Mens rea

o Guilty mind Premeditated Intent & planning Intentional/Purposely Intended the purpose of the act Knowing Aware of consequences of the act (substantial certainty) Reckless aware of substantial and unjustifiable risk, but acted anyway Negligence reasonable person would have been aware that substantial and unjustifiable risk Strict Liability (no mens rea) o Codes TPC and MPC the same. TPC 6.03 MPC 2.02 A person does not commit an offense unless he intentionally, knowingly, recklessly, or with criminal negligence engages in conduct as the definition of the offense requires.

Actus Reus
o Criminal act Past Voluntary (act must be voluntary) Wrongful or potentially harmful Conduct Specified In advance By statute o Codes TPC and MPC the same. TPC 6.01 MPC 2.01 A person is not guilty of an offense unless his liability is based on conduct that includes a voluntary act o Omission Failure to act can itself be a crime A statute imposes a duty to care One stands in certain status relationship to another One has assumed a contractual duty to care for another One has voluntarily assumes care of another and so secluded the helpless person as to prevent others from rendering aid o Codes TPC and MPC the same. TPC 6.01(c) MPC 2.01(3) A person who omits to perform an act does not commit an offense unless a lawprovides that the omission is an offense or otherwise provides that he has a duty to perform the act.

o Possession The act can be possession Actual physical possession, as in holding something in the hand. Constructive possession o No actual possession, but control and dominion over object o Power and intention to exercise control over an object not in ones actual possession Joint possession o One object possessed by multiple people at the same time Control is key concept o Codes TPC and MPC the same. TPC 6.01(b) MPC 2.01(4) Possession is a voluntary act if the possessor knowingly obtains or receives the thing possessed or is aware of his control of the thing for a sufficient time to permit him to terminate his control

Homicide
o Murder TPC and MPC same A person commits criminal homicide if he intentionally, knowingly, recklessly, or with criminal negligence causes the death of an individual TPC 19.01 MPC 210.1 o Murder 1 Intentional Premeditated Or in the commission of a felony specified by statute (robbery, rape, arson, burglary, etc.) o Codes TPC and MPC the same TPC 19.02 (b) (b) A person commits an offense if he: (1) Intentionally or knowingly causes the death of an individual; (2) Intends to cause serious bodily injury and commits an act clearly dangerous to human life that causes the death of an individual; or (3) Commits or attempts to commit a felony, other than manslaughter, and in the course of and in furtherance of the commission or attempt, or in immediate flight from the commission or attempt, he commits or attempts to commit an act

clearly dangerous to human life that causes the death of an individual. MPC 210.2

o Murder 2 Non-mitigated murder Not premeditated o Codes Same as Murder 1 o Manslaughter Murder that is mitigated by circumstances Provoked murder Victim or someone acting with victim must be source of provocation Is the cause adequate jury question o Codes TPC and MPC same TPC reckless element usually for involuntary manslaughter TPC 19.04 (a) A person commits an offense if he recklessly causes the death of an individual. MPC 210.3 o Involuntary Manslaughter Recklessly causes the death of another person Reckless is aware ofa substantial and unjustifiable risk; and disregard of that risk is a gross deviation from the standard of an ordinary person o Codes Same as Voluntary Manslaughter o Negligent Homicide Negligently causes the death of another person Negligent ought to be aware of risk not thinking about it, forgetful, failing to take precautions but werent thinking clearly o Codes TPC and MPC the same TPC 19.05 MPC 210.4 (a) A person commits an offense if he causes the death of an individual by criminal negligence. o Extreme Indifference Intent to kill is absent, but actors utter depravity warrants punishment over and above what is available for manslaughter Jury can factor in gross disregard or callous indifference in sentencing. No extreme indifference murder in Texas, but lots of overlap between laws

Texas doesnt have to sort out whether something is extreme indifference or not Examples Throwing rocks off a bridge Opening the lion cage at the public zoo Courts dont want extreme indifference to be used as a catch-all for murder when you cant prove intent, so they limit it MPC 210.2(1)(b)

o Intoxicated Manslaughter strict liability TPC 49.08 operate a vehicle while intoxicated; and by reason of that intoxication causes death o Felony Murder If a death occurs during the course of a felony, the prosecution does not have to prove intent to kill If reached place of temporary safety, felony is over no more FM Transfers intent to commit felony to the murder as well Others involved can be charged with murder as well Requires a logical nexus and a continuous transaction Must be a relationship between the killing and the felony, and the felony must be ongoing at the time Deaths so far outside the realm of possibility dont count as felony murder Texas Death must be in furtherance of the felony AND an act clearly dangerous to human life (something beyond the felony). Doesnt mean helping the felony Means logically connected to the felony o Codes TPC and MPC different Texas has additional requirements MPC 210.1(b) See Murder 1 TPC 19.02(2)(b)(3) o Intent Dont forget about transferred intent o Codes TPC 6.04(b) A person is nevertheless criminally responsible for causing a result if the only difference between what actually occurred and what he desired, contemplated, or risked is that: (1) a different offense was committed; or

(2) a different person or property was injured, harmed, or otherwise affected

Causation
o But for absent defendants conduct, result would not have occurred If the consequences would not have naturally occurred but for the persons act, or If the consequences of the act could have been reasonably foreseen o Proximate Cause some other causes that contributes to the result for which defendant is not to blame A cause which played a substantial part in bringing about X Key intuition was sequence of events foreseeable, natural, probable, or was it unexpected and bizarre o Responsive versus Coincidental Intervening cause in response to Ds act Negligent medical care, police / fire fighter Did the intervening case arise because of Ds action? Probably more responsible Intervening cause is coincidental Did you hit someone and knock them down and then a horse out of fucking nowhere came over and stomped them to death? Probably less responsible o Codes TPC and MPC the same TPC 6.04(a) A person is criminally responsible if the result would not have occurred but for his conduct, operating either alone or concurrently with another cause, unless the concurrent cause was clearly sufficient to produce the result and the conduct of the actor clearly insufficient MPC 2.03

Attempt
o Attempted X = Intent to commit X + Acts beyond mere preparation o Must have an act that tries but fails to commit crime o Mere preparation is not enough - there must be an overt act to establish attempt o Mens rea - act with intent to commit another offense o Actus reus - beyond mere preparation o Legal impossibility versus factual impossibility Legal - the completed act would not be criminal (good defense)

Factual - the crime is impossible of completion because of physical or factual condition unknown to the defendant (not a defense) o Where crime could not be completed, will we still punish for attempt? No Pure Legal Impossibility ? Hybrid Legal/Factual Impossibility Yes Factual Impossibility o Codes TPC and MPC different Texas specific intent / MPC same intent TPC 15.01 a) A person commits an offense if, with specific intent to commit an offense, he does an act amounting to more than mere preparation that tends but fails to effect the commission of the offense intended. (d) An offense under this section is one category lower than the offense attempted MPC 5.01

Solicitation
o Intent that a capital felony or felony of the first degree be committed o Texas requires a felony for solicitation, MPC does not o TPC 15.03 A person commits an offense if, with intent that a capital felony or felony of the first degree be committed, he requests, commands, or attempts to induce another to engage in specific conduct that, under the circumstances surrounding his conduct as the actor believes them to be, would constitute the felony or make the other a party to its commission. (b) A person may not be convicted under this section on the uncorroborated testimony of the person allegedly solicited and unless the solicitation is made under circumstances strongly corroborative of both the solicitation itself and the actor's intent that the other person act on the solicitation. (c) It is no defense to prosecution under this section that: (1) the person solicited is not criminally responsible for the felony solicited; (2) the person solicited has been acquitted, has not been prosecuted or convicted, has been convicted of a different offense or of a different type or class of offense, or is immune from prosecution; (3) the actor belongs to a class of persons that by definition of the felony solicited is legally incapable of committing the offense in an individual capacity; or (4) the felony solicited was actually committed. o MPC 5.02

(1) DEF of Solicitation: In promoting or facilitating a crime one commands/encourages/requests another person to engage in specific conduct which would constitute such crime/attempt to commit such crime or would establish his complicity in its commission/attempted commission (2) Uncommunicated Solicitation: Immaterial under Subsection (1) that actor fails to communicate with the person he solicits to commit a crime if his conduct was designed to effect such communication. (3) Renunciation of Criminal Purpose: It is affirmative defense that actor, after soliciting another person to commit a crime, persuaded him not to do so or otherwise prevented the commission of the crime, under circumstances manifesting a complete and voluntary renunciation of his criminal purpose.

Conspiracy
o Accomplice liability doctrine o Inchoate crime o Conspirators must intend that object crime occur Knowledge of crime alone not sufficient Aid not necessary o It is a crime in and of itself o Requires both: An agreement between one or more persons to engage in conduct that would constitute a felony Usually an agreement between one party and cop will not suffice since a cop is not actually part of the conspiracy o Unless hes a dirty bastard One of the conspirators performs an overt act in pursuance of the felony o Pinkerton rule Each conspirator liable for reasonably foreseeable acts of coconspirators committed in furtherance of conspiracy. TPC 7.02 If, in the attempt to carry out a conspiracy to commit one felony, another felony is committed by one of the conspirators, all conspirators are guilty of the felony actually committed, though having no intent to commit it, if the offense was committed in furtherance of the unlawful purpose and was one that should have been anticipated as a result of the carrying out of the conspiracy. o A conspiracy ends when: There is an agreement between the parties to end it The target crime of the conspiracy is complete If only one individual abandons the conspiracy, only that person is released from liability for crimes committed after that point

 Still liable for crimes committed before that point o Codes TPC and MPC largely the same must prove conspirators intent that object crime occur TPC 15.02 A person commits criminal conspiracy if, with intent that a felony be committed: (1) he agrees with one or more persons that they or one or more of them engage in conduct that would constitute the offense; and (2) he or one or more of them performs an overt act in pursuance of the agreement. o (b) An agreement constituting a conspiracy may be inferred from acts of the parties. (c) It is no defense to prosecution for criminal conspiracy that: o (1) one or more of the coconspirators is not criminally responsible for the object offense; o (2) one or more of the coconspirators has been acquitted, so long as two or more coconspirators have not been acquitted; o (3) one or more of the coconspirators has not been prosecuted or convicted, has been convicted of a different offense, or is immune from prosecution; o (4) the actor belongs to a class of persons that by definition of the object offense is legally incapable of committing the object offense in an individual capacity; or o (5) the object offense was actually committed. MPC 5.03 o Conspiracy liability TPC 7.02 (a) A person is criminally responsible for an offense committed by the conduct of another if: o (1) acting with the kind of culpability required for the offense, he causes or aids an innocent or nonresponsible person to engage in conduct prohibited by the definition of the offense; o (2) acting with intent to promote or assist the commission of the offense, he solicits, encourages, directs, aids, or attempts to aid the other person to commit the offense; or o (3) having a legal duty to prevent commission of the offense and acting with intent to promote or assist its commission, he fails to make a reasonable effort to prevent commission of the offense.

o (b) If, in the attempt to carry out a conspiracy to commit one felony, another felony is committed by one of the conspirators, all conspirators are guilty of the felony actually committed, though having no intent to commit it, if the offense was committed in furtherance of the unlawful purpose and was one that should have been anticipated as a result of the carrying out of the conspiracy.

Complicity
o Doctrine of accomplice liability o Not a crime - a way of committing a crime P commits offense A acting with the intent to promote the crime Is guilty along with P o Mens rea - intends to promote or assist the crime Must show actual intend to promote or assist o Mere knowledge of the crime is not enough o A knows P's criminal purpose + intends to aid = accomplice! o Dont forget Even if direct perpetrator is not guilty somehow Accomplice can still be guilty o Codes No MPC TPC 7.02 see conspiracy liability

Defenses
Mistake of fact o Mistake of fact can be a defense mistake of law cannot o A mistake is a defense if it negates the requisite mental state Texas says the mistake must be reasonable belief o Mistake of law versus mistake of fact Fact I thought she was over 18 Law I didnt know she had to be over 18 o TPC 8.02 (a) It is a defense to prosecution that the actor through mistake formed a reasonable belief about a matter of fact if his mistaken belief negated the kind of culpability required for commission of the offense. (b) Although an actor's mistake of fact may constitute a defense to the offense charged, he may nevertheless be convicted of any lesser included offense of which he would be guilty if the fact were as he believed. o MPC 2.04 Same as TPC

Mistake of law o Typically not an excuse o TPC 8.03 It is no defense to prosecution that the actor was ignorant of the provisions of any law after the law has taken effect. (b) It is an affirmative defense to prosecution that the actor reasonably believed the conduct charged did not constitute a crime and that he acted in reasonable reliance upon: (1) an official statement of the law contained in a written order or grant of permission by an administrative agency charged by law with responsibility for interpreting the law in question; or (2) a written interpretation of the law contained in an opinion of a court of record or made by a public official charged by law with responsibility for interpreting the law in question. Involuntariness o An act must be voluntary TPC 6.03 MPC 2.02 Intoxication o MPC 2.08 Intoxication of the actor is not a defense unless it negates an element of the offense o TPC 8.04 Voluntary intoxication does not constitute a defense to the commission of crime Justification o Belief is objectively reasonable Not you just thought it was, some objective standard applied o Something positive for society violating an unjust law o Because of actual circumstances, the crime is justified o TPC 9.02 It is a defense to prosecution that the conduct in question is justified under this chapter o MPC 3.02 Defensive force Texas has no duty to retreat in a place where you have a legal right to be o Threat must be imminent o Present, not future danger o Response must be reasonable o TPC 9.31 Reasonably believe force is immediately necessary

o MPC 3.04 Duty to retreat if possible Necessity o Lesser of two evils o MPC 3.02 o TPC 9.22 Conduct is justified if: (1) the actor reasonably believes the conduct is immediately necessary to avoid imminent harm; (2) the desirability and urgency of avoiding the harm clearly outweigh, according to ordinary standards of reasonableness, the harm sought to be prevented by the law proscribing the conduct; and (3) a legislative purpose to exclude the justification claimed for the conduct does not otherwise plainly appear Excuse o Because of perceived circumstances, the crime is excused o Necessity, duress Duress o Due to human compulsion o Texas requires threat of deadly force or serious injury for duress defense o MPC requires only force o MPC 2.09 o TPC 8.05 (a) It is an affirmative defense to prosecution that the actor engaged in the proscribed conduct because he was compelled to do so by threat of imminent death or serious bodily injury to himself or another. (b) In a prosecution for an offense that does not constitute a felony, it is an affirmative defense to prosecution that the actor engaged in the proscribed conduct because he was compelled to do so by force or threat of force. (c) Compulsion within the meaning of this section exists only if the force or threat of force would render a person of reasonable firmness incapable of resisting the pressure. (d) The defense provided by this section is unavailable if the actor intentionally, knowingly, or recklessly placed himself in a situation in which it was probable that he would be subjected to compulsion. (e) It is no defense that a person acted at the command or persuasion of his spouse, unless he acted under compulsion that would establish a defense under this section.

Abandonment o For accomplice liability doctrines once you abandon a conspiracy, you are not liable for any more crimes committed after that point o TPC 15.04 (a) It is an affirmative defense to prosecution under Section 15.01 that under circumstances manifesting a voluntary and complete renunciation of his criminal objective the actor avoided commission of the offense attempted by abandoning his criminal conduct or, if abandonment was insufficient to avoid commission of the offense, by taking further affirmative action that prevented the commission. (b) It is an affirmative defense to prosecution under Section 15.02 or 15.03 that under circumstances manifesting a voluntary and complete renunciation of his criminal objective the actor countermanded his solicitation or withdrew from the conspiracy before commission of the object offense and took further affirmative action that prevented the commission of the object offense. (c) Renunciation is not voluntary if it is motivated in whole or in part: (1) by circumstances not present or apparent at the inception of the actor's course of conduct that increase the probability of detection or apprehension or that make more difficult the accomplishment of the objective; or (2) by a decision to postpone the criminal conduct until another time or to transfer the criminal act to another but similar objective or victim o MPC 5.03(6) For conspiracy only o MPC 5.01(4) Attempt o MPC 5.02(3) Solicitation In Texas, most inchoate crimes are punished one category less

Theories of punishment 4 primary theories of punishment Deterrence Incapacitation Retribution Rehabilitation Limits on punishment Retributive limit (desert) Fairness (notice, due process) Other limits (resource constraints, human and societal costs)

Cases
Just Punishment o Kansas v. Hendricks Facts: Committed released offender to rehab under Sex Offender Act Rule: Constitutional since it provides for civil commitment o Ewing v. California Facts: Sentenced under 3-strikes law to life for stealing golf clubs Rule: Balancing sentence versus criminal history no gross disproportionality allowed Actus Reus o Jones v. US note case pg. 111 Facts: Bitch took in neighbors kid and didnt feed it Rule: State may punish for omission, but it must be legal, not moral, duty o Commonwealth v. Pestinakas Facts: Failed to feed and water old person after making oral contract Rule: Can sustain murder with so clear a breach of promise to support malice Possession o US v. Maldonado Facts: Cocaine was placed in the guys hotel closet after drug deal Rule: Constructive possession intent to control and knowledge of it o Manzella - TWEN Facts: Conspiracy to sell drugs Rule: No possession conviction as he never had control over drugs o In re Rothwell TWEN Facts: Heroin concealed in postcard sent to prisoner, prisoner lost good behavior days Rule: No evidence of possession, actual or constructive no control o US v. Jenkins pg 119 Facts: Charged with possession when he was simply near drugs on a table Rule: Dominion & control not established by mere proximity o State v. Lewis pg 120 Facts: Selling drugs within a 500-foot drug free zone around a park Rule: Some logical relationship to establish constructive possession o US v. Lane pg 120 Facts: Momentary handling of a gun established possession? Rule: No must be able to control what happens o US v. Shaffer pg 122 Facts: Distributing child porn over Kazaa even though its passive distribution Rule: Yes just because you dont actively do anything doesnt mean its not

Voluntariness o People v. Newton Facts: Carrying gun on plane when plane diverted to NYC even though plane not scheduled to be in US airspace Rule: Criminal act must be voluntary this wasnt (no intention going to USA) o State v. Alvarado TWEN Facts: Guy was arrested with pot and charged with jail contraband when he got taken to jail said it wasnt voluntary Rule: Could have thrown it away or mentioned it chose to keep hold of it o Martin v. State Facts: Drunk guy taken to road by cop and charged with public drunkenness Rule: Voluntary appearance is pre-supposed this wasnt voluntary o People v. Grant Facts: Guy prone to seizures assaulted cop during arrest said it was automatism and not voluntary Rule: No conscious control = not responsible o People v. Decina pg 139 Facts: Epileptic seizure while driving and killed four people Rule: Consciously chose to drive knowing he had seizures = responsible Status Crimes o Robinson v. California Facts: Convicted of being a narcotics addict Rule: Cant criminalize a status like addict can only criminalize drugs o Powell v. Texas pg. 143 Facts: Violated public intoxication statute said he was an alcoholic and not voluntary Rule: Statute criminalizes being drunk in public, not being an alcoholic o US v. Hudson & Goodwin Facts: 1812 case indicted for libel against POTUS & Congress Rule: No statute criminalized it No penalty without law o State v. Egan Facts: Charge with common-law offense of nonfeasance Rule: Need a statute proscribing conduct (in place at time before time of crime) before you can have a criminal prosecution o Rogers v. Tennessee Facts: Convicted of murder appealed under ex post facto b/c court invalidated rule and a day when it convicted him Rule: Courts interpret common law rules and apply them o Keeler v. Superior Court pg. 160 Court held that statute had traditionally not included a fetus in the definition of living person when it comes to murder, and even if they changed the meaning, they couldnt apply it because of Ex Post Facto rules

Specificity o Chicago v. Morales Facts: Challenged anti-gang ordinance loitering too vague a term Rule: Law cannot be so vague that a person of ordinary intelligence cannot figure out what is legal and illegal Guilty Mind o People v. Dillard Facts: Violated statute against carrying loaded guns Rule: Strict liability statute dont need to know gun is loaded US v. Balint o OK for Congress to make illegal to sell narcotics even if seller doesnt know they are illegal narcotics o Morissette v. United States pg. 184 Facts: Charged with knowingly converting government property Rule: Theft requires a mental intent to take property not yours thought it was OK to take the stuff (thought they were abandoned) o Lambert v. California Facts: Statue in LA that requires felons who are in LA for more than 5 days to register with the police Rule: Status crime criminalizes being an felon / also violates due process no notice Culpability o Regina v. Faulkner Facts: Tried to steal rum, accidentally burned the ship down (1877) Rule: Liable only for collateral crime to intended crime if it is natural and probable consequence of intended crime o Regina v. Prince Facts: Guy took a 16-year-old away from Dad, thought she was 18 (1875) Rule: Statutes that dont require mens rea make knowledge of facts irrelevant Mistake o State v. Guest pg. 225 Facts: Prosecution wants court to read the statutory rape statute as a strict liability offense Rule: Court says no, there needs to be a defense of reasonable mistake of fact o People v. Bray Facts: Out of state guy who might be felon buys gun not supposed to if felon Rule: In strict liability, lack of knowledge of facts needed for criminal intent exculpates defendant

o US v. Baker Facts: Claimed not guilty of trafficking in counterfeit Rolexes because he didnt know Congress enacted new law criminalizing it Rule: Ignorance of the law is no excuse o Hopkins v. State pg. 236 Facts: Got OK from state attorney to erect sign in yard, then busted for it Rule: Advice of an attorney does not generally constitute a defense Closer you get to an official statement, the better your chances of defense are o Cheek v. US Facts: Not guilty of tax evasion because he believed taxes were unconstitutional Rule: Subjective misunderstanding of tax law is defense Only applies to tax law o Commonwealth v. Twitchell Facts: Nutso religionists relied on official statement of law in letting their kid die because of their idiotic beliefs Rule: Mistake of law can be a defense when relying on official statements interpreting the law by the state agency charged with interpreting the law o Prosecuting CIA Agents TWEN Acts in reliance on official interpretation of law must be reasonable reliance Capacity for mens rea o Hendershott v. People Facts: Not allowed to present evidence of mental condition that might negate mens rea Rule: Since mens rea is an element of the crime that is required to be established, you cant under due process block a defense that might prove the lack of mens rea Since presumption of innocence is inherent, presumption of lack of mens rea is as well. o State v. Cameron Facts: Voluntary intoxication as a defense? Rule: Yes, in some states Not in Texas Causation o Regina v. Martin Dyos Facts: Guy hit someone in the head might have caused the death, might not Rule: If the death could have occurred anyway, not liable o Hubbard v. Commonwealth Facts: Jailor suffered fatal heart attack trying to subdue prisoner Rule: Liability only when death was probable and natural consequence of act

o Commonwealth v. Rhoades Facts: Firefighter died battling fire set by defendant Rule: Ones act must be the proximate cause of death in a natural and continuous sequence of events without which death would not have occurred o Commonwealth v. Root Facts: Auto race on a highway caused death of one driver other drive charged Rule: More direct causal connection than tort proximate cause needed o US v. Hamilton Facts: Guy pulled out feeding tubes got ass beat, unable to act rationally Rule: Even if wound isnt fatal, can be homicide if it sets in motion chain of events o Stephenson v. State Facts: Abducted a woman who poisoned herself because of being a captive Rule: Responsible for all consequences of a criminal program Victim didnt have rational capability / choices to think through act. Defendants conduct was the proximate cause, even though she committed suicide o People v. Kevorkian Facts: El Suicido El Doctor Rule: Have to actually commit the act that kills the person Death must be a direct and natural result of the defendants act Kevorkian didnt actual do the final act that caused death key word is direct o McDaniel Documents TWEN Facts: SMU student killed by drugs and dealer refused to get her help Rule: Uh, yeah enjoy jail Homicide o Francis v. Franklin Facts: Guy shot someone escaping from jail Rule: Cannot tell a jury a defendant must disprove intent prosecution must prove it o US v. Watson Facts: Police chased a guy who corned cop, put him on floor, then shot him Rule: Premeditation can happen over a matter of days or seconds o People v. Walker Facts: Killed a dude in a fight mutual combat Rule: Murder in heat of passion is manslaughter o Ex Parte Fraley Facts: Killed a guy who killed his son months before Rule: Cooling-off period ordinary person would have calmed down

o Rowland v. State Facts: Killed his wife after seeing her commit adultery Rule: Manslaughter, not murder o State v. Yanz Facts: Killed guy he thought was boffing his wife might have been mistake Rule: A mistaken belief is OK if its reasonable jury question o Reed v. State Facts: Woman shot other woman she thought was banging her husband Rule: Husband can kill, but not wife old law o People v. Berry Facts: Strangled wife after repeated sexual frustration and tale of adultery Rule: Prolonged taunting and provocation can be heat of passion for jury o People v. Tapia Facts: Junkies killed their dealer who threatened them Rule: Fear can also be a triggering emotion for sudden passion mitigation Unintentional Homicide o Commonwealth v. Welansky Facts: Nightclub owner blocked off access to fire doors with tables people died Rule: Considered disregard may be sufficient for recklessness to get manslaughter o Hunter Shoots Woman pg. 396 o Porter v. State pg. 398 Facts: Driver ignored stop signs and blew through at 60MPH Rule: Not a gross deviation because signs were in the boonies o Mayes v. People Facts: Glass thrower who threw stuff at his daughter and set wife on fire Rule: Callous disregard was so bad that they are going to treat his awful behavior with intent to kill o Berry v. Superior Court Facts: Dog mauled neighbors kid dog was a fighting dog Rule: Life-endangering conduct which is done knowingly can be murder, not manslaughter o Commonwealth v. Dorazio pg. 408 Facts: Former boxer beat up a guy who died later of brain FUBAR Rule: Serious bodily harm murder normally requires assault with deadly weapon but nature of assailant made fists deadly in this case Felony Murder o People v. Stamp Facts: Fat guy died of heart attack during robbery likely caused by robbery Rule: Felony murder applies to all deaths, not just strictly foreseeable

o People v. Hickman Facts: Officer killed by another officer in the pursuit of a bank robber Rule: FM applies - defendants set in motion the chain of events that led to the death Only a few jurisdictions would follow this o People v. Gladman Facts: Killed a cop while fleeing from robbery Rule: As long as you are fleeing or havent reached a place of temporary safety, felony is ongoing when felony ends, so does FM o Loredo v. State Dumbest burglars ever Couldnt steal safe or TV in a McDonalds Ended up setting fire to the McDonalds Felony burglary Act dangerous to human life burglary? no; store was empty, hard to convince a jury o Setting fire o Lomax v. State Felony DWI Normally not a felony, but Lomax had prior DWI Dangerous act driving recklessly Felony DWI doesnt require mens rea; strict liability Felony murder without any culpable mental state? Court says Texas felony murder statute requires no mens rea o People v. Cavitt Facts: Two men plotted with a woman to rob the home of her stepmother tied her up and before she could free herself, she died possible someone else killed her Rule: Must be a relationship between the killing and the felony, and the felony must be ongoing at the time o State v. Chambers pg. 441 Facts: Stole truck felony / drinking and crashed killed people Rule: Any felony can be a predicate felony o State v. Shock Facts: Convicted of murder for beating boy to death Rule: Predicate felony cannot be something that is an element of the offense itself Justification Defensive Force o People v. La Voie Facts: Attacked in his car by 4 guys on his way home blasted them Rule: One reasonably in fear for safety may use deadly force

o People v. Gleghorn Facts: The arrow in the back case pure awesome Rule: If you defend yourself from an attack and beat the guy unconscious, you cant keep beating him o State v. Leidholm Facts: Woman who had a tumultuous relationship with her husband stabbed him while he slept Rule: Person acts in self-defense if, under the circumstances perceived by that person, such acts are necessary to prevent imminent harm o People v. Goetz Facts: Subway killer thought he was being robbed and shot the 4 boys robbing him Rule: Use of force in self-defense must be objectively reasonable o Tennessee v. Garner Facts: Cop killed a fleeing burglary suspect who was running away and scaling a fence Rule: Cant use deadly force to prevent escape unless there is good-faith belief that suspect poses serious threat of death or injury to other Otherwise, violates right against unreasonable search and seizure o People v. Ceballos Facts: Defendant set a trap gun to ambush the thieving little shits who were trying to steal his stuff Rule: Can be held criminally / civilly liable for trap guns under homicide statutes Justification Necessity o Queen v. Dudley & Stevens Facts: Shipwreck survivors kill and eat a younger, weaker kid in their raft so they dont die Rule: Cant kill an innocent person to save your life o People v. Unger Facts: Escaped from minimum-security jail because of threats of death Rule: Defense of necessity / compulsion available in escape cases where evidence can raise it o State v. Warshow Facts: Dirty hippies protesting nuclear power plant wouldnt let workers in, asked to leave, didnt, got arrested claimed necessity, saying nuke power is bad Rule: Uh, nonot imminent danger, you stupid bearded jackasses o US v. Kabat Facts: Peace hippies broke into ICBM silo & broke stuff Rule: Suck it hippies! You had specific intent

Justification Duress o State v. Crawford Facts: Crackhead goes on a crime spree, says he was forced into doing it because he owed money to a crack dealer who threatened his son Rule: Duress requires imminent threat to person being coerced o State v. Hunter Facts: Hitchhiker picked up and made to do naughty things - accused of felony murder, not allowed to raise duress defense Rule: Duress is a defense to felony murder not homicide itself though Attempt o State v. Lyerla Facts: Fired into pickup truck that was messing with him on road Rule: No attempted 2nd-degree murder that requires recklessness o People v. Rizzo Facts: Set out to rob someone, arrested before they could Rule: Attempt requires act tending but failing to commit crime no act o People v. Staples Facts: Math nerd tried to rob bank while wife away but gave it up Rule: Decision to postpone crime is not abandonment o People v. Lubow Facts: Guy suggested diamond fraud scheme Rule: Guilty of solicitation if you Ask someone to do it and Intend they do it o Booth v. State Facts: Purchased coat he believed to be stolen but had been recovered Rule: Cant be convicted of attempt when attempt wouldnt have been a crime o Lawhorn v. State Facts: Guy in custody broke out and broke into a house jailor quit chasing Rule: Cant be convicted of burglary with intent to commit felony escape escape was already done with by the time he broke in somewhere (when guard quit chasing) Complicity o State v. Ochoa Facts: Wild Bunch case shootout behind the courthouse Rule: When one in a group becomes aware that deadly force is being used, he becomes an accessory (aider / abettor) if he continues to act with the group o State v. Walden Facts: Present when boyfriend hit her kid assault conviction Rule: Parents have legal duty to help their kid

o State v. Tally Facts: Tally prevented transmission of potentially life-saving telegram Rule: Interference counted as abetting o People v. Beeman Facts: Gave others information about how to rob but claims didnt want robbery to occur Rule: Aider / abettor must act with both knowledge of the crime and intent to facilliate o US v. Giovanetti Facts: Rented house to guy who ran gambling ring tried for aiding / abetting Rule: Must know assisting in the crime willful ignorance isnt a defense, but MUST have evidence showing defendant knows he might be involved in something shady and takes steps to make sure he doesnt find out Willful ignorance can stand in for knowledge then jury can infer intent from there o State v. Etzweiler Facts: Etzweiler gave his keys to his drunken friend to go home, drunken jackass gets in wreck and kills two people both were charged with negligent homicide Rule: Intended to aid, but had no intent to help kill people must share specific intent o State v. Foster pg. 760 Facts: 2 guys held a 3rd guy 1 of the original 2 left to go get a 4th person and left his partner with a knife to guard the guy with kidnapee ended up dead Rule: Jury could find intent to aid or failure to perceive a substantial risk of harm o States v. Short pg. 761 Facts: Guy drove another guy to rob a bank robber used gun which is aggravated robbery driver didnt know he had a gun Rule: Cant be held liable for aggravated robbery aggravation requires intent to use a gun and aiding / abetting requires intent to commit crime being charged with o People v. Sadacca pg. 773 Facts: Swindled jeweler by pretending to be someone else Rule: Use of an innocent agent counts as causation o US v. Straach pg. 778 Facts: Straw-man purchase of guns from a gun dealer Rule: Can be liable seller, buyer, or both o US v. Moore pg. 779 Facts: Kid wanted to buy a gun his mom and neighbor helped him

Conspiracy o State v. Verive Facts: Convicted of conspiracy AND attempt to obstruct justice Rule: Conspiracy is focused on collusive nature / attempt on the act o Griffin v. State Facts: Griffin attacked cops after an accident other people around participated Rule: A conspiracy may be inferred when two or more people pursue same unlawful object o US v. Cepeda pg. 802 Facts: Had drug paraphernalia in the apartment accused of conspiracy to distribute Rule: No agreement was found could have been someone elses drug stuff, or for personal use o US v. Rahman pg. 804-05 Facts: Crazy Jihadist mullah conspired to attack America Rule: Not necessary to prove personally performed acts only necessary to prove joined in the illegal agreement o US v. Recio Facts: More drug dealers and conspiracy stuff Rule: A conspiracy does not automatically end when its objective becomes impossible to achieve o People v. Lauria Facts: Answering service owner knew some of his clients were hookers Rule: Supplier doesnt necessarily become part of conspiracy by supplying things o US v. Gallishaw pg. 819 Facts: Loaned guy machine gun used in bank robbery Rule: No conspiracy without mens rea for substantive charge o US v. Feola pg. 820 Drug dealers planned to rip off sellers turns out they were cops, but one dealer pulled a gun all charge with assault & conspiring to assault federal officers o US v. Diaz Facts: Convicted of conspiracy to use firearm during drug crime Rule: Should have known a gun was possible = conspiracy o States v. Alvarez pg. 826 Facts: Drug dealers all charged with death of u/c cop when one dealer shot him Rule: Shooter clearly implied to others he was willing to use deadly force, and being drug dealers, its reasonable to assume that one of them was armed o US v. McVeigh pg. 828 o Fortier-MvVeigh Conspiracy pg. 829