Cases Flashcards
Name the case, outcome of the following fact pattern, and the section it deals with: Defendant was convicted of an attempt to commit the crime of purchasing stolen property, but the property that he purchase was not in fact stolen property.
People v. Jaffe:
It was held that “the defendant could not know that the property possessed the character of stolen property when it had not in fact been acquired by theft.” Thus, the mens rea requirement was not met because of the impossibility of the crime. (Pg. 641-643, Under Attempt, Impossibility); [MPC 5.01 does not allow a defense of legal impossibility, however some states still follow the Jaffe approach to legal impossibility]
Name the case, outcome of the following fact pattern, and the section it deals with: Defendant shot at a body multiple times that had been shot five minutes earlier and the victim may have already been dead.
People v. Dlugash
N.Y. Court of appeals followed the MPC 5.01 approach that disallows a defense of legal or factual impossibility. It was held “if defendant believed the victim to be alive at the time of the shooting, it is no defense to the charge of attempted murder that the victim may have been dead.” Thus, factual impossibility cannot be used as a defense. (Pg. 643-646, Under Attempt, Impossibility)
Name the case, outcome of the following fact pattern, and the section it deals with: Defendant was convicted of being drunk on a public highway. He was arrested at his home, and taken to the highway where he manifested a drunken condition.
Martin v. State
Where a person involuntarily and forcibly commits a crime, the actus reas requirement is not satisfied. Thus, the conviction was held to be erroneous because the defendant did not voluntarily appear in a public place and manifest a drunken condition per the Criminal Code of Alabama. (Pg. 205; Culpability, Actus Reas) [MPC 2.01 is basis for requiring act be voluntary as a part of the actus reas requirement]
Name the case, outcome of the following fact pattern, and the section it deals with: Defendant previously found guilty of voluntary manslaughter. Defendant shot a police officer after being shot in the midsection; he claims he did so involuntarily and as a reaction of the gunshot wound.
People v. Newton
Culpability, Actus Reas
It was held “where evidence of involuntary unconsciousness has been produced in a homicide prosecution, the refusal of a requested instruction on the subject, and its effect as a complete defense if found to have existed, is prejudicial error. Reversed.”
Name the case, outcome of the following fact pattern, and the section it deals with: Defendant was previously found guilty of involuntary manslaughter. The deceased, a 10 month old baby, was in possession of the defendant who had ample means to provide food and medical care. The issue on appeal is with regard to a failure in the jury instructions…
Jones v. United States
Culpability, Actus Reas, Omissions
It was held that “A finding of legal duty is the critical element of the crime charged and failure to instruct the jury concerning it was plain error.”
[MPC 2.01(3) discusses omissions and their application to the actus reas requirement]
Name the case, outcome of the following fact pattern, and the section it deals with: Defendant was convicted of the felony of a child abuse statute, and classified as being “responsible for the supervision of a minor child…” per the statute. The defendant took the child, deceased, and the child’s mother into her house, the mother eventually beat the child, and the child passed away. The defendant did not alert authorities, summon medical help, or otherwise intervene.
Pope v. State
Culpability, Actus Reas, Omissions
It was held that although Pope “may have had a strong moral obligation to help the child, she was under no legal obligation to do so.” Thus, without a legal duty to to act, and since the omission that occurred is not mentioned in the law defining the offense, Pope cannot be liable for her omission unaccompanied by action (MPC 2.01(3) approach)
Name the case, outcome of the following fact pattern, and the section it deals with: Deceased was placed on life support after a cardio-respiratory arrest. Test indicated the deceased suffered severe brain damage, leaving him in a vegetative state. Family requested all machines be taken off that were preserving life. Defendant obliged.
Barber v. Superior Court
Culpability, Actus Reas, Omissions
It was held that “A physician has no duty to continue treatment, once it has proved to be ineffective.” It was concluded by the court that “Barber’s omission to continue treatment under the circumstances, though intentional and with knowledge that the patient would die, was not an unlawful failure to perform a legal duty.” (Pg 236-238)
Name the case, outcome of the following fact pattern, and the section it deals with: Police officer shot a burglar fleeing from the scene knowing he wasn’t armed.
Tennessee v. Garner
It was held that “deadly force may not be used unless it is necessary to prevent the escape and the officer has probable cause to believe that the suspect poses a significant threat of death or serious physical injury to the officer or others.” The fact that the suspect had committed a felony did not amount to probable cause. (Pg. 880-883 Exculpation, necessity)
Name the case, outcome of the following fact pattern, and the section it deals with: Police officer shot a burglar fleeing from the scene knowing he wasn’t armed.
Tennessee v. Garner
It was held that “deadly force may not be used unless it is necessary to prevent the escape and the officer has probable cause to believe that the suspect poses a significant threat of death or serious physical injury to the officer or others.” The fact that the suspect had committed a felony did not amount to probable cause. (Pg. 880-883 Exculpation, necessity) [MPC 3.07(2)(b) authorizes deadly force where necessary to prevent escape of one fleeing from arrest for felony, but not for misdemeanor]
Name the case, outcome of the following fact pattern, and the section it deals with: The defendant escaped prison because he had a “death threat” from another inmate after being raped previously. He left the prison to save his life.
People v. Unger
It was held that defense of necessity could be properly raised if the accused was without blame for the developing situation and under an objective standard, the harm faced would be worse than the conduct necessary to avoid it. Conduct for escapees has stricter criteria (Pg. 885- 888, Exculpation, necessity,) [MPC follows objective standard from Unger]
Name the case, outcome of the following fact pattern, and the section it deals with: The defendant escaped prison because he had a “death threat” from another inmate after being raped previously. He left the prison to save his life.
People v. Unger
It was held that defense of necessity could be properly raised if the accused was without blame for the developing situation and under an objective standard, the harm faced would be worse than the conduct necessary to avoid it. Conduct for escapees has stricter criteria (Pg. 885- 888, Exculpation, necessity,) [MPC follows objective standard from Unger]
Name the case, outcome of the following fact pattern, and the section it deals with: Defendant was charged with conspiring to obtain money by false pretenses. He was coerced into filling out false medical reports because he owed money to someone. Defendant claimed he complied with demands for fear for his wife and his own bodily safety
State v. Toscano
It was held “duress shall be a defense to a crime other than murder if the defendant engaged in conduct because he was coerced to do so by the use of, or threat to use, unlawful force against his person or the person of another, which a person of reasonable firmness (objective) in his situation would have been able to resist.” (Pg. 924 - 927, Exculpation, duress)
Name the case, outcome of the following fact pattern, and the section it deals with: Defendant had been drinking heavily, resisted an effort by a police officer to subdue and arrest him, and in the course of the struggle seized the officer’s gun and shot him in the legs.
People v. Hood
Since assault can be classified as either specific intent or general intent crimes, the court reasoned that impulses towards aggression are common when intoxicated and thus it would be counterintuitive to allow evidence of intoxication to relieve a man of responsibility for the crimes of assault with a deadly weapon or simple assault, which are so frequently committed in just such a manner. (Pg. 944-946, Exculpation, Intoxication)
Name the case, outcome of the following fact pattern, and the section it deals with: The defendant was convicted of assault with intent to rob while he was voluntarily intoxicated.
State v. Stasio
The court held that the evidence of voluntary intoxication was inadmissible even though the crime was a specific intent crime. (Pg. 946-947, Exculpation, Intoxication)
Name the case, outcome of the following fact pattern, and the section it deals with: The defendant was convicted of assault with intent to rob while he was voluntarily intoxicated.
State v. Stasio
The court held that the evidence of voluntary intoxication was inadmissible even though the crime was a specific intent crime. (Pg. 946-947, Exculpation, Intoxication)
