This action might not be possible to undo. Are you sure you want to continue?
Theories of punishment a. Prevention/Intimidation/Particular Deterrence/Punishment i. Aims to deter the specific criminal ii. Give criminal unpleasant experience, so he won’t repeat offend iii. Pro: don’t know what the rate of recidivism would be without this iv. Cons: 1. Is this effective given the high rate of recidivism? 2. May produce feelings of revenge against society in the prisoner b. Restrain/Incapacitation/Isolation/Disablement i. Pro: 1. Society must protect itself from offenders 2. Used to justify death penalty and life without parole ii. Con: 1. Those who present a danger of continuing criminality can rarely be identified 2. Most prisoners will eventually be returned to society anyway c. Rehabilitation/Correction/Reformation i. Pro: 1. Return offender to society reformed so that he will not commit crimes 2. Focus on making offenders life better 3. Rests on the theory that human behavior is the product of antecedent causes. ii. Con: 1. Sees offenders as lacking dignity and capable of manipulation 2. Uncertainty as to ability to reform offenders 3. Injustice done to offenders who are treated differently on the presumption that they are somehow different, increased by the uncertainty as to the effectiveness of the reformation d. Deterrence/General Prevention i. Pro: to prevent others, aside from the criminal, from committing future crime ii. Con: 1. Difficult to measure effectiveness 2. Expert criminals and those who commit emotional crimes unlikely to be deterred. 3. Probability of discovery may be more influential e. Education i. Pro 1. Educates the public as to the distinctions between good and bad conduct 2. Especially helpful with malum prohibitum offenses f. Retribution/Revenge/Retaliation i. It is only fitting that one who has caused harm should have to suffer harm; society needs revenge ii. Con: morally indefensible Classification of Crimes a. Felony vs. Misdemeanor i. Statutory distinction ii. Felony—usually a crime that is punished by death, imprisonment for more than a year (sometime in the state penitentiary)—Melton v. Oleson (course handout); determined by the possible rather than actual punishment imposed
Competent evidence tending to establish the facts of the case is sufficient to establish the corpus delicti of the crime of murder b. Act must be voluntary b. Death b. IV. At the very least there must be established. Punishments that result in imprisonment in a penitentiary or hard labor. Moreland) i. Malum in se and malum prohibitum c. iv. c. Melton v. Defined by the possible (not actual) punishment rather than the crime iii. Corpus delicti i. whether felony or misdemeanor. State and federal definitions may differ-Elements of a crime a. Harm Homicide Generally a. Infamous Crimes (US v. The criminal agency of another as the cause of death iv. For the purposes of establishing corpus delicti. Circumstantial evidence v. accident or suicide. the identity of the accused as the other who caused the death c. Warmke v. Sheriff. Corpus delicti and ii. i. Commonwealth—a body need not be recovered to establish corpus delicti. the fact of death and that it resulted from the criminal agency of another and not from natural causes. Causation d. Oleson—The character of the offense. Bad thoughts alone can not constitute a crime.III. Mens rea c. Downey v. Elements a.e. US Constitution requires that these crimes be charged by grand jury indictment ii. Misdemeanor—any crime that is not a felony (punishable by imprisonment of less than one year and in a local jail) iv. must be determined by the laws of the jurisdiction where the crime was committed. Defined—the killing of a human being by another human being b. Cases a. independent of an confession or admission by the accused. iii. Essential element of felonious homicide iii. Felonious homicide i. What qualifies as life . Defined—the body of the crime ii. Established by: a. Actus reus i. Clark County—Confessions of criminal agency causing death require independent corroboration of the evidence. death may be shown by circumstantial evidence in the form of proof of criminal violence adequate to produce death and which accounts for the disappearance of the body. People—corpus delicti established by circumstantial evidence. Direct or b. Hicks v. must be commission or omission ii. d. b.
etc. Common law: “The cessation of life. Michigan Assaultive Abortion Statute—willful killing of an unborn quick child by injury to the mother of such child. knowingly. kidnapping or felonious escape.i. The absence of reflexes c. recklessly or negligently cases the death of another human being. b. defined by physicians as a total stoppage of the circulation of the blood and a cessation of the animal and vital functions consequent thereon. be guilty of manslaughter.0(1)—“human being” means a person who has been born and is alive. Guthrie) b. Malice aforethought for murder (mens rea) i. Such recklessness or indifference is presumed if the actor is engaged or is an accomplice in the commission of. 3. burglary. Majority—birth (People v.” b. such as respiration. Murder a. arson. ii. which would be murder if it resulted in death of such other.2 Murder (CB 216)—Criminal homicide constitutes murder when: 1. or substance whatever. or an attempt to commit. Defined: i. MPC 210. Intent to kill murder ii. or negligent homicide. Criminal homicide is murder. (CB 216) d. Viable fetus ii. MPC 210. A person is guilty of criminal homicide if he purposely.1 Criminal Homicide (CB 216) i. Murder is a felony of the first degree. End a. Intent to do serious bodily injury murder V. e. manslaughter. or shall employ any instrument by any other means. Brain death (majority of states) i. Manslaughter by Abortion Statute—administer to any woman pregnant with quick child any medicine. in the case of death of such child or of such mother be thereby produced. Fetus. unless the same shall have been necessary to preserve the life of the mother. It is committed purposely or knowingly 2. the ceasing to exist. The absence of spontaneous movements or breathing iii. MPC 210. pulsation. Fierro e. shall be deemed manslaughter. ii. Beginning a. deviate sexual intercourse by force or threat of force. It is committed recklessly under circumstances manifesting extreme indifference to the value of human life. with the intent thereby to destroy such a child. People v. Common law—The unlawful killing of another living human being with malice aforethought ii. rape. even nonviable c. Unresponsiveness to normally painful stimuli ii. Minority i. . drug. shall. or flight after committing or attempting to commit robbery.
MPC--A person is guilty of criminal homicide under the Model Code if he unjustifiably and inexcusably takes the life of another human being [MPC § 210. State) 1. iii. or negligently. The reasonableness of such explanation or excuse shall be determined from the viewpoint of a person in the actor’s situation under the circumstances as he believes them to be. manslaughter. 3. A homicide which would otherwise be murder is committed under the influence of extreme mental or emotional disturbance for which there is a reasonable explanation or excuse. Farris) a. Elements of Voluntary Manslaughter (State v. but not for the killing). MPC 210.2 CB p.VI. Defendant was sufficiently provoked b.0(1)] purposely. [MPC § 210. b. It is committed recklessly. The Model Penal Code rejects the degrees-of-murder approach. Depraved heart murder (Banks v. terror or some other extreme emotion . iv. knowingly. or 2. Should not withdraw the issue of malice when looking at the felony murder rule. incorporated under the MPC as mens rea (see above MPC 210. look at the felony in the abstract and not on the particular facts of the case. People v.1(1)] The Code recognizes three forms of criminal homicide: murder. Still must find malice express or implied— manifest with an intent with conscious disregard for life to commit acts likely to kill iv. At common law negligent homicide is included in manslaughter. c. Criminal homicide constitutes manslaughter when: 1. Manslaughter is a felony of the second degree. Felony murder 1. The commission of felony may be enough to get to murder— contrast with MPC approach where felony only substitutes for mens rea. 216) 2. 2. recklessly. (Note: this belief does NOT have to be reasonable. fear. At common law: a. Top down approach (Voluntary) 1. cannot shield himself from the consequences of his acts by disclaiming malice. iii. also note that this is an excuse for the mental state. The intentional doing of any wrongful act in such a manner and under such circumstances as that the death of a human being may result there from is malice. sudden resentment. One who deliberately uses a deadly weapon in such a reckless manner as to evince a heart reckless of social duty and fatally bent on mischief. Felony must be inherently dangerous to human life ii. as is shown by firing into a moving railroad train upon which human beings necessarily are. Manslaughter a. In assessing the peril. Phillips (handout) i. Common law i. and (unlike the common law) negligent homicide.3 Manslaughter (CB 217) i. Mitigation from Murder 2. By conduct which aroused rage.
an assault. (Criminally negligent homicide) c. Words alone will not furnish adequate provocation for this purpose. in an unlawful manner. d. Misdemeanor Manslaughter Rule 3. The defendant is guilty of manslaughter rather than murder 3. During the commission of a misdemeanor (which is inherently dangerous to human life). (Misdemeanor manslaughter) b. Criminally negligent homicide (not separate offense as provided under the MPC) a. People v. of course. too slight in itself to be sufficient provocation. or without due caution or circumspection. Bottom up approach (Involuntary)—the unlawful killing of a human being without malice aforethought and without intent to kill 1. which involves a high risk of death or great bodily harm. and from this passion rather than from judgment. the manslaughter occurred during the commission of a battery and therefore was considered misdemeanor manslaughter. Grugin: informational words may constitute provocation (I’m having an affair). at the time of his act so disturbed or obscured by some passion—not necessarily fear and never. Borchers (CB 188)—The fundamental inquiry in determining whether homicide is a voluntary manslaughter is whether or not the defendant’s reason was. e. People v. 2. A motion towards defendant at the time of the killing which could have been an attempt to strike the defendant or move for a weapon. not amounting to a felony. when coupled with words of great insult. to reduce murder to manslaughter. In this case. . may become sufficient for that purpose.” ii. In the commission of an act ordinarily lawful. Involuntary manslaughter may occur in the commission of an unlawful act. or in the commission of an unlawful act. Here no evidence tending to suggest the knowledge that leaving children at home alone might result in death. The act must be one which has knowable and apparent potentialities for resulting in death. There are circumstances where words amount to a provocation in law. Williams: Unlawful killing occurs: a. CONTRAST with State v. Factors that contribute to provocation (State v. the passion of revenge—to such an extent as would render ordinary men of average disposition liable to act rashly or without due deliberation and reflection. Prior threats of killing both defendant and a member of his family c. People v.c. And the provocation was such that an ordinary person of average disposition would have lost self-control and not yet cooled (CONTRAST: Common law ordinary person standard with the MPC approach which does not have an ordinary person standard). Prior bad acts of the victim directed at the defendant and the members of the defendant’s family b. Rodriguez (CB 200)—California Rule: mother left her children at home alone when the house caught fire and her infant died. which might produce death. It is generally held that an act is criminally negligent when a man of ordinary prudence would foresee that the act would cause a high degree of risk of death or great bodily harm. d. Farris) a.
Criminal homicide constitutes negligent homicide when it is committed negligently b. involves a gross deviation from the standard of care that a reasonable person would observe in the actor’s situation. its disregard involves a gross deviation from the standard of conduct that a lawabiding person would observe from the actor’s situation. MPC 210. Watkins (CB 205—bar fight case)—while a jury might not believe that a reasonable man would be in fear of his life under the circumstances of the case. Includes: 1. The risk must be of such a nature or degree that the actor’s failure to perceive it. All other kinds of murder shall be deemed murder of the second degree. People v. Drum (CB 153)— i. is the applicable standard.4 Negligent Homicide (MPC ONLY) (CB 217) a. deliberate and premeditated killing. considering the nature and purpose of the actors conduct and the circumstances known to him. Not all states have criminal negligence statutes—those that do usually limit to certain offenses such as vehicular homicide. Bier (CB 202—trailer park case)—a person acts negligently with respect to a result or to a circumstance described by a statute defining an offense when he consciously disregards a risk that the result will occur or that the circumstance exists or if he disregards a risk of which he should be aware that the result will occur or that the circumstance exists. d. rape. Mitigation to negligent homicide: People v. f.02 (c) (CB 742) Recklessly i. Classification of Murder a. VIII. g. ii. Deliberate—if this intention be accompanied by such circumstances as evidence a mind fully conscious of its own purpose and design . or in which shall be committed in the perpetration of. Mere inattention or mistake judgment resulting even in death of another is not criminal unless the quality of the act makes it so. MPC 2. Gross deviation that is a considerably greater than lack of ordinary care. Willful—if an intention to kill exists iv. iii. e. though an unreasonable one. that he feared for his life. Unlawful killing under circumstances of depravity of heart and a disposition of mind regardless of social duty 2. shall be deemed murder of the first degree. All murder which shall be perpetrated by means of poison or by lying in wait or by any other kind of willful. A person acts recklessly with respect to a material element of an offense when he consciously disregards a substantial and unjustifiable risk that the material element exists or will result from his conduct. or burglary. they might in fact believe that the defendant held a good faith belief. The risk must be of such a nature and degree that. State v. If no intention to kill exists or can be inferred or collected from the circumstances.VII. A person acts negligently with respect to a material element of an offense when he should be aware of a substantial and unjustifiable risk that the material element exists or will result from his conduct. Negligent homicide is a felony of the third degree c.02 (d) (CB 743) Negligently i. MPC 2. considering the nature and purpose of his conduct and the circumstances known to him. Must be a foreseeable risk—victim foreseeably endangered. robbery. or attempt to perpetrate any arson. Such a belief would entitle him to a verdict of criminally negligent homicide rather than murder.
Involuntary—in the commission of an unlawful act b. Attempts by physical menace to put another in fear of imminent serious bodily injury. c. 1.) There is NO necessity of resultant bodily harm for criminal battery at common law. 230)—There may be an attempt to commit a battery and hence an assault under circumstances where the intended victim is unaware of the danger. Simple Assault.e. ii. Attempts to cause or purposely or knowingly causes bodily injury to another with a deadly weapon (felony in the third degree) d. or to frame the plan to carry this design to execution vi. Apprehension on the part of the victim is not an essential element of that type (attempted battery) of assault. Wilson (handout)—independent felony rule: A felony is independent of the homicide if the purpose of committing the felony is to kill. whether or not the actor believed the firearm to be loaded. assault with a deadly weapon. Simple assault is a misdemeanor unless committed in a fight or scuffle entered into by mutual consent. Two definitions of assault: i. MPC 211. People v. or 3. knowingly. and to select the instrument. Cornett (handout) i. MPC 211. in which case it is a petty misdemeanor. To constitute deliberate and premeditated killing. Recklessness and danger shall be presumed where a person knowingly points a firearm at or in the direction of another. This is the PURPOSE TEST. Bell (CB p. b.IX. Minority view (1): To have a criminal assault you must have an attempted battery . the slayer must weigh and consider the question of killing and the reasons for and against such a choice and. Negligently causes bodily injury to another with a deadly weapon. Battery: unlawful application of force upon the person of another (in the absence of PRIVILEGE. i. Three views of assault: i. self-defense. e. Attempts to cause serious bodily injury to another or causes such injury purposely. or 2. v. or recklessly under circumstances manifesting extreme indifference to the value of human life (felony in the second degree).2 Recklessly Endangering Another Person (CB 248)A person commits a misdemeanor if he recklessly engages in conduct which places or may place another person in danger of death or serious bodily injury.1 Assault (CB 248) i. US v. Assault and Battery a. People v. but rather the extent of the reflection. decide to and commit the unlawful act causing death. A person is guilty of aggravated assault if he: 1. knowingly or recklessly causes bodily injury to another. Attempted battery ii. A person is guilty of assault if he: 1. or 2. The true test is not the duration of time. An act putting another in reasonable apprehension of bodily harm c. Manslaughter—unlawful killing of another without malice express or implied. ii. Attempts to cause or purposely. Premeditated—if sufficient time be afforded to enable the mind fully to frame the design to kill. Aggravated Assault. or cause serious bodily injury. having in mind the consequences. Defendant’s attempt to rape an insensitive victim was assault. Voluntary—in a sudden heat 2.
V has no apprehension No—attempted battery without present ability Yes—attempted battery. Once you show a battery. Minority view (2): Criminal assault is an attempted battery and the present (actual not merely reasonable belief) ability to complete the battery iii. Hypothetical: Defendant purposely points gun at victim. a bodily movement during unconsciousness or sleep 3. but the V knows the gun is not loaded Yes—attempted battery No—attempted battery without present ability Yes—attempted battery. MPC 2. though it is unloaded No—no attempt to Yes—attempted commit battery battery No—no attempt to commit battery and no present ability No—for the tort claim the D must have intent to cause apprehension if the D knows its not loaded knows the V knows it is not loaded. if the possessor knowingly procured or received the thing possessed or was aware of his control thereof for a sufficient period to have been able to terminate his possession. X. A person is not guilty of an offense unless his liability is based on conduct which includes a voluntary act or the omission to perform an act of which he is physically capable. f. The gun is not loaded. iii. The following are not voluntary acts within the meaning of this section: 1. No under tort definition because the victim can not be in apprehension if he knows the battery can not happen Both D and V know Both D and V think that the gun is not that the gun is loaded loaded. (CB 455) i. tort definition yes also because the D intends battery and the V is in apprehension. either conscious or habitual. within the meaning of this section. b. Blackstone—intent can only be surmised by the commission of an overt act in furtherance of the intention. there has been an assault.ii. Does the defendant know that the gun is not loaded? 3. Possession is an act. a bodily movement that otherwise is not a product of the effort or determination of the actor. ii. but the V thinks the gun is loaded Minority 1 No assault because no attempted battery—no intent Minority 2 No assault because no attempted battery—no intent Majority Assault under tort definition—if the defendant has intent to cause apprehension (does the defendant know that the victim thinks the gun is loaded) D thinks gun is loaded. . conduct during hypnosis or resulting from hypnotic suggestion 4. Jacobs. 1. Majority view: criminal assault requires attempted battery or tort definition of assault iv. What do you need to know? 2.01 Requirement of a voluntary act. (US v. Defendant pulls the trigger. CB 232) Actus Reus a. a reflex or convulsion 2. Does the victim know that the gun is not loaded? D knows gun is not loaded.
it is the combination of the two which constitutes criminal guilt. Perkins on mens rea: i. e. A duty to perform the omitted act is otherwise imposed by law. Mens Rea a. State v. d. Intended consequences are those which: i. State v. The law dies not concern itself with mere guilty intention. MPC 2. Where a statute outside of the criminal code provides for imprisonment and the legislature has not shown an intent to dispense with a culpable mental state. unconnected with any overt act. where one has assumed a contractual duty to care for another 4. Enforcement of statutes purely penal in nature serves no purpose where the violation was unintentional or inadvertent ii. Milwaukee & St. United States (CB 503)—Omission of a duty to care resulting in the death of the one whom the duty is owed is chargeable with manslaughter. Legal duties: 1. The actus reus is not hitting the victims with the car. or b. Chicago. Specific intent: additional intent specifically required for the guilt of the particular offense. 5. Liability for the commission of an offense may not be based on an omission unaccompanied by action unless: a. Omission as Basis of Liability (CB 509) 1. Paul Railway i. ii. On the positive side there must be found an intent to do the deed which constitutes the actus reus of the offense charged. d. Common Law: Jones v. statutorily imposed duty to care for another 2.XI. Decina (CB 451)—the conscious act was driving the car when the driver knew that he was prone to seizures and thus he has committed the requisite actus reus for negligent homicide. iv.01. People v. Omission as actus reus: i. The omission is expressly made sufficient by the law defining the offense. On the negative side there must not be found any factor which is sufficient for exculpation iii. where once stands in certain status relationship to another 3. Represent the very purpose for which an act is done (regardless of the likelihood of occurrence) or ii. Peery—specific intent crime: the evidence must be sufficient to sustain a finding that the misconduct complained of was committed with the deliberate intent of being indecent or lewd rather than the result of carelessness or thoughtlessness. the prosecution must at least establish criminal negligence to convict. State v. Neither actus reus or mens rea is sufficient for conviction. General mens rea is common to all true crime b. c. Quick (CB 448)—defendant convicted of unlawful manufacture of intoxicating liquor. Are known to be substantially certain to result (regardless of desire) e. where one has voluntarily assumed the care of another and so secluded the helpless person as to prevent others from rendering aid. c. (from notes) where a parent has a legal duty to protect others from their child ii. (from notes) where one has created the peril in the first place 6. .
CB 683) 1. is conditioned upon the party assailed refusing to do something which the assailant has NO RIGHT to require him to do. is presumed either to have forged it or to have the necessary intent to defraud. This is a rebuttable presumption. the element is established although the purpose is conditional. and negligently ii. it is his conscious object to engage in conduct of that nature or to cause such a result. (CB 743) h. or passing it. iii. The intent must be ACTUAL not CONDITIONAL. and in others. recklessly. under like circumstances. If the element involves the nature of his conduct or a result thereof. might be the state of mind of some other person. A direct. If the threatened injury. no intent for burglary iv. Purposely. The intent to commit it and b. knowingly. Except as provided in 2. Majority—SUBJECTIVE TEST: the gist of the offense is the defendant’s state of mind…and not what. ii.02(6)—Requirement of Purpose Satisfied if the Purpose is Conditional. as the law may require. To be guilty of an attempt (to murder) there must be specific intent (to kill) f. If the element involves the attendant circumstances. 2.02 General Requirements of Culpability i. . A person acts purposely with respect to a material element of an offense when: a.05 a person is not guilty of an offense unless he acted purposely. Commonwealth (CB 659): 1. MPC 2. it will constitute an assault even though the conditions are complied with and therefore no violence is used. handout)—It has been held in this state. ii. 2. unless the condition negatives (eliminates) the harm or evil sought to be prevented by the law defining the offense. recklessly. Conditional Intent i. The circumstances must have that affect upon his mind. and b. that a person possessing a recently forged document. Minimum Requirements of Culpability. but it does shift the burden to the defendant to explain his incriminating conduct. 1. or negligently.i. especially not conditioned upon non compliance with a proper demand. g. handout)—the specific intent charged is the gist of the offense and must be proven as charged in the indictment. he is aware of the existence of such circumstances or he believes or hopes that they exist. MPC rejects specific intent: MPC mens rea is purposely. Kinds of Culpability Defined. coupled with the present ability to inflict it. with respect to a material element of the offense. Dobbs Case (CB 659): Prisoner acquitted of killing horse when his intention was merely to harm the horse and prevent it from running. Common Law: State v. The statute does not punish one too dull to realize his offense. Thacker v. When a particular purpose is an element of an offense. May (forgery case. knowingly. Beale (sale of stolen goods case. State v. ineffectual act done towards its commission. State of Mind i. People v. An attempt to commit a crime is composed of 2 elements: a. to constitute knowledge by him. Minority—OBJECTIVE TEST: response to difficulty of ascertaining defendant’s true state of mind. Conners (union case. MPC Mens Rea—2.
They are enforced on the basis of strict liability unless the particular statute or ordinance adds some limitation. Stephens (rubbish in river case.3. iii. iv. unless he actually believes that it does not exist. The Queen v. however. State v. he is aware that is conduct is of that nature or hat such circumstances exist. if the element involves the nature of his conduct or the attendant circumstances. if there is any reasonable basis in the evidence upon which the jury could believe that the accused thought he had a right to take possession of is automobile. 2. which are simply mala prohibita. the mental element is not necessary for the commission of the crime. such knowledge is established if a person is aware of a high probability of its existence. Strict Liability i. Koczwara (employee violates liquor code case. j. defendants knowledge of the illegal element. Olshefski (truck weight violation case. Commonwealth v. and one who does an act in violation of the statute and is caught and prosecuted. wherein an offense carries a jail sentence. A person acts knowingly with respect to a material element of an offense when: 1. Ignorance or Mistake i. criminal responsibility in cases involving true cries is unthinkable. Liability for true crimes. . CB 707)—in statutory crimes. Commonwealth v. then the issue should be presented to the jury. and 2. The very essence of the criminal offense is the intentional wrongdoing of the defendant so that the defendant himself must know that he is doing wrong. Presumption of knowledge of the law is rebuttable in a prosecution for an offense requiring a specific intent. but really to prevent the nuisance from being continued. Malum prohibitum offenses are not true crimes and the normal mens rea requirement of crime does not attach. or if the evidence in that regard is such that it might raise a reasonable doubt that he had the intent to steal. 4. MPC 2. is guilty of the crime irrespective of his intent or belief. Cude (CB 835)—It is fundamental that an essential element of larceny is the intent to steal the property of another. Benesch (handout)—to constitute criminal intent necessary to establish a conspiracy there must be both knowledge of the existence of the law and knowledge of its actual or intended violation. ii. Commonwealth v. is necessary for conspiracy to commit a malum prohibitum offense. ii. CB 720)—allowable to carry over strict liability to respondent superior cases where there is a light monetary fine. When knowledge of the existence of a particular fact is an element of an offense. General rule is that ignorance is only a defense in specific intent crimes 3.02(7) Requirement of Knowledge Satisfied by Knowledge of High Probability. must be based exclusively on personal causation.02(2)(b) Knowingly. Consequently. iii. The element involves a result of his conduct. I think that the evidence which would support a civil action would be sufficient to support an indictment. handout)—inasmuch as the object of the indictment is not to punish the defendant. i. he is aware that it is practically certain that his conduct will cause such a result. Criminal intent. MPC 2. Mistake of Law 1.
unless the definition of the offense or the Code so provides. Although ignorance or mistake would otherwise afford a defense to the offense charged. Lambert v. A belief that conduct does not legally constitute an offense is a defense to a prosecution for that offense based upon such conduct when: a. it is made plain that the legislature intended to prohibit the act absolutely. 4. administration or enforcement of the law defining the offense. Ignorance or Mistake of Fact 1. (ii) a judicial decision. 2. 2. or b. or b. The defendant must prove a defense arising under subsection 3 of this section by the preponderance of the evidence.02(9) Culpability as to Illegal Conduct (CB 846). 1. The mistake must serve to negate he culpability required for the offense 2. judgment. iv. The ignorance or mistake negatives the purpose.5. MPC (CB 846). meaning or application of the law determining the elements of an offense. Those in which either from the language or scope and object of the enactment to be construed. or negligence required to establish a material element of the offense. iii. the defense is not available if the defendant would have been guilty of another offense had the situation been as he supposed. however. ii. ignorance or mistake of the defendant shall reduce the grade or degree of the offense of which he may be convicted to those of the offense of which he would have been guilty had the situation been as he supposed.04 Ignorance or Mistake. recklessness. The King v. 2. The law provides that the state of mind established by such ignorance or mistake constitutes a defense. In such cases. Ignorance or mistake as to a matter of fact or law is a defense if: a. 3. Neither knowledge nor recklessness or negligence as to whether conduct constitutes an offense or as to the existence. knowledge. afterward determined to be invalid or erroneous. Defendant’s failure to register was wholly passive and she has had not received proper notice of the statutory requirement to register. or (iv) an official interpretation of the public officer or body charged by law with responsibility for interpretation. and the question of the existence of a guilty . contained in (i) a statute or other enactment. The statute or other enactment defining the offense is not known to the actor and has not been published or otherwise reasonably made available prior to the conduct alleged. (iii) an administrative order or grant of permission. California (CB 843)—A law which punished conduct which would not be blameworthy in the average member of the community would be too severe for the community to bear. Defense of mistake of fact is comprised of three elements: a. belief. Mistake must be about a matter of fact c. Ewart—Three classes of required mens rea: a. or opinion. He acts in reasonable reliance upon an official statement of the law. Mistake must be honest and reasonable b.
and the proof of justification or excuse lies on the defendant to overcome this legal and natural presumption (People v. Figuredo: Wharton’s Rule. you can not charge conspiracy to commit a crime that necessarily involves the participation of two or more people. When the concerted action was not logically necessary. following the common law rule. Cali—even though the fire was started accidentally. Exception to Wharton’s rule: 1. XIII. or to prove a guilty mind. MPC 213. They had previous intent to kill her. Conspiracy i. When the criminality depends on the child’s being below a critical age other than 10. yet the person charged may still discharge himself by proving to the satisfaction of the tribunal that he had not a guilty mind. c. Vogel. although from the omission from the statute of the words knowingly or willful is not necessary to aver in the indictment that the offense charged was knowingly or willfully committed. Those in which. Jackson v. it is no defense that the actor did not know the child’s age. mind is only relevant for the purpose of determining the quantum of the punishment for the offense (strict liability) b. Commonwealth v. Cash) b. Inchoate Crimes a. This is sufficient concurrence between mens rea and actus reus. a guilty mind must either be necessarily inferred from the nature of the act done or established by independent evidence (independent proof of mens rea) c. bigamy case. Commonwealth—the mens rea led to the series of events that culminated in the death of the victim. Redundant to charge them for both. Charging them for conspiracy doubles the punishment in a way unintended by the legislature. When the act is proved to have been done by the accused. Concurrence of Act and State of Mind a. Bigamy and Polygamy. MPC 230. Provisions Generally Applicable to sexual offenses Mistake as to age. if it be an act in itself unlawful. It does not matter that the defendants thought the victim was dead when the decapitated her. Hernandez) but in the majority of states it is not (People v. handout) 4.XII. (rebuttable presumption) 3. the law in the first instance presumes it to have been intended. Those is which. Whenever in this article the criminality of conduct depends on a child’s being below the age of 10. Common Law—sometimes reasonable mistake valid defense (People v. or reasonably believed the child to be older than 10. it is a defense for the actor to prove by a preponderance of the evidence that he reasonably believed the child to be above the critical age. and the commission of the act in itself prima facie imports an offense. b. Mistake of age— a. US v. The punishment for conspiracy is already bundled into the elements of the substantive crime. even though as a practical matter the offense could not be committed without cooperation . When the offense could have been committed by one of the conspirators alone 2. the insured formed the intent to defraud the insurance company after the fire had started and thus did not take steps to extinguish the fire.1 (CB 859).6 (CB 858).
ii. an intent to commit the specific offense and 2. are all guilty of conspiracy. MPC 5. The act was done in execution of the enterprise. The rule which holds responsible one who counsels. Agrees with such other person or persons that they or one or more of them will engage in conduct which constitutes such crime or attempt or solicitation to commit such a crime. or b. US v. It was formed for the purpose. (CB 538-9) 1. (5) Overt Act. Where a statute provides that corroboration among a certain number of persons is necessary to constitute guilt. procures. with the intent to commit a specific offense. ii.03 Criminal Conspiracy. Paluch (handout. which is an added evil. or commands another to commit a crime is founded on the same principle. so that the injury might result. an act which is a substantial step towards its commission . That principle is recognized in the law of conspiracy when the overt act of one partner in crime is attributable to all. not merely sell the goods with knowledge of how they might be used. handout)—in order to constitute the crime. Two elements must be present to constitute an attempt: 1. Definition of Conspiracy. State (forgery case. Agrees to aid such other person or persons in the planning or commission of such crime or of an attempt or solicitation to commit such a crime. attempted barbery case)—A person commits an attempt when. Act must be reasonably foreseeable. b. The defendants in the adultery case add someone who is playing a logically unnecessary role in the crime. Test: If the defendant had accomplished everything he had intended to do. vi. but also an act of alteration done to a material part. and persons in excess of the statutory requisite number are charged. Falcone (handout)—two views of sale of goods used in illegal manufacture: (1) seller is guilty if he had notice that the goods would be used for an illegal purpose. If no. US (CB 516)—persons committing a crime in which one of them statutorily exempted from committing can not be convicted of a conspiracy to commit that crime. United States (CB 527-8): The unlawful agreement contemplated precisely what was done. Attempt i. A person is guilty of conspiracy with another person or persons to commit a crime if with the purpose of promoting or facilitating its commission he: a. application of Wharton’s rule shall be based on the nature of the excess collaborators rather than the number of conspirators alone…were they necessary conspirators? iii. Wilson v. When those whose cooperation is necessary for the commission of the substantive crime conspire with another person to commit the offense.3. No person may be convicted of conspiracy to commit a crime. v. 2. other than a felony of the first or second degree. iii. (2) In order to be a conspirator. Pinkerton v. People v. would he defendant have been guilty of a crime. the seller must do an act in furtherance of the conspiracy. then not guilty of an attempt. Gebardi v. he does any act which constitutes a substantial step toward the commission of that offense. iv. there must not only be the intent to commit it. unless an overt ct in pursuance of such conspiracy is alleged and proved to have been done by him or by a person with whom he conspired.
FACTUAL IMPOSSIBILTY.The distinction between preparation and the attempt is largely a matter of degree. vii. incites. Mere preparation to commit a crime does not constitute an attempt to commit it. An overt act is one done to carry out the intention. Solicitation i. . People v. Preddy v. Mitchell (CB 741)—the fact that it is not possible for the defendant to complete the crime is not a defense to the attempt to commit the crime. An act. if the designed felony is accomplished. Rojas (CB 472)—consider whether the defendants are guilty of an attempt before the intervening impossibility occurs. ix. must be immediately.02 (p. Solicitation is a substantive crime in itself. iv. One who counsels. the acts taken in furtherance thereof are such that there is a dangerous proximity to success in carrying out the intent. in part. CONSIDER LEGAL VS. determined by the apprehension which the particular crime is calculated toe excite. People v. Impotency may be a defense where statutorily made so (VA law regarding boys under 14). The crux of the determination of whether the acts are sufficient to constitute an attempt really is whether. MPC 5. is an attempt to commit that crime. 491) ii. Tending means to exert activity in a particular direction. MPC 5. People v. viii. however distinction may not be definitive. State v. vi. If yes. An act done with intent to commit a crime. and it must be such as would naturally effect that result. Impossibility will not be a defense when the defendant had gone far enough in an attempt even prior to what rendered completion of the act impossible. 3. the greater the likelihood that a would be offender will not follow through with his intended plans. how likely is it that the crime would have been committed? If it was not very likely then they are not guilty of attempt v. The greater the apprehension. Blechman 1. Rizzo (CB 462) 1. If the defendant had accomplished everything he had intended to do.01 Criminal Attempt (CB 490) c. or solicits another to commit a felony. Commonwealth (CB 482)—attempted rape when a man intends to rape a female but finds himself impotent. and not remotely. There must be acts which constitute substantial steps towards the commission of that offense. connected with and directly tending to the commission of an offense. then no attempt. The degree of proximity to the actual commission of the crime necessary for there to be an attempt is. examine the issue of dangerous proximity. unless prevented by some extraneous cause. Neither allegation or proof of the capability to commit the crime is necessary to constitute an attempt to commit the crime. in order to be a criminal attempt. 2. would he be guilty of the completed crime? If the answer is no. when given the specific intent to commit an offense. but otherwise is not. and tending but failing to effect its commission. Test: If it had not been for the interference. Solicitation falls short of an attempt to commit the offense solicited 3. 2. is indictable as a principle or an accessory before the fact. 4.
XIV. counseled or commanded another to commit a crime may withdraw before the act is done and avoid criminal responsibility by communicating the fact of his withdrawal to the party who is to commit the crime iii.03(6) (CB 539) Renunciation of Criminal Purpose. MPC 5.depending upon his presence and participation or absence at the time of its commission. Commonwealth v. Peterson (arson solicitation case. Abandonment i. The King v. 5.04. whether he abandoned that attempt because of the approach of other persons or because of a change in his intentions due to a stricken conscience. thwarted the success of the conspiracy under circumstances manifesting a complete and voluntary (see CB 491) renunciation of his criminal purpose. d. Richardson . CB 488)—One who has procured.01(4). MPC 2. 5. after conspiring to commit a crime. Williams—one cannot become an accessory after the fact to a felony until such a felony has become an accomplished fact. 5. Stewart v. State v. ii. Complicity (CB 568) c. It is an affirmative defense that the actor.05 (CB 490-492) iv.06 Liability for the conduct of another. State (CB487)—once an intent to commit a crime has been formed and overt acts toward the commission of that crime have been committed b a defendant he is then guilty of an attempt. MPC 5. b.02(3). State v. Law— d. Parties to Crime a.
This action might not be possible to undo. Are you sure you want to continue?
We've moved you to where you read on your other device.
Get the full title to continue reading from where you left off, or restart the preview.