Criminal Law

Question 1

Solicitation

Answer 1

Inciting, urging, or otherwise asking another to commit a crime with the intent they commit the crime

• affirmative response not required
• of offer is accepted then solicitation merges into/becomes crime of conspiracy

Question 2

Conspiracy

Answer 2

An agreement between two or more people to commit a crime.

Elements:

• agreement between two or more people (don’t need to know each other)
• intent to enter into the agreement
• intent to commit the target crime

**some statutes (not CL) require “overt act” in furtherance of the target crime

Question 3

Liability of co-conspirators

Answer 3

Liable for co-conspirator’s crimes that are:

• foreseeable
• committed in furtherance of the conspiracy

**withdrawal only successful as to liability for target crime and must be: affirmative act and timely (notice to all with enough time for them to abandon the crime)

Question 4

Wharton Rule

Answer 4

under wharton rule there is no liability for conspiracy to commit a crime that necessarily requires a plurality of actors and only those necessary to commit the substantive crime are parties to the agreement

Question 5

Attempt

Answer 5

An act, done with the intent to commit a crime, that constitutes an overt or “substantial step” toward committing the crime but falls short.

Question 6

Defenses to Attempt

Answer 6

Legal impossibility in a defense

Not defenses: factual impossibility, abandonment

Question 7

Factual Impossibility vs. Legal Impossibility

Answer 7

Factual impossibility - not a defense to attempt. This is where if the facts were as the D believed them to be it would be a crime (but bc of come fact unknown to the D it is impossible). Ex - point the gun and shoot with intent to kill but didn’t know there was no bullet in there

Legal impossibility - is a defense to attempt. it’s where if the D did what he set out to do it wouldn’t be a crime (doesn’t matter if the D thought it would be)

Question 8

Arson

Answer 8

The malicious burning of the dwelling house of another

• intent or extreme recklessness is enough
• burning needs to be at least charring or more.
• CL said had to be residential but doesn’t have to anymore
• if proximately causes death of another then felony murder

Question 9

Common Law Murder

Answer 9

The unlawful killing of another with malice aforethought.

causation - needs to be actual and proximate cause. any act accelerating victim’s inevitable death is enough

Question 10

What is recognized as “malice aforethought”?

Answer 10

Intent to kill

Intent to inflict serious bodily harm

Depraved heart murder - consciously disregarded grave risk of death showing an indifference to human life

Felony-murder - just need intent to create underlying felony

Question 11

Modern Rule - Murder - First vs. Second Degree

Answer 11

First Degree - deliberate and premeditated. or felony murders

Second Degree - all others

Question 12

Felony-Murders

Definition

Underlying felonies and the ones that do not constitute

Answer 12

A killing that occurs during the attempt or commission of certain felonies

BRAKERS - burglary, robbery, arson, kidnapping, escape, rape, criminal sexual activity

(not LAB - larceny, assault, battery)

**felony ends when D reaches “safe harbor” but this defense doesn’t apply to arson

Question 13

8th Amendment Requirements for Death Penalty and when not allowed

Answer 13

(1) victim must die; and (2) additional aggravating factors

No death penalty for:
under 18
mentally disabled
insane
in felony murder where wasn't main participant and no depraved heart

Question 14

Voluntary Manslaughter

Answer 14

A killing from an adequate provocation (heat of passion) or imperfect self defense

• provocation that would cause sudden and intense passion in a reasonable person, causing him to lose self control
• insufficient time to “cool off”

Question 15

Involuntary Manslaughter

Answer 15

A killing committed with criminal negligence (are of a SUBSTANTIAL risk of death but proceeds anyway)
**difference from depraved hear murder is the degree of the risk - GRAVE risk of death for depraved heart murder, this is substantial

Also used for when a death arises from a crime not covered by felony-murder

Question 16

Larceny

Answer 16

The taking and carrying away of another’s tangible personal property without consent and with the intent to permanently dispossess the person of the property

Question 17

Robbery

Answer 17

Wrongful taking of another’s property from his person by force or threat of force with the intent to permanently deprive

larceny + force or threat of force

**note - it can’t be threats of future harm, then this is extortion (blackmail). extortion doesn’t require any taking away

Question 18

False Imprisonment

Answer 18

Unlawful confinement of person without their conent

Question 19

Kidnapping

Answer 19

Unlawful confinement of a person without their consent (false imprisonment) that involves either:

some movement of the victim
concealment of the victim in unknown, hidden, location

**note - merger doctrine precludes kidnapping conviction when based on brief acts and restraint, which are closely connected to another crime

Question 20

Burglary

Answer 20

Break and entering into the dwelling house of another at nighttime with the intent to commit a felony within

-modern rules - nighttime abolished, misdemeanors ok too

Question 21

False Pretenses vs. Larceny by Trick

Answer 21

False pretenses - obtaining TITLE to another’s property by using false past or existing statements of fact with intent to defraud (insurance fraud)

Larceny by trick - obtaining POSSESSION of another’s property by using false past or existing statements of fact

Question 22

Extortion

Answer 22

(blackmail) - Obtaining property through threats of future harm or exposing information

Question 23

Embezzlement

Answer 23

Fraudulent conversion of another’s personal property by one in lawful possession

Question 24

Receipt of Stolen Property

Answer 24

Receiving possession and control of personal property known to have been illegally obtained with the intent to permanently deprive the owner of her interest in it

**note it has to in fact be “stolen property”

Question 25

Insanity Defense Tests

• M’naghten Rule
• Irresistible Impulse

Answer 25

M’naghten Rule - D doesn’t know right from wrong. He
lacked the ability to understand the nature and quality of what he was doing or the difference between right and wrong

Irresistible Impulse - D acted due to an irresistible impulse. He couldn’t control his actions to conform to the law

Question 26

Insanity Defense Test

• MPC
• Durham

Answer 26

MPC - combo of M’naghten and Irresistible Impulse - understand the nature and quality of what he was doing or couldn’t conform his conduct to the law

Durham - simple “but for” test - but for the D’s mental illness he would not have acted