CRIM DECK OPEN OFFICE MIGHT WORK Flashcards
Commonwealth v. Cardwell
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…
Duress and Necessity - In re Eichorn
x
Insanity - Durham Rule
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.
Attempt - US v. Mandujano
x
Duress and Necessity - US v. Gomez
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
First Degree Murder - State v. Bingham
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.
Conspiracy - McDonald v. US
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.
Accomplices - How to find an accomplice guilty for unintended results
- 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.
Accomplices - Interaction with Felony Murder - Majority Rule
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.
Self-Defense - People v. Romero
“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
State v. Miranda
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.
Attempt - US v. Roman
x
People v. Matos
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.
Felony Murder - People v. Phillips
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.
Garnett v. State
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
US v. X-Citement Video, Inc.
x
Conpiracy - Agreement and MPC
Defined as one person agreeing with another, rather than an agreement between people - one person can conspire without the other’s knowledge
Voluntary Manslaughter - People v. McCoy and State v. Stills
Facts - Joey helping karim kill ravin after cheating :,D Rule - Joey could get premeditated while karim gets VM
Voluntary Manslaughter - Commonwealth v. Halbert
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.
The Cogdon Case
Facts - Mother, who dreaming and sleepwalking, killed her daughter with an axe because of delusions. Rule - No volantary act if sleepwalking
Goldberg v. State
x
Pope v. State
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.
Duress and Necessity - US v. Willis
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.
Felony Murder - People v. Johnson
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.
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.
Attempt - Abandonment
Common law - NO defense. MPC - a complete and voluntary abandonment is a defense.
Accomplices - Rodriguez v. State (Rodriguez II)
x
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).
Self-Defense - State v. Vue
No idea why this fucking case is in here, has nothing to do with self defense lol
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.
Attempt - Smallwood v. State
x
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.
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.
Attempt - US v. Joyce
x
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
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’
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.
People v. Likine
x
Rape - Modern Law (by statute)
(1) By force (2) Nonconsensual
Duress and Necessity - Commonwealth v. Leno
x
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
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
Insanity - People v. Poddar
Evidence of diminished capacity admissible during guilt phase to negate wanton disregard required for depraved heart murder
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
Solicitation - People v. Rubin
x
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.
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.
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)
Case Name
Brief Facts and Rule
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
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
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
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)
State v. Guminga
x
B (a minor) v. Director of Public Prosecutions
dont need honest and reasonable, just honest
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
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.
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”
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.
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)
State v. Rusk
x
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.
Types of intentional manslaughter
Voluntary manslaughter - Adequate provocation (heat of passion) and mistaken justification (imperfect self-defense)
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.
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)
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.
Felony Murder - Taylor v. Superior Court
x
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.
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.”
Accomplices - Hampton v. State
x
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
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.
Self-Defense - State v. Brown
Lawful guest in a home has a duty to retreat when attacked by a homeowner
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
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?
Morissette v. US
x
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.
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.
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
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.
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.
Types of intentional murder
x
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).
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.
Commonwealth v. Casanova
D shot a man who died six years later. Rule: Year and a day rule no longer applies.
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
Duress and Necessity - State v. Thayer
x
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. )
Culpability: Mental State and Mistake
X
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.
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
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
Types of unintentional manslaughter
Involuntary manslaughter - Criminally negligent manslaughter (less serious depraved heart) and misdemeanor manslaughter (like felony murder but for misdemeanors)
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
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
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
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.
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.
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.
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.
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
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)
Rape - Fraud in the factum
No consent. Fraud as to very nature of act - think gynocologist
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.
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.
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.
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
