This action might not be possible to undo. Are you sure you want to continue?
Utilitarianism Kant said “kill the last man sitting in prison before you abandon the island, because he deserves it” Assaultive retribution: we must punish the wrongdoer – because the criminal has harmed society, it is right for society to “hurt him back”. Protective retribution: punishment is not inflicted to hurt wrongdoers, it is inflicted to restore equilibrium. In a society of rules everyone is equally benefited and burdened by the rules. Protective retribution protects this balance by allowing violators to repay their debt – the criminal owes a debt to society, and repayment of the debt allows them to return to society free of moral guilt and stigma. Victim vindication – Jean Hampton view; criminal makes false moral claim as to his relative worth, says he is worth more than the victim, we are settling the score, “defeating the wrongdoer” by punishing. Utilitarianism – goals are deterrence, rehabilitation, and incapacitation. The goal is to punish people for general or specific deterrence. General deterrence – no one else will try to do this; Specific deterrence – you specifically won’t do this again. Punishment is evil, just as crime is evil. If punishment of the criminal results in a net benefit to society, then utilitarian goal is met. Overall happiness of society is the overall goal of utilitarianism.
People v. Du Judge Carlin laid out sentencing goals 1) Protect society (U) 2) Punish D for crime (R) 3) Encourage D to lead law abiding life (U) 4) Deter others from committing same type of crime (U) 5) Incapacitate D (U) 6) Secure restitution for the victim (R) 7) To seek uniformity in sentencing (U/R) Gementera Letter-thief case, forced to wear a public sign saying he stole mail and this is his punishment. Judge framed it in utilitarian view, we will shame him into deterrence. Appellate court found that in the context of other punishments it was not pure humiliation. SENTENCING Coker
Proportionality for capital crimes. Murderer/rapist escaped from prison, he went and raped a woman, they convicted & sentenced him to death for the rape. Court held that capital punishment is not allowed for rape of adult woman. A punishment is excessive and unconstitutional if: 1) no measurable contribution to acceptable goals of punishment 2) punishment is grossly out of proportion with the severity of the crime Coker only stands as a bar to CAPITAL punishment Ewing v. California Life in prison for three-strikes law. Rummel v. Estelle they gave life for three bad $100 checks in Texas, was upheld. Solem v. Helm guy got life in prison for seventh bad check in SD, supreme court said not okay. In Rummel and in Ewing there was eligibility for parole, in Solem it was not b/c no chance of parole. HL: Supreme Court will only overturn based on disproportional punishment in noncapital cases if it involves life WITHOUT parole. Disproportionate sentencing for petty offenses may be permissible if the statute provides for parole.
Harmelin v. Michigan Michigan cocaine case, guy got life in prison for a small amount of cocaine. Even in the absence of parole, a seemingly disproportionate punishment may be permissible for a serious offense.
Principle of Legality City of Chicago v. Morales Chicago gang ordinance was held unconstitutional Vagueness may invalidate a criminal law if 1) it fails to provide notice enabling ordinary people to understand prohibited conduct or 2) it may authorize or encourage arbitrary or discriminatory enforcement Second, 1) Violates 1, because how do you know if you have an apparent purpose 2) Not subject to sanction until an officer announces an order 3) No standard of conduct is specified – how long must they remain apart? How far away must they go? If they meet again, can they be arrested or merely dispersed? Muscarello v. U.S. – Gun possession case, one may not “use” or “carry” a firearm during and in relation to a drug trafficking crime. Opinion said lenity can only be used if it’s so ambiguous we can’t even make an educated guess as to what it means. Lenity can only be
However a habitual or conscious form of action is voluntary.02. California – it’s unconstitutional to make a status illegal (being addicted to drugs). Does not necessarily apply to voluntariness.03(2)-(3) . now he was in public. Statute said he must “voluntarily appear in public” and “manifest his drunkenness”. voluntary duty. sleep-walking reflexes are not voluntary acts. Involuntary has multiple meanings in criminal law. you must have some volition to make an act occur. Look at MPC for Actus Reus. 2. but not mens rea. in Jones v. and they asked the author of the bill what he thought it meant. Actus Reus Martin v. shooting at a target. Texas another note case. They did a online database search to try to find meaning. Under the old common law. Coercion can result in actus reus. MENS REA MPC on Mens Rea MPC §§ 1. Dorothy walks in front of the target and gets hit by the bullet.13(2)-(3). 2. Carl has the actus reus for shooting. MPC §§ 1.01 Omissions – a duty must exist. relationship. they listed: Statutory duty.used if legislative history and all available means of interpreting the phrasing at issue is investigated first. State Drunk guy was pulled out of his house. U. Powell v. brought into public.13(10). assumed contractual duty. 2.01 – lists omissions MPC and common law are identical with regard to omissions Explicit omission – means an omission of a duty that something explicitly requires of you Robinson v.S. Carl is at a shooting range. creation of risk (Common law) MPC 2. The MPC says a voluntary act needs physical capability and volition… hypnosis. in a split second after he has shot the gun. but not the mens rea to shoot Dorothy.
State v. but no conscious disregard of risk – instead a “reasonable person” would have been aware of the risk. Conley Guy swings a bottle at someone.02(7) Statutory Interpretation Problems . but only knowingly killed the child. misses the person he wanted to hit but strikes someone else. They said for aggravation we can infer specific intent from him using the bottle.Purposefully – if it is his conscious object to engage in conduct of that nature or to cause such a result. Held: Malice is not just general malice. Was charged with aggravated battery. Court said willful blindness is the same as knowing. you hate the woman and intentionally run her over with your car. and causes great bodily harm resulting in permanent disfigurement commits aggravated battery. Malicious intent (the wickedness of stealing the meter) was not enough to establish mens rea. Negligence – requires gross deviation from the standard of care (unlike torts). Judge said intent can be inferred by using a bottle to attack. Under Common law Willful blindness is reckless but the MPC considers willful blindness to be “knowingly” unless the D actually believes otherwise – MPC 2. but only if the person INTENDS to cause permanent disfigurement. but you know that the child’s death is almost certain to happen. Defendant must have intended or been reckless with regard to harming the neighbor. A woman walks across the street holding a child. and the gas escaped and partially asphyxiated the neighbor next door. You don’t intend for the child to die. and you run into the woman anyway. But in this case it was simply reckless. Recklessly – requires gross deviation from the standard of care. if the element involves a result of his conduct. also requires a conscious disregard for risk. he is aware that it is practically certain that his conduct will cause such a result. and in fact you wish for the child to survive. If the element involves the attendant circumstances. Regina v. Nations p. You purposefully killed the woman. he is aware of the existence of such circumstances or he believes or hopes that they exist Knowingly – if he knows the attendant circumstances are there. Subjective standard differentiates between negligence and recklessness based on the subjective mind of the actor – the same exact act could fit into either category based on whether the deviation was conscious or not. 167 16 year old girl went to strip club. Cunningham Guy stole the meter for the gas to get the coins from inside. Transferred intent was allowed from one person to another. HL: A person who commits a battery. intentionally or knowingly.
but must require mens rea. then mens rea is probably required. possesses. sanitary. When constructing a statute as dispensing with mens area would require the defendant to have knowledge only of traditionally lawful conduct. the usual presumption that a defendant must know the facts that make his conduct illegal should apply. involving a relatively small fine. express or implied. or used. Strict Liability Offenses U. The mens rea requirement in modern criminal law has many distinctions and limited exceptions. p. the anti-narcotics laws. such as the crime of statutory rape. Morisette v. United States D was convicted because he had not registered in the National Firearms Registration and Transfer Record a rifle which had been modified to be capable of fully automatic fire. without lawful authority. it would have spoken more clearly to that effect. U. He thought they were “free for the taking”.S. and subject them to lengthy prison terms. Staples v. Determining the mental state required for the commission of a federal crime requires construction of the statute and inference of the intent of Congress. The statute said “knowingly transfers.Flores-Figueroa v. Cordoba-Hincapie Criminal liability has been permitted to attach without regard to fault in instances in which the actor’s conduct involves minor violations of public welfare laws. then mens rea is probably not required.” We conclude that it does. If Congress had intended to make outlaws of ignorant gun owners. an alien used a fake SSN number to get employment. If punishment of the wrongdoer far outweighs the regulation of the social order as a purpose of the law in question. 183 bottom Junk dealer took spent bomb casings that were lying around in a military range for years. belong to “another person.” Did the statute require the Government to show that the D knew that the means of identification he or she unlawfully transferred. he claimed that he did not know of the rifle’s automatic firing capability. v. offenses punishable by imprisonment cannot be understood to be public welfare offenses. If the penalty is light. United States Flores. a means of identification of another person. or uses. In such a case.S. flattened them out and sold them for scrap. and not including imprisonment. Generally. in fact. building and factory laws and the like. The most common exception has been in cases involving minor violations of the liquor laws. Reversed and remanded. . possessed. is required to dispense with mens rea as an element of a crime. motor vehicle and traffic regulations. the pure food laws. Offenses that require no mens rea generally are disfavored and some indication of congressional intent. Strict liability has been permitted in the criminal law in a number of other instances. a severe penalty is a further factor tending to suggest that Congress did not intend to eliminate a mens rea requirement.
RL: If one takes personal property with the good-faith belief that the property has been abandoned or discarded by the true owner.04 – Mistake is a defense if A) ignorance of mistake negatives the purpose. 186 Retarded guy who had sex with a 13 yr old girl who later gave birth to his child. Marrero Corrections officer who worked in federal prison.Government argued no mens rea requirement. recklessness or negligence required to establish a material element of the offense. But under common law for a specific intent element. Cheek v. ANY mistake is a defense. Garnett v. and an arbitrary rule disallowing a good faith mistake defense is unfair. B) the law provides that the state of mind established by such ignorance or mistake constitutes a mistake or defense. even if his belief is unreasonable. People v. Navarro Charged with grand theft for taking four wooden beams from a construction site. Under common law for a general intent element. . he argued that because he sincerely believed that the tax laws were invalid. court held the statute did have a mens rea requirement implicit. Today. See MPC 2. arguing that the criminal law exists to assess and punish morally culpable behavior and that such culpability was absent here. he unsuccessfully requested the court to instruct the jury that if he in good faith believed he had the right to take the beams. U. he is not guilty of theft. knowledge. He argued he mistakenly believed himself to be exempt from the statute proscribing possession.S. ISSUE: Statutory rape statute was held as one of strict liability People v. a vast array of laws prohibit conduct only malum prohibitum. D appealed. he acted without the wilfullness required for conviction RL: any person who willfully attempts to evade or defeat the requirement that he pay a tax on his income shall be guilty of a felony where it can be shown that he knows and understands the law. State p. was charged with illegal firearms possession for carrying a handgun in public in NYC. he should be acquitted. D was tried and convicted under state statutory rape law. even where such good-faith belief is unreasonable. RL: A good faith belief as to the meaning of a criminal statute is no defense to a violation of the statute. however. despite his proffer of evidence that the girl herself and friends had told him that she was sixteen. SUBJECTIVE test of belief. belief. They excluded defendant’s evidence that he was unaware of the age of the girl. Dissent: The ancient rule that “ignorance of the law is no excuse” may have been proper in times when almost all laws proscribed conduct malum in se. When Cheek was charged with willfully failing to file his taxes. a REASONABLE mistake is a defense.
It would be unfair and unjust to find proximate cause here. he then walks back to his car. but this could be foreseeable. no one forced him to whirl around. No culpability here. People v. Velazquez v. Proximate Cause MPC 2. travel 120 mph. and kill himself. causing microscping tears in his intestines which led to peritonitis.03 – 1) Conduct is the cause of a result when. deceased turned around and zoomed back and died after flying across a lake RL: There can be no criminal liability for result-type offenses unless it can be shown that the defendant’s conduct was a cause-in-fact of the prohibited result. and b) the relationship between the conduct and the result satisfies any additional causal requirements imposed by the Code or by the law defining the offense. car flips. “While it is foreseeable that a person would check on their car after an accident.CAUSATION Velazquez v. this started a new causal chain. Girlfriend pushed the son into the tub. kid died en route to hospital Acceleration theory case. State Proximate cause analysis. for which the D was not responsible. The child was beat up next morning by the dad. guy gets off the highway and is in a safe place. State Beating death of six-year-old son. Guy hits another car. Oxendine v. The child’s abdomen became swollen later that day. but he made the decision to return to the roadway. He was sitting on the side of the road. Rideout Apparent safety doctrine. State v. a) it is an antecedent but for which the result in question would not have occurred. State Cause in fact D and the deceased went drag racing. No one forced this young man to take part in the drag race. the car then gets nailed by another car.” The last test is: apparent safety doctrine. kid was in pain but dad thought he was exaggerating. Rose . the other guy who hit him was an independent cause.
They couldn’t tell whether he died instantly or didn’t die instantly. Enforcing the Presumption of Innocence Owens v. State p. 14 Jury Nullification State v. 19 Theories of Punishment Kent Greenawalt – Punishment p. 33 Michael Moore p. Instant death = vehicular homicide. or when circumstances attending the killing show an abandoned/malignant heart giant list of things: robbery. 235-247 (Only do CA & PA & MPC) CA: implicit or explicit malice express – manifest a deliberate intention to take life implicit – no considerable provocation appears. dragged him. burglary. 40 James Fitzjames Stevens – 41 Herbert Morris – p. 38 Kant – p. dying later = manslaughter.Guy hit somebody with his car. rape . They got him for manslaughter and leaving the scene of the crime. 46 Homicide Go back to statutes from p. 43 Jeffrie Murphy & Hampton p. Ragland p. 31 Jeremy Bentham – Utilitarian p.
D was charged with murder when son died as a result of the beatings. Forrest p. D’s last beating consisted of four blows. Then D attempted suicide but failed. if the words are not accompanied by conduct indicating a present intention and ability to cause the defendant bodily harm? . it must be shown by substantial evidence that the killing is premeditated AND deliberate. D reacted by stabbing her. was convicted of first-degree murder. 258 D abused 8 yr old son brutally over a substantial period of time. D appealed. 294 Crazy army wife. HOLDING: Where a person is accused of first-degree murder. revolver had to be cocked each time before fired (D shot multiple times). 253 Farley. Issue: Can words constitute provocation adequate to mitigate a charge of murder into manslaughter. Dad did not request it and nurses thought he could have recovered. HOLDING: There must there be some evidence that the D considered and weighed his decision to kill to establish premeditation and deliberation. D’s statements “He thought about putting his father out of his misery because he was suffering”. poked fun at D. Jury convicted D of premeditated murder. misdemeanor murder voluntary manslaughter is: upon a sudden quarrel or heat of passion see p.. Midgett P. said she falsely reported abuse so D would be courtmartialed. attempted to reduce it to manslaughter on basis of being provoked – provocation should have mitigated the murder. jumped on him pulled his hair. Trial court did not err in submitting to jury the issue. D appeals conviction because jury instructions equated the intent to kill with premeditation. D became enraged and stabbed Farley. She taunted D. snapping a towel at D’s face. PA: involuntary manslaughter is: criminal negligence. He was tried for murder. etc. HL: First-degree murder is the intentional and unlawful killing of a human being with malice and premeditation and deliberation. 245 Guthrie P. 291 Kid shot dad in hospital to end his suffering. Girouard p. Many of the circumstances that establish a factual basis for a finding of premeditation and deliberation are present. two to stomach. co-worker of Guthrie (D). D’s father did nothing to provoke the actions. two to back. most persuasive.
285 D was romantically obsessed with a neighbor. the dogs attacked strangers repeatedly. notwithstanding D’s psychologist considering his alcoholism a disease and that the intake of alcohol was involuntary. 296 (Not in casenotes) A lawyer couple in CA got two violent dogs which they knew were violent. he confronted her with a knife and stabbed her to death. Trial court rejected his argument that whether he was under a severe emotional disturbance sufficient to mitigate the homicide to manslaughter should be viewed from an entirely subjective viewpoint. 283 – must base it on the actions of the reasonable “aboriginal man”. Girl said “you haven’t got the guts” and he hacked her seven or eight times with the axe. D’s provocation defense was rejected. ISSUE: May severe. severe chronic alcoholism may be considered in determining whether a criminal defendant acted under a reasonable person defense. 276 D was living with a girl. The court. The test for provocation has two parts: 1) subjective – whether the defendant was. D and his girl both drank all day. they were chronic alcoholics in a stormy relationship. Holley p.HL: No. chronic alcoholism be considered in determining whether a criminal defendant acted under the reasonable person defense (for provocation)? HOLDING: Yes. found the reaction to be so peculiar to D that it would have been unreasonable to mitigate the crime. It is subjective as to whether or not the defendant was in fact under an extreme emotional disturbance. after she rejected his advances. D picked up an axe which he had earlier been chopping wood. He brought her liquor as a gift and when she refused. girl left and came back. sitting without a jury. Casassa p. Attorney General for Jersey v. they had fights and the girl frequently made derogatory comments affecting D’s self-esteem. When drunk. It is objective as to whether or not the disturbance was reasonable. said she fucked another guy. Non-intentional killings Knoller p. (he got 2nd degree murder conviction instead). in fact. HL: Whether a defendant was so emotionally disturbed as to lessen murder to manslaughter involves both an objective and subjective analysis. one day the dog attacked a neighbor in the corridor of their . Voluntary manslaughter is an intentional homicide done in a sudden heat of passion caused by adequate provocation before there is a reasonable opportunity to cool down and committed with the malice aforethought required for murder. provoked into losing self control 2) objective – the reasonable man standard (“was it enough to make a reasonable man do as the defendant did”) Aboriginal case p.
The child developed an abcessed tooth. In this case he was only negligence. it is not something that is “inherently” dangerous. Must subjectively know that there is a high probability of death The probability of death is objective. cop struck a car and the occupant of the car died. RL: A person acts with criminal negligence when he fails to be aware of a substantial and unjustifiable risk. RL: Driving with willful or wanton disregard for the safety of persons or property while fleeing from a pursuing police officer is not an inherently dangerous felony for purposes of the felony-murder rule. They wanted to bring in evidence of the defendant’s pro-drinking slogans/stickers he printed on his sun visor. People v. as a result he died. while he was fleeing from the police on a high-speed chase. They charged the thieves with first degree murder under a felony murder statute (California Penal Code 189). Hernandez p. People v. Analysis: A person fleeing could be fleeing the scene of a crime but driving just as a normal person would. 316 Guys were stealing tires from car dealership. even though his conduct was no more than ordinary negligence. They were convicted of manslaughter ISSUE: May ordinary negligence serve as the basis for convicting someone of involuntary manslaughter? HL: Yes. They held that yes. State v. Fuller p. Trial court convicted Knoller of Second Degree murder based on a theory of implied malice. State v. felony murder applies. Howard p. Williams p. Some of the . cop went in hot pursuit and ran a red light in chasing the guys. that person may be convicted of involuntary manslaughter.apartment building and mauled her to death. COME BACK TO THIS Implied Malice – a killing by one with an “abandoned and malignant heart”. Where the failure of a person to act while under a duty to do so is the proximate cause of the death of another. he ran into and killed another motorist. 59 (California) Howard was convicted of felony murder when. 305 Reputation or character is admissible only where the defendant put his own reputation on the line. Facts: Involuntary manslaughter is characterized by reckless commission of a lawful act. and they were scared to take him to the doctor for fear they would take him away. 57 D failed to obtain medical care for their 17 month old child.
Rape Alston Dude had a prior relationship with the girl. State – Supreme Court Appeal They held that it was an error. the burden is on the “victim” to clearly. he showed up at her college and walked with her. but also no force. Also. on cross-examination she admits that light choking could have been a “heavy caress” RL: Victim must show that she resisted or that she was prevented from resisting from threats to her safety.provisions that they would have to violate were stupid minor things like “expired registration” or whatever. D was in cuffs in the police car at the time the shooting occurred. Burglary with the intent to commit assault merges with felony-murder. constructive force must be specific to constitute force for the purposes of rape. a co-felon is not responsible for the death under the felony-murder doctrine. There was no consent. 334 (Merger doctrine) Burglary based on an intent to commit assault. then they start fucking and he “lightly chokes her”. When a killing results from lawful acts of a law enforcement officer attempting to apprehend a felon. she voluntarily followed him to a friend’s house and fucked him then cried rape RL: Where victim has engaged in a prior continuing consensual sexual relationship. with the defendant. Sophophone D was prosecuted for felony-murder when a law enforcement officer attempting to apprehend a co-felon. State Slut goes to fells point after splitting from her husband. he asks her to come up but she says no. Smith p. General force is not enough (oh he was so big and I was scared) Rusk v. Felony-murder rule is not applicable to this because the only reason the burglary is a felony is because of the intent to commit assault. picks up a guy and drives him to his house. killed the co-felon. he then takes her keys and she goes up. then he goes into bathroom and she waits for him. the reasonableness of her apprehension of fear was a question of fact for the jury to determine. so there was no rape. Rusk v. unequivocally indicate withdrawal of prior consent. .
He says he loves her and she said she has to go home. takes her a motel and there’s two conflicting stories of what happened. showed up at his room and they fucked. Berkowitz Kid at college dorm. Sent back to jury to say if he had a reasonable and good faith mistake of fact. Peterson . Force requirement is satisfied by the act of penetration itself. After a while. Force of sexual touching vs. claimed without “affirmative. Williams Homeless girl. Statutory Rape MPC does not recognize strict liability for statutory rape except if the girl is 10 or under. John Z. she passionately moaned “noooo. they both fuck her. force to overcome non-consent N. itself. There was no forcible compulsion here. it would be a defense. He claims she stroked him and fucked him b/c he was impotent.J. freely given permission” there is no consent. but prosecution argued the force of intercourse is. he says no give me another minute. Law required active resistance. You must reasonably believe consent existed in good faith. guy takes her to eat then says wanna go watch tv. enough. because the actor is not aware of the dangerousness of his act A person who is not morally culpable is being condemned. Resistance is not required. She claims he raped her.T. the girl previously asked to see his penis.People v. Defenses Self-Defense United States v. State Strict liability in statutory rape cases where there is a mistake of fact has: No deterrent effect. Bitch is lying in bed with two Hispanic guys.S.” Forcible compulsion includes moral/psychological/intellectual force. she was on top of him. Evidence of commonwealth was insufficient to convict of rape. then demanded $60 for sex. Garnett v. Common law is if you knew or should have known that the bitch was underage. People v. They looked at legislative intent. in interest of M. court found it was rape as soon as she said she wanted to go home.
the Victim walked toward him with a tire iron. He abused her physically and emotionally for many years. she took the opportunity she had. State v. make sandwiches then threw them in her face. Wesler. Can’t meet non-deadly force with deadly force Can’t go looking for trouble MPC is subjective on retreat. said IMMINENCE is required for self-defense. went with a subjective standard for Wanrow.General rule that you can’t go looking for trouble. sell herself at the truck stop. The D was entitled to have the jury consider her actions in light of her perceptions in the situation. he said “oh such a cute little boy” the woman then shot him supposedly reflexively. RL: Self-defense is not an excuse for homicide if the person claiming it created the situation necessitating it. Women should be held to a “reasonable woman standard”. since she would certainly be beat up again in the near future. knowing what the person knew. overall was a real piece of shit. Supreme court of N. Trial court said battered women’s syndrome. Wanrow Rejected the objective standard. People v. You don’t have to retreat from your home or place of work. Court focused on a “reasonable WOMAN standard” – a woman is allowed to use more force basically Victim’s prior reputation for aggressive acts should be taken into account in considering the amount of force a reasonable person would believe to be necessary. a pedophile. tried to touch D’s little kids. One day she killed him without provocation – when he was asleep.C. The guys waited outside. let’s go talk it over or whatever. MPC uses a subjective standard. then he shot. if the threat reasonably appears to the person to require physical force. Goetz Guy shot 4 kids in subway. including those perceptions in light of sex discrimination. not the same standard of a reasonable man. Necessity . The guys brought Wesler into the house and then he said it was a misunderstanding. State v. NY has an objective test for reasonable belief of the need for self-defense. Guy came out with a gun. this woman had other options. her husband was asleep. but it is not a complete defense – it reduces it to recklessness or negligence. Norman Guy made his woman bark like a dog.
MPC: There is no imminence requirement and no natural forces requirement. His defense was he needed to steal the stuff b/c he needed to pull his truck out. Queen v. Nelson v. he tried to pull it out and they both got stuck in the mud. and harm must be balanced (can’t be disproportionate) For common law. his family would be killed. to avoid the harm. you must tell the authorities. 5) as soon as you get out and attain a position of safety. There was no reasonable way for him to escape. this is necessity. Duress is not a defense to killing. said someone was going to stab and rape him. you can extend it to them. Ron Kiern went with Anderson and threatened to beat the shit out of Anderson if he failed to help kill Armstrong. 560 Guy stole construction equipment from a nearby highway. 3) courts can’t listen to you. and no opportunity to escape the threat or harm His family was in trouble. from Colombia. Unger Prison escape case. Ninth Circuit Held: An immediate threat of bodily harm or injury. Held: No homicide can be defended on necessity MPC says homicide can have necessity defenses Duress Contento-Pachon p. also not necessarily a complete defense if the D acted negligently or recklessly in creating the emergency. Dudley and Stephens Guys who cannibalized their crewmember to survive. State p. Anderson No duress for murder They suspected the victim of molesting two girls. so it could be manslaughter. there must be no legal alternative. . Special test from People v. a well-grounded fear that the threat will be carried out. he left the honor farm. 4) can’t touch a single person on your escape. however if you are under duress you have no ability to contemplate the circumstances. People v. HL: the act must be done to prevent a significant evil. must come into the situation with clean hands – cannot create your own necessity. People v. was threatened that his family will get killed if he did not take the coke to the U. They said this isn’t really duress. 2) guards don’t listen to you. Lovercamp – defendants whose escapes were motivated by fear of homosexual attacks were allowed to use necessity defense 1) must be threatened w/ serious harm. 583 Coke mule.S.
he did not know he was doing what was wrong. Johnson p. or if he did know what he was doing. Intoxication If you voluntarily got drunk. “Was he under a disease of the mind as to NOT KNOW the nature and quality of the act he was doing. MPC allows duress for murder – uses reasonable firmness standard. NO CASES for Insanity . Irresistible impulse – makes up for M’Naghten’s test which does not recognize “voices in the head” – requires free will to be gone.” (Not used by many jurisdictions) MPC test: “a person is not responsible… if at the time of such conduct… as a result of mental disease or defect he lacks substantial capacity either to appreciate the criminality of his conduct or to conform his conduct to the requirements of the law.” MPC doesn’t have irresistible impulse – it could be a “brooding and deliberation” under MPC. MPC approach: self-induced intoxication “is not a defense unless it negatives an element of the offense” Involuntary intoxication: you can argue you were not negligent Insanity State v. Even people of reasonable firmness have a breaking point. must be unable to control your conduct Durham test (product test): D qualifies for insanity defense “if his unlawful act was the product of mental disease or defect. 618 M’Naghten test – standard for determining insanity It comes down to whether you know it’s right or wrong. Duress is unavailable for recklessly putting yourself in duress. Also “substantial capacity” under MPC is broader than total capacity to exercise control (common law).They were worried if they allowed duress for murder. Immune from mens rea of specific intent crimes. it would allow gang members to avoid first-degree murder convictions. you are held to a reckless standard under MPC Under common law. Can only get criminally negligent homicide if you negligently place yourself in the situation.
counseled. without having been present Accessory after the fact – someone who helps you escape or you stay at their house These are old view. It was not gross sexual assault. just establishes infancy Common-law Under seven: always infancy Between seven and fourteen – rebuttable presumption of infancy Fourteen and up – no infancy Cultural defenses Kargar Penis-kissing Afghani immigrant. Hoselton p. They used Maine de minimis statute to allow cultural defense. the guy was standing outside . 848 Principal in first degree – one who actually commits a crime Principal in the second degree – one who is guilty by aiding. Ward p. or encouraged the commission thereof. 858 . 851 Guys were stealing stuff from a barge. actual or constructive (lookout) Accessory before the fact – guilty by reason of having aided. now we merge the Principal in Second Degree and Accessory after the fact State v. or encouraging the commission of a felony in his presence. RL: One must have intent to help and intent to commit the crime to be found guilty as an accomplice Lauria Involves Conspiracy and Accomplice Liability Riley p. counseling. Said he didn’t have the intent to aid or abet with the crime. Inchoate Offenses Attempt Conspiracy Accomplice Liability State v.Infancy Devon T. they busted and said he was an accomplice. commanding. commanded.
instigated. we couldn’t use accomplice liability because they were reckless in their shooting. 868 V. they couldn’t tell which guy shot which person. State v. busted into his house and the dealer happened to be there. United States v. p. you must have Mens Rea for EVERY offense. Commonwealth Two guys were talking on CB radios.T. So they said we will use accomplice liability. For accomplice liability only applies to intent crimes. one of the guys shot the cocaine dealer. They convicted the other guy for first-degree murder under accomplice liability just because he was there. then he called cops and told them this guy was a disturbance. Under MPC. McCoy . he was supposedly financing the purchasing of cocaine. The conviction of a principal is not necessary to the conviction of an accessory The legislation has a gap Bailey v. Natural and probable consequences does not apply under MPC State v. and only the principal is covered.T. the accomplices cannot be guilty either because it is a justification. They said the death was a reasonably foreseeable result of a robbery. It was Moose and Joey who stole it.Guys open fire in an Alaskan place. is an excuse. People v. The cops shot and killed the guy. The guy used the police as an instrumentality to kill the guy. so no crime occurred. HL: If one uses the necessity defense to a crime. D must have “advised.T. or assisted in perpetration of the crime. but you can’t be an accomplice to something that didn’t happen. Linscott p. He was directly liable for the murder (principle in the first degree). on the other hand. V. Lopez Lopez landed helicopter to rescue his girlfriend from federal prison. 863 Four guys went to rob this cocaine dealer. RL: Mere presence is not enough for accomplice liability. V.” People v. and two friends stole some guns and a camcorder from his relative’s apartment. not an accomplice. Genoa For accomplice liability there must actually be a crime Charge was with undercover cop. Before they pawned it they recorded themselves talking about camcorder. he’ll be coming back. The police officers returning the fire and killing the guy was a lawful killing. was silent on the tape. But duress. encouraged. one guy insulted him and told him to come outside with his gun.
Gentry tried to snuff the fire out by placing a coat over the flames. it must be in such progress that it will be consummated unless interrupted by circumstances independent of the will of the attempter. got first-degree murder. so he gets off. argued self-defense case. U.S. 745 “Preparation alone is not enough. They charged him with attempted murder. 772 Attempted distribution of obscene material to a minor But there never was a minor – it was a detective . 758 Killing the homeroom teacher with poison. They would have to at least have spotted the victim. the girls made an agreement and they took the poison to the teacher’s desk. Mandujano p. he got manslaughter because he had “unreasonable but good faith belief in having to act in selfdefense”.Drive-by case. Gentry p. on the other hand. People v. 738 Both guy & girl were drunk & high. if principal gets off. But what if the principal had an excuse. Substantial step test from MPC People v. The accomplices. Rizzo p. and the act must not be equivocal in nature. Dangerous proximity test was used. They never found the guy but were charged with attempted robbery. There was no probability of success occurring in the near future. 753 Guys were driving around looking for a guy who they wanted to rob. v. everyone else is off the hook. State v. the mens rea for the crime must exist and a step must be taken toward the crime. Under common law. HL: They were not close enough to completion of the criminal act to be guilty of attempt.” 1) how close the defendant came to committing the substantive crime 2) the equivocality approach – how clear it is from the act that the defendant intended to commit the substantive crime. Thousand p. there must be some appreciable fragment of the crime committed. RL: Attempt can only be for INTENT crimes. It was imperfect theory of self-defense. but we can get first-degree murder Inchoate Offenses People v. then were caught and charged with attempted poisoning. Example: Being part of the JOKER’s crew – JOKER has the excuse of insanity. Gentry poured gasoline on girl and it ignited when she went near the stove in the kitchen. Reeves p.
Exists when intended end constitutes a crime. . Hybrid legal impossibility theory – Exists if the defendant’s goal was illegal but commission of the offense was impossible due to a factual mistake of the defendant regarding the legal status of some factor relevant to her conduct. The business wasn’t there specifically to cater to prostitutes. they found Walter guilty of 9 counts. but it’s not.” A party to a conspiracy is responsible for any criminal act committed by an associate of it if it falls within the scope of the conspiracy and is a foreseeable consequence of the unlawful agreement. but she fails to consummate it due to a factual circumstance unknown to her. He had knowledge of the crime and he was present. charging the prostitutes more than others for the services). etc. but after climbing the inner fence and cutting the outer fence. he gave up and turned back around. The driver got nailed with conspiracy. then got back in the car and drove off. offers a bribe to a juror who is not actually a juror.g. p. it requires a finding of intent to kill People v Lauria He was allowing prostitutes to use his answering service. they got out and robbed someone. Courts recognize the defense of legal impossibility where D receives unstolen property believing it was stolen. 2nd degree murder RL: Cannot have a conspiracy for implied malice because you cannot intend to commit murder in the 2nd degree. Conspiracy Pinkerton v. “A two fold specific intent is required for conviction: an intent to combine with others. tries to hunt deer out of season by shooting a stuffed animal. A guy was driving car. This was abandonment – he was not found guilty of attempt. his two passengers asked him to stop. Azim Temple Student got robbed. Pure Factual impossibility – has never been recognized in any American jurisdiction as a defense to attempt.Pure legal impossibility – if you think adultery is a law. 801 Two brothers. U.S. They were trying to do something illegal but their mistake McCloskey Abandonment case – guy was trying to escape prison. and he wasn’t doing anything out of the ordinary (e. but it was in the same way as allowing anyone else to use his service. Daniel guilty of 6 counts. They were both guilty of the conspiracy counts. and an intent to accomplish the illegal objective. Swain p. You can never be convicted for an attempt. 806 Drive by shooting death of a 15-yr-old boy.
Co-conspirators can testify against each other. 830 They had a chain conspiracy.Kilgore v. . requires the participation of two or more people and all of them did participate. State p. Braverman One conspiracy exists per agreement. HL: Conspiracy is complete upon commission of the overt act. People v. Sconce Withdrawal from a conspiracy requires an affirmative and bona fide rejection or repudiation of the conspiracy. if actually committed. Ianelli Wharton’s Rule: You cannot charge someone with conspiracy when the substantive crime. communicated to the co-conspirators. they charged Man and Woman with conspiring to violate the Mann Act. Gebardi Mann Act made it illegal to transport a woman across state lines for an immoral purpose. three guys were the second guys to go out and kill. even if the agreement is to break multiple laws. Three guys were the first guys to go out and kill. but they are still guilty of the conspiracy which is complete at the time of the overt act. One is relieved of conspiracy liability if they repudiate.