Search this site

Introduction When you imagine “criminal defenses,” what comes to mind? It may be an alibi (proof that the defendant was somewhere else at the time of the crime’s commission). While this defense was popularized by mainstream media, there are many more criminal defenses in practice. Indeed, many defenses can be organized into categories. These categories of defenses include: Denial or failure of proof defenses Affirmative defenses Justification or excuse defenses Factual or legal defenses Jurisdictional defense Imperfect or perfect defenses Some of these categories can overlap with one another. Nonetheless, let’s examine the categories one by one to gain a better understanding. We’ll also consider the common law origin of criminal defenses. Common Law Although some defenses were created by statutes (written laws), many defenses originate in common law (created by courts). The English brought common law to the American colonies, and it has since influenced American law. For instance, the M’Naghten Rule, a test for insanity defenses, originates from a 17th-century English criminal case. Though the roots of common law are deep, modern law has expanded in significant ways. Now that you know the beginning, let’s consider the defenses of today. Denial or Failure of Proof Defense To begin, denial or failure of proof defenses use the burden of proof in the defendant’s favor. The government must prove each element of the charge beyond a reasonable doubt in order for the defendant to be found guilty. As a defense, a defendant may deny that a criminal element has been satisfied. For example, consider the crime of federal income tax evasion (26 U.S.C. § 7201). There are several elements to this crime, including that the defendant knew they owed more income tax than they declared on their return, and acted willfully and affirmatively to evade that tax. A defense attorney can argue that these elements were not met when their client acted out of genuine ignorance. A defendant may also wait for the government to fail to meet the burden of proof for each element (see What Is The Burden of Proof?). Affirmative Defense Affirmative defenses shift the burden of proof from the government to the defendant. Usually, the government must prove their case beyond a reasonable doubt. When the defendant uses an affirmative defense, the defendant must prove it by a preponderance of evidence. This is a lower burden than beyond a reasonable doubt. The burden for affirmative defense varies by state, but California goes by a preponderance of evidence. Self-defense is an example of an affirmative defense. The defendant would have to prove by a preponderance of evidence that they were acting in self-defense. Excuse Defenses Excuse defenses are types of affirmative defenses. Excuse defenses affirm that the act happened, but is excusable. Let’s consider specific excuses defenses below. Insanity is an excuse defense asserting that the defendant lacks mental responsibility. (Kaplan) The rule is “if the defendant was legally insane at the time of his criminal act, no criminal liability will be imposed.” (Kaplan) There are several legal tests for insanity, but we will focus on tests used by California courts: M’Naghten Test – this test has two prongs, either of which can satisfy insanity: Due to a severe mental illness or defect, the defendant did not know “the nature and quality of their act” (or did not know what they were doing) Due to a severe mental illness or defect, the defendant did know what they were doing, but did not know it was wrong Irresistible Impulse Test – this test expands on the M’Naghten Test, and states that insanity can be met when the defendant cannot control their impulses due to a severe mental illness or defect. The infancy defense excuses a defendant who is legally considered too young to commit a crime. Generally, this applies to defendants under fourteen years of age. Defendants ages fourteen to eighteen are likely to have their case processed in the juvenile justice system, unless their case is diverted. Intoxication is another excuse defense. Intoxication can be involuntary or voluntary. Involuntary intoxication may negate the mens rea for a crime, so it can be a defense to crimes that require evidence of general or specific intent. However, voluntary intoxication is not a defense to general intent crimes because it cannot negate recklessness, negligence, or strict liability. An example is a DUI, where the defendant is criminally liable for driving while voluntarily intoxicated. Voluntary intoxication may still be a defense for a specific intent crime if it negates the required mens rea (such as a purposeful or knowing mental state). (Kaplan) Duress is another excuse defense. Duress excuses a defendant who reasonably believed that the only way to avoid an unlawful threat, great bodily harm, or imminent death was to engage in a crime. Duress is not a defense for murder, unless duress excuses the underlying felony that caused a felony murder. (For felony murder, see our Murder State Article) For example, if the defendant was forced, at gunpoint, to participate in an armed robbery (a felony), and a murder results from the robbery, it is considered a felony murder. Because the defendant was under duress, there is a defense to the felony murder. Justification Defenses Closely linked to excuse defenses are justification defenses. Justification defenses are also affirmative defenses. This means the defendant has to prove that their unlawful act was justified. Self-defense is a justification defense that applies where someone makes a reasonable judgment that it is necessary to use force to defend themselves from an imminent unlawful threat of bodily harm. It is key that the threat is imminent—otherwise, there is an obligation to call the police. It is also key that the defendants’ use of force must be proportionate to the attacker’s force. Using proportional force means “no more than reasonably necessary to prevent the imminent harm.” (Kaplan) This is why deadly force is only allowed in response to an imminent threat of death or great bodily harm. Additionally, the defendant must be the victim of the threat (they cannot be the initial aggressor of the conflict). If the defendant was the initial aggressor and still seeks to claim self-defense, then they must prove they made a good faith effort to end the fight, communicated that to the other person, and that other person continued with deadly force. At common law, the “retreat rule” was formed in the context of deadly use of force. The retreat rule requires a victim of unlawful violence to attempt to retreat before using deadly force. The exception to the retreat rule was when attacked in one’s own home, and since expanded to include one’s office or car. Some states abide by the retreat rule, but California does not. In California, you can defend yourself (reasonably and proportionally) without a duty to retreat. Defense of others Similar to self-defense, another justification defense is proportionate use of force in defense of others. The other person or person(s) must face an imminent unlawful threat of harm or death. Defense of property However, deadly force is never a justification for defense of property. Instead, a defendant can use reasonable, non-deadly force to defend their property. Defense of property is applicable where the defendant reasonably believes that their property is in immediate danger, and uses no greater force than necessary. (Kaplan) Examples include defending property from theft, destruction, or trespass. Necessity A final justification defense that we’ll discuss is necessity. A necessity defense justifies a crime when committing the crime is: “necessary to avoid an immediate threat of greater harm to persons or property; there is no reasonable alternative to breaking the law to avoid greater harm; and the defendant is not responsible for causing the harm.” (Kaplan) Bear in mind that necessity and duress are different. Necessity justifies conduct, while duress excuses it. Necessity concerns cases where circumstances forced the defendant to act. For example, there was a stampede in the city street, and the defendant broke a store window to avoid being trampled. Duress concerns cases where the defendant was coerced by someone else. For example, a robber pointed a gun at the defendant and forced them to tie up other victims and open a safe. As an overview, these are the affirmative defenses: Factual or Legal Defenses A factual defense is based on a factual issue. An alibi is one example of a factual defense: at issue is whether the defendant was present at the crime. By contrast, a legal defense is based on a legal issue, such as whether the statute of limitations for prosecuting the charge has expired. Another legal issue is whether evidence against the defendant must be dismissed due to an illegal search and seizure. For example, imagine that the Police Officer Doe pulls over Jane in her car for a routine traffic stop. Without probable cause, Officer Doe removes Jane from the car and begins searching her car. During his search, Officer Doe finds a baggie of drugs under Jane’s seat and a gun in Jane’s glovebox. Jane is prosecuted for violating California firearms law and simple possession. Jane’s attorney successfully argues that the baggie and gun are inadmissible as evidence because Officer Doe’s search and seizure of the items was illegal. Officer Doe did not have probable cause, which is more than a hunch. Probable cause means a solid foundation of evidence that a crime has been (or will be) committed. From Officer Doe’s vantage point at Jane’s window, he lacked that foundation. Jurisdiction as a defense Jurisdiction protects a defendant by ensuring their case is heard by a court with sufficient authority and resources. Accordingly, jurisdiction can be a defense. For example, jurisdiction is an element of the offense in federal court. A federal prosecutor must prove that the federal court has jurisdiction over the case. Jurisdiction can be invoked by a violation of a federal law, involvement of a federal issue, the offense occurring on federal land, or other relevant circumstances. If the prosecutor fails to prove federal jurisdiction, the jury must acquit the defendant of the crime. Defense counsel may motion for a judgment of acquittal by the judge, arguing that there is an absence of evidence from the prosecutor that jurisdiction has been satisfied. To learn more about jurisdiction, visit this article on our website. Imperfect or Perfect Defenses Imperfect defenses result in a reduction of the charge, which means lowering the severity of the charge. This can help with sentencing, but the defendant is still found guilty. For example, an imperfect self-defense can result in a charge being reduced from murder to manslaughter. Imperfect self-defense means the defendant unreasonably believed they were acting in self-defense. This negates the “malice aforethought” for murder. Without malice aforethought, the charge can be reduced to voluntary manslaughter. The “heat of passion” can also reduce murder to manslaughter. Visit our Manslaughter State Article to learn more. By contrast, a perfect defense results in a finding of not guilty (acquittal). For a murder charge, examples of a perfect defense could be perfect self-defense, defense of others where deadly force is justified, insanity, and more. Conclusion In summary, there are a range of criminal defenses that can be categorized as denial or failure of proof, affirmative, justification, excuse, factual or legal, or jurisdictional defenses. These defenses can be perfect (resulting in an acquittal) or imperfect (reducing the sentence or charge). While this article explored these categories broadly, it only scratched the surface. There are many more defenses. Specific crimes even have specific defenses. For instance, there are specific defenses to conspiracy, fraud, and more.

“Beyond a reasonable doubt” is the highest burden of proof in the United States’ justice system and means that the judge or jury must have a very high degree of certainty before convicting the defendant. Different jurisdictions have different definitions. Introduction You may be familiar with the fact that a prosecutor must prove a charge “beyond a reasonable doubt.” Over time, case law has affirmed this standard. See Jackson v. Virginia, 443 U.S. 307 (1979). But did you know that this requirement is not written in the U.S. Constitution? This article will explore the origin of “beyond a reasonable doubt,” what standards of proof there are in criminal cases, and what the burden of proof is. Historical Origin The origin of “beyond a reasonable doubt” dates back to the seventeenth century European common law. In the seventeenth century, jurors were terrified of wrongfully convicting a defendant, as they believed it would result in the damnation of their souls. As legal historian James Q. Whitman explains in his book The Origins of Reasonable Doubt: Theological Roots of the Criminal Trial (Yale University Press, 2008), the standard was originally aimed to “satisfy” jurors’ “conscience.” The standard appeased jurors by asserting that if they had no reasonable doubt to convict the defendant, then they were not committing a sin. Therefore, it is argued that the reasonable doubt standard was originally designed to protect the juror rather than the defendant. Since then, perceptions of the reasonable doubt standard have evolved. Today, the reasonable doubt standard reflects the defendant’s constitutional right to due process. Due process requires that the defendant is presumed innocent until proven guilty beyond a reasonable doubt. What Is The Burden of Proof? The burden of proof refers to who must prove a claim. In a criminal case, the prosecutor must prove that the defendant committed the offense beyond a reasonable doubt. Meeting The Burden Two tools that can be used to meet the burden of proof are inference and presumption. An inference is a conclusion that may be made, but is not required. For example, if a prosecutor shows a video of the defendant kicking the victim after screaming at them, the jurors may make the inference that the kick was intentional. Or, the jurors may not. However, a presumption is a conclusion that must be made. The best example is the presumption of innocence. Another presumption is the presumption of sanity. Jurors are required to accept that the defendant is sane, unless the defense proves insanity. Types of Evidence The evidence used to meet the burden of proof can be direct or circumstantial. Direct evidence includes eyewitness testimony that the witness saw the defendant commit the crime, or a confession by a defendant that he or she committed the crime. Direct evidence is used to directly prove facts. By contrast, circumstantial evidence requires inferences in order to prove a claim. Circumstantial evidence includes fingerprints, DNA, a suspect fleeing a scene, and more. The Standards of Proof The reasonable doubt standard is the highest standard of proof (or burden) to meet. The prosecutor always has to prove the criminal charge beyond a reasonable doubt. Generally, the defendant does not have to prove anything because they are considered innocent until proven guilty. A defendant can wait for the prosecutor to fail to meet their burden. However, sometimes a defendant may have a burden of production and/or persuasion where the defense decides to present an affirmative defense such as self-defense or duress. The Burden and The Defense The elements of the criminal charge matter because every element has to be proven beyond a reasonable doubt. (see Criminal Elements) Therefore, challenging whether the elements have been met to that standard can contribute to an effective defense strategy. (see Criminal Defenses) Conclusion In sum, the burden of proof in criminal law refers to the burden faced by the government, who is prosecuting the defendant. The standard of proof that the government must meet is beyond a reasonable doubt. The tools to meet the burden of proof include inference, presumption, circumstantial evidence, and direct evidence. The most important presumption in a criminal case is that the defendant is presumed innocent unless and until the prosecution proves the defendant guilty of the crime beyond a reasonable doubt.

Introduction Although we may not immediately realize it, our daily life is impacted by the nature of our sources of law. In the U.S., our sources of law are public. You are free to find laws online or at a library. This freedom of information is a core tenet of our democracy. You have access to the laws, so you have the power to know your rights and legal obligations. But sometimes laws are confusing and hard to understand. The sources of law also create accountability for the government, such as the checks and balances in the Constitution. Overall, the sources of law shape our society, freedoms, and the criminal justice system as we know it. The Common Law The first source of law is common law. Common law began in Medieval England. It travelled with the English to the American colonies. Eventually, common law principles were “codified” (or written into) the United States Constitution, state constitutions, and statutes—both federal and state. Today’s criminal laws draw from common law and make their own distinctions. For instance, there is no federal common law. Erie Railroad Co. v. Tompkins, 304 U.S. 64 (1938). Although some crimes have common law definitions, federal statutes create their own definition. Federal criminal law relies entirely on statutes (laws passed by Congress) and the Constitution. On the other hand, state law is influenced by common law. In California, the definitions of crimes rely on a mixture of common law and state statutes. However, a modern trend is that many states replaced common law definitions when they enacted their own criminal code. Yet states that replaced common law crimes did not necessarily eliminate common law defenses to those crimes. For example, insanity or self defense are common law defenses. Generally, if the state statutes do not expressly provide for the defense, then the defense still relies on common law. To learn more about defenses, you may read Criminal Defenses. The Constitution Following common law, the United States Constitution is one of our earliest sources of law. The Constitution defines just three crimes: treason, piracy, and counterfeiting. While the Constitution does not create many criminal laws, it does create a lot of criminal procedure. Criminal procedure protects the rights of the criminally accused. For instance, the 5th through 8th Amendments provide the criminally accused with the right to an attorney, to remain silent, and more. The Constitution also grants Congress the power to pass more laws. Congress accordingly passes criminal laws (which will be explored later in this article). To learn more about the difference between criminal law and criminal procedure, visit this link. Model Penal Code (MPC) There is also a Model Penal Code (MPC) drafted by the American Law Institute. The MPC synthesizes common law, constitutional law, and statutes (written law) in order to provide a framework for modern law. This comprehensive framework is not explicitly federal or state law, but merely a guide for both. Federal and State Code Drawing from the MPC framework, let’s consider what the federal and state laws are. At both the federal and state level, the legislature passes laws that are called statutes. Statutes are also known as codes—these terms are interchangeable. At the federal level, Congress passes laws that are organized under United States Code (U.S.C. or U.S. Code). The U.S. Code is not limited to criminal law—it covers a range of federal laws. The most common crimes can be found in Title 18 of the U.S. Code, but crimes are also listed throughout the code including drug crimes in Title 21 of the U.S. Code and immigration crimes in Title 8 of the U.S. Code. At the state level, the state legislature passes laws that become state code. In California, criminal law is passed into the California Penal Code (Cal. P.C.). A good way to understand how criminal law is applied in federal and state court is to look at the model jury instructions. Jury instructions outline the elements of each crime, and explain what principles and laws are applicable to the crime. The elements are important because each one must be proven beyond a reasonable doubt by the prosecutor. Courts and Case Law Courts are also sources of law because their rulings produce case law. When judges make a ruling, their ruling forms a precedent for other judges to follow. Within the ruling, a judge also discusses their interpretation of the laws that apply to the case, and how that interpretation led them to their decision. Altogether, this process creates case law. U.S. Supreme Court case law can be found here; other resources for case law are here. Administrative Law Administrative agencies also have the power to create sources of law because they enact rules and regulations. Some violations of those rules and regulations are considered criminal. Therefore, some rules and regulations are sources of criminal law. For instance, consider how the Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) regulates environmental crimes. Regulations created by the EPA are annually codified in the U.S. Code of Federal Regulations (CFR) under Title 40: Protection of Environment. In some cases, a breach of the CFR results in criminal penalties. Conclusion In sum, the sources of law, and their public nature, are a key element of our democracy and criminal justice system.

In common law, criminal homicide  is defined as the unlawful killing of a human by another . There are two ways for a killing to be unlawful. The first is if the killing is without a legal justification or excuse (e.g., it is without a defense). The second is if the killing is the result of a criminal state of mind (or mens rea ). Criminal homicide can be categorized as murder or manslaughter. The difference is whether it involves malice: Homicide +  Malice = Murder Homicide  – Malice = Manslaughter A homicide categorized as murder can be committed with either of two types of malice. The first type is express malice . This is when the act was intended to kill or grievously harm another person.  The second type is implied malice . This is when there was a high likelihood of death expected from the act. That is also known as a depraved heart murder, because it implies a depraved indifference to human life.  In sum, this is a broad overview of homicide at common law. However, there are distinctions to every case. You may also visit our related articles, including Murder , The Degrees of Murder , Manslaughter , and Vehicular Manslaughter .

California Code California Penal Code (CPC) Section 496(a)  defines receiving stolen property in California. This law states that receiving stolen property is when a person “buys or receives any property that has been stolen or that has been obtained in any manner constituting theft or extortion, knowing the property to be so stolen or obtained.” The same law states that it is also receiving stolen property when a person “conceals, sells, withholds, or aids in concealing, selling, or withholding any property from the owner, knowing the property to be so stolen or obtained.” The element of knowledge is clear in California law, just as it was in common law.  Criminal Elements The elements of a crime in the California Penal Code can be found in its respective California Jury Instruction. For CPC 496(a), receiving stolen property, that is CALCRIM No. 1750 .  The instruction outlines the elements of the crime as:  “The defendant bought, received, sold, aided in selling, concealed or withheld from its owner (or aided in concealing or withholding from its owner) property that had been stolen or obtained by extortion;  and When the defendant bought, received, sold, aided in selling, concealed or withheld from its owner (or aided in concealing or withholding from its owner) the property, the defendant knew that the property had been stolen or obtained by extortion.” Therefore, the main elements are receipt of the property and the knowledge that it had been obtained through stealing. The instructions clarify that receiving property means having possession and control of the property, rather than mere proximity or access. Additionally, “it is enough if the person has control over it (or the right to control it), either personally or through another person.” (CALCRIM No. 1750) The instructions add that property is considered stolen when “it was obtained by any type of theft, burglary, or robbery” (including embezzlement, extortion, and more). To learn more, you may visit our articles on embezzlement , extortion , theft , robbery , and burglary .  Sentencing Receiving stolen property is a “wobbler” offense in California, which means it can be prosecuted as a misdemeanor or felony. Sentencing for felony charges is harsher than sentencing for misdemeanors. Certain aggravating factors (such as the victim being vulnerable (e.g., elderly, young, or having a disability)), can also increase sentencing. If the victim is the government, sentencing is increased. Whether the receiving stolen property charge is a misdemeanor or felony will depend on the circumstances of the offense, including the value of the property and the defendant’s criminal history. If the value of the property is over $950, then the charge is more likely to be a felony. The typical sentence for the misdemeanor charge is up to a year in county jail and/or fines. For the felony charge, the sentence is between 16 months to three years in county jail or state prison and/or a fine.   To learn more about state sentencing, visit this article  on our website.  Summary  In sum, this is a broad overview of receiving stolen property in common law and California’s state law. However, there are distinctions to every case.

Accomplice liability in criminal law refers to the law that says if you help someone commit a crime, you can be punished as if you carried out the crime. What Is Accomplice Liability? Often, more than one defendant has a role in the commission of a crime. In such cases, accomplice liability arises. Accomplice liability refers to defendants working together with a common criminal purpose (the commission of the respective crime). Participation and criminal conduct can vary within this group of defendants. This is when the question arises: to what extent is each defendant responsible? Understanding accomplice liability can help us answer. Common Law and Modern Law Accomplice liability has origins in the English common law , which arrived to the American colonies with the English. At common law, accomplice liability was divided into four categories: Common Law Accomplice Liability Level of liability Action Principal in the first degree Committed the crime Principal in the second degree Present at the crime scene and assisted in its commission Accessory before the fact  Not present at the crime scene, but helped prepare for the crime’s commission Accessory after the fact  Helped a party to a crime after the crime’s commission by providing comfort, aid, and assistance to escape or avoid prosecution   Modern law  has broader categories of accomplice liability: a principal and accessory . The principal is the person committing the crime. The accessory helps the principal commit the crime. They are considered to have equal criminal responsibility, so long as the elements for accomplice liability are met.   Elements of Accomplice Liability Accomplice Act   Generally, the first element of accomplice liability is the accomplice act . The accomplice must voluntarily act to assist the commission of the crime. This type of action includes: aiding, abetting, assisting, counseling, commanding, inducing, or procuring (and more). For example, driving the getaway car or luring the victim to the scene are accomplice acts. Even a defendant’s words can be enough to establish an accomplice act.  The defendant’s presence at the scene is not sufficient evidence of accomplice liability by itself. There must be other evidence of accomplice liability, such as if the defendant was present at the scene and had a legal duty to act. Having a legal duty to act means that the law requires you to act (usually intervene) when you witness the crime happening. The relationship between a parent and child demonstrates the legal duty to act. If Parent 1 witnesses Parent 2 harming their child and does not intervene, then Parent 1 is an accomplice in the crime against their child. This is because every parent has a legal duty to protect their child from harm. Accomplice Intent  The second element of accomplice liability is the accomplice's intent . The level of intent varies depending on the jurisdiction. In many jurisdictions, including California, the accomplice must act with specific intent.  Specific intent  means the accomplice specifically desires the outcome where the principal commits the crime. By contrast, general intent  refers to knowledge of committing an illegal act, without desiring any specific outcome. In some jurisdictions, general intent is sufficient to establish accomplice liability for serious crimes. In a minority of jurisdictions, general intent is sufficient to establish accomplice liability regardless of the crime’s seriousness.  In sum, the elements of accomplice liability are: The Natural and Probable Consequences Doctrine A closely linked concept is the natural and probable causes doctrine. This doctrine applies to cases where the principal defendant of a crime commits another, different crime at the same time. For example, while the principal commits an armed bank robbery, they also murder someone. The accomplice, a getaway car driver, is then liable for the armed bank robbery and the murder charge. This is because the murder was a foreseeable consequence of an armed bank robbery.  Although some jurisdictions view this doctrine as too harsh, California does adhere to it.  Sentencing At modern law, accomplice liability is considered derivative. This means that the accomplice does not have to commit the crime to be responsible for the crime itself. Therefore, accomplices can face the same charges (and sentences) as the principal in the crime. For example, drawing from the armed bank robbery scenario, the getaway driver and the armed robber who murdered the victim are both charged with murder, and can both serve up to life in prison (in California). Judges have the discretion to lower or increase sentences based on the defendant’s criminal history and the circumstances of the case. There are also exceptions where co-defendants are sentenced differently, even when charged with the same crime. For instance, one co-defendant’s case may not go to trial due to evidentiary or procedural issues or a plea agreement. One co-defendant may be acquitted in a jury trial. Nonetheless, another co-defendant can still be found liable for the crime that everyone has been charged with. Pinkerton Rule A final consideration is the Pinkerton rule, established in Pinkerton v. United States , 328 U.S. 640 (1946). It holds that each co-defendant is liable for the crimes of all other co-defendants in a conspiracy. “A foreseeable outgrowth of the conspiracy (i.e., the murder of a guard); and Committed in furtherance of the conspiratorial goal” (Kaplan)  Therefore, due to the Pinkerton Rule, even a co-defendant who is only aware of part of the conspiracy, or only has a small role in the conspiracy, can still be charged with the most severe offense committed by another defendant. Many crimes are charged as 1) the crime itself and 2) the conspiracy to commit that crime. Thus, the Pinkerton rule is often applied.  Conclusion The parties to a crime are vulnerable to charging and sentencing for a crime they did not commit themselves. The parties become liable for the crime when they meet the accomplice liability elements: accomplice act and intent . In California, the level of intent required is usually specific intent that the principal commit the crime. The natural and probable consequences doctrine and Pinkerton rule can both cause accomplices to be charged with more serious crimes that happened while the primary crime was committed. Nonetheless, every case is unique.

Introduction Causation and harm refers to establishing the cause of a criminal outcome or harm, such as a homicide. Depending on the case, the prosecutor may seek to prove causation and harm.  Challenging causation is important to a defense in such a case. The defense would seek to show a break in the chain of causation, proving that something or someone other than the defendant caused the outcome. Causation also extends to other types of law, including civil tort law, contract law, and environmental law, in cases where harm must be proven. Therefore, understanding causation and harm in criminal law can help you analyze other areas of law, too. Read on to learn more about this significant topic.  What Is Causation and Harm? Previously, you learned from the Criminal Elements  article on our website that every crime must have these three elements: An act that is prohibited by law (actus reus or “guilty act”) The intent (or state of mind) of the acting individual (mens rea or “guilty mind”) The concurrence of the action and intention at the same time  Some crimes have a fourth required element: causation and harm .  Causation and harm requires that the defendant’s conduct (which must include the act and intent, happening concurrently) caused the criminal result or harm. There are two types of causation and harm. Types of Causation and Harm  The first type of causation and harm is the actual (or direct) cause known as cause-in-fact causation .  There are tests used to determine cause-in-fact causation. These include: The “but for” test asks whether the result would not have happened but for  the conduct of the defendant.  When multiple parties or causes are involved, the substantial factor test asks whether the defendant was a substantial factor toward the outcome.   The acceleration test asks if the defendant’s conduct sped up an inevitable death. The second type of causation and harm is proximate cause , which applies to a chain of events. Proximate cause asserts that the defendant is responsible even when other events, causes, or parties are involved. For crimes requiring recklessness or negligence, the harmful outcome must be within the risk created by the defendant. For example, if a victim dies from vehicular manslaughter in a chain of events started by the defendant’s reckless driving, the defendant is the proximate cause of the victim’s death even if they are not the one who hit the defendant with their car. For intent crimes, a similar principle applies. The harmful outcome must be sufficiently similar to the crime’s intended outcome.    When determining proximate cause, it is common for an intervening event to be evaluated. An intervening event is a break in the defendant’s chain of events. An intervening event may supersede (or replace) the defendant’s criminal responsibility for the outcome. To establish whether the intervening event should supersede the defendant’s responsibility, it must be determined whether the intervening event was foreseeable or not. If the intervening event was  foreseeable, then it does not supersede the defendant’s responsibility. If the intervening event was not  foreseeable, it usually supersedes the defendant’s responsibility. In California, evaluations of causation and harm involve a mix of the “but for” and substantial factor tests. According to California jury instructions, the harmful outcome must be “the direct, natural, and probable consequence” of the defendant’s conduct; in a chain of events, the defendant’s conduct must have been a substantial factor. (CALCRIM No. 240) In cases involving a death, the jury instructions state that the defendant’s conduct must have been a substantial factor causing the death. (CALCRIM No. 260) Crimes That Require Causation and Harm Causation and harm is a requirement of  result crimes. Examples of result crimes include murder, manslaughter, and more. By contrast, conduct crimes  require only the particular act, and there is no outcome necessary.  Examples of conduct crimes include theft, driving under the influence, conspiracy, and more. Rebuttable Presumption Some states have time limits for establishing causation of a victim’s death. If the time limit expires, there is a rebuttable presumption that the cause of the victim’s death was not criminal. A rebuttable presumption is a fact that can be assumed true, unless it is rebutted (challenged and overturned by evidence). An example of a case where this could apply is when a victim remains alive in the hospital following an attack, but later passes away. The main time limit rules for such cases are the one year and a day or three years and a day rules. These rules affirm that the defendant is responsible for the outcome within one (or three) years and a day from the initial act. California adheres to the three years and a day rule. Therefore, after three years and a day in California, the rebuttable presumption is that the victim’s cause of death was not criminal. A prosecutor can still prove their challenge to that rebuttable presumption. Conclusion In conclusion, you learned that some crimes require the fourth element of causation and harm. There are two types: cause-in-fact (actual) causation and proximate causation, which each have their own tests. You also learned that result crimes require causation, while conduct crimes do not. Should you wish to learn more about causation and harm, you may read the case Velazquez v. State , 561 So. 2d 347 (1990) . At trial, Velazquez was convicted of vehicular homicide when the victim, the co-participant in the pair’s drag race, died. Velazquez appealed his conviction to the Florida District Court of Appeal. The Appeal Court overturned Velazquez’s conviction, ruling that even though Velazquez was a substantial factor, the victim’s own reckless actions during the drag race caused the victim’s death. According to the Court, it was therefore unjust to hold Velasquez criminally responsible for the victim’s death. The Court’s ruling exemplifies the critical role of causation in a defense.

Introduction Did you know that someone who performs a criminal act may still be found not guilty? This is because crimes require a criminal act together with a criminal state of mind (or the defendant’s “intent”). Since the purpose of criminal law is deterring crime, intent is an important requirement.  After all, an unintended, genuine accident is not deterred by criminal law. However, intentional law breaking can be deterred by criminal responsibility. Criminal intent also impacts sentencing. For example, if the defendant intended to grievously injure someone during their criminal act, then their sentence is likely higher. By contrast, if the defendant only intended to trespass during their criminal act, then their sentence is likely lower. Read on to learn more about criminal intent and the role it has in criminal law. What Is Intent? “Intent” refers to the state of mind  of the defendant. Criminal intent is also known as the mens rea (meaning “guilty mind” in Latin). The foundation of a guilty mind in criminal law is that during the criminal act, the defendant displayed: Intent, and/or Gross negligence  Intent means acting knowingly or deliberately to bring about the criminal result. Gross negligence means acting so recklessly or negligently that it demonstrates a disregard for life—reaching a level of criminal responsibility for the outcome.  These two concepts—intent and criminal negligence—are the foundation you need to understand the ways intent is further broken down for different crimes. Modern criminal laws categorize intent as: Type of Intent  Definition Example Crime(s) General Intent Intent to commit the act Assault Battery Specific Intent  Intent to cause a specific outcome Fraud (intent to defraud) Attempt (intent to complete the crime) Purposely Intending to cause a particular result Theft (to permanently deprive) Knowingly Knowledge that a result is likely to occur Voluntary manslaughter Willfully Acting purposely/knowingly, with moral turpitude Fraud Recklessly Unjustified disregard of a known risk Voluntary manslaughter Negligently Creation of a risk, and unreasonable ignorance of the risk Involuntary manslaughter Malice Aforethought (Express) Intending to kill another person Murder Malice Aforethought (Implied) Acting so recklessly or negligently as to display a disregard for human life Murder while playing Russian Roulette Felony murder As you may have noticed, some of these intent categories overlap. This is why it is helpful to remember the foundation of criminal intent: acting with intention, or acting with a criminal level of negligence. The subcategories of intent fall under this criteria. Exception To The Rule So far, you have learned that every crime requires an act and intent concurring at the same time. However, there is an exception to this rule: strict liability crimes. Strict liability crimes have no mens rea  element. For a strict liability crime: act + result = guilty verdict. Traffic offenses are examples of strict liability crimes. It does not matter if a defendant had knowledge of the speed limit; if they broke the speed limit, then they are liable. Other examples include statutory rape, some environmental offenses, and selling alcohol or tobacco to minors.  Intent Can Be Transferred A final consideration is transferred intent. This refers to when a defendant harms a different person than they intended. For instance, imagine that Jane intended to batter Joe, but Joe ducked to avoid Jane’s punch. Since Joe ducked, Jane hit the person standing behind him, a man named Dale. Due to transferred intent, Jane’s intent to harm Joe can be transferred to Dale. Jane will still be liable for battery. Conclusion In sum, this was an overview of criminal intent, a key element of every crime (with the exception of strict liability crimes). Aside from strict liability crimes, every crime must have the elements of an act, in concurrence with intent. Intent can take on many forms—from general to specific to kinds of negligent behavior. Some crimes also require a fourth element, causation and harm, which is explored in this article  on our website. To learn more about the elements of crimes, you may visit our Criminal Elements  article.

The jury’s role is to decide whether the prosecutor has proven that the defendant committed the crime beyond a reasonable doubt and, if not, render a verdict of not guilty. The judge’s role in a criminal case is to say what the law is, apply the law, and ensure fairness. Introduction Both the judge and jury have been part of the American justice system since its very beginning, and this article will teach you about their significant roles.  The Role of the Judge Judges are often compared to referees, as their job is to make sure the “rules” are followed. In the criminal justice system, these rules are the rules of procedure, the rules of evidence, the Constitutional rights of the defendant, and more. The judge decides whether to issue search or arrest warrants, grant or deny motions, and what evidence is allowed. A judge’s duties can also differ depending on the type of judge they are: Magistrate judge The first-appearance judge who decides bail. Trial judge Oversees the trial, provides instructions on the law,  and determines the sentence. Appeals judge Determines whether the law was applied correctly. The trial judge is also the main source of communication to the jury. The trial judge instructs the jury, reading them the jury instruction and explaining the law applicable to the case. The trial judge even participates in  voir dire  (the process of jury selection), asking the jury questions about their ability to be fair and impartial.  At the conclusion of trial, the judge determines sentencing. Ultimately, the judge still has much discretion when it comes to sentencing. To learn more, visit our state  or federal  sentencing articles.  The Role of the Jury  The jury is a group of American citizens who have been summoned to the court via mail. The court’s juror pool is usually drawn from the county’s voter registration and DMV records. The summoned jurors come to court to be questioned by the judge and both parties’ attorneys in the voir dire  process of jury selection. During voir dire , the jurors are asked questions about their personal experiences and views to gauge whether they can be fair and impartial jurors. Based on their answers, the jurors may be excused from the jury or selected to serve. The jurors selected to serve for a jury have a deeply important role: they alone can decide whether the defendant is found not guilty or guilty in a criminal case. The jurors must be convinced of the defendant’s guilt beyond a reasonable doubt in order to convict the defendant. The jurors are each instructed to weigh testimonies and evidence themselves, deciding which facts they believe are true. Therefore, jurors have a lot of power in the criminal courtroom. It is critical that jurors understand the high burden of proof that the prosecution has to meet (beyond a reasonable doubt ) and that each element of a charge must be proven. (See Criminal Elements )   In a civil case, the jurors decide whether the defendant is liable or not liable for the civil harm and damages. The burden in a civil case is lower: the claim must be proven by a preponderance of evidence (which means it is more likely to be true than not.)   Grand Jury Another type of jury is the grand jury. At a grand jury hearing, jurors decide whether there is probable cause that the defendant committed the crime they are accused of. If there is probable cause, the grand jury issues an indictment to officially charge the defendant and begin the criminal justice process.  Bench Trial In some cases there is no jury at all. This happens when there is a bench trial instead of a traditional jury trial. Both civil and criminal cases have bench trials. In a bench trial, the judge decides the facts of the case and the defendant’s verdict instead of the jury. The judge will also determine the sentence, as usual. Bench trials are chosen for numerous reasons, such as when the content of the case is considered too polarizing for a jury to remain fair and impartial, when there are complex legal issues, or when it is more efficient (as jury trials typically cost more time and court resources).  Conclusion In sum, this was an overview of the significant roles of the judge and jury in the American criminal justice system. Both the judge and jury yield power in a case before and during trial.

Introduction Navigating the U.S. criminal justice system can feel overwhelming, especially when you or a loved one is facing charges. At Peter Johnson Law, P.C., we believe knowledge is power. That’s why we’ve broken down the criminal justice process into 14 stages—so you know what to expect, from investigation through post-conviction remedies. The following is a summary of what you should expect in a criminal case. Many variables can change the speed or course of the case, including settlement or plea negotiations and changes in law. However, this timeline will hold true in the majority of felony criminal cases.  1. Report and/or Investigation A case typically begins when law enforcement investigates a complaint, suspected crime, or official report. 2. Arrest and Booking If authorities have probable cause, the individual is arrested, fingerprinted, photographed, and formally entered into the system. 3. Decision to Prosecute Prosecutors review the evidence to decide whether charges should be filed. 4. Initial Appearance and Detention Hearing (Bail) The accused appears before a judge for the first time. Bail may be set or denied. 5. Grand Jury or Preliminary Hearing In felony cases, prosecutors present evidence to a grand jury or the court holds a preliminary hearing to determine if there’s enough evidence to proceed. 6. Indictment or Information Formal charges are filed through an indictment (by a grand jury) or information after a preliminary hearing (by the prosecutor). 7. Arraignment and Pleas The defendant hears the charges and enters a plea—guilty, or not guilty. 8. Pretrial Motions Attorneys may file motions to suppress evidence, dismiss charges, or request other rulings that shape the trial. 9. Plea Negotiation Many cases resolve through plea bargains, where defendants agree to plead guilty to reduced charges in exchange for a lighter sentence. 10. Trial If no plea agreement is reached, the case goes to trial, where the prosecution must prove guilt beyond a reasonable doubt. 11. Post-Trial Motions After trial, the defendant may challenge the verdict or seek a new trial based on legal errors. 12. Sentencing If convicted, the judge imposes a sentence—ranging from probation to fines, community service, or imprisonment. 13. Direct Appeal Defendants have the right to appeal a conviction or sentence, arguing legal errors affected the outcome. 14. Post-Conviction Remedies Even after appeals, individuals may seek post-conviction relief to challenge unlawful convictions or sentences. Conclusion While the stages above represent the standard path of a criminal case, the order is not always fixed. Some steps may overlap, or occur earlier or later, depending on the circumstances of the case. If you or a loved one need guidance on a specific case at one of the above stages, call us. We’re here to help.

Introduction Although the United States Constitution reads, “the Trial of all Crimes, except in Cases of Impeachment; shall be by Jury,” this is far from practice. Today, only a minority of cases go to trial. About 98% of federal convictions and 95% of state convictions result from pleas. (ABA) Even the U.S. Supreme Court has called our criminal justice system “a system of pleas, not a system of trials.” ( Lafler v. Cooper , 566 U.S. 156 (2012) 157). Why did pleas become commonplace? The answer is practicality: as courts’ caseloads increased, plea bargains’ popularity rose. Plea bargains cut costs and maximize efficiency. Yet the question remains whether plea bargains are in the interest of justice.  For years, judges and attorneys have expressed concern that plea agreements are not made truly voluntarily. This concern stems from the “trial penalty,” which is when a defendant is sentenced more severely at trial compared to a plea for the same charge. The trial penalty happens because prosecutors offer lesser charges and sentences at plea. At trial, prosecutors often bring forth the maximum breadth of charging. This practice leaves defendants opting for trial with a high risk. Given this risk, it is critical for a defendant to have a trusting relationship with their attorney. An attorney’s role is to inform their client of the government’s offer(s), and to support their client in making an informed, but independent, decision.  Brief History  Like other areas of law, plea bargaining began in English common law. Following English plea bargain cases, the 17th-century American court in Commonwealth v. Battis  thoroughly questioned the defendant who wanted to plea. The Commonwealth court sought to ensure the defendant was not being coerced nor coaxed by promises before accepting his plea. Despite the courts’ early caution, the plea system’s popularity continued to rise as Prohibition-era liquor law cases overwhelmed the system. The courts continued to warn the public: vacating an incentive-based guilty plea in Shelton v. United States , repealing a statute that increased sentences for defendants convicted by juries in United States v. Jackson , and holding that confessions are only admissible without any inducement in Bram v. United States . Nonetheless, by 1970, guilty pleas resolved 90% of cases. The U.S. Supreme Court ruled in Brady v. United States  that a guilty plea is not  unconstitutionally compelled when it is made to avoid a potentially higher sentence. In effect, the court cemented today’s common practice as constitutional.  What is a Plea Agreement? In both state and federal court, a plea agreement is a contract between the prosecutor and defendant. A plea agreement is also known as a “plea bargain.” The plea bargain offers the defendant some benefits —such as a reduced charge or a less severe sentencing recommendation—in exchange for the defendant’s guilty plea. The judge is not a part of the process until the final stage in court. Once the defendant has agreed to the plea bargain, the judge questions the defendant in court to ensure that the defendant is knowingly accepting the terms. This questioning process is called the plea colloquy .  Although there are some benefits to the plea bargain, there are also consequences to consider. For instance, the defendant gives up several constitutional rights (discussed below) when they accept a plea. The defendant may also face immigration consequences (such as deportation), losing property or money, and the impact of a guilty conviction on their livelihood. The defendant will also have to give up the right to vote and have a weapon in their home if they are convicted of a felony. Sometimes, it is possible to seal or expunge the record of the conviction. You may visit this article  on our website to learn more. In California state court, plea bargaining is regulated by the California Penal Code. In federal court, plea bargaining is regulated by the Federal Rules of Criminal Procedure and the United States Sentencing Guidelines.    Requirements of a Plea Agreement The primary requirement for a plea bargain is that the defendant pleads guilty or no contest to the charge(s) brought against them in the agreement. In doing so, the defendant also waives their right to a trial by jury. The defendant also gives up their constitutional right to:  Be protected from self-incrimination  Cross-examine the government’s witnesses  Challenge how the government or police obtained evidence  To appeal the conviction (in most cases) Who Qualifies for a Plea Agreement? When Are Plea Agreements Made? Most defendants qualify for a plea deal. It is up to the prosecutor to extend the plea deal to the defendant. Plea bargaining can also take place during almost any stage in the criminal trial process. Commonly, plea bargaining happens before the trial takes place. While some plea agreements are based solely on the defendant’s case, others are based on how the defendant can help the government in another case, such as by providing testimony in exchange for a reduced sentence. (See Section 5K1.1 of the United States Sentencing Guidelines).  The Prosecutor’s Discretion  In many ways, the prosecutor has a lot of power in the plea bargaining process. First, the prosecutor has discretion over charging. The prosecutor can decide to charge the defendant with several charges, such as conspiracy, attempt, and the crime itself. For wobbler crimes (which can be charged as a felony or a misdemeanor), the prosecutor also decides how to charge. Charging is crucial because more severe charges open up the way to more severe sentencing. The prosecutor’s power is also derived from the sentencing system, especially when mandatory minimums apply. The prosecutor may choose the charge that invokes the mandatory minimum, or offer to drop that charge in the plea. There are also sentencing reductions at the federal level for defendants who “accept responsibility” (plea) and do so quickly. (See Section 3E1.1 of the United States Sentencing Guidelines).  In addition to charging discretion and the pressures of the sentencing system, the prosecutor has the power of information. The prosecutor can negotiate which facts they will bring forth to the sentencing hearing. Facts are critical because they can mitigate (lower) or aggravate (increase) the sentence determined by the judge. For example, in a plea bargain the prosecutor may offer to leave out facts that could cause the judge to increase the sentence.  Finally, the prosecutor may have time on their side. If the prosecutor offers the plea bargain at the early stages, the defendant may not yet have access to all of the evidence the prosecutor does (or does not) have against the defendant. Without this information, the defense cannot be sure what the prosecutor can or cannot prove beyond a reasonable doubt. (See What Is The Burden of Proof? )  If the plea bargain is offered at the later stages, the defendant may be feeling anxious about the upcoming trial. Then, the plea can offer a definitive resolution to the case.  These pressures faced by the defendant demonstrate the importance of an attorney’s role in empowering their client’s decision making. Types of Plea Agreements As discussed above, the prosecutor has discretion over the charge, facts, and what sentence they recommend. This discretion shapes what kind of plea agreements, or bargains, there are: Charge bargaining – the type and amount of charges Fact bargaining – which facts will be included at sentencing Sentencing bargaining – recommending a lower sentence to the judge Appeal  Sometimes, a defendant gives up their right to appeal in their plea agreement. At other times, it is possible to withdraw the plea, appeal the conviction, or appeal the sentence. However, the appeal process involves a review for error, such as whether the defendant’s constitutional rights were violated, or whether the court abused its discretion. Abuse of discretion means the court’s ruling was beyond what a reasonable factfinder would decide. This is a difficult threshold to meet. Appeal is not an option for the defendant to merely change their mind.  Depending on the circumstances, a defendant may be able to withdraw their plea. In California state court, a defendant is allowed to withdraw their plea for good cause. (See CPC Section 1018) Good cause also means more than changing one’s mind; to show good cause, a defendant must prove there was a legitimate mistake. For example, the defendant may have been under duress or in a mental state that prevented them from making a knowledgeable choice. The defendant could have had ineffective assistance of counsel, or argue that they were coerced. In federal court, the Federal Rule of Criminal Procedure 11 oversees pleas. The federal court requires a “fair and just reason” for withdrawing the plea; this standard is similar to the “good cause” standard in state court. All in all, these are challenging circumstances to prove. It is important for the defendant to be informed and make a voluntary decision when it comes to their plea.  Other Options Another alternative to trial and traditional sentencing is called diversion. Diversion allows a state or federal case to be resolved through an alternative program, such as rehabilitation, community service, and monitoring. After completion, charges are dismissed. You may visit our  Federal Alternative Sentencing Article and State Alternative Sentencing Article to learn more. Conclusion In sum, plea bargaining was not common practice during the founding of our Constitution. Yet today's plea bargain system resolves the majority of cases in federal and state courts. There are both benefits and drawbacks to this now-common practice. Whether or not a defendant agrees to a plea bargain is entirely their decision. An attorney’s role is to inform their client of their options and the potential outcomes, to empower the client’s decision making process. To learn more about the sentencing process, you may visit this article  on our website for federal court, and this article  on our website for state court. You may also learn more about what to expect in a federal criminal case ( here ) or a state criminal case ( here ). As always, should you have any questions, don’t hesitate to reach out.