Essay Flashcards
CL Actus Reus Definition
Actus Reus is satisfied when there is a voluntary act or omission to act when there is a legal duty to act that results in social harm.
CL Actus Reus Voluntary Act Definition
An act is voluntary when it is a physical behavior or muscular contraction that is consciously willed by the mind.
CL Actus Reus Voluntary Acts include
Voluntary acts include acts made under duress, habitual actions, and conscious possession.
CL Actus Reus Not Voluntary Acts
A bodily movement that is not the product of effort or determination is not a voluntary act. This includes reflexes or convulsions, bodily movement during unconsciousness or sleep.
CL Actus Reus Thoughts
Thoughts are not voluntary acts. An actor cannot be convicted for mere thoughts.
CL Actus Reus Hate Crimes
Hate crimes are not thought crimes if they punish the action, not the thoughts.
CL Actus Reus Status
Status crimes are not constitutional. The act of being is not a voluntary act. The crime must punish some action.
CL Actus Reus unavoidable consequences
Crimes that punish an act that is the unavoidable consequence of one’s status or being are unconstitutional.
CL Liability for Omissions Definition
There is no liability for failure to act unless D had a legal duty to act.
CL Liability for Omissions Element
Prosecutor must prove 1) there was a legal duty to act, 2) D knew he had a legal duty to act, and 3) it was reasonable and possible for D to act.
CL Liability for Omissions legal duty categories
First, D must have a legal duty to act. D has a legal duty to act when 1) a special relationship exists between D and the victim such as parent/child or husband/wife, 2) a contractual duty exists between D and victim, 3) a statutory duty, 4) D created the risk of harm to the victim, and 5) D voluntarily assumed cared of the victim.
CL Liability for Omissions knowledge of duty
Second, D must know he had a legal duty to act. D knew he had a legal duty if he knows the facts from which the duty to act has arisen. D cannot avoid criminal responsbility by claiming he was unaware that a legal duty to act arose from those facts.
CL Liability for Omissions possible for D to act
Third, it must have been reasonable and possible for D to act. D must be physically capable of acting.
CL Actus Reus Intangible Acts
A voluntary act can be presumed by silence in some instances.
CL Mens Rea Definition
Mens rea, or culpable mental state is the intent or thought behind the act.
CL Mens Rea Intent
D acts with intent when he acts with purpose.
CL Mens Rea Oblique Intent
Oblique intent is when D does not intend the result but knows that if he acts, the social harm is practically certain to occur.
CL and MPC Mens Rea Willful Blindness
D acts with willful blindness when he is a) aware of high possibility that circumstances exist, and b) he deliberately avoids learning the truth.
CL and MPC Mens Rea Recklessness
D acts recklessly when he consciously disregards a substantial and unjustifiable risk that the circumstances exist or that the prohibited result will follow. Recklessness requires a gross deviation from the standard of care that a reasonable person would exercise in the situation.
CL and MPC Mens Rea Criminal Negligence
D acts with criminal negligence when he fails to be aware of a substantial and unjustifiable risk of which he should have been aware that the circumstances exist or the prohibited result will follow. Negligence requires a substantial deviation from the standard of care that a reasonable person would exercise in the situation.
MPC Mens Rea Purpose
D acts purposely when it is his conscious object to engage in conduct or cause the result.
MPC Mens Rea Knowledge - nature of conduct
D acts knowingly when he is aware he is engaging in specific conduct or aware that certain circumstances exist.
MPC Mens Rea Knowledge - result of conduct
D acts knowingly when he knows that his conduct will necessarily or very likely cause the result.
CL Mens Rea Natural and Probable Consequences
A crime is the natural and probable consequence of a target crime if its commission by D was reasonably foreseeable.
CL Mens Rea Deadly Weapon Doctrine
Intent to kill is presumed when D uses a deadly weapon aimed at a vital body part or as a weapon.
CL Mens Rea Transferred Intent
D’s intent to cause harm to one person can be transferred to an unintended victim.
CL Mens Rea Strict Liability
A strict liability crime is when criminal liability is imposed without any showing of mens rea. Actus reus is enough for criminal liability even if D honestly and justifiably believes he is engaging in a legal act.
CL Mens Rea Strict Liability crime examples
Selling alcohol to a minor, bigamy, statutory rate
CL Mens Rea Factors courts considered for SL
a) No mens rea specified, b) health, safety or welfare statutes, neglect, risk of injury, D in position to prevent harm, light penalties, little stigma, not CL crime
CL Mens Rea fed court factors for SL
Federal courts are most likely to construe a statute to impose strict liability when
a) offense is regulatory or public welfare offense,
b) statute does not criminalize broad range of conduct,
c) statute imposes only a minor penalty.
CL Mens Rea General Intent Crime
For general intent crimes, D can be convicted if he acted purposely, knowingly or recklessly. Jury may infer required intent merely from the doing of the act.
CL Mens Rea General Intent Crimes to memorize
Battery, kidnapping, false imprisonment, common law rape
CL Mens Rea Specific Intent Crime
In a specific intent crime, a general mental state is required with respect to the actus resus as well as an additional mental element that goes beyond the actus reus.
CL Mens Rea Specific Intent Crime
Aggravated battery, attempt, conspiracy, 1st degree pre-meditated murder, forgery, solicitation, receiving stolen property, larceny
CL Mistake of Fact
A mistake of fact is a mistake about a factual circumstance that relates to an element of the offense. A mistake of fact can negate the mens rea of the offense.
CL Mistake of Fact General Intent Crime
A mistake of fact can negate the mens rea of a general intent crime if it was made in good faith and reasonable. Here, D’s mistake of [mistake] negated the general intent mens rea of [crime]. It as made in good faith because [reason] and was reasonable because [reason].
CL Mistake of Fact Specific Intent Crime
A mistake of fact negates the specific intent of the crime if it was made in good faith, even if it was unreasonable. Here, D’s mistake negated the specific intent of [crime] because [reasons]. The mistake as in good-faith because [reason].
CL Mistake of Law
Define & when a defense
A mistake of law is a mistake or misunderstanding regarding some part of the law with which one has been charged.
Mistake of law is no defense unless:
a) D reasonably relied on an official interpretation of the law,
b) the mistake negates the mens rea of the offense,
c) there was lack of fair notice.
CL Mistake of Law - official reliance
D reasonably relied on an official interpretation of the law if
a) it came from someone with authority to interpret or administer the law,
b) his reliance was reasonable, and
c) the interpretation turned out to be wrong.
Here, D relied on [party’s] interpretation. [Party] has authority to interpret or administer the law because [reasons]. The reliance was reasonable because [reasons], and the interpretation turned out to be wrong because [facts].
Thus, D’s mistake of law means he did not have the required mental state of [crime].
CL Mistake of Law - failure of proof
When D knew what he was doing but was ignorant of the fact what he was doing was illegal, a mistake of law will not negate any element of the offense.
CL Mistake of Law - different law mistake
However, mens rea may be negated where D’s mistake about a different law prevents him from having the specific intent for the crime of which he is charged. Here, D made a mistake about [mistaken law] which prevented him from having the specific intent to commit [charged crime] because [reasons].
CL Mistake of Law - lack of fair notice
Lack of fair notice occurs when the law violated is not made reasonably available because the nature of the statute prevents people from receiving fair notice about its existence. Typically this involves crimes of omission, not commission. Here, D lacked fair notice because [facts]. Thus, the mens rea of [crime] is not satisfied.
MPC Mistake - Fact and Law
Ignorance or mistake as to a matter of fact or law is a defense if
a) it negates the purpose, knowledge, belief, recklessness or negligence required to establish a material element of the offense, or
b) law provides that the state of mind established by such ignorance or mistake constitutes a defense.
Here, D’s mistake of [mistake] negates [mens rea] because [facts].
CL Reasonable person
The reasonable person has the same demographic characteristics of D, but does not have the tempermental qualities. This is an objective standard. Here, the reasonable person would be [facts], but not [facts].
MPC Reasonable person
Under the MPC, the reasonable person is a subjective standard. The jury isasked to put itself in D’s shoes and then ask whether D’s actions were reasonable.
Concurrence
The actus reus and the mens rea of the offense must have temporal or motivational concurrence.
Concurrence - temporal
Temporal concurrence occurs when the act causing harm and the mens rea occurred at the same time.
Concurrence - motivational
Motivational concurrence occurs when the mens rea motivated the act that caused the harm. Here, the actus reus and mens rea concurred because [facts].
CL Causation - defined
D must cause the social harm. D is the cause of the social harm when he is the actual cause and the proximate cause of the harm.
CL Causation - Actual cause - but for
D is the actual cause of the harm if but for his conduct, the harm would not have occurred when it did. Here, D is the actual cause of the social harm because [reasons].
CL Causation - Actual cause - but for modified
D is the actual cause of the harm if but for his conduct, the harm would not have occurred when it did and as it did. Here, D is the actual cause of the social harm because [facts].
CL Causation - Actual Cause - acceleration
D is the actual cause of the harm if his voluntary act speeds up an inevitable result, even if by only a brief time. Here, D is the actual cause of the harm because [voluntary act] accelerated [harm] because [reasons].
CL Causation - Actual Cause - substantial factor
D is the actual cause of the harm if his voluntary act was a substantial factor in causing the social harm. Here, D is the actual cause of the social harm because [voluntary act] was a substantial factor in the harm because [reasons].
CL Causation - Proximate Cause - D is direct cause
If no event of causal significance occurred between D’s conduct and the social harm, D’s act was the proximate cause of the harm because he was the direct cause of the harm.
CL Causation - Dependent Intervening Cause
D is the proximate cause of the harm if there a dependent intervening cause that contributed causally to the social harm unless it was bizarre or unusual.
A dependent intervening cause is an act or event that occurred after D’s voluntary act and in response to D’s voluntary act, but before the social harm.
M
Here, D’s act was dependent because [reasons]. It was not bizarre or unusual because [facts]. Thus, D is also the proximate cause of P’s harm.
CL Causation - Independent Intervening Cause
D is the proximate cause of the harm if there is an independent intervening cause that contributed causally to the harm, and the cause was foreseeable.
An independent cause is an act or event that would have occurred regardless of D’s voluntary act.
Here, [intervening cause] was independent because it would have occurred even if D did not [act]. It was foreseeable because [facts]. Thus, D is the proximate cause of P’s harm.
CL Causation - dependent - negligent medical care.
Negligent medical care is generally considered a dependent intervening cause.
CL Causation - Dependent - rescuers
The harm caused by rescuers is generally considered foreseeable.
CL Causation - Proximate Cause - De Minimis Contribution
D’s is not the proximate cause of the harm if his causal responsibility is insubstantial in comparison to that of the intervening cause. Here, D is not the proximate cause because [facts].
CL Causation -Proximate Cause - Intended consequences doctrine
D is the proximate cause of the result of his act if he intended the result, even if the result does not occur the way D intended.
Cl Causation -Proximate Cause - Voluntary harm by V
D is the not the proximate cause of the harm when V makes a free and deliberate decision that contributes to his death.
CL Causation - Proximate Cause - Omissions
Omissions will rarely result in a superseding intervening cause. Here, D’s [omission] is the proximate cause of P’s harm because [facts].
CL Homicide - definition
Criminal homicide is the killing of a human being by another human being without justification or excuse.
CL Homicide - Death - old CL
At common law, death occurred when the victim’s blood circulation and essential bodily functions that rely on blood circulation permanently came to an end.
CL Homicide - Death - modern CL
In most jurisdcitions now, death occurs when the victim is brain dead. Here, the victim died because [facts].
CL Homicide - Murder defined
Murder is the killing of a human being by another human being with malice aforethought and without justification or excuse.
CL Homicide - Murder - actus reus
The actus reus of murder is the killing of a human being by another human being. Here, D, a human being killed the victim, a human being, when he did [facts]. This resulted in death because [facts].
CL Homicide - Murder -mens rea
The mens rea of murder is malice aforethought.
Malice aforethought occurs when D
a) intended to kill,
b) intended to cause serious bodily harm,
c) acted with reckless indifference to the value of human life,
d) mens rea is imputed under the felony murder doctrine.
CL Homicide - Murder - mens rea - express vs implied malice
Intent to kill is express malice. The others are implied malice.
CL Homicide - Murder - mens rea - Intent to Kill
Prosecutor must prove beyond a reasonable doubt that D subjectively possessed intent to kill.
It is not enough that a reasonable person would have known that death would result from D’s conduct.
Here, P will argue D had intent to kill because [facts]. D will argue he did not have intent because [facts].
But D’s argument will likely fail because [facts].
CL Homicide - Murder - mens rea - natural and probable consequences
Intent to kill can be inferred if:
a) the natural and probable consequences of D’s wrongful act is to produce death, and
b) such intent may be deduced from all surrounding circumstances including
i) the instrument used to produce death, and
ii) the manner of inflicting the wound.
Here, the natural and probable consequence of [act] is to produce death because [facts].
Intent can be deduced from the surrounding circumstances because D used [weapon] and inflicted the fatal wound [in this manner].
Thus, the prosecutor will be able to prove D had intent to kill.
CL Homicide - Murder mens rea - deadly weapon doctrine
Intent to kill can be presumed when a deadly weapon is aimed at a vital body part.
The definition of a deadly weapon varies by jurisdiction by generally includes guns and knives.
Here, D used [weapon], aimed at [body part], a vital body part. [Weapon] is likely to be considered a deadly weapon in any jurisdiction.
Thus, the prosecutor will likely be able to prove intent to kill.
CL Homicide - Murder mens rea - transferred intent
D will argue he should be not guilty because he had intent to kill [name], not [victim]. However, under common law, D’s intent to kill [name] transfers to [victim].
CL Homicide - Murder mens rea - intent to kill mistake
D will argue he did not have intent to kill because [mistake]. Here D’s mistake of fact will likely negate the mens rea of intent to kill because [facts].
CL Homicide - Murder mens rea - intent to cause SBI
Prosecutor must prove beyond a reasonable doubt that D subjectively intended to cause seriously bodily injury.
Serious bodily injury is injury that could be life-threatening.
Here, D intended to cause serious bodily injury because he intended to [act]. It is common knowledge that [act] can be life-threatening.
CL Homicide - Murder mens rea - intent to cause SBI inferred
The jury is allowed to presume D had intent to cause SBI if he knew that the injury was highly likely to occur. Here, D was highly likely to know SBI would occur when he did [act] because [facts].
CL Homicide - Murder mens rea - intent to cause SBI not subjectively aware
D will argue he was not subjectively aware [act] was highly likely to cause SBI because [reason]. If the jury believes him, the mens rea will be negated.
CL Homicide - Murder mens rea - intent to cause SBI mistake
D will argue he did not have intent to cause SBI because [mistake]. Here, D’s mistake will negate the mens rea because [facts].
CL Homicide - Murder mens rea - Depraved Heart
P must prove beyond a reasonable doubt that D manifested a reckless indifference to the value of human life when he did [act].
The disregard to value of human life had to be conscious and must be extreme or egregious.
Here, D consciously disregard the value of human life because [facts]. The disregard was extreme or egregious because [facts].
CL Homicide- Murder mens rea -Felony Murder
The mens rea of murder is presumed when, in furtherance of committing an inherently dangerous felony, someone is killed.
Felony murder charges depends upon:
a) whether the felony is inherently dangerous
b) whether the death occurred within the res gestae of the predicate felony,
c) whether there is a sufficient causal connection to the death,
d) whether the killing was foreseeable.
CL Homicide - Murder mens rea - Felony Murder crimes at CL
At common law, burglary, arson, robbery, rape and kidnapping (BARRK) are considered inherently dangerous felonies. Here, D the death occurred during the commission of [crime], an inherently dangerous felony.
CL Homicide - Murder mens rea - Felony Murder crimes not defined
Some jurisdictions allow felony murder charges for deaths that occur during the commission of any inherently dangerous felony. An inherently dangerous felony is one that by its very nature entails a high risk of injury or death.
CL Homicide - Murder mens rea - Felony Murder - crimes not defined - abstract
Some jurisdictions consider the inherently dangerous aspect in the abstract, looking at how the felony is generally perpetrated.
CL Homicide - Murder mens rea - Felony Murder - crimes not defined - as perpetrated
Others consider whether the felony was dangerous as committed. Here, [felony] is inherently dangerous in the abstract because, by its nature, it entails a high risk of death. The risk of death is high because [facts]. D will argue that [felony] was not perpretrated in a dangerous manner because [facts]. The argument will fail because [facts].
CL Homicide - Murder mens rea - Felony Murder - merger doctrine
The predicate felony cannot be one involving personal injury; it must have a purpose other than inflicting harm.
CL Homicide - Murder mens rea - Felony Murder - res gestae period
The killing had to occur during the res gestae period, which begins at the point D could be arrested for attempt and ends when D reaches a place of temporary safety. Here, the death occurred during the res gestae period because [facts].
CL Homicide - Murder mens rea - Felony Murder - what deaths
Most common law jurisdictions apply the agency rule to determine whose deaths D is responsible for. Under the agency rule, the felon and all co-felons are liable for deaths caused by others acting in concert with him in furtherance of the felony, but not for death caused by bystander’s
CL Homicide - Murder mens rea - Felony Murder - foreseeability
The death must also have been foreseeable. Here the death was foreseeable because [facts].
CL Homicide - Murder mens rea - Felony Murder - accomplice argument
D will argue he should be not charged with felony murder because he did not commit the act that resulted in death [and facts indicate he did not expect the death]. However, this argument will fail because the death was foreseeable because [facts] and under the agency rule, he is thus held liable.
CL Homicide -Murder mens rea - Felony Murder - conclusion
Thus, the mens rea of murder will be presumed under the felony under the felony murder rule.
CL Homicide - Murder mens rea - Felony Murder - defenses
Any valid defense to the predicate felony is a defense to felony murder. Here, D can argue [defense].
CL Homicide - Murder - degrees of murder
Most common law jurisdictions divide murder into 1st and 2nd degree murder.
1st degree murder is typically intent to kill with pre-meditation and deliberation, felony murder (BARRK) and murder committed by torture, chemical weapons or bombing.
2nd degree murder is all other types of murder.
CL Homicide - Murder - degrees - pre-mediation & deliberation
Pre-meditation refers to the process of thinking about an action. No minimum amount of time is required for pre-meditation to be found.
Deliberation refers to the calm and rational calculation and weighing of options.
Here, P will argue D pre-meditated and deliberated the murder because he did [facts]. D will argue it was not pre-meditation or deliberation because [facts].
CL Homicide - Murder - degrees - mitigated murder
D will argue the charges should be mitigated to voluntary manslaughter because he killed in the heat of passion because [facts] resulted in adequately provocation.
CL Homicide - Murder -heat of passion old CL
Under old common law, adequate provocation was limited to certain reasons:
a) catching spouse in act of adultery, b) illegal arrest,
c) mutual combat,
d) deceased seriously injured or abused D’s close relative,
e) deceased seriously assaulted D.
CL Homicide - Murder - heat of passion old CL not adequate
Mere words, learning of adultery, observing cheating by non-spouse, trivial battery were not adquate.
CL Homicide - Murder - heat of passion modern adequate
Under modern common law, categories for adequate provocation are not defined by .
Heat of passion mitigation requires that:
a) D acted in the heat of passion,
b) D was reasonably provoked;
c) a reasonable person would not have cooled off,
d) D did not have time to cool off,
e) a causal connection between the provocation and the killing.
Reasonableness is determined from the viewpoint of a reasonable person in D’s shoes.
CL Homicide - Murder - Conclusion
Here, D can be charged with 1st degree murder due to intent to kill with pre-meditation and deliberation and felony murder. He could also be charged with 2nd degree murder for intent to cause SBPI. Murder will be mitigated to voluntary manslaughter if his mitigation defense is successful.
CL Homicide - Manslaughter defined
Manslaughter is the unlawful killing of a human being by another human being without malice aforethought and without justification or excuse.
Common law divides manslaughter into voluntary manslaugther and involuntary manslaughter.
CL Homicide - Voluntary manslaugther
Voluntary manslaughter is reserved for situations where murder charges are mitigated. This generally occurs due to heat of passion, imperfect self-defense or diminished capacity.
CL Homicide - Involuntary manslaughter defined
Involuntary manslaughter is the unintentional killing of a human being by another human being with criminal negligence or during commission of a misdemeanor.
CL Homicide - Involuntary manslaugther actus reus
The actus reus is the unintentional killing of a human being by another human being.
CL Homicide - Involuntary manslaugther mens rea
In the majority of states, the mens rea of involuntary manslaughter is a killing with criminal negligence.
A minority of the states uses ordinary recklessness or civil negligence to determine culpability.
Here, P will argue D acted with criminal negligence becaue [facts]. He should have been aware that [facts]. D will argue [fact] is not negligence, but this argument will likely fail. A reasonable person wold not have done [fact]. [Fact] is a gross deviation from the standard of care.
CL Homicide - IM - MR - crim negligence
D acted with criminal negligence if he failed to be aware of a substantial and unjustifiable risk of which he should have been aware. It requires a gross deviation from the standard of care of a reasonable person would exercise in the situation.
CL Homicide - IM-MR - misdemeanor-manslaugther rule
Mens rea of involuntary manslaugther is can be presumed where the death occurred during the commission of any misdemeanor. There must be a causal relationship between the violation and the death.
CL Homicide - IM-MR _misdemeanor-manslaugther - causal malum in se
In a malum in se (immoral/bad) misdemeanor, the causal relationship is found so long as the conduct is the actual cause of the death, even if it was not the natural and probably consequence of the action, or even foreseeable. That is the proximate cause requirement is superseded.
CL Homicide -IM-MR- misdemeanor-manslaugther -causal malum prohibitum
In a malum prohibitum (not dangerous in and of itself) misdemenaor, the causal relationship is only found where D’s conduct was both the actual cause and the proximate cause of the death.
CL Homicide-IM-MR-misdemeanor-manslaugther - conclusions
Here, D committed a malum [per se][prohibitum] because [crime] is [immoral][not dangerous in and of itself]. D’s conduct was the [actual and proximate cause] because [facts].
CL Homicide - difference between Depraved Heart and IM
Verdict of involuntary manslaugther or depraved heart tuns on whether D’s acts/omissions were grossly reckless or just reckless.
MPC Homicide - Murder - Mens Rea
The men’s rea of murder is a homicide committed either a) purposely, b) knowingly, or c) recklessly, and under circumstances manifesting an extreme indifference to the value of human life.
MPC Homicide - Murder - MR - Purposely
D acted purposely if it was his conscious object to cause V’s death. Here, D acted purposefully because he acted with the conscious object of causing the death when he did [facts].
MPC Homicide -Murder - MR -Knowlingly
D acted knowingly if he knew that his conduct necessarily or very likely cause the result.
MPC Homicide - Murder - MR - Recklessly
D must acted both recklessly and under circumstances manifesting an extreme indifference to the value of human life.
MPC Homicide -Murder-MR Recklessly defined
D acted recklessly if he consciously disregarded a substantial and unjustifiable risk that the circumstances exist or that the prohibited result would follow. Recklessness requires a gross deviation from the standard of care that a reasonable person would exercise in the situation.
MPC Homicide - Murder - MR Recklessly conclusion
Here, D acted recklessly because [facts] mean he consciously disregarded a known risk. His actions were a gross deviation from the standard of care of a reasonable person because [facts]. The conducted manifested an extreme indifference to the value of human life because [facts].
MPC Homicide-Murder- MR Recklessly -Felony murder
MPC does not recognize a felony murder doctrine. However, deaths that occur during the commission of certain felonies are presumed to have been commited recklessly and with extreme indifference to the value of human life. The included crimes are burglary, arson, rape, robbery and felonious escape. Here, recklessness and indifference will be presumed because the death occurred during the commission of [crime].
MPC Manslaugther - MR - defined
Manslaughter is a homicide committed
a) recklessly and without circumstances manifesting extreme indifference to the value of human life, or
b) under the influence of extreme mental or emotional distrubrance.
MPC Manslaugther - MR - recklessness
D acted recklessly if he consciously disregarded a substantial and unjustifiable risk that the circumstances exist or that the prohibited result would follow. Here, D acted recklessly because [facts] show he consciously disregarded a substantial and unjustifiable risk. It is common knowledge that [act] will cause death.
MPC Manslaugther - MR - EMED
D must have acted due to extreme mental or emotional distriburbance with a reasonable excuse.
MPC Negligent Homicide - MR
MPC recognizes another category of homicide - negligent homicide. This is a homicide commited negligently, where D failed to perceive a substantial and unjustified risk, and the failure was a gross deviation from the standard of care that a reasonable person would observe in the same situation.
MPC Negligent Homicide - MR
Here, D acted negligently because [facts].
CL Theft -Issue
The issue is whether D can be found guilty of any theft crimes due to [facts].
CL Theft - Larceny - Defined
Larceny is the trespassory taking and caring away of the personal property of another with intent to permanently deprive. Larceny is a specific intent crime.
CL Theft - Larceny - Actus Reus
The actus reus of larceny is the trespassory taking and carrying away of the person property of another.
CL Theft -Larceny AR - trespassory taking
Trespassory taking means that D did not have any right to possession or use of the property.
CL Theft - Larceny AR - carrying away
Carrying away means that there must be movement away from the act of caption, no matter how slight, to assert control over the possession of the owner.
CL Theft - Larceny AR - personal property
Personal property is anything that can be moved. At old common law, pets and services were not personal property, but in modern common law, pets, services and anything representing intangible rights, and utilities are considered personal property.
CL Theft - Larceny AR - from possession of another
At old common law, it was not larceny to take property that D jointly owned with a co-owner. At modern commn law, D cannot infringe co-owner’s rights, despite D’s ownership interest.
CL Theft -Larceny AR - conclusions
Here, the taking was trespassory because [facts]. There was a carrying away, or asporation because [facts]. [Object] was personal property because [facts]. Thus, the actus reus element is satisifed.
CL Theft - Larceny - Mens Rea
The mens rea of larceny is intent. First, D must have general intent to do the actus reus. Second, he must have specific intent to permanently deprive the owner of the property.
CL Theft -Larceny -Mens Rea - GI
Here, D had intent for the taking and carrying away of the personal property of another because [facts].
CL Theft -Larceny - Mens Rea -SI
Second, D had specific intent to permanently deprive the rightful owner because [facts].
CL Theft -Larceny - Mens Rea - SI - temporary use
Intent to use the property temporarily, return the property, pay for the property later is not intent to permanently deprive the rightful owner.
CL Theft -Larceny - Mens Rea - Mistake
D will argue that his mistake of [fact][law] that [mistake] negates the mens rea. Here, the jury will likely find his mistake negated the mens rea because [reason].
CL Theft - Larceny - Concurrence
The actus reus and mens rea must concur. Here, D had intent to permanently deprive victim committed the trespassory taking and carrying away because [facts].
CL Theft - Larceny - Concurrence - doctrine of continuing trespass
Here, D did not have intent to permanently deprive the victim when he committed the taking and carrying away. However, under the doctrine of continuing trespass, the trespassory nature of the taking continues as long as D has the property and continues until D terminates possession of the property. Thus, when D decided to permanently keep [object], the actus reus and the mens rea were in concurrence.
CL Theft - Larceny by trick definition
Larceny by trick is when D:
1) fraudulently induces the victim
2) to deliver possession
3) of the personal property of another to D,
3) with intent to unlawfully convert the property, and
4) D actually converted the property.
CL Theft - Larceny by trick Actus Reus
The actus reus of larceny by trick is the fraudulent inducement of the delivery of possession of personal property of another, and the actual conversion of the property to his own possession.
CL Theft - Larceny by Trick - AR - fraudulent
D commits fraudulent inducement when he misrepresents a material past or current fact
CL Theft - Larceny by Trick - AR -to obtain possession
D’s fraudulent inducement is that the victim thinks he is handing over custody of the property, not possession.
At the time of the taking, D has custody and V retains constructive possession.
V must rely on the misrepresentation. Here,
D fraudulently induced V when he did [facts]. D relied on the misrepresentation because facts].
CL Theft - Larceny by Trick - AR - personal property
Same as larceny
CL Theft - Larceny by Trick - AR - of another
Same as larceny
CL Theft - Larceny by Trick - MR - conversion
D converts property if he commits an act that seriously interferes with the owner’s right to use the property. Here, D converted the property when he did [facts].
CL Theft - Larceny by Trick - MR - defined
The mens rea of larceny is intent. First, D must have general intent with regards to the actus reus. Second, he must have specific intent to convert the property to his own possession.
CL Theft - Larceny by Trick - MR - conclusion
Here, D had intent to misrepresent a material fact to induce V to deliver possession because [facts]. D also had specific intent to convert the property to his own possession because [facts].
Cl Theft - Embezzlement - Defined
Embezzlement is the:
1) fraudulent conversion,
2) of the property of another
3) by someone who is already in possession of the property.
CL Theft - Embezzlement - Actus Reus
The actus reus of embezzlement is fraudulent conversion of the property of another.
CL Theft - Embezzlement - AR - fraudulent
D’s act is fraudulent when it is characterized by deceit and not within the rights given to him by the owner when he was given possession.
CL Theft - Embezzlement - AR - conversion
D converts the property when he commits an act that seriously intereferes with the owner’s rights to use the property.
CL Theft - Embezzlement - AR - personal property of another
The definition of property here is broader than larceny. It includes stocks, bonds and in some instances real property.
CL Theft - Embezzlement - AR - of another
Property does not belong to D
CL Theft - Embezzlement - Mens Rea defined
Fraudulent means intent to deceive thus the mens rea of embezzlement is intent to convert victim’s property through use of deceit.
CL Theft - Embezzlement - MR - intent to return
Intent to return the exact same property negates the specific intent of fraudulent.
CL Theft - Embezzlement - MR - claim of right
D’s good faith belief that he has a right to the property negates the specific intent of fraudulent. This includes if D believes he has a “claim of right”, or beause V owes him money.
CL Theft - False Pretenses - Defined
False pretenses is the:
1) knowing or reckless false representation;
2) of a past or present material fact;
3) with the intent to defraud the victim,
4) which causes V to pass title of the property to D.
CL Theft - False Pretenses - Actus Reus defined
The actus reus of false pretenses is the false representation of a material fact
CL Theft - False Pretenses - AR - material fact
The material fact must be a past or present material fact. Here, D made a false misrepresentation of of a [past][present] material fact when he did [facts].
CL Theft - False Pretenses - Mens Rea defined
First, D must knowingly or recklessly make a false representation. Second, he must have specific intent to defraud V, which causes him to pass title of the property.
CL Theft - False Pretenses - Mens Rea Knowingly/Recklessly
D knowingly made a false representation if he knew or was aware his representation was false. D recklessly made false representation if he conscisouly disregard a substantial and unjustifiable risk that his representation was false. Here, D acted [knowingly][recklessly] because [facts].
CL Theft - False Pretenses - Mens Rea Intent to defraud
D intended to defraud V if he acted with the purpose of doing so. Here, D intended to defraud V because [facts].
CL Theft - False Pretenses - AR - attendant circumstances
The attendent circumstances if this crime require that V rely on the misreprestation in order to pass title to D. Here, V relied on the misrepresentation because [facts] which resulted in passing title to D because [facts].
CL Theft - Robbery - defined
Robbery is aggravated larceny.
The same elements as larceny apply plus:
a) property must be taken from the owner’s presence and
b) D must use force or intimidation.
CL Theft - Robbery - Actus reus
Trespassory taking and carrying of property of another by use of force or intimidation.
CL Theft - Robbery - Mens Rea
Same as larceny
CL Theft - Robbery -
owner’s presence
Property is taken from the owner’s presence when it is relative close to the victim, including when in another room or the same house V is in. Here, D took the property from V’s presence because [facts].
CL Theft - Robbery - force
D uses force when he uses physical action to overcome victim’s resistance. Here, D used force to overcome V’s resistance because [facts].
CL Theft - Robbery -intimidation
D uses intimidation when he causes V to apprehend imminent bodily injury or death. Here, D used intimidation to overcome V’s resistance when he did [facts].
Cl Theft - Burglary - Defined
Burglary at common law was the breaking and entering of the dwelling of another at night with intent to commit a felony therein. Most jurisdictions have modified these elements.
CL Theft - Burglary - Actus Reus
The actus reus is the breaking and entering of a dwelling at night.
CL Theft - Burglary - AR - breaking
Breaking occurs when D creates an opening without consent of the occupant.
CL Theft - Burglary -AR - entering
Entry occurs if D puts any part of body or an object in the structure, even if only for a moment.
CL Theft - Burglary - AR - dwelling
Does not have to be a dwelling any longer. Nearly all states require it to be a building or a vehicle.
CL Theft - Burglary - AR - at night
No states maintain this requirement.
CL Theft - Burglary - AR - conclusion
Here, D committed a breaking when he did [facts]. He entered when he did [facts]. The dwelling requirement was met because it was a [facts]. Thus the actus reus requirement is satisfied.
CL Theft - Burglary - Mens Rea defined
The mens rea of burglary is intent. First, there is general intent to commit the breaking and entering. Second, there must be specific intent to commit a felony therein.
CL Theft - Burglary - Mens Rea - conclusion
Here, D intended to commit a breaking and entering because [facts]. He also had specific intent to commit a felony within because he intended to do [facts]. Thus, the mens rea requirement of burglary is satisfied.
CL Theft - Mistake of fact
D’s good faith mistake of fact may negate the mens rea of any theft crime. For the general intent, the mistake must be reasonable. For specific intent, the mistake does not have to be reasonable. Here, D’s mistake of [fact][law] will negate the mens rea of [crime] because [reason]. The mistake was reasonable because [facts].
Defenses - CL and MPC Self-Defense - Elements
D will argue that his actions were justified due to self-defense.
A successful self-defense defense requires:
1) D was not the initial aggressor unless an exception applies,
2) D was faced with a threat of imminent, unlawful force,
3) D’s belief about the imminency was objectively reasonable,
4) D’s use of force was proportional, and
5) D retreated if he had a duty to retreat.
Defenses - CL and MPC Self-Defense - Initial aggressor
Here, D was not the initial aggressor because [facts].
Defenses - CL and MPC Self-Defense -Initial aggressor exception - withdrawal
Here, D was the initial aggressor, but he then withdrew when he did [facts]. These actions provided reasonable notice to the other party, so the initial aggressor element is satisifed.
Defenses - CL and MPC Self-Defense- Initial aggressor exception - escalated force
Here, D was the initial aggressor because he did [facts] which was non-deadly force. However, the other party escalated to deadly force, which intitled D to use deadly force in response. Those the initial aggressor element is satisfied.
Defenses - CL Self-Defense - threat of imminent unlawful force
Here, D faced a threat of imminent unlawful force because [facts].
Defenses - MPC Self Defense threat of imminent unlawful force
MPC applies a liberal definition of imminent. D can use force against unlawful force that will be used on the present occasion. This includes using force to prevent aggressor from summoning reinforcements.
Defenses - MPC and CL Self-Defense - threat not imminent
Here, the threat D faced was not imminent, or about to occur without delay because [facts].
Defenses - MPC and CL Self-Defense - reasonable belief
D’s belief about the imminency of the threat was reasonable because [facts]
Defenses - MPC and CL Self-Defense - proportional force
D’s use of force was proportional because [facts].
Defenses - MPC and CL Self-Defense -deadly force
Deadly force can only be used against deadly force. Deadly force is force that is intended to cause death or serious bodily harm. Here D was privileged to use deadly force because [facts]
Defenses - CL Self-Defense - duty to retreat
D did not have a duty to retreat because [he was in his own home][state has stand your ground law][he used nondeadly force].
Defenses - MPC Self-Defense - duty to retreat
D did not have a duty to retreat because he could not avoid the necessity of using force by retreating with complete safety.
Defenses - CL and MPC - Self-Defense - conclusion
Thus, D’s self-defense argument will be successful unless P disproves any of the elements beyond a reasonable doubt.
Defenses - MPC and CL Self-Defense - reasonable mistake
D may still be found not guilty if he had a reasonable mistake about the unlawful status of the force being used against him
Defenses MPC and CL Self-Defense - unreasonable mistake
Because D’s mistake was unresonable, the self-defense defense will fail in most jurisdictions. However some jurisdictions allow “imperfect self-defense” to mitigate murder to voluntary manslaugther.
Defenses CL Defense of Others Elements
D will argue his actions were justified because he was defending [other].
This defense requires that:
1) D reasonably believed [other] was in imminent danger of serious bodily injury,
2) the degree of force D used is not greater than which seemed reasonably necessary to prevent the harm,
3) D reasonably beleived the person assisted would have the right to use the force D used in her defense.
Defense Cl Defense of Others - belief of imminent harm
D reasonably believed [other] was in imminent danger of serious bodily injury because [facts].
Defense CL Defense of Others - degree of force
The degree of force D used was not greater than that which seemed reasonably necessary because [facts]
Defense CL Defense of Others - others right to use force
D reasonably believed [other] would have the right to use [force] in his own defense because [reasons].
Defenses - CL Defense of others- reasonable mistake
D may still be found not guilty if he had a reasonable mistake about the unlawful status of the force being used against him
Defenses CL Defense of others- unreasonable mistake
Because D’s mistake was unresonable, the self-defense defense will fail in most jurisdictions. However some jurisdictions allow “imperfect self-defense” to mitigate murder to voluntary manslaugther.
Defense - CL Defense of Habitation Elements
D will argue his use of deadly force against V was justified because he was defending his habitat
Defense - CL Defense of Habitiation Early CL
At early CL, deadly force was justified if D reasonably believed it was necessary to prevent an imminent and unlawful entry into their dwelling.
Defense CL Defense of Habitation Modern CL
Modern common law allows D to use deadly force to protect his habiitation if he believed the intruder:
1) intended to injure occupants,
2) intended to commit a felony therein or
3) intended to commit a forcible felony therein.
Defense CL Defense of Habitation conclusion
Here, D believed the intruder intended to injure the occupants because [facts]. D believed the intruder intended to commit a felony therein because [facts]. Thus this defense will likely succeed unless P can disprove D’s believes beyond a reasonable doubt.
Defense CL Defense of Property - Elements
D will argue his use of force was justified because he was defending his property using non-deadly force to:
a) prevent imminent dispossession or destruction of property in his rightful possession, or
b) attempting to retain possession of his proeprty immediately after dispossession (e.g., he was in hot pursuit).
And
c) D requested the perpetrator to desist unless it would be pointless.
Defenses CL Defense of Property - conclusion
Here, D was jusitified to use non-deadly force because [reason]. He used non-deadly force because he used [type] which was not intended to cause death or serious bodily injury. Thus, this defense will succeed unless P disproves the elements beyond a reasonable doubt.
Defenses MPC and CL Necessity Defined
D will argue his unlawful act was jusitifed because it was necessary to avoid a greater harm.
Defenses CL Necessity Elements
For the necessity defense to succeed:
1) there must have been a threat from a natural force,
2) the threat was imminent
3) to D’s person or property,
4) there was no reasonable alternative,
5) D acted to prevent equal or more serious harm, and
6) D did not create the conditions or dilemma.
Defenses CL Necessity natural force
Here, the threat was from a natural force because [facts].
Defenses CL Necessity imminent
The threat was to D’s person or property because [facts]. The threat was imminent because [facts].
Defenses CL Necessity no reasonable alternative
D did not have a reasonable lawful alternative because [facts].
Defenses CL Necessity equal or more serious harm
D acted to prevent equal or more serious harm because [facts].
Defenses CL Necessity clean hands
D did not create the conditions or dilemma because [facts].
Defenses MPC Necessity Elements
For the necessity defense to succeed there must be:
1) a threat from a natural or human force,
2) the threat must be to D’s person or property or to others,
3) there was no reasonable alternative, and
4) there was no legislative intent to prohibit D’s conduct under the circumstances.
Defenses MPC Necessity - threat
Here, D was faced with a threat from [force] because [facts].
Defenses MPC Necessity - to whom
The threat was to [whom].
Defenses MPC Necessity - no reasonable alternative
D had no reasoanble, lawful alternative because [facts].
Defenses MPC Necessity - legislative intent
There is no facts indicating legislative intent to prohibit D’s conduct.
Defenses MPC Necessity - d brought on by negligence or recklessnes
Necessity defense is not prohibit if D brought on the situation by his negligence or recklessness and his conduct constitutes an offense based on negligence or recklessness. Here, D’s [n or r] caused the necessity. The resulting unlawful act requires n or r, thus the defense is not available.
Defenses MPC and CL Necessity - not a defense
Necessity is never a defense to murder, civil disobedience or economic need.
Defenses MPC and CL Duress - defined
D will argue this his conduct should be excused because he acted under duress.
This defense requires that:
1) D had a well-founded fear,
2) generated by an imminent threat from a human being,
3) of death or SBI,
4) the threat was to D himself or sometimes a near relative (MPC - D or someone else),
5 ) D had no reasonable escape but for compliance with the demands, and
6) D did not expose himself to the threat. (MPC - same as necessity)
Defenses MPC and CL Duress - well-founded fear
D had well-founded fear of imminent SBI because [facts].
Defenses MPC and CL Duress - to whom
The threat was to [D himself, near relative , others -MPC].
Defenses MPC and CL Duress - d did not expose
D did not expose himself to the threat because [facts].
Defenses MPC and CL Duress - expose MPC
Defense unavaillable because D neglgently or recklessly placed himself in the situation in which it was probable he would be subjected to distress and negligence/recklessness is the mens rea for the defense.
Defenses MPC and CL Duress - murder
At CL, duress is not a defense for murder. However, it may be under MPC.
Defenses MPC and CL - insanity
D will likelyu argue that his conduct should be excused because he was insane a the time the crime was committed.
Defenses CL Insanity -M’Naghten Rule
Under the M’Naghten Rule, D’s conduct may be excused if, at the time of the act:
1) D suffered from a several mental disease or defect, and
2) as a result, D was unable to know either
a) the nature or quality of his act, or
b) that what he was doing was wrong.
Defenses CL Insanity -M’Naghten Rule - nature/quality
D was unaware of the nature or quality of his act if he was unaware what he was doing when the offense was committed.
Here, D was unaware of what he was doing because [facts].
Defenses CL Insanity - M’Naghten Rule - right v wrong
D did not know what he was doing was wrong if he was incapable of understanding what he was doing was wrong.
Some states require that D be incapable of knowing his acts were criminal, others require only that he was inacpable of knowing they were immoral.
Here, D did not know what he was doing was wrong because [facts]
Defenses CL Insanity - M’Naghten Rule - delusions
However, if D suffered from delusions and he would have been committing a crime if the facts had been as he believed them to be, insanity is not a defense. Here, D believed [facts]. [Action] would have been criminal because [facts]. Thus, insanity is not a defense to D’s acts.
Defenses CL Insanity Irresistable Impulse Test
Under the irresistable impulse test, D’s conduct may be excused if:
1) As a result of severe mental defect or disease,
2) D is unable to control the impulse to commit an unlawful act.
This test may be combined with the M’Naghten rule in some jurisidictions.
Defenses CL Insanity Durham Rule
Under the Durham Rule, D’s acts will be excused if:
1) D had a mental disease or defect, and
2) his criminal conduct was caused by the disease or defect.
Defenses MPC Insanity - defined
Under the MPC D’s acts will be excused if:
1) D had a mental disease or defect;
2) which resulted in D lacking substantial capacity to either:
a) appreciate the criminal wrongfulness of his conduct, or
b) conform his conduct to the requirements of the law.
Defenses MPC Insanity - not a mental disease
The MPC excludes psycohpathic and sociopathic personality disorders.
Defenses Voluntary Intoxication - GI crime
D will argue his actions should be excused because he was intoxicated. However, voluntary intoxication is not a defense to a GI crime because the intoxication does not make his act less criminal. Here, [crime] is a general intent crime and D’s intoxicaton was voluntary because [facts].
Defenses Voluntary Intoxication - SI crime
D will argue his actions should be excused because he was intoxicated. Voluntary intoxication is a defense to a specific intent crime if the intoxication negates the mens rea of the crime. Here, [crime] is a specific intent crime. D’s intoxication was voluntary because [facts]. The intoxication negated the specific intent because [facts].
Defenses Voluntary Intoxicaton - SI d used for courage?
However, voluntary intoxication is not a defense if D became intoxicated to build up courage to commit the crime.
Defenses Involuntary Intoxication - defined
D will argue his actions should be excused because he was involuntarily intoxicated.
This is a defense if D took an intoxicating substance
1) without knowledge of its nature,
2) under direct duress imposed by another, or
3) pursuant to medical advice while being unaware ofthe intoxicating effect.
Here, D was involuntarily intoxicated because [facts].
Defenses - Prolonged Intoxication
D will argue that his actions shoud be excused because his prolonged intoxication created a mental illness or defect. Here, D’s prolonged intoxication due to [drug, alcohol] created a mental illness or defect because [facts]. D’s conduct will be excused if he satisfies the jurisdictions test for insanity.
Defenses - Involuntary Intoxicaton MPC
Intoxication that is
1) not self-induced or
2) pathological
is a defense if by reason of such intoxication the actor at the time of his conduct lacks substantial capacity to appreciate the criminality or to conform his conduct to the requirements of law.
Inchoate Crimes Attempt Defined
If D failed to complete a crime he can still be charged with attempt to commit the crime. Here, D may be liable for attempted [crime].
Inchoate Crimes Attempt Actus Reus
The actus reus of attempt is an overt act done in furtherance of the crime that goes beyond mere preparation. The act requirement varies by jurisdiction.
Inchoate Crimes Attempt Actus Reus - Last Act
Under the Last Act test, actus reus is only satisfied if D performed all of the acts he believed necessary to committing the target offense.
Here, D did not perform all of the acts necessary to commit [crime] because [facts].
Inchoate Crimes Attempt Actus Reus - Physical proximity
Under the Physical Proximity test, the actus reus is satisfied if D came close in time or distance to completing the target crime.
Here, D did not come close enough in time or distance because [facts].
Inchoate Crimes Attempt Actus Reus - Dangerous proximity test
Under the Dangerous Proximity test, the actus reus is satisifed if D achieved dangerous proximity to success.
This test considers time, and distance, nearness to danger and completion of the crime, as well as the gravity of the crime and probability of completion.
Here, the actus reus was satisfied because [facts].
Inchoate Crimes Attempt Actus Reus - Indispensible Element
Under the Indispensible Element test, actus reus is satisfied if D has all the elements needed to complete the crime. Here, D had all the elements needed to complete the crime because [facts].
Inchoate Crimes Attempt Actus Reus - Unequivocality Test
Under the Unequvocality Test, actus reus is satisfied if reasonable people observing D’s conduct would necessarily include that he was trying to commit a crime.
Here, reasonable people observing D do [facts] would likely conclude [conclude] because [reasons].
Inchoate Crimes Attempt Actus Reus - Probable Desistance
Under the Probable Desistance test, actus reus is satisifed if D reached a point where he would be unlikely to voluntary desist from his effort to commit the crime. Here, D reached a point where he would be unlikely to voluntarily desist because [facts].
Inchoate Crimes Attempt Actus Reus MPC
Under the MPC’s substantial step test, actus reus is satisfied if D took substantial step that strongly corroborated their criminal purposes.
Substantial steps include
lying in wait,
reconnaissance,
unlawful entry,
possessing of materials to be used in the crime,
enticing of victims,
soliciting an innocent agent to enage in conduct constituting an element of the crime.
Here, D took substantial steps when he did [facts].
Inchoate Crimes Attempt Mens Rea - CL
The mens rea of attempt is intent to do the acts that constitute the actus reus of an attempt, and intent to commit the target crime under the circumstances required by the crime attempted.
Inchoate Crimes Attempt Mens Rea - CL inferred intent
Intent may be inferred where D has acted in a manner where he must have had at least awareness of the likely consequences of his conduct.
Inchohate Crimes Attempt Mens Rea conduct vs result
Because [target crime] is a conduct crime, D only needed to intend the conduct, not the result.
Inchoate Crimes Attempt Mens Rea - Conclusion
Here, D intended to commit [actus reus acts] because [facts]. He intended to commit the target crime because [facts].
Inchoate Crimes Attempt Defenses - Abandonment CL
D will argue he is not guilty of attempt because he abandoned his desire to commit the crime. However, at CL this was not a defense. Once D crossed the line dividing preparation from implementation (the actus reus) he had committed an attempt.
Inchoate Crimes Attempt Defenses -Abandonment modern
Some states allow D to prove that although he actually committed an attempt, he subsequently abandoned his criminal purpose. He must have changed his mind through genuine remorse and not because of arrest or difficulty of success in completion. He must prove this by the preponderance of the evidence. Here, D may be successful in an abandonment defense because [facts].
Inchoate Crimes Attempt Defenses - Abandonment MPC
The MPC allows a defense of renunication if D voluntarily and completedly abandoned his criminal purpose. Here, D voluntarily and completely abandoned his criminal purpose because [facts].
Inchoate Crimes Attempt Defenses - Pure legal impossibility
D will argue that he did not commit attempted [crime] because although he thought he was committing a crime, he in fact was not. Pure legal impossibility is a defense at common law. Here, D believed he was committing a crime because [facts] but it was not a crime because [facts]. Thus, he will likely not be convicted of attempt.
Inchoate Crimes Attempt Hybrid factual impossibility
D will argue that he did not commit an attempt because although his intended act was illegal, he was mistaken about the legal status of some factor relevant to the offense. This was a defense at common law but most states have abolished it.
Inchoate Crimes Attempt - merger
D cannot be convicted of attempt to commit the target crime and the target crime.
Inchoate Crimes Attempt Defenses Factual impossibility
D will argue that he did not commit an attempt because he was mistaken about a fact that made it impossible for him to commit his target offense. However, this is not a defense to attempt. He can be convicted of attempt even if it was factually impossible to do so. Here, D was mistaken about [fact] which made it factually impossible to complete the target offense. However, he can still be convicted of attempt.
Inchoate Crimes Conspiracy Defined
Conspiracy is
1) an agreement,
2) between two or more people to
3) commit a crime,
and in some jurisdictions
4) at least one overt act in furtherance of that agreement).
Inchoate Crimes Conspiracy Actus Reus
The actus reus of conspiracy is an agreement between two or more people to commit a crime, and in some jurisdictions an overt act in furtherance of the crime.
Inchoate Crimes Conspiracy Actus Reus -manner of agreement
The agreement can be explicit, manifested by express words, or implicit, inferred from conduct.
Inchoate Crimes Conspiracy Actus Reus -unfamiliar parties
Multiple parties can agree to a conspiracy even if they never met and do not know the other’s identities.
Inchoate Crimes Conspiracy Actus Reus -agreement - uni vs. bi-lateral
At common law, the agreement had to be bi-lateral meaning two more more people had to agree genuinely and sincerely to commit the target crime.
Some modern jurisdictions and MPC recognize unilateral agreements, where a person can be liable for conspiracy if that person agrees with someone who isonly feigning agreement.
Here, the agreement was uni-lateral/bi-lateral because [facts].
Inchoate Crimes Conspiracy Actus Reus -acquittal of co-conspirators
In most jurisdictions, D cannot be convicted of conspiracy if all co-conspirators have been acquitted.
MPC and a minority of states reject this rule.
Here, D cannot be convicted of conspiracy because [facts].
Inchoate Crimes Conspiracy Actus Reus -agreement between spouses
At CL, a husband and wife could not be co-conspirators. This rule is no longer followed in most jurisdictions. Here, D and W can be co-conspirators.
Inchoate Crimes Conspiracy Actus Reus -agreement w/corporations
A corporation can be a party to a conspiracy, but a corporation cannot conspire with an agent of the corporation.
Inchoate Crimes Conspiracy Actus Reus- overt-act
At CL, conspiracy is complete once parties reach an agreement. But MPC and most states require that at least one party to the conspiracy commit an overt act in furtherance of the conspiracy. Here, the overt act requirement is satisfied because [facts].
Inchoate Crimes Conspiracy Mens Rea defined
The mens rea of conspiracy is general intent to form the agreement and the specific intent to achieve the unlawful object of the conspiracy.
Inchoate Crimes Conspiracy Mens Rea - scope
At CL, the unlawful object could include certain non-criminal matters.
Modern CL generally requires that the goal be either commission of a crime or the achieement of some lawful goal by criminal means.
Here, intent to achieve the unlawful object is satisfied because [facts].
Inchoate Crimes Conspiracy Mens Rea - Wharton’s Rule
Wharton’s Rule bars conviction for conspiracy to commit a crime if the crime can only be committed by two or more culpbable participants. Here, D cannot be convicted of conspiracy to commit [crime] because it requires two or more culpable participants.
Inchoate Crimes Conspiracy Mens Rea - shared intent
To be liable as co-conspirators, all parties must share the intent to achive the same unlawful objective. Here, D cannot be a co-conspirator with [others] because [facts].
Inchoate Crimes Conspiracy -Mens Rea supplying goods or services
A person who provides goods or services to a conspiracy is not liable for conspiracy based solely on the supplier’s knowledge that the goods or services will be used to advance an unlawful goal.
There must be some further intent to promote or facilitate the conspiracy.
Intent may be inferred if seller provides highly specialized goods or makes an unusually large profit from the sale.
Inchoate Crimes Conspiracy protected classes
D cannot be convicted of conspiring with a person who is in a class of people whom the underlying criminal statute was designed to protect.
Here, D cannot be convicted of conspiracy to commit [crime] with [person] because [facts].
Inchoate Crimes Conspiracy Defenses - Corrupt Motive Doctrine
D will argue he is not liable for conspiracy because he was unaware that the goal of the conspiracy was unlawful.
D did not know the goal of the conspiracy was unlawful because [facts].
However, this defense is not allowed in most courts.
Some courts allow, and provide that D is not liable unless he was aware that the goal of the conspiracy was illegal. It is generally limited to malum prohibitum crimes.
Inchoate Crimes Conspiracy Defenses - Impossibility
Pure legal impossibility is a defense to conspiracy, but factual impossibility is not.
Inchoate Crimes Conspiracy liability for crimes
D is liable for crimes of co-conspirators that are foreseeably committed in furtherance of the conspiracy even if D was not sufficiently involved in those crimes. Here, D is also liable for [crimes] because [facts].
Inchoate Crimes Solicitation Defined
Solicitation occurs if D:
1) invites, requests, commands, encourages or counsels,
2)another person,
3) to commit a felony or a misdemenor involving a breach of the peace,
4) with the specific intent that the person solicited carry out the crime.
Inchoate Crimes Soliciation liabilty
If elements are satisfied, D is liable for solicitaiton even if the person solicited does not carry out the crime or take any steps towards doing so. If one solicited does agree, D may also be liable for conspiracy. In addition, if the crime is committed, D will likely be liable for the target offense.
Inchoate Crimes Solicitation Actus Reus
The actus reus of soliciation is the inviation, request, command, encouragement or counsel of another person to commit a felony or misdemeanor. Here, D satisfied the actus reus when he did [facts].
Inchoate Crimes Solicitation Mens Rea defined
The mens rea of solicitation is
1) the general intent to request, invite, command, counsel or encourage another to commit a crime, and
2) the specific intent to have the solicited person carry out the crime.
Here, D had specific intent to have [person] carry out the target crime because [facts].
Inchoate Crimes Soliciation Defenses - abandonment/renuciation
Most jurisdictions do not recognize renunciation as a defense.
MPC recognizes if D persuades the solicited person not to commit the offense or otherwise prevents its commission under circumstances showing D completely and voluntarily abandoned the criminal purpose.
Here, D abandoned his criminal purpose because [facts].
Inchoate Crimes Soliciation Defenses - party not liable
If D could not be guilty of the target crime, a solicitation has not occurred.
