Inchoate Crimes Flashcards
Aiding and Abetting (Complicity)- NMR
Under federal law, a person is liable for aiding and abetting a crime if the person:
1) Takes an affirmative act in furtherance of that crime,
2) with the intent of facilitating the crime’s commission.
Aiding and abetting (mens rea) only makes our defendant liable for our secondary crimes if he could have foreseen them (advanced knowledge). (national majority view)
For aiding and abetting, your help can be….. but ____ isn’t enough actus reus
as simple as preventing/inhibiting law enforcement aid to the victim or preventing the crime.
However, mere presence is not enough actus reus
Aiding and abetting: “State v. Tally – telegraph interference
R.C. Ross seduced and was “criminally intimate” with the sister of the Skeltons and of Mrs. Tally. Subsequently, it was well known in the town that the Skeltons were in pursuit of Ross to exact revenge. Tally (a judge) went to the telegraph office and told a telegraph operator to disregard a warning telegraph to Ross. Ross is killed by the Skeltons.
Should Tally be charged w/ aid and abetting?
YES
Where todays defendant aids and abets a crime by impeding a third parties warning to a victim that act is good enough for the actus reus requirements.
Aiding and Abetting- Termination
“State v. Formella
Students went to their lockers at their high school. Upon arriving, they found another group of students who were about to steal the questions for an exam. They requested that Formella and his friends serve as lookouts, to which Formella and his friends agreed. Formella and his friends went to their second-floor lockers while the other group went to steal the exam on the third floor. The lookout group didn’t feel comfortable, so they left the school. On the way out, they ran into a janitor who told them to leave. “
Did they improperly terminate?
“Serving as a lookout, even for a brief while is sufficient actus reus.
It is not good enough for termination to walk away. To terminate, in this case, in addition to walking way the accomplice must thwart the crime from occurring or tell the police
conspiracy (NMR/ CL MAJ)
“1) An agreement;
2) With specific intent to commit the object crime; and
3) Someone in the conspiracy commits an overt act.
Time frame = continuous offence until you revoke it with an over act.
Can’t conspire to commit a crime with a negligent mens rea – legal impossibility. “
“Requires two or more people.
Agreement can be tacit (inferred).”
Can you charge BOTH (1) conspiracy to commit an object crime and (2) the actual crime itself?
Yes, you can charge both conspiracy to commit an object crime and the actual crime… double jeopardy doesn’t count
CONSPIRACY: The agreement element of a charge of conspiracy may be inferred from…
“The agreement element of a charge of conspiracy may be inferred from action in concert.
The fact that a few conspirators fall out of a group and start doing something different, abandon, renounce, etc… so if two or more people continue on, everyone can be found guilty. “
Conspiracy: is mere knowledge enough for a supplier to be found guilty?
nope!!! Mere knowledge is not enough for a supplier. For a supplier to be a conspirator, it must be shown that the supplier had knowledge of the illegal use of the goods and services and had intent to further the illegal use of the goods and services.
If second crimes are committed in furtherance of the conspiracy and it’s foreseeable, can they be liable?
Co-conspirators are liable for secondary crimes in which they did not directly participate if those crimes are in furtherance of the conspiracy and are foreseeable.
Solicitation (CL MAJ)
“All we need is an invitation and that invitation doesn’t need to be verbal.
Solicitation is encouraging someone else to commit a crime.
o Asking, demanding, or coercing someone to commit a crime.
o It is immaterial if you fail to communicate if the intent was to do it anyway. Example :If you send an email to someone to commit a crime and the email doesn’t go through, it is still solicitation.”
Does not require an agreement or that the solicitate person say yes.
Can someone be convicted of an attempt to commit reckless murder? (NMR)
A conviction for an attempt to commit a crime requires that the defendant have the specific intent to commit the act that constitutes the underlying offense.
It is not possible to be convicted of an attempt commit reckless murder because it is a legal impossibility. Attempt requires specific intent to commit the object crime (purpose or knowing). You cannot intend to commit recklessness or negligence.
Second degree murder is defined as a killing that results from the reckless and dangerous act of a person who has a depraved mind but does not intend to kill anyone.
The person that attempts a crime must have the mens rea of the crime. Therefore attempted second degree murder requires a specific intent to commit an unintended killing, a logical impossibility
Attempt- Premeditated murder (NMV)
Transferred intent on a premeditated murder charge only works on people actually killed not injured. In other words, intent does not transfer for premeditated attempted murder (national majority view – just not a lot of courts have reached this decision).
Attempt elements (NMR/ CL MAJ)
“1) A substantial step that exceeds mere preparation
2) With specific intent to commit the object crime
The national majority rule for attempt is the line of mere preparation and going beyond mere preparation. Preparation is not an irrevocable commitment to follow-through. “
Kill Zone Theory (majority view
If you expose a group of people knowingly to some grave harm, but your target is just one in that group, you cannot say that you did not intend to harm the other members of the group. This does not just apply to murder cases. (example: sprays bullets, poisonous gas, etc.).
When you have all four of these things the Kill Zone Theory helps the prosecutors:
1) The proximity of the group.
2) The intent of the defendant in respect to everyone.
3) Probability of inflicting the harm.
4) What really happens…did all people die…”
abandonment defense (NMR)
We want to give people that have not crossed the line to abandon the plan, but we do not want people to be able to quit abruptly just because of their risk of getting caught. We require voluntary and complete renunciation (national majority rule). The voluntary renunciation only works for the renouncers.
