General Ideas Flashcards
Liability for Omissions
Criminal liability can rest upon person’s failure to act
An omission is sufficient only if
- D had a legal duty to act (must be specific; no general duty to act);
- D was aware of the facts giving rise to the duty to act; and
- it is reasonably possible to perform the duty.
Criminal Intent
Generally, D need not have known about the law, but he must have been aware of the facts that constitute the crime
Exceptions: strict liability (statutory rape, bigamy, regulatory/ traffic offenses). No
If no intent level is listed, read in “recklessly” since most modern crimes require at least recklessness
Transferred intent from person to person allowed (*if intend to kill one person, but actually kill another, then guilty of attempted murder of one person and murder of another)
Mens Rea Levels
Purpose: conscious desire
Knowing: awareness of a practical certainty
Recklessness: awareness of a substantial risk
Negligence: a reasonable person would have been aware of a substantial risk
Voluntary Act
Act must be voluntary
If D was unconscious, her behavior is not “voluntary”
Accomplice Liability
All persons are guilty of a crime who:
- commit the act constituting the crime; or
- participate in it as aiders or abettors either before or during (but not after- that is accessory after the fact) its commission; or
- use an innocent agent to commit it
Aiding and Abetting Accomplice Liability
To qualify as aider/abetter, D must:
- participate in the offense (either by encouraging or assisting the primary actor)
- with the required intent (a+a must know the primary actor is going to commit the offense and intend (want) to encourage or assist him in doing so)
Mere presence at the scene is not enough
Don’t have to actually aid. Just have to intend to. (e.g. agree to serve as lookout but then fall asleep while you are the lookout)
*A+A can still be convicted even if primary actor is acquitted
Attempt
Elements of attempt:
- D must go far enough to take a SUBSTANTIAL STEP towards commission of the crime;
- with the intent to commit the crime (both the intent to complete the conduct constituting an attempt and the intent necessary for the crime)
Can’t attempt unintentional crimes (e.g. reckless/negligent mens rea, felony murder)
Impossibility Defense for Inchoate Crimes
Legal impossibility is a defense, but Factual impossibility is not a defense.
Type 1 Factual Impossibility: mistaken about one’s ability. It would be impossible for D to:
- perform the conduct she set out to perform; or
- cause the result she set out to cause,
BUT D mistakenly believes she will be successful
ex. Law against selling controlled substance. D trying to leave narcotics under park bench for another person but that person died in car accident on the way to pick them up
Type 2 Legal Impossibility: Mistake About Criminal Law
D’s intended conduct would not constitute a crime even if committed, but D thinks it would be a crime because D is mistaken about the law
ex. D has legal powder but she thinks that it is illegal
Type 3 Factual Impossibility: Mistake about Circumstances
D’s intended conduct if completed would not constitute a crime, because one of the circumstances is not what is required for the crime
ex. same as above two but D mistakenly thinks it is narcotics when it is really just a legal powder
Solicitation
- asking someone to commit an offense
- with the intent that the person commit that offense
solicitation happens as soon as you ask, even if it is immediately rejected or the asker quickly rescinds
Conspiracy
Is its own crime.
- entering into an agreement to commit a crime
- with the intent that the crime be committed
(modern statutes often require an overt act in furtherance by one member in the group. Once this act is committed, person is guilty of conspiracy even if properly withdraws before crime is committed)
Co-conspirator rule: all members of a criminal conspiracy are guilty of crimes committed by the other members if those crimes are:
- committed in furtherance of the scheme; and
- a foreseeable result of the scheme
Defenses for conspiracy
Defenses: withdrawal and no “meeting of the minds”
Withdrawal Defense for Conspiracy
Not a defense to conspiracy (since the conspiracy is completed when parties agreed and committed an act in furtherance of the conspiracy), but is a defense to the crimes committed in furtherance of the conspiracy.
Must perform an affirmative act to notify ALL members of the conspiracy before the crime is committed.
If withdrawing conspirator provided assistance as an accomplice, than must try to neutralize the assistance.
“No Meeting of Minds” Defense for Conspiracy
If all others in conspiracy acquitted of conspiracy charge, then D must also be acquitted because there is no meeting of the minds (* this is traditional rule. MPC says opposite).
Equivalents of acquittal: not guilty by reason of insanity or person did not intend to go through with crime (ex. undercover police)
Merger rule
Applies to:
(1) solicitation merges into the actual crime if the crime is committed
2. attempt merges into the actual crime if the crime is committed
What types of acts can be punishable under criminal law?
Voluntary acts (e.g. not done while unconscious, unless the person knew he would do the act while unconscious)
Omissions accompanied by a duty to act
