Term
| Common Law Definition of Actus Reus |
|
Definition
- Criminal Law requires conduct.
- Conduct can be:
○ Act
○ Omission of a legal duty to act
○ Possession
- Normally must occur under prescribed circumstances and cause a prescribed result
- Actus Reus is all of the conduct, circumstances and results required by definition of the defense |
|
|
Term
|
Definition
- Specific intent relies on what the defendant was hoping, planning or thinking at the time of the offense
- 3 kinds of specific intent crimes
○ Crimes that require the actor to plan some conduct not yet undertaken
§ The defendant must intend do something past the conduct already undertaken in order to be guilty under this
§ Ex. Burglary is breaking and entering a home at night with the intent commit a felony, if the defendant just wanted to hang out but not murder, rape or steal anything then they have not met the specific intent requirement for burglary
○ Actor required to hope conduct already engaged in will have some specific result
§ Actor required to hope or intend that the conduct have some desired effect or impact
§ Ex. An actor that gives false info to a police officer is not guilty of hindering prosecution if they did not intend for the false info to hinder the police in catching or prosecuting another party
○ Actor knows one or more things about the elements of the offense
§ Requires that the defendant know that one or more of the actus reus exists or believe that the state of facts included exists whether or not it actually does
§ Ex. If the statute says knowingly receive stolen property then the guy is not guilty if he did not know it was stolen property
□ Although if it said believe it was stolen then they would be guilty regardless if it actually was stolen or not
- Not a bad generalization to say that common law specific intent crimes deal with "knowledge or purpose" |
|
|
Term
|
Definition
- Default mens rea term used by the common law when no mens rea is provided in the definition of the defense
○ Silence on mens rea does not mean no mens rea required, normally means general intent is required
- General intent means either recklessness or negligence
- What exactly constitutes general intent varies by jurisdiction
- Meant as a catch all to allow for liability when there is no specific mens rea attached
○ Specific intent crimes are thought to be less common crimes and the exception to the general intent rule
Not a bad generalization to say that common law general intent crimes deal with "reckless or negligence" |
|
|
Term
| Crimes when expect strict liability |
|
Definition
○ Public welfare offenses
§ Product of social change brought about by the revolution in manufacturing
§ Characteristics of public welfare offenses
□ No harm need actually occur, just creates potential for more harm
□ Does not involve conduct designed to harm an individual
□ Underlying conduct is not itself immoral
□ Public injury when it occurs will occur irrespective of good or bad intentions of defendant
□ Penalties and stigma of conviction are minor
○ Aspects of a crime that do not affect the criminality of an actor's behavior
§ Some aspects of an act do not affect if a crime occurred just how severe a crime, strict liability is attached to these things
□ Ex. Only difference between breaking and entering and breaking and entering at night with intent to commit a felony is the night aspect
® Whether or not it was night the act was still a crime, only thing that matters about it being night is that at night it is graded differently
® Strict liability is given to the night portion of the offense
○ Certain sex offenses in certain jurisdictions
§ Ex. Statutory rape and adultery
○ Elements of a crime that do not affect the immorality of an actor's behavior |
|
|
Term
| When you can justify Strict Liability |
|
Definition
○ When social control stakes are high
○ When mens rea on a particular element is hard to prove
○ Where it is not perceived as unfair to the defendant
○ Where it is unlikely innocent people will be ensnared in the offense |
|
|
Term
| Concurrence of Actus Reus and Mens Rea |
|
Definition
- Actus reus and mens rea must concur in time
- Results may come later |
|
|
Term
| Transferred intent Common Law |
|
Definition
| - If a person meant to commit a crime against one person but in fact committed it against another the intent will be transferred to that second person and the case will proceed like the person meant to commit the crime against the second person |
|
|
Term
|
Definition
- The question here is whether the result would have happened if D had not acted
- 2 independent causes operate simultaneously then there are two causes in fact
- Still liable for actions that occur that would not occurred had it not been for the original act of the D
○ If you shoot someone and they die due to negligent surgery when trying to save them you are still on the hook for murder
- Exception: Concurrent Cases
○ Don't need to meet the cause in fact standard if two causes happen simultaneously either of which would have been sufficient
§ Ex. Two people shoot a guy in the heart at the same time, both would have killed the guy so both on the hook for murder since can't distinguish |
|
|
Term
|
Definition
- Is the result a sufficiently direct or foreseeable outcome of D's conduct such that it fairly could be attributed to the D?
- Intervening cause: any act outside of the D's conduct that contributes to the outcome
○ A dependent intervening cause is worthy of liability
§ Dependent intervening cause: sufficiently foreseeable or related to d's conduct so as to make it fair to hold D responsible
○ An independent intervening cause is not worthy of liability
§ Independent intervening cause: sufficiently independent of the the d's conduct so as to make it unfair to hold him/her liable
- Test:
○ What is the difference between what happened and what D intended or foresaw?
○ Does this difference make it unfair or unjust to hold D responsible for the outcome? |
|
|
Term
|
Definition
- One idea with two very different facets
○ Burden of production: must introduce evidence on the issues or lose if you do not
○ Burden of persuasion: must persuade the jury on an issue or lose if you do not
- 2 standards of proof used in crim law
○ Preponderance of the evidence: standard used when the burden of persuasion is on the Defendant
○ Beyond a reasonable doubt: standard used when burden of persuasion is on the prosecutor
- Important to determine who has the burden of persuasion on every issue of the case, not the case as a whole |
|
|
Term
| Conduct for Criminal Liability |
|
Definition
- Conduct component of an offense is the physical activity in which the defendant must engage
○ Some offenses do not describe with any specificity what conduct must occur
○ It is nonetheless mandatory in such offenses that the defendant must engage in some conduct
- Can be an act, omission or possession
○ Act
§ Affirmative conduct sufficient to satisfy the definition of the offense
○ Omission
§ Liability can be based on an omission if:
□ D is capable of performing the act
□ And one of these is met
® Omission is expressly made sufficient by the law defining the offense
® Duty to perform the act is imposed by law
◊ Any legal duty to act will suffice
◊ Moral duty that is not expressed in law somewhere will not suffice
○ Possession
§ Sufficient for liability if offense so provides and the item was knowingly procured or received or the d possessed it with sufficient time to terminate it |
|
|
Term
|
Definition
- Any consequence of the d's conduct
- Most crimes do not require a result element
○ Ex. Bodily injury is a result element in the assault offense |
|
|
Term
|
Definition
- Equivalent to purpose
○ With purpose
○ Designed
○ With design
○ Intentionally
○ With intent
- Does not necessarily mean that D purposely violated the criminal law, just that the actus reus components are expressly committed
- Definition related to the 3 kinds of actus reus elements
○ Conduct
§ Ordinary dictionary meaning
§ The D has a conscious objective to engage in the conduct
○ Result
§ Ordinary dictionary meaning
§ D has the conscious objective to cause the result
○ Circumstance
§ D must be aware of the circumstance or believe or hope it to exist
§ Accords with the ordinary definition of purpose |
|
|
Term
|
Definition
- Knowingly is the same as knowing and with knowledge
- Defined differently with respect to three kinds of actus reus elements
○ Conduct
§ Must be aware of the nature of the conduct
§ Requires that D knows that is happening and what is being done
○ Result
§ D must be aware that the result is practically certain that the conduct will cause the result
§ Can't hold that the D know exactly what was going to happen because it is not possible for someone to predict the future
○ Circumstances
§ D must be aware that the circumstance exists
§ Also held liable if D is aware of a high probability that of a circumstance's existence unless the D actually believes it is not the case |
|
|
Term
|
Definition
- With recklessness, recklessness, are considered the same as recklessly
- Actor must actually be aware of the risk that the element exists
- Same analysis is used for all three elements of Actus Reus. 3 Steps:
○ Nature of the Risk
§ Must be substantial and unjustifiable risk that the element exists
○ Awareness of the Risk
§ D must be aware of the risk and the facts relevant to how substantial and unjustifiable it was
○ Ultimate Judgment
§ Jury must decide that the D made a gross deviation from the standard of conduct that a law abiding citizen would observe in the actor's situation
§ 2 points should be noted when making this determination
□ D's point of view
® Must consider what the D knew and how this affects what a law abiding citizen would do
□ D's situation
® Must consider any limitations the D would have had and what role that plays
® No set rule in the MPC on what sort of limitations warrant consideration |
|
|
Term
|
Definition
- Actor must be aware that a risk exists
- Defense for the actor to reasonably believe something else
○ Reasonable belief is the reciprocal of negligence
§ Someone with a reasonable belief is not negligent
§ Someone who is negligent does not have a reasonable belief of something else
- Three part test applied to all aspects of actus reus
○ Nature of the risk
§ Must be a substantial and unjustifiable risk that something may occur
○ Awareness of the risk
§ Actor should be aware of the risk
○ Ultimate judgment
§ Jury must find that the actor grossly deviated from what a reasonable person would have done in that situation
§ 2 points noted about the judgment
□ Defendant's Point of View
® Jury must consider what the D knew about the circumstances when making the determination
□ Defendant's Situation
® Same facts about what the actor is experiencing must be considered just like in recklessness |
|
|
Term
| MPC Mens Rea Analytic Structure |
|
Definition
- Element of Offense
○ Any circumstance, result and conduct components of the crime and defense
○ Meant to include all aspects including those in grading
- Material Element of offense
○ Any aspect of an offense relating to the harm seeking to be avoided
- Culpability Required
○ Culpability applies to all material elements of a crime
○ Not required in violations
§ Violations refers to the common law crimes known as public welfare offenses
- Separate Culpability Consideration for Each Element
○ Some level of culpability is needed for every aspect of a crime
○ MPC in essence eliminates strict liability |
|
|
Term
| No Culpability Provided MPC |
|
Definition
- If not expressly written then the culpability requirement is recklessness
- Jury must find that there has been a gross deviation from what a reasonable person would do |
|
|
Term
| Culpability for One Actus Reus MPC |
|
Definition
- Culpability is assumed to be to be for every element in the statute unless otherwise specifically said or hinted at in the grammatical structure of the statute
- If some part of the statute is left undefined with regards to culpability the default will be recklessness |
|
|
Term
| Involuntary Acts: Common Law |
|
Definition
- Conduct must include a voluntary act
○ Doesn't have to be part of the prima facie case
- Idea of involuntariness is very narrow
○ Must have a physically identifiable reason why defendant had no choice or no choice of will
- Law assumes a voluntary act
○ Law only recognizes a defense for an involuntary act in the most extreme cases
- Involuntary act in voluntary course of conduct
○ Law may attach criminal liability to the voluntary components of such behavior
§ Whether this happens is based on the statute |
|
|
Term
| Mistakes and Specific Intent Crimes |
|
Definition
- Honest mistake of fact is a defense to a specific intent crime
○ Assuming that the mistake relates directly to the specific intent required for commission of the crime
○ Honest means that the D actually believed the mistaken fact to be true |
|
|
Term
| Test for Special Actus Reus Element and Specific Intent |
|
Definition
○ Does the mistake show that the specific intent was not in fact entertained by the D? If so then normal specific intent rule applies
If not, then the normal general intent rule applies |
|
|
Term
| Mistake of Fact General Intent |
|
Definition
| - Honest and reasonable mistake of fact is a defense to a general intent crime |
|
|
Term
| Strict Liability and Mistake of Fact |
|
Definition
| - Mistake of fact is not a defense if it relates to an element for which strict liability is imposed |
|
|
Term
| Mistake of Fact and Elements not not central to the criminality |
|
Definition
- Mistakes of fact are not defenses for elements that just affect the grading of an offense
- In other words if mistake determines criminal or non-criminal then it is a defense |
|
|
Term
| Mistake of Non-Criminal Law: Specific Intent |
|
Definition
| - Honest mistake of non criminal law that negates a specific intent is a defense |
|
|
Term
| Mistakes of Non-Criminal Liability: General Intent |
|
Definition
- Common law courts often say no to mistake of non-criminal law defenses in general intent offenses
- Distinguishing between mistake of facts and mistakes of non-criminal law is important because one means liability and one means no liability
○ No magical formula for this
○ Often courts make decisions arbitrarily based on what outcome they want based on the facts |
|
|
Term
| Mistakes that Negate Mens Rea |
|
Definition
| - Mistake of fact is a defense if it negates any required mens rea element of the offense |
|
|
Term
| Mistake of Fact that Establishes a state of mind constituting an offense: MPC |
|
Definition
| - Defense when state of mind established is a defense |
|
|
Term
| Mistake of Non-Criminal Law: MPC |
|
Definition
| - Mistake of non-criminal law is a defense if it negates mens rea of the offense |
|
|
Term
|
Definition
○ Unlawful use of force by aggressor
§ Force used or threatened against D must be unlawful
□ Criminal or tortious
§ Defendant as aggressor
□ D does not have self defense defense if s/he was the original aggressor
® 2 exceptions to this
1) Response to excessive force
- Reactionary force against the aggressor is excessive and therefore unlawful, aggressor now has self-defense as a possible recourse
2) Withdrawal
- Initial aggressor communicates withdrawal from the affair but other person continues to use force, self-defense now appropriate because any continuing force is unlawful on the part of the other party
§ Response to unlawful arrest
□ Arrested party may respond with non-deadly, but not deadly force
□ If arresting person responds with deadly force then the arrested party may respond with deadly force
□ This is beginning to change, many believe it is better for society to not allow people to ever resist arrest
○ Imminence of force by aggressor
§ The threat of force which D responds to must be imminent
○ Amount of responsive force permitted
§ Only proportionate force permitted
§ Use of excessive force will make the D's force unlawful and thus fall outside the self defense protection
§ 2 types of force
1) Deadly force
® Force used with the intent to cause death or serious bodily injury
® Rules of deadly force
◊ Response to deadly force
- May not use deadly force except in response to deadly force
◊ Retreat
- Less than half of jurisdictions do not allow for use of deadly force if a safe retreat is available
□ Non-deadly force
® Any physical force not falling under the umbrella of deadly force
○ Reasonable belief necessity
§ D must actually believe force is necessary
§ Belief must be reasonable under the circumstances |
|
|
Term
| Effect of Mistake, Self Defense: Common Law |
|
Definition
- Reasonable mistakes of fact or judgment
○ If mistake is reasonable (normal negligence standard of reasonable) then defense is unaffected
- Unreasonable mistakes; imperfect self defense
○ Generally unreasonable mistake negates the defense
○ In some jurisdictions, but not all unreasonable mistakes will allow the person to be liable of a lesser crime
§ Ex. Guy unreasonably uses self defense and kills someone, most jurisdictions he is guilty of murder, some jurisdictions will let him off with manslaughter
- Mistakes of law
○ Normal rules apply
○ Mistakes of criminal law
§ Irrelevant
§ If didn't retreat in a retreat jurisdiction, doesn't matter, still guilty
○ Mistakes of non-criminal law
§ Same rules apply |
|
|
Term
| Defense of Others: Common Law |
|
Definition
- Most jurisdictions allow for D to use some force in defense of another when reasonably believed to be necessary to protect other from immediate unlawful force
- In general rules of self-defense apply to this defense
○ In retreat jurisdictions D must retreat with the other person before using deadly force
- Limitation: Relationship to Defender
○ Some jurisdictions say that defending someone is only allowable if there is a close stated relationship between the two
§ Can protect, husband, wife, child, parent, employer, distant relative
§ Can't protect: girlfriend, good friend, neighbor or complete stranger |
|
|
Term
| Effect of Mistake, Defense of Others: Common Law |
|
Definition
- In jurisdictions where defense is stated in terms of "reasonable belief" then a mistake is treated the same as for self defense
- Limitation: Alter Ego Rule
○ In some jurisdictions liability is strict
§ Only allowed to make a defense when the other person is also allowed to make a defense
○ Any mistake in these jurisdictions is fatal to the defense |
|
|
Term
| Defense of Property: Common Law |
|
Definition
- Person is privileged to use force to protect real or personal property in the possession of the D from imminent and lawful damage, trespass or dispossession
- May be used:
○ Before to prevent harm
○ To re-enter real property
○ Immediately or in hot pursuit
○ To recapture personal property
- Limited in following respects
○ Necessity of force
§ Not permitted in two situations
□ Time to invoke law enforcement
□ Request to desist
® Must say stop before engaging
○ Amount of responsive force permitted
§ D may use that amount of non-deadly force believed to be necessary to protect property
§ Limits on use of deadly force
□ Personal property
® Most jurisdictions do not allow the use of deadly force to protect personal property
® However if use non-deadly force and is met with deadly force in return then deadly force is permitted
§ Use of mechanical devices
□ Non deadly mechanical devices are usually permitted if adequate warning is given to the intruder (ex. Electrified fence with a sign that warns)
□ Deadly mechanical devices are not generally permitted
® Some jurisdictions do allow it but strict liability is used
◊ Only justified use if the D could have used deadly force in place of the mechanical device
◊ Much like the alter ego rule |
|
|
Term
| Effect of Mistake, Defense of Property: Common Law |
|
Definition
- Reasonable mistake is allowable under the defense
- Unreasonable mistake is not allowable |
|
|
Term
| Necessity Defense: Common Law |
|
Definition
- Desirability of General Necessity Defense
○ Dispute over whether it exists
○ Probable that principle would be recognized in American courts in a proper case
○ Case for the Defense
§ Wrong to punish someone for engaging in a socially desirable act
§ Recognition of the defense is essential to ethical integrity of criminal law
○ Case against defense
§ Infrequency of successful invocation suggests little need
§ More invocations of defense mean more mistakes which will in turn harm society more than it will help
- Elements of the defense
○ Emergency
§ Situation must be an emergency
§ No reasonable alternative to avoid harm other than break the law
○ Defendant w/o fault
§ D must not be cause for bringing about the situation needing to be dealt with
○ Avoid greater harm
§ Harm that can be avoided must be greater than harm that will come about from commission of the crime |
|
|
Term
| Effect of Mistake, Necessity Defense: Common Law |
|
Definition
○ Reasonable mistake as to existence of emergency not likely to deprive D of defense
○ Mistake about which harm is greater will deprive D of defense |
|
|
Term
| Self Defense Limitations: MPC |
|
Definition
- General limitations
○ Unlawful arrests
§ Use of force never permitted to defend against an arrest by an officer of the peace
§ Force can be used to defend against excessive force used in arrest by a police officer
○ Defense of property
§ Complex set of limitations
§ Only three situations where its allowed but otherwise prohibited
- Deadly force
○ Permissible only if believed to be necessary to protect against death, serious bodily harm, kidnapping ot rape
○ Prohibited in following situations
§ D initiates with intent to kill or seriously injure
§ Retreat
□ Very limited retreat requirement
□ Only required to retreat when D knows deadly force can be avoided with complete safety by retreating |
|
|
Term
|
Definition
| - Permitted to use force to protect any third party when the D believes the other person would have been entitled to use force in the situation |
|
|
Term
| Mens Rea of Attempt: Common Law |
|
Definition
• Specific intent requirement
○ Mens rea of intent at common law is an intent to engage in all of the conduct, result and circumstance elements that would constitute a completed offense
○ Attempt is a specific intent crime
§ Even if crime attempted would have been a general intent crime
• Meaning of Specific intent
Guilty as long as the intent encompasses the kinds of behavior the law has resolved to punish |
|
|
Term
| Actus Reus for Attempt: Common Law |
|
Definition
• No set point at which actus reus is sufficient for attempt
○ Formula for determining how much conduct is enough
• Common Law Test
○ Last Proximate Act
§ Asked whether the last act necessary to complete the offense had occurred
§ Valid as a test of exclusion but not as a test of inclusion
□ Courts have convicted for less conduct
§ Not the current test
○ Physical Proximity Tests
§ Sufficiently proximate to the completion of the crime to constitute an attempt
□ Indispensable Element Test
® Whether the D has obtained control over all indispensable elements of the offense
□ Dangerous Proximity Test
® Has the D come dangerously close to the completion of the offense?
® Looks at 4 factors
◊ Seriousness of the crime
◊ Uncertainty of its occurrence
◊ Apprehension caused to the victim
◊ Amount of harm that would occur if the crime were completed
○ No specific test under the common law
§ But the underlying goal is that the act should include sufficiently unambiguous conduct so as to avoid unwarranted interference with innocent behavior |
|
|
Term
| Impossibility and Attempt: Common Law |
|
Definition
• True Legal Impossibility
○ Where D seeks to do something that is not a crime
○ Attempt liability is clearly not appropriate here
• Legal and Factual Impossibility
○ Legal impossibility
§ Act if completed would not constitute a crime
§ Defense to a charge of attempt
○ Factual Impossibility
§ Crime cannot be completed because of some physical or factual condition unknown to the D
§ Not a defense to a charge of attempt
○ Many things can be categorized as either legal or factual impossibilities |
|
|
Term
| Actus Reus of Conspiracy: Common Law |
|
Definition
• Defined: conspiracy between two or more parties to achieve an objective prohibited by law
• Overt Act
○ Common law only required an agreement for conspiracy
○ Some statutes have expanded to say an overt act and an agreement
• More than an agreement
○ Single agreement with multiple objectives constitutes a single conspiracy
○ Wheel with spokes
§ Can be one hub with many individual conspiracies with different parties
○ Chain
§ Can be a single conspiracy if one party agrees with another who in turn agrees with a third who in turn agrees with a fourth and so on |
|
|
Term
| Wharton's Rule of Conspiracy: Common Law |
|
Definition
○ Cannot be convicted of conspiracy if by definition of the crime two parties are required to commit it
○ Third Party exception
§ Exception if crime is committed with more people than are necessary for the crime |
|
|
Term
| Mens Rea of Conspiracy: Common Law |
|
Definition
• Intent to agree
○ Must be intent to agree
• Intent to achieve common prohibited objective
○ Parties must have the same intent to do the same crime |
|
|
Term
| Impossibility and Conspiracy: Common Law |
|
Definition
• True legal impossibility
○ Not punishable to agree to do something thinking it is a crime when in fact it is not
• Legal and Factual Impossibility
Very rare that this will be a problem because crime relies on the agreement and in general the crime will always be possible at the agreement stage |
|
|
Term
| Abandonment Defense to Conspiracy: Common Law |
|
Definition
| Not recognized as a defense in the common law |
|
|
Term
| Liability for Substantive Offenses |
|
Definition
• Liable for the object crime and any substantive crimes leading up to the object crime under following rules
○ Offenses agreed to
§ Any conspirator would be liable for any substantive offenses expressly agreed to
○ Pinkerton Extension
§ Conspirators liable for any substantive offenses that were reasonably foreseeable |
|
|
Term
|
Definition
• Purpose to do what D did and required mens rea below
• Mens Rea Towards Elements of an Object Offense
○ Different Mens Rea based on what type of element is being considered
○ Conduct Elements of Object Offense
§ D must have purpose to engage in all conduct elements of the object offense
○ Result Elements of Object Offense
§ Must have purpose to cause any results elements of the object offense or must believe they will occur without any further conduct
○ Circumstance Elements of Object Offense
§ D must have same mens rea for all circumstance elements as is required for the object offense
○ Additional Mens Rea Requirements of Object Offense
§ Must have at least the mens rea required by the object offense |
|
|
Term
| Actus Reus of Attempt: MPC |
|
Definition
• Acts that constitute the crime of attempt
○ 2 aspects of the standard
§ Substantial Step
□ D must take a substantial step towards the commission of the offense
□ Focuses on what has been done and likelihood that the D will continue
§ Strongly corroborative of actor's criminal purpose
□ Substantial step must be corroborative of the D's purpose to engage in the object offense |
|
|
Term
| Impossibility and Attempt: MPC |
|
Definition
• True legal impossibility
○ Not punishable to do something that is not illegal
• Legal and Factual Impossibility
○ D can be held liable for an attempt if the offense would have occurred had the facts been as the D thought they were |
|
|
Term
| Abandonment and Attempt: MPC |
|
Definition
• MPC allows for abandonment as a defense
• 3 limitations
○ Effective abandonment
§ Must abandon the effort or otherwise prevent commission of the offense
○ Complete Renunciation
§ Must involve the renunciation of the criminal purpose that is complete
□ Can't wait for a better time
□ Can't transfer attempt to a different victim
○ Voluntary renunciation
§ Must be voluntary
□ Can't be motivated by a an increase in the probability of detection or getting caught |
|
|
Term
| Actus Reus of Conspiracy: MPC |
|
Definition
• Consists of an agreement of two parts
○ D or another party will commit, attempt to commit, or solicit a criminal offense
○ D will aid in the planning or commission of the crime, an attempt to commit it or its solicitation
• Overt act
○ Must commit an overt act in furtherance of the conspiracy
○ Should be corroborative of the actor's criminal intent |
|
|
Term
| Agreement with unknown parties and Conspiracy: MPC |
|
Definition
| Don't have to know eachother, just know of eachother |
|
|
Term
| Mens Rea of Conspiracy: MPC |
|
Definition
• Purpose to facilitate or promote object offense
○ Must have the purpose and know that all circumstance elements of the object offense exist
○ Must have purpose even if mens rea for the object offense could have been satisfied with lesser mens rea
• Proof of intent
○ Prosecutor must prove that each part had the required mens rea
• Intent to agree
○ Not expressly indicated but implicated through the phrasing of the code |
|
|
Term
| Impossibility and Conspiracy: MPC |
|
Definition
• True legal impossibility
○ Agreeing to do something that is not a crime is a defense
○ Not liable for agreeing to do something which is a crime regardless if one person thinks it’s a crime
• Legal and Factual Impossibility
○ Will be guilty of conspiracy if the facts were if the act would have been a crime had the facts been as the D thought they were |
|
|
Term
| Abandonment and Conspiracy: MPC |
|
Definition
• Thwart success of conspiracy
○ D must thwart the success of the conspiracy
○ Must have intervened to prevent commission of the crime
• Complete and Voluntary renunciation
○ Must have this in order to have an abandonment defense |
|
|
Term
| Actus Reus of Accessory: Common Law |
|
Definition
• Accessory must give help in some way in the commission of a crime
• Affirmative Aid
○ Physical aid is always enough
○ Moral support and words of encouragement can sometimes also be enough
• Omissions
○ Omissions can suffice but only when there is a legal duty to intervene |
|
|
Term
| Mens Rea of Accessory Liability: Common Law |
|
Definition
• D must have at least the mens rea required for the object offense
• Sufficient if the d has the intent to aid or encourage the commission of the offense
• Knowledge that crime will be promoted or facilitated
○ Certain jurisdictions have held different things
§ Require purpose in all cases
□ Some courts won't hold a D liable unless he had a purpose to facilitate or promote the offense
§ Permit conviction based on knowledge
□ Some courts hold that if you know that your conduct will allow someone to commit a crime you can be held liable if they do
§ Intermediate position
□ Some courts hold somewhere in the middle
§ Facilitation offenses
□ Some legislatures have passed laws that punish people that give substantial aid to the commission of a serious offense |
|
|
Term
| Guilt of Principal and Conspiracy: Common Law |
|
Definition
• In most jurisdictions the guilt of the accessory is derived from the guilt of the principle
○ Can't be guilty of accessory if the principle wasn't the guilty of the offense
• Can be convicted of aiding and abetting even if the principal is only guilty of an offense
• Although in some cases the principal may only have to take the actus reus in order for the accomplice to be criminally liable |
|
|
