MPC v. Common Law

Conspiracy Actus Reus (Common Law and Model Penal Code)

An agreement between two or more people An agreement to commit a crime may be expressed or implied. One may look to circumstantial evidence to determine whether there has been such an agreement. Words, actions, similar motives, and even gestures like a nod, wink or handshake are enough to demonstrate an agreement. - The MPC requires an overt act in pursuance of the conspiracy - The common law sometimes requires an overt act in pursuance of the conspiracy

Conspiracy (Common Law)

An agreement between two or more people, although it is not a contract. The gist of the offense of conspiracy lies in an unlawful agreement. Conspiracy criminalizes the unlawful agreement itself.

First-Degree Murder

An intentional, willful, deliberate, and premeditated unlawful killing.

Dependent Intervening Cause

An intervening cause that is a normal and reasonably foreseeable result of the defendants original act- does not relieve criminal liability

Manslaughter (Common Law)

An unlawful killing without malice aforethought

Predicate Felonies

Felonies that trigger the felony murder rule. Most states say that only inherently dangerous felonies may be used as predicates for felony murder. Other jurisdictions apply the felony-murder rule to any felony that is committed in a dangerous manner, even if the felony itself is not inherently dangerous.

Conspiracy with Multiple Criminal Objectives (Model Penal Code)

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

Scope of Conspiratorial Relationship (Model Penal Code)

If a person guilty of conspiracy 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 is guilty of conspiring with such other person or persons, whether or not he knows their identity, to commit such crime.

Wharton Rule

If it is impossible to commit the substantive offense without cooperative action, the preliminary agreement between the parties to commit the offense is not an indictable conspiracy. I.e. buying and selling drugs, adultery, or gambling.

Proximate-Cause Theory

If the death was proximately caused by the defendant then the defendant can be charged with murder regardless of the victims identity or who did the actual killing. Provides that liability attaches for any death proximately resulting from the unlawful activity - even the death of a co-felon - notwithstanding the killing was by one resisting the crime

The Merger Doctrine

If the underlying felony is an integral part of the homicide itself, the felony-murder doctrine is not applied. In other words, if the underlying felony is just a step towards causing death, it merges with the resulting homicide.

Felony Murder (Common Law)

If you are engaging in a felony and as a consequence someone dies through a causal relationship, the courts treat that as if you committed an intentional murder. In a jurisdiction where murder is divided into degrees, this would be second degree - Felony murder is a rule that lets a prosecutor charge a defendant with murder even if the defendant lacked malice aforethought

Direct Civil Disobedience

Involves protesting the existence of a law by breaking the law or by preventing the execution of that law in a specific instance in which a particularized harm would otherwise follow

Depraved Heart Murder (Common Law)

Killing someone in a way that demonstrates a callous disregard for the value of human life. For example, if a person intentionally fires a gun into a crowded room, and someone dies, the person could be convicted of depraved heart murder.

MPC Negligence

Less commonly seen than the other forms. the defendant ought to have been aware of a substantial and justifiable risk

Indispensable Element Approach

Looks at what remains to be done by the perpetrator in order to complete the crime.looks at whether there is an indispensable element missing to the completion of the crime

Entrapment Objective View (preferred by MPC)

Looks more at the actions of the government & asks if the government has done anything improper

Unilateral Rule

Model Penal Code If the defendant believes he is conspiring with another to commit a crime, he is guilty of conspiracy regardless of whether the other person can be convicted.

Wheel Conspiracy

All the conspirators are tied together through the same middleman or "hub." Although the individual conspirators do not know each other, they are all connected to the same conspiracy because they are operating through the same middleman. - If the separate spokes of the wheel have a vested interest in the success of one another's illegal conduct, there is a single wheel conspiracy and each individual member is responsible for the crimes of every other member of the conspiracy. - However, if the only connection among the spokes is that they know the same middleman, there are multiple small conspiracies and the spokes of the wheel are not liable for one another's acts.

Gerbardi rule

An individual who is excluded from liability under a criminal statute may not be held legally liable as a conspirator to violate the law

Actual Cause

But for the defendants conduct, would the result have occurred? If there are multiple causes of harm, and either act on its own would have caused the harm, that is considered the actual cause

Common Law Duress

Excuses criminal conduct where the actor was under an unlawful threat of imminent death or serious bodily injury, which threat caused the actor to engage in conduct violating the literal terms of criminal law (1) Immediate threat of death, (2) Well-grounded fear that the threat will be carried out; (3) No reasonable opportunity to escape the threatened harm

Conditional Intent

Intent is based off the occurrence of a condition

Attempt in Common Law

Intent to commit crime + performance of act toward committing it + failure of crime to come to fruition

Second-Degree Murder

Intentional but not premeditated - Heat of passion

Agency Theory

Majority view If the homicide was committed by one of the felons and the homicide is done in furtherance of the felony, all the co-felons are deemed responsible because each is considered to be the agent of the other. Limits the application of the doctrine to those homicides committed by the felon or the agent of the felon.

Manslaughter (Model Penal Code)

Manslaughter refers to either a reckless homicide or to a homicide that would be murder except that the defendant acted under an extreme emotional or mental disturbance (a) The code does not distinguish between voluntary and involuntary manslaughter (b) Reckless homicide is a death that results from the defendant's conscious disregard of a known risk (c) Extreme emotional or mental disturbance requires the defendant to show that (1) he/she was disturbed, (2) the defendant acted because of the disturbance, and (3) there was a reasonable explanation or excuse for the disturbance

Independent Intervening Cause

Not reasonably foreseeable. An act of an independent person or entity that breaks the chain of causation and thereby becomes the cause of the defendants injury

Attempt in MPC

Purpose to commit offense + substantial step

Specific Deterrence

That particular defendant will avoid future crimes because he or she fears additional punishment

The Equivocal Approach (Res Ipsa Loquitur)

The act which transforms the accused's conduct from preparation to perpetration constitutes a step forward in the commission of the intended crime, and the doing of the act has no purpose but commission of the crime. Actions speak for themselves

Incomplete Attempt

The defendant stops short of completing the offense, either of his own accord of because of 3rd party intervention.

Legal Impossibility

The person believes they are committing a crime but the act is not illegal

MPC 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 the commission of the crime, he: (a) Purposely engages in conduct that 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 that, 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

MPC 2.09 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, which 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

Factors to take into account when deciding if MPC Negligence should apply

(1) Was the harm forseeable? (2) How probable was it to occur (3) Would it have been easy for the defendant to refrain from doing it (4) How serious was it

Proximate Cause

(1) Was the harm reasonably foreseeable, (2) Was it not too remote or inadvertent to fairly hold the defendant responsible. Was the victims harm a natural and probable consequence of the defendants conduct

Elements of a crime

(1) the act, (2) the mental state (3) causation, (4) attendant circumstances

Law Imposes a duty when

(1) there is a special relationship between the defendant and the victim, (2) A person having a duty to control the conduct of another

Entrapment

Affirmative defense with a subjective & objective view

Omission Liability (Common Law)

Omission can constitute actus reus if the actor: 1) Knows the circumstances creating a duty exist 2) Is able to act 3) Has a duty to complete the act because of: a) Status Relationship (parent to child) b) Implied/Express Contractual Duty (nursing home) c) Creation of Risk (pushing friend into a pool) d) Voluntary Assistance (began CPR) e) Statutory Duty (spouse or family member) 4) And the actor does not do the act required

General Deterrence

Other individuals will not commit crimes for fears of suffering the same punishment that the current defendant has suffered

Harmless Error Doctrine

Permits appellate courts to uphold convictions, despite errors committed by the trial court, if the error does not affect the outcome of the trial

Willful Blindness

Prevents defendants from avoiding criminal liability by shielding themselves from clear evidence of critical facts that are strongly suggested by circumstances, & that if known would render them guilty. A defendant must (1) subjectively believe there is a big probability that a fact exists, and (2) takes deliberate action to avoid learning that fact

Involuntary Act

Reflex or convulsion, bodily movement while unconscious, conduct resulting from hypnosis

Mistake of Fact

Relieves a person of criminal liability where a reasonable mistake of certain facts means that the person did not have the culpable mental state required for the commission of the offense. (1) Mistake must be genuine & sincere, (2) mistake must be reasonable

General Intent

Requires a showing that defendant intended to perform a certain act

Specific Intent

Requires a showing that the defendant intended the prescribed outcome as his purpose

Last Act Approach

Requires that the accused have performed the last proximate act or do everything that is necessary to bring about the intended result. This test focuses on what has already occurred.

Acceleration Theory

Results happen sooner because of the defendants conduct

Omission Liability (Model Penal Code)

Same as common law but emphasizes the actor's physical ability to perform the act required by law

Rehabilitation

Society has an obligation to punish an individual in a way that makes him or her a better person

Dangerous Proximity Approach

Sometimes referred to as the Holmes approach. To determine if an act has gone beyond mere preparation, factors to look at are: the nearness of the danger, the substantiality of harm, and the apprehension felt. Test incorporates the physical proximity test but then adds the substantiality of the harm and the apprehension felt into the mix

Co-Conspirator Liability (Pinkerton Rule) - Model Penal Code

The MPC has rejected the Pinkerton Rule - A conspirator is only guilty of the substantive crime of a co-conspirator if there is evidence of accomplice liability.

Conspriacy and the Merger Doctrine (MPC)

The MPC's definition of the crime does not recognize merger, and includes an agreement to attempt or solicit a crime as sufficient to prove a conspiracy

MPC Purpose

The defendant consciously desired to bring about the harmful result or hoped that it would occur. Defendant is aware of the attendant circumstances/ hopes they exist

Complete Attempt

The defendant does everything possible to effectuate the crime, but does not cause the result of the

Premeditation

The defendant has thought about the act of killing the person before doing the act. Premeditation can take place in mere seconds but must be between the time you think you want to kill the person and when the act is done.

Transferred Intent

The defendant intends to harm one victim but unintentionally harms someone else

MPC Recklessness

The defendant is aware of a substantial & justifiable risk that the defendants conduct will cause a harmful result. does not know if it is likely to occur but proceeds anyways. Must weigh the nature + purpose of the act vs the risk created by the defendant to determine if the risk is justifiable

Provocative Act Doctrine

The defendant is liable for murder even if committed by a third party if the defendant fired first or created a dangerous atmosphere that ultimately brought about the homicide

Strict Liability

The defendant is liable regardless of intent, or knowledge if the act is done and the harm results

MPC Knowledge

The defendant knows that the harmful result is particularly certain to occur because of the defendants conduct. The defendant may not intend the harmful result to occur but it is highly likely. Defendant is willfully blind or deliberately ignored

Inherently Impossible

The intended crime is committed but no criminal violation exists because that person cannot be held criminally liable for attempt

Conspiracy Renunciation (Model Penal Code)

The statute of limitations for conspiracy begins to run once the defendant has either informed her co-conspirators or notified the authorities that she is terminating her association with the conspiracy. However, it is also an affirmative defense to the crime of conspiracy if the defendant successfully thwarts the success of the conspiracy.

Murder (Common Law)

The unlawful killing of another person with malice aforethought. Malice refers to (1) an intent to kill or cause grievous bodily harm, (2) knowledge that death or grievous bodily harm is likely, or (3) intent to commit a felony, other than a killing (felony murder) Aforethought (premeditation) - Premeditation can be determined by time, planning activity, motive, and other circumstances

Common Law and Model Penal Code Differences

a) The Code's definition of murder does not encompass the intent to commit grievous bodily harm or the knowledge that grievous bodily harm is likely. b) Another difference is that the concept of premeditation does not factor into the Code's approach. c) And finally, a third difference between the Code and the common law is, the Model Penal Code does not recognize degrees of murder

Chain Conspiracy

Conspirators participate in a single conspiracy by performing different roles along a single distribution line. Each conspirator plays a different role at her stage of the criminal plan.

Probable Desistance Approach

Contemplates an act which in the ordinary course of events would result in the commission of the intended crime except for the intervention of some extraneous factor. The accused's conduct must pass that point where most people holding such an intention would think better of their conduct and desist.

Physical Proximity Approach

Court looks at whether the act is sufficiently proximate in distance to the intended crime. No set statement of how close or far is acceptable and the context of the circumstances can be used by the jury in making their decision

Knowledge as Specific Intent - Conspiracy

Courts routinely state that knowledge of a criminal plan is not sufficient to prove an intent to enter into an agreement

Factual Impossibility

Defendant is mistaken about the facts, but if the defendant had been correct, the crime could be accomplished

Renunciation

Defense if three elements are satisfied; (1) target crime includes as a material element either a result or circumstance as opposed to were conduct; (2) renunciation must be voluntary (giving up bc of difficulty is not voluntary) (3); the renunciation is complete and final

Malice

Acting intentionally or recklessly

Degrees of Murder

Degrees of murder are only common law 1) First-Degree Murder 2) Second-Degree Murder 3) Voluntary Manslaughter 4) Involuntary Manslaughter

Duration/Timeline of Conspiracy

A conspiracy begins the minute two or more persons agree to commit a crime. It lasts until it has been abandoned or its objectives have been achieved.

Actus Rea

A culpable voluntary act

What is an Overt Act?

Any legal or illegal act done by any of the conspirators to set the conspiracy into motion. Only one conspirator needs to complete the act.

Criminal Homicide (Model Penal Code)

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

Felony Murder Causation Theories

1) Agency Theory 2) Proximate Cause Theory 3) Provocation Act Doctrine

Conspiracy Elements (Common Law)

1) Agree to commit a crime 2) With intent to have the crime succeed 3) In most modern conspiracy statutes there is now a third requirement - an overt act requirement, but they generally do not require it for conspiracies to commit the most serious offenses.

Involuntary Manslaughter

A reckless killing, criminally negligent. Mens rea is irrelevant Accidental death resulting from 1 of 2 causes: (1) The defendant does a lawful act but in a culpable manner (recklessness or gross negligence) (2) The defendant does an unlawful act that doesn't rise to a felony (misdemeanor)

Common law does not recognize this with regard to Attempt but MPC creates a loophole through renunciation

Abandonment

Conspiracy Withdrawal (Common Law)

A co-conspirator could end her Pinkerton liability for the future crimes of co-conspirators by withdrawing from the conspiracy. However, the defendant would still be on the hook for the original crime of conspiracy. Once committed, a conspiracy could not be uncommitted. To withdraw from a conspiracy, a defendant would have to take affirmative action to announce her withdrawal to all the other conspirators. In some jurisdictions, the defendant would also have to notify law enforcement officials or otherwise thwart the plot.

Co-Conspirator Liability (aka Pinkerton Rule) - Common Law

A conspirator is responsible for all acts of her co-conspirators if the crime(s) were committed in furtherance of the conspiracy and foreseeable, even if the conspirator is unaware these acts are being committed Co-conspirator liability is broader than accomplice liability because it applies even if the co-conspirator is unaware that the crime is being committed and has done nothing to help the commission of the crime

Negligent Homicide (Model Penal Code)

A death that occurs because of the defendant's criminal negligence - Criminal negligence is the disregard of a risk of which the defendant should have been aware

Felony Murder (Model Penal Code)

A defendant acts with recklessness and extreme indifference while committing 1) Robbery 2) Rape 3) Forcible deviate sexual intercourse 4) Arson 5) Burglary 6) Kidnapping 7) Felonious escape 8) The defendant may avoid liability for murder by rebutting the presumption of recklessness and extreme indifference and showing that he or she lacked the necessary mental state.

Murder (Model Penal Code)

A killing done with purpose, knowledge, or recklessness Reckless killing is a killing that manifests an extreme indifference to human life (similar to depraved heart murder under common law)

Merger

A lesser crime becomes absorbed into a greater one so that the defendant cannot be convicted of both

The MPC Approach

A person is guilty of an attempt to commit a crime if, acting with the kind of culpability otherwise required for the commission of the crime, he or she, " purposely does or omits to do anything, which, under the circumstances as he or she believes them to be, is an act or omission constituting a substantial step in the course of conduct planned to culminate in the commission of the crime

Conspiracy (Model Penal Code)

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 that constitutes such crime or an attempt or solicitation to commit such crime (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.

Defense of Others (Common Law)

A person is justified in using force to protect a third party from unlawful force by an aggressor. QUIMBEE COMMON LAW: A majority of common law jurisdictions now provide that a person may defend a third party wherever it appears reasonably necessary to do so.

Bilateral Rule

Common Law A conspiracy requires at least "two guilty minds," that is, at least two persons who can actually be prosecuted for conspiracy. If one of two persons charged with a conspiracy could not be prosecuted for the crime, there is no conspiracy. Under the bilateral rule, a defendant could not be convicted for conspiring with a feigned conspirator (i.e. a police informant or undercover officer).

Conduct that May be Held as A Substantial Step under (1)(c)

Conduct must be strongly corroborative of the actor's criminal purpose. The following, if strongly corroborative of the actor's criminal purpose can constitute a substantial step: (a) lying in wait, searching for or following the potential victim; (b) enticing or seeking to entice

Conspiracy and the Merger Doctrine (Common Law)

Conspiracy is a crime separate from the underlying offense so a defendant can be liable for both conspiracy and the crime itself. A conspiracy charge does not merge into the completed offense

Conspiracy Mens Rea (Common Law and model Penal Code)

Conspiracy requires two mens rea: 1) An intent to agree (i.e. join the conspiracy) 2) With purpose to commit a crime

What is an Inherently Dangerous Felony

Those that, by nature, pose a high risk of injury or death. Some states identify inherently dangerous felonies by statute while other identify them through court decisions - I.e. robbery, burglary, rape, arson, and kidnapping

Entrapment Subjective View

Turns on what is on the mind of the person committing the crime & whether they were predisposed- if they were then the defense usually fails

Indirect Civil Disobedience

Violating a law or interfering with a government policy that is, not, itself, the object of the protest

Voluntary Manslaughter

What would otherwise be murder but is mitigated to manslaughter because it was done upon being reasonably provoked into sudden heat of passion. Words alone do not constitute adequate provocation Elements: (1) In the Heat of Passion (2) Adequate Provocation (3) Immediately (there was no time to cool off)