Term
MPC mens rea quick reference
2.02 (2) a,b,c,d |
|
Definition
A) purposely -> conduct/result proved when purpose
-> circumstance knows/believes/or hopes
B) knowingly -> result
-> need practical certainty
-> can't really know a result can only intend it
C) recklessly -> consciously disregard a substantial or unjustified risk
D) negligently -> actors failure to perceive a risk is gross deviation |
|
|
Term
|
Definition
1) actus reus
2) mens rea
3) causation |
|
|
Term
| The retributive punishment |
|
Definition
-punishment must be justified by the seriousness of the offense
-death for death
-consider the degree of punishment and the actors moral culpability
-moral desert of an offense/offender is sufficient reason to punish |
|
|
Term
|
Definition
| Punishment to deter future actions of all and of the actor himself |
|
|
Term
|
Definition
Positivist - go by the letter of the law and nothing but
Natural law- law and morality and intertwined and CANNOT be seperated
Textualist- another form of text law application
Pragmatics- uses common sense, recognizes there is always ambiguity |
|
|
Term
|
Definition
1) arrest or/and investigation
2) indictment -must happen through a grand jury (meant to get rid of bad cases)
3) initial appearance - (a.k.a. arraignment) ->when you get your "offical charges"
->1st appearance - hear your rights and set bail
4) preliminary hearing -> mini trial - standard of proof is lower - can call witnesses and if the defendant wins the case is over
5) plea or trial |
|
|
Term
|
Definition
- guy was given the option of life in prison (plea) or death (trial)
-took the plea but said it was not voluntary b/c he was threatened w/ death otherwise
- Crt. said defendant had competent counsel that advised him |
|
|
Term
|
Definition
| "To be admissible, a confession must be "free and voluntary: it must not be extracted by any threats or violence, not obtained by any direct of implied promises, however slight, nor by the exertion of any improper influence" |
|
|
Term
|
Definition
- offender refused to take a plea and recieved life in prison
-Crt. Said as long as the prosecutor followed the statute it is okay
-"trial tax" is okay - b/c you are using more resources -> prosecutor just has to have enough evidence to back up the threatened sentence |
|
|
Term
|
Definition
- Crt. Held - if the prosecution fails to honor commitments made to defendant in exchange for his or her plea, then the defendant must be allowed to w/draw the plea
- this safe guard does NOT mean the defendant who pleads guilty will accept precisely the sentence he or she accepts/expects
- this is Re: promises to drop certain charges or counts or recommend certain punishments in exchange for the plea |
|
|
Term
|
Definition
-attica prison riots
- courts cannot compell a prosecutor to bring a case
- too many cases to prosecute every case |
|
|
Term
|
Definition
-reasonable suspicion = 30%
-> stop and frisk
- probable cause = 40 - 50%
-> public arrest or search and seizure
- clear and convincing evidence = 75%
-> civil custody for being a sex offender
- beyond a reasonable doubt = at least 90%
-> most ppl. Would agree |
|
|
Term
|
Definition
- Minor charged with acts that if charged as an adult would be larceny
- prosecutor/Crt. Went with a preponderance of the evidence standard
- upper court said that every element must be proven beyond a reasonable doubt |
|
|
Term
|
Definition
Mandatory - cannot tell the jury "you must infer x from the facts"
Permissive - are allowed as long as they are rational - meaning it is more likely than not that the result you are inferring flows from the facts
-> rarely to never will instructions read "you must infer ______"
- usually "may" takes the place of "must" |
|
|
Term
|
Definition
Question of whether a jury is a fundamental right
- court says YES
- 14th amendment guarantees a right to a jury trial in all criminal cases tried in federal court (felonies) - 6th amend. as well |
|
|
Term
|
Definition
- defendant shot bullets at a house for no reason - b/c it was fun -> prosecutor thought it was a hate crime - max. Sentence was 12 years - defendant appealed saying there should be a higher standard if the punishment is increased
- court said: a sentencing factor that increases the statutory sentence MUST be treated like an element - must be proven beyond a reasonable doubt
-> if it looks like an element, it reads like an element, it must be treated like an element |
|
|
Term
|
Definition
| When the jury disregards the law the judge gave to apply to the case and disagree b/c you as the jury don't think it is right and thus refuse to apply it |
|
|
Term
|
Definition
- defendant can waive a jury if the prosecution agrees
- might waive a jury if the crime is particularly terrible (rape or gruesome murder) |
|
|
Term
| United States v. Doughtery |
|
Definition
- Priests who tied themselves to Dow Chemical Plant to protest the use of napalm in Vietnam
- rule: CANNOT get jury nullification practically anywhere
- it is a power not a right - can't inform the jury of this right
- judge cannot throw out an acquittal |
|
|
Term
|
Definition
- No law no punishment
- must be something that gives notice to the person being charged with the illegal act |
|
|
Term
|
Definition
- Guy making dirty phonecalls
- no crime in the books regarding this
- court said the offense is a common law misdemeanor and testimony established guilt |
|
|
Term
|
Definition
- stole an airplane and took it across state lines
- court said planes were not included in the statutory language - "plane doesn't count as a vehicle w/in the language of the statute"
- statute needs to provide fair warning |
|
|
Term
|
Definition
-requires a narrow reading of the statute
- if in doubt read the statute as most favorable to the defendant
- this is a doctrine of last resort |
|
|
Term
|
Definition
- guy with individual pictures of child porn
- statute said that these things "must contain" -> such as magazines, books, periodicals, etc...
- when the statute is too vague then lenity applies in defendants favor |
|
|
Term
|
Definition
| Bars further proceedings b/c the alleged conduct would not constitute a chargeable offense |
|
|
Term
|
Definition
- guy who knees his pregnant ex-wife in the stomach and kills the fetus
- question: is a fetus a human being under the statute
- rule of lenity should apply b/c there is no written law Re: killing a fetus as a 3rd party (although here it is not a lenity issue)
- violates due process b/c there is no fair warning |
|
|
Term
|
Definition
Cannot punish retroactively
-i.e. if something becomes a crime after the defendant did it they cannot be charged for it |
|
|
Term
| Boyle v. City of Columbia |
|
Definition
Court reasoned that due process restrictions on courts include the same ex post facto restrictions applicable to legislatures
- courts can't apply punishment retroactively |
|
|
Term
|
Definition
- victim dies 1 day after the 1year death statute of limitations cap
- courts don't like to charge it b/c it is hard to tell what caused the death, whether it was the crime or some other circumstance
- "if a judicial construction of a criminal statute is unexpected and indefensible by reference to the law which had been expressed prior to the conduct in issue, it must not be given retroactive effect"
- this case gives courts the ability to change law retroactively |
|
|
Term
|
Definition
Facial challenge - on every set of facts the statute has to fall and it can never be applied
As applied - defendant's specific facts |
|
|
Term
| City of Chicago v. Morales |
|
Definition
- Gang ordinance law
- Case is mostly about the vagueness of the statute
- it is difficult to determine what is and what is not a criminal action
- this statute fails to guide actions of police while arresting on this statute |
|
|
Term
|
Definition
- necessity
- Unlawful
- imminence |
|
|
Term
|
Definition
1) assert the prosecution has failed to establish one or more of the required elements of the offense
2) justification - wholly condem what he did and forgive him merely b/c of his reduced violational or cognitive capacity
3) excuses - treat the offender as fully capable responsible agent & acknowledge that what he did was right or at least not entirely wrong |
|
|
Term
| Ease of the ability to get away |
|
Definition
If you have the opportunity and ability to get away you better at least make an effort to get away
- if you CAN get away it eliminates the necessity portion |
|
|
Term
Stand your ground
-or-
True man rule |
|
Definition
- default American rule
- counters the duty to retreat |
|
|
Term
|
Definition
- if you are in your own home you have no duty to retreat
- exception - roommate or coworkers (in some jurisdictions you have castle doctrine at your place of work) |
|
|
Term
|
Definition
- guy making the doorstop for his garage and the neighbor kid got mad and started attacking him with a hatchet and the kid and his parents got very hurt and son died
- question: should the doorstop creator have retreated?
- court says the jury should have been instructed that he could hold his ground |
|
|
Term
|
Definition
- idea of being 100% free from fault
- if someon else uses force you can respond with equal force
- of you are the aggressor then you cannot use a defense of self defense as you created the need for the defense |
|
|
Term
| United States v. Peterson |
|
Definition
- windshield wiper case - owner comes out and tells the thives to leave and goes back into his house and returns with a gun
- non lethal aggressor - instruction that the right to use deadly force in self-defense is not ordinarily available to one who provokes a conflict or is the aggressor
- one cannot support a claim of self defense by a self generated necessity to kill - only granted to those free from fault. |
|
|
Term
|
Definition
- guy who set up the gun trap to prevent his belongings from being stolen from his garage
-court said defense of property is not a defense in this regard - only acceptable when the defendant himself is in the home during the unlawful entry |
|
|
Term
|
Definition
Same elements as self defense
- necessity
- unlawful
- imminence
- it was necessary to prevent am unlawful and imminent attack on another |
|
|
Term
|
Definition
- insurance fraud - guy who was threatened that if he didn't participate in fraud he would be hurt
- did not get necessity b/c he could have called the cops or moved
- court said it was an issue for the jury
- this case allows duress for participation in crime b/c of threat to use unlawful force against his person or the person of another |
|
|
Term
|
Definition
-Imminence
-Reasonableness - person of reasonable firmness would not be able to resist the coercion
- homicide is never okay - but MPC is an exception |
|
|
Term
|
Definition
- voluntary if it is a product of effort and determination
- not an impulse |
|
|
Term
MPC 305
Use of force for the protection of other persons |
|
Definition
- use of force to protect another is justifiable when:
-justifies under 3.04 to protect himself against injury he believes to be threatened to the person he seeks to protect
-circumstances as actor believes them to be, person whom he seeks to protect would be justified in using such protective force
- actor believes the intervention to be necessary - not obliged to retreat before using force to protect - if person is being hurt should have retreated you must try to influence retreat
-exception = dwelling |
|
|
Term
|
Definition
Insanity
- defendant is excused if at the time of the crime
1) because of mental illness
2) the defendant did not know that what he was doing was wrong |
|
|
Term
| Irresistable impulse test |
|
Definition
Insanity
- a defendant is excused if at the time of the crime, the defendant was unable to maintain self control
- note: whereas the pure M'Naghten test forces on the mental or cognitive impairment of the individua, this test focuses on the volitoknal control of the defendant |
|
|
Term
|
Definition
1) the defendant must not be the aggressor
2) defendant must use a reasonable amount of force (force meets force)
3) defendant must use only such force when he honestly believes and reasonably fears that;
4) he is in imminent danger of bodily harm |
|
|
Term
|
Definition
- guy who was drunk in his home and the cops pulled him into a public place and he was charged with being drunk and obscene in public
- court said: action of the defendant was not voluntary - even though the actors preceding actions were |
|
|
Term
|
Definition
- guy who escaped the prison b/c he was threatened with rape
- court says a defense of necessity is appropriate - THIS court does not think all 5 elements must be present to get necessity
- US v. Bailey - said a prisoner must surrender or try to surrender |
|
|
Term
|
Definition
- obstructing the activities of the IRS - protestor threw blood and other things around office to protest tax dollar going to El Salvador
- no necessity b/c thay had other means |
|
|
Term
|
Definition
-requirement of true Imminence
- was it in fact a lesser evil
- actions must be necessary - cannot be some other legal remedy available
- legislature has not spoken to the issue before - deliberate legislative choice
- person claiming the lesser evil justification cannot be the cause
-> in some states (lesser importance) - emergency only apply in natural disasters
- necessity can NEVER justify homicide |
|
|
Term
|
Definition
- guilty of homicide b/c he was gilty of homicide
-court said: the last act right before the harm is caused does not have to be voluntary - you just have to have a somewhere along the line know of the possibility of the negative outcome |
|
|
Term
| Concurrence of mens rea & actus reus |
|
Definition
Whenever considering if someone is guilty ask:
1) was there a voluntary act at all?
2) did he have the required mens rea?
3) did the voluntary act cause the mens rea? |
|
|
Term
|
Definition
- 15yr. Old boy staying at 52yr. Old woman's home and sleeps with her
- woman says she was sleeping and didn't notice or wake
- even in strict liability there is always an actus reus element that must be proven - you still have to prove a voluntary act |
|
|
Term
|
Definition
- defendant pulled over and there is a scuffle with the cops - one if the cops gets shot and defendant gets shot
- experts testify that a shot to the body cavity can cause a black out
- prosecution has to show that there was a voluntary act - element of actus reus is always an element
- when there is evidence of involuntary unconsciousness there must be instruction |
|
|
Term
|
Definition
Mother was sleep walking and had a history of vivid dreams in which she would sometimes act violently
- she dreamt of a war in her daughters room and ended up axing her to death
- court said: - need a voluntary act
- prosecution needs to prove beyond a reasonable doubt that the actions of the defendant were voluntary
- mother was therefore acquitted |
|
|
Term
|
Definition
P - creation of peril
A - assuming the responsibility of care
R - relationship
C - contract
S - stautory duty |
|
|
Term
|
Definition
- there was a baby in the home of a family friend and they did not care for the child so it died
- court said defendant had no legal duty to care for the child b/c the responsibility was not listed in the statute as to defendant
- doesn't matter if he knew the baby was in danger |
|
|
Term
|
Definition
-Liability for the commission of an offense may not be based on an ommision unaccompanied by an action unless:
A) the ommision is expressly made sufficient by the law defining the offense -or-
B) a duty to perform the committed act is otherwise imposed by law - I.e. parent and minor child
Common law= PARCS |
|
|
Term
|
Definition
- lady who takes in mom & her child - mother has a psychotic episode and attacks her daughter - defendant does nothing during the attack or following the attack and child dies
- court says defendant had no duty b/c she was not one of the ppl. Who had responsibility |
|
|
Term
|
Definition
Familial-parent -> child
Not child -> parent
-duty to spouse |
|
|
Term
|
Definition
-Live in bf failed to protect a 4-month old child from a beating from his gf
- court says no duty - no real relationship of parent. -> court cares about marriage |
|
|
Term
|
Definition
- guy who was cheating with his mistress and he and she died - he did nothing about it
- court says no duty b/c they are not married
- it doesn't matter if she is in the house and they are fooling around, he still has no duty |
|
|
Term
|
Definition
-If you as the defendant create the peril you are responsible for helping
- We care about who created the peril b/c murder requires intention |
|
|
Term
|
Definition
- patient went into surgery and it went bad & family was told they had to decide if he was going to stay on life support - family said remove him - so the doctors removed the tube - family got mad and said it was murder
- court said doctor did not committ murder, no act but it was omission
- once treatment becomes futile then treatment need not be continued
- weird b/c removing the feeding tube is actually an act |
|
|
Term
| Elements of a crime categories |
|
Definition
Conduct
Result
Circumstance |
|
|
Term
|
Definition
- guy broke a valve to get the coins inside and left the gas on - he did endanger the life of the woman next door
-Issue: when a statute is silent in mens rea or not specific enough
- court says he should have known - and it should be left to the jury. |
|
|
Term
|
Definition
- sailor went to steal rum, lit a match and accidentally lit the whole ship on fire
- even when the last act was involuntary you may still charge
- court says defendant was not malicious - he might be guilty of stealing but that might be it |
|
|
Term
|
Definition
Elements
- what type (conduct, result, circumstance)
- what type of mens rea is present
- what mens rea is actually present for each element |
|
|
Term
|
Definition
(a) a person acts purposely with respect to a material element of an offense when:
(i) if the element involves the nature of his conduct or a result thereof, it is his conscious object to engage in conduct of that nature or to cause such a result; and
(ii) if the element involves the attendant circumstances, he is aware of the existence of such circumstances or he believes or hopes that they exist. |
|
|
Term
|
Definition
(b) a person acts knowingly with respect to a material element of an offense when;
(i) of the element involves the nature of his conduct or of the attendant circumstances, he is aware that his conduct is of that nature or that such circumstances exist; and
(ii) if the element involves a result of his conduct, he is aware that it is practically certain that his conduct will cause such a result. |
|
|
Term
|
Definition
| (c) a person acts recklessly with respect to a material element of am offense when he consciously disregard a substi and unjustified risk that the material element exists or will result from his conduct. The risk must be of such a nature and degree that, considering the nature and purpose of the actor's conduct and the circumstances known to him, it's disregard involves a gross deviation from the standard of conduct that a law abiding person would observe in the actors situation. |
|
|
Term
|
Definition
| (d) a person negligently with respect to a material element of an offense when he should be aware of a substantial and unjustifiable risk that the material element exists or will result from his conduct. The risk .yay be of such a nature and degree that the actors failure to perceive it, considering the nature and purpose of his conduct and the circumstances known to him, involves a gross deviation from the standard of care that a reasonable person would observe on the actors situation. |
|
|
Term
|
Definition
-How to transition to mens rea on an exam
- every material element must have a proven
-negligently
-recklessly
-knowingly
-purposefully |
|
|
Term
|
Definition
-Exxon Valdez case - oil cruiser runs into a reef and causes a huge oil spill
- defense Atty says this is such a high punishment and it should require a higher standard than a civil standard
-court says NOT in Alaska, in Alaska civil negligence is enough |
|
|
Term
| Santillanes v. New Mexico |
|
Definition
-uncle and nephew wrestling and knife falls out of the uncle's pocket and cuts and hurts nephew (he may have died)
- Supreme Court said that the court cannot give and instruction for civil negligence in a criminal case
- want to punish conduct that is morally culpable |
|
|
Term
|
Definition
-guy who had a green belt in Korean self defense and wanted to show off by kicking at a window but stopping right before he hit it - he didn't stop short and he broke the window
- reckless ppl. know of a risk
- negligent ppl. might not know of a risk
-subjective test
-it is NEVER enough to convict of recklessness by saying everyone knows it is a bad idea ->too subjective |
|
|
Term
|
Definition
If they are not aware of a substantial risk and only of a risk - then the defendant cannot be reckless
- need knowledge of a substantial risk & consciously disregards that substantial risk
-consciously is knowingly |
|
|
Term
| Purpose as to a circumstance element |
|
Definition
| Defendant must believe or hope the circumstance exists |
|
|
Term
|
Definition
A.k.a. the ostritch instruction
- conscious purpose to avoid the truth
- acting with deliberate ignorance
- positive knowledge and willful blindness are equally culpable |
|
|
Term
|
Definition
- drove over the u.s. border with 110 pounds of marijuana
- defendant had a chance to know but chose not to
- court said positive knowledge and deliberate ignorance are equally culpable
- when awareness is present, postive knowledge is not required
-> exception: unless the defendant actually believes the circumstance (criminal circumstance) does not exist |
|
|
Term
| United States v. Giovannetti |
|
Definition
-Guy who rented his home out to gamblers - was charged with aiding a gambling operation
- court said NO
- reason: the defendant did not change his policy of checking in on the home once they moved in (he didn't check before he doesn't check now)
- and you need a conscious object as well as a high probability of knowledge |
|
|
Term
Deconstruct the statue
A person guilty of criminal mischief in the second degree when with intent to damage property of another person, and having no right to do so nor any reasonable ground to believe that he has such right, he damages property of another person in an amount exceeding one thousand five hundred dollars. |
|
Definition
Elements. MPC
-enters (conduct) - knowingly
- remains (conduct) - knowingly
- unlawfully (circumstance)-knowingly
-in a building(circumstance)knowingly
- to commit a crime (conduct)-purpose (intent)
-dwelling(circumstance)-no assigned mens rea -> refer to MPC 2.02(3) if no assigned men's rea - minimum of reckless
-2 men's rea present- knowingly and intent
Under Common Law: knowingly to enter & remaining
Everything else has infinite possibilities - analysis can go on and on b/c there are no definite rules. |
|
|
Term
| Morissette v. United States |
|
Definition
- guy went into an old abandoned airforce base and took spent bomb shell casings and converted them to sell them as scrap
-was charged with knowingly converting property -> defendant claims he did not know he thought it was abandoned -> however he did knowingly convert
- court says the statute for knowing as to the taking of the property and of the conversion
- issue: there was no mens rea proof as to if defendant knew he was taking the government property as his own - thus creating the conversion of property |
|
|
Term
| United States v. Dotterweich |
|
Definition
- drugs went out with the wrong label
- corp. was acquitted
- defendant was chareged because he was in a place of authority to require and enforce proper regulation
- as a matter of mens rea defendant was only negligent
- court said: b/c public was wholly helpless they must impose strict liability |
|
|
Term
|
Definition
MPC: no real strict liability - 2.05 says you can get strict liability if the penalty is a small such as a fine
- > 2.02(3) - if no mens rea a minimum of reckless
Common law: is there a designated mens rea? - no! -> likely to be strict liability
- public health and safety laws
-traditional crimes (malium in se)
- serious punishment |
|
|
Term
|
Definition
-Defendant was guilty of selling derivitaves of opium without the proper form
- main rule: idea that if the full definition of the crime is not fully incorporated in the criminal statute it cannot be strict liability -i.e. a tax form
- court says: it doesn't matter if he is ignorant we penalize him amyway |
|
|
Term
|
Definition
- the gun with the filed down bit which made it an automatic weapon - he is charged with having an unregistered firearm - defendant says he didn't know it was a machine gun
- this is a malium prohibitum crime (new)
-the gun is dangerous to large numbers of people and makes them vulnerable - public welfare crime
- court here assigned knowingly so it is okay b/c the supreme court said so |
|
|
Term
|
Definition
Strict liability
-MPC allows strict liability but it has to be an offense which constitutes something small such as a fine
- few states have adopted this |
|
|
Term
| United States v. X-citement Video Inc. |
|
Definition
-videos of sexual conduct by minors
- statute has a mens rea of knowingly - how far does knowingly travel down the statute
MPC 2.02(4) - men's rea applies to all the elements unless a contrary purpose appears
- court said: knowingly only modifies the surrounding verbs |
|
|
Term
|
Definition
- sting operation at a restaurant - sold a drink to an underaged girl w/out checking id
- cops arrested waitress and owner - owner fought conviction
- court says: " no one can be convicted of a crime punishable by imprisonment for an act he did not commit, did not have knowledge of, or give expressed or implied consent to the commission thereof |
|
|
Term
|
Definition
Defendant convicted of speeding and claimed his cruise control got stuck and thus it was involuntary
- speeding is generally a strict liability crime
-> traffic crimes = public welfare offense
-> nothing inherently bad about speeding - malium prohibitum
-> relatively small penalty
- court said that b/c defendant had to voluntarily engage cruise control it was a voluntary action - thus strict liability is acceptable |
|
|
Term
|
Definition
- took an unmarried girl of 16yrs. - no facts suggesting that it was for any particular purpose
- defendant argues he thought she was 18yrs. Of age - but he had no parental consent (also required by the statute)
- court is pretty much applying strict liability w/out calling it that -an act that is wrong in itself
- mistake of fact is no excuse |
|
|
Term
|
Definition
Ignorance or mistake
1)mistake to a fact/law is a defense if
A) the ignoranceor mistake negates the mens rea required to establish a material element of the offense, or
B) the law provides that the state of mind established by such ignorance or mistake constitutes a defense
2) defense is not available if the defendant would be guilty of another offense had the situation been as he supposed ... Shall reduce the grade and degree of the offense ... To those of the offense of which he would be guilty (lesser legal) |
|
|
Term
|
Definition
3) belief that conduct does not constitute a offense is a defense when
A) statue or other enactment is not known to the defendant and has not been published or made reasonably available prior to the conduct alleged
B) acts in reasonable reliance upon official statement... Afterwards determined to be invalid or erroneous - contained in statute, judicial decision, opinion, judgment, administrative order, grant of permission, official interpretation, administration, or enforcement
4) preponderance of the evidence |
|
|
Term
| Mistake of Fact Common Law Analysis |
|
Definition
1) examine the potential for strict liability
- traditional crime
-public welfare
-penalty
2) would the mistake defense succeed?
-a) was it honest and reasonable? (if no stop here)
(if yes) -b) lesser legal issue? (if yes stop here)
(if no) -c) is it morally wrong? -> subjective test - opportunity to pontificate. |
|
|
Term
Mistake of Fact MPC
Analysis |
|
Definition
1) 2.05 MPC on strict liability
2) MPC 2.04 mistake
A) absence of mens rea - if accused can negate mens rea - then there is a mistake defense
B) lesser legal issue (MPC gives the lesser crime)
3) 2.02(3) - if a statute is silent as to mens rea we require at least reckless |
|
|
Term
| Mistake of Law Common Law Analysis |
|
Definition
General rule: ignorance if the law is no excuse
Exceptions: 1) failure of proof - prosecution didn't meet its burden
2) reasonable reliance - official statement - later determined inncorrect - obtained from someone w/the power to interpret
3) fair notice - wholly passive conduct, no notice, and malium prohibitum
4) mistake as to another non criminal law |
|
|
Term
Mistake of Law MPC
Analysis |
|
Definition
General rule: 2.01(1) - negates the mens rea
Exceptions: 2.04(3)
A) fair notice - statute/law not known to actor AND not published
B) reasonable reliance - official statement, afterwards determined erroneous
2.02(9)- if awareness of the crime is not an element of the crime then you cannot just put it in |
|
|
Term
Common law v. MPC
Mistake of Fact
(lesser v. Higher crime) |
|
Definition
Common Law - gives you the higher crime regardless of what you thought
MPC- gives you the lesser crime you thought you were committing |
|
|
Term
|
Definition
- girl and her friends told the defendant she was 16, when she was actually 13 -> they had sex and she got pregnant
-defendant was chareged with rape
- court said mistake is no defense
-defendant shld. Have known
-applies strict liability
-under MPC would use 2.02(3) - apply at least reckless |
|
|
Term
People v. Hernandez
overturned by
People v. Lopez |
|
Definition
Hernandez - old CA case where the court said a good faith belief is a defense in statutory rape
Lopez - case of furnishing marijuana to a minor and the court said, furnishing marijuana is illegal regardless but furnishing to a minor, despite your good faith belief is a higher punishment |
|
|
Term
| B (a minor) v. Director of Public Prosecutions |
|
Definition
-16 year old boy kept asking a 13 year old girl for oral sex -13 yr. Old said no
- defendant 15yr old was charged with inciting a child ... Gross indecency
Issue: is the rule in Prince governing in this case ->defendant had an honest belief
- court said in situations like this Prince does not govern
- here was an honest belief
- burden of proof on the prosecution |
|
|
Term
|
Definition
-girl staying in a camper out front of her house
-b/f comes into camper and forces her to have sex with his friend
-father catches them and defendant stabs him
- court relies on Lopez case saying an honest belief is not a defense
- "legislative purpose would not be served if it recognized mistake of age as a defense" |
|
|
Term
|
Definition
-Intentional violation of a known legal duty
- how do you know when you have to know, when you have a legal duty
- knowingly - only of it is knowingly as to a legal duty |
|
|
Term
|
Definition
- pilot defendantwho didn't pay income tax
- did all the research and went to all the seminars
-actus reus - commission - not paying taxes
- he knew the law existed but decided he constitutionally didn't have to pay
- just b/c you don't understand the law does not mean it does not apply to you
Rule: if it negates your mens rea, you have a defense
General rule: knowing the meaning & existence of a law is not an element unless the statute makes it one by using knowing or willful AND the code is complex therefore difficult to understand |
|
|
Term
|
Definition
-The corrections officer with the gun at the club - charged with possession of a fire arm
- defendant applies the defense that he is a peace office and it applies to all corrections officers
- court says strict liability - public welfare, malium prohibitum, and pretty small penalty
- mistake of law is no defense |
|
|
Term
|
Definition
- guy pulls out wiring and damages the floor boards he installed - charged with destruction of property
- not strict liability
- not public welfare
- court says - no offense is committed under this section if he destroyed property of another if he does so in the honest though mistaken belief that the property is his own |
|
|
Term
| 3 exceptions to Mistake of Law |
|
Definition
- failure of proof - mistake if non-criminal law (Smith)
-failure of notice
- reasonable reliance on official statement |
|
|
Term
| Religious Beliefs and Mistake |
|
Definition
Hypo: family with religious beliefs felt they should trust in god to heal their sick child and the child died
- likely to get convicted because mistake is no excuse
- duty to the child - relationship - parent to child duty
- omission = actus reus |
|
|
Term
|
Definition
- defendants invoked privilege against self incrimination - was convicted of contempt of court b/c they refused to answer
- supreme court - gov. Representatives can't say one thing in advice to law and then contradictit to entrap them and force them to jail
- In this case Raley relied on a reading of the statue by the prosecution
- Morrero relied on his own reading |
|
|
Term
| Prosecutorial express disavoels |
|
Definition
When a prosecutor says " yeah we wouldn't enforce or prosecute that law"
This is an official statement |
|
|
Term
| United States v. Albertini I & II |
|
Definition
- defendant was an activist on a military base
- the lower appellate court said it was okay and it was appealed to the supreme court
- while in review the defendant did it again - it was the determined by the supreme court that it was not protected speech
- prosecutors tried for a second charge on the second act
- court said b/c the defendant was relying on a court ruling at the time of the second protest he cannot be charged (exception of reasonable reliance) |
|
|
Term
|
Definition
-Defendant was convicted of not registering in CA as a felon
-this charge was strict liability
- court said: it was not okay b/c they didn't give notice or an opportunity to register after notice was given
- it was wholly passive conduct
- this decision is applied very narrowly |
|
|
Term
|
Definition
- defendant who watched his wife come out of the woods with some guy and followed the guy into the saloon and shot him
- defendant claimed heat of passion - this sentence should reduced
- Court said: the words he heard were enough to bring the issue to the jury in heat of passion
Maher test: asses whether an ordinary person of average disposition would be likely to act with similar result |
|
|
Term
|
Definition
-Reasonable provocation (ordinary person would respond rashly)
- actual provocation
- no reasonable cooling
- no actual cooling
- if all four met no murder - move down to manslaughter
- mere provocation does not promote "reasonable killings" |
|
|
Term
|
Definition
- guy that took the gun off the windowsill and shot his wife
- wanted heat of passion defense
- court said - that the defendants statement showed enough for M1
- rule: no time it too short
- pretty much got rid of heat of passion M1 and M2 |
|
|
Term
|
Definition
- guy who killed stabbed his co worker after he flicked his nose with a towel
- appreciable time
- court said: must be some evidence that the defendant considered and weighed his decision to kill on order for the state to establish premeditation and deliberation under M1 statue. . . Any other intentional killing, by it's spontaneous and nonreflextive nature, is M2 |
|
|
Term
|
Definition
- brutal murder of the 10 year old girl, blood in every room, with 60 stab wounds
- CA Supreme court reversed M1
- evidence insufficient to show premed. Murder
- didn't plan
-no motive
- manner of killing suggested an explosion of violence rather than a preconceived design to kill |
|
|
Term
|
Definition
- defendant killed father in a hospital because father asked him to - single shot
- convicted of M1
-planning
- manner
- motive |
|
|
Term
| Premeditated murder elements |
|
Definition
- planning
- manner of killing
- motive for killing |
|
|
Term
|
Definition
Military wife and husband - wife threatened to turn him in to his commanding officer and leave him - he stabbed her 19 times in response
Court said: the provocation by the wife was not enough to mitigate to M2 voluntary manslaughter
-words only constitute adequate provocation IF accompanied by conduct |
|
|
Term
| Two common law approaches to heat of passion |
|
Definition
Girouard - here is a list of acceptable heat of passion situations
Maher - give it to the jury |
|
|
Term
|
Definition
- defendant whose gf. Broke up with her and he offers her gifts and she says no and he stabs her
- in order to get defense defendant must prove extreme emotional disturbance (MPC approach)
- court gives it to the jury |
|
|
Term
|
Definition
- defendant who killed someone while skiing b/c he was grossly negligent
- appeals court says there is enough evidence to show that the defendant consciously disregarded a substantial and unjustifiable risk by skiing recklessly
- gross deviation from a standard of care of a reasonable person |
|
|
Term
|
Definition
-unjustified (why)
-substantial (magnitude of the risk)
-gross deviation from a standard of care (normative) |
|
|
Term
|
Definition
- defendant husband and wife charged with manslaughter for not getting their child medical care for a tooth infection turned into gang-greene
- actus reus - ommision - not getting medical attention
- court said defendants were sufficiently put on notice concerning the symptoms of the child's illness and lack of improvement
- not seeking medical attention is negligence sufficient to support a conviction of statutory manslaughter |
|
|
Term
|
Definition
Murder
1a) purposely or knowingly
B) recklessly under extreme indifference to the value of human life (depraved heart) actor is engaged in, accomplice to/in the commission or flight after a BARRK felony
2) M1 |
|
|
Term
|
Definition
-game of russian roulette in the ice creme shop
- depraved heart killing
- malice in the sense of a wicked disposition
-conscious disregard
-equal to 210(2)(b) - reckless manifesting extreme indifference to human life |
|
|
Term
|
Definition
Intoxication
1) intoxication is not a defense
2) when recklessness establishes an element of the offense, due to self-induced Intoxication, is unaware of a risk of which he would have been aware had he been sober, unawareness is immaterial
4) exceptions:
a) intoxication not self-induced
b) is pathological - meaning grossly excessive intoxication given the amount of intoxicant |
|
|
Term
|
Definition
Guy driving drunk & over the speed limit & drove into lane of oncoming traffic and killed someone
- lack of awareness due to intoxication is no defense
-court said driver defendant drove in a manner displaying depraved disregard for human life |
|
|
Term
| Felony Murder under BARRK |
|
Definition
Pretty much always get felony murder for
Burglary
Arson
Robbery
Rape
Kidnapping |
|
|
Term
| Felony murder mens rea required? |
|
Definition
The only mens rea required for felony murder is that of the underlying felony
- if no mens rea assigned, 2.02(3) - minimum of recklessness |
|
|
Term
|
Definition
-Guy was robbed/burglarized. Defendant didn't touch the victim but victim had a heart attack and died
- defendant got felony murder
- rule: felony-murder is not limited to those deaths that are foreseeable - as long as the death is a direct casual result of the commission of the felony the defendant is responsible |
|
|
Term
|
Definition
- guy who got Insurance on sons and property and set fire to his place - 2 sons died in the fire
-court says he does not get felony murder b/c there is not enough evidence to get defendant for the underlying felony |
|
|
Term
|
Definition
- death during felonies - every commission of a felony means the actor runs the risk of a murder
- easier for the prosecution
- lesser-evil if you are already committing a bad act you are already a bad person
- deters ppl. From committing felonies in a dangerous way |
|
|
Term
| Misdemeanor manslaughter rule |
|
Definition
-Any death that occurs during the commission of misdemeanor is manslaughter
- only need to prove the mens rea (negligence or reckless) as to the underlying misdemeanor |
|
|
Term
|
Definition
- 8 yr. Old w/ eye cancer - chiropractor who says he can fix the kid w/out removing the eye
- predicate felony was grand theft
- court says to get felony murder each element of the felony must be inherently dangerous on it's own (a.k.a. in the abstract) - grand theft is not inherently dangerous in the abstract |
|
|
Term
|
Definition
- defendant held the gun to hostage & hostage deflected the causing the gun to go off
- court said b/c false imprisonment is not inherently dangerous in the abstract cannot get felony murder |
|
|
Term
|
Definition
-mother on a 3-4 day crack binge forgot about her baby
- Rhode Island goes with a subjective approach (v. CA abstract - inherently dangerous)
-R.I. is the person committing a felony that is dangerous in these circumstances? |
|
|
Term
|
Definition
- hunter (convicted felon) who shot his friend thinking he was a turkey
-while intoxicated
-court says if you can foresee a risk, it is dangerous and can get felony murder |
|
|
Term
|
Definition
- court says - felony murder instruction may not properly be given when it is based upon a felony which is an integral part of the homicide and which the evidence produced by the prosecution shows to be an offense included in fact w/in the offense charge
- reason - you get rid of possible defenses |
|
|
Term
|
Definition
- defendant killed someone while committing armed robbery
- tries to use Ireland to get rid of felony murder & Wilson
- difference between robbery's or burglaries with the intent to kill and situations where the death was an incident during commission
Test: where there is an independent purpose, such as stealing goods it does not merge |
|
|
Term
|
Definition
-when a felony is inseparable from attack on the person then the felony mergers
- I.e. AWDW
-if we don't have merger many violent felonies will escape the men's rea requirement - so prosecution never has to prove mens rea - the hardest element to prove |
|
|
Term
|
Definition
- burglary (breaking & entering) w/ intent to assault
- no difference b/ween indoor and outdoor awdw
- court says: because the intent of the burglary was awdw it merges
-overruled by Farley which says if you have a death during a BARRK crime you are strictly liable (insinuated felonies do not merge) |
|
|
Term
|
Definition
-defendant shot at car b/c he thought opposing gang members were in it
- defendant said he was just shooting to scare
- court says it will observe each case independenly to see if it has assaultive elements
- "shooting at an occupied vehicle is assaultive in nature and hence cannot serve as the underlying felony for felony murder (it merges)
- overturns people v. Robertson |
|
|
Term
| Durational limit to felony murder |
|
Definition
| Only deaths occurring during the felony or during getaway are considered a murder during the commission of the felony |
|
|
Term
Felony murder limit
Killings not in furtherance of felony |
|
Definition
-felony murder applies only when the act of killing is done in furtherance of the felony
Hypo: robbing a bank and you see your nemisis and you kill him - this is NOT on furtherance of a felony |
|
|
Term
|
Definition
- jewelry store being robbed & owner fought back - a co-felon was killed
- Question: is a defendant responsible for the death of a co-felon
- court says "it appears regressive to extend the application of the felony-murder rule...to lethal acts of third persons not in furtherance of the felonious scheme" |
|
|
Term
Co-felon deaths while in commission of felony
2- rules/ approaches |
|
Definition
Agency approach - killing is only in furtherance of the felony if it is committed by the defendant or one of the co-felons
Proximate rule: was the death a foreseeable risk of the commission of the felony
-any reasonable foreseeable death can be charged to the defendant
(co-felon deaths do not count) |
|
|
Term
|
Definition
-inherently dangerous
-did it merge
-did it happen with in the scope of the felony (close in time and causation)
- did it happen with in the duration of the felony
- who actually killed the victim (Agency v. Proximate)
- Exception - human shield - if you use someone as a sheild you will get felony murder in an agency jurisdiction |
|
|
Term
|
Definition
- court explained that in some circumstances the surviving felons can be liable for murder with out relying on the felony murder rule
- I.e. cops shooting at armed robbers and hit a bystander
- conscious disregard for human life |
|
|
Term
| Options for malice (causation) |
|
Definition
- intentional killing
- intending to cause gross bodily harm
- depraved heart |
|
|
Term
|
Definition
- helicopter crash during a police chase
- defendant did not consciously disregard the risk of the choppers running into one another
- sufficiently unforeseeable - why defendant is NOT guilty
- defendant was a but for cause |
|
|
Term
|
Definition
-but for test - w/out the act of the defendant would the result element still occurred
- can be a million but for cause, one does not have more bearing than another
- in criminal law the but for must still beyond a reasonable doubt
- proximate cause - were the actions of the defendant close in relation to the result element foreseeable
- is it foreseeable by the defendant
-is it too remote? |
|
|
Term
|
Definition
-Arzon the arsonist
- set fire on the fifth floor
- also a fire on the second floor
- Arzon was the but for cause
- and setting the fire on the fifth floor it was foreseeable that firefighter would come and might die |
|
|
Term
| Causation and Speeding death up |
|
Definition
| Any time an actor speeds up the death they are liable |
|
|
Term
|
Definition
- defendants robbed the victim in
sub-freezing temps on the side of the highway with out glasses and he got hit by a truck
- defendants are the but for cause
- it is a proximate cause that he will get hit by a car
- if the event leading to the death is unforeseeable it is likely that it will break the causation |
|
|
Term
|
Definition
- chewing gum factory case
- factory had warning
- couldn't identify the cause - no identification of proximate cause |
|
|
Term
| Causation and Negligent Medical Care |
|
Definition
-if the victim gets negligent medical care you as defendant will get liability
- if doctor intentionally kills the person ot breaks the casual chain
- rare disease - treated at hospital and contacts a rare disease and dies, defendant is generally not liable, it is seen as an intervening and superseding caurse |
|
|
Term
|
Definition
Casual relationship
1) conduct is the cause of a result when
a) but -for
b) relationship between conduct and result |
|
|
Term
| Causation and transferred intent |
|
Definition
-intended target is missed and another 3rd party is hit the causation is transferred
-limits: foreseeability of Recklessness is still applicable
-have to be zone of danger - the type of person who was at risk - can't transfer to the sky in a 20ft bldg. |
|
|
Term
|
Definition
- two guys drinking and defendant talks the other into killing himself, defendant provides gun and goes away
- there is a but for cause
- and the death is foreseeable
- defendant had no intention to kill |
|
|
Term
|
Definition
- defendant with a suicide machine and to "patients"
- defendant the but for cause
- death was foreseeable
- court says: only where there is probable cause to believe that death was the direct and natural result of a defendant's act can the defendant be properly bound over on a charge of murder |
|
|
Term
|
Definition
- husband who helped wife committed suicide by holding a rifle - charged with M1
- court says: aiding = intending to provide means to committ suicide not actively performing the act resulting in death
- defendants action trancends merely providing victim a means to kill herself and becomes active participation in the death of another |
|
|
Term
|
Definition
- woman abducted by KKK leader and she took poison to kill herself
- wounds and poison caused complications and death
- court says - deceased was entrapped by the appellant till she returned home
- at the moment of taking the poison deceased was in the passion, desires, and will of appellant -therefore the defendant is liable |
|
|
Term
|
Definition
- defendant stabbed a girl and victim refused treatment due to religious beliefs and died
- free will of the victim could break the causual chain
- or -
-you must take the victim as you find them - some courts may see religion as a preexisting condition |
|
|
Term
|
Definition
-defendant with blind friend who was easily angered was tricked by defendant and it resulted in him shooting cops and cops killing him
- was the but for cause
- was the proximate cause
- was foreseeable
- court says he is not legal cause despite his statement of being "the hoss that caused the loss" |
|
|
Term
|
Definition
- drag racer tries to pass defendant drag racer and goes into other lane crashes and dies
- defendant was the but for cause
- defendant was the proximate and forseeable result
- court analogy to Campbell and Kevorkian - someone was a free actor and someone else made the choice - not the defendant
- deceased brought on his own death |
|
|
Term
|
Definition
- drag racers kills himself and child in a car he hit
- defendant participated in the race and this was a proximate cause
- court says foreseeability requirement, coupled with requirement of Recklessness will prevent the possibility of harsh or unjust results in involuntary manslaughter case. |
|
|
Term
|
Definition
- Russian roulette the right way
- court said the causationis that there was mutual encouragement
-deceased did not intentionally kill himself
- Russian roulette is a choice, but one act - with one act it is harder to find a superseding cause
- defendants were more than merely present, they were active participants |
|
|
Term
|
Definition
| Cannot be charged for both attempt and commission of the crime - they merge |
|
|
Term
Attempt punishment
Common law |
|
Definition
- historical - attempt misdemeanor
-current - some jurisdictions reduce
-by grade
- by half
-why we reduce - think it is bad to commit BARRK felonies - we think it is less bad to plan it andNOT take actions towards its completeion |
|
|
Term
Types of attempt
(2 types) |
|
Definition
-completed - everything is done - but intended result did not occur -i.e. fired the gun and missed
-incomplete - still underway -i.e. planted bomb but has not detonated it
- we want lesser punishment for incomplete attempts to with draw (abandon) & say nvm. |
|
|
Term
|
Definition
Criminal attempt
1) person is guilty of an attempt if acting with the kind of culpability required for commission
A) purposely engages in conduct ... Would constitute the crime if...attendant circumstances were as he believed them to be; or
B) when causing a particular result ... Element of the crime...purpose of causing or with the belief that it will cause such result with out further conduct on his part (completed)
C) purposely does or omits to do anything which...is an act or omission consisting a substantial step in a course of conduct planned to culminate in his commission of the crime (incomplete) |
|
|
Term
|
Definition
Renunciation of criminal conduct
4) when actors conduct would otherwise constitute an attempt under sub. Sec. (1)(b) or (1)(c)...it is an affirmative defense that he abandoned his effort to committ the crime or otherwise prevents it's commission |
|
|
Term
|
Definition
Attempt = Mens Rea of Purpose
- need purpose as to the result and conduct |
|
|
Term
|
Definition
- defendant raped 3 women without protection while HIV positive - charged with attempted murder
- court said no murder charge because defendant had no intent to kill only intent to rape - missing mens rea as to the murder - purpose
-hypo: if someone did die defendant would get murder
-court does not like the comparison of guns and aids - court wants hard science |
|
|
Term
|
Definition
-guy who was refused sex by the woman in the tent and shot the tent
- court held the defendant was lacking intent to kill - could not get attempted murder |
|
|
Term
Colorado Attempt &
People v. Thomas |
|
Definition
- CO will allow recklessness Mens Rea to Attempt
-people v. Thomas - defendant shot 3x at assumed attempted rapist missed all three - at trial got manslaughter
- any accident due to recklessness in CO could = attempted murder (i.e. Thacker shooting at the tent would equal attempted manslaughter - or possibly murder if purpose found) |
|
|
Term
| Mens Rea needed for Attendant Circumstances In Attempt |
|
Definition
- knowingly (or aware) for other pieces
- what ever mens rea needed for the intended felony in Re: to circumstances is what you need for attempt |
|
|
Term
| Murder Justification Defense |
|
Definition
- justification defense is available when the conduct in question is not something that society condemns or seeks to prevent - the (otherwise) criminal conduct is regarded as morally good.
I.e. self defense
Defense of others
Defense of property
Necessity |
|
|
Term
|
Definition
| -an excuse defense is available when the defendants action though desirable to prevent and deter, is NOT blame worthy |
|
|
Term
|
Definition
- defendants who were going to rob the payroll guy
- did they have conduct - of specific intent - purpose -> yes, has the conscious design to take the money
- court says not guilty b/c he did not have the actus reus - must be so near to the result that the danger of success is remote (probably need physical proximity) |
|
|
Term
|
Definition
- African American guy waiting for his friend on the street and white girl gets scared - claims he was trying to rape
- claim that the defendant gave confession to Sheriff
- defendants acts do not = unequivocal acts of intent |
|
|
Term
|
Definition
You acts alone must unequivocally demonstrate an intent
- this test is very close to the last act
- no question of your intended actions |
|
|
Term
|
Definition
- attempted robbery at the bank x2 (cardboard license plates)
- MPC 5.01(c) - incomplete attempt, defendant has made a substantial step
- action must be strongly corborative of the intent of the crime |
|
|
Term
|
Definition
Criminal attempt
1)person guilty of attempt if kind of culpability required for comission
A) purpose as to conduct -would constitute the crime if attendant circumstances were as he believes them to be
B) (completed) When causing a particular result element of the crime -purpose of causing or with the belief that it will cause such result w/out further conduct on his part
C) (incomplete) purposely does or omits to do anything which is an act or omission constituting a substantial step in a course of conduct planned to culminate in commission of the crime |
|
|
Term
|
Definition
- guys waiting to rob the atm tech
- Court said not close enough to the final act and not enough initial acts
- too much time till the actual crime - proximity in time and space (still had 45 min.) |
|
|
Term
|
Definition
- the three men on horses on the road
- would be encouraging only if defendant intended the result by his words
- can only be guilty if he intended the result of colvards death |
|
|
Term
|
Definition
- the guy who told the police informant where to get pot and drew a map
- this is generally just knowledge and you need purpose - purpose if you get a referral fee |
|
|
Term
|
Definition
-real estate agent suspected illegal activity but went through with it anyway
- charged under money laundering |
|
|
Term
|
Definition
- the guy who hires friends to get information and they end up killing him with swords
- rule: if he would be an accomplice to one crime he would be an accomplice to an additional crime as a natural and probable consequence
Test for luparello:
1) principle commits crime #1
2) secondary actor is an accomplice to #1 crime
3) principle commits crime #2
4) crime #2 is reasonably foreseeable as a result of a crime #1 |
|
|
Term
|
Definition
-police informant trying to buy a gun and defendant ends up robbing the guy
- accomplice must reasonably foresee that the robbery was foreseeable |
|
|
Term
|
Definition
- boat explosion where the accomplice intentionally overloaded the boiler
- accomplice had a men's rea of purpose as to the crucial conduct
- as to the result - did he have the men's rea required for the predicate crime
- attendant circumstances go either way |
|
|
Term
| Breaking down the element and required mens rea for accomplice liability |
|
Definition
Conduct - purpose as to the crucial conduct
Result - men's rea applicable to the predicate crime
Attendant Circumstances - up in the air |
|
|
Term
|
Definition
- guy lured to apartment and ambushed and accidentally killed
- charged with 3rd degree
- had purpose as to the underlying conduct
- men's rea of 3rd degree -reckless - and he had reckless |
|
|
Term
|
Definition
- 3 guys having a shoot out at a housing project and principal looking for a truant kid got shot
- don't know which is the but for cause
Technically they all are
- all have to be accomplices to one another for it to work |
|
|
Term
Accomplice liability
Overview |
|
Definition
Hicks - McVay - 2.06 (same)
- Russlle and Roebuck
- luparello is the outlier |
|
|
Term
|
Definition
- jazz concert case
- accomplice to not working with a work visa
- do not have to cause the harm as an accomplice |
|
|
Term
|
Definition
- judge who intercepted the telegraph that was going to warn the victim
- it doesn't matter if the principal didn't know the accomplice |
|
|
Term
|
Definition
- general store robbery set up - bacon out the window
- principal did not have the men's rea required to committ the crime so he can not be guilty
-therefore the accomplice cannot be guilty
- rule: need the principal to have the mens rea in order for the accomplice to get mens rea |
|
|
Term
|
Definition
- helicopter hunting case - killing foxes
- even though the principal actor had a defense the accomplice did not the defense - it was personal to him
- court said the principal still had a men's rea and was guilty but for the defense so the accomplice was as well. |
|
|
Term
|
Definition
Mens rea
1) purpose to agree
2) purpose for forming the agreement is so harmful conduct will occur
Actus reus
-need an agreement |
|
|
Term
| Conspiracy common law v. MPC |
|
Definition
Common law - just the conversation is enough
MPC (and Colorado) - needs an overt act |
|
|
Term
|
Definition
Can't be prosecuted for conspiracy when the crime requires two people to do it
-only relevant in bi-lateral jurisdiction |
|
|
Term
|
Definition
Need two or more and they both have to have guilty minds
Modern: MPC 5.04(b)(1) unilateral conspiracies are allowed -- i.e. an undercover cop and you make a deal |
|
|
Term
|
Definition
-conspiracy as complicity
-two brothers evading taxes and making moon shine
Rules:
1) with in the scope of conspiracy - in furtherance of the conspiracy - principals mindset, were his actions in furtherance of the conspiracy
2) reasonably foreseeable - anything the co-conspirator does that is reasonably forseeable to commission of the conspiracy is attributal to all |
|
|
Term
| Braverman v. United States |
|
Definition
- the number of conspiracy charges is determined by the number of agreements
- i.e. if only one agreement only one conspiracy charge |
|
|
Term
|
Definition
| All incohent charges (attempt, conspiracy, or solicitation) for the same crime will merge |
|
|
Term
|
Definition
| If you know that someone you conspired with to commit a crime then conspired with someone else to commit the same crime you are guilty of that too, even though you didn't know the other conspirators (wheel and spoke idea) |
|
|
Term
| Wheel and spoke conspiracy theory |
|
Definition
Wheel conspiracy- where smaller and separate conspiracies are deemed to be part of a larger conspiracy due to the common co-conspirator hub
- members of the smaller conspiracies (spokes) can be convicted of the larger one if it can be proven that they knew of other conspirators or the other conspiracy |
|
|
Term
|
Definition
Murder
A) purposely or knowingly
B) recklessly under extreme indifference to human life or accomplice to a BARRK felony |
|
|
Term
|
Definition
Manslaughter
A) recklessly (depraved heart)
B) extreme mental or emotional disturbance |
|
|
Term
|
Definition
Negligent homicide
When it is committed negligently |
|
|
Term
|
Definition
aiding in suicide
1) causes by force, duress, or deception
2) purposely aids or solicits |
|
|
Term
|
Definition
| 1) incohent crimes will be punished as one degree lower |
|
|
Term
|
Definition
Conduct is the cause when
- it is a but for cause
- relationship between the conduct and result satisfies additional requirements |
|
|
