifesting extreme indifference to the value of human life."⁶ Manslaughter usually applies where the act was committed recklessly or "under the influence of extreme mental or emotional disturbance for which there is reasonable explanation or excuse."⁷ Then, as the name implies, negligent homicide involves negligent acts that result in someone's death.

Under federal law, there are two types of homicide: murder and manslaughter. Murder is defined as the "unlawful killing of a human being with malice aforethought,"⁸ whereas manslaughter is the "unlawful killing of a human being without malice."⁹ This is the same approach that was taken at common law.

The term "malice aforethought" is a technical legal term. "Malice" does not mean hatred or ill will toward the victim; rather, it refers to the conscious desire to cause serious injury or death. "Aforethought" includes both a premeditated, planned killing and a homicide in which the perpetrator's intent existed immediately prior to the commission of the act. Thus, malice aforethought is the level of intent shown by the actor's premeditation, the cruelty or conscious disregard for the safety of others, or the demonstrated intent to commit another felony. Because the term "malice aforethought" appears to be ambiguous, most modern criminal codes do not employ it and instead use an approach similar to that of the Model Penal Code in defining the specific intent element of first-degree murder.

Federal law further subdivides homicides into subcategories. Manslaughter is divided into two different offenses. Voluntary manslaughter is the killing of a human being upon a sudden quarrel or in the heat of passion. Involuntary manslaughter is the killing in "the commission of an unlawful act not amounting to a felony, or in the commission in an unlawful manner, or without due caution and circumspection, of a lawful act which might produce death."¹⁰

Murder is likewise divided into two degrees. Murder in the first degree is a homicide (a) that is willful, deliberate, malicious, and premeditated; (b) committed in the perpetration of one of a list of other crimes (e.g., arson, escape, murder, kidnapping, treason, espionage, sabotage, aggravated sexual abuse, sexual abuse, child abuse, burglary, robbery, or child torture); or (c) a premeditated design to kill a different human being than the actual victim. Murder in the second degree is "[a]ny other murder that is not murder in the first-degree."¹¹

In essence, first-degree murder under federal law is any murder that is either premeditated or a specific type of felony murder. Felony murder is the unintended killing of a human being that occurs during the commission of another felony. The intent to commit the felony transfers to the killing, giving rise to the offense of first-degree murder. The concept of transferring the mens rea from one crime to another is called the transferred intent doctrine. Most jurisdictions recognize this doctrine and include felony murder as a basis for first-degree murder.

Two highly publicized cases from Minnesota illustrate the relationship between murder and manslaughter. The first, involved the death of George Floyd in May 2020. In responding to a complaint that Floyd had passed a counterfeit $20 bill, four Minneapolis policemen found him sitting in his car across the street from the store in which he had supposedly used the counterfeit bill. After questioning Floyd, police handcuffed him and instructed him to get into the back of a police car. When he refused to do so, police officer Derek Chauvin forced him to the ground and knelt on the back of Floyd's neck. Another officer knelt on Floyd's legs to make it harder for him to move while Chauvin's knee was pressing against his neck. For over eight minutes, the two officers continued to kneel on Floyd, even though Floyd protested that he couldn't breathe, civilian bystanders pleaded for Chauvin to let him up, and a third police officer at the scene urged Chauvin to stop and check Floyd's pulse. When the two officers finally got off him, Floyd was no longer breathing and had no pulse. The medical examiner testified that Floyd died from asphyxia from the pressure on his neck.

The Minnesota Attorney General's Office charged Chauvin and the three other policemen with both murder and manslaughter. The charges in the criminal complaint against Officer Tou Thao appears in Exhibit 3.1. Chauvin's trial was separated from the trial of the other three policemen, and a jury convicted him of both murder and manslaughter. The judge sentenced him to 22 years in prison.¹² Prosecutors dropped the murder charges for the other three officers, but proceeded toward a trial on the manslaughter charges, on the basis that they had not intervened to stop Chauvin from kneeling on Floyd's neck.¹³

Exhibit 3.1: Charge Against Officer in Connection with George Floyd's Death

The second high-profile case occurred in a Minneapolis suburb later that same year, when a Brooklyn Park police officer, Kimberly Potter, shot and killed 20-year-old Daunte Wright when he jumped into his car and tried to drive away during a traffic stop. Potter, a 26-year veteran police officer...