case pithies after felony murder

Question 1

[North Carolina v. Alston] “EPIC RAPE CAES WAO; Force element not satisfied”

Answer 1

CL Second Degree Rape: Vaginal intercourse with BOTH force and without consent
Force:
Threats of GBH are enough to satisfy force
Threat can be generally inferred if not explicit from the circumstances.

Consent:
Consent to intercourse can be withdrawn at any point before penetration.
Consent is a complete defense, but it is void if it is gained by violence.
Lack of resistance is not needed to prove lack of consent

MPC: Sexual Penetration Without Consent. An actor is guilty of Sexual Penetration Without Consent
1. knows, or consciously disregards a substantial risk, that the other person has not given consent.

Question 2

[People v. Gentry]”I poured gas on her and lit a match by accident!” Illinois

Answer 2

To prove Attempt, two mental states must be proven.
1. Act must be intentional
2. The actor must specifically intend that his actions lead to the completion of the target crime (Varies by jurisdiction.)

Question 3

[Bruce v. State]”Storeowner shot, attempted felony murder?” A/C Maryland

Answer 3

Attempted Felony Murder does not exist in most jurisdictions; Someone has to actually die.

Question 4

[United States v. Mandujano]”Arrested for dealing heroin you don’t have?”

Answer 4

Culpability + Substantial Step = Attempt

Substantial Step: A substantial step must be conduct strongly corroborative of the firmness of the defendant’s criminal intent.

Question 5

[Commonwealth v. Peaslee]”Barnhouse Burndown”

Answer 5

Two most common kinds of foiled Attempt:
1. Attempt foiled by unforeseen interruption
2. Attempt foiled by Defendant’s own ineptitude or mistake

Question 6

[People v. Rizzo]”Thieves caught before finding victim”

Answer 6

Dangerous Proximity Test:
1. How close defendants came to completing the attempt
2. How serious the crime was, and
3. What social harm was implicated.

Question 7

[State v. Reeves] “Giving the Teacher Rat Poison”

Answer 7

TN Law (MPC 5.01 excluding 5.01(2)): (2) when actor possesses materials to be used in commission of crime, at or near scene of crime, and where possession of those materials can serve no lawful purpose of actor under circumstances, jury is entitled, but not required, to find that actor has taken “substantial step” toward commission of crime within meaning of criminal attempt statute.

Question 8

[United States v. Duran] “Guy tries to assassinate ‘President’”

Answer 8

MPC 5.01 (2): Conduct is not a substantial step unless it strongly corroborates the actor’s criminal purpose. The following may not be found to be a non-substantial step as a matter of law.
1. lying in wait,
2. searching for or following the contemplated victim of the crime …
3. reconnoitering the place contemplated for the commission of the crime …
4. possession of materials to be employed in the commission of the crime,
(a) at or near the place contemplated for its commission,
(b) if such possession, collection or fabrication serves no lawful purpose of the actor under the circumstances.

Question 9

[United States v. Oviedo] “Selling Fake Heroin to Rip People Off”

Answer 9

Legal Impossibility: in order for a defendant to be guilty of a criminal attempt, the objective acts performed, without any reliance on the accompanying mens rea, mark the defendant’s conduct as criminal in nature. NON MPC

Question 10

[People v. Thousand] “To Catch A Predator”

Answer 10

Factual Impossibility: Whether it would be impossible for the defendant to have committed the completed offense is irrelevant to whether a defendant may be convicted for attempt; Factual impossibility is not a defense.

Question 11

[State v. Green] “Police Catfish Predator on Yahoo”

Answer 11

COMMON LAW
1. Legal impossibility occurs
(a) when the actions that the defendant performs or sets in motion, even if fully carried out as he or she desires, would not constitute a crime, whereas
i. Oviedo, valid defense OUTDATED.
2. factual impossibility occurs
(a) when the objective of the defendant is proscribed by the criminal law but a circumstance unknown to the actor prevents him or her from bringing about that objective.
i. Thousand, invalid defense.
Specific attempt + Substantial Act

MPC Impossibility: Impossibility is generally not a valid defense.

Question 12

[Commonwealth v. McCloskey] “Prisoner Climbs Internal Fence to Prepare Escape”

Answer 12

Common Law Abandonment/Renunciation: D can assert A/R as a complete defense if he can prove that he voluntarily completely abandoned the attempt.
1. Does not work if it happens because D encountered unexpected resistance or circumstances that would make the act more risky of arrest or otherwise to D.
2. It also can’t be invoked once harm is done.

Question 13

[Counterman v. Colorado] “Stan stalks singer”

Answer 13

True threats of violence are not protected by the 1st amendment.

A statement can count as a true threat purely on the basis of its objective content. DEF must be shown to be aware of his conduct being threatening, but a mental state of recklessness is sufficient to prove this.

Question 14

[State v. Kimbrough] “Assassinate my inlaws”

Answer 14

Oregon is a state where solicitation itself is a type of attempt, and uses the MPC Substantial Step rule. Actual solicitation can be a substantial step, and therefore attempt.

Question 15

State v. Mann “Solicitation Definition”

Answer 15

Solicitation involves the asking, enticing, inducing, or counseling of another to commit a crime.

Question 16

U.S. v. Church “Airman tries to hire hitman to kill wife”

Answer 16

There can be no conspiracy when a supposed participant merely feigns acquiescence in the criminal venture to secure another’s detection and apprehension by proper authorities. Solicitation becomes attempt when DEF engages in a substantial step towards completion of the crime, acts involved in the solicitation can count as a substantial step.

Question 17

People v. Carter “Conspiracy”

Answer 17

Conspiracy is simply the agreement to commit a crime. There need not be any overt act to commit the crime otherwise. However, there must be twofold specific intent to both combine with others, and complete the crime. Conviction of conspiracy does not merge with the actual crime. Many other states have an overt act requirement, but it is very easy to meet.

Question 18

Pinkerton v. U.S.”Group tax fraud by mail”: Pinkerton Liability

Answer 18

All members of the conspiracy are guilty even if only one actually did the ultimate act. Acts in furtherance of the conspiracy are punishable for all members even if only some committed them.

Question 19

People v. Swain “Drive-by conspiracy”

Answer 19

Conspiracy is a ‘specific intent’ crime. . . . The specific intent required divides logically into two elements: (a) the intent to agree, or conspire, and (b) the intent to commit the offense which is the object of the conspiracy

Question 20

People v. Barajas “Trying to fluff coke with baking soda, conspiracy?”

Answer 20

Conspiracy requires that both parties specifically intend to commit the crime.

In this case, since D intended to rip off his buyer, and only had 26g of coke, he can’t be guilty of conspiracy to possess over 650g of coke, unless it were proven he originally intended not to rip the buyer off.

Question 21

[Commonwealth v. Costa] “Throwing rocks at a bike shop”

Answer 21

Conspiracy may be, and usually is, proved by circumstantial evidence. Accomplice and conspiratorial liability are not synonymous, and one can be an accomplice aiding in the commission of a substantive offense without necessarily conspiring to commit it.

Question 22

[Commonwealth v. Azim] “Get-away driver for knockout game”

Answer 22

Among those circumstances relevant to proving conspiracy are
1. association with alleged conspirators,
2. knowledge of the commission of the crime,
3. presence at the scene of the crime, and, at times,
4. participation in the object of the conspiracy.

Question 23

[People v. Moran] “Most trustworthy used-car salesman”

Answer 23

Renunciation: Conspirator can only effectively withdraw:
by some affirmative act bringing home the fact of his withdrawal to his confederates.

Joining an existing conspiracy: A stranger becomes a conspirator when he
1. associates himself with the conspirators and
2. joins in committing overt acts
(a) with knowledge of the conspiracy

Question 24

[State v. Honken] “Prayer makes hitman change his mind”

Answer 24

Unilateral Conspiracy: Only one member of the conspiracy need intend to commit the crime to be guilty of conspiracy.

Multiple Conspiracies: If a person conspires to commit a number of crimes, he is guilty of only one conspiracy so long as such multiple crimes are the object of the same agreement or continuous conspiratorial relationship.

Withdrawal: Continuing participation is presumed unless the conspirator demonstrates affirmative withdrawal from the conspiracy.
1. A coconspirator must make an affirmative action either by
(a) clean break to the authorities or
(b) communicating abandonment in a manner
i. calculated to reach coconspirators
ii. and must not resume participation in the conspiracy.

Question 25

[State v. Ward] “Common Law Accessory”

Answer 25

Principal 1st degree: The one who commits the crime

Principal 2nd degree: Aided, counseled, commanded, or encouraged; present at commission of crime either actually or constructively

Accessory before the fact: Aided, counseled, commanded, or encouraged; Not present at commission of crime either actually or constructively

Accessory after the fact: Knowingly helps Principal avoid punishment in some form

Question 26

[State v. Hoselton]”Barge Break-In Lookout”

Answer 26

DEF said in his voluntary statement that he could be called a lookout, and that he knew what they were doing was a crime by breaking in.

DEF is not a lookout, because statute would make him a 2P, and there needed to be prior agreement and shared intent between him and the 1Ps

Question 27

[State v. McVay] “Boiler explodes and sinks ship due to gross negligence”

Answer 27

Someone can be an accessory to the unlawful act that caused manslaughter, as even though the manslaughter itself lacked malice/intent, the unlawful act could have been.

Question 28

[State v. Linscott] “Botched robbery kills drug dealer”

Answer 28

Accomplice Liability for “secondary crime”:
(a) that the actor intended to promote the primary crime, and
(b) that the commission of the secondary crime was a “foreseeable consequence” of the actor’s participation in the primary crime.
i. Did the primary party commit the target offense?
ii. If so was the secondary party an accomplice? If so
iii. Did PP commit another crime beyond the target offense?
iv. Were the latter crime or crimes reasonably foreseeable consequences of the original criminal act that DEF is an accomplice to?

Question 29

[State v. V.T.] “D’s friends record themselves committing a crime while he watches”

Answer 29

Knowledge of a theft, without more, does not make one an accomplice.

Question 30

[Bailey v. Commonwealth] “DEF gets drunk blind friend shot by cops”

Answer 30

One who effects a criminal act through an innocent or unwitting agent is a principal in the first degree.

Question 31

[United States v. Peterson] “Guy shoots VIC for windshield wiper theft next to house”

Answer 31

The aggressor may not invoke self-defense unless he attempts to withdraw from the conflict and communicates this to the other. Castle doctrine may not be invoked by the aggressor.

Question 32

[State v. Abbott] “Clutched the 3v1 and beat the charges”

Answer 32

doctrine of retreat was applicable only if the defendant intended to use deadly force and that the instruction given on the issue of retreat was prejudicially erroneous.

Question 33

[State v. Boyett] “Vengeful Ex shot, counts as 1st degree murder”

Answer 33

A person has a right to defend his or her residence not only when an intruder is already inside the home, but also when an intruder is outside the home and attempting to enter to commit a violent felony.

Question 34

[People v. Goetz] “Joker Subway Scene”

Answer 34

Reasonableness of deadly force must be evaluated by an objective standard of a “reasonable person under the circumstances”

Question 35

[State v. Norman] “Wife shoots violent husband in his sleep; self-defense”

Answer 35

Imminent (Self-Defense): Immediate danger, such as must be instantly met, such as cannot be guarded against by calling for the assistance of others or the protection of the law.”

Question 36

[State v. Nelson] “Trucker steals front loader and sticks it in the mud trying to unstick truck”

Answer 36

Necessity: “Choice of Evils”
1) the act charged must have been done to prevent a significant evil;
2) there must have been no adequate alternative;
3) the harm caused must not have been disproportionate to the harm avoided.

Question 37

[U.S. v. Contento-Pachon] “Mule eats coke balloons”

Answer 37

Three Elements of Duress: (1) an immediate threat of death or serious bodily injury, (2) a well-grounded fear that the threat will be carried out, and (3) no reasonable opportunity to escape the threatened harm.

Question 38

[Veach] “Drunk Driver hits cops and then threatens to shoot them”

Answer 38

Voluntary intoxication is only a defense for specific intent crimes.

Question 39

[Kahler v. Kansas] “Father murders family, claims insanity”

Answer 39

Cognitive Incapacity Test: Whether a defendant was able to understand what he was doing when he committed a crime. I.e., whether DEF lacked the MR of the offense charged due to mental incapacity.

Moral Incapacity test: whether a defendant’s illness left him unable to distinguish right from wrong with respect to his criminal conduct.