Criminal

Question 1

Defense:

• Ignorance or Mistake of Facts: 1. Lack of intent required for the crime; 2. Mistake was objectively reasonable.
• • If mistake shows absence of a necessary “specific intent”, it needs not to be reasonable -> includes larceny, property crime, burglary, attempt and conspiracy, any crime “with intent to…”
• Ignorance or mistake of law: Not a defense unless when D believes that crim law did not prohibit her conduct (belief on criminal law makes one’s conduct a crime is not a defense)
• • Belief is reasonable; the defendant relied upon; a statute later held invalid; a judicial decision later overruled, or an official interpretation of the law by a public official.
• • Reliance on attorney’s advice only is not enough, need an official source.

Answer 1

Defense:

• Insanity: Mental disease or defect; causes a defect in his reasoning ->results he did not understand the nature of the act he was doing; or cannot nderstand his act was wrong
• • Test: take his delusion as circumstance and under that circumstance was he legally entitle to do what he did
• Mc’Naghten -> Did not know the nature of his act, or he can’t tell right from wrong -> different from controlling/irresistible/powerless
• • But the loss of control can be a defense under Model Penal code or irresistible impulse Jurisdiction.

Question 2

Defense:

• Intoxication: Voluntary and Involuntary
• • Involuntary: 1. Did not know the substance was intoxicating or 2. Consumed under duress -> Treated as mental illness and insanity test applied
• • Voluntary: Acquitted only if the crime requires proof of a specific intent and the intoxication shows lacking of that intent
• • In homicide: can disprove premediation/Cannot disprove malice aforethought and reduce murder to manslaughter
• • Majority: Accquittal if Crime requires mental state higher than recklessness and lack of this mental state [ purpose or knowledge]
• • Minority: completely irrelevant to criminal liability

Answer 2

Defense:

• Infancy: 7, 14, 14+
• Entrapment: 1. D is not predisposed to commit the crime 2. Police created the intent to commit
• • Reasonable and unpredisposed person
• • Minority: Entrapment occurs if reasonable and unpredisposed person would form the intent from police’s conduct
• Necessity: Not a defense if D wrongfully created the situation making the choice necessary or the defendant killed another to avoid his own death. -> Immediate threat over - >then no more ncessity
• Duress or coercion: Imminent and physical harm to D or a third person (no defense for intentional killing)
• Self Defense: requires immeient damages, force used was necessary to prevent; objectively reasonable
• • Deadly force: if threaten with imminent death or serious bodily injury
• • Duty to retreat: Minority: apply only if treat is possible with compete safety; Majority: only as a factor to determine whether readily force is reasonable.
• Aggressor: person who starts fight cannot claim self defense unless he withdrawal or give notice to do so.
• Imperfect:

Question 3

• Attempt: 1. something of substantial steps 2. with intent to commit the crime
• • Defense: Abandonment -> No defense
• • No accidental crime with attempt: 1. Reckless Crime 2. Negligent Crime 3. Felony Murder
• • Impossibility: Legal impossibility is defense; Factual impossibility is not defnse
• • • One believe he will successful complete crime (factual impossibility)
• • • One make false believe on what the law is - > legal impossibility
• • • Look at what offender belives, if she belives she deliver control substance and she did -> factual; if she belives she delivers control substance but the substance is not controlled -> legal; if she delivers non-controlled substance with believe that the substance is controlled -> factual

Answer 3

Solicitation: 1. Asking someone to commit a crime 2. with intent that person commit that offense; Soliciation is a crime even if immediately rejected

Conspiracy: 1. Entering into agreement to commit a crime 2. With intent that crime be committed.

• Defense: Withdrawal/ No meeting of minds/ Impossibility (Not Defense)
• • Withdrawal: 1. Fully communicated to all other members 2. Before the Crime [there can be multiple crimes
• • • No defense for conspiracy - > defense for other crime under co-conspirator rule [All liable when furtherance of scheme and a foreseeable]
• • • Aquittal -> must all be aquittal for conspiracy charge -> insanity or undercover or actual aquittal
• • • Co-Consprirators all have same charges if in furtherance of scheme and foreseeable unless effective defense. -> if one quit without effective withdrawal, others completed co-conspried crime -> he still still will be charged.

Question 4

Focus on: Homocide, Inchoate Crime, Property, Defense.

• Prove malice: 1. Intent to kill 2. serious bodily harm 3. Reckless indifference 4. Intent to commit a felony: Inherently dangerous, Burglary/Arson/Rape/Robbery/Kidnapping/
• Popular Defense: 1. self defense 2. insanity: M’naghteen-> Doesn’t know right from wrong or understand nature of action/ Irrestible impulse test: Unable to control actions or conform conduct to the law/Durham - but for the mental illness; Defendant would committed the Act / M.P.C. - Combination of M’Naghten and irresistible impulse 3. Intoxication.

Answer 4

• Mistake Defense - > Reasonable for general crime, Unreasonable for specific intent crime.
• Criminal Procedures: Police should have warrant tocheck blood alcohol level
• 6th amendment right to counsel apply after indictment -> applies regardless if the person realize he is talking to the police
• 5th jeopardy attachs when jury sworn in or first witness sworn in.