California Criminal Law: Core Principles and Exam Traps
California Criminal Law: Core Principles and Exam Traps
California criminal law is codified primarily in the Penal Code, but common-law concepts still inform interpretation. Candidates must know the elements of core offenses: murder (Penal Code §187), manslaughter (§192), robbery (§211), burglary (§459), theft (§484), and assault (§240). For each, distinguish actus reus and mens rea, and note California-specific rules such as the felony-murder rule under §189, which now limits liability to certain enumerated felonies and requires the defendant to be the actual killer or a major participant with reckless indifference.
A frequent trap is confusing assault with battery: assault is an attempted battery or an unlawful attempt to cause violent injury, while battery requires actual harmful or offensive contact. Also, remember that California follows the "year and a day" rule for homicide? Actually, California abolished the year-and-a-day rule in 1994; do not apply it. Another trap: burglary requires entry into a structure with intent to commit a felony or theft at the time of entry; the intent must exist at entry, not later. For robbery, the taking must be from the person or immediate presence and accomplished by force or fear; the force must be used to accomplish the taking, not merely to escape (though escape force may qualify under certain cases).
Defenses: self-defense requires reasonable belief in imminent danger and proportionality; imperfect self-defense negates malice, reducing murder to manslaughter. The insanity test in California is the M'Naghten test (Penal Code §25(b)), not the irresistible impulse test. Also, note that voluntary intoxication can negate specific intent crimes but not general intent or malice.
Worked example: Defendant enters a store intending to shoplift, but the store is closed and dark; he breaks in. Burglary? Yes, because entry with intent to commit theft (larceny) satisfies burglary, even if the store is closed. If he formed intent after entry, no burglary. Rule of thumb: For burglary, ask: Did the defendant have the intent at the moment of entry?