Criminal Law Final

Rule of Lenity (Legality)

(US v. Dauray) a requirement that in criminal prosecutions, ambiguities in the statute must be resolved in the defendants favor and/or should resolve the ambiguity in favor of the more lenient punishment. If the statute can't be interpreted because it is too vague/vague on its face (also called the "money shot" but only by me), it is unconstitutional. Two versions have developed: 1. Makes courts adopt the narrowest plausible interpretation of a criminal statute (more common in the last). 2. Last Resort - That to which one looks for help late, after all other possible measures have failed. (you have the court higher than the one you are in define the ambiguous statute, the best is if the fed supreme court already or can do it)

Attempt to aid and abet?

Can you attempt to aid and abet? MPC language specifically says where "you aid and abet or attempt to aid and abet." Accomplice Liability

Reckless Murder

Commonwealth v. Malone (PENNSYLVANIA): Convicted of 2nd degree murder because he loaded the gun, pulled it 3x, he did not spin it (essential element for Russian Roulette), pointed it at his friends head = depraved (depraved indifference is worse than recklessness). Held: Murder because of the wicked disposition from the uncalled for act in callous disregard of its likely harmful effects on others. The fact that there was no motive doesn't matter. When an individual commits an act of gross recklessness, for which he must reasonably anticipate that death to another is likely to result, he exhibits that "wickedness of disposition, hardness of heart, cruelty, recklessness of consequences and a mind regardless of social duty" which proved that there was at that time in him "the state or frame of mind termed malice."

Omission

Conscious decision not to act where you have a legal duty to do so.

Criminal Facilitation Accomplice Liability

Criminal facilitation is when you know you're helping them, but your intent is not to help them specifically. I have a feeling you're going to do something illegal. Think about this in terms of willful blindness. High probability of knowledge but decide not to ask. You're not trying to further it, but you know. Can be misdemeanor. Depends on jurisdiction and what kind of crime. ---NYS facilitation language: Whether you believe there is a probability that a crime will be committed. Know about Booth who hates Obama and know he's going to be in town and he's in my map store and wants a way out.

cross over from preparation to attempt? Dangerous Proximity

Dangerous proximity - "about to do it." THIS IS NEW YORK RULE. ---Commonwealth v. Bell: (MASSACHUSSETTS) undercover cop met D and agreed that she would take him to nearby park where she would allow him to have sex with her four-year old. After telling D to follow her in his car, she drove out of the parking lot with D close behind. He was then arrested for attempted rape. Held: Reversed attempted rape because he had yet to see child, didn't pay her yet, didn't follow her to the child. Need dangerous proximity.

Unequivocal Conduct Attempt

Did the conduct unequivocally (clearly) intend to do anything? Some jurisdictions say acts have to be unequivocal.

But "For" Causation

EX: People v. Acosta: (CALIFORNIA) but for Acosta's conduct of fleeing the police, the helicopters would never have been in the position for the crash. But for the defendant's act, would the harm have occurred?

Pinkerton Doctrine Conspiracy

Has the MPC embraced Pinkerton??? No. As a co-conspirator, you are not responsible for crimes you did not know about that were unintended. ---US v. Pinkerton: Pinkerton were bootleggers. Daniel and Walter conspired. Walter went out and did some other crimes. Daniel who was in prison, was charged with those crimes even though he had no idea those crimes were committed. Held: Objectively foreseeable. Probable and natural consequences of those acts (the conspiracy). Can be an unintended crime that has occurred but is the probable and natural consequences of the conspiracy. ---US v. Alvarez: Cocaine deal. Hernandez is the owner of the motel. He allowed the transaction to happen at the motel and served as an interpreter. Did he have a gun? No. Did he transport the drugs? No. Did not engage in negotiations, other than acting as an interpreter. Why is he held under a theory of vicarious liability? Answer: Natural, probable consequence. Drug deal with guns around, foreseeable someone will get shot. He acted as facilitator in allowing it to happen but actively took part as a translator.

Active Participation Assisted Suicide

Have to show active participation to prove murder in a suicide case. ---People v. Minor: Victim is motivational speaker and presumably wants to kill himself so he hires the defendant. He wants the defendant to strap a knife around the steering wheel of his car so the victim can put his chest into it. What should he be charged with? Asst suicide (manslaughter) or murder? Court of Appeals decided there was sufficient evidence that the victim was under financial stress, was suicidal, the way the knife was set up, etc. By putting knife on steering wheel did he actively participate? ---People v. Campbell: hope alone is not the degree of intention requisite to a charge of murder. HE is charged with murder NOT assisting suicide. If it were an assisted suicide statute then wishing and hoping may be enough. ---People v. Kevorkian: charged with murder because at the time there wasn't an assisted suicide statute. If patient did everything herself, it wouldn't be murder. When he puts on mask, turns on gas and says breathe in, it's murder. Active participation.

Child Abuse Cases Murder

Inconsistent result with child abuse cases: Low IQ, cases by case basis I guess. •Patterson: objective standard. Doesn't matter what her IQ was. •Everhart: low IQ and accidental nature •Burden: knew the risk and did it anyway. Gross recklessness because it's the father of the child and he has duty to child.

MPC Felony murder

Section 210.2. Murder. (1) Except as provided in Section 210.3(1)(b), criminal homicide constitutes murder when: (a) it is committed purposely or knowingly; or (b) it is committed recklessly under circumstances manifesting extreme indifference to the value of human life. Such recklessness and indifference are presumed if the actor is engaged or is an accomplice in the commission of, or an attempt to commit, or flight after committing or attempting to commit robbery, rape or deviate sexual intercourse by force or threat of force, arson, burglary, kidnapping or felonious escape.

MPC Conspiracy

Section 5.03. Criminal Conspiracy. (1) Definition of Conspiracy. A person is guilty of conspiracy with another person or persons to commit a crime if with the purpose of promoting or facilitating its commission he: (a) agrees with such other person or persons that they or one or more of them will engage in conduct which constitutes such crime or an attempt or solicitation to commit such crime; or (b) agrees to aid such other person or persons in the planning or commission of such crime or of an attempt or solicitation to commit such crime. (2) Scope of Conspiratorial Relationship. If a person guilty of conspiracy, as defined by Subsection (1) of this Section, knows that a person with whom he conspires to commit a crime has conspired with another person or persons to commit the same crime, he is guilty of conspiring with such other person or persons, whether or not he knows their identity, to commit such crime. (3) Conspiracy With Multiple Criminal Objectives. If a person conspires to commit a number of crimes, he is guilty of only one conspiracy so long as such multiple crimes are the object of the same agreement or continuous conspiratorial relationship. (4) Joinder and Venue in Conspiracy Prosecutions. (a) Subject to the provisions of paragraph (b) of this Subsection, two or more persons charged with criminal conspiracy may be prosecuted jointly if: (i) they are charged with conspiring with one another; or (ii) the conspiracies alleged, whether they have the same or different parties, are so related that they constitute different aspects of a scheme of organized criminal conduct. (b) In any joint prosecution under paragraph (a) of this Subsection: (i) no defendant shall be charged with a conspiracy in any county [parish or district] other than one in which he entered into such conspiracy or in which an overt act pursuant to such conspiracy was done by him or by a person with whom he conspired; and (ii) neither the liability of any defendant nor the admissibility against him of evidence of acts or declarations of another shall be enlarged by such joinder; and (iii) the Court shall order a severance or take a special verdict as to any defendant who so requests, if it deems it necessary or appropriate to promote the fair determination of his guilt or innocence, and shall take any other proper measures to protect the fairness of the trial. (5) Overt Act. No person may be convicted of conspiracy to commit a crime, other than a felony of the first or second degree, unless an overt act in pursuance of such conspiracy is alleged and proved to have been done by him or by a person with whom he conspired. (6) Renunciation of Criminal Purpose. It is an affirmative defense that the actor, after conspiring to commit a crime, thwarted the success of the conspiracy, under circumstances manifesting a complete and voluntary renunciation of his criminal purpose. (7) Duration of Conspiracy. For purposes of Section 1.06(4): (a) conspiracy is a continuing course of conduct which terminates when the crime or crimes which are its object are committed or the agreement that they be committed is abandoned by the defendant and by those with whom he conspired; and (b) such abandonment is presumed if neither the defendant nor anyone with whom he conspired does any overt act in pursuance of the conspiracy during the applicable period of limitation; and (c) if an individual abandons the agreement, the conspiracy is terminated as to him only if and when he advises those with whom he conspired of his abandonment or he informs the law enforcement authorities of the existence of the conspiracy and of his participation therein. ---Section 5.04. Incapacity, Irresponsibility or Immunity of Party to Solicitation or Conspiracy. (1) Except as provided in Subsection (2) of this Section, it is immaterial to the liability of a person who solicits or conspires with another to commit a crime that: (a) he or the person whom he solicits or with whom he conspires does not occupy a particular position or have a particular characteristic which is an element of such crime, if he believes that one of them does; or (b) the person whom he solicits or with whom he conspires is irresponsible or has an immunity to prosecution or conviction for the commission of the crime. (2) It is a defense to a charge of solicitation or conspiracy to commit a crime that if the criminal object were achieved, the actor would not be guilty of a crime under the law defining the offense or as an accomplice under Section 2.06(5) or 2.06(6)(a) or (b).

Unilateral Conspiracy

Unilateral conspiracy is when the only person with whom the D conspired with was a police officer or only feigned his acquiescence in the scheme. Example: C and J conspiring. J is undercover, reporting to Ed, chief of FBI. C is doing all these bad things, C gets arrested and is only one arrested. She can be charged with conspiracy (unilateral), because of feigned accomplice. But, some jurisdictions require more: bilateral conspiracy. MPC allows unilateral conspiracy. MPC 5.04B

Can you abandon a conspiracy?

You can abandon a conspiracy. Has to be direct. Tell them, tell cops. Abandonment is different than renunciation. Abandonment gets you off of substantive crime because you left, you're not longer responsible. Could be responsible for acts preceding. Renunciation is a complete offense. Have to thwart the goals of the conspiracy.

Negligent

You failed to see the risk that a reasonable person would, and failure was a gross deviation.

MPC Mens Rea Recklessly

You know the risk, but disregard it.

Majority Rule about What Crimes Fall Under Felony Murder

"As committed jurisdiction" focuses on how the crime was committed. Most states will permit a felony (even a nonviolent felony like theft) to qualify if it is committed in a dangerous way. ---Hines v. State (GEORGIA): hunting, mistook his friend for a turkey, shot him dead. He was convicted of felony murder based on the underlying crime of possession of a firearm by a convicted felon. Dangerous as committed because he was drinking before/while he was hunting, he knew other hunters were in area, unaware of their location, took an unsafe shot, at a target 80 feet away that he had not positively identified as a turkey, intentionally shot the gun.

MPC Mistake

(1) Ignorance or mistake as to a matter of fact or law is a defense if: (a) the ignorance or mistake negatives the purpose, knowledge, belief, recklessness or negligence required to establish a material element of the offense; or (b) the law provides that the state of mind established by such ignorance or mistake constitutes a defense. (2) Although ignorance or mistake would otherwise afford a defense to the offense charged, the defense is not available if the defendant would be guilty of another offense had the situation been as he supposed. In such case, however, the ignorance or mistake of the defendant shall reduce the grade and degree of the offense of which he may be convicted to those of the offense of which he would be guilty had the situation been as he supposed. (3) A belief that conduct does not legally constitute an offense is a defense to a prosecution for that offense based upon such conduct when: (a) the statute or other enactment defining the offense is not known to the actor and has not been published or otherwise reasonably made available prior to the conduct alleged; or (b) he acts in reasonable reliance upon an official statement of the law, afterward determined to be invalid or erroneous, contained in (i) a statute or other enactment; (ii) a judicial decision, opinion or judgment; (iii) an administrative order or grant of permission; or (iv) an official interpretation of the public officer or body charged by law with responsibility for the interpretation, administration or enforcement of the law defining the offense. (4) The defendant must prove a defense arising under Subsection (3) of this Section by a preponderance of evidence.

MPC Affirmative Defense: Duress

(1) It is an affirmative defense that the actor engaged in the conduct charged to constitute an offense because he was coerced to do so by the use of, or a threat to use, unlawful force against his person or the person of another, that a person of reasonable firmness in his situation would have been unable to resist. (2) The defense provided by this Section is unavailable if the actor recklessly placed himself in a situation in which it was probable that he would be subjected to duress. The defense is also unavailable if he was negligent in placing himself in such a situation, whenever negligence suffices to establish culpability for the offense charged. (3) It is not a defense that a woman acted on the command of her husband, unless she acted under such coercion as would establish a defense under this Section. [The presumption that a woman acting in the presence of her husband is coerced is abolished.] (4) When the conduct of the actor would otherwise be justifiable under Section 3.02, this Section does not preclude such defense.

MPC Accomplice Liability

(2) A person is legally accountable for the conduct of another person when: (a) acting with the kind of culpability that is sufficient for the commission of the offense, he causes an innocent orirresponsible person to engage in such conduct; or (b) he is made accountable for the conduct of such other person by the Code or by the law defining the offense; or (c) he is an accomplice of such other person in the commission of the offense. (3) A person is an accomplice of another person in the commission of an offense if: (a) with the purpose of promoting or facilitating the commission of the offense, he (i) solicits such other person to commit it; or (ii) aids or agrees or attempts to aid such other person in planning or committing it; or (iii) having a legal duty to prevent the commission of the offense, fails to make proper effort so to do; or (b) his conduct is expressly declared by law to establish his complicity. (4) When causing a particular result is an element of an offense, an accomplice in the conduct causing such result is an accomplice in the commission of that offense, if he acts with the kind of culpability, if any, with respect to that result that is sufficient for the commission of the offense. (5) A person who is legally incapable of committing a particular offense himself may be guilty thereof if it is committed by the conduct of another person for which he is legally accountable, unless such liability is inconsistent with the purpose of the provision establishing his incapacity. (6) Unless otherwise provided by the Code or by the law defining the offense, a person is not an accomplice in an offense committed by another person if: (a) he is a victim of that offense; or (b) the offense is so defined that his conduct is inevitably incident to its commission; or (c) he terminates his complicity prior to the commission of the offense and (i) wholly deprives it of effectiveness in the commission of the offense; or (ii) gives timely warning to the law enforcement authorities or otherwise makes proper effort to prevent the commission of the offense. (7) An accomplice may be convicted on proof of the commission of the offense and of his complicity therein, though the person claimed to have committed the offense has not been prosecuted or convicted or has been convicted of a different offense or degree of offense or has an immunity to prosecution or conviction or has been acquitted.

In order to show merchant was supplying goods and services to a criminal (conspiracy) we have to show:

-----People v. Lauria Test (CALIFORNIA) 1. Is this merchant-supplier taking part and promoting the business? (Ex: putting out flyers for the prostitutes) 2. Did Lauria charge the prostitutes differently for the answering service? (No) Are you charging a premium? 3. How many prostitutes did Lauria have as clients? 9-10. Was not the bulk of his business. Is the criminal activity a disproportionate amount of the merchants business? 4. Could there be an answering service for people who are not prostitutes? Could these women have been nurses, actresses, servers, etc.? The nature of the service provided is not exclusively going to be used in a legal activity (vs. selling 300 units of morphine to doctor in NC with only 50 patients) ---Don't have to have all 4, it can be a mixture. •Lauria did not do any of these things. That's why he gets off. •Knowing and acquiescing does not mean you want to be a member of the conspiracy.

Two Doctrines of Felony Murder

---Agency: MOST STATES ADHERE TO THIS, CA. Shooter has to be felon or cofelon. If innocent party shoots cofelon in the course of the commission of the crime, the other cofelon cannot be charged with felony murder because it was justified (self defense). If P.O kills felon, surviving felon cannot be charged with felony murder. Keep in mind: Who is the victim and who killed? Look at victim, look at killer. If victim is participant and killer is innocent party, no felony murder. If felon shoots cofelon, and there's another person floating about, not felony murder. ---Proximate Cause Theory (NEW YORK): Doesn't matter who shooter is, as long as the victim is not a participant in the crime, proximate cause theory (because it's foreseeable) = felony murder. Affirmative defense: I knew nothing about gun, weapon, etc. ---State v. Canola: NJ adopted NY rule after Canola. Anyone who kills someone other than participant in the crime, that creates a felony murder situation. Someone is killed, doesn't have to be participant in the crime. THIS IS THE PROXIMATE CAUSE THEORY: IT IS FORESEEABLE. If it's the participant of the crime that dies (KILLED BY INNOCENT PERSON), it's justified. If felon kills felon, that could be regular murder.

Premeditation Murder

---Commonwealth v. Carroll (PENNSYLVANIA): D married a woman who ended up being crazy. Upon his wife's suggestion, D put loaded pistol on their windowsill near their bed. He shot her twice in the head while she was sleeping. D appealed arguing it was not premeditated (insufficient time) so can't be murder 1. Held: Guilty. No time is too short for premeditation. ---State v. Guthrie (WEST VIRGINIA): Held the opposite of Carroll. must be some period between formation of the intent to kill and the actual killing.

NY Penal Code Murder

---Homicide: conduct which causes the death of a person. ---Criminally Negligent Homicide: when with criminal negligence, he causes the death of another person. ---Manslaughter in the Second Degree: recklessly causing the death of another person or intentionally causing or aiding another person to commit suicide. ---Manslaughter in the First Degree: with intent to cause serious physical injury to another person, he causes the death of such person or a third person OR with intent to cause death to another person, he causes the death of such person or a third person under circumstances which do not constitute murder because he acts under the influence of extreme emotional disturbance. ---Murder in the Second Degree: 1. With intent to cause the death of another person, he causes death of that person or a third person. a) Affirmative Defenses: which is reasonable in persons situation under the circumstances as the D believed them to be. D's conduct consisted of causing or aiding suicide without duress or deception. 2. Depraved indifference to human life, he recklessly engages in conduct which creates a grave risk of death to another person, and thereby causes the death of another person or 3. Acting alone or with one or more other persons, he commits or attempts to commit robbery, burgulary, kidnapping, arson, rape and in the course and in furtherance of such crime or immediate flight therefrom, he, or another participant, if there by any, causes the death of a person other than one of the participants. It is an affirmative defense when D wasn't the only participant: a) D did not commit the homicidal act or in any way solicit, request, command, importune, cause or aid the commission thereof; and (b) Was not armed with a deadly weapon, or any instrument, article, or substance readily capable of causing death or serious physical injury and of a sort not ordinarily carried in public places by law abiding persons and: (c) Had no reasonable ground to believe that any other participant was armed with such a weapon, instrument, article or substance and (d) Had no reasonable ground to believe that any other participant intended to engage in conduct likely to result in death or serious physical injury.

Wheel - Spoke Conspiracy

---Kotteakis, also Interstate case. You need a "rim." Rim of knowledge meaning individual conspirators needs to know there are other individual conspirators and that they're all acting together to further the center. In Kotteakis there was no wheel of conspiracy, no proof. Center is main person, spokes are the others. ---Anderson: conspiring to commit abortions. Wheel spoke conspiracy because not only did she conspire with the doctor, she knew she wasn't the only one to do that. Worked in furtherance of entire conspiracy based on facts of case. Knowledge of the others.

Cases Strict Liability

---Morissette v. US: not strict liability offense because it was theft of US property. Need mens rea because crime was rooted in common law. I.E.: theft. ---US v. Balint: selling drugs without a prescription. As long as selling the drugs, didn't have to know that needed a prescription. No common law equivalent. Congress created the law to protect the public welfare. So, strict liability. ---State v. Guminga (MINNESOTA): Bar owner arrested and convicted for his waitress serving alcohol to a minor. Held: Unconstitutional to give person jail time for something they didn't do. Can't distinguish between employer who warns their employees to not serve minors and one who doesn't. Public welfare does not weigh higher than individual rights in this case. Wrong to hold the criminally responsible when punishment can result in incarceration.

CA Penal Code Murder

---Murder: unlawful killing of a human being or a fetus with malice aforethought. First degree is willful, deliberate, and premeditated. All other kinds are second degree murder. ---Malice: express or implied. Expressed when there is manifested a deliberate intention unlawfully to take away the life of a fellow creature. Implied when no considerable provocation appears, or when the circumstances attending the killing show an abandoned and maligiant heart. ---To Prove Deliberate an Premeditated: don't need to prove D maturely and meaningfully reflected upon the gravity of his or her act. ---Manslaughter: unlawful killing of a human being without malice. Three Kinds: Involuntary, Voluntary, Vehicular. ---Involuntary Manslaughter: in the commission of an unlawful act, not a felony, or in the commission of lawful act which might produce death, in an unlawful manner or without due caution and circumspection. Voluntary Manslaughter: upon a sudden quarrel or heat of passion.

Case Negligent Homicide

---People v. Hall: ski instructor, dangerously skiing. CO statute that says duty to avoid collisions. Held: Jury convicted him of negligent homicide. Failed to perceive risks, gross deviation. While skiing ordinarily carried a very low risk of death to other skiers, a reasonable person could have concluded that respondent's conduct grossly deviated from the standard of care that a reasonable, experienced ski racer would have exercised knowing that other people were skiing in front of him.

Foreseeability Accomplice Liability

---People v. Roebuck (PENNSYLANIA): D helped lure him into apartment complex. He orchestrated the events. Foreseeable. Courts have to show you don't have to prove aider and abettor intended specific result. Enough to demonstrate that aider/abettor knowingly and purposely engaged in conduct leading up to foreseeable result. This person knowingly started the chain of events leading up to a result that was foreseeable. Don't have to show defendant knew and wanted this particular result to be achieved. ---People v. Luparello (CALIFORNIA): D sent a friend to victim's house to find out his ex-wife's whereabouts. The friend ended up shooting and killing the victim. D charged with murder as an accomplice, though he was not present at the murder scene. Held: Aiders and abettors should bear responsibility for the criminal offenses they have foreseeably put in motion.

CA Rule on what crimes fall under felony murder

---People v. Stamp: felony murder rule is not limited to those deaths which are foreseeable. As long as homicide is direct causal result of the felony, the felony murder rule applies whether or not the death was a natural or probable consequence of the crime. ---Abstract Rule: Viewing the offense in the abstract, is it inherently dangerous? Only a few jurisdictions follow the CA approach of limiting the felony murder rule to felonies that are dangerous "in the abstract."

Justification: Self Defense Affirmative Defenses

---Self Defense: it was necessary for me to act. Necessary for me to defend myself. Body parts are never dangerous instruments. ---Goetz (NEW YORK): D's defense = mugged on the subway before, D thought he was going to be robbed and decided to stop it fro happening. Are you allowed to use self defense in order to stop a robbery? YES. Can use self defense (deadly force). ---US v. Romero: D brother was being beat, D shot him, Claimed that it was how they do things in his Hispanic culture. Held: No. Was not relevant whether or not a reasonable person would reasonably believe it. Not whether a reasonable Hispanic person. Culture does not work. ---EED: if there is proof that D suffered from EED you can mitigate it down from murder to manslaughter. Even though no honest mistake or reasonable belief. ---Use of Deadly Force: use of deadly force and circumstances under which you use deadly force is not based on you, the individual; it is a reasonable belief (OBJECTIVE). It is the reasonable person, not the reasonable victim. It is the reasonable person viewing the circumstances. EED is excusable. ---Use of Regular Force: if using regular force it doesn't mandate that you have to have a reasonable belief that you are in imminent danger of being maimed. ---Hypo: If Alan is trying to James and gun is pointed and Geriann sees Alan and rips out knife and kills Alan. Geriann is defending James against Alan. What is Geriann's defense? Defense of a third person. Is she allowed to do this? Yes. ---"Unclean Hands"- You can't claim self-defense if you have unclean hands (you started fight, you escalated fight, you were doing something illegal). If you start fight, decedent fights back, you cant claim self defense. ---Hypo: If Cindy starts the fight with Joanna, Joanna picks up a water bottle and is going to throw it at Cindy. Cindy takes out knife and stabs Joanna to prevent her from throwing water bottle at her. Does Cindy have any defense? Answer: Not self defense. Maybe provocation, EED. But not complete defense. What do you need to show for provocation? Was not deliberate premeditation. It mitigates because heat of the moment.

HIV Cases Attempt

---Smallwood v. State (MARYLAND): HIV positive knew that and had been warned by social worker about safe sex. He raped girls, didn't use a condom. State tried to convict him of attempted murder but failed because the prosecution could not prove he intended to cause the death. They would need to show: his words saying he intended to kill them with his HIV that he knew the magnitude of the risk that they would probably die from HIV and he ignored it. •Different from Hinkhouse because he said he was deliberately trying to spread the virus. He lied about it, kept it from his victims. Refused to wear a condom. It was consensual sex, not rape.

Is there a requirement of "but for" in aiding and abetting? Accomplice Liability

---State v. Tally: The Appellate Court found that although the Skeltons never knew about Tally's involvement, and never received any assistance from him, he still aided and abetted their crime because he rendered it easier for the principle actors to accomplish their ends. •The Court found that they didn't require proof that the Ross would have gotten away if he had received the telegram. •In other words there is no requirement of a but-for relationship between the defendant's actions and the criminal conduct of another.

Active Participation/ Intervening Superseding Act Causation

---Stephenson v. State (INDIANA): woman was kidnapped, raped, bit. She takes pills but doesn't die. He offered to take her to the hospital, she says no. She tried once before to escape, but failed. She died of infection wounds from pills, among other things. Issue turns on: did he cause her to die? Held: She was mentally irresponsible because of D's acts. Victim wouldn't have done the acts hadn't it been for D who put her in that position. She did not have a choice. She didn't act under free will. She was under his dominion and control the entire time. If it weren't for what he did to her, she wouldn't have ended up dead. ---Commonwealth v. Carlson (MASSACHUSETTS) car accident was caused by the defendant's negligent driving. Carol suffered severe injuries and was kept alive several days by a ventilator. She demanded to be taken off the ventilator, even though she knew she'd probably die if that happened. Defendant was convicted of negligent homicide. Court said no voluntary choice.

Substantial Steps/Dangerous Proximity Attempt

---US v. Jackson (US COURT OF APPEALS): unlike Rizzo, they had more than guns in the car. Handcuffs, fake license plates, masks, shells and informant. They saw the cops and left. Is that abandonment? No. Not voluntary. But for the cops, they wouldn't have abandoned. Convicted. Used MPC standard: They went to the bank twice to check it out, they had the paraphernalia (tools, reconnoitering). Either one of these alone, under the MPC, was sufficient as a matter of law to constitute as a "substantial step" since it strongly corroborated their criminal purpose. ---US v. Harper (US COURT OF APPEALS): did not take substantial steps. Set up bill trap, went in their car and waited. They needed other things to happen first before they could get out of the car. If ATM technicians did show up, it would have been dangerous proximity. At this point they would have been lying in wait. But, more things would have had to occur for attempt: a substantial step.

Hybrid of Legal and Factual Impossibility attempt.

---United States v. Berrigan (3RD CIRCUIT): D convicted of attempt to violate federal statute making it criminal to take anything in or out of federal prison contrary to regulations of the attorney general. In this case, traffic prohibited "without the knowledge and consent" of the prison warden. D smuggled letters in and out of prison through a courier. He didn't think the warden knew what was going on but the warden knew. Held: Court reversed the conviction. Legal impossibility is said to occur where the intended acts, even if completed, would not amount to a crime. Normally, the exchange of letters is not a federal offense. If the letter is sent without the knowledge and consent of the warden, it is a criminal offense. Prosecution failed to prove absence of knowledge and consent of the warden. Problem with Berrigan: could be factual or legal. Hybrid.

Sufficiently Direct Cause/Foreseeability Causation

---What happens when you kill someone but didn't mean to? Ex: Mug an old lady on the street and two months later she dies from a heart attack. Answer: You can be responsible if it can be proved you were a sufficiently direct cause of the death. ---People v. Arzon (NEW YORK): D charged with the murder of a fireman who received fatal injuries when responding to arson that D committed on 5th floor, he encountered a fire on 2nd floor. Held: Guilty because indispensible link in chain of events, sufficiently direct cause. Foreseeable that fire will spread and someone would die. Doesn't have to be the sole cause. ---People v. Brady (CONNECTICUT): Midair collision of 2 firefighting planes that were attempting to put out fire that D recklessly started, with meth lab. Planes crashed because they did something wrong. D charged with their deaths. Held: Foreseeable because of location of fire required aircraft. ---People v. Kibbes (NEW YORK): Defendant abandons intoxicated robbery victim on the side of the road and he gets run over by a truck. Defendants Argue: Intervening cause: defendants didn't cause the death; he got hit by a car. Unforeseen. Held: Court does not accept this defense. not necessary that actor intend the ultimate harm. Just Ultimate harm should have been foreseen as being reasonably related to the acts of the accused. You don't have to be actual cause just sufficiently direct causal link. ---Things to consider: Did this person voluntarily act? Was person mentally responsible? Was it caused by the defendant's actions? Is there a sufficiently direct cause? Or are there too many things that happened in between? Was it foreseeable?

Can aider and abettor be charged with something the principal can't be charged with?

---Wilson v. People: Wilson, who had no intent of committing the crime, was the person charged. The accomplice must have the specific intent to commit the crime. The aider and abettor had no criminal intent, even though the principal did. If aider and abettor trying to set up crime and frame principal, can he be charged with crime that principal is being charged with? NO. ---In Hayes, had Hayes actually gone into the building with Hill and broken in, could Hayes been charged with burglary? Yes. Accomplice Liability

Provocation Cases Murder

--Girouard v. State (MARYLAND): D killed his wife after she repeatedly verbally abused him. Held: words alone, unaccompanied by conduct indicating a present intention and ability to cause bodily harm cannot constitute adequate provocation to reduce murder to manslaughter. A reasonable person under the circumstances. ---Maher v People (MICHIGAN): D was charged for assault with intent to murder after shooting Hunt, who he claimed had an affair with his wife less than an hour before the incident. Held: The evidence offered by D would have been enough to allow the issue of provocation to go to the jury. In determining whether the provocation is sufficient or reasonable, an objective standard should be used unless the person whose guilt is in question shows to be retarded and not evil/cruel. ---So, reasonable person standard but its subjective. Decided on a case-by-case basis.

Basic Principles of Attempt

-2-step process: Intent of end result with the attempt to steal by force (for robbery) I attempt to steal Rob's computer by force.-"With intent to cause ________, I attempted to cause ________." -Attempt is purposeful conduct. You have to have the mindset. SPECIFIC INTENT. -You can't attempt to be criminally negligent because criminal negligence you have to fail to perceive risks and for attempt you have to know what is going to happen and actively try to bring around that result. -You can't have attempted felony murder, since felony murder requires no intent whatsoever. If you had intent of killing someone, attempted murder or attempt of underlying felony crime. -How can you have an act if you attempt to do something but never do it? Must be dangerous proximity. NY still follows this. -Need opportunity to do crime (Rizzo NY, driving around trying to find payroll guy. Never find him. THIS IS JUST PREPARATION). -No hard rule on attempt. Depends on the facts, or what is missing from the facts. -MPC: Substantial step will demonstrate unequivocally your intent. -MPC 5.01 C (conduct which may be held substantial step under section 1c) -Must strongly corroborate under MPC. Combo of dangerous proximity, equivocality. Act help proves specific intent.

Elements of Felony Murder

-In the commission of a felony and someone dies as a result. But has to be a violent felony. -Don't have to show intent to kill the person, just inherently dangerous conduct (the crime). -Felony murder makes you strictly liable for the death. -Don't intend to kill when you start off committing crime, if someone ends up dead and it's a certain kind of felony (by statute, or inherently dangerous in the abstract jurisdiction) you can be convicted of the underlying felony and the murder. -Foreseeability is presumed in felony murder.

Basic Principles of Accomplice Liability

-Still focusing on mens rea, actus reus and some form of substantial step. -Can't just be preparation. We have a debate of what actual step is needed. -Mens rea for accomplice liability is still specific intent. Not only intend to do the actual aiding and abetting, but also have to have the intent to further the principal's conduct. -Determining mens rea and deciphering whether or not there is actus reus is looser when it comes to accomplice liability. -First thing to do with accomplice liability is examine mental state.

Hypos Conspiracy

1. Cora, Dora and Flora all sell different fake Gucci bags on Canal Street, at different prices. They get the Gucci bags from one supplier. When a shipment comes in, they go to a warehouse in LIC and each take their box. They go back to Canal Street and lay them out. They all know each other. Sometimes they go separately, sometimes they go together. They get arrested for conspiring to sell counterfeit bags. 2. Now, they get it from different suppliers but all sell it at the same price. And they only sell Gucci bags. And there's no one else on the street selling Gucci. Is that a conspiracy? Answer: It may seem like conspiracy, but we may need more facts to determine whether or not there was an agreement. Ex: did they get together to figure out price or did they all independently come to the same price? 3. Cora and Flora are the ones selling the bags. Dora knows them from the neighborhood. Cora and Flora approach Dora and say to her, you have a beautiful SUV can you drive us over to LIC? Were getting low on inventory. Dora says okay. Cops meet up with them at LIC as they are putting the merchandise in Dora's SUV? Is Cora criminally responsible for conspiring to sell contraband? Answer: The intent of a supplier who knows of the criminal use to which his supplies are put to participate in the criminal activity connected with the use of his supplies may be established by: (1) direct evidence that he intends to participate, or (2) through an inference that he intends to participate based on, (a) his special interest in the activity, or (b) the aggravated nature of the crime itself (From Lauria). 4. You know that Nina is the biggest drug dealer in town and she says to you, "come give me a lift. I have to drop off some drugs." Answer: You can be charged with conspiracy if you drive her. Furthering her conduct - aiding and abetting- but is this conspiracy? It's a serious crime, so knowledge she is committing serious crime could be considered conspiracy. 5. Lets say Nina was transporting marijuana, less than 25 grams. You kind of knew. But you didn't confirm it with her. Answer: Could be willful blindness. Misdemeanor, would have to know a lot more. 6. Courtney manufacturers glassine (little bag) envelopes. Nina buys 40 thousand. We find out Nina is not a dressmaker, she is a drug dealer. Is Courtney in trouble? Answer: Based on Lauria test, no. no proof she is getting charged a premium, nature of service is not criminal (can hold buttons), Courtney doesn't know. MERE KNOWLEDGE IS NOT ENOUGH. 7. Child porn distribution. Barbra does printing. Erica stuffs them in the envelopes and Franca is the one who is supposed to deliver it. To further the conspiracy, Franca goes out and steals a truck (theft) and does not discuss it with Barbra or Erica. Answer: The others can be charged because of Pinkerton doctrine. Overt act in this case: choosing which images you want to distribute (furthering the conspiracy). 8. If I go to Staples to steal ink related to conspiracy, that may be considered objectively foreseeable. Not the object of the conspiracy but can be foreseeable. It is an unintended crime that has occurred but is the probable and natural consequences of the conspiracy. 9. 4 girls go to party and get into fight with 4 guys. You all get pistols, go back to the party and cause a fight. There is a shootout. 2 of the girls kill 2 of the guys. The other 2 girls went just to beat them up and yet is charged with murder. Didn't want anyone to die. Can she be charged with murder? Answer: Yes. Because foreseeable risk. Part of the conspiracy. She can be held liable. State v. Bridges, also in Luparello and Russell. 10. Jesse, Phil, Zach all smuggle blood diamonds. Unbeknownst, Zach is an undercover and stops the shipment. So they will never be able to get those blood diamonds. Can Jesse, Phil, Zach still be charged with conspiracy to smuggle? Yes. It's a stand alone crime. Just because its impossible to carry out underlying crime, the conspiracy charge still stands alone.

Hypos Accomplice Liability

1. Doctor runs ambulatory center in Virginia. Knock on the door and man walks in with broken leg in the middle of the night. He said he has a big job and needs it to be fixed. Doctor Mud says okay I'll help you. He sets the mans leg and the man keeps talking about this big job. He said he needs Vicodin to do this big job. Dr gives him the prescription. The next day he reads in the paper that this man just robbed the Bank of America in Virginia. That was the big job. Federal agents knocking on Mud's door arrest him for aiding and abetting. Does he have a defense? Answer: Yes. Can't charge him with aiding and abetting because theres no proof. Need the purpose of the accomplice's act. 2. Lets switch the facts: the man that came into the doctors office, John Booth, was known around the neighborhood and they were childhood friends and knew John was always in and out of jail. Comes in and tells Mud "I have a really big job" wink wink. And Mud says okay I'll fix your leg. I hope you're successful in your endeavors. Answer: Could be willful blindness. Is that sufficient to establish mens rea for aiding and abetting (the fact he knew him, knew he liked to rob, that he said he had a really big job wink wink?) 3. Knows him from the neighborhood, John Booth said I can't pay you now but after this big job I will have a lot of money. Mud says sure I hope you succeed. Answer: What is the mindset of Dr. Mud? To further the principal's conduct. Commonality of purpose 4. I own a map store. John Wilkes Booth comes in and says I need a map of Manhattan that shows all routes out of the city because I need to get out really quickly. I sell him the map. Turns out he killed someone and tried to leave. Did I aid and abet? -Lets say John Wilkes Booth has been arrested in the past for protesting Obamacare and has a blog where he rants about evil democrats. I know that Obama is going to the fundraiser. I know Booth hates him. Did I aid and abet? 5. I pick up penny, give it Carly. She uses it to jimmy slot for parking meters. Would that be enough to have me be charged with aiding and abetting? Answer: This is nothing. The pettier the crime, the higher degree of knowledge is needed. Higher degree of crime, less degree of knowledge needed. 6. I own hardware store. A guy comes in and buys 300 rolls of duct tape. He uses it to tie people up in a bank robbery. Answer: What facts are not there? Belief that you are aiding him in committing an illegal act. 7. If I owned pawnshop and someone came in and said I want to buy a gun. You may see my name in the paper and I sell him the gun is that criminal facilitation? Answer: Yes. Knowledge he was possibly going to do something. 8. I hire Alan to beat up Chris. I want Chris to be roughed up a little bit, like a punch. Alan hates Chris and decides to kill him. I did not intend for him to be killed. Can I be charged with murder? Yes. It was his purpose to aid and abet in that conduct. He instigated the conduct. Natural and probable consequences. Don't have to want to achieve in end result, just engage in conduct that leads up to end result (MPC). 9. Cop on 57th street and 5th. Its 2am. The person sees a suspicious looking woman staring in the window of a drug store. Cop sees woman and sees shes carrying a bag and sees crowbar in it. Police officer hates store owner. He watches that woman look into window, look at the door, take out the crowbar and he walks away. A few minutes later he comes back and alarm is going off. He calls in for backup. Has he aided and abetted a burglar? What is the actual act? 10. Jets and sharks don't like each other. Bernardo approves of tony going out with Maria. Bernardo tells tony he would love to meet and have sit-down with bit (leader of other gang). Tony agrees and sets up meeting. He firmly believes there won't be any trouble at playground they're going to meet. Him Bernardo bit go to meeting. They get into a fight. Bernardo stabs Bit. Tony is arrested for aiding and abetting. Does he have a defense? Tweak the Hypo: Tony is no good. He wants to get Bit and Bernardo together to see them go at it. He brings them together and hes the one who pushes Bit into Bernardo so they can start fighting. Bernardo pulls out knife and stabs Bit. Is this aiding and abetting on Tony's part? Yes 11. Lets say my goal was to help Michelle sell a gun to Katrina and Michelle decided she loves Katrina's Rolex and she is going to beat her up and take it and keep the gun. Answer: Not foreseeable. Roy case. Aiding and abetting in a sale, and the seller tries to kill the purchase is too remote and unforeseeable. 12. I want to make sure that my rival teacher is a rival no more. I hire Ed to take a baseball bat and break her leg. Ed forgets to bring the bat and instead punches her in the nose (misdemeanor). Ed is charged with misdemeanor assault. What am I charged with? Cant be charged with felony assault. Can be charged with attempted felony assault. Ed can't because the crime was a misdemeanor. 13. Nick tells me to go kill Danny. I say yes. Because Nick is suffering from EED that has swelled up his brain and says kill her. Nick gets off of murder, its reduced to manslaughter because EED. Can I be reduced to manslaughter? No. Two separate intents. 14. I aid and abet Nick's murder of Danny. We have to try them separately. Nick gets acquitted. I get convicted. Will my conviction hold up? Answer: Yes it will hold up. 15. He gets acquitted, I get convicted because he had diplomatic immunity. Does my conviction hold water? YES. 16. Corey gives info that is false to innocent Zach the bank employee. He enters the info. Can Corey be charged with the statute that criminalizes bank employees knowingly entering false bank info? Answer: No, because there was no criminal intent on the part of the bank employee. Cory can be charged with someone else but not that statute. If Zach did know, then yes. 17. Lets say that I ask Chris to deliver this note to a teller in the bank. I'm too shy to tell him I like him so give him the note it has my number on it. The note actually says give me money or your life. Can Chris be charged as an aider and abettor? Answer: Could be. Willful blindness (high probability of knowledge, and decided not to look). One can argue you should have looked at the note. Why else would you be handing a note to the teller? High probability its to rob the bank. Lets change the facts: if you hand the teller this note, you'll have a big payout in the end. Are you an innocent agent? NO. 18. Lets say that I tell my daughter to leave some milk for Santa and she's 22 and not too bright. Traditional in the family is my husband eats the cookies and drink the milk. I put arsenic in the milk. My husband drinks it and he dies. Has my daughter aided and abetted in the murder? No. She didn't know there was arsenic in it. Innocent Agent Doctrine.

Hypos Felony Murder

1. I want to steal things. I go to the jewelry store and see a beautiful bracelet that costs 5k. This is a felony level value. Trying to get me, the security guard trips, cracks his skull open and dies. What can I be charged with? Answer: Not Felony Murder: in the commission of a felony and someone dies as a result, but has to be a violent felony. So can't do felony murder in this situation. 2. Burns and Jones decide to rob market. Jones has a gun and Burns doesn't know that. Gun is inoperable. They park outside Carlucci's market. Jones goes in with gun in his pocket. He turns to Carlucci who is behind the counter and says, "your money or your life." Carlucci takes the gun from underneath the cash register and points it at Jones. Jones runs out and Carlucci fires. Carlucci fires and hits his wife. What can Burns be charged with and does he have a defense? Answer: Felony murder. Person died in course of the robbery. Does he have a defense? Affirmative Defense: Didn't know Jones had gun (NJ and NY have this). Carlucci case for Jones: gun works and he doesn't know it. He thinks it's inoperable. Jones pulls trigger to scare him and gun goes off and Carlucci was dead. This is felony murder. 3. I perform illegal abortions. Not a doctor, not a nurse, etc. Use disgusting instruments, etc. Someone dies on the floor. Can I be charged with felony murder? Yes.

Hypos Manslaughter

1. Is adultery alone enough to get you reduced from murder to manslaughter? Have to catch them in the act for it to POSSIBLY be excusable. 2. Husband shows you videos of him having sex with someone else. After the 10th video, you kill him. Answer: Probably can be reduced to manslaughter because you caught him in the act. 3. view videos on my own. 4 days later still mad & kill him. --Can't be reduced to manslaughter because you had time to chill. 4. Back to Crespo Hypo (found out 5 minutes before he was cheating): if this were an MPC Code case, is Ms. Crespo entitled to a manslaughter charge? Answer: Yes if you can prove she had EED and her reaction was reasonable to someone under the same circumstance. How can it be argued it was not reasonable? She went to get the gun. Could have done anything else. 5. Husband is terminally ill and I cant stop thinking about how much he suffers. I take the gun and kill him. Can I get manslaughter? Answer: Like Boyle v. State. Dr. says EED. Is it reasonable under the circumstances? Court in Boyle ruled NO. 6. I've been simmering, obsessing and I lash out. Do I need a trigger AKA something the victim does or doesn't do? Answer: Like State v. White. Under MPC test, provocation doesn't have to be face to face. Victim doesn't have to do something directly to defendant. It could be internal stresses. Is the reaction reasonable given the circumstances?

Elements/ Questions to Ask to Determine if It's a Strict Liability Crime

1. Is it a regulatory offense? Regulatory Crimes- gov't decides certain things are dangerous. Legislature decided these things put public welfare at risk. Using legislative police power. 2. Not derived from common law. Cases with common law roots CAN'T be strict liability because you need intent for common law crimes. 3. No harsh punishment. Limited, no injury really to reputation, no incarceration generally. 4. Mental state doesn't matter - as long as person voluntarily does the factual act. 5. Limited number of strict liability regulatory crimes. 6. There is a balancing of public welfare protection vs. punishment. Better to protect public even though the defendant gets convicted. 7. You act at your own peril with activities that are inherently dangerous.

Hypos Entrapment

1. Lets say you are a dealer. There is an informant, which is how they know you're a dealer. She tells Mark (the undercover). Mark comes up to you and asks do you have good marijuana? You say yes, pull it out. Mark says, police, under arrest. Is he entrapped? No. 2. Someone comes up to you and says do you want to make a fast buck I have a scheme. He keeps trying to persuade you. You still don't want to do it but in the end he convinces you. You steal cookies (federal crime). Is that charge against you for theft going to be defenseless or defensible under the principle of entrapment? Answer: You could raise the defense of entrapment. 3. Lets say that I ask Chris to deliver this note to a teller in the bank. I'm too shy to tell him I like him so give him the note it has my number on it. The note actually says give me money or your life. Can Chris be charged as an aider and abettor? •Could be. Willful blindness (high probability of knowledge, and decided not to look). oOne can argue you should have looked at the note. Why else would you be handing a note to the teller? High probability its to rob the bank. 4. Lets change the fact: if you hand the teller this note, you'll have a big payout in the end. •Are you an innocent agent? oNO. 5. Corey gives info that is false to innocent Zach the bank employee. He enters the info. Can Corey be charged with the statute that criminalizes bank employees knowingly entering false bank info? •No. because there was no criminal intent on the part of the bank employee. Cory can be charged with someone else but not that statute. •If Zach did know, then yes.

Hypos Cultural Defense States that allow: CA, NY, GA

1. Somali community in NYS. My daughter turned 13 and a group of us got together for ritual for circumcising my daughter. Told her guidance counselor in school. Counselor calls police. You get arrested with assault in 2nd degree intending to cause physical injury... ---She can argue she didn't intend to cause physical injury. In her culture, that's not physical injury. It's like getting your ears pierced. Honestly believe you had a right. 2. Seymour and Vivian are at the table and she says as they're eating dinner "I hate you. You are disgusting. You don't earn a living. I have to support you. And be careful when you eat that food I put cyanide in that. Only kidding she says. Seymour takes the wine bottle, breaks it, calmly walks over and slashes her inner thigh w/ it and she bleeds. Seymour is a native of the Republic of Georgia in Eastern Europe and there's a culture of maschimo there. Men have to be manly and if they don't work and support their woman, they get very upset and don't like to be reminded of that. What is Seymour's defense, if any? In his country, it's reasonable to get upset over that but is it sufficient? Cultural defenses Boil down to reasonable person standard.

Hypos Causation

1. Standing in the street on 57th and 5th, and I see a person whom I hate. I walk over to that person and push them. They fall and break their leg. Taken to the hospital. He has bizarre reaction to drugs and becomes violent. Has to be restrained in hospital bed. Because he's restrained in hospital bed, he can't move. Develops embolism, goes up to her lungs and kills her. Answer: Standards: "But for," Sufficiently direct cause of death, Highly extraordinary result, Foreseeability. 2. I come home and see my partner in an asthma attack. Can't stand her anymore. As she's gasping, I just watch. As she's groping for the rescue inhaler, she dies. Answer: She most likely would have died anyway, so not liable. Murrow and Montoya cases. Even though I may have had a legal duty to act, was the failure to act the cause of the death? But for my failure to act, would you have died? Prosecutor has to prove beyond reasonable act that failure to act was actual cause of act. Therefore, failure to act has to be actual cause. Need expert testimony to establish she would have survived had I gave her the inhaler. 3. I light fire in faculty in lounge. Flames migrated to basement. Would I be responsible for people in basement dying? YES. 4. Fire on 5th floor and on the 1st floor the foundation gets loose and building collapses. Could he be charged with murders of everyone in the building? Answer: Need evidence that foundation collapsing is reasonably foreseeable risk. 5. I'm standing in the lounge and everyone is their eating pizza and start shooting wildly and I don't hit anyone but Glenn is trampled as everyone is running out (good). Answer: Criminally responsible because trampling can be foreseen. Even though shooting didn't cause the death, my conduct put in motion the chain of events where it is logically foreseeable. 6. You're taken to Lenox Hill hospital for emergency surgery and new residents are in. Resident operates on you and makes a mistake. Am I still responsible for your death? Answer: If negligence was sole cause of death, then can't be responsible. If injuries are sufficiently direct cause of death, then yes. 7. Guy was stabbed, brought him to the hospital. They patch him up and he is healed, they give him wrong medication. What caused his death? Answer: Medication. Not foreseeable in chain of events. 8. I'm shooting in an apartment building. It's a special bullet. I aim at Samantha, it goes through her and hits Katrina on floor 3 and goes down to the lobby and hits Alyssa. Can my intent be transferred? Intentional murder convictions? DEPENDS ON JURISDICTION. Answer: If you knew capability of special bullets it could be reckless homicide.

Hypo Affirmative Defenses: Self Defense

1. You are mugged on the subway by A. a year later you see A on the subway again and walking toward you, you shoot them. Answer: Not justified. Not reasonable belief. Honest belief - mistaken belief. Mitigate it down - murder to manslaughter 2. A starts a fight, B picks up a weapon to defend themselves. A walks always and gets gun and shoots B. Answer: A has no self-defense. If you are the initial aggressor, not self defense.

Hypos Mistake fact and law

1. You're cold and hungry at 3am. You enter a building (dorm). He unlawfully entered and remained with intent to commit a crime (burglary). But, what if: he walked into the wrong dorm and ate someone's sandwich. Answer: He made a mistake of fact, which negates material element of the offense. Not a crime. 2. Your roommate is an auxiliary police officer. You take his backpack by mistake, which has a gun in it. You're arrested for unlawful possession of a firearm (Does not say "knowingly). Answer: Mistake of fact. If the friend plants the gun in the defendant's backpack = involuntary. 3. I took the pocketbook because she owed me a lot of money. Answer: Mistake of law. No defense, except in some cases. Where the mistake negates the mens rea because it affects material element of the offense.

MPC Omission

2.01: Requirement of Voluntary Act; Omission as a Basis of Liability (3) Liability for the commission of an offense may not be based on an omission unaccompanied by action unless: (a) The omission is expressly made sufficient by the law defining the offense; or (b) A duty to perform the omitted act is otherwise imposed by law.

Legal Duty Omission

4 Situations You Have a Legal Duty to Act: Statute, status relationship, contractual, voluntarily assumed care. --Note on Status Relationships: parents have a duty to aid and protect minor children; spouses have a similar duty to each other. But generally speaking, duties are not automatically imposed on siblings to aid each other, on parents to aid their adult children, or on adult children to aid their parents. -People v. Carroll: stepmother has legal duty to stepchildren (NEW YORK) -No Duty: Someone you're having an affair with, live in BF/GF, To your significant other (what they gays used to do)

MPC Mens Rea Purposefully

A person acts purposefully (intentionally) if he acts with the intent that his action causes a certain result. In other words, the defendant undertakes his action either intending for, or hoping that, a certain result will follow. Malice- purposeful, intentional conduct. Foresight of prohibited consequences. Defendant was aware that his actions posed a substantial risk of causing the prohibited harm.

What do you need to prove conspiracy?

Agreement, Offer, Acceptance and Meeting of the Minds. You do not need direct evidence that they got together and planned it out. Circumstantial evidence. Agreement to conspire does not have to be simultaneous. ---Interstate v. US (USSC): Controlled film distribution. The circumstantial evidence was a letter. They knew from the letter. All the recipients were listed on the letter so they knew about each other. They followed the unprecedented, specific proposal in the letter. No overt agreement but circumstantial proof they were acting together because of the above reasons. ---"Overt Act": need some sort of preparation to show the conspiracy is at work and is neither just something resting solely in the minds of the conspirators nor a fully completed operation no longer in existence. (Yates v. US). First you decide were getting together, we've gotten together, then we talk about what were going to do. That may be enough for conspiracy depending on the statute. Need intent to be part of the conspiracy. You can be charged with conspiracy and the underlying crime.

When "fake criminal" is gov't agent Entrapment

Alaska Hunting Case: Vaden v. State: Valden would have done it anyway. No defense of entrapment in this case. Regardless as to what the undercover did or did not do, did the defendant have a predisposition for doing these criminal acts? Answer: Yes. He's been promoting these acts to his customers many times. The undercover hires him to shoot the foxes. Defendant could have said no. Classic example of D predisposed to do crime, gov't agent solicits him to do the crime because they want to catch him in the act. He was not entrapped.

Factual Impossibility Attempt

An example of a factual impossibility is when you put your hand in someone's pocket to rob them, but they have no money. While it is factually impossible to rob someone with no money, if you had been successful you would be guilty of robbery, so being unsuccessful still makes you guilty of attempted robbery. ---People v. Dlugash (NEW YORK): D convicted of murder. Challenged the conviction on the basis that the victim was already dead when D shot him. Held: There is sufficient evidence beyond reasonable doubt he attempted to murder. If facts were how he believed them to be, he would have killed him.So, with factual impossibility you can still be convicted of attempt.

MPC Mens Rea Knowingly

Aware that conduct will result in certain consequences. Willful Blindness: US v. Jewell, deliberately avoided positive knowledge of the presence of the contraband in the back of his truck to avoid responsibility in the event of discovery. To act knowingly is not necessarily to act only with positive knowledge, but also to act with an awareness of the high probability of the existence of the fact in question. When such awareness is present, "positive" knowledge is not required. Deliberate act to not find out. Affirmative act of not acting. NOT an excuse. - A decision influenced by coercion, extingent circumstances or lack of meaningful choice is not deliberate. Defendant who fails to investigate for these reasons has not deliberately chosen to avoid learning the truth (US v. Heredia).

When can you use entrapment as a defense?

But for the government undercover active encouragement I wouldn't have done so. Jacobson: Getting sent child pornography from government without asking. This is entrapment. Did not show predisposition.

Merger Doctrine Felony Murder

Can't have felony murder if underlying felony is assaultive in nature. If it has purpose independent of physically harming the victim, then eligible for felony murder (no merger). Prevents the prosecution from charging felony murder. ---Merger means no felony murder. (Example: People v. Chun) (CA does this but who else?)

Reckless Activity Accomplice Liability

Common Purpose to Engage in Reckless Activity: People v. Russell (NEW YORK): Shootout. Weren't planning on kill other people. Someone got in between. They were found to be aiding and abetting. Recklessly engaged in conduct. Encouraged each other to engage in a dangerous activity. Like Russian roulette, drag racing cases. Common purpose to engage in reckless activity. Another aspect of acting in concert.

Hypo Negligent Homicide

I am a gadget freak and I just found out that I can make calls on Google Hangout from my Tablet. I decide to try it out as I am walking at about 12:30, summer, in Manhattan on 57th and 5th. I'm carrying a very large piece of glass, I trip. The glass breaks. Shards land in jugular of a person near me. Involuntary Manslaughter: Wanton, reckless conduct: you knew there was a risk, knew substantial harm could result, yet you disregarded it. Recklessly caused this death. Willful, reckless conduct: intentional reckless conduct. You know the risk. Knew substantial harm would result. Prosecutor has to prove you knew you were in a busy area, knew glass would cause substantial harm, you could not have used tablet while walking.

Excuse: Duress Affirmative Defense: Duress

I had no choice. I really didn't act voluntarily. I was compelled to do so. Even though physical act was voluntary, did you have a mental choice whatsoever? This is the concept of duress. Each jurisdiction has a different spin about what is duress.

do nothing and watch, Accomplice Liability

If someone does nothing and watches, you could have aided and abetted but you need duty.

Where can't you use entrapment as a defense?

If you are predisposed to that criminal activity (you were going to do it anyway. Private individuals cant entrap you.

Abandonment Attempt

If you give up and drive away, for example. Can't abandon after you do it (like the robbery case where the guy did it and said he was joking). You can't abandon after the fact. UNLESS- US v. Joyce (US COURT OF APPEALS): He voluntarily renounced his attempt to buy drugs. Doesn't matter his motive. Mere suspicion that it is a cop may not get the prosecution a conviction. Need proof beyond a reasonable doubt.

Duty to Retreat Affirmative Defenses: Self Defense

If you have an opportunity to retreat to complete safety, you can't use deadly force. What if you're in the middle of a rape or robbery? Then you don't have the duty to retreat. If the initial aggressor retreats and you follow him and you kill him: NO self defense. You break the chain. State v. Abbot (NEW JERSEY: facts do not say whether or not he could retreat to complete safety.

(NY/MPC) Actus Reus

In People v. Decina (Epileptic dickhead crashed his car into some old hag's store) awareness and disregard of the consequences render him liable for culpable negligence, since he knew he was epileptic. In other words, even if you act involuntary, you can still be held liable, if you knew that was a possibility of the "involuntary act" to occur, and you still acted.

What's the difference between conspiracy, attempt, accomplice liability?

In conspiracy you don't have to do the act and in accomplice liability you do have to do the act. - What's the difference between conspiracy and attempt? ---Attempt = dangerously close. ---Conspiracy = overt act in furtherance of the crime. Depending on the statute, may not need overt act (MPC says you need overt act except with 1st and 2nd degree felonies).

Innocent Agent Doctrine Accomplice Liability

Innocent Agent Doctrine: 2.06(2)(a): a person is legally accountable for the conduct of another person when ... acting with the kind of culpability that is sufficient for the commission of the offense, he causes an innocent or irresponsible person to engage in such conduct. FROM THE MPC. -Where the instigator convinces someone to do something that's criminal.

"Material Aid" Accomplice Liability

Just because you aid and abet doesn't mean you've done the act. Have to demonstrate what you did was material to conduct or end result. Doesn't mean that if "but for you" it wouldn't have happen. As long as it can be shown that you facilitated. Made it easier for crime to be committed. This is material aid.

Legal Impossibility Attempt

Legal impossibility: No matter what I did that food was free. Classification was that it could never be stolen. ---An example of a legal impossibility would be for hunters to shoot at an artificial deer without a license. Since it is not a crime to kill a stuffed animal, it is no crime to attempt to do what is legal. ---People v. Jaffe (NEW YORK): D thought he was receiving stolen goods, but turns out they actually weren't stolen. Held: Conviction overturned. If a person intends to commit an act that would not be a crime if it were consummated, the person can't be convicted of an attempt. If there is a legal impossibility, there is a defense. Can't be convicted of attempt.

Can you aid and abet a grossly negligent act? Accomplice Liability

McVey (RHODE ISLAND): They did not intend to blow up the ship. Defendant says it is okay to over stoke the boiler. Captain and engineer over stoke the boiler. Each person has a role in the conduct that achieved an unintended result but it was a foreseeable result (that if you over stoke boiler it could blow up). No one perceived the risk. But, still guilty. Chain of events and foreseeable results. They all acted together to achieve a result that ended up with a lot of damage and injury. Could and should have been avoided but failed to perceive risk.

Mistake of Law Cases

Mistake of law sometimes arises because a person is aware of the law, but misinterprets. Individual may not know the law exists at all. Misinterpretation or complete ignorance may relate to the criminal prohibition itself. -People v. Marrero (NEW YORK): Had a gun in nightclub. Crime: unlawful to possess firearm. His defense is that yes I committed the offense but the offense does not apply to me. "Peace officer." Relies on his own interpretation of "peace officer." Decided to interpret "state" to be any state in US. But this was NY law for NY corrections officers and he's a CT C.O. Held: mistake of law should not apply to him. -Honest mistaken belief has to be objectively reasonable. (Honest mistaken belief is used in mistake of law and fact). D must show the statute permitted his conduct, not merely that he believed it did. Mistake of law would about peace officer would have been allowed if the statute had prohibited "knowing" possession of handgun. -Cheek v. US (USSC): Cheek used to file his income tax and decided not to. State of mind in statute: willfully. Willfully: have to know you have a legal duty, have to know the consequences, and decide not do it (not to abide by legal duty. Held: Not objectively reasonable. What's not objectively reasonable: unconstitutional claim. Relying on some tax group. Obviously you knew you had to pay taxes because you were paying taxes before. Relying on pamphlets and lectures not generated by IRS, not objectively reasonable.

MPC Mens Rea

Model Penal Code § 2.02. General Requirements of Culpability. (1) Minimum Requirements of Culpability. Except as provided in Section 2.05, a person is not guilty of an offense unless he acted purposely, knowingly, recklessly or negligently, as the law may require, with respect to each material element of the offense. (2) Kinds of Culpability Defined (a) Purposely: A person acts purposely with respect to a material element of an offense when: (i) if the element involves the nature of his conduct or a result thereof, it is his conscious object to engage in conduct of that nature or to cause such a result; and (ii) if the element involves the attendant circumstances (A fact that is situationally relevant to a particular event or occurrence), he is aware of the existence of such circumstances or he believes or hopes that they exist. (b) Knowingly: A person acts knowingly with respect to a material element of an offense when: (i) if the element involves the nature of his conduct or the attendant circumstances, he is aware that his conduct is of that nature or that such circumstances exist; and (ii) if the element involves a result of his conduct, he is aware that it is practically certain that his conduct will cause such a result. (c) Recklessly: A person acts recklessly with respect to a material element of an offense when he consciously disregards a substantial and unjustifiable risk that the material element exists or will result from his conduct. The risk must be of such a nature and degree that, considering the nature and purpose of the actor's conduct and the circumstances known to him, its disregard involves a gross deviation from the standard of conduct that a law-abiding person would observe in the actor's situation. (d) Negligently: A person acts negligently with respect to a material element of an offense when he should be aware of a substantial and unjustifiable risk that the material element exists or will result from his conduct. The risk must be of such a nature and degree that the actor's failure to perceive it, considering the nature and purpose of his conduct and the circumstances known to him, involves a gross deviation from the standard of care that a reasonable person would observe in the actor's situation. (3) Culpability Required Unless Otherwise Provided. When the culpability sufficient to establish a material element of an offense is not prescribed by law, such element is established if a person acts purposely, knowingly or recklessly with respect thereto. (4) Prescribed Culpability Requirement Applies to All Material Elements. When the law defining an offense prescribes the kind of culpability that is sufficient for the commission of an offense, without distinguishing among the material elements thereof, such provision shall apply to all the material elements of the offense, unless a contrary purpose plainly appears. (7) Requirement of Knowledge Satisfied by Knowledge of High Probability. When knowledge of the existence of a particular fact is an element of an offense, such knowledge is established if a person is aware of a high probability of its existence, unless he actually believes that it does not exist.

Mere presence enough for aiding and abetting?

No. You need more (giving material aid). Except in certain states. ---Ex. Wilcox v. Jeffery: going to illegal concert. They decided this was enough for aiding and abetting. All he did was encourage. Accomplice Liability

When is mistake of fact a defense?

Only a defense when it negates the mens rea of the crime if it affects material element of that offense. Also have to look at the reason of the statute. Anyone would be able to use it as an excuse so we need to limit it.

Fair Warning: US/CA Courts Rules (Legality)

People must have fair warning that something is a crime. If a provision is unforeseeable to the petitioner within the statute at the time of the crime, its adaptation at this time would deny him due process of the law. Citizens need notice. Can't criminalize conduct after the fact when there's clear statutory language that doesn't include the conduct at issue. McBoyle- "vehicle" not airplane. Keeler v. Superior Court: Fetus Kicking type of mad.

Highly Extraordinary Result Causation

People v. Acosta (CALIFORNIA): Acosta led officers on high speed chase. Helicopters were tracking his route, two of them collided and died. Held: Not highly extraordinary. "But for" Acosta's conduct, the helicopters would have never been in the position of the crash.

EED Cases Manslaughter

People v. Cassasa (NEW YORK): D obsessed with victim. She rejects him. He kills her. His defense: EED. Held: Not successful, even with expert testimony. Court doesn't reject the fact he has EED, reasonable person with extreme emotional disturbance in this situation would not do this.

Money Laundering Accomplice Liability

Person has to know that the money involved in the transaction was from criminal activity. Doesn't have to have been involved in underlying crime nor know that it came from a specific crime. ---US v. Campbell: She had to have known money came from illegal source, but didn't do anything about it. She took the money. She didn't know what the crime was, but where could it have come from, but a crime? Guilty of money laundering.

MPC Causation

Section 2.03. Causal Relationship Between Conduct and Result; Divergence Between Result Designed or Contemplated and Actual Result or Between Probable and Actual Result. [cf. Restatement Torts 2d § 9] (1) Conduct is the cause of a result when: (a) it is an antecedent but for which the result in question would not have occurred; and (b) The relationship between the conduct and result satisfies any additional causal requirements imposed by the Code or by the law defining the offense. (2) When purposely or knowingly causing a particular result is an element of an offense, the element is not established if the actual result is not within the purpose or the contemplation of the actor unless: (a) the actual result differs from that designed or contemplated, as the case may be, only in the respect that a different person or different property is injured or affected or that the injury or harm designed or contemplated would have been more serious or more extensive than that caused; or (b) the actual result involves the same kind of injury or harm as that designed or contemplated and is not too remote or accidental in its occurrence to have a [just] bearing on the actor's liability or on the gravity of his offense. (3) When recklessly or negligently causing a particular result is an element of an offense, the element is not established if the actual result is not within the risk of which the actor is aware or, in the case of negligence, of which he should be aware unless: (a) the actual result differs from the probable result only in the respect that a different person or different property is injured or affected or that the probable injury or harm would have been more serious or more extensive than that caused; or (b) the actual result involves the same kind of injury or harm as the probable result and is not too remote or accidental in its occurrence to have a [just] bearing on the actor's liability or on the gravity of his offense. (4) When causing a particular result is a material element of an offense for which absolute liability is imposed by law, the element is not established unless the actual result is a probable consequence of the actor's conduct.

MPC Murder

Section 210.1. Criminal Homicide. (1) A person is guilty of criminal homicide if he purposely, knowingly, recklessly or negligently causes the death ofanother human being. (2) Criminal homicide is murder, manslaughter or negligent homicide. Section 210.2. Murder. (1) Except as provided in Section 210.3(1)(b), criminal homicide constitutes murder when: (a) it is committed purposely or knowingly; or (b) it is committed recklessly under circumstances manifesting extreme indifference to the value of human life. Such recklessness and indifference are presumed if the actor is engaged or is an accomplice in the commission of, or an attempt to commit, or flight after committing or attempting to commit robbery, rape or deviate sexual intercourse by force or threat of force, arson, burglary, kidnapping or felonious escape. (2) Murder is a felony of the first degree [but a person convicted of murder may be sentenced to death, as provided in Section 210.6].

MPC Manslaughter

Section 210.3. Manslaughter. (1) Criminal homicide constitutes manslaughter when: (a) it is committed recklessly; or (b) a homicide which would otherwise be murder is committed under the influence of extreme mental or emotional disturbance for which there is reasonable explanation or excuse. The reasonableness of such explanation or excuse shall be determined from the viewpoint of a person in the actor's situation under the circumstances as he believes them to be. (2) Manslaughter is a felony of the second degree.

MPC

Section 210.4. Negligent Homicide. (1) Criminal homicide constitutes negligent homicide when it is committed negligently.

MPC Assisted Suicide

Section 210.5. Causing or Aiding Suicide. (1) Causing Suicide as Criminal Homicide. A person may be convicted of criminal homicide for causing another to commit suicide only if he purposely causes such suicide by force, duress or deception. (2) Aiding or Soliciting Suicide as an Independent Offense. A person who purposely aids or solicits another to commit suicide is guilty of a felony of the second degree if his conduct causes such suicide or an attempted suicide, and otherwise of a misdemeanor.

MPC Affirmative Defenses: Self Defense

Section 3.01. Justification an Affirmative Defense; Civil Remedies Unaffected. (1) In any prosecution based on conduct which is justifiable under this Article, justification is an affirmative defense. (2) The fact that conduct is justifiable under this Article does not abolish or impair any remedy for such conduct which is available in any civil action. Section 3.04. Use of Force in Self-Protection. [cf. Restatement Torts 2d §§ 63, 261] (1) Use of Force Justifiable for Protection of the Person. Subject to the provisions of this Section and of Section 3.09, the use of force upon or toward another person is justifiable when the actor believes that such force is immediately necessary for the purpose of protecting himself against the use of unlawful force by such other person on the present occasion. (2) Limitations on Justifying Necessity for Use of Force. (a) The use of force is not justifiable under this Section: (i) to resist an arrest which the actor knows is being made by a peace officer, although the arrest is unlawful; or (ii) to resist force used by the occupier or possessor of property or by another person on his behalf, where the actor knows that the person using the force is doing so under a claim of right to protect the property, except that this limitation shall not apply if: (1) the actor is a public officer acting in the performance of his duties or a person lawfully assisting him therein or a person making or assisting in a lawful arrest; or (2) the actor has been unlawfully dispossessed of the property and is making a re-entry or recaption justified by Section 3.06; or (3) the actor believes that such force is necessary to protect himself against death or serious bodily harm. (b) The use of deadly force is not justifiable under this Section unless the actor believes that such force is necessary to protect himself against death, serious bodily harm, kidnapping or sexual intercourse compelled by force or threat; nor is it justifiable if: (i) the actor, with the purpose of causing death or serious bodily harm, provoked the use of force against himself in the same encounter; or (ii) the actor knows that he can avoid the necessity of using such force with complete safety by retreating or by surrendering possession of a thing to a person asserting a claim of right thereto or by complying with a demand that he abstain from any action which he has no duty to take, except that: (1) the actor is not obliged to retreat from his dwelling or place of work, unless he was the initial aggressor or is assailed in his place of work by another person whose place of work the actor knows it to be; and (2) a public officer justified in using force in the performance of his duties or a person justified in using force in his assistance or a person justified in using force in making an arrest or preventing an escape is not obliged to desist from efforts to perform such duty, effect such arrest or prevent such escape because of resistance or threatened resistance by or on behalf of the person against whom such action is directed. (c) Except as required by paragraphs (a) and (b) of this Subsection, a person employing protective force may estimate the necessity thereof under the circumstances as he believes them to be when the force is used, without retreating, surrendering possession, doing any other act which he has no legal duty to do or abstaining from any lawful action. (3) Use of Confinement as Protective Force. The justification afforded by this Section extends to the use of confinement as protective force only if the actor takes all reasonable measures to terminate the confinement as soon as he knows that he safely can, unless the person confined has been arrested on a charge of crime...

MPC Attempt

Section 5.01. Criminal Attempt. (1) Definition of Attempt. A person is guilty of an attempt to commit a crime if, acting with the kind of culpability otherwise required for commission of the crime, he: (a) purposely engages in conduct which would constitute the crime if the attendant circumstances were as he believes them to be; or (b) when causing a particular result is an element of the crime, does or omits to do anything with the purpose of causing or with the belief that it will cause such result without further conduct on his part; or (c) purposely does or omits to do anything which, under the circumstances as he believes them to be, is an act or omission constituting a substantial step in a course of conduct planned to culminate in his commission of the crime. (2) Conduct Which May Be Held Substantial Step Under Subsection (1)(c). Conduct shall not be held to constitute a substantial step under Subsection (1)(c) of this Section unless it is strongly corroborative of the actor's criminal purpose. Without negativing the sufficiency of other conduct, the following, if strongly corroborative of the actor's criminal purpose, shall not be held insufficient as a matter of law: (a) lying in wait, searching for or following the contemplated victim of the crime; (b) enticing or seeking to entice the contemplated victim of the crime to go to the place contemplated for its commission; (c) reconnoitering the place contemplated for the commission of the crime; (d) unlawful entry of a structure, vehicle or enclosure in which it is contemplated that the crime will be committed; (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; (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; (g) soliciting an innocent agent to engage in conduct constituting an element of the crime. (3) Conduct Designed to Aid Another in Commission of a Crime. A person who engages in conduct designed to aid another to commit a crime which would establish his complicity under Section 2.06 if the crime were committed by such other person, is guilty of an attempt to commit the crime, although the crime is not committed or attempted by such other person. (4) Renunciation of Criminal Purpose. When the actor's conduct would otherwise constitute an attempt under Subsection (1)(b) or (1)(c) of this Section, 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 purpose. The establishment of such defense does not, however, affect the liability of an accomplice who did not join in such abandonment or prevention. ---Within the meaning of this Article, renunciation of criminal purpose is not voluntary if it is motivated, in whole or in part, by circumstances, not present or apparent at the inception of the actor's course of conduct, which increase the probability of detection or apprehension or which make more difficult the accomplishment of the criminal purpose. Renunciation is not complete if it is motivated by a decision to postpone the criminal conduct until a more advantageous time or to transfer the criminal effort to another but similar objective or victim.

Corp. vs. Individual Defendant Causation:

Specific causal mechanism = When it's commercial defendants (Warren Lambert NEW YORK: Need evidence beyond reasonable doubt and in this case it was possible that their actions were the reason for the explosion but not enough hard proof). Sufficient direct cause = individual defendants.

Chain Conspiracy

Steven imports cocaine, buys it from Colombia. Alan is the person in Colombia who gathers the cocaine. He produces it. Michael boxes it. Robert has the trucking company that trucks it to the airport and Cory owns the cargo planes, goes to JFK and Glen is the one who smuggles it in off the plane working as cargo handler. Everyone is linked in one giant conspiracy. They have to know in order to import it from Colombia you need all these people to do it. They're all aware of each other. That is a chain conspiracy.

What do you need to prove accomplice liability?

The accomplice's purpose was to further the goal of the principal. That they had a commonality of purpose. It's not just what he did, but why did he do it? Was his purpose to aid and abet? We need this proof because the aider and abettor is going to get the full time as if he actually completed the crime himself. 1. Accomplice's Purpose/Commonality of Purpose: Hicks v. US (USSC): What was missing? His purpose in doing what he did. What do you have to show? That the accomplice's purpose was to further the goal of the principal. That they had a commonality of purpose. 2. Nexus: State v. Gladstone (WASHINGTON): it is not aiding and abetting when D tells undercover agent where to get marijuana. Why isn't this aiding and abetting? Answer: vital element is a nexus between the accused and the party whom he is charged with aiding and abetting in the commission of a crime. He didn't know for sure Kent would go through with it. Not enough to say you can go buy it from him. There has to be substantial connection between accomplice and principal. What evidence is there that Gladstone and Kent had a deal? None. •What would be enough for aiding and abetting in this case? Communication, called him and drove him there, if he got some money out of it or a benefit, need to show his purpose was to aid and abet, encourage, facilitate. For aiding and abetting you need to show you knew and my intention/purpose was to aid him to commit the crime, achieve the result, engage in conduct that eventually achieves the result.

Battered Woman Syndrome Affirmative Defenses: Self Defense

This is a justification. Expert witness would have to establish that the woman was unable to retreat to safety. THIS IS A COMPLETE DEFENSE. Expert testimony is necessary to give the jury the context that under the circumstances that a reasonable person would view them, D had to do what they did. Not the standard of a reasonable battered woman. The standard is: how reasonable person would view the reaction of this battered woman. ---Kelly (NEW JERSEY): got reckless manslaughter. Was not reasonable. P disproved that D did not fit battered womansyndrome. ---Norman (NORTH CAROLINA: battered woman syndrome defense was unsuccessful because he was sleeping. Not imminent. It was inevitable - but not imminent. ---If not an MPC state, you have to demonstrate a reasonable belief (objective) AS WELL as imminent. ---If MPC, D subjectively believed, immediate threat.

Does Knowledge of each other necessarily mean there is a conspiracy?

What else do you need? Concerted action to do it together. Is this parallel action or concerted action? ---US v. Morse: Guilty of conspiracy: Upped the price, paid in cash installments, no passenger seats (more room for cargo) and didn't register it. Therefore it is enough to show he was in cahoots. Guilty of conspiracy to smuggle marijuana.

When the crime is so severe Accomplice Liability

When the crime is so severe, do we actually have to prove that aider and abettor knew about/intended the specific result? -No. Fountain case. As long as they knew the knife was going to be used to kill someone, the aider and abettor did not have to specifically plan that the knife he gave him was going to stab that particular guard.

Hypos Murder

Woman is arrested for killing husband. She said he beats me all the time. I know when he's about to beat me. I see it in his eyes. One morning she passes by the bathroom where she sees him shaving. She sees his reflection and thinks he has that look. She has a gun in her pocket. He shoots her as he turns around. He on floor and she shoots him three more times. - Walking around own house with gun. - Can't prove that the "look" meant anything. - Shot three more times after he fell to the ground. - These things can make us argue it was premeditated. ----Teen crashes car after burning driver's armpit hair. Setting each other on fire while driving. 5 teenagers in Idaho in SUV crash. Axe spray= fire. Defendant A in passenger seat. Defendant B is driving. 70 mph on US 1. B asks A to light him on fire, they do it. Ends up on the wrong side of the highway, crashes into victim causing death. ----Murder: MPC treats an unintended killing as murder when it is committed recklessly and "under circumstances manifesting extreme indifference to the value of human life." 70mph. Didn't pull over, Asked for it. What about the other person (passenger)? Did it while he was driving, didn't try to stop it. Could be argued it was plain reckless homicide.

MPC Mens Rea Negligently

You should have known the risk, but didn't perceive it. Less culpable. Civil Negligence/Criminal Negligence Standard- if the penalty is great can't hold civil negligence (mere carelessness) (Hazelwood, Exxon Valdez case, ALASKA). Must be criminal negligence (gross deviation)

Hypos Attempt

•What would a prosecutor have to have sufficient evidence of, For attempted murder? oSpecific intent because they're focused on a specific goal. Purposely engaged in conduct to further that goal. It is a specific intent crime. 1. Smallwood: 10 years later, one of his rape victims dies of full blown aids. Can he be charged? •Probably not, 10 years is too remote to be proximate cause. •If you wanted to charge him, would have to show sufficiently direct causal link. prove that's the only HIV positive person she had sex with. oCould be involuntary manslaughter: reckless. But extreme indifference to human life so could be reckless murder, but need more facts. 2. I decide I am going to burglarize soda from Bits and Bites. I decide to do it at 3am. I show up at 2am and I have a map of where the soda is, I have a special card to slide in and I have a crowbar and a screwdriver. At 2:15 I am sitting outside and public safety comes up to me and asks me for ID. I don't have one. She calls Nassau Cop and get arrested for attempted burglary. The proof that the prosecutor is confronted with is I had a diagram, burglar tools and I was sitting outside. Is this attempted burglary? Answer: Probably not. Acts have to be committed so closely to the actual commission. Must be dangerous proximity. NY still follows this. If I was walking up the stairs with burglar tools and map of premises, you might be able to get her for attempt. 3. It's the middle of the day. I see Chris. I fixate on him. I follow him. He starts to get uncomfortable. Have her arrested for attempted assault because I happen to have a screwdriver in my pocket. At the precinct, I said I really cant stand him, I was itching to do something. Answer: Maybe stalking, but not attempt. My conduct was somewhat ambiguous. Like McQuirter. 4. Drug deal. Undercover is trying to sell me drugs. "okay ill buy them." I look at undercover and say forget about it. What would substantial step be? Taking out money (before you give it to him because if you give it to him its not attempt anymore).