Handout #5

Question 1

Mistake

Answer 1

Taking one thing for another (failure of knowledge/planning) (Bad planning)
-You meant to do what you did to a certain point

Question 2

Accident

Answer 2

Failure of execution/performance(Bad execution)

-unforeseen incidental

Question 3

Malum in se

Answer 3

(Pre legal wrong) Crime is wrong in and of itself

-Challenges morality

Question 4

Malum prohibitum

Answer 4

Wrong because the law says it is

-does not challenge the morality

Question 5

Diminished Capacity

Answer 5

You were never capable of forming the intent

Question 6

Diminished actuality

Answer 6

You did not, in that situation, form an intention even if they are capable of it (dod not form the intent)
-Allows evidence of involuntary intoxication and recognized mental illness to mitigate culpability for SI cirmes

Question 7

People v. Elmore (CA)

Answer 7

Facts:
Elmore is mentally ill. Ella was sitting at the bus stop, elmore approached her, grabbed her neckless, she tried to walk away, and elmore stabbed her with a paint brush

Procedure:
(1) Defendant pled not guility and not guilty by reason of insanity. During guilt phase of trial, jury returned a 1st degree murder conviction
(2) Elmore withdrew insanity b/c he thought that if he was found not guilty by reason of insanity, he end up serving a longer term then if he took his chances with appelaing his first degree murder conviction
(3) Elmore appealed the conviction to the appellate court
on unreasonable self defense and hallucination
-Appellate refused b/c unreasonably-defense is delusional
-but appellate court did think failing to instrust the jury on hallucination was prejudicial error (remand for either a retrial or second-degree murder(which it did))

Holding:
(Justice Corrigan): Affirmed the trials courts denial of the unreasonable self-defense instruction
-Elmore was trying ot use his delusion of the unreasonable self-defense(not allowed) b/c ELmore contended that he killed Ella in self-defense purely b/c of a delusional perception of a threat (ONLY allowed in the sanity phase)

Question 8

People v. Elmore (Mistake of fact or Delusion)

Answer 8

Mistake=neglient perception of facts
-Unreasonable self-defense applies
Delusion= Predicated on facts not grounded in reality (out of touch of reality)
-Unreasonable self defense does NOT apply b/c it is only subjective

Question 9

Insanity

Answer 9

Insane people in CA are deemed unable to commit a crime

• M’Naghten test:
  (1) Unable to understand the nature and quality of the criminal act; OR
  (2) Cannot distinguish right from wrong when the act was committed

Question 10

Procedure of Bifurcation

Answer 10

(1) Question of guilt
- Presumed innocent and also presumed to be legally sane at the time of the offense
- if found guilty, then the trail proceeds to the sanity phase, where the defendant had the burden of proof by the preponderance of the evidence
(2) Section 28(a) allows DEF to introduce evidence of a mental disorder to show they did not actually form the mental state required for guilt. (diminished actuality & limited at the sanity phase)
- the capacity to form that mental state is presumed in the guilt phase

Question 11

Cheek v. United States

Answer 11

Facts:
Pilot charged with willfully evading taxes, but he went to this seminar and was told by lawyer that wages weren’t income. So he thought he owned no taxes.

Willful: Cheek wasnt willfully evading taxes b/c he was made a unreasonable wrong belief

Holding: Re-trail, he was convicted.

Flippo and Cheek did NOT make a mistake…it was rather reckless/delusion.

Question 12

Unreasonable self-defense

Answer 12

A partial excuse to murder and NOT a partial justification

Question 13

Diminished actuality

Answer 13

• Defendant did NOT (NOT cannot ) form SI
• Includes mental illness that does not rise to the level of insanity
• ONLY for all SI crimes

Insanity=works for all crimes

Spurlin tried to claim dimished actuality but anger is not a mental illness/defect

Question 14

Unreasonable/Reasonable Mistake v. Delusion

Answer 14

Delusion:

• Inner
• Something is wrong with you

Illusion:

• Mistake
• Something is wrong with what you saw
• Anyone can fall for it

Unreasonable mistake:
-No basis for it

Question 15

People v. Villanueva

Answer 15

Facts:

• Manzano (Victim) and Villaneuva (Def) get into an argument and brawl at the Mandarin Deli. Manzano threatened to kill Vill the nex time he sees him (4 hours later)
• Villanueva says he saw Manzano fiddling around the glove box before accelerating toward Vill
• Vill shoots him non-fatality in the face (Shooting someone in the face even if they dont die is deadly force)

Jusry could charge Vill attemopted voluntary manslaughter excused in part by imperfect self-defense (his fear was reasonable)

If Victim died, Vill would try to get perfect self-defense (deadly force was reasonable)

Vill is saying “i tried to kill him(had SI) but i was unhinged”

Question 16

Inchoate criminality as a partial excuse: Mens Rea of Attempt

Answer 16

How the law separates actors who try to fail to complete criminal plan (attempt) from those whose actions are either insufficiently close to the completed outcome.

Inchoate, anticipatory, or non-consummated offense(ALL SI)

(1) Attempt
- MPC: A substantial step toward committing the target offense
- CA: Direct but ineffectual act
(2) Solicitation
(3) Conspiracy
(4) Complicity

Question 17

CA v. MPC: Punishment for Attempts

Answer 17

CA punishes attempt half as severly as completed offense (harm oriented)

MPC punishes some attempts like the completed offense (Risk oriented)

(Attempting to commit a 2nd degree v. completing 2nd degree felony
-Attempted X(not a horrible crime) is punished identically to completed X

Attempting to commit 1st degree felony (very bad crime) is punished less severely then 1st-degree murder(you get second degree)
-Attempted Y(a horrible crime) is punished like a compelted X

Question 18

People v. Bond (ILlinois)

Answer 18

Facts:
Bond gets in fight with baby mama and her friend (Clara) about transportation of his child. Wants Clara to drive but she had to work. He threw a brick, she threw one back, he went to the house “Im gonna shoot her” shot in the air, shot 3x at the car as she drove away

Procedure:

(1) Bench trial:(no jury)
- Charged with two counts of attempted murder and two counts of unlawful use of a weapon by a felon
- @ bench trial: found guilty attempted murder of Clara and two counts unlawful use of weapon by felon

(2) Bond convicted of attempted murder and felon in possession
- bond sencted to one term of 7 years and tow terms 3 years served concurrently
(3) Bond appealed to appellate court b/c of insufficent evidence and didnt prove the prior felony

Holding:
Majority(Judge KNECHT): Affirmed the trial court conviction
-There is evidence of SI (only reversible if improbable). Witnesses say he said hed shoot her, shell shows that the gun was shooting a moving target

Question 19

Actual v. Constructive possession

Answer 19

Criminal posession of weapons may be actual OR constructive

• Actual: Defendant knows that he is in possession
• Constructive: Is not possession=allows us to hold people responsible for having or knowing things that we cant exactly prove they had knew

Bond: Admitted to shooting a handgun thus sufficent

Question 20

Mandatory v. Permissive Presumption

Answer 20

Mandatory(Conclusive) presumption: The jury must conclude that the natural and probable consequences of the intentional actions of the defendant were intended

Permissive presumption: The jury MAY conclude that the natural and probable consequences of the intentional actions of the defendant were intended