Criminal Law Flashcards
Solicitation
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
Conspiracy
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
Liability of co-conspirators
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)
Wharton Rule
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
Attempt
An act, done with the intent to commit a crime, that constitutes an overt or “substantial step” toward committing the crime but falls short.
Defenses to Attempt
Legal impossibility in a defense
Not defenses: factual impossibility, abandonment
Factual Impossibility vs. Legal Impossibility
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)
Arson
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
Common Law Murder
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
What is recognized as “malice aforethought”?
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
Modern Rule - Murder - First vs. Second Degree
First Degree - deliberate and premeditated. or felony murders
Second Degree - all others
Felony-Murders
Definition
Underlying felonies and the ones that do not constitute
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
8th Amendment Requirements for Death Penalty and when not allowed
(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
Voluntary Manslaughter
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”
Involuntary Manslaughter
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
Larceny
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
Robbery
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
False Imprisonment
Unlawful confinement of person without their conent
Kidnapping
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
Burglary
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
False Pretenses vs. Larceny by Trick
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
Extortion
(blackmail) - Obtaining property through threats of future harm or exposing information
Embezzlement
Fraudulent conversion of another’s personal property by one in lawful possession
Receipt of Stolen Property
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”
Insanity Defense Tests
- M’naghten Rule
- Irresistible Impulse
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
Insanity Defense Test
- MPC
- Durham
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
