Crim vocab, common law, MPC Part 2 Flashcards
under the MPC for foreseeability in causation what is the Doctrine of Transferred Intent?
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)
cases involving foreseeability (causation)
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.
the ultimate harm is something which should’ve been foreseen as reasonably related to the defendant’s acts (greater standard than tort liability)
Sufficiently Direct Cause of Death (common law)
what are the 2 types of causation?
1) factual cause
2) proximate cause
but-for causation; the harm would not have occurred in the absence of the defendant’s act
factual cause
the act must bear a sufficiently close relationship to the resulting harm
proximate cause
what is the test for proximate cause?
foreseeability
what causation is a required element of a crime?
both types must be proven beyond a reasonable doubt
what doesn’t break the chain of causation and why?
medical malpractice because foreseeability of gross medical negligence is not foreseeable
voluntary action of responsible human actor breaks the chain of causation, even if the action was foreseeable
subsequent human action
cases for causation
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
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
assumption of free will
disregarding foreseeability, when do we convict for homicide what must be proved ?
1) deceased was irresponsible when she tried to kill herself
2) def unlawful acts caused her irresponsibility
what is the rule for causation of assisted homicied under the MPC?
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
how does the MPC view foreseeability?
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
under the MPC what is the rule for causation for felony-murder (strict liability causation)
you need to find the actual result is probable result of the actor’s conduct
what are the 2 reasons that we punish for attempt?
1) deterrence
2) retribution
why do we punish attempt less severely than the completed crime?
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
What is the common law rule for the Mens Rea for attempt?
every attempt requires specific intent to commit the target crime even if the completed crime does not require specific intent.
why is specific intent required for the Mens Rea for attempt?
to attempt something is to try to accomplish it, and it cannot be said to try if one does not intend to succeed. un
under common law what is the rule for attempt in felony-murder?
there is not such thing as attempted felony-murder
why is there no such thing as attempted felony-murder?
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)
what is the paradox of attempt that comes out of Smallwood?
higher mens Rea threshold for the completed crime
under the MPC what does attempted murder require?
purpose (Smallwood)
under the MPC, what is said about attempted murder?
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)
regarding the result element under the MPC what is the view of attempt?
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.
what is the mens Rea required for attended circumstances with regard to attempt?
same for attempt as the crime itself (ex. statutory rape - strict liability for the crime as well as for attempt) (parity principle)
what is the actus reus for attempt?
need some act that makes clear the actor’s intent
does mere preparation constitute a criminal attempt?
no because there’s room to change one’s mind (locus penitential)
what is the proximate cause rule for the actus reus of attempt under common law?
must be dangerously proximate
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)
unequivocal intent standard (common law)
what is the proximate cause rule for the actus reus of attempt under the MPC?
needs to be substantial - some idea of proximate and intent (not unequivocally)
what does the MPC say is needed for an act of attempt?
MUST be a SUBSTANTIAL STEP toward the commission of the crime (a substantial step is strongly corroborative of the actor’s criminal purpose)
how did Jackson adopt the MPC approach of attempt?
rejected proximity test, focusing on what the def did and nat on what he had left to do
what are the steps for the MPC/Substantial Step Standard:
1) prove mens rea (intent)
2) prove actus reus (substantial step)
3) prove the substantial test corroborates the criminal intent
how does McQuirter find unequivocal intent problematic?
we need something beyond a clear intent, we would want some kind of act that’s unambiguous, a dangerous act that corroborates the intent.
considered an attempt when the defendant take the last step short of committing the crime (this step is universally rejected)
last step test (common law- McQuirter)
in Rizzo, why was the def not guilty of attempted murder?
because circumstances did not satisfy the dangerous proximity test
act has to be dangerously proximate to success - has to come very near the accomplishment of this crime (rule in most jurisdictions)
dangerous proximity test (common law) (Rizzo)
what is the common law rule for attempt?
you have to be physically proximate to the victim
what are the problems with dangerous proximity rule?
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)
Under the MPC can a solicitor be held responsible for the crime of solicitation?
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
What is the common law rule out of Davis for solicitation?
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.
under the common law, when can a def be convicted as an accomplice?
for whatever the agent was responsible for (he can’t be convicted in his own right)
how was the decision in Church different from Davis (solicitation)?
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.
individual attempts to commit a crime but does not complete the crime because given the circumstances, the crime could have never effected the crime
impossibility
what are the two kinds of impossibilities?
1) factual impossibility
2) legal impossibility
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
factual impossibility
what is an example of factual impossibility?
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)
is factual impossibility a defense to criminal attempt?
NO
what are the reasons to hold someone guilty of attempt under factual impossibility?
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
is legal impossibility a defense for attempt?
USUALLY
what are the 2 kinds of legal impossibility?
1) pure legal
2) hybrid legal
the criminal law does not prohibit the defendant’s conduct nor the result he sought to achieve
pure legal impossibility
example of pure legal impossibility?
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
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
hybrid legal impossibility
what does hybrid legal impossibility involve?
both the factual and legal aspect; every hybrid legal is also factual, but every factual is not necessarily hybrid legal
what is an example of hybrid legal impossibility?
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)
under the MPC, what type of legal impossibility is a defense to criminal attempt?
pure legal impossibility
under common law which legal impossibilities are defenses for attempt?
both hybrid and pure legal impossibilities
in Dlugash , why was the defendant guilty of attempted murder?
because this jurisdiction adopted the MPC rule (hybrid legal impossibility is not a defense)
where attempt, solicitation or conspiracy are particularly unlikely to culminate into commission of the crime, what does the MPC allow?
for mitigation to a lesser penalty or dismissal of the case all together
what is the mens rea of hybrid legal impossibilities?
knowingly and purposely culpable mental state
what is the actus reus of hybrid legal impossibilities?
none
