Criminal Law 1L - Johnson
MPC Aggravated Assault Statute
(2) Aggravated Assault. A person is guilty of aggravated assault if he: (a) attempts to cause serious bodily injury to another, or causes such injury purposely, knowingly or recklessly under circumstances manifesting extreme indifference to the value of human life; or (b) attempts to cause or purposely or knowingly causes bodily injury to another with a deadly weapon. Aggravated assault under paragraph (a) is a felony of the second degree; aggravated assault under paragraph (b) is a felony of the third degree.
Keeler v. Superior Court
(Killing baby Keeler) about the means of interpreting homicide statutes after a husband killed a 35 week viable fetus.
State v. Sowry
(Sowwy I brought drugs to jail) - Sowry was arrested and when searched at the jail revealed he was carrying marijuana. Charged with knowingly conveying drugs into jail. Overruled because Sowry lacked autonomy in going to jail.
State v. Sophophone
(co-felon conspiracy) Sophophone's brother and co-felon was shot resisting arrest. Felony murder may include the accidental death of a co-felon if decedents are killed during the perpetration of a felony inherently dangerous to human life. However death during resisting arrest does not cause the other co-felon to be liable for felony-murder. This is known as the police exception.
State v. Avery
(cool down conditional) Chronically abused girlfriend shot her intruding boyfriend after a fight, but had time to cool down between his abuse and his entrance to the home. There was a history of abuse and defendants argued the 'Build Up Theory ' in refute to the 'Cool Down Doctrine' under voluntary manslaughter.
State v. Anderson
(felon gun fluke) A former felon was showing his new gun to two friends. The gun went off, and killed one of his friends. The defendant was convicted of felony-murder because the predicate felony of owning a gun as a felon lent the intent to being convicted for an intentional homicide.
Commonwealth v. Kilburn
(hapless hitman)Kilburn hired a professional hitman to roughen up a victim. Victim dies, and Kilburn tries not to claim any intent behind the murder because he didn't do it himself, and only intended to cause harm. Under the Agency Doctrine, Kilburn was found liable for second degree murder (to cause serious bodily harm).
Maher v. People
(heat of passion hatred) Victim had sex with defendant's wife, so defendant shot him in the heat of passion. This was ruled voluntary manslaughter under sufficient provocation.
Commonwealth v. McCloskey
(manslaughter mom) Mother helps organize and ignores an underage party where three teens die in a drunk driving accident. Mother is held liable for actus reus (being in a special relationship imposes a duty to act parent to child).
People v. Knoller
(pitbull perplexity) Two fostered pit bulls attacked and killed neighbor after being raised as attack dogs. Foster parents of the dogs were charged with involuntary manslaughter instead of second degree murder, because prosecution was unable to prove 'conscious disregard' for human life.
Jeffries v. State
(refusing rehab) Jeffries killed another car turning left illegally while driving under the influence. Jeffries argued involuntary manslaughter but had a history of recidivism and refusing rehabilitation, and his negligence was ruled beyond ordinary recklessness, but accelerated his offense to 'recklessness +' and was charged with voluntary manslaughter (sometimes second degree murder).
Commonwealth v. Carroll
(sleeping shooter) A husband shoots his wife while she is sleeping in their bed after remember there is a gun in the headboard. Argues chronic abuse. Charged with second degree murder because premeditation and intent to kill can be formed in an instant.
Ex Parte Weems
(whoops weems) After being robbed outside a bar, Weems brought a gun from his car into the bar to search for his possessions. The gun accidentally went off in his pocket and shot Weems' friend, killing her. Weems charged for 'recklessness +' because bringing a loaded, safety-off gun into a crowded public place was more than average negligence.
Two Types of Defenses
1. Mitigation Defenses (to reduce a crime/grade down) 2. Justification or Excuse Defenses (to completely exculpate a defendant)
Irresistible Impulse Test
A build onto the M'Naughten test, only that it also concludes 'irresistible impulse' under the idea that 'if a police officer was standing at defendant's elbow, defendant would be powerless to not commit the crime.' Still a very narrow test.
Agent Liability
A defendant is still liable if he himself does not commit the crime but has an agent do it for him, the malicious intent of the defendant is then imbued on the agent. Ex. Sal Sharky wants money from Poor Peter. Sal sends his best hitman Rough House Roger to beat up Peter. Roger beats Peter up enough to "force him to remember the money for Sal." Peter later died from his injuries. Both Roger and Sal are guilty of second degree, or 'depraved heart' murder.
Merger Doctrine Limit
A judicially created exception to felony murder based on the idea the legislature did not intend for certain felonies to be the triggering offense for a felony murder rule.
1st Degree Murder
A premeditated killing in which the intent to kill is formed due to preexisting reflection rather than a sudden impulse or heat of passion. Some courts call this 'reasonably calm consideration.'
State v. Miranda
A severely abused infant, but the mother's boyfriend did not intervene. However the court ruled there was no duty to act if not legally related.
People v. Goetz
After being accosted on the subway aggressively for $5, a man pulled out a gun and open fired on 5 youths in a pointed, intentional way, including shooting a second youth twice. He claimed self defense, but his self defense theory was IMPERFECT because his use of force was so disproportionate.
Kansas v. Hendricks/Crane
Aggressive sexual predators may be committed indefinitely under common law because of the nature and recidivism of offense once acquitted under the insanity defense.
Powell v. Texas
Alcoholism does not constitute a status crime or an excuse for mens rea under the defense of intoxication. (Powell tried to argue chronic alcoholism took away his willpower).
MPC Mistake of Law
Allows defense when: 1. The mistake is based on the nonpublication of the law OR 2. Conduct is based on an erroneous official statement of the law by a governmental authority entrusted with the power to issue official interpretations.
Intent to Frighten Assault
Also called apprehension of assault, there are three requirements for some jurisdictions to have intent to frighten assaults (where threat is sufficient to act as assault): 1. There must be specific intent to create the fear or apprehension 2. Victim must be aware of defendant's act and apprehensive 3. The apprehension must be reasonable to TARP
MPC Diminished Capacity
An impaired mental condition short of insanity caused by intoxication, trauma, or mental illness that prevents a person from having the mental state necessary to be held responsible for a crime.
Involuntary Manslaughter (Common Law)
An unintentional killing resulting from criminal negligence. There are three requirements for involuntary manslaughter: 1. The act (or omission) is intentional 2. But the death is unintentional 3. The defendant was criminally negligent This requires a gross deviation from TARP.
Imperfect Self Defense
Another form of voluntary manslaughter in the self-defense scenario. This is when someone is killed or seriously injured because the defendant honestly but unreasonably believed that deadly force was necessary. There are three requirements to prove an imperfect self defense: 1. Defendant did NOT initiate the confrontation, also known as the 'Clean Hands Doctrine.' 2. Defendant acted in the honest but mistaken belief that he or another was in danger for their life at the time of the repudiated force. (In perfect self defense, the defendant is correct in his belief that that amount of force was needed.). 3. Defendant may only use the proportionate force to defend himself or another. Ex: Mina Mother is with Daughter Dottie. Mina and Dottie are held at gunpoint on the sidewalk, and Robert tells Dottie to get in his car. Unknown to Mina and Dottie, Robert the Robber does not keep a loaded gun, but only uses the prop to scare people in order to kidnap for ransom. Unbeknownst to Robert, Mina carries a loaded gun in her purse. Believing Robert's gun is real and the threat of force is real to kidnap her daughter, Mina shoots Robert and runs away with Mina. Mina's defense would be an imperfect one, but she still may yet succeed because the threat seems real enough. Her force was also proportionate (gun for gun), and she did not instigate the standoff.
Abandoned and Malignant Heart
Another name for 'recklessness +' which is a gross disregard for human life, exhibiting an abandoned and malignant heart.
Predicate Felony
Any enumerated felony or inherently dangerous act to human life that can lend the intent to homicide in a felony murder.
Common Law Felony Murder
Any killing in conjunction with a felony in some degree, with malice aforethought. Felony murder is a killing that occurred in the perpetration of an inherently dangerous felony that is independent of life-threatening force. There are three requirements for a murder to constitute a felony-murder. 1. Inherently Dangerous Felony (when it is 100% life threatening all the time) 2. Independent of life-threatening force - if a person is going into the felony with the life-threatening conduct in mind, the act of murder is not independent of the felony. (Ex. Brett Burglar enters home intending to beat up Homeowner Hannah; this is not independent of life-threatening conduct. But if Brett enters home with the intent to steal, and then fights with Hannah defending her home, this is independent of life-threatening conduct). 3. Perpetration - a felony is complete when a felon reaches safe harbor. Facts to consider when considering a felony-murder crime: -Did the homicide and felony occur in the same location at the same time?
Status Crimes
Any statute that punishes a person for a propensity to act is unconstitutional. Ex: Druggie Doug has a severe addiction to heroin. Doug can be prosecuted for crimes while on heroin, but not for being addicted to heroin.
MPC Assault
Any unlawful offer with apparent present ability to effectuate the attempt in order to create circumstances of creating fear of imminent peril. Defendant must have intent of threat and cause defendant to reasonably apprehend the intent to perform unlawful touching.
State v. Edwards
Battered spouse syndrome kicked in when a wife shot her husband mid argument at their dually owned store. Husband had been abusing for over 40 years, including constant rape and threats to kill the wife and children.
Battered Spouse (Woman) Syndrome (BSS/BWS)
Battered women's syndrome can be a defense under the 'build up theory' in voluntary manslaughter. BWS is akin to being a prisoner of war.
Common Law Burglary
Burglary is the nighttime breaking and entering into a dwelling home of another with the intent to commit a felony therein. Also applies to curtilage (e.g. the area around the immediate dwelling building, or the 'white picket fence.') Breaking can be the slightest force, like pushing in a window, and entry must be the penetration of the 'plane' of the home (like a soap bubble around the actual house). Nighttime is defined as that degree of darkness that one could not distinguish a person's features. Intent is difficult to prove.
MPC Unlawful Arrest
Cannot resist arrest by a police officer except: 1. There is obvious reason to believe the arrest unlawful (hard to prove) 2. The officer is using overt and unnecessary force (beating)
MPC Causation
Causation requires a link between actus reus and the resulting harm. For a defendant to be convicted, prosecution must show the act of the defendant constituted a substantial (bur/for) factor in bringing about the resulting harm and there are no intervening, superseding factors that come between the action and the end result. The cause, which through its natural and foreseeable consequences, unbroken by any sufficient intervening superseding cause, produces the injury which would not have occurred BUT/FOR the crime. There are two questions to ask in causation: 1. Did the intervening act substantially contribute to the result? 2. Was the intervening act foreseeable?
Criminal Insanity Defense
Committing a crime while insane precludes a defendant of moral responsibility of the crime, because prison would be an ineffectual punishment. There are four American law tests for insanity: 1. M'Naughten 2. Irresistible Impulse Test 3. Durham Test 4. MPC Insanity
Recklessly
Consciously disregards a substantial or unjustifiable risk (in general). Often = Involuntary Manslaughter. Ex: Careless Carlos takes Vicky Victim for a ride in his car after he's been drinking heavily. They are in an accident, and Vicky dies. Careless Carlos has unjustifiably ignored the heightened risk of drinking and driving, and has killed Vicky involuntarily.
Recklessness Plus (Recklessness +)
Consciously disregards a substantial or unjustifiable risk TO HUMAN LIFE. When criminal accidents or negligence that would usually be considered involuntary manslaughter are SO reckless they exhibit a depraved indifference to human life. Often = Voluntary Manslaughter. It must be willful and wanton life threatening conduct, more than even gross negligence. Ex: Reckless Rick decides to play a game with Vicky Victim of Russian Roulette with a six shooter pistol. In his intoxication, Rick forgets to load a blank. The pistol shoots Vicky in the head, and Vicky dies. It was an accident, but Rick has committed voluntary manslaughter for causing death in such an increased reckless way, above and beyond the average reckless person.
MPC Extortion
Considered a type of theft by purposefully obtaining property of another by performance of one of seven enumerated actions in the MPC extortion statute.
People v. Curtis
Curtis resisted arrest and was charged with battery of a police officer because a citizen cannot resist lawful arrest.
United States v. Russell
DEA supplied a key ingredient in the manufacture of methamphetamines to a suspect. This was ruled entrapment because the government played a key role in the production, pushing it from possibility to reality.
Common Law Self Defense
Defendant must show evidence of threatened unlawful force, imminent danger/serious harm, not be the first aggressor, fully believe the danger existed and the amount of force to counter the danger was necessary and proper.
Guilty But Mentally Ill (GBMI)
Defendant will be found guilty, but will spend the first part of the sentence (say 15 years), in a mental institution. When "cured," (say 5 years) the defendant will be moved to a prison for the rest of the sentence (10 years).
Not Guilty By Reason of Insanity (NGRI)
Defendant will be set free as not guilty, but 95% of the time will then be committed to a mental institution (sometimes indefinitely).
Jones v. United States
Defendants sued a civil commitment after being kept longer than the maximum penalty at common law. Judge ruled that you can keep defendants longer in mental institutions when they are ruled criminally insane.
MPC Defense of Others
Defense of Others is justified in the subjective belief in the need to defend against imminent force, and the amount of force is necessary on the present occasion to protect a third party from harm.
Common Law Defense of Property
Defense of property includes the fact that you can't use deadly force to protect property (so no spring loaded guns that can't distinguish between rescuer and burglar). However, defense of property has three exceptions to using deadly force: 1. When someone breaking and entering is using deadly force and you must protect yourself and/or others 2. If there is a 'Castle Exception' or 'Stand your ground law' in that jurisdiction 3. There is no duty to retreat in one's own home
MPC Aggravated Assault
Depends on a) degree of harm, or b) status of the victim. Is is a felony and a) attempts serious bodily harm or b) assault with a deadly weapon.
Subjective Entrapment (Federal Test)
Did the government afford an opportunity for someone already predisposed to commit a crime, or did the government actually induce or persuade the defendant to commit the crime? This focuses more on the individual's actions and mens rea.
Objective Entrapment (MPC)
Did the government's conduct create a substantial risk that an offense will be committed by an otherwise law-abiding person? This shifts the focus from the defendant to the government acting in a behavior-inducing way that might cast light on the offense in a way that makes it seem less serious than it is.
MPC Duress
Duress is a type of coercion arising from human agency. Duress occurs when a person commits a criminal act because of another person's threats of physical harm if crime is not committed. MPC requires coercion to overcome a person of reasonable firmness. Federal duress requires 5 factors: 1. Immediate Threat 2. Serious Bodily Injury 3. Well grounded fear 4. No opportunity to escape 5. After committing the offense, prompt surrender to authority. In order to use duress, the evil sought to be avoided must be greater than any committed.
MPC Entrapement
Entrapment is similar to duress but in entrapment, defendant is encouraged or persuaded to commit a crime (usually by a government agent) in order to catch someone in a crime. Entrapment is an affirmative defense, and as soon as defendant raises it, all of defendant's past criminal history comes into light as evidence. There are 2 tests - subjective entrapment, and objective entrapment.
Miller v. Commonwealth
Ex felon Miller purchased a muzzle loading rifle after trying to figure out if as an ex-felon he was allowed to own one. He consulted every authority he could think of, including government agents, who all said it was permissible. When he was brought up on charges, they were dismissed for being truly mistaken in the law. (Usually mistake of law is inexcusable unless the law is unpublished or told to be acceptable by a government agent in a position of power).
Commonwealth v. Mills
Former policemen claimed disability from the government, and also misreported his annual income. This was theft under false pretenses.
MPC Embezzlement
Fraudulent conversion of property of another that has been lawfully obtained with the intent to permanently deprive a lawful owner.
State v. Holmes
Holmes went to a diamond store, asking to see gems. After holding the diamonds, pulls a gun on the jewelry case attendant. This demonstrates the difference between common law robbery and MPC larceny, because under the common law, this is not robbery (taking was accomplished before fear injected). Under the MPC, this would constitute larceny.
People v. Russell
Homeless man took a motorcycle set outside of a repairshop because of the bad condition it was in, assuming it was abandoned. He made sufficient repairs and listed it under his name. The judge did not charge with theft because there was a genuine mistake of fact by the defendant.
Common Law Mistake of Fact (Ignorance)
Ignorance at common law negates Mens Rea. There are different results depending on the type of crime. Defendant is not guilty if his/her mistake of fact negates specific intent portions of crimes. Ordinarily a defendant is not guilty under mistake of fact if the mistake is reasonable (as in TARP would also have made the mistake).
MPC Incompetence
Incompetence deals with the status of a defendant at the time of TRIAL, and not at the time/moment of committing the crime. An incompetent defendant cannot be tried, sentenced, or executed. A person is incompetent to stand trial if: 1. He or she is unable to understand the proceedings at hand. 2. He or she is unable to assist the defense to adequate counsel. Incompetence can be raised at any point in the proceedings by any party (either attorney, bailiff, or judge).
Purposefully
Intends to bring about a specific result, usually the specific intent to kill, or the intent to cause serious bodily injury or death. Also known as the 100% Rule. Often = Murder I. Ex: Angry Andrew takes a hammer and purposefully smashes Vicky Victim's head in. Andrew intends purposefully for Vicky to die. Vicky dies.
Voluntary Manslaughter (Common Law)
Intentional killing in which the law permits defendant to establish a lack of malice by: 1. Sufficient provocation for a 'heat of passion' killing OR 2. Diminished capacity so that defendant could not form willful malice of TARP.
MPC Intoxication
Intoxication takes away the specific intent in specific intent crimes (often downgrading specific intent crimes). However, intoxication does not apply to general intent crimes where defendant acts recklessly or negligently. Intoxication may operate as a failure of proof defense in relation to Mens Rea.
Manslaughter Pennsylvania Approach (Common Law)
Killing that would otherwise qualify as a murder. There are two ways to count manslaughter at common law: 1. D was subjectively in the 'heat of the moment' with sufficient provocation to be in the 'throes of passions.' a) There also cannot be a 'cooling off period.' The Cool Down Doctrine dictates that if a person can average and reasonably take time away from the provocation, that is sufficient time to build up intent for homicide, and not on the spot manslaughter. b) In contrast to the Cool Down Doctrine is "Build Up Theory." Some jurisdictions have held that with repeated abuse and Battered Spouse Syndrome, a homicide out of nowhere may be justified by years of fearfulness. 2. TARP would also find the provocation sufficient. Most of the time, words are insufficient to count as sufficient provocation, unless they are informational (I just murdered your wife and daughter). Ex. Cooper Cuckhold comes home to find Henry Homewrecker sleeping with Cooper's wife Wanda. Cooper then jumps Henry and beats him so severely, he dies from his injuries. The average reasonable court holds that immediate action in the face of infidelity counts as sufficient provocation for manslaughter and not murder, even if there was intent to kill or cause serious harm.
MPC Theft (aka Larceny)
Larceny is the trespassory taking and carrying away (asportation) of the personal property of another with the intent to permanently deprive (now amended not to need 'permanently deprive'). The difference between grand larceny and petty larceny is that grand larceny is over $1000. Taking is the exercise of dominion and control inconsistent with the continued rights of the owner. Asportation is the slightest movement away from the person against their will. (Not abandoned property or one's own property). On an exam ask: 1. Was the taking without legal rights? 2. Was there the intent to deprive the owner? (even if only for a time?) The MPC consolidated several types of larceny into one offense: -larceny -larceny by trick -larceny by bailee -embezzlement -false pretenses -receiving stolen property Larceny MPC is defined as the felonious taking by trespass and carrying away by any person of the consent and with felonious intent to permanently deprive owner of his/her property (not necessarily a tangible good, but yes a chattel).
People v. Latour
Latour robbed a Wells Fargo and argued that because robbery is a crime against a person that he wasn't guilty because a bank is not a person.
United States v. Freeman
Long term drug addict Freeman suffered from hallucinations and blackouts from brain corrosion and argued for insanity under the M'Naughten test because he was unaware of what he was doing. Was allowed to bring up the defense of criminal insanity.
MPC Felony Murder
MPC does not hold with felony murder or have a felony murder statute. But it does have the basic structure of a predicate felony + causally connected death = felony murder. Intent in felony murder is attributed to the intent to commit a felony act, which is deemed sufficient intent for murder.
MPC Homicide
MPC only defines one crime of murder = purposefully and/or knowingly causing death of another human being - there are four mens rea: 1. Purposefully (homicide) 2. Knowingly (homicide) 3. Recklessly (manslaughter) 4. Negligently (manslaughter)
Express Malice
Manifested deliberate intent to unlawfully take away the life of a fellow human being (depraved heart murder).
Malice Aforethought
Manifested in doing an act highly dangerous to human life, or causing serious bodily harm, or death, by a person unable to comprehend this prohibition and obligation to conform to conduct. 1) The conscious intent to cause death or great bodily harm to another person before a person commits the crime. Such malice is a required element to prove first degree murder. 2) A general evil and depraved state of mind in which the person is unconcerned for the lives of others. Ex: Serial Killer Sam stalks, kidnaps, and then murders his victims. This malice aforethought of planning, premeditation, and malicious intent constitutes the mens rea for Homicide I.
Mens Rea
Mental intent of a crime. "Evil mind requirement" necessitates Mens Rea at common law is divided into specific intent and general intent. Specific Intent Requirements: Requires the doing of an act and doing it with the specific intent to cause the harm of the crime. - Must have general intent to commit the crime, - Must have specific intent to achieve the consequences of the crime AND - The actus reus and specific intent must occur at the same time. Examples of common law specific intent crimes: 1st Degree murder, attempt, assault, robbery, larceny, false pretenses, embezzlement, etc. General Intent Requirements: All crime requires general intent. The general intent must occur at the same time as the actus reus. Examples of common law general intent crimes: rape, battery, involuntary manslaughter. Transferred Intent; when defendant intends harmful result to Victim A, and in trying to carry out the intent, causes harm to Victim B. Some courts apply transferred intent to attempt and completed crimes. Strict Liability: There is no intent in strict liability, because crimes do not require awareness of all factors (e.g statutory rape doesn't need mistaken intent to sleep with someone lower than the age line to be crime, it already is regardless of prior knowledge). The MPC DOES NOT distinguish between specific and general intent crimes. The law is not person specific, so a crime is said to be done against society. Therefore, the intended target doesn't matter, and transferred intent is accepted. "The intent rides on the bullet."
United States v. Blarek
Money laundering scheme was illegal because it facilitated other illegal crimes through the subjective intent to launder the money (mens rea).
United States v. Moore
Moore, high on substances, asked to borrow a car at gunpoint to 'go commit a murder.' He abandoned the car sometime later. Despite Moore's intent not to 'permanently deprive' owners of the vehicle, still convicted for robbery for fear of serious bodily injury.
Homicide Pennsylvania Approach (Common Law)
Murder at the common law means there is a specific intent to kill or cause serious bodily harm. The only way to get from Murder II to Murder I is from serious intent to kill or felony murder. Must show premeditation in two ways: 1. Reflection on the consequences of taking a life of another through planning. 2. Must show there was sufficient time and actual reflection through circumstantial evidence. However, passage of time does not mean reflection necessarily occurred. On the flip side, reflection and intent to kill can be formed in a millisecond.
Murder
Murder is the unlawful killing of a human being with malice aforethought. There are four types of voluntary murder with intent (every other killing is manslaughter). 1. Murder with intent to kill (Murder I and II, MPC Homicide) 2. Murder with the intent to cause serious bodily injury (Murder II, Voluntary Manslaughter, Depraved Heart Killings) 3. Recklessness +/Extreme Indifference For Human Life 4. Felony-Murder
Res Gestae Limit
Murder that is a lesser degree of homicide cannot serve as the predicate felony in felony-murder.
Common Law Extortion
Obtaining money or other things of value by the misuse of official power or position by threats or coercion to perform certain enumerated acts. Usually considered a misdemeanor and recently expanded to include blackmail. Extortion is the making of certain prohibited threats with the specific intent to obtain something of value from someone. There are three types of common law extortion: 1. Threat to hurt 2. Threat to accuse 3. Threat to expose
MPC Misdemeanor Manslaughter
Occurs when there is an unlawful killing and an unlawful act not amounting to a felony. Such killing usually equates to PA's involuntary manslaughter statute.
Depraved Heart Murders
Often thought of as the straddling line between second degree murder and voluntary manslaughter when there is intent to commit serious injury with disregard to death occurring, the likelihood of which would be obvious to TARP.
Actus Reus
Physical action of a crime. A person is not guilty of an offense unless his liability is based on conduct that includes a voluntary act or the omission (failure) to perform an act of which he is physically capable. There are two basic types of actus reus: 1. Volitional Actions - Thoughts alone are insufficient to establish the actus reus element (legislature cannot criminalize thoughts that it disagrees with). Three exceptions to volitional acts: a) Involuntary Actions cannot be counted as actus reus (seizure) b) Reflexive Actions (A pushes B into C. B is not liable for bumping into C and causing harm) c) Unconsciousness (sleepwalking, seizures so long as not aware of seizures or preexisting detriments, yet unconsciousness due to voluntary intoxication does not excuse liability) 2. Omission to Act - There are four ways in which a legal duty to act is created: a) Statute - you cannot abstain from filing taxes b) Contract - lifeguard must act to save a drowning victim under contract c) Special Relationship - parent-child relationship d) Begun duty to rescue (may not omit halfway through)
Morisette v. United States
Plaintiff entered US bombing range and sold the shell casings collected there for scrap metal. P was then convicted as embezzling from the government.
Robinson v. California
Policy: Status Crimes Facts: Appellant was convicted of narcotic use merely based on the needle marks in his skin. The judge instructed the jury that the appellant could be convicted under general verdict if jury agreed either that he was status (addicted) or had committed the act (use of narcotics). Rule: Narcotic addiction is an illness and imprisoning a person afflicted as a criminal inflicts cruel and unusual punishment against the Fourteenth Amendment.
Pope v. Netherland
Pope was convicted of capital murder in the commission of robbery (shooting the female driver after a personal robbery in a car gone wrong). This is a perfect example of felony murder.
Knowingly
Practically certain the result will occur. Thought of often as the 'more than likely rule' that disregards human life to the point of 'depraved heart murders.' Often = Murder I or II. Ex: Angry Andrew takes a baseball bat and knowingly hits Vicky Victim with it in order to 'rough her up.' Vicky dies. Andrew knows that he has beat Vicky so severely there is a high risk of serious bodily harm or death, and knew before hitting her that would likely result. Andrew is guilty of knowingly killing her, even if he didn't mean for her to die.
Substantial Step Test
Purposefully does or omits to do anything as an act or omission constituting a 'substantial step' in a course of conduct planned to culminate in a commission of a crime.
2nd Degree Murder
Requires malice aforethought (which can be processed in an instant), but lacks premeditation and deliberation that shows a lack of planning.
Attempted Battery Assault
Requires proof of attempt to cause injury.
M'Naughten Test
Right/Wrong Test - this is the most difficult to prove test, because it begs the question simply: "Could the defendant, at the time of the crime, tell right from wrong?" If yes, insanity does not apply. This falls into a great he said/she said of different psychiatrists.
MPC Necessity
Rises from nature or chance (like a storm). Defendant then chooses the lesser of two evils to perform (breaking and entering to shelter from a storm). However, this can never extend to taking a human life, because the lesser of two evils can never be murder.
Common Law Robbery
Robbery at common law is larceny + taking from a person or presence of a person by force. However, the robbery at common law is undesirable because the time lapse between violence and taking can downgrade the offense. Robbery is the taking and carrying away (asportation) of the personal property of another from the victim's person or presence of control accomplished by force or intimidation. Robbery is a crime against a person, not against property (different than burglary). Threat must be of immediate injury and be sufficient to cause the victim of TARP to part with property against his will. Robbery is a felony that cannot be downgraded to a misdemeanor.
Robbery v. Extortion
Robbery is obtaining property from a person or presence by FORCE, or threats of force. Extortion is obtaining property from a person or presence by THREAT of coercion. There must be a causal connection between threat and victim surrendering property.
MPC Affirmative Defense Statute
Section 1.12. Proof Beyond a Reasonable Doubt; Affirmative Defenses; Burden of Proving Fact When Not an Element of an Offense; Presumptions. (1) No person may be convicted of an offense unless each element of such offense is proved beyond a reasonable doubt. In the absence of such proof, the innocence of the defendant is assumed. (2) Subsection (1) of this Section does not: (a) require the disproof of an affirmative defense unless and until there is evidence supporting such defense; or (b) apply to any defense which the Code or another statute plainly requires the defendant to prove by a preponderance of evidence. (3) A ground of defense is affirmative, within the meaning of Subsection (2)(a) of this Section, when: (a) it arises under a section of the Code which so provides; or (b) it relates to an offense defined by a statute other than the Code and such statute so provides; or (c) it involves a matter of excuse or justification peculiarly within the knowledge of the defendant on which he can fairly be required to adduce supporting evidence. (4) When the application of the Code depends upon the finding of a fact which is not an element of an offense, unless the Code otherwise provides: (a) the burden of proving the fact is on the prosecution or defendant, depending on whose interest or contention will be furthered if the finding should be made; and (b) the fact must be proved to the satisfaction of the Court or jury, as the case may be. (5) When the Code establishes a presumption with respect to any fact which is an element of an offense, it has the following consequences: (a) when there is evidence of the facts which give rise to the presumption, the issue of the existence of the presumed fact must be submitted to the jury, unless the Court is satisfied that the evidence as a whole clearly negatives the presumed fact; and (b) when the issue of the existence of the presumed fact is submitted to the jury, the Court shall charge that while the presumed fact must, on all the evidence, be proved beyond a reasonable doubt, the law declares that the jury may regard the facts giving rise to the presumption as sufficient evidence of the presumed fact. (6) A presumption not established by the Code or inconsistent with it has the consequences otherwise accorded it by law.
MPC Causation Statute
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 Mistake of Fact Statute
Section 2.04. Ignorance or Mistake. [cf. Restatement Torts 2d §§ 55, 56, 57, 78] (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: [cf. Restatement Torts 2d §§ 288A, 296] (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 Intoxication Statute
Section 2.08. Intoxication. [cf. Restatement Torts 2d §§ 288A, 296] (1) Except as provided in Subsection (4) of this Section, intoxication of the actor is not a defense unless it negatives an element of the offense. (2) When recklessness establishes an element of the offense, if the actor, due to self-induced intoxication, is unaware of a risk of which he would have been aware had he been sober, such unawareness is immaterial. (3) Intoxication does not, in itself, constitute mental disease within the meaning of Section 4.01. (4) Intoxication which (a) is not self-induced or (b) is pathological is an affirmative defense if by reason of such intoxication the actor at the time of his conduct lacks substantial capacity either to appreciate its criminality [wrongfulness] or to conform his conduct to the requirements of law. (5) Definitions. In this Section unless a different meaning plainly is required: (a) "intoxication" means a disturbance of mental or physical capacities resulting from the introduction of substances into the body; (b) "self-induced intoxication" means intoxication caused by substances which the actor knowingly introduces into his body, the tendency of which to cause intoxication he knows or ought to know, unless he introduces them pursuant to medical advice or under such circumstances as would afford a defense to a charge of crime; (c) "pathological intoxication" means intoxication grossly excessive in degree, given the amount of the intoxicant, to which the actor does not know he is susceptible.
MPC Duress Defense Statute
Section 2.09. Duress. [cf. Restatement Torts 2d §§ 288A, 296] (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, which a person of reasonable firmness in his situation would have been unable to resist. [cf. Restatement Torts 2d §§ 11, 283] (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 Entrapment Statute
Section 2.13. Entrapment. (1) A public law enforcement official or a person acting in cooperation with such an official perpetrates an entrapment if for the purpose of obtaining evidence of the commission of an offense, he induces or encourages another person to engage in conduct constituting such offense by either: (a) making knowingly false representations designed to induce the belief that such conduct is not prohibited; or (b) employing methods of persuasion or inducement which create a substantial risk that such an offense will be committed by persons other than those who are ready to commit it. (2) Except as provided in Subsection (3) of this Section, a person prosecuted for an offense shall be acquitted if he proves by a preponderance of evidence that his conduct occurred in response to an entrapment. The issue of entrapment shall be tried by the Court in the absence of the jury. (3) The defense afforded by this Section is unavailable when causing or threatening bodily injury is an element of the offense charged and the prosecution is based on conduct causing or threatening such injury to a person other than the person perpetrating the entrapment.
MPC Homicide Statute
Section 210.1. Criminal Homicide. (1) A person is guilty of criminal homicide if he purposely, knowingly, recklessly or negligently causes the death of another 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 Statuteterm-17
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. Section 210.4. Negligent Homicide. (1) Criminal homicide constitutes negligent homicide when it is committed negligently. (2) Negligent homicide is a felony of the third degree.
MPC Assault Statute
Section 211.1. Assault. (1) Simple Assault. A person is guilty of assault if he: (a) attempts to cause or purposely, knowingly or recklessly causes bodily injury to another; or (b) negligently causes bodily injury to another with a deadly weapon; or (c) attempts by physical menace to put another in fear of imminent serious bodily injury. Simple assault is a misdemeanor unless committed in a fight or scuffle entered into by mutual consent, in which case it is a petty misdemeanor.
MPC Burglary Statute
Section 221.1. Burglary. (1) Burglary Defined. A person is guilty of burglary if he enters a building or occupied structure, or separately secured or occupied portion thereof, with purpose to commit a crime therein, unless the premises are at the time open to the public or the actor is licensed or privileged to enter. It is an affirmative defense to prosecution for burglary that the building or structure was abandoned. (2) Grading. Burglary is a felony of the second degree if it is perpetrated in the dwelling of another at night, or if, in the course of committing the offense, the actor: (a) purposely, knowingly or recklessly inflicts or attempts to inflict bodily injury on anyone; or (b) is armed with explosives or a deadly weapon. Otherwise, burglary is a felony of the third degree. An act shall be deemed "in the course of committing" an offense if it occurs in an attempt to commit the offense or in flight after the attempt or commission. (3) Multiple Convictions. A person may not be convicted both for burglary and for the offense which it was his purpose to commit after the burglarious entry or for an attempt to commit that offense, unless the additional offense constitutes a felony of the first or second degree.
MPC Robbery Statute
Section 222.1. Robbery. (1) Robbery Defined. A person is guilty of robbery if, in the course of committing a theft, he: (a) inflicts serious bodily injury upon another; or (b) threatens another with or purposely puts him in fear of immediate serious bodily injury; or (c) commits or threatens immediately to commit any felony of the first or second degree. An act shall be deemed "in the course of committing a theft" if it occurs in an attempt to commit theft or in flight after the attempt or commission. (2) Grading. Robbery is a felony of the second degree, except that it is a felony of the first degree if in the course of committing the theft the actor attempts to kill anyone, or purposely inflicts or attempts to inflict serious bodily injury.
MPC Theft Statute
Section 223.1. Consolidation of Theft Offenses; Grading; Provisions Applicable to Theft Generally. (1) Consolidation of Theft Offenses. Conduct denominated theft in this Article constitutes a single offense. An accusation of theft may be supported by evidence that it was committed in any manner that would be theft under this Article, notwithstanding the specification of a different manner in the indictment or information, subject only to the power of the Court to ensure fair trial by granting a continuance or other appropriate relief where the conduct of the defense would be prejudiced by lack of fair notice or by surprise. (2) Grading of Theft Offenses. (a) Theft constitutes a felony of the third degree if the amount involved exceeds $500, or if the property stolen is a firearm, automobile, airplane, motorcycle, motor boat, or other motor-propelled vehicle, or in the case of theft by receiving stolen property, if the receiver is in the business of buying or selling stolen property. (b) Theft not within the preceding paragraph constitutes a misdemeanor, except that if the property was not taken from the person or by threat, or in breach of a fiduciary obligation, and the actor proves by a preponderance of the evidence that the amount involved was less than $50, the offense constitutes a petty misdemeanor. (c) The amount involved in a theft shall be deemed to be the highest value, by any reasonable standard, of the property or services which the actor stole or attempted to steal. Amounts involved in thefts committed pursuant to one scheme or course of conduct, whether from the same person or several persons, may be aggregated in determining the grade of the offense. (3) Claim of Right. It is an affirmative defense to prosecution for theft that the actor: (a) was unaware that the property or service was that of another; or (b) acted under an honest claim of right to the property or service involved or that he had a right to acquire or dispose of it as he did; or (c) took property exposed for sale, intending to purchase and pay for it promptly, or reasonably believing that the owner, if present, would have consented. (4) Theft from Spouse. It is no defense that theft was from the actor's spouse, except that misappropriation of household and personal effects, or other property normally accessible to both spouses, is theft only if it occurs after the parties have ceased living together.
MPC Extortion Statute
Section 223.4. Theft by Extortion. A person is guilty of theft if he purposely obtains property of another by threatening to: (1) inflict bodily injury on anyone or commit any other criminal offense; or (2) accuse anyone of a criminal offense; or (3) expose any secret tending to subject any person to hatred, contempt or ridicule, or to impair his credit or business repute; or (4) take or withhold action as an official, or cause an official to take or withhold action; or (5) bring about or continue a strike, boycott or other collective unofficial action, if the property is not demanded or received for the benefit of the group in whose interest the actor purports to act; or (6) testify or provide information or withhold testimony or information with respect to another's legal claim or defense; or (7) inflict any other harm which would not benefit the actor. It is an affirmative defense to prosecution based on paragraphs (2), (3) or (4) that the property obtained by threat of accusation, exposure, lawsuit or other invocation of official action was honestly claimed as restitution or indemnification for harm done in the circumstances to which such accusation, exposure, lawsuit or other official action relates, or as compensation for property or lawful services.
MPC Necessity Defense Statute
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 Unlawfulness of Force During Arrest
Section 3.09. Mistake of Law as to Unlawfulness of Force or Legality of Arrest; Reckless or Negligent Use of Otherwise Justifiable Force; Reckless or Negligent Injury or Risk of Injury to Innocent Persons. (1) The justification afforded by Sections 3.04 to 3.07, inclusive, is unavailable when: (a) the actor's belief in the unlawfulness of the force or conduct against which he employs protective force or his belief in the lawfulness of an arrest which he endeavors to effect by force is erroneous; and (b) his error is due to ignorance or mistake as to the provisions of the Code, any other provision of the criminal law or the law governing the legality of an arrest or search. (2) When the actor believes that the use of force upon or toward the person of another is necessary for any of the purposes for which such belief would establish a justification under Sections 3.03 to 3.08 but the actor is reckless or negligent in having such belief or in acquiring or failing to acquire any knowledge or belief which is material to the justifiability of his use of force, the justification afforded by those Sections is unavailable in a prosecution for an offense for which recklessness or negligence, as the case may be, suffices to establish culpability. (3) When the actor is justified under Sections 3.03 to 3.08 in using force upon or toward the person of another but he recklessly or negligently injures or creates a risk of injury to innocent persons, the justification afforded by those Sections is unavailable in a prosecution for such recklessness or negligence towards innocent persons.
MPC Insanity Statute
Section 4.01. Mental Disease or Defect Excluding Responsibility. [cf. Restatement Torts 2d § 283B] (1) A person is not responsible for criminal conduct if at the time of such conduct as a result of mental disease or defect he lacks substantial capacity either to appreciate the criminality [wrongfulness] of his conduct or to conform his conduct to the requirements of law. (2) As used in this Article, the terms "mental disease or defect" do not include an abnormality manifested only by repeated criminal or otherwise anti-social conduct. Section 4.02. Evidence of Mental Disease or Defect Admissible When Relevant to Element of the Offense; [Mental Disease or Defect Impairing Capacity as Ground for Mitigation of Punishment in Capital Cases]. (1) Evidence that the defendant suffered from a mental disease or defect is admissible whenever it is relevant to prove that the defendant did or did not have a state of mind which is an element of the offense. [(2) Whenever the jury or the Court is authorized to determine or to recommend whether or not the defendant shall be sentenced to death or imprisonment upon conviction, evidence that the capacity of the defendant to appreciate the criminality [wrongfulness] of his conduct or to conform his conduct to the requirements of law was impaired as a result of mental disease or defect is admissible in favor of sentence of imprisonment.] Section 4.03. Mental Disease or Defect Excluding Responsibility Is Affirmative Defense; Requirement of Notice; Form of Verdict and Judgment When Finding of Irresponsibility Is Made. (1) Mental disease or defect excluding responsibility is an affirmative defense. (2) Evidence of mental disease or defect excluding responsibility is not admissible unless the defendant, at the time of entering his plea of not guilty or within ten days thereafter or at such later time as the Court may for good cause permit, files a written notice of his purpose to rely on such defense. (3) When the defendant is acquitted on the ground of mental disease or defect excluding responsibility, the verdict and the judgment shall so state.
MPC Incompetence Statute
Section 4.06. Determination of Fitness to Proceed; Effect of Finding of Unfitness; Proceedings if Fitness is Regained [; Post-Commitment Hearing]. (1) When the defendant's fitness to proceed is drawn in question, the issue shall be determined by the Court. If neither the prosecuting attorney nor counsel for the defendant contests the finding of the report filed pursuant to Section 4.05, the Court may make the determination on the basis of such report. If the finding is contested, the Court shall hold a hearing on the issue. If the report is received in evidence upon such hearing, the party who contests the finding thereof shall have the right to summon and to cross-examine the psychiatrists who joined in the report and to offer evidence upon the issue. (2) If the Court determines that the defendant lacks fitness to proceed, the proceeding against him shall be suspended, except as provided in Subsection (3) [Subsections (3) and (4) ] of this Section, and the Court shall commit him to the custody of the Commissioner of Mental Hygiene [Public Health or Correction] to be placed in an appropriate institution of the Department of Mental Hygiene [Public Health or Correction] for so long as such unfitness shall endure. When the Court, on its own motion or upon the application of the Commissioner of Mental Hygiene [Public Health or Correction] or the prosecuting attorney, determines, after a hearing if a hearing is requested, that the defendant has regained fitness to proceed, the proceeding shall be resumed. If, however, the Court is of the view that so much time has elapsed since the commitment of the defendant that it would be unjust to resume the criminal proceeding, the Court may dismiss the charge and may order the defendant to be discharged or, subject to the law governing the civil commitment of persons suffering from mental disease or defect, order the defendant to be committed to an appropriate institution of the Department of Mental Hygiene [Public Health]. (3) The fact that the defendant is unfit to proceed does not preclude any legal objection to the prosecution which is susceptible of fair determination prior to trial and without the personal participation of the defendant.
MPC Attempt Statute
Section 5.01. Criminal Attempt. [cf. Restatement Torts 2d §§ 22, 23] (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.
United States v. Jackson
Self-claimed child of Bill Cosby committed extortion against Cosby by asking for $40 million not to go to the press.
Negligently
Should be aware of a substantial or unjustifiable risk, but is not. Often = Involuntary Manslaughter. Ex: Sally Scuba Instructor was licensed online. She goes swimming with Vicky Victim and pulls Vicky Victim up to the surface. The rapid ascend gave Vicky a clearly foreseeable aneurysm and she dies. Sally did not know of the risk, but as a scuba instructor SHOULD have been aware. Therefore she has been negligent in overseeing Vicky's safety, and is strictly liable for her death.
Smith v. United States
Smith an accomplice robbed an Eastern Market Grocery store at gunpoint. Smith took the cash; the gunman was never apprehended. Smith was charged with armed robbery, assault, and intent to rob. Jury found guilty on all counts and sentenced for a long time. On appeal Smith contended evidence was insufficient to support two convictions for assault while armed. Court reversed, agreeing that accomplice liability does not extend to felonies when misdemeanors are committed.
Perez v. State
Statutory rape cannot be ruled mistake of fact because statutory rape in general is a general intent crime, whereas mistake of fact usually only removes specific intent.
United States v. Contento-Pachon
Taxi driver held at gunpoint and told to smuggle balloons of cocaine into the US or else his family would be murdered. Taxi driver did so, but let himself be caught by x-ray at LAX, and turned himself into the appropriate authorities. Wrongly indicted with drug charges, and court reversed to allow plaintiff to bring up the duress defense.
Durham Test
The Durham case in the 70s swung wildly the other way, listing that any mental defect can excuse for insanity.
MPC Insanity (Substantial Capacity Test)
The most reasonable test, it is still only second to M'Naughten. MPC Insanity adopts a middle ground that says anyone with mental defects can claim insanity with testimony.
MPC False Pretenses
The rightful owner of the property truly hands over title or money to the offender but the transfer occurs because of the deceptive statements of the offender.
MPC Manslaughter
The unlawful killing of a human being without malice. Manslaughter may be voluntary (recklessly) or involuntary (negligently).
MPC Robbery
Theft + Violence (with apprehension of serious bodily injury) requires a theft from another person or presence of another (even if item taken was only in close proximity of another, violence can also cover threats).
Common Law Assault
There are two requirements for common law assault: 1. A specific intent to batter 2. Substantial steps taken toward the battery. A substantial step is an act that would provoke a witness into a fight or flight response. This is determined by TARP.
Aggravated Robbery
There is a higher, more severe sanction because there is a greater risk of physical injury when a defendant uses deadly force or weapons to inflict serious bodily injuries.
MPC Attempt
To constitute an attempt to commit a crime, act must be of such character to advance an actor beyond 'the sphere of mere intent.' Thoughts plus an overt act or substantial step toward a crime can constitute an attempt to commit a crime; attempt crimes can be classified as felonies.
United States v. Zandi
Two brothers picked up a package of opium at the airport. Prosecution must show beyond reasonable doubt for Mens Reas that there was subjective intent to distribute.
Common Law Battery
Unlawful touching of a person by their aggressor, or by some substance put in motion by defendant. Unnecessary to only by physical touch or victim's body, anything in control of defendant over things that victim controls. Battery is the unlawful application of force to the person of another or items closely associated to the body. Unlawful application is when something is: -Unjustified -Unexcused -Unconsented to -Offensive Battery is a general intent crime, meaning the defendant is grossly negligent in not understanding his action would result in unlawful touching.
MPC Self Defense
Use of force is justifiable when the victim believes such force is immediately necessary to protect himself or a third person from the unlawful force and imminent harm. But cannot use the force to resist arrest or if there is an alternative (some jurisdictions have a duty to retreat).
Implied Malice
When NO considerable provocation appears or when the circumstances surrounding the killing show an abandoned and malignant heart.
