Criminal Law, Solove

Fall 2013

Criminal Law Outline

GENERAL NOTES REASONABLE DOUBT PUNISHMENT LEGALITY ACTUS REUS MENS REA MISTAKE OF FACT OR LA CAUSATION HOMICIDE DEFENSES ATTEMPT CONSPIRACY COMPLICITY

Criminal Law, Solove

Fall 2013

General N!te"
Know the MPC. Know the Common Law only for the following: o 1st and 2nd Degree Murder. o Felony Murder.

o Pinkerton Conspira y rule. o Wherever the MPC is inconclusive. !tate the "ule and #pply it. $%plore arguments for &oth sides' &ut pi k one side and e%plain why. May ela&orate on up to ( Multiple Choi e answers. )f something in the fa t pattern is onfusing' say so in the essay. Don*t reate fa ts that aren+t there. )f there is no possi&ility for a defense' don+t address it, -i.e e.erything you need. /0here was no first degree murder &e ause there was no time to premeditate1 Don+t need to ite ases' as long as you know the rules

Rea"!na#le D!u#t
Dou&t that would ause a reasona&le person to hesitate in making a on lusion. 2o defined 3uantifia&le s ale 4e.g.' 5(6 ertain7. 8igh threshold. Prose ution must pro.e ea h and e.ery element of the offense &eyond a reasona&le dou&t. #ppeals an laim 417 not a rime 427 insuffi ient e.iden e 497 error in :ury instru tion

Puni"$ment
Felonies: punisha&le &y more than 1 year in :ail. Misdemeanors: punisha&le &y 1 year or less in :ail.

A%

Pur&!"e" !' Puni"$ment

!pe ifi Deterren e: to deter the one riminal. 2

Deterrence:

Criminal Law, Solove

Fall 2013

-eneral Deterren e: to deter so iety from ommenting the rime.

Retribution: eye for an eye; re.enge &y punishing in proportion to the gra.ity of the rime. Incapacitation: remo.e the riminal from so iety in order to prote t so iety. Rehabilitation: training < treatment with the o&:e ti.e of returning the riminal to so iety as a produ ti.e iti=en.

Le(alit)
Criminal Law is a&out statutory interpretation. If there is no statute, then there is no crime.

B%

Retr!a*ti+e Criminali,ati!n
-% E. P!"t Fa*t! Clau"e Prohi&its Legislatures from retroa ti.ely riminali=ing ondu t. /% Due Pr!*e"" Clau"e Prohi&its Courts from retroa ti.ely riminali=ing ondu t. Puts people on 2oti e 4&ut not ne essary that the a used ha.e a tual knowledge7.

#ll rimes must &e defined in ad.an e.

C%

0a(uene""

>ague laws are un onstitutional 4inade3uate noti e' ar&itrary < dis riminatory appli ation' hill lawful ondu t7. Criminal statute must learly define 4with reasona&le degree of ertainty7 the pros ri&ed ondu t. Test for .agueness: Law fails to pro.ide the kind of noti e that will ena&le ordinary people to understand what they prohi&it' or Law authori=es or en ourages ar&itrary and dis riminatory enfor ement.

)f a limiting onstru tion has &een pla ed on the statute' then the statute is not .ague 4e.g.' /peep se retly into any room o upied &y a female person ?1 may &e .ague' &ut /wrongfully spy into a room upon a female with the intent of .iolating the female*s legitimate e%pe tation of pri.a y?1 is not .ague7.

D%

Statut!r) Inter&retati!n

)f statutory language is clear' follow the language.

Criminal Law, Solove

Fall 2013

)f statutory language is unclear' then look to legislati.e intent or pre.ious :udi ial interpretations. )f statutory language is still unclear' then it may &e unconstitutionally va ue. -% Rule !' Lenit) @udi ial resolution of un ertainty in statutes read most fa.ora&ly for the a used. MPC does not adopt this 4rarely applies e% ept as tieA&reaker7.

A*tu" Reu"
Physi al or e%ternal part of the rime. 0hree omponents: 1. Condu t 4.oluntary a t' or failure to perform a .oluntary a t that one has a legal duty to perform7. 2. "esult. 9. Causal link &etween the two. Conduct !tatute: Prohi&its engaging in spe ifi a ti.ities regardless of the result 4e.g.' dri.ing while into%i ated' rape7. Result !tatute: Prohi&its ausing parti ular harmful results 4e.g.' ausing the death of another human &eing7. Result of Conduct !tatute: Prohi&its spe ifi ondu t ausing spe ifi results 4e.g.' to operate a .ehi le re klessly ausing the death of another human &eing7. "ttendant Circumstance: # ondition that must &e present in on:un tion with the prohi&ited ondu t or result in order to onstitute the rime 4e.g.' /?at night17. PAY ATTENTION

E%

0!luntar) A*t

"ll crimes re#uire a voluntary act. Must &e .olitional' the produ t of a ons ious hoi e. Bhether an a t is oer ed or made under duress does not affe t whether the a t is .oluntary 4though may &e an affirmati.e defense7. /# person is not guilty of an offense unless his lia&ility is &ased on ondu t whi h in ludes a .oluntary a t or the omission to perform an a t of whi h he is physi ally apa&le.1 $ote: Cnder MPC' it is suffi ient that the ondu t in lude only one .oluntary a t' e.en if the a tus reus of the rime in.ol.es more than one part.

0he following are not .oluntary a ts 4not e%hausti.e list7: "efle%. Mo.ement during un ons iousness or sleep. D

Criminal Law, Solove

Fall 2013

Condu t during hypnosis. Mo.ement that is not the produ t of the a tor+s effort or determination.

/Possession is an a t?if the possessor knowingly pro ured or re ei.ed the thing possessed or was aware of his ontrol thereof for a suffi ient period to ha.e &een a&le to terminate his possession.1 People .. De ina E knowingly dri.ing a ar when you ha.e a ondition that ould result in the death of others is enough a tus reus.

F%

Omi""i!n"

/Lia&ility for the ommission of an offense may not &e &ased on an omission unaccompanied by action unless?1 there is a le al duty imposed &y law or ontra t 4not a moral o&ligation7. Fmission must &e the immediate and dire t ause. Legal duty arises in the following situations: # statute imposes a duty. Fne stands in a ertain status relationship to another. Fne has assumed a contractual duty to are for another. Fne has .oluntarily assumed the care of another and so se luded the helpless person as to pre.ent others from rendering aid 4$ote: a physi ian has no legal duty to ontinue treatment when it has pro.ed to &e ineffe ti.e7. # person reates a ris% of harm to another.

Geardsley E eat a &un h of drugs and no duty to res ue reated @ones E must ha.e a legal duty &eyond a reasona&le dou&t E e.en wH&a&y if its not yours Cali E on e you start a fire you ha.e a duty to a t Gar&er A # physi ian+s failure to ontinue treatment of a omatose patient at the re3uest of the patient+s family is not an unlawful failure to perform a legal duty and therefore is not punisha&le under the penal ode. Cnder the MPC a person is generally not punisha&le for not &eing a good samaritan.

Men" Rea
)ntent. -uilty or wrongful purpose. $.ilAmeaning mind. 0he parti ular mental state pro.ided for in the definition of an offense. #lso referred to as s ienter.

Criminal Law, Solove

Fall 2013

Mens rea is not the same thing as moti.e 4not the /why17' &ut moti.e an help esta&lish the mens rea. )ntent is different from .olition. )n riminal law' mens rea is often su&:e ti.e 4as opposed to o&:e ti.e /reasona&le person1 standard in torts7. Be pro.e mens rea &y a tions that re.eal state of mind 4rarely &y' say' onfession7. -enerally use ir umstantial e.iden e' as opposed to dire t' to pro.e mens rea. Transferred intent: Bhen a D intends to ause harm to one person &ut a identally auses the same type of harm 4note: look to statute to define type of harm7 to another' the intent is transferred.

G%

F!ur Le+el" !' Men" Rea

)f statute doesn*t spe ify le.el of ulpa&ility' then you must pro.e purposefully' knowingly' or re klessly. Must pro.e the defendant ommitted each material element of the harged offense with the particular state of mind re#uired in the definition of that rime. Look at what the Defendant was thinking 4su&:e ti.e mental state7. -% Pur&!"el) # person a ts purposely with respe t to a material element of an offense when he has the desire to cause the result 4e.g.' wants the .i tim to die7' or is aware of an attendant ir umstan e 4or &elie.es or hopes it e%ists7. $%: )f # poisons a well with the o&:e ti.e of killing G' then # purposely kills G. )f # poisons a well with purpose of killing G &ut knows it will also kill C and D' then # knowingly kills C and D.

/% Kn!win(l) # person a ts %no&in ly with respe t to a material element of an offense when he is aware that his ondu t li%ely &ill cause the result' or is aware of an attendant ir umstan e. $%: )f # poisons a well with purpose of killing G &ut knows it will also kill C and D' then # %no&in ly kills C and D.

1% Re*2le""l) # person a ts rec%lessly with respe t to a material element of an offense when he consciously disre ards a substantial and un'ustifiable ris% that the material element e%ists or will result from his ondu t. Must &e a gross de.iation from the standard of ondu t that a lawAa&iding person would o&ser.e in the a tor+s situation. Different from knowingly &e ause re klessly does not re3uire likelihood. 3% Ne(li(entl) # person a ts ne li ently with respe t to a material element of an offense when he should be a&are of a substantial and un'ustifiable ris% that the material element e(ists or &ill result from his ondu t. 0he failure to per ei.e the risk must &e a I

Criminal Law, Solove

Fall 2013

gross de.iation from the standard of are that a reasona&le person 42ed Flanders7 would o&ser.e in the a tor+s situation.
Men" Rea Purposely "nowingly De'initi!n conscious object to engage in conduct or cause t e result aware o! t e nature o! one#s conduct or o! t e attendant circumstances$ practically certain t at conduct will cause t e result consciously disregards a substantial and unjusti!iable ris& s ould ave been aware o! a substantial and unjusti!iable ris& Su#4e*ti+e !r O#4e*ti+e subjective subjective C!mm!n Law Tran"lati!n speci!ic intent speci!ic intent

%ec&lessly 'egligently

subjective objective

general intent general intent

You can always satisfy a given level of MPC mens rea if you satisfy a level higher than it.

H%

ill'ul Blin5ne""

Bhen knowledge of the e%isten e of a parti ular fa t is an element of an offense' su h knowledge is esta&lished if: a person is a&are of a hi h probability of the fact)s e(istence 4unless he a tually &elie.es that it does not e%ist7' and the person deliberately avoids a 3uiring further knowledge.

Pro&a&ility must &e lose to pra ti al ertainty 4somewhere &etween %no&in ly and rec%lessly7.

I%

Stri*t Lia#ilit)

Fnly violations 4 rimes for whi h there is no potential imprisonment' though there may &e a fine7 an &e stri t lia&ility. 0he a&sen e of a mens rea term is ne.er suffi ient stri t lia&ility. 0he statute must e%pli itly state that it is a stri t lia&ility statute.

6%

Statut!r) Inter&retati!n
Plain language of statute. Legislati.e history. Purposi.e interpretation -% De'ault Re*2le""ne"" Rule Bhen the statute does not spe ify a mens rea suffi ient to esta&lish a material element of an offense' the default mens rea is rec%lessly.

Criminal Law, Solove

Fall 2013

/% Carr)7T$r!u($ Rule 0he mens rea term in a statue applies to all material elements of the offense that are not modified &y a mens rea term unless a ontrary purpose plainly appears. 1% Men" Rea Minimum Rule 0he mens rea stated in the statue is the minimum re3uired for a .iolation of the statute. 0he statute an also &e .iolated when the defendant has a higher mens rea.

K%

Pu#li*

el'are O''en"e"

#&sen e of mens rea in these offenses only means stri t lia&ility. 2ot &ased on ommon law. "egulates dangerous' un ommon things.
Ca"e (alint Freed Liparote Detail" Selling derivatives o! opium Possession o! unregistered grenades +naut ori,ed possession o! !ood stamps Pu#li* el'are O''en"e )es )es 'o Rea"!n *angerous *angerous 'ot dangerous

Mi"ta2e !' Fa*t !r Law

2egating defenses 4i.e.' negate material element7.

L%

I(n!ran*e !r Mi"ta2e !' Fa*t

)gnoran e as to a Mista%e of Fact onstitutes a defense if it negates a material element 4purpose' knowledge' &elief' re klessness' negligen e7 of the rime. D shoots >' mistakenly &elie.ing that he is killing a deer. Mistake negates mens rea for intentional homi ide' &ut not ne essarily for re kless homi ide.

M%

I(n!ran*e !r Mi"ta2e !' Law

)gnoran e as to a Mista%e of *a& onstitutes a defense if it negates a material element 4purpose' knowledge' &elief' re klessness' negligen e7 of the rime 4same as Mista%e of Fact7' i.e.' %no&led e of ille ality is an element of the statute. Courts will often find an impli it knowledge of law element when the a&sen e of su h a re3uirement would make the statute apply to inno ent ondu t. Knowledge of the law is not an element unless the statute e(plicitly re#uires it or when the a&sen e of su h a re3uirement would criminali+e innocent conduct 4impli it knowledge of law re3uirement7. )f knowledge of the law is an element' then ood faith i norance or misunderstandin of the law is a defense. Gut &elief that the law is un onstitutional is not a defense. K

Criminal Law, Solove

Fall 2013

)f knowledge of the law is not an element' then a mistake &ased on an official statement of the law is a defense. Gut relian e on attorney+s ad.i e is not a defense. Fffi ial statement in ludes: o !tatute or other ena tment later determined to &e ina urate. o @udi ial opinion' de ision' or :udgment. o #dministrati.e order. o Fffi ial interpretation &y &ody responsi&le for interpretationHenfor ement.

Mistake of Law is a defense where the statute defining the offense is not known to the D and has not &een published or made pu&li ly available prior to ondu t.

Cau"ati!n
D+s ondu t must &e the ,ut For Cause of and ha.e a Causal Connection to the result.

N% O%

But F!r Cau"ati!n Cau"al C!nne*ti!n

D+s ondu t is a ne essary or su&stantial fa tor in &ringing a&out the harmHresult.

0o hold the D responsi&le for his ondu t' the result must ha.e &een reasona&ly foreseea&le as a onse3uen e of the ondu t. 0he result annot &e /too remote or a idental1 from the result that the D intended or risked. !uperseding e.ent may &reak the hain of ausation 4it+s unforeseea&le7. # eleration 4i.e.' aggra.ating the result7 is suffi ient for ausation. >olitional a ts &reak hain of ausation. $ote- reasona&le foreseea&ility does not mean that the D foresaw' only that it was o&:e ti.ely reasona&ly foreseea&le.

H!mi*i5e
# tus "eus: a t or omission that kills a human &eing. Mens "ea: .aried. Determines type of homi ide. "esult: someone is dead. !ee H!mi*i5e C$art.

P%

Mur5er

Premeditation: the mental pro ess of thinking &eforehand 4i.e.' deli&eration and refle tion7. Differentiates First and !econd De ree Murder. May pro.e &y showing: Planning of the a ti.ity. 5

Criminal Law, Solove

Fall 2013

2ature and manner of the killing. Moti.e. !tatements of D. 0ype of weapon used.

8%

Man"lau($ter
#. )t is ommitted under e%treme emotional distur&an e for whi h there is a reasona&le e%planation or e% use. 4e%posed to stress7 G. 0he reasona&leness of the e%planation or e% use is determined from the perspe ti.e of a person in D+s situation as under the ir umstan es as D &elie.es them to &e. 4defendant lost ontrol7

8omi ide that otherwise would &e murder is onsidered manslaughter if:

Part # is the ob'ective part of the test 4look to whether the e%treme emotional distur&an e was reasona&le or e% usa&le7. Part G is the sub'ective part of the test. @udge de ides whether the hara teristi is rele.ant 4F"$ DL1 &ar7 as a matter of law and then @ury de ides reasona&leness. Physi al hara teristi s may &e rele.ant. Moral hara teristi s' idiosyn rati &eliefs' hereditary traits' intelligen e' and temperament are irrele.ant 4$ote: /she &roke up with me1 is not a reasona&le e% use for homi ide' People v Cassassa7. 2ote that /situation1 is a &road' am&iguous term.

R% S%

Ne(li(ent H!mi*i5e Re*2le"" Mur5er

MPC has no rime e%pli itly la&eled Rec%less Murder. 8owe.er' e.en though homi ide usually onstitutes manslaughter when it is ommitted re klessly' the homi ide ounts as murder when it is ommitted re klessly under circumstances manifestin e(treme indifference to the value of human life.

T%

Fel!n) Mur5er Rule

MPC+s .ersion is mu h more limited than Common Law+s in that it limits the rule to spe ified felonies. #lso' MPC presumes re klessness and indifferen e' whi h means that D an re&ut the presumption.

De'en"e"
M9.LD 1L

Criminal Law, Solove

Fall 2013

"ffirmative Defense: &urden is on D to raise and esta&lish the defense 4e.g.' ne essity' selfA defense7. .ustification: D did the right thing gi.en the ir umstan es. /(cuse: D should not &e &lamed e.en if his &eha.ior is frowned upon.

$e atin Defense: prose ution fails to pro.e all an elements of the rime &eyond reasona&le dou&t. !ee De'en"e C$art.

U%

Sel'7De'en"e

.ustification defense. !i% re3uirements. 2ote: these also apply to defense of a 9rd person if D &elie.es that his inter.ention is ne essary for that person+s prote tion 4for retreat' no duty for D to retreat unless the 9rd person has a duty to retreat7. -% T$reat D must per ei.e a threat. /% Imme5ia*) D must &elie.e that the use of for e is immediately necessary. 4)mminen e is not re3uired. Possi&le to kill someone /in ad.an e.17 1% Pr!&!rti!nalit) D must use the appropriate le.el of for e in response. May use deadly force only if the threat in.ol.es deadly force 4in ludes kidnapping and for ed se%ual inter ourse7. Deadly force: for e that D uses with the purpose to auseNor that he knows to reate a su&stantial risk of ausingNdeath or serious &odily in:ury. D may not use for e to resist arrest if he knows the arrestor is a pea e offi er. -enerally' D may not use for e to resist for e used &y the o upier of property where o upier is doing so under laim of right to prote t the property.

3% A((re""!r D annot &e the initial a ressor. $% eption: if D is the initial aggressor with non0deadly for e and is met with deadly for e in return' then there is no initialA aggressor &ar to a selfAdefense laim. 9% Retreat D has no duty to retreat if he uses non0deadly force.

11

Criminal Law, Solove

Fall 2013

D may not use deadly force unless he annot retreat to a pla e of omplete safety or 4if &eing ro&&ed7 he annot surrender possession of property in safety. GC0: D is not o&liged to retreat from his dwelling 4Castle /(ception7. D is not o&liged to retreat if he is atta ked at his workpla e' unless the atta ker is a oAworker 4Wor%place /(ception7.

:% Per*e&ti!n !' t$e Nee5 t! U"e De'en"i+e F!r*e D must sincerely believe in the need to use defensi.e for e 4sub'ective test7. 8owe.er' if the &elief is negligent or re kless 4unreasona&le7' then D an &e on.i ted of rimes with negligent or re kless mens rea' respe ti.ely. 0his also applies to 9rd party harm' if you are negligent or re kless you an &e on.i ted of rimes that re3uire this mens rea with regards to the 9rd party. Gattered woman*s syndrome A long term a&use might reate reasona&le &elief that a&use would kill you and you might kill your a&user.

0%

Ne*e""it)

.ustification defense. D was :ustified in &reaking the law &e ause it was the lesser e.il of the hoi es a.aila&le. 8owe.er' if D reates the ne essity himself in negligen e or re klessness' then D an &e on.i ted of rimes with negligent or re kless mens rea' respe ti.ely. #.aila&le as a defense to murder. -% C$!i*e !' Le""er E+il Must satisfy o&:e ti.e and su&:e ti.e tests: 0he harm sought to &e a.oided &y D+s ondu t must &e greater than that sought to &e pre.ented &y the law defining the offense harged 4ob'ective test7. D must a tually &elie.e that his ondu t is ne essary to a.oid an e.il 4sub'ective test7. /% N! A5e;uate Alternati+e 1% C$!i*e n!t Re4e*te5 #) Statute For e%ample' where D steals a ar to stop a nu lear &om&' D has no ne essity defense if there+s a statute spe ifi ally outlawing theft for the purposes of a.erting atastrophe. 2e essity an &e used as a defense to murder under MPC. 2o prohi&ition in the MPC for selfA reated ne essity' although if D was re kless or negligent in reating the situation they would &e responsi&le for rimes wH this mens rea.

Dure""

/(cuse defense. Different from ne essity in that there+s no hoi e &etween lesser of e.ils. 12

Criminal Law, Solove

Fall 2013

D is oer ed &y the use or threat of unla&ful force against his person or the person of another 4property doesn+t ount7 that a person of reasonable firmness in his situation 4mostly o&:e ti.e test' though fa tors like D+s si=e' strength' age are onsidered7 would ha.e &een unable to resist. 0hreat need not &e imminent and an &e against anyone. #.aila&le for murder. 8owe.er' if D rec%lessly puts himself in situation in whi h he will su&:e ted to duress' the duress defense is completely unavailable. )f D ne li ently puts himself in situation in whi h he will su&:e ted to duress' the duress defense is una.aila&le for rimes with the mens rea of negligen e.

<%

Int!.i*ati!n

/(cuse defense. # distur&an e of mental or physi al apa ities resulting from the introdu tion of su&stan es into the &ody. 2ot limited to drugsHal ohol. Involuntary Into(ication: # defense if it negates the mens rea of a rime or renders the indi.idual temporarily insane 4see Insanity7. )n ludes any of the following: Coer ed' i.e.' for ed. Pathologi al' i.e.' an une%pe ted rea tion to a su&stan e' like getting drunk off OooA8oo. Cne%pe ted' e.g.' someone slips you a mi key. 1oluntary Into(ication: # defense if it negates an element of the offense' &ut not for rimes with a mens rea of re klessness or negligen e.

Y%

In"anit)

/(cuse defense. # defense if at the time of the ondu t' D la ked substantial capacity to appreciate the &ron fulness of his ondu t or to conform his ondu t to legal re3uirements 4impulse7. -oldstein impulse on.ersation for points' &ut not MPC law.s D must &e ompetent to stand trial 4i.e.' apa&le of understanding the nature and onse3uen es of the pro eedings against him7 in order to raise insanity defense. Ftherwise they will &e i.illy ommitted' whi h an &e worse as there is no timeline.

Attem&t
# rime that punishes those who try to ommit a rime &ut fail. #ttempt is punished at the same grade and degree as the offense attempted 4$% eption: attempts to ommit 1st degree felonies are punished as 1st degree felonies7.

=%

Men" Rea

Oou need the spe ifi intent to ommit the rime' no matter the mens rea re3uirement of the rime &eing attempted.
Element Men" Rea !' Attem&t

19

Criminal Law, Solove Speci!ic conduct

Fall 2013 Purposely Purposely or "nowingly Purposely 1ens rea re2uired by statute !or t e attendant circumstances

%esult -i.e. cause deat / Completed Attempt %esult Incomplete Attempt 0ttendant Circumstances

2ote: only homi ides with mens rea of purposely of knowingly an &e attempted. !ee H!mi*i5e C$art.

AA% A*tu" Reu"

D must engage in ondu t onstituting a substantial step toward the ommission of the rime that is stron ly corroborative of D+s riminal purpose. !ome per se su&stantial steps: Lying in wait. $nti ing the > to go to the s ene of the rime. "e onnoitering the s ene of the rime. Cnlawful entry. Possession of materials for rime. !oli iting an agent to engage in part of the rime. 2ote that if D sta&s a .oodoo doll with the &elief that doing so will kill >' then &oth mens rea and a tus reus are satisfied' meaning D an &e harged with attempted murder. Fnly possi&le defense is Inherent Impossibility 4see &elow7.

BB% De'en"e"
-% Pure Le(al Im&!""i#ilit) 0he attempt was to ommit an a tion that is not illegal. For e%ample' attempting to drink offee on !unday is not a rime e.en if D thinks that doing so is illegal. Gut if D tries to &uy stolen goods and &elie.es they are stolen when in fa t they are not' then she an still &e harged with attempt to pur hase stolen goods. /% In$erent Im&!""i#ilit) 4the >oodoo doll e%ample7 0he ondu t is so inherently unlikely to result or ulminate in the ommission of a rime that neither su h ondu t nor the a tor presents a pu&li danger that warrants punishing the a tor to the same degree as a regular attempt. -i.es the ourt dis retion to mitigate or dismiss the harges. 1% Renun*iati!n D ompletely and .oluntary renoun es his riminal purpose. Must refle t a true hange of heart. )f this is due to higher han e of &eing aught not .alid.

1D

Criminal Law, Solove

Fall 2013

C!n"&ira*)
#n agreement &y 2 or more people to ommit a rime. Conspira y ontinues from the time when it is formed until the time when it is ommitted 4though e%tends through to efforts to e.ade dete tion andHor o.er up the rime7. 4$ote: an agreement does not re3uire an e%pli it oral or written agreement' only a ommon understanding.7 0he more serious the rime' the more serious the punishment for onspira y. Conspira y mer es with the ompleted rime unless it has o&:e ti.es that e%tend &eyond the ompleted rime. 2earsay Rule /(ception: # oA onspirator+s statements are an e% eption to the rule against hearsay if offered against other oA onspirators.

CC% Pin2ert!n >*!mm!n law?

# oA onspirator may &e lia&le for an a t ommitted &y another oA onspirator if all of the following re3uirements are met: 0he a t of the oA onspirator is in furtherance of the onspira y 4not in furtheran e of an independent o&:e ti.e' e.g.' a personal .endetta7 . 0he a t of the oA onspirator is &ithin the scope of the onspira y. 0he a t of the oA onspirator is reasonably foreseeable as a onse3uen e of the agreement.

DD% Men" Rea

D must ha.e the purpose of promoting or fa ilitating the ommission of the offense. # person with knowledge of illegal use has a spe ifi intent to further illegal use when: 417the furnisher of goods has a 3uired a *stake in the .enture* 427 no legitimate use for the goods or ser.i es 497 .olume of &usiness with the &uyer is *grossly disproportionate* to a high proportion of the seller*s total &usiness
Element
Conduct %esult 0ttendant Circumstances

Men" Rea !' C!n"&ira*)

Purposely Purposely or "nowingly Purposely, "nowingly, or t e mens rea o! t e crime conspired to commit -unresolved/

EE% A*tu" Reu"

0he a tus reus of a onspira y is the making of an a reement to engage in or aid in ommission of a rime. Cnless the onspira y is to ommit a 1st or 2nd degree felony' then onspira y also re3uires an o.ert a t 4i.e.' any act that demonstrates the conspiracy is under&ay7. Fa tors a ourt will onsider in pro.ing an agreement: 1(

Criminal Law, Solove

Fall 2013

D+s asso iation with alleged onspirators. D+s knowledge of the ommission of the rime. D+s presen e at the s ene of the rime. D+s parti ipation in the o&:e t of the onspira y.

FF%

S*!&e !' t$e A(reement

)t+s all relati.e. 0he s ope of the onspira y is determined from the perspective of ea h D &ased on what the D intended 4ea h D+s state of mind7. Possi&le for a onspira y to a &ig we& or many smaller onspira ies depending on the D. Conspira y may &e bilateral or unilateral 4e.g.' as long as # agrees with G' there is a onspira y e.en if G does not a tually agree with #7. 8u& and spoke onspira ies are treated as separate onspira ies. Chain onspira ies are treated as a single onspira y. 0his affe ts proof of o.ert a ts' introdu tion of oA onspirator*s statements' and lia&ility under the Pinkerton "ule.

GG% De'en"e"
-% it$5rawal@A#an5!nment D a&andons and ad.ises those with whom he onspired of his a&andonment or he informs law enfor ement of the onspira y and his parti ipation. /% Renun*iati!n D thwarts the su ess of the onspira y under ir umstan es manifesting a omplete and omplete and .oluntary renun iation of his riminal purpose.

C!m&li*it)
# D who aids or en ourages another in the ommission of a rime is ulpa&le as an a ompli e. # ompli es are held lia&le for the entire rime. 2ot suffi ient to &e merely present. "e3uires proof of 417 the ommission of the rime and 427 D+s mens rea and a tus reus as an a ompli e to said rime' &ut does not re3uire that the person who ommitted the rime is harged' prose uted' or on.i ted.

HH% Men" Rea

Element
Conduct %esult 0ttendant Circumstances

Men" Rea !' C!m&li*it)

Purposely3 0ccomplice must ave t e purpose t at t e principal will engage in t e conduct elements o! t e crime. 1ens rea re2uired by t e o!!ense 1ens rea re2uired by t e statute4unresolved

II%

A*tu" Reu"

D aids' agrees to aid' attempts to aid' or soli its the prin ipal' or D+s omission aids or en ourages the prin ipal when D has a legal duty to a t 4if the latter' D must ha.e the 1I

Criminal Law, Solove

Fall 2013

purpose of promoting or fa ilitating the offense7. Fmission must relate to a legal duty' like a se urity guard looking the other way Cnlike Conspiracy' no agreement is ne essary. 8elping someone after a rime as a dis onne ted party is a different rime' a essory after the fa t.

66%

De'en"e"
-% it$5rawal D terminates ompli ity prior to ommission of the offense and: Bholly depri.es his aid of effe ti.eness' or )nforms the authorities' or Makes a proper effort to pre.ent ommission of the offense.

1J

Criminal Law, Solove Fall 2011

H!mi*i5e C$art
T)&e !' H!mi*i5e
First *egree 1urder Second *egree 1urder 1PC 1urder 1anslaug ter

S!ur*e
Common Law Common Law 1PC, 8 210.2-1/-a/ 1PC, 8 210.3

De"*ri&ti!n
5ntentional &illing wit premeditation -i.e., wit deliberation 6 re!lection/. 5ntentional &illing wit without premeditation -i.e., spontaneous 6 re!le7ive/. Criminal omicide constitutes murder w en it is committed purposely or knowingly. Premeditation is irrelevant. 9wo possibilities3 1.Criminal omicide constitutes manslaug ter w en it is committed recklessly -but see Reckless Murder/ : involuntary 2.;omicide t at ot erwise would be murder is committed under extreme emotional distur ance !or w ic t ere is a reasona le explanation or excuse !rom t e perspective o! a person in !"s situation as under the circumstances as ! elieves them to e -subjective:objective standard/ Criminal omicide constitutes negligent omicide w en it is committed negligently. ;omicide constitutes murder w en it is committed rec&lessly under circumstances manifesting extreme indifference to the value of human life . Presumes e7treme indi!!erence to t e value o! uman li!e - Reckless Murder# i! * is engaged or is an accomplice in t e commission o!, or an attempt to commit, or !lig t a!ter committing or attempting to commit3 %obbery. %ape. 0rson. (urglary. "idnapping. Felonious escape.

Attem&t &!""i#leA
)es )es )es

1. 'o 2. )es

'egligent ;omicide %ec&less 1urder Felony 1urder

1PC, 8 210.< 1PC, 8 210.2-1/-b/ 1PC, 8 210.2-1/-b/

'o 'o 'o

Felony 1urder

Common law -most states !ollow merger doctrine/

1ust be in erently dangerous !elony -i.e. robbery, not !raud : !acts o! t e case is t e minority approac to judge t is, majority is abstract nature o! t e !elony/, independent -merger i! !elony was done wit intent to cause t e injury t at caused deat : assault is o!ten merged/, and in !urt erance o! t e !elony -agency is majority approac on t is and says directly attributable to act o! de!endant or an accomplice, pro7imate cause approac applies !el

'o

1K

Criminal Law, Solove Fall 2011 murder to any deat pro7imately resulting !rom t e !elony/

15

Criminal Law, Solove Fall 2011

De'en"e" C$art
De'en"e
Sel' De'en"eB N!n7Dea5l) F!r*e

De'initi!n
*e!ense o! sel! or a 3rd person.

Element" !' De'en"e

1. * must perceive a t reat. 2. * must believe use o! !orce is immediately necessary. 3. * may use non:deadly !orce in response to t reat o! non:deadly or deadly !orce. <. * cannot be t e initial aggressor. =. 'o duty to retreat. >. * must sincerely believe in t e need to use de!ensive !orce. 1. * must perceive a t reat. 2. * must believe use o! !orce is immediately necessary. 3. 1ay use deadly !orce only in response to deadly !orce -incl. &idnapping, rape/. <. * cannot be t e initial aggressor unless * initiated wit non: deadly !orce and was met wit deadly !orce in return. =. * may not use deadly !orce unless e cannot retreat to a place o! complete sa!ety -but see Castle 6 ?or&place e7ceptions/. >. * must sincerely believe in t e need to use de!ensive !orce. 1. @bjectively lesser evil. 2. Subjectively lesser evil. 3. 'o ade2uate alternative. <. C oice not rejected by statute. 1. +se or t reat o! unlaw!ul !orce against a person. 2. 0 person o! reasonable !irmness in *As situation would ave been unable to resist. 1. 'egates t e mens rea o! a crime, or 2. %enders t e individual temporarily insane.

Re*2le""@Ne(li(ent E.*e&ti!nA
)es. 5! de!endant acted rec&lessly or negligently t ey can be guilty o! o!!enses t at re2uire rec&less or negligent mens rea. )es.

Sel' De'en"eB Dea5l) F!r*e

*e!ense o! sel! or a 3rd person wit !orce t at creates a substantial ris& o! causing deat or serious bodily injury.

Ne*e""it)

* was justi!ied in brea&ing t e law because it was t e lesser evil o! t e c oices available.

)es.

Dure""

* was coerced by t reat or use o! !orce.

)es.

In+!luntar) Int!.i*ati!n

0n une7pected disturbance o! mental or p ysical capacities resulting !rom t e introduction o! substances into t e body, or e7pected disturbance !rom involuntary introduction. 0 disturbance o! mental or p ysical capacities resulting !rom t e introduction o! substances into t e body. * as Bmental disease or de!ect.C

'o.

0!luntar) Int!.i*ati!n In"anit)

1ust negate an element o! t e o!!ense.

)es.

1. * lac&s substantial capacity to appreciate t e wrong!ulness o! is conduct at t e time o! t e conduct. 2. * lac&s substantial capacity to con!orm is conduct to legal re2uirements.

'o.

2L

Criminal Law, Solove Fall 2011

Sele*te5 Ca"e"
I""ue
%etroactive criminali,ation, %ule o! lenity. Eagueness. Eagueness. Eoluntary act. Eoluntary act. Eoluntary act. @missions. People v !ecina. People v &eardsley. $itty (enovese @missions &ar er v %uperior Ct. @mission. Massachusetts v Cali. @mission -ris& o! arm/. 9rans!erred 5ntent. %ec&lessly4Purposely 1ens %ea. Purposely 1ens %ea. 1ens %ea Statutory 5nterpretation. 1ista&e o! Law. %tanley v %tate. 1ista&e o! Law. People v Marrero. 1ista&e o! Law. People v Conley. '% v &arton. %pit all case. People v Ryan. People v )eiss. S rooms case. 'o evidence lin&ing psilocybin weig t to mus room weig t, &nowingly applies across t e statute and is t ere!ore applicable to weig t. * t in&s eAs elping police ma&e an arrest, but eAs really aiding a &idnapping. Intitled to proo! regarding t eir good !ait intent. * commits bigamy w en e marries 2nd wi!e, t in&ing 1st marriage void based on poor advice o! attorney. Prison guard t in&s statute allowing peace o!!icers to carry unlicensed !irearms applies to im. )ou donAt ave to prove t at t e de!endant understood t e law, usually. ? at are t e e7ceptionsD i! t e statute e7plicitly says you must &now t e law or you are relying on an o!!icial statement !rom an appropriate source.

Ca"e
$eller v %uperior Ct. In Re &ank. Chicago v Morales. Martin v %tate. %tate v 'tter. 1urder o! !etusD Peeping tom. Fang member loitering.

De"*ri&ti!n

*run& in public a!ter being ta&en into public by police o!!icer. * was (lac&:out drun& w en stabbed E -jury 2uestion/ as to voluntaryness : voluntary into7ication is not a complete de!ense. *riving a car w en driver &nows e could ave a sei,ure. * le!t E a!ter s e passed out !rom drug overdose. 'ot duty to act. ?omen is murdered outside er apartment building in '). S e is being stabbed to deat !or 20 minutes and is screaming !or elp. 3G people are nearby but no one elps or even calls t e police. 'o liability because o! t e good Samaritan rule. P ysician pulls plug on veg patient, lets er die. 0 p ysicianAs !ailure to continue treatment o! a comatose patient at t e re2uest o! t e patientAs !amily is not an unlaw!ul !ailure to per!orm a legal duty and t ere!ore is not punis able under t e penal code. * accidentally set a !ire but purpose!ully re!rained !rom e7tinguis ing to collect insurance H. * swung a bottle at 0, but it ( in t e !ace. Same type o! arm contemplated Forest ranger burns letter !rom e7: usband during droug t. %esults in a big ole !ire.

21

Criminal Law, Solove Fall 2011

I""ue
1ista&e o! Law, 5mplied "nowledge o! Law.

Ca"e
Cheek v '%.

De"*ri&ti!n
* stops paying ta7es because e claims e believed in good !ait t at wages are not income and because ta7es are unconstitutional. 0 good !ait misunderstanding o! t e law or a good !ait belie! t at one is not violating t e law does not ave to be reasonable to negate t e element o! will!ulness *id *As purpose to circumvent ban&As reporting obligation su!!ice to sustain conviction !or will!ully violating restructuring provisionD C ee& and %at,la! allow t e court to use interpretive rules to imply &nowledge. Courts typically !ind an implicit &nowledge element w en t e absence o! suc a re2uirement would ma&e t e statute to apply to innocent conduct *#s girl!riend beats *#s c ild, t en * beats is c ild, c ild#s abdomen swells, c ild dies. Contribution to or aggravation o! deat wit out acceleration o! deat is insu!!icient to establis t e causation o! deat re2uired !or a conviction o! manslaug ter. Iven w ere a de!endantAs conduct is a cause:in:!act o! a pro ibited result, courts t roug out t e country ave !or good reason declined to impose criminal liability3 -1/ w ere t e pro ibited result o! t e de!endantAs conduct is beyond t e scope o! any !air assessment o! t e danger created by t e de!endantAs conduct, or -2/ w ere it would ot erwise be unjust, based on !airness and policy considerations, to old t e de!endant criminally responsible !or t e pro ibited result. * got !riend drun&, robbed im. Friend wandered into t e middle o! t e road. 0not er guy was speeding, it t e man. * c arged wit omicide. 9 e Court ruled t at t e jury was not made aware o! t e proper jury instruction. (ecause t ere was no instruction given wit respect to intervening or supervening !orces * stabs cowor&er in nec&, &illing im, a!ter cowor&er pops is nose w4 a towel in jest. 9 ere must be some period between t e !ormation o! t e intent to &ill and t e actual &illing w ic indicates t e &illing is by prior design. Ividence o! continued c ild abuse supports t at * intended to !urt er abuse is son but not to &ill im. 9 ere was no evidence t at t e *e!endant was doing any more t an continuing is pattern o! abuse. 9 ere!ore, t e evidence was insu!!icient to prove t at t e *e!endant &illed wit premeditation and deliberation. E brea&s up wit *. * stal&s er t en stabs 6 &ills er. 9 e reasonableness o! e7treme emotional disturbance must be determined !rom t e point o! view o! a reasonable person in t e de!endantAs situation under t e circumstances as t e de!endant believed t em to be. 0llows but does not re2uire t e !act !inder t e opportunity to !ind mitigation only upon a !inding o! e7treme emotional disturbance. * t rows a beer glass against a lig ted oil lamp t at E was carrying. E goes up in !lames.

People v Rat*laf. 1ista&e o! Law, 5mplied "nowledge o! Law. +xendine v %tate. Causal Connection, 0cceleration. ,ela*-ue* v. %tate

Causal Connection, discretion $i Causal Connection. %tate v (uthrie. Premeditation. Midgett v %tate. Premeditation. People v Cassassa. I7treme emotional disturbance. Mayes v People. %ec&less 1urder. e v .enderson.

22

Criminal Law, Solove Fall 2011

I""ue
%ec&less 1urder. Sel!:*e!ense. 0ttempt.

Ca"e
/ayson )illiams case. People v (oet*. %tate v Reeves.

De"*ri&ti!n
(as&etball star &ills E w ile drun&enly s owing o!! s otgun. Convicted o! rec&less manslaug ter ?as *As belie! in t e need to use deadly !orce objectively reasonable -common law/, subjectively reasonable -1PC/D *s attempt to poison t eir teac er is 2nd degree attempted murder. 9 ey tell ot er students o! t eir plans and leave poison by er co!!ee cup but donAt actually put it in er co!!ee. 0ttempt re2uires t at t e de!endant ta&e a substantial step toward t e commission o! t e crime. * -w o is ;5EJ/ bites E, t in&ing it will gives im 05*S. 5mpossibility not a de!ense to attempted murder. * gives is on is plan to rob a ban& by drilling into t e vault !rom above. 9 e relevant !actor to determine w et er an attempt as been made is w et er t e acts o! *e!endant ave reac ed suc a stage o! advancement t at t ey can be classi!ied as an attempt. @nce t at attempt is !ound, t ere can be no e7culpatory abandonment, it does not matter w et er t e abandonment was voluntary or involuntary * ires 0 to commit arson$ 0 ires ( to elp$ t en 0 &ills (. Ct rejects *As liability !or (As murder because not reasonably !oreseeable as part o! arson conspiracy. (aby E injured w en *s leave buc&et containing met ingredients in ouse. 'eit er * is an accomplice to assault o! a c ild because neit er ad purpose o! !acilitating t e assault -i.e., leaving t e buc&et out/. 5t is not re2uired t at t ey injure baby, t ey just ave to ave t e purpose to assist t e ot er wit t e mens rea in t e statute. )ou *an ave t e purpose to promote a negligent act.

5mpossibility. %enunciation.

%tate v %mith. People v %taples.

Conspiracy. Complicity.

0verritt v %tate. %tate v )ood.

29