Crim Case Name to Holding

Question 1

Gentry

Answer 1

Gentry wins! Holds that in a ‘Substantial Step’ and ‘Specific Intent’ statute, a murder attempt requires an intent to kill, because intent to be reckless isn’t killing.

Question 2

Bruce

Answer 2

Bruce wins!
Holds that in a place where felony murder is ‘a killing committed in the perpetration of, or attempt to perpetrate’ where one has the ‘specific intent to commit the underlying felony’
and;
and attempt is ‘a specific intent to commit the offense’ ‘coupled with some overt act(substantial step) in furtherance of the intent which goes beyond mere preparation’
One cannot commit attempted felony murder because if you had the specific intent to kill you would be doing regular ass murder.
“Divide by zero moment.”

Question 3

Mandujano

Answer 3

Mandujano Loses! In a place where attempt is not well defined, but can can be understood as ‘acting with the culpability otherwise required for the commission of the crime he is attempting, must take a substantial step toward execution of the crime and a failure to consummate the crime’
and;
a ‘substantial step’ must be more than ‘mere preparation’
One cannot just say that the only act which is not ‘mere preperation’ is the one in which, if completed, one would what makes one culpable for the crime in question.

Question 4

Buffum in Mandujano

Answer 4

An act which constitutes a substantial step must ‘not be equivocal in nature.’

Question 5

Rizzo

Answer 5

Rizzo wins! In a place where an attempt is ‘an act done with intent to commit a crime, and ‘tending’ but failing to effect its’ commission
and;
where an act ‘tending’ to effect its commission is an act ‘so near to its accomplishment that in all reasonable probability the crime itself would, have been committed but for timely interference’

Question 6

Duran

Answer 6

Duran loses! In a place where an attempted crime is acting with the kind of culpability otherwise required for commission of the crime, purposely does or omits to do anything that, ‘under the circumstances as he believes them to be’, is an act or omission constituting a substantial step in a course of conduct planned to culminate in his commission of the crime.
Not knowing that the person you were shooting at wasn’t the president doesn’t matter since the shooting still is an act which, under the circumstances as he belives them to be would be a substantial step in his course of conduct culminating in his commission of the crime.

Question 7

Oviedo

Answer 7

Oviedo wins! Though the court takes it that he knew the substance was heroine, we can only judge Oviedo on his acts alone because the end act shows that none of his steps were substantial steps to selling heroine. He didn’t have heroine.

it’s an impossibility defense.

Question 8

Thousand

Answer 8

Thousand Loses!

Where a person is guilty of distributing obscene material for a minor if they
1. Knowingly disseminate to a minor sexually explicit material to a minor or verbal material that is harmful to minors
and;
Attempt is to commit an attempt offense prohibited by law, and in such attempt shall do any act ‘toward the commission’ of the offense, but shall fail in the perpetration or shall be intercepted or prevented in the execution of the same’
A legal impossibility defense will not be a viable option. ‘Toward the commission’ is understood as inward here. The defendant intended to engage in a course of conduct to distribute obscene material to a minor and did an act toward that course of conduct’s commission.

Question 9

Solicitation Merges: What does this mean?

Answer 9

Once someone actually ‘attempts’ or does the act, now you are guilty of ‘conspiracy’.

Question 10

Mcloskey

Answer 10

McCloskey wins!

Court states it was mere preperation but cocurrence says is talking about ‘abandonment’

‘Voluntary abandonment’ When negates the conclusion that the accused continues to be dangerous

• its an affirmative defense to attempt

Question 11

Pinkerton

Answer 11

Pinkerton loses!

Holds someone can be guilty of conspiracy even if they did not do or weren’t aware of any overt acts in furtherance of the conspiracy.

Question 12

Barajas

Answer 12

Barajas wins! Where a conspiracy is an agreement expressed or implied by ‘two or more persons’ to commit an unlawful or criminal act
and;
conspiracy is complete at the point of agreement
Because only Barajas agreed to possess 650g of coke he could not be found guilty on conspiracy

Question 13

Costa

Answer 13

Costa wins!

Accomplice liability is not synoymous with conspiracy. They might be too drunk to conspire, while still aiding. Furthermore, it may be too spontaneous to count as full conspiracy.

Question 14

Moran (watch class)

Answer 14

Holds ‘Where a conspiracy has already been formed and at a later date a stranger to the original conspiracy associates himself with the conspirators, and with knowledge of the conspiracy joins with the others in committing overt acts in furtherance of the unlawful purpose, he is guilty as a member of the conspiracy’

‘even if he had withdrawn, he had already committed acts from which the jury were entitled to conclude that he was actively participating in the conspiracy with knowledge of its purposes’

Question 15

Azim

Answer 15

Azim loses!
- Holds there are four factors to prove conspiracy

• Association with conspirators
• knowledge of the commission of the crime
• presence at the scene
• at times, participation

Question 16

Hoselton

Answer 16

Hoselton wins!

Where a person at anytime, breaks or enters without breaking anything into a steamboat or other boat or vessel, with intent to commit a felony or any larceny, he shall be deemed guilty of a felony
and;
Where a lookout is “by prearrangement, keeping watch to avoid interception or detection to provide warning during the perpatration of the crimes and thereby participating in the offenses charged.”
and;
There will be three elements of accomplice liability
1. Does the other person do something?
2. Do they intend to aid the other party?
3. Do they intend their aid to help the crime succeed?

Since Hoselton was looking out for the crime of entering the barge, but there was no evidence that he wanted to help them commit the larceny, he could not be guilty for being an accomplice.

Question 17

Mcvay

Answer 17

Mcvay loses!

Where negligence is the wanton and willful creation of a defective and unsafe condition(gross negligence) that killed
and;
Manslaughter is the unlawful killing of another without malice either express or implied, negligently doing an act lawful in itself, and in the negligent omission to perform a legal duty
and;
A captain has a duty to ensure their vessel is safe

A captain can be charged with accomplice for manslaughter when they merely intended to aid in the offensive conduct(contrast with Hoselton)

Question 18

Linscott

Answer 18

Linscott Loses!

Where a person is an accomplice to any crime, the commission of which was a reasonably foreseeable (natural and probable) consequence of his conduct, with the intent of promoting or facilitating the commission of the crime

Hold that Linscott was liable because robbery is inherently pretty violent + other facts (check other flashcards for bonus facts)

Question 19

Bailey

Answer 19

Bailey loses!

Where “One who effects a criminal act through an innocent or unwitting agent is a principal to murder in the first degree”
and;
Involuntary manslaughter can be found if negligence or reckless conduct was so gross and culpable as to indicate a callous disregard for human life where ones actions are the proximate or concurring cause of death

Even though he does not share criminal intent with the police involved, and a reasonably foreseeable intervening act is forseeable, it cannot be relied on as breaking the chain of causation

Question 20

Milhizer’s public Benefit theory (policy)

Answer 20

A crime can be justified if it was done for the public good, typically done by a public official

Question 21

Peterson

Answer 21

Peterson Loses!

Where the common law says the elements of self defense are
- Threat, actual or apparent, of deadly force against the defender
- A threat is unlawful
- And immediate
- and the defender belives there is imminent peril of death or serious boduly harm
-and think the response is neccesary (as opposed to retreat)
- and where the belife is actual and objectively reasonable

Holds that one may defend themselves if they are already armed, even if they realize danger may await them
and;
an “affirmative unlawful act reasonably calculated to produce foreboding injurious or fatal consequences is defeating to self defense
and;

Question 22

Laney

Answer 22

Laney loses! A place of apparent safety, even if chased by a mob, will be defeating to self defense defense

Question 23

Rowe (read again)

Answer 23

Rowe loses. Since Rowe was being bullish, and potentially provoking, his self defense claim loses.

Question 24

Boyett

Answer 24

Boyett Loses!
‘Self defense by habitation’

Holds that when ‘Castle defense’ can be used to stop ‘the commission’ of a violent felony

Boyett had to reasonably believe that they were entering your home as proof for danger. Must prove danger

Some states you don’t have to prove danger

Question 25

Norman I

Answer 25

Norman wins!

Where self defense requires
- it appears to defendant and they belief it ‘necessary’ to kill the deceased in order to save herself from death or great bodily harm
and;
- their belief must be reasonable

She has met every element of the defense ‘immediately necessary’, which is easier to meet than imminence.

Question 26

Blackstone (policy)

Answer 26

Language from Peterson says all homicide is murder unless its’ ‘justified’.

You aren’t getting self defense unless it is enumerated in statute.

Question 27

Goetz

Answer 27

Goetz Loses!

Where self defense is when “ a person may not use physical force upon another person unless
a. He reasonably belives that such other person is using or about to use deadly or physical force
or;
b. He reasonably belices that such other person is committing or attempting to commit a kidnapping forcible rape, forcible sodomy or robbery.

There is a question as to weather or not it is objective or hybrid

Question 28

Norman II

Answer 28

Norman loses!

Where self defense requires
- it appears to defendant and they belief it ‘necessary’ to kill the deceased in order to save herself from death or great bodily harm
and;
- their belief must be reasonable

Necessity requires Imminence

Question 29

Nelson (read again)

Answer 29

Nelson loses!

Where reckless destruction is a person who willfully with the purpose to harm tampers with property not his own
or;
with reckless disregard for the risk or harm or loss to the property is guilty of malicious mischief…

and

Because “commentators generally agree.” necessity defense is usable when
1. natural forces create the necessity
2. harm to be avoided must be a greater harm, immidiate and dire,
and;
3. there is no reasonable alternative

Since reasonableness is understood to be objective and “after the fact” -> its about public policy. You have to weight the

Question 30

Contento-Pachon (read again

Answer 30

Pachon wins!

Where duress is defined as
1. ‘Immediate’ threat of death/GBH
2. Well grounded fear the threat will be carried out
and;
3. No reasonable opportunity to ‘escape’ harm

Holds
Immediacy: is understood that there is evidence of a present, immediate, or impending not vague harm

Escapeability: escapability cannot just be defined by him not being physically restrained, and that choosing not to surrender to authourities and actual escape can be questioned to be reasonable.

And Pachon had both.

Dicta in Pachon also says that physical forces not human forces typically needed in neccesity cases

Question 31

Veach

Question 32

Wilson