General Flashcards

Question

United States v. Jewell

Answer 1

(1976) Facts - 110 pounds of marijuana in secret compartment but D claimed to not know Issue - Does knowingly require positive knowledge? No A D who is willfully blind probably was put on notice and still knowingly

Answer 2

(2007) In failing to preserve the requirement that the willfully blind actor have a motive to avoid criminal punishment, removed an important protection for defendants

Answer 3

(2011) Willful blindness requires Subjective belief of high probability that a fact exists Deliberate actions to avoid learning of that fact

Answer 4

knowledge of the existence of a fact is established if “a person is aware of a high probability of its existence, unless he actually believes that it does not exist.

Answer 5

Awareness of the possibility that his behavior will cause a prohibited result Penalize for risk-taking behavior Conscious disregard of a substantial and unjustifiable risk that a RP would not do Reasonable person would not have done that

Answer 6

(SD 1990) Facts - Driving tractor turns and kills an oncoming driver Issue - Was D’s actions reckless or negligent? Negligent Rule - Reckless conduct must create a high degree of risk with awareness

Answer 7

(1944) Nightclub fire Court did not require actual foresight of the risk - reckless had to be intentional conduct

Answer 8

Taking of a substantial and unjustifiable risk, but completely unaware of it Reasonable person would have been aware Difference between recklessness is awareness

Answer 9

Conviction without a mens rea - Usually new, regulatory offenses - with minor penalties, - that have public welfare rationale Strict liability is harsh and controversial, since requires no awareness - usually minor pen. Ex: medical and environmental regulations, statutory rape, alc to minor, food tampering Strict liability motivates public to investigate and deters crime (check IDs at bar) Canada has absolute liability = US strict liability

Answer 10

(SCOTUS 1994) Facts - Illegal to possess machine gun, D claims he didn’t know it was a machinegun M16 Issue - Does this crime have a mens rea of strict liability or other? Not strict liability Rule - Federal felony statutes should not be interpreted to eliminate mens rea

Answer 11

Misdemeanor for violating Migratory Bird Treaty Act, even if D didn’t intend to break the law. They killed migrating birds and thus culpable. Strict Liability

Answer 12

malice aforethought Express malice - deliberate intention to bring about the victim’s death Implied malice - indifference to a particular result brought about by a level of carelessness or inattention so severe that it demonstrated defendant’s malice (death by avoidable accident)

Answer 13

relevant if it negates a required mens rea - Mistake of fact - “moral wrong” - mistake if not a defense if D thought he was committing a moral wrong (MPC is similar but has to be for a lesser offense) - Mistakes of law - ignorance of law is not an excuse MPC - recognizes that legal mistakes might be relevant if knowledge or awareness of the law is a material element of the offense

Answer 14

(CA 1979) Facts - D took wooden beams cause thought they were abandoned Issue - Is a mistake of fact a defense to a specific intent crime? Yes Rule - an honest mistake of fact is a defense to a specific intent crime

Answer 15

(NY 1938) D led to believe by detective that they had the authority to arrest (Lindbergh) Issue - Can this mistake of law be presented to the jury as a defense? Yes In NY, a D is permitted to prove the he believed he was acting with authority as a defense to a charge of kidnapping

Answer 16

(NY 1987) Federal corrections officer, had gun in club, but D thought he was a peace officer because it includes “correction officers” as peace officer Issue - Is there a good faith mistaken belief here? No Rule - Mistaken belief in law is not a defense. Has to be a mistaken belief upon an official statement of law that was later held invalid or valid interpretation of the law (own interpretation does not count)

Answer 17

“But-For” cause Proximate cause Intervening Act Concurrence

Answer 18

Determined by “but-for” causation test (if D refrained, result still occur?) Over-determination problem - result is over-determined because any of causes would produce harm - too much causation Ex: firing squad, but one guard does not shoot Substantial Factor Test Acceleration Theory

Answer 19

(2010) Facts - child-abused son, malnourished, killed with shovel, buried in mine Issue - each D blames the other, is there causation? Yes If actions are a substantial factor leading to same result then can charge

Answer 20

(DE 1987) Facts - child victim with 2 set of injuries, which kills Father’s or GF’s? Issue - Is there causation to support manslaughter if GF could’ve caused a fatal wound? Uncertain, no charge Rule - Prosecution must prove acceleration, and evidence did not show

Answer 21

(2015) | Encouraged boyfriend to commit suicide -> acceleration

Answer 22

(OH 2007) Facts - Drunk, encouraged toddlers to fight, punched a diabetic, who later died Issue - Was there proximate cause? Yes Rule - punch proximate caused the victim’s death because punch caused indifference

Answer 23

Were D’s actions a substantial factor in producing result

Answer 24

Did D’s actions accelerate or hasten result (shoot falling person)

Answer 25

Causal connection sufficiently close to hold D responsible for harm Intervening agents - break the chain of causation, agent act negligently then will not break chain Is D’s act the proximate cause?

Answer 26

Coincidental - then breaks chain unless foreseeable | Responsive - breaks chain only if abnormal and unforeseeable

Answer 27

Prison fight led to other prisoner stabbing a prison guard. D charged (no intervening)

Answer 28

People v. Rideout (2006) | Drunk driving -> car crash. Then victim goes back to move car and gets hit. No charge

Answer 29

An unlawful killing where the actor desired the death of the victim

Answer 30

Reckless killings that demonstrated a depraved indifference to human life

Answer 31

Killing performed purposely or knowingly

Answer 32

A murder planned in advance, perhaps with a careful or elaborate design Usually must be “pre” and that there’s evidence that D deliberated and formed intention to kill prior

Answer 33

(GA 2007) Facts - D hit and run, had legal documents in his car with victim’s name, acceleration Last second Issue - Is there malice here? Yes - acceleration showed intent Rule - D is guilty of malice murder if evidence established express or implied malice

Answer 34

(WV 1995) Facts - Victim was teasing D, hit D with towel, D took out knife and stabbed him. D suffers from psych problems, especially about nose Issue - Was there premeditation and deliberation here? No Rule - WV, intent can’t be made one second before, has to have premeditation. D needed time to consider and weigh decision. Should not be a first degree murder.

Answer 35

(PA 1963) Facts - D’s wife has mental disorder - possibly child abuses, they get into heated argument, where she and he shoots her dead Issue - Is there a set length of time necessary to form the intention to kill for first-degree? Rule - there is no set length of time necessary to form intention.

Answer 36

(NV) Fired from Lone Star Steakhouse - comes back with gun and stabs two victims 19 stabs in one and chasing of other Vic. was enough to support premeditation

Answer 37

Actus Reus exists Premeditation or deliberate might not occur - could be too drunk to deliberate Larger rule - allow voluntary intoxication to negate mens rea for specific intent crime only

Answer 38

CL - killing performed with provocation or sudden “heat of passion” - provocation requirements: Adequate provocation - must be committed in the heat of passion Killing in the head of passion - situations “calculated to inflame the passion of a reasonable man and tend to cause him to act for the moment” Performed suddenly before reasonable opportunity for passions to cool off Causal connection between provocation, passion, and killing

Answer 39

``` Extreme assault on the defendant Mutual combat Illegal arrest of the defendant Injury or serious abuse of close relative (or friend) Sudden discovery of spousal adultery ``` Some jurisdictions - “mere words” never constitute provocation and that D must witness the adultery or injury

Answer 40

(NJ 2005) Facts - Victim is a black guy who pushes D’s friends and knocks one out, D hears about it and rushes over. Mob forms and they chase this guy down, D throws brick onto his head killing him Issue - is there a heat of passion argument here? For just a friend? Yes but for a jury to decide Rule - there could be a heat of passion argument here, but that is for a jury to decide so sending case back.

Answer 41

(MD 1991) Facts - Heated argument, Wife jumped on his back and pulled his hair, and verbally assaulted him and his livelihood, D grabs knife and stabs her 19 times Issue - Is there a heat of passion argument? No Ruling - Does not fit into the traditional provisions for a heat of passion argument. He was 200 pounds, so no threat on life.

Answer 42

MPC - downgrades to manslaughter when “committed under the influence of mental or emotional disturbance for which there is reasonable explanation or excuse” Provocation is strict, EED allows for many more situations that can cause EED

Answer 43

(UT 2011) Facts - Divorce led to many stressors for D, finances, kids, etc. Tried to refi the house but needed husband, he said later, he talks on phone, she tries to run him over Issue - Is there an EED defense where there was a long cooldown? Yes Rule - EED defense does not have to be contemporaneous, allows for triggering event to be a bottling up of events and emotions

Answer 44

Actor who commits a killing with a sincere but unreasonable belief in imminent harm

Answer 45

EED is Mini insanity defense - not full fledged insanity defense

Answer 46

Protecting her son in trial against molester

Answer 47

MPC - disregarding risk “involves a gross deviation from the standard of conduct that a law-abiding person would observe in the actor’s situation” Gross deviation - RP would not do this Requires VERY high degree of risk Some jurisdictions - if demonstrate either implied malice or a depraved indifference to to life

Answer 48

Reasonable person standard - would RP find risk justified?

Answer 49

Reckless Murder Involuntary Manslaughter Implied malice and extreme indifference murder Misdemeanor Manslaughter Rule (Unlawful Act Doctrine)

Answer 50

(IL 1998) Facts - D out all night, comes home, goes in to poop, leaves infant strapped in car, four hours later, baby dead Issue - Were D’s actions a reckless disregard of substantial and unjustifiable risk? Yes Rule - RP would not leave an infant in a car for four hours in the summer. Actions were substantial and unjustifiable

Answer 51

(CA 2007) Facts - Ds owned two dogs that have aggressive history and tendencies. Vet letter said dangerous. Dogs end up killing a neighbor Issue - Are Ds actions a conscious disregard for human life? New trial w/ better instruct. Rule - D must have awareness of engaging in conduct that endangers the life of another.

Answer 52

(NY 2012) Facts - D suffocating her children to receive benefit checks from state, daughter dies Issue - Is there a showing of depraved indifference? Yes Ruling - Depraved indifference is the mother simply not caring about her daughter being harmed or not. Her actions were indeed depraved and thus reckless.

Answer 53

Allows a conviction for involuntary manslaughter if the D commits an underlying misdemeanor that results in death Mens rea is the mens rea required for the underlying misdemeanor Recklessness is presumed by statute - no need to prove recklessness w/r/t death Still needs causation

Answer 54

(RI 2005) Facts - Lit off pyrotechnics without permit inside venue and killed 100 people. Issue - Is a person guilty of misdemeanor manslaughter only if his underlying illegal conduct is a proximate cause of death? Yes Rule - guilty if the misdemeanor of pyrotechnics proximately caused a foreseeable death

Answer 55

Allows a court to convict a D who commits a felony that results in someone’s death Ex: armed robbery gone wrong and someone dies Doctrinal limitations Independent felony or merger limitation Triggering felony must also have a life of its own apart from the resulting death or killing Ex: Assault with deadly weapon and victim dies, cannot be F-M

Answer 56

(CA 2009) Facts - Gang member, sees rival car and shoots to scare, but kills a girl. No intent Issue - Does this act qualify for Felony Murder? No Rule - Shooting (in the abstract) is assaultive and cannot be merged with murder

Answer 57

MN allows assaultive merger - charges him with second degree murder

Answer 58

Triggering felony must be “inherently dangerous” to human life First approach - look at definition of crime in abstract Second - look to facts of the case and D’s behavior

Answer 59

(CA 2005) Facts - D pulled over, but flees and high speed chase. Police stop, he runs traffic light and runs into a car killing the passenger Issue - Is D’s act inherently dangerous so as to charge with F-M? No Rule - if a felony can be committed without creating a substantial risk of death to another, it is not inherent dangerous

Answer 60

(RI 1995) Facts - Multi-day drug binge, baby dies from starvation and dehydration Issue - Are facts of crime inherently dangerous so as to charge with F-M? Yes Under the facts, actions were inherently dangerous and thus F-M

Answer 61

Killing cannot be too remote from the triggering felony Killing must be performed “in furtherance of” or “in the perpetration of” the felony Ex: D escapes after rob bank and runs over a bystander

Answer 62

(NY 1993) Facts - drug deal, try to rob, undercover officer, shootout, police shoots police Issue - Is D guilty of F-M if a police shoots a police? Yes Rule - Using proximate cause, there is causal relationship because cop was responding to D’s crime, and it is foreseeable that a cop would respond and die

Answer 63

Special view of proximate cause because they were unarmed and knocked on door with no answer. Court bent rules.

Answer 64

it matters who performs the actual killing (cop killing don’t count)

Answer 65

(KS 2001) Facts - Burglary caught, cops find as they flee, co-felon hides in field, cop finds, he tries to shoot, and cop kills co-felon. Charge D with his death Issue - Is D guilty of his co-defendants death? No Rule - Under the agency theory, cop killing co-felon is intervening

Answer 66

Negligent homicide only requires negligence Was D aware of the risk? No awareness required D punishable for carelessness Requires a RP standard deviation Ordinary negligence (normal) - usually a substantial and unjustifiable risk Gross negligence - gross deviation from RP standard of care

Answer 67

(MI 1989) Facts - Sign on road, truck swerves then swerves back but into oncoming car Issue - Under ordinary negligence, did D commit a negligent act? No Rule - D was responding to an emergency and did what a RP would do.

Answer 68

(LA 2012) Facts - left her kids in apartment to go drink. Fire started and killed 6 yr daughter Issue - Was D act a gross negligence? Yes Rule - A RP would consider her actions a gross deviation from standard. Guilty

Answer 69

Malice Express malice - mens rea - intentional - purpose or knowingly Implied malice - reckless - not intentional No Malice Voluntary manslaughter - no malice but still intentional Involuntary manslaughter - reckless - not intentional Misdemeanor manslaughter

Answer 70

if defendant was blind that would affect the RP standard. RP might be tailored depending on characteristics Guy skis too fast and kills somebody, negligent if risky but no aware of it Don’t look at the profession?

Answer 71

Three major elements to a physical battery: - Must engage in an unlawful application of physical force - Must result in either a physical (bodily) injury or an offensive touching - Acting with purpose, knowledge, or recklessness (or sometimes negligence) * Acts can be direct or indirect - can be a more complex chain of events set in motion by the D

Answer 72

Mistake | Accident

Answer 73

Quarrel in the neighborhood, police summoned, attempted arrest, D spit in officer’s face Spit in cop’s face constitutes aggravated battery because it was provocative and by any means

Answer 74

No consent to remove arm, so this would be a battery

Answer 75

Two avenues that can lead to an assault conviction 1. Attempted battery - The act and mental state requirements remain the same as physical battery - with the only difference being the result requirement - No requirement of a physical injury, just mere attempt 2. placing the victim in a reasonable apprehension of bodily harm Mens Rea is the intent to cause the required apprehension in the victim - Perpetrator must be genuinely aware that his behavior is threatening victim - Must be reasonable apprehension

Answer 76

Attempted battery with baseball bat, but did not hit victim, had intent and rushed towards Initiating an assaultive action can be sufficient for an assault charge, since D came “reasonably close” to act.

Answer 77

Not guilty because agent was not aware and thus no fear of apprehension

Answer 78

Mom and brother are reasonably in fear. They called 911 and fled the house. Jury did not get to hear the argument of whether his mom and brother were reasonably in fear Being angry with a weapon, threatening family is enough to sustain an assault charge

Answer 79

Unlawful confinement of the victim or the restriction of the victim’s movement Basic requirements - Confining or carrying away the victim (most controversial element) - Forcibly or by threat or fear of deception - For a nefarious purpose Mens rea - usually requires intent or purpose

Answer 80

Uses following purposes - to hold for ransom or reward, or as a shield or hostage, or to facilitate commission of any felony or flight thereafter, or to inflict bodily injury or to terrorize the victim of another

Answer 81

- For SP - Home invasion and a rape, pushed her a few feet (not asportation), and the movement is part and inherent to the offense of rape. - HMM - woman sees home invader and runs out the door, but D grabs her and drags her away from the door. This is more movement, not part of a separate offense (trying to stop her from fleeing, so inherent to kidnapping), did enhance control over her. Sufficient asportation = kidnap - “A person commits the offense of kidnapping when such person abducts our steals away another person without lawful authority or warrant and holds such other person against his or her will.”

Answer 82

Extension of the crime of assault, stalking can be far in the future, mental/emotional - instead of physical

Answer 83

Killed by obsessed fan who stalked her for months. | Key element - creation of a feeling of fear or apprehension in the mind of victim (in the mind)

Answer 84

Name calling in the pool, began to stalk her outside of her home, with protest

Answer 85

Non-consensual sexual intercourse completed by force or threat of force (force is controversial) Aggravated when committed during another violent offense: assault with deadly weapon or armed rob Resistance - Some require physically resist and that D overpowers that resistance - Others allow verbal resistance to meet the requirement

Answer 86

Having affair, but ended it. Then raped her. Second time raped her while she was sleepy. Verbal resistance and being pinned down = resistance = rape

Answer 87

21 year old going through divorce. Meets guy who asks for ride home. Then verbally forces her into his apartment. Light choking. Verbal resistance but no physical. Rape. Where reasonable fear and resistance exists in statute, the victim must do something to resist the rape. Being psychologically scared is not sufficient

Answer 88

Threats of force need not be made in any particular manner in order to put a person in fear of bodily harm. Conduct may convey the threat. Being choked is sufficient as a threat of force.

Answer 89

Threat prevent the victim from resistsing due to a reasonable fear or apprehension regarding the victim’s safety. Reasonably fear to be decided by jury MPC - limited crime of rape to threats of “imminent death, serious bodily injury, extreme pain or kidnapping.” Separate offense of “gross sexual imposition” - any threat that would prevent resistance by a woman of ordinary resolution

Answer 90

Victim’s lack of consent to the sexual act is key to a rape conviction Communicative act vs. state of mind? State of mind opens possibility for D to argue mistake of fact re lack of consent (thought she did)

Answer 91

Meets a girl and attaches to her and goes into the woods and asks to have sex and shes says no. Then he forcefully has sex with her twice. D thought it was consensual sex. A mistake of fact as to consent cannot negate a mental state required for the commission of a rape.

Answer 92

Sodomy with 19 year old. D had been drinking and thought there was consent. Intoxication can be a defense to mens rea for a first degree sodomy. In third degree (no intent), about if RP would have understood victim’s words as consent or not

Answer 93

Fraud in the factum - lie about the nature of the act itself (Doctor raping during physical) Fraud in the inducement - D lies about something to convince the victim to have sex - Generally not punishable as rape in the US

Answer 94

D pretended to be a doctor and told victim she had contracted a deadly disease that could be cured by sex with an anonymous donor. Victim then had sex with P. Victim thought she would die if she did not consent to sex. If deception causes a misunderstanding as to the fact itself (fraud in the factum) there is no legally-recognized consent because what happened is not that for which consent was given

Answer 95

Impersonating spouse to have sex with victim = rape Impersonation constitutes fraud in the factum because victim consents to marital sex not adultery or rape.

Answer 96

Pretended to be jewish looking for love long time, convicted under fraudulent misrepresentations vitiated the consent of the victims

Answer 97

Victim is legally incapable of consenting to sex - common due to age, drugs, acl, mental defect, but also professional relationships like teachers therapists (complex power dynamics).

Answer 98

33 yr choir teacher, 18 yr student. Thought consent because 18. Statute restricts any school staff from sex with students Statutory rape is not found unconstitutional when the term “minor” is in conflict with the facts. Minor can mean 18 here.

Answer 99

Rutgers professor sex with man with cerebral palsy (can’t speak). Professor convicted. Henry Rayhons, old guy sex with wife with alzheimers, other kids say rape. No.

Answer 100

Mistake of fact - Survivor consented Duress, Necessity, and Insanity

Answer 101

Non-deadly force is permitted in response to a non-deadly threat Elements: - Reasonable belief of an imminent threat of death or serious bodily injury - Must be necessary and that his response was proportionate - Can use to defend others

Answer 102

Cannot be too far in advance Cannot be too late (otherwise revenge)

Answer 103

An affirmative unlawful act reasonably calculate to produce an affray foreboding injurious or fatal consequences is an aggression, which, unless pronounced, nullifies the right of homicidal self-defense.

Answer 104

Abusive, alcoholic, animal, prostitution, cigarette burn, sleep on floor. Married 25 years. 24 hours preceding: prostitutes her, beats her, he gets arrested drunk driving, her mother bails him out, he’s very angry and returns, she tries to commit suicide, he tries to interfere with paramedics. He goes to sleep, D takes baby to moms house finds gun next to some advil, and shoots him 3 times in the head while he sleeps. Charged with voluntary manslaughter (extreme assault). The right to kill in self-defense is based on the necessity, real or reasonably apparent, of killing an unlawful aggressor to save oneself from imminent death or great bodily harm at his hands. Threat here was not imminent.

Answer 105

rejects imminence - requires that the defensive force be “immediately necessary” at the time of its deployment - Must be necessary and that his response was proportionate - Can use to defend others

Answer 106

If D can avoid threat or use respond with lesser force without resorting to deadly force, then required to do so Opportunity to safely retreat, then must do that

Answer 107

Victim and friends tried to steal his windshield wipers. D comes out and yells at them. Goes back in and gets a gun. Gives warning. Victim calls bluff, grabs wrench and advances. D shoots to kill. Became aggressor when victim tried to leave, castle doctrine not avail to aggressor

Answer 108

No duty to retreat when inside home

Answer 109

D was in backyard of his home with two friends. An argument ensued and D went back into his house, got a rifle, and came outside. D claimed victim pulled out a dark object that he thought was a gun. He then shot his friend 11 times Michigan generally imposes a “duty to retreat” and “castle doctrine” does not apply to the area outside the dwelling.

Answer 110

no duty to retreat as long as in an area lawfully

Answer 111

Chased Trayvon down but FL has SYG laws so wasn’t even arrested

Answer 112

D must sincerely believe that he faces a threat of death or sever bodily injury or sex assault No requirement for an actual imminent threat, but the D’s belief must be reasonable

Answer 113

4 black boys on subway with D. Asked for $5, D pulls out gun and shoots at them. Went on run for 9 days, wished had more bullets Court uses a hybrid (highly contextualized objective person) to look at D’s actions. Still found guilty.

Answer 114

Olympic runner with a model girlfriend, heard noises in the middle of the night so shot his gun towards the bathroom but it was his girlfriend, Should the law grant partial excuses to defendants who make mistakes about the necessity of using defensive force?

Answer 115

Mistake of threat - Imperfect self-defense or putative self-defense, recognizes that mistaken self-defense are less blameworthy = voluntary manslaughter

Answer 116

Police are subject to constitutional and statutory requirements that prohibit their use of excessive force Police officers are subject to the regular criminal law prohibition against unlawful killing. In these cases, they can appeal to general justification of self-defense or defense of others

Answer 117

A police officer may use deadly force against a fleeing suspect when the officer reasonably believes that the suspect poses an immediate danger to another person - either the police themselves or the public at large Deadly force is not appropriate to stop a fleeing suspect that poses no immediate danger However, police officers are entitled to infer dangerousness in some circumstances

Answer 118

Federal civil rights legislation prohibits the police from willfully subjecting any person to “the deprivation of any rights, privileges, or immunities secured or protected by the Constitution or laws of the US.

Answer 119

Federal civil rights legislation prohibited the use of force that is objectively unreasonable when judged from the perspective of a reasonable officer on the scene

Answer 120

Escaped from prison and fled north to Canada, Matt was confronted by a federal agent and shot in the head when he refused to drop his shotgun Sweat was spotted by a state trooper and he fled to the forest, but the trooper shot him twice. He was unarmed

Answer 121

Brown and other robbed a shop. Wilson responded and pulled them over. Allegedly, Wilson hit Brown while he was trying to open the door. Brown then reached into police car and Wilson fired off two shots. Brown then tried to flee as Wilson fired upon him. As Wilson turned around and walked towards Wilson, Wilson fired the final shot to the head. Objectively unreasonable as a reasonable police officer AND mens rea of “willfully”. Cop free.

Answer 122

Cleveland police, collectively 137 shots at victims in car. Brelo went to the roof and shot. Brelo did not establish reasonable belief that he faced an imminent danger - still acquitted

Answer 123

Officers entered a house and Kenneth Walker was in his castle. No warrant. Right to fire? Breonna dies in bed. Cops can shoot if being shot at, but they broke in and BF thought they were breaking in.

Answer 124

Allows a defendant to procure a get-out-of-jail-free card because committing the crime was “necessary” Utilitarian - the defendant’s criminal act was justified because violating the law produced better results Essential aspects - Defendant’s violation of the law produces a lesser evil than had the defendant complied with the law. - The danger south to be avoided must represent a present, imminent, or immediate threat the exact language changes depending on the jurisdiction (language changes per jurisdiction) - Run through the elements test - D loses. - The defendant cannot be responsible for creating the very situation that produced the state of necessity - The defendant must have no alternative but to violate the law - There must be a causal relationship between the criminal act and the harm to be avoided - The defendant must not have continued the illegal conduct after the harm was averted - Most jurisdictions disallowed the defense if the crime in question represents a legislative choice to disallow a claim of necessity

Answer 125

Felon in possession, 3 shotgun shells in pocket ran from police, trying to protect brother from committing suicide to swiped bullets Run through the elements test - D loses.

Answer 126

“choice of evils” defense and requires that “the harm, or evil sought to be avoided by such conduct is greater than that sought to be prevented by the law defining the offense charged…” - Action was “necessary to avoid a harm or evil to himself or to another”

Answer 127

- In common law, necessity is generally unavailable in prosecutions for murder - MPC has no such restriction, though the MPC has not been successful in getting states to abandon the old common law rule - The one situation where necessity would still be a defense to murder is in the felony murder context. Since necessity would be a successful defense to the triggering felony, there would be no triggering felony from which the prosecution could build a coherent felony murder theory

Answer 128

Old timey naval case. Shipwrecked and starving. For days pondered if they should eat a boy who was more sickly and weak. Eventually 2 out of 3 sailors slit his throat and all three of them ate him. They were saved and now are being tried. Murder is never a necessity defense.

Answer 129

Defendants are arrested for trespassing or some other act of vandalism during the course of a protest against a governmental or private policy that they consider unjust or unwise The protestors argue that their actions were necessary to avoid the greater evil caused by the policy Necessity defense more readily allowed for direct disobedience than indirect disobedience Direct - sitting in in defiance of segregation laws Indirect - vandalizing gov. Property in protest of Vietnam

Answer 130

Argues necessary to protect the babies, but abortion is legal so not evil and on a Sunday when doctor was not at church, not working so no present danger.

Answer 131

Defense of duress traditionally differs from necessity in that the person who issues the threat is trying to coerce an otherwise innocent individual into committing a crime at his behest In order to satisfy the defense of duress, defendants must show that they committed the crime because - They or a third party faced an imminent threat from another individual with no opportunity for reasonable escape - The threat was sufficiently severe in nature - The crime committed was not murder - The defendant was not reckless or otherwise culpable in creating the circumstance that produces the duress

Answer 132

Colombian taxi driver. Cartel guy wants him to smuggle cocaine into the US. He says no, but Cartel guy threatens his wife and kids. He swallowed 129 balloons of cocaine and was caught in the US by X-Ray. There are three elements of the duress defense that D satisfies: 1. An immediate threat of death or serious bodily injury, 2. A well-grounded fear that the threat will be carried out, and 3. No reasonable opportunity to escape the threatened harm. Sometimes - a defendant must submit to proper authorities after attaining a position of safety. D wins.

Answer 133

Defendant must show that she committed the crime in order to avoid a threat to herself or another individual (gun point to head, rob store) D bears both the burden of production and the burden of persuasion, since its an affirmative defense MPC - D burden of production, but then prosecution has responsibility to disprove

Answer 134

Threat must be sufficiently severe Some jurisdictions specify that it should death or serious bodily injury

Answer 135

Requires that the threat involve an “unlawful force against his person or the person of another, which a person of reasonable firmness in his situation would have been unable to resist - Reasonable firmness test - a court must first ask whether a person in the defendant’s situation would have succumbed to the threat, which requires analyzing the threat from the subjective vantage point of the defendant - Court must then ask whether a person of reasonable firmness would have been unable to resist - a question of reasonableness that adds a clearly objective component to the analysis - This test is an objective-subjective hybrid because it asks was it objectively reasonable for a person in similar circumstances as the defendant to succumb to the threat?

Answer 136

Duress is usually unavailable as a defense to murder in the American system Law would rather you sacrifice yourself than commit a murder The one exception is felony-murder

Answer 137

Duress defense is not available if the defendant is reckless or otherwise culpable in creating the very situation that gave rise to the duress Rationale is that defendant should not be able to opportunistically create the conditions for their own defense MPC - the defense is unavailable if the actor “reckless placed himself in a situation in which it was probably that he would be subjected to duress

Answer 138

Tests - M’Naghten Test - The Irresistible Impulse or Volition Test - MPC’s “substantial capacity” test

Answer 139

D makes a formal plea of not guilty by reason of insanity The fact finder then decides whether the defendant’s insanity is sufficient to negate her culpability for committing the crime

Answer 140

To establish a defense on the ground of insanity it must be clearly proved that, at the time of committing the act, the party accused was laboring under such a defect or reason, from disease of the mind as not to know the nature and quality of the act he was doing, or if he did know it, that he did not know that what he was doing was wrong” Concentrates on the impairment of a defendant’s cognitive capacity Two prongs - either one to reach the standard 1. Defendant believes she is committing one action but is actually committing another - Squeeze neck but thought was squeezing lemon 2. The defendant correctly perceives the action but is unaware that it is wrongful - Psycho kills a man who he believes is about to assassinate the president

Answer 141

2 counts of murder. Kills grandfather from behind. Then goes to kill grandmother. Takes cell phone and gun and flees. A defendant’s history of mental illness does not automatically satisfy the elements of the M’Naghten test for insanity.

Answer 142

A defendant is legally insane if he meets the M’Naghten standard OR if he suffers from a volitional defect that prevents him from complying with the demands of the law (supplement to M standard not replace). Actor unable to control his behavior and comply with the law

Answer 143

Police officer who wife and daughter murdered. Becomes depressed. Wants struggle, drop bag of money, desires to get caught A defendant is not guilty of a crime if he experiences an irresistible impulse to commit a crime that is caused by a mental disease, even if he knows the conduct is wrong.

Answer 144

“A person is not responsible for criminal conduct if at the time of such conduct as a result of mental disease or defect he lacks the substantial capacity either to appreciate the criminality of his conduct or to conform his conduct the requirements of the law - First prong “appreciate” tracks the cognitive test - Second prong “conform” tracks the volitional test “Substantial capacity” broadens the test for insanity and removes the all-or-nothing nature of the above two tests.

Answer 145

Charged with crimes related to heroin possession and sale. Said he was a professional boxer and a lot of hits to the head. Also a heavy drug user and suffers from delusions, hallucinations, epileptic convulsions, amnesia Model Penal Code, which provides that a person is not responsible for criminal conduct if at the time of the conduct, due to a mental disease or defect, he lacks substantial capacity either to appreciate the wrongfulness of his conduct or to conform his conduct to the requirements of law.

Answer 146

Morally wrong vs. illegal - Legal wrong - criminality, somewhere there is a statute that says this is illegal - Moral wrong - did the defendant know that this is a morally wrong thing to do - MPC can choose either Jurisdictions that understand wrongfulness in moral terms, some use an object standard (society’s view) and some use subjective standard (personal code) MPC allowed for “criminality” or “wrongfulness”

Answer 147

Bar fight. Deported. Wife returns late. D kills wife b/c muscovite religion Under the M’Naghten test for insanity, a defendant must be unable to distinguish right from wrong in a legal sense. No deific decree b/c religion not talk from god

Answer 148

The diminished capacity doctrine allows a D who does not plead insanity to still introduce evidence of mental illness to negate the mens rea

Answer 149

Cop pulled over and D shot him. Charged with first-degree murder. Claims reason of insanity. Schizo said he did not know it was a police officer (charge was unlawful to kill someone who is a police officer). Delusion - aliens following him and impersonating government officials A state’s determination that expert testimony about a defendant’s mental incapacity due to a mental disease or defect is admissible only for its bearing on an insanity defense, and is barred on the element of mens rea, does not violate Due Process.

Answer 150

Told by god Courts actually let you use this as defense if believe talked to from God.

Answer 151

Has him explain involuntary celibacy. Forced into virginity

Answer 152

Voluntary intoxication involves a defendant who willingly imbibes an intoxicating substance such as liquor or drugs, whether illegal or prescription - limitations: - Never for negligence, DUI, in advance; reasonable self-defense and voluntary manslaughter Involuntary intoxication involves a defendant who is drugged without her knowledge Defendant can assert voluntary intoxication for specific intent crimes, but not general intent

Answer 153

100 bottle beer binge. Allegedly Blacked out at some point. Went over to friends house, shot her boyfriend with shotgun. Convicted of first degree, depraved mind murder. “Subjective knowledge” is the mens rea. Depraved Mind Murder does not neatly fit. Court chooses specific. CL allows voluntary intoxication as defense for specific intent.

Answer 154

History of DUIs. DUI and kills pedestrian. Move timeline to when reckless

Answer 155

Provides that intoxication is not a defense unless it “negatives an element of the offense.”

Answer 156

Some juris got rid of it. Montana sometimes never a defense.

Answer 157

Mushroom picking, drunk binge, car in ditch, 2 other shot dead. In Montana, alcohol is never a defense. SCOTUS respects.

Answer 158

When actor drugged against will, almost everyone will agree that the actor is not responsible for his behavior if the intoxication causes the defendant to lack the required mental state for the offense

Answer 159

Insulin guy, cake, tries to run over ex-wife. Counts as involuntary intoxication because insulin doesn’t reasonably expect to cause intoxication. Also insanity is separate defense and insanity = mental defect

Answer 160

Guy kills friends for water. Not involuntary intoxication because no consumption

Answer 161

An actor is excused if he “lacks substantial capacity either to appreciate its criminality [wrongfulness] or to conform his conduct to the requirements of law”

Answer 162

Complete attempt - If a criminal takes the last step he believes necessary to commit a crime but still fails in his effort, the law calls this a “complete attempt” - punishable Incomplete attempt - If he starts the crime but is caught by police - punishable Requirements for a punishable attempt - The D has the specific intent or purpose to bring about the crime and that - He takes sufficient steps towards committing the crime to satisfy the jurisdiction’s actus reus test

Answer 163

If the crime is impossible to complete The defendant abandoned the effort

Answer 164

Some jurisdictions refer to attempt as a “specific intent” crime - D must intend to engage in the conduct and also must minted to bring about the crime. This offsets the lower actus requirement - No attempted involuntary manslaughter

Answer 165

Spills gas on girlfriend and she ignites. Girlfriend tries to cover it up. A conviction of attempt murder requires a specific intent to kill. We need specific intent do the act and specific intent to bring about the murder.

Answer 166

Requires that the defendant “purposely engages in conduct that would constitute the crime” and when causing a result is an element of the crime, also acts with the purpose to bring about the result. However, the MPC purpose requirement only applies to the conduct As for the other mental elements, the D only needs to act “with the kind of culpability otherwise required for commission of the crime.”

Answer 167

Six tests (really 2, MPC vs. “how much is left before crime is committed”) 1. The slight-act test - allows liability if the design of a person to commit the crime is clearly shown and the actor commits even “slight acts” in furtherance of that design 2. The physical proximity test - where the defendant must be close in time and space to the final act that completes the crime 3. The dangerous proximity test is more conceptual and asks whether the defendant was dangerously close to consummating the offense - proximity here being a causal concept, not a geographic one 4. The unequivocality test - asks whether the defendant’s conduct unequivocally demonstrates the defendant’s intent to commit the crime - an actus reus requirement that loops back and refers to the mental element 5. The probable desistance test requires that the defendant’s conduct would result in the completed crime “in the ordinary and natural course of events” if the actor had not been interrupted by a third party (such as the police) 6. The MPC substantial step test - requires that the defendant engage in a “substantial step in a course of conduct planned to culminate in his commission of the crime.”

Answer 168

Planned to rob a payroll man and searched for him. Police caught them before they could locate him. Attempt to commit the crime of robbery. Not in dangerous proximity of completing crime, so not an attempt.

Answer 169

12 year old girls decided to kill their homeroom teacher. They other kids who tattle on them. Found the girls at teacher’s desk and left purse with poison in it. Attempted to commit second degree murder. An actor possesses materials to be used in a crime, at or near the scene of the crime, and those materials can’t be for something else, then this constitutes a substantial step.

Answer 170

Lying in wait, Enticing, Reconnoitering, Unlawful entry, Possession of materials specifically designed for unlawful use, Possession or collection or fabrication of lawful materials near the place of commission, Soliciting

Answer 171

Said plans were incomplete because needed a shotgun and second pressure cooker. Would have executed plan as soon as he got those two items Found not guilty - was not engaging in anything more than preparation Cannot invite speculation as to whether the acts would be carried out

Answer 172

Factual impossibility - “occurs when the objective of the defendant is proscribed by the criminal law but a circumstance unknown to the actor prevents him from bringing about that objective.” - Factual impossibility is usually not a defense because it simply involves a factual element that prevented the defendant from completing the crime - Ex: if pulls trigger but gun jams, still guilty of attempted murder even though it was factually impossible to kill victim

Answer 173

Legal impossibility is more complicated, because it is sometimes considered a defense and sometimes not - Pure legal impossibility covers the rather trivial circumstances where the defendant engages in conduct that he thinks is illegal but is not - Here, D cannot be convicted of an attempt - Ex: D walks in a public park at 10pm after what he believes to be curfew, but he cannot be convicted of an attempted trespassing if the curfew is really 11pm

Answer 174

Hybrid legal impossibility “exists if [defendant’s] goal was illegal, but commission of the offense was impossible due to a factual mistake by him regarding the legal status of some factor relevant to her conduct Courts largely abandoned the distinction, More modern approach is to disallow impossibility defenses unless they constitute pure legal impossibility

Answer 175

an actor is guilty of attempt if he “purposely engages in conduct which would constitute the crime if the attendant circumstances were as he believes them to be . . .”

Answer 176

Abandonment defense applies if the perp “voluntarily and completely” renounced his criminal purpose Abandonment must be truly voluntary as opposed to a result of resistance from the victim or of fear of apprehension - Ex: if Perp abandons robbery after victim fights back - not abandonment

Answer 177

MPC - NOT complete or voluntary if - Motivated by unanticipated difficulties or resistance, or - Circumstances that increase the probability of detection or apprehension, or - If the defendant has decided to postpone for a later time of a different victim

Answer 178

Taken many acts along the way. Forced into her house. Victim says she has a child and he leaves. MS SC says he completely and voluntarily abandoned because no physical resistance and he had a change of heart and that counts as abandonment.

Answer 179

Victim hella bullets. D says victim was dead before shot him - P can’t prove. New rule on factual impossibility” no excuse if crime would have been committed had the attendant circumstances been as the D believed them to be

Answer 180

In custody, HIV guy bites a guard, faces charge of attempted murder. Claims he knew it was impossible to commit this crime. First of all maybe it is possible to spread through biting. D also not credible. So don’t overturn. Factually impossible not good defense.

Answer 181

MPC, some CL courts, some means are inherently impossible that defendants should not be charged for an attempt

Answer 182

Conspiracy is an agreement between two or more individuals to commit an unlawful act - Crime need not be performed Elements of the offense 1. Agreement to commit an unlawful act 2. Specific intent or purpose to achieve the goal or object of the conspiracy 3. Overt act in furtherance of the conspiracy

Answer 183

- Gives police opportunity to intervene in criminal endeavors before the criminal transaction is completed - Punishing someone for what they’re thinking (with little overt act) - Unilateral is even further washing down since they are not REALLY agreeing

Answer 184

Pacheco met Dillon at private investigation firm, bragged about illegal activities. Dillon learned that Pacheco was a sheriff and contacted the FBI to inform. Undercover asked D to protect him during a drug transaction. Pacheco, D, appeals conviction saying no agreement Under a bilateral approach, a conspiracy does not exist if there is no actual agreement to commit a crime between the defendant and at least one other person.

Answer 185

DarkFetish guy. Online chatroom where they talked about kidnapping, torturing, raping, murdering, and cannabilizing. Other chatters were across the globe. They never met up. Chats were infrequent. Never did any actions. Conspiracy kidnapping requires a genuine agreement and a specific intent to kidnap, simple chats are not enough.

Answer 186

Specific intent or purpose to achieve the goal or object of the conspiracy a. Mens rea is specific intent that group commit the crime b. MPC - the mens rea for conspiracy is “the purpose of promoting or facilitating its commission”

Answer 187

Agreement to commit an unlawful act a. Explicit agreement not required b. An implicit agreement between two or more individuals, even if never rendered in more explicit terms, qualifies as a conspiracy c. Unilateral vs. Bilateral depends on jurisdiction * MPC is unilateral

Answer 188

Overt act in furtherance of the conspiracy - Sufficient if one member of the conspiracy commits the overt act - Goal of the overt act requirement is to distinguish between criminal agreements that are purely mental and criminally agreements that have been actualized - What counts as an overt act is a question of fact for a jury to decide - but low bar - Selling goods sold at inflated prices, excessive quantities, or an on-giong basis may show that seller has a stake in the success of the conspiracy -> guilty - MPC - no overt act requirement for conspiracy to commit first-degree and second-degree felonies, but it requires an overt act for conspiracy to commit all other crimes

Answer 189

Shabani, D, supplier of drugs for a narcotics distribution scheme in Alaska. Undercover agents nab him. The federal drug-conspiracy statute does not require proof that a conspirator committed an overt act in furtherance of the conspiracy.

Answer 190

Spokesman for Bin Laden. Delivered al Qaeda’s message after 9-11 and 3 more videos. Threatened storm of airplanes. Convicted of conspiring to kill US nationals, provide material support or resources to be used for conspiracy, and providing such materials. In certain circumstances, threatening speech can qualify as an overt act sufficient to support a charge of conspiracy.

Answer 191

School attack by two students who researched and talked through skype. Research and phone calls are enough to satisfy an overt act.

Answer 192

Liability for conspiracy an inchoate offense is not extinguished when the defendant stops pursuing the conspiratorial objective MPC - The defendant must fully renounce the conspiracy by thwarting the conspiracy “under circumstances manifesting a complete and voluntary renunciation of his criminal purpose.” - Contacting the police or otherwise depriving conspiracy of its effectiveness Some jurisdictions watered down = “reasonable efforts to stop”

Answer 193

Kearns, ringleader of conspiracy, wants to be like the columbine shooter, brings in pseudo friends, building napalm, etc plenty of overt action. Ds go to police but D doesn’t admit The affirmative defense of renunciation of a conspiracy is not available if a defendant denies involvement in the conspiracy.

Answer 194

Unlike attempts, conspiracy does not merger with its completed offense. So liability for conspiracy does not disappear once the conspiracy is successfully completed - Can be charged with murder and conspiracy to commit murder

Answer 195

Entrapment | - For entrapment defense to be successful, the defendant must show that he was not predisposed to commit the crime

Answer 196

A defendant who solicits another individual to commit a crime is guilty of the inchoate crime of solicitation If the solicited individual then carries out the crime, the solicitor is guilty of that offense as well - Ex: a D who hires a hit man is guilty of the inchoate crime of solicitation, even if the hit man never carries out murder. But if does murder, then both people are guilty of murder - Usually the solicitation charge disappears because it mergers with the completed offense Elements of solicitation 1. Specific intent or purpose 2. To solicit (hire, command, request, encourage, or invite) a. NOT half hearted suggestions, jokes, or insincere requests are not sufficient b. Must be sent c. Courts are split on whether communication must be received d. A third party to perform a crime c.1* MPC explicitly permits solicitation convictions in cases of failed communication

Answer 197

Prisoner gives mail to another prisoner, but that guy takes out and gives to authorities, replaces mail with blank note. This was a solicitation became there was no actual communication from D to intermediary/intended rec.

Answer 198

Solicited guys to rape lady who bought her dream house. Charged. Complete once the verbal request is made with criminal intent

Answer 199

1. Most cases of solicitation will qualify as a conspiracy 2. Requirements are different a. Solicitation does not need agreement b. Solicitation does not require an overt act performed in furtherance of c. Solicitation focuses on the acts and mens rea of the D alone i) Does he ask someone to commit the crime for him? ii) Does not depend on the response of solicitee

Answer 200

Convicted of solicitation of murder for hire. D was informed on by a cocaine buyer. Tried to hire a hitman to kill witness who will testify. “He’s gotta go”. Undercover sting operation, and D gives name, address, etc. through multiple calls. But at trial says no agreement Solicitation does not require an agreement like conspiracy does.

Answer 201

- Both require specific intent or purpose to commit underlying crime - Solicitation requires no overt act, whereas attempt liability requires that the defendant perform whatever actions constitute a substantial step or place them in dangerous proximity to success, etc. - Solicitation as soon as person solicits, where attempt is up to the jury to decide when it begins. - Some jurisdictions allow verbal solicitations to constitute attempts under limited circumstances a. Urging, urges commission immediately b. Essential to have cooperation or submission of solicitee

Answer 202

Charged with attempted willful, deliberate murder of sister and friend. Hired assassin and provided with names, work, personal info, etc. Made calls, but it was an undercover agent. Argues yes solicitation, but not attempted murder. If there is clear evidence showing a person’s intent to commit a crime, any slight act in furtherance of that crime constitutes an attempt. Solicitation no need agreement.

Answer 203

Two situations to escape liability for solicitation - Merger - mergers into completed offense (like attempt) a. Inchoate solicitation merges into inchoate conspiracy depending on jurisdiction - Renunciation - must be complete and voluntary a. MPC - allows the defense if the D persuades or prevents the solicitee from carrying out the crime b. Some jurisdictions refuse to recognize the defense on the grounds that the solicitation is complete - and cannot be undone - once the request is made

Answer 204

- Entrapment - Get solicitee to stop crime (MPC defense) - Some jurisdictions do not allow, as crime has been committed once conversation has occurred - Argue that the conversation was ambiguous - Argue that the defendant did not actually mean it, and therefore mens rea of specific intent and purpose was not met - Argue that they were entrapped by the unilateral approach, and the crime wouldn't have been committed if the officer hadn't voluntarily served as the “hit man” - Duress, Necessity, and Insanity

Answer 205

When an accomplice assists in the commission of an offense, the accomplice becomes derivatively responsible for that crime, even though someone else committed it - Accomplice liability is a mode of liability, not an inchoate offense Elements required - Assistance or support to the principal perpetrator - Performed with the purpose or knowledge (depending on jx.) to facilitate crime.

Answer 206

1. Act requirement for accomplice liability is very broad: it includes: aiding and abetting, support such as counseling, encouraging, advising, commanding, ordering, inducing or soliciting 2. Usually must be an affirmative act. Bystander is not enough. a. Sometimes silence can be an omission if you have duty to act (Davis) b. Wilcox British Jazz Concert Problem Case - economic/benefit factors may affect c. Presence is culpable if at scene, but decided not needed 3. Assistance requirement does not necessarily require a strong causal connection between the assistance and the crime committed a. MPC - “A person is an accomplice of another person in the commission of an offense if: (a) with the purpose of promoting or facilitating the commission of the offense he (ii) aids or agrees or attempts to aid such other person in planning or committing [the crime]

Answer 207

- Tried to intervene, but was ineffectual - Attempted to aid this murder, it was enough to be an accomplice - Did not even need causation

Answer 208

Three boys at relatives house to avoid police curfew. Steal her guns and camcorder and sells to pawn shop. Camcorder captures some video, but D is there, but does nothing else to assist crime. Mere presence is not enough.

Answer 209

- An accomplice must intend to aid or assist the principal’s perpetration of the crime. - MPC - “A person is an accomplice of another person in the commission of an offense if (a) with the purpose of promoting or facilitating the commission of the offense…” - Some CL - A person is an accomplice of another person in the commission of an offense if (a) with the [knowledge] of promoting or facilitating the commission of the offense…

Answer 210

Weed deal, but then they get punched and robbed. One guy fires semi-auto gun. Then chase. D is an accomplice in the car. Who drove and who shot is contested. Under federal law, a person is liable for aiding and abetting a crime if the person takes an affirmative act in furtherance of that crime, with the intent of facilitating the crime’s commission. Advance knowledge is sufficient.

Answer 211

Jurisdictions split on whether accomplices are liable if they assist, but principal does another crime. RP standard. - Ex: getaway driver who assists bank robber by driving him to bank, but he kills a bank employee Some Jxs. say yes if the wrestling crime was a “natural and probable consequence” of the target offense that the accomplice was assisting MPC - rejects this doctrine as overly expansive form of guilty by association

Answer 212

Theories of punishment? - Deterrence - yes, this is kinda like felony-murder thing, very expansive test and can charge more - This is a good way to not promote aiding someone’s criminal theory Other justifications? Why bad? - Can be convicted for something you have little mens rea towards - This is not how people think. IF helping a friend and really did not know, then seems wrong to charge

Answer 213

If principal and accomplice use an “innocent instrument” like a child or insane individual to carry out crime, then accomplice can be a principal perpetrator - Innocent individual is an instrument deployed by the “accomplice”

Answer 214

Jurisdictions with a purpose or intent requirement for complicity sometimes have a “community of purpose” between accomplices and principals Gun fight example between rival gangs, kill innocent. All get community of purpose.

Answer 215

But if P commits a result-crime based on recklessness, the accomplice need not intend that result - enough if accomplice was also reckless or negligent to result MPC - when causing a particular result is an element of an offense, an accomplice in the conduct causing such result is an accomplice in the commission of that offense, if he acts with the kind of culpability, if any, with respect to that result that is sufficient for the commission of the offense

Answer 216

Can be an accomplice to a reckless result. Mens rea of reckless causing fear.

Answer 217

- There is no requirement that separate jury verdicts in separate trials must be consistent. So an accomplice can be guilty even if a principal is not. - Withdrawal or renunciation of the crime. a. MPC - Typically, the accomplice must either deprive his complicity of its effectiveness, contact the police, or prevent the crime - Main person acquitted - sometimes a defense, but usually not - Silence/mere presence not enough - Duress, Necessity, and Insanity

Answer 218

1. Accomplice’s link to the principal might be severed if he abandons his participation in the endeavor, but the standard is very high 2. Since complicity is based on his assistance, many follow the MPC and require a. Unwind his participation by “depriving” his assistance of its effectiveness i. Encouraged them, then discouraged them ii. Give gun, get gun back b. Give timely warning to the police c. Make proper efforts to prevent the commission of the crime 3. so defendant must try to neutralize the previous participation a. First requirement requires a particular effect, but the latter two options only require an effort 4. If victim of some offense, you are not an accomplice 5. Not an accomplice if every possible way requires two people, then just guilty

Answer 219

D was lookout as they tried to steal exam, but abandoned without saying anything Guilty because did not inform, so encouraged them and needed to counter that

Answer 220

For liability, conspiracy is used as a link to make the defendant responsible for the crimes committed by her co-conspirators Mens Rea - Defendant must specifically intend for the group to commit the target offense Three essential questions - How extensive is the vicarious liability? - How does one define the outer scope of the “conspiracy” that the defendant is responsible for? - How does one withdraw from the conspiracy and terminate one’s vicarious responsibility for the acts of co-conspirators

Answer 221

1. Reasonable foreseeability has become the standard for Pinkerton liability 2. Conspirators are liable for crimes committed by co-conspirators that either a. Form part of the conspiratorial agreement, or b. Stray beyond the conspiratorial agreement but were nonetheless a reasonably foreseeable consequence of that agreement i. Very similar, both objective fact-based evaluation ii. Would a RP foresee these crimes 3. Narrow aspect of Pinkerton liability, the D is responsible for crimes perpetrated by co-conspirators that fall within the scope of the prior agreement 4. Broader aspect, the D is also responsible for crimes outside the scope of the agreement as long as they are reasonably foreseeable consequences of the conspiracy 5. Due Process Clause imposes limitations on application of Pinkerton. Truly minor participants in a conspiracy or reside on the very outer margins of endeavor, then rule not applied.

Answer 222

bootlegging conspiracy. Walter did the crime and was liable, but Daniel was guilty under theory that the conspiracy between them made Daniel vicariously responsible for Walter’s act too, even though Daniel was in jail.

Answer 223

Cocaine exchange turned shootout with death of federal officers. Ds charged with conspiracy and murder of federal agents. Broad Pinkerton - A co-conspirator is vicariously liable or the acts of another co-conspirator even though he may not have been directly participated in those acts, his role in the crime was minor, ot the evidence against a co-defendant more damaging

Answer 224

Other guy shoots the teller. Driver guilty of robbery, but murder? Reasonably foreseeable? Could we expect this from a robbery?

Answer 225

Because the expansive version of the doctrine makes liability for intentional crimes, such as murder, possible based on a defendant’s lower mental state

Answer 226

1. If D is responsible for own acts and acts of co-conspirators, it is essential to identify the temporal and geometric scope of the conspiracy 2. The wider the conspiracy, the greater the liability that the defendant will face. a. Ex: local druglord connected to a broad drug conspiracy. Charged for local counts or all of the counts of the wider conspiracy? 3. Courts are generally willing to aggregate overlapping conspiracies to a single overarching conspiracy when the D must have been aware that the endeavor involved other persons and transactions who are part of the agreement, even if they never corresponded or met others. 4. Temporal Scope 5. Retroactive Liability

Answer 227

Drug conspiracy case. Smugglers, middlemen, and 2 retailers. Argued not one big conspiracy, but separate ones between the parties. A single conspiracy exists when the success of the part with which the defendant was immediately concerned, was dependent upon the success of the whole scheme.

Answer 228

Money from the federal government to build housing. But not using money to start a house, using to build a law office. One central guy connected to 18 separate people. A single conspiracy cannot exist when two or more persons have no contact or transactions with each other, even though each person may transact with the same, single individual.

Answer 229

1. Longer it lasts, the longer the defendant is on the hook for the acts of the co-conspirators 2. Conspiracy expires when the conspiratorial objective is achieved 3. Conspiracy is not defeated just because government intervenes

Answer 230

Joining a conspiracy does not make you guilty of past crimes of conspiracy

Answer 231

1. Acts already performed by co-conspirators cannot be disowned, but the link to the future acts could be severed if the D successfully withdraws 2. Standard for withdrawal differs from from jurisdiction, but most require that the defendant perform an affirmative act to disavow or defeat the conspiracy a. Informing the authorities of the criminal endeavor b. Communicating withdrawal to the co-conspirators; or c. Dissolving the underlying agreement that forms the basis of the conspiracy 3. Common element among these possibilities is that the defendant must take some affirmative step to withdraw from the conspiracy; simply refraining from actively pursuing the objectives of the conspiracy is not enough

Answer 232

Mafia protection scheme. Collection agent who walked away, has been many months since I’ve been there. D needed to perform an affirmative act to disavow conspiracy. Reassigned does not count.

Answer 233

1. Conspiracy liability requires an underlying agreement a. Accomplice liability may involve an underlying agreement but need not 2. Conspiracy is that the charged offense was reasonably foreseeable a. Accomplice liability is that the charged offense was a natural and probable consequence of the endeavor 3. Ex - girl trips and guy rapes her, brother encourages. Not conspiracy cause no prior agreement, but accomplice because encouraged. 4. Conspiracy is easier - but just need to prove agreement and scope of agreement - very popular prosecutorial charge

Answer 234

- Ulbricht created website that allowed people to buy anything. Mostly drugs though. - Charged with big conspiracy because he earned $13m on it. Convicted to life in prison - He did not know about any of these transactions going on with it. Reasonably foreseen and therefore responsible. Did he wonder why he made $13m?

Answer 235

Conspiracy does not care about mens rea, but if it did - just need a reasonable person would have been aware (negligence) Here we have murder charge to someone who only did a negligent act - SKETCH

Answer 236

- Duress: someone made them do it - Necessity: they had to do it - Self Defense: the crime was committed while defending themselves - Mistake of Fact/Law: a. Mistakes of Fact: usually used to negate mens rea for specific intent crimes b. Mistake of Law: usually does not work - Defendant was not proximate cause of the crime - Voluntary intoxication can sometimes be used to negate the mens rea for specific intent crimes, but not general intent crimes - Entrapment for inchoate crimes - Insanity