Criminal Law - Nv Bar

Front 1

Accomplice Liability - Rule

Back 1

Accomplice liability requires one to aid, counsel the principal with specific intent to encourage the crime.

Front 2

Accomplice Liability - Notes

Back 2

1) mere presence is not enough even if by her presence she seems to be consenting to the commission of the crime. 2) Absent a statute, most courts would hold that mere knowledge that a crime will result is not enough, at least where the aid given is in the form of the sale of ordinary goods at ordinary prices. However, procuring an illegal item or selling at a higher price b/c of the buyer's purpose may constitute a sufficient stake in the venture to constitute intent.

Front 3

Accomplice Liability - Liability

Back 3

An accomplice is liable for the crime itself and all other foreseeable crimes. Inability to be principal no bar to accomplice liability. Exclusions from liability: necessary parties not provided for - a party necessary to the commission of a crime, by statutory definition, who is not provided for in the statute is excluded from accomplice liability.

Front 4

Accomplice Liability - Defenses

Back 4

Withdrawal: if the person merely encouraged the commission of the crime she must repudiate the encouragement. If a person provided some material she must do all possible to retrieve it. Alternative: notify authorities or take some action to prevent the commission of the crime. Any of the above defenses must take place before the chain of events leading to the commission of the crime becomes unstoppable.

Front 5

Solicitation - Rule

Back 5

Solicitation is asking someone to commit a crime. The crime ends when you ask them.

Front 6

Solicitation - Defenses

Back 6

Neither the refusal of the solicitee nor withdrawal are a defense. Factual impossibility is not a defense. MPC recognizes renunciation as a defense if the D prevents the commission of the crime, such as by persuading the person solicited not to commit the crime. It is a defense that the solicitor could not be found guilty of the completed crime b/c of a legislative intent to exempt her.

Front 7

Solicitation - c/l

Back 7

Under c/l, not necessary that the person solicited agree to commit the crime. If the person does agree, then it becomes a conspiracy and the solicitation merges.

Front 8

Conspiracy - Rule

Back 8

Conspiracy is an agreement (with intent to enter agreement) accompanied by an intent to achieve the unlawful purpose which is the objective of the agreement.

Front 9

Conspiracy - Notes

Back 9

No overt act in furtherance is required in NV. Like the c/l, liability is grounded with the agreement itself. Majority rule is that there must be an agmt + an overt act. Any little act will do even an act of mere preparation. Agmt need not be express - may be implied from conduct. But if one person (in a two-party conspiracy) is merely feigning agmt, the other person cannot be guilty of conspiracy (unless Q indicated the jurisdiction follows the MPC Unilateral approach).

Front 10

Conspiracy - Liability

Back 10

Each conspirator is liable for all crimes of other conspirators if foreseeable and in furtherance of the conspiracy.

Front 11

Conspiracy - Defenses

Back 11

Can only withdraw from liability for future crimes - no withdrawal from liability for the conspiracy itself; and no merger. Factual impossibility is no defense. To withdraw, a conspirator must perform an affirmative act that notifies all members of the conspiracy of her withdrawal. Notice must be given in time for members to abandon their plans. If she has also provided assistance as an accomplice, she must try to neutralize the assistance.

Front 12

Conspiracy - Notes

Back 12

At c/l, conspiracy requires 2 guilty parties. Thus, the acquittal of all persons w/ whom a D is alleged to have conspired precludes conviction of the remaining D.

Front 13

Conspiracy - Wharton Rule

Back 13

Where 2 or more people are necessary for the commission of a creme, there is no crime of conspiracy unless more parties participate in the agreement than are necessary for the crime.

Front 14

Conspiracy - multiple

Back 14

Chain relationship: single, large conspiracy in which all parties to sub agreements are interested in the large scheme. In this case, all members are liable for the acts of the others in furtherance of the conspiracy. Hub-and-Spoke relationship: a # of independent conspiracies are linked by a common member. The common member will be liable for all the conspiracies, but members of the individual conspiracies are not liable for the acts of the other conspirators.

Front 15

Attempt (merger)

Back 15

Specific intent to commit the crime + an overt act in furtherance of the crime (MBE)/which tends to 'accomplish the crime' (NV). Mere prep cannot ground liability for attempt.

Front 16

Attempt - Defenses

Back 16

Factual impossibility is no defense unless it negates intent: 1) the goods were not stolen (attempt receipt of stolen property); and 2) the person was already dead (attempted murder). Abandonment is no defense after the overt act has occurred. Legal impossibility is always a defense.

Front 17

Murder - Second Degree (c/l)

Back 17

Murder is the unlawful killing of a human being w/ malice aforethought. Malice may be inferred from: 1) intent to kill (c/l inferred if deadly weapon used); 2) intent to do serious bodily harm; 3) a reckless indifference to an unjustifiably high risk to human life (depraved heart murder); or NV: inherently dangerous crime directly causes death.

Front 18

Murder - First Degree

Back 18

Murder in the first degree is second degree murder + deliberate and premeditated. V must be human and dead. And D must have acted w/ intent or knowledge that his conduct would cause death.

Felony Murder: a killing committed during the course of an enumerated felony. But once the D reaches a point of temporary safety deaths cause thereafter are not felony murders. MBE & NV: D is not liable for the death of a co-felon as a result of resistance by the V or the police.

Front 19

Voluntary Manslaughter

Back 19

An unlawful but intentional killing w/out malice or deliberation upon sudden heat of passion (NV: instantaneous) caused by provocation sufficient to make the passion irresistible.

Front 20

Involuntary Manslaughter

Back 20

Unlawful but intentional w/out malice of deliberation during a lawful but negligent act or during an unlawful act not likely to caused death and w/out felonious intent.

Front 21

Misdemeanor Manslaughter

Back 21

killing someone while committing a misdemeanor or an unenumerated felony.

Front 22

Homicide Defenses

Back 22

Self-Defense: NDF--> a V may use NDF if he reasonably believes force is about to be used on him. DF--> A V may use DF if he reasonably believes unlawful DF is about to be used on him (NV presumes this if at home).

No duty to retreat unless you are the original aggressor. Only other way you have a duty to retreat is if the examiners tell you that you are in one of these so called retreat jurisdictions. 3 exceptions: 1) no duty to retreat from your home; 2) no duty to retreat if you are the V of rape or robbery; and 3) police officers have no duty to retreat.

Use of DF in self-defense by original aggressor requires either: 1) communicate abandonment eo the original V; 2) a non-deadly aggressor confronted by a deadly response. Both of the above require retreat if original aggressor knows retreat is safely available.

Front 23

Defense of a Dwelling

Back 23

DF may not be used solely to defend property (NV - unless at home), but majority allows DF against violent entry or to prevent entry by one who intends to commit a felony therein. In NV, there is a presumption that a person using deadly force against an intruder in his residence had a reasonable fear of death or great bodily harm. In determining whether D reasonably believed she was faced w/ harm, NV allows evidence of domestic violence. NDF may be used to defend property in one's possession from unlawful interference, but may not be used if a request to desist or refrain from the activity would suffice. Regaining possession: force cannot be used to regain possession of property wrongfully taken unless the person using force is in immediate pursuit of the taker.

Front 24

More Notes of Self-Defense

Back 24

NDF may be used to the extent it reasonably appears necessary to prevent a felony or serious breach of the peace. DF may be used only to terminate or prevent a dangerous felony involving risk to human life. Officer must reasonably believe suspect is armed or presents a danger to public to use DF to arrest.

If the D kills in self-defense but not all requirements for use of deadly force are met, some states would find the D guilty of manslaughter rather than murder under the imperfect self-defense doctrine - an honest but unreasonable belief in need for self-defense. NV does NOT recognize this doctrine - it will not reduce murder to manslaughter.

Front 25

Diminished Capacity

Back 25

some states recognize this defense under which the D may assert that as a result of a mental defect short of insanity, he did not have the mental state required for the crime charged.

Front 26

Defense of Others

Back 26

A D can raise a defense of others defense if he reasonably believes that the person assisted would have had the right to use force in his own defense.

Front 27

Lack of Causation

Back 27

Cause in fact and proximate cause required. No year and a day rule for death of the V in NV.

Front 28

Battery

Back 28

unlawful and willful application of direct or indirect force upon another (NV). C/l: unlawful application of force to the person resulting in either bodily injury or offensive touching.