Criminal Law

Front 1

ACCOMPLICE LIABILITY: Parties

Back 1

Most jxns have abolished party distinctions (i.e., principal in the 1st degree, accessory after the fact). Modernly, all "parties to the crime" can be found guilty of the criminal offense.

--Principal
--Accomplice
--Accessory after the fact

Front 2

PRINCIPAL

Back 2

A principal is one who, with the requisite mental state, ACTUALLY ENGAGES IN THE ACT OR OMISSION that causes the criminal result.

Front 3

ACCOMPLICE

Back 3

An accomplice is one who, with the intent that the crime be committed, aids, counsels, or encourages the principal before or during the commission of the crime.

Front 4

ACCESSORY AFTER THE FACT

Back 4

An accessory after the fact is one who receives, relieves, comforts, or assists another, knowing that he has committed a felony, in order to HELP THE FELON ESCAPE ARREST, TRIAL, OR CONVICTION.

Front 5

ACCOMPLICE LIABILITY: Mental State

Back 5

to be convicted as an accomplice, a person must have given aid, counsel, or encouragement with the INTENT to aid or encourage the principal in the commission of the crime charged.

In the absence of a statute, mere knowledge that a crime would result is insufficient.

Front 6

ACCOMPLICE LIABILITY: Scope of Liability

Back 6

An accomplice is responsible for the crimes he did or counseled AND for any other crimes committed in the course of committing the crime contemplated, as long as the other crimes were PROBABLE OR FORESEEABLE.

Front 7

ACCOMPLICE LIABILITY: Scope of Liability -- Withdrawal

Back 7

What is necessary for an effective withdrawal DEPENDS UPON WHAT THE PERSON ACTUALLY DID.

(i) If the person merely ENCOURAGED --> withdrawal requires that he REPUDIATE this encouragement.

(ii) If the person assisted by PROVIDING SOME MATERIAL to the principal, withdrawal requires that the person attempt to NEUTRALIZE THIS ASSISTANCE (like getting back the material provided).

You may also be able to withdraw by NOTIFYING AUTHORITIES.

In any case, the withdrawal must occur BEFORE the chain of events leading to the commission of the crime becomes unstoppable.

Front 8

INCHOATE OFFENSES

Back 8

--Solicitation

--Attempt

--Conspiracy

An inchoate offense is committed prior to and in preparation for what may be a more serious offense. It is a complete offense in itself, even though the act to be done may not have been completed.

The doctrine of merger allows for the conviction of both the conspiracy and the principal offense, though one cannot be convicted of either attempt or solicitation and the principal offense.

Front 9

CONSPIRACY

Back 9

1) An AGREEMENT BETWEEN 2 OR MORE persons;

2) An INTENT TO ENTER INTO AN AGREEMENT; and

3) An INTENT TO ACHIEVE THE OBJECTIVE of the agreement.

Today, a MAJ of the states require an OVERT ACT in furtherance of the conspiracy, but mere preparation will usually suffice.

Front 10

Conspiracy: "Aiding and Abetting"

Back 10

Each conspirator may be liable for the crimes of all other conspirators if TWO REQUIREMENTS are met:

1) the CRIMES WERE COMMITTED IN FURTHERANCE of the objectives of the conspiracy; and

2) the crimes were a "natural and probable consequence" of the conspiracy; i.e., FORESEEABLE.

Front 11

Conspiracy: Attempt distinguished

Back 11

In attempt cases, there must be a SUBSTANTIAL STEP toward the commission of the crime.

In conspiracy cases (at CL), the agreement itself is normally sufficient to constitute the crime.

Front 12

Conspiracy: Agreement Required

Back 12

The parties must agree to accomplish the same objective by mutual action.

Modern trend is to limit criminal conspiracies to agreements to COMMIT CRIMES.

If there is an initial agreement among the parties to engage in a COURSE OF CRIMINAL CONDUCT constituting all the crimes, then there is only ONE CONSPIRACY.

"Chain" Relationship -- Series of agreements with sub-agreements.

"Hub and Spoke" Relationship -- series of sub-agreements, each involving different persons, but with one common member.

Front 13

Conspiracy: 2 parties required

Back 13

A conspiracy must involve a "meeting of the minds: between at least two independent persons.

Front 14

Conspiracy: Wharton Rule

Back 14

Where 2 or more people are necessary for the commission of the substantive offense, the "Wharton Rule" states that there is NO CRIME OF CONSPIRACY UNLESS MORE PARTIES PARTICIPATE IN THE AGREEMENT THAN ARE NECESSARY FOR THE CRIME.

Ex: a duel.

Also, if an agreement is made with a person of a protected class, the person within that class cannot be guilty of the crime itself, or the conspiracy.

Front 15

Conspiracy: Mental State

Back 15

Conspiracy is a SPECIFIC INTENT crime. There are 2 different interests that are necessary: intent to agree and intent to achieve the objective of the conspiracy.

Intent to agree can be INFERRED from conduct.

The D must intend to achieve the objective of the conspiracy; this intent must be established as to EACH individual D. Must be a "meeting of guilty minds."

Intent cannot be inferred from mere knowledge

No "corrupt motive" required.

Front 16

Conspiracy: DEFENSES

Back 16

(i) Factual Impossibility is not a defense.

(ii) Withdrawal from a conspiracy is NOT A DEFENSE to a charge of conspiracy, because the conspiracy is complete as soon as the agreement is made and an overt act is committed. The MPC recognizes voluntary withdrawal as a defense if the D thwarts the success of the conspiracy.

(iii) A co-conspirator may limit liability for subsequent acts of other members of the conspiracy if they NOTIFY ALL MEMBERS of the conspiracy, and such notice must be given in time for them to abandon their plans.

Front 17

JUSTIFICATION

Back 17

Under certain circumstances, the commission of a proscribed act is viewed by society as justified and hence not appropriate for criminal punishment. D must raise the issue by introducing SOME evidence ("more than a scintilla") tending to show justification as an affirmative defense. Once this is done, the state may require the prosecution to prove that the use of force was NOT justified, or it may impose on the D the burden of proving this affirmative defense by a PREPONDERANCE of the evidence.

Front 18

SELF-DEFENSE: Non-deadly Force

Back 18

An individual who is without fault may use SUCH FORCE AS REASONABLY APPEARS NECESSARY to protect herself from the imminent use of unlawful force upon herself. There is NO DUTY TO RETREAT before using non-deadly force, even if retreat would result in no further harm to either party.

Front 19

SELF-DEFENSE: Deadly Force

Back 19

A person may use deadly force in self defense if:

a) she is without fault;

b) she is confronted with unlawful force; and

c) she is threatened with imminent death or GBI.

Front 20

SELF-DEFENSE: Deadly Force -- Threat of Imminent Death or GBI

Back 20

The D must REASONABLY believe that she is faced with imminent death or great bodily harm if she does not respond with deadly force.

The danger of harm must be a PRESENT one.

There is no right to use deadly force if harm is merely threatened at a future time or the "attacker" has no present ability to carry out the threat.

Front 21

SELF-DEFENSE: Deadly Force -- Retreat

Back 21

The MAJ rule is that there is NO DUTY TO RETREAT.

Even in a minority jxn, retreat is only necessary:
(i) unless it can be made in complete safety, or
(ii) in special situations, like where the attack occurs in V's home, where the attack occurs while V is making a lawful arrest, and where the assailant is in the process of robbing the V.

Front 22

Self-Defense: Can aggressor use self-defense?

Back 22

Aggressor has no right to use force in self-defense, but can regain right by:

(a) withdrawal: effectively removing oneself from fight & communicating desire to withdraw to other person, or

(b) if V of initial aggression escalates fight into one involving deadly force w/o giving aggressor chance to w/draw.

Front 23

Defense of Others: Special Relationship?

Back 23

Majority rule: no.
Minority: yes, must be family member or employer or servant.

Front 24

Defense of Others: Status of person aided

Back 24

D may only act in defense of others if reasonably believes person assisted had right to self-defense.

If turns out didn’t? Modern majority rule: still o.k. if reasonably appears necessary to use force.

(May use no more force to protect another than that person would have been entitled to use in self-defense, based on circumstances as D believed them to be & D believes intervention necessary for other party’s protection) Minority view: D steps into shoes of person s/he defends & no defense if that person had no legal right to defend (“alter ego rule”).

Front 25

Crime Prevention: Non-deadly force

Back 25

can use to extent reasonably appears necessary to prevent felony, riot, serious breach of peace (CA: any crime).

Front 26

Crime Prevention: Deadly Force

Back 26

Traditional rule: to prevent commission of any felony.

Modern rule: for “dangerous felonies” (involving risk to human life, i.e., robbery, arson, residential burglary, etc.).

Front 27

Crime Prevention: Arrest by Police Officer

Back 27

Use of deadly force reasonable only if felon threatens death or SBH & deadly force necessary to prevent escape (can’t use to catch unarmed, non-dangerous felon).

Front 28

Crime Prevention: Arrest by Private Person

Back 28

deadly force only if S was actually guilty of offense for which arrest made. Non-deadly force: OK if crime in fact committed & private person has reasonable grounds to believe S in fact committed crime.

Front 29

Classifications of HOMICIDES

Back 29

At CL, homicides were divided into 3 classifications:

1) JUSTIFIABLE homicides (those commanded or authorized by law);

2) EXCUSABLE homicides (those for which there was a defense to criminal liability); and

3) CRIMINAL homicides.

CL Criminal Homicides are divided into 3 types:

1) Murder
2) Voluntary Manslaughter (VM)
3) Involuntary Manslaughter (IVM)

Front 30

MURDER

Back 30

Murder is the unlawful killing of another human being with malice aforethought. Malice aforethought may be express or implied.

Front 31

MURDER: Malice Aforethought

Back 31

In the absence of facts excusing the homicide or reducing it to VM, malice aforethought exists if the D has any of the following states of mind:

(i) Intent to kill (express malice);

(ii) Intent to inflict GBI;

(iii) Reckless indifference to an unjustifiably high risk to human life ("abandoned and malignant heart"); or

(iv) Intent to commit a felony (FMR)

In the case of (i), (iii), or (iv), the malice is IMPLIED.

Front 32

MURDER: Deadly Weapon Rule

Back 32

Intentional use of a deadly weapon authorizes a permissive inference of intent to kill. A deadly weapon is any instrument--or ins some limited circumstances, any part of the body--used in a manner calculated or likely to produce death or serious bodily injury.

Front 33

VOLUNTARY MANSLAUGHTER (VM)

Back 33

VM is an intentional killing distinguishable from murder by the existence of adequate provocation, i.e., a killing in the heat of passion.

ELEMENTS:

a) the provocation must have been one that would arouse SUDDEN AND INTENSE PASSION in the mind of an ORDINARY PERSON such as to cause him to lose his self-control;

b) the D must have IN FACT BEEN PROVOKED;

c) there MUST NOT HAVE BEEN A SUFFICIENT TIME to cool; and

d) the defendant IN FACT did not cool off between the provocation and the killing.

Front 34

VM: When provocation is adequate

Back 34

Adequate provocation is most frequently recognized in cases of:

a) being subjected to a SERIOUS BATTERY or a threat of DEADLY FORCE; and

b) discovering one's SPOUSE IN BED WITH ANOTHER PERSON.

Mere words are inadequate as a matter of law.

Front 35

VM: Imperfect self defense

Back 35

Some states recognize an "imperfect self defense" doctrine under which a murder may be reduced to manslaughter even though:

a) the DEFENDANT WAS AT FAULT in starting the altercation; or

b) the defendant UNREASONABLY BUT HONESTLY BELIEVED in the necessity of responding with deadly force.

Front 36

INVOLUNTARY MANSLAUGHTER (IVM)

Back 36

There are two types of IVM:

1) Criminal Negligence

2) "Unlawful Act" Manslaughter

Front 37

IVM: "Unlawful Act" Manslaughter

Back 37

Two subcategories of unlawful acts which result in IVM:

a) "Misdemeanor-Manslaughter" Rule

b) Felonies not included in FMR

Front 38

IVM: "Misdemeanor-Manslaughter" Rule

Back 38

A killing in the course of the commission of a misdemeanor is manslaughter, although most courts would require either that the misdemeanor be malum in se (i.e., an inherently wrongful act), or if malum prohibitum, that the death be the foreseeable or natural consequence of the unlawful conduct.

Front 39

Modern Degrees of Murder

Back 39

All murders are SECOND DEGREE murders unless the prosecution proves any of the following, which would make the murder FIRST DEGREE murder:

a) deliberate and premeditated killing

b) first degree felony murder

c) some states make killing in certain ways 1st degree murder (i.e., killing by lying in wait, poison, or torture may be 1st degree murder).

Front 40

HOMICIDE: Questions to ask

Back 40

1) Did the D have any of the STATES OF MIND sufficient to constitute malice aforethought?

2) If answer to (1) is yes, is there proof of anything that will, under any applicable statute, raise the homicide to FIRST DEGREE MURDER?

3) if the answer to (1) is yes, is there evidence to reduce the killing to VOLUNTARY MANSLAUGHTER, i.e., criminal negligence or misdemeanor manslaughter?

4) If the answer to (1) is no, is there sufficient basis for holding the crime to be INVOLUNTARY MANSLAUGHTER, i.e., criminal negligence or misdemeanor manslaughter?

5) Is there ADEQUATE CAUSATION between the D's acts and the victim's death? Did the V die within a year and one day? Was the D's act the FACTUAL CAUSE of death? Is there anything to break the chain of PROXIMATE CAUSATION between the D's act and the V's death?

Front 41

FELONY MURDER RULE (FMR)

Back 41

A killing during the course of a felony--even an accidental one--is murder. Malice is implied from the intent to commit the underlying felony.

Under the CL, the felonies included are BARRK

Underlying felony must be independent of killing (merger doctrine).

To convict a D of FM, the prosecution must prove that he committed the underlying felony. So, if he has a substantive defense to the underlying felony, he has a defense to FM.

CAUSATION required. D's conduct must he the cause-in-fact of the result; i.e., the result would not have occurred BUT FOR the D's conduct.

Year and a day rule (CL)

Remember, Intervening acts break the chain of causation.

Front 42

FMR -- Conspiracy

Back 42

If, in the course of a conspiracy to commit a felony, a death is caused, ALL members of the conspiracy are liable for murder if the death was caused in FURTHERANCE of the conspiracy and was a foreseeable consequence of the conspiracy.

BUT, a co-felon is usually not liable for the death of another co-felon if the death is caused by the resistance of the victim or the police (Redline View--MAJ).

Front 43

1st Degree MURDER

Back 43

By statute, murder often divided into degrees. First degree murder includes murders that are: Deliberate & premeditated (deliberate means decision to kill made in cool & dispassionate manner; premeditated means considered beforehand, even if only for very brief period); first degree felony murder (if felony is enumerated by statute will be first degree felony murder-- B.A.A.R.M.K.); murder by torture, lying in wait or poison.

Front 44

2nd Degree MURDER

Back 44

Second degree: All murders that aren’t first degree are second degree.

Front 45

MURDER: Causation

Back 45

D’s conduct must be both cause-in-fact (but for D’s conduct, V wouldn’t have died) and proximate cause of V’s death. D responsible for all results that are natural & probable consequence of his conduct, even if didn’t anticipate the manner they would occur in; this chain of proximate cause broken only by intervention of superseding factor.

Front 46

MANSLAUGHTER

Back 46

Unlawful killing of human being WITHOUT malice aforethought. An intentional killing that would otherwise be murder may be reduced to manslaughter if:

1) Heat of Passion/Imperfect Self-Defense

2) Involuntary Intoxication

Front 47

Manslaughter: INVOLUNTARY INTOXICATION

Back 47

If D took intoxicating substance either w/o knowledge of its nature or under direct duress, may negate malice required for murder (voluntary intoxication may not).