Crim vocab, common law, MPC Part 2

Question 1

under the MPC for foreseeability in causation what is the Doctrine of Transferred Intent?

Answer 1

if A unlawfully kills B while intending to kill C, A will still be guilty of murdering B despite how unforeseeable the killing may have been (blameworthy mental state) 2.03(2)(a)

Question 2

cases involving foreseeability (causation)

Answer 2

1) people v. Acosta (but-for causation is not enough; the harm must also be objectively foreseeable; held def was proximate cause)
2) people v. Arzon
3) people v. Warner Lambert Co.

Question 3

the ultimate harm is something which should’ve been foreseen as reasonably related to the defendant’s acts (greater standard than tort liability)

Answer 3

Sufficiently Direct Cause of Death (common law)

Question 4

what are the 2 types of causation?

Answer 4

1) factual cause

2) proximate cause

Question 5

but-for causation; the harm would not have occurred in the absence of the defendant’s act

Answer 5

factual cause

Question 6

the act must bear a sufficiently close relationship to the resulting harm

Answer 6

proximate cause

Question 7

what is the test for proximate cause?

Answer 7

foreseeability

Question 8

what causation is a required element of a crime?

Answer 8

both types must be proven beyond a reasonable doubt

Question 9

what doesn’t break the chain of causation and why?

Answer 9

medical malpractice because foreseeability of gross medical negligence is not foreseeable

Question 10

voluntary action of responsible human actor breaks the chain of causation, even if the action was foreseeable

Answer 10

subsequent human action

Question 11

cases for causation

Answer 11

1) Campbell (instead of foreseeability, the court uses free will which make def not liable)
2) Kevorkian (court reasons that there is a diff between assisting in events leading up to commission of final act causing death and being an actor in the final act)
3) Stephenson (involuntary act will NOT break the chain of causation even when the act is unforeseeable)
4) Root (stricter standard than proximate cause in civil liability)
5) Attencio

Question 12

law of causation treats physical events that follow from a person’s actions as caused by him, but does not treat VOLUNTARY human actions that follow from initial actor’s conduct caused by the actor, even when the subsequent human action is entirely foreseeable

Answer 12

assumption of free will

Question 13

disregarding foreseeability, when do we convict for homicide what must be proved ?

Answer 13

1) deceased was irresponsible when she tried to kill herself

2) def unlawful acts caused her irresponsibility

Question 14

what is the rule for causation of assisted homicied under the MPC?

Answer 14

permits convicting a person of criminal homicide for causing another to take his life BUT only if he purposefully causes such suicide by force, duress or deception

Question 15

how does the MPC view foreseeability?

Answer 15

considers it because it ask whether the harm was within the scope of the risk that the actor was aware of or should’ve been aware of

Question 16

under the MPC what is the rule for causation for felony-murder (strict liability causation)

Answer 16

you need to find the actual result is probable result of the actor’s conduct

Question 17

what are the 2 reasons that we punish for attempt?

Answer 17

1) deterrence

2) retribution

Question 18

why do we punish attempt less severely than the completed crime?

Answer 18

1) because there was no actual harm done (less need to retaliate)
2) provides an incentive to stop
3) give an incentive for people to stop

Question 19

What is the common law rule for the Mens Rea for attempt?

Answer 19

every attempt requires specific intent to commit the target crime even if the completed crime does not require specific intent.

Question 20

why is specific intent required for the Mens Rea for attempt?

Answer 20

to attempt something is to try to accomplish it, and it cannot be said to try if one does not intend to succeed. un

Question 21

under common law what is the rule for attempt in felony-murder?

Answer 21

there is not such thing as attempted felony-murder

Question 22

why is there no such thing as attempted felony-murder?

Answer 22

because for an attempt conviction you have to intend the RESULT and not just the underlying conduct (ex. if you went to rob a bank w/ a toy gun and someone died of a heart attack in the bank, you wouldn’t be convicted of felony-murder but if no one dies, you can’t be convicted o attempted felon-murder because there was no intent)

Question 23

what is the paradox of attempt that comes out of Smallwood?

Answer 23

higher mens Rea threshold for the completed crime

Question 24

under the MPC what does attempted murder require?

Answer 24

purpose (Smallwood)

Question 25

under the MPC, what is said about attempted murder?

Answer 25

mens rea is the same as the completed crime (ex. Murder- intent to kill, gross recklessness) (purposely engage s in conduct which would constitute the crime if the circumstances were as he believes them to be)

Question 26

regarding the result element under the MPC what is the view of attempt?

Answer 26

allows knowledge as well as purpose (this applies to Smallwood because murder requires the result of death, it is unsure if Smallwood knew (knowledge) or intended (purpose) for that result.

Question 27

what is the mens Rea required for attended circumstances with regard to attempt?

Answer 27

same for attempt as the crime itself (ex. statutory rape - strict liability for the crime as well as for attempt) (parity principle)

Question 28

what is the actus reus for attempt?

Answer 28

need some act that makes clear the actor’s intent

Question 29

does mere preparation constitute a criminal attempt?

Answer 29

no because there’s room to change one’s mind (locus penitential)

Question 30

what is the proximate cause rule for the actus reus of attempt under common law?

Answer 30

must be dangerously proximate

Question 31

some act toward committing the crime and proof beyond a reasonable doubt that the def intended the crime (if person buying gun told the storeowner he was going to kill someone)

Answer 31

unequivocal intent standard (common law)

Question 32

what is the proximate cause rule for the actus reus of attempt under the MPC?

Answer 32

needs to be substantial - some idea of proximate and intent (not unequivocally)

Question 33

what does the MPC say is needed for an act of attempt?

Answer 33

MUST be a SUBSTANTIAL STEP toward the commission of the crime (a substantial step is strongly corroborative of the actor’s criminal purpose)

Question 34

how did Jackson adopt the MPC approach of attempt?

Answer 34

rejected proximity test, focusing on what the def did and nat on what he had left to do

Question 35

what are the steps for the MPC/Substantial Step Standard:

Answer 35

1) prove mens rea (intent)
2) prove actus reus (substantial step)
3) prove the substantial test corroborates the criminal intent

Question 36

how does McQuirter find unequivocal intent problematic?

Answer 36

we need something beyond a clear intent, we would want some kind of act that’s unambiguous, a dangerous act that corroborates the intent.

Question 37

considered an attempt when the defendant take the last step short of committing the crime (this step is universally rejected)

Answer 37

last step test (common law- McQuirter)

Question 38

in Rizzo, why was the def not guilty of attempted murder?

Answer 38

because circumstances did not satisfy the dangerous proximity test

Question 39

act has to be dangerously proximate to success - has to come very near the accomplishment of this crime (rule in most jurisdictions)

Answer 39

dangerous proximity test (common law) (Rizzo)

Question 40

what is the common law rule for attempt?

Answer 40

you have to be physically proximate to the victim

Question 41

what are the problems with dangerous proximity rule?

Answer 41

1) crime prevention (police don’t want to arrest early because person would then be let off the hook)
2) locus penitential (put the act of too early thus not def time to be absolved if he changes his mind)

Question 42

Under the MPC can a solicitor be held responsible for the crime of solicitation?

Answer 42

yes, allows for conviction of the def for an attempt where the person he solicits does not get close enough for there to actually be an attempt
5.02

Question 43

What is the common law rule out of Davis for solicitation?

Answer 43

where the def attempts to commit an offense through an innocent or irresponsible human agent, he can be convicted of a crime or attempted crime even I the agent never got close enough to the to carrying out the offense.

Question 44

under the common law, when can a def be convicted as an accomplice?

Answer 44

for whatever the agent was responsible for (he can’t be convicted in his own right)

Question 45

how was the decision in Church different from Davis (solicitation)?

Answer 45

Church uses the MPC rule, a person who engages in conduct designed to aid another to commit a crime (which would establish accomplice liability if the crime were committed) is guilty of an attempt even if the crime if not committed or attempted by another person.

Question 46

individual attempts to commit a crime but does not complete the crime because given the circumstances, the crime could have never effected the crime

Answer 46

impossibility

Question 47

what are the two kinds of impossibilities?

Answer 47

1) factual impossibility

2) legal impossibility

Question 48

when the defendant’s intended end constitutes a crime BUT he fails to consummate the crime because of a circumstance either unknown to him or beyond his control

Answer 48

factual impossibility

Question 49

what is an example of factual impossibility?

Answer 49

pickpocketing an empty pocket - intended end is a crime (to take someone’s money) but he fails to consummate the crime because of factual circumstances unknown to him (pocket empty)

Question 50

is factual impossibility a defense to criminal attempt?

Answer 50

NO

Question 51

what are the reasons to hold someone guilty of attempt under factual impossibility?

Answer 51

1) had the mens rea fro the crime (blameworthiness)
2) what they wanted to do was a crime
3) did the actus reus of a crime

Question 52

is legal impossibility a defense for attempt?

Answer 52

USUALLY

Question 53

what are the 2 kinds of legal impossibility?

Answer 53

1) pure legal

2) hybrid legal

Question 54

the criminal law does not prohibit the defendant’s conduct nor the result he sought to achieve

Answer 54

pure legal impossibility

Question 55

example of pure legal impossibility?

Answer 55

bootlegger was selling during prohibition and then prohibition was repealed but he thought he was still breaking the law - cannot simply be guilty because he thought he was breaking the law; criminal law doesn’t punish bad thoughts

Question 56

defendant’s goal is illegal, but the commission of the offense is impossible due to a factual mistake regarding the legal status of some factor relevant to the criminality of the def’s conduct

Answer 56

hybrid legal impossibility

Question 57

what does hybrid legal impossibility involve?

Answer 57

both the factual and legal aspect; every hybrid legal is also factual, but every factual is not necessarily hybrid legal

Question 58

what is an example of hybrid legal impossibility?

Answer 58

def tries to bribe juror who it turn out is not a juror; def’s goal is illegal but he made a factual mistake; the mistake he made about whether the person was a juror or not relates to the legal state that’s directly relevant to what make the def’s conduct criminal (the status as juror - legal status - is significant)

Question 59

under the MPC, what type of legal impossibility is a defense to criminal attempt?

Answer 59

pure legal impossibility

Question 60

under common law which legal impossibilities are defenses for attempt?

Answer 60

both hybrid and pure legal impossibilities

Question 61

in Dlugash , why was the defendant guilty of attempted murder?

Answer 61

because this jurisdiction adopted the MPC rule (hybrid legal impossibility is not a defense)

Question 62

where attempt, solicitation or conspiracy are particularly unlikely to culminate into commission of the crime, what does the MPC allow?

Answer 62

for mitigation to a lesser penalty or dismissal of the case all together

Question 63

what is the mens rea of hybrid legal impossibilities?

Answer 63

knowingly and purposely culpable mental state

Question 64

what is the actus reus of hybrid legal impossibilities?

Answer 64

none