JURISDICTION -state acquires jurisdiction to adjudicate the crime of that state if whether the conduct or the result happens
there -if conduct and result happens in 2 states, then 2 states hold jurisdiction Crimes of Omission -jurisdiction lies where the acts should have been performed MERGER -generally there is no merger of crimes in American law -common law: solicitation and attempt merge into the substantive offense -ironic but complete defense to attempting something is that you did it -conspiracy DOES NOT MERGE with a substantive offense -people can be convicted of conspiring to do something and doing it WHAT IS AN ACT Common law -a voluntary muscular contraction, and nothing else -bodily movement Model Penal Code -a bodily movement whether voluntary or involuntary -voluntary bodily movement including speech Constitutional Limitations on the Act Requirement -an act is required by constitution (Robinson) and there is no constitutional requirement that the act be voluntary (Powell) VOLUNTARINESS -a bodily movement that is the product of the effort or determination of the actor, either conscious or habitual MPC -a person who commits an offense unless his liability is based on conduct that includes a voluntary act ir the omission to perform an act of which he is physically capable -voluntary acts within the meaning: a. A reflex or convulsion b. movement made during compulsion or speech c. conduct during hypnosis or hypnotic suggestion d. movement that is otherwise not a product of the effort or determination of the actor, either conscious or habitual VICARIOUS LIABILITY Common Law -generally no vicarious liability -even employees were generally not responsible for the acts of their employees unless they had knowledge of the employees acts or had affirmatively directed or encouraged the acts Common Law vs. Statutes -statutes in derogation of the common law must be strictly construed Jackson’s Statute -a pesticide applicator shall follow recommended and accepted good practices in the use of pesticides including use of a pesticide in a manner consistent with its labeling. -A certified applicator shall be responsible for the application of a pesticide by a non-certified applicator under his instruction and control even though the certified applicator is not physically present. A certified applicator shall be physically present during the application of a pesticide if prescribed by the label. -A person who violates this act is guilty of a misdemeanor and shall be fined not more than $500 for each offense -the act shall not terminate or in any way modify any liability, civil or criminal, which is in existence of the effective date of the act. Employees
Assault* 4. Where one with the authority to control fails to control the conduct of others 7.-employers. larceny. Where there is a “status relationship” between the parties . A statute imposes a duty to act 2. Where one has voluntarily assumed the duty to care and prevent others from rendering aid -someone swimming in lake at park and is in trouble. Solicitation. a duty to perform the omitted act is otherwise imposed by law Relationships that impose a duty to act -There may be a duty to act when: 1. Conspiracy. murder -murder in the second degree b. and swims back. When the actor has a duty to act imposed by law MPC -liability for the commission of an offense may not be based on an omission unaccompanied by action unless: a. swims to see who it is. arson
. robbery. D wants to save him. false pretences.a special mental element above and beyond any mental state required with respect to the actus reus of a crime -a defendants intent to do something -qualify for additional defenses that are not available for other crime -specific intent crimes are… 1. Where one owns the property on which the harm occurs MENTAL STATES Common Law -many broad categories of mental states -intent. malice. negligence. When the statute specifically makes failure to act an element of the crime OR 2.parent child. doesn’t like him. when made liable by statute. the omission is expressly made sufficient by the law defining the offense OR b. fraudulently -definitions of mental states may vary widely -many jurisdictions continue to distinguish between specific and general intent crimes Specific Intent . First degree murder 3. recklessness. are only liable for the acts of the employee within the scopr of employment OMISSIONS -failure to act -A duty to act may be imposed base don a relationship between the parties -must be a legal duty and not merely a moral obligation Can be penalized in 2 ways 1. Attempt 2. embezzlement. Where one has assumed a contractual duty to care for another -lifeguard 4. spouses 3. burglary and forgery -Burglary (Imagination Statute): Every person who enters any building or part of a building at night with intent to commit grand or petit larceny or any felony is guilty of burglary Malice a. can ground criminal liability 5. Where one has created the peril that led to the injury or harm -push someone in swimming pool and they cant swim 6.
considering defendants purpose and the circumstances known to him -The failure to recognize the risk. recklessness. that someone died) -no matter how likely it will happen -specific intent at common law 2) knowingly -specific intent at common law -did not want result -engaged in conduct that more than likely will produce that result 3) recklessly -not specific intent at common law 4) negligently -not specific intent at common law -each mental state has one and only one definition -does not recognize specific/general intent distinction Culpability Level Conduct Attendant Circumstances Result Purposely Defendants conscious Defendant is aware or hoes Defendant’s conscious object is to engage in such or believes circumstances object is to cause the result conduct exist Knowingly Defendant is aware his Defendant is aware the Defendant is aware that the conduct is of this nature circumstances exist result is practically certain Recklessly Defendant consciously Defendant consciously Defendant consciously disregards a substantial and disregards a substantial and disregards a substantial and unjustifiable risk that hw is unjustifiable risk that the unjustifiable risk that the engaging in this proscribed proscribed circumstances result will occur conduct exist Negligently “grossly” fails to recognize “grossly” fails to recognize “grossly” fails to recognize a substantial and an unjustifiable risk that the a substantial and unjustifiable risk that the is proscribed circumstances unjustifiable risk that result engaging in this conduct exist will occur -The disregard involves a gross deviation from the standard of conduct that a law-abiding person would observe. rape and battery (there are more these are just examples) -transfer intent crimes -murder (person killed). willfully. we ask whether the defendant intended to do the proscribed act -i. given defendants purpose and the circumstances known to him.General Intent Crimes -all crimes not so far been mentioned are general intent unless strict /usually every crime in the state code -when the definition of a crime consists only of the description of a particular act. or the morality area -if don’t see adverbs like knowing fully.e. intentionally no intent crime of strict liability -any defense that negates intention cannot be a defense to a no intent crime of strict liability MPC -has 4 narrow categories of mental states -purpose. regulatory. knowledge. negligence 1) purposely-u wanted the result (i. involves a gross deviation from the standard of care a reasonable person would observe
.e. without reference to an intent to do a further act or achieve a further consequence. attempted murder (person attempted to kill) -NEVER MERGE ANY CRIMES THAT HAVE DIFFERENT VICTIMS Strict Liability -no intent crimes -any defense that negates intention cannot be a defense through the no intent crimes of strict liability -FORMULA -if the crime is in the administrative.
EX: Any person who knowingly transports stolen articles shall be guilty of a felony -MPC RULE 1 -one expressed element applies to all elements Element Transports Stolen Artifacts Type Conduct Attendant Circumstances Attendant Circumstances Mental State Knowingly Knowingly Knowingly
-MPC RULE 2 -if there is no expressed mental state.reckless (but knowingly in federal system) MPC-At least reckless Common law.reckless (but knowingly in federal system)
-Note to rule 2 -Although the default position is at least recklessness. under the MPC a higher mental State (i. purpose or knowledge) will suffice as well -MPC RULE 3 -be careful of stand alone mental state Element Transports Stolen Artifacts With the purpose to sell Type Conduct Attendant Circumstances Attendant Circumstances Mental State Mental State
Knowingly Knowingly Knowingly Purposefully
.Diagramming Statutes -Statute . default to recklessness Element Transports Type Conduct Mental State
MPC-At least reckless Common law.e.reckless (but knowingly in federal system) MPC-At least reckless Common law.
does not recognize specific intent A defense so long as the mental state is negated. does not recognize general intent. Not a defense NEVER
Mistake of Fact -General Intent Reasonableness Doctrine Moral Wrong Was the mistake reasonable? What did the actor think s/he was doing? Was the actor’s conduct. AS THE ACTOR BELIEVED IT. AS THE ACTOR BELIEVED IT. constitute a lesser crime?
Mistake of Fact Common Law vs. and REASONABLENESS Common Law Mistake of fact and reasonableness Type Specific Intent Malice and General Intent Strict Liability Reasonableness NOT required. morally blameworthy Legal Wrong Was the mistake reasonable? What did the actor thing s/he was doing? Did the actor’s conduct. Does NOT require reasonableness No recognition Recognizes a similar doctrine BUT under the MPC the actor cannot be convicted of the grantor crime.-Note to rule 3 -Statutes can include more than one mental state MISTAKE OF LAW. MUST ONLY be convicted of the lesser crime
MISTAKE OF LAW Common Law -mistake of law is not a defense -EXCEPTIONS 1. MISTAKE OF FACT. MPC Common Law
A defense to specific intent crimes whether reasonable or unreasonable so long as specific intent is negated A defense to general intent crimes so long as reasonable For general intent crimes: recognizes “Moral Wrong” Doctrine For general intent crimes: Recognizes “Legal Wrong” or “Lesser Legal Wrong Doctrine”
Model Penal Code
A defense so long as the mental state is negated. Where the statute requires knowledge of the law
. Even an unreasonable mistake will suffice ANY MISTAKE Mistake must be reasonable REASONABLE MISTAKE Neither reasonable nor unreasonable mistakes matter.
of the United States -EXCEPTIONS: a mistake of law was not excused where the mistake was based upon: 1. The statute defining the offense is not known to him. but erroneous interpretation of the law secured from a public officer in charge of its interpretation. Where there is no fair notice of the law (Lambert exception) OFFICIAL INTERPRETATION Common Law -A REASONABLE mistake of law was excused where the mistake was based upon: -a statute later declared to be invalid -a judicial decision of the highest court in the jurisdiction. not a defense Neither responsible nor unreasonable mistakes matter. The crime punishes a status AND 3. administration. Where mistake of a different law negates the mental state 3. The offense is malum prohibitum -malum prohibitum: evil because prohibited but not intrinsically evil MPC -It is a defense where 1. in the case of federal law. Where there is reliance on an official interpretation of the law 4. The statute was “not published or otherwise reasonably made available to him before he violated the law
. and 2. Advice of a private counsel MPC -A mistake of law is excused where the mistake is based upon a REASONABLE reliance on any of the following later deemed to be erroneous: -a statute -a judicial decision -an administrative order or grant of permission OR -an official interpretation of the public office or body charged by law with responsibility for the interpretation. The actors own interpretation of the statute or law 2. The crime is one of omission 2. such as the Attorney General of the state OR. Where the mistake negates the required mental state 3. or enforcement of the law defining the offense MISTAKE OF A DIFFERENT LAW Type Specific intent General Intent Strict Liability Defense Even an unreasonable mistake is a defense so long as the special intent is neglected Neither responsible nor unreasonable mistakes matter. not a defense
FAIR NOTICE EXCEPTIONS Common Law Lamberts Fair Notice Exception -It is a defense that a person was unaware of the law where: 1. and 3. Advice of a prosecutor 3. administration. later determined to be erroneous OR -an official. or enforcement.2. A defendant does not believe that his conduct is illegal.
etc Intent (+) Killing done with malice aforethought Voluntary manslaughter Involuntary manslaughter Intent (-) Killing done without malice aforethought (in the heat of passion without adequate provocation) RECKLESS Killing done while subjectively aware of a substantial and unjustifiable risk RECKLESS (-) Killing done while should have been aware of a substantial and unjustifiable risk Manslaughter
RECKLESS (+) Killing done with depraved heart. ir killing while recklessly manifesting extreme indifference to human life. murder was defined as. so long as the special intent is negated Not a defense Not a defense
MURDER Common Law -At common law. Extreme recklessness (implied malice) MPC -murder is committed by either purposefully killing. lying in wait.VOLUNTARY INTOXICATION Common Law Type Specific intent General intent Strict Liability Defense Yes. etc Murder -murder done with malice aforethought and without adequate provocation Voluntary manslaughter -intentional killing without premeditation (heat of passion) but WITH adequate provocation Involuntary manslaughter -Unintentional killing done with recklessness or criminal negligence (depends on jurisdiction) Types of Homicide #1
Types Murder Murder Intent (+) Murder with express malice + premeditation & deliberation. Intent to commit a felony (implied malice) 4. Intent to kill (express malice) 2. -recklessness may be presumed through involvement in certain felonies The Homicide Elevator Aggravated (1st degree) Murder -intent to kill + premeditation. “the unlawful killing of a human being with malice aforethought” Malice -Can be defined by any of the following four mental states: 1. Extreme indifference to human life
. poison. knowingly killing. Intent to cause serious bodily injury (implied malice) 3.
magnitude of risk 3. Had the defendant cooled off? 5. violent physical or sexual assault on a close relative RECKLESS MURDER Common Law -Factors that might differentiate depraved heart murder from the normal recklessness found in involuntary manslaughter: 1. which resulted in homicide. illegality of conduct FELONY MURDER Traditional common law rule -the commission or the attempt to commit.
.Types of Homicide #2
Type Purposefully Murder “Regular” murder + premeditation and deliberation etc (AGGRAVATED MURDER) Killing done with malice aforethought (“Regular” murder excluding Felony murder) Killing done with depraved heart. mutual combat 3. Was the defendant provoked by the victim? (In some jurisdictions. battery 5. the risk is highly unjustifiable a.via Dennis) NOT adequate provocation -mere words Adequate Provocation 1. Was the defendant provoked? 3. Would a reasonable person have cooled off? 4. magnitude of deviation from standard 5. felony. the risk is death 4. base antisocial motive for conduct 6. Was there adequate provocation? 2.in flagrante delicto) 2. purpose to create risk of death b. illegal arrest 6. disregard for human life c. Assault 4. adultery (actually observing your spouse in an actual sex act. Extreme indifference to human life (DEPRAVED HEART MURDER) Manslaughter Killing done WITHOUT malice aforethought (in the heat of passion with adequate provocation) (Voluntary manslaughter)
Killing done while subjectively aware of a substantial and unjustifiable risk (INVOLUNTARY MANSLAUGHTER) Killing done while should have been aware of a substantial and unjustifiable risk (INVOLUNTARY MANSLAUGHTER) Killing done in the commission of a misdemeanor (MISDEMEANOR MANSLAUGHTER)
Killing done in the commission of a felony (FELONY MURER)
MANSLAUGHTER -A homicide that would otherwise be murder that is committed “in the heat of passion” resulting from a “ ”reasonable provocation” Traditional common law inquiry 1. magnitude of awareness of risk 2. ANY. was deemed murder.
deaths caused while fleeing from a felony are felony murder. In early use implying personal agency and the use of a weapon. if defendant had a defense to the underlying felony he had a defense to felony murder 2. deaths must be foreseeable 4. killing attributable to act of defendant or co-defendant.1: Criminal Homicide .1: Rape -A male who has sexual intercourse with a female is…guilty of rape if he compels her to submit by force or by threat of imminent death Cause in fact Available tests
. proximate cause -the legal cause: the foreseeability that the defendants conduct will produce the desired results Result crimes -MPC §210. recklessly.a person is guilty of criminal homicide if she purposefully. extended to any means or cause which puts an end to life. deaths caused thereafter are not felony murder 5. cause in fact -the actual. overwork. a disease Provocative Act Doctrine -Elements: 1. the felony they are committing must be something other than the killing 3. but once they reach some point of temporary safety. to deprive of life. later. factual cause of the particular result 2. ONE CANNOT SUFFICE ALONE 1. slaughter. knowingly. as an accident. AND 3. killing committed during a felony enumerated in the first degree murder statute CAUSATION The High Points -describes a relationship between a defendant’s conduct and a particular result -is required only with result crimes -a two step process BOTH STEPS MUST BE SATISFIED. drink. grief. felon harbored implied malice(extreme recklessness) 2.Limitations (Beyond Causation) -Dangerous to life (inherently dangerous) -Malum in se/ Common law felony (enumeration) -Period of the felony narrowly construed (res gestae) -res gestae. to slay.beginning from the first attempt to commit a crime and ends when the crime and flight are completed -there must be a break in the chain of events -In furtherance of the felony (agency) -Independent felony (merger) Analysis -Is the felony eligible? -is it enumerated? -if not -is it inherently dangerous? -is it independent felony? -Did the killing occur in furtherance of the felony? -Did the killing occur as part of the “res gestae” of the felony? Defenses to Felony Murder 1. def is not liable for death of co-felon as a result of resistance to arrest or fleeing from the police DEFINITION OF “KILL” Oxford English Dictionary -To put to death. or negligently causes the death of another human being -MPC §213.
a threat to expose a secret) is generally not sufficient -Fraud -only two types suffice: -this is a medically necessary exam. futile.the “sex” act -Many different acts may or may not be covered depending upon the applicable statute Force -Actus reus -no fixed definition of force (Warren). not a sex act -I’m really your husband -Mental States -Most statutes are silent on this point and a variety of approaches have been used -Note that rape is a general intent crime Resistance -Defined -Brown defined resistance “As force opposing force. not retreating from force” -Limits -Need not resist when it would be endangering. threats.-original “but for” -but for…the result would not have occurred -modified “but for” -but for… the result would not have occurred when it did (accelerated) -but for… the result would not have occurred when and as it did (concurrent) -substantial factor -defendants conduct was a substantial factor in the result Proximate Cause -A defendant is responsible for the “natural and foreseeable consequences that follow from the act” -dependant cause -an act that occurs in reaction to or response to the defendant’s prior wrongful conduct -a cause that was intended or reasonably foreseeable by the defendant or sufficiently related to his conduct -independent cause -an act that does not occur in response to the defendants conduct -a cause not intended or reasonably foreseeable by defendant Defendants Act cause in fact dependant intervening cause result NO BREAK IN CHAIN= CAUSATION Defendants act Cause in fact independent intervening cause result BREAK IN CHAIN= NO CAUSATION RAPE Common Law definition -the carnal knowledge of a woman forcibly and against her will Which acts are covered? . or exhaustion (Brown) -Relationship to force -The perpetrator’s force had to overcome the victim’s resistance -Relationship to consent -Traditionally. but usually the amount necessary to overcome resistance -traditional approach on fear (Warren) -fear of force is NOT the same as actual force (use of a weapon) or even threatened force (threatened use of a weapon) -Modern approach to force (MTS) -only force necessary is the force for penetration -*note that Florida follows this approach as well -Non-physical coercion (i.e. a presumption of consent in the absence of resistance Consent
. or when paralyzed by fear (Warren) -Need not resist when overcome by unconsciousness.
g. but in fact. illustrated in Barnes (and MTS implicitly) is that rape should be brought in line with other crimes (e. Must intentionally commit acts that constitute actus reus of attempt 2. even a reasonable mistake of fact as to consent will NOT be a defense (Lopez) MPC -only covers male perpetrators and female victims -recognizes the “marital exemption” (i. but is recognized by the MPC (renunciation) MPC -the renunciation must be: 1.e. Factual -Factual impossibility is not a defense 2. recognizes that inability to consent is no consent ATTEMPT -an overt act + a SPECIFIC intent to commit the target offense Dual Mental States 1. a woman not his wife) -has no explicit language on consent -has no explicit language on resistance -only a second degree felony if victim was a “voluntary social companion” of defendant on the occasion and had previously permitted him sexual liberties -Fraud -recognizes many of the same limits as the common law (fake husband. battery) and therefore. Legal -“Pure” Legal Impossibility -the actor believes s/he is committing a crime. Must do those acts with the intent to commit the target crime ABANDONMENT -generally not recognized at the common law. AND 2. i. not just a decision to postpone the crime until later or to find a better victim IMPOSSIBLE ATTEMPTS Common Law 3 Types of Impossibility: 1.-Traditional definition -entire absence of mental consent or assent as well as most vehement exercise of every physical means to resist (Brown) -Note relationship to resistance -Modern View -the modern view.e. this isn’t sex) -Non-Physical Threats -also mentions threats that would prevent resistance by a woman of ordinary resolution which arguably broadens the type of threat allowed -Incapacity -as at common law. A complete abandonment. the conduct is legal -this IS a defense -“Hybrid” Legal Impossibility
. Fully voluntary and not made because of the difficulty in completing the crime or because of an increased risk of apprehension. no resistance is needed -Mens Rea -MTS suggests a negligence or recklessness standard but different jurisdictions employ different mental states -Mistake -Although rape is a general intent crime. in a minority of jurisdictions.
Inherent Impossibility -not recognized but a lesser punishment may be appropriate SOLICITATION -the inciting. inducing. Pure legal impossibility -recognized 3. crime ends when you ask them – what if person agrees to do it? -It becomes conspiracy – solicitation merges with conspiracy and only crime in conspiracy Renunciation -Though not absolutely clear. or commanding another to commit a crime with the SPECIFIC intent that the person solicited commit the crime -asking someone to commit a crime. urging. it is highly unlikely that renunciation is a defense at common law -It is a defense under the MPC Innocent Agents -The graveman of the offense of solicitation is the intent of the solicitor and not the knowledge of the victim -There is not requirement that the solicitee “be aware of the criminal purpose of the solicitor or of the criminal nature of the conduct solicited” Issue Actus Reus Common Law MPC
Mens Rea Renunciation
COMPLICITY -complicity for (accomplice liability or accessorial liability) is NOT a crime -it is a WAY of committing a crime Accomplice Liability -accomplices liable for crime itself and all other foreseeable crimes -don’t give anyone accomplice liability unless they are actively involved in the crime -MUST BE ACTIVELY INVOLVED in the crime -don’t give if merely if someone is present -even if by being present they seem to be somehow going along with crime or don’t call the police -b/c not going to give that kind of liability to people hanging out Old Common Law Rule -terminology
. Inherent -Is a defense in some jurisdictions MPC 1. Hybrid legal impossibility -not recognized 4. this was a defense but the modern trend is to treat this in the same manner as factual impossibility -This is NOT a defense 3. advising.-The actor is mistaken about a fact regarding the legal status of an attendant circumstance -Traditionally. Factual Impossibility -not recognized 2. counseling.
-principals -principal in the first degree -a person who with the requisite mens rea. with the knowledge that another has committed a crime. aids. by an act of omission (Walden) Dual Mental States -The intent to assist the principle in the conduct forming the basis of the Offense AND -The mental state-intent. -required for the commission of the substantive offense ABANDONMENT Common Law -First must communicate withdrawal to the principal -Second must neutralize and assistance -for encouragement . if you provide burglars with tools or masks. or conviction Conduct to Complicity Presence -general rule is that mere presence alone is NOT enough to generate accomplice liability HOWEVER… -where the common law has imposed affirmative duties upon persons standing in certain relationships to others. trial. purpose. stated otherwise.must neutralize encouragement by voicing objection to the crime and repudiating the encouragement -for physical aid or assistance -Must neutralize the assistance in some manner (i. counsels or encourages the crime before or during its commission -Accessory After the Fact -A person who. assists.e. recklessness negligence. with the requisite mens rea. intentionally helps the felon avoid arrest Modern Complicity -terminology -Principal -The person who. etc. must retrieve) -if neutralization is impossible -must notify the authorities BEFORE the crime is at the point where it cannot be stopped Conviction of the Principal
. intentionally helps the felon avoid arrest. one may be guilty of criminal conduct by failure to act or. actually physically commits the offense -*note: may also act through the innocent agent -Accomplice -A person who. with knowledge that another has committed a crime. intentionally assists in the commission of a crime -accessories -accessory before the fact -a person who intentionally assists in the commission of the crime but is NOT in the actual or constructive presence of the principal in the first degree -accessory after the fact -a person who. actually physically commits the offense -*note: may also act through the physical agent -principal in the second degree -A person who while in the actual or constructive presence of the principal of the first degree. with the intent that the crime be committed. such as the duty of parents to care for their small children.
01) Innocent instrumentality -A person acting through an innocent agent may be classified as a principal -This is the same under the MPC 2.) MPC-MERGER -Conspiracy DOES “merge” with the target crime. even if the principal did not CONSPIRACY Definition -an agreement -an intent to agree -an intent to achieve the objective of the agreement AND -(possibly more recently) an overt act in furtherance of the agreement Common Law.-the key is the distinction between proving that a crime was committed by the principal. subject to statutory modification.” -Unilateral -An agreement between a person who really intends to commit the target crime and a person who does not intend to do so -Bilateral -An agreement between a person who really intends to commit the target crime and another person who also intends to commit the target crime Mental States -Intent to agree + intent to achieve the objective of the agreement
. unlike the common law.same result as the required purpose to aid is missing Feigning Principal -Because the principal lacks the requisite state. As stated in Martinez. merges with the target offense. which is typically essential due to the derivative nature of complicity and prosecution or conviction of the principal. A solicited or attempted crime.the accomplice’s aid to the “fake” principal can still be punished because he still had the purpose to aid. is that the accomplice is liable for the crime aided AND all other crimes committed by the principal which are a “natural and probable consequence” of committing the crime aided -The MPC approach. however under the MPC. “A mere tacit understanding will suffice. a defendant who conspires to commit a crime and then commits CANNOT be punished for both the conspiracy and the target offense. A defendant who conspires to commit a crime and then commits it can be punished for BOTH the conspiracy AND the completed target offense. -(This is categorically NOT true for solicitation and attempt. however focuses on mental state -The accomplice is liable only for the crimes s/he had the purpose to aid The Feigning Accomplice (or Principal) Feigning Accomplice -since the “fake” accomplice lacks one of he necessary mental states. Thus. if completed. You cant be convicted of both.06 (2)(a) Other crimes committed by the Principal -The usual approach. there can be no liability for the accomplice since accomplice liability is derivative -MPC. an accomplice may be prosecuted for attempt even if principal does NOT complete OR attempt the crime (5. -(The MPC rules for solicitation and attempt are the same as those at common law) Conduct -The essence of conspiracy is agreement -The agreement need NOT be explicit.06 (7). which is NOT essential -This rule is generally the same under the MPC 2. there can be no liability -MPC. and there need not be any written statement or even a speaking of words which expressly communicates agreement.NO MERGER -Conspiracy does not “merge” with the target crime.
however. . but not liability for crimes committed thereafter MPC -a defense from the beginning Duration -The conspiracy endures until the complete abandonment or success participation of
TYPES OF DEFENSES Failure of Proof Defense -Due to X circumstance.Is not recognized by the MPC Abandonment Common Law -not a defense.06
Wharton’s rule . the prosecution cannot prove all of the elements of the crime -Examples -Alibi -Intoxication -Mistaken Identity -Mistake of Fact -Mistake of Law (Mistake of a different Law Confession and Avoidance Defenses -The prosecution can prove each element of the crime. the defendant can offer some reason for engaging in the activity -Examples -Duress-Insanity -Mistake of Law (official interpretation /Lambert) Types of Avoidance -I did it but under the circumstances it was the only right thing to do. -Applies to a crime of such a nature that it is aggravated by a plurality of agents.Prevents prosecution for conspiracy when the crime is of such a nature as to necessarily require the two persons for its commission.Scope of Liability Common Law -(Pinkerton) -a defendant is guilty for crimes by co-conspirators where: -The crimes are committed in furtherance of the conspiracy AND -The crimes are foreseeable (or a natural and probable consequence) of the conspiracy MPC -rejects this doctrine and employs the complicity doctrines in section 2. I have an EXCUSE Justification -necessity -self-defense Excuses -Duress -Insanity -Mistake of Law (official interpretation /Lambert) Self Defense (and defense of others) General Rule -An individual who is without fault may use such force as reasonably appears necessary to protect herself from the imminent use of unlawful force upon herself Themes -Imminent danger of harm -Reasonableness of the belief regarding the imminence of harm -Necessity
. I was JUSTIFIED -I did it but something about me or my situation mitigates my blameworthiness.
522) OR -“sudden escalation”.-A lack of aggression -Proportionality of force -A need to retreat Deadly Force -to use deadly force. a person may use force to defend another if the person he or she is defending would be able to use self-defense in that situation -Special relationship? -Majority Rule-NOT required -Mistaken belief as to need for force? -Majority rule. he defendantintervener cannot be justified in so doing Self Defense Retreat Rules -No deadly force -no need to retreat at all -Deadly force -Majority Rule: no need to retreat -Minority Rule: must retreat first.if the victim of the initial aggression suddenly escalates a minor fight into one involving deadly force and does so without giving the aggressor the chance to withdraw
. unless you are in your “castle” Aggressor Rules -An aggressor may regain the right to use self-defense through -Withdrawal (as noted in the statutes on p. there must be a belief that you will be killed or grievously injured Defense of Self-Mistake -If a defendant makes an honest but reasonable error about the need to use deadly force. the defense still applies -Minority view.if the defended party would not have been justified in using force.defense claim Defense of Others -Generally. the defendant can still generally make a self.even if mistaken.