CRIMINAL LAW

Law
3 sources of Law:
 Common Law
o Oldest law, 1200- 1950
 Model Penal Code
o Made in 1962 by judges, lawyers and law professors to bring a coherence in the law.
 State Reformation of Law
o Each state knows the CL and MPC and the legislature decides what to use.
o Some states use most of the MPC (NY) and others reflect more of the CL (MI).

Crime
Crime:
 It is a public wrong, prohibited by law and can be punishable

Formula for a Crime:

 Mens rea (guilty mind/heart) + Actus reus (guilty action)= Crime

Elements of a Crime:
1) Mens Rea:
 Guilty mind: Intent, knowledge, recklessness
o Example: Man wants to rob a bank, another guy hands him a gun and says it’s a great idea. They are both
culpable because they both have mens rea to rob the bank. Although they have different actus reus, they
both have all elements of a crime.
o Circumstantial Evidence is used to prove mens rea. It is evidence that allows a reasonable person to
infer what happened based upon the facts. Use the events and circumstances before and after the crime.
2) Actus Reus:
 Guilty Act (in murder, actual pulling of the trigger)
o Look to the conduct, circumstance, and result
o Example: raised the gun, aimed it at someone, the result is that someone died
3) Causation:
 action (actus reus) and thoughts (mens rea) have to cause harm
o Use the facts to analyze what caused the harm
4) Harm:
 whatever happened in the crime
o Example: in a homicide, the harm would be the dead body.

Types of Intent
 Specific: the offender specifically intended the crime and the consequences
 General: the offender intended the act but not the consequences

Punishment
Punishment:
 The consequence of being convicted of a crime.
 The proportionality of the crime must fit the punishment, therefore the crime has to fit the punishment.
o The death penalty is not proportioned to someone raping another, because they did not kill them.
 Thus, a person can legitimately be punished only if he committed a crime, only in proportion to that crime, and
only if doing so would produce a world with less crime.
1
 CRIMINAL LAW

Approaches for the Justification of a Crime:

1. Utilitarian Justifications: the legal theory that a person should be punished on if it is for the good of society –
that is only if the punishment would further the prevention of future harmful conduct. What is best for society.
1. Goals: Deterrence, Incapacitation, Rehabilitation,
 Deterrence (correct behaviour): Specific and General deterrence
 Individual deterrence (Education) – That individual will not offend again because he will
have learned that re-offending will lead to incarceration; often dealt with by the death
penalty (most effective specific deterrent), imprisonment, supervised probation, other forms
of relief
 General deterrence – If we punish people others will be deterred from committing crimes
b/c they don’t want to be punished = to keep others from committing a crime; often dealt by
observing other people having penalties served by crimes. (it is questioned whether death
penalty is a general deterrent)
 Incapacitation
 Imprisonment, death penalty, probationary or parole supervision and accompanying
requirements and prohibitions.
 Rehabilitation
 Not punishment
 High recidivism rate, very expensive
 Not serve the “stigma”
 Society will benefit if offender is rehabilitated

2. Retributive Justifications – punishment is justified b/c people deserve it. The people who commit crimes
deserve punishment
 Morally getting everything back into balance – moral depravity
 Deserve crime and want the punishment
 Two types of Retributivism:
 Assaultive: punish offenders for their crimes based on society’s want of getting even
 Criminals have no rights, they are nothing more than noxious insects
 Protective: we owe it to an offender to allow them to serve time in order to earn their way
back into society.
 Punishment demonstrates respect for the offenders by paying deference to an
individual’s free choice by connecting punishment to a freely chosen act which
violated the rules
 Punishment f a truly culpable individual is seen as a way of respecting the
wrongdoer’s personhood; it is also a way for the wrongdoer to pay his debt to the
community and return to it in moral equilibrium.

Criminal Homicide
Criminal Homicide:
 The unlawful killing of a human being by another human being.
 Two types: murder and manslaughter

2
 CRIMINAL LAW

Intentional Killings: Murder

Common Law
Murder:
 The unlawful killing of another human being with malice aforethought.

Malice Aforethought: If you have one of these mens rea, you have malice and therefore the crime is murder.
Implied Malice: present when no considerable provocation appears, or when the circumstances attending the killing show
an abandoned and malignant heart.
Expressed Malice: There manifested a deliberate intention unlawfully to take away the life of a fellow creature (intent to
kill, but not included in 1st degree murder).
 Intent to Kill (Expressed Malice)
o Awareness that the death of another would result from one’s action.
 Intent to Cause Great Bodily Harm (GBH) (Expressed Malice)
o Knowledge that conduct would cause serious bodily injury.
o Example: Hit someone in the knees and they end up dying, your mens rea is intent to cause great bodily
harm.
 Depraved Heart (Implied Malice)
o An abandoned and malignant heart. Acting with extreme recklessness.
o Example: Going 50 over the speed limit, driving drunk, bad weather in a school zone and hit a child.
 Felony Murder
o Committed during the commission of a felony.
o Example: Robbing a bank and shoots someone, liable for the death and so is the person driving the
getaway car.

Definitions of Wilful, Premeditated, and Deliberate:

 Wilful:
o The want/meant to do it
 Premeditated:
o Thought about beforehand
o Can happen in the split of a second, does not need to be a long time.
 Deliberate:
o Measure and evaluate the major facets of a choice or problem
o Weighing the pros and cons
 Example: Father is deathly ill. Son goes into the hospital and shoots his father, saying he wanted to put him out of
his misery and suffering.
o Wilful: Said he wanted to put his dad out of his misery.
o Premeditated: Brought the gun to the hospital.
o Deliberate: Cocked the gun each time.
 To prove premeditated and deliberate, look at circumstantial evidence (events before and after the crime).
o Categories of Circumstantial Evidence:
 Planning activity: D’s actions before and after the killing (statements and actions)
 Motive: Threats before or after the killing, ill-will between the parties
 Manner of Killing: Lethal blows after the victim was felled, brutal manner of killing

Model Penal Code

Murder: 4 Types
 Purposely: Intentionally aware/desire a result will happen and a conscious act will occur

3
 CRIMINAL LAW

 Knowingly: Knows result will happen/practically certain and aware of high probability of murder.
 Recklessly: Did D foresee harm? Consciously disregards a substantial and unjustifiable risk manifesting extreme
indifference to the value of human life.
o Example: loaded gun in crowd and shooting in the air. (DH).
 Felony Murder

4 types of Mens Rea:

 Purposely: Intentionally aware/desire a result will happen and a conscious act will occur
 Knowingly: Knows result will happen/practically certain and aware of high probability of murder.
o Example: Weapons expert that doesn’t like his wife anymore. He puts a bomb on the plane that she is on.
He doesn’t want everyone to die on the plane, just his wife. The mens rea for the wife is purposely
because he wants/desires the killing and the mens rea for the other people in the plane is knowingly,
because he just knows they will die, but he didn’t want them to die.
 Recklessly: Did D foresee harm? Consciously disregards a substantial and unjustifiable risk.
 Negligently: Risky behaviour and a failure to be aware of the consequences. (Involuntary manslaughter)

4
 CRIMINAL LAW

MPC VOLUNTARY: SPECIFIC INTENT INVOLUNTARY: GENERAL

INTENT
MURDER 1ST DEGREE MURDER: wilful, premeditated, 2ND DEGREE MURDER
 Purposely: deliberated, killing of a human being by another human (DEPRAVED HEART): Acts of
 Knowingly: being a life endangering nature so
 Recklessly  Willful (Specific Intent): specific intent to cause reckless that they manifest a
(Depraved the result of death wanton indifference to human
Heart)  Premeditated : thought about beforehand life.
 Deliberate: to have examined the consequence of  Reckless: any idiot
consequences of committing the crime would know what was
going to happen.
 Extreme Indifference to
results
MANSLAUGHTER 2ND DEGREE MURDER: The intentional killing of a INVOLUNTARY
 No cooling off human being by another, without deliberation MANSLAUGHTER : The
period  Willful: specific intent to cause the death reckless killing of a human being
 Extreme  Premeditated: thought about the crime by another human being
Emotional  Recklessness: the
Disturbance b/c offender knew the risk of
of a reasonable death, but committed the
excuse act regardless.

NEGLIGENT VOLUNTARY MANSLAUGHTER : the intentional NEGLIGENT HOMICIDE: the

HOMICIDE killing of a human being by another human being, done in negligent killing of a human
 Gross the heat of passion, because of reasonably adequate being by another human being
Negligence provocation, with no time to cool off  Negligence: a reasonable
 Heat of Passion: the offender was subjectively out person would have
of control of his faculties known the risk of death
 Adequate Provocation: The reasonable person
would have been provoked to kill under the
circumstances
o Severe Battery
o Mutual Combat
o Threats of death or great bodily harm
against self and immediate family
members
o Cheating spouse
o WORDS ARE NOT ENOUGH!!
 Words + Act= adequate
provocation
 Words can be adequate if
thing described is adequate
 Provocation caused Killing
 No Cooling off period: the killing happened
relatively close in time to the provocation
o No personal quirks

5
 CRIMINAL LAW

o No looking at education and background

o Extraneous forces working upon you

6
 CRIMINAL LAW

Felony Murder
Felony Murder:
 Felony + a killing = Felony Murder
 Felony murder doctrine declares that one is guilty of murder if a death results from conduct during the
commission or attempted commission of any felony.
 Elements:
o Cause death
o During the commission of felony r flight from felony
o Inherently dangerous activity
o Enumerated in the statute
o Agency Doctrine: you or your agent causes the death of someone

Common Law Felonies that could support felony murder are:

Burglary
Arson
Rape
Robbery
Kidnapping
Sodomy

Res Gestae:
 Place of safety
 If the felons return to their place of safety, the felony is over and no felony murder can happen.
 It is determined to when D thinks they have reached a place of safety.

Inherently Dangerous Felony Limitation:

 Looks at the crime in the abstract (pull back from what happened, and look at this crime, it is always dangerous,
and in order to do this, look at the statute for this crime) and does a statutory analysis to determine if the felony is
inherently dangerous to human life (always dangerous to human life).
 BARRKS are always inherently dangerous.
 Example: Violating a traffic act that wouldn’t normally cause death, is not a felony murder.

Aaron Rule: Minority Rule

 To charge with FM must prove some traditional form of malice.
 Must prove both mens rea for felony and for murder.
 Example: D robs a store and shoots clerk and killed them. While D’s husband was in the car thinking D was just
buying something, can husband be charged with FM? No because hard to prove traditional malice.

Merger Doctrine:
 Felony was a key part of the homicide, so the mens rea for the felony merges with the mens rea for the killing that
took place.
 Use the mens rea for the murder itself because they were an intricate part of one another.
 Proves mens rea for one crime.
 Example: Commit assault with a deadly weapon before committing the homicide with a gun.

Independent Felony Doctrine:

 Underlying felony must be independent of the death-producing act, therefore it is not FM because you cannot be
charged with a felony and a murder.
 If the felony is an integral part of the killing (like assault), FM is not the proper charge.
7
 CRIMINAL LAW

 Example: Commit a robbery and someone dies. The robbery could have happened without the killing.

Agency Approach: Majority Rule

 Responsible only for what the agents in a crime do.
 Example: When someone is acting as my agent, we are working together. But if a police officer comes in and
accidentally shoots the clerk, he was not my agent, so I can’t be responsible.

Proximate Approach: Minority Rule

 Whoever sets the wheel in motion, that person is responsible for that death, even though they didn’t kill the
person.
 Example: I’m robbing a liquor store, and someone comes in and wants to join in, pulls out their weapon and kills
someone. Under agency rule, not responsible, but under the proximate rule, I am responsible.

Rape and Criminal Sexual Conduct

Common Law
Rape: Vaginal penetration of a woman by a man, not his wife, against her will, through the use of force or threat of force
 Vaginal Penetration: actual penetration however slight
 By force or threat of force: enough to overcome a reasonable woman’s ability to resist – resistance
o Try to fight back or run away

CSC:
 1st degree (penetration)
o Penetration-however slight
o Resistance – Force
o Personal Injury
 2nd Degree (contact)
o Sexual contact
o Force
o Personal Injury
 3 Degree
rd

o Penetration
o Force
 4 Degree
th

o Contact
o Force

Miscellaneous Crimes
Burglary: Breaking and entering the dwelling house of another at night with the intent to commit a felony therein.
 Mens Rea: The intent to commit a felony therein.
o The intent must be present at the time of breaking and entering; therefore the mens rea and the actus reus
must be concurrent.
o Example: A homeless person goes into a house to stay warm, but when he got into the house he decided
to take a stereo.
 Elements:
o Breaking: Use force however slight

8
 CRIMINAL LAW

 Constructive Breaking: creating an opening by fraud or threat of force, the felon did not
physically do it but they might as well have.
 Example: D lied to gain entry into the house or held V at gunpoint to let them in.
 Actual Breaking: application of force, however slight
 Example: Opening a door/window. If the door is closed but not locked, it is still
considered a breaking.
o Entering: to physically cross into with person or object
 Example: Use a wire hanger to put through a window and take something from the house.
The hanger is used as an extension of the body.
o Dwelling House: A place where a person resides or has resided or within the curtilage of the main
dwelling house
 Designed for human habitation: stand up, move around
 Curtilage: buildings within close proximity of the dwelling house; fenced in, made for
human occupancy
 Curtilage can be cut off by a natural or manmade obstacle.
o Of another: not the dwelling of the offender
o At Night: amount of light in the sky.
 If there was enough sunlight, and you could see what’s going on, it’s not night.
o Intent: To commit a felony therein
 Must have intent to commit felony inside prior to entering the premises

Arson: Malicious burning of the dwelling house of another.

o Mens Rea: Δ must have acted maliciously
 Intends to burn or acts under circumstances that there is a likely, and obvious chance the fire
will burn a dwelling house
o Actus Rea:
 Burning: any act of charring or more to the dwelling house and not the fixtures.
 Dwelling house: people’s home (same as burglary).

Battery: The unlawful use of force resulting in harmful or offensive contact.

 Intent (Mens Rea): to contact
 By Force
 Contact is harmful or offensive
o Π doesn’t have to be aware

Assault (2 types): (1) attempt to commit a battery; (2) apprehension of fear

 Type 1:
o Attempt to commit the battery (successful or not)
 Doesn’t have to be aware
o If attempt is successful, intent can be transferred.
 Type 2:
o Put another in the fear of an imminent battery OR attempt to commit a battery.
 Awareness needed
 Cannot transfer intent
o Fear of apprehension of an immediate battery
 Intent to cause great fear or great bodily harm
 In an aware victim
 With present ability to do so.

9
 CRIMINAL LAW

Kidnapping: Substantial movement from one place to another across a substantial distance or unlawful confinement of
another for a substantial period of time, done through force, fraud, deception or threat, against the victims will, without
lawful authority.
 Substantial movement from one place to another across a substantial distance or unlawful confinement of another
for a substantial period of time.
 Done through force, fraud, deception or threat
 Against victims will
 Without lawful authority
Theft
Larceny: Trespassory Taking and carrying away the personal property of another with intent to permanently deprive
(specific intent).
 Elements:
o Trespassory Taking: To dispossess without consent.
 Against the will of the rightful owner
 Larceny by trick – lie to gain possession
 When you took it you only had custody
o Limited time for a limited purpose
 Having possession of the bags, but not having possession of the money inside the bag, as
soon as you open the bag you are “breaking the bulk”
 Lost property can still be considered larceny
 Grandpa finding money in a bank book
 Horse case with missing money by hitching post
 Missing gold watch at gold course
o Nature of the item
o Circumstances in which its been found
 Can you identify the owner?
o Carrying Away: Asportation or moving away in order to dispossess.
 Any slight movement
o Personal Property: Tangible personal property (not real estate)
o Of Another: Another’s possession
o Intent: to permanently deprive
 The mens rea must be present at the time of trespassory taking, it must be concurrent.
 If the person just wanted to borrow it, then they do not have the mens rea and it is not larceny.
 This is judged on the value of the object taken, if the object is not worth a lot, then the
court tends to believe that they were borrowing it, but if it has a lot of value (diamond
ring), then the court tends to believe they meant to permanently deprive.
 Use circumstantial evidence to prove the mens rea of whether or not they meant to
permanently deprive.
 Return: returning property you didn’t pay for
 Guy is in Mervyns trying to return a shirt he picked up in the store. Security saw him and
told the cashier allow him to return the shirt, he was arrested for larceny. There was no
intent to permanently deprive them of the shirt, but he intended to permanently deprive
them of the money. If he would have been denied the refund, he would have left with the
shirt, depriving them of it anyways.
 Resell: taking property with the intent to sell
 Candle maker’s asst. steals wax from shop. Candle maker sees hoe is low, asst. offered to
sell him wax. It is larceny because either the money or wax will be permanently deprived
 Reward: taking someone’s property waiting on them to post a reward
10
 CRIMINAL LAW

 Cat owner loses cat, neighbors has cat and holds it until the owner post a reward. This is
larceny because the neighbor deprives the owner of the cat or of the reward.

 Custody: physical control with substantial restriction by the person who has constructive possession.
 Temporary limited use
o Example: Property received from employer, store clerk, etc.
o Example: Bailee with goods in a container.
 Constructive Possession: Even though the owner/possessor does not have them in their hands or on them,
they still have possession of them and are free to do what they want with them.
 Taking Possession: Gaining sufficient physical control for property to be used in relatively unrestricted
manner; can be actual or constructive.
o Example: Property lawfully given to employee by 3rd party for employer
o Example: Property taken by trespass
o Example: Property received by fraud or misrepresentation

Embezzlement: when an employee, volunteer, or agent for an organization in a position of trust, takes or receives
anything of value on behalf of the organization and covert it to his or her own use without transfer of possession
 Elements
o Employee, volunteer, or agent
o Of an organization
o Ina position of trust
o Takes or receives anything of value
o Behalf of the organization
o Converts to use of own
o Without transfer of possession
 Bank teller took a deposit from a customer and pocketed the money.
 When he took the money from the customer, he had lawful possession over the money,
but when he uses that money for his own use, it is embezzlement.
 If he took the money from the customer (possession) and put it in the cash drawer he
immediately only has custody of the money. So if he takes money from the drawer, it
would be larceny.
 He has possession of the cash drawer, but custody of the money inside of it. There is
only limited use of the money in the drawer; you are not allowed to do much with the
money.
 If the D only has custody, then there is no embezzlement
 Usually people in big corporations with a great amount of power embezzle because they have possession of large
sums of money for a longer period of time.
*Question: Does he have possession or custody?

False Pretences: the acquiring of both by possession and title through the use of fraud.
 Elements
o The acquiring of
o Both possession and title
o Through the use of fraud
 You get possession and title to it. Commonly seen where things can have a title
o Car – go to dealership, go for a test drive, during the test drive, push dealer out, this constitutes Larceny
by False Pretenses
 Owner parts with title fraudulently in reliance of your false pretenses
o Purchase with false credit card (get title and possession).
11
 CRIMINAL LAW

ACTUS REUS
Types of Actus Reus
 Affirmative: voluntary act or involuntary act done under voluntary circumstances
 Omission: failure to act under a legal duty
o Ex. Parents/legal guardians, firefighters
 Status relationships, contractual obligations, statutory obligations
 Case – no duty exists with an adulterous relationship

Necessity of an Act
 Intent alone, not coupled with some overt act toward putting the intent into effect, is not cognizable by the courts.
 The mere intent to commit a crime is not a crime; an intent to perpetrate is necessary to constitute guilty
 When a Δ’s conduct manifests a disregard of the consequences which may ensue from the act, and indifference to
the rights of others.

Evil Act: criminal act itself

 Murder – death of a human being, breaking a window, stabbing the evil mother in law in the eye, taking the pizza
from the store without paying

Legal Duty to Act

 Statutory requirements.
o Off duty police officers, etc.
 Relationship
o Parent child, and in some cases spousal (only when the other is helpless)
 Contractual obligation
o Involved in a contractual obligation with another to come to aid
 Secret Service
 Assume care
o You begin the process of caring of someone
o Especially if you caused the accident
 Dr.’s have a duty to provide life saving treatment, so long as the in the Drs med. judgment continuing to act will
be effective
o Effective if the patient has a chance of recovering
o A Dr.’s omission to act is not the actus reus of a crime.
__________________________________________________________________________________________
INCHOATE OFFENSES
Inchoate offenses – incomplete crimes
 Something that intervenes w/the attempt to commit the crime (Attempt=tried)
 Doctrine of Merger – if the crime is committed you can’t be charged for both, one goes into the other
o Mens rea: ALL ATTEMPTS MUST BE SPECIFIC ATTEMPT
 You can have specific intent for a general intent crime.
 Shooting gun at moving train, intended to shoot at train but not to kill someone
o In crimes where result hasn’t happened yet – why punish it?
 Allow law enforcement to prevent crime
 Punish the guilty mind (even if act isn’t there)

12
 CRIMINAL LAW

3 Types
 Attempt
 Conspiracy
 Solicitation
Attempt: the incomplete commission for a specific intent crime
 Cannot attempt:
o IVM, Negligent Homicide, Malicious Arson
o Cannot be conspired
 Can attempt:
o Rape Kidnap, Battery, 1st DM, 2nd DM, Voluntary MS, Burglary, Property Crimes
 Approaches to actus reus of attempt
o Last Act (worst for law enforcement)
 You took the last act in the committing of the crime
 Look through the eye of the offender
 Have interfered with your plan
 Commonwealth v. Peaslee – Ct said that while they had essential needed to start fire, they
did not take the last step necessary b/c they were ¼ mile away
 State v. Reeves – Girls were going to poison teacher with rat poison. L.A. jurisdiction,
“Possession of material at or near the scene of a crime. At no lawful purpose of an actor
under the circumstances”
o Res Ipsa Loquitur/Unequivocally – “the thing speaks for itself”
 You look with a bird’s eye view, from the outside, there is only one possible explanation
 Not allowed to know intent or know prior knowledge leading up to the event
 People v. Miller: Guy chases man around with a rifle on the farm, stops to load it, then
hands the gun to the constable. From a bird’s eye view, we have no idea why is handing
the gun to him.
o Substantial step or act (majority approach)
 More than preparation (execution too)
 “Dangerously close” to committing the crime
 Unforeseen circumstances occur
 Robbing bank but before you get in the lights go off and doors lock
 Point at which we would expect law enforcement to intervene.
 Defenses to Attempt
o Impossibility
 Factual Impossibility: NEVER A VALID DEFENSE
 Occurs when, at the time of the attempt, the facts make the intended crime impossible to
commit although the Δ is unaware of this when the attempt is made
 The offender would have fulfilled all elements of the crime but for a mistake of fact
 Legal Impossibility: ALWAYS A VALID DEFENSE
 Where you do something you think is illegal but it is not
 The action the “offender” is conducting is not criminal
 Hybrid Impossibility: VALID DEFENSE IN SOME JURISDICTIONS
 Occurs when you are mistaken about a fact, but the fact is an element of a crime
 If the offender is mistaken about a fact, that fact prevents the offender rom committing
the crime and that mistake prevents the fulfilling an element of the crime
o People vs. Thousand: though girl was older when he sent her obscene pics. Not
guilty b/c factually mistaken.
o Abandonment

13
 CRIMINAL LAW

 Rejecting to participate prior to the last act or the actus reus completed
 Commonwealth v. McCloskey: Prisoner was going to make a break for it and stops after
making one cut in the fence. Valid defense b/c the actus reus is not met.
Solicitation: to ask, hire, encourage, entice or instigate another to commit a crime. It requires communication.
 General Intent
 C.L: no solicitation without actual communication
 MPC: if you undertake a course of conduct designed to effect communication it’s solicitation
 Understood b/w both parties
 If parties agree to request. This is Merger and it is then conspiracy
o Stepfather sends letter to mother to have stepdaughter leave the state so she can’t testify against him for
sexual abuse; letters were never mailed. CL: not solicitation; MPC: solicitation

Conspiracy (Specific Intent)

 An agreement b/w 2 or more people to commit an illegal act or a legal act by illegal means
o Agreement: tacit mutual understanding *understood w/o being openly expressed)
 Specific intent to combine with others
 Specific intent crime to commit the crime
 Mens Rea: specifically intend to combine with another and specifically intend the consequence of the crime
 WHY PUNISH?
o Two people talking about a very serious crime is so dangerous that even talking is bad. The likeliness of it
occurring will be more likely if two people talk about it – the agreement itself makes it more likely.
 Conspiracy does NOT MERGE w/completed offense – used as a serious crime by itself.
o You’re on the hook if the completed crime was reasonably foreseen
 Pinkerton v. US: group tries to defraud the US, Δ said even if he agreed he did not participate, so
did not conspire
 Pinkerton Rule: once the offenders agree they are all guilty of conspiracy. If the crime is
committed all are guilty of the underlying crime. The only way to not be guilty of the
underlying crime is to withdraw, inform every member that you withdraw, and take
affirmative acts to prevent the underlying crime. (tell the police).
 Hypo: Al Quada & Mousauu: if you agree to take flight and karate lessons then the
events that follow the crime are reasonable foreseen and you’re guilty of all of them.
 Must be SPECIFIC intent.
o EX: People v. Lauria – answering service w/prostitutes using it for business. He didn’t combine w/them,
and didn’t think the acts would be prosecuted, or he would benefit.
 When can specific intent be inferred from knowledge?
o Intent may be inferred from knowledge when the purveyor of legal goods for illegal use has acquired a
stake in the venture
 EX: Hotel rented out to a prostitute for more money then to others
o Intent may be inferred from knowledge, when no legitimate use for goods or services esists.
 EX. No other use for book marking then for illegal horse races
o Intent may be inferred from knowledge,w hen the volume of business w/the buyer is grossly
disproportionate to any legitimate demand, or when sales for illegal use amount to a high proportion of
the seller’s total business
 EX: Sales of narcotics is grossly disproportionate to rural physicians.
o BAR EXAM – Rape At Common Law = general intent crime; look for 2 things attached to rape charge;
 Can’t attempt
 Can’t conspire
 For General Intent Crimes

14
 CRIMINAL LAW

 EX: Commonwealth v. Cook – Walking together & girl falls, then boy rapes her. Go after
other brother as accomplice. There was no agreement, so no conspiracy. (Accomplice –
general intent, Conspiracy – specific intent, carries heavier charge)
o Conspiracy: Bilateral or Unilateral? (Actus reus is agreement itself)
 Unilateral Conspiracy – Bast majority rule b/c they are busted for conspiracy to commit when
they are talking to a police officer. (there’s no actual agreement to commit a crime). Sill have
actus reus.
 Bilateral Conspiracy – Actus Reus is an agreement, if only one member thinks there is an
agreement, there is no agreement, no conspiracy. (talking to a cop – no agreement, no conspiracy)
o Do you have to know exact identity of everyone known involved? NO!
 You must share a standard of the same community of interest, a common objective or goal.

 Defenses to Conspiracy:
o Wharton’s Rule of Conspiracy
 I the crime inherently requires more than 1 person to commit then conspiracy is not an option
 I.E.: Incest, Adultery, Bigamy, Dueling
 The rule does not apply when:
 The harm to be prevented falls on more than just the participants
 The crimes are meant to protect society from the perpetrators and not them from
themselves
o Pinkerton’s Rule of Conspiracy
 Once the offenders agree they are all guilty of conspiracy. If the crime is committed, all are guilty
of conspiracy of the subsequent crimes.
 Ex: People v. Sconce: attempt to call off the person that was going to do the crime. Not
guilty of completed crime b/c it didn’t happen
 If you effectively withdraw, you are off the hook from the crime, but not for the conspiracy
 Conspiracy is affective upon agreement
 Only way to NOT be guilty of the subsequent crimes is to:
 Withdraw
 Inform every member of your withdrawal and
 Take the affirmative acts to prevent the underlying crime (ex. Going to the police)
 NOT GUILTY of the CRIME; just GUILTY of CONSPIRACY to commit the crime
 Accomplice v. Conspiracy: if there is no agreement there is no conspiracy but there may be an accomplice
Accomplice Liability
 Accomplice Liability: majority approach: can be charged if you specifically intend to help someone create a
specific or general intent crime
 Must prove:
o The principal felon had actually committed the felony of murder
o The accused knew such felony occurred
o The accused received, relieved, comforted, or assisted the principal felon in some way in order to help
him escape, or hinder his arrest, trial, or punishment
 EXAMPLES:
o State v. Hoselton: knows they went to barge to steal. Asked if the boy was a lookout:
 Lookout – pre-arrangement, keeping watch to avoid interception or detection or to provide
warning during the perpetration of the crime & thereby participating in the offense charged.
 Accomplice liability if specific intent.
o Riley v. State – When is Intent NOT required: Two opened fire around a campfire of people. Were
charged with accomplice liability. They didn’t know who shot the shot that injured; but they knew the
risk and did it anyways.
15
 CRIMINAL LAW

o Son hits person with car and drives away, doesn’t stop. When mother sees the blood on the car, instead
of reporting it, she cleans the car.
o State v. Linscott – Pinkerton case of liability. People decide to rob a drug dealer and he ends up getting
shot and killed. If murder is a foreseeable consequence, then even for a consequence you can be on the
hook for other completed crimes
o SPECIFIC INTENT – CONSPIRACY; GENERAL INTENT – ACCOMPLICE LIABILITY

MENS REA
 Vicarious Liability: tries to get owner on the hook for the employee
o Rule – is an option when comes to liquor control laws, you can impose a fine, but you can’t put them in
jail
 Strict Liability: (NO MENS REA)
o Public Welfare Offenses – Using the defense of “lacking mens rea is not going to happen”
 Speeding – no mens rea
o Punishment by fine or fortitude
 Incarceration for strict liability is only allowed if there is strict liability is only allowed if there is
a compelling government interest
 EX: possession of something inherently dangerous
 EX: case comparing hand grenades to food stamps
o Statutory Rape – (grand daddy of all strict liability crimes)
 Garnett v. State – mentally impaired Δ has sex with a 13 yo that he thought was 16. The statute
makes Δ guilty. Being mentally retarded is not a valid defense.

DEFENSES
 Insanity:
o Complete defense
o Must be clear and convincing
o Not punishable because of lack of mens rea
o Can only be used if you can prove you cannot determine right from wrong
 Intoxication:
o Have to be so intoxicated you could not form specific intent
 Quasi Defenses: negates elements of the crime
o Mistake of Fact:
 Valid defense to a completed crime
 The offender made a factual mistake that negates a mens rea element to a completed crime
 EX: 1st DM with the hunter
 People v. Navarro: Δ took 4 beams and claimed he did not know that anyone would use
them. Use the reasonable person test
 An honest mistake of fact or law is a defense when it negates a required mental element of the
crime
 When someone shoots a gun they didn’t know someone would walk out in front. Lacks
trespassory.
o Mistake of Law
 NOT a valid defense to a completed crime unless relying on court precedent or authorized agent’s
advice
 The offender was mistaken about the law under which the crime was completed
 People v. Marrero: Guard of a federal prison arrested in a nightclub for possession of a .
38 caliber. Δ claims that he misunderstood the statute. If you have a reasonable mistake
of law, it is not a defense
16
 CRIMINAL LAW

 Cheek v. United States: claims honestly believed wages aren’t income. Specific intent
statute b/c of the word willful – a CL word for specific intent. An honest and reasonable
defense believe must specifically intend to negate duly under statute and can’t do this if
you don’t know. Mistake of law would negate intent element of the crime
 Self Defense:
o Valid defense if the Δ believes he/she is faced with an imminent threat of death or great bodily harm and
that belief is reasonable (you can use deadly force)
 Must be a good faith belief (subjective)
 The RPOP would have believed himself to be in imminent danger
 Elements
 The encounter between the occupant and intruder was sudden and unexpected,
compelling the occupant to act instantly
 The occupant reasonably believed that the intruder would inflict personal injury upon the
occupant or others in the dwelling
 The occupant demanded that the intruder disarm or surrender, and the intruder refused to
do so
 May use deadly force against co-occupants in minority jurisdictions
o Not a valid defense if you are the aggressor
 US v. Peterson: Guy is messing with Δ’s windshield wiper blades. Δ gets and gun, victim gets out
a lug wrench. Δ kills him.
o Minority Approach – Retreat to the Wall
 Must have retreated before using deadly force
 Exception: Castle Doctrine – one attacked in their home, through no fault of his own is under not
duty to retreat at all
 Place of business does not count
o Majority Approach – Stand your ground
 You don’t have to retreat if it is more dangerous to leave
o Non deadly force must be proportional to harm faced
o Significant cases:
 People v. Goetz – use the reasonable belief or objective standard. If one actually and reasonable
believed (feared) he was in danger.
 Reasonable belief rule – person who acts on the basis of a genuine but unreasonable
belief that deadly force is necessary for self-protection cannot successfully claim self-
defense
o State v. Winthrow – mother believes children were being molested. She was 5’4
and on crutches.
 Majority approach: reasonable belief; minority approach: subjective, in
the Δ’s eyes
o MPC: reasonable approach; objective
 Defense of others
o VALID defense if the Δ believes someone else is faced with an immediate threat of death or great bodily
harm and that belief is reasonable (can use deadly force)
 You don’t have to be in serious relationship w/the person you are defending
o People v. Kurr – pregnant woman stabbed her boyfriend to defend her unborn children
 Old Law: stand in the shoes of the person you are defending – only if they would be justified in
doing the same
 If the person who was initially the aggressor starts to get beaten up, if you defend the
initial aggressor, you can be found at fault.
 New Rule: did you have a reasonable belief that force was necessary
 Defense of Property/Law Enforcement Defense
17
 CRIMINAL LAW

o VALID defense, but deadly force is never authorized

o Deadly force is only authorized to protect from flight out
 People v. Ceballos – man who keeps getting robbed set up a trap gun. Court says that there is a
difference between people being there, and no one being there – you can decide not to pull the
trigger, or not aim at the persons head. You can use deadly force to prevent dangerous flights of a
felon.
 Penal code allows you to use deadly force to prevent “atrocious felonies Is burglary a
forcible and atrocious crime? Burglary changes to not include dwelling or at night. Not
like CL, so he wasn’t preventing a forcible, atrocious felony b/c no life is in peril.
 Tennessee v. Garner – kid that burglarized and fled from police – allowed to use deadly force if
probable cause to kill if he possesses a threat to others/officers, this case was unauthorized b/c
didn’t think he was armed.
 Defense of Necessity: Natural Forces
o Elements (Nelson v. State):
 Act charged must have been done to prevent a significant evil
 No adequate alternative
 Harm caused must not have been disproportionate to the harm avoided
 Good faith belief act was necessary
 Belief must be reasonable
 Must not have substantially contributed to emergency
o NOT APPLICALBE TO MURDER
o Balance the act and the circumstances
o Choices are available
o Natural forces placed Δ in this situation and choose the lesser of 2 evils.
o Nelson v. State – Truck gets stuck, so borrow state equipment to get it out and ended up getting it
damaged. They created the natural forces by driving the truck
 Rule – Harm to be avoided must be the greater harm; can only cause harm to prevent greater
harm.
 Defense of Duress: Man made threat
o Elements (US v. Contento-Pachon)
 Immediate threat of death
 Well-grounded fear that the threat will be carried out
 No reasonable opportunity to escape the threat
o Human threat that is immediate
 Example: gun to the head to do something illegal
 Made to commit a crime – you have no choice but to commit the illegal act
 US v. Contento-Pachon: Guy had drugs in his stomach; court found that he had free will
to overcome.
 Must be a concrete, unambiguous threat.
 Elements:
o Immediate threat of death or serious bodily injury
o No reasonable opportunity or means of escape
 People v. Unger – Inmate escapes at the risk of being molested or killed. Whether to use the
defense of necessity or duress. Necessity – natural forces and in this case it’s people’s threats so it
looks like it doesn’t fit. Duress – no one told him if he didn’t escape that they would kill him. In
this case, necessity is better b/c the elements of being forced to commit the crime is not there. The
Δ is being forced to choose between 2 evils. They aren’t forces of nature but they are forces from
outside of his control. Lovercamp – you don’t need all of the elements to be there, they will be
used as factors which are something to take or leave that you must consider.
o NOT A DEFENSE TO MURDER
18
 CRIMINAL LAW

 People v. Anderson - you are never allowed to kill someone by duress. That would be a value
judgment that your life is more important than someone else’s and courts don’t uphold value
judgments
 In most cases if this occurs, the person can be charged with 1 st DM. If the person says “kill any
student in this room or I will kill you,” you have time to choose someone and think about the act.
 Use of Deadly Force
o Authority
 Police Officers and other state actors are allowed to use:
 Deadly force
 Non deadly force
 Deadly Force – force likely to cause death or serious harm
 Use to prevent the commission of a crime or the escape from
 Police are not allowed to use deadly force without adequate probable cause that Δ poses a
great danger to the officer or others
o Probable cause can be a reasonable belief, but most courts will allow any beliefs
o Tennessee v. Garner – police called to a house robbery and the officer say the
robber running and he ordered him to stop. The robber attempted to jump over a
fence and the officer shot and killed the robber. The officer knew that the robber
was more than likely not armed and was a small sized teen. Tenn. statute gave
the police officers the power to use any force available to stop a fleeing felon.
Deadly force cannot be used to stop a fleeing felon unless the officer has
probably cause to believe that the felon poses a great danger to the police or
others
 Private Citizens – only allowed to use to protect a crime in:
 Crimes against person
 Crimes against person in the home
o Defense of Property – the taking of human life in connection with the defense of property is valid only
where an element of danger exists to the person of the slayer.
 Commonwealth v. Emmons – Mildred Emmon lived on the 2nd floor apartment. She had
purchased a car on a lease, but was two months behind in her payment. The finance co
representative came to her apartment but did not speak to her. He and another employee pushed
the car backwards onto the street, and lifted the hood. Δ then shot the employee in the leg.
 To justify killing someone it must be to prevent the commission of a felony which is
either atrocious or a crime of force (murder, rape, arson, burglary, rape, kidnapping,
sodomy or the like) The taking of human life in connection with the defense of property
is valid only where an element of danger exists to the person of the slayer.
 The Δ was not protecting her person, or her home. There was no felony by force or
atrocious crime, no danger to her or her habitation and there was no justification in law
for her infliction of grievous bodily harm
 In order to invoke the defense of justifiable homicide in apprehending a fleeing felon:
 The overt elements of a felony were in fact present;
 The taking of life was (or appeared to be) reasonably necessary in order to apprehend the
fleeing felon
 A private person is not authorized to shoot or kill another in an attempt to arrest merely on
suspicion that a felony has been committed
 State v. Barr: Δ was living in a small house in the back of an antique store. One night he
heard voices and saw two men on one side of the house and then three more on the other.
He approached the two who were carrying some of the owner’s chairs. They dropped the
chairs and continued walking. Δ demanded that they stop but was ignored; he then fired a
couple of shots in the air. He heard a rock “whiz” by his head, lowered the gun and fired
19
 CRIMINAL LAW

twice. One hit the victim in the head, and then the leg. The elements of burglary were not
present and therefore appellant could not invoke the defense. The business was not
fenced or enclosed in.
o Concept of burglary reflected by the statute is an unauthorized entry into an area
protected against intrusion. To affect an arrest the law no longer allows a private
person to use deadly force to arrest for every felony. The felony must be one
which reasonable creates a fear of great bodily injury.
o Defense of Habitation: deadly force allowed for forcible and atrocious crimes
 Forcible and atrocious crimes are murder, mayhem, rape
 If the character doesn’t create a fear of great bodily harm, there is no cause for extraction of
human life or for the use of deadly force.
 People v. Ceballos: Δ set up a trap gun to prevent burglaries. Δ mounted a gun aimed at
the center of the garage doors so that if the doors opened it would discharge. Two
teenagers removed the lock and as one opened the door he was hit in the face with the
bullet. Victim admitted he was intending on taking Δ’s property. The burglar did not
threaten death or serious bodily injury.
o The exception to the rule of liability for injuries inflicted by a deadly mechanical
device does not apply under these circumstances.
 No duty to retreat from threat in the home
o Including while occupying the home when the status if that of a guest.
 State v. Mitcheson: Δ had repeated altercation with decedent. Δ went to
sister’s house where decedent and friends showed up but would not leave
when told. During the scuffle Δ shot and killed decedent. Justified in
using deadly force in defense of habitation, even while occupying the
status of a guest.
o Non-Deadly force: force not likely, or not reasonably likely to cause death
 Imperfect Privilege
o Even if the person had a reasonable belief that he was in danger but acted unreasonably, the jury must
return a verdict of manslaughter.

REQUISITE
STATEINTENT
OF MIND FORREQUIRED
MAJOR CRIMES
SPECIFICMENS
INTENT REA GENERAL INTENT
STATE MALICE
OF MIND REQUIRED STRICT LIABILITY
OBJECTIVE OR
1. Solicitation 1. Battery 1. Common law SUBJECTIVE
1. Statutory RapeTEST?
COMMON LAW Murder
2. Specific
Attempt Intent Intent
2. Rape to engage in proscribed
2. Arsonconduct Subjective
2. Selling Liquor to
Minors
3. Conspiracy 3. Kidnapping
General Intent Awareness of acting in proscribed manner Subjective
4. Malice
First Degree 4. False Imprisonment Subjective
Reckless disregard of a known risk
Premeditated
Murder
Strict Liability Objective
Conscious commission of proscribed act.
5. Assault (Attempted
MPC FAULT STANDARDS
Battery)
Purposely Conscious object to engage in proscribed Subjective
6. Larceny, Robbery conduct

7. Knowingly
Burglary Awareness that conduct is of a particular Subjective
8. Forgery nature or will cause a particular result
Subjective
9. Recklessly
False Pretenses 20
Consciously disregarding a substantial
known risk
10. Embezzlement Objective
Negligently Failure to be aware of a substantial risk.
 CRIMINAL LAW

INCHOATE CRIMES
SOLICITATION CONSPIRACY ATTEMPT

Culpable Solicitation of another to Agreement between two or Performance of an act

Conduct commit a felony. more people to commit a that would be a crime if
crime successful

Mental State Specific intent that person Specific intent to : (i) enter Specific intent to
solicited commit the crime into agreement; and (ii) commit the particular
achieve objective crime committed

Overt Act No act (other than the Act in furtherance of the Act dangerously close
solicitation) conspiracy to success (MPC-
substantial step test)
Merger into
Completed Yes No Yes
Crime?

Withdrawal a Generally no No, except for further Generally no

Defense? crimes of co-conspirators

DEFENSE NONDEADLY FORCE DEADLY FORCE

SELF DEFENSE If reasonably necessary to protect self Only if threatened with death or great
bodily harm

DEFENSE OF OTHERS If reasonably necessary to protect self Only if threatened with death or great
bodily harm

If reasonably necessary to prevent or end Only if person inside is threatened or to

DEFENSE OF DWELLING unlawful entry prevent felony inside

If reasonably necessary to defend property NEVER

DEFENSE OF OTHER PROPERTY in one’s possession (but if request to
21
 CRIMINAL LAW

desist would suffice, force no allowed)

CRIME PREVENTION If reasonably necessary to prevent felony Only to prevent or end felony risking
or serious breach of peace human life

EFFECTUATE ARREST
 POLICE If reasonably necessary to arrest Only to prevent escape of felon who
threatens human life

 PRIVATE PERSON If crime in fact committed and reasonable Only to prevent escape of person who
belief that this person committed it actually committed felony and who
threatens human life

RESISTING ARREST If improper arrest Only if improper arrest and Δ does not
know arrester is a police officer

NECESSITY If reasonably necessary to avoid greater NEVER

harm

22