This action might not be possible to undo. Are you sure you want to continue?
RELEVANT SECTIONS OF THE MPC 1.07: Prosecution of Multiple Offenses; Limitation on Convictions 1.12: Proof Beyond a Reasonable Doubt; Affirmative Defenses 2.02: General Requirements of Culpability 2.03: Causal Relationship Between Conduct and Result 2.06: Liability for Conduct of Another; Complicity 2.08: Intoxication 2.09: Duress 2.13: Entrapment 3.02: Justification Generally: Choice of Evils 3.04: Use of Force in Self-Protection 3.05: Use of Force in Protection of Others 3.06: Use of Force for the Protection of Property 3.07: Use of Force in Law Enforcement 3.08: Use of Force by Persons with Special Responsibilities to others 4.02: Evidence of a Mental Disease or Defect Admissible When Relevant to Element of the Offense 4.03: Mental Disease or Defect Excluding responsibility is Aff. Defense 4.10: Immaturity Excluding Criminal Conviction 5.01: Criminal Attempt 5.02: Criminal Solicitation 5.03: Criminal Conspiracy 5.02(5) Overt Act
Limits on Criminal Law Ex post facto: Can’t charge ∆ for something they did before it was against the law Rule of Strict Construction: (Rule of Lenity) Interpretation of law must go in ∆’s favor Void for Vagueness Doctrine: CL any statute too vague is void for people’s sake Misc. Const. Limits: Crime must bear injury; Police can’t be arbitrary in authority Classification of Criminal Law Malum in Se: Crimes of moral turpitude; Wrong in themselves – Theft, homicide – Misdemeanor < 1 yr; Felony > 1 yr/ death Malum Prohibita: Not inherently evil; Legislation regulates – Speeding, taxes – Infraction (typically no jail, a fine) BASIC ELEMENTS OF ALL CRIMES Crimes require: (1) guilty act (2) guilty mind (3) necessary attendant circumstances (for common law burglary -- takes place at night, dwelling house -- is broken and entered into) (4) causation (5) absence of defenses Result in: (1) punishment (2) moral condemnation Utilitarianism – Max. pleasure, mini. pain; Focus on society – Least pain Punishment OR Future Crimes? Looks forward, what will help ∆ & society? Gen. Deterrence: Send message to others Spec. Deterrence: ∆ won’t do it again b/c (teaching lesson) 1) Incapacitation (physically deterring) or 2) Intimidation Rehabilitation/Reform: 1) Psych care, 2) Care for drug addiction, 3) Training/school (teaching to prevent future crime) Retributivism – Securing a balance in soc; ∆ gets his “just desserts” Looks back, a crime was committed; ∆ violated norms, so can be justly punished; Focus on ind. Moral: Right to hate criminals, punish them
Equalizing: An eye for an eye Communicative: Symbolizes to criminal and victim that the crime was wrong Levels of Burdens Beyond a Reasonable Doubt – BARD Prosecutor has a really high burden that is difficult to meet MPC §1.12 Preponderance of the Evidence – POTE Clear & Convincing – C&C 3 BASIC BURDENS: Burden of Pleading: ∆ has this Burden of Production: ∆ must offer evidence in support of the defense – If ∆ can raise evidence supporting instruction of the defense, judge must instruct that way Burden of Persuasion: ∆ must show jury he has met std of proof required - ∆ = POTE; State = BARD – In a tie, State wins (exception is heat of passion in murder case) Common Law (1) ∆ must prove (2) By POTE (3) Subjective + Obj. Belief MPC (1) ∆ must prove (2) By POTE: (3) Subjective Belief only - - Added step - (1) State must prove (2) BARD: Belief was held Recklessly/Negligently *Prosecutor’s success results in establishing an imperfect defense = Manslaughter conviction Justifications for Punishment Restraint: Jailed for safety of the public Deterrence: Make example to send message Rehabilitation: “Sick” and need help to re-enter society as a contributing member Retribution: People want sense that justice has been done; build legitimacy of system Death: Highest form of punishment Methods of Punishment: Monetary (fines, restitution), Probation, Incarceration, Death Serving Sentences: Concurrent: At same time – Consecutive: Back to Back The Act: ACTUS REUS – w/out an act you do not have a crime – what is an act? -Implicit element in MPCconsiderations: (1) Thinking – No for wishing & planning; (2) Presence or Appearance; (3) Unconsciousness; (4) Possession; (5) Temporary Impairment (Mult. pers.); (6) Status (Intox, Addiction, Homelessness) MPC §2.01, non-voluntary acts include things like: Reflex or convulsion; Movement during unconsciousness or sleep; Conduct during hypnosis; Bodily conduct not product of actor’s determination OMISSIONS – MPC 2.01(3)– Kitty Genovese -If you have a duty to act, you may be liable if you don’t – Capacity matters Liability Elements: Finding Actus Reus in Omissions (only if there is a LEGAL duty to act- not a moral duty) 1. Legal Duty: Statutory (few), K (ex.lifeguard), Relationship (spouses, parent-child), Vol. Assump of Care (if u start helping u may be obligated to con’t), Situation (you created peril)
2. Possibility of Performing the Act: father who can’t swimnot dive into deep water to rescue a drowning child but could do other things to help like call the lifeguard etc 3. Causation: The omission must be proved to be the cause of the death, for example
(Legal) Duties Giving Rise to Criminal Omissions Liability (1) Duty Based on Relationship: Parents must aid small children; ship captains must aid their crews; law expanding- might imagine a duty of a mountain climber to rescue his climbing partner if he falls in a crevasse. Key is to look for a special relationship; (2) Duty based on Statute: Failure to stop after hit and run; (3) Duty based on Contract: Lifeguard employed to watch over swimmers at the beach; (4) Duty based on Voluntary Assumption of Care: If one starts to save a drowning swimmer, one has to carry through; (5) Duty Based on Creation of the Peril: recall case where rapist whose acts cause his victim to drown in the creek; (6) Duty Based on Respondeat Superior: Employer has a duty to curb dangerous activities of employee when employee is in the course of work; Car-owner may be criminally liable to third persons injured or killed as a result of his failure to control his speeding chauffeur; (7) Duty of Landowner: landowner may have a duty to act affirmatively to provide for the safety of those whom he invites onto his property; ex.)night club ownerdeaths of his patrons killed as a result of failure to provide proper fire escapes.
CL:INTENT Specific Intent – Something added to charge: Assault w/ intent to commit rape; Requires greater degree of recklessness (hard to prove); Intoxication IS a defense General Intent – Requires lesser degree of recklessness; Easier to prove (Atkins); NO intoxication defense CL: GENERAL v. SPECIFIC INTENT CRIMES GENERAL INTENT SPECIFIC INTENT Example: Battery Example: Burglary **Single Mental Layer** **Double Mental Layer** - intent to inflict injury on Breaking and entering the another dwelling house of another at night (intent to break) with the intent to commit a felony therein Intoxication and Mistake of Intoxication and Mistake of Fact ARE NOT DEFNENSES Fact MAY BE DEFENSES - often the words “with intent to” are used to indicate a specific intent crime (look for these in statute) ex.) assault is a general intent crime, but assault with intent to rape, is a specific intent crime; arson is a general intent crime, but arson with intent to commit insurance fraud is a specific intent crime INTENT: MENS REA – MPC 2.02 – Mental state –Hard to prove – Done circumstantially –Transferred intent (meant to shoot B, but hit C instead) – Crime (arson, murder) can’t be MENS REA AND CULPABILITY think about choice of Elements of Culpability – MPC 2.02 – One of these must be found for each crime – Motive not legally required; can help though (this MPC section is VERY IMPORTANT!)
or negligently.Action 1. then specific intent/culpability negated by evidence of intoxication at both CL and MPC 5. Obtained from a person or public body. with respect to each material element of the offense? MISTAKE OF LAW REASONABLE RELIANCE DOCTRINE 1. circ. yell “jump.instant death trumps wound . if something is accidental or remote then it is not foreseeable) . is there a lesser-included offense? MISTAKE OF FACT 1. Are we dealing with a "conscious object" or "purpose" (specific intent) crime? If yes.death at a later time . recklessly. MPC is thinking more in terms of culpability B.the but for test (CL) Double Concurrent Actual Causes: (1) Accelerated Cause . Is this a strict liability crime? If yes. Actual Cause: § 2. & Unjust. vic refused treatment and died – Not liable.1) Conscious object (sugar for diabetic). is it a "knowingly" crime? -. c. Standard of conduct: How a reasonable person would act if in the actor’s situation -Similar to tort negligence OVERALL INTOXICATION MENS REA ANALYSIS 1.. Accessories BEFORE the fact: Aided or abetted crime. robber breaks in & kills him. evidence of self-induced intoxication does NOT negate culpability (aka intoxication is not a defense) -. Crime Without Mental Element: §§ 2.03(2)(a) & (3)(a) The actual result is a “probable consequence” of the actor’s conduct. Free. someone else did. dropped vic at ER for safety. then it will not matter whether the mistake of fact is reasonable. In Cases of Potential Superseding Causes A.PURPOSELY: CONSCIOUS/RESULT . considering the nature and purpose of the actor’s conduct & the circumstances known to him. then we are done with the analysis If yes.After. (breaks causal chain b/c act coincidental – not legally responsible b/c it was not foreseeable) Not in resp.02(6) (threat unless victim complies) KNOWINGLY: 1) ∆ is AWARE att.D1 is guilty only of attempted murder. Is the mistake honest or in good faith? Is the mistake reasonable? 4.2 people shoot victim (D1’s shot may have caused victim to die in a few hours and D2’s shot caused him to die in 5 mins – the one who accelerates the death is the cause) (2) Correspondent Cause . the disregard of this risk involves a gross deviation from the standard of conduct Standard of conduct: How a law-abiding person would act if in the actor’s situation NEGLIGENTLY: FAILURE TO PERCEIVE subs. Is this a specific intent or general intent crime? If it's specific intent. liable. (knows victim is diabetic & gives him sugar anyway) – Satisfied if purpose is conditional 2. knowingly.RECKLESSLY: Minimum default – CONSCIOUS DISREGARD of subst.Under MPC: If yes. evidence of voluntary intoxication does NOT negate intent. Watching vic on ledge. D still liable De Minimus Contribution to Social Harm: ∆ cuts vic accidentally. then the mistake must be honest and reasonable.D1 shoots at heart of victim (death is instant) At the same time D2 shoots at brain of victim (death also instant).03 – deals w/ probable consequence ACTUAL CAUSATION:. performed neg surgery on injured victim ( not liable). 6. no. II. administration. as the law may require. Facilitator (Kaplan) 1. vic crashes & dies. & unjust.Under Common Law: If yes. Act of 3rd Party: Dr. 2) ∆ is aware of att. Act of Nature: Vic left in woods killed by bear/winter storm ( not liable) PROXIMATE CAUSATION Foreseeability: Dependant (responsive) intervening cause: ’s Conduct + ’s Intervening Cause Prox Cause (breaks the causal chain and s act is foreseeable) Independent (coincidental) intervening cause: ’s Conduct + Ind. Facilitation – single mental layer . Hum. Is the mistake honest or in good faith? If it's a general intent crime. 2. then it's a complete defense If no. b. circ.defense? If no.Line separating seriousness of crimes . If in a Model Penal Code jurisdiction: Did the defendant act purposely. yes Intended Consequences Doctrine: D wanted mom to die by poison. Later determined to be erroneous. & Unjust. During race. 3. If intent/culp negated.if so. risk: Must be of such a nature and degree that.D2 -. flows from ∆ actions of crashing boats ( NOT liable). not now. but knowing it’s happening is not enough – Ex.06 – CL: Principles to 1st Degree: Actually perpetrated the offense Principles to 2nd Degree: Were actually or constructively present at the crime scene & aided or abetted its commiss. see (4) in §2. Of the law defining the offense CAUSATION MPC & CAUSATION: MPC § 2. mistake of fact cannot be a defense. vic dies. evidence of self-induced intoxication negates culpability If yes. exist (spike punch. Interv. Are we dealing w/ a double mental layer (specf int) crime? If yes. no liability. Cause ( not liable).03 I. enforcement 5.who was a more effective killer.But for D1’s voluntary act would the harm have occurred when AND as it did? (3) Obstructed Cause. worker didn’t give it. . Are we dealing with a single mental layer (gen int) crime? -.03(2)(b) & 3(b) Result is not too remote or accidental in its occurrence to have a just bearing on the actor’s liability (ie. on way to ER for stitches.compared to foresee. Types of Intervening Causes: Act of the Victim: Drunk victim dies from own actions of swimming for shore. no. With responsibility for the: a. interpretation. Omission: Father’s failure to protect his child will not absolve attacker even if father’s omiss. then specific intent/culpability negated by evidence of intoxication at both CL and MPC 4. hit by car after left on road. Is this a common law or MPC jurisdiction? If common law: 3.: ∆ persuades vic to drag race.D1 attempted to kill V but his efforts were obstructed by a separate force -. Deliberate Informed. car is hit.03(1)(a) (1) Conduct is the cause of a result when: (a) it is an antecedent but for which the result in question would not have occurred. Apparent Safety Doctrine: ∆ caused a bit of harm. risk – Subst. Was the involuntarily or pathologically intoxicated? If yes. 2) ∆ PRACTICALLY CERTAIN conduct will cause result (allergic guest will be injured – Satisfied by high probability – “Willfully” if person commits elements of crime knowingly (unless statute requires more) . the actor’s failure to perceive this involves a gross deviation from the standard of conduct. conduct analysis for voluntary intoxication 2. to act caused the death STRICT LIABILITY – 1) Mens rea requirement? 2) Congressional intent? 3) Public welfare or regulatory offense? 4) Severe penalty? MPC 2.see MPC 2. & unjust. 4. ask the following questions: 3. considering the nature and purpose of the actor’s conduct and the circumstances known to him. Carjacked guy stays at friend’s. but not present at commission Accessories AFTER the fact: Rendered assistance after the crime was complete – Will survive the merger Actus Reus of Accomplice Liability Mere presence is not enough – Must show encouragement – Omission to act. knowing guest is allergic). Crime With Mental Element: §§ 2. It need be only an honest or gf mistake. Person reasonably relies on an official statement of law. Does the jurisdiction even allow a voluntary intox.” yes Can be established thru omission if there’s a duty – Cop should stop a crime.if so.instant death . If no: 2. is it a "recklessly" or "negligently" crime? -. risk that element exists or will result from his conduct – Subst. to ∆’s wrong. Intervening Cause NO Prox. not citizen Attempt to aid or assist is enough: Making food for ∆s could be argued both ways *Accomplice must possess the requisite criminal intent as defined by statute Accomplice vs. risk: Must be of such a nature & degree that. in CL is thinking more in terms of caus. .05(2) = minor violation COMPLICITY ACCOMPLICE LIABILITY.
4) Solicitation is never an attempt. 4) Allows apprehension & prosecution of groups & from before they joined the group 5) Joins multiple ∆s for trial – Jury more easily infers joint criminal activity 6) “Continuing offense” longer time to file charges – less risk of statute of lim. Minority: Overt act for serious crimes only Ends: 1) It’s abandoned or 2) Its completed Rationales for punishing conspiracy 1) Preventative measure. Soliciting an innocent agent to help TESTS FOR ACTUS REUS OF ATTEMPT: 1. Many juris.ex.not yet crossed the line from preparation to perpetration (better for ) 4. Dangerous Proximity (CL) –a person is guilty of attempt when their conduct is so near the result that the danger of success is great -Considers: Nearness of danger. Substantial Step (MPC) – under subsection 1(c) . 3) Suggesting to.M solicits N to burglarize O’s home. I don't know what you'll be doing with it but I know it's something illegal. vehicle. Intent to aid the principal and 2. then persuaded him to stop – Must have genuine change of heart CL – Solicitation is always a misdemeanor Majority: One grade below solicited offense Minority: Same grade as solicited offense Mens Rea: Spec. running 7) Venue is more fluid – Can be anywhere an act for the conspiracy occurred Address only if undercover agent is present: Bilateral CL: Agreement b/t 2+ to commit concerted action (unlawful act or a lawful act by unlawful means) – 2nd person must really be involved. If Incomplete.." Mens Rea: The Intent to Promote or Facilitate a Crime: . attempt goes away & you’re charged only with the target crime MPC 5. an actor who does not yet possess a necessary instrument for the crime) .06(6)(b) says person who can’t be convicted of a substantive offense as an accomplice can’t be convicted of conspiracy to commit it Gebardi Rule: Protects victim of a conspiracy from being charged as a co-conspirator. Unlawful entry of location (structure.can be and often is implied from a person’s actions Accomplice Liability.M open’s O’s window for N’s entry. M tells N to kill O in O’s presence and they’re armed 2) Solicitation PLUS could be Attempt – Solicitation coupled with a “slight act” in furtherance of crime – Many juris. not pretending Unilateral MPC: Focus on 1 person and his belief that he is agreeing with another for purpose of committing crime Most jurisdiction switched from CL to MPC Wharton Rule: Can’t be conspiracy if crime logically needed 2 people to complete – Ex. then the lesser is absorbed by the greater (attempt merges into the substantive offense) ex. liab. & Accomp. but stops or is stopped before completing (2) Conduct that may be held substantial under (1)(c): Lying in wait. but fails to attain criminal goal – Incomplete: Actor does some of the acts necessary.01 CL: Was a misdem regardless of seriousness of offense attempted. 2) Addresses group criminality (groups create more havoc in society) Prosecutorial Advantage *Tremedous ethical restraint necessary here 1) Separate crime with its own penalties 2) Permits apprehension of potential criminals even earlier than attempt 3) Members are vicariously liable for acts of others even w/o proof of accomp.b/c the solicitor does not intend to personally commit the offense. inducing. Greatness of harm.call bank for open time) – Less than aiding & abetting. defense if ∆ solicited someone. Collection of materials at planned place. M give N weapon or pays her to do crime 3) Not an attempt unless solicitor’s overt acts would constitute an attempt if she intended to commit the crime herself – Solicitor must play active role in crime.) "I'm giving you this gun because I know you want it.Min of jurisdic. 3) Preparation (Not all preps are enough. going down in descending order to the MPC substantial step test being the easiest ***look at the fact pattern you have and consider which test seems to apply and talk about THAT test Relationship b/t Solicitation & Attempt*From most liberal to least liberal 1) All Solicitations are potential Attempts – “Proximate” to or “substantial step towards” Minority of juris. – Ex.ex. 2) Furthering its commission via another person by.) "I'm giving you this gun because I know you want to use it to commit a bank robbery & I want you to use it that way. . or manipulating Uncommunicated Solicitation: Immaterial under Subsec (1) that there was no communication – Designed conduct enough Renunciation of Crim Purpose: Aff. Adultery.04(2) Mens Rea Group crime: Consp. Enticing vic to planned place of commission. Complicity – double mental layer . searching for or following vic. Raise both issues . SOLICIATION Criminal Solicitation – MPC 5. Abnormal Step –whether ’s conduct has gone beyond point where normal citizen would think better of it and stop (has reached the psychological point of no return of an ordinary law-abiding citizen?) (better for prosecution) 6.Overlapping area. even if she was part of the agreement – MPC 5. 2) Mistake of judgment (imperfect attempt). incest – MPC 2.) attempted kidnap. Possession of materials to commit crime.the mens rea of accomplice liability is often described in the case law as having two separate (and independent) components: (1) the intent to assist a principal actor in committing target act (2) the intent that the principal actually commit that act .02 ** Consider accomplice liability.Double Layer Mens Rea (in other words): -accomplice liability requires a double layer of mens rea:1.01 (1) Complete or Incomplete? If complete. Degree of proximity matters) Criminal Attempt – MPC 5. merges into actual kidnapping Mens Rea: Level of culpability is same as it would be for the target crime Actus Reus: 1) Unforeseen interruption." 2.03 Elements of Conspiracy: 1) Agreement to commit the target act 2) Intent to commit the target act itself Begins: 2+ agree (& overt act if needed) Overt Acts – Any legal or illegal act to further the crime (Ex. target offense a result crime (1)(b). Reconnoitering to that place. Aider and abetter.. intent crime – Not guilty if ∆ jokingly suggests a crime Actus Reus: Solicitation is complete the instance the person requests the crime be committed even if ∆ asking is pretending – Can be a message to many people at once CONSPIRACY MPC 5. Police intervention can be earlier than attempt. Degree of apprehension felt (better for ) 3. Unequivocality (aka Res Ipsa Loquitor Test) – test under which the ’s conduct manifests an intent to commit the crime criticized as setting too high a bar for conviction 7. Indispensible Element – whether an indispensible element or aspect remains over which the actor has not yet gained control (ex. Liab.The most difficult for the prosecutor to make out is the 1st. – Ex. conspiracy and attempt ATTEMPT Six Stages of Criminal Process: 1) Conception – Not charged 2) Evaluation – Not charged 3) Forms intention to proceed – Not charged 4) Prepares to commit crime – inchoate crime zone 5) Starts commission of offense – inchoate crime zone 6) Completion of offense – Yes. charged Attempt Defn– ∆ performs act as substantial step toward committing target crime – If successful. Majority: Requires 1 overt act by 1 party. enclosure) planned for commission. 1(c) – Imperfect: Actor performs all of the acts she set out to do. Probable Desistence Test – whether in the ordinary and natural course of events the s conduct will result in the crime intended (centers on how the far the has already proceeded in starting the crime) (better for prosecution) 5. Physical Proximity –must stand as the first or subsequent step leading to the crime (better for ) 2.now felony but treated as less than target offense Note on Merging: if charged with both attempt & the substantive offense & found guilty of the substantive offense. Going too far? Definitions of Solicitation: 1) Solicitor conceiving of criminal idea. Intent to commit the underlying crime Inchoate Offenses – solicitation.
Robbery. venue . Objective and Subjective Standard. 4. 2) Arizona: More than a moment in time. 3) Cali: i) Planning activity. Kidnap (more MPC 210. sep from killing. a conspirator behind the scenes could insulate herself from liability for those acts that help the conspiracy succeed. iii) Manner of kill.) aider and abettor is liable for substantive crime.= I killed V but the killing was a result of circ which lessen the severity (provoked. rob bank. Causation=Actual + Proximate.Conspiracy: Intent to agree/Intent to commit Accomplice Liability: Intent to assist another. no cooling off period – Imperfect defense. w/out malice– “Heat of passion”1) Voluntary. DEFENSES Any set of identifiable conditions or circums that may prevent conviction for any offense Legal Defenses: Double jeopardy. doesn’t need premeditation Felony-Murder: killing caused during commission of or attempt to commit a felony. purpose. 2) Thwarts the success of the conspiracy HOMICIDE see MPC §210 Core Elements of Crime: START ANALYSIS HERE: Actus Reus = Killing. death must be foreseeable (V taking self protective action is foreseeable). Murder. D must actually be suffering from disturbance at time of killing. Emot.) driving thru toll w/out pay not malim in se so death of toll keeper not misdem-manslaughter (only for malim prohibita) How MPC’s EMED (xtreme mental or emo disturbance) is Diff. "Cooling Time" Not an Issue. ii)reckless killing ( is aware + consciously disregards a subj + unjusti risk of death 3)Criminally Negligent Homicide. killing during or immediate flight from felony. even words may be enough to trigger D's extreme emotional/mental disturbance.2(b)) . Arson. V must not be a co-felon Note: MPC 210: Abolishes distinction between 1st & 2nd Categories of death-eligible killers if they have killed 1) Purposely. Standard is both:(1) objective (m/b reasonable explanation or excuse for D's behavior -. Intent the principle commit crime Attempt: Intent to commit the specific crime that was the actor’s objective Solicitation: Intent to promote or facilitate commission of specific crime by another Actus Reus – Element of Consp.Because no specific act required. -Lesser included offense of 2nd Deg.mental state=negligently. Felonies giving rise to merger (Wyo): Sexual assault. (4) Occurred before the defendant joined the conspiracy. Burglary. Obj: rsbl person standard. deliberate -Most particularly heinous types of killing -Premeditated satisfied: Lying in wait.It is enough if D suffered from condition that caused D to react in an emotional manner. No Artificial Restrictions on Evaluating Whether an Act of Provocation Was Legally Sufficient. 3.killing must be done by a felon) . torture. 2) Involuntary 1st Degree Murder: Intentional & Premeditated. delay. Determined from: (a) the viewpoint of a person in the actor's situation. No cool-down time.D's "idiosyncratic moral values" c/n factor into determination) and (2) subjective (trier of fact should consider both the defendant's physical and emotional characteristics in determining whether reasonable explanation for D's reaction). See passion defense Note:(MPC 210. Disturb. ii) xtreme recklessness.liability too Ex. but does not become a co-conspirator b/c he was aiding and not in the agreement Statement of Rule: an overt act of one partner may be the act of all without any new agreement directed to that act. 2) Need not be spoken/written. OR 3) For which there’s an imperfect def. Felony-Murder Rule & Merger: (case w/ old woman & house guest who gets stabbed during teen robbery) –only liable for the worse of the offenses – they “merge”. 2) Begins running S/L in ∆’s favor MPC 5. (2) Did not fall within the scope of the unlawful project. I did it b/c I thought V was about to use deadly force not realizing that could have acted less or V did not intend deadly harm and I overacted Involuntary Manslaughter: unintentional killing(1) Committed recklessly. Exceptions: Pink. Specific Act of Provocation Not Required.Barnes court’s analysis: 1) Informal Nature of Agreement: Need not take any specific form. 2.03: Affirmative & complete defense if: 1) ∆ renounces crim.abolished in most states by MPC (ex. heat of passion or imperfect defense. circumstantially – ∆s with a number of criminal objectives but 1 agreement have 1 conspiracy – Separate agreements can be separate charges of conspiracy. Adequate cause by vic. must be guilty of underlying felony.) guard kills teller in bank robbery. iii)felony murder. distinguished from manslaughter b/c it requires malice aforethought (four ways: (1)intent to cause death or serious bodily injury (2)w/ knowledge that action will cause death or SBI (3)when killing occurred during the commission of a felony (4)or when the perp intended to oppose. speedy trial. committed under special/heinous circumstances NOR in heat of passion Voluntary Manslaughter: Intentional. planned.2 Murder What is the legal consequence if the offenses result in murder? Recklessness and indifference are “PRESUMED” means that the defense will have a chance to rebut the presumption! This is not the felony-murder rule main CL distinction! CL does not have a REBUTTABLE PRESUMPTION (MPC) Mares. rape.liability does not attach if the substantive offense committed by one of the co-conspirators: (1) Was not in fact done in furtherance of the conspiracy. 2) Knowingly. 4) May be contemporaneous with overt acts Wheel Conspiracy – Separate conspiracies linked (spokes) through a single person (hub) – People don’t know each other but depend on one another for success Chain Conspiracy– People may or may not know each other – 1 agreement tied to next Manufacturer Distributor Street Dealer Culpability of Co-Conspirators Held liable if reasonably foreseeable as coming from planned crime (Natural/Nec. Escape. Mens Rea= Depends on grade of homicide (mental state).) . and 3) Recklessly under circumstances manifesting extreme indifference to the value of human life (Murder presumed if ∆ is engaged in or fleeing from robbery. killing that is not premeditated. death by drive-by shooting 2nd Degree Murder: Knowing – Catch-all Category -A killing caused by dangerous conduct & ∆’s obvious lack of concern for human life -Int.Co-Conspirators: (CL) MPC rejects the Pinkerton rule: conspirator only guilty of crime of coconspirator if they could also be held culpable 4 acc. by force. all felons liab. Subj: THIS person has been provoked Note: to go from murder to mansl. ii) Motive.b/c no specific act of provocation required. and (2) without such a rule. burglary. Can be established inferentially. an on duty officer or jus of peace) 2) Manslaughter: Killing with a less guilty mind. (3) Was merely a part of the ramifications of the plan which could not be reasonably foreseen as a necessary or natural consequence of the unlawful agreement. from CL Manslaughter Standard 1. Rationales: (1) co-conspirators are considered each other's agents. WMD. ok in maj states.(2) With grossly negligent behavior. Circumstances=Another human being Victim: End of life: Cessation of breathing and heartbeat OR No spontaneous brain activity Criminal homicide: Unexcused/unjustified killing of another human being *CL’s Homicide: 1) Murder (by degrees): Killing someone with a guilty mind – Intent to kill – Engaging in conduct with the knowledge that the conduct will result in someone’s death – Acting with extreme recklessness. mansl. as he believes them to be. steal car) – Not liable if you joined conspiracy after crime is done PINKERTON LIABILITY. conseq.Trier of fact must determine if reasonable explanation for the EMED. MPC presumption of extreme indifference 210. being culpable for death that occurs after/during commission of a misdemeanor-imposes strict liability for serious offense and is disfavored by courts) ex. Question of fact – Requires affirmative rejection communicated to co-conspirators CL: No defense once a conspiracy is formed Can 1) Shield ∆ from liability of others’ crimes. issue of whether too much "cooling time" before killing becomes moot. by concerted action. kidnapping) *MPC’s Homicide: not by degree:1)Murder i)intent to kill. NOTES: Premeditation– Some reflection about the act prior to the act -Spectrum from different jurisdictions: 1)Missouri: a moment in time. (all felons guilty! (ex. min. 3) Conduct itself is enough. (b) under the circums. should have known about subjective + unjusti risk of death. Heat of Passion. 2)Manslaughter i)intentional form(commit under EMED). Resist Arrest. fel must be inherently dangerous.3) 1) Heat of passion or 2) Ext.flight following a felony counts for felony murder (until has reached a place of temporary safety – temp safety=jury issue) Misdemeanor Manslaughter Rule: (invol. imposes vicarious liab. Withdrawal & Renunciation from Consp.
Ages 7-14: Infancy Rebuttable Presumption Child is presumed incapable of committing a crime. BARD: 1) Hist. Assert @ pre-trial. Insanity destroyed ∆’s power to choose – Extreme Volitional Test: Impulse too strong to resist– No reflection time MPC: ∆ not resp. 2) Comprehend his duty to follow laws Entrapment: MPC 2. If gen intent. proportionality Some jurisdictions have a fifth requirement: (5) duty to retreat.deadly force may be used to protect a resident when resident’s home is being invaded & they believe attack is directed toward persons (even if resident is unclear if attack is focused on possessions or persons) – not justified if house unoccupied ARREST/ USE OF FORCE Law Enforcement Defense: Arrest Authority for Police CL: Without warrant. you go free. not just if the rsbl. Tests: Subj: Predisp. necessity (3) proportional response to that threat. purposely. Used to be at CL – Hand in empty pocket. only applies if ∆ voluntarily & completely abandons the crime – Must not have already caused serious harm to vic See MPC 5.. 4) Did not know it was WRONG – Majority: No if ∆ knew he was breaking the law – Minority: Even if he knew.07** CITIZEN ARREST: Non-Deadly: Crime committed in citizen’s presence – Only for misdemeanors involving breach of the peace Deadly force: More narrow – Rsbl. COMMON LAW Generally. (3)§ 2. Enforce. Unless ∆ is initial aggressor OR Attacker is coworker & at work) MPC 3. when it’s ∆’s turn. grounds there was felony OR 2) If misdemeanor committed in front of cop Non-Deadly: Rsbl. Durham “Product” Test: Jury decides 1) Insane at time.13 IMPOSSIBILITY Factual: No defense. intent. 3) Rsbly fear imminent death or serious inj. good faith mistake works. gov. 2) Would have occurred w/o insanity EXCUSES – No capacity to choose = No blame Duress: Threat caused ∆ to commit crime Diminished Capacity “Twinkie defense”: ∆ couldn’t 1) Maturely/meaningfully reflect. Conduct INFANCY & INCAPACITY MPC § 4. Obj: Govt.If successful. Minority: Only if escaping felon is dangerous (armed or committed ser. 5) Of the law defining the offense Failure of Proof Claim: Knowledge the prohibited conduct constitutes an offense is itself an express element of the crime .be careful DEFENSE OF PROPERTY . INSANITY . delusional belief system – Excused if: 1) At time of crime. POTE. ie. Law Enforcement. Many jurisdictions. shoots at corpse Legal: Yes. if: 1) At time of crim. of crim.01(4) Voluntarily: Genuine change of heart – No unforeseen resistance. gov. buys baby powder thinking its cocaine) ABANDONMENT – No defense in most places If yes. 2) Result of mental illness. Proportionality (ND has this – Must attempt to get away before using deadly force – Duty only if you know you can retreat safely – Exception: Castle Doctrine: Attacked in your home. Complete Defense: If ur successful.) Self-Defense. 3) Circum. you can still rely on gen. 3) Lacked capacity to a) APPRECIATE the CRIMINALITY of conduct OR b) CONFORM conduct to law.. equivalent of M'Naghten. we see affirmative defenses Affirmative Defense: must prove by preponderance of the evi. poking holes in evidence – Then. belief is enough Utilitarian: Better aggressor dies than innocent person – Allow people to defend.10: No bar to finding of criminal liability but requires transfer to Juvenile Court if D is under 16. not Insanity JUSTIFICATION DEFENSES – Even IF prosecutor has proven the crime. etc Completely: Not merely postponing until you have a better opportunity Mistake of Fact – If ∆ can negate spec. intent 1) Strict liability? If yes. person would think it was a real gun. including deadly.13: 1) Inducement. **FOR police Arrest & Use of Force SEE – MPC 3. Necessity (or Choice of Evils) SELF-DEFENSE CL Elements: (1) an (a) honest and (b) rsble fear of death or great bodily harm. Minority: Alter-Ego rule: Stand in shoes of person being attacked. 2) ∆ formed design.see MPC 3. no defense 2) CL or MPC? CL: If spec intent. defense. etc) must be satisfied for each element of it Mistake of Law – No defense – Exceptions: Reasonable Reliance Doctrine: 1) ∆ reasonably relied on statement of law. ∆ finds himself in (physical movements. (2)There is no absolute prohibition on self-created necessity. belief it is necessary to make arrense for felony or misdemeanor – Even if ∆ turns out innocent – Deadly: Majority: Allowed to prevent escape of felon. MPC allows immed. necessity on present occasion (earlier) – Less strict proportionality in MPC (deadly force for kidnap) Honest & Rsbl Fear: Must really feel scared & attacked. 2) ∆’s prior experiences. 2) Entitled to use force. have made this only a rebuttable presumption Ages 0-7: Complete Automatic Infancy Defense Child under age seven does not have the cognitive capacity to form the mens rea for any crime. Defense of Others. is only responsible for any crimes of recklessness or negligence caused by her actions. and proportionality (4) was not the initial aggressor. Retributivist: Right of an innocent person to life is superior than that of an aggressor Self-Defense by an Aggressor: Ordinarily not allowed – Can’t create own necessity of force Exceptions: Non-deadly aggressor met with deadly force. risk of serious bodily harm CL Rule: use of deadly force not justified to protect property unless: Make My Day law jurisdictions . AND 2) Belief must be reasonable under the circumstances *Differences: MPC belief doesn’t have to be rsbl (can’t be reck or neg) – Instead of imminence. Burden is C&C M’Naughten Test: Out of touch with reality. his warped beliefs can be considered Irresistible Impulse Test: “Policeman at the elbow” test. committed – CL: No death. 2) Later determined to be erroneous. Admin. the MPC necessity defense is broader than the common law defense in three ways: (1)The MPC has no imminence requirement. umbrella) MPC: Culpability (knowingly.prop less valuable than human life .06 allows deadly force to defend property 1) Person is being dispossessed illegally & 2) Intruder is committing felony against property (burglary/arson) and has threatened deadly force to person OR 3) Attempting to use non-deadly force to prevent felony would expose person to subst. D's actions are "justified" given all of the circumstances. Hearing voices. for Interpret. Defense of Property. Question of competency for jury. It is ordinarily impermissible to kill another person. conduct similar to this crime. lack of essential tool. there is a reason for this ∆ to have committed this crime. Subj. (2)Gov. 3) Ready response. Law doesn’t prohibit the goal ∆ sought to achieve – No guilt even if ∆ believes they are engaging in unlawful behavior impossibility (ex. belief intervention is nec.Factual Defenses: First line of defense is attacking prosecutor’s case-in-chief. D is permitted to kill in self-defense. 2) Predisposition. change to increase likelihood of arrest. Conduct: Was the government's conduct likely to have induced a law-abiding person to commit the crime?. belief offender committed felony – Strict liability (you better be right!) – Minority: Offender committed dangerous felony or is armed NECESSITY DEFENSE: MPC v. Aggressor made effective withdrawal. From society's perspective. Over the age of 14: No Infancy Defense ENTRAPMENT 3 Tests: (1)Predisposition Test: if was "predisposed" to commit the crime and law enforcement agents only offered him the opportunity to do so. there is no entrapment defense. 2) Result of mental illness. person would feel that way – If rsbl. it can be treated that way – Elements to consider from Goetz: 1) Physical attributes. officers must have: 1) Rsbl.). crime) Police Self-Defense during Arrest 1) If met with forcible resistance. 4) Respon. Good faith reasonable belief (2) from an imminent and unlawful threat. However. (3) Necessity is available in homicide prosecutions. comments of assailants) Absence of Imminence is often a problem.04: ∆ must 1) Actually believe the force was necessary to protect himself from the use of imminent use of unlawful physical force by another person. if the person has a knife at D's throat. 3) Didn’t KNOW what he was doing (cognitive el. then is attacked DEFENSE OF OTHERS Majority: Rsbl. mistake must be honest & reasonable (blk. 3) Obtained from person or public body.
This action might not be possible to undo. Are you sure you want to continue?
We've moved you to where you read on your other device.
Get the full title to continue reading from where you left off, or restart the preview.