Documenti di Didattica
Documenti di Professioni
Documenti di Cultura
PUNISHMENT
Utilitarian Justification found in its usefulness to society
Punishment should be avoided where groundless i.e. Too much $ or not effective
o Reform: Help offenders want to commit crimes less and be more useful persons in
society
o General Deterrence-Dissuade Community (others)
o Specific Deterrence-Individual Discouragement (defendant)
Incapacitation: while in jail
Intimidation: in the future
Retributivist Justification b/c people DESERVE IT
o Moral Capability
o Society has Duty to Punish
Even if this doesnt deter future crime
INCOHATE CRIMES (ATTEMPT)
Modern retributivist theories "restore an order of fairness which was disrupted by the criminal's
criminal act
"just desert" general theory of getting what one deserves for harm caused does not necessary apply to
incomplete crimes
Need Intent based form of retributivism
society need to impose self-restraint on individuals to provide basic security to person, property and
amenity
"intent principle" people should be held criminally liable for what they intended to do, and not
according to what actually did or did not occur.
Punishment Can Be Independent to Underlying Crime
Reasons for illegality:
1 Need firm legal basis for intervention
1 Set up proper safeguards to deal with such persons inclined toward crime
1 An actor's failure to commit a crime should not absolve one of his/her criminality
Unjust
Attempt
The purpose behind punishing attempt is NOT DETERENCE RATHER it is PROHIBITIVE
provide a basis for law enforcement officers to intervene before an individual can commit a
completed offense
10
Principles of Statutory Interpretation A single mens rea term of whatever specific type
modifies each actus reus element of the offense, absent a plainly contrary purpose of the legislature.
FloresFigueroa v. United States Immigrant Identity Theft
--used fake//someone elses SS # to obtain employment
Issue: Is an individual who used a false means of if w/out knowledge it belongs to another person guilty
of aggravated identity theft?
Argue no hypothesis of innocence (fails)
Should not interpret a statute in a way that makes some of its language unnecessary/superfluous
Rule: Must prove that a D KNOWINGLY used an id that belonged to another person
must prove the specific mens rea for each material element
STRICT LIABILITY: (exception to mens rea principle)
1. public-welfare offenses (most common) 2. MINOR VIOLATIONS
when the punishment far outweighs the social order as a purpose of the law in question
If the penalty is light, involving a relatively small fine and NOT including jail time then
mens rea probably is not required
It does not matter if DUE CARE of a REASONABLE PERSON is taken STILL GUILTY
i.e. impure food or drugs; anti-pollution laws; statutory rape
besides doing nothing at all (even w/due care) CANNOT AVOID
EXAMPLE: Selling alcohol to minors reasonable person could complete every element of crime
***Selling cocaine to minorsNO strict liability b/c reasonable persons dont sell cocaine
Staples v. United States automatic weapons
--the State argued that absolving mens rea fits within public welfare or regulatory offense
(keep dangerous guns off the streets)
--Staples response: It is unreasonable to put a law-abiding, well-intentioned person in jail for 10 yrs for
possessing something he didnt know was illegal (even if a gun)
Rule: Court needs to consider severity of penalty when determining if Congress intended to
eliminate mens rea even w/a sound public policy argument
MISTAKE OF FACT
11
Moral Wrong Doctrine: GUILTY IF what you thought you were doing is morally wrong
Legally Wrong: GUILTY (*of the higher offense) IF what you thought you were doing was still illegal
MPC Mistake of FACT 2.04(2)
MOF always a defense but depends on mens rea (negligent, recklessly, knowingly, purposely)
Modified Legal-Wrong Doctrine: Only guilty of the lesser offense you thought you were doing
People v. Navarro Navarros reasonable larceny
--the Jury was given inappropriate instructions:
good faith AND reasonable // compared to // good faith DESPITE unreasonable
Specific Intent SUBJECTIVE TEST
Rule: IF a person has good faith belief that he has a right to certain property NOT GUILTY,
EVEN IF UNREASONABLE
Garnett v. State Garr! Net, 13 yr old captured by 20 yr old = baby
--Mentally handicapped 20 year old, knocked up 13 yr old
No requirement of mens rea b/c STRICT LIABILITY
o Legislative Design
o Public Policy
PROTECT from: sexual exploitation; loss of chastity; pregnancy (for girls)
Rule: Must convict unless ***exception was written in statute for MENTAL RETARDATION
JOB of the LEGISLATURE// not guilty verdict would be a breach of the division of power
person MUST act in reasonable reliance upon an official statement of the law, afterwards
determined to be invalid or erroneous obtained from:
(i)
A statute of other enactment (later declared to be invalid)
(ii)
A judicial decision, opinion, or judgment
***of the highest court in the jx later determined to be erroneous
(iii)
A public officer or body charged by law with responsibility for the interpretation
administration or enforcement of the law defining the offense
i.e. the attorney general
***Even if a person obtains an interpretation from a proper source is must also come in an
official manner not offhand or informal
People v. Marrero .38 caliber Mistake of Law
Federal (not state) Prison guard arrested with unlicensed gun
His reasonable interpretation of the law was NOT a DEFENSE
Strong public policy reasons for rejecting the defense
o Flood gate argument
His interpretation was not based on an official statement of the law
Rule: Holding a reasonable interpretation of the law is not a defense
EVEN if subjectively and objectively reasonable & a reasonable law trained person would have
similarly misunderstood the law
Exception: strictly official interpretations of the law
CANNOT RELY ON:
12
13
Exclusive Test of the MPC: Used to determine if the required level of culpability is met Mens
Rea in the definition of the crime (purpose, knowledge, reckless, or negligent)
o Did the divergences make the Ds causation too remote or accidental in its occurrence or in the
rare case of no mens rea the actual result is not a probable consequence of the Ds conduct
Multiple Actual Causes: When injury or death is the result of two different sources, multiple
wrongdoers can be found culpable if cause-in-fact
o not necessary it be sole and exclusive
Acceleration Result: Even if outcome is inevitable, IF D accelerated death he can be found liable
Oxendine v. State 6 yr old dead
Girlfriend pushed kid in tub tearing his intestines
o Issue: Did the D accelerate the death when he beat the kid severely?
POSSIBLE EVDIENCE // could not be proven beyond a reasonable doubt
Rule: contribution to or aggravation of death without acceleration of death is insufficient to
establish the causation of death to convict of manslaughter (assault in 2nd degree)
Valazquez v. State Death by Drag Race
o Victim died after drag race, he was drunk, driving more recklessly and his brakes failed him
Rule: IF the Ds action did not cause the injury or death when it did AND how it did the court may
decline to impose criminal liability if the result:
(1) Goes beyond the scope of the danger that the D created
(2) Would be unjust and against public policy to hold the D criminal liable
o Ds conduct may have been a Substantial Factor but Failed the But-For Test
Obstructed Cause: If a D commits a voluntary act intending to cause harm i.e. shooting someone but
someone else commits a more serious injury killing the victim sooner, the initial wrongdoer may only
be convicted of attempt to kill
14
Apparent Safety Doctrine: IF a victim has an option to reach safety but instead puts herself in further
harm, which causes the injury of death (the original D who caused the danger may not be liable)
Free, Deliberate, Informed Human Intervention (contributory negligence doctrine/intended
consequence doctrine): A D may be relieved of criminal responsibility if the victim contributed to the
injury or death by a decision that they made free from duress.
***Omissions: Rarely, if ever, serve as a superseding intervening cause
State v. Rose Hit and Drag
D hit the victim then drove away with the body wedged under his car
Two Plausible Theories of Death:
(1) on impact (non-negligent) (2) fleeing the crime w/the body under the car (negligent)
Rule: CANNOT find a D guilty of manslaughter if there is a plausible theory of innocence
o time of death could not be determined by the medical examiner
o the culpable conduct needs to be proved beyond a reasonable doubt
Assault w/ deadly weapon possession of a deadly weapon or just assault ABOUT NOTICE
HOMICIDE
Murder (common law): The killing of a human being with malice aforethought
Malice:
A person kills another with the requisite malice when he possesses one of these states of mind:
1. The intention to kill a human being (depends on the JX)
a. Willful, Premeditated, Deliberate 1st Degree
b. Not Premeditated 2nd Degree
State v. Gunthrie Dishwasher Stabbing
D suffered from mental illness // had a panic attack when he stabbed a co-worker
o Jury instructions joined intent to kill with willful, deliberate & premeditated
Reversed b/c this failed to distinguish between 1st & 2nd Degree murder
1st degree murder required instructions that the D be fully conscious of what he intended
2. The intention to inflict grievous bodily injury on another
2nd Degree
Midgett v. State Attempt to beat the shit out of, NOT kill
Child abuse BUT NOT evidence he had premeditated and deliberately killed the child
Rule: No matter how heinous the facts may be there must be premeditation for 1st degree murder
o Reduced to 2nd degree murder
3. An extremely reckless disregard for the value of human life (Depraved Heart Murder)
2nd Degree
4. The intention to commit a felony during the commission or attempted commission of which
a death results
a. Felony Murder 1st Degree (no death penalty/25 years to life? CA)
b. Second Degree Felony Murder 2nd Degree
15
16
MPC
17
Spectrum
Yes--personal handicaps, child molestation, PTSD, extreme grief
Maybe--special sensitivity, developed sense of honor, out-of-wedlock person being called bastard
NO--Idiosyncratic moral values e.g. it is right to kill one's political opponents
18
The State attempted to use bad character evidence to show recklessness (he knew alcohol affected
perception of reality) which would encompass negligence
Does NOT have bearing on whether he KNEW there was a substantial risk of death in THIS
PARTICULAR INSTANCE, character evidence does not go to prove an issue or material fact
relevant in the case.
Character Evidence: only admissible if the D put his own reputation in issue
Although relevant, may be excluded if it may create unfair prejudice, confusion of the issues or
mislead the jury (predisposition to know: past conduct not present conduct)
Elements for Guilt:
Substantial and unjustifiable risk (objective) i.e. driving drunk
Knowledge of facts giving rise to the risk (subjective) i.e. knew he drank 12 beers
Failure to perceive the risk (subjective) i.e. unaware of risk of killing someone
State v. Williams Duty to Bring Child to Doctor Tooth acheinfectionPneumonia
Husband & Wife charged with manslaughter after negligently failing to bring medical attention to child
Didnt take the 17-month old child to doctor for fear of Welfare Dept. taking the child
Causation: Negligence was the proximate cause of death
Omission: Natural Duty formed by relationship dependent minor child
Ordinarily need gross negligence but under Statute
merely ordinary negligence (lack of due care)
Homicide is excusable when committed by accident or misfortune in doing any lawful act by
lawful means, with ordinary caution and without any unlawful intent
19
Merger Limitation (Independent felony) That is, the felony-murder rule only applies if the predicate
felony is independent of, or collateral to, the homicide.
If the felony is NOT independent, then the felony MERGES with the homicide and cannot
serve as the basis for a felony-murder conviction.
i.e. most jxs hold that felonious assault may not serve as the basis for felony-murder.
Compare to Robbery or Rape which CAN be the underlying predicate for Felony Murder b/c
there is another motive for the crime (felonious purpose)
also inapplicable in jx with enumerated felonies
People v. Smith Beating Your Child to DEATH is ILLOGICAL but so is FELONY MURDER
Held: it would be wholly illogical to allow this kind of assaultive child abuse to be bootstrapped
into felony murder merely b/c the victim was a child rather than an adult
20
It would be impossible for felony murder in this circumstance to result in deterrence ---would
have extended "beyond any rational function that it is designed to serve."
Rule --the felony murder rule is not applicable when the felony is a part of the homicide AND the
underlying felony had its principle purpose in assault of the victim
Merger Applicability (discussion in People v. Smith)
People v. Wilson--Burglary/ Assault --not a predicate for Felony Murder
Held: Felony murder rule cannot apply to burglary-murder cases in which the entry would be nonfelonious but for the intent to commit the assault and the assault is an integral part of the homicide.
People v. Sears-- Burglary/ Accident (in some jx it can be a predicate--in this case NO)
Held: It would be illogical to put someone in a worse place who intended to kill 1 person and
accidentally killed in the heat of passion than someone who intended to assault 2 people
State v. Sophophone We dont mind if criminals die only innocent by-standers or police
D appealed a felony murder conviction predicated on the death of his co-felon
Rule: A D cannot be guilty of felony murder for the death of his co-felon caused by a 3rd party
non-felon i.e. by a police officer while attempting to escape
Killing by 3rd Party Non-Felon
Agency (majority approach): If any one of the co-felons killed then EVERYONE IS LIABLE
Generally precludes any killing committed by a person other than the D or his accomplices
Proximate Causation (minority approachCA): Was death the fault of felon?
Don't care who is who. Felon is liable for any death proximately resulting from the felony,
whether the killer is a felon or a 3rd party
"harm is outweighed by the need to avoid an even greater harm or to further a greater societal interest"
21
Excuses (ends are not justified focus on the actor, not her act)
Excuse the actor b/c conditions exist that the actor is not responsible for his deed
I.e. mental illness; duress; mistake of fact; intoxication + MOL (rare circumstances)
"excuses admit that the deed may be wrong, but excuse the actor because conditions suggest that the
actor is not responsible for the deed"
Extrinsic Defenses Non-exculpatory & Public Policy Defenses
Based on factors unrelated to the defendants actions or state of mind at the time of commission
Statute of limitations; diplomatic immunity; entrapment; incompetency to stand trial
________________________________________________________________________________
Burden of Production (some evidence, scintilla) i.e. D needs to prove an affirmative defense
Need to put in pleading the Defense at Issue prosecution knows which defenses to argue against
Burden of Persuasion (clear and convincing; proof to a preponderance)
Anywhere between requirement the Defendant prove the defense or the prosecution has the burden of
proof Procedural Question
Constitutional Limits (Winship Doctrine)
If you make something an element of a crime disproving it cannot be a defense
Affirmative Defense (burden of production on the D) MPC 1.12 (2)(a)
State does not have to disprove affirmative defense unless and until there is evidence supporting it
MPC 1.13(9)(c) Burden of Persuasion on State: Element = must disprove the defense
SELF-DEFENSE
available to a non-aggressor who hold a honest and reasonable belief that
force is necessary to protect himself from imminent use of unlawful force
***must be proportional force (not permitted to use deadly force to repel non-deadly attack)
Common Law StandardReasonable Person in the Ds Situation
Privilege of self-defense is based on reasonable appearance, rather than an objective
reality. (Objectively evaluated from the eyes of the D)
Relevant Factors: (*cannot use race)
1.
2.
3.
4.
22
If a person can safely retreat and, therefore avoid killing the aggressor, deadly force is
unnecessary.
Depends on the JX
Majority: D must retreat if they believe they can do so in complete safety
General Exception: In ones HOME or within its curtilage (land immediately surrounding)
Minority: D must retreat if possible
United States v. Peterson Castle Doctrine: This is my house, I dont need to retreat
Judge used jury instructions that
1. Factored in Peterson being the aggressor in the alteration
2. Petersons failure to safely attempt to retreat
23
Aggressor Rule
If the D was the initial aggressor, they must retreat to regain the right of self-defense
MPC 3. 3.04(2)(b)(i) Prohibits the defense to be used if the deadly force was provoked
"the actor, with the purpose of causing death or serious bodily injury provoked the use of force against
himself in the same encounter."
Imperfect Self-Defense
Traditional Common Law: If any element necessary to prove self-defense is missing, the
defense is unavailable to the D
Imperfect Defense allows the D to claim self-defense even if they fail to satisfy the
reasonable component as long as they had a genuinely honest belief
MPC 3.09(2) Imperfect Defense (for purposeful or knowing mens rea its a complete defense)
1 Honest but unreasonable - complete defense
IF recklessness or negligence suffices to establish culpability then still guilty of negligent manslaughter
a If unreasonable But Honest and reckless --can be convicted of reckless crimes
Non-deadly aggressor - complete defense (unless intended to provoke-but that could be words alone)
a If not done for the purpose of eliciting response of violence you retain your defense
Risk to Innocent Bystanders (common law): If the D is acting justifiably in self-defense against an
aggressor, fires a weapon wildly or carelessly they may be charged with reckless endangerment and be
guilty of manslaughter MPC Negligent Homicide
NRA
1
2
3
4
24
Defense of Others
Generally a person is justified in using force to protect a 3rd party form unlawful use
of force by an aggressor to the extent that the 3rd party is justified in self-defense
Majority view: IF it appears necessary for the protection of the 3rd party
MPC 3.05 force is justified by an intervenor to protect a 3rd party if:
1. He uses no more force to protect the 3rd party than he would be entitled to use in
self-protection, based on the circumstance as he believes them to be
2. Under the circumstances as he believes them to be, the 3rd party would be justified
in using force in self-defense
3. He believes that the intervention is necessary for the 3rd parts protection
***retreat rules are applicable
Threat to Use Deadly Force: Generally may threaten deadly force to prevent illegal
activity, and will not loose the privilege of self-defense
MPC 3.06 --consistent with California Law
You can use deadly force if it is immediately necessary to use force to prevent a trespass if the
property is or is believed by the actor to be in his possession or in the possession of another person
for whose protection he acts
***Even if you know someone is under Duress, IF you have the legal right to use deadly force
you retain that right.
NECESSITY
Defense legitimizes technically illegal conduct that common sense, principles of
justice, and/or utilitarian concerns suggest is justifiable, but which is not specifically
addressed by any other recognized justification defense
Nelson v. State D Stole a Dump Truck to get his car out of the mud 10Gs of damage
D failed to use legal adequate alternatives such as calling police or a tow truck
Did NOT Prevent immediate, significant evil
Harm caused was MORE serious than foreseeable harm
Rule of Law: To invoke the defense of necessity, the crime committed must have been
done (i) to prevent a significant evil; (ii) there was no legal alternative and (iii) the harm
caused was not disproportionate to the harm avoided.
General Requirements:
1. The D must be faced with clear and imminent danger (necessary to avoid evil)
2. Direct causal relationship between the action and the harm to be averted
3. No effective legal way to avert the harm
25
4. Harm that the D will cause by violating the law must be less serious than the
harm that was reasonably foreseeable at the time, rather than the harm
actually occurred
a. To be determined at trial HONEST + REASONABLE belief
5. No legislative intent to penalize such conduct under the specific circumstances
6. The D must come to the situation with clean hands
i.e. cannot have wrongfully put himself in the situation, forcing him to
commit the crime (will be charged with underlying reckless or negligent
behavior)
MPC 3.02(1) (broader than common law) Necessity Justified IF:
1. The D believes that his conduct is necessary to avoid harm to himself or another
2. The harm to be avoided by his conduct is greater than that sought to be avoided by
the law prohibiting his conduct AND
3. There is no legislative intent to exclude the conduct in such circumstances
DURESS
A person may be acquitted of any offense except murder if the criminal act was
committed under the following circumstances:
1. Immediate threat of death or serious bodily injury
2. A well-grounded fear that the threat will be carried out present, imminent
and impending
3. No reasonable opportunity to escape the threatened harm
4. D was not at fault in exposing himself to the threat (Chin questions)
United States v. Contento-Pachon Forced to Smuggle Cocaine to Protect Family
Done to protect family (duress) not for greater good (necessity)
D did not have free will in the situation (danger, well-grounded fear, no opportunity to escape)
***Generally Duress is NOT a defense to an intentional killing
MPC 2.09 (Broader than Common Law)
Duress is an affirmative defense to unlawful conduct by the D IF:
1. He was compelled to commit the offense by the use, or threatened use of unlawful force by the
coercer upon his or another person
2. A person of reasonable firmness in his situation would have been unable to resist coercion
26
Exceptions: If the D recklessly placed himself in the situation in which it was probable that he would be
subjected to coercion.
Abandons common laws requirement of immediateness and allows the defense for murder
Similar to common law in limiting to unlawful force (cannot claim duress when someone
threatens to commit a legal act) and only for bodily harm (does NOT protect other interests)
INTOXICATION
Does not excuse criminal conduct; however in limited circumstances, intoxication
may negate the necessary state of mind for a given offense (SPECIFIC INTENT)
Model Penal Code 2.08(4)(5) distinguishes three types of intoxication:
(1) Voluntary (self-induced) intoxication;
(2) Pathological intoxication; and
(3) Involuntary (non-self-induced) intoxication.
Exculpation Based on Intoxication
[1] Mens Rea Defense Any form of intoxication is a defense to criminal conduct if it negates an
element of the offense. [MPC 2.08(1)]
ONE EXCEPTION: In the case of crimes defined in terms of recklessness, a person acts recklessly as
to an element of the crime IF, as the result of the self-induced intoxication, he was not conscious of a
risk of which he would have been aware had he not been intoxicated. [MPC 2.08(2)]
[2] Insanity Pathological and involuntary intoxication are affirmatives defenses, if the intoxication
causes the defendant to suffer from a mental condition comparable to that which constitutes insanity
under the Code. [MPC 2.08(4)]
INSANITY
Legal term that presupposes a medical illness or defect but mental illness
Insanity is a NARROW TERM a person may mentally ill and NOT legally insane
Irresistible Impulse Test Expanded Scope to include volitional capacity (unable to choose)
Someone who cannot control their behavior but understands it--gets the defense
27
MPC Test: A person is not responsible for his criminal conduct if, at the time of the
conduct, as the result of a mental disease or defect, he lacked substantial capacity to:
1. Appreciate the criminality or wrongfulness of his conduct OR
2. To conform his conduct to the requirements of the law
***does not require total mental incapacity like MNaughten Rule
State v. Johnson Insanity under the adopted MPC
The Supreme Court of Rhode Island chose to adopt the Model Penal Code Test, as it represents a
significant, positive improvement over the MNaghten Rule.
Acknowledges both volitional and cognitive impairments must be considered by the jury
Federal Test 18 U.S.C. Section 17
D may be excused based on insanity if he proves by clear and convincing evidence that, at the time of
the offense, as a result of mental disease or defect, he was unable to appreciate
Automatic Commitment JX
IF found not guilty by reason of insanity (NGRI) is automatically committed to a
mental facility on the basis of the verdict.
Discretionary Commitment JX
Commitment of an insanity acquittee is not automatic, but the trial judge has the authority
to require a person found NGRI to be detained in a mental facility to be observed and
examined in order to decide whether he should be committed indefinitely
Length of Confinement
IF it is determined by the judge that the D is incompetent to stand trial they are committed until they
regain competency a period of time that may exceed the potential maximum sentence for the
offense charged.
Release is based on criteria for release NOT length of potential sentence
28
Diminished Capacity
a Ds abnormal mental condition short of insanity
Mens Rea Defense
evidence of mental abnormality is not offered by the D to partially or fully excuse
his conduct, but rather as evidence to negate an element of the crime charged.
Serves as a failure-of-proof defense
Diminished capacity -- mitigates murder to second degree
CA does not apply diminished capacity nor does it apply in Federal Law
o Bans this evidence for protection of the jury
MPC 4.02 Evidence of Mental Disease or Defect Admissible When Relevant to Element of the
Offense
Defect Impairing Capacity as Ground for Mitigation of Punishment in Capital Cases
29
Conduct that is designed to culminate in the commission of a substantive offense but has failed
in the discrete case to do so or has not yet achieved its culmination b/c there is something that the
actor or another still must do
Punishment
Common Law: Inchoate crimes are treated as a lesser offense than the substantive crime
CA says attempt is punishable by imprisonment for one-half the term of imprisonment
prescribed
MPC 5.05 Ties the Underlying Crime to the Attempt SAME PUNISHMENT
Exception of homicide & first degree felonies is reduced to the second degree
Mens Rea
Criminal attempt occurs when a person, with the intent to commit an offense performs
any act that constitutes a substantial step towards the commission of that offense
1. Complete but imperfect: the D did everything that he could do to carry out the crime but
fails to attain his criminal goal
2. Incomplete attempt: the D did not follow through with everything that would be needed to
carry out the crime (either quits or is prevented from continuing)
30
1. D must intentionally commit the acts that constitute the actus reus of an attempt
AND
2. MUST perform these acts with the specific intention of committing the target crime
People v. Gentry Gasoline poured on Girlfriend ignited by the Stove
In the case of attempted murder, the D MUST hold the specific intent to actually kill the victim
Here it was the D who extinguished the fire
ATTEMPTED MURDER holds different elements then MURDER
The intent to do bodily harm or knowledge that the consequences of the act may result in death
or great bodily harm, is not enough
31
Defense of Impossibility
Legal Impossibility: If the intended act is not criminal there can be no criminal liability for an attempt
to commit the act
i.e. you think it is illegal BUT it is not illegal in actuality NOT LIABLE
Factual Impossibility: IF the intended substantive crime is impossible of accomplishment because of
some physical impossibility unknown to the accused, the elements of a criminal attempt are present
i.e. it is illegal, even if it is factually impossible to commit the crimestill prosecute offense
o You think it is heroin but it wasn't still liable of crime
Hybrid Impossibility: That actor's goal is illegal, but the commission of the offense is somehow
rendered impossible by attendant circumstances or lack thereof.
i.e. shooting a corpse believing it is alive
Attempt is a version of the crime itself
Someone cannot be convicted of BOTH the crime and the attempt to commit the crime
Conspiracy is an ADDITIONAL wrong over and above the substantive crime
Impossible to commit the crime without attempting to commit the crime
32
If you are only charged with attempt and you find they committed the crime you cannot be held liable
for the crime itself
CAN ONLY BE CONVICTED OF WHAT YOU ARE CHARGED WITH
CA PC 21a: An attempt to commit a crime consists of two elements
1 A specific intent to commit the crime and
2 A direct but ineffectual act done toward its commission
Purposely engages in conduct that would constitute the crime if the attendant circumstances
were as he believes them to be
i Hypo possesses what is believed to be heroin but it is fake
a When causing a particular result is an element of the crime does or omits to do anything with
the purpose of causing or with the belief that it will cause such result without further conduct
on his part
i Shoots what is believed to be a person but it is a cardboard cutout
a Purposely does or omits to do anything which under the circumstances he believes them to be
is an act or an omission constituting a substantial step in a course of conduct planned to
culminate in his commission of the crime
i Substantial step, strongly corroborative of criminal purpose
1 Conduct that may be held substantial Step
----It is strongly corroborative of the actor's criminal purpose
a Waiting, searching, or following the contemplated victim of the crime
a Enticing the contemplated victim to go to the place designated for its commission
b Inspecting the place contemplated for the commission of the crime
c Unlawful entry of a structure vehicle or enclosure in which it is contemplated that the
crime will be committed
d Possession of material to be used in the commission of the crime that are specially designated
to be employed in the commission of the crime, that are specially designated for such unlawful
use or which can serve no lawful purpose of the actor under the circumstances
e Possession, collection or fabrication of material to be employed in the commission of the
crime (which serve no lawful purpose under the circumstances)
f Soliciting an innocent agent to engage in conduct constituting an element of the crime
1 Conduct Designed to Aid Another in Commission of Crime
--Still guilty of an attempt to commit a crime even if the crime is not committed or attempted by
such other person (who was supposed to commit the crime)
1 Renunciation of Criminal Purpose
--If one voluntarily abandons his effort to commit a crime or otherwise prevented its commission
(complete and voluntary renunciation of his criminal purpose) hold an affirmative defense
Does not hold for accomplices.
33
Special Mitigation
MPC 5.05 Grading of Criminal Attempt, Solicitation and Conspiracy; Mitigation in Cases of Lessor
Danger; Multiple Convictions Barred
1 GRADING --> Attempt, solicitation and conspiracy are crimes of the same grade and degree as
the most serious offense that is attempted or solicited or is an object of the conspiracy
a An attempt, solicitation or conspiracy to commit a [capital crime or a] felony of the first
degree is a felony of the second degree
1 Mitigation
--IF the particular conduct charged is SO INHERENTLY UNLIKELY to RESULT in the
COMMISSION of a CRIME
--SUCH that neither conduct nor the actor presents public danger warranting the grading of such offense
the Court shall exercise its power under 6.12 to enter into a sentence of a lower grade or degree or drop
the charge all together
1 Multiple Convictions
--A person may not be convicted of more than one offense defined by this Article for conduct designated
to commit or to culminate in the same crime
34
2. Either persuades the solicited party not to commit the offense or otherwise prevents him from
committing the crime
Complicity
35
4. Accomplice Accountability: one is an accomplice if, with the requisite mens rea, he
solicits, aids, agrees to aid or attempts to aid in the planning or commission of the crime,
or has a legal duty to prevent the commission of the offense, but makes no effort to do so.
5. Miscellaneous accountability: Legislatures may enact special laws of accomplice
liability (i.e. prohibiting the aiding & abetting of suicide or prison escape)
Rejects the Pinkerton Doctrine
A person is not accountable for the conduct of another solely because he conspired with that
person to commit an offense.
State v. Hoselton Storage Unit // Clueless Lookout
Lookout (aider and abettor): by keeping watch to avoid interception or detection or to provide
warning during the perpetration of the crimes
He must associate with the venture [crime] that he wishes to bring about and by his action make it
succeed
REVERSEDSpecific Intent of Purpose or Knowledge was not met by the State
Liability of the Secondary Party in Relation to the Primary Party
State v. Ward OLD Doctrine of accessoryship applicable to felonies
Accessory after the fact is one who with knowledge of the other's guilt renders assistance to a
felon in the effort to hinder his detection, arrest trial or punishment
An accessory cannot be tried without his consent, before the principal
And an accessory could not be convicted of a higher crime than his principle
MODERN RULE: A conviction of the principle in the first degree is not a perquisite to the
conviction of a secondary party
Even if the principle is prosecuted but acquitted on the basis of an excuse defense, his
acquittal should not bar a prosecution and conviction of secondary party whom the excuse
does not extend
An accomplice or accessory may be convicted of a more serious offense than is proved
against the primary
MPC 2.06 holds the MODERN RULE + expressly provides that a person who is legally incapable
of committed an offense personally may be held accountable for the crime if it is committed by
another person for whom he is legally accountable
Mens Rea in Complicity Offenses Generally Intention (Knowing in some cases)
MAJORITY: a person must share the criminal intent w/the principle or benefit to be an
accomplice
MPC 2.06(3) Need Purpose (knowledge does NOT suffice) of the consequences of conduct
with purpose of promoting or facilitating the commission of the offense
People v. Lauria Knowledge of Prostitute Phone Service
Must equate knowledge of another's criminal activity w/conspiracy to further criminal activity
Case law:
1 Innocuous substances do not require discrimination in the conduct of their business
36
37
Conspiracy
Conspiracy is an agreement by two or more persons to commit a criminal act or series
of criminal acts, or to accomplish a legal act by unlawful means
Common Law
--Need not be based on an express agreement
partys must only be aware of the essential nature (scope and objective)
agree to commit or facilitate some of the acts leading up to the substantive crime
38
39
Actus reus:
Very low standard -- i.e. getting a map to see banks in the area
Certain JX are over act JXs -- much less than substantial step for attempt
If they are joking-->they are not guilty
--It is based on the implicit agreement (does not need to be express agreement)
Pinkerton Rule --applicable in some jx not in others
(interpretation of statute law)
Guilty of conspiracy if:
In furtherance of the unlawful project
Foreseeable/natural and probably consequence
Within scope of unlawful project
Importance of Conspiracy
--independent crime. --does not merge at common law but does under MPC
--evidence. All statements made in the course of conspiracy come in against all defendants
--venue. Can try the case anywhere where an overt act took place
(allows the prosecutor to try a case where they please within this scope)
--liability. Pinkerton rule
Pinkerton v. Accomplice
Pinkerton: any crime foreseeable within the scope of the conspiracy
Technique for making you liable for other crimes
Theory of liability
o You are liable for the substantive crime
Accomplice:
Hypo: A low level street drug dealer is liable for any other crime within that network they are apart of
Unilateral or Bilateral
Hypo: undercover cop makes an agreement pretending to be a minor looking for sex
Is it conspiracy when they agreed to have sex with the minor?
--depends on how the statute is drafted