Cases Flashcards
People v. Du
Facts: Store owner D thought V was stealing OJ. Shot V in back of head when she was leaving (after placing OJ back).
Important: How much punishment? 7 Objectives of sentencing under CA law
Protect society
Punish the defendant for committing a crime
Encourage the defendant to lead a law abiding life
Deter others
Isolate the defendant so she can’t commit other crimes
Secure restitution for the victim
Seek uniformity in sentencing
Ewing v. California
Facts: D stole golf clubs. Sentenced 25 to life under CA 3 strikes law.
Important: Does this sentence violate 8th cruel and unusual?
Look at principles of proportionality. Defer to legislature (made 3 strikes).
To be 8th violation must be grossly disproportionate.
Held: not disproportionate
Dissent: comparing gravity, and sentences in same/other jur, not proportionate.
Commonwealth v. Mochan
MoCAN I hit it?
Facts: D keeps calling up shawty and talking real nasty to her. Charged under a blanket code "anything that is CL but not expressed here shall be an offense still" Important: Does this violate legality principles? Majority = yo this is a CL crime Dissent = Hol up, separation of powers. Until legislature says it is a crime, courts should not declare it as such.
Keeler v. Superior Court
Facts: kneed his pregnant ex to the point the baby died. Is this murder?
Important: since fetus
How does this case relate to the concept of legality?
Majority’s discussion of the constitutional obstacle to including the unlawful killing of a viable fetus in the statutory definition of “human being”
** Retroactive application of unforeseeable judicial enlargement of a criminal statute violates legality principle / corollary principles.
Disagreement about foreseeability among the majority and dissent
K(n)ee-her
In re Banks
Facts: Peeping Tom statute. Is it unconstitutionally vague?
Held: no – statutory language is sufficiently definite.
Important: in re Banks method of analysis and tools of interpretation
Presumption of constitutionality; NC precedent interpreting statute; principle against redundancy; don’t want the statute to sweep over broadly and capture legitimate conduct.
Desertain v. City of LA
Facts: Statute making living in car overnight in city illegal. Is it unconstitutionally vague?
Held: yes.
Fails to provide fair notice (legality corollary principle statutes should be understandable)
Promotes arbitrary and discriminatory enforcement (legality corollary principle regarding delegation to enforce.
Martin v. State
Facts: statute = any person who is drunk and appears in public place violates. Police arrest Martin take him to highway, then charge him under the statute. Was there a voluntary act?
Held: no. Appears = voluntary.
Important: Courts interpret statutory language in line with the voluntary act requirement.
State v. Utter
Facts: PTSD dad stabs and kills son. TC said conditioned response cannot be a defense.
Held: wrong, conditioned response can be a defense to voluntary act, but there was not enough evidence to support a conditioned response, so the result is right.
Important: meaning of act is voluntary and consciously.
People v. Decina
People v. Decina
Facts: Seizure while driving kills kids.
Important: time framing can determine whether a voluntary act is found.
People v. Nelson
Turrets syndrome - calls this grandma sexually a bunch. Can’t stop.
Important: time framing can determine whether a voluntary act is found.
Robinson v. California
Illegal to be addicted to narcotics.
Held: unconstitutional bc status offense.
Powell
Illegal to be drunk in public place
Held: not unconstitutional since there is a tiny act (appear in Maritn)
People v. Beardsley
Mistress off da percs. Did homie’s failure to act constitute a criminal omission?
Held: no. Moral obligation is not the same as legal duty; not married; no assumption of care or control.
)
BeardSLAYYY (mistress)
Regina v. Cunningham
Dude down bad takes meter off gas thing for coins. Statute says “Maliciously.” TC= this means wicked.
Held: nah dawg. Malicious = intentional or grossly reckless
People v. Conley
High school drunk party fight? Statute says intentionally or knowingly cause great bodily harm or permanently disable. D says cant be convicted bc although he intended to cause harm, he didn’t mean to permanently disfigure.
Held: yes u did.
Important: Intent can be inferred from the sounding circumstances (IL only uses purpose prong of intent).
One intends the natural and probable consequences of their actions
State v. Nations
16 year old stripper.
Why didn’t courts apply willful blindness doctrine? MO doesn’t have it lol. Knowingly doesn’t encompass willful blindness in MO
State v. Miles
Drug trafficking but didn’t know what kind of drugs they were… willful blindness.
Important: mens rea terms apply going forward, but not a hard and fast rule. Most important thing is figuring out and sticking to legislative intent.
“Drug trafficking for Miles”
Morrissette v. US
Dude takes home military bomb casings he found that had been there for years. Gov tried to argue it was strict liability to steal against gov since no mens rea in statute.
Held: not strict liability bc legislative history does not contain indication that congress intended to eliminate mens rea
Staples v. US
Guy didn’t know his gun had been altered to be fully auto. Strict liability?
Held: no. Look at how harsh the penalty is, guns are not so dangerous that they put owners on notice of public danger.
Dissent: these aren’t just guns, they are very dangerous to public (disagree about danger to public).
State v. Garnett
Mentally challenged dude has sex with consenting mentally challenged underage girl. Statutory rape.
Held: strict liability… can’t avoid on the basis of disability.
Dissent is like yo we can’t just have unconscious people get charged with rape (but he forgets the voluntary act requirement)
People v. Navarro
Dude took wood from construction site thinking they were abandoned. TC jury instructions to acquit.
Important: mistake of fact common law (common law flowchart)
Held: theft under the statute is specific intent crime
People v. Marrero
Arrested for pistol. Thought he qualified as a peace officer since he was a prison guard.
Important: mistake of understanding of statute does not excuse him from liability.
Majority and dissent disagree about legislative intent
Lambert v. California
Fails to register as criminal offender
Why is this situation different than other mistake of law?
Punishes omission rather than affirmative act
Duty to act based on status
Malum prohibitum (not inherently wrong)
Cheek v. US
Dude actually believed tax laws were unconstitutional so he didn’t have to pay them.
Important: general mistake of law rule (not a defense) exception: a GOOD FAITH belief that one is not violating the law does not have to be reasonable to negate willfulness.
Willfully = voluntary, intentional violation of a known legal duty
Oxendine v. State
Girlfriend beat son lethally. 12 hours later dad beat son. Son dies.
Important: aggravation without acceleration is insufficient to establish causation.
People v. Rideout
Drunk diving friends get in wreck. After they both get to safety and check on the other driver, friend goes back out into the road and gets hit and killed. Driver charged with murder.
Important = not a proximate cause (foreseeability, apparent safety doctrine, voluntary human intervention)
Velazquez v. State
Street racing one dude dies. Charge the other car driver with murder.
Important: not the proximate cause – free, deliberate and informed human intervention
Sounds like engine noises
State v. Guthrie
Dishwasher kitchen murder
Held = can’t be first degree bc intent to kill was a mere instant before killing. Must be a sufficient duration for accused to be fully conscious of what he intended.
GUThire the dishwasher
Midget v. State
Beating son over and over no intent to kill / premeditation or deliberation so can’t be first degree.
State v. Forrest
Putting dad out of misery of terminal diagnosis first degree murder…
Girouard v. State
Military marriage wife going crazy on the phone talking shit and pulling his hair/hitting him.
Can’t be provocation because words alone are insufficient (CL) AND due to size difference doesn’t count as provocation.
People v. Casassa
Dude went crazy stalker mode after he got dumped.
Important: EMED viewed not entirely subjective (second objective prong). This dude failed that one.
People v. Knoller
Killer Dogs.
Important: Depraved heart murder – focus on D’s awareness of risk, not whether they were evil.
State v. Williams
Indian toothache son died from infection.
Important: Washington’s negligent homicide was tort negligence standard. WHEN the negligence occurred matters due to causation.
Fisher v. State
Child abuse.
FMR Inherently dangerous felony limitation (facts of the case approach)
People v. Smith
Child abuse.
FMR merger/independent felony. Purpose was the assault that caused the child’s death therefore it merges (No FMR).
State v. Sophophone
Dude in backseat and cop shot friend. Charged FMR.
Important = agency approach = killing committed by non-felons can’t be used as FMR.
State v. Rusk
Took keys out of car. “if I do what you want will you let me go without killing me?”
Important: “resisted sufficiently under the circumstances”
Commonwealth v. Berkowitz
Dorm room – moaning no
Important: not enough forcible compulsion to support rape verdict. Door locked from inside.
MTS
NO FORCE RAPE – only requires the amount of force inherent in sex.
State v. King
Fucked up. Drunk niece.
Voluntarily intoxicated can still be raped. Sometimes no resistance is the most resistance possible.
State v. Jones
Bookkeeper accidentally send 120k. Says don’t take out. Jones withdraws.
Important: Jones was only in custody when they were in bank account took possession when he withdrew.
US v. Mafnas
Stealing money out of moneybags at banks
Important: possession of the bags but custody of the bags’ contents. Breaking bulk when he took the money out of the bags, committing larceny.
Topolewski v. State
Helped dude steal barrels
Important: actions that AID the theft act as consent. (no trespass)
Rex v. Pear
Rented horse with intention of immediately selling it.
Larceny by trick
People v. Brown
Kid took bike “always intending to bring it back that night”
Important: must have the intent to permanently deprive.
Brown bike
People v. Davis
Tried to return things from the rack for money lol
Important: Larceny covers this because P asserted a right of ownership over the shirt and since he would have took it home if they hadn’t accepted return, there was a risk of permanent loss.
People v. Whight
Debit card at Safeway falsely implying it was valid.
Important: false pretenses doesn’t require that the false representation be the sole thing relied upon.
US v. Peterson
Windshield wipers provoker.
Important: aggressor cannot use self-defense. Talked some about retreat doctrines maj/minority.
feel the wrath of this Heater-son
People v. Goetz
Subway dude. Give me $5.
Self defense “reasonably believes” language is not wholly subjective. (looked at legislative intent)
1. Did the actor subjectively believe
2. Would a reasonable person in the actor’s situation have held that belief.
State v. Norman
Battered Wife Syndrome
Majority = “slippery slope of homicidal self help” / imminency requirement not met.
Dissent = from the POV of battered wife, it is reasonable to believe threat was imminent even while sleep.
State v. Boyett
Bisexual love triangle. Shot standing outside the door.
Important: defense of habituation does not require entry, only attempt to forcibly enter (and commit violent felony inside). Here, no evidence of attempting forcibly enter (or felony).
Nelson v. State
Truck stuck. Kept using heavy machinery.
Important: necessity viewed from POV of reasonable person in actor’s situation at the time without the benefit of hindsight.
US v. Contento-Pachon
Swallow 129 balloons of cocaine across the border or we kill yo family.
Important: duress / ongoing threat. CL duress elements (1) immediate threat of death or serious bodily injury (2) reasonable fear threat will be carried out; (3) non reasonable opportunity to escape.
US v. Veach
Hammed guy gets arrested and starts threatening and harassing cops.
Important: voluntary intoxication is a defense to specific intent crimes if it prevented D from forming specific intent.
People v. Gentry
Poured gas on girlfriend and she went near the stove?
Important: Dual intent required for attempt
Commonwealth v. Peaslee
Sets up place with combustibles and then tries to convince another guy to light it.
Important: Dangerous proximity test. no present intent to set fire. No successful last act. No attempt here.
People v. Rizzo
Trying to rob bank, get’s caught before anything happens.
Dangerous proximity –
People v. Miller
Load gun and walk up on in field.
Unequivocality / res ipsa test – could have been just trying to scare, of course.
Pinkerton v. US
This doctrine authorizes co- conspirators to be held criminally liable for each other’s acts in furtherance of the conspiracy.
People v. Swain
Drive by shooting. Depraved heart murder.
Important: illogical to find conspiracy to commit an unintentional crime.
Alex Student Body President
Also “wut wazz u swainnn about us?” ba ba ba
Commonwealth v. Azim
Hired driver. Dudes got out and jumped a guy. Driver stayed and drove them off.
Conspiracy (SMALL FACTS MAKE BIG DIFFERENCE)
People v. Foster
Dude “agreed” to commit a crime with another guy but then called the police to have them stop them
Important: jurisdiction followed bilateral conspiracy so he couldn’t be convicted.
Foster imposter
State v. Hoselton
Barge case. Got in car didn’t help.
Important: accomplice requires dual intent. Lacked second intent.
State v. Linscott
Went with friend to perform armed robbery of cocaine dealer.
Important: Natural-and-probable consequences doctrine does not violate 8th. Not disproportionate. Legislative intent.
State v. VT
Aunt’s camcorder.
Important: passive behavior (presence) is insufficient alone for accomplice liability.
State v. Helmenstein
I want bananas
Low bar to become accomplice:
I want bananas
Agreed to idea (encouragement)
Snoozing during the event, coming up with fake story after.
People v. Genoa
Undercover cop gets frat boy to give him money for cocaine.
Important: can’t be an accomplice at CL because there is no underlying crime from which to derive accomplice liability. (MPC different approach)
