This action might not be possible to undo. Are you sure you want to continue?
Community condemnation accompanies a criminal act: a formal and solemn announcement of the moral condemnation of the community 2. Theories of Punishment a. Utilitarianism i. Rational Calculator ii. Augmenting happiness 1. General object of laws is to augment the happiness of the community by excluding everything that subtracts from it iii. General Deterrence 1. Send a message to others iv. Specific Deterrence 1. D is punished to deter him from future criminal activity v. Rehabilitation 1. Prevent future crime by reforming an individual b. Retributivism i. Humans Possess Free Will and by choosing to commit an offense they deserve punishment ii. Just Deserts 1. Punishment is justified as a deserved response to committing an offense 2. Punish because of the wrong doing, not to prevent future crime 3. Moral Disequilibrium created by benefitting from freely choosing to commit an offense 4. Owes a Debt 3. Proportionality of Punishment a. General i. Punishment should be proportional to the offense committed b. Utilitarian Meaning i. Punishment is proportional if it involves the infliction of no more pain than necessary to fulfill the law’s deterrent goal of reducing a greater amount of crime c. Retributive Meaning i. Punishment should be proportional to the harm caused on the present occasion, taking into consideration the actor’s degree of culpability for causing the harm. 4. Principle of Legality a. Requirement of Previously Defined Conduct i. A person cannot be convicted and punished unless her conduct was defined as criminal b. Fair Notice i. Understandable to reasonable law-abiding person c. Non Discriminatory Enforcement
i. Should not be subjective d. Lenity Doctrine i. Ambiguous statutes should be interpreted in favor of the accused 5. Burden of Proof a. Burden of Production i. Government has the burden to produce evidence regarding the elements of a crime ii. Defendant has burden to produce evidence regarding affirmative defenses b. Burden of Persuasion i. Government has Burden to prove beyond a reasonable doubt as to every element of the offense Actus Reus: 1. Voluntary Act a. General i. A person is not guilty of an offense unless his conduct includes a voluntary act b. Common law Definition i. A willed muscular contraction or bodily movement c. MPC 2.01(2) i. Does not define “voluntary” but provides examples of involuntary d. Omissions i. Person is not guilty of an offense for failing to act unless: 1. Statutory Duty 2. Commission by Omission a. Status Relationship b. Duty by Contract c. Duty by Voluntary Assumption d. Duty by Risk Creation 2. Social Harm a. Definition i. Destruction of, injury to, or endangerment of some socially valuable interest b. Result Crimes a. Prohibiting a specific result: Murder= death of another human being c. Conduct Crimes a. Prohibit specific conduct: DUI= driving under the influence d. Attendant Circumstances Mens Rea 1. Common Law a. Intentionally i. Conscious object or knowledge harm was virtually certain to occur as the result of her conduct b. Knowledge or Knowingly
i. Aware of the fact, ii. Correctly believes that it exists, or iii. Suspects that it exists and purposely avoids learning if her suspicion is correct (Willful Blindness) c. Recklessness i. Awareness that conduct creates a substantial and unjustifiable risk of social harm ii. Unjustified Risk-Taking 1. Three factors: a. Gravity of harm that a reasonable person would foresee b. The probability that the harm will occur c. The reason for the proposed conduct d. Criminal Negligence i. Should be aware (but isn’t) that her conduct creates a substantial and unjustifiable risk of social harm e. Malice i. Intentionally or reckless causes the social harm of the offense f. Specific Intent i. A crime that contains one of the following mens rea elements in its definition: 1. Intent to commit some act over and beyond the actus reus of the offense i.e. Burglary 2. A special motive for committing the actus reus of the offense i.e. Larceny 3. Awareness of a particular attendant circumstance i.e. receiving stolen property with knowledge that it is stole g. General Intent i. Requires proof of a morally culpable state of mind, not containing a specific intent 2. MPC 2.02 a. General: 2.02(1) i. Proof of Mens Rea required for every element of an offense (Except those in 2.05—Strict Liability) ii. If not explicit as to required Mens Rea then must be Purposely, Knowingly, or Recklessly 2.02(3) b. Purposely i. If it is her conscious object to cause the result c. Knowingly i. If she is aware that the result is practically certain to result from her conduct 1. Attendant Circumstances a. Aware that the circumstance exists b. Aware of a high probability of its existence (Willful Blindness) d. Recklessly
1. even if an unreasonable mistake of fact 1. Speeding b. Public Welfare Offenses 1. Degree of Social Danger a. A single violation often threatens safety of many persons ii. When she should be aware of a substantial and unjustifiable risk. Malum in Se Offenses i. General Intent Offenses i. Moral Wrong Doctrine a. ii. Ex] Borrow friends car believing consent. if the facts had been as the actor believed them to be. Common Law a. her conduct would be immoral b. Conduct that is only wrongful because it is prohibited 1. D is not guilty if her mistake of fact negates the specific-intent element of the crime. Specific Intent Offenses i. cannot be charged with “unauthorized use of a vehicle belonging to another” if belief of consent is reasonable ii. Usually minor. Strict Liability a. Conviction even if reasonable mistake of fact where. Statutory Rape Mistake of Fact 1. her conduct would be illegal. 2. Malum Prohibitum Offenses i. If he consciously disregards a substantial and unjustifiable risk that the material element exists or will result from his conduct e. if the facts had been as the actor believed them to be. Exceptions 1. Assumes risk that the facts are not as she believed them to be. Conviction even if reasonable mistake of fact where. monetary fine or short jail sentence 3. Inherently wrongful conduct (Murder) 2.i. A gross deviation from the standard of care that a reasonable person would observe in the actor’s situation 3. Ex] Not larceny if you believe the property abandoned (cannot have intended to steal it) b. Punishment a. Negligently i. Nature of Conduct a. 4 . Legal Wrong Doctrine a. D is not guilty of an offense if her mistake of fact was reasonable. No Proof Mens Rea Required i.
or enforce the law. administer. A person is not guilty of an offense unless she is an actual cause of the ensuing harm b. A person who is an actual cause of resulting harm is not responsible for it unless she is also the proximate (legal) cause of the harm b. Substantial Factor Test i. General Rule a. Strict Liability Offenses i. Not guilty of an offense if at the time of the offense he reasonably relied on an official statement of the law. MPC 2. Legal Wrong Doctrine except Punished as the Lesser Offense Mistake of Law 1. Rule a.i.03(1)(a) 2. obtained from a person or public body with authority to interpret. Mistake of Fact Reasonable or Unreasonable is never a defense to Strict Liability Offenses 2. Exceptions i. Acceleration is Sufficient for actual cause 3. Only BUT FOR Test Proximate Cause (Legal Cause) 1. reasonable or unreasonable are not a defense 2. General Rule i. “But For D’s Voluntary Act(s) would the Harm have Occurred when it did? i. Concurrent Sufficient Causes a. Mistake of fact is a defense if it negates a mental state required in the definition of the offense b. Mistakes that negate Mens Rea b. Due Process Clause Actual Cause (Cause in Fact) Empirical 1. Authorized Reliance Doctrine i. c. MPC a. Rule a. Exceptions a.03(2)(b) Purpose or Knowing: 5 . MPC 2. Conduct is the “actual cause” of the prohibited result if the result would not have occurred BUT FOR the actor’s conduct. Mistakes of law. “Was D’s Conduct a Substantial Factor in the Resulting Harm?” b. Convicted of Greater Offense c. MPC i. later determined to be erroneous. Knowledge of the law is not an element of an offense b. Relevant Conduct a.
Deliberate.c. Must occur in the manner desired. b. The force that is necessary must be proportional to the force being threatened c. b. Definition i. An actual (BUT FOR) cause of social harm that arises after D’s causal contribution to the result. deliberate. Reasonable Belief 6 . Intervening Cause a. then D is the Direct Cause 3. A cause that would have come into play even in the absence of the Defendant’s conduct a. Supersedes if unforeseeable and unusual (freakish) ii. even if there is an intervening cause. but before the social harm. Supersedes if unforeseeable to a reasonable person in defendant’s situation iii. D is not responsible for a result if it can be determined that the dangerous situation created by the defendant is over 2. has reached apparent safety Defenses Justifications: Indicates Society’s Belief that the Defendant’s Conduct was not Wrongful 1. A Defendant is the Proximate Cause of a result. if D intended the result that occurred. Apparent Safety Doctrine 1. iv. Coincidental (Independent) Intervening Cause 1. Intended Consequences Doctrine 1. Free. Necessity i. Use of force against another must be necessary b. 2. once at risk. D is not a PC of a result if a free. The victim. Responsive (Dependent) Intervening Cause 1. A Voluntary Act that is a Direct Cause of the Social Harm is also a Proximate Cause of it. An intervening cause that occurs in response to the Defendant’s earlier conduct a. v. Common Law Factors: i. Informed Human Intervention 1. Direct Cause a. Direct Cause i. (3)(b)Reckless or Negligent: Was the actual result…too remote or accidental in its occurrence to have a [just] bearing on the actor’s liability or gravity of the offense? 2. Proportionality i. Identifying Direct Cause i. If NO. Are there any actual (BUT FOR) causes that came into the picture after D’s conduct? ii. Elements: a. informed act of another human being intervenes.
Force intended to cause death or serious bodily harm iii. He reasonably believes that such force is necessary c. even if incorrect. May not use deadly force if non-aggressor knows of a completely safe place. Cannot use deadly force unless it is necessary 2. that she is in imminent danger of death or serious bodily harm. ii. Majority i.i. Necessity 1. He is not the aggressor b. A person is justified in using deadly force against another if: a. D must possess a reasonable. Do not have a retreat requirement b. ii. and that deadly force is necessary to protect herself. A person who responds to non-deadly aggression by threatening deadly force becomes the aggressor. MPC 3. To repel the imminent use of deadly force by the other person. A person may use deadly force in Self-Defense if she has reasonable grounds to believe. Retreat a. b. Minority i. and actually believes. which she can retreat. Deadly force can never be used in response to a non-deadly threat v. a. May not use deadly force in self-defense 2. Imminence 1. Common Law i. Deadly force cannot be used in self-defense unless the aggressor’s threatened force will occur immediately a. Proportionality 1. Reasonable Belief 1. B pulls out Knife. Exception: Battered Woman vii. Ex] A slaps B.04(1) and (2)(b) i. A regains right of Self-Defense iv. even if her reasonable beliefs are incorrect. Self Defense a. General 1. Aggressor 1. General 7 . Deadly Force 1. Unlawful Force or Unlawful threat 1. Castle Exception: Do not have to Retreat in your own home viii. belief that the use of force is necessary and proportional to the supposed threat 2. A person has no right to defend against lawful force vi.
A person may only use deadly force to defend a 3rd party if the person being defended would IN FACT have been justified in using the same degree of force in Self-Defense a. Non-Necessity Circumstances a. If 3rd party would have to retreat. Non-aggressor must retreat if she knows she can avoid using deadly force with complete safety to herself b. must surrender posessions 3. the 3rd person would be justified in using deadly force 3. If Reckless or Negligent Belief then defendant can be convicted of homicide offense based on Recklessness or Negligence (Manslaughter. a.09(2) i. 2. b. ii. even though the intervener reasonably believes she does. Being Robbed. Hom. Absorbs battered Woman iv. A person is justified in using deadly force to protect a 3rd party from unlawful use of force by an aggressor. intervener must attempt to cause 3rd to retreat before using deadly force. A 3rd party may use force.09(2) a. Belief 1. According to the facts as the intervener believes them to be. Do Not Have to Retreat in Own Home 3.) MPC 3. Defense of 3rd Parties a. if the facts were as she believed them to be 2. A person is justified in using deadly force to protect another if: 1. MPC 3. Imminency 1.1. 8 . Retreat a. The intervener believes force is necessary for the 3rd parties protection. or rape. and 4. If the other person has no right of Self-Defense. MPC allows the use of deadly force in self-defense even if the aggressor will not use deadly force immediately. Limitations 1. A person is not justified in using deadly force against another unless she believes that such force is immediately necessary to protect herself against the exercise of unlawful deadly force. General 1. Imperfect defense iii. Subjective Reasonable Belief 2. when she reasonably believes that the 3rd party would be justified in using force to protect herself. the intervener losing the defense. N. The intervener would be justified in using such force to protect herself. kidnapping. Minority “Alter Ego” Principle 1. ii. Actor cannot be aggressor: “one who provokes” 2. Common Law i.
Narrow Rule 1. Subjective Belief ii. 2. V has employed or threatened deadly force against or in the presence of D OR i. That V will commit a violent felony inside the dwelling if V enters. Allows use of non-deadly force to recapture even after fresh pursuit has ended iii. Intends to disposess D of his dwelling. Deadly force justified if actor believes that a. Intends to commit arson. Deadly force is limited to circumstance in which the actor believes a. OR b. Unless Fresh Pursuit b. and c. Common Law i. Recapture 1. V intends unlawfully and imminently to enter D’s dwelling b. May use necessary. V intends unlawfully and imminently to enter D’s dwelling b. Common Law i. MPC i. Defense of Property a. or to cause bodily injury to any occupant. Belief 1. The use of non-deadly force t prevent the commission of the crime would expose D or another to substantial risk of serious bodily harm 5. c. Authorized if D believes that V a. 1. May have to ask offender to stop unless dangerous or futile 3. and c. Deadly force is necessary to prevent the threatened entry iii. Deadly force is necessary to prevent the threatened entry 9 . or felonious theft inside. A person is never justified in using deadly force to protect one’s real or personal property. proportional non-deadly force. Defense of Habitation a. burglary. must call the police a. A person may use deadly force to protect her right to inhabit her home ii. Deadly Force (FOR HABITATION) 1. robbery. V intends to commit any felony inside. Cannot use force to recapture property. Broad Rule 1.4.
The suspect committed any felony. Use of deadly force presents no substantial risk to bystanders i. Crime Prevention i. Non-Deadly force for misdemeanors 2. b. Applies to all felonies (not just violent ones under crime prevention) ii. MPC 1. There is a substantial risk that the suspect will cause serious bodily harm to another unless prevented. An office is justified in using Deadly Force if she reasonably believes that: a. MPC 3. Subject to 3. A police officer may use deadly force if she believes 10 . May only use deadly force to prevent violent felonies b. May use deadly force to prevent any felony ii. May not use any mechanical device 7. Deadly force may never be used by private citizens to make an arrest or prevent an escape 2. Majority view i. Minority i. not just appear that way b. and c. Spring Guns a. one where were he present he would be justified in taking the life with his own hands 1. The force is immediately necessary to prevent the commission of the offense. Such force is necessary to immediately effect the arrest i.b. Common Law i. MPC i. Arrest i. A person may use a spring gun to inflict deadly force on another where an intrusion is. must have actually been justifiable. IN FACT. Deadly force justifiable for the prevention of felonies a. and b. No Separate Defense of Habitation ii. MPC i. Law Enforcement a. Covered in Defense of Property 6. Use at your own peril. Common law 1. A Police office may not use deadly force unless he Reasonably believes: a.09 (If belief is Reckless or Negligent can be prosecuted for offense with that mens rea) b. Common Law 1.07(5)(a) 1.
Elements 1. Homicide 1. Must take lawful route if there is sufficient time 3. Thre does not plainly exist legislative intent to exclude the justification claimed by the actor 11 . Causal element a. Constitution prohibits unreasonable search and seizure ii. b. even if it necessary to save a greater number of lives b. and 3.02 i. Constitutional Law i. A substantial risk exists that the suspect will cause serious bodily harm to another if she is not arrested immediately c. Reasonable belief i. Necessity (Residual Justification): Natural Non-Human Pressures a. MPC “Choice of Evils” 3. Arrest is a seizure and must be performed in a reasonable manner 8. Elements 1. or ii. Blamelessness of the actor a. The felony for which the person is being arrested included the use or threatened use of deadly force. at that moment. Actor must reasonably believe his actions will prevent the threatened harm 4. Actor must not be at fault for creating the necessity ii. Harms are to be weighed and compared are those that a reasonable person. Such force is immediately necessary to make the arrest.a. After the fact unforeseeable results are not relevant 2. Force can be applied at no risk to bystanders b. The harm that D seeks to prevent by his conduct must be greater than the harm he reasonably expects to cause by his conduct b. Common law i. and either i. Dudley v. Actor must be seeking to avoid harm that appears to occur immediately. Lesser evil analysis a. would expect to occur ii. Imminency of harm a. Stephens: it is never justifiable to kill an innocent person. Actor believes that the conduct is necessary to avoid harm to himself of another 2. The harm that the actor seeks to avoid is greater than that sought to be avoided by the law prohibiting his conduct.
Viewed a part of necessity. chose to do the lesser of two evils in light of the coercive threat b. Must be Deadly Force 3. If actor was Reckless or Negligent in bringing about the necessity the defense is unavailable if that is sufficient to prove guilt. Available in Homicide and Does not require Imminence Excuses 1. MPC 2. and it was unjustified (wrongful). Justification i. Coerced Homicides 1. Must show that he committed the offense because he was coerced to do so by another person’s use. 3. She is not at fault in exposing herself to the threat 2.09 Duress: i. the law does not blame him for his wrongful conduct. Definition a.ii. Defendant’s action must be based on a reasonable belief that the coercer is serious about the threat and has the capacity to inflict the harm immediately ii. Common law—Limited to Human threats because natural threats cannot be unlawful i. In the shoes of the defendant 12 . A person of reasonable firmness would have committed the offense i. unlawful force against him or a third party. Comparison to Common Law 1. Excuse Defense a. Excuse a. Justification v. Society indicates that although the actor committed the offense. Excuse i. and b. excuse focuses on the actor. and b. Justification focuses on the wrongfulness of the act or result. Elements 1. A person is not to blame for her conduct if she lacked a fair opportunity to conform her conduct to the law because of an unlawful threat c. or threat to use. Duress—Human based threats a. Another person unlawfully threatened to imminently kill or grievously injure her or another person unless she commit the crime. 4. Defendant will be acquitted of an offense except for murder if she proves that she committed the offense because: a. Must be imminent 4. 2. Duress Defense does not apply to murder d.
Intoxication a. Mens Rea Defense a. Ingestion of any foreign substance that disturbs an actor’s mental or physical capabilities ii. Defendant cannot avoid offense that requires Recklessness on the grounds that b/c she was voluntarily intoxicated she was unaware of the risk. Lacks capacity to appreciate criminality c. Common Law: Voluntary Intoxication i. Defense of Insanity but due to long-term use of alcohol or drugs that caused mental illness. Also allows for prior use of force. Negligence standard: should have been aware but wasn’t will suffice to convict of offense of Recklessness 3. Mistake: Like drinking spiked punch w/o knowing 13 . not just threat of future force 4. b. Definition a. A person is never excused for his criminal conduct on the ground that he became voluntarily intoxicated iii. iii. Exception 2. Involuntary Intoxication 2. A defendant is not entitled to argue that due to voluntary intoxication he did not know right from wrong v.08(5) i. Ex] Drunk Fernando breaking into house in Flag and falling asleep on the couch iv.08(2) 1. Affirmative defense if pathological self-induced intoxication a. A person is not guilty of a specific-intent offense if. c. as the result of voluntary intoxication. Lose defense if actor puts himself in the situation and if negligent may be prosecuted of crime with that mens rea Coerced Homicides a. Coercion: gun to head 2. MPC: Self-Induced Intoxication 2.08 i. General 1. How 1. he lacked the capacity or failed to form the specific intent required for the crime i. Up to jury to decide whether a person of reasonable firmness would have killed a reasonable person given the nature of the threat or force used by the coercer Comparison to Common law a. Temporary Insanity a. Voluntary intoxication is a defense to any crime if it negates an element of the offense ii. Does not require Deadly force or imminence b. Not an Excuse a. 2.ii. Fixed Insanity a.
Common law and MPC 5. i. Criticism i. A person is insane if as the result of mental illness or defect. at the time of the act. Defendant’s ability to control must be totally lacking (impossible to prove) ii. from disease of the mind. Appreciate is better than know iii. Criticism i. he was laboring under such a defect of reason. that he did not know what he was doing was wrong ii. b. as: 1. Excludes mentally ill people who plan a crime. M’Naghten Test a. A person is legally insane if. Experts cannot prove either way viii. Outmoded ii. If he did know it. or 2. Irresistible Impulse (Control) Test a. All or nothing feature 1. Reliability of proof 1. Rule i. Lack of Mens Rea a. Expert testimony hampered—because outmoded vii. Know/Appreciate iii. Rule i. Not to know the nature and quality of the act he was doing. but otherwise unable to control their actions iii. Common law vi. If because of involuntary intoxication the actor lacks the required mens rea of the offense whether Specific or General Intent crime. she “acted with an irresistible and uncontrollable impulse” or if she lost the power to choose b/w right and wrong b. Prescribed medicine: Allergic reaction. Right/Wrong (moral wrong) test: whether the D knew (or appreciated) that society considered his actions morally wrong.3. Insanity a. unforeseeable reaction ii. Durham (Product) Test a. When Does it Exculpate 1. To be acquitted under this rule a defendant must prove 14 . Rule i. The impulse element 1.
To appreciate the criminality of her actions.01 i.3(1)(b) 1. He Suffered from a mental disease or defect at the time of the crime. Broadens provocation doctrine and recognizes partial responsibility defense 3. But for the mental disease or defect. Partial responsibility: i. MPC 4.How close to completion) i.1.02(1) 1. Reasonable explanation or excuse for the disturbance not the conduct 2. including because of temporary or permanent mental disability b. “Whether the actor’s loss of self-control can be understood in terms that arouse sympathy in the ordinary citizen” Inchoate Conduct 1. MPC 4. A person who commits a criminal homicide and suffers from some mental illness or abnormality short of insanity may have her offense reduced because of her diminished capacity ii. and 2. Or b. An attempt occurs when a person with the intent to commit a crime engages in conduct the constitutes the perpetration rather than the mere preparation of the crime 15 .” a. Rule 1. A person is not responsible for her conduct if. General 1. Common Law 1. he would not have committed the crime b. Attempt a. A defendant should be acquitted of any offense for which he lacked the requisite mens rea. at the time of the criminal act. she lacked the substantial capacity either: a. Diminished Capacity a. Common Law (Objective-. Not permitted for general intent crimes ii. as a result of mental disease or defect. Evidence of abnormal mental condition allowed only for specific intent crimes in order to negate the specific-intent required of the offense 2. To conform her conduct to the law 6. Homicide that would otherwise be Murder is reduced to manslaughter if the homicide was the result of “Extreme Mental or Emotional Disturbance for which there is a reasonable explanation or excuse. Mens rea: Failure of Proof: b/c lacked requisite mens rea i. EMED:MPC 210. Common Law 1.
Attempt offense are Specific Intent crimes even if the target offense is a General Intent Crime a. Degree of apprehension felt b. Attempted Rape is Specific while Rape is General Special Defense: Impossibility 1. Legal Impossibility is a defense to an attempt b.ii. factual impossibility 16 .How close to completion) 1. Nearness of danger ii. Person is not guilty of an attempt until her conduct standing alone demonstrates her criminal intent. Physical Proximity Test a. Attempt merges into the target offense if it is successfully completed Actus Reus (Objective-. Factual Impossibility is not a defense to an attempt 2. A person is guilty of an attempt is she has past the point which an ordinary person is likely to abandon her criminal endeavor. If yes. Criminal attempt only occurred when a person performs all the acts necessary to commit the target offense 2. iv. The more serious the offense. Actor must intentionally commit the acts that constitute the actus reus of an attempt b. Dual Intent a. General Rule a. Most states treat an attempt as a lesser crime 4. Mens Rea 1. Substantiality of harm iii. Conduct is no near to the result that the danger of success is very great i. Last act test a. 2. Attempt to commit a felony is a felony 3. Actor’s conduct must be the first or subsequent step in a direct movement toward the commission of the offense 4. iii. Dangerous proximity test a. 5. Unequivocality/Res Ipsa Loquitor Test a. If the facts had been as the defendant believed them to be would his conduct have constituted a crime? i. the less close the actor must be to completing it to be convicted of attempt 3. Probable Desistance Test a. Factual Impossibility a. Actor must commit the actus reus of an attempt with the specific intent to commit the target offense (Critical component) 2.
When an actor’s intended end constitutes a crime but he fails to complete the offense because of a factual circumstance unknown to him or beyond his control 3. under the circumstances as he believes them to be. acting with the kind of culpability required for commission of the crime he: 2. Legal Impossibility a.01 (Subjective—how far along) i. (2)conduct that is a substantial step must be highly corroborative of the actor’s criminal purpose i. purposely engages in conduct that would constitute the crime if the attendant circumstances were as he believed them to be 3. Attempts punished to the same degree as the target offense 5. 1. but commission of the offense is impossible due to a mistake of the actor regarding the legal status of some factual circumstance relevant to her conduct ii. When an actor’s goal is illegal.b. MPC 5. His goal was illegal. Cannot be guilty of attempting to commit a non-existent offense b. Does or omits anything which. When an actor engages in lawful conduct that she incorrectly believes is a crime. General 1. Hybrid i. (1)(a) Complete Conduct Offense a. but the goods were not in fact stolen. does or omits to do anything with the purpose of causing or with the belief that it will cause such result without further conduct on his part 4. is an act or omission constituting a substantial step in a course of conduct planned to culminate in the commission of a crime b. but he made a mistake about the legal status of the goods (Stolen). (2)(a-g)Factors 5. (1) A person is guilty of an attempt to commit a crime if. Ex] person believes he is receiving stolen goods. Could also be categorized as factual impossibility b. (1)(b) Complete Result Offense a. (1)(c) Incomplete Attempts a.05 17 . Pure i. Cannot be charged with Receiving stolen property or attempt. 1.
Purpose is required for Complete Attempts of Conduct and Result Offense 2. even if her actions constitute a substantial step in the commission of the offense if: a. Incomplete Attempt a. a. Overt act i. Common Law i. Need only be as culpable as is required for the target offense b. Does not merge into target offense a. Conspiracy a. iii. One in which the defendant has done every act necessary on his part to commit the target offense. iv. Ex] Special Defense: Impossibility 1. Exception for Felony of the First Degree (Life Sentence): attempt is a Felony of the Second Degree (lesser offense) Actus reus 1. An agreement b/w two or more persons to commit an unlawful act or series of unlawful acts 2. Must be corroborative of the actor’s criminal purpose Mens Rea 1. v. Pure legal Impossibility still a defense Special Defense: Renunciation of Criminal Purpose 5. She abandons her effort to commit the crime or prevents it from being committed. Substantial Step Standard i. Conspiracy to commit murder.ii. but has failed to commit the crime. Complete Attempt a. 2. The agreement is the Actus Reus a. Her conduct manifests a complete and voluntary renunciation of her criminal purpose 2. MPC abandons Hybrid Legal Impossibility Defense 2. Actus Reus 1. General 1. Attendant Circumstances: a. murder both Punishable ii. A person is not guilty of a criminal offense. When the defendant has not committed the last act necessary on his part b.01(4) “Abandonment Defense” 1. Conspiracy is committed as soon as the agreement is made 18 . and b.
Purpose v. Today many statutes provide that conspiracy does not occur unless at least one party commits an overt act in furtherance of it b. Plurality 1. If evidence party had a stake in the venture iv. Special Defenses 1. Ex] adultery—cannot be prosecuted for conspiracy b. Parties must intend to form an agreement (actus reus) b. Impossibility a. Ex] Wheel Conspiracy (hub and spoke) vi.ii. Mens Rea 1. A person cannot be prosecuted for conspiracy to commit a crime that is intended to protect that person i.03 i. c. (Making Conspiracy a Specific Intent Crime) 2. Two or more persons must possess the requisite mens rea a. There is no Impossibility Defense to Conspiracy 4. Wharton’s Rule a. Difficult to determine who is a party to the conspiracy a. MPC 5. Nature of the agreement i. If a crime requires two or more persons. The object of the agreement must be unlawful 1. Method of Forming the agreement i. Morally wrongful (does not have to be criminal) iii. Need not be in writing or verbalized. May infer Purpose from Knowledge i. The intent to agree and the intent to that it be achieved v. Parties to an Agreement 1. Not a defense to Conspiracy b. Legislative Exemption a. Abandonment a. Ex] Young female cannot be prosecuted for conspiracy to commit statutory rape 3. General 19 . it can be implied from the actions of the parties. Dual Intent Offense a. there can not be a conspiracy if the only parties to the agreement are necessary to the offense i. Knowledge a. Most courts will not convict unless he acts with the purpose of promoting or facilitating the offense b. They must intend that the object of their agreement be achieved. 2.
Not guilty of conspiracy if renounces his criminal purpose and then thwarts the success of the conspiracy i. An overt act is required in order for conspiracy to occur 2. It is a defense to a charge of conspiracy that if the criminal object were achieved. Common Law 1. or encourages another person to engage in conduct constituting a felony. requests. iv. but only one to be guilty of conspiracy Parties to an Agreement 1. Legislative Exemption a. or a misdemeanor involving breach of peace or obstruction of justice ii. Grading i. not just unlawful Mens Rea 1. commands. It takes two people to agree. Crime of Conspiracy graded the same as the target offense 3. 2. agrees with such other person or persons that they or one or more of them will engage in conduct that constitutes such crime or an attempt or solicitation to commit such crime.ii. Tough…Look at Class Notes Special Defenses 1. Must be complete and voluntary 3. iii. MPC 5. v. Nature of Agreement a. or if that person agrees to aid the other person in the commission or attempt or solicitation to commit such crime. the actor would not be guilty of a crime under the law defining the offense or as an accomplice . Cannot be convicted of conspiracy and the target offense Actus Reus 1. 2. Must act with the purpose of promoting or facilitating the commission of the conduct that constitutes a crime Plurality 1. A person is guilty of solicitation if he intentionally invites. vi. 1. Applies to solicitation of any misdemeanor b. A person is guilty of conspiracy with another person or persons to commit a crime if that person with the purpose of promoting or facilitating commission of a crime.02 1. CL= Charged with lesser offense 20 . Definition i. Solicitation a. The object of the agreement must be a crime. Renunciation of Criminal Purpose a. Overt Act a. MPC Rejects Plurality of Common Law 2.
Crime of Solicitation merges into target offense. Common Law Definition 1. MPC= Charged with the offense of the target offense c. Breaking and entering into the dwelling of another. Inchoate Offenses in Disguise i. An attempted battery a. Attempt Laws do not apply b. MPC 1. commands. Mens Rea i. Common law: must successfully communicate to solicited party b. If she requests the other person to assist e. Must commit actus reus with the specific intent that the other person commit the target offense ii. General 1. Actus Reus i. Other a. Burglary 1. at night. or encourages the other person to commit an offense a. 4.ii. requests. must ask the other person to commit the offense herself 2. Accomplice Liability: Common Law 21 . Common Law 1. MPC: Does not have to be successful communication ii. Common Law: No Defense ii. Common Law: a. MPC: Complete and voluntary renunciation and persuades the other person not to commit the offense or prevents it. Unlawful taking and carrying away of the personal property of another with the intent to deprive them of it permanently Complicity 1. Guilty if she asks to commit the offense herself and b. MPC a. Defense: Renunciation i. Specific Intent Crime a. Merger i. Relationship to Solicitor 1. When the actor invites. Unlawful application of force to the person of another b. but does not apply to conspiracy d. Larceny 1. with the intent to commit a felony therein. Not guilty of solicitation if merely asks for assistance. ii. Assault i. Must act with the purpose of promoting or facilitating the commission of the solicited offense f.
even if present in order to aid in the commission of the offense. One may be an accomplice by failing to act to prevent a crime when she has a duty to act. 22 . A person who is at the scene of a crime. A person is an accomplice if she intentionally assists another person to engage in the conduct that constitutes the offense ii. One who knowingly assists a felon to avoid arrest. Categories 1. The person who intentionally assists the principal in the 1st degree and who is actually or constructively present during its commission i. Accessory before the fact a. General i. Assistance i. but who is not actually or constructively present during its commission 4. A person is a principal in the 1st degree if she dupes or coerces an innocent human being to perform the acts that constitute an offense 2. Encouragement iii. Omission 1. Innocent instrumentality Doctrine i. i. An accomplice is liable even if the crime would have occurred without her assistance a. Trivial Assistance: 1. One who intentionally assists in the commission of an offense. iv. Separate and Lesser offense b. Principal in the 1st degree a. trial or conviction. Presence 1. A person is not an accomplice unless her conduct IN FACT assists in commission of the crime ii. is not an accomplice unless she IN FACT assists in the crime. If No Assistance: 1. Accomplice’s liability derives from the primary party to whom she provided assistance 2. Accessory after the fact a. The person with the requisite mens rea who personally commits the offense or who uses an innocent instrumentality to commit it b. Derivative Liability “Your acts are my acts” 1. Principal in the 2nd degree a.a. Accomplice is ordinarily convicted of the offense committed by the primary party iii. Constructive: close enough to assist during crime 3.
Mens Rea i. whether or not he assisted. If Principal in the 1st degree is acquitted on grounds of justification defense a. Rule 1. Crime of Reck. A person may be held accountable for the actions of others either as an accomplice or as a conspirator ii. Accomplice should be acquitted 2. Accomplice may be convicted of Higher offense than Principal in the 1st degree (or less) f. If no Crime Occurred 1. MPC 2. Excuse claim is personal to principal in the 1st degree and the accomplice may still be prosecuted e. if the offense falls within the scope of conspiracy or a foreseeable consequence thereof. If Perpetrator is Acquitted i. Natural and Probable Cause Doctrine 1. If omitted with the intent that the crime occur then she is an accomplice c. or Neg. A person may not be convicted as an accomplice in her own victimization 2. Act with the level of culpability required in the definition of the offense in which she assisted ii. Pinkerton doctrine i. Person gets in Taxi and says you will have to speed to get me to the airport iii. Intentionally engage in the acts of assistance 2. Special Defense: Legislative Exemption Rule i. Conspiracy Liability a. If the principal in the 1st degree is acquitted. A Co-Conspirator is responsible for any crime committed by any other member of the conspiracy. No guilt to derive from ii. 3. If acquitted on grounds of a Defense 1. 1. Degrees of Guilt i. Prosecutor does not have to prove accomplice intended a crime of reckless or negligence occur (#2 from above) enough to show she was reckless or negligent in regard to the ensuing harm a. the accomplice must be acquitted as well 2. An accomplice is responsible for any reasonably foreseeable offense committed by the person she aided d. If Principal in the 1st degree is acquitted on grounds of an excuse defense a.06 23 . Ex] A police officer does nothing to intervene in the commission of a crime.a.
Rule 1. Assistance i. if she has the requisite mens rea for the result in the definition of the offense d. Solicit the offense 2. Accomplice Liability 1. warns the police. of Purpose 1. Special Defenses i. An accomplice can be convicted of the primary offense even if the alleged perpetrator is convicted of a different or lesser offense. Aid.06(7) i. If acting with the requisite mens rea. If Perpetrator is Acquitted 2. Forms of Complicity i. Comparison to Common Law 1. Exception to Req. Not recognized by the MPC b. 1. A person cannot be convicted as an accomplice to her own victimization ii. or attempt to aid in its commission. A person must act with the purpose of promoting or facilitating the commission of the offense ii. Mens Rea i. Inevitable evidence 1. ii. agree to aid. Abandonment 1. Rule 1. An accomplice in the commission of conduct that causes a criminal result is also an accomplice of the result. Pinkerton Rule 1. Innocent Instrumentality Doctrine 1. or 3. A person is guilty of an offense that she did not personally commit if she is an accomplice of another person in the commission of the offense iii. Legislative Exemption Rule 1. or prevents the crime Criminal Homicide 24 . Fail to make a proper effort to prevent the commission if she has a legal duty to act. if she neutralizes her assistance. Accomplice may be properly convicted if perpetrator acquitted on grounds of an excuse defense e. she causes an innocent or irresponsible person to commit a crime. Customer of a prostitute cannot be charged as an accomplice to prostitution iii.a. Accomplice acquitted if perpetrator acquitted on justification defense 2. ii. Not an accomplice if she terminates her participation before the crime is committed. Agree to aid and Attempt to aid are in MPC c.
A person is legally dead when there is a total stoppage of circulation of the blood and a permanent cessation of respiration and heart pulsation 1. Felony murder 2. Intent to kill ii. Does not have to make this inference c. inexcusable (insanity). Jury may infer intent to kill if the defendant uses a deadly weapon 1.No degrees of Murder at Common Law 1. Weigh the pros and cons 3. Purposely or knowingly ii. If the defendant intends to inflict grievous bodily injury and the victim dies. Common Law Murder. Statutory Reform: Willful. OR suffers from “brain death syndrome” when whole brain loses the capacity to function 3. she is guilty of murder 4. Intent to inflict grievous bodily harm iii. Killing that is unjustifiable (self-defense). To think about beforehand (some appreciable time) iii. Human Being a. The killing of a human being by another human being 2. Conduct that manifests an extreme indifference to the value of human life 25 . Intent i. Wilful 1. General Rule i. Depraved Heart (Extreme Recklessness) (Implied Malice) a. Year and Day Rule a. Depraved heart iv.1. Fetus is not a human being until it has been born alive (Keeler) ii. Intent to inflict Grievous Bodily Injury (Implied Malice) a. Intent to Kill (Express Malice) a. General Rule i. Definition i. and unmitigated (heat of passion) b. Premeditated 1. Malice i. Definition: a killing of a human being by another human being with malice aforethought a. A homicide prosecution may only be brought if the victim dies within one year and a day of the injury afflicted by the accused. Deliberate and Premeditated Formula i. Homicide a. Intentional (Purposely or Knowingly) ii. To measure and evaluate the major facets of choice a. Deliberate 1. At start/end of life i.
Voluntary Manslaughter: Provocation (Heat of Passion) a. Categories: a. or b. Limitations i. Provocation must be such that it “inflames the passion of a reasonable man and tends to cause him to act for the moment from passion rather than reason” 1. Serious battery b. Diminished capacity May also mitigate 2. General a. 2. Res Gestae 1. Looking at the felony in the abstract. Assault offenses. An intentional. whether the felony cannot be committed without creating a substantial risk that some will be killed. inexcusable killing constitutes manslaughter if it is committed in sudden heat of passion. Only if a felony always creates a substantial risk of death will it be considered inherently dangerous and subject to felony-murder rule a. Other courts look at facts to see if the felony was committed in this case in a dangerous manner ii. Mutual combat c. unjustified. A felony that is not independent of the homicide merges with the homicide a. Jury now decides what is adequate 26 . There must be a causal connection b/w the felony and the death Common Law Manslaughter 1. General Rule i. Definition i. Imperfect defenses 2.5. Provocation Doctrine i. General Rule i. during the commission or attempted commission of any felony. Words alone are insufficient provocation ii. A person is guilty of murder if she kills another human being. Inherently Dangerous Felonies 1. b. “Independent felonious purpose” iii. as the result of adequate provocation b. Independent Purpose/Merger 1. even accidentally. Finding your spouse in adultery 2. Felony Murder Rule (Implied Malice) a. Intentional killing but one in which the actor takes a life in “the sudden heat of passion” as the result of “adequate provocation” 1.
Knowingly. Recklessness 27 . General Rule i. Reckless Indifference to the value of human life can be presumed if the person causes a death during the commission of a. Criminal Homicide a. burglary. A person who is born alive 2. Must not have had an adequate period of time to cool off iv. Risk of death must be great and the justification for taking the risk is weak or non-existent b. the passion. Purposely 2. or 3. rape or deviate sexual intercourse by force or threat of force 3. Involuntary Manslaughter: Criminal Negligence a. Human Being i. Recklessly under circumstance manifesting an extreme indifference to the value of human life a. Presumption may be rebutted 3. A homicide is manslaughter is it is the result of a unlawful act not amounting to a felony 1. Misdemeanor-manslaughter rule MPC—There are no Degrees of Murder in the MPC 1.1. Must be a causal link b/w the provocation. Apply reasonable person standard as to degree of selfcontrol iii. A homicide is manslaughter if it is the result of a lawful act performed in an unlawful manner 4. felonious escape. A homicide constitutes murder if it is committed 1. Felony Murder 1. Comparison to Common Law i.2 p.1000 a. Take defendant’s characteristics into account for gravity of the provocation 2. Depraved heart: Extreme Recklessness iv. arson. Rule i. General Rule i. Abandoned by MPC 2. Manslaughter a. Jury Question b. Robbery. Murder 210. Involuntary Manslaughter: Unlawful-Act doctrine a. Intent to kill: Purposely or knowingly ii. and the killing 3. Intent to cause Grievous Bodily Harm: Extreme recklessness iii. kidnapping.
General a. prosecutor must prove beyond a reasonable doubt d. by means of force or threat of force. Some states require less force: 1. by threat of physical force ii. No reasonable cooling off period ii. Marital Immunity i. Sexual Intercourse by a Male with a Female i. Extreme Mental or Emotional Disturbance—Broader Provocation Doctrine i. at least. Penetration by a male of a female’s vagina ii. General intent offense b. Some States have abandoned the force requirement 1. against her will. Negligent Homicide a.i. Reasonableness of explanation or excuse is subjective 1. Must be shown that the male acted with forcibly or. In the actor’s situation under the circumstances as he believes them to be iii. Only force necessary is the force required to actually have sex 28 . Pulling aside panties iv. Non consensual oral and anal sex are sodomy (separate) b. Some states have abolished the resistance requirement a. Force i. A criminally negligent killing Rape Common Law: Forcible Rape 1. Actus Reus a. Must be substantial force: 1. and without her consent 2. Non consent an element of the crime. Some only require reasonable resistance iii. 1. Explanation or excuse for the EMED not the homicide 2. Words alone can qualify if Jury believes it so 3. The reckless murder here does not manifest an extreme indifference to the value of human life b. Sexual intercourse by a male. Resistance required a. with a female not his wife. Murder constitutes manslaughter if the actor kills under the influence of an “extreme mental or emotional disturbance” for which there is a reasonable explanation or excuse. Non-Consent i. Victim resisted or her resistance was overcome by force or by threats to her safety 2. Husband immune for the rape of his wife c. Partial responsibility Diminished Capacity defense available 4.
Statutory Rape is a Strict Liability offense and therefore a mistake of fact. extreme pain or kidnapping. Clarification i. Mens Rea a. Other forms of rape a. A male who has sexual intercourse with a female not his wife is guilty if he compels her to submit by force or threat of imminent death. reasonable or unreasonable. serious bodily injury.1 1. turns out to be the doctor’s penis…Rape MPC 213. Minority Rule i. A person is not guilty of rape if at the time of intercourse he had a genuine and reasonable belief that the female voluntarily consented ii. Fraud in the Inducement i. Includes oral and anal 2. is irrelevant because there is no mens rea requirement 2. A male is not guilty of rape if he induces the female to consent to intercourse with him. is invalid if the victim is unaware she has consented to an act of sexual intercourse 1. Definition i. Patient signs consent form for an instrument to be inserted in her vagina while under anesthesia. Forcible Rape a. If she was unconscious 29 . A seducer is not a rapist ii. General Rule i. Gender specific and marital immunity exists ii. Consent to engage in sexual intercourse. Fraud in the Factum i. to be inflicted upon anyone. obtained by fraud. for the purpose of preventing resistance b. b.2. Statutory Rape a. Some states provide that even a defendant’s reasonable mistake of fact is not a defense Common Law: Non-forcible Rape 1. No Mistake of Fact “Defense” 1. Not only NO equals rape…lack of yes can be rape 3. Rape by Fraud a. Not entitled to mistake-of-fact instruction in the absence of evidence of conduct on the part of the victim that shows she consented b. If he impairs her power to appraise or control her conduct by giving her drugs. b. Mistake of Fact Regarding Age i.
c. If she is under 10 30 .
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.