CRIM DECK OPEN OFFICE MIGHT WORK Flashcards
1
Q
Commonwealth v. Cardwell
A
Facts - woman was charged with child endangerment because she failed to prevent her husband from abusing her daughter. Rule - Although he was abusive, she still had a duty to act because she had other options like notifying the authorities, leaving, etc…
2
Q
Duress and Necessity - In re Eichorn
A
x
3
Q
Insanity - Durham Rule
A
Product test - Jury may determine D is not guilty by reason of insanity because the criminal act was a product of a mental disease. Battle of experts. Followed in NH.
4
Q
Attempt - US v. Mandujano
A
x
5
Q
Duress and Necessity - US v. Gomez
A
D was charged with being a felon in posession of a firearm after he snitched on a drug dealer who had asked him to murder someone. The drug dealer said he was going to kill him, and asking for protection from authorities, who refused, he armed himself with a gun. Rule - this was a justification defense (not duress or necessity), because he had no reasonable legal alternative
6
Q
First Degree Murder - State v. Bingham
A
Manner of killing by strangulation is not enough to show premeditated killing. Having the opportunity to deliberate is not evidence the defendant did deliberate, which is necessary for a finding of premeditation. (Wanted more circumstantial evidence.) 1. Here no evidence was presented of deliberation or reflection before or during the strangulation, only the strangulation.
7
Q
Conspiracy - McDonald v. US
A
D was charged with conspiracy to kidnap - his co-conspirators kidnapped a guy, held him ransom. Evidence of D’s first involvement in case is after ransom money paid, he was to exchange the marked ransom money for unmarked money so it couldn’t be traced. Argued he did not conspire to kidnap because the conspiracy was completed before his involvement. Court disagreed because the ransom money had not yet been distributed the kidnappers. Rule: Whenever the unlawful object of the conspiracy has reached that stage of consumation, whereat the several conspirators having taken in spendable form their agreed parts of the spoils, may go their separate ways without necessity of further acts or consultation about the conspiracy, with each other or among themselves, the conspiracy has ended.
8
Q
Accomplices - How to find an accomplice guilty for unintended results
A
- If you are in a minority/Hampton jurisdiction, and the results are the natural and probable consequences of intended acts. OR 2. In any jurisdiction, the result is death and the FM rule applies to the accomplice.
9
Q
Accomplices - Interaction with Felony Murder - Majority Rule
A
If X is an accomplice to an inherently dangerous felony, and someone dies in the course and furtherance of that felony, then X is guilty of felony murder via the felony murder rule. FM applies to principals and accomplices.
10
Q
Self-Defense - People v. Romero
A
“No reasonable street fighter case” - The D’s impoverished upbringing and street fighter status had no bearing on whether he subjectively believed he was in imminent danger of serious bodily harm or objectively it was reasonable to believe he was
11
Q
State v. Miranda
A
Facts - Guy was charged with assualt for failing to stop his girlfriend from killing her child Rule - Functional equivelent of a parent argument rejected, and he is found not liable because this rule would deter well meaning individuals from trying to help children.
12
Q
Attempt - US v. Roman
A
x
13
Q
People v. Matos
A
i. Facts: D and two accomplices broke into a McDonald s in Manhattan by shattering the glass door with a sledgehammer. A maintenance worker escaped and returned with 3 police officers. As the police approached the restaurant, they saw D climb a ladder that led to the roof. The police officers followed him, and one of the officers noticed Dwyer (officer) lying on his back in an air shaft 25 feet below. Emergency personnel took 45 minutes to rescue him and he was later pronounced dead. ii. Holding: D s act must have set in motion the events that ultimately result in the victim s death. However, they need not be the sole cause of the death. 1. Reasoning: It is foreseeable that once D began to flee to the roof, he would be followed by officers and it is foreseeable that someone might fall while in hot pursuit of a felon on a roof in the middle of the night. Foreseeability does not mean that the result must be the most likely event.
14
Q
Felony Murder - People v. Phillips
A
Facts - POS DOCTOR CASE - RULE : only inherntly dangerous felonies apply - Court rejected prosecution s context theory argument, looked to whether larceny was inherently dangerous and applied Abstract theory. 1. The only felonies that can be tried under felony murder are those that are inherently dangerous to human life.
15
Q
Garnett v. State
A
Retarded guy has sex with 13 year old girl that he thinks is 16 - no honest and reasonable belief defense because of public policy protecting children
16
Q
US v. X-Citement Video, Inc.
A
x
17
Q
Conpiracy - Agreement and MPC
A
Defined as one person agreeing with another, rather than an agreement between people - one person can conspire without the other’s knowledge
18
Q
Voluntary Manslaughter - People v. McCoy and State v. Stills
A
Facts - Joey helping karim kill ravin after cheating :,D Rule - Joey could get premeditated while karim gets VM
19
Q
Voluntary Manslaughter - Commonwealth v. Halbert
A
Facts - gay advance case - Rule - “While the defendant’s history of sexual abuse is tragic, it has no bearing on the question of whether the victim’s conduct satisfied the objective test of provocation” Court said no adequate provocation here.
20
Q
The Cogdon Case
A
Facts - Mother, who dreaming and sleepwalking, killed her daughter with an axe because of delusions. Rule - No volantary act if sleepwalking
21
Q
Goldberg v. State
A
x
22
Q
Pope v. State
A
Facts - old lady takes care of crazy lady and her kid, crazy lady thinks she is God and kills the kid, old lady is charged with failure to act. Rule - Although what the lady did was fucked up by not helping, she had no legal duty to act under the Pope v. State framework.
23
Q
Duress and Necessity - US v. Willis
A
D was charged with carrying a firearm during a drug transaction. She argued defense because her boyfriend put the gun in her purse and she believed he would klil he if she protested. Also tried to introduce evidence of B. Wom. Syndrome. Rule - Duress requires on objective test of whether a reasonable person of ordinary firmness would succumb to the coercive force of the threat, not the individual in light of her own circumstances.
24
Q
Felony Murder - People v. Johnson
A
D committed robbery, drove away, did not see anyone following him, saw police officer with lights on and sped away, then crashed and killed another driver. Escape Rule: Objective test - whether D actually reached a place of temporary safety rather than whether D subjectively believed he had reached a place of temporary safety. Continuing transaction: Failing to reach temporary place of safety establishes continuity.
25
People v. Flores
ii. Holding: No. The Ds are the but-for cause of the officer s death, but they are not the proximate cause because their conduct was not sufficiently direct. 1. Reasoning: Court found that D evaded his pursuers solely by means of defensive tactics. Accordingly, no affirmative acts on D s part can be said to be a sufficiently direct cause of the accident being mindful that there was no contact between vehicles. a. A statutory provision also provided that the driver of an emergency vehicle, when involved in an emergency operation may exceed the maximum speed limits so long as he did not endanger life or property.
26
Attempt - Abandonment
Common law - NO defense. MPC - a complete and voluntary abandonment is a defense.
27
Accomplices - Rodriguez v. State (Rodriguez II)
x
28
Duress - Common Law Exceptions to Defense
Not available if D recklessly or negligenly placed himself in a situation where coercive force likely to be used (eg. gang cases). Not available for intentional killing of innocent person (exception: If D commits underlying felony in a felony murder case under duress).
29
Self-Defense - State v. Vue
No idea why this fucking case is in here, has nothing to do with self defense lol
30
Accomplices - Modern rules for liability of types
P2D and ABF - All treated as accomplices or aiders and abettors. AAF - No longer an accomplice. Commits separate crime, usually obstruction of justice.
31
Attempt - Smallwood v. State
x
32
Robbery - People v. Thomas
D cuts victim's purse strap, victim tried to hold onto purse, D wrestled it from her hands. Element: Force. Rule: Cutting strap with knife is sufficient force; overcoming victim who fights back is sufficient force.
33
Voluntary Manslaughter - People v. Rios
When the prosecution is trying to prove both murder and voluntary manslaughter, the prosecution does not have to prove beyond a reasonable doubt the presence of the factors for the lesser offense. Prosecution does not have the affirmative duty to prove adequate provocation, instead, they put forth the second degree murder charge and prove that, and if they are short on it, the jury determines if they get voluntary manslaughter. 1. No prosecutor can prove both second degree murder AND voluntary manslaughter at the same time because they are two different crimes.
34
Attempt - US v. Joyce
x
35
Necessity - Common Law Elements
Creates a choice of evils: Violate literal terms of law and produce a harm or comply with terms of law and produce an equal or greater harm - defense is allowed if harm of violating law is less than harm of complying
36
Conspiracy - US v. Iriate-Ortega
D drove truck full of marijuana into US, convicted of conspiring with another truck driver because the other driver had an identical truck that met him in the same location, drove the same route, stopped and waited by border together, crossed a ramp that had been placed over a ditch to allow their crossing about a minute apart, continued on identical routes, had the same amount of marijuana in identical packaging, and trucks were secured with matching hardware. Rule: Coordination between conspirators is strong circumstantial proof of an agreement; as the degree of coordination rises, the likelihood that their action was driven by agreement increases. Jury may infer existence of agreement if there is concerted action'
37
Duress and Necessity - State v. Harvill
D was charged with selling another guy coke. He claimed duress because he feared the man, who had stabbed someone, busted another guys head with a beer bottle, told him he "better sell didint say anything other than that. Rule - Implicit threats are sufficient as long as the D's perception of the threat is reasonable under the circumstances.
38
People v. Likine
x
39
Rape - Modern Law (by statute)
(1) By force (2) Nonconsensual
40
Duress and Necessity - Commonwealth v. Leno
x
41
Conspiracy Common Law Elements
(1) Agreement between two or more persons (2) Intent to achieve a criminal objective (3) In majority of jurisdictions, an overt act
42
State v. Hazelwood
criminal liability requires more then ordinary negligence, it requires a gross deviation from the standard of care that a reasonable person would observe in the circumstances
43
Insanity - People v. Poddar
Evidence of diminished capacity admissible during guilt phase to negate wanton disregard required for depraved heart murder
44
Self-Defense - Werner v. State
Son of holocust surviors case - evidence of his syndrome was not proferred because it would enlarge the statutory defense of a reasonably prudent person
45
Solicitation - People v. Rubin
x
46
Larceny MPC Definition
(1) Movable property: Unlawfully takes or exercises unlawful control over moveable property of another with purpose to deprive him thereof. (2) Immoveable property: Unlawfully transfers immoveable property of another or any interest therein with purpose to benefit himself or another not entitled thereto.
47
Conspiracy - US v. Perez
Auto insurance scheme. All involved knew that each occurence was part of a plan and the execution of his part was a crooked one in which each stood to gain.
48
Rape - Modern Majority Rule
Sexual intercourse by force and without consent. Penetration is sufficient force. Honest and reasonable mistake is a defense (general intent crime)
49
Case Name
Brief Facts and Rule
50
Burglary - Commonwealth v. Robbins
Element: Entry. Facts - Husband sometimes stayed with ex - wife. one day went in and killed her. Rule: When unclear whether D had a legal right to entry, the trial judge must instruct the jury that in order to convict they must find that D knew he had no right to enter the premises or recklessly entered
51
People v. Beardsley
Facts - Guy cheating on his wife with another lady does nothing when she takes morphine pills and dies. Rule - He had no legal duty to her because they were not in a specified status relationship
52
People v. Carroll
Facts - Stepmother failed to stop her husband from killing his daughter Rule - She had a duty to act because she was a functional equivlent of a parent
53
Accomplices - Types at common law
Principal in First Degree (P1D) - Actual perpetrator. Principal in Second Degree (P2D) - Aids P1D and is physically or constructively present at the scene of the crime. Accessory before the fact (ABF) - Not present at crime scene but aided P1D by counseling, advising, encouraging or directing commission of crime. Accessory after the fact (AAF) - Someone who aids another in escaping capture or prosecution for a completed crime (must know of crime)
54
State v. Guminga
x
55
B (a minor) v. Director of Public Prosecutions
dont need honest and reasonable, just honest
56
Conspiracy - One or multiple conspiracies
Chain structure: One conspiracy - example drug production/wholesale/retail - from growing, harvesting, packing, delivering and dealing. Only one conspiracy. Buyer may not be part of the conspiracy - decided on case-by-case basis. Hub and spoke structure: Multiple conspiracies - example organized crime - money laundering, drug distribution, human trafficking all stemming off the existence of organization
57
Depraved Heart - State v. Jensen
D found out victim sexually assaulted his wife. Said he was going to kill the guy, sent someone to go get him, and beat the shit out of him. Victim later died. Rule: Mere use of hands does not usually show intent to commit serious bodily harm. For murder, must intend to: 1. Kill; or 2. Do great bodily harm; or a. Court should look to what harm was intended not what harm actually occurred 3. Do an act which would naturally and probably cause death or great bodily harm to the deceased. - Here the circumstantial evidence demonstrated that the D had the intent to commit serious bodily harm - had said he was gonna kill him, brutally beat him etc.
58
Duress and Necessity - US v. Bailey
Guys escape from prison because the gaurds were beating them up and threatining them with death. Rule - No duress or necessity until it could be shown that the was no reasonable legal alternative to violating the law and that they made a bona fide effort to surrender or return to custody since escape is a "continuing offense"
59
Self-Defense - State v. Mulvihill
Facts - cop beating up kid case Rule - "liberty can be restored in the court room but life or limb cannot be.
60
Self-Defense - MPC Duty to Retreat
MPC jurisdictions adopt minority rule requiring retreat, if it can be done safely, before resorting to deadly force. Exception: When defender is at work or at home (Castle Doctrine)
61
State v. Rusk
x
62
Self-Defense - State v. Gartland
WIfe kills husband in home after he attacked her in her room - Rule - Cohabitants have duty to retreat. Here, castle doctrine only applies when you have the "exclusive right to occupy" - here there was no evidence that the women generally locked the door or her husband did not have general access to her room, and thus duty to retreat was applicable.
63
Types of intentional manslaughter
Voluntary manslaughter - Adequate provocation (heat of passion) and mistaken justification (imperfect self-defense)
64
Accomplices - Majority Rules for Actual Result
Accomplice must act with purpose to bring about underlying results. Not responsible for crimes other than the crime he intended to facilitate.
65
Accomplices - Act Requirements
Must aid principal in committing crime. Aid can be physical or pyschological (encourage, advise, support). Does not require a but-for connection (not necessary that but for the aid, crime would not have occurred)
66
Self-Defense - Castle Doctrine
Applies in majority of Duty to Retreat states. Homeowner has the right to protect himself in his own home (sometimes work and car) without the duty to retreat before using deadly force.
67
Felony Murder - Taylor v. Superior Court
x
68
Rape - Fraud in the inducement
Still consent. Fraud as to reasons creating the motivation to consent to the act. Eg. D falsely promises woman a million dollars to sleep with him. She still consented to sexual act.
69
Voluntary Manslaughter - Canipe v. Commonwealth
Facts : D inadvertently cut off another driver who then did the same. Extreme case of road rage--pulled into a parking lot and victim got out of his car and angrily approached D. D drove into victim and killed him. Rule- Road rage is not enough for adequate provocation, such conduct alone does not render a reasonable person "deaf to the voice of reason."
70
Accomplices - Hampton v. State
x
71
Regina v. Prince
Facts - D was argued with taking a girl under the age of 16 who was actually 14, even though he honestly believed her when she said she was 18. Rule - Moral wrong and lesser crime principles
72
Self-Defense - Common Law Elements
One who is not the aggressor is justified in using a reasonable amount of force against his adversary when he reasonably believes (1) that he is in immediate danger of unlawful bodily harm from his adversary and (2) that the use of such force is necessary to avoid this danger. Must have honest belief, reasonable interpretation and proportional force.
73
Self-Defense - State v. Brown
Lawful guest in a home has a duty to retreat when attacked by a homeowner
74
Duress and Necessity - US v. Schoon
Direct and vs. indirect civil disobediance distinction - indirect protests of congressional policies can never meet all the elements of a necessity defense
75
Conspiracy - Sellers who know about crime
Is there direct evidence of intent that crime be committed? Is there circumstantial evidence of intent that crime be committed? Do they have a special interest demonstrated through: a stake in the venture, no legitimate purpose for the product, high volume or percentage of product for crime, highly dangerous product?
76
Morissette v. US
x
77
Conspiracy - US v. Yang
D conspired to steal information he believed were trade secrets but actually were not. Rule: Factual impossibility not a defense because crime of conspiracy is completed once Ds made agreement, had intent to commit crime, and made an overt act toward it. The agreement is the criminal act, and the impossibility of achieving their intended goal is irrelevant.
78
Bonhart v. US
i. Facts: D set fire to the victim s home and the victim escaped. However, the victim went back into his home to save his dog, but died. D argued that the victim himself severed causation when he went back inside the house, as it was unforeseeable that he would go back inside. ii. Holding: The victim s response must be abnormal to supersede D s acts. 1. Reasoning: Causation was not severed. It was foreseeable that the victim would go back inside to save his dog as it is a natural impulse to protect one s personal property from a fire and common for someone to re-enter a fire to rescue their property. This is generally recognized to be normal and ordinary, rather than abnormal and extraordinary.
79
Robbery - People v. Davis - PURSE SNATCHING
Rule: Robbery includes the snatching of an object attached to the person of another if force is used to tear or break the attachment - THINK PURSES AND WATCHES EARRINGS
80
Conspiracy - US v. Palmer
D and co-conspirator agreed to rob convenience stores as long as it was staffed by a female and no customers were present. No robbery commited because all stores were too busy or staffed by men. Rule: Condition imposed by conspirators does not negate the conspiracy. Essence of conspiracy is the agreement; a failure to achieve the objective, even if factually impossible, is not a defense. Liability should focus on likelihood of condition being carried out: whether D reasonably believed the condition would be satsified.
81
Self-Defense - People v. Loustaunau
When killing during the comission of a burglary, you cannot claim self defense as this would be inconsitent with felony murder rule.
82
Types of intentional murder
x
83
People v. Galle
i. Facts: D injected his girlfriend twice with cocaine and she ended up overdosing later that night, following her own self-injections. D knew that she would be injecting more cocaine that night and there was testimony that the combination of all of the injections was the contributing cause of her death. Rule - Although the victim s subsequent drug taking was administered by her, the expert witness said that D s injections contributed to her death. A jury could have reasonably found that D s actions were the sufficiently direct cause of the victim s death because he knew that she intended to continue to inject herself with cocaine. 1. Policy Concern: The law has a firm policy against assisted-drug use. You can have multiple causes of death, but if you are doing drugs/assisting others with drugs, then you are doing so at your own peril. (Some courts look at whether the injection was a substantial factor in the cause of death).
84
People v. Decina
Facts - guy that knew he was subject to epileptic attacks drove his car on the highway and killed someone Rule - because he was aware of these attacks, this was a volantary act and thus he was liable for IM.
85
Commonwealth v. Casanova
D shot a man who died six years later. Rule: Year and a day rule no longer applies.
86
Felony Murder - Inherently dangerous and independent felonies
Independence majority: Killing must be collateral/independent of underlying felony. No FM where purpose of underlying felony is to commit serious harm. BARRK - Burglary, Arson, Rape, Robbery, Kidnapping, Kidnapping - classic crimes that fit inherently dangerous and independent requirements. Inherently dangerous: Abstract theory - look at all elements of the crime in the abstract and ask if felony invites danger in all circumstances v. Context theory - look at facts of the specific case and determine if it was conducted in such a way as to be dangerous
87
Duress and Necessity - State v. Thayer
x
88
Burglary - People v. Davis
Placing a check in a chute in the window of a check-cashing facility is not using an instrument to effect an entry within the meaning of the burglary statute. (Court is hesitant to expand the burglary statute to absurd proportions. )
89
Culpability: Mental State and Mistake
X
90
Depraved Heart - State v. Hales
Facts - Baby shaking case - Rule : "Reasonable Human Experience:" We are allowed to use common experience to see if a reasonable person would have known about the risk.
91
Insanity - Diminished Capacity
D permitted to produce evidence that due to a mental condition, she did not have the requisite intent or malice to be convicted of the crime. Most jurisdictions limit to specific intent crimes and situations where there is a lesser included crime. If successful, D could avoid hospitalization or medical after-care
92
Conspiracy - People v. Cortez
Rule: Every conspiracy to commit murder must be a conspiracy to commit first-degree, premeditated and deliberate murder. The agreement, intent and overt act required for conspiracy is indistinguishable from premeditation and deliberation
93
Types of unintentional manslaughter
Involuntary manslaughter - Criminally negligent manslaughter (less serious depraved heart) and misdemeanor manslaughter (like felony murder but for misdemeanors)
94
Rape - Old Rules
Man could not rape his wife, prosecution barred if crime not promptly reported, required adequate corroborating evidence, must show utmost resistance by victim, evidence of prior sexual acts were admissible evidence
95
Robbery - People v. Butler - D
Rule: Claim of right is always a defense to robbery if bona fide good belief that he is entitled to the money or possessions of the victim to satisfy or collect on a debt
96
Duress and Necessity - City of St. Louis v. Klocker
D's were charged with blocking access to abortion clinic and claimed necessity by trying to save the unborn children Rule - Abortion was made legal in some circumstances and so the legislature had already made the value judgement that the interests the D's were trying to vindicate were outweighed by the by the right of privacy the D's sought to invade
97
Rape - Force Requirements (MD pre-2017)
Not rape without proof of force, actual or constructive, evidenced by conduct of D - even if sex occured without actual consent and against will of victim. Evidence must show either (1) Victim resisted and resistance was overcome by force or (2) Victim was prevented from resisting because of threats to her safety. Acts/threats of D must be reasonably calculated to create in the mind of the victim a real apprehension of imminent bodily harm, serious enough to impair or overcome her will to resist.
98
Robbery - State v. Bridgers
Bank robbery with employees and customers in the bank. Rule: A threatened bystander has not been robbed, robbery victim must have custodial interest in the property.
99
Conspiracy - US v. Bruno
Rule: One conspiracy where conspirators at one end of the chain know that the unlawful business will not and cannot end with their buyers and those at the othe end know it cannot begin with their sellers - the success of that part with which he is immediately concerned is dependent upon the success of the whole.
100
Conspiracy - Feigned Agreement at Common Law
Sears Rule: As it takes two to conspire, there can be no indictable conspiracy with a govt informer who secretly intends to frustrate the conspiracy - rule applied in Escobar DeBright. When one of to persons merely pretends to agree, the other party, whatever he may believe, is not in fact conspiring with anyone.
101
Accomplice Elements
Liable as an accomplice to the crime of another if: (1) gave assistance or encouragement or failed to perform a legal duty to prevent it and (2) did so with intent to promote or facilitate the commission of the crime
102
Insanity - People v. Wells
Evidence that shows insanity is only admissible during the insanity phase of the trial; evidence of a mental abnormality short of insanity can be introduced during the guilt phase to show D DID NOT act with malice aforethought (not that they COULD NOT)
103
Rape - Fraud in the factum
No consent. Fraud as to very nature of act - think gynocologist
104
Causation - Intervening Causes
Contributing factors do not supercede Ds responsibility as they are not the sole cause. Particular vulnerability is of no legal consequence (eggshell skull idea); victim's response must be abnormal to supercede Ds responsibility.
105
Rape - Modern changes to old rules
Spousal immunity eliminated - husband can rape his wife. Eliminated corroboration and prompting reporting requirements. Replaced utmost resistance with reasonable or no resistance. Rape Shield laws protect victim from attacks on their character through evidence of prior sexual conduct.
106
Felony Murder - People v. Earl
Mall security guard was killed during scuffle with D when he was caught shoplifting. D did not have wallet so was charged with burglary - entered intending to steal, instead of shoplifting so prosecutor could charge felony murder.
107
Elonis v. US
Facts - Rapper was singing on facebook joking about telling people to kill his ex - wife Rule - when statute is silent, courts are reluctant to infer negligence and there must be a mens rea requirement. Justice alito posited that recklesness should be default standard when statute is silent
108
Robbery - Commonwealth v. Williams
D rolled over passed out drunk guy and stole his wallet. Element: Force. Rule: Victim must be aware of use of force.
109
Solicitation and First Amendment
Consider proximity (incitement to imminent lawless action) and degree (likeliehood of producing action)
110
Burglary - Cooper v. People
Rule: Must have concurrence - intent to commit further felony must be formed at time of trespass. If intent formed after entry, no burglary.
111
Insanity - People v. Drew
D involved in a bar brawl, pled insanity because of his schizophrenia. Defense failed under M'Naghten because he could not prove he was unaware of the wrongfulness of his conduct, SCT adopted MPC rule and allowed volitional aspect of insanity, that D could not conform his conduct to the law because of mental disease or defect.
112
US v. Balint
x
113
Self Defense - Imperfect Self-Defense / Mistaken justification
When there is an honest but unreasonable belief that force is needed to protect from danger. Some jurisdictions allow imperfect self-defense when there was an honest and reasonable belief but force was unproportional. Generally reduces murder to involuntary manslaughter.
114
Burglary - Gonzales v. State
Element: Entry. Facts - Girl lets boyfriend come in to kill parents - Rule : When a D has intent to commit a felony at the time he enters a habitation and the party giving D consent to enter the premises aids and assists D in the commission of the offense, D does not have effective consent from the owner of the premises. (Here, no proper consent to enter the home.)
115
Insanity - People v. Mejia-Lenares
Imperfect self defense cannot be based on a delusion
116
Conspiracy - US v. Brown
Undercover cop buys heroin from dealer. D approaches dealer, said cop looked okay, encouraged dealer to make the sale, and not to worry about leaving drugs somewhere for him to pick up but to give them directly to the cop. Rule: Mere presence at the scene and knowledge that a crime is being committed is not sufficient to establish knowing participation in a conspiracy, but additional facts like D gave his seal of approval to make the purchase and took on the responsibility of telling dealer not to worry about following plan to reduce risks - unlikely to have occured without an established relationship between D and dealer. Lowest bar to establish agreement - use as a prosecutor.
117
Depraved Heart - State v. Bolsinger
Facts - choking case - RULE - D did not have a depraved indifference to human life , which is something more serious than mere recklessness alone which has an incidental tragic result. Three part test: (1) Conduct which created grave risk of death to another and conduct resulted in death (actus reus); (2) Knew conduct or circumstances surrounding conduct created grave risk of death to another (mens rea); (3) Acted under circumstances evidencing depraved indifference of human life (evaluation of actus reus). Court looked at four factors to determine depraved indifference (1) utlity of conduct (2) magnitude of risk (3) D's knowledge of risk (4) Precautions the D took to mitigate risk
118
State v. Benniefield
Facts - D was charged with posession of drugs in a school zone Rule - P had to prove that he knew he was in posession of drugs, but not that he was near a school zone - Lesser crime principle - when you engage in a knowing criminal act, you run the risk that it will turn out to be a bigger crime
119
Insanity - People v. Wolff
D was 15, charged w/ murdering his mother - decided he needed to kill her to have sex with girls in the neighborhood. Got an axe, hid it under his bed, beat mom with it, chased her around the house and strangled her to death. When questioned by police, was calm, said he knew he was killing mom and understood it was wrong. Trial court found him legally sane under M'Naghten - CA SCT reduced charge from first to second degree murder because he could not rationally weigh the consequences of his actions - beginning of diminished capacity defense
120
Larceny Common Law Elements
Trespassory (without permisson); taking (caption and dominion); and carrying away (asportation/slight movement); of personal property (not services) of another (not yours) with intent to steal it (permanently deprive)
121
First Degree Murder - State v. Lindamood
Evidence of planning activity before the murder has been widely accepted as probative of premeditation. The facts contributing to planning activity were knowing the victim and not concealing identity, deliberately wrapping table leg, discussing robbery with friend, wearing gloves and using a weapon that was capable of inflicting lethal wounds, 1. Any planning activity by the defendant prior to the murder, which relates to the manner in which the murder was accomplished, can be evidence of premeditation.
122
Insanity - People v. Saille
The only way a D can use his mental illness othen to show insanity is to demonstrate that he did not have the intent to kill
123
Santillanes v. New Mexico
Crimes require a showing of criminal negligence.
124
Insanity - Montana v. Egelhoff
x
125
Conspiracy - US v. Garcia
Fight broke out at a party between two rival gangs, D was charged with conspircy to assault with a deadly weapon. Rule: Gang membership is insufficient to provide proof of conspiracy - testimony that a characteristic of gangs is to back one another up in fights is not a specific objective to commit a crime, being armed with weapons shows they are prepared for violence but not that they planned to initiate it.
126
Accomplices - Rodriguez v. State (Rodriguez I)
x
127
Rape - Fear (MD pre-2017)
Fear to render resistance unneccsary includes: a fear of death or serious bodily harm, a fear so extreme as to preclude resistance, a fear which renders her mind incapable of continuing to resist, a fear that so overpowers her that she dare not resist.
128
State v. Baker
x
129
Accomplices - Renunciation under MPC
Defense is available if: X terminates his complicity prior to the commission of the offense AND wholly deprives his aid of its effectiveness in the commission of the offense OR gives timely warning to law enforcement or otherwise makes proper effort to prevent commission of the crime,
130
Conspiracy - People v. Palmer
Rule of consistency has been abolished (if all other conspirators are acquitted, the remaining conspirator must also be acquitted because there is no one left to have conspired with). Now allows inconsistent verdicts across conspirators (one person can get conspiracy even if the other gets off)
131
Robbery Common Law Elements
Larceny + Property must be taken from person or presence of another; taking must be accomplished by means of force or putting in fear
132
Rape - Exceptions to Rape Shield Laws
Past sexual relationship with D and sexual conduct that explains injuries or physical evidence are admissible
133
Duress and Necessity - Andrews v. People
Protesting case
134
Duress and Necessity - People v. Metters
D was robbed a wendys after being abduceted by drug dealers who he owed money. They said they would kill him and his family if he didnt come up with the money by the end of the night. Rule - " A threat, no matter how serious or extreme, loses its immediacy if the agressor is not present and capable of carrying out the threatned ham at the time of the crime".
135
Self-Defense - State v. Glowacki
"applying the duty to retreat doctrine to a man in his own home would make him a fugitive from his own home, and thus there is no duty to retreat, even for cohabitants"
136
Solicitation Elements
(1) Intent that another person commit a crime and (2) Entice, advise, incite, order or otherwise encourage that person to commit that crime.
137
Burglary - Tools
i. If tool to enter breaks the threshold = no entry 1. Crowbar ii. If tool to steal breaks the threshold = entry 1. Fishing rod iii. "Tool for breaking, no entry. Tool for taking, entry"
138
Withdraw of solicitation
Withdrawing is NOT a defense to solicitation under common or modern law
139
Brackett v. Peters
D raped old woman, she became depressed and weak in hospital, transferred to nursing home and died when nurse got food stuck in her feeding tube. Rule: If act makes the result more likely, it is the legal cause - her refusing to eat and requiring feeding tube and nurse getting food stuck in it was not superceding cause.
140
Boro v. Superior Court
x
141
State v. MTS
x
142
Self-Defense - Commonwealth v. Fowlin
Guy was sprayed with pepper spray and attacked by three men, he shot back in self defense but injured a bystander RUle - not liable because he was lawfully excerising his right to self preservation.
143
Insanity - Irresistable Impulse
Due to some mental disease or defect, D should not be held criminally liable for his actions because he could not control his actions even if he knew them to be wrong
144
Felony Murder - People v. Wilkins
i. Facts: D committed a burglary of a residence that was under construction. D drove away in truck, but did not tie down the loot he stole. 60 miles later, a stove fell out of D s truck while he was driving, resulting in the death of the victim. Huge disarray of accidents due to the stove in the middle of the freeway - the victim's car had been stuck in between the trucks. ii. Continuous Transaction Rule: Requires nexus between conduct that causes death and underlying felony. Does not have to be strict causal relationship.For purposes of FM, a robbery or burglary continues, at minimum, until the perpetrator reaches place of temporary safety.1. Example: A killing committed while perpetrator is in flight and prior to reaching a place of temporary safety may be fairly said to be part of one continuous transaction with underlying felony.
145
Regina v. Faulkner
Facts - guy stole rum from a ship, and accidently set the ship on fire while lighting a match to see. Rule - prosecutions argument that because he was commiting a felony, he should be guilty of the crime of burning the ship (also a felony), was wrong. Jury must decide whether he had reckless/ negligent mens rea, regarding the burning of the ship
146
Self-Defense - State v. Norman
Facts - wife kills sleeping husband who beat her. rule - instruction of self defense was allowed even though he was sleeping because the nap was only a momentary hitaus in a continuing reign of terror"
147
People v. Kibbe
Facts - Ds gave the victim, a drunk man, a car ride after he flashed a bunch of $100 bills. When the victim asked for a ride Ds had already decided to steal his money and agreed to drive him somewhere. In the process of this drive, the 2 men stripped victim of his shoes, coat, and money, and left him on the side of the road. It was below freezing and victim was a great distance from civilization. An unrelated man was driving the appropriate speed limit (50 MPH) and did not see the victim. He ran into the man, killing him. Ds tried to argue that this unrelated man severed the causation for the victim s ultimate death. Rule - Ds actions must be the sufficiently direct cause of ensuing death before there can be any imposition of criminal liability and this standard is larger than what is required in torts. Ds activities were the sufficiently direct cause of the victim s death, and but for the car hitting him, he would have died from exposure anyway. 1. No supervening wrongful act occurred to relieve Ds from the directly foreseeable consequences of their actions.
148
Rape - Original Common Law Elements
(1) By force (2) Nonconsensual (3) Sexual intercourse (4) By a man (5) With a woman (6) Who is not his wife
149
Conspiracy - Agreement and Circumstantial Evidence
Can be shown by coordination in action but gang membership is insufficient
150
People v. Newton
Facts - Guy is charged with killing a cop after being shot Rule - You need to have a volantary act - because he was semiunconcious when shooting the police, he lacked actus reas.
151
Jones v. US
Facts - Lady was taking care of child and failed to feed him resulting in his death Rule - for an ommision to create liability, one must have a legal duty. Legal duties arise when (1) Statute imposes duty, (2) Status relationship (3) contractual duty (4) voluntarily assumed the care of another and seculded as rendering others incapable of providing aid.
152
People v. Olsen
Facts - D brought his boy over and forced 13 year old girl to have sex with his boy ( thought she was 16) Rule - No honest and reasonable mistake defense due to public polcy
153
Robbery - People v. Jackson
D broke into apartment, victim caught D fleeing and they fought. Later realized watch had been stolen. Element: Taking. Rule: Victim does NOT have to be aware of taking, only aware of force.
154
Voluntary Manslaughter
Usually, intentional homicide committed under extenuating circumstances which MITIGATE, though they do not justify or excuse, the killing. \*\*This is NOT a justified killing, just stripping away malice. Manslaughter committed upon a sudden quarrel or in the heat of passion. 4 Requirements: i. Must have been REASONABLE provocation (objective) 1. A reasonable person would lose self-control over this provocation. 2. Rare, not common place 3. High standard ii. D must have in fact been provoked (subjective) 1. Ex) husband cheating on wife and wife walks in on them - the person must be provoked by this. iii. REASONABLE person so provoked would not have COOLED OFF (objective) iv. D must not have actually cooled off (subjective) d. Remember it is about the sudden quarrel sudden heat of passion. You cannot be re-provoked after cooling off.
155
First Degree Murder - State v. Ollens - Distinguished from Bingham
Physical evidence of manner and method of death, as a matter of law, sustains the element of premeditation. The presence of a knife, as distinguished from no weapon, suffices to allow the issue of premeditation to go to a jury. Sufficient evidence to send the question of premeditation to the jury: a. Evidence of time in between switching from stabbing and slashing. b. Evidence of striking from behind (not a frenzied killing). c. Defensive wounds indicate that your first tactic is not working, so then you think of another tactic to kill (premeditation).
156
Conspiracy -
x
157
Conspiracy - Pinkerton Rule
Co-conspirators are liable for substantive crimes commited by members of the conspiracy that are reasonably foreseeable and done in furtherance of the conspiracy
158
Types of unintentional murder
Felony murder, intent to cause serious bodily injury murder, depraved heart murder
159
Duress and Necessity - Budoo v. US
D was charged with contempt after refusing to testify against suspects charged with murder. He claimed neccessity because he believed they would retaliate. Rule - There was a reasonable legal alternative, which would have been entering into a witness protection program, and thus no necessity defense.
160
Necessity - MPC Choice of Evils
Conduct that actor believes to be necessary to avoid an injury to himself or another is justifiable provided that: (1) Injury or evil sought to be avoided by such conduct is greater than that sought to be prevented by the law (2) Law defining offense does not provide exceptions or defenses dealing with the specific situation involved (3) Not available when actor negligently or recklessly brought about a situation requiring a choice of evils or in evaluating the necessity of his conduct (4) Available when conduct causes the death of another (5) Does not have to be caused by natural forces
161
In Re Winship
Facts - Kid was charged with larency based on preponderance of the evidence - Rule - you cannot apply a lower standard in a criminal case
162
State v. Mayers
x
163
Self-Defense - State v. McClain
Battered woman snydrome is irrelevant to volantary manslaughter's reasonabless test
164
Self-Defense - People v. Yaklich
Facts - Woman hires two guys to kill her husband Rule - no self defense even though she was a battered woman because she was far too removed from immenent threat of serious bodily harm or death"
165
Conspiracy - US v. Escobar DeBright
D was contacted by DEA informant trying to set up importation of heroin into US. D met with informant because she felt threatened by him and feared for her safety. Rule: Cannot conspire with a government informer. When one of two parties merely pretends to agree, the other party, whatever he may beleive, is not conspiring with anyone. Individual must conspire with at least one bona fide conspirator.
166
Conspiracy - People v. Iniguez
Rule: Conspiracy to commit attempted murder is legally impossible - attempted murder requires the specific intent to actually commit the murder (but failure to do so) while the agreement in the conspiracy had to intend an ineffectual act. Cannot intend to do and not so the same act!
167
Staples v. US
x
168
Voluntary Manslaughter - State v. Castro
Facts: D and victim had been married for 8 years and were divorced. D got off work and went home, drank 2 bottles of beer, ate supper, watched baseball. Ex-wife, victim, called D asking for rent money and used abusive language. Subsequently, D walked to the store and calmly purchased a gun and ammunition. D went home, loaded the gun, and walked around for 30 minutes. He then went to the victim's house where he planned to shoot her in the spine to prevent her from dancing. D saw the victim watching TV and knocked, she became scared and called the police, he broke the window, unlocked the door, and shot her 3x from 5-feet away - killing her. Rule: A jury must have evidence that there was a sudden quarrel or heat of passion at the time of the commission of the crime to find voluntary manslaughter. D was found not guilty of first degree murder, and was convicted of voluntary manslaughter. Jury was incorrectly given instructions of voluntary manslaughter because there was not adequate provocation from the telephone conversation.
169
Insanity - People v. Bobo
Court held that diminished capacity could not negate intent, and that CA statute had made intent and premeditated/deliberate synonymous, so diminished capacity could not be introduced to negate premeditation or intent required for first degree murder
170
Crime and Punishment
X
171
Larceny - People v. Zombo
D tried to steal car but couldn't turn off alarm to start car. Element: Taking/carrying away. Rule: "Taking" element of a larceny is satisfied where the defendant exercised dominion and control over the property for a period of time, no matter how temporary, in a manner wholly inconsistent with the owner's continued rights. Restoration of property is not a defense.
172
Duress and Necessity - US v. Holmes
x
173
Attempt - Defenses
Legal Impossibility is a defense at common law (even if D did all the things he intended, he still would not have committed a crime). But factual impossibility is NOT a defense (when D intends to commit crime but because of facts unknown to him at the time, cannot complete it)
174
Voluntary Manslaughter - State v. Munoz
Facts - Husband learning of molested wife, Rule - The provocation and disclosure of events constitute that provocation may occur at different times. A sudden disclosure of events may be equivalent of the event presently occurring. Provocation is insufficient if an ordinary person would have cooled off before acting; it is important to distinguish between actual provocation and manner in which defendant learned of provocation and both must occur before the killing. 1. Actual Provocation: Finding out about the sexual abuse 2. Manner learned: Wife telling D about abuse
175
Attempt - Majority common law and MPC
(1) Intent to commit a crime and (2) A substantial step in furtherance that goes beyond mere preparation. Step is consistent with intent to commit a crime.
176
Burglary - People v. Jackson
Element: Dwelling. Essential question is whether the structure is functionally interconnected with and immediately contiguous to other portions of the house. Court found that the balcony was interconnected and contiguous with the home. Complete or partial entry will suffice.
177
Attempt - People v. Lenert
x
178
First Degree Murder
Premeditation and Intent are NOT synonymous a. Premeditation: i. A verb that encompasses the mental process of thinking beforehand, deliberation, reflection, weighing or reasoning for a period of time, however short. ii. Identification of Premeditation Factors: 1. Passage to time (can be short period of time) 2. Manner of killing (strangulation, multiple wounds, poison) a. Poisoning over 30 days - shows planning 3. Weapon used (type and where did it come from) a. More weight if you have to go get the weapon 4. Motive for killing (cover-up, robbery) 5. Evidence of pre-planning (taking to isolated place) 6. (Depending upon jurisdiction, premeditation can occur before or during intent to kill)b. Intent: i. The mental state of acting with the objective or purpose to accomplish a result which is a crime. (it is the end result. ii. Intent and premeditation are NOT synonymous iii. Separate and distinct elements of the crime of murder in the first degree iv. Most jurisdictions - without premeditation you just have second degree murder.
179
Robbery - People v. Tufunga - Can be used for either
Claim of right is Good if it is retrieving a specific item - narrowed Butler
180
Attempt - US v. Farner
x
181
Burglary - Regina v. Jones
Element: Entry. If someone enters the premises of another knowing that he is entering in excess of his permission, or acts recklessly while entering in excess of his permission, he is considered a trespasser. D2 had general permission to enter the home, but he did not have permission to enter the home for the purpose of stealing the 2 TVs (exceeded permission). (Here, circumstantial evidence demonstrated intent to steal.)
182
Doctrine of continued trespass
(1)1. Must have concurrence between taking and intent to steal (2) If taking is TRESSPASSORY at beginning, that element continues until INTENT TO STEAL is formed. (3) NOT VICE VERSA “ if not a trespassory taking, cant be a larceny at COMMON LAW even if formed intent to steal.
183
Felony Murder - People v. Washington
Agency Theory: For a defendant to be guilty of murder under the felony-murder rule, the act of killing must be committed by the defendant or by his accomplice acting to perpetuate the robbery UNLESS : Ask yourself who initiated the gun battle? Jury decides who initiated the gun battle a. No felony murder if the victim started gun battle. b. Implied malice if D started the gun battle. (Potential FM)
184
Regina v. Dudley and Stephens (duress/necessity)
Facts - The boy who was eaten on the boat Rule - You cannot kill another to save your own life - "Lord Hale" - Extreme hunger does not satisfy larceny, so how can it satisfy murder?
185
Robbery - People v. Scott
McDonalds robbery, one employee hiding under the grill. Robbery of all employees, even the one hiding. Rule: Employee has a special relationship with employer suffcient to establish constructive possession of employer's property during a robbery. Victims are those who have the right to resist the taking because of relationship to propety or owner; bystanders who have no graether interest in the property than any other member of the general population.
186
Voluntary Manslaughter Requirements
Must have been reasonable provocation, D must have in fact been provoked, reasonable person so provoked would not have cooled off and D must not have actually cooled off.
187
Conspiracy - Withdrawal
Common law - NO defense. MPC - Defense to the conspiracy charges only IF D thwarts the success of the agreed crime
188
Conspiracy - People v. Swain
Rule: Conspiracy to commit depraved heart murder is legally impossible - one who commits DHM does not intend the death of a human being, to conspire to commit murder he must intend the death of another, so conspiring to commit an extremely dangerous act cannot equal conspiracy to commit murder
189
Conspiracy - US v. Rosenblatt
Co-conspirator fraudulently obtained govt checks. D laundered the money but believed he was helping D with tax evasion not that checks were obtained fraudulently. Rule: Proof of an agreement to defraud, without further qualification as to the nature of the fraud is insufficient for conspiracy. The two must agree to the "essential nature of the plan" (basically agree to commit the same crime)
190
In re John Z.
x
191
Voluntary Manslaughter - Sells v. State
Facts - D and his wife were arguing because D s wife admitted to an affair. D was shocked, dazed, and unaware of the infidelity prior to that night. Rule - Informational words, as distinguished from mere insulting words, can constitute adequate provocation. A sudden disclosure of an event can be equivalent to the event presently occurring. The substance of words can also amount to provocation. Here, in the totality of the circumstances, the instruction of voluntary manslaughter should have been given to the jury.
192
People v. Stewart
Facts - Hernia case - RULE - The anesthesiologist s gross negligence broke causation and was a superseding cause. Because of the intervening actions of the anesthesiologist, the court could not find beyond a reasonable doubt that the stabbing was the actual cause of death. (There was no basis for the jury to find D caused the death beyond a reasonable doubt.)
193
Duress and Necessity - People v. Anderson
Rule - under common law, duress is never a defense to intentional killing because the evil of killing is equal to the D being killed. However, MPC does not exclude intentional killings
194
State v. Holley - Tuna can case
RULE - Holding: There cannot be a robbery if the force of violence is not concurrent with the intent to steal. (Here, the force was not in regard to the tuna, it was only in regard to the cash register.) - FORCE HAS TO EFFECTUATE THE TAKING - ESCAPING IS NOT SUFFICIENT - force before or after larceny is not sufficient
195
Larceny - People v. Olivo, v. Gasparik, v. Spatzier
Shoplifting cases. Element: Taking/carrying away. Rule: D does not have to leave store to complete larceny: focus on intent and exercise of dominion and control. D may be treating merchandise in manner inconsistent with shopowner's rights if concealing goods, surveying area while hiding merchandise, moving towards exit.
196
Conspiracy - US v. Blankenship
Family had a meth ring, got involved in manufacturing. Leased a trailer from D to cook in for a day - told D what they were using it for, offered him $1000 or some meth, D chose to take cash. D then got cold feet, asked them to remove the equipment and they did. Everyone involved in the meth ring charged with single count of conspiring to manufacture and distribute meth. Rule: Charing a premium price does not automatically mean D has a stake in the venture, may be a premium for the risks - one who covers his own costs and no more does not share in the venture's success. (Court considered how D was charged with conspiracy for the whole entire meth venture and would have Pinkerton liability for all crimes if convicted, not just facilitating or aiding a smaller offense of making meth on his premises - since only options were full conspiracy with responsibility for all crimes or no conspiracy at all, D's actions seemed a lot closer to no crime at all)
197
Larceny - People v. Jensen
D caught carrying chair across campus. Element: Intent. Rule: Court can infer intent from circumstances - refusing to ID himself, being uncooperative.
198
Conspiracy - Wharton Rule
Prohibits prosecution of two persons for conspiracy to commit a particular offense when the offense in question can only be committed by at least two people eg. dueling, adultery, buying drugs. Does not apply where there is legislative intent to impose a separate punishment for conspiracy or if a third party joins the agreement
199
Self-Defense - State v. Kelly
Reasonable person in the circumstances - so the court said that her circumstances helps us to know what an ordinary person within her circumstances would see as reasonable. Broadest case for what is admissable - battered woman case
200
Conspiracy - Agreement Key Points
Requires meeting of minds, agreement on essential nature of plan (but not all the details), agreeing to the same offense but one person is tricked about certain details is still an agreement, conditions set by the conspirators that are not met do not negate the agreement, feigned agreement = no agreement, agreement can be shown by circumstantial evidence
201
US v. Dotterweich
x
202
Burglary - Regina v. Collins
Facts - Window case. Element: Entry. Rule: For burglary, there must be a reckless or intentional trespass. (Must know he is a trespasser and enter anyway, or be reckless as to whether hs is entering without consent. Unless the jury is satisfied that D entered the bedroom without permission or consent, thereby trespassing, he cannot be convicted of burglary. - This was a question about whether he had already passed the threshold before being invited inside.
203
Larceny - People v. Alamo
Officer found D in stolen car pulled over with car running. Element: Taking/carrying away. Rule: Larceny of a vehicle does not require movement - taking and carrying away satisfied if D has sole dominion and control over vehicle.
204
Conspiracy - US v. Townsend
Rule: If D knows his actions were benefiting a larger conspiracy, he may be said to have agreed to join the conspiracy
205
Necessity - When it looks like civil disobedience but is not
x
206
Causation
D's conduct must be legal cause (but for) and proximate cause (must be foreseeable and sufficiently direct)
207
Robbery - Commonwealth v. Rozplochi
RULE: The number of robberies that results from a single course of conduct depends upon the number of persons who have been threatened with physical harm. (Baseline reason for robbery is to protect victims from violence.)
208
Insanity - US v. Pohlot
"Admitting phyciatric evidence to negate mens rea does not constitute a defense, but only negates an element of an offense"
209
Robbery - State v. Mcmillen - P
Rule: Claim of right is never a defense to robbery even if taker has good faith belief that he is the owner of the property. "No place in an ordered and orderly society which eschews self-help through violence"
210
State v. Akers
x
211
Culpability: Voluntary Act and Omissions
X
212
Larceny - People v. Rembert
D attempts to steal change purse from purse, lifts it but drops it back in. Element: Taking/carrying away. Rule: Power and command over property required for larceny, even if only briefly. Slight movement satsifies carrying away.
213
Martin v. State
Facts - drunk was taken to public highway, the after cussing, was charged with drunk and pubilc - Rule - You need a volantary act in a crime, and here, because he was taken by the police, this was not a volantary act and thus he could not be charged.
214
Defense of Property
Majority rule: May use LESS than deadly force to protect property. Only as much force as is necessary. Expansive interpretation of rule when there is a home invader - always ask whether homeowner was defending property or defending themselves and their family. No traps, spring guns etc. allowed.
215
Felony Murder Definition
Death that occurs during the attempt, commission, or flight from an independent inherently dangerous felony
216
Duress and Necessity - Hoagland v. State
x
217
Duress and Necessity - People v. Son
Imperfect duress does not strip malice away from killing and drop intent to kill to VM.
218
Accomplices - Minorirty/Hampton Rule for Actual Result
If accomplice has purpose to aid P1D in committing acts necessary for underlying crime, he is liable for ALL results that are the natural and probable (foreseeable) consequences of that crime - effectively making negligence the mental state to be held liable for the results
219
Attempt - US v. Bilderbeck
x
220
Solicitation and Merger
Solicitation merges with the completed crime - if the crime is completed, only charged with the crime itself. So only a solicitation charge for an incomplete crime.
221
Involuntary manslaughter: Definition of criminally negligent manslaughter
Extremely negligent conduct which creates what a reasonable man would realize to be unjustifiable and highly likely to cause serious bodily injury or death of another.
222
Larceny - People v. Jennings
Repurchase agreements - D had other company's money for 48 hours, deposited into its own account and kept interest earned. Elemet: Intent. Rule: Must intend a taking of the property itself not just the economic benefit/value of its use over a short period of time.
223
Conspiracy - US v. Stavroulakis
D and co-conspirator agreed to launder money - D thought money from was naracotics, co-con thought it was from gambling. Rule: Sufficient for conspiracy because if they agree to commit the same offense even if one is mistaken/tricked about an inconsequential detail.
224
Self-Defense - Deadly v. Non-Deadly Force
Non-deadly: Can be used when he reasonably believes that the other is about to inflict unlawful bodily harm upon him and that it is necessary to use such force to prevent such result. Deadly: Can be used when he reasonably believes that the other is about to inflict death or serious bodily harm upon him and that it is necessary to use such force to prevent such result.
225
Jones v. State
Rule - you have a duty to act when you put another individual in peril
226
Defense of Others - Minority
Reasonableness is not an issue - D steps into shoes of the person protected. If person protected had no right to use self-defense, D cannot use defense of others. \*\*If person protected was first aggressor or did not retreat when they had a duty to, D has no defense of others defense even if he didn't know person protected had no right to claim self-defense
227
Burglary - People v. Johnson
Element: Entry, Facts - Johnson, D, and Tina were in the process of getting a divorce and she rented her own apartment. D entered the apartment with the intent to commit certain crimes, and he was convicted of burglary. D claimed he had an economic interest in the apartment because they were still legally married. Rule - "In determining whether the crime of burglary has been committed, the focus is on the possessory rights of the parties, and not their ownership rights"
228
Conspiracy - Withdrawal and Pinkerton Crimes
Can avoid Pinkerton liability at common law and under MPC with a complete and voluntary withdrawal - may require thwarting success or timely notice for non-MPC jurisdictions
229
Accomplices - Renunciation at Common Law
Renunciation is no defense
230
People v. Vaughn
FACTS - D stabbed victim in the abdomen, causing severe internal bleeding. Seventy days later, after several operations and infections, her physicians determined that she was beyond medical help and would die soon. While victim was being kept alive by a life support system, a nurse "turned off the ventilator because somebody had to have the balls to do it" and victim died. 1. D claimed that his indictment for manslaughter should be dismissed because the nurse's action was a superseding cause which broke the chain of causation between his act and Robinson s death. (Court rejected this argument). ii. Holding: Court found that D was still the legal (and direct) cause of victim s death. 1. One important factor the Court looked at was that the victim was going to die anyway due to the original, serious injuries caused by D. However, Nurse was still liable here for something else.
231
Burglary Common Law Elements
(1) Breaking and entering (2) Dwelling house of another (3) In the nighttime (4) With intent to commit felony or larceny therein. Modern expansions to include daytime, non-dwellings, or entry alone MUST be in the statute to apply.
232
Regina v. Cunningham
Facts - guy stole a gas thing which released gas into the air, which choked an old lady in her home. RUle - Malicious did not mean wicked, but meant intent that the underlying crime was done, or recklesness regarding the risk that the harm would be done.
233
VM - Adequate Provocation
Any conduct, action or circumstances which arouse anger, rage, fear, sudden resentment, terror or other extreme emotion. Must be such as would affect the ability to reason and cause temporary loss of self-control in an ordinary person of average disposition.
234
Incompetent to Stand Trial
When D is (1) unable to understand the proceeding against him or (2) to assist in his defense.
235
Insanity - People v. Wetmore
D had long history of psychotic illness - was released from hospital and broke into an apartment believing it was his and lived there for several days until owner returned. Dimished capacity defense: During guilt phase, D presents evidence that he DID not form requisite intent to commit the crime, not that he COULD not. Evidence that he could not form the intent is reserved for the insanity phase of trial.
236
Culpability: Strict Liability
X
237
Burglary - MPC and Multiple Convictions
May not be convicted for both burglary and for the offense that he inteded to commit inside unless the additional offense constitutes a felony in the first or second degree (must be really serious!)
238
Duress and Necessity - Commonwealth v. Hutchins
x
239
Self-Defense - Duty to Retreat
Requires one who is attacked to withdraw before employing deadly force where there is a safe avenue of escape and he is conciously aware of such an avenue. Does not apply to use of non-deadly force, has been eliminated in about 35 states.
240
Voluntary Manslaughter - State v. Cooley
Rule: Intoxication does not matter in your voluntary manslaughter analysis (reasonable person analysis). Mental illness does not matter for voluntary manslaughter analysis. 1. Example: When we are talking about a reasonable person, we are NOT talking about a reasonable drunk person.
241
Duress - MPC
Engaged in conduct charged because he was coerced to do so by the use of, or the threat of use of, unlawful force against his person or the person of another. A person of reasonable firmness would be unable to resist. \*\*No need for threat to be with deadly force or serious bodily harm, no imminence requirement, and possible defense to intentional killing.
242
Larceny - State v. Donaldson
D caught trying to hotwire car, electrics on but engine not started. Element: Taking/carrying away. Rule: Asportation not required, D must have possession and control, which begins when D uses property in a manner beyond his authority.
243
Involuntary manslaughter: Definition of misdemeanor manslaughter
Death of another during the attempt, commission or flight from a malum in se misdemeanor (usually assault or battery)
244
First Degree Murder - State v. Brooks
Facts: D was camping and drinking profusely for days, he then killed the victim. Evidence of his intoxication: drinking a handle of whiskey, eating a spider, face was blotchy and his eyes were buggy, and he was staggering. D has a personality disorder as well (trial court rejected this evidence). RULE - Voluntary intoxication can negate premeditation but not intent to kill.
245
Duress and Necessity - US v. Contento-Pachon
x
246
Insanity - MPC
Due to mental disease or defect, D lacks the substantial capacity to either (1) appreciate the criminality of his conduct or (2) conform his conduct to the requirements of the law
247
Defense of Others - Majority
Defense of third person is justified when it is necessary to defend a third person who is facing an unlawful imminent threat or bodily harm. Reasonableness standard: Did D make reasonable judgment that person protected was victim of unlawful violence? Did D meet requirements of self-defense (honest, reasonable, proportional)?
248
Accomplices - US v. Ortega
x
249
Accomplices
x
250
People v. Velez
i. Facts: The victim, a cab driver, was shot in the head by D. After the incident, the victim became depressed by his lack of progress in his recovery and took out his own feeding tube, subsequently dying from lack of nourishment. ii. Holding: Though the victim chose to take out his own feeding tube and is an intervening actor, the gunshot forged a causative link between the initial injury and the victim s death. The gun shot was a sufficiently direct and contributing event which eventually resulted in the victim s death. This was also a foreseeable outcome from this gunshot. (It does not have to be the direct cause, rather just sufficiently direct. The ultimate outcome was foreseeable.)
251
Voluntary Manslaughter - Gonzales v. State
Facts - "son of a bitch mexican case - Rule - The standard of a reasonable person of ordinary temper is employed to avoid different applications of the law. You do not want a different application based upon defendants being of a different race, creed, color, sex, or social status.
252
Duress and Necessity - Williams v. State
D was charged with attempted robbery and housebreaking. He claimed duress because three men threatned to kill him unless he took them to his drug dealers stash house. Rule - MPC - duress is unavailable when you recklessly place yourself in a situation which makes it probable that you would be subect to duress. So no Duress here
253
Robbery - Commonwealth v. Brown - ALWAYS USE FOR PROS
D walked up behind victim, grabbed her purse and ran away. Element: Force. Rule: Threat must be sufficient to compel victim to part with property. Force must be sufficient to separate victim from his property.
254
Conspiracy and Merger
No merger - can get charged for conspiracy to commit the crime and the completed crime
255
Transferred Intent - People v. Scott
Rule: Transferred intent - D can be charged for attempted murder of intended victim and murder of bystander who was killed. Intent is not used up. Cannot transfer unlike intent - intent to kill a cat does not transfer to intent to kill a person.
256
Voluntary Manslaughter - State v. Nevares
Facts - REJECTION CASE - RULE - Words alone, however scurrilous or insulting, will not furnish the adequate provocation required for reducing murder to voluntary manslaughter. 1. Cannot use your mental health issue an excuse unless you meet other requirements of the insanity defense. 2. MENTAL ILLNESS is IRRELEVANT to whether a reasonable person would have been provoked.
257
Conspiracy - People v. Lauria
Lauria ran a telephone answering service, knew it was used by prostitutes. Rule: A supplier who knows of the criminal use to which his supplies are put may be established by: (1) direct evidence that he intends to participate or (2) through an inference that he intends to participate based on (a) his special interest in the activity (if he has acquired a stake in the venture; if no legitimate purpose for their goods exists; if the volume of business with the buyer is grossly disproportionate to any legitimate demand, or illegal sales are a high proprotion of total business) or (b) the aggravated nature of the crime (if you know someone is commiting a serious felony with your stuff, you'll likely get charged with conspiracy!)
258
Insanity - People v. Conley
Evidence of diminished capacity admissible during guilt phase to negate malice aforethought required for murder
259
Accomplices - Cable v. State
x
260
Rape - Consent
Difference between consent and submission - consent involves submission but submission alone is not necessarily consent.
261
People v. Duffy
i. Facts: The victim met D on the streets of NY in the middle of the night. The victim, who at the time was extremely distraught over having recently broken-up with his GF, immediately told D his desire to kill himself. At D's invitation, the victim then accompanied him back to D's apartment. There, for approximately the next half hour, the victim continued to express suicidal thoughts and repeatedly asked D to shoot him. In response, D gave the victim more alcohol and told him several times to jump off the porch head first. Finally D, who explained to police that he was tired of hearing the victim complain about wanting to die, told the victim that he had a gun that he could use to kill himself. D then retrieved the gun and told the victim to blow his head off. Moments later the victim loaded the gun and killed himself.D s conduct was a sufficiently direct cause of the victim s death. Further, the act of loading the rifle and using it to kill himself did not constitute an intervening act which relieves D from criminal responsibility. 1. Exam Note: This was a general intent crime and voluntary intoxication will not relieve you of liability.
262
Self-Defense - US v. Thomas
You cannot be the agressor and then try and use self defense - Robber/burgler cannot kill a man who is trying to kill him
263
Insanity - M'Naghten
Due to mental disease or defect, D is unable to understand (1) the nature and quality of his act OR (2) that what he was doing was wrong.
264
Necessity - Indirect civil obedience
(1) All other potentially viable and reasonable alternatives were pursued or shown to be futile (2) Action had direct causal connection with the harm sought to be prevented and that action would bring the abatement of the harm (3) Action taken was an emergency measure pursued to avoid a specific, definite and imminent injury about to occur.
265
Attempt and Merger
Attempt merges with the completed crime so only charged with the crime itself if completed
266
Conspiracy - US v. Jimenez Recio
D's joined a conspiracy after Rule: Impossibility does not terminate the conspiracy - only when the object of the crime is committed or the agreement is abandoned.
267
Duress - Majority Common Law Elements
(1) Immediate threat of death or serious bodily injury (2) Well-founded belief that threat will be carried out and (3) No reasonable opportunity to escape the threatened harm. \*\*Sometimes requires that D submit to proper authorities after attaining a position of safety but usually just applied to prison escape cases.
268
Defintions of murder
Involantary manslaughter - extremely negligently conduct which a reasonable man would know to create a substantial and unjustifable risk that is likely to cause death or serious bodily harm and which does actually cause death.
Depraved heart murder - (1) conduct which creates a grave risk of death (2) the D knew that the conduct created a grave risk of death (3) the conduct evidenced a depraved indifference to human life.
Volantary manslaughter - VM is the intentionall killing of another, but because of circumstances which would cause a reasonable man to temporaily lose all self control, malice is stripped from the defendant. the elements are (1) reasonable provocation (2) D was actually provoked (3) Reasonable man wouldnt have cooled off (4) D actually did not cool off.
269
Necessity - When it looks like civil disobedience but it is not (marijuana case)
1. Situation of emergency arising without fault on the part of actor;
2. Emergency must be so imminent and compelling as to raise a reasonable expectation of harm;
3. Emergency must present no reasonable opportunity to avoid the injury without doing criminal act; and
4. Injury impending from emergency must be of sufficient seriousness to outmeasure the criminal wrong.
