Parties to Crime & Defenses Flashcards
Accomplice: Rule
a) Accomplice liability is a way to link an accomplice to a crime committed by someone else
b) The accomplice can be charged as if they were the principal (the one who committed the crime)
Rule: A defendant is criminally liable as an accomplice if they commit some act (or omission where they have the duty to act) that facilitates the principal’s commission (or attempted commission) of a crime, including encouragement with the purpose of bringing about the commission of the crime
Accomplice: Scope
i) An accomplice is liable for crimes purposefully facilitated as well as all others that are reasonably foreseeable outgrowths of the primary crime
ii) Must be objective; the defendant can’t just say that they did not expect it
What are the defenses for an Accomplice?
i) Common Law: An accomplice can withdraw by giving the principal timely notice and nullifying any effect of any prior facilitation
ii) MPC: To remove accomplice liability, the accomplice must either:
(1) render prior assistance to the perpetrator completely ineffective;
(2) provide cops with timely warning of the plan; or
(3) make a proper effort to prevent the perpetrator from committing the crime
Accomplice: Principal in the first degree (CL)
the trigger puller- the perpetrator who performs the act with the requisite mental state
Accomplice: principal in the second degree (CL)
one who aid or abets and is present at the scene (getaway driver)
Accomplice: accessory before the fact (CL)
one who aids or abets but is NOT present at the scene
Accomplice: accessory after the fact (CL)
one who aids or abets the principal after the commission of the crime
requires proof:
- of a completed felony;
- that the accessory knew of the commission of the felony; and
- that the accessory personally gave aid to the felon to hinder their apprehension, conviction, or punishment
Key point
one who meets the requirements to be a CL accessory after the fact is charged with a distinct crime such as hindering apprehension or obstruction of justice not with the crimes by the principal
Exam tip!
-defenses
all excuses turn on one ultimate question: was the D’s mental process overwhelmed to the point that it is unfair to hold them accountable for the crime?
Exam tip!
-defenses
all justification defenses turn on one ultimate question: was it truly necessary for the D to take the law into their own hands and commit an act that is normally unlawful?
Defense: Insanity Rule
a) Insanity is an excuse that the defendant lacks mental responsibility
Rule: If the defendant was legally insane at the time of his criminal act, no criminal liability will be imposed
There are 4 different tests
Defense: Insanity
M’Naghten Test
Focuses on the defendant’s reasoning abilities; a defendant will be relieved of criminal responsibility upon proof that, at time of commission:
(a) the defendant suffered from a severe mental disease or defect; and
(b) as a result, the defendant is unable to know either:
• the nature and quality of their act; or
• that what they were doing was wrong (delusional self-defense)
Defense: Insanity
Irresistible Impulse Test
The defendant will not be guilty when they had a mental disease that kept them from controlling their conduct
Defense: Insanity
MPC Test
The defendant is not responsible for criminal conduct if, at time of such conduct and as a result of a mental disease or defect, they lacked the substantial capacity to appreciate the criminality (wrongfulness) of their conduct or to conform conduct to the requirements of law
Defense: Insanity
Durham (or New Hampshire Rule)
The defendant is not criminally responsible if the unlawful act was the product of a mental disease or defect (i.e., that it would not have been committed “but for” the disease or defect)
Defense
Intoxication: Involuntary
i) Can be alcohol or a narcotic
ii) Will be a defense to any crime requiring proof of general or specific intent so long as it negates the requisite mens rea
Defense
Intoxication: Voluntary
i) May be a valid defense for a specific intent crime if it negates the requisite mental state (it may negate a purposeful or knowing mental state)
ii) Voluntary intoxication is NOT a defense to general intent crimes and will not negate recklessness, negligence, or strict liability
Defense: Duress
a) Duress excuses criminal conduct where the defendant reasonably believes that the only way to avoid an unlawful threat of great bodily harm or imminent death is to engage in unlawful conduct
b) Not a defense to murder, unless to excuse the underlying felony in felony murder
Defense: Self Defense
a) Self-defense is a justification defense
b) Self-defense applies where there is an honest and reasonable judgment that it is necessary to use force to defend against an unlawful, imminent threat of bodily harm
c) The defendant must be the victim of the unlawful threat (and not the initial aggressor)
d) The defendant must be in imminent danger of unlawful bodily harm (otherwise, they should call the cops)
e) The defendant must use proportional force (no more than reasonably necessary) to prevent the imminent harm
Defense: Self Defense
Homicidal Self-Defense
i) Deadly force used in self-defense is only permitted in response to an imminent threat of death or grievous bodily harm
ii) Unclean Hands: An initial aggressor may not claim self-defense
(1) Common Law: The initial aggressor could regain the right to self-defense only by complete withdrawal perceived by the first victim
(2) Modern Law: The initial aggressor has the right to self-defense if the first victim responds to the aggression with excessive force
Defense: Self Defense
Retreat Rule
i) Common Law: The victim of unlawful violence had the duty to retreat before use of deadly force
ii) Even when retreat still required, it is not required in the defendant’s own home, car, or office, and is not required if retreat not feasible
Defense: Defense of Others
a) Force is justified when necessary to defend a third party who is facing an unlawful imminent threat of bodily harm
b) Use of deadly force is only justified when there is a threat of death or grievous bodily harm
c) Majority Rule: Based on the reasonableness of the defendant’s belief that the third person was being unlawfully attacked
i) If reasonable but mistaken, the defendant can still claim defense of others
d) Minority Rule: The defendant steps into the shoes of the victim being attacked—if the third party was the initial aggressor or failed to retreat when required by law, the defendant has no defense
Defense: Defense of Property
a) Reasonable, non-deadly force is justified in defending one’s property from theft, destruction, or trespass where:
i) the defendant has a reasonable belief that their property is in immediate danger; and
ii) no greater force than necessary is used
b) Deadly force may NEVER be used to defend (i.e., no trap guns)
Defense: Necessity
a) The defense of necessity justifies the commission of what is normally a crime when:
i) it is necessary to avoid an immediate threat of greater harm to persons or property;
ii) there is no reasonable alternative to breaking the law to avoid the greater harm; and
iii) the defendant is not responsible for causing the harm
b) Common Law: Necessity is never a defense to murder, unless raised as a defense to the underlying felony for felony murder
c) MPC: Can raise the defense for all charges, even homicide, which might result in acquittal if the defendant kills one person to save lots of lives
