Page 11 Flashcards
How is impossibility a defense to attempt?
Shows a lack of requisite intent
What are the two defenses to attempt?
- Impossibility
2. Abandonment
If someone says he’s going to kill you, but pulls out only a tiny switchblade, what does that say about his intent?
His intent to kill might be in doubt
What are the four different kinds of impossibility for attempt?
- legal impossibility
- factual impossibility
- inherent impossibility
- disputed impossibility
What is legal impossibility?
Defendant did everything he intended to do, but didn’t commit a completed crime, because what he set out to do wasn’t criminal
If there is no crime on the books, what is that called?
Legal impossibility
What is an example of legal impossibility?
Selling oregano, but claiming it is marijuana
If you rape a dead woman, what kind of impossibility is that?
Legal, because it is not rape if the V is dead
If you receive property that you think is stolen, but it isn’t, are you guilty?
No because it is a legal impossibility
What is factual impossibility?
D is unable to commit the crime because of some physical impossibility unknown to him but he thinks the crime can be committed
Is factual impossibility a defense to attempt?
No
If something stops you from committing a crime, but you think that the crime can be committed, are you guilty of attempt?
Yes, because that is a factual impossibility, which is not a defense
Example of factual impossibility:
Trying to steal from an empty pocket, or trying to use voodoo to kill someone
What is the reason that factual impossibility is not a defense?
Defendant’s mental state is the same as a guilty person’s and by committing the act, he has shown his readiness to carry out the illegal venture and is deserving of conviction
What question should you ask if you’re determining if factual impossibility applies?
Had the circumstances been as the defendant believed them to be, would there have been a crime? If yes - D is guilty and can’t use impossibility as a defense
What is inherent impossibility?
Any reasonable person would have known from the outset that the means being used couldn’t accomplish the ends and were totally inappropriate to the objective
How is inherent impossibility related to mental state?
Casts doubt on whether defendant was acting with the proper mental state
What is disputed impossibility?
Defendant’s intended action is illegal, but due to some unknown facts, the defendant completes an action that isn’t what he intended and is not illegal
What are the two approaches to disputed impossibility?
A) traditional approach
B) modern approach
What is the traditional approach to disputed impossibility?
Thought of as legal impossibility: total defense because the completed act wasn’t criminal, so it wasn’t a crime
What is the modern approach to disputed impossibility?
Thought of as factual impossibility because the intended act is illegal and is thwarted from completion only by defendant’s mistake or ignorance, so he should be punished accordingly
What is the modern view of impossibility as a defense to attempt?
No defense when the defendant’s actual intent was to do an act prescribed by the law
What does the MPC say about impossibility as a defense to attempt?
Doesn’t allow impossibility as a defense, but lets courts dismiss or lower the sentence when the crime is unlikely to result and neither the conduct nor the actor present a public danger
Voluntary abandonment is strong evidence of what?
Lack of intent
If abandonment happens after any substantial step has taken place, is it a defense?
Not usually
If abandonment happens before any substantial step occurs, is that a complete defense?
Yes, because it negates the substantial step itself, which is an essential element
What is the traditional view on abandonment as a defense to attempt?
It is never a defense to attempt
What is the MPC and modern rule on abandonment for attempt?
It is a defense if under the circumstances, the defendant abandons his effort to commit the crime/prevents its commission, and shows a complete and voluntary renunciation of the criminal purpose
What are the four circumstances where abandonment is not a defense under the MPC attempt?
- accomplices that didn’t join in the renunciation/prevention
- when motivated by circumstances that weren’t obvious at the outset
- because there was an increase in the probability of apprehension, or something made the crime harder to accomplish
- defendant just decided to postpone until a better time
What is accomplice liability?
All accomplices are liable for crimes that their own criminal acts directly and naturally helped cause
What is the common law approach to accomplice liability?
Puts felons into four categories that are called “parties to crime”
What does the common-law “parties to crime” approach to accomplice liability say about the first three categories?
They are all considered accomplices and can be convicted for the felony
What is the modern approach to parties to crime for accomplice liability?
Done away with the categories and prosecutes everyone as a principal (all guilty of the crime and punished equally)
What are the four categories of accomplice to crime under the common-law approach?
- principal in the 1st degree
- principal in the 2nd degree
- accessory before the fact
- accessory after-the-fact
What is a principal in the 1st degree under the common-law approach to accomplice liability?
The person that engages in the act/omission with the requisite intent and causes the criminal result. Must be present at the commission of the offense
What does “constructively present” mean in relation to being a principal as an accomplice to crime?
You leave behind an instrument that causes the crime. Ie: poison
If you use an intermediary to commit a crime, are you still a principal in the 1st degree?
No, unless you use an innocent person that doesn’t have a criminal state of mind, then they are considered a mere instrument and you remain the principal. Ie: child/handicap
Can there be more than one principal in the first degree under accomplice liability?
Yes
If you beat a man, and Joe shoots him, what category under common law accomplice liability do you both fit into?
Both are principles in the first degree
What is a principal in the 2nd degree under accomplice liability for common law?
Person that is present at the offense and aids, counsels, commands, or encourages the first degree principal in the crime’s commission
How can you be constructively present and a principal in the 2nd degree?
If you aid/abet from a distance because close proximity isn’t necessary, so long as you’re close enough to give aid if needed
What is an example of someone that is a principal in the 2nd degree?
Standing watch and being ready to give aid
When D that is considered a principal in the 2nd degree utters words to the principal, what is the focus?
It is on the defendant’s purpose when uttering the words, not the effect the words have
Is just being present at the scene of the crime sufficient to make you a principal in the 2nd degree?
Not unless you agreed in advance that you would provide moral support or assistance through your presence
What is an accessory before the fact under accomplice liability at common-law?
Someone that orders, counsels, aids/abets another to commit a felony and isn’t present at its commission
If you contribute specific material aid to someone that is going to commit an offense, which category of common-law accomplice liability do you fall under?
Accomplice before the fact
If you have contributed tools to a crime, but they aren’t used, are you still considered an accessory before the fact?
Yes, and the quantity of aid also doesn’t matter
What is an accessory after-the-fact?
Someone that is not present at the crime, but provided aid after it was committed by someone else and knew of its commission, and gave aid for the express purpose of hindering the felon’s apprehension, conviction, or punishment
The category of accessory after-the-fact is only applicable to what kind of crimes?
Felonies
Can giving false statements about a defendant’s whereabouts to the police be considered an accessory after the fact?
Yes, but refusing to cooperate with them, or withholding information is not enough
At CL can a spouse be charged with accessory after-the-fact?
No
Essentially an accessory after-the-fact does what?
A person who knowingly helps a thief escape arrest, evade prosecution, or profit from the theft
