Criminal Law Flashcards

Question

C/L: Mens Rea

Answer 1

significant distinctions with MPC: - intent includes purpose & knowledge - early C/L, reckless was really lower standard of negligence

Answer 2

* purposely * knowingly * recklessly * negligenty 1 mens rea term applies to all elements, unless contrary purpose no strict liability crimes (only violations) if criminal statute silent, must show at least recklessness

Answer 3

killing of a human being by a human being E.g. - murder - manslaughter (voluntary/involuntary) - vehicular homicide - suicide - infanticide

Answer 4

* Common Law Murder * 1st deg * 2nd deg * MPC Murder * Voluntary Manslaughter * C/L: heat of passion/provocation * MPC: extreme emotional disturbance

Answer 5

"the UNLAWFUL killing of another human being with MALICE AFORETHOUGHT"

Answer 6

murder is homicide... 1) commited PURPOSELY or KNOWINGLY or (voluntary) 2) RECKLESSLY under circumstances manifesting EXTREME INDIFFERENCE to the value of human life (involuntary)

Answer 7

* 1st degree premeditated killing * Carroll Jurisdiction (passage of time is NOT required for premeditation. NO, only "conscious purpose" is required) * Guthrie Jurisdiction * must be a "gap" between formation of intent to kill & killing * Consider: * reflection/time * planning (weapon, place) * prior relationship * deliberate manner of killing * 2nd degree * in Guthrie jurisdiction only

Answer 8

some jurisdictions have 1st & 2nd degree murder; some only have 1st degree murder 1st Degree Premeditated Killing * Carroll Jurisdiction * intent is sufficient in a carrol jurisdiction * death penalty murders are typically spelled out * Guthrie Jurisdiction (death penalty eligible) * consider: reflection/time; planning (weapon/place); prior relationship; deliberate manner of killing 2nd Degree * Guthrie Jurisdiction only *

Answer 9

in some circumstances, an intentional killing that would ordinarily be MURDER can be reduced to MANSLAUGHTER: - C/L: Heat of Passion/Provocation - MPC: Extreme Emotional Disturbance (EED)

Answer 10

C/L Murder: 1st degree Carroll Jurisdiction: ("premeditation" = "intent) OR Guthrie Jurisdiction: ("premeditation" = "deliberation during gap in time" + intent) 2nd degree MPC Murder: Voluntary Manslaughter: (also known as mitigated murder or murder lite) an intentional killing that would be murder can sometimes be reduced to manslaughter: 1) C/L: Heat of Passion/Provocation 2) MPC: Extreme Emotional Disturbance (EED)

Answer 11

Elements: 1) Adequate Provocation A) C/L Categories ("AMICA") * **A**ggravated Assault or Battery * **M**utual Combat * **I**llegal Arrest * Serious Crime Against **C**lose Relative * Observation of Wife - **A**dultery B) Reasonable (Ordinary) Person Standard 2) State of Passion 3) Insufficient Cooling Time 4) Causal link between provocation, passion, and killing

Answer 12

if enough time has passed between the provocation and the kiling for an ORDINARY PERSON to cool down, there's no defense... UNLESS jurisdiction adopts "rekindling" (note 6, CB399-400)

Answer 13

Manslaughter: Committed recklessly OR a murder done under influence of extreme mental or emotional disturbance for which there is reasonable explanation or excuse

Answer 14

D acted under influence of extreme emotional disturbance (subjective) For which there was a reasonable explanation or excuse (objective) From the viewpoint of a person in the actor's situation under the cirumstances as he believes them to be

Answer 15

C/L: Voluntary Manslaughter - Adequate provocation (categories + reasonable man) - ordinary cooling off requirement (maybe rekindling allowed) MPC: Manslaughter - extreme emotional disturbance - no cooling off requirement

Answer 16

Murder 1) committed PURPOSELY or KNOWINGLY OR 2) RECKLESSLY under circumstances manifesting EXTREME INDIFFERENCE to the value of human life

Answer 17

negligently causes death of another human being

Answer 18

1) RECKLESS MURDER WITH extreme indifference to human life (depraved heart murder)(Both MPC and C/L) 2) MANSLAUGHTER - C/L: - Traditional involuntary - Modern involuntary - MPC: 3) NEGLIGENT HOMICIDE

Answer 19

C/L PA Code: - murder - 3 degrees - voluntary manslaughter (provocation) - involuntary manslaughter (reckess or gross negligence) MPC: - murder - manslaughter (EED) - negligent homicide

Answer 20

1) Manslaughter Common Law approaches: tradtional involuntary modern involuntary MPC Approach 2) Negligent Homicide MPC = Modern C/L

Answer 21

MENTAL STATE=Recklessness | (\*\*NOT\*\* NEGL. or GROSS NEGL)

Answer 22

RECKLESSNESS

Answer 23

Manslaughter: Traditional Involuntary (Negligent or reckless) Modern Involuntary (reckless) MPC (reckless) Negligent Homicide

Answer 24

negligently causes death of another human being. - substantial and unjustified risk? - of which D SHOULD HAVE BEEN aware? - gross deviation of care from the ORDINARY person's practices

Answer 25

1) depraved heart murder: reckless + extreme indifference to human life 2) manslaughter - C/L: Modern Involuntary (reckless) - MPC: Manslaughter (reckless) 3) negligent homicide

Answer 26

- [] Common Law - [] EITHER: - [] Agency jurisdiction - [] All acts in furtherance of felony can be considered...only acts done personally by the felon/cofelons in furtherance of the felony - [] General Rule - [] in an agency jurisdiction, a felon or co-felon must personally have directly by their own acts committed the killing in furtherance of the felony - [] Exception to General Rule - [] if robber uses a human shield and cops shoot that victim, hold robber responsible for that death even though they didn't cause it by their own act - [] --OR-- - [] Proximate Cause jurisdiction - [] foreseeable result of the felony? - [] i.e. the normal causation rules apply - [] General Rule - [] if felon or co-felon commits a felony, and the acts of the felony are the legal cause of a death, then both felon and co-felons are guilty of murder - [] must show: - [] actual (but-for) cause - [] proximate cause - [] no voluntary intervening actors - [] ((looking at the acts of the felony to see if those acts caused the death in the legal sense) - [] ((cannot be both)) - [] Differences under Proximate Cause and Agency Rules - [] killings by non-felons - [] police shoot an innocent bystander during gun battle with felon (exception: human shields) - [] deaths of co-felons - [] co-felons A and B are in a shootout with the police during a botched robbery. B makes a run to get away and the police kill B. Is co-felon A guilty? - [] frolics (foreseeable but not in furtherance of felony) - [] armed co-felon A en route to an arson decides on his own to rob a bank to get $ to buy extra gasoline for the arson. The teller dies. Is co-felon B guilty? - [] proximate cause - guilty if foreseeable - [] agency - if co-felon was frolicking and did on his own initiative, then not guilty for his actions that led to death. - [] MPC Distinction - [] MPC is a proximate cause jurisdiction, but with a twist. - [] MPC is proximate cause felony murder jurisdiction, but MENTAL STATE EXISTS for felony murder in MPC jurisdiction... - [] MPC felony murder is depraved heart murder - [] murder if…reckless + extreme indifference to human life - [] such recklessness & indifference are presumed if (in the course of)…ROBBERY, RAPE, ARSON, BURGLARY, KIDNAPPING, OR FELONIOUS ESCAPE. (Section 210.2.(1)(b)) - [] can try to rebut the presumption...

Answer 27

If felon or a cofelon personally kills someone by their acts “in furtherance of a felony”, then Felon and cofelon(s) are guilty of murder.

Answer 28

If a felon or cofelon commits a felony, and The act(s) of the felony is/are the legal cause of a death, then Both felon and any cofelons are guilty of murder.

Answer 29

Killings by non-felons Police shoot an innocent bystander during gun battle with felon (exception: Human shields) Deaths of cofelons Cofelons A and B are in a shootout with the police during a botched robbery. B makes a run to get away and the police kill B. Is cofelon A guilty? Frolics (foreseeable but not in furtherance of felony) Armed Cofelon A en route to an arson decides on his own to rob a bank to get $ to buy extra gasoline for the arson. The teller dies. Is Cofelon B guilty? ## Footnote

Answer 30

MUST SHOW: ACTUAL (BUT-FOR) CAUSE PROXIMATE CAUSE NO VOLUNTARY INTERVENING ACTORS

Answer 31

MURDER IF … RECKLESS + EXTREME INDIFFERENCE TO HUMAN LIFE SUCH RECKLESSNESS & INDIFFERENCE ARE PRESUMED IF [in the course of]…ROBBERY, RAPE, ARSON, BURGLARY, KIDNAPPING OR FELONIOUS ESCAPE. § 210.2.(1) (b)

Answer 32

- [] 1) Must be inherently dangerous felony (Statute or Fact-Specific) - [] Two ways to decide if particular felony is inherently dangerous: - [] A) statutory approach (CA) - [] statute establishes dangerous felonies - [] B) Actual Conduct - [] is the felony dangerous based on the facts of the case? - [] 2) Merger Doctrine - Independent Felony (AKA Merger Rule) - [] felony must be independent of the death itself - [] Merger Rule - [] if the underlying felony is a form of assault or homicide, but attacker didn't have the mens era necessary for murder, he shouldn't be tried for murder. - [] otherwise all felonious assaults resulting in death, would be tried as murder, regardless of prosecutor's ability to prove intent. - [] What crimes merge (i.e. are not independent?)? - [] assault/battery - [] any kind of criminal homicide - [] burglary: breaking and entering with intent to commit a crime therein - [] depends on the crime - [] 3) Res Gestae (time, place, proximity) - [] a felony is considered terminated when the suspect has achieved a position of relative safety from law enforcement.

Answer 33

BASIC RULE: If you commit a misdemeanor, and In the course of the misdemeanor you cause a death, then You are guilty of involuntary manslaughter. LIMITATIONS: Many jurisdictions have limits similar to those with felony murder, requiring: Inherently dangerous misdemeanor Independent misdemeanor Res gestae

Answer 34

BASIC RULE (2 variants) – (1) CAUSE DEATH DURING COURSE OF FELONY (“proximate cause” rule) (2) FELON or COFELON “IN FURTHERANCE OF FELONY” COMMITS KILLING (“AGENCY” rule) LIMITATIONS “INHERENTLY DANGEROUS” FELONIES “INDEPENDENT” FELONIES RES GESTAE REQUIREMENT

Answer 35

if something is borderline between 2 different types of homicide, talk about both. Do NOT talk about all lesser included offenses, however... (e.g. if something seems like it could be murder, don't discuss negligent homicide, but you might discuss volntary manslaughter)

Answer 36

act must be voluntary voluntary act = willed bodily movement (even if orderred to move)

Answer 37

BY SOMEONE ELSE MOVING YOU (E.G., MARTIN) SPASM REFLEX CONVULSION SEIZURE\* \* DECINA EXCEPTION UNCONSCIOUS (E.G., NEWTON) ASLEEP (E.G. COGDEN) UNDER HYPNOSIS PER MPC

Answer 38

``` Felony Murder in agency jurisdiction: All act(s) in furtherance of felony can be considered ```

Answer 39

RAPE is: SEXUAL INTERCOURSE with (1) FORCE OR THREAT OF FORCE (2) AGAINST THE WILL CAUSING RESISTANCE OR CAUSING REASONABLE FEAR THAT PREVENTS RESISTANCE (3) WITHOUT CONSENT

Answer 40

Rape: Male having sex with female not his wife…. Compels her to submit by force or by threat of imminent death, SBI, extreme pain or kidnapping, to be inflicted on anyone. ## Footnote MPC ….FORCE is still required for rape.

Answer 41

Generally, need proof that the victim “fought back” – Resistance is physical proof of non-consent and force.

Answer 42

Most states require “reasonable resistance” California and some other states have done away with resistance requirement. Why? FROZEN FRIGHT – Victim acts normally, may even seem to consent to sex, but terrorized inside.  Fear is an exception to the resistance req only if it is “reasonable” fear. Why should this be?

Answer 43

If victim doesn’t fight back (i.e. no resistance), prosecution must show that victim was: (1) incapacitated by fear; and (2) incapacitation was reasonable.

Answer 44

Rape: No resistance requirement ## Footnote Gross Sexual Imposition: sexual intercourse using any threat that would prevent resistance by a “woman of ordinary resolution”

Answer 45

Non-consent presumed if: doctor-patient psychotherapist-client priest-penitent

Answer 46

No mental state in MPC = recklessness presumed. ## Footnote Some defendants will claim they mistook the victim to be consenting when she actually wasn’t. (E.G. Date rape) THIS TYPICALLY DOESN’T SUCCEED UNLESS THE ERROR WAS HONEST AND REASONABLE.

Answer 47

BATTERY ASSAULT BURGLARY ARSON KIDNAP

Answer 48

Unlawful and intentional application of force to another person causing -- Bodily injury, or Offensive touching

Answer 49

ATTEMPT to batter, or Intentionally cause fear of imminent battery V is reasonably fearful that V will be battered ## Footnote

Answer 50

“A person is guilty of assault if he attempts to cause or purposely, knowingly, or recklessly causes bodily injury to another.” ## Footnote … “negligently causes bodily injury to another with a deadly weapon” … “attempts by physical menace to put another in fear of imminent bodily injury” NOTICE HOW THIS DEFINITION MERGES C/L ASSAULT AND BATTERY Pain = Bodily Injury

Answer 51

“A person is guilty of aggravated assault if he attempts to cause SBI, or purposely, knowingly, or recklessly causes SBI to another under circumstances manifesting extreme indifference to life” Attempts to cause or purposely or knowingly causes bodily injury with a deadly weapon

Answer 52

BURNING THE DWELLING HOUSE OF ANOTHER WITH MALICE: PURPOSELY KNOWINGLY RECKLESSLY

Answer 53

Starting a fire or causing an explosion with the purpose of: (a) destroying a building or occupied structure of another; (b) destroying or damaging any property…to collect insurance for such a loss. ## Footnote NOTICE THE AFFIRMATIVE DEFENSE FOR PART B – WHY DOES THIS EXIST?

Answer 54

Breaking and Entering The dwelling house of another At night With intent to commit a felony inside Breaking ≠ Damaging

Answer 55

Entering A building or occupied structure with purpose to commit a crime therein unless Licensed or privileged to enter Structure open to the public

Answer 56

By threat or use of force, or deception, the intentional and unlawful confinement of the movement of a victim or removal of victim from place where found

Answer 57

Unlawful confinement/removal of another with the purpose of: Ransom, reward, or hostage Facilitating felony or flight Inflict bodily injury or terrorize Interfering with gov’t

Answer 58

LARCENY LARCENY BY BAILEE ROBBERY EXTORTION / BLACKMAIL EMBEZZLEMENT FRAUD FALSE PRETENSES LARCENY BY TRICK

Answer 59

Larceny: unlawful taking of another’s property without consent with intent to deprive the person of the property permanently

Answer 60

Larceny: the unlawful taking or exercise of control over another’s movable property with purpose to permanently deprive the person of the property

Answer 61

Economic Espionage Act 18 USC §§ 1831-1839 (1996). Prohibits unauthorized conveyance of “trade secrets” with intent to provide benefits to a foreign gov’t or to provide economic benefit to a third party and to harm the owner of the trade secret. “Trade secrets” = “all forms and types of commercial, business, scientific, technical, economic, or engineering information.”

Answer 62

Larceny by use of force or fear from another’s person or their immediate presence Force: serious bodily injury What kind of fears qualify a robbery? (CA code: pg 941) [Immediate] unlawful injury to the person/property or a relative Immediate unlawful injury to person/property in the company of the person robbed.

Answer 63

Obtaining property or an official act from another, With consent, that was induced by wrongful use of force or fear or under color of official right. ## Footnote What fears qualify an extortion? P. 942

Answer 64

In USA: Always blackmail: Threats of non-immediate personal or property injury Accusations of crime Sometimes blackmail: Defamation Less frequently blackmail Exposing “any secret” affecting victim (CA)

Answer 65

Honest taking/possession of property Dishonest/Unauthorized use

Answer 66

“THEFT BY BAILEE” = “THEFT OF PROPERTY LOST, MISLAID, OR DELIVERED BY MISTAKE”

Answer 67

DECEIT IN TAKING POSSESSION OF TITLE AND/OR POSSESSION of PROPERTY LARCENY BY TRICK LARCENY BY FALSE PRETENSES What’s the difference??

Answer 68

LARCENY BY TRICK: Deceit causes possession to transfer to the thief ## Footnote FALSE PRETENSES: Deceit causes title (+possession, sometimes) to transfer to the thief Way to tell the difference: Ask if ownership of the property changed hands because of the fraud. If yes, then false pretenses. If no, then larceny by trick.

Answer 69

Example: Ohio R.C. § 2913.02 (2006): No person with purpose to deprive the owner of property or services, shall knowingly obtain or exert control over either the property or services in any of the following ways: Without the consent of the owner or person authorized to give consent; (standard larceny) Beyond the scope of the express or implied consent of the owner or person authorized to give consent (embezzlement, larceny by bailee) By deception (fraud: larceny by trick, false pretenses) By threat (extortion) B) Whoever violates this section is guilty of theft.

Answer 70

When a person With specific intent to commit target offense Performs any act that constitutes a substantial step toward commission of that offense (that is strongly corraborative of intent)

Answer 71

C/L MAJORITY MODERN APPROACH: punish attempt as less than the target crime e.g., half of punishment for completed crime ## Footnote MPC / C/L MINORITY APPROACH punish same as target crime, except for target crimes punishable by death or life in prison

Answer 72

GENERAL RULE: MUST HAVE SPECIFIC INTENT (i.e. “PURPOSE” under MPC) TO COMMIT THE TARGET CRIME

Answer 73

Generally: ## Footnote Purpose OR Knowledge to cause the target crime

Answer 74

GENERAL RULE: MUST HAVE SPECIFIC INTENT (i.e. “PURPOSE” under MPC) TO COMMIT THE TARGET CRIME EXCEPTION: CRIMES WITH ATTENDANT CIRCUMSTANCES

Answer 75

Depraved heart murder? Involuntary manslaughter, e.g., Station Fire nightclub fire survivors? Negligent homicide? (No -Tenn) Assault? Felony murder?

Answer 76

HOW CLOSE TO COMPLETED CRIME? Last step “Tending” towards crime Physical proximity: Near victim, scene of intended crime Dangerous proximity (reasonable probability crime will be committed): “Reasonable probability” that crime itself would have been committed if not for timely interference Act that speaks for itself (res ipsa loquitor) (Buying a box of matches intending to use them to burn a haystack… vs. Buying matches, taking a match to a haystack, and lighting one of the pieces of straw, and then blowing it out because he’s been discovered.) Substantial step (looks at whether the acts are reasonably indicative of intent to commit the crime.) (A substantial step has to be “of such substantiality that unless frustrated the crime would have occurred.”)

Answer 77

1) attempt if...purposely does...an....act...constituting a SUBSTANTIAL STEP... 2) substantial step IS strongly corroborative of actor's criminal purpose

Answer 78

**S**oliciting an innocent agent to engage in crime **L**ying in wait, searching for, following victim **E**nticing victim to go to scene of crime **P**ossession of materials (specially designed / no lawful purpose) Unlawful **e**ntry **R**econnoitering (casing)

Answer 79

Most attempt act tests examine how close to the target crime the “attempt” came, ## Footnote “Substantial step” examines whether the acts – no matter how close in the causal chain to the criminal result – are reasonably indicative of specific intent/purpose to commit the crime.

Answer 80

Why don’t we say very early act – mere preparation – is enough for attempt, but allow for defense of abandonment? ## Footnote Traditional view: no defense, but closer to last step Substantial step / mpc view: complete & voluntary abandonment a defense

Answer 81

Must be voluntary & complete ## Footnote Not voluntary if motivated by circ.s that increase probability of getting caught or make it more difficult to succeed Not complete if motivated by decision to postpone or find new objective or victim MPC 5.01(4)

Answer 82

Majority C/L rule / MPC = substantial step toward commission of target crime (strongly corroborative of actor’s criminal purpose) Defense of abandonment if voluntary & complete

Answer 83

When a person With specific intent (ie purpose) to commit target offense Performs any act that constitutes a substantial step toward commission of that offense Unless: Complete & voluntary abandonment Defense of impossibility

Answer 84

Factual impossibility – not a defense. Legal impossibility – is a defense. What is the difference between factual and legal impossibility?

Answer 85

John has sex with a young woman, believing her to be 16. She is in fact 19. John is not guilty of statutory rape, even though he thought he was committing that crime. ## Footnote Joe tries to cast a vote believing he is 17. He is in fact 19 and a qualified voter. Joe is not guilty of attempting to vote illegally.

Answer 86

Objective test: was the crime possible to commit under the given facts? Legal or Factual Impossibility Subjective test (MPC): did the defendant believe the crime was possible to commit, regardless of the facts?

Answer 87

If what D did would have been a crime under the circumstances as he believed them to be, (subjective) Then the fact that it was objectively impossible (whether legally or factually) to successfully complete the crime is not a defense.

Answer 88

If conduct charged as attempt is “so inherently unlikely” to result in commission of crime That neither the conduct nor the actor presents a public danger, Ct can enter judgment for lesser crime or even dismiss the case.

Answer 89

Traditional/objective rules -- rejected! ## Footnote Mpc / modern approach: Subjective test (did def. Believe crime was being attempted? If yes, then no impossibility defense) Only pure legal imposs’y is defense (intended “crime” is not a crime). Possible mitigation for “inherently unlikely” (i.e. wildly implausible) attempts not posing public danger.

Answer 90

COMPLICITY IMPOSES LIABILITY ON SOMEONE WHO HELPS A PRINCIPAL COMMIT A CRIME An ACCOMPLICE IS CONVICTED OF THE SAME CRIME AS PRINCIPAL!! IF PRINCIPAL COMMITS MURDER, ACCOMPLICE IS ALSO GUILTY OF MURDER

Answer 91

ACCOMPLICE IS CRIMINALLY RESPONSIBLE FOR PRINCIPAL’S CRIME IF: (1) SHE HAD THE SPECIFIC INTENT (I.E., PURPOSE) TO AID THE PRINCIPAL; AND (2) SHE ASSISTED THE PRINCIPAL

Answer 92

GENERAL RULE: PURPOSE TO HELP THE PRINCIPAL COMMIT THE CRIME (always, MPC) Knowledge, for serious crimes (Fountain jur.) Separate, lesser crime of criminal facilitation Reasonably foreseeable consq.s doctrine for other crimes (Luparello jur.)

Answer 93

E.G., N.Y. STATUTE (CB 600a): If you PROVIDE someone else the MEANS OR OPPORTUNITY to commit a felony – and you do so KNOWING that you are helping her commit a crime – And the person actually commits the crime, that’s “CRIMINAL FACILITATION” HICKS-THE-GUN-SUPPLIER?

Answer 94

WHAT MENS REA OF AN ACCOMPLICE IS REQ’D FOR CRIMES OTHER THAN THE CRIME HE PURPOSED TO ENCOURAGE? IF D HAD SPECIFIC INTENT TO ENCOURAGE AN OFFENSE, HE IS GUILTY OF ANY REASONABLY FORESEEABLE OFFENSE COMMITTED BY THE PRINCIPAL

Answer 95

ASSISTED THE PRINCIPAL

Answer 96

(1) PHYSICAL CONDUCT (2) PSYCHOLOGICAL INFLUENCE ENCOURAGEMENT (3) ASSISTANCE BY OMISSION

Answer 97

(1) CANNOT BE AN ACCOMPLICE IF YOU ARE THE VICTIM OR IF YOU ARE THE PRINCIPAL PERPETRATOR OF THE CRIME ## Footnote (2) ABANDONMENT

Answer 98

ACCOMPLICE MUST COMMUNICATE HIS WITHDRAWAL TO PRINCIPAL & MAKE GENUINE EFFORT TO NEUTRALIZE EFFECT OF PRIOR ASSISTANCE

Answer 99

ACCOMPLICE MUST TERMINATE COMPLICITY AND: WHOLLY DEPRIVE IT OF EFFECTIVENESS IN COMMISSION OF OFFENSE OR GIVE TIMELY WARNING TO POLICE OR OTHERWISE MAKE EFFORT TO PREVENT THE CRIME

Answer 100

Common Law: “NEUTRALIZE AND NOTIFY PRINCIPAL” ## Footnote MPC: “NEUTRALIZE OR NOTIFY COPS”

Answer 101

Common law: agreement between 2 or more people to commit a criminal act with purpose to facilitate a target crime ## Footnote MPC: person is guilty of consp’y if with purpose of promoting the target crime he agrees with another person to engage in criminal conduct or agrees to aid

Answer 102

In general, crime of consp’y = 2 or more people Agree to commit a criminal act With the purpose of agreeing to facilitate the target crime And make an overt act towards committing the crime

Answer 103

In some jurisdictions, a conspirator is guilty of: The crime of consp’y AND Any other crimes that are reasonably foreseeable consequences of the consp’y (see Pinkerton/Alvarez)

Answer 104

Conspirator agrees Accomplice assists ## Footnote USUALLY (but not always), an accomplice is also a conspirator.

Answer 105

To have a conspiracy, there must be: **Agreement** Explicit or implicit “Essential nature” of crime discussed **“Overt act”** No step: some jur Slight step: some jur & MPC Substantial step: some jur

Answer 106

Generally, conspirator must have purpose (specific intent) facilitating the target crime ## Footnote

Answer 107

Direct Evidence, or D has a special interest or stake in the venture: Charges a premium Provides service or goods with no legitimate use Unusual volume of business Or Knowing promotion of serious crime (like US v Fountain?)

Answer 108

In forming agreement, conspirator must have purpose to facilitate the target crime (always, MPC) Can infer conspiracy based on knowledge in limited circumstances (C/L: Lauria) ## Footnote

Answer 109

A & B purposely agree to commit crime X, but never go through with it? Can they still be prosecuted? If no one engages in any activity to further the target crime for the time period equal to statute of limitations of the conspiracy, prosecution is barred.

Answer 110

A, B, C agree to commit crimes X,Y, and Z. If B is arrested, can he be punished for conspiracy to commit crime X as well as conspiracy to commit crime Y, as well as conspiracy to commit crime Z? MPC (5.03(3)): no. One conspiracy for crimes all agreed to in same agreement or continuous conspiratorial relationship. C/L: depends on jurisdiction

Answer 111

A, B, C, agree to commit arson. A, B, and C attempt to commit arson, but don’t succeed. If B is arrested, can he be punished for conspiracy to commit arson as well as attempted arson? MPC (5.05(3), p. 1102): Can’t convict for both attempt and conspiracy for same crime, must choose. C/L: both convictions are possible

Answer 112

A, B, C, agree to commit crime X and C takes a substantial step. If B is immediately arrested & convicted of conspiracy to commit crime X, what is the punishment? Maj. C/L: some fraction of the sentence for crime X MPC / min. C/L: same as target crime X, except for most serious felonies

Answer 113

A, B, and C – three local high school students -- purposely agree to commit the crime of hijacking a nuclear submarine and firing an intercontinental ballistic missile at North Korea, A changes her mind and never sees B or C again. Can A be prosecuted for consp’y (assume “no step” jurisdiction)? Perhaps, but: MPC (5.05(2): Mitigation permitted for inherently unlikely crimes Remember that Mitigation exists for attempt too! ## Footnote

Answer 114

A, B, and C purposely agree to commit crime X, A changes her mind and never sees B or C again. Can A be prosecuted for conspiracy (assume “no step” jurisdiction)? Yes, unless can show: MPC 5.03(5) / some C/L: COMPLETE AND VOLN’Y RENUNCIATION OF CRIM PURPOSE & THWART THE SUCCESS OF THE CONSP’Y Other C/L: COMPLETE AND VOLUNTARY RENUNCIATION & SUBSTANTIAL EFFORT TO THWART THE SUCCESS OF THE CONSP’Y ## Footnote

Answer 115

Attempt Abandonment: Complete and Voluntary Accomplice Liability Abandonment: (1) Notify Principal and Neutralize (2) Notify Cops or (Wholly) Neutralize (MPC) Conspiracy Abandonment: Complete and Voluntary Abandonment AND Thwart Target Crime

Answer 116

Victims (No – victims cannot be conspirators (C/L & MPC)) Wharton’s Rule (aka necessary parties rule) Bilateral v. Unilateral [Note: there was no reading assigned for these special rules of conspiracy.]

Answer 117

If it is legally impossible to commit a crime without 2 or more people involved, then the agreement between those necessary parties is not a conspiracy. Eg: adultery, bigamy, dueling… NOT followed by MPC

Answer 118

Traditional rule = bilateral need at least 2 people who genuinely agree to have a consp’y Modern rule (incl MPC) = Unilateral Recognizes a “unilateral” conspiracy

Answer 119

When a person conspires with other people to commit a crime; He is liable for conspiracy, for the target crime (if completed), for any additional crimes of co-conspirators if: They were in furtherance of the consp’y, or Reasonably foreseeable (State v Bridges CB 679)

Answer 120

MPC does not allow for Pinkerton liability!! ## Footnote (BUT THE FEDS DO).

Answer 121

Prosecution: usually wants to show 1 big conspiracy with lots of people in the tent Defense: wants to argue separate conspiracies, and that your client is not a member of the conspiracy being presented Factors often considered in deciding the scope of the conspiracy: (1) scope of the agreement? (2) reasonably foreseeable crimes? (3) does the def. know about the other parties?

Answer 122

IN GENERAL, CRIME OF CONSP’Y = 2 OR MORE PEOPLE [bilateral v. unilateral jurisdictions] [special rule on victims] [Wharton’s Rule] AGREE TO COMMIT A CRIME W/ THE PURPOSE OF AGREEING TO FACILITATE THE TARGET CRIME OVERT ACT?

Answer 123

**FAILURE OF PROOF** Involuntary acts – e.g. “DEFENSE” OF UNCONSCIOUS **PARTIAL DEFENSES** Heat Of Passion or EED **DEFENSES TO SPECIFIC CRIMES** ABANDONMENT (ATTEMPT, ACCOMPLICE, CONSP’Y) IMPOSSIBILITY (ATTEMPT) **JUSTIFICATION** = Act is usually a crime, but under the circumstances, the act is the right thing to do E.G., SELF-DEFENSE **EXCUSE** = It is morally/legally wrong to hold the accused responsible under the circumstances E.G., DURESS OR INSANITY

Answer 124

YOU REASONABLY\* BELIEVE FORCE IS NECESSARY TO PROTECT YOURSELF FROM AN IMMINENT\*\* [\*\*MPC – “IMMEDIATELY NEC’Y”] AND UNLAWFUL ATTACK; THE FORCE YOU USE IS PROPORTIONAL TO THE THREAT; AND YOU WERE NOT THE FIRST AGGRESSOR RETREAT REQUIREMENT IS NOT APPLICABLE (only relevant if deadly force; “castle” exception) \* MPC DISTINCTION – NO REASONABLE REQ., BUT LIMITED DEFENSE. (See also “Imperfect Self-defense”)

Answer 125

If you genuinely believed that force was a nec’y & proportional response to an imminent and unlawful attack, But your belief was unreasonable, ## Footnote =\> No imperfect self-defense (Majority C/L) =\> “imperfect self-defense” mitigates murder to voluntary manslaughter (Minority C/L)

Answer 126

purposeful or knowing murder reduces to manslaughter ## Footnote But imperfect self-defense is not a defense to charges of reckless or negligent killing.

Answer 127

Although use of force is generally justified when it is necessary, some jurisdictions adopt a special rule: The retreat exception And, there’s an exception to the exception: The Castle doctrine

Answer 128

In a retreat jur, a D cannot use deadly force if he knows that he can avoid the necessity of using such force with complete safety by retreating ## Footnote Castle exception: no need to retreat if D is in his own home (or workplace) In a “true man” jur, retreat is not necessary

Answer 129

You are walking down the street, and you see a VIOLENT PERSON WITH A KNIFE trying to kill a helpless elderly person, and you pull out your gun and shoot the violent person to death. DO YOU HAVE A JUSTIFICATION DEFENSE? Often, YES – DEFENSE OF OTHERS That apparently helpless little old lady was a master criminal in disguise, And the attacker was a police officer arresting him? Do you have a justification defense? C/L Alter Ego Rule – if victim could have rightfully used self-defense MPC & some jurisdictions (if you reasonably believed that victim could have used self-defense. If unreasonable belief, defense is limited).

Answer 130

Excuse if (1) D was coerced to commit crime (2) by threat or use of deadly force on D (or another person); (3) threat is imminent; (4) no other alternative; (5) actor not at fault (aka clean hands rule); Not a defense to homicide

Answer 131

Excuse if: D was coerced to commit crime by Threat or use of unlawful force on him (or another person) Which a person of reas. firmness In his situation Could not resist And d is not at fault No req. of imminent harm & deadly force Does not rule out as defense to homicide

Answer 132

- [] D is not responsible if at time of act, - [] D was suffering from "disease" or "defect" (room for interpretation) AND ## Footnote - [] did not know - [] the nature/quality of the act - [] OR - [] act was wrong (LEGAL or MORAL TEST? IF MORAL, EXCEPTION FOR DEIFIC DECREES)

Answer 133

- [] D not responsible if, at time of conduct - [] as a result of mental disease or defect - [] D lacked substantial capacity to: - [] appreciate criminality (wrongfulness) of conduct (cognitive) - [] to conform conduct to requirements of the law (volitional)

Answer 134

- [] according to lyons, can intoxication, drug addiction, or the like would not necessarily render you insane - [] Other intoxication defense? - [] General Rule: voluntary intoxication usually not a defense - [] some exceptions, if negates mens rea - [] involuntary intoxication is a defense

Answer 135

- [] D is not responsible if at time of act, D was suffering from severe defect or disease of mind AND - [] did not know (APPRECIATE) - [] nature/quality of the act - [] OR - [] act was wrong (LEGAL or MORAL TEST? IF MORAL, EXCEPTION FOR DEIFIC DECREES)