Criminal Law
Elements of Duress
(1) An immediate threat of death or serious bodily injury, (2) a well-grounded fear that the threat will be carried out (3) no reasonable opportunity to escape the threatened harm
Johnson's Insanity tests
(1) M'Naghten; (2) the control test (3) The product rule (4) the model penal code test
Under the Model Penal Code, the term "pathological intoxication" means intoxication grossly excessive in degree to the amount of alcohol consumed.
True
Mere words do not constitute provocation or aggression
True (because-words are never enough)
True or False. Unlike voluntary intoxication or drugged condition, involuntary intoxication or drugged condition is typically considered a viable and complete defense.
True. Correct. See MPC 2.08 (5).
A state statute provided for criminal penalties for "knowingly selling alcoholic beverages in violation of the regulations of the State Liquor Commission to any person under the age of 18." One of the State Liquor Commission regulations provided that "before an alcoholic beverage is sold to any person between the ages of 17 and 24, the seller must demand some form of photo identification to determine the buyer's age." A minor who looked much older than his age of 17 walked into a tavern located in the state and asked the bartender for a beer. The bartender never asked the minor for any form of identification, as he thought that he was at least 25 years old. Had the bartender asked for identification, the minor would have shown him a fake identification card showing that he was 21 years old. The bartender served the beer to the minor, who consumed it on the premises. The bartender was subsequently charged under the state statute for selling the beer to the minor. Is the bartender guilty?
no because he reasonably believed the minor was older than 25 years old (Read the context)
The defendant entered a bank, planning to rob it. An alert bank employee saw the defendant brandishing her gun and pushed the silent alarm button to summon the police, and most of the employees and customers were successful in fleeing the bank. However, when the police surrounded the bank, the defendant was still inside with a hostage, one of the bank's tellers, whom the defendant had forced to turn over all the money in her drawer. The police obtained only a vague description of the defendant from the fleeing employees and customers as being a white female of average height, but all agreed that she was wearing a bright yellow scarf around her neck. The defendant, hoping to distract the police and escape out a back door, forced the teller to put on the bright yellow scarf and walk in front of a window. A rookie police officer, on seeing the yellow scarf, opened fire, killing the bank teller immediately. The defendant was apprehended shortly thereafter trying to escape out the back door. If the defendant is prosecuted and found guilty of the teller's murder, what is the likely reason?
The defendant caused the death of the victim during the course of a felony
Latimer v. The Queen- Is the defense of necessity available to justify an act of euthanasia where the deceased suffers from a non-life-threatening condition?
The defense of necessity is available only if the defendant can prove three elements. First, there must be immediate and imminent peril. Second, there must be a lack of any reasonable alternative. Third, there must be proportionality between the harm inflicted and the harm avoided
The defendant and his friend entered a convenience store wearing ski masks and demanded all the money in the register, claiming they had a gun. The clerk promptly complied with that demand. The pair grabbed the money and ran out the door. A police officer saw them running through the parking lot, still wearing their masks, and surmised that a robbery had taken place. Without any warning, the police officer drew out his gun and fired two shots, one of which shattered the defendant's kneecap and sent him tumbling to the ground. The other bullet struck the friend in the head, killing him instantly. The defendant is placed on trial for the friend's death on a felony murder theory. Which of the following is the best argument for the defendant to make in order to gain an acquittal?
The friend was a co-felon (he is responsible for his own death)
The initial aggressor in a fatal conflict is not under a duty to retreat, unless he may not do so safely, before using deadly force in self-defense
false- you have a duty to retreat no matter what
Under MPC 2.06 (6), the termination must occur "prior" to the commission of the offense.
"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 . . . 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."
The Model Penal Code standard relieves the defendant of responsibility under two circumstances:
(1) When, as a result of mental disease or defect, the defendant lacked substantial capacity to appreciate the criminality [wrongfulness] of his conduct; (2) when, as a result of mental disease or defect, the defendant lacked substantial capacity to conform his conduct to the requirements of law.
The mens rea of accomplice liability has two separate (and independent) components:
(1) the intent to assist a principal actor in committing the target act; and (2) the intent that the principal actually commits that act.
Under MPC 2.06 (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 . . . ." Under MPC 2.06 (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."
Elements of Homicide
1. Killed 2. Another person 3. Unlawfully
When a statute fails to state a mens rea as to one or more elements of an offense, but does as to others elements, courts assume that strict liability applies to the elements for which no mens rea is stated.
Courts are reluctant to impose strict liability. As a result, when a statute fails to set forth a mens rea for a particular element of a crime, courts are likely to imply one. See Rehaif v. United States, 139 S.Ct. 2191 (2019).
MPC Insanity Test
D lacked the substantial capacity to appreciate the criminality of his conduct OR conform his conduct to the law. The insanity acquittal of John Hinkley for the attempted assassination of President Ronald Reagan public opposition to the insanity defense and most jurisdictions returned to the M'Naghten test
Threshold test on insanity
Does the defendant have a mental defect?
True or False. Under the Model Penal Code, an accomplice may not be convicted if the person claimed to have committed the offense has not been prosecuted or convicted.
False. Under MPC 2.06 (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."
Even though the gambling laws of the state prohibit gambling on professional sports games, the defendant placed a bet with a bookie on the outcome of a football game. There was a disputed call near the end of the game that resulted in the defendant losing the bet. However, later films showed that in fact the call should have been for the defendant's team, which would have changed the outcome. The bookie refused to pay the bet to the defendant. Later that night, the defendant broke into the bookie's home and took the amount he would have won. What is the defendant's best defense to a charge of common law burglary?
He lacked the specific intent necessary for burglary because he believed the bookie owed him the money (common law burglary requires an intent)
Merger Doctrine (felony murder)
If the predicate felony is... (1)A necessary ingredient of the homicide OR (2)an integral fact of the homicide AND (3)The homicide results from a single course of conduct w/a single purpose THEN The underlying felony merges w/homicide and prevents felony murder rule Must have 1 OR 2 AND 3
Late one evening, a cook at a diner coming off his shift was grabbed in the parking lot by a large man wearing a ski mask. The man threatened to kill the cook and demanded his wallet. The man then pulled a knife from his pocket and lunged at the cook. The cook, having taken several self-defense courses, was able to fend off the man's attack. After being struck by the cook several times, the man dropped the knife and fell to the ground. The cook, angry at the assault, took the knife and stabbed the man, killing him instantly. Should the cook be convicted of murder?
No, but he may be convicted of manslaughter (he was provoked, in the heat of the moment, with a weapon)
A husband was very jealous of any contact his wife had with other men, and was particularly suspicious of his wife's relationship with their neighbor, a plumber. Early one morning, the shower in the couple's master bathroom sprang a leak while the wife was getting ready for the day. Fearing permanent damage to their house, and needing to get the repair done quickly, the wife quickly threw on some clothes and called the neighbor. The neighbor immediately went over to the couple's home, and went to the master bathroom. At the same time, the husband unexpectedly came home because he had forgotten something for work. The husband went to the master bedroom and saw the neighbor and his wife with her hair wet and clothes hastily put on. Enraged, he ran to his study, grabbed his gun from the desk drawer, and shot and killed the neighbor. The jurisdiction defines murder in the first degree to include premeditated and deliberate killings and all killings that take place during the commission of a dangerous felony. Premeditation and deliberation is defined as requiring some meaningful reflection prior to the killing. All other common law murder is classified as murder in the second degree. If the jury finds that the husband was unreasonable in his erroneous belief that the neighbor and his wife were together for the purpose of adultery, what crime did the husband commit when he killed the neighbor?
Second degree murder (it was not really premeditated) therefore it falls into the state's 2nd degree catch all (theres no cooling off period)
M'Naghten test
a legal test for insanity that holds people to be insane at the time they committed a crime if, because of a mental disorder, they did not know the nature of the act or did not know right from wrong
Under MPC 2.06 (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."
accomplice under MPC
