Criminal Law

Question 1

JX

Answer 1

Sts can only punish crimes w/ some connection to the st:

1) A crime that occurs in whole or in part inside the state;
2) Conduct outside the state that involved an attempt to commit a crime inside the state (e.g. fraud);
3) A conspiracy to commit a crime if an overt act occurred w/in the st.

Question 2

Actus Reus

Answer 2

Must be some physical act in the world–the act can include speech.

Act must be voluntary–i.e. willed by D

Failure to act can be suff actus reus–e.g. failure to comply w/ statutory duty; contract; special rel b/t D and V; vol assuming a duty of care that is cast side; or D causes a danger/peril and fails to mitigate harm to V.

Question 3

Mens Rea–CL States of Mind

Specific Intent

Answer 3

Specific Intent–D committed AR for very purpose of causing the result.

4 categories of specific intent crimes under CL:

1) 1st degree Murder;
2) Inchoate crimes–i.e. conspiracy, attempt, and solicitation;
3) Assault w/ attempt to commit battery; and
4) Theft offenses–e.g. larceny/embezzlement/burglary/robbery

Question 4

Mens Rea–CL States of Mind

Malice

Answer 4

D acts in reckless disregard of a high degree of harm; realizes the risk and acts anyway.

Only 2 malice crimes: Arson and Murder

Arson–malicious (i.e. intentional or reckless) burning of another’s dwelling; mere scorching of the walls, smoke damage, and burning of dwelling’s contents NOT arson–e.g. D only burning former lover’s bed not arson.

Question 5

Mens Rea–CL States of Mind

General Intent

Answer 5

Catchall category–reqs intent to perform an act that is unlawful; knowledge that act is unlawful NOT req–suff to intend to perform act.

MPC–acts done knowingly, recklessly or negligently are general-intent crimes.

E.g. battery and manslaughter

Question 6

Mens Rea–CL States of Mind

Strict Liability

Answer 6

No state of mind req–D must merely have committed the act w/ req actus reus.

i.e. statutory/reg offenses; drug poss; moral offenses–e.g. sex w/ a minor.

Mistake of Fact never a defense to strict liability crime.

Only defenses–invol act

Question 7

Mens Rea: MPC States of Mind

Answer 7

1) Purpose–highest level of culpability; D’s conscious objective is to engage in conduct or to cause a certain result.
2) Knowledge–D is aware that her conduct is of the nature req to commit the crime and the result is practically to occur from this conduct–i.e. “willfully.”
3) Recklessness–D acts w/ a conscious disregard of a substantial and unjustifiable risk that constitutes a gross deviation from the standard of conduct of a law-abiding person.
4) Negligence–lowest level of culpability; D should be aware of a sub risk and acts in a way that grossly deviates from the SOC of a reasonable person in the same situation.

Question 8

Transferred Intent Doctrine

Answer 8

When a D has the requisite mens rea for committing a crime against Victim A, but actually commits the crime against Victim B, the law transfers the intent from A to B.

Does NOT apply to attempted crimes–only completed.

Question 9

Merger

Answer 9

D cannot be convicted of 2 crimes when those 2 crimes merge into one:

1) Lesser-included offenses–e.g. D’s conduct satisfies elements for both larceny and robbery, but larceny is a lesser-included offense of robbery so D would be convicted of robbery as the greater-included offense; if 2 sep Vs then the crimes against each V do NOT merge;

*Larceny, assault and battery ALL merge into robbery.

2) Inchoate and Completed Offenses–D who completes crime cannot also be convicted of Attempt (merges); crime committed as a result of Solicitation then D liable for that crime, NOT solicitation (merges); BUT conspiracy and a completed offense do NOT merge.

Question 10

Principals and Accomplices

Answer 10

Principals–Ds whose acts or omissions form the AR of the crime.

Accomplices–same degree of responsibility as the principal; ppl who assist the principal and act w/ the intent of assisting the principal to commit the crime (MPC act w/ the purpose facilitating commission of offense and intend her acts to assist crim conduct); liable for BOTH the planned crime and any other foreseeable crimes that occur in the course of crim act–e.g. robbery and attempted murder; accomplice’s intend to aid principal can be inferred when the accomplice:
1) provides highly specialized goods/services;
2) receives unusually large profits from a sale; or
3) has some greater interest in the crime’s success.

Accomplices may also be guilty of sep crime of conspiracy if there was an agreement to commit the crime and an overt act taken in furtherance.

A P who is a member of the class protected by a statute cannot be an accomplice–e.g. a 13-year-old girl would not be considered an accomplice to statutory rape.

If the statute only imposes liability on one P–e.g. a crime to accept bribes–then the P offering the bribe cannot be liable–ONLY the P accepting the bribe.

Criminal Facilitation–if accomplice did not act w/ req intent–neverthless may be guilty of this lesser offense for simply assisting.

Question 11

Accessories after the Fact

Answer 11

Ppl who assist D AFTER the crime has been committed–e.g. obstruction of justice or harboring a fugitive.

Question 12

Negating Mens Rea–Mistakes of Law

Answer 12

Ignorance of the law is NO excuse.

Exceptions:

1) Reliance on high-level gov interp;
2) Lack of notice; or
3) Mistake of law that goes to an element of specific intent.

Question 13

Negating Mens Rea–Mistakes of Fact

Answer 13

When a D is factually mistaken.

Strict Liability–mistake of fact NEVER a defense.

Gen Intent and Malice–MOF a defense only if reasonable and goes to crim intent—-e.g. D pointed gun and shot V after V told him the gun was a stage prop that could only fire blanks.

Specific Intent–MOF a defense whether the mistake is reasonable OR unreasonable.

Contrast w/ Factual Impossibility–e.g D points a gun at V which he mistakenly believes to be loaded and pulls the trigger, intending to kill V–D can be guilty of attempted murder b/c still had the req intent, so does NOT negate the mens rea.

Question 14

Negating Mens Rea–Insanity

Answer 14

M’Naghten Test–D either did not know the nature of the act or did not know that the act was wrong b/c of a mental disease or defect (e.g. being a sociopath is NOT enough to constitute insanity).

MPC–due to a mental disease or defect, D did not have sub capacity to appreciate the
wrongfulness of his actions or to conform his conduct to the law.

Durham Rule–“but-for” test for insanity; i.e. that an accused is not criminally responsible if his unlawful act was the product of mental disease or mental defect

Question 15

Negating Mens Rea–Intoxication

Answer 15

Invol–valid D to all crimes when it negates the mens rea nec for the crime.

Vol–a D ONLY to specific-intent crimes and only if it prevented D from forming the mens rea–i.e. NOT a valid D if D got drunk to work up the courage to commit the crime.

MPC–vol intoxication only a D to crimes for which a material element reqs purpose or knowledge and the intoxication prevents the formation of that mental state.

Question 16

Inchoate Crimes–Conspiracy

Answer 16

CL–1) an agreement; 2) b/t 2 or more ppl; 3) to commit an unlawful act.

Modern Law/MPC–adds a 4th element: The performance of an overt act in furtherance of the conspiracy (not req if conspiracy is a felony).

MPC–also reqs that ONLY the D actually agree–e.g. can be a “pretend” agreement w/ undercover cop, still counts as conspiracy under MPC.

Agreement can be explicit OR implicit; purpose of conspiracy needs to be unlawful but overt act under MPC does not need to be unlawful–as long as it furthers conspiracy then counts.

Scope of conspiracy:
1) Chain Conspiracy–each participant liable for substantive crimes of Co-Cs;
2) Spoke-Hub Conspiracy–participants NOT liable for substantive crimes of co-Cs b/c each “spoke” is sep agreement.

Withdrawal:

CL–impossible to withdraw b/c crime committed moment agreement made; BUT D can limit liability for substantive crimes by informing other Cs or informing legal authorities.

MPC–C can withdraw prior to commission of any overt act by comm intention to withdraw to other co-Cs or law enforcement; after overt act C can withdraw only by helping to thwart success of conspiracy.

Question 17

Inchoate Crimes–Attempt

Answer 17

Reqs:
1) specific intent to commit crim act; and
2) sub step towards perpetrating crime.

Defenses–for specific-intent crimes can be used as defense to attempt–e.g. vol intox and unreasonable MOF.

Legal impossibility ALWAYS a defense to attempt–e.g. statute says burning one’s own building NOT arson.

NOT defenses to attempt:
–Factual Impossibility; and
–Entrapment–only an affirmative D if agents induced D to commit an offense that D otherwise would have been unwilling to commit.

Question 18

Inchoate Crimes–Solicitation

Answer 18

Indv intentionally invites, requests, or commands another person to commit a crime; once person agrees the crime is conspiracy.

Question 19

First Degree Murder

Answer 19

Specific-intent crime; a deliberate and premeditated murder OR a killing that results during the commission of an inherently dangerous felony (i.e. felony murder).

Question 20

Common-Law Murder

Answer 20

i.e. Second Degree Murder–Unlawful killing of another human being committed w/ malice aforethought.

4 kinds of malice:

1) Intent to kill–need not be premeditated but formed in the moment before killing;

2) Intent to inflict serious bodily harm;

3) Abandoned or malignant/depraved heart–i.e. a cavalier disregard for human life; and

4) Felony Murder–the death occurred during commission or attempted commission of dangerous felony (e.g. burglary/arson/robbery); dangerous felony must be indp of killing itself; can involve someone who resists felony or when a bystander is killed by
D/D’s agent during felony (Maj JX–D would NOT be liable for POLICE/VICTIM shooting at D but missing and hitting bystander/D’s co-felon).
*Remember Merger: underlying felony merges into felony murder–e.g. D would not be convicted of robbery AND felony murder, but felony murder alone.
*When evaluating felony murder–analyze 1) foreseeability; 2) intent to kill; and 3) prox cause.

–Consent is NEVER a defense to murder–i.e. a person who commits a mercy killing (e.g. assisted suicide) can still be prosc for murder.

Question 21

Manslaughter

Answer 21

Vol–D intended to kill V but acted in “heat of passion” or “under extreme emotional disturbance” so less blameworthy than murder; Test–is the situation one in which most ppl would act w/o thinking and w/o time to cool off?

Invol–criminally neg killing (e.g. traffic deaths) or killing of someone while committing a crime other than those covered by felony murder (e.g. misdemeanor manslaughter).

Question 22

Property Crimes–Larceny

Answer 22

1) Trespassory
2) Taking and carrying away;
3) The personal property of another;
4) w/ intent to deprive the owner/possessor of that prop permanently

E.g. intending to “borrow” but return is NOT larceny.

E.g. D taking purse from its original location in store and concealing it w/ intent to steal is still larceny even if she places the purse near counter before leaving–larceny punishes the taking of prop w/ the intent to steal even if D does not travel very far w/ it.

Question 23

Property Crimes–Embezzlement

Answer 23

1) Fraudulent;
2) Conversion of prop of another;
3) By a person in lawful poss of that prop

Key diff from larceny–is that in embezzlement D guilty of keeping prop that was entrusted to him.

Question 24

Property Crimes–False Pretenses (Variation of Larceny)

Answer 24

D obtains TITLE (vs. mere POSS like larceny by trick) to someone else’s prop through the use of false statements of past or existing fact w/ intent to defraud.

E.g. paying for goods w/ counterfeit $

Question 25

Property Crimes–Receiving Stolen Property

Answer 25

Receiving stolen property is a statutory crime that requires:
1) receiving control of stolen property;
2) knowing that the property is stolen;
3) and with the intent to permanently deprive the true owner of the property.

Question 26

Property Crimes–Robbery

Answer 26

1) Larceny;
2) From the person or presence of the V;
3) By force or intimidation (against V or another person)

Force–must occur before the taking, simultaneously w/ the taking, or immediately following the taking to retain the stolen prop or to effect an escape; slight force is suff–but taking does NOT constitute robbery unless V notices the taking and resists/is afraid (e.g. attendant was not afraid and gave the $ to the man out of sympathy rather than b/c of force or the threat of force–NOT robbery but attempted robbery).

Intimidation–threat must be of immediate serious physical injury to the victim, a close family member, or other person present.

Question 27

Extortion

Answer 27

Modern Law–the taking of money or prop from another by threat.

Most JX–it is the making of threats (rather than the obtaining of prop) that is the essence of the crime.

In contrast to robbery–the threats do NOT need to be of immediate harm or of physical nature (e.g. threatening future exposure of the V’s infidelity; and the prop intended to be taken need not be on V or in his presence.

Question 28

Property Crimes–Burglary

Answer 28

Modern Law reqs:

1) unlawful entry;
2) of another’s building/structure;
3) w/ the specific intent to commit a crime therein

Intent–changing your mind about intent to commit felony once inside does NOT negate intent.

Once D enters building w/ the req intent–burglary complete; i.e. if D completes underlying felony (e.g. larceny) then ALSO guilty of that felony (or attempted felony if did not complete) in addition to burglary.

Question 29

Other Crimes–Battery

Answer 29

The unlawful use of force or violence upon another w/o V’s consent that causes bodily injury or offensive contact.

Gen-intent crime–i.e. vol intox and unreasonable mistake of fact NOT defenses.

Question 30

Other Crimes–Assault

Answer 30

Two Forms:

1) Attempted Battery (specific-intent crime)–if a D has taken a sub step toward completing battery but fails, guilty of assault.

2) Fear of Harm (gen-intent crime)–intentionally placing another in reasonable apprehension of imminent bodily harm.

Question 31

Justification Defense–Self-D

Answer 31

Once D raises justification defense such as Self-D, st may req D to carry burden to prove affirmative defense by a preponderance of the evidence.

Two kinds:

1) Non-deadly force–Force not intended or likely to cause death or serious bodily injury and may be used to repel non-deadly force; NO duty to retreat.
*Maj JX–A defendant may use non-deadly force to resist an unlawful arrest, but never deadly force.

2) Deadly force–P may use deadly force in self-D if P: 1) is w/o fault; 2) is confronted w/ unlawful force and 3) reasonably believes that she is threatened w/ imminent death or great bodily harm. This right expires after D no longer reasonably believes he/she is in danger.
*Maj rule–NO duty to retreat;
*Min rule “Retreat Doctrine”–D may use deadly force only after making a proper retreat; no retreat nec if it cannot be made in complete safety; but even so retreat never req when D employing deadly force is in his own home (i.e. “castle doctrine”).

E.g. D in “retreat doctrine” JX had no ob to retreat from bar before resorting to the use of pepper spray b/c that is a non-deadly force.

Question 32

Other Defenses–Aggressor’s Right to use Self-D / Defense of Others / Defense of Prop / Duress / Necessity

Answer 32

Aggressor’s right to use self-defense–It is possible for an initial aggressor to gain the right to act in self-defense in two circumstances: (i) an aggressor using non-deadly force is met with deadly force, or (ii) the aggressor has, in good faith, completely withdrawn from the altercation and has communicated that fact to the victim.

Defense of others–an indv has the same right to use reasonable force to defend other indvs against a criminal that she has to defend herself (also includes self-inflicted harm).

Defense of Prop–right to use only reasonable force to protect prop; NEVER deadly force–e.g. the use of booby traps or spring guns NOT approp.

Duress–D claims he committed a crime only b/c he was threatened by 3P; and reasonably believed that the only way to avoid death or injury to himself or others was to commit the crime (mere threat of injury to prop not suff); defense for all crimes EXCEPT intentional murder.

Necessity–available in response to natural forces (i.e. the choice was the lesser of two evils).