Rando 6 page notes Flashcards
1
Q
Regina v Dudley and Stephens, four men on boat case
A
Guilty of murder. Self-preservation alone does not qualify under the necessity defense.
2
Q
Retribution
A
Focuses on the culpability of someone who commits a crime.
3
Q
Utilitarian
A
Punishment should benefit happiness. Focus on the trehat of future crime/harm.
4
Q
Actus reus parts
A
Conduct, circumstances, result
5
Q
Mens rea hierarchy
A
Purpose, knowledge, reckless, negligence,
6
Q
Causal link?
A
Between conduct and result if result is part of AR.
7
Q
Does conduct need to be voluntary?
A
Yes.
8
Q
Temporal concurrence?
A
Yes between AR and MR. No between conduct and result.
9
Q
People v Newton: “unconciscious” case.
A
Involuntary unconsciousness is a complete defense, and jury should have been given those instructions. Criminal acts must be voluntary acts.
10
Q
Martin v State: Drunken highway case
A
D wins. Involuntary act can’t be criminal.
11
Q
People v Decina: Driving seizure case
A
D loses. Conduct was voluntary when he got into the car and started driving. Knew he was liable to have a seizure.
12
Q
Jones v United states (omission), didn’t provide for son of family friend staying at house.
A
D wins. Not suffiicnet that there was a legal duty to the child.
13
Q
Legal duties can come from
A
Certain status relationshisp (ex. parent/child, spousal, master to apprentice, shipmaster to crew, inkeeper to inebriated customer).
Contractual relationships.
Statute imposed duty.
If someone voluntarily assumes care and secludes a helpless person.
Wrongful creation of risk.
Innocnet creation of risk (in some jurisdictions).
14
Q
Child drowning in ocean. “I’ll save you,” begin doing it, then give up and drowns. Other people at beach who could have helped. Legal duty?
A
Yes, there is a legal duty because you voluntarily assumed the care and might have hindred others from helping.
15
Q
Professional swimmer sess a drowning and does nothing? Legal duty?
A
No.
16
Q
Paid lifeguard sees a drowning child. Legal duty?
A
Yes, contractual relationship.
17
Q
A accidently pushes B into pool, but then watches B drown. Legal duty?
A
innocent creation of risk. Depends on jurisdiction.
18
Q
A wrongfully pushes B into the pool, watches drowning. Legal duty?
A
Yes.
19
Q
Pope v state (ommission), took in woman and infant. Woman goes into MI episode and kills child. D does nothing.
A
D wins. Court find there was no preexisting duty when the mother was also there to care for the child. There must be a clear legal duty to hold D liable.
20
Q
Regina v Cunningham (MR case), D stole gas meter, woman nextdoor exposed to gasleak. MR: “maliciously administer”
A
D wins. Maliciously administer means recklessly (foresaw the risk of harm and disregarded it). This was negligent at most.
21
Q
Regina v Faulkner (MR), seaman on ship, tries to steal rum, lights ship on fire. MR. Harm is likely or probable to occur, and D disregards.
A
D wins.
22
Q
State v Hazelwood, captain ran ship aground on reef causing oil spill. Civil negligence used.
A
D loses. Court wants to deter this behavior, so they find D guilty based on the civil negligence standard.
23
Q
Santillanes v New Mexico (MR), D cuts nephew with knife. Child abuse?
A
No. Uses criminal negligence standard. Court wants to punish conduct that is morally culpable.
24
Q
Criminal vs civil negligence???
A
????
25
Elonis v United States (MR), facebook messages case. No MR in statute.
Court says when a statute is silent, there is still a MR. Assumed recklessness.
26
Purpose conduct
Conscious object
27
purpose circumstances
aware, believes, or hopes
28
purpose resul
conscious object
29
knowingly conduct
aware that the condcut is of that nature
30
knowingly circumstances
Aware that the circumstance exists or aware of a high probability that the circumstances exist, unless you actually believe it does not
31
knowingly result
Aware that it is practically certain that the condcut will cause such a result
32
recklessly conduct
Consciously disregards a substantial and unjustifiable risk that the conduct is of that nature
risk: Gross deviation from the standard of a law-abiding person
33
Recklessly circumstances
Conscious disregard of a substantial and unjustifible risk
34
recklessly results
Consciously disregards a substantial and unjustifiable risk
35
negligently conduct
Should be aware of a substantial and unjustifiable risk that the conduct is of that nature
36
Negligently
should be aware of a substantial and unjustifiable risk
37
Negligently
Should be aware of a substantial and unjustifiable risk
38
Free floating mens rea "with intent to"
Usually purpose
39
United states v Jewell, Marijuana in secret compartment, claims they didn't know. MR: Knowing
D loses. "Willfull ignorance" meets the knowing standard.
40
Invisble elements
Identity, date, jurisdiction
41
Mistake of fact
D is unaware or mistaken as to a fact pertaining to an element of the offense
42
REgina v Prince, taking girl under 16 out of parents home believing her to be 18
D loses. Mistake of act is not a defense because of strict liability (no more strict liability today), because the act itself was wrongful.
43
MPC ignorance or mistake as to a matter of fact or different law is a defense if
The ignorance or mistake negates the purpose, knoweldge, belief, recklessness or negligence required to establish a material element of the offense, or
the law provides that the state of mind established by such ignorance or mistake constitutes a defense.
Defense not available if D would be guilty of another offense had the situation been as he supposed. In such case grade and degree reduced to that he would be convicted of had situation been has he supposed.
44
Hypo: A think's B's clothes are cheap and ruins them. They are very expensiv. How guilty is A?
A is guilty for destroying clothes valued at the cheaper value.
45
General intent vs specific intent crimes
General intent: The prosecution must prove only that the accused meant to do an act prohibited by law.
Specific intent crimes typically require that D intentionally commit an act and intend to cause a particular result when committing that act.
46
Common law mistake of fact
See page 13
47
Mistake of same law
Mistake is the very law you have been charged with.
Is not a defense unless:
1) the law says state of mind established by such ignorance or mistake constitutes a defense.
2) the statute defining the offense is not known and has not been published or otherwise reasonably made available
3) D acts in reasonable reliance upon an official statement of the law, afterward determined to be invalid or erroneous.
48
Mistake of different law
Mistakes a factual understanding of different body of law
A mistake of different law is treated the same as a mistake of fact. A mistake of different law can be a defense if it negates a required MR element.
49
MPC mistake of fact/law chart
Page 14
50
Regina v Smith, remove previously installed stereo.
This is a mistake of different law because D is mistaking the definition of property and property law. D wins. The mistake of law negates the required MR of recklessness.
51
Cheek v United states (mistake of law), willfully atempts to evade or defeat any tax. Thought wages not income. Also thought unconstitutional
This is mistake of same law. Congress intended willfullness, in this complex provision, to mean the voluntary intentional violation of a known legal duty. Exception here falls into law is providing.
Constitutional defense fails.
52
Lambert v California (mistake of law), past convict, unaware of law requiring registration.
D wins. Mistake of same lawThis is a due process issue related to reaosnable made available. No reason D should have known even though law published (no reason to think requirement existed, only entered state no affirmative action, no real purpose other than administrative convenience, malum prohibitum).
53
People v Marrero (mistake of same law), corrections officer gun case
D loses. Court says fr the exception to apply, the statute must have later been found to be erroneous. If a person is relying on his own interpretation of the law, then he has to be correct.
Court takes utlitarian approach, opposite result would encourage people to misinterpret the law, flood of litigation.
54
Morissette v US (strict liability), gun casings thought were abandonded, charged with knowingly converting government property
D wins. No strict liability. Court says there must be an intent to steal which D did not have.
55
Strict liability is reserved for maters of public safety that don't have background in common law aka public welafer or regulatory offenses. FActors?
Not a traditional offense with roots in common law.
Relatively light penalites.
Little stigma.
Often deal with omissions or neglect rather than positive agression.
Often danger is crated, but not immediate injury.
Not malum in se.
D stands in responsible relation to public danger, or is the best person to prevent harm.
Not a felony.
Circumstances that should alert D to possibility of regulation.
Utilitarian balancing.
Ex. high velocity traffic, highway safety, healtchare, worker saferty.
56
Staples v US (strict liability), didn't know firearm fit description making it illegal.
D wins. No strict liability. This is not a public welfare offense. Violation of this law would be a felony.
57
US v Dotterweich (strict liability), D charged with shpping misbranded drugs. Recieved with wrong label, never checked.
D loses. This is strict liability because public welfare. D stands in responsible relation to public danger, is in best position to avoid harm so higher duty created.
Comes with a 1 year priso sentence (higher than most public welfare offenses, but still "low").
58
US v Balint (strict liability), selling derivatives of opium/coca leaves. Didn't know what they were selling.
D loses. Best position to avoid harm, malum prohibitum, bad to sell drugs to society so creates danger, matter of neglect/inaction, 5 year sentence (high penalty, but not every box has to be checked off).
59
Strict liability MPC vs non-MPC
Non-MPC backgroudn presumption of strict liability for public welfare offenses when silent. Presumption of mens rea for non-public welfare offenses when silent.
MPC: NO strict liability anywhere, unlesss a violation. Violations can only carry fines.
60
Homicide chart
see page 18
61
Criminal homicide
unlawful killing of a person by another
62
murder
Criminal homicide with malice aforethought. Can be based on 1) intent to kill, 2) intent to inflict grievous bodily harm, 3) extreme recklessness (recless disregard for the value of human life; depraved heart), 4) felony murder (intent to commit a felony and death results in commission).
63
Penn law 1st vs 2nd degree murder
1st: premeditation and deliberation, willfulness, speciailized manner (torture, poison, lying in wait, etc.), enumeratd felonies (rape, arson, robbery, burglary)
2nd: Not 1st
64
Commonwealth v Carrol, husband shoots wife in head while dozing off during argument.
1st degree murder. Intent to kill is enough to satisfy the premeditation and deliberate requirement. Has intent to kill due to deadly weapon doctrine. No time is to short for premeditation. Intent to kill is always first degree murder.
This is the majority rule.
65
Deadly weapon rule
Use of a deadly weapon on a vital part of the body allows an inference of intent to kill.
66
State v Gurthrie, bop on nose, stab. 1st or 2nd degree? Anderson factors?
Charge reduced from 1st to 2nd degree murder.
Premeditation requires some time for reflection and some evidence that D weighed the decision and went forth with the killing after contemplation.
Can have intent to kill without premeditation and deliberation.
They use People v Anderson standards: Premeditation requires 1) planning activity that indicates a design, 2) motive that ndicated D's reason to kill, 3) manner of killing reflects a preconceived design.
This is the minority rule.
67
Voluntary manslaughter
Criminal homicide where there is no malice aforethought. Also, provocation formula can downgrade 2nd degree murder to voluntary manslaughter.
68
Provocation formula
Heat of passion (subjective standard): Was the killing committed under and as as the result of the influence of passion or in the heat of blood?
Adequate provocation (objective standard): Was the heat of passion produced by adequate or reasonable provocation?
Cooling time (objective standard): Was the killing committed before a reasonable time had elapsed for the blood to cool and for reason to resume its habitual control?
69
Maher v People (provocation formula), D sees wife and victim in woods, told they had intercourse previous day in woods, follows them out of woods and shoots in ear at saloon.
D was reasonably provoked is a jury qustion. Court applies a flexible approach to the "adequate provocation" requirement. They say a jury needs to look at the facts and decide if D's provocation was reasonble.
This is the majority rule.
70
Girourard v State (provocation), "what are you going to do" stabby times 19.
D loses. Words alone can't be considered adequate. Lays out several categories that are adequate: Extreme assault or battery on D, mutual combat, illegal arrest of D, injury/serious abuse of a close relative, sudden discovery of adultery. This is a categorical test.
This is the minority rule.
71
Hypo: A sees B break his wife's nose. A waits five minutes, calms down, and returns and kills B. A reasonable person would not have cooled down in five minutes. Provocation?
Heat of passion: Not met. Subjective standdard and A is calm.
Cooling time: Met, objective standard.
Adequate provocation: Met, objective standard.
72
Hypo: A sees wife in bed with B. Gets angrier with time, two weeks later kills B. Provocation?
No.
Heat of passion, met.
Cooling time, not met. Reasonble person cools down by now.
Exeption: Some jurisdicitons consider a rekindling action to reset the cooling time. So, if A saw B do something two weeks later that, on its own not enough, but rekindled then provocation defense allowed.
Adequate provocation: Met.
73
Extreme emotional disurbance
Is an affirmative defense to murder if
1) D acted under the influence of extreme emotional distrubance (subjective)
2) for which there was a reasonble explanation or excuse (objective).
Not a strictly reaosnable person, but a reasonable person in D's situation under the circumstances as D believes them to be.
Reduces murder charge to voluntary manslaughter???
74
EED vs provocation formula
EED doesn't have explicit "cooling time"
EED focuses on excuse (d is not blameworthy) instead of justification (D is not wrong)
EEd has no provocation requirement
EED is very likely to go to jury
75
People v Casassa, victim not falling in love with D, d eavesdrops, great emotional distress, brings wine and liquor, rejected, stabby time.
EED is not a defense. Charged with second degree murder.
76
Civil negligence vs criminal negligence
Civil negligence: Deviation from the standard of care that a reaosnble person would observe under the circumstances
Criminal negligence: A gross deviation from the standard of care that a reaosnble person would observe under the circumstances.
77
Commonwelath v Malone (homicide), russian roulette. Kills on third trigger, shouldn't have gone off until 6th. 2nd degree murder?
Yes. Extreme recklessness satisfies malice aforthought requirement.
Extreme recklessness: Having a wicked, depraved, and malignant heart. An intentional doing of an un-called for act in callous disregard of its likely harmful effects on others. Being aware that death is likely to result.
78
MPC extreme recklessness (murder)
1) The conscious disregard of an 2) unjustified risk to human life 3) that is extremely high, 4) showing extreme indifference to value of life.
79
United states v Flemming (homicide), speeding, swerving, crashing, killing. Very drunk. 2nd degree or involuntary manslaughter? Is this extreme recklessness (murder) or ordinary recklessness (manslaughter)?
2nd degree murder. Extreme recklessness rquires: hardness of heart (heart without regard for the life and saferty of others), awareness of serious risk of great bodily harm or death, and a level of egrigiousness that's higher in degree than ordinary recklessness.
Drunkenness is not a defense.
80
D has dying child in car. Trying to get to hospital. Driving 125 in residential area. Kills someone. Murder or manslaughter?
High justification so neither murder no manslaughter.
81
Hunter, not knowing ther are other people in the woods, fires shots around in celebration. Kills a hiker. Murder?
Not aware of risk so can't be extremely reckless. Is negligent. Guilty of involuntary manslaughter.
82
Hunter is injured in woods and can't walk. Fires six bullets to attract someone and kills.
Hunter might hae a justification defense. So, risk is discounted by justiifcation. Involuntary manslaughter requires a negligent mens rea.
83
Hunter fires at buddy standing on edge of cliff. Was trying to shoot off hat as a joke. Goes over cliff and hits boater.
Transferred intent. Guilty of murder.
84
It is felony murder if:
1) You, or an accomplice, acting in furtherance of the felony, 2) cause the death of another, 3) in the commission or the attempted commission of a felony, 4) inherently dangerous to life. 5) it does not merge???
85
People v stamp (felony-murder), heart attack during robberty
1st degree murder affirmed. Forseeability doesn't matter. There jut needs to be a direct, causal connection between the death and the felony (but for causation).
86
Hypo: Hit with getaway car during felony. Dies three months later. Felony murder?
Yes, unless you can prove some proximiate cuause issue such as intervening cuases.
87
Regina v Serne (felony murder), fire to house to get insurance money, people unable to escape die. Murer?
D wins. Not guilty of arson so not guility of murder.
88
People v Phillips (felony-murder), kid with cancer, can save without removing eye, kid dies. Felony murder based on grand theft (theft by deception)?
No. Grand theft is not a suitable felony. You look at elements of crime in the abstract and consider if there are ways this felony can be committed so that it does not endanger human life. If yes, then felony is not suitable predicate felony.
This is the minority rule.
89
Hines v State (felony-murder), turkey hunting case. felony murder based on possession of a firearm by a convicted felon?
Yes. This can be a sutiable predicate felony. In determining if a felony is a sutiable predicate felony, look at the specific factual circumstances. Consider the actual manner in which the crime was committed. a felony is "inherently dangerous" when it is dangerous per se or if it carreis "a high probability tht death will result."
This is the majority rule.
90
merger doctrine for felony-murder
If the predicate felony is an integral part of the homicide, it "merges" and can't be considred a suitable predicate felony.
Ex. manslaughter, if manslaughter could be considred a predicate felony, then manslaughter would automatically jump to murder and manslaughter would no longer be a charge.
Ex. felonious assault: If felonious assault was a suitable predicate felony, case would leap over manslaughter and become murder.
A felony merges when it has no independent felonious purpose or when there is a signle course of conduct that results in death.
91
People v Burton (felony-murder), is armed robbery a suitable predicate felony?
Yes. It is inherently dangerous and does not merge.
Court says a felony merges if the purpose of the conduct is the very thing that led to the death. Where there is an independent felonious purpose, it does not merge.
Armed robberty: Assault with deadly weapon + larceny. Does not merge because larceny produces an indpeendent felonious purpose.
92
Assault with deadly weapon. Merges?
Yes. The purpose of the assault is to inflict bodily harm.
93
Rape, or kidnapping, merge?
Neither.
94
Burglary, merge?
Depends. Usually not (see Burton), but in Wilson D committed burglary with intent of assaulting his ex-wife, so it did merge there.
95
State v Canola (in furtherance of the felony), rob jewelry store, owner fights, owner shoots and kills a felon. felony murder?
No, Fm does not apply here due to the agency theory.
96
Agency theory of felony murder (majority approach)
Majoirty approach. NO person can be held guilty of a homicide, unless the act is his. For FM to apply, the murder must have been done by the felon or a co-felon.
97
Proximate cause theory of felony murder.
Minority approach. FM applies if any death is the proximate cause of the felony. If death of anyone is within the forseeable risk of committing the felony, then any co-felon can be held liable for the deaths of bystanders, third parties, and co-felons.
98
D lightly punches B, who is elderly and has pacemaker. B dies. Felony murder?
No. Felonious assualt so merges.
99
Counterfeit $100 to ask for change from B. B freaks out and has heart attack. Felony murder?
No. Not suitable predicate felony. Not inherently dangerous to life.
100
Robbery. Officer sneaks behind getaway car. Run over by accident. Felony murder?
Yes. armed robbery suitable. Inherently dangerous? Yes. Merge/ no. In furhterance? Yes. Any action considred necessary to commit the crime is part of the felony. It starts when attempt begins and ends when flight ends and felon has "seeming security."
101
robbery. Getaway driver hits police officer unseen. Felony murder?
Yes. Caused by D or an accomplice.
102
Police trying to stop robbery. Hits bystander. Felony murder?
Agency theory? No. Proximate cause theory? Yes.
103
Criminal attempt requires, in general
1) the intent to commit a specific crime, and 2) an act beyond mere preparation toward the commision of that crime.
104
Three tests for AR for attempt?
proximity test, equivocality test, substantial step test.
105
MR for attempt
Conduct = purpose to engage in target offense.
Circumstance = Match MR of target offense.
Result = Purpose to produce result of target offense
Plus match any free-floating MR>
106
Smallwood v State (attempt), unprotected sex while knowing HIV+. Attempted murder?
No. Didn't have required MR. D must have had the purpose to produce death.
107
A runs car over X with intent to kill X.
B runs over X with intent to inflict grievous bodily harm, and accidently kills X.
C is extremely reckless and drives car into a car, killing X.
D drives a getaway car as part of a felony and accidently kills X.
If X dies who is guilty of murder?
If X dies who is gulity of attempted murder?
All guilty of murder if X dies.
If X doesn't diie only A guilty of attempted murder because only had acted with the purpose to kill X.
108
Pilot knows plane faulty and could crash. Takes 6 paying customers hoping for best. Plane crashes. Attempted murder? Murder?
If everyone dies, murder because extreme recklessnes.
If no one dies, no attempted murder because no purpose to produce death.
109
Can you have attempted involuntary manslaughter?
No. The MR for involuntary manslaguter is negligence. Involuntary manslaughter is unintentional. So the required MR for attempt, which is purpose to produce death, will never be met.
110
Can you have attempted felony-murder?
No. F-M doesn't require MR with regards to the killing. If you could have attemped FM, then any felony that didn't result in death could be charged as attempted murder.
111
Proximity test
The act must come "very near" or "dangerously near" the accomplishment of the target crime; so near that in all reasonable probability the crime itself would have been accomplished, but for timely interference; htere must be a "dangerous proximity to success."
112
People v Rizzo (proximity test, attempt), plan to rob roll man, look for him, check buildings, arrested at building but never found pay roll man. Attempt?
No. D never found their victim so they weren't close enough.
Proximity test considers only those acts tending to the commission of the crime that are so near that the crime would've been committed but for timely interference.
113
MPC Abandonment/renunciation defense (attempt)
When the actor's conduct would otherwise constitute an attempt...it is an affirmative defense that he abandoned his effort to commit the crime or otherwise prevented its commission, under circumstances manifesting a complete and voluntary renunciation of his criminal prupose.
Renunciation is not voluntary if motivated by circumstances, not present or apparent at the inception of the actor's course of conduct, which increae the probabiity of detection or apprehesion or which make more dfficult the accomplishment of the cirminal purpose.
Not complete if motivated by a decision to postpone the criminal conduct or to transfer the criminal effort to another similar objective or victim.
114
Equivocality test (attempt)
Acts must bespeak intent on their one. The act must show criminal intent on the fact of it, without considering other evidence of intent (such as statements by D); the criminal purpose must be manifested by acts which are sufficient in themselves to declare and proclaim the guilty purpose.
115
People v Miller (attempt, equivocality), threatened to kill J, entered field where J and constable planting hops, d carrying rifle, walks towards them, loads rifle, doesn't lift, Jeans flees. Attempted murder?
No. Act's were equivocal (ambiguous, open to interpretation). D could have been aiming at many ends other than killing. Doesn't matter that D had threatened J, we don't look at words.
116
Hypo: D buys pack of matches, takes to giant haystack and barn, and lights the match right by haystack. Police officer watching, D notices, blows out candle. Attempt?
D could argue there was a non-criminal explanation. So not attempt under equivocality test.
117
Substantial step test
MPC test. The act must constitute a substantial step toward commission of the crime that is strongly corroborative of the firmness of D's criminal intent.
118
United States v Jackson (substantial steps, attempt), armed robbery of bank, don't complete first attempt because to busy, 2nd attemped overtaken by FBI agents, found with guns, masks, hidden license plate. Attempt?
Yes.
119
Substantial step MPC
1) D must have been acting with the kind of culpability otherwise required for the commission of the crime.
2) D must have engaged in a substantial step toward the commssion of the crime--one which is strongly corroborative of the firmness of D's criminal intent.
120
MPC examples of substantial steps
- Lying in wait, searching for or following the contemplated victime of the crime.
- Enticing or seeking to entice the contemplated victim of teh crime to go to the place contemplated for its commission.
- Reconnoitering the place contemplated for the commission of the crime.
- Unlawful entry of a structure, vehicle, or enclosure in which it is contemplated that the crime will be committed.
- Possession of materials to be employed in the commission of the crime, which are sepcially designed for such unlawful use or which can serve no lawful purpose of the actor under the circumstances.
- 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 posssession, collection, or fabrication serves no lawful purpose of the actor under the circumstances.
- Soliciting an innocent agent to engage in conduct constitutng an element of the crime.
121
McQuirter v State (attempt), black man follows woman, seems to wait for her while she's at friends house. Sheriff says there was a confession. Charged with attempt to commit assault with intent to rape.
D is guilty of attempt.
Sub step: following strongly corroborative.
Proximity: Within 2 or 3 feet.
Equivocality: Probably best protection for D. Many alternative explanations. Wouldn't let you consider confession.
122
What is majority attempt rule?
Substnatial step. then proximity. Equivocality is used the least.
123
Factual impossibility
Where the intended acts, if they could have been completed, would be a crime. No defense.
124
Legal impossibility
Where the intended acts, even if they were completed, would not be a crime. Good defense.
125
People v Jaffe (impossibility), Buys "stolen" goods. Guilty of attempting to buy stolen property?
No. Court says this is a legal impossibility. If D had done the act he intended to do (buy the cloth which was not stolen), it would not be a crime.
126
US v Berrigan (impossiblity), smuggling letters, believed warden ignorant, but warden knew and consented. D guilty of attempting to violate federal statute?
No. This is a legal impossiblity. If D was able to complete the act he intended to do, it would not have been a crime.
127
A shoots stuffed deer. Thinks shooting real dear. Not hunting season.
If treated as factual impossiblity: A had intent to kill deer out of hunting season.
Legal impossiblity: Intended to shoot at specific object (stuffed dear) is not a crime.
128
Shooting empty bed thinking someone is there. Legal or factual impossiblity?
Factual: A intended to kills omeone.
Legal: Just shooting empty bed is not a crime.
129
Bribing non-juror you belive to be juror. Legal or factual?
Factual: Wanted to bribe a juror.
Legal: wanted to give this psecific person money.
130
MPC approach to impossiblity?
Majority approach.
Treat based on attendant circumstances as D believed them to be.
Judges are given dsicretion to dismiss or sentence in a lower grade/degree when the crime is so unlikely to occur or not posing a real threat to public welfare (ex. using voodoo doll to attempt to kill).
Exception: True legal impossiblity. When person thinks they are breaking the law, but the conduct is not actually illegal (ex. possessing aspiring with the intent to distribute not a crime and therefore no attempt.
131
People v Duglash, firend fired three shots at person. Probably dead. D then shoots at victims head 5 times. Attempted murder?
Yes. D is guilty of attempted murder because he believed the victim was alive. MPC approach is used, you look at circumstances as D believed them to be.
132
Hypo: french lace over border thinking it is illegal. It isn't illegal.
True legal impossiblity. Not guilty.
133
Against law to smuggle french lace, thought it was english lace (legal), actuall french lace.
Mistake of fact. We do eleemnts analysis.
134
Illegal to smuggle french lace, thinks smuggling french lace. Turns out to be eglish lace.
Factual impossiblity = guilty.
Legal impossiblity = maybe not guilty (smuggling lace she was handed).
MPC = Take factual circumstances as she believed them to be. Guilty of attempt.
135
D shoots stumpt thinking it was a person. Under MPC?
Guilty of attempted murder.
136
United States v Oviedo (impossiblity), D sold face drugs to undercover cop. Claims just trying to make money. Guilty of attempt?
Court uses something like equivocality approach. The evidence must mark D's conduct as criminal in nature. Act consistant with noncriminal behavior so can't be convicted of attempt. This is an alternative approach.
137
Accomplice liablity general formula
To be an accomplice, you must 1) intentionally (MR) 2) aid or encourage the primary actor in the commission of the target offense (AR).
138
Is accomplice liablity a crime in and of itself?
No. It is a theory used to prove liability for the target offense. The accomplice is charged with the same target offense as the primary actor.
139
AR for accomplice liablity?
Aid or encourage.
140
MR for accomplice liablity
Purpose to aid or encourage the conduct of the primary actor for the target offense.
Unclear for circumstances but must at least match MR of target offense.
Result must match MR of target offense.
141
Hisorical accomplice liability
Principal in first degree, principal in second degree, accessory before the fact, accessory after the fact.
142
Modern accomplice liability
primary actor, accomplice, accessory after the fact (which is a sperate crime, not an accomplice).
143
Hypo: A hires B to break kneecap and C to keep watch. D finds out after the fact and hides B. Roles?
A: Accomplice liability
B: primary actor
C: Accomplice liablity
D: Accessory after the fact, different crime than the rest.
