COMMON-LAW HAWAII (MPC) Actus Reus + Mens Rea + Causation = Crime 1) a taking (caption) [AR] Hench Fall Must

have concurrence between Elements of a 2011 EMBEZZLEMENT 2) 1)carrying fraudulent away (asportation) [AR] -AR & MR Obtains or exerts unauthorized control over Crime Unless you have a continuing trespass LARCENY (or attempt) & removing 2) conversion of [AR] propertyor obtains or exerts control [AR] (U.S. v. Roger), where the intent can over property of another with the intent to THEFT 3) 3)property the property of another of another (personal & beto formed after the actus reus (or attempt) 4) tangible) with intent steal (deprive permanently) deprive him [MR] of the property [MR] 4) entrusted to defendants legal By deception, false pretenses Voluntary act; a willed bodily movement possession Over goods he knows to have been People v. Decina voluntary act to(not drive the car Larceny = common- trespass 5) with the (taking) intent against to deprive possession [MR] lost or delivered by mistake if he fails knowing that he is subject to epileptic seizures. law ownership) to take reasonable measures to notify or him Knowing possession : intend possessOR Theft = MPC Trespass lawful possession at time of taking of property - you In order + forto there an illegal object orown have knowledge that to misappropriation be larceny, there to needs to use be the intent to you Voluntary act means a bodily movement possess it deprive the possessor at the time of the taking. Intentionally [MR] obtainsor services (he performed consciously habitually as the State v.is Fox Gary fox intended to the possess the If conversion: the intent the formed actor after is dealing the taking, with there knows are available for compensation) result of the effortonly or determination of the illegal object, as he lives in thewith house isnt property larceny. in a manner inconsistent theand by deception defendant owns it. He, also, had of it, as he OR arrangement by which the knowledge defendant has lived capable there and books on how Property possession of possessed being stolen: Tangible & to *it is always a defense to allege there was no grow property it. personal of another (w/ some value) Intentionally voluntary [MR] act ordiverting voluntary services omission of embezzlement v. animals larceny were personal prop. another that he has control over (but not Domestic ACTUS REUS Inaction: Can be criminal if: (ie duties to act) entitled) to his own benefit embezzlement cannot possession lawfully Spouses stealacquired from each other Possession is a voluntary act if the 1.) relationship (spouse of another spouse through entrustment (object goes to criminal) OR defendant knowingly procured or received the Co-owner cannot steal from another who is helpless, parentacquired & child, guard & prisoner, larceny possession through co-owner thing possessed or if the defendant was aware captain of ship & passengers, lifeguard, police unlawful trespassory taking (criminal goes to Shoplifting: (need defraud) of his control of intent it for a to sufficient period to have officer, etc.) object) 1) conceals goods inside store, w/ intent do Larceny by trick or false pretenses: been able to terminate his possession 2.) statute defraud If you trick someone of turning over their 3.) assumed contract (if you have started or 2) alters price tag w/ intent to defraud fiduciary relationship: of trust property to you it is therelationship same as if you take it. undertaken providing care, you cannot just 3) transferring goods from one container to stop) Note: another, w/ intent to defraud *taking and keeping mismarked items is not 4.) caused harm (if you intentionally or Just plain taken = larceny larceny unless you switched the price tags unintentionally caused the harm, you have to custody then taken = larceny do what you can to assist the victim) possession then taken = embezzlement NOT a defense that: 1) D was unaware the property was anothers General Intent: intent to do the act or inaction 2) believed he was entitled to the property or (intent to do the actus reus) services Specific Intent: the intent to cause a specific *If the owner of the property is Ds spouse, it is result/outcome. a defense if the property was household dont have to intend the identity of the State of mind required for any offense: belongings and they were living together at the victim and dont have to reach the time1.) intentionally you have the express intended goal as long as you had the purpose; Consciously engage in conduct, intent aware of circumstances, and object is to cause State v. Trinkle When proving attempt such result. You did what you intended to do. specific intent is necessary. Here not clear. Can be about conduct, circumstances, or State v. Rocker specific intent to expose outcome (specific intent is only about the oneself proven. Can also be used to prove outcome) MPC. 2.) knowingly you are aware that your actions are practically certain to result in the Transferred Intent: intent follows the bullet crime - must be aware of your conduct, regardless of who turns out to be the victim circumstances cannot be used to enhance the 3.) recklessly you are aware of the risk, and you disregard - consciously disregard a severity of a crime if the unintended substantial and unjustifiable risk. (aware of the victim is of a higher class than the risk and you choose to disregard it you dont intended victim care) you are a jerk have to have the intent of killing or 4.) negligently should be aware of the harming a HUMAN Sagner v. State Although he hit someone else, substantial and unjustifiable risk (you dont know the risks, but should have known) your the intent is transferred to the actual victim. stupid Strict liability: only general intent is required; *if a lower element is sufficient, that means the normally applies when statutes are regulatory higher state of minds are also sufficient State v. Loge Statute clearly states elements to be satisfied, it is the drivers responsibility to (ex. if recklessly is sufficient, knowingly and intentionally are also sufficient) check the car. Mistake negating intent: reasonable mistake is ok if your intent was blameless and there is willfulness = satisfied if person acts knowingly

MENS REA

Hench Fall 2011

1) receives or purchases [AR] (recs possession) 2) stolen property 3) w/ knowledge that it has been stolen and [MR] 4) w/ intent to deprive the rightful owner of their property [MR] Receiving Stolen Property Requires scienter, knowledge that the property has been stolen Mens rea: would an honest and reasonable person know the goods were stolen? Transporting stolen property: have to be a knowing participant need intent

Under Theft - 708-830 Intentionally [MR] receives, retains, or disposes of the property of another [AR], knowing [MR] it has been stolen, with the intent to deprive the owner of the property [MR]

1) threat of injury [AR] Hench Fall 2011

2) w/ intent to cause another to perform or omit the performance of any act [MR] statutory requirements: extortion is now a statutory offense, requiring a threat or injury to a person, character, or property of another, causing an exchange of money, property, or pecuniary benefit from the threatened person or any person to the defendant or to someone designated by defendant to receive it

EXTORTION (no attempt)

*doesnt have to benefit the extorer it can be on behalf of someone else as long as it deprives the victim extortion, blackmail, robbery: comparison 1) extortion involves threat of injure to you or your property in the future 2) robbery involves a threat to injure you or your property now 3) blackmail tends to be about revealing secrets

Obtains, or exerts control over, the property or services of another [AR] w/ intent to deprive him of the property or services [MR] by threatening by word or conduct to: 1) cause bodily injury in the future 2) cause damage to property 3) subject person to physical confinement 4) commit a penal offense 5) accuse person of an offense 6) expose a secret or publicize a fact 7) reveal info the person wanted to conceal 8) give info about that persons legal claim 9) bring about a strike to obtain property which is not demanded for the benefit of the group or Intentionally [MR] compels or induces another person to engage in conduct from which he has a legal right to abstain from (or force him to abstain when he has the right to act)

Hench Fall 2011

1) willful and malicious [MR] burning [AR] 2) of the dwelling house of another 3) by night or by day Essential elements: 1) must be a dwelling house of another based on occupancy, not ownership 2) must be an actual burning of some part of the house, however slight 3) the burning must be willful and malicious modern statutes- can be a burning of any building or sometimes public lands

ARSON

Hench Fall 2011

1) breaking and entering [AR] 2) a dwelling house of another 3) at night (no longer required) 4) w/ intent to commit a felony [MR] (need 1) killing a human being & [AR] the intent of at time of breaking entering the 2) by another human need being felony doesnt actually to be 3) with malice [MR] committed) *only intent but can also as general Do not haverequired, to enter fully (as long have specific intent part of your body or a device enters) Can be a constructive breaking: MALICE (Mens rea) : whatgains converts a killing where the burglar entry to murder through fraud, deception, or 1) Intent to kill (I2K) specific threatened violence w/ointent physical (transferred intent can apply) force 2) Intent to cause great bodily harm upon The entry must be consequent (IGBH) general intent to do the act that the breaking (ex. have to go through caused the harm, but no intent to kill the window you broke) 3) Deprave heart so reckless and indifferent to the safety of others that it is as Dwelling: a building habitually used as a bad as if you intended to cause bodily harm place to sleep. or kill Occupant needs to intend to return (general intent to engage in the conduct) If murder a dwelling is occupied by occurred 4) felony any killing that transients, it is still considered the and in in the course of (while continuing) dwelling of the -ie landlord furtherance of a felony not in opposition to Includes buildings that are (general intent to the commit the felony) within cartilage connected -only applies if the killing is done by a person andthe capable being entered committing felonyof (felon or co-felon) Both breaking & entering have to -a felony continues while D has scrambling occur at night, not onathe same possession and hasntbut reached place of night temporary safety Nighttime: period between sunset and to **only I2K and IGBH can be mitigated sunrise, and is not considered night if there manslaughter is enough natural daylight so that one can discern human face Corpus a delicti: the substance (or body) of a crime (needed for all crimes, not just General current rule: breaking, entering, a homicides) building (property of another) w/ the intent to commit crime (usually on the premises) at Corpus a delicti for murder: any timewas during thehuman day or being night 1) there a live 2) who is dead at time of charges 3) died of non-natural and non-accidental causes Human being: born alive and taken at least one breath and is not yet dead *no degrees of murder at common-law *suicide was illegal ----------------------------------------------------------1) AR the method of killing 2) MR malice; analyze to see if fits any of 4 3) Are AR & MR concurrent? 4) Did AR & MR cause the death? 5) If there are first 2 elements of malice, can either be mitigated to voluntary manslaughter?

Burglary in 1st degree: Intentionally [MR] enters or remains unlawfully in a building [AR], with the intent to commit therein a crime against a person or against property rights [MR], 1st DEGREE MURDER: AND: Intentionally OR knowingly [MR] causes the 1) he is armed w/ dangerous instrument (in the death of [AR]: course of committing the offense) ; OR More than one person Peace officer in the performance of 2) heintentionally, knowingly, or recklessly[MR] his/her duties inflicts or attempts to inflict bodily injury to anyone *need to know is a peace officer (in the course of theitoffense); OR A witness in a criminal prosecution Hired killer (both hired killer and the 3) herecklessly disregards [MR] a risk that the building is a dwelling of another, and defendant who hired him willthe be building is such apunished dwelling under this section) A person while D is in prison ----------------------------------------------------------------*in the course of committing the offense = occurs in effecting entry or while in the building or in immediate flight therefrom. 2nd DEGREE MURDER : ----------------------------------------------------------------intentionally OR knowingly [MR] kills one person [AR] Criminal trespass in 1st degree: ----------------------------------------------------------------A. Person knowingly [MR] enters or remains unlawfully [AR]: 1) in a dwelling: OR intended 2) in a hotel or apartment *intentionally = you to kill building *knowingly = you knew your actions might kill, B. Knowingly [MR] enters or to remains in an even though you didnt intend kill area [AR] that is fenced in or enclose to exclude intruders AND: is possession firearm heart at time of intrusion *no in felony murder of or a deprave or C. Enters or remains on premises of public or private school after reasonable warning or request to leave by school authorities or police officer

MURDER (or attempt)

BURGLARY (or attempt)

Intentional killing w/o malice Hench Fall 2011

(a killing that would be murder but has mitigating circumstances) Intentional [MR] killing [AR]+ heat of passion + provocation *Can be mitigated from murder with: 1) intent to kill; OR 2) intent to cause great bodily harm Mitigating circumstances, negating malice: 1) Provocation: (needs to be caused by victim) A.) Reasonable: Strong enough that a reasonable person would have been provoke B) Adequate: not mere words Can be adultery, battery, assault, informational words, or acts against close relative C) Cooling of the blood: Reasonable person would not have had time to cool off 2) Mutual combat: 2 people of equal strength choose to fight (ex. bar-room brawl) 3) Imperfect self-defense: D uses excessive force (that he believes to be justified) or if you mistakenly believe the person was going to kill you 4) Prevention of a crime: killing to prevent a felony is a perfect defense 5) Re-provocation: being provoked after cooling off

Manslaughter 1) Recklessly causing death of another person; OR 2) Intentionally causes another person to commit suicide (different from assisting suicide)

VOLUNTARY MANSLAUGHTER

1st or 2nd degree murder mitigated to manslaughter if: D, at the time he killed, was under influence of EMED (extreme mental or emotional disturbance) for which there is a reasonable explanation Reasonableness of the explanation = determined from the viewpoint of a reasonable person in the defendants situation & how they would have believed the circumstances to be *EMED doesnt need to be caused by the victim (you can be in an extreme emotional state for some other reason).

Hench Fall 2011

Intentionally OR knowingly [MR] restrains another person [AR] with the intent to: 1) Hold him for ransom or reward 2) Use him as a shield or hostage 3) Facilitate the commission of a felony or flight afterwards 4) Inflict bodily harm upon him or subject him to a sexual offense 5) Terrorize him or a third person 6) Interfere with the performance of any governmental or political function

KIDNAPPING (felony)

Only manslaughter (see above) 1) Unintentional [MR] killing [AR] 2) illegal (non-felony) act OR legal act done recklessly *only need the general intent of your act *not mitigated from anything else Reckless endangering in the 1st degree: Employing a widely dangerous means in a manner which recklessly places another person in danger of death or serious bodily injury OR Intentionally fires a firearm in a manner which recklessly places another person in danger of death or serious bodily injury

INVOLUNTARY MANSLAUGHTER

Hench Fall 2011

1st DEGREE SEXUAL ASSAULT: Knowingly [MR] subjects another person to an act of sexual penetration by strong compulsion [AR] .OR.. Knowingly [MR] subjects to sexual penetration another person who is less than 14 years old [AR] strong compulsion not required 2nd DEGREE SEXUAL ASSAULT: Knowingly [MR] subjects another person to an act of sexual penetration by compulsion [AR] OR.. Knowingly [MR] subjects to sexual penetration another person who is mentally defective, mentally incapacitated, or physically helpless [AR] ..OR Knowingly [MR] subjects to sexual penetration an imprisoned person, a person confined to a detention facility, a person residing in a private correctional facility in HI, or a person in custody [AR] IF
D is employed by either 1) state correctional facility, 2) a private company providing services at a correctional facility, 3) a private company providing community-based residential services to persons committed to the director of public safety and having received notice of this statute 4) private correctional facility operating in HI, or 5) a law enforcement officer

the unlawful carnal knowledge of a woman (by a man), forcibly and against her will 1) unlawful carnal knowledge [AR] carnal knowledge = sexual intercourse unlawful = anything outside of marriage. o spousal exception = If the rapist is married to the victim, at common law it was not unlawful o a spouse could still be convicted of attempted rape (or conspiracy) 2) of a woman (by a man) the term rape did not apply to the sexual assault of a male rape only applied to male against female sexual assault (no rape of a female by a female) 3) with force includes threats o however much force is needed to overcome the victims resistance 4) and without consent o consent out of fear or coercion isnt valid o the fear needs to be reasonable o consent can be verbal or by actions o consent by fraud is still consent (but consent by deception is not) Impaired victims: If victim is impaired, her consent is not valid o ex. victim is drugged, unconscious *the drugs in the fact pattern should make it impossible for victim to think coherently (think about drugs as a weapon) *Victim needs knowledge of the nature of the act in order to give valid consent o ex. if victim consents to one thing, but

RAPE

3rd DEGREE SEXUAL ASSAULT Recklessly [MR] subjects another person to an act of sexual penetration by compulsion [AR] OR... Knowingly [MR] has sexual contact with another person by strong compulsion [AR] ..OR.. Knowingly [MR] subjects another person less than 14 to sexual contact [AR] OR.. Knowingly [MR] engages in sexual contact with a person who is between 14-16 yrs old if: a) D is at least 5 years older than the minor b) D is not legally married to the minor .OR Knowingly [MR] subjects to sexual contact another person who is mentally defective or incapacitated, or physically helpless [AR] .OR Knowingly [MR] subjects to sexual contact an imprisoned person, a person committed to the director of public safety, or a person residing in a private correctional facility in HI if D is

Hench Fall 2011

STATUTORY RAPE

Victim consents, but is incompetent and therefore the consent is not valid (i.e. too young) o some jurisdictions allow a mistake-ofage defense o If the underage victim doesnt consent, D can be charged w/ statutory rape & forcible rape

1st DEGREE SEXUAL ASSAULT Knowingly [MR] subjects to sexual penetration another person who is less than 14 years old [AR] strong compulsion not required 3rd DEGREE SEXUAL ASSAULT Knowingly [MR] subjects another person less than 14 to sexual contact [AR] OR.. Knowingly [MR] engages in sexual contact with a person who is between 14-16 yrs old if: a) D is at least 5 years older than the minor b) D is not legally married to the minor

SODOMY

A crime at common law (now is unconstitutional to criminalize sodomy)

Hench Fall

ACTUS REUS: substantial step towards the commission (an overt act in furtherance of the commission 2011 of the crime) o Must go beyond mere preparation o Test: If Ds actions were dangerously close to committing the crime MENS REA: Specific intent to commit the crime need to intend the outcome (not just to do the act) you dont have to intend every outcome or the magnitude of the outcome, but you cannot be convicted of anything beyond what you intended (you might be guilty of the unintended consequences if the crime is committed) Concurrence: Intent must exist at the time the substantial step is taken *NO CAUSATION there isnt an outcome in attempt crimes (attempt is only complete if the underlying crime is incomplete)

Guilty of attempt if: 1) Intentionally [MR] engage in conduct [AR] that would constitute a crime if the circumstances were as he believed them to be OR 2) Intentionally [MR] engage in conduct which, under the circumstances as he believed them to be, constitutes a substantial step [AR] towards committing the crime **Conduct is not considered a substantial step unless it is strongly corroborative of the defendants criminal intent ------------------------------------------------------------Renunciation is a defense It is an affirmative defense against attempt if: 1) D voluntarily and completely renounced his criminal intent AND 2) Gave timely warning to law-enforcement or otherwise made a reasonable effort to prevent the conduct or result *renunciation is not a defense if you fear being caught, the crime is more difficult than you thought, decided to postpone the crime, or decided to plot against a different victim -------------------------------------------------------------*no mistake of fact or mistake of law defenses Look at the circumstances as the person believed them to be what the person thought (ex. if a person thinks they are shooting a person, but actually shoot a deer, can be guilty of attempt to kill)

Inchoate Crimes = Uncompleted crimes **ALL inchoate crimes require a SPECIFIC INTENT mens rea** (attempt, aiding & abetting, accessoryship, solicitation, conspiracy, RICO) ATTEMPT

*Circumstances reviewed as person believed them to be Impossibility of completion: normally not a defense *ex. Bekka (Thousand case) D guilty of attempt to distribute obscene material to a minor even though there actually was not minor (D had specific intent + took substantial step) o Exception = legal impossibility it if is legally impossible to commit the actual crime (ex. because it isnt a crime) o Factual impossibility never a defense when D seeks criminal consequences, it is not a defense to say that he couldnt succeed because of unknown circumstances Abandonment or Renunciation: Defense = D must voluntarily and completely abandon his attempt still a defense even if he has taken a substantial step you have to fully renounce your participations (notify co-felons, warn victim, etc.) o D has burden of proof that he abandoned o Abandonment not a defense if: 1) abandoned because caught 2) abandoned because victim resists more than expected 3) unexpected circumstances 4) decide he wants to postpone *Cannot attempt crimes that require a reckless or negligent state of mind (because the crime is not intentional)
ACTUS REUS: prepare for, facilitate, or

Hench Fall 2011

Hench Fall 2011

ACTUS REUS: Commanding, hiring, requesting, counseling, or encouraging another person to commit a crime o Does not require a substantial step MENS REA: Specific intent that the other person commit the crime o Doesnt matter if the other will or cannot go through with it Causation no result is required Completed when the actor w/ specific intent has enticed or encouraged another to commit a crime o May be completed even though the only person solicited is a police officer o Completed regardless of whether or not events reach a level of attempt (no crime for attempt to solicit- you either do it or you dont) solicitation is very easy to commit always look for it on exams *No agreement from the other is required SOLICITATION *Doesnt matter if the other person you are trying to solicit doesnt received your messages *Person being solicited doesnt even have to be aware of it IF the solicited crime is committed, the solicitor is also guilty of the crime committed *No such thing as attempted solicitation Difference between attempt & solicitation& accessoryship Attempt you must intend to do it, and must take substantial step Solicit you intend someone else to commit the crime and somehow encourage or communicate such to that person (no substantial step) Accessory no substantial step needed *Thousand (Bekka): D not guilty of solicitation To commit the crime of solicitation you have to actually solicit someone. That person has to actually exist. Bekka didnt actually exist. The person D actually solicited - Detective L - was not legally capable of committing a crime (because sexual acts between adults is not a crime).

ACTUS REUS: Command, encourage, or request another person to: (a) engage in conduct or cause the result of the offense (i.e. do the crime) Or (b) engage in conduct which would be sufficient to establish complicity in the conduct or result (i.e. be an accomplice to the crime) MENS REA: Intent to promote or facilitate the commission of a crime *It doesnt matter if the defendant fails to communicate with the person he solicits if his conduct was designed to effect such communication (i.e. doesnt matter if the person you are soliciting receives your communication/messages) --------------------------------------------------------------Renunciation is a defense It is an affirmative defense if D completely and voluntarily renounced his criminal intent and: 1) First notified the person solicited of his renunciation 2) Gave timely warning to law-enforcement or otherwise made a reasonable effort to prevent the conduct or result solicited *renunciation is not a defense if you fear being caught, the crime is more difficult than you thought, decided to postpone the crime, or decided to plot against a different victim --------------------------------------------------------------NOT a defense that the person being solicited couldnt be guilty of committing the crime because: (similar to rejection of defense of impossibility) 1) He is legally incapable of committing the crime 2) He is penally irresponsible or has an immunity to prosecution or conviction of the crime 3) He is unaware of the criminal nature of the conduct or Ds criminal intent 4) He doest not have the state of mind sufficient for the commission of the offense *Also not a defense that D is legally incapable of committing the solicited crime --------------------------------------------------------------D is NOT liable for solicitation if: 1) He is the victim 2) His actions were inevitably incident in the commission of the offense

Hench Fall 2011

Conspiracy = when someone accepts invitation to commit a crime Solicitation + agreement = conspiracy

Hench Fall 2011 1) Imminent applied or threatened ACTUS REUSforce : (agreement + overt act)
SELF DEFENSE --------------------------AFFIRMATIVE defenses always based on objective (reasonable man) + subjective standards --------------------------**IN any affirmative defense of self, others, property, etc: NOT a defense if Ds belief that force is necessary is a reckless or negligent CONSPIRACY belief (overlaps with aiding D is cannot use & defense if he abetting/accessories) recklessly or negligently injures innocent persons

against you 1) an agreement (meeting of the minds) o Person is just about to attack you or is 2) between at least 2 people attacking you o The threat or force against you must 3) to do an illegal act OR be unlawful do a legal act by unlawful means 2) Reasonable belief that yourhave force (i.e. overall objective/goal doesnt tois be a necessary the threat or force criminal act,against if means to achieve the goal are o You need to actually be aware that illegal) you are in danger 4) an overt act byforce one or of the co3) Proportional more the force that you conspirators in furtherance of proportional the conspiracy apply in defense needs to be to o Less than to a substantial step (small) the force applied you

Use of force is justified if: You believe that such force is immediately necessary for the purpose of protecting yourself against the use of unlawful force by the other person *force can include confinement, but you must terminate the confinement when no longer needed Conspiracy = Deadly force is the justifiable when: someone agreement to do act, or solicit You believe it is necessary to protect yourself to do the act against death, serious bodily injury, + kidnapping, rape, sodomy an overt act (by D or orforcible co-conspirator)

almost any conscious step is an overt act *Can only use force in self-defense as long as o doesnt need to be an illegal act You may estimate the necessity to use force the force or against exists once o can threat be done by any you co-conspirator (not under the circumstances as he believes them the threat/force ishas over must stop everyone to you do the overt act)(no to be when the force is used without retreating, retaliation) o can be mere preparation surrendering ACTUS REUS:possession, doing any other act **this act is much different that what is required which he has not one legalor duty to do, or abstaining An affirmative defense Yes, I did it, but I 1) He agrees with more people that in attempt

have justification

*Prior agreement - need to have a prior agreement between the persons to accomplish a Initial aggressor: criminal offense If you were the initial aggressor, in order to o Merely aiding & abetting another person claim self-defense you need to have planning or carrying out a crime doesnt terminated the encounter amount to a conspiracy

from any lawful action. they or one or more of them will engage in or solicit the conduct (of the offense) or will -------------------------------------------------------------cause or solicit the result (of the offense) Use of force is NOT justified to: 1) Resist an arrest (even if an unlawful arrest) AND

A picks a fight with B. B pulls out a 2)or He or another person with whom he has gun. thought it was just going to be conspired commits an overt act in pursuance KnowingJust A knowing about a crime (or Resist force used by the occupier or of2) the conspiracy a fist fight.make A has to a inco-conspirator, some way conspiracy) doesnt you possessor of property (or another person on but it does put you closer to the line communicate (either through actions his behalf), when D knows that the person is there still needs to be an agreement or verbal) that the encounter is using force because they have a right to the o terminated Ex. Falcone in order sellingto items knowing claim selfproperty, except: they could be used in a crime is not a defense a) D is a public officer performing his duties, conspiracy need to actually agree to MENS REA : Intent to promote or facilitate the or D is assisting a public officer or making a conspire commission of the crime Reasonable man standard: lawful arrest Objective a reasonable person would have MENS REA: specific intent to do the illegal b) d believes that such force is necessary to ----------------------------------------------------------------also felt theyact were in danger act (or legal through unlawful means) protect himself against death or serious bodily + o If you dont agree to do the illegal part, injury Renunciation is a defense Subjective you need to sincerely believe you cannot be liable It is an affirmative defense if D completely and your are in danger -------------------------------------------------------------voluntarily renounced his criminal intent and: Causation no result needed Use oftimely deadly force not justified if: 1) Gave warning to law enforcement Imperfect self-defense: 1) D provokes the other person to use force Coconspirator Liabilityin very authorities or If a person is sincere theirbroad belief against him in that encounter, with the intention Each conspirator stands in the shoes of the other (subjective), but the belief wasnt objectively 2) made a reasonable effort to prevent the of causing death or serious bodily injury conspirators if you join the conspiracy at any conduct or result of the conspiracy reasonable (i.e. if D was initial aggressor) point, you are a part of that conspiracy and are often can mitigate malice (ex. murder to just as liable *renunciation is not a defense if you fear being manslaughter) *Each co-conspirator must have the specific or caught, the crime is more difficult than you intent thought, decided to postpone the crime, or Reatreat-to-the-wall rulefor must retreat if o Not always liable occurrence before 2) D knows he can avoid using force by decided to plot against a different victim feasableyou joined retreating or surrendering possession of a liable for(retreat) the actions of theusing other If o youUsually can get away without thing or by complying with a demand that he conspirators as longis as their actions are deadly force, self-defense not warranted doesnt act (except police officers can continue not totally unrelated to the agreed-upon to act) crime o Castle doctrine conspiracy, but dont need to know Not obligated to retreat from your dwelling everything that is going on and what all unless you were initial aggressor the other the co-conspirators are doing to True-man You must stay and of rule: the overall conspiracy and fight be part of
the effort o A conspiracy to violate several laws is Jurisdictional differences: 2 main differences: just one conspiracyCan be 1) Some allow for an honest mistake for an all the individual laws 2) Someprosecuted do not allow honest mistake that they actually broke, but only prosecuted for one conspiracy to be liable just need to know the scope o Need to be aware of the overall

NOT obligated to retreat from home or work However, D is not obligated to retreat from his dwelling or place of work, unless he was the initial aggressor or attacked by someone else who also works in the same place

Hench Fall 2011

You can use deadly force to prevent a trespasser from breaking into your home if you reasonably believe that the trespasser is going to: 1) commit a felony OR 2) inflict great bodily harm upon you or other occupants of the house DEFENSE OF HABITATION (DWELLING) *Once the person is inside your house, you need to assess the situation and only use proportional force self-defense situation Castle doctrine your home is your castle You can stand and fight in you own home can use deadly force if necessary (unless you were the initial aggressor)

Dont need to retreat from home or work Neither D nor the person he is trying to protect need to retreat when in either persons home, unless either was the initial aggressor or attacked by someone who worked in the same place

ENTRAPMENT Usually Can use CANNOT deadly force use deadly to resist force or prevent to a Hench Fall 2011 PREVENTION OF A protect dangerous The government property felony made me do it FELONY (If you use deadly force to prevent a or nonA policy defense doesnt excuse justify dangerous behavior felony, sometimes it can be a mitigating factor) Look at: 1) Predisposition Was the person already predisposed (inclined) to committing the crime? If yes, then no defense of entrapment If the person commits the crime only as a result of the governments solicitation or enticement, can use defense of entrapment 2) Outrageous government conduct o It is not entrapment just to offer someone the chance to commit a crime o If the government just facilitates the crime, it is not entrapment *Most jurisdictions just look at #1 predisposition DEFENSE OF OTHER PROPERTY *Rarely a successful defense (was not a common law defense)

See above +if D engaged in the conduct Entrapment Can because use force he was if it induced is immediately or encouraged necessary to to: Force do so by justified a law enforcement if: officer (or 1) someone If Prevent D believes trespass working force w/ is or immediately law burglary enforcement) in necessary a building who: or to upon prevent real property the otherin person his possession from: (or in the possession -committing 1) Knowingly of another suicide madewho false he representations protects) -inflicting serious designed to induce bodily the harm belief upon that himself such or conduct -committing or a result crime was involving not prohibited; or threatening bodily injury, damage to property, or breach of 2) OR the Prevent peace. unlawful entry upon real property in his possession (or in the possession of another who Deadly 2) he Employed protects) force methods only justified of persuasion if: or 1) D believes which inducement there is created substantial a substantial risk that the or risk person that he the is trying offense to prevent would be from committed committing by a crime will persons other cause than death those or serious who are bodily already injury 3) to to Prevent another commit theft, OR it criminal mischief, or any trespassory 2) D believes taking the use of tangible, of force is movable necessary to property suppress *NOT a indefense his a riot possession after if D the caused rioters (or in or the have threatened possession been of bodily ordered another harm to who disperse to he a protects) person and not warned perpetrating that deadly the force will be used if they do not obey entrapment Before using force, must first request the person to desist from interfering with the property, unless: 1) Such a request would be useless; OR 2) It would be dangerous to himself or another to make the request; OR 3) Substantial harm would be done to the physical condition of the property before the request could be made *Force can include confinement and a reasonable device ---------------------------------------------------------------Use of deadly force only justifiable if: 1) The person is trying to dispossess D of his dwelling (take the dwelling from D); OR 2) The person is attempting to commit felonious property damage, burglary, robbery, or felonious theft and either: a) Has used or threatened deadly force against D; OR b) If D didnt use deadly force to prevent the crime, it would expose D or anyone with him to substantial danger of serious bodily injury

Hench Fall 2011

Compulsion = someone else forced you to do it (literally or figuratively holding gun to your head) 2 elements: (A) DURESS forced by other people Threat is present, imminent + reasonable apprehension that D could cause serious bodily harm or death o Threat of future injury is not enough (must be imminent) o If one has a reasonable opportunity to avoid doing the act w/o being seriously injured or killed, he has the duty to do so and cannot use defense of duress *NOT a defense to killing another person (in some jurisdictions might mitigate the intent)

DURESS Coerced by threat or use of unlawful force against him or against another, which a person of reasonable firmness in his situation would have been unable to resist *not a defense if D recklessly or negligently placed himself in a situation where he would be subjected to duress *not a defense if D acted on the command of his or her spouse, unless the above requirements are met ---------------------------------------------------------------

COMPULSION (Duress & Necessity)

Can argue: 1) Affirmative defense of duress: or 2) You lacked the mens rea (ex. you lacked the mens rea of murder doing it out of fear) -this doesnt apply to the GI of the voluntary act (B) NECESSITY forced by the circumstances choice of evils (lifeboat and lost ship/cannibalism example) look at if the person had no other choice line stops at murder (necessity not a defense) *If you are using deadly force out of necessity, you must stop using that force after the reason to use force has stopped FOR BOTH NECESSITY & DURESS *cannot claim duress if you recklessly put yourself in the situation

NECESSITY (Choice of evils) Conduct is justified If D believes the conduct to: 1) be necessary to avoid imminent harm or evil to himself or others and 2) the harm or evil to be avoided is greater than that of caused by Ds conduct *not a defense if D was reckless or negligent in brining about the situation requiring a choice of evils Defense of necessity can be used to escape when: 1) D receives a threat of death, substantial bodily injury, or forcible sexual attack; AND 2) Complaint to the proper prison authorities is either impossible under the circumstances or there exists a history of futile complaints; AND 3) Under the circumstances, there is no time or opportunity to resort to the courts; AND 4) No force or violence is used against prison personnel or other innocent persons; AND 5) D promptly reports to the proper authorities when he has attained a position of safety from the immediate threat

Hench Fall 2011 Voluntary Intoxication

NOT A DEFENSE *Just because the result of taking the drug or alcohol is worse than you expected (you get more intoxicated than you anticipated), is not a defense Exception: Some common law jurisdictions allow the use of voluntary intoxication as a defense for specific intent crime to mitigate the crime (cannot mitigate general intent crimes) Still have to prove that your intoxication amounted to a level to negate your specific intent (ex. if person is drunk enough, if they burglarize a dwelling their voluntary intoxication might mitigate the crime to trespassing) INTOXICATION Involuntary Intoxication IS a defense (can be complete) IF it was completely involuntary and it caused your behavior (*Causation) negates the mens rea how much of a defense it is depends on the circumstances (ex. how intoxicated you were, whether it was a general or specific intent crime) Involuntary = If you take something (voluntarily) that you do not believe is intoxicating, but someone has put a drug in it, making it intoxicating Or A pathological reaction to a prescription medication Addiction NOT a defense *is unconstitutional to criminalize addiction

Self-induced intoxication is prohibited as a defense to any offense *evidence of voluntary intoxication can be used against you, but you cannot use it as a defense (Cannot even mitigate mens rea) Non self-inducted (involuntary) intoxication Intoxication which is not (a) self-induced or (b) is pathological is a defense IF because of the intoxication, D lacked substantial capacity (at the time of this conduct) either to appreciate his conducts wrongfulness or to obey the law Evidence of nonself-induced or pathological intoxication of the defendant shall be admissible to prove or negate the conduct alleged or the state of mind sufficient to establish the offense (i.e. involuntary intoxication may negate the mens rea) *Intoxication is not physical or mental disease, disorder, or defect, but rather from a state that is voluntarily self-induced Self-induced intoxication = D knowingly introduced intoxicating substances Pathological intoxication = grossly excessive in degree, where D doesnt know he is susceptible and results from a physical abnormality of D

AUTOMATISM

Is a defense if proven that you were: Behaving like a robot, totally unawarein such a state of mind that you cannot control your actions

It is always a defense if Ds act was not voluntary (doesnt specifically mention automatism)

Hench Fall 2011

SYNDROMES Syndrome = A group of symptoms might rise to level of insanity, or negate mens rea

MNaghten (Right-Wrong) Standard Hench Fall 2011 whether or not D knew the difference between right and wrong at the time of the act D needs to be laboring under a (1) defect of reason, from a (2) disease of the mind, as not to (3) know the nature and quality of the act he was doing *MUST be suffering from a disease of the mind Defect of reason a sense of madness, having lost your reason (not just reasoning power) Nature of the act not knowing what you are doing Quality of the act whether it was right or wrong *This is a very limited rule (tough standard) o Consider things as D believed them to be o Acting out of revenge, even if under an insane delusion, is not a defense *Some jurisdictions add irresistible impulse + deific degree to the MNaghten test (in replace of #3, still need #1 & #2) INSANITY Irresistible Impulse (including deific decrees) If D had a diseased mind that made him incapable of exercising the normal will-power to control his impulse to act then it is not a voluntary act, without concurrence of actus reus and mens rea (Ex. you might know something is wrong, but couldnt control your behavior) *Often difficult to distinguish between an impulse that someone cannot resist and one that someone chooses not to resist Deific Decree Under a delusion where you believe you are on a mission from God ------------------------------------------------------------Product (Durham) Test Defense if Ds unlawful act (behavior) was the product of his mental disease or defect this is a broader test, easier to prove But, not widely followed ------------------------------------------------------------*legal insane and mentally ill are not the same thing, but there is some overlap

ALI (MPC) Test (1) At the time of the conduct (2) as a result of a physical or mental disease, disorder, or defect o This is different from MNaghten which only includes mental o example of a physical disease that could affect your reason and control a tumor on your brain (3) he lacks substantial capacity to either: (a) appreciate the wrongfulness of his conduct or (b) to conform his conduct to the requirements of the law o lacks substantial capacity is a lower standard than the MNaghten test. Substantial is a great amount - mostly -(but not 100%) o Dont have to prove that D lacked all capacity just show that D was substantially impaired in that area (D can still be found insane under this test if he had a little capacity) o appreciate wrongfulness is different than complete knowledge, as in the MNaghten test more of a real-world test Physical or mental disease, disorder, or defect = does not include an abnormality manifested only be repeated penal or otherwise anti-social conduct *Evidence that D suffered from a physical or mental disease, disorder, or defect is admissible whenever it is relevant to prove that D did or did not have a state of mind which is required to establish an element of the offense (i.e. evidence of Ds mental disease can be admitted to show his mens rea) *In order to excuse criminal conduct, the mental disability must be the product of circumstances beyond Ds control (ex. cannot be due to self-intoxication). *If the examiners report shows that D met 1-3 above, the court should submit the defense of insanity to the jury at the trial against D

Hench Fall 2011

General rule: Supposed to follow orders BUT, it has to be a lawful order. If you follow an order that you know is not a lawful order, that is not a defense that you were just following orders reasonable soldier standard is used to determine whether or not the order should have been followed **Cannot just give someone an order just for the purpose that they will disobey it and then get punished SUPERIOR ORDERS *US v. Cally Cally raises 2 defenses: 1) Superior orders claimed he was given the order to kill them the night before o Assuming the order had been given, D had not defense that he was just following it. The order was unlawful on its face, and a reasonable soldier would have known it was illegal. Therefore, D should not have followed the order. 2) Duress/Necessity Court rejected this because D and his platoon did not meet any resistance, there was no real danger

Hench Fall 2011

1ST DEGREE ASSAULT INTENTIONALLY OR KNOWINGLY [MR] CAUSES SERIOUS BODILY INJURY TO ANOTHER PERSON [AR]

---------------------------------------------------------------2ND DEGREE ASSUALT INTENTIONALLY OR KNOWINGLY [MR] CAUSES SUBSTANTIAL BODILY INJURY TO ANOTHER PERSON [AR] OR RECKLESSLY [MR] CAUSES SERIOUS BODILY INJURY OR INTENTIONALLY OR KNOWINGLY [MR] CAUSES BODILY INJURY TO A CORRECTIONAL WORKER IN THE FACILITY OR DOING THEIR DUTIES [AR] OR INTENTIONALLY OR KNOWINGLY [MR] CAUSES BODILY INJURY TO ANOTHER WITH A DANGEROUS INSTRUMENT [AR] OR INTENTIONALLY OR KNOWINGLY [MR] CAUSES BODILY INJURY TO AN EDUCATIONAL WORKER DOING THEIR DUTIES

ASSAULT

---------------------------------------------------------------

3RD DEGREE ASSAULT: INTENTIONALLY, KNOWINGLY, OR RECKLESSLY [MR] CAUSES BODILY INJURY TO ANOTHER PERSON [AR] OR NEGLIGENTLY [MR] CAUSES BODILY INJURY TO ANOTHER PERSON WITH A DANGEROUS INSTRUMENT [AR]