Homicide, Felony Murder, Attempt, and Conspiracy Flashcards

Question

Way to attack an attempt question

Answer 1

Think of it like a timeline! - walk through all the facts and see at what point the test(s) apply to constitute a substantial step [i.e., "Although dangerous proximity may be satisfied when ________, it is clearer here because . . . "] -- separate each test when explaining their significance * consider impossibility as a defense

Answer 2

5.02(2) (a) lying in wait, searching for or following the contemplated victim of the crime * e.g., your sitting in a car outside someone's house, watching and waiting for them to leave so you can jump them (b) enticing or seeking to entice the contemplated victim of the crime to go to the place contemplated for its commission * e.g., you text your target to meet you somewhere specific so you can rob/hurt them (c) reconnoitering the place contemplated for the commission of the crime * e.g., you walk around a jewelry store pretending to browse, but you are really checking out the security cameras to plan your heist (d) unlawful entry of a structure, vehicle or enclosure in which it is contemplated that the crime will be committed * e.g., you sneak into someone's house through a window with the intention of stealing (e) possession of materials to be employed in the commission of the crime, which are specially designed for such unlawful use or which can serve no lawful purpose of the actor under the circumstances - about what you have * e.g., you have lock-picking tools in your backpack while hanging out at the mall (f) possession, collection or fabrication of materials to be employed in the commission of the crime, at or near the place contemplated for its commission, where such possession, collection or fabrication serves no lawful purpose of the actor under the circumstances - about where you have it * e.g., you are standing outside a store late at night with a crowbar and a duffel bag (g) soliciting an innocent agent to engage in conduct constituting an element of the crime * e.g., you convince your little sibling to carry a package, not telling them it is full of stolen goods

Answer 3

Types . . . 1. factual impossibility 2. legal impossibility a. pure b. hybrid (THOUSAND)

Answer 4

Defendant is trying to commit a crime, but there is a fact they did NOT know about that makes it literally impossible for them to succeed * e.g., you try to rob someone, but their wallet is empty - NEVER a defense because defendant's intentions were still criminal - expectable in rare cares of "inherent factual impossibility" -- i.e., attempting to murder someone by stabbing a voodoo doll

Answer 5

a. pure [imaginary crimes] Defendant thinks they are breaking the law, but it is not even a real crime * e.g., sneaking around to buy weed in Colorado - ALWAYS a defense b. hybrid - do NOT need to know for test Defendant's "crime" could be real, but the specific situation made it legally impossible to complete * e.g., you try to sell illegal drugs but they turn out to be sugar pills - Majority Rule: not a defense because it is hard to distinguish from factual impossibility (JAFFE - receipt of goods defendant believed were stolen but were actually not) - Minority Rule: creates a defense

Answer 6

Actus Reus: agreement between at least two people ["meeting of the minds" - plurality rule] - can be expressed or sometimes implied - prosecution may try to make and implied conspiracy argument * e.g., winking/head nodding Mens Rea: specific intent to commit a crime or lawful act by unlawful means (SWAIN) * Required Intent: purpose or knowledge in some cases * Factors to analyze when someone is in "business" with a criminal . . . 1) "stake in venture" 2) no legitimate use for goods/services 3) no legitimate reason for the volume of business - look at the quantity of products sold 4) seriousness - the crime is a felony (LAURIA [prostitution phone service] and FALCONE [yeast seller]) - can be evidenced by an overt act demonstrating the defendant's intent (AZIM) - can be charged with conspiracy, attempt, and the completion of an offense if the circumstances are right

Answer 7

Co-conspirators are ALSO guilty of the substantive offenses their co-conspirators commit "in furtherance of the conspiracy" - defendants can withdraw from a conspiracy, but this is hard to do (PINKERTON)