Crim Law

Criminal Law: Class Notes
1/9/2006 Revision 0.1 Author: Philip Larson 703.798.5244 (tel)
Criminal Law: Class notes
Table of Contents
1. Lecture 1....................................................................................................................................3
Philip Larson
Page 2
1. Lecture 1
1.1 What is Criminal Law? - Graham
Opening comments - Clerked for a federal judge - Stanford Law - Yale undergrad - US Attorneys office for 5 years - Left 2 yrs ago and is teaching as an adjunct and dealing with kids. We may have a midterm and a final. Model Penal Code is in the appendix on page 988. Criminal vs. Civil sanction - essence of punishment for moral delinquency lies in the criminal conviction itself. A criminal conviction is the expression of the communities hatred, fear or contempt for the convict. - Moral condemnation associated with criminal behavior is one of the more clear distinctions from civil infractions. Question: What do we mean by crime and the term criminal? - Crime: conduct which, if duly shown to have taken place, will incur a formal and solemn pronouncement of the moral condemnation of the community. What are the sources of criminal law in the US? - Common law of England C/L of US emerged from English C/L or judge-made law - Slowly replaced by statutes - We have codified, statutory criminal law in all 50 states and in the federal system. - In the midst of that long transition, you find the Model Penal Code (MPC), drawn up by lawyers in the 50s and 60s. The sources we will look to in the casebook will primarily be statutes, as well as cases where appellate courts are reviewing how trial courts interpreted a statute. - it is important to remember that, even though we spend a lot of time looking at statutes, that provides a skewed view of the criminal justice system. - Only a very small percentage of crimes end up going to trial and developing new law. Trial by jury (p8) - Fundamental principle: burden of proof. What is the burden of proof? beyond a reasonable doubt There is no set definition of a reasonable doubt. o It is more than preponderance of the evidence. o It is not quantifiable. o It has not been defined by the Supreme Court. The SC has said there is no definition. The SC need not provide a definition of this bedrock, axiomatic, incredibly important principle. - It is somewhat of a know it when you see it standard - If the standard is so important, how is it that we cant get a definition that we all agree on? Examples - Moral Certainty not near possible doubtopen to some possible or imaginary doubt. The jurors cannot say that they feel an abiding conviction, to a moral certainty, of the truth of the charge. - Firmly Convinced proof that leaves you firmly convinced of the defendants guilt. If you think there is a real possibility that he is not guilty you must give him the benefit of the doubt. o This is typically considered the least damning of all of them.
Philip Larson
Page 3

No Waver or Vacillation if it is one that is not stable but which wavers or vacillates, then the charge is not proved beyond every reasonable doubt. No hesitation must be willing to rely and act upon it without hesitation in the most important of your own affairs. o Jurors like being able to self-identify with the task at hand.
Why do we have the beyond a reasonable doubt standard as opposed to preponderance? - Moral condemnation is very serious charge - It is far worse to convict an innocent man than to let a guilty man go free (p10) - It protects against abuse of the government and the powers of the state (p11) - Reduces risk of factual error - The possibility of stigmatizing by the conviction means you shouldnt condemn someone if there is a reasonable doubt. 1993 Gallup Poll asked whether people agreed with the statement it is better to let some guilty men go free than condemn an innocent man - 41% agreed - 56% disagreed Why not say beyond a reasonable doubt is 90% certain - any time you assign a number, you may be putting a number that dilutes what the Constitution says Due Process requires in some cases. - beyond a reasonable doubt comes from the Due Process clause. - Moreover, you just cant put a number on it. The standard itself is really just an extension of the jury system itself. Owens v. State Facts: Owens was found in a car on a driveway with two finished cans of beer and one open between his legs. He was asleep at the wheel. They werent sure if he was coming or going but the engine was on and the lights were on. Issue: was he using a motor vehicle on the highway. Rationale: defense attorney showed that the car was on the driveway and that the driveway was private property. Therefore, there was no evidence he was on the highway. Note: standard of review is deferential to the lower courts finding. He upholds the lower court opinion because he says a rational trier of fact could have found him guilty beyond a reasonable doubt. 1/12/06 Jury Nullification - What is it? The power of the jury to acquit despite not only overwhelming proof of guilt but despite the jurys belief, beyond a reasonable doubt, in guilt. o Why would they do this? They may not think the conduct should be a crime (e.g. statutory rape b/w minors). Sometimes they just dont like how the D was treated by the police or state. They may think that justice requires acquittal. Sometimes it is just compassion for the accused, even if their story doesnt fit into any predefined legal defense. - Is it a good thing or a bad thing? Bad, because the jury is substituting its own version of the law for those of the legislative body. It is inconsistent with Western democracy. Good, because it provides a good check on state power, and the inefficiencies of the judicial system. o The jury is the conscience of the community and stands between the state and the defendant. The 12 jurors are putting themselves above the law to right moral wrongs based on this conscience. - If we allow it, how should it be characterized? Should it be advertised? - Cant the judge throw out the jury verdict?
Philip Larson
Page 4

To what extent do prosecutors look at the nullification concern before deciding whether to pursue a conviction?
State v. Ragland - Facts: previously convicted felon prosecuted for armed robbery and other crimes. Judge told jury that if it found D was in possession of a weapon you must find him guilty of the possession charge. - Issue: Must the judge inform the jury of its nullification power? - Rationale o D argued that judges use of word must conflicted with jurys nullification power. He also contended that the judge should have informed the jury regarding its nullification power. o Court says it is a power the jury has but it is not something we want to encourage. It has no place in the Constitution and is not a good idea for policy reasons. If you do publicize it, there is the slippery slope. To what extent can the D attorney mention nullification in opening and closing. Can the D attorney advertise it? Can you ask the jury ahead of time how they feel about nullification (during voir dire, for instance)? o The jurys role is the conscience of the community. PUNISHMENT (p30) - When you were a child, when someone gave you a gift, what did you do? Say thank you. Punishment involves pain and typically requires a moral justification, particularly in a society like ours that believes in individual liberties and securities. When someone feels pain, the natural question is why. A society that does not try to answer that question does not have that value of individual liberties at the top of its list. - What are our justifications for the punishments meted out to those who commit crimes? o Two schools of thought: 1) utilitarianism, and 2) retributivism. - Utilitarian view of punishment o Punishment is justified on the basis of the supposed benefits that will accrue in the future. o Forward-looking. o Maximize societies total pleasure, utility, or the greater good. o Judged on whether it adds or subtracts from the greater good. o There must be a cost-benefit analysis to ensure that the good consequences of the punishment outweigh the harm or pain of the punishment. - What are some of the goals of punishment? o General Deterrence: deterring people from committing crimes, thus reducing future violations. Does deterrence actually deter? Deterrence is more likely to work based on increasing the chances of arrest rather than simply increasing the penalty. The likelihood of arrest is more heavily correlated. o Individual Deterrence: deterring the offender from repeating the same type of crime. o Incapacitation and risk management: punishments physically prevent people from acting upon their destructive tendencies. Question: can you really predict the future dangerousness of offenders? Probably to some degree o Reform: punishment may help reform the criminal so that their desire to commit crimes is reduced. Does reformation actually work? Retributivist view of punishment o An eye for an eye o Moral desert of an offender is a sufficient reason to punish him or her o The moral culpability of the offender gives society the duty to punish Negative vs. positive vs assaultive
Philip Larson
Page 5

Negative retribution it is morally wrong to punish an innocent person even if society would benefit from the action. Positive not only must an innocent person never be punished, but someone who is guilty must be punished. Assaultive criminals are noxious insects to be ground under the heel of society.
Queen v. Dudley & Stephens - Facts: starving men at sea kill and eat a boy in order to survive. They killed the boy and ate him. They were rescued four days later and the conclusion was they would have died if they hadnt eaten them. Another conclusion was that the boy would have died before they did. - Rule: They were convicted and sentenced to death. The crown changed this and only gave them 6 months. - Notes: should they be punished? No, they didnt know when they would be rescued. If the punishment is not going to be effective, then it is not appropriate. People v. Superior Court (DU) - Facts: Du owned a liquor store. A patron put orange juice in her bag. Wasnt clear whether she was stealing it. They scuffled. She shot the girl in the back, maybe accidentally, with a gun that had been modified by someone else. - Holding: suspended 10 year sentence and she was put on probation. This led to an uproar in the local community saying probation was the value the court put on this 13 yr-old black girls life. - Punishment: Dues was given a suspended 10 year sentence. He said that the objectives of sentencing are to 1) protect society, 2) punish D for committing a crime, 3) encourage D to lead a law-abiding life, 4) to deter others, 5) to isolate D so she cant commit other crimes, 6) to secure restitution for victim, and 7) to seek uniformity in sentencing. o Judge does not consider Mrs. Du to be a future threat. She seems to take the utilitarian views. She basically says that specific and general deterrence would not be helped. However, she doesnt really talk about the retributivist issues of whether she should be punished for the victim. o What about uniformity of sentencing? Court said that there is no uniformity and that it would be almost impossible to achieve in these types of cases. o The judge is basically saying that the fight b/w Latasha and Mrs. Du mitigates Mrs. Dus actions to some degree. 1/17/2006 Last time we answered the question about why we punish. We talked about utilitarian theories that look at punishment as a means to an end (the greater good) whereas retributivism is more of the moral desert theory. You did something bad and therefore should be punished. Who should be punished? Should the cannibals be found guiltyThere may be nothing additional to gain from it. United States v. Jackson were not going to talk about this in class. Review on our time. Now, we turn to how much punishment should be imposed and whether there are mitigating circumstances. Proportionality of Punishment Kant eye for an eye mentality regarding proportionality. Benthan calculated calculus to figure out punishment. It has to do with incentivizing the criminal not to commit crimes. Coker v. Georgia - Facts: D (Coker) escaped from the Correctional Institution, broke into a house and raped P. He was convicted.
Philip Larson
Page 6

Issue: Is the death penalty cruel and unusual punishment for the crime of rape? Held: Yes, death penalty is excessive. Rationale: o Rape does not compare with murder. o Georgia is the only state that allows the killing of a person who rapes an adult woman. Therefore, public attitudes seem to consider it cruel and unusual. Dissent: says that rape is not a minor crime and that D is a chronic rapist who has killed someone and attempted to kill another. o Proportionality: it is not irrational, nor constitutionally impermissible, for the legislature to make the penalty more severe than the criminal act it punishes in the hope it would deter wrongdoing. o Eighth Amendment: does not prevent the State from taking into account the individuals well-demonstrated propensity for life-dangering behavior into account in devising punitive measures. Note: if we dont put him to death, he basically will go unpunished because he is already spending a life sentence. o p70 in note 1 shows that Coker was a real dick.
Principle of Legality There are three doctrines here: 1) illegality doctrine no crime without preexisting law, no punishment without preexisting law; a. Why is this disfavored? i. No deterrence value. You cant make a rational choice. ii. It is a defense against the tyranny of those in power. The govt cant use vindictive punishment after the fact. iii. Pursuit of liberty is favored. 2) void for vagueness - courts cant create crimes; prevents legislative delegation of crime creation to the courts. a. Why is this 3) strict construction ambiguities will be resolved in favor of the accused. This is also called the doctrine of lenity. a. Criminal The requirement of previously defined conduct Commonwealth v. Mochan - Facts: a guy kept calling a woman and harassing her over the phone. There was no specific law making this behavior criminal. However, there was a statute that said every offense punishable either by the statutes or common lawshall continue to be an offense punishable as heretofore. This was a catch all statute. It says anything that openly outrages decency and is injurious to public morals is a misdemeanor at common law. - Issue: - Dissent: division of powers requires that the legislature determine what is a crime Keeler v. Superior Court - Facts: Mrs. Keeler got pregnant from a man who was not her husband. The husband found out and repeatedly hit her stomach, killing the fetus. - Rule: Section 187 defined the crim of murder as the unlawful killing of a human being. - Issue: is the fetus a human being? - Held: no. o Intent of legislature: legislature intended to document the common law. o Textual approach: historically, the court said the fetus had to be born alive. Therefore, the court concludes that by 1850 the settled common law meant that murder required killing someone who had been born alive. - Rationale:
Philip Larson
Page 7

Plaintiffs Argument: people argued that science had advanced so much. Perhaps something that was not a human being in 1850 could be considered one today. Dissent: says that in 1850 the killing of a quickened child was severely punished. The dissent says that the legislature must have intended this to be covered by human being because they wouldnt have left it out. o
Take a few minutes between now and Thursday and write an anti-ogling statute. Wrap up on Keeler - Majority: person stomped the fetus to death. Is a fetus a human being and therefore, do his actions constitute murder? - Court tried to look towards the legislative intent and found that a fetus was not considered a human being in 1850. Therefore, the Court said it was inappropriate to say that it had somehow become a human being. o It would be dangerous, indeed, to carry the principle, that a case which is within the reason or mischief of a statute, is within its provisions, so far as to punish a crime not enumerated in the statute, because it is of equal atrocity, or of kindred character, with those that are enumerated. o What do you think of this concept of legality? - Dissent: talks about human being as a fluid concept that should be interpreted based on todays science. The dissent argues that medical technology has improved and that at 34 weeks a fetus could be delivered and live. There is some arguing by analogy o Was this any less an act of homicide than the killing of a newly born baby? Clearly Mr. Keeler did not consult a law dictionary before doing this. Nor is it bad to say that someone who is coming precariously close to a designated line to be responsible if they cross over. IN RE BANKS - Facts: Peeping Tom statute. - Places to look for legislative intent: 1) phraseology and words, 2) legislative history and previous statutes, 3) circumstances surrounding the adoption of the statute, and 4) the common law. - Court rationale: the court looks to the common law for definitions of peeping secretly. Then they look to the common law. - Court held: it was not unconstitutional for vagueness or overbreadth. Lenity today the lenity principle is hardly ever applied. After all other interpretive means leave us unable to determine the meaning of a statute, it will be construed strictly against the Government.
City of Chicago v. Morales - Facts: City of Chicago had gang issues. They found that the street gangs were taking over the city. - Vagueness: isnt loitering w/o a specific purpose too vague? Yes, but why isnt the dispersal notice enough to overcome? 1) if the loitering is harmless, the dispersal order itself is unjustified, 2) there is vagueness just about the dispersal order how long must they go away, how far must they go? - Note: our teacher sees this as a real problem. A city may be fearful of gang activity and the biggest complaint from police, city council, etc. is that the neighborhoods have been taken over and is meant to intimidate you to stay in your house so they can do what they want to do. As soon as police come, everything shifts back to normal. United States v. Foster
Philip Larson
Page 8

Facts: Ds were doing a drug deal and had a gun in the bed of their truck, under a tarp. A law said that if you were carrying a firearm during the drug trafficking crime, they would tack on to your punishment. This case came down to what constitutes carrying a gun. Issue: is having a gun in the bed of a truck carrying a gun? Held: no, o Rationale: two basic meanings of carry. 1) on your person or readily accessible, or 2) carrying or transporting. The court found that the first definition was the correct one. o Sources for determining? 1) dictionary, o In Bailey: the court had to figure out what use meant in using or carrying a firearm. The court construed use narrowly and therefore carry should be construed narrowly. Dissent: said that accessibility was not constant. In process of
1/24/2006 ACTUS REUS and MENS REUS Actus Reus is the physical part of the crime Mens Rea is the mental part of the crime. Actus reus has three parts 1) voluntary act 2) causation 3) social harm The book poses a threshold question: Why dont we punish crimes that consist of thought alone? - They might talk themselves out of it. - There isnt any harmful result to prevent. There is no social harm. - Thought may not be voluntary. You cant necessarily deter thought. - Retributivist view there hasnt been a violation worthy of punishment until someone is harmed. Martin v. State - FACTS: Convicted of being drunk on a public highway. He was taken by police from his home to a public place where he was loud and profane. He was charged with violating a statute for being drunk in public. - HELD: The statute presupposes that being in public was a voluntary appearance that cannot be established if he was involuntarily placed there by an arresting officer. - NOTE: why do we punish only voluntary acts and not any acts? o Persons whose involuntary movements threaten harm to others do not present a problem of correctionthey may need therapy or custodial commitment, but not correction. State v. Utter - FACTS: Utter was charged with second degree murder and appeals. His son said dad, dont and then stumbled into the hallway having been stabbed in the chest. He was drinking in the morning and around noon. He drank lots of whisky. He does not remember anything before being put in jail. He said that as a result of his jungle warfare in WWII, he had on two occasions since reacted violently towards people approaching him unexpectedly from the rear. Trial court ruled that a conditioned response was not a defense in Washington and told jury to disregard this evidence. - ISSUE: Was the trial courts instruction to the jury an error? - HELD: The evidence should have been presented to the jury only if there was substantial evidence to support it. Here, the court held, there was not. - RATIONALE: actus reus requires a voluntary act. No crime is committed unless there is a voluntary act. A willed movement. A spasm is not an act. An act done while unconscious is not a voluntary act. However, when the state of unconsciousness is voluntarily induced through the use of alcohol, then the state of unconsciousness is not a complete defense.
Philip Larson
Page 9

NOTE: Epileptic seizures is sometimes considered as involuntary. Driving, on the other hand, while epileptic was held to be a reckless or culpably negligent.
OMMISSIONS (NEGATIVE ACTS) People v. Beardsley - FACTS: D convicted of manslaughter. He was a married bartender and clerk at a hotel. He rented rooms. When his wife was away, he had a woman over. They drank and stayed the night. They were served more beer and whiskey by a guy who worked in the hotel. She took a bunch of grains of morphine. They took her downstairs. She got worse. They called the city marshal and a doctor. She died. - ISSUE: was there a legal duty to care for her, the failure of which would constitute an omission that would make him legally responsible for her death? - Held: Omission is only a voluntary act that can lead to a crime if it results in failing to fulfill a legal duty. Here, there was no legal duty to care for the girl. - Rationale: The duty neglected must be a legal duty, not a mere moral obligation. It must be a duty of law or contract and the omission must be the immediate and direct cause of death. o Therefore, forgetting moral obligation, was there a legal duty? The woman was married twice and used to saloons and intoxicants. There is no evidence she had been frauded or deceived. Being in his house created no such legal duty. o Prosecutor argued: the D took care of the woman in place of her natural guardian and therefore owed a clear legal duty. NOTE: Places where a failure to act constitutes a breach of legal duty (note 2 on p132) o 1) statute imposes the duty o 2) based on a certain relationship o 3) contractual duty o 4) where one has voluntarily assumed the case of another and so secluded the helpless person as to prevent others from rendering aid. o 5) when a person creates a risk of harm to another Absent special circumstances, a person has no legal duty to inform the police of another persons plans to commit a criminal offense. However, is there a duty to provide information about the crime after it has occurred? In English common law, this is a misdemeanor. In the US, though, nondisclosure is not a crime.
Why does the common law permit people to allow harm to come to others, even when they could prevent the harm? 1) Nondoings (omissions) are inherently more ambiguous than wrongdoings (acts). There are plausible noninculpatory explanations for omissions. 2) Difficult line-drawing problems occur in omission cases. Who is responsible? All witnesses? Only those who realized it was serious? Only those whose inaction was based on moral indifference? 3) Well meaning bystanders often make matters worse by intervening. Therefore, requiring action may cause more harm than good. Barber v. Superior Court (life support scenario) - Facts: two medical doctors charged with murder. P went to surgery. After successful surgery, he suffered cardio respiratory arrest. He was revived and put on life support. Later, P was in a comatose state from which he was unlikely to recover. He became a vegetable. They communicated to the family that the chance for recovery was extremely poor. They took him off life support at the familys request. - RULE: murder is the unlawful killing of a human beingwith malice aforethought. Malice can be express or implied. - RULE2: death has been defined by the cessation of heart and respiratory function. Now, another definition is an irreversible cessation of brain function.
Philip Larson
Page 10

ISSUE: did these facts constitute an unlawful killing? Was there a duty to continue providing life sustaining treatment? HELD: A physician has no duty to continue treatment, once it has proved to be ineffective. The omission to continue treatment, though intentional and with knowledge that the patient would die, was not an unlawful failure to perform a legal duty. Rationale: providing nutrition and hydration are more like medical procedures than normal ways of providing nutrition and hydration.
SOCIAL HARM - two types of crimes o 1) result crimes law punishes for an unwanted outcome, such as death or destruction o 2) conduct crimes law prohibits dangerous behavior, such as driving under the influence of alcohol - Is there social harm for conduct crimes? o There isnt any harm, necessarily. o Howeever, if social harm is the endangering of an individual, then there may be harm.
MISSED CLASS GET NOTES
CAUSATION - SUBSTANTIAL FACTOR TEST vs. BUT FOR TEST o The but for causation doesnt work when two people combine to stab and kill someone at the same time. Therefore, you use the substantial factor test. If the mens rea has dissipated once the actus rea has occurred, you have a problem. State v. Rose (pedestrian is hit by a truck. It is presumably accidental at the time, but he continues to drive after he knows what is going onthe mens rea develops after impact.) CRIMINAL HOMICIDE State v. Schrader (deliberation-premeditation formula) - Facts: D was found guilty of murder. He was in a gun shop and got into an argument about the authenticity of the gun. He stabbed the guy when the owner reached into his pocket (thinking he was going for a gun). He claimed self-defense. Trial court was given instructions that said to be a willful, deliberate, and premeditated killing, it is not necessary that the intention to kill exist for any set length of time prior to the actual killing and that it is only necessary that such intention should have come into existence for the first time at the time of such killing, or at any time previously. D says that this instruction takes the pre out of premeditation. - Issue: What is meant by premeditated? - Held: Yes, the court upheld the murder conviction. - Rationale: When first adopted, premeditated meant knowing and intentional. Courts have said that willful, deliberate and premeditated murder can be accomplished very quickly. Perhaps the mere exercise of choice would justify an inference of deliberation and premeditation necessary to constitute first degree murder. o The instruction given has been given for years and has withstood the courts scrutiny before. - Notes: o Saying that premeditation can exist at the blink of an eye this becomes just what Cardoza described as merely a privilege offered to the jury to find the lesser degree when the suddenness of the intent, the vehemence of the passion, seems to call irresistibly for the exercise of mercy.
Philip Larson
Page 11

o n2 p247 Morrin court says that the division of murders into degrees was prompted by a feeling that not all murders reflected the same quantum of culpability on the part of the wrongdoer. Since premeditation and deliberation are all that distinguish first-degree from second-degree murder, imprecise definition of these elements tend to erode the distinction between the two offense. It argued that a better approach would be an interval between the initial thought and ultimate actions should be long enough to afford a reasonable man time to subject the nature of his response to a second look.
Midgett v. State - Facts: child abuse. Malnourished and underdeveloped. Said he died from a hemorrhage that probably came from a human fist hitting him. - Held: There was no evidence of premeditation but there was enough evidence to sustain second degree murder. - Rationale: This was not premeditated. o Court said he did not intend to kill the kid, just to abuse him. Alternatively, if there was intent to kill it was developed in a drunken, heated rage while disciplining the child. This does not support premeditation or deliberation. o Legislature should modify the definition of first degree murder if they want to allow this guy to be guilty - Dissent: The degree of murder committed is for the jury to decide. Repeated beatings could be considered an intent to kill the child. - Notes: after Midgett, Arkansas legislature amended the criminal code to permit verdict of firstdegree capital murder in these types of cases. State v. Forrest - Facts: father was in a hospital. He was terminally ill and suffering. Son went in, put a gun to his head, and shot him three or four times. He then walked away. D argued that there was insufficient evidence of deliberation and premeditation. Court believed it was sufficient. - Issue: Was there deliberation and premeditation? - Held: Yes. This was first degree murder - Rationale: he walked in, he talked to the nurse, he brought the gun to the hospital, he shot him four times, etc. What is the purpose of having different degrees of murder? Girouard v. State - Facts: - Issue: What is adequate provocation? Can words alone ever provoke someone to such a point that killing that person should be knocked down from a murder charge to a manslaughter charge? This is an issue of provocation - Held: While there was needless provocation, the provocation was not adequate to mitigate second degree murder to voluntary manslaughter. - Rationale: o Rule of Provocation: requires 1) adequate provocation, 2) killing must have been in the heat of passion, 3) it must have been a sudden heat of passion without a reasonable opportunity for the passion to cool, and 4) a causal connection between the provocation, the passion and the fatal act. o The court assumes 2, 3, and 4 are met and only addressed #1. For provocation to be adequate it must be calculated to inflame the passion of a reasonable man and tend to cause him to act for the moment from passion rather than reason. o Words alone: words alone are not sufficient provocation. - Notes: o Reasonable man vs. policy standard? How do you define the reasonable man in this setting? This may be more of a policy decision rather than a reasonable man standard because otherwise we might have a disaster on our hands because anyone who killed
Philip Larson
Page 12

someone could say they were provoked by words but the person who supposedly said the words is dead and cant testify. 2/9/2006 - Some people were sympathetic to Mr. Girouard. What - Subjectively, he was easier to provoke than other people. In the case of words, even the eggshell person is not justified. People v. Casassa - Facts: When a girl told D that she was not falling in love with him, he became devastated. The rejection of advances caused severe emotional distress which led him to brutally murder her. Extreme emotional disturbance was his affirmative defense. - Issue: is extreme emotional disturbance an affirmative defense? - Held: No. o Rule: A criminal homicide will constitute manslaughter when it would otherwise be murder except that it was 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 actors situation under the circumstances as he believes them to be. (p1025) o Elements: 1) is there an extreme emotional disturbance, and 2) it must be reasonable. - Notes: o Note 2, p280: Isnt from the viewpoint of the personunder the circumstances as he believes them to be a subjective standard? Not fully, we look at the facts as the actor saw them, and then objectively ask whether the reaction was reasonable. This seems somewhat counterintuitive when you are talking about extreme emotional disturbance. Typically, this would be very specific to an individual. o Punt to jury: in many ways, this is a punt to the jury to figure out what situations they think it is acceptable to reduce murder to manslaughter. The law provides some guidelines, but the definition of reasonable in p279 that it allows the finder of fact the discretionary power to mitigate the penalty when presented with a situation which, under the circumstances, appears to them to have caused an understandable weakness in one of their fellows. Words are not enough: This was designed to sweep away the rigid rules that have developed wrt the sufficiency of particular types of provocation such as the rule that words alone can never be enough.p278 Insanity: in this just something short of an insanity defense? How does this fit in with diminished capacity. o Note 1, p280: If there is no evidence of extreme emotional disturbance, there is no reason to instruct the jury about it. o Regarding the Forrest case where the son shot his dying father in the head: why wasnt the case made that there was no malice. Regardless of willful, deliberate, etc. doesnt there still have to be malice. (Note: the D did try to argue this but the court didnt buy it.) People v. Nieto Benitez - Facts: Second degree murder is the unlawful killing of a human being with malice aforethought, but without the additional elements of willfulness, premeditation and deliberation. - Issue: What does malice of forethought mean? - Held: - Rule: Malice of forethought can be express or implied (no provocation appears or the circumstances show an abandoned and malignant heart). What does the extra element of implied malice tell us? There are two strands, 1) malice can be implied when 2) malice can be implied (p290). Malice may be implied when D does an act with a high probability that it will result in death and does it with a base antisocial motive and with a wanton disregard for human life.
Philip Larson
Page 13

Berry v. Superior Court - Facts: Pitbull killed someone. Evidence was that the pitbull had been trained for dogfighting. He was also cultivating marijuana. It was argued that there was a reckless disregard for life by keeping this dog. The dog had not previously attacked anyone and there was no evidence that he would. They tried to sue him for murder. - Issue: Whether a person of ordinary caution or prudence would be led to believe that D committed murder? Was he acting with an abandoned and malignant heart? - Held: This was a conscious disregard for life. - Notes: o Malice: there is something that is less than intent that does NOT mean hatred but rather just means an extreme indifference to or recklessness in regard to human life. Therefore, while Forrest may not have had malice in the traditional way, he certainly could have had malice given that he manifested his intent to kill his father. State v. Hernandez - Facts: - Issue: were bumper stickers and signs relevant evidence? - Held: - Rule: For evidence to be relevant, it must logically tend to support or establish a fact or issue between the parties. The elemtnes that must be proved for involuntary manslaughter are 1) D acted w/ criminal negligence, and 2) in doing so, D caused the death. o State argues: that drinking slogans are relevant because the remarks show that D knew that drinking large amounts of alcohol could distort his sense of reality. o Court said: the argument fails because Ds knowledge of the effect of alcohol on him was not an issue. - Notes: what distinguishes criminal negligence, the state of mind needed for involuntary manslaughter, from the mental state required to prove murder in Berry/Nieto Benitez? P295-296. State v. Williams - Facts: 17-month old has a toothache. They dont seek medical care b/c they are afraid the state will find them unfit parents. - Issue: Under Washington State law, a crime is committed when the crime is caused by simple or ordinary negligence. This is basically a civil negligence standard. Therefore, you can be convicted for criminally negligent homicide with only normal negligence. Criminal negligence vs. civil negligence. Criminal negligence is a gross deviation of care. It is a gross negligence standard, typically. FELONY-MURDER RULE (p304) - The Doctrine in Its Unlimited Form o This doctrine often intrigues people. o It is the notion that someone can intend to commit one crime, an accidental murder occurs, and they can then be brought on charges for effectively first degree murder. - Pure form o If you have a felony and a death, that equals murder. o Felony + killing = a murder. The pure form is a strict liability form. The book says this made more sense at common law when most felonies were punishable by death because you would already be on the hook. Now, it doesnt make as much sense because there are more felonies and most arent punishable by death. 2/14/2006 Felony murder - Came from common law. Was abolished in England. Despite lots of criticism, it still thrives in the US. Almost all jurisdictions have some version of the felony murder rule. Most common version is that felony murder, if it is committed in the course of some of the most dangerous
Philip Larson
Page 14

felonies will be murder in the first degree. If a death results from an unenumerated felony it will probably be murder in the second degree. Where is the intent in felony murder? Felony murder is viewed as a strict liability form. Whether intentional or purely accidental, if the death was the proximate cause of your actions while committing a felony, you are liable. Some say this replaces the mens rea requirement. Others say there has been a transfer of the intent from the other felony being committed. Accomplices: can be roped in using the felony murder law. This can be used to get people liable like the get-a-way driver, etc. Feelings on the felony murder rule: o Cons: Results in punishments that are disproportionate to the act and leads to anomalous outcomes. Model penal code: extreme indifference to human life Limitations cases: ways courts have limited the felony murder rule o Burrows case: inherently dangerous felonies - inherently dangerous felony limitation there is no statutory second degree felony murder but it was created by the courts in CA. The notion is that under the common law, murders that happened with unenumerated felonies, it would be second degree murder. Therefore, enumerated, dangerous felonies must be inherently dangerous before the murder kicks in. Do you look at inherently dangerous in the abstract or based on the facts from the case itself. In Burrows, the guy gets a patient to forego cancer treatment and use his own treatment. The court said it would determine whether practicing medicine without a license is an inherently dangerous felony. The court looked at the statute in the abstract. Therefore, since there are examples in which practicing medicine without a license is not inherently dangerous they found that it wasnt. o AAAA case: limiting the circularity of the doctrine - if you have a criminally negligent homicide that constitutes involuntary manslaughter (failing to give medical treatment to a child that needs it and the child dies). Given that involuntary manslaughter is a felony, this automatically bootstraps into murder given the felony murder rule. HYPO: husband comes home to find his wife with a lover and killed them. Ordinarily, it would be voluntary manslaughter but the felony murder rule would make it murder. Therefore, there is the merger doctrine that prevents these problems. HYPO: How would it work if the prosecutor prosecuted for assault and the assault resulted in murder. Merger doctrine: if you have a criminal homicide involving an assault, that assault will not form the basis of the felony for a felony murder charge. What about robbery: with robbery, there is always an assault. Dont we want the felony murder here? Yes, if the assault has an independent felonious purpose, the independent felonious purpose can be used to bootstrap the assault into a felony murder charge. Examples of other ways of limiting felony murder rule: 1) limiting to a narrow class of enumerated felonies, 2) adding a mens rea requirement of at least recklessness (not negligent), 3) requiring the death be foreseeable, 4) limiting the timing of how far the event stretches (e.g. in the flight of the event but not heart attacks coming later), 5) limiting a felons responsibility for the death of a co-felon (e.g. assumption of risk theories). Therefore, in most jurisdictions there are limitations on the felony murder rule.
CAPITAL PUNISHMENT - Background: prior to 1972, all state death penalty statutes left discretion of whether to apply it to the jury. In the Furman case the SC said this was unconstitutional. It required providing juries greater guidance in what should matter when making this decision. What should matter are the circumstances of the crime and the particular circumstances of the Defendant. If there are aggravating circumstances (saying D should get it) or mitigating circumstances (suggesting they shouldnt get it).
Philip Larson
Page 15

States rewrote death penalty statutes: many used the form from the Model Penal Code (p10271028 listing out aggravating and mitigating circumstances to take into account. Other circumstances can be used, but this is a starting point. If you compare aggravating circumstances from MPC with the Georgia statute, they are very similar. o Defense can provide mitigating evidence: After prosecution proves the crime beyond a reasonable doubt, the defense is allowed to provide mitigating evidence. This can include the psychological background of the defendant (e.g. low IQ, emotional problems, bad childhood, beaten as a child, etc.) What best describes your view of the death penalty: o 1) Unequivocally opposed to the death penalty o 2) In favor of the death penalty and in favor of its use. o 3) In favor of the death penalty, but only for a rare class of truly heinous activities. o 4) Opposed to death penalty because you believe there are mistakes in the system and cannot be applied in o 5) You just dont know
2/16/2006 CAPITAL PUNISHMENT, REVIEW - role of - Payne vs. Tennessee - court reversed saying it WAS appropriate for the particulars of the victim to help determine the final penalty. This was different than other cases where only the heinousness of the crime and the circumstances of the killer were relevant. In Payne, a 3-yr old boy witnessed his mother and sister killed and they wanted to enter information about the impact this had on him. - What should the role of the death penalty be in the felony murder rule when the ordinary mens rea required of a capital offense is not required. - People broke someone out of jail. As they tried to escape and change cars, they stole the car of a couple and killed two of them. The court held the death penalty was appropriate for people who had stood by as the inmates killed the couple. There was evidence that they did not know this was going to happen. The court held their culpability was sufficient for the death penalty because they had armed two killers and put them in a situation where they would be interacting with ppl in the public. Tison v. Arizona. How much do we punish for action vs. inaction. This was a reckless indifference to life. - In other cases, the driver of a get a way car of the robbery was not culpable for a death that happened during the robbery. Know the common law background to murder. She wont ask details about the state homicide statutes. It will probably look like modified common law or the statutes in the book. Just because weve read cases from Arkansas and Maryland dont know all the state rules, only in so far as they inform the common law principles. Criminal Homicide Overview o Criminal homicide at CL: the unlawful killing of a human being o TWO DIVISIONS Murder: with malice aforethought Manslaughter: without malice aforethought (and now, without justification or excuse) o The death penalty was used for both, initially. Malice: o Four types 1) Express: intent to kill 2) implied A) extremely reckless disregard for human life (malignant heart) B) intention to inflict grievous bodily injury on another C) Intent to commit a felony (felony murder rule)
Philip Larson
Page 16

Aforethought: premeditation or planning no longer essential to murder. (with the degree classifications, you can now have a murder that has not been premeditated. You can have split second decisions) therefore, malice aforethought is really just malice STATUTORY VARIATIONS of MURDER o Division into degrees (initially to make some murders non-death penalty crimes) this was the first break from common law into statutory schemes. Capital murder (killing a peace officer, etc.) First degree: Willful, deliberate, and premeditated Enumerated actions evincing W, D, P (e.g. poison, lying in wait) Felony murder: often enumerated felonies Second degree: Everything else. MANSLAUGHTER o Unlawful killing w/o malice and w/o justification or excuse Voluntary (Intentional): in heat of passion upon adequate provocation Involuntary (Unintentional): with recklessness not amounting to extreme recklessness; in the commission of an unlawful act not amounting to a felony (Misdemeanor manslaughter rule federal murder corollary if you commit a misdemeanor). How does the CA statute distinguish between first and second degree murder? p231 and 232. o First degree enumerates a number of offenses. o Second degree is everything else. o Note: they have a special category for murder based on a drive-by shooting. Illinois statute (p233) o First degree: not the same amount of specificity as in CA. it is someone who kills an individual w/o justification with intent to kill or intent to create great bodily harm. (Illinois kept the great bodily harm stuff others assume that is under the extreme recklessness language) o Second degree: first degree but w/ mitigating circumstances. This is really a manslaughter statute. They just have it labeled under second degree. The important thing is what is the principle and what informs that principle. Second degree murder is punishable by 4-15 years which is more like manslaughter, not murder. PA statutes (p237) o First degree: they just say intentional killing o Second degree: felony murder o Third degree: all other kinds of murder. NY statute (p235-36) o First degree: if the victim was law enforcement, or if it was a similar crime in a certain amount of time, felony murder, or cruel or wanton murder. (this is essentially a capital murder statute this means that the death penalty is eligible and on the table whereas with second degree, you have what sounds more like first degree statutes.) o Second degree: 1) second degree felony murder crime Model Penal Code: (p1025) o Model penal code did not follow what state statutes did. It does not distinguish between first and second degree murder. o Murder: Murder committed purposely or knowingly Committed recklessly or with o Manslaughter o Negligent Homicide: Criminal homicide is negligent when committed negligently (gross negligence in Washington, simple negligence standard is used)
Philip Larson
Page 17

Under model penal code, negligently means gross deviation from the standard of care that a reasonable person would observe in the actors situation Influence of the Model Penal Code what should we make of this? o Generically speaking, the levels of culpability (p994 recklessly, knowingly, negligently and purposefully are defined) this helped weed out the common law stuff. The homicide statute itself hasnt had as much impact. Many of the states have enacted statutes that are closer to the common law. NY is the only one that uses extreme emotional disturbance standard. That has not been widely adopted. Depraved heart and malignant heart model penal code says this should be subsumed under extreme recklessness. However, you see a lot of depraved heart discussions. o Rape MPC has not had much impact. Reform to rape law has taken place after the MPC was written and it is considered outdated. o p262 Problem 5 Facts: D and X were married and had a son. They separated and X went to live with another man. D discovered this and discovered that she was smoking cocaine in the presence of their son. D arrived at their house and shot the lover nine times. Is this murder or manslaughter: this is not a sudden discovery of the new lover. The smoking cocaine was not provocation b/c he had time to reflect. Therefore, it was murder. Note: He was convicted of murder and the appellate court upheld it saying it wasnt a man who just stumbled upon his wife having sex. Court said the smoking cocaine had a sufficient cooling off period. What might have been sufficient provocation wont be anymore if there is sufficient cooling off period. The court also says that Maryland does not have a straw that broke the camels back aspect to provocation to reduce from murder to manslaughter. o Heat of passion: means more the heat of the moment that arises out of adequate provocation. o p302 Problem B: Facts: a guy playing in a band didnt sleep much. He woke up at 11 after 6 hrs of sleep, drank, stayed up all night, on the way he was driving home and he started fallig asleep at the wheel, drifted off the road, shook himself to stay awake, fell asleep again and killed a jogger. MPC: what would he be guilty of? Negligently probably not, given that he was already driving off the road and then kept doing it. Nevertheless, perhaps he just didnt recognize the severity of what he was doing. Therefore, it is a fine line between negligently and recklessly. US v. Smith felony murder conviction was overturned. Given conviction was overturned, if she were retried, what would she be convicted of? Second degree murder because there was malice aforethought and
Missed Two classes
Defenses - Justification vs Excuse Justification - To the extent there is social harm it is negated by the defense and the circumstances so it is not deemed to be a social harm under the circumstances. Therefore, it is considered somewhat justified. - Norman case there was a beastly victim. Setting aside whether legal defense was allowed you might say there was no social harm anyway because of the life he led and how cruel a person he was. Perhaps he forfeited the right to live and that therefore there is no social harm in his being
Philip Larson
Page 18

killed. The act of a self-defense killing is deemed the right or the permissible thing to do such that the killing is not deemed wrongful or unlawful. Excuse - We still find there is social harm and the killing undesirable but it is not morally wrong because the person has an excuse (duress, mental problems, etc). However, these things dont make the person morally right or a justified killing. This is more just something that we understand as a society What are the common law elements of a self-defense claim? - 1) Necessity - 2) Imminent death - 3) Self preservation - 4) Reasonable belief What is self-defense for the non-aggressor? - Non Aggressor - Reasonable Belief - Facing imminent threat of death or serious bodily injury - And that deadly force is necessary to avoid death or serious bodily harm - That force used is proportional to the threat United States v. Peterson - Facts: he said dont come near me or Im going to shoot you. The aggressor got a wrench and started coming after D. D shot him. - Issue: how do we define whether someone is a non-aggressor or not in determining whether they can use the self-defense claim? - Analysis: o p488 An affirmative unlawful act reasonably calculated to produce an affray foreboding injurious or fatal consequences is an aggression which, unless renounced, nullifies the right of homicidal self-defense o p488 Laney guy was chased by a mob into an area where he could have gone home. Instead, he lashed out and killed somebody and then went home. If you are in a safe spot and you come out of that spot you will be deemed the aggressor and you wont have the benefit of self-defense. o Model Penal Code: p1004 - Note: o p491 Dina walks along a particular street. Arthur, a bully, tells her not to use that street or he will kill her. She gets a gun, walks on the street and he comes at her menacingly. She shoots him. Who is the aggressor? o How many think Dina should have a defense? o MPC puts a fairly strong burden o p491 what about where D is the initial aggressor but doesnt use deadly force? E.g. A hits B, B pulls a knife and A kills B. Does the fact that A threw the first punch create a problem? Under Peterson the person claiming self-defense has to be pretty much free from fault or have renounced his fault and be trying to remedy. The MPC differs somewhat. A would still have the self-defense available. What is the rule on retreats? What does the law require in the Laney situation where an avenue of retreat is available. - Majority rule: you are allowed to stand your ground. - Minority rule: use of deadly force when there is another avenue to get out of the situation is not allowed. It is not considered an imminent threat. Some jurisdictions o Castle Exception: a man does not have to leave his home in order to avail himself of the justification for the use of self-defense.
Philip Larson
Page 19

Reasonable belief has a subjective and an objective component. The jury will have to determine whether it was objectively as well as subjectively believable. - Why does there need to be a subjective standard? - Battered woman syndrome evidence. When he was awake she couldnt have done this. Should there be an extra rule or excuse for extremely abused women and children. Its not imminent. - n7 well talk about this after Thursday. 3/2/06 Self Defense - p494 note 11 (typo) Moral rights excuse or a justification? Cop enters neighbors house and 8yr-old comes into room holding a gun giggling saying Im a robber and fires at him. Before firing a second time, the Cop kills the 8 yr old. - Note 7 p509 (Incomplete Defense) someone believes there is imminent danger but the belief is unreasonable. Sometimes it wont exonerate them completely but it might reduce murder to manslaughter. Typically, it is state by state whether the incomplete defense is available. o Example: D uses deadly force against a non-deadly assault. - Note 6, p508-09, Dressler asks when you have a killing in self-defense, under the reasonable belief prong of the doctrine, someone can be exonerated on the basis of an honest and reasonable, even if incorrect, belief they are in danger. Is this a sensible rule? Should it be objective reasonableness or objective fact? Some commentators have said that these situations should be considered excused but not justified. o Whether Eunices actions are deemed to be justified, and therefore lawful. If lawful, then Violet cant claim self-defense because she is responding to a lawful act. However, if Eunices actions are deemed to be excused, then Violet may have a self-defense because excused actions are not considered lawful actions. Note 6, p509. o Same question is raised in Note 4, p526. Defense of Habitation and Property People v. Ceballos - Facts: someone was going into the garage. He rigged it so that a rifle would fire when someone opened the garage. Can you use mechanical devices set to give deadly force to protect your property? No. - Rule: o MPC: 197 Homicide isjustifiable1)2) when committed in defense of habitation, property, or person against one who manifestly intends or endeavors, by violence or surprise, to commit a felony. o Dangerous felony: The court reads into the MPC that it cant be any felony, the limitation is that the felony must be some atrocious crime attempted to be committed by force that threatens death or serious bodily harm. Therefore, the court is not prepared to find a justified defense. o Therefore, the MPC is often narrowed by case law requiring that the felony be something that threatens death or serious bodily harm. Therefore, without some atrocious felony the court is less likely to uphold the defense. - Rationale: according to the kids word, they did not have the intent to commit a felony. However, this isnt what fails to get the D off. o If the person is not even home and this is purely for the protection of the property, were not prepared to recognize the use of deadly or just short of deadly force. We dont want to encourage people to set up these triggers. o Should a person be allowed to threaten the use of deadly force if they dont actually use it? Tennessee v. Garner
Philip Larson
Page 20

Facts: Officer sees a slight young man fleeing. A 15 yr old tries to vault over a fence and the officer shoots him in the head. Tennessee had a statute saying that if someone was fleeing arrest, the cop could use all force necessary, including deadly force. The SC addressed whether this is constitutional. They addressed it through the IV amendment to determine whether it is a reasonable way to seize a criminal to kill him. The outcome was that the Court said it was not Constitutional to have a rule that said you could apprehend ALL felons with deadly force. The cop must have a reasonable belief
Necessity - Common law elements o 1) Act was done to prevent significant evil o 2) No adequate alternative o 3) Harm caused must not have been disproportionate to the harm avoided MPC has a complicated scenario where if you were negligent in creating the situation that led to the necessity, then the defense may not be available to you. Not limited to natural forces. You could claim necessity to protect economic value. Necessity can be used as a defense to homicide. Typically, necessity and duress were never defenses to killing. 2) you dont automatically lose the defense if you created the exigency. Half the jurisdictions have adopted MPC version of Necessity and Duress. Remaining jurisdictions are split. The basic notion between C/L necessity is that it should only be used in rare situations where you are causing a harm, but a harm that is lesser than the one you are trying to avoid. P578 DURESS - Elements o 1) immediate threat of death or serious bodily injury o 2) well-grounded fear that the threat will be carried out o 3) no reasonable opportunity to escape the threatened harm MPC: No imminency requirement under MPC for duress. Defense may be available for homicide. This typically isnt the case in common law and statutes that dont follow MPC. ---MISSED CLASS --3/21/2006 Be prepared for class on Thursday. Insanity Defense Ended class talking about the pros and cons. Not many people who were in favor of abolishing the insanity defense. - This is rarely invoked and rarely assented to by the juries. - It is a high bar to meet. Diminished Capacity allows a criminal defendant to introduce evidence of mental abnormality at trial either to negate a mental element of the crime charged, thereby exonerating the D of that charge, or to reduce the degree of crime for which the D may be convicted, even if the Ds conduct satisfied all the formal elements of a higher offense. - This is where the person is not insane enough to plead Insanity. - Aside from strict liability, all crimes include a mens rea that the prosecution must prove.
Philip Larson
Page 21
I did not commit the crime charged because I did not possess the requisite mens rea. o A D claiming no mens rea because of mental disorder is not asserting some lesser form of legal insanity. He is straightforwardly denying the prosecutions prima facie case by attempting to cast doubt on the prosecutions claim that a requisite mental element was present at the time of the offense. Some jurisdictions bar diminished capacity entirely. Commentators have been critical of this, because there are a number of jurisdictions that allow the intoxication defense and wouldnt it be weird to let people off because they are drunk, but not for other less culpable reasons for lacking mens rea.
State v. Wilcox - Why would we want to have this defense? o Insanity is an all or nothing approach. There is no in between. You are treating a whole class of criminals the way you would everybody else. - Why not have this? o Wouldnt this lead to a slippery slope in terms of who this is available to? Infancy - since Columbine, weve read stories in the press for kids being held to adult standards. - C/L under the age of 7 is deemed as not having the capacity to distinguish right from wrong and is entitled to the . - >14 you dont have the defense - 7-14 is a rebuttable presumption that the defense is valid. INCHOATE CRIMES - objectivist vs. subjectivist view. o Objectivist wants to see objective acts that show the substantive crime will be committed. o Substantive willing to go shorter if there is strong evidence of intent. Mens rea - attempt is a specific intent crime. You cant have attempted reckless or negligent behavior. - Part of the rationale: when you punish intentional wrongdoers that fail in their purpose, there is unspent intent. (therefore, they may be likely to try to kill again). Whereas, someone acting recklessly may be less likely to act recklessly again. - Does it make sense to punish when there is no social harm, but not punish reckless behavior that luckily does not kill someone. BRUCE v. STATE - Rule: you cannot have attempted felony murder b/c attempt is a specific intent crime. o Exception: two states do allow this. Arkansas, and Florida. When we say that an attempt must have a specific intent aspect to it, it actually requires double intent. It requires the intent to do the actus reus and the intent to commit the substantive crime. Unequivocality Test (also the res ipsa test): you have no information about intent. o Manifest an intent to commit the crime.
MISSED CLASS
3/30/2006 Factual vs. legal impossibility - many jurisdictions have abolished the hybrid legal impossibility as a defense.
Philip Larson
Page 22

MPC does not recognize legal impossibility you see this in language of 501(a) on p1017.
People v. Thousand - under what test do we have attempt? o Abnormal step approach hes taken the abnormal step of going to McDonalds, etc. o Substantial step he sent the e-mail to what he thought was a minor - Impossibility defense? o There is no impossibility defense to an attempt defense. o There is a completed attempt here, but is there a defense? - Dangerousness of conduct vs. dangerousness of the actor? Objective vs. subjectiveObjectively, he wasnt really close to doing something wrong because there was no minor. Subjectively, it seems like this guy probably is a bad guy. The MPC is very subjectivist in its take. People say this, partially because of the impossibility doctrine. It is interested in punishing bad actors regardless of what actually happened. Receiving stolen goods most jurisdictions would accept that you can accept stolen goods even if it is from a law enforcement officer. Inchoate crimes - C/L definition of solicitation o Asking, enticing or inducing of another to commit a felony. - MPC accepts solicitation of misdemeanors. C/L does not (only felonies) - Complete as soon as the request is made, regardless of whether the person goes through with it. - If the substantive crime is actually committed, the solicitor can be charged with both the substantive murder as well as the solicitation. At C/L, they would be merged and you would be punished for the murder but not the solicitation. Solicitation at C/L is usually graded much less than the substantive crime itself. - MPC recognizes a solicitation to attempt an offense - Difference b/w - MPC uncommunicated solicitations do count as solicitations while they dont under the C/L - MPC solicitation is graded equally with the main crime, whereas in most jurisdictions (C/L) solicitation has a lesser punishment than the substantive offense. o Theory is that someone who solicits is as dangerous as the person who commits the crime. Conspiracy - some people say it is overinclusive, overaggressive, etc. - what is a conspiracy? An agreement b/w two or more people to commit a crime. Central to the conspiracy is the agreement. The conspiracy has taken place when the agreement is made. The agreement may be express or implied. - C/L typically a misdemeanor - MPC would punish it equally even if the conspiracy failed o Why arent the two merged? Why isnt conspiracy merged with the substantive crime? It is more dangerous when more people are working on the crime together. One of the primary policy readings stated is the notion that conspiracy is more dangerous than attempt or solicitation. The pursuit of multiple people is more dangerous because 1) greater likelihood of success 2) greater chance you can achieve something complex w/ more ppl Therefore, the combination of the people themselves. It is a separate and distinct crime in getting somebody and agreeing with them to enter into a criminal enterprise. Pinkerton v. United States o Problem on bottom of p807. In this scenario
Philip Larson
Page 23

o Rule: Participation in the conspiracy is enough to sustain a conviction for the substantive offense in furtherance of the conspiracy. Under Pinkerton, everyone is guilty of everything in furtherance of a conspiracy. What does in furtherance of a conspiracy mean?
Can we take someone like Moussaui, who we didnt have much of a case against until he started testifyingBy defining the conspiracy class broadly and the object of the conspiracy broadly, you can create very large conspiracys. If you apply Pinkerton liability to that, you can create a breathtaking size of things that people could be liable for3000 counts of murder, etc. At what point does conspiracy start getting silly? Well cover more complex conspiracies in the next sectionYou dont have to no the identity of another person, or even that all the conspirators exist. If you have scope of the enterprise and you agree to it you are subject to liability for all of the crimes of others. o Conspiracy is the darling of the prosecutors arsenal because it is so far-reaching wrt conspiracy, the rule is the same as attempt. You cannot conspire to do a substantive crime that requires recklessness or negligence as its mens rea. o Conspiracy requires specific intent.
MISSED CLASS
4/4/2006 If the murder was foreseeable, Pinkerton liability would mean everyone would be swept in. If not, liability would not go to the co-conspirators.
People v. Lauria - Facts: Lauria ran a telephone answering service, which he knew was used by several prostitutes in their business ventures. Lauria was indicted with the prostitutes for conspiracy to commit prosecution. - Rule: at C/L, intent is either intent or knowledge. In MPC, the mental states approach, there is a specific level called knowledge. At C/L, knowledge or intent qualified as scienter. When you have a conspiracy, what role does knowledge play? - Issue: Is a person criminally liable for conspiracy if he furnishes goods and services he knows will be used to assist in the operation of an illegal business? o Issue: should business people be punished if they know they are contributing to a criminal enterprise, even if they dont have the same goals as the enterprise. - Held: No. Maybe knowledge is enough when it is a very serious crime but not in misdemeanors like prostitution. - Notes: courts are split about whether you need proof of purpose or whether knowledge alone is enoughMPC does require proof of intent. 5.031. o Similar issues: Note 2 & 3. What do you do with knowledge of an attendant circumstance (e.g. statutory rape where the person doesnt know they are underage what do you do with conspiracy). The courts are splitIn some jurisdictions, theyll say that even if it is a mistake of fact, committing the act is enough. In other jurisdictions, the fact that they didnt know would play a factor and Substantive offense of statutory rape lack of knowledge or mistake of fact doesnt matter. It will not exhonerate them. Why is it different for conspiracy? Given that conspiracy is in an inchoate form, they require a higher mental state. Therefore, they may require knowledge.
Philip Larson
Page 24

Corrupt motive doctrine: two people get together to do something they dont know is a crime. Can they be convicted of conspiracy? Beyond the usual mens rea requirement, if they dont have a corrupt or wrongful mens rea we wont charge them with conspiracy.
Actus reus w/ conspiracy - What is the actus reus of a conspiracy? o It is the agreement. The agreement can be explicit or implicit. Commonwealth v. Azim - Facts: Azim (D) was the driver of a car which two friends jumped out of in order to beat and rob a man walking on the street. - Issue: Can a driver of the getaway car be considered a member of the conspiracy and thus guilty of the criminal acts of his co-conspirators? - Held: Yes. Co-conspirators are guilty of the criminal acts of all members of the conspiracy in furtherance of the agreement. Commonwealth v. Cook - Facts: Cook (D) and his brother met a girl and partied a bit, after which Cooks brother forcibly raped her in the woods while Cook watched. - Issue: Can a D be convicted of conspiracy solely on evidence tending to show his complicity as an accomplice in the commission of the substantive crime? - Held: No. Proof of conspiracy may rest on circumstantial evidence, but some record evidence is not enough. - Rule: Evidence tending to show complicity as an accomplice in the commission of a substantive crime is not enough in itself to convict a D of conspiracy. - Rule 2: you can be an accomplice in a crime without being a conspirator. Bilateral and Unilateral Conspiracy - C/L, Doctrine of Plurality conspiracy had to be bilateral. Two or more persons had to be involved and both had to have the mens rea to enter the agreement and commit the underlying acts. o What about sting operations? This would preclude a conviction where the person is working undercover because they didnt actually commit the act. - MPC, Unilateral Approach a person who enters into an agreement which addresses the undercover cop problem. Kilgore v. State - Facts: Kilgore (D was convicted of shooting Norman in the head, killing him, while he was driving down the interstate. - Rule: In a wheel conspiracy each spoke may be unaware of the other spokes and, accordingly, each actor may not be liable for the actions of the other spokes. - Rule: Hearsay testimony can only be admissible under the exception to the hearsay rule which provides that the out-of-court statements of one conspirator are admissible against all conspirators. - Issue: is this one conspiracy, or is it multiple? How do we know that this is more than one conspiracy? What is essential to a wheel conspiracy? Knowledge of each others existence or a community of interest. o Test is: 1: Knowledge of each others existence, or 2: A community of interest. Braverman v. US - Facts: Braverman (D) and others were convicted of violating several statutes in the illicit manufacture, transportation, and distribution of distilled spirits.
Philip Larson
Page 25

Rule: Single agreement to commit acts in violation of several penal statutes must be punished as one conspiracy. Issue: Can a single agreement to commit acts in violation of several penal statutes be punished as several conspiracies? Held: No, it is based on a single conspiratorial agreement. Intent to kill and rob 4 ppl known to them MPC: just one conspiracy because of a single conspiratorial relationship.
4/6/06 Exam no some of the main thrust and differences. Expect to include both Multiple Choice, Short Answer, and a longer essay. An Issue Spotter or a Policy/Theory question. Conspiracy gets close to a thought crime. It is not clear that the substantive offense would ever really be committed. Is there really social harm in this case? Reasonable minds differ about this. Prosecutors are fans of the conspiracy law b/c of evidentiary benefits (coconspirator statements will come in as an exception to the hearsay rule other evidentiary benefits like other bad acts that wouldnt come in because it would have been in a different trial. In trying to prove the story of the conspiracy, all the back information comes inUnder Pinkerton, you can sweep in a lot of other conduct that you might not have as strong a case against. Good for plea agreements b/c if people are going to be guilty for all the crimes of the conspiracy, low end people may be more willing to talk. In MPC, conspiracy charges merge unless it is a continuing conspiracy. In a C/L prosecution, conspiracy changes and the charge for the substantive crime typically do not merge. MPC attempts to correct some of the problems of C/L conspiracy law. HYPO: Bruno (p844) importer, middle man, and two distributors. p1019 - definition of a conspiracy unilateral approach. An agreement to commit a crime among one person and another person or persons. Under 5.032, if a person is guilty under subsection 1, if they know that someone has committed to conspsire with another to commit a similar crime, he is guilty for those other crimes. Whartons Rule Cases they give the example of adultery. Wouldnt you always be able to charge someone with conspiracy to commit adultery and adultery, given that it requires an agreement b/w two people. Drag racing, consensual incest, etc. If the substantive crime was not committed, you could charge with conspiracy to commit adultery. However, you couldnt charge them for both. You cant renounce the agreement of a conspiracy. Once you have withdrawn from the conspiracy, you wont be liable for further acts done by your coconspirators. Additionally, the SOL for you will start to run. The MPC allows someone to rescind but they have to successfully thwart the conspiracy. There are varying levels Racketeer Influenced and Corrupt Organizations (RICO) passed in 1970 it was directed at organized crime. In particularly, legitimate businesses and labor organizations. Congress couldnt make it a crime to just be a part of the mafia, Congress tried to define crimes that would get at organized crime. - pattern of racketeering activity requires two acts of racketeering w/I 10 years of each other. o You have to have some element of a pattern. - person - enterprise o An enterprise could be a legitimate enterprise or an illegitimate enterprise, which might include a group of people grouped together for the purpose of working towards some crime. This opens the door pretty wide. You can conspire to conduct or participate in an enterprise through a pattern of racketeering activity.
Philip Larson
Page 26

Accomplice Liability Primary party person who actually commits the substantive offense. Secondary party the person who assists in that substantive offense (e.g. aids, encourages, etc.) In modern terms, the aider or abettor is the secondary party. This is not the C/L terminology. They could aid and abet, or as an accessory before the fact of the offense. Accessory after the fact is now its own separate category of crime. It is misprision of a felony, etc. There is no crime for aiding and abetting [blank, blank]. What you are prosecuting is the substantive offense, and you are being charged for this under an aiding and abetting theory. There is no aiding and abetting charge. It is merely the theory the prosecution is using the prosecute the aider and abettor. Iannelli v. US 4/13/2006 Accomplice liability - more common language is that principle is the perpetrator and the other is the aider and abettor. - Accessory after the fact has been separated out into its own offense defined as misprision after the offense. State v. Hoselton - Facts: Hoselton was charged and convicted as a principal in the first degree for acting as a lookout while his friends broke into a boats storage locker. - Rule: D cannot be labeled a lookout when he lacks the requisite intent to help commit the crime. - Notes: Did he share the intent of the principals? No. Did he intend to assist them? No. Did he do anything that would constitute the actus reus for finding him guilty. o HYPOS: p883 3A: no mens rea and no actus rea. No accomplice liability. 3B: probably no mens rea but there is actus reus. No accomplice liability. 3C: mens rea (shared intent) and the honking was the actus reus. 3D: People v. Lauria - what do you do when knowledge, short of intent, exists. Riley v. State - look at problem 2 on p891: A informs B, cabdriver, to take her to the airport fast and offers him a big tip. Is A an accomplice to negligent homicide by B? o She has the intent to encourage the action (speeding). Under MPC, she had the required intent for committing the actus reus. o She also had a stake in the o You dont have to have the dual intent. You have to have the intent that the principal do the conduct. And, you need the mental state required for the substantive offense. If Alice was reckless in her request to Bob, she would share the mens rea and have sufficient for accomplice liability. o Think Gentry (you cant conspire to do something recklessly). Here, you can be an accomplice to reckless behavior as long as you share the reckless or negligent mental state and you suggest that the person do the actus reus. Natural and probable consequences doctrine State v. Linscott
Philip Larson
Page 27

Facts: Linscott was convicted of murder, under a theory of accomplice liability, when his friend shot and killed a man the two had intended to rob. Notes: what crime does he say he is liable for? Intentional murder. However, he didnt intend himself. However, the court said that it was a natural or probable consequence or a reasonably foreseeable consequence of somebodys actions. The natural or probable consequence of robbing a drug dealer with a shotgun is that someone might end up dead.
Whats the difference between Pinkerton and this line of cases regarding consequences. Vaillancourt says that tacit approval is not enough. You can also have someone who is there whose purpose is to aid and abet but their roll is never called to be used. Often you hear designed to encourage the perpetrator when determining whether there is actus reus. 4/18/06 Mens rea for accomplice liability where it is negligence or recklessness, but not intent. Some jurisdictions (minority) have held that you have to have intent to assist in the substantive offense and intend that the offense occur. Some jurisdictions have said that you cant intend reckless or negligent events, so there cant be accomplice liability. Other jurisdictions say it is intent to assist and the appropriate mens rea regarding the substantive offense. This is essentially what the MPC follows and is also the majority. If you ask what the principal is guilty of and it is reckless or negligent, ask whether the person charged as an accomplice was an accomplice in the . p475 and p494. P908 problem 3: Hayes cant be an accomplice because there is no crime. Hill doesnt have the mens rea b/c he is similar to an undercover cop. He doesnt have the mens rea required either for the substantive crime or as an accomplice. Hayes cant be an accomplice - Solicitation: under C/L, was solicitation commited? Traditionally, for solicitation you couldnt ask someone to assist you, they had to be doing it in your stead. - Larceny: he is guilty of larceny. Bailey v. Commonwealth - Bailey is the two drunk guys where one is egging the blind one into coming out onto the porch and shooting at policemen thinking it was Bailey. The police shoot him and he dies. - P913 note 4 Would Bailey be guilty of criminal homicide of the officer? Can the accomplice be held to a greater degree of responsibility than the principle? At C/L, yes, and the reasoning is what we see in McCoy which is that as long as you have the elements of the actus reus each person should be punished as to their own level of mens rea. Where there is a crime, Typically, the principal is gotten on some lesser offense. Limits to accomplice liability - legislative purpose exemption from conspiracy you dont apply conspiracy or accomplice liability to get people guilty who were named by the legislation as victims. You cant get the girl in a consensual statutory rape, she cant be found guilty of aiding or abetting the rape and cant be found guilty under conspiracy or accomplice liability. (Mannef? case) People v. Brown - Renunciation, etc. Did he actually attempt burglary? Was kicking the door down enough of a substantial step to find him guilty of attempt? Was leaving the place and not going any farther, did that count as renunciation and free him from liability for burglary. WRT attempted burglary, he had already done it. Perhaps since he renounced and deprived the person inside of the truck, he could get off for accomplice liability but probably not for attempt because it already took place.
Philip Larson
Page 28

Can you find a criminal corporation criminally liable for offenses? Vicarious liability is the concept of respondeat superior in the criminal setting. Courts are hesitant to do thisThis is highly disfavored but crops up in corporate liability. Theft Property of another Lund case (p959) - cant be intangible property (computer use time) Finders keepers can you be convicted of larceny for finding and keeping Brown and Davis (p963 and p966) Intent to Steal - Rule: for larceny, you need intent to deprive owner of property permanently. Improper borrowing is not larceny. (Brown) - Rule: courts find workarounds for intent to deprive permanently (e.g. steal someones product and try to sell it back to them or when you steal something there is a reward out for and you try to get the reward, etc.) Even though, the provided a claim of ownership and right
FINAL Differences b/w MPC and C/L. There are major departures the MPC has made. Be aware of some of the specific points of departure. If you look back over the casebook and look at the notes, the book lays this stuff out for us. Think also about the mental states of the MPC. This is the most important contribution of the MPC. The simplification of the mental states. We talked about MPC less with rape. MPC has had less of an impact in rape. Know how the treatment of murder differs. Know how the insanity definition differs. Also know the difference for necessity and duress, how the MPC has changed in those areas. Mistake of fact and law - mistake of fact and law there is a pretty significant difference b/w MPC and C/L. C/L evolved in a convoluted way. o Mistake of fact this is where outcome of analysis depends on what kind of crime were talking about (e.g. specific intent, general intent or strict liability). A D or actor claims they didnt have the requisite mens rea to commit the offense because they were mistaken about a fact that is an element of the offense. (e.g. statutory rape D has sex with a minor but he was mistaken as to that fact, he believed she was of age). In a strict liability crime, mistake of fact doesnt matter. There is no mens rea requirement and therefore no mens rea to negate. In a specific intent crime (e.g. assault w/ intent to rape, burglary w/ intent to steal), it is less clear. Lets say there is a breaking and entering and they dont have an intent to steal because they think the place is abandoned. D says I am mistaken that the things I took were stolen. I did not have the intent to deprive anyone of them permanently. If the mistake of fact negates the specific intent of the crime, the government fails to show the requisite mens rea. In a general intent crime (e.g. trespass), the test will be whether the mistake of fact is reasonable or unreasonable. If it is deemed to be reasonable, no liability will attach. Was the belief the place was abandoned objectively reasonable? Since it is this standard and not gross unreasonableness you are basically taking an offense that might require gross negligence and allow finding them guilty if the mens rea were just sort of normal unreasonableness. Also, you can convert actions that are just average negligence and turn it into the appropriate intent. Take rape, w/o someones consent. If the guy rapes a girl and he negligently
Philip Larson
Page 29

believes she is consenting, he can be found guilty. This is a criticism in the C/L rules. Exceptions that if your actions are reasonable: moral wrong doctrine and legal wrong doctrine. Moral wrong: even if you made a mistake of fact, if you were acting with a culpable motive and were committing immoral behavior you can still be liable. This is an old C/L doctrin. Legal wrong doctrine: if you are reasonably mistaken about a fact, but even in the absence of your mistake you are committing a crime, you are guilty of the other crime as well. Two statutes: one makes it a crime to take a woman across a line for prostitution. Another makes it worse if she is under 18. If you say, ah, but I thought she was 20 the C/L would say you could get the worse crime. MPC says you should only get the lesser charge. o Mistake of law: no excuse. Ignorance of the law is no excuse. Exceptions: excuses and failure of proof Reasonable reliance: official interpretation of the law that has been subsequently determined to be erroneous. Fair notice rule: very rare. Lambert minimum threshold for when someones actions are so everyday that they may not know something was a crime (e.g. failing to register w/ the state after getting out of prison). That is not something somebody would know to look up. o C/L Murder: unlawful killing of another w/ malice aforethought. Malice aforethought: satisfied by 1) intent to kill, 2) intent to cause grievous bodily harm, 3) depraved heart, (extreme recklessness in the risk of death wanton disregard for the chance someone might die), 4) felony murder rule intent to ocmmit a felony where a death occurs. Degrees: states overlayed on these mental states the concepts of first degree, second degree, etc. In some states felony murder will only be second degree. If you have willful, premeditated murder it is typically in the first degree. o MPC Murder: similar from the C/L. p1025. unlawful killing of another is murder if it is done purposefully or knowingly or recklessly regarding the value of human life (similar to depraved heart). There is a felony murder rule. o C/L Manslaughter: developed as a way to lessen the harsh consequences of a C/L finding of death. It is the unlawful killing of another without malice, but also without justification or excuse. Short of the mental states required for murder. The most common form is heat of passion or provocation. Something that might otherwise be murder but was the result of heat of passion. That is the most common form of voluntary manslaughter. Involuntary manslaughter: occurs either while doing something lawful in a criminally negligent manner, or doing something unlawful (not amounting to a felony) where a death occurs. This is the misdemeanor-manslaughter rule. o MPC Manslaughter: criminal homicide that is done recklessly or one done under extreme emotional disturbance (MPCs approach to heat of passion or provocation). There is a case hopshaw? That talks about the differences. Recklessness vs. extreme recklessness this is murky area despite the importance of determining whether it is murder or manslaughter. It is more clear for the MPC because 2.02 describes each of the mental states. It defines negligence and recklessness, etc. Negligence you arent aware of the risk but you should be. Recklessness, you may be aware of the risk. Necessity & Duress: one of those areas that is hopelessly murky. Necessity at C/L had questionable and erratic beginnings. It was clarified by the MPC as states adopted portions of it. About half the states have a statutory necessity provision laying out what the elements. The others either dont recognize the defense, or they do on a you know it when you see it take.
Philip Larson
Page 30

Necessity: defense of last resort, where there is not some other judicial defense. Where it just makes sense that the actor was justified in what he did. He had the choice of two evils and he chose the lesser one. There must be 1) imminency, 2) there was no legal way of alleviating the harm, 3) the harm caused must be less than the harm prevented, 4) legislature couldnt have ruled out the choice (e.g. medical marijuana users cant use a necessity defense if the legislature has considered it), 5) D must have clean hands (he couldnt be the one that created the situation needing the necessity defense). Hypo: rabid dog nipping at their heals and they run into a building to get away. They may be trespassing but they averted the harm of dying. You have a clear and imminent danger, the action was effective in averting the danger, the person didnt have any other way of removing the danger C/L: originally, necessity was limited to natural forces only. Lightning, tornado, etc. But not if they were avoiding common thieves. In most statutes, that is no longer a feature. It is generic terms about harm. Additionally, necessity defense often is not applied in homicide cases. You cant kill somebody. Dudley case. Killing one person to save three. MPC: does not require imminency. It does not require clean hands. Although it does in the sense that if you were reckless or negligent in bringing about the emergency, and the crime requires a mental state of negligence or recklessness, you can get hit. Additionally, sometimes you can only use it for personal property not for reputation or economic harm. MPC says it should be employed in homicide. Justification: Necessity is a justification, not an excuse. Society agrees that is the correct choice in the situation. Therefore, it is truly justified not excused. o Duress: subspecies of necessity, which explains some of the fuzziness. This is where a persons will is overborne by the circumstances they are placed in. Therefore, it falls more on the side of excuse than justification. Elements: Another person must make a threat of immediate death or seriour bodily injury to P or third party, 2) P believed they would carry it out, and 3) ??? MPC: gets rid of immediacy requirement. Says threat of harm need not be immediate. Anything with reasonable firmness. C/L: Duress typically does not apply to homicides. MPC holds that it can and should be applied to homicides. Insanity: two key tests 1) MCnaughton Rule, 2) MPC o C/L: 1) person had a mental disease or defect so that he didnt know what he was doing or, if he did know, he didnt know it was wrong. This is the knowing right from wrong test. Even though someone may be mentally ill, they might still take actions that suggest they know they did something wrong. (e.g. hiding the gun, talking to authorities). Is there a difference b/w legally wrong vs. morally wrong. Some courts use both. However, if you do morally wrong is it based subjectively, based no society, etc. One of the big criticisms is that it is a harsh, narrow, cognitive test. It doesnt focus on what control the person might have, it is just whether they knew it was wrong. Therefore, you can be very sick, irrational, etc. and not be found legally insane to be criminally excused for their behavior. MNaughton rule was in effect for a while. o MPC: less restrictive. Says you are insane when you lack the substantial ability to appreciate the wrongfulness of their conduct, or 2) lack the capacity to conform their conduct to the requirements of the law. Therefore, this includes more than just knowledge of right from wrong. The first provision lacking the substantial capacity to appreciate is softer than knowing. It is easier for a D to prove they didnt have the capacity to appreciate what something meant. Wilson case on p631 charts the middle ground saying you will be insane if you misperceived reality.????...this gets you closer to the subjective test. o Today: as the book notes, following Hinckley shooting Reagan, many states rethought their insanity rules. Many states returned to something that looked more like the strictest o
Philip Larson
Page 31

version of the MNaughton rule. Someone will only be insane if their mental defect prevented them from knowing something was wrong. Diminished capacity: dont spend a ton of time on this. It is a defense of questionable status. When you have a mental infirmity that does not amount to legal insanity but still colors your perception of reality, some people think you cant form the mens rea for the particular crime. Instead of being mistaken of fact, you are unable to form a particular mens rea because you have a mental infirmity. If somebody cant form the mens rea, they should be able to show evidence of that. Are people allowed to introduce this evidence? Conspiracy: o Whartons rule: 1) require a concerted action that includes agreement b/w the parties, and 2) the impact is just the two people involved. Objectivist vs subjectivist: very important in the inchoate arena. There is a question about whether it is right to punish attempts and conspiracies. There hasnt been explicit social harm, etc. How far should we go to punish crimes that havent occurred yet. Understand why we have inchoate crimes and why the law breaks in certain ways. MPC errs on the side of inclusion. Impossibility: This is a very difficult philosophical concept. Bottom line notion is. C/L had two forms: 1) legal impossibility having the mens rea and attempting to do it, but what you were doing wasnt a crime, and 2) factual impossibility incomplete attempt because of some factual impossibility. You take a substantial step towards committing a crime using a gun without any bullets. o Difficulty: you can make something that is factual impossibility sound a lot like legal impossibility. (e.g. performing an abortion on a woman that is not pregnant). o Impossibility is not a defense in a conspiracy setting: to what extent do you want to stretch an inchoate offense.
Philip Larson
Page 32

Crim Law

Uploaded by

Document Information

Original Description:

Copyright

Available Formats

Share this document

Share or Embed Document

Sharing Options

Did you find this document useful?

Is this content inappropriate?

Copyright:

Available Formats

Crim Law

Uploaded by

Copyright:

Available Formats

Criminal Law: Class Notes

1/9/2006 Revision 0.1 Author: Philip Larson 703.798.5244 (tel)

Criminal Law: Class notes

Criminal Law: Class notes

Criminal Law: Class notes

Criminal Law: Class notes

Criminal Law: Class notes

Criminal Law: Class notes

Criminal Law: Class notes

Criminal Law: Class notes

Criminal Law: Class notes

Criminal Law: Class notes

MISSED CLASS GET NOTES

Criminal Law: Class notes

Criminal Law: Class notes

Criminal Law: Class notes

Criminal Law: Class notes

Criminal Law: Class notes

Criminal Law: Class notes

Criminal Law: Class notes

Missed Two classes

Criminal Law: Class notes

Criminal Law: Class notes

Criminal Law: Class notes

Criminal Law: Class notes

Criminal Law: Class notes

Criminal Law: Class notes

Criminal Law: Class notes

Criminal Law: Class notes

Criminal Law: Class notes

Criminal Law: Class notes

Criminal Law: Class notes

Criminal Law: Class notes

Criminal Law: Class notes

Criminal Law: Class notes

You might also like