CRIMINAL LAW OUTLINE

CHAPTER ONE- INTRODUCTION: SETTING THE STAGE
A. Nature, Sources, and Limits of the Criminal Law
 The method of Criminal Law operates by a series of commands, formulated in general
terms, telling people what they must or must not do.
o Two scholars have defined a crime as "any social harm defined and made
punishable by law."
o The Model Penal Code has greatly influenced criminal law reform.
B. Criminal Law in a Procedural Context: Pre-Trial
 According to the NCVS, 18.7 million people 12 or older, were victims of violent or
property crimes in 2010.
 However, only about 50% of violent victimizations and 40% or property crimes were
reported to Law Enforcement Agencies. - U.S.Dept. of Justice, Bureau Statistics.
 In many states and in the Federal System, the accused may not be brought to trial
unless they are indicted by a grand jury.
C. Criminal law in a Procedural Context: Trial by Jury
 The Sixth Amendment says that "in all criminal prosecutions, the accused shall enjoy
the right to a speedy and public trial, by an impartial jury."
Burden of Proof for a Civil Case- More likely than not it's true.
Burden of Proof for a Criminal Case- Beyond a reasonable doubt (firmly convinced)
D. Proof of Guilt at Trial
 1. Proof Beyond a Reasonable Doubt
o Burden of Proof required in a Criminal case.
 2. Enforcing the Presumption of Innocence
o Owens v. State- Found asleep in a private drive, with beer in between legs, and
car running. At trial, Owen argued there was insufficient evidence to prove he had
been driving drunk on a public highway. The trial court found him guilty.
 Issue: Is circumstantial evidence alone legally sufficient to prove guilt at
trial? Yes.
 Rule: A conviction may be based on circumstantial evidence alone if the
circumstances are such that they are inconsistent with any reasonable
theory or argument there may be defending their innocence.
 Holding: Yes. In the absence of direct evidence, the jury must make
reasonable inferences from circumstantial evidence to determine whether a
criminal defendant is guilty A jury should not rely solely on these
inferences to convict a defendant unless the circumstances are
incompatible with any reasonable theory of innocence

1

Presumption of Innocence: The relevant inquiry is whether, after viewing the evidence
in the light most favorable to the prosecution, any rational trier of fact (jury) could have
found the essential elements of the crime proven beyond a reasonable doubt.
  
   Presumption of Innocence on Appeal
o Defendant files an appeal based on "insufficiency of evidence" (failed to
overcome the presumption of innocence). The jury is in better position to
resolving conflicting factual claims, so how should an appellate court resolve such
a claim?
E. Jury Nullification
1. Jury Nullification­ A sanctioned doctrine of trial proceedings wherein members of a jury
disregard either the evidence presented or the instructions of the judge in order to reach a
verdict based upon their own conscious.
Power vs. Right

Juries don't have the RIGHT to nullification because they don't have the right to ignore or
depict the law, but ultimately, they have the POWER to resist government and the law if
they feel it necessary.

State v. Ragland- Ragland was charged with armed robbery and possession of a weapon by a 
convicted felon. At the end of the trial, the judge instructed the jury that it “must” find Ragland 
guilty of the offense if the jury found Ragland was carrying a weapon at the time of the robbery. 
He argued that jury’s should be informed of nullification powers & that “must” was inconsistent 
with that  power. 
o Issue: Is jury nullification an essential attribute of a criminal defendant’s right to trial by
jury? No.
o Rule: The power of a jury to nullify the law is not essential to a criminal defendant’s right to
trial by jury.
 2.    
   What did the drafters of the Constitution say about Jury Nullification?
o They wanted them to have the power to do so in the end, so there wasn't issue
over right vs. power or too much governmental power. They wanted them to be
protected from GOVERNMENTAL OPPRESSION.
CHAPTER TWO- PRINCIPLES OF PUNISHMENT
B. The Penal Theories in Action
 2. How much (and What) Punishment should be Imposed?
o People v. Superior CT (Du)- Du was working at her liquor store, which had been 
known for recent violence and attacks on their son by gang members. Latasha put 
a juice in her bag so Du was pulling on her sweater to try and get it, and Latasha 
smacked her twice. Du then threw a stool at her, and when she missed, she shot 
and killed her. The gun had been altered  prior to the killing w/o Du knowing.

2


Issue: Whether the sentence for the commission of a crime with a deadly
weapon should be reduced to probation.
Ruling: A prison sentence for a crime involving a deadly weapon should
not be reduced to probation except in unusual cases where the interests of
justice would best be served
Holding: Since the gun was altered, Du has no record and isn’t a threat to
harm others in the future, she was only there because her son had been
attacked and he wanted to be off, and because she was believed to do this
because of the prior circumstances, she got probation.

o The judge must include these things when deciding sentencing: The protection of society,
the need to punish the defendant, and the need to deter further crime, among other objectives.
C. Proportionality of Punishment
 2. Constitutional Principles
o Ewing v. California- Ewing was arrested for stealing golf clubs worth $1,200. 
Ewing had prior convictions, including three burglaries and a robbery. He was 
charged with felony grand theft, and the prosecutor invoked the three strikes law. 
Certiorari was granted to see if this sentence violated the Eighth Amendment.
 California’s “Three Strikes and You’re Out Law,”­ defendants with more
than two violent or serious felonies are sentenced to “an indeterminate 
term of life imprisonment.
  Issue : Does sentencing a repeat felon to 25 years imprisonment under a
state’s three strikes law violate the Eighth Amendment prohibition of cruel
and unusual punishment?
 Rule: Sentencing a repeat felon to 25 years imprisonment under a state’s
three strikes law does NOT violate the Eighth Amendment prohibition of
cruel and unusual punishment.
 Holding: They said that there were 3 things used to determine if a sentence is
disproportionate enough to violate the 8th.
o 1.) the gravity of the offense and the harshness of the penalty.
o 2.) the sentences imposed on other criminals in same jurisdiction
o 3.) the sentences imposed for commission of same crime in other jurisdictions.
 Eighth Amendment: This amendment prohibits cruel and unusual punishments, 
(prohibits sentences that are disproportionate to the crime) and also mentions “excessive 
fines” and bail.
o Gravity of an offense not only deals with the current crime at hand, but how it
has been dealt with in the past in the same and in different jurisdictions.

Chapter Three- Modern Role of Criminal Statutes
A. Principle of Legality
 1. The Requirement of Previously Defined Conduct

3

o Keeler v. Superior CT- Shortly after obtaining a divorce from his wife, Keeler 
intercepted her on a mountain road, observed that she was visibly pregnant by 
another man, and shoved his knee into her abdomen and struck her. Thereafter, 
the viable fetus was delivered stillborn, its head fractured. Keeler was charged 
with murder.
o Issue: Is a viable fetus a “human being” under the law to which one may be
charged with murder?
o Rule: “Proof the child was born alive is necessary to support an indictment for
murder.” (Born-Alive Rule)
o Holding: Since the statute in Penal code 187 doesn’t deem the fetus as a “human”
he can’t be charged with murder. (Unlawful killing of a human being.

PRINCIPLE OF LEGALITY (COMMON LAW): A person may not be convicted and
punished unless the conduct was defined by criminal statute when committed.
o Three Interrelated Principles (D.U.I.)
 1. Statutes should be understandable in order to provide fair notice of
proscribed conduct. (5th and 14th Amendment).
 2. Statute should be crafted so they do not provide police, prosecutors,
judges, and juries opportunity to act in a discriminatory or arbitrary
manner.
 3. Judicial Interpretation of ambiguous statutes must be construed in favor
of defendant. (Lenity Doctrine).
 Ex Post Facto Law: Laws adopted after an act is committed making it illegal although it
was legal when done, or increases the penalty for a crime after it is committed.
   How to Distinguish between a Due Process and Ex Post Facto clause violation?
o Due Process Violation- Judicial act (Du=Ju)
o Ex Post Facto violation- Legislature act
 The First essential of due process is fair warning of the act, which is made punishable as
a crime.
 **When a new penal statute is applied retroactively to make punishable an act, which
was not criminal at the time it was performed, the defendant has been given no advance
noticed consistent with due process.
2. The Values of Statutory Clarity
o City of Chicago v. Morales- ­ In 1992, the Chicago City Council enacted the 
Gang Congregation Ordinance, which prohibited “criminal street gang members” 
from “loitering” with one another in any public place. Morales was accused of 
violating the law, but the trial court that held the law to be unconstitutionally 
vague dismissed the charges.
o Issue: Does this ordinance violate the Due Process Clause of the 14th amendment
if it is so vague that it fails to provide sufficient notice to citizens regarding the
type of conduct prohibited and fails to provide adequate guidelines for law
enforcement officers? YES. (Rule stated)
4

would be the only way to move forward with this conviction. but not others. Statutory Interpretation  Muscarello v. He’s guilty.    What happens when there are multiple meanings to a word. Ex: “Carries” o After construing congressional intent. if unsure.  B. o First. they will rule in favor of the Defendant. U. Congress intended for the provision to apply to “the carrying of firearms in a vehicle to a drug trafficking crime. A law fails to meet the Due Process requirements of the Fourteenth Amendment if it is so vague that it leaves the public uncertain as to the conduct it prohibits. courts may consider the ordinary definition of the term. 5 .A law may be unconstitutionally vague for two reasons. NOT in the car.” as Muscarello did. o How did the ordinance bestow police with authority to act arbitrarily or in a discriminatory manner?  The ordinance is too vague. because they over accuse due to the vagueness and uncertainty of law enforcement.  Bobby is arrested for violating the statute when he is caught driving down a public highway with a bumper sticker that depicts a nude man and woman. so they are accusing and participating in innocent conduct. Should he be convicted under the statute?  Why?  No. o Issue: Is the statutory phrase “carries a firearm” necessarily limited to the possession a firearm on the defendant’s person and not also applicable to possession of a firearm in a vehicle? NO. but the response to that is that “there are many things that we as a society engage in. o Rule: When interpreting a statutory term. He argued it only applied to carrying it ON you.” Statute would have to be defined. and specific conduct was banned. because “raunchy” is too vague. it may fail to provide the kind of notice that will allow an ordinary person to understand what conduct is prohibited. it may authorize arbitrary enforcement. courts should assume the primary meaning of the phrase governs UNLESS the legislature indicates otherwise. any special definitions. the purpose of the statute. Courts must interpret ambiguous statutory terms according to legislative intent. Muscarello (D) was convicted of  carrying a firearm in the locked glove compartment of his vehicle while involved in a  drug trafficking crime. o Holding: No. o Second. and the legislative history. In doing so. and evaluating all meanings of the word. HYPOTHETICAL: A state forbids all “raunchy bumper stickers” on cars driven in public. that can be considered raunchy to some.Congress enacted a federal law criminalizing the conduct of one who  “uses or carries a firearm” while trafficking drugs.S. Some people gravitate to the assumption that those images are raunchy.

Utter. o Rule: Substantial evidence on the defense of conditioned response tending to demonstrate whether the defendant committed the requisite Actus Reus should be presented to the jury in a murder trial. on conviction. He was convicted under a state statute which held that “any person who. But Actus Reus also has a mental component in that the murder defendant must have voluntarily willed the act to occur.CHAPTER FOUR. there’s a minimal mental element required in order to establish the Actus Reus itself. o Subjective: Mens Rea. If the accused  is taken involuntarily and forcibly carried to a public place by an arresting officer. shall. one convicted of being  drunk in a public place must have voluntarily placed himself there. o Holding: Yes. The act must be committed voluntarily and consciously. Voluntary Act 3.Killed his son after heavy drinking. However. Under the plain language of the statute. appeared in “any public place where one or more persons are present. HYPOTHETICAL: Officer Blue and the killing of two innocent Vulcan teens. The element of volition (voluntary action). There are Two Components of Every Crime o Objective: Actus Reus. 4. State.  Even in the Actus Reus is satisfied. while  intoxicated or drunk.Martin was arrested at his home by police officers and placed in a police  vehicle where he was separately charged for being drunk and using loud and profane language on a public highway. be  fined. is a jury question.The Physical and Voluntary act of the crime A. an involuntary muscle spasm that results in the death of another person would not qualify as the Actus Reus for murder. To find a defendant guilty of murder. o Rule: Criminal liability may ONLY be imposed when the unlawful conduct is committed voluntarily. a charge of being drunk in a public place cannot stand. a jury must find both the requisite Actus Reus (physical) and Mens Rea (mental). Blamed it on “Irresistible Impulse” o Issue: Should juries in a murder trial consider evidence on the defense of conditioned response that tends to demonstrate whether the defendant committed the requisite Actus Reus? YES.The Mental & criminal intent/knowledge to commit act. Martin v.ACTUS REUS A.” o Issue: Can criminal liability be imposed only when the unlawful conduct is committed voluntarily? YES.  Action: Actually doing something 6 . For this reason. o Holding: Yes. the nature of this killing and the reasonableness of his responses. (Conviction Reversed)  State v. and  manifests a drunken condition by… or loud and profane discourse.

Dr.D tried to hit one kid.  Intent. The relevant statute requires that a person intentionally or knowingly inflict permanent disability or disfigurement.  Although proving intent may be hard. B. though intentional and with knowledge that he would die wasn’t an unlawful failure to perform a legal duty. 7 . D’s omission to continue life-sustaining treatment to P under the circumstances. but hit another & severely injured him. the law presumes that one intends the natural and probable consequences of their actions. o Intent to harm can thus be inferred from the circumstances surrounding a person’s actions. pulled plug w/consent.Being almost certain that something will occur as a result of an action. Omissions (“Negative Acts”)  2. Superior Ct. After defining Intent and Knowledge below. (Rule ^) o Holding: No. this statute requires that someone act with the intent to inflict the requisite harm or be almost certain that the requisite harm will occur.When one intentionally acts to accomplish a certain outcome or conduct. There is no criminal liability for failure to act unless there is a legal duty to act. Chapter Five.  Holding: Yes. Conley. Intent o People v. got worse.  Knowledge. Here.  Rule: Criminal intent may be inferred from the circumstances surrounding a crime. o Issue: Is a physician under a legal duty to continue futile life-sustaining support absent objection from a spouse and does the withdrawal of such life-sustaining support with the consent of a spouse support a charge of murder? No. Pt. General Issues in Preventing Culpability  1. D had no legal duty to continue to provide treatment to P once it was proved to be ineffective or futile in the opinion of qualified physicians. There is no criminal liability for failure to act unless there is a legal to duty to do so. o Duties arise in cases involving:  (1) Status Relationship  (2) Contractual obligation  (3) Omissions following an act and  (4) Statute. such as the words spoken or weapons used.  Issue: May a court infer the intent to commit a crime based on surrounding circumstances? Yes. and they Must have the Mens Rea to intend the alleged crime.Dr. Distinguishing Acts From Omissions Barber v.Mens Rea B. Omission: Failing to act/do something when you had a duty/obligation to do so. did a surgery.

” unless otherwise defined by statute. instead. D’s unaware. o Issue: May a person be convicted under the National Firearms Act. is it sufficient to prove the defendant was aware of the high probability of that fact’s existence? NO. o KNOWINGLY is defined as actual knowledge in our Criminal Code. HYPOTHESIS. it qualified as a firearm. Strict Liability Offenses  Staples v.Sneaky Max Hypo:   Strict liability StatuteLAST BULLETPOINT ON LAST SLIDE FROM STAPLES V. Nations.The legal responsibility for damages. o Rule: Where a statute requires knowledge of a fact as an element of a crime. 28 U. Doctrine of Transferred Intent: Transferred intent is a doctrine that allows the defendant to be held liable for an intentional tort he intended to commit against A but. When a criminal statute requires knowledge of a fact as an element of a crime. o Holding: The term “knowledge. Knowledge of Attendant Circumstances (Willful Blindness Test)  State v. § 5861(d).D owned a rifle & after modifying. if she did know that she possessed a weapon that fell within the statute’s registration requirement? No. federal felony statutes should not be interpreted so as to eliminate the element of Mens Rea. had not the person willfully ‘shut his eyes’ to avoid knowing. UNITED STATES 8 . U. accidentally committed against B. 3.S.  Public policy disfavors criminal statutes with no mens rea requirement  Strict Liability. as an element of a crime. o The purposeful ignorance of a fact that is highly likely to be true.  This definition Excludes those cases in which “the fact would have been known.S. o Rule: Absent a clear statement from Congress that there is no mens rea requirement. the defendant must have had actual awareness of the fact to satisfy that element. o Issue: When a statute requires knowledge of a fact. C. even if the person found strictly liable was not at fault or negligent.  What is the Presumption Against Strict Liability? o Offenses that do not contain a mens rea requirement have a generally disfavored status. means actual knowledge. it is insufficient to prove the defendant was aware of the high probability of that fact’s existence.. unless the statute provides otherwise.Underage girl found dancing at a club for tips & owner didn’t know.  The Doctrine of “Willful Blindness”: Defendant cannot escape criminal liability for having knowledge of a fact by deliberately shielding him/herself from clear evidence of critical facts that are strongly suggested by the circumstances. or injury.C.

not break the law. (Require a person to possess a particularized mental intent) o D is not guilty of an offense if a mistake of fact negates the specific-intent portion of the crime.Stole wood beams with good faith that they were abandoned.A crime where the individual must not only intend to perform the criminalized act. Mistake of Fact o People v. o If.  Issue: Is a mistake of fact a defense to a specific intent crime even if the mistake was unreasonable? Yes. Marrero. as long as the defendant is sincere in his mistake. (Old Test Question)  Under definition of intent. the mistake of fact is reasonable. she is guilty of killing her husband and the other patrons.Ignorance of the law is no excuse.May one who violate a statute raise a good faith mistaken belief as to the meaning of the law as a defense? NO. a person is incapable of possessing a specified mental intent. Mistake (or Ignorance) of Law  People v.)  D is not guilty of the offense provided. (Where a specific mental intent is unnecessary. because he said he was intending to BORROW & return the clothes before his neighbor got home. 2. D.    What is the difference between a mistake of law and a mistake of fact? 9 . Mistake and Mens Rea  1.  General intent crimes.  Oh Roger Hypo: OLD TEST QUESTION o Specific intent o Not guilty of Larceny. that person Cannot be guilty of that crime.A crime for which the prosecution must prove only that the defendant intended to commit the act. o A Good faith belief that is reasonable is not a defense in General Intent crimes.  Specific intent crimes. (Negated Issue = Rule) Mistake/Ignorance of law o CL Maxim. due to one’s Honest Mistake of fact. but also must intend the specific consequences of that act. This is the case even if the defendant’s mistake of fact is unreasonable. even if mistake is unreasonable. Navarro.  Rule: An honest mistake of fact is a defense to a specific intent crime regardless of whether the mistake was unreasonable.HYPOTHESIS­ My Husband is Dead.

o Mistake of Law. there is no legal requirement that the belief be objectively reasonable. a Mistake of Fact can usually operate as a defense so long as it is reasonable. “I intend to do something but I did not willfully violate the law. o Rule: Even where a defendant’s conduct is a cause-in-fact of a prohibited result.Two dragracers. U. even an unreasonable mistake of fact might work as a defense.CAUSATION A. o Officially made/issued by public servant/agency/body legally charged with administering/enforcing it. Issue: Must a purportedly good-faith misunderstanding of the law be objectively reasonable to negate the specific intent requirement of willfulness under criminal tax laws? No. o Rule: Whether a purportedly good-faith misunderstanding of the law will negate the specific intent requirement of willfulness under criminal tax laws is a question of fact for the jury.An error that is not caused by the neglect of a legal duty on the part of the person committing the error but rather consists of an unconscious ignorance of a past or present material event or circumstance or a belief in the present existence of a material event that does not exist or a belief in the past existence of a material event that did not exist  In Criminal law.    What Circumstances can a Defendant Claim Mistake of Law? o Mistake founded on official statement of law in statute. arising from a flawed evaluation of the facts.  For a crime.A misconception that occurs when a person with complete knowledge of the facts reaches an erroneous conclusion as to their legal effect. Actual Cause (Cause in Fact)  Velazquez v. brakes didn’t work in time and P went over the cliff o Issue: Is a defendant’s conduct the proximate cause of a prohibited result where the result is beyond the scope of the defendant’s conduct or it would otherwise be unjust to impose criminal liability? NO. With crimes that require specific intent.Part of an Anti-Tax advocacy group & charged w/ not filing a Fed. CHAPTER SIX.”  What mistake did the trial court make? o Not giving the instruction on the willfulness knowledge/defense to the jury. you need Actual cause and Proximate cause. o Mistake of Fact. an incorrect opinion or inference. or it would be unjust to impose criminal liability. Cheeks v. Mens Rea.S.  How does the term willfully determine the outcome of the crime? o Knowledge of the law is an element of the crime. Tax Return. 10 . State. it is not the proximate cause if the prohibited result is beyond the scope of the defendant’s conduct.

Proximate Cause (Legal Cause)  People v. uninterrupted consequence and without that act. 11 . P went to turn on lights. such that is severed the casual link between D’s act & V’s harm? If no.  Proximate (Legal) Causation. direct. B. All were safe. For example.  A person or event cannot be the proximate cause of harm unless she or it is an actual cause.    **You can’t be the proximate (legal) cause without being the actual cause BUT we can be the actual cause without being the proximate (legal) cause.Defendants conduct is a cause-in-fact of a particular result if the result would not have happened in the absence of D’ conduct. he might allege that the cancer resulted from asbestos poisoning. Rideout.  The substantial factor test is important in injury cases. Proximate. The defendant factory owner will likely question whether the factory's asbestos was a substantial factor in causing the cancer or whether other factors played a far more significant role. The but-for test is often used to determine actual causation Distinguish between: Application of the “But For” Test & “Substantial Factor test” o But For Test. but a person/event can be actual cause w/out being proximate cause.* Actual Cause (Cause in fact).an act from which an injury results as a natural. o D’s conduct must be the “direct and natural result” of V’s injury? To determine:  1. o Proximate cause is the primary cause of an injury.Car accident. or o Where it would otherwise be unjust. based on fairness and policy considerations. to hold the defendant criminally responsible for prohibited result. o Issue: Can a defendant’s conduct be the proximate cause of a victim’s injury when there is another intervening cause? o Rule: A defendant’s conduct is the proximate cause of a victim’s injury if it is a direct and natural result of the defendant’s actions.Actual cause refers to a cause or factor without which the event could not have occurred. Got hit by a car. Was there an intervening cause that superseded D’s conduct. if a plaintiff works in a factory and develops cancer. It is also termed as “but for” cause or cause in fact or factual cause. o Substantial Factor Test. many courts have declined to impose criminal liability… o Where the prohibited result of the defendant’s conduct is beyond the scope of any fair assessment of the danger created by the defendant’s conduct.Defendants conduct is the cause in fact of a prohibited result if the subject conduct was a substantial factor in bringing about the harmful or deadly result. the injury would not have occurred. For good reason.

the court will follow it no longer. Apparent Safety Doctrine. Eulo o Issue: In homicide proceedings. BUT.Harm results from actions taken in response to D’s conduct (Ex: Surgery or Medical attention) Will establish proximate cause Coincidental Intervening Cause. (if you hadn't knocked over the candle there would have been no fire) o Factual causation determines exactly what happened and whether someone was responsible for the event or whether it would have occurred anyway. may courts determine when death occurs using brain-based criteria rather than the traditional cardiorespiratory criteria? Yes.” Responsive Intervening Cause. (Answer on Twen)  HYPOTHETICAL ­  Ralph o He was not the “but for” factor and you should apply the Substantial Factor Test. Actual Cause = Facts of the crime. Overview  4. *Gross negligence and intentional misconduct are not reasonably foreseeable. o Can’t have a legal (proximate) cause without the facts (actual cause). Superseding Intervening Cause.An intervening cause severs the casual link when it is not reasonably foreseeable under an objective standard.CRIMINAL HOMICIDE A. The Protected Interest: “Human Being”  People v. 12 .  HYPOTHETICAL­  April o Who was the actual cause of April’s death? Maggie o Who was the proximate cause of April’s death? Maggie o Responsive or Coincidental cause? Responsive CHAPTER SEVEN.  HYPOTHETICAL­  Elevator  o Suri is the Factual cause but not the legal cause.          HYPOTHETICAL­  Mike and Aaron Punch/Bank Robbery o Who is the proximate cause of Aaron’s death? Bank Robber.is “but-for” the action committed the outcome would not have naturally occurred. you Can have actual cause (facts of case) without any legal (proximate) liability.Does not need to be the only cause.Won’t establish proximate cause unless it was foreseeable. Actual (Factual) Causation. Proximate Cause= Legal aspect of the crime.“When a defendants active force has come to rest in a position of apparent safety.”  Negligence is foreseeable at a hospital but GROSS neg. is not.

o Rule: In homicide proceedings. Intent to inflict grievous bodily injury o 3. An elaborate plan or scheme is not 13 . Intentional Killings  1. (Issue)  Whether or not he had a good faith belief. he had the Malition to move his body. must the defendant have had some period of time between the development of the intent to kill and the actual killing to indicate that the act was premeditated and deliberate and not impulsive? Yes.Intentional and unlawful killing of a human being with malice. Degrees of Murder: The Deliberation-Premeditation Formula o State v.Dishwasher snapped on instigator and killed him on impulse. B. or intent. even though he didn’t mean to drink the alcohol. Noticing something that will completely switch up outcome. o Good Faith. Intent to kill o 2.  Issue: To constitute first-degree murder. Question 2:  He would be found guilty.  Malice includes these 3 elements: o 1. courts may use brain-based criteria in addition to traditional cardiorespiratory criteria as a means of determining when death occurs. R-there must be some opportunity for reflection on the intention to kill after the intent is formed by the accused.The killing of a human being by another human being with malice aforethought  Malice Aforethought. (Failed to inform jury of difference between 1st and 2nd degree murder)  Murder.  Mens Rea does not matter. but you truly believed you weren’t committing a crime o Unreasonableness. Guthrie. and he did so by driving. That fact must be taken under consideration and touched on as a potential issue.if something makes no sense.A predetermination. Extreme recklessness (deprave heart). Practice Exam Questions Question 1:  Must mention that this was a specific intent crime.  First Degree Murder (Prior Consideration).  Essentially. not that his beliefs were unreasonable.  This case is all about detail. premeditation and deliberation. at the time of a killing to willfully take the life of a human being or an intent to willfully act in callous and wanton disregard of the consequences to human life.you’re just an unreasonable person which leads to an unreasonable mindset. & intent to commit felony where death results. o A six year old has no criminal responsibility in the United States.

o (3) Any threats on the part of the defendant before or during the killing. Foresto Issue: Does a conviction for murder in the first degree require substantial evidence of premeditation and deliberation? o Rule: A conviction for murder in the first degree requires substantial evidence of premeditation and deliberation. of time is too much  2nd Degree. o (5) Whether there was an additional lethal attack after the victim was already helpless. as long as fact finder can reasonably conclude such from the evidence introduced at trial (2nd degree murder rather than 1st degree murder)    Impulse v. Any other spontaneous.The unjustifiable & intentional killing of a human being without deliberation.“Spur of the Moment” there was no though put into it.Evidence not based on personal observation or knowledge.     There are 6 Factors to Determine whether a Killing was Premeditated and Deliberate. the owner could be prosecuted for murder.Which may only require the intent to kill.  Difference between 1st and 2nd degree murder?  1st Degree. premeditation.  Circumstantial Evidence. 14 . B. o However. even if your motives are honorable and justifiable. Manslaughter: “Heat of Passion” Killings A. only that there is evidence that the defendant considered and weighed his decision to kill. o (1) A lack of provocation from the victim. o (2) The actions and words of the defendant before and after the killing. Common Law Principles    Understand the Distinction between Murder and Manslaughter o Murder.needed. Intentional Killings 2.The unlawful killing of a human being with malice aforethought. Careful reflection  Impulse Careful Reflection State v. o Manslaughter.  Second Degree Murder (Spur of the Moment). killing is second-degree murder. and o (6) Evidence of brutality HYPOTHETICAL: The Missed Shot o Murder is the killing of a human by a human. and Momo killed a dog.“Prior Consideration” even smallest amt. which may be proven through circumstantial evidence.  There can be intent.D can be found guilty of an offense “included” within the offense charged. and malice. o (4) Whether the victim and the defendant had a poor history. if an animal kills a human. but intentional.  Doctrine of Lesser included Offenses.

do not amount to provocation. People v.  Facts of the Case Test.) Casual connection between provocation/passion/act “Words” constitute adequate provocation if they are accompanied by conduct intending a present intention and ability to cause D bodily harm. robbery. the operation of the rule follows a compellingly simply. Stateo Issue: Is a verbal domestic argument ending with the death of one spouse adequate provocation to mitigate murder to manslaughter? NO.Manner and circumstances in which it was actually committed.Calculated to influence the passion rather than the reason.Court didn’t allow adequate provocation.) Adequate provocation o 2. They relied on the common law definition and rulings on words and said it didn’t satisfy the elements. or lewd acts with a minor) + an unlawful killing = Felony. done in a “sudden heat of passion”. Unintentional Killings: Unlawful Conduct 1.elements without consideration of applicable facts. THE CONCEPTUAL BASIS OF THE FELONY­MURDER RULE  Does the Felony Murder Rule Apply? o Is it Inherently Dangerous?  Abstract or Fact of Case Test?  In the Abstract Test. Fuller: 15 . HYPOTHETICAL: Provocation. The Felony Murder Rule  The Doctrine in Generalo The Felony-Murder rule permits severe punishment for the most heinous offenses in some cases that can appropriately be described as accidents. (not adequate) For provocation to be “adequate” it must be “calculated to inflame the passion of a reasonable man and tend to cause him to act for the moment from passion rather than reason.1st degree murder (strict liability)  Death from unspecified felonies= 2nd degree murder A classic formulation of this doctrine declares that one is guilty of murder if a death results from conduct during the commission or attempted commission of any felony.     o Voluntary Manslaughter. burglary. (i.) Sudden heat of passion/no reasonable opportunity to cool down o 4. discovering a spouse in act of actual interference. Almost mathematical logic: o A felony (during the commission of “rape.” Adequate Provocation. Girouard v.) What constitutes the Rule of Provocation? o 1.) Killing in the heat of passion o 3. In its classic form. caused by adequate provocation. But generally.An intentional homicide. D. mayhem.e.

Issue: Is a death resulting from the commission of a dangerous felony considered to be murder? YES. rape.  Is it necessary to prove malice? o No. because of new legislation. In California. In California. even if the killing is negligent or accidental. o Court applies two tests:  In the Abstract Test. o An accidental death can still be charged as a felony murder. they can. if a killing results from the perpetration or attempted perpetration of certain felonies enumerated by statute. there is not. Howard o Issue: Is a felony inherently dangerous even if it can be committed without creating a substantial risk of death to another? No.  Holding: Yes. a killing resulting from the commission of an inherently dangerous felony is at minimum a second. it’s not.elements without consideration of applicable facts  Conviction of a felony murder is very unlikely under this test.  Facts of the Case Test. o Holding: No.(ABSTRACT TEST APPLIES) 16 .  Is there a requirement that the felony be dangerous to human life? o No. that if there is any way the felony can be committed without creating a substantial risk of death to someone. the perpetrator is guilty of first degree murder. burglary.  Murder is the unlawful killing of a human being with malice aforethought. a death resulting from the commission of a dangerous felony is murder. such felonies include arson. Under the felony-murder rule.**  Understand the Inherently Dangerous Felony Limitation v. BABY SARAH HYPOTHETICAL. o Court reasons. o **But under the second-degree felony-murder rule. 189). robbery. The elements of the felony must be inherently dangerous in the abstract. the prosecution can obtain a conviction without showing malice if the killing occurred during the commission of an inherently dangerous felony. When is a felony inherently dangerous?  Prosecution can obtain a conviction for 2nd degree felony murder if killing occurred during commission of an “Inherently dangerous” felony. mayhem. it is not Inherently Dangerous.  Can a co-felon be convicted for the unintentional act of killing by the other co-felon? o Yes. The “Inherently Dangerous Felony: Limitation  People v. (California Penal Code Sec. and lewd acts with a minor. II.Manner and circumstances in which it was actually committed. Only felonies that create a substantial risk of death to another can serve as the basis of a felony-murder charge.degree murder.  Rule: Under the felony-murder rule. Felony Murder Rule.

Felony Murder only applies if the predicate felony is independent of or collateral to. A FAILED HEART HYPOTHETICAL. Smith Charged with 2nd deg. and she was attempting to commit the robbery when the plaintiff had a heart attack and died. Arrest and died. PETE HYPOTHETICAL  Can’t be charged with the Felony Murder Rule because the “heat of the passion” merges with the homicide or manslaughter charge.Not necessarily guilty because anyone under the age of 18 is included.  Issue: Can a felony that is assaultive in nature serve as the basis of a felony-murder charge? No. Smith: Beat her daughter until she went into Card. we see that it was a helpless child in this case and that it should in fact be a felony.  Facts Test. The jury must instead determine whether Smith possessed the requisite malice for a conviction of murder. IFL typically applicable to Assaultive felonies (threat of immediate bodily injury)  Fully understand the Independent Felony Limitation*.  Merger Doctrine. home alone after school. we could assume the child was a 17 year old. Margaret would be convicted. 17 . the homicide. III. (Child abuse is assaultive in nature and has no other independent felonious purpose) 1. Defendant may only be charged with the higher offense. There was no malice for the prosecutor to prove in this case which means that since no murder resulted from the commission of a felony. 1.Once we apply the facts. therefore making it impossible to convict under this rule. Murder based on a theory of felony-murder. The Jury was instructed that they could find the defendant guilty of second-degree felony murder if it determined that the homicide occurred during the commission of the underlying felony of assault with a deadly weapon. and snuck one of Dad’s beers while making inappropriate gestures at the neighbors. because the assaultive felony is said to merge with the murder. If the felony is not the independent cause.  Rule: A felony that is assaultive in nature cannot serve as the basis of a felony-murder charge unless the felony was committed with an independent felonious purpose.Abstract Test. Robbery is considered a felony. The “Independent Felony” (Merger Limitation)  People v. Without the facts. Smith’s abuse of her daughter merges with the resulting homicide so that Smith cannot be charged with felony-murder. This wouldn’t lead us to believe it’s a felony. then the felony is said to “merge” with the homicide and cannot serve as the basis for a felony-murder conviction.(FACTS TEST APPLIES)  (Felony murder rule will apply to attempted felonies as well)  Margaret is guilty because the doctrine declares that one is guilty of murder if a death results from conduct during the commission or attempted commission of any felony.

(It’s not applicable)  Holding: No.A. and the casual relationship between an underlying felony and a killing are factors to be considered in determining whether the killing occurs in the commission of the underlying felony and the defendant is therefore subject to the felony-murder rule Two Approaches to decide whether to apply the Felony-Murder Rule:    The ‘Agency’ Approach o The majority opinion is that the felony-murder doctrine doesn’t apply if the person who directly causes the death is a non-felon.S.S. [B: Agency Approach].  Aggravated burglary is one of the inherently dangerous felonies as enumerated by K. distance. 21-3436 state: o Murder in the first degree is the killing of a human being committed  (b) in the commission of. CLASS NOTES  Fully understand the Res Gestae Doctrine (begins when the actor has reached a point where prosecution for attempt is appropriate).S. o He argues that this was a “break in circumstance” sufficient to relieve him from further criminal liability. His principal argument is that he was in custody at the time his co-felon was killed.VERY IMPORTANT CASE/INFORMATION!! IV. o In many similar cases. which resulted in victim’s death. attempt to commit or flight from an inherently dangerous felony as defined in K.  This “Intervening Cause” argument has no merit under the facts of this case.  The Applicable Provisions of K. AS WELL AS:  The Agency Approach o Felony-Doctrine doesn’t apply if person who caused death is a non-felon (The cofelon is not an accomplice of the killer). The felony-murder rule is not applicable where a non-felon is responsible for the resulting death. Under this approach. Killings “in the Perpetration” or in “Furtherance” of a Felony  State v. 21-3436 and amendments thereto. 21-3436(10). Sophophone  Issue: Is the felony-murder rule applicable when a non-felon performs the killing lawfully? NO.A.A. the act of killing is imputed to the defendant when committed by an accomplice. it has been held that “time.    The ‘Proximate Causation’ Approach 18 . (Majority Rule)  The Proximate Causation Approach o Felon would be responsible for killing by non-felon if felon set in motion the acts.  Defendant doesn’t argue that aggravated burglary is an inherently dangerous felony.

o An alternative theory holds that a felon may be responsible under the felonymurder rule for a killing committed by a non-felon if the felon set in motion the acts. There must be a casual relationship between the felony and the killing. He was a non-felon and engaged in an attempt at self-defense.OH NO! POLICE OFFICER FELL INTO AN AIRSHAFT o Prosecution/Officer would prevail on applying the felony. there is a causal connection and the outcome could change. but there was still a causal connection. but had it not been for the robbery. (There was a death but no killing. Tennessee o Issue: May juries hear victim impact evid. so it had no causal connection with his death. at a capital sentencing hearing? YES. Substantive Limitations on the Death Penalty  Tison v. The Quest for Reliable Procedures B.) E.FRANK AND JAMES o Frank wouldn’t be found guilty under the Felony-murder rule under the Agency Approach.  Pursuant to this rule. Capital Murder 2. the issue becomes one of proximate cause:  If an act by one felon is the proximate cause of the homicidal conduct by the non-felon or police officer. Momo is not the proximate or actual cause of the officer’s death. Victim Impact Evidence  Payne v. people would have normally been around Simi when he had the heart attack. HYPOTHETICAL. o Rule: A capital sentencing jury may hear victim impact evidence if it is relevant to the jury’s decision as to whether the death penalty should be imposed o 3. HYPOTHETICAL.SIMI o Simi was unaware that the robbery was even happening. 19 . Momo’s negligence of his death. murder liability is permitted. HYPOTHETICAL. o One argument that establishes causation. and possibly could’ve prevented it. he would not have been chasing him on the roof or fallen into an airshaft and died.murder rule because had the officer not been in a lawful pursuit of the defendant.If you can prove that his death had nothing to do with the robbery. Arizona o Issue: Is it constitutionally permissible to sentence a defendant convicted of felony-murder to death where the defendant neither intended to kill the victim nor actually inflicted the fatal injury? YES. Momo would lose. which resulted in the victim’s death.

CLASS NOTES 20 . whereas rape perpetrated by fraud in the inducement does not. Alston o Issue: In order to prove rape. o Rape perpetrated by fraud in the factum nullifies consent. there must be sufficient evidence that sexual intercourse was obtained against the victim’s will and by force. Superior Court o Issue: Does rape obtained by fraud in the inducement nullify consent? o Rule: Rape perpetrated by fraud in the factum nullifies consent. the victim can freely revoke her consent at any time.  Holding: No. Force is demonstrated by actual force or by threats that are intended to overcome the will of the victim to resist. o Rule: In order to prove rape. is it sufficient to show that sexual intercourse was obtained without the consent of the victim? NO. Second-degree rape requires that the defendant obtain sexual intercourse both by force and without the victim’s consent. o General fear of a defendant is not sufficient to void consent C. unless it is obtained by force or threat of force. Where a defendant is engaged in a consensual sexual relationship with the victim. Consent can be a complete defense to rape.o Rule: It is constitutionally permissible to sentence a defendant convicted of felony-murder to death even if the defendant neither intended to kill the victim nor actually inflicted the fatal injury if the defendant was a major participant in the felony and possessed a reckless indifference to human life. In General  State v. Fraud in the factum is a misrepresentation of a fact that goes to the very nature of that fact. Such evidence demonstrates that the sex was against her will. whereas rape perpetrated by fraud in the inducement does not. CLASS NOTES Understand Forcible Rape  Rape is the “carnal knowledge of a woman forcibly and against her will” –CL  Force or threat of physical force is required  Penetration to any degree is sufficient  Physical resistance is not required  Consent by the victim is a complete defense o Consent that is induced by threat of violence is void.RAPE B. Forcible Rape 1. CHAPTER EIGHT. Rape by Fraud or Non-Physical Threats  Boro v.

Reasonable Belief. Inducement: where consent to sexual intercourse is induced by deception (fraud).Defense  United States v.   Understand the distinction between Fraud in the Factum and Fraud in the Inducement in rape cases. the initial aggressor in a fatal conflict may not invoke the doctrine of self-defense to justify killing his adversary. o Rule: (2) Under the law of the District of Columbia. absent statutory language to the contrary. Deadly force is only justified if there is no alternative.) “Duty to Retreat” (deadly force not authorized when one can safely retreat w/o risk) VS. Only then may he use deadly force to save himself.when the deception (fraud) causes a misunderstanding as to the fact (sex act) itself. Factum. before using deadly force in self-defense.GENERAL DEFENSES TO CRIMES C. CHAPTER NINE. the initial aggressor in a fatal conflict is under a duty to retreat. o Example: patient that consents to penetration by a medical instrument. Nevertheless.  The doctrine is rooted in necessity.) “NPR”= Necessity (imminent). 2 kill)  2. Peterson o Issue: (1) May the initial aggressor in a fatal conflict invoke the doctrine of selfdefense to justify killing his adversary? NO. there is no legally recognizable consent because “what happened is not that for which consent was given. not to sexual intercourse. wealthy man. Self.) When one has a right to self defense (can’t support it w/ self-generated Necess. if he may do so safely. a person who provokes a fatal conflict does not have a right to kill in self-defense. A person must honestly and reasonably believe that there is an imminent threat of death or serious injury. but in actuality he is married and homeless. intent 2 withdraw & attempt in good faith)  3. Proportionality (non-deadly= non-deadly force). CLASS NOTES Fully Understand:  1. o Issue: (2) Is the initial aggressor in a fatal conflict under a duty to retreat before using deadly force in self-defense? YES. consent is valid. “Castle Doctrine” (one attacked in home is not required to retreat)  4. 21 . unless he withdrew from the conflict in good faith and communicated his withdrawal by words or acts. but deceives victim into believing otherwise. Principles of Justification 2. o Rule: (1) Under the law of the District of Columbia. o Example: Victim consents to sex with a single.) Who is the “Aggressor?” (must commun.

o Rule: In New York. Kurr o Issue: Is a defendant who kills in the defense of an unborn and unviable fetus entitled to a jury instruction on the defense of others? YES. o No aggressive conduct= she didn’t meet the requirements for a self-defense claim based on the reasonable persons approach. CLASS NOTES  What is the “Reasonable Belief” requirement in self-defense case?  Subjective and Objective components must be met. or robbery. a person is justified in using deadly force in self-defense or defense of another only if she objectively and reasonably believes an attacker is either (1) using or about to use deadly force or (2) committing or attempting to commit a kidnapping. forcible sodomy. o They all looked directly at Maggie. or robbery.a person under the same circumstances as the person who used the deadly force would’ve reacted the same way.  “A person may not use deadly force upon another person unless an attacker is either (1) using or about to use deadly force or (2) committing or attempting to commit a kidnapping. You cant use deadly force for nondeadly force conduct. Defense of Others  People v. It would have been reasonable for anyone under those circumstances to react the same way this person did. o Objective.MAGGIE FROM ITALY:  Subjective. Principles of Justification 3. “Reasonable Belief” Requirement People v. actual outcome is irrelevant o Subjective-The defendants had a good faith subjective belief that something under this category was about to happen.DON’T SLAP ME: o She would not prevail in a self-defense claim. forcible sodomy.” HYPOTHESIS.  A NON-VIABLE FETUS IS ALWAYS WORTHY OF PROTECTION 22 .This component is met because she was in good faith “Fearful for her life”  Objective. Goetz o Issue: Is a person justified in using deadly force in self-defense if he subjectively believed such force was necessary to prevent an attack or a robbery? NO. forcible rape.  You can satisfy subjective/objective components w/o the other. forcible rape. General Defenses to Crimes C.List all of the objective things that would lead her to believe she’s in danger. HYPOTHESIS.B.

a homicide is also justifiable if it is committed in the defense of others. Never lawful conduct.this defense can only be used against unlawful assaulted or negligent conduct. In this jurisdiction. “Reasonable Appearance Rule” o One reasonably believed that they were in danger and their reaction was proportional. both viable and unviable. o Use of the “Defense of Others” justification makes no distinction between strangers and relatives. the man attacking her turned out to be an undercover FBI agent and Rob was charged with assaulting the officer. o Deadly force can be responded to with deadly or non-deadly force o Non-deadly force can only be responded to with non-deadly force o Understand Principles of Justification: Defense of Others o Generally. HYPOTHETICAL. have had to defend himself. including a nonviable fetus or embryo. he only used the force necessary to stop the attack. Thus. o The defense may be evoked in the protection of an unborn child. this defense is only applicable where the harm against the fetus is unlawful.  However. CLASS NOTES o The intervener typically has the same right as the third party. o Holding: Just as a homicide is justifiable if it is committed in self-defense. which demonstrates its intent to protect fetuses. the defense applies to a fetus. The intervener’s right to use force parallels the 3rd party’s right of self-defense. o Legality of the act. o Know the difference between alter ego & reasonable app. regardless of whether it is viable.o Rule: A defendant who kills in the defense of an unborn and unviable fetus is entitled to a jury instruction on the defense of others. a person is justified in using force to protect a 3rd party from unlawful force by an aggressor. a defendant may not invoke this defense to justify a homicide perpetrated to prevent a legal abortion. Michigan’s legislature has passed the fetal protection act.ZINA  After doing what he thought was saving Zina from a rapist. "Alter Ego" Rule: o The primarily obsolete rule that a person coming to the aid of a third party has no more right to defend the third party than the third party would. Rule Defense of Another: o The right of a person to protect a third party with reasonable force against another person who is threatening to inflict force upon the third party. Also. himself. Rob 23 . from assaultive or negligent conduct.

Veach o Issue: Does intoxication negate the mens rea for a crime and thereby serve as a defense to the crime? YES.there must be no reasonable opportunity for the defendant to escape. no escapability o MAN MADE THREAT TO YOU OR YOUR LOVED ONE  Necessity: A person is faced with a choice of two evils and must decide whether to commit a crime or an alternative act that constitutes a greater evil. Principles of Excuse 2.  A defendant is excused from criminal culpability if he commits the crime under duress. o First. Here. SOCIETY BARS CONDUCT. Intoxication  United States v. Since she didn’t lawfully have the right to resist the lawful arrest.Pachon o Issue: Is a defendant excused from criminal culpability if he commits his crime under a threat of death or serious bodily injury? YES. General Defenses to Crimes (Cont.LOSS OF LIFE. o Rule: A defendant is excused from criminal culpability if he commits his crime under a threat of death or serious bodily injury. the district court held that the threat was not immediate because the threat would only be acted upon after Contento-Pachon’s future failure to cooperate. Contento. but it does not negate the mens rea of a general intent crime. was from Michigan. SOCIETY BEARS BURDEN OF DEATH. o Rule: Intoxication negates the mens rea of a specific intent crime and thereby serves as a defense.    There are three elements to the defense of duress. he only used the force necessary to stop the attack. Duress  United States v. Also. o Third.” Which one should Rob choose to be prosecuted under? He should choose the “Reasonable Appearance Rule” because Intervener only has rights that are afforded to the third party.BREAKING CRIMINAL LAW. o Second. neither did he o Under the “Reasonable Appearance Rule. where they adopted the “Alter Ego Rule” & Illinois has adopted the “Reasonable Appearance Rule. Two Evils o First. o Second. 24 .” he reasonably believed that she was in danger and his reaction was proportional.the threat of death or serious bodily injury must be immediate.the defendant must act on a well-grounded fear that the threat will be realized. genuine fear. 3.) D. CLASS NOTES  Fully understand Duress and Necessity    Duress: Immediate threat of death or serious bodily harm.

this court must determine whether they are specific intent or general intent crimes. o In some cases. o When it negates the Mens Rea of a Specific Intent crime.  General Intent Crimes. o Coerced. involuntary intoxication can be a defense to criminal charges if it prevents the defendant from forming the intent that is required.Substance triggers an unusual response due to a medical condition.If a charged crime is a specific intent crime. Accordingly.  Effect on Specific Intent Crimes? Negates Mens Rea  Effect on General Intent Crimes? Generally.o However. it prevents the defendant from forming the criminal intent necessary to commit the crime. and Unexpected Intoxication. o Pathological. § 115 is a specific intent crime. However.Can be a defense to both Specific and General Intent Crimes.Unaware of substance’s content or tricked into taking it. CLASS NOTES  Fully understand when intoxication as a defense to a crime. Intoxication by Innocent Mistake. intoxication only negates the mens rea of crimes that require specific intent.  Distinction between Coerced. o Involuntary. meaning that the criminal defendant must have had the specific intent to commit the crime in question. o Innocent Mistake.Unexpected intoxication from taking a medically prescribed drug. as with involuntary intoxication. (Never General Intent)  Distinction between Voluntary and Involuntary Intoxication o Voluntary.Only a defense for Specific Intent Crimes. Voluntary Intoxication  Unlike involuntary intoxication. the defense of voluntary intoxication does not completely absolve the defendant of liability but instead reduces the overall culpability for the crime. voluntary intoxication may be used as a defense to specific intent crimes if. Pathological. voluntary intoxication is NEVER a defense to a general intent crime. Involuntary Intoxication  Specific Intent Crimes. MIDTERM QUESTION 25 . o Unexpected.Intoxication involuntary induced by reason of duress or coercion. In order to determine whether intoxication is a defense to the crimes Veach was convicted of. none.Involuntary intoxication can also be a defense to a general intent crime if the defendant can establish that the involuntary intoxication acted similarly to an insanity defense and prevented the defendant from understanding the nature of his or her actions or differentiating between right and wrong.

defendant lacked substantial capacity to appreciate criminality of conduct. o Cognitive. from disease of the mind. but I can’t help but do it. Insanity C. CLASS NOTES  Fully understand the Insanity defenses (each requires “mental disease or defect” at the time of crime according to legal rather than medical policy)  NEVER WILL TEST IRRESISTABLE IMPULSE/CONTROL TEST  The M’Naghten Rule o Clearly proved at time of committing the act. 26 . ONLY Cognitive.  Irresistible Impulse/Control Test o 1.Sarah is pregnant. if he did know it.01 (acknowledges volitional and cognitive defects) o When.Section 4. he does not know the nature and quality of his actions or.  M’Naghten Rule. by reason of mental disease or defect. Johnson o Issue: Whether the test for insanity should consider solely cognitive defects.  As not to know nature and quality of the act. o Volitional. as a result of mental disease or defect. Lost power to choose between right and wrong o 3. Play it safe and go with both. Difference between Cognitive and Volitional Deficiencies. D was laboring under defect of reason. Tom looks away and Sarah stabs him in the neck killing him. and that it’s wrong. as a result of mental disease or defect. Should she win on self-defense grounds? 4. defendant lacked substantial capacity to conform his conduct to requirements of law.Defect in my brain. o When. or  If he did know it. he did not know his actions were wrong. did know that what he was doing wrong (legally) (ALL cognitive test) o Won’t test on whether it’s a legal or moral wrong. o M’Naghten doesn’t deal with Volitional deficiencies. o Rule: The test for insanity should encompass both cognitive and volitional defects. Tom walks up to her with a gun and tells her once she has that mans baby in 3 months he will kill her. OR. Defendant’s will and actions are beyond their control  Product Test o Accused not criminally responsible if his unlawful act was product of mental disease/defect  Model Penal Code Test. Unable to decipher right activity from wrong.I know what I’m doing. Struggling for a Definition: The Tests of Insanity  State v. Acted with irresistible repulse o 2.A rule that says a defendant is not criminally liable if.

he can’t claim that he didn’t know those facts because he was squeezing a human beings neck. and the lighter the prosecution’s burden in overcoming the presumption.What is actually being done. the more likely he can appreciate the difference between right and wrong. o However.  The defense is available in Juvenile proceedings  Once defense is raised. he is deemed criminally culpable for his actions.  Nature. 27 . Infancy In re Devon T  Issue: Is a child criminally culpable for his actions if he is incapable of differentiating between right and wrong? NO.  Children between seven and fourteen are presumed incapable. The fact that he answered yes to knowing he was choking a human being is enough to prove that he knew the nature and quality of what he was doing. Zero amount. the prosecutor has the burden of rebutting the presumption by producing evidence that permits a reasonable inference that D knew at the time of the act that the difference between right and wrong (Cognitive Element ONLY/ no volitional).WILL BE TESTED ON THIS! o For children (1) under the age of 7. but we can infer that we know he was merely playing. N&Q doesn’t mean that he doesn’t know the level of pain or damage he’s causing.HYPOTHETICAL. o If the defendant can make the distinction.  Quality.  According to common law.  Infancy Defense. children under seven years of age are incapable of differentiating between right and wrong. and (3) between 7 and 14—rebuttable presumption of criminal capacity. 14 years and older are treated as “fully responsible.The impact of what’s been done. o Children fourteen or older are deemed capable. but it goes to whether or not he was aware of what he was actually doing. the closer the child is to the age of fourteen.  As to the nature and quality of the act. the are presumed without criminal capacity. 6. but this presumption is rebuttable.I Can’t Breathe  He does not satisfy the M’Naghten rule because he doesn’t acknowledge the moral factor. CLASS NOTES  Fully understand the Infancy Doctrine.  The primary consideration in an infancy case is whether the juvenile defendant can distinguish right from wrong.Defense that removes liability for a juvenile’s crime if the juvenile defendant is unable to differentiate between right and wrong.

and (3) that Powell was a chronic alcoholic. He further argued that punishing him for conduct that was symptomatic of his disease would constitute cruel and unusual punishment. not out of free will. it creates a new defense to criminal culpability. On day of 14th birthday. he has an uncontrollable compulsion to drink excessively. It did. In re Devon Cont’d. o If the Court rules that his chronic alcoholism relieves him of guilt. in violation of the Eighth and Fourteenth Amendments. but for breaking the law by going out in public while intoxicated. o Issue: Whether punishment of conduct that is symptomatic of chronic alcoholism is in violation of the Eighth and Fourteenth Amendments’ proscription against cruel and unusual punishment. In support of his theory.) o Powell is not punished for being a chronic alcoholic. age 10 years.  What are the potential flaws in the courts finding that:  Devon reaching the 6th grade while still 11 years old “tends to support” his cognitive capacity. (R.Powell was arrested for public intoxication. however. 6 months. New Defenses 2. He further stated that Powell was a chronic alcoholic who could not control his behavior because he has a strong compulsion to begin drinking. steadily increases. a certified psychiatrist testify as to his condition. child possesses 100% capacity. one who suffers from that condition drinks involuntarily. Powell was convicted of the charged crime. NO. child has 0% cognitive capacity. The trial court held that chronic alcoholism is NOT a defense to the charge of public drunkenness. so at midpoint. 28 . and that once he begins drinking.  That Devon’s silence and “Stonewalling” demeanor was an indication of “his allegiance to the Underworld’s Code of Silence” and that he is “fully conscious of the ongoing war between “lawful authority and those that flaunt it. Texas. (2) that a chronic alcoholic who goes out in public does so due to his disease. allow Powell to submit three findings of fact: (1) that chronic alcoholism is a disease that overpowers one’s will to resist the continuous and excessive consumption of alcohol. it is NOT in violation. 50% of children will have criminal capacity.No. Wade stated that although there is no clear definition of chronic alcoholism. Infancy Defense Percentage Rule.”  “Children who are unaware that what they are doing is wrong have no need to hide out or conceal their activities. Addiction/Alcoholism Constitutional Defense  Powell v. On the time scale between the 7th and day before 14th birthday the percentage of children with capacity.” E. Powell argued that his conduct was unavoidably caused by his disease of chronic alcoholism.On day before 7th birthday. o Punishing conduct stemming from chronic alcoholism in NOT cruel and unusual punishment because medical research on chronic alcoholism is too vague and unsettled.

Gentry was able to put the fire out. o Mere knowledge that death or serious bodily harm may occur is insufficient.  Inchoate Crime. Attempt 3. Mandujanoo Mere Preparation. o Issue: Does conviction of attempted murder require a specific intent to kill? Yes. 29 . Rizzo and the others were convicted of attempted first-degree robbery and they appealed. nearby police became suspicious and followed the vehicle. 1983. Gentry’s conviction is reversed and a new trial is ordered. Gentry appealed. 4. Mens Rea  People v. arguing that the court’s instruction as to the four different mental states allowed the jury to convict him for attempt murder without showing that he had the specific intent to kill. b. Kraft.  Thus. Rizzo was to point out the man to the others who were to commit the actual robbery. which included both intent and knowledge. Rizzo. The trial court instructed the jury on the definition of attempt murder. but for timely interference? YES.Gentry lived with his girlfriend. CHAPTER TEN.Rizzo along with three others intended to rob a man of a pay roll valued around $1. o According to People v.A crime that is anticipatory or preparatory in nature and for which an individual can be held criminally liable without the actual commission of the crime being anticipated or prepared for. Actus Reus  United States v. Gentry. erroneously allowed the jury to convict Gentry of attempt murder without finding a specific intent to kill. During their search. all four were arrested for attempted robbery despite never finding the man they intended to rob. but were never able to find him. during which Gentry spilled gasoline on Hill. Distinguishing Preparation from Perpetration: The Tests at Work  People v.o The punishment of conduct that is symptomatic of chronic alcoholism is not in violation of the Eighth and Fourteenth Amendments’ proscription against cruel and unusual punishment. The men. but Hill sustained serious burns. the trial court’s instruction listing the culpable mental states of murder. Gentry was tried for attempted murder. as well as the four different mental states that were sufficient to prove murder. She later went into the kitchen and was near the stove when the gasoline ignited. o Issue: Is the crime of attempt committed when an act as tending to the commission of a crime is so near to its accomplishment that in all reasonable probability the crime itself would have been committed. two of whom had guns. a finding of a specific intent to kill is necessary to sustain a conviction for attempt murder. Gentry and Hill had an argument. Ruby Hill. drove around town in a car looking for the man.200. On December 13.An act that constitutes a step towards the completion of a crime but does not constitute an overt act or a substantial step. Shortly after Rizzo jumped out of the car and ran into a building.INCHOATE OFFENSES B.

but they were never able to even locate him.Defendant would have to be on the brink of completing the crime in order 30 . **ADD NOTES FROM SLIDES FOR GENTRY-RIZZO** HYPO.Whether a defendant is guilty of attempt only if the defendant was on the brink of completing the offense. The next morning. but never had the opportunity. The student told school officials once she arrived at school. Both Reeves and Coffman were found guilty of attempted second-degree murder. but a circumstance or fact unknown to the D prevents him from bringing about the intended result. Authorities found rat poison in the purse.    o Attempt is defined by New York statute as “[a]n act.  Factual Impossibility occurs when the actions intended by D are criminals.  Dupuy Rule. On January 5. During the bus ride to school. Here.  Issue. Those acts are too remote to support the convictions for attempted first-degree robbery.  Rule.” o The word “tending” is very indefinite.Teacher’s Temptation  She should be charged. The judgments of conviction are reversed.Reeves (D) and Molly Coffman were twelve-year-old girls who attended the same middle school. 1993.  But it is only those acts which advance very near to the accomplishment of the intended crime which support an attempt conviction.  Legal Impossibility occurs when D’s actions.  Overt Act.An action that constitutes a manifestation of the desire to commit a crime rather than just mere preparation for such an action. would NOT constitute a crime.The crime of attempt does not require that the defendant is on the brink of completing the offense. Reeves and Coffman agreed over the phone to kill their homeroom teacher. NO. They left a purse on Geiger’s desk next to her coffee cup. Janice Geiger. Rizzo and the others were looking for the pay roll individual to rob him of the money. “Tending” means to exert activity in a particular direction. Coffman took a packet of rat poison to school. with rat poison. Rizzo and the others had the intent to commit the crime. and tending but failing to effect its commission…. Coffman told another student of the plan. Geiger noticed when she arrived in her classroom that Reeves and Coffman were leaning over her desk. done with intent to commit a crime. o Any act in preparation to commit a crime can be said to be “tending” towards its accomplishment. Reeves. NO DEFENSE FOR ATTEMPT CHARGE. even if fully carried out exactly as she intends.  ONE MORE SLIDE ON TWEN State v.

This court instead holds that if a defendant possesses materials for the commission of a crime while at or near the scene of the crime. Thousand sent her a photograph of male genitalia and asked if she wanted to meet in order to engage in sexual activity. Once Thousand arrived. o Legal impossibility.  At common law.  Even if the defendant mistakenly believes the age of consent is 31 . was engaging in criminal activity online. Model Penal Code. People v. a twenty-three-year-old male. (Failed attempt) ABANDONED RULE.  Ex. a jury may rely on such evidence to find that the defendant has taken a substantial step. The two arranged to meet at a nearby restaurant. a substantial step in a course of conduct planned to culminate in his commission of the crime.  to be found guilty of attempt.when a defendant tries to kill someone with an unloaded gun. and…. it is not. The conviction is affirmed.  The jury is entitled.  Factual impossibility is never a defense to an attempt crime. Deputy William Liczbinski made contact with Chris Thousand (D) in an online chat room. Thousand filed a motion to quash the charge of attempt.  Where the possession of those materials can serve no lawful purpose of the actor under the circumstances…. may be a defense to an attempt crime if it is a pure legal impossibility.on the other hand..A defendant can be convicted of attempt even if it is impossible to complete the underlying offense. Liczbinski apprehended him and charged him with attempted distribution of obscene material to a minor. Over the next week. there are two types of impossibility: factual and legal.  When an actor possess materials to be used in the commission of a crime.a defendant might engage in sexual intercourse with a fifteen year old in a jurisdiction where the age of consent is fifteen. Thousand. The circuit court granted the motion and dismissed the case.  Ex. 1998. Holding. The Court of Appeals affirmed.occurs when factual circumstances preclude the completion of a crime.  Rule. CLASS NOTES  Understand why the court abandoned the Dupuy rule. Bekka and Thousand’s conversations became sexually explicit. and the defendant has no lawful purpose to possess the materials under the circumstances. since it was impossible to convict him of the underlying offense. under the circumstances as he believes them to be. o Factual impossibility. o If I believe that I have poison and if the facts are as I perceive them to be. if the evidence strongly corroborates the actor’s criminal intent. Deputy posed as a 14 year-old girl named Bekka in an effort to determine whether Thousand..if one purposely does or omits to do anything which. This occurs when a defendant believes his conduct is criminal but in actuality. I am taking a substantial step towards harming/poisoning this person. but not required to find that the actor has taken a “Substantial Step” toward the commission of the crime if such action is strongly corroborative of the actor’s overall criminal purpose.On December 8. at or near the scene of the crime.

 Factual Impossibility. he is factually mistaken as to the legal status of the property.  Ex. But here. The alarm was only audible in the guard’s office. but not the attempt.  In that situation. an alarm went off at Luzerne County Prison. Accordingly. but no prisoners were found missing. McCloskey was convicted of attempted prison breach. the existence of which is a necessary element of the crime. The guards immediately checked the inmates.  Holding- If the defendant crosses the line into intent and later abandons the plan. but decided against it when he thought about the consequences.A defendant is not criminally liable for attempt if his plans never go beyond mere contemplation.NOT A VIABLE DEFENSE o Exists when defendant’s intended end constitutes a crime but fails to consummate it because f a factual circumstance unknown to her or beyond her control. sixteen.DEFENSE o Pure Legal impossibility  Bars an attempt conviction o Hybrid legal impossibility  Defendant’s goal was illegal. McCloskey approached one of the guards and confessed that he had planned on breaking out of prison that night. and he appealed to the Superior Court of Pennsylvania. McCloskey. The guards also found a bag filled with civilian clothing. alerting guards that a prisoner was attempting to escape from the recreation area.It is true that Thousand cannot be convicted of the underlying crime. he is not guilty of statutory rape.a defendant who receives unstolen property believing it is stolen may argue that he cannot be charged with the crime of receiving stolen property. Here. but commission was impossible due to a factual mistake made by her regarding the legal status of some factor relevant to her conduct. See Eagan.Shortly after midnight. o A Hybrid Legal Impossibility.occurs when a defendant is factually mistaken as to a legal status.. All that is relevant is whether he had the requisite intent and took the requisite act in furtherance of that intent. supra. The guards later determined the bag belonged to McCloskey (D). the circuit court should not have dismissed the charge against Thousand. CLASS NOTES  CONERNED WITH SUBJECTIVE BELIEF (what one believes) OF WHAT THE CASE IS AND NOT WHAT IS ACTUALLY IS.  Legal Impossibility. Holding. he is not charged with the underlying crime.  Rule. 32 .  ONLY THING WE WILL BE TESTED ON IS  Distinction be tween factual impossibility and pure legal impossibility Commonwealth v. Investigation revealed that someone had cut a piece of barbed wire in the area where the alarm went off. and it is irrelevant whether or not he could have completed the underlying crime. he may be able to avoid liability for the crime. He is charged with an attempt of that crime. since he could not be guilty of distribution of obscene material to a minor who does not exist.

C. (cameras. since he seeks to shield himself from liability by soliciting another to carry out the actual crime. McCloskey never reached the point of actually carrying out his plan and thus never went beyond merely contemplating the escape. which is still inside the prison.  The solicitor is considered more dangerous than the solicitee because the solicitor instigates the crime. entices. and (2) her conduct manifests a complete and voluntary renunciation of her criminal purpose. Solicitation  Solicitation-The criminal offense of urging. The conviction and sentence are vacated. before deciding to abandon his plans. o Examples in casebook. Because McCloskey never set his plans in motion. -IMPORTANT!! No solicitation occurs if the solicitor attempts to commit the act himself OR if he asks for assistance from another party. and decided to try again later. they DO SATISFY ABANDONMENT. CLASS NOTES 33 .Bank of America  It seems like she abandoned her criminal purpose. o If someone decides they wont do something right then because they assessed the situation. he cannot be found guilty of attempt.  The solicitor is also considered more morally culpable. or encourages another to carry it out. CLASS NOTES  Understand the Abandonment (Renunciation) Principle o A person is not guilty of attempt if: (1) she abandons her effort to commit the crime or prevents it from being committed. Therefore she did not fulfill the requirements. inciting.  The offense of solicitation merges into the crime solicited if the latter offense is committed or attempted by the solicited party.McCloskey intended to escape from the prison and made preparations accordingly. Nevertheless. security) NOT ABANDONMENT o If someone has a complete change of heart and stops because they truly don’t want to do it anymore and have no intention of attempting it ever again. or counseling someone to commit an unlawful act. the evidence shows that McCloskey only got to the prison wall. Mann Inchoate Offenses – Solicitation – Specific Intent Crime  Solicitation is a controversial crime because the offense is complete once the solicitor asks. State v. HYPO. BUT there is not a complete and voluntary renunciation of her criminal intent because she left with the mindset that she couldn’t complete this crime alone because the bank was heavily guarded and she needed help from her cousin.

Therefore.An uncommunicated solicitation is insufficient to constitute the offense of criminal solicitation. He then tells her that he broke his arm and was wondering if she could go across the street and get his bike because he’s too weak to push it. enticing. 34 . Inchoate Offenses – Solicitation. He never mailed the second letter. telling her to convince his stepdaughter not to testify against him. She does as he asks and walks “his bike” back to her porch. inducing. Cotton. HYPO (Made up) “Innocent Instrumentality” Rule  Kelsey’s sitting on her porch and Momo comes up and starts a convo. because Kelsey didn’t know that she was doing anything unlawful. o There must be proof that the solicitation was actually communicated to the solicitee.The lack of actual communication prevents Cotton’s conviction under the solicitation statute. Therefore.  Holding. Cotton wrote two letters to his wife.  This is distinct from the Model Penal Code’s approach. entices.  Rule. Momo didn’t solicit a crime because Kelsey was unaware that any crime was being committed. Unbeknownst to her. (Completion of the crime isn’t necessary) What is “Merger” o (Conspiracy.Cotton (D) was charged with the crime of engaging in sexual conduct with his stepdaughter. State v. o A solicitor  Plans. Cotton was charged with two counts of criminal solicitation and convicted.  Proof that a defendant meant to communicate a solicitation is insufficient to constitute the offense of criminal solicitation. or counseling of another to    commit a crime. it is not his bike and she just stole someone else’s bike believing that it was his. suggests. encourages. Would Kelsey be guilty of solicitation?  No. While in prison. The Model Penal Code only requires that the defendant intended to communicate the solicitation. it specifically omitted the provision on uncommunicated solicitations. and incites Offense is complete as soon as the solicitor asks. schemes. attempt. Cotton’s convictions for solicitation are reversed. his cellmate intercepted the first letter and turned it over to the authorities when D asked him to get a stamp for him to mail it.Specific Intent Crime o Solicitation involves asking. or completed crime) What is the “Innocent Instrumentality” Rule? o Someone that’s completely unaware that they are engaging in criminal conduct. **NOT TESTED*  When this jurisdiction’s Legislature adopted the Model Penal Code’s definition of solicitation in its criminal code. or encourages another to commit the target offense. He instructed his wife to offer his stepdaughter money to leave the state and to tell her that testifying wouldn’t be nice and would likely place her in the news. Unknown to Cotton.

Sniper C. D. Therefore. AND he asked Momo for assistance.NO.NO. He “said it in jest (jokingly)” so therefore didn’t have the specific intent to commit the crime and take the punishment. Cotton is at most guilty of attempted solicitation. Momo prevails because of legal impossibility?  B.  **Important!! No solicitation occurs if the solicitor attempts to commit the act himself OR if he asks for assistance from another party. Momo will be convicted because Chris attempted to pickpocket Ralph. HYPO. because he was the solicitor who was asking Momo to help him with a crime that he was going to take the lead on. Momo prevails because it was factually impossible for him to p/p check. Does solicitation require actual communication ONLY COMMON LAW TESTED HYPO.NO.NO.  D. Ralphie should not be convicted of solicitation. o This suggests that the Legislature meant to require actual communication from the defendant to the solicitee. he shouldn’t be charged.An agreement between two or more individuals to commit an illegal act at some point in the future and often requiring at least one overt act in furtherance of that agreement. the requirement for solicitation isn’t satisfied because Ralphie was going to do it himself. because it’s a Specific Intent Crime. HYPO.  C.Solicitation o Solicitation requires some form of actual communication from Defendant o The communication can be to either an intermediary or the person intended to be solicited.The Pocket Problem Which is the most accurate answer?  A. CLASS NOTES Inchoate Offenses . CONSPIRACY Conspiracy. 35 . Therefore. but not to do it himself.Momo will be convicted because of the Mens Rea component of the crime. He didn’t mean for him to do that. The lack of actual communication prevents Cotton’s conviction under the solicitation statute.The Punch Should he be convicted for solicitation?  No. Ralphie asked Momo for help.

Daniel and Walter appealed.In an ongoing conspiracy. Significantly. CLASS NOTES  Inchoate Offenses – Conspiracy o A partnership in criminal purposes o A mutual agreement or understanding between two or more persons to commit a criminal act Pinkerton v. Sall. Thus. regardless of who actually commits the illegal substantive offenses. o However.    Under United States v.Walter and Daniel Pinkerton (D’s) were brothers who were indicted for various violations of the Internal Revenue Code (IRC). The crime of conspiracy does not require an overt act.S. conspiracy. and their convictions were affirmed by the circuit court of appeals. between Walter and Daniel. o Further. The U. the crime of conspiracy has been committed.    Holding    There is no evidence that Daniel directly participated in the commission of the substantive offenses.People v. and found Daniel guilty on six of the ten substantive counts and on the conspiracy count. The crime of conspiracy does require evidence of 2 specific purposes.    Daniel argues that his alleged participation in a conspiracy is not enough to sustain his conviction on the substantive offenses even though Walter committed them in furtherance of the conspiracy.. the crime of conspiracy does not merge into the completed crime. Thus. Carter      A criminal conspiracy exists when two or more people agree to commit an unlawful act.    There are some exceptions: 36 . i. the conspirator must intend to commit the crime.  Rule. United States. Each brother was fined and sentenced to terms of imprisonment. the conspirator must intend to partner with others. o First. a conspirator can be convicted & charged with conspiracy & the completed crime.e. the ongoing conspiracy is attributable to all co-conspirators until one intentionally removes himself from it. the conspiracy is ongoing until one of the co-conspirators affirmatively withdraws from it. o Second..  Therefore. the evidence showed the illegal acts committed by Walter were done in furtherance of an unlawful agreement. A jury found Walter guilty on nine of the ten substantive counts and on a conspiracy count.When two or more individuals conspire to commit illegal acts. the overt (clear) act of one co-conspirator may be the act of all conspirators without any new agreement specifically directed to that act. Supreme Court granted certiorari to review. the criminal intent to commit the substantive offenses has been achieved. as soon as the partnership agreement is made.

a wholesaler of drugs was convicted of conspiracy to violate the federal narcotic laws by selling drugs in quantity to a codefendant physician who was supplying them to addicts. there must be intent to further it and a stake in the venture. CLASS NOTES People v. The People appealed. Over approximately a three month period. o In Direct Sales Co. posed as a prostitute.  Rule. Weeks periodically complained to Lauria’s office manager about losing calls and not receiving messages for “tricks. o This approach attempts to equate knowledge of another’s criminal activity with a conspiracy to further that illegal activity. Lauria and the three prostitutes were arrested and charged with conspiracy to commit prostitution. there is no reason why other acts in furtherance of the conspiracy cannot be equally attributable to other members. United States. Lauria objected to the arrest and told the police that. Falcone where sellers of sugar. yeast and cans.  The prosecution attempted to establish the element of an agreement to further an illegal act. were held not to have participated in the conspiracy with distillers who purchased the goods from them. Lauria.A police investigation revealed that three known prostitutes were using Lauria’s (D) telephone answering service for business purposes. went undercover.In order to make a supplier of goods or services a participant in a criminal conspiracy. by showing that Lauria knew his codefendants were prostitutes who used his service to receive “business” calls and continued to furnish them with the service. who had only knowledge of an illegal liquor conspiracy. v.” The trial court dismissed the indictment brought against Lauria and the three prostitutes as lacking probable cause.  The Court in Direct Sales said that there must be more than just knowledge of illegal activity to be a conspiracy.” Lauria defended his service and emphasized. while he knew of only one known prostitute. the wholesaler actively promoted the sale of morphine sulfate and sold the drug in quantities 300 times his normal requirements. Stella Weeks. the prosecution must show the supplier had knowledge of the illegal use of the goods or services and had the intent to further the illegal use of the goods or services.  There. In United States v. and signed up with Lauria’s answering service. his records were always available whenever the police had a specific name to investigate.    An overt act is an essential ingredient of the crime of conspiracy.o If its not done in furtherance of the crime o If there’s a clear withdrawal o Not a necessarily foreseeable consequence    Here.The order dismissing the indictment is affirmed. a police officer. If one conspirator can supply that act. the acts were done in execution of the conspiracy.” Thereafter.    The judgments of conviction are affirmed. a misdemeanor. required to show the presence of a conspiracy. 37 . but also that his service did not “arbitrarily tell the police about prostitutes. “his business was taking messages.  Holding.

which states that a conspiracy should merge into the targeted offense if only two or more people can commit the targeted offense.Wharton’s Rule does not preclude a conviction of criminal conspiracy where such a result is contrary to legislative intent. CHAPTER 11. the presumption is destroyed.C.you must have a corrupt motive to commit a crime within the agreement within your partnership. o Here. the crime of conspiracy and its targeted offense do not merge. it is easiest if there is proof of direct participation in the illegal acts. Iannelli was convicted of both the conspiracy and the targeted offense.  This Court must assume that the Legislature intends that a conspiracy to violate § 1955 be treated as an offense distinct from the targeted offense. running an illegal gambling business tends to involve and affect both conspirators and non-conspirators. intent may be inferred when the supplier of services has a stake in the illegal venture.  Unlike classic Wharton Rule offenses that only involve and affect the conspirators.  Wharton’s Rule.S. such as bettors  **It is likely that the Legislature intended to prevent the formation of large-scale gambling businesses by criminalizing the conspiracy to form them.  Rule. o Some classic examples of Wharton’s Rule offenses include adultery. Iannelli v.  A major exception to this principle is Wharton’s Rule. The Court of Appeals for the Third Circuit affirmed.A rule that prevents a conviction of conspiracy to commit a crime that only two or more people can commit. and the order dismissing the indictment is affirmed. there is no proof that Lauria took any direct action to further. and both may be punished as distinct crimes. the rationales underlying the Wharton Rule do not apply to the crime at issue here. o For instance.2 people can’t be found guilty of adultery since it takes two people to engage in adultery. which criminalized the joining together of five or more people to run an illegal gambling business. To show intent.Liability For The Conduct of Another 38 . incest. and dueling. United States.Iannelli (D) was convicted of conspiring to violate 18 U. Holding  Ordinarily. § 1955. or direct the prostitution activities of his co-defendants. o Example. Section 1955 criminalizes the combination of five or more people to run a gambling business prohibited by state law.  Corrupt Motive Rule. encourage. o But when such evidence is lacking.  But Wharton’s Rule is merely a judicial presumption that is overcome when logic and legislative intent are to the contrary. o Because the Legislature has made known a purpose that runs contrary to Wharton’s Rule.

“You could say that. o Notably.  In contrast.A.A defendant is not a principal in the second degree unless he participates in the crime while sharing the criminal intent of the principal in the first degree. a principal in the second degree may be convicted of a more serious crime than a principal in the first degree. Criminal Accomplices can be divided into 4 categories: o Principals in the first degree  A principal in the first degree is one who perpetrates the crime.  A principal in the second degree may be convicted even if the principal in the first degree has not yet been tried or has been acquitted OR convicted of a more serious crime than P in 1st. in order to ensure that the criminal acts of his accomplices are undetected.An accomplice who is not present during the commission of the crime but aids or encourages the commission of the crime. and cannot be convicted of a more serious crime than the principal.  A lookout is one who participates in a crime by keeping watch.” and stated that he just did not want to be present during the commission of the crime. Hoselton.  Principal. arguing that there is insufficient evidence to support his conviction. WardUnder common law.  Accessory. 39 . the State (P) asked Hoselton whether he was a lookout for his friends. o Principals in the second degree  A principal in the second degree is one who is present during the commission of the crime and actively encourages the commission of the crime.Hoselton (D) was charged with entering without breaking. an accessory cannot be tried before the principal without his consent. At trial.  A principal in the second degree may be convicted even if the principal in the first degree has not yet been tried or has been acquitted. “Elements” of Accomplice Liability: In General State v. with the intent to commit larceny. Hoselton appeals. Hoselton was unaware that his friends intended to steal items from the storage unit until he walked closer and saw his friends removing the goods Hoselton neither helped his friends place the items in the car. nor received any of the items. Common Law Terminologies and its Significance State v.  Rule. Hoselton replied. Accomplice Liability 1. o Accessories before the fact  An accessory before the fact is one who is not present during the commission of the crime but provides assistance.A person who appoints another person to act as his or her agent. o Accessories after the fact  An accessory after the fact is one who helps a felon evade detection after the commission of the crime. Hoselton had been standing on a barge while several of his friends entered a storage unit at the other end of the barge. 2. Hoselton was convicted as a principal in the first degree.

Accordingly. Principals in the second degree are punishable to the same extent as principals in the first degree. He neither speaks nor gestures during the phone call. encourage. the State attempts to demonstrate that Hoselton was a lookout for his friends. Here.. the prosecution must establish that the defendant participated in the crime while sharing the same criminal intent as the principal in the first degree. command. The juvenile court found him guilty. V. V. and should therefore be convicted of the crime as a principal in the second degree. Actus Reus State v.        o A defendant who participates in a crime as a lookout may be convicted as a principal in the second degree. as well. and his two friends. CHAPTER 12.Evidence of mere presence is insufficient to demonstrate complicity in a crime. encourages. Because the evidence was insufficient to demonstrate V.T. Two days after they left. commands. the conviction for entering without breaking is reversed. Furthermore.’s friends on the phone discussing his plans to pawn the camcorder.T. Hoselton had no knowledge of his friends’ intentions until they began stealing the items. he left the scene and went to their car. was an accomplice. o But there must be evidence that the defendant affirmatively participated in the commission of the crime. (D) and two friends stayed the night at the home of one of his relatives. was charged with the theft of the camcorder. or assists in the commission of a crime. However.V. He neither handled the goods nor received them.Theft A. The footage shows one of V.T. She reported the theft to the police.T. There is no evidence that V. took any affirmative action to solicit.T.      Rule.T.T. in order to be convicted as a principal in the second degree. the juvenile court’s finding of guilt was in error. o However. 4. Inside the camcorder was a tape that showed V. is shown in the footage. When he realized what they were doing. V. the State failed to establish that Hoselton participated in the offense with the same criminal intent as his friends. is insufficient to impose accomplice liability. Police found the camcorder at a pawn shop. Larceny 40 . Hoselton’s vague testimony as to whether he was a lookout for his friends does not demonstrate that he shared his friends’ intent to commit larceny.T. Passive behavior. or assist in the theft of the camcorder. Accomplice liability may be imposed where a defendant solicits. the relative discovered that her camcorder was missing. such as mere presence at the scene of the crime.

for which he received an ATM card.1.Mafnas (D) was an employee of Guam Armored Car Service. On three separate occasions.  Where a defendant has lawful possession of property.The fraudulent conversion of another's property by a person who is in a position of trust. False Pretenses People v. Bazeley. B.Bazeley (D) was a teller at a bank owned by Esdaile and Hammett.In order for an employee to commit the crime of larceny. 41 . He was tried and convicted under a federal statute that prohibits taking with the intent to steal money from a bank. v. the employee’s misappropriation of the property does not constitute larceny.S. a customer deposited bank notes and cash for an account.One who receives property for a limited or temporary purpose does not have lawful possession of the property. and the conviction is affirmed. which he later converted to his own use. such as an agent or employee.  Rule. He transported bags of money belonging to the Bank of Hawaii and the Bank of America. Whight. He was prosecuted for theft.Where a defendant employee has been entrusted with the employer’s property.  Therefore. Mafnas. but merely a breach of trust. “Tresspassory Taking” (Caption) and “Carrying Away (Asportation) U. Mafnas took money from the bags. the employee’s conversion of the property is not larceny.  Holding: Federal law prohibits one from taking with the intent to steal money from a bank. Actus Reus  A. a taking under this provision must be trespassory.  Where an employer does not have possession of the property.  Holding. Mafnas’ taking of the money was trespassory. In January 1799.  This court has construed this provision to adopt the requirements of common law larceny.  This means the employer must have actual or constructive possession over the property at the time the employee misappropriates it. whether Mafnas was a bailee or not.Whight (D) opened a checking account.  This type of breach of trust is not a felony under common law or statute.  An employer is only in possession of the property if he has the right to and control over the property. the employee must take the property from the possession of the employer.  Rule. Embezzlement Rex v.  Embezzlement. the defendant’s misappropriation of that property is not trespassory. C. Bazeley deposited most of what he received into the account. but placed one bank note in his pocket.  Thus.

In fact. a conviction of false pretenses can be sustained. But Whight afterwards discovered that the ATM card still worked at certain Safeway markets. the element of reliance is present in this case.  Grand Theft. Whight used his ATM card at four Safeway markets and withdrew over $19.  Here. the bank closed his account.  If the misrepresentation had a material influence on the owner. Each time.the owner must actually be defrauded of his property due to the misrepresentation. it would simply issue Safeway a stand-in code to approve the transaction. After discovering that he could obtain money through this system. But if Wells Fargo was unable to communicate with the customer’s bank.  It is essential that the owner pass title to the defendant in reliance upon the defendant’s misrepresentation. After Whight failed to replenish his account within a certain timeframe. Each time a customer used an ATM card. o First.  Rule. he had overdrawn on the account.  Whight argues that Safeway did not act in reliance upon Whight’s misrepresentation because it instead relied upon Wells Fargo’s verification.Within a few months. Safeway allowed market customers to get cash back when they made purchases with an ATM card. Safeway would issue the money and later verify the ATM card.000. demonstrating that the validity of Whight’s card was unverified. 42 . Whight was subsequently convicted for grand theft by false pretenses. even if an owner personally investigates the defendant’s representations before passing title. Wells Fargo did not inform Safeway whether or not the ATM card was valid. Whight falsely represented to the Safeway clerks that his ATM card was valid.An owner is deemed to pass title to a defendant in reliance upon the defendant’s misrepresentation even where the owner has undertaken an investigation of the defendant’s claim. It merely issued a stand-in code.  Holding The crime of false pretenses has THREE elements. the computer system had an error that caused Wells Fargo to issue Safeway a stand-in code.An owner is deemed to pass title to a defendant in reliance upon the defendant’s misrepresentation even where the owner has undertaken an investigation of the defendant’s claim. this does not mean the owner did not rely upon the defendant’s misrepresentation.  But Safeway did not rely upon Wells Fargo. o Second.the misrepresentation must be made with the intent to defraud the owner of his property. As long as the owner does not rely solely upon his own investigation. Safeway’s computer system communicated with Wells Fargo to verify the cards. Safeway was forced to rely solely upon Whight’s representation that the card was valid.the defendant must make a misrepresentation.  Upon receiving the stand-in code. o Third.  What is more. false pretenses can be proven.  Therefore. Wells Fargo would contact the customer’s banks and would issue a code of approval or disapproval to Safeway.

Focus on.Comprehensive  FOCUS ON DETAILS  Cumulative.QUIZ 3  Week of April 18th  8-10 Questions. Attempt.Specific & General Intent. Solicitation  Question similar to Sniper Hypo 43 .

) Sal is very intoxicated and moves towards Ralphie.) Momo wants to rob a store so he shoots two shots in the air.  D.) Momo stabs Rob and the doctor negligently performs a surgery. 18.S.  REFERENCE. and clothe Sarah during that time and she died 53 days after birth.Ralphie will likely not prevail because he knew.01 C in the supplement.) Archie likes to sell scrap metal.) Koresh belongs to a religious cult and he believes that the plane he’s ordered to crash will go down but only killing his wife and not the other 10 people because he prayed about the rest of them. and Rob dies. provided he reasonably believed the bomb casings he took where abandoned. 8. Veach or 158-159 Specific and General Intent.) Tony is walking down the street with this GF. 5.) 6. Which answer best describes Archie’s Circumstance?  A. or should’ve known that he could have easily disarmed Sal again.) Frank and his brother robbed a liquor store and fired warning shots. Simi has a heart attack during the robbery.**MIDTERM QUESTIONS** 1. Tony gets mad and pulls out a knife and threatens him.No casual relationship between the robbery and the death. 7. Don calls Simone a disgrace. Who is responsible for his death?  C.Even though Tony didn’t use the knife. bathe. o Define Aggressor3. Necessity Component.No because the 9. General Intent Crime.) Shortly after giving birth to Sarah.(U. Is Momo liable for felony murder in relation to Simi’s death?  D. Ralphie claims self-defense in Sal’s death  C. so no felony murder. He goes into a Federally owned dumping ground.) Ex post Facto= Legislature problems 4. v. he was the aggressor due to his weapon. Who is the AGGRESSOR?  C. Shop owner tried to stop them by shooting but accidentally shot a customer. 44 .Archie is not guilty. 2. but he had headphones on the whole time and was totally unaware of the robbery in action. Which answer is most accurate regarding his first-degree murder charge?  B.Frank is not guilty.He is not guilty because he was not aware that the 10 other passengers would die.Momo because his original conduct lead to the death of Rob. Should she be convicted of Felony Murder Rule under the Abstract Test?  A. Dawn went on a drug bings where she forgot to feed.

) Momo robbed a liquor store and a cop chases after him and falls through air-shaft and dies. late one night. He tries to claim voluntary intoxication. After she yells rape.Prosecution because he dies in pursuit of a felony pursuing felonious conduct.) …….Bebo can claim self-defense 13.Alice should be found guilty of murder 15.Santos wont prevail because necessity is not a proper defense for legislature 16.Camille should be acquitted. “A person who voluntarily violates this crime will be charged.) Joe visits his ex wife to discuss their children. 12.  D.B should be found guilty because Duress isn’t a defense in murder.) B lives in Englewood a high crime area. Momo is charged with Felon Murder. They live in a strict liability jurisdiction and Joe pleads innocent to the DUI. will she prevail?  No because the threat was not imminent. She unknowingly to Joe. He claims Necessity as his defense. On their walk home his sisters life is threatened and since the police never help. HE is charged with murder and claims he acted under duress. Which best described the outcome?  B.Joe may not claim voluntary intoxication as a defense. 18.) B invited some friends over to binge watch a tv show and drink. 45 . will he prevail?  C.10. 11.) Donald threatens to kill Maggie once she has her baby in 3 months and when he turns to walk away she stabs and kills him. fills his drink with tasteless vodka and is arrested for a DUI. 17.  C. Prosecutors charge him for assaulting an officer and he claims defense under the alter ego rule  B-Because Zena had no legal right to resist. He notices that the police never come when he calls or if they do they come hours later.) Walking down Michigan Ave. 14. B turns to the local gangster for help and he helps him but later forces him to kill Emma. Rob pushes the man off of her and tells her to run. If she tries to use the self-defense claim.) Alice planned to kill Barb but she came home to find barb in bed with her husband  D. He later finds out he was an FBI lawfully arresting her. Rob sees a man take a girl to the ground intending to get her to lay face down.” Which is most accurate if the jury believes Camille?  A. He later found Bebo in bed with his wife so he charged at him with a knife and  D.) D is told he has 2 years to live and the only way to save his life is to illegally smoke pot.