I.                     Purposes and Limits of Punishment

a.        Purpose of punishing people is justice

b.        Retributivism

                                                               i.      Expression of social disapproval

                                                              ii.      You did wrong so you should suffer

c.        Utilitarianism

                                                               i.      Deterrence

1.        By changing behavior of A you change behavior of B, C, and D

                                                             ii.      Rehabilitation

1.        Purpose of prison

                                                           iii.      Incapacitation

II.                   Elements of the Criminal Offense

a.        Criminal Act

                                                               i.      Need for an Actus Reas

1.       Proctor (p. 114)

a.        Property possess is not enough to commit a crime – it was a means to a crime

b.       Cannot prove intent to sell alcohol

c.        Must have culpability

2.       MPC – 2.02(4)

a.        Contagion rule

b.       Mental element applies to all subsequent material elements if not stated otherwise

3.       MPC – 2.02(5)

a.        Recklessness readiness rule

b.       If no actus reas prescribed, recklessness is the default


                                                             ii.      Omissions

1.        Jones case (p. 121) – child malnourished by family member – common law

a.        Can only be responsible if omission constitutes a breach of legal duty

                                                                                                                                       i.      Statute imposes a duty

                                                                                                                                      ii.      One stands in certain status relationship to another

                                                                                                                                    iii.      Contractual duty

                                                                                                                                    iv.      One has voluntarily assumed the care of another and so secluded the helpless person as to prevent others from rendering aid

b.       Can be culpable by omission

2.       MPC – 2.01(3)

a.        Omission is sufficient by the law defining the offense

b.       Duty to perform is otherwise imposed by law

                                                            iii.      Requirement of Voluntariness

1.       MPC – 2.01

a.        Only culpable if act is voluntary

b.       Following are nonvoluntary

                                                                                                                                       i.      Reflex or convulsion

                                                                                                                                      ii.      Movement during unconsciousness or sleep

                                                                                                                                    iii.      Conduct during hypnosis

                                                                                                                                    iv.      Movement not part of actor’s effort or determination

2.        Voluntariness is separate from mens rea

3.        Newton case (p. 125)

a.        Plane landed in US when def had a gun

b.       NG bc the plane was not to land in US and therefore not voluntary and unforeseeable

                                                            iv.      Prohibition of “Status” Crimes

1.        Robinson case (p. 136)

a.        Addict within the state of CA

b.       Cannot prosecute someone merely for the status of being an addict

2.        Johnson case (p. 143)

a.        Pregnant woman transmitting drugs to fetus in the 30-90 seconds bt birth and umbilical cord being cut

b.       Actually trying to convict bc she is an addict

                                                              v.      Legality

1.       Keeler (p. 154)

a.        MPC defines murder as the killing of a human being

b.       In this case, the victim was a fetus and the court determined that a fetus is not a human

2.        Hypo: what if the assault took place when a fetus but the child died after birth from injuries sustained in the beating

                                                            vi.      Specificity

1.        Statutes for criminal offenses must be specific enough to understand

2.       Morales (p. 162)

a.        Anti-gang statute – too vague

b.       Cannot determine what it means to disperse, when notice given, or who is a gang member

3.        Vague statutes gives police too much discretion

b.       Guilty Mind

                                                               i.      Requirement of a Guilty Mind

1.        Must have a proper mind requirement attached to each material element

2.        Only exception if for strict liability – MPC does not allow this

3.       Balint (p. 185)

a.        Guilty of selling a narcotic even though he did not know it was a narcotic

b.        Ignorance is no excuse

c.        Three element offense

                                                                                                                                       i.      Possessing

                                                                                                                                      ii.      Inhibited drugs

                                                                                                                                    iii.      Hallucinogenic qualities

4.       Dotterweich (p. 189)

a.        President of company convicted for selling unadulterated drugs

b.       Court believes this can serve as a form of regulation

5.       Morrisette (p. 193)

a.        Def took bomb shell casings from a field

b.       Not dangerous enough and no purpose in convicting when there was no mental element

c.        Court determined that punishment should rely on the following:

                                                                                                                                       i.      If regulatory crime

                                                                                                                                      ii.      If a misdemeanor

                                                                                                                                    iii.      Does it cry for restitution

                                                              ii.      Categories of Culpability

1.       MPC – 2.02

a.        Purposely

b.       Knowingly

c.        Recklessly

d.       Negligently

2.       Faulkner (p. 202)

a.        Not responsible for burning a ship bc did not have mental element

b.       His only intent was to steal the rum, not cause harm to the ship

3.        Have to have a minimum of recklessly according to the MPC

                                                            iii.      Mistake and Mens Rea Default Rules

1.       MPC – 2.04

a.        Applies to mental element

b.       Exceptions

                                                                                                                                       i.      Not when def would be guilty of another offense

                                                                                                                                      ii.      Applies to mistake of law only when:

1.        law not made known

2.        reliance on official statement

c.        Def must prove

2.       MPC – 2.02

a.        Buddy system rule – all material elements must have mental element attached

b.       Contagion rule – the mental element will apply to all subsequent material elements if not stated otherwise

                                                                                                                                       i.      Does not apply if statute states otherwise

c.        Recklessness readiness rule: minimum of recklessness if not otherwise stated

3.       Regina v. Prince (p. 223)

a.        Cannot take a girl away from parents wo permission if under 16

b.       Court holds strict liability – if mistaken about age, does so at own peril

4.        People v. Ryan (p. 230)

a.        Must knowingly possess over 625mg of hallucinogen

b.       Prosecutor did not show that def knew specific part of drug over that amount

5.        Guest case (p. 237)

a.        Def made a mistake pertaining to girl’s age

b.       Court ruled this was a mental error and capable of a defense

c.        Goes against Prince

                                                            iv.      Mistake of Law

1.        Mistake of Law and Mens Rea

a.        General rule: mistake of law is no excuse

b.       MPC allows exceptions – 2.04

                                                                                                                                       i.      Rely on statement by official

                                                                                                                                      ii.      Law not made known to the public

                                                                                                                                    iii.      These defenses must be proven by the def

c.        People v. Bray (p. 248)

                                                                                                                                       i.      Was convicted in another state as an accessory and was not sure if considered a felon

                                                                                                                                      ii.      Allowed to do things felons were not typically allowed to do (for example, vote) so got a gun

                                                                                                                                    iii.      Accused of a possessing a firearm as a felon

                                                                                                                                    iv.      Mistake of law bc did not know he was a felon – has to show the following:

1.        He did not know

2.        His belief was reasonable

2.        Mistake of Law as an Excuse

a.        Twitchell case (p. 269)

                                                                                                                                       i.      Parents were Christian Scientists and child died from not taking to doctor

                                                                                                                                      ii.      No excuse – involuntary manslaughter

                                                                                                                                    iii.      Reversed – relied on an official statement

III.                 Homicide Offenses

a.        Overview

                                                               i.      Defined by statutes on a state by state basis

                                                              ii.      Malice aforethought for murder

1.        Purpose to cause death

2.        intent to inflict serious bodily harm

3.        extreme recklessness w respect to a serious risk of harm to another’s life

4.        a willingness to undertake even a very small risk of death where the risky conduct is so unworthy as to establish guilt of a serious felony (felony murder rule)

                                                            iii.      manslaughter differs from murder

1.        killing is committed with recklessness or negligence

2.        in the heat of passion and the passion has adequate justification

b.        Intentional Homicide

                                                               i.      Premeditated Murder (First-Degree)

1.        Differentiation bt 1st and 2nd degree is premeditation needed for 1st

2.        Watson case (p. 369)

a.        Stole a car, ran from police, killed officer after several seconds of hesitation

b.       Jury believed premeditated – there is enough time to decide what he was doing

3.        Mercy killing – old woman kills husband who was ill – voluntary manslaughter

a.        Differs from Watson

b.       Shows how different jurisdictions treat differently

4.        Requires both premeditation and deliberation

5.        MPC – 210.2

a.        Committed purposely or knowingly

b.       Committed recklessly under circumstances manifesting extreme indifference to the value of human life

                                                                                                                                       i.      Engaged in committing or attempting robbery, rape, arson, burglary, kidnapping, or felonious escape

                                                             ii.      Voluntary Manslaughter

1.        MPC – 210.3

a.        Committed recklessly OR

b.       Committed under the influence of extreme mental or emotional disturbance for which there is reasonable explanation or excuse

c.        Take from the viewpoint of the def with exceptions

                                                                                                                                       i.      Do not take into consideration idiosyncratic moral values

2.        Theory of Mitigation

a.        Walker case (p. 380)

                                                                                                                                       i.      Victim approached with a knife and def killed him

                                                                                                                                      ii.      Considered in the heat of passion bc he was provoked

b.       In addition to heat of passion, must have adequate provocation

                                                                                                                                       i.      Adequate provocation determined by the reasonable person

1.        What is a reasonable person????

                                                                                                                                      ii.      Words are not adequate under traditional view

3.        Common Law and Its Categories and Rules

a.        Adultery and Other “Adequate Provocations”

                                                                                                                                       i.      Rowland (p. 386)

1.        killed wife when caught in adulterous act

2.        adultery deemed adequate provocation

                                                                                                                                      ii.      Must witness adultery

b.        Cooling Time

                                                                                                                                       i.      Ex Parte Fraley (p. 397)

1.        killed man who allegedly killed son

2.        occurred several months after son’s killing

3.        court determined adequate cooling time

                                                                                                                                      ii.      purpose is that we wish to punish those who kill in cold blood more harshly than hot blood

                                                                                                                                    iii.      If in fear then adequate provocation and no cooling time bc fear is continuous

4.       Provocation under Reform Rules

a.        Berry case (p. 402)

                                                                                                                                       i.      Continually tormented by wife’s other love

                                                                                                                                      ii.      Killed after several weeks of this torment

                                                                                                                                    iii.      Cooling time not adequate bc it was a continual problem with his wife

c.        Unintentional Homicide

                                                               i.      Involuntary Manslaughter

1.       Negligent and Reckless Homicide

a.       Welansky (p. 429)

                                                                                                                                       i.      Blocked emergency doors in a night club

                                                                                                                                      ii.      Recklessly is used differently here

                                                                                                                                    iii.      Def disregarded the problems with blocking the doors

b.       MPC – 210.4

                                                                                                                                       i.      Negligent homicide when committed negligently

                                                                                                                                      ii.      Third degree felony

2.       Involuntary Manslaughter in Contemporary Settings

a.       Williams (p. 438)

                                                                                                                                       i.      Parents would not take child to doctor bc Native Americans and were scared child would be taken away

                                                                                                                                      ii.      Courts will not take ignorance into consideration

                                                                                                                                    iii.      Does not take cultural considerations into account

b.       Must be a causing fact that the law targets

c.        Results must be somewhat foreseeable

                                                             ii.      Reckless Murder

1.       Mays v. People (p. 450)

a.        Def threw bottle at wife and she burned to death after lantern caught fire

b.       Abandoning of a malignant heart

c.        Voluntary alcoholism is not an excuse

                                                                                                                                       i.      MPC – 2.08

1.        intoxication does not constitute mental disease

2.        voluntary intoxication not a defense

d.       Does not require prosecution to prove intent to kill or even seriously injure – could find guilty if acted with an abandoning of a malignant heart

2.       Vehicular homicide

a.        Many states have adopted special rules for this

b.       Porter v. State (p. 448)

                                                                                                                                       i.      Insufficient evidence of gross negligence

                                                                                                                                      ii.      Court took into account unfamiliarity of area

3.        MPC distinguishes recklessness (manslaughter) and extreme recklessness (murder)

                                                            iii.      Homicide in the Course of Another Crime

1.       First-Degree Felony Murder

a.       People v. Stamp (p. 463)

                                                                                                                                       i.      Def robbed a business and the manager had a heart attack after the def left

                                                                                                                                      ii.      Guilty of felony murder bc death resulted from the felony – extreme stress on heart caused death

                                                                                                                                    iii.      Causation present

b.       No felony murder rule under the MPC

                                                                                                                                       i.      May be guilty of negligent homicide

2.        Two Variants of Felony Murder

a.        Misdemeanor manslaughter

                                                                                                                                       i.      Most states have abolished but a few still follow this

                                                                                                                                      ii.      If death occurs in the commission of a felony then manslaughter

b.        Sentencing enhancement

                                                                                                                                       i.      When death occurs during a felony, then sentence is enhanced for the felony committed

                                                                                                                                      ii.      No addition crime, just the felony

3.        Limits on the Felony Murder Rule

a.        Stamp (p. 463) establishes baseline formula

                                                                                                                                       i.      Wo this rule, killing may only be negligent or reckless manslaughter

                                                                                                                                      ii.      Conduct causing the killing may have ended prior to killing

                                                                                                                                    iii.      Penalty for first degree felony murder will exceed the sum of the punishments for the felony and the homicide separately

b.       Limiting Predicate Felonies

                                                                                                                                       i.      Many states have enumerated certain felonies in which the rule can be implicated

c.        Foreseeability and Proximate Cause

                                                                                                                                       i.      Some states use foreseeability as an introduction of proximate cause

1.        addresses the risks to human life foreseeably taken by the felons

2.        has legislature considered

3.        when does the felony end

4.        what does it mean for the killing to be done in furtherance of the felony

5.        what does it mean to commit a killing

6.        Who qualifies as a murder victim

4.       Merger of the Homicide and the Predicate Crime

a.        Felony and killing must be distinctly different crimes

                                                                                                                                       i.      If the felony is manslaughter, cannot use to enhance to murder under the rule

b.       This is one way that courts have shortened the reach of the rule

c.        People v. Moran (p. 501)

                                                                                                                                       i.      Def shot the cops when stopped

                                                                                                                                      ii.      The felony was the murder – he was not trying to escape so the crimes were not distinct

IV.                 Justification and Excuse

a.        Defensive Force, Necessity and Duress

                                                               i.      Defensive Force

1.        Elements and Rationales

a.       People v. LaVoie (p. 576)

                                                                                                                                       i.      Def car was being pushed and he pulled over, felt threatened, shot those who were harassing him

b.        Self Defense

                                                                                                                                       i.      MPC – 3.04

1.        actual belief

2.        belief is reasonable

3.        force is immediately necessary

4.        danger of being killed, receiving serious bodily injury, kidnapping, or rape

                                                                                                                                     ii.      common law

1.        actual belief

2.        belief is reasonable

3.        harm is immanent

4.        danger of being killed or receiving great bodily harm

                                                                                                                                   iii.      Exceptions

1.        prisoners have no right to self defense

2.        cannot be the aggressor

3.        duty to retreat

a.        exceptions

                                                                                                                                                                                                               i.      in home

                                                                                                                                                                                                              ii.      at place of work unless aggressor is known to be at work

b.       only when able to retreat safely

c.        Can defend others – some states require that belief is correct and not just reasonable

                                                                                                                                       i.      Weaker defense

d.       If belief is unreasonable – then cannot assert defense

                                                                                                                                       i.      Under MPC, may be manslaughter if reckless, or negligent homicide

e.        Self defense must be in relation to force used

                                                                                                                                       i.      Cannot use excessive force

                                                                                                                                      ii.      Fists may be deadly if pro boxer

2.        Defensive Force and the Battered Spouse

a.        Battered spouse cannot be used as a defense but may be entered into evidence to show state of mind

b.       Some courts will not allow this evidence in cases where spouse is sleeping

c.        Leidholm (p. 581)

                                                                                                                                       i.      Battered spouse

                                                                                                                                      ii.      Killed husband in his sleep

d.       Some states extend this defense to battered children

e.        Courts very reluctant to use as a cultural defense

                                                                                                                                       i.      Cultures of homeland will not be taken into consideration

                                                                                                                                      ii.      Nature of upbringing will not be taken into consideration

3.        Reprise on the Reasonable Self-Defender

a.       Goetz (p. 610)

                                                                                                                                       i.      Shot four boys who were harassing him

                                                                                                                                      ii.      Tried to assert a subjective standard

                                                                                                                                    iii.      Court ruled that an objective standard should be used but can take circumstances into consideration

b.       If person is extremely hostile, will not be considered reasonable

c.        Cannot use excessive force

4.       Aggressor Exception

a.        If person is the aggressor, cannot claim self defense

b.       If you hit a person and they pull out a gun, you then get self defense back bc their force is excessive and they then become the aggressor

5.        Defensive Force and Law Enforcement

a.        Defense of property

                                                                                                                                       i.      Ceballos (p. 631)

1.        Set a trap gun in garage which shot a 15 yo when he entered

2.        Court determined that a string gun could not be set bc not a dwelling

3.        Cannot use excessive force and can not know if force is excessive if not home

                                                                                                                                      ii.      Colorado statute

1.       make my day law

2.        can use deadly force if reasonable belief by occupant

                                                                                                                                    iii.      Differences in states

1.        if def reasonably believes intent to inflict a felony or bodily harm

2.        reasonable belief that an attempt at a felony only

3.        limit the defense to certain felonies

                                                                                                                                    iv.      general rule is that in defense of property – cannot use deadly force bc life is worth more than property

                                                                                                                                      v.      MPC

1.        requires exposure to a felony and exposure to serious bodily harm

b.        Crime prevention

                                                                                                                                       i.      Not limited to own property or own home

                                                                                                                                      ii.      Common law – deadly force could be used to stop a felony

                                                                                                                                    iii.      Modern rule – deadly force only used to stop certain felonies that are seriously dangerous

1.        MPC – 3.075

                                                              ii.      Choice of Evils - necessity

1.        Moral Issue

a.        MPC – 3.02

                                                                                                                                       i.      Elements

1.        actor believes necessary to avoid a harm or evil to himself or another

2.        harm or evil is avoided is greater than that sought to be prevented

3.        no law provides exceptions or defenses

4.        legislative purpose to exclude justification does not otherwise appear

                                                                                                                                     ii.      Exceptions

1.        actor was reckless or negligent in bringing about the situation

2.        actor was reckless or negligent in appraising the necessity

3.        justification is unavailable for an offense in which recklessness or negligence suffices to establish culpability

b.       Dudley & Stevens (p. 637)

                                                                                                                                       i.      Lord Hale: a person cannot attack an innocent in order to save own life

                                                                                                                                      ii.      US v. Holmes: appropriate to select by vote

                                                                                                                                    iii.      Kant would say ok to eat someone if you would not mind being eaten

                                                                                                                                    iv.      Bentham would say that three are saved and only one sacrificed

c.        Cannibas case (handout)

                                                                                                                                       i.      No medical necessity defense allowed in cases of class I drugs

                                                                                                                                      ii.      Part of the necessity defense is necessity

V.                   Mental Illness as a Defense

a.        The M’Naghten rule and cognition

                                                               i.      Serravo (p. 689)

1.        Believed God wanted him to stab wife to severe the marriage

2.        Covered up the crime bc he believed the police would not understand

3.        Court applied M’Naghten rule

a.        Societal standard of morals

b.       Court blends deific decree into their rationale

4.        question of what the def action actually consisted of

a.        action stabbing the wife

b.       action obeying God

c.        action stabbing wife bc he was obeying God

d.       results in differences in societal moral norms

                                                                                                                                       i.      immoral to stab wife

                                                                                                                                      ii.      not immoral to obey God

                                                              ii.      M’Naghten rule

1.        person gets off if the person does not know what they do is wrongful

2.        test

a.        defect of reason OR

b.       not know nature and quality of the act

3.        considered as having complete or total ignorance

4.        later some jurisdictions added irresistible impulse

b.       Cognition and Volition: The Road from M’Naghten and Back

                                                               i.      ALI rule (American Law Institute)

1.        mental disease OR defect

2.        lacks substantial capacity to conform to requirements of the law – cannot appreciate

a.        this is similar to irresistible impulse

b.       some jurisdictions say this impulse must be strong enough to commit act with policeman at your elbow

                                                              ii.      Post Hinkley – federal law

1.        tightens ALI rule

2.        notion that def is unable to appreciate wrongfulness of act due to a severe mental disease or defect

                                                           iii.      Durham test

1.        get off if your act was the product of a mental disease or defect

2.        too broad and indeterminate

3.        too solicitous of experts

                                                            iv.      key thing of all tests

1.        all have the step of wrongfulness

2.        particular state of mind

3.        lack of knowledge or wrongfulness of the act

                                                             v.      Important points in insanity defense

1.        important to distinguish bt insanity as a defense and lack of competency to face trial

2.        in most states, def must prove insanity by preponderance of the evidence – in some states, prosecution must prove sanity beyond a reasonable doubt

3.        important to remember the NG by reason of insanity does not get the def off – most states require confinement and put burden of proof on the def to sanity to get out of the confinement

c.        Quasi-Insanity Defenses

                                                               i.      Alcohol and other drugs

1.        voluntary alcohol or drug use, and even the log term effects, will not ordinarily exculpate the def

2.       State v. Maik (p. 735)

a.        Def kills roommate after history of LSD use

b.       Can enter insanity defense bc he was not under the influence at the time of the killing and therefore can enter into evidence

c.        Distinguish from Decina (epileptic driver who was found guilty) bc it is one thing to be intoxicated in a generalized way but another to be out of control when using an auto

3.        courts will generally allow a defense if alcohol induced a permanent mental illness after the use

4.        if alcohol or drug use was involuntary – can assert a defense

5.       Hendershott (p. 273)

a.        Court distinguished bt extreme drunkenness and insanity

b.       Juries look poorly on choosing to be drunk – cannot escape recklessness for being drunk

d.        Diminished Capacity

                                                               i.      This is NOT a defense

                                                              ii.      Can be presented into evidence

                                                            iii.      Will get off if autistic but not if epileptic

                                                            iv.      Can assert this instead of insanity

1.        is not a defense but entered into evidence

2.        can reduce culpability or get off

                                                             v.      Pohlot case (p. 745)

1.        arranged for wife’s murder after she filed divorce

2.        allowed to enter evidence of diminished capacity bc he had a mental problem

                                                            vi.      this evidence may allow disproving the necessary mens rea

                                                          vii.      Guilty but mentally ill is a middle ground bt insanity and diminished capacity – but must be found guilty whereas the others may allow for NG verdicts

VI.                 Attempt

a.        Punishment

                                                               i.      Why punish attempt

1.        Utilitarian argument is although attempt actions are harmless, proves person is dangerous

2.        Attempt implies intent to do harm

b.        Mens Rea

                                                               i.      Same mens rea is needed for attempt as is needed for the crime

                                                              ii.      Lyerla (p. 756)

1.        Logical impossibility to have attempted reckless homicide

2.        Cannot say that someone acted intentionally and recklessly

                                                            iii.      Result element has to be present (such as a killing for homicide)

                                                            iv.      MPC 5.01

1.        Purposely engage in conduct constituting the crime; OR

2.        Causing a result that is an element of the crime, without further conduct (this is for an action crime – an act is committed); OR

3.        Substantial step

c.        Actus Reus

                                                               i.      Preparation v. Attempt

1.        MPC requires a substantial step (p. 768) – more prosecutor friendly

2.        Have to go beyond preparation

3.        Other tests (p. 767)

a.        Physical proximity: act must be proximate to the completed crime

b.       Dangerous proximity: the nearer the crime, the stronger the attempt

c.        Indispensable element: emphasizes any indispensable aspect of the criminal endeavor over which the actor has not yet acquired control

d.       Probable desistance: attempt if without interruption from an outside source, the crime would result

e.        Abnormal step: step toward the crime that goes beyond what a normal citizen would do

f.         Unequivocality: actor’s conduct manifests an intent to commit a crime

4.        For attempt, must have BOTH an act and a mental element

                                                             ii.      Abandonment

1.       MPC

a.        Must abandon completely and voluntarily

2.       Staples (p. 780)

a.        If someone knows they will be caught and stop then considered interrupted and still attempt

b.        Once knowledge of attempt, then cannot abandon

3.        In most circumstances, the law does not allow people off for abandonment

d.       Impossibility

                                                               i.      Legal impossibility: act is not illegal so impossible to have an attempt – example: lying about age under oath; lie has to be material to be a crime – gets off

                                                              ii.      Factual impossibility: will not get off – the facts of the case make crime impossible but still considered attempt bc had a mental element and an act – example: shooting a block of wood thinking it was your enemy and wanted to kill him – even though impossible to kill a piece of wood, still attempt

                                                            iii.      Booth

1.        Lawyer who received a “stolen” coat

2.        Not guilty because coat was not stolen once the police apprehended the thief – legal impossibility

                                                            iv.      Rational Motivation Test (p. 803)

1.        Mistaken beliefs are relevant to what the actor is trying to do if they affect his incentive in acting

2.        They affect his incentive if knowing of the mistake would give him a good reason for changing his course of conduct

VII.               Complicity

a.        Accessorial Act

                                                               i.      Accomplices are persons held liable for aiding or encouraging the offense of another – act is necessary (no accessory if no crime)

                                                              ii.      Liability for wrongdoing flows from the accomplice’s relationship to the perpetrator

                                                            iii.      Ochoa (p. 823)

1.        Must share in the intent of the crime

a.        Cannot be supported by mere suspicion

b.       Defendant continuing to participate in the riot indicated intent

2.        Do not need to know, just aid

                                                            iv.      Common law

1.        Principals: 1st is the one who commits the act; 2nd is the one who was present and participated

2.        Accessory before the fact: encouraged, counseled, aided beforehand

3.        Accessory after the fact: help in escape

4.        Accessory could not be convicted before the 1st principle

5.        Had to be convicted as charged and not for something else

                                                             v.      USC

1.        Accessory is considered the principle

2.        Anyone willfully causing is principal

3.        MPC 2.06

                                                            vi.      Generally

1.        Most states allow a lesser punishment for accessory after the fact

a.        Accessory after the fact called misprison of felony

b.       Most courts only apply to affirmative conduct

c.        USC still makes this a charge

2.        Principal does not need to be arrested, charged, or even caught in order for accessory to be charged and convicted

b.        Mens Rea

                                                               i.      Approaches

1.       Purpose even if crime does not require it

2.        Knowledge or purpose of one’s actions will have effect on principal

3.        Three Factors

a.        The conduct, attendant circumstance, and result elements of the principal’s offense

b.       The likelihood that the accomplice’s actions will encourage or assist the principal in committing her offense

c.        The principal’s culpable mental state

4.        Most standards combine two of the three elements

5.        Accomplice guilty if and only if accomplice has same mens rea as commission of substantive element charged

                                                              ii.      Abandoning

1.        MPC 2.06 (p. 850)

                                                            iii.      Principal’s Mental State and the Facilitative Effect of the Accomplice’s Conduct

1.        Beeman (p. 851)

a.        Must have knowledge OR advises and encourages

                                                                                                                                       i.      Cannot assume knowledge – must be proven through actions

b.       Must have criminal intent

c.        Must share in the perpetrator’s purpose of crime

                                                                                                                                       i.      Does not have share in “fruits of labor” just encourage with knowledge

2.        Ostrich Rule: purposely avoids gaining knowledge bc of the unpleasantness (p. 857)

3.        Facilitation: in NY

a.        Provides a means or opportunity for a crime he believed probable

b.       This is a lesser offense – middle ground bt complicity and getting off

                                                            iv.      Principal’s Mental and Culpability Required for the Offense

1.        Wilson (p. 861)

a.        Defendant wanted the crime to happen in order the criminal be caught

b.       If intent is to entrap, then no attempt

                                                                                                                                       i.      Intent is to catch criminal, not commit a crime

c.        Relations to Parties (p. 877)

                                                               i.      Perpetrator Excused

1.        Accomplice guilty even if principal has an excuse

2.        Common Law: Principal and accomplice convicted of same crime

3.        Modern Law: can be convicted of different crimes and person who committed crime does not have to be convicted at all

4.        If the accomplice purposely exploits an excusing perpetrator, then accomplice is the principal and not the perpetrator

                                                             ii.      Perpetrator Justified

1.        Accomplice is still guilty

                                                           iii.      Perpetrator Lacks Mens Rea

1.        Hayes: cannot have accomplice wo a principal

2.        Muni: perpetrator by means – will impute liability to one for actions of another

3.        MPC: guilty if causes an innocent or irresponsible person to act

                                                            iv.      Discrepant Mens Rea

1.        Modern trend is to allow conviction of accomplice on a higher level than the principal – base conviction on the different mens rea needed

                                                              v.      Principal has not committed or could not commit the Criminal Act

1.        General rule is that if there is no criminal act by the principal, then no accomplice, and therefore no attempted complicity

2.        Exceptions

a.        Parental custody: someone who commits a crime for a parent can be convicted

b.       Perjury: convicted even though did not know he was lying and the principal was acquitted (Sadacca)

                                                            vi.      Accomplice could not commit the criminal act

1.        Can still have a principal even if the accomplice is incapable of crime

                                                          vii.      Straw Man

VIII.             Conspiracy

a.        The nature of the conspiracy

                                                               i.      Elements

1.        Agreement to do the crime

2.        Intent to do the crime

3.        Act (overt)

4.        DO NOT have to have crime committed – this is a big difference from complicity

                                                              ii.      Versus Attempt

1.        Attempt requires an act beyond preparing and conspiracy does not

2.        Attempt does not require an agreement but conspiracy does – attempt can be committed by self whereas conspiracy requires more than one person

                                                            iii.      Verive (p. 894)

1.        Trying to convict of conspiracy and also attempt to dissuade

2.        Not double jeopardy as long as one element is different or needed in one or not the other crime

3.        Blockburger Test (p. 896)

a.        Where the same act or transaction constitutes a violation of 2 distinct statutes, the test is whether each requires proof of additional fact the other does not require

                                                            iv.      Burleson (p. 897)

1.        Court decided that conspiracy is a lesser degree of attempt

2.        Cannot be convicted of both attempt and conspiracy

                                                             v.      MPC: cannot prosecute for attempt to conspire

1.        Usually an act is required, but may not be for more serious crimes

                                                            vi.      Sometimes can be conspiracy wo complicity, but it is rare

b.       Agreement (p. 907)

                                                               i.      Tacit agreements: implied agreements can be used for conspiracy

                                                              ii.      Rahman (p. 909)

1.        Have to consider the 1st Amendment in addition to double jeopardy

2.        Speech can be criminal regardless of the 1st Amendment

                                                            iii.      Withdrawal

1.        Read (p.913)

a.        Elements

                                                                                                                                       i.      Notify co-conspirator of withdrawal; OR

                                                                                                                                      ii.      Enage in acts inconsistent with objective

                                                                                                                                    iii.      No requirement to persuade others to withdrawal or to inform authorities

b.       Not a complete defense unless coupled with statute of limitations (which starts at time of withdrawal)

2.        MPC 5.03: requires person to thwart other conspirators in addition to voluntarily withdrawing

c.        Mens Rea

                                                               i.      Lauria

1.        Court says that must be intent to further the crime – something more than knowledge

a.        So need knowledge and something else

2.        Defendant knew some clients of his answering service were prostitutes

3.        Intent can be proved two ways

a.        Direct evidence

b.       Evidence of circumstances allow inference

                                                                                                                                       i.      Defendant has stake in venture

                                                                                                                                      ii.      No legitimate use of goods or services (such as a coat with many pockets for pickpocketing – but this could be used for a magician)

                                                                                                                                    iii.      Volume is higher than normal (selling extreme quantities of a drug)

4.        The more dangerous the crime the more likely to find conspiracy (such as in drug sales)

5.        Knowledge alone (wo intent can be sufficient in some cases)

a.        Just knowing and selling the product can be enough

                                                              ii.      MPC 5.03 (p. 924)

d.       Special Mens Rea Problems

                                                               i.      Mistake of law

1.       Corrupt Motive

a.        Mistake of law used to be used as a defense

b.        Modern trend is not to allow this defense

                                                             ii.      MPC rejects corrupt motive doctrine

e.        Incidents of conspiracy (p. 930)

                                                               i.      Pinkerton rule

1.        All co-conspirators are liable for the substantive offenses committed by one of the conspirators if done in furtherance of the conspiracy

2.        Alvarez

a.        Officer shot in the commission of a drug deal

b.       Under Pinkerton rule, the conspirators were also guilty of murder bc it was foreseeable in furtherance of the crime

3.        Two categories (footnote on p. 931)

a.        Most common – the substantive crime that is the subject of the Pinkerton charge is also one of the primary goals of the alleged conspiracy

b.       The substantive crime is not a primary goal of the alleged conspiracy, but directly facilitates the achievement of one of the primary goals (examples: murder during a prison escape, possession of a firearm in a drug deal)

f.         Parties to and Object of Conspiracy

                                                               i.      Bilateral and unilateral (p. 942)

1.        Even if all but one person is acquitted of conspiracy, that one can still be convicted

2.        Common law view is bilateral: both people must have agreed with same intent

3.        MPC takes a unilateral view (5.03)

a.        Even if second person does not intend on fulfilling the obligations, the first is still guilty   

                                                              ii.      Wharton Rule

1.        When, to the idea of an offense, plurality of agents is logically necessary, conspiracy, which assumes the voluntary accession of a person to a crime of such a nature that is aggravated by a plurality of agents, cannot be maintained

2.        Two parties of a crime cannot both be convicted of the substantive crime and conspiracy

3.        Iannelli

a.        Rejected the argument that the Wharton rule applies to this case

b.       This case involved a gambling ring

                                                            iii.      Spouses

1.        Common law: a husband and wife could not be conspirators with each other – considered one person

2.        Dege (p. 947)

a.        Court rejected the common law rule based on the advancements of women and refused to consider spouses as one person

IX.                Theft Offenses

a.        Theft

                                                               i.      Meaning of Theft

1.      Mitchneck (p. 1017)

a.       In order to have fraudulent possession, has to (1) receive money or property belonging to someone else, and (2) use it for own or another’s benefit

b.      In this case, not fraudulent possession bc not the employee’s money

2.      MPC 223

                                                             ii.      Development of Theft Offenses

1.      Modern statutes and MPC look to day/night, weapon/no weapon, more/less serious, etc. to determine extent

2.      Larceny (p. 1019)

a.       Common Law elements

                                                                                                                                       i.      Trespassory taking and carrying away (asportation) of property

                                                                                                                                     ii.      From the possession of another

                                                                                                                                    iii.      With the intent to permanently deprive the owner of that property

                                                                                                                                   iv.      Additional notes about common law

1.      Requires a temporal concurrence of act and intent for criminal liability

2.      Requiring goods be taken from the possession implied that once a thief acquired possession, he could forcibly defend the goods with the intent to retain them wo being guilty of larceny

3.      Trespassory taking is taking wo the owner’s permission – but failing to give something to another to which another is entitled is not trespassory

4.      Impossible to steal services

b.       MPC

                                                                                                                                       i.      Rejects notion that it is impossible to steal services

                                                                                                                                     ii.      Possible to have larceny in dealing with partnership bt partners

c.       Mental element: must have intent to permanently deprive the person entitled to possession

d.      Property: What is considered property

                                                                                                                                       i.      Must be in possession of it (cannot just be sitting on a table)

                                                                                                                                     ii.      Crops in the ground are not property, but once harvested they are property

                                                                                                                                    iii.      MPC Distinguishes bt household goods that are available to both spouses (no larceny) and goods that belong to one of the people, such as a necklace (larceny)

e.       Attempt to reimburse is irrelevant

                                                                                                                                       i.      Example: steals car with $100 on front seat – uses money to go to race track with intent to pay back – guilty of larceny bc did not intend to return the same $100 he took

f.        Employees

                                                                                                                                       i.      This is a tricky situation bc employees are already in possession of employers property

1.      Common law states that employer is in constructive possession of the property – employee only has custody of the property – when employee steals, he moves from custody to possession and that is a trespassory taking

                                                                                                                                     ii.      Limitation: if a 3rd party gives the employee custody, cannot gain possession bc employer never gave possession

                                                                                                                                    iii.      Exception: if employee puts money in a drawer and then later that day takes it, then larceny bc employer believed to still have constructive possession – if employee put money in drawer with intent of taking it, then no larceny bc no constructive possession

g.       Bailee: someone entrusted with another’s property

                                                                                                                                       i.      Breaking of the bulk rule

1.      Bailee guilty of larceny when he breaks open contents and then steals

2.      When the bulk is broken, the bailment terminates – constructive possession by the bailor

h.       Trick

                                                                                                                                       i.      Pair

1.      Defendant rents a horse and intends to sell it – guilty of larceny by trick when horse is sold

2.      Even though horse came into defendant’s hands properly, still constructive possession of the leasor

                                                                                                                                     ii.      If the leasee gets the property innocently and then later decides to sell horse, not larceny (maybe embezzlement)

3.      Embezzlement (p. 1027)

a.       Involves the conversion of property of another by one who has lawful possession

b.      Some statutes limit this offense to certain types of people, employees, agents, fiduciaries, and lawyers

                                                                                                                                       i.      Under these statutes, if someone finds money and intends to return it but later changes mind and rips it off then not larceny bc did not take the property, and not embezzlement if not one of the people statute refers to

c.       Often divided into different grades depending on the dollar amount of the property

d.      Developed from the case of Bazeley where an employee was taking bank deposits from an account

4.      False Pretense

a.       Obtaining title to property by making a false representation of a presently existing fact of pecuniary significance which is intended and does defraud the victim of the property

b.      The part referring to the title differentiates obtaining property by false pretenses from larceny by trick

c.       The crime is complete upon the initial obtaining of property

d.      False representation must be make knowingly or recklessly

                                                                                                                                       i.      If A makes a bet with B that the Packers will beat the Falcons – A tells B that the Packers had won (she thought they did) and B pays – did not knowingly lie but still guilty bc reckless

                                                                                                                                     ii.      Has to be based on existing fact – will not do if made on a false promise (example: not false pretense if telling someone will pay later for a Favre helmet)

e.       Most jurisdictions reject MPC

f.        False statement must be material (if buying goods and salesman says he is a hotshot bc he knows coach Richt, then not material bc it has nothing to do with the goods being bought)

g.       Must cause a false transfer to the victim (If car salesman says a car has 10k miles but the buyer knows it has 40k miles, not false pretense bc buyer knew salesman was wrong – but may be attempt)

5.        MPC lumps together larceny, embezzlement, and false pretenses (223.1)

b.      Robbery and Burglary

                                                               i.      Robbery: larceny by a person by force or immediate threat of force – does not have to be directed at property owner, can be directed at 3rd person

1.      MPC 222.1

a.       Felony regardless of amount taken

2.      Narrow view: force view only while taking the property

3.      Broad view: force can be while taking or while fleeing

4.      Pickpocketing does not require force so would be larceny – but if resistance is met, then might use force and result in robbery

5.      Treated more seriously than the threat crimes above

                                                            ii.      Extortion: two different approaches

1.      Sometimes for guilt you actually have to obtain the property

2.      Other times, enough just to make the extorted threat

3.      Threat does not have to be of immediate bodily harm – this distinguishes extortion from robbery

4.      Threats do not have to be of a physical nature – can be of something like disclosing confidential information

5.      May or may not be treated seriously

                                                          iii.      Burglary

1.      MPC 221.1

a.       Elements

                                                                                                                                       i.      Nature of entry – non public, not licensed or privileged to enter (this is a middle ground bt common law requirement of breaking and entering and the elimination of the requirement)

                                                                                                                                      ii.      Place of entry – building or occupied structure (occupied is separate from presence)

                                                                                                                                    iii.      Objective/purpose of entry – purpose to commit crime (only violations are excluded from this)

                                                                                                                                    iv.      Factors with entry that aggravate degree

X.                  Rape

a.        Introduction

                                                               i.      Defining rape

1.      Elements (traditional/standard law)

a.       Force

                                                                                                                                       i.      Physical force expressed or implied; OR

                                                                                                                                     ii.      Serious threat (death, serious injury, kidnapping, harm to relatives)

b.      Resistance

c.       Non-consent

d.      Act (penetration)

2.      Elements are all related to one another

a.       The more force, the more likely there is not consent

b.      Resistance is also closely related to force and non-consent

3.      Modern reform does not require resistance bc it puts the victim on trial

4.      MPC 213.1 (p. 1103) – must compel a person to submit (type of non-consent required) – also cannot have rape of spouse

b.      Requirement of utmost resistance: resistance up to the point of risking death or serious injury from the perpetrator

c.       Reasonable or earnest resistance

                                                               i.      Dorsey (p. 1087)

1.      Woman raped in elevator

2.      Non-resistance can be considered resistance

3.      Looked at what a reasonable woman would have done in her situation

4.      Can be distinguished from Dorsey (p. 1091) in that she had no means of escape

d.      Forcible compulsion

                                                               i.      Barnes (p. 1095)

1.      Resistance can show force, but can still be force even if no resistance (resistance not indicative)

2.      She was threatened and somewhat trapped (could be argued at least)

e.      Non-consent

                                                               i.      Smith (p. 1109)

1.      Victim and perpetrator met in a bar – victim went back to perpetrator’s house with the notion that her friend was meeting her

2.      Consent based on outward manifestations

f.        Incapacity to consent (p. 1124)

                                                               i.      Alcohol

1.      If drank voluntarily, then not rape

2.      If drank involuntarily by perpetrator or third person, then rape present

                                                             ii.      Mental Incapacity

1.      Gross sexual imposition when sex with person with known mental defect or disease

g.       Rape by Fraud (p. 1127)

                                                               i.      Boro

1.      Victim called by “doctor” and given a choice to undergo an expensive surgery or have sex with a “donor”

2.      Victim consented to have sex but was unaware of the real purpose (pleasure v. medical necessity)

3.      Mistake of facts does not constitute consent

a.       Minkowski

                                                                                                                                       i.      Patients being treated by doctor

                                                                                                                                     ii.      Turned with back to doctor – thought he was using a medical device when in fact using his penis

b.      If the mistake is in inducement, then no rape (as in this case)

4.      Here the defendant is let off bc she did consent to the sex – conscious of having sex

h.       Rape by Extortion

                                                               i.      Thompson (p. 1137)

1.      Student told to have sex or would not graduate

2.      Although there was intimidation, fear, and apprehension there was not enough to be considered force

i.        Mens rea

                                                               i.      Schulhofer Test

1.      An actor is guilty of sexual abuse, a felony of the 3rd degree, if he commits an act of sexual penetration with another person, when he knows that he does not have the consent of the other person

2.      Consent, for purposes of this section, means that at the time of sexual penetration there are actual words or conduct indicating affirmative, free given permission to the act of sexual penetration

                                                             ii.      Fischer (p. 1139)

1.      Victim had some contact with perpetrator earlier in his dorm room – when she went there later he assumed that she consented based on previous actions

2.      Force includes physical, moral, psychological, or intellectual force

3.      Mistake of fact not available in this case

                                                            iii.      Generally, mistake of fact can be a defense to rape based on which jurisdiction