Criminal Law, Cards from Outline

Start Studying!

Terms

undefined, object

copy deck

What are the three sub topics under "punishment" heading?: 1) Why we punish, 2) determining an appropriate pupnishment and 3) other types of punishable conduct
What is the rule for â€œwhy we punishâ€ (under the "punishment" heading)?: Rule: we punish violations of laws weâ€™ve made as a society when others rights are infringed or to avoid disrupting social order.
What are the authorities under "why we punish" (under the "punishment" heading) (1 of them)?: 1) Regina v. Dudley
What was Regina v. Dudley and Stephens, Queenâ€™s Bench Division 1884 (14 Q.B.D. 273), p135? ["why we punish"]: "Facts: Ds stranded over 1k miles from land on raft over 20 days; Ds ate a cabin boy; Cabin boy was not part of decision process; Ds would not have survived without. Holding: Conviction upheld.
What was the rule under Regina v. Dudley and Stephens, Queenâ€™s Bench Division 1884 (14 Q.B.D. 273), p135? ["why we punish"]: Rule: Extreme hunger does not justify the taking of a life.
What is the rule for "determining an appropriate level of punishment" (under the "punishment" heading)?: Rule: we want to provide punishment that fits the crime
What are the cases under "determining an appropriate level of punishment" (4 of them): 1) US v. Bergman 2) State v. Chaney 3) US v. Jackson 4) US. v. Johnson
What was United States v. Bergman, US District Court SDNY 1976 (416 F. Supp 496), p140? ["determining an appropriate level of punishment"]: Facts: D pleads guilty to 2 counts of an 11 count indictment to fraud; D is prominent member of the community; D suffers a lot of bad press; D proposes charity work Holding: despite negative publicity, D gets 4 months in prison
What were the rules (1 major, 3 subsidiary) under United States v. Bergman, US District Court SDNY 1976 (416 F. Supp 496), p140? ["determining an appropriate level of punishment"]: Most importantly: Rule: Seriousness of crime reduced if strict punishment not imposed. Other rules: (2) Rule: General deterrence is ok. (3) Rule: Bad publicity cannot serve as punishment *because* his D's â€œhigh esteemâ€ was false anyway (4) Rule: 4 months appropriate because of health and specific deterrence
What was State v. Chaney Supreme Court of Alaska 1970 (477 P.2d 441), p143? ["determining an appropriate level of punishment"]: Facts: D found guilty of two counts of rape and robbery; Pros. recommends 7 years; Judge imposes minimum 1 year with parole in 10 days; D led exemplary life but D was not remorseful. Holding: judgment disapproved (the Supremes cannot reverse this sentence)
What was the rule under State v. Chaney Supreme Court of Alaska 1970 (477 P.2d 441), p143? ["determining an appropriate level of punishment"]: Rule: D was clearly guilty of a bad crime (rape), but an insignificant sentence of 1 year fails to fulfill the purpose of the law.
What was United States v. Jackson 1987, US Court of Appeals 7th Circuit (835 F.2d 1195), p146? ["determining an appropriate level of punishment"]: Facts: D is let out of jail on work release; D proceeds to a bank and robs it; tried for the more severe crime of being a convicted felon with a weapon; D sentenced to life in prison. Holding: conviction upheld
What was the rule under United States v. Jackson 1987, US Court of Appeals 7th Circuit (835 F.2d 1195), p146 ["determining an appropriate level of punishment"]: Rule: selection of a punishment within the statutory limits is acceptable even if the effect is life in prison
What was United States v. Johnson 1992, US Court of Appeals, 2d Circuit (964 F.2d 124), p153? ["determining an appropriate level of punishment"]: Facts: D conspired with a coworker to increase her paycheck and colleagues; D convicted bribery and stealing from the government; D is sole provider for 5 kids; D receives downward adjusted sentence because of family obligations. Holding: lightened sentence affirmed.
What was the rule under United States v. Johnson 1992, US Court of Appeals, 2d Circuit (964 F.2d 124), p153? ["determining an appropriate level of punishment"]: Rule: ordinary family obligations are not justification, legislature does allow for extraordinary circumstances
What is the rule for "punishable conduct" (under the "punishment" heading)?: Rule: there is a "zone of privacy created by several fundamental constitutional guarantees." [Griswold v. Connecticut, 381 U.S. 479 (1965)] SO the debate about the legitimacy of criminal enforcement of private morality has been a long standing debate
What are the two authorities under "punishable conduct" (under the "punishment" heading)?: 1) Bowers v. Hardwick and 2) Lawrence v. Texas
What was Bowers v. Hardwick 1986, Supreme Court of the United States (478 US 186), p158? [punishable conduct]: Facts: D was engaged in homosexual sodomy; D was in the privacy of his home; D was convicted of sodomy. Holding: Conviction affirmed, a person does not have a fundamental right to engage in consensual homosexual sodomy [later overruled]. Bond: He thought this was the correct ruling and the Lawrence case that overruled it was wrong.
What was the main rule (plus the secondary rule) under Bowers v. Hardwick 1986, Supreme Court of the United States (478 US 186), p158? [punishable conduct]: Primary Rule: The fact that an offense takes place in the home does not make it immune from criminal sanction. Adultery, incest, and other sexual crimes may be punishable even when they are committed in a home. Secondary Rule: Precedents of child rearing/education, family relationships, procreation, contraception are not similar to homosexual sex and do not recognize a constitutional right to engage in any kind of private sexual conduct between consenting adults.
What was Lawrence v. Texas 2003, Supreme Court of the United States (539 US 558), PDF [punishable conduct]: Comment: overruling of Bowers. Facts: cops entered Dâ€™s house; entry was justified; two men engaged in anal sex; charged them with the violation of a Texas statute expressly forbidding this contact between homosexuals. Holding: the Texas statute violates the right to privacy, and not the equal protection clause vis a vis the Stevens dissent in the Bowers case.
What was the rationale behind Lawrence v. Texas 2003, Supreme Court of the United States (539 US 558), PDF?: Rationale: the court chose privacy as the controlling theory because it felt that equal protection would have invited the States to merely change the language
What are the two sub headings to culpability in our class? What is the rule linking them?: 1) Actus reus and 2) Mens reus RULE: To constitute a crime, the act must concur with the intent; i.e., the intent must accompany the doing of the act, and the actus reus must be attributable to the mens rea.
What is the top level rule for actus reus?: RULE: Some wrongful outward act or manifestation is required. Furthermore, an "act" is any event that is subject to the control of the will or through an omission to act.
What are the two sub headings under "actus" which is under "culpability"?: 1) Affirmative/voluntary acts and 2) omissions
What is the rule under "affirmative acts" under actus reus?: RULE: Some kind of outward wrongful act is necessary. The act must be subject to the control of the will of the individual.
What are the 5 authorities under "affirmative acts" for actus reus?: 1) People v. Decina, 2) Martin v. State, 3) Cogdon, 4) People v. Newton, 5) Winzar
What is the rule for an involuntary act (under affirmative acts in actus reus)?: Reflexes, convulsions, and other acts done while sleepwalking or while in the middle of an epileptic fit, etc., are not voluntary acts.
What is the People v. Decina, 138 N.E.2d (N.Y. 1956) case ["affirmative acts"]?: Facts: D had epilepsy; knew he had it; drove a car; had a seizure; looses control; kills four school kids. Holding: D was guilty of manslaughter
What is the rule under People v. Decina, 138 N.E.2d (N.Y. 1956) ["affirmative acts"]?: Rule: a voluntary act that leads to an involuntary criminal act can provide for culpability
What is Martin v. State 1944, Alabama Court of Appeals (31 Ala. App. 334), p173 ["affirmative acts"]?: Facts: D is arrested in his house; D is very drunk; police arrest D and take him onto a highway; D is convicted of appearing drunk on a public highway. Holding: this conviction was reversed. Notes: the strict statutory reading was important here, but had the language not talked about â€œappearanceâ€ Martin might have been guilty of simply being drunk in public.
What is the rule under Martin v. State 1944, Alabama Court of Appeals (31 Ala. App. 334), p173 ["affirmative acts"]?: Rule: in order to â€œappearâ€ a person cannot be convicted of a crime if his act was involuntary
What is the Cogdon case ["affirmative acts"]?: Facts: D attacks child on night 1; D gets sleeping pills; D sleepwalks and kills daughter. Holding: not guilty
What was the rule under the Cogdon case ["affirmative acts"]?: Rule: sleep walking is a form of unconsciousness and is therefore involuntary
What was People v. Newton 1970, California District Court of Appeals (8 Cal. App. 359), p175 ["affirmative acts"]?: Facts: D gets stopped in his car; D fights with cop; D is shot in stomach; D opens kills a cop; D claims reflexive action. Holding: reversed and remanded
What was the rule under People v. Newton 1970, California District Court of Appeals (8 Cal. App. 359), p175 ["affirmative acts"]?: Rule: Unconsciousness could cause involuntary action so is a complete defense to criminal liability.
What was the Winzar case ["affirmative acts"]?: This was kind of counter point to Martin. Facts: D leaves hospital drunk; police pick up D and drove him over a highway; D is charged with being drunk on highway. Holding: the court held that the words â€œfound drunkâ€ in the statute meant â€œperceived to be drunkâ€ so that his conviction was upheld (his being drunk was voluntary, even if his being present on the highway was not).
What was the rule under the Winzar case ["affirmative acts"]?: Rule: a criminal act that is voluntary is punishable
What is the rule for omissions under actus reus?: RULE: Generally there is no duty of care. However, a legal duty to act can be created generally in four circumstances: where statute imposes it, where there is a certain status relationship (mother, ships captain, etc), where you have contractual assumed the case, or where you have assumed the care of someone and secluded that person. In a fifth dimension, when you imperil someone you could have a legal duty to care as well.
Can you be convicted of intending to commit a crime but not doing it?: In all instances the "act" must be prohibited in order for a crime to exist. A person might intend to commit a crime by performing some act, but if that act is not prohibited, then there is no crime.
What are the 6 authorities under omissions for "actus reus"?: 1) Jones v. United States, 2) Pope v. State, 3) People v. Oliver, 4) Barber v. Superior Court, 5) People v. Beardsley, 6) Regina v. Stone and Dobinson
What was Jones v. United States 1962, United States Court of Appeals DC Circuit (308 F.2d 307), p190 ["omissions"]?: Facts: D takes in a woman and child; There were conflicts in the record whether mother was always present and whether there was a contractual relationship. Holding: That the â€œlegal dutyâ€ must be established beyond a reasonable doubt in order to convict on those grounds.
What was the main rule (and the subsidiary rule) under Jones v. United States 1962, United States Court of Appeals DC Circuit (308 F.2d 307), p190 ["omissions"]?: Main Rule: â€œlegal dutyâ€ is defined under four scenarios, (1) statutory, (2) status relationships, (3) contractual duty, or (4) voluntary assumption. Secondary Rule: criminal liability for a failure to act must be based on more than just a moral duty
What was Pope v. State 1979, Maryland Court of Appeals (284 Md. 309), p183 ["omissions"]?: Facts: D takes in woman and child; woman savagely beats child; child dies; D does nothing; mother was always with child; D convicted of child abuse. Holding: overturned, Pope had no legal duty
What was the rule under Pope v. State 1979, Maryland Court of Appeals (284 Md. 309), p183 ["omissions"]?: Rule: we cannot impose a legal duty to act and hence criminal liability based solely on hospitable acts.
What was People v. Oliver 1989, California Court of Appeals (210 Cal. App. 3d 138), p195 ["omissions"]?: Facts: D takes very drunk victim from bar to house; D gives him spoon; D knows it is for heroin; V passes out; D leaves V on floor until next morning; V dies. Holding: conviction upheld because her conduct created an unreasonable risk of harm, creating a legal duty
What was the rule under People v. Oliver 1989, California Court of Appeals (210 Cal. App. 3d 138), p195 ["omissions"]?: Rule: in some jurisdictions, if you knowingly put someone in jeopardy then you have a legal duty of care
What was Barber v. Superior Court 1983, California District Court of Appeal (147 Cal. App. 1006), p198 ["omissions"]?: Facts: Victim is on life support; Vâ€™s family asks for support to be removed; Ds remove support; V dies. Holding: a doctor may not be held responsible for murder for failing to continue to provide life sustaining treatment
What was the main rule (+1 sub) in Barber v. Superior Court 1983, California District Court of Appeal (147 Cal. App. 1006), p198 ["omissions"]?: Main Rule: the duty to provide care is not indefinite, once further efforts can no longer help legal duty ends. Rule: disconnecting tubes could have made him criminally liable, but because of the consent of the family it was not
What was People v. Beardsley 1907, (150 Mich. 206), p194 ["omissions"]?: Facts: D spent a weekend with a mistress; mistress ODâ€™s on drugs; D does not call doctor; D convicted of manslaughter. Holding: conviction overturned.
What was the rule under People v. Beardsley 1907, (150 Mich. 206), p194 ["omissions"]?: Rule: No legal duty just because V is in Dâ€™s house, she is not his wife
What was Regina v. Stone and Dobinson 1977, p194 ["omissions"]?: Facts: Ds took in sister (V); Ds tried to get her a doctor but couldnâ€™t; V dies after lying in bed for a few weeks; Ds convicted of manslaughter. Holding: conviction affirmed
What was the rule under Regina v. Stone and Dobinson 1977, p194 ["omissions"]?: Rule: in this case V was a blood relative and Ds did assume some care therefore a legal duty of care was created
What are the four sub topics under mens rea?: 1) intent, 2) mistakes of fact, 3) strict liability, 4) mistake of law
What is the general rule for mens under culpability?: Most crimes require a â€œguilty mindâ€ or a criminal intent. The level of intent isnâ€™t the same among all crimes and some crimes do away with the need for intent altogether.
What were the 3 types of common law criminal intent?: Common law definitions: general mens rea, specific mens rea, and criminal negligence.
What is "general intent" under the common law understanding of the term?: Only requires that you show that the prohibited result was substantially certain to flow from the intentional conduct, even if the result that occurred was not subjectively intended.
What is an example of general intent under the common law understandings of the term?: If A voluntarily fires a gun into the middle of a crowd, even if he does not want to injure someone, and B is killed thereby, A may be held for murder (i.e., he intended to fire the gun into the crowd, and objectively speaking, the killing of a person was substantially certain to follow).
How do you prove "general intent" under the common law understandings of the term?: Intent is inferred by the results that occur. Therefore, general intent may be proved simply by showing that the prohibited result was caused by a voluntary act of the defendant.
What is "transferred intent" in the common law understandings of the term?: When a person has the required intent to commit one criminal act, he may be held responsible for results that he did not intend if he inflicts the kind of harm intended and if the injuries sustained do not require a different mens rea.
What is "specific" intent under the common law definition (3 points)?: (1) Can refer to a specific criminal state of mind where D is subjectively cognizant of the likely harmful results of his actions, yet inexcusably carries out these potentially harmful acts. (2) Or, where D acts recklessly or with wanton disregard for the consequences of his actions. Finally, (3) malice may be used in its dictionary meaning, as in the crime of malicious mischief (D acting out of resentment or hatred of the owner of the injured property).
How is the term "willful" related to general and specific intent?: Usually when this language is included in a statute, such as â€œacting willfullyâ€ then it is translated to â€œgeneral intentâ€. Sometimes, however, the statute might elevate it to specific intent.
What is "wanton" or "reckless" in the common law understanding?: Conduct consists of the intentional failure to take reasonable care when confronting a known risk. Such a failure may be subjective (i.e., D having been actually aware of the probable consequences of his actions) or objective (a reasonable person would have known of the risk).
What is "criminal negligence" in the common law understanding?: Flagrant and reckless disregard for the safety of others. The test applied, whether it is an act of omission or commission, is what a reasonable person would do under like circumstances?
What are the five authorities discussing intent in mens rea under culpability?: 1) Regina v. Cunningham, 2) Regina v. Faulkner, 3) Holloway v. US, 4) US v. Jewell, 5) US v. Neiswender
What was Regina v. Cunningham 1957, Court of Criminal Appeal (2 Q.B. 396), p204 ["intent"/"mens rea"]?: Facts: D stole a gas meter; D did not intend to asphyxiate V; D convicted of malicious administration of noxious material. Holding: In order to be guilty of â€œmaliciously administeringâ€ a noxious gas, mens rea is necessary.
What is the main rule (+1 subsidiary) under Regina v. Cunningham 1957, Court of Criminal Appeal (2 Q.B. 396), p204 ["intent"/"mens rea"]?: Main Rule: â€œMaliceâ€ should be interpreted as requiring a foresight of knowledge meaning (1) intent to do the actual harm done or (2) recklessness in that you foresaw a risk and acted anyway. Rule: Malice does not require ill will, nor does it require that the act itself be unlawful
What was Regina v. Faulkner 1877 (13 Cox Crim. Cas. 550), p206 ["intent"/"mens rea"]?: Facts: D breaks into ship to steal rum; D lights match to see; D burns down ship; D is charged with malicious destruction of a ship. Holding: conviction overturned.
What was the rule under Regina v. Faulkner 1877 (13 Cox Crim. Cas. 550), p206 ["intent"/"mens rea"]?: Rule: D is not responsible for every unintended result caused by an unlawful act. This was an accidental collateral act.
What was Holloway v. United States 1999, Supreme Court (526 U.S. 1) ["intent"/"mens rea"]?: Facts: D used gun to carjack a Mercedes; D did not want to use gun; D would have used it if necessary. Holding: Conviction upheld because conditional intent is still full unqualified intent
What was the rule under Holloway v. United States 1999, Supreme Court (526 U.S. 1) ["intent"/"mens rea"]?: Rule: The mens rea element modifies the act of "taking" a motor vehicle at precise moment D demanded the car "by force and violence or by intimidation." If D has the proscribed state of mind at that moment, then statute scienter element is satisfied.
What was United States v. Jewell 1976, United States Court of Appeals 9th Circuit (532 F.2d 697) ["intent"/"mens rea"]?: Facts: D drives car across border with drugs; D knew there was a high probability of the existence of the drugs. Holding: Conviction upheld because D acted with â€œwillful ignoranceâ€.
What was the rule under United States v. Jewell 1976, United States Court of Appeals 9th Circuit (532 F.2d 697) ["intent"/"mens rea"]?: Rule: â€œKnowinglyâ€ should be read broadly to include a purposeful effort to ignore the truth therefore, â€œknowinglyâ€ can mean an awareness of the high probability of the existence of a fact.
How is specific intent related to MPC?: Probably closest analogy would be â€œpurposeâ€.
How can a burglar get off?: It is a specific intent crime so if you canâ€™t show that D broke into a building with the specific intent of committing some other felony, then there is no crime. He could be guilty of trespass, however.
What was United States v. Neiswender 1979, 4th Circuit (590 F.2d 1269), p217 ["intent"/"mens rea"]?: Facts: D is convicted of obstruction of justice; D claimed he had a stool on the jury of a trial; it couldnâ€™t be proven that he did. Holding: conviction upheld.
What was the rule under United States v. Neiswender 1979, 4th Circuit (590 F.2d 1269), p217 ["intent"/"mens rea"]?: D need only have had knowledge or notice that success in his actions would likely result in an obstruction of justice.
What is the rule under "mistake of fact" for "mens rea"?: If D makes an honest and reasonable mistake of fact and his conduct would not be criminal if the facts were as D supposed them to be, then his mistake of fact is a defense to a crime requiring that specific intent be shown. However, mistake of fact is not a defense to a crime requiring only general intent.
Define "mistake of fact": An unconscious ignorance of a material fact. It is a common defense challenging the mens rea necessary to convict.
Is mistake of fact a defense to a statute requiring only general intent?: No.
What are the two cases for "mistake of fact" under "mens"?: 1) Regina v. Prince and 2) People v. Olsen
What was Regina v. Prince 1875, Court of Crown Cases Reserved (L.R. 2 Cr. Cas. Res. 154) ["mistake of fact"/"mens"]?: Facts: V says she is 18; V is 14; D has a reasonable belief that she is 18. Holding: that D is still criminally liable because what he did was morally wrong. Notes: There is a lot of criticism of this case and it is very old. The opinion was written by Bramwell but Brett has a strong dissent, the essence of which still seems to be argued today
What was the rule under Regina v. Prince 1875, Court of Crown Cases Reserved (L.R. 2 Cr. Cas. Res. 154) ["mistake of fact"/"mens"]?: Rule: A mistake about the age of the girl is not a valid defense to this crime because it was a strict liability statute.
What was People v. Olsen 1984, Supreme Court of California (36 Cal. 3d 638) ["mistake of fact"/"mens"]?: "Facts: V was 13; D reasonably believed she was 17. Holding: a good faith belief that a female is over 16 is not a defense to statutory rape
What was the rule under People v. Olsen 1984, Supreme Court of California (36 Cal. 3d 638) ["mistake of fact"/"mens"]?: Rule: A mistake as to the age of the victim is not a defense to the strict liability statute
Does intent need to be written into a statute for it to exist?: General rule is NO. Only in some rare cases is strict liability actually able to be imposed.
What is strict liability?: It is the abandonment of â€œmens reaâ€. Strict liability criminal statutes have been adopted to deal with particular problems for which the mens rea requirement was ineffective. These statutes have distinct characteristics.
Has Anglo American law stayed true to the notion of mens rea?: Yes, for the most part.
What are some examples of strict liability crimes that are approved by the Supremes?: Examples include public welfare, felony-murder and misdemeanor-manslaughter rules, bigamy, and sex offenses with minors.
What are the five authorities addressing strict liability?: 1) Morissette v. US, 2) Staples v. US, 3) State v. Guminga, 4) State v. Baker, 5) Regina v. City of Sault Ste. Marie
What is Morissette v. United States 1952, Supreme Court (342 U.S. 246) ["strict liability"/"mens"]?: Outline note: this is a â€œtrue crimeâ€, not one where strict liability can be imposed. Facts: D takes spent bomb casings; D mistakenly thinks they are â€œabandonedâ€ so isnâ€™t stealing. Holding: when it comes to common law crimes, the mens rea requirement still holds
What is the rule under Morissette v. United States 1952, Supreme Court (342 U.S. 246) ["strict liability"/"mens"]?: Rule: mens rea will be deemed inherent in any offense that is a codification of a common law crime.
What is Staples v. United States 1994, Supreme Court (511 U.S. 60) ["strict liability"/"mens"]?: Facts: D owns a gun; the gun is fully automatic; D claims ignorance. Holding: you cannot be convicted of possession of an automatic weapon if you didnâ€™t know the rifle could fire automatically.
What are the rules in Staples v. United States 1994, Supreme Court (511 U.S. 60) ["strict liability"/"mens"]?: (1) Rule: The Act is silent concerning a mens rea requirement. Silence, however, does not mean Congress intended to dispense with the element of mens rea. (2) Rule: We require some indication of congressional intent to dispense with mens rea; absent such an indication, it will be presumed to be required. (3) Rule: We will not ease the path to convicting persons whose conduct would not even alert them to the chance that they were violating the Act.
What is State v. Guminga 1986, Supreme Court of Minnesota (395 N.W.2d 244) ["strict liability"/"mens"]?: Schema: Limitation on vicarious criminal liability. Facts: a waitress serves alcohol to under age patrons in Dâ€™s bar; D does not know. Holding: vicarious liability violates defendantâ€™s right to due process of law under the 14th Amendment.
What is the rule under State v. Guminga 1986, Supreme Court of Minnesota (395 N.W.2d 244) ["strict liability"/"mens"]?: Rule: no one in Minnesota can be convicted of a crime punishable by imprisonment for an act he did not commit, did not have knowledge of, or give express or implied consent to the commission thereof
What is State v. Baker 1977, Kansas Court of Appeal (571 P.2d 65) ["strict liability"/"mens"]?: Schema: Standards for a defense under strict liability. Facts: D activates cruise control; Dâ€™s device stuck in accelerator; D exceeds speed limit by 20 miles per hour. Holding: The malfunction of a nonessential component of an automobile is not a defense to a strict liability crime.
What is the rule under State v. Baker 1977, Kansas Court of Appeal (571 P.2d 65) ["strict liability"/"mens"]?: Rule: To be valid, a defense to strict liability must show that the violation was the result of an unforeseen occurrence or circumstance, not caused by D and not preventable by him
What is general rule with "mistake of law"?: Generally, mistake of law is not a defense, however, there are three exceptions.
What are the 5 authorities for "mistake of law"?: 1) People v. Marrero, 2) Cheek v. US, 3) Bryan v. US, 4) US v. Albertini, 5) Lambert v. California
What are the two flavors of â€œmistake of lawâ€?: (1) Those in which, because of ignorance or mistake as to a collateral law, D lacked the mental state required for a conviction [mistake as to collateral law]; and (2) those in which D had the requisite mental state but claims he was unaware that his conduct was proscribed by the criminal law [mistake as to criminal statute].
What is a â€œmistake as to collateral lawâ€?: Some crimes involve a particular belief concerning a legal matter. If the defendant was ignorant or mistaken as to that legal matter, he lacked the necessary mens rea. This is a mistake not regarding the criminal statute itself, but a collateral law. For example, if a person mistakenly believes that he owns certain property that he finds, when in fact he does not, he could not be convicted of larceny if he keeps the property.
What is a â€œmistake as to criminal statuteâ€?: Criminal mens rea requires only that someone intended to do the prohibited act. A mistake of interpretation is not a valid defense because this would undermine the enforcement of laws.
What are three exceptions to the mistake as to criminal statute defense?: a) Statute later held unconstitutional. b) Judicial decision. c) Official interpretation. NOTE: Advice of private counsel not a defense.
What is the "statute later held unconst." mistake of law defense?: A defendant who acted in good faith reliance upon a statute that permitted her conduct may assert this reliance as a defense, even though the statute was later invalidated.
What is the "judicial decision" mistake of law defense?: If a judicial decision held that the particular conduct was not criminal, a defendant who relied on the decision may assert that reliance as a defense. In most jurisdictions, the decision does not need to be that of the highest state court.
What is the "official interpretation" mistake of law defense?: Reliance upon an official interpretation of the law by one responsible for administering or enforcing the law may constitute a defense.
What was People v. Marrero 1987, New York Court of Appeals (69 N.Y.2d 382) ["mistake of law"/"mens"]?: Schema: Irrelevance of mistake when intent is not an element of the offense. Facts: D believed he acted lawfully by carrying a loaded weapon; D relied on statute; statute had no corrections. Holding: A mistake of law is not a valid defense in a strict liability statute.
What was the rule in People v. Marrero 1987, New York Court of Appeals (69 N.Y.2d 382) ["mistake of law"/"mens"]?: Rule: mistake of law may constitute a defense if someone relies on an official statement that is later deemed to be wrong AND intent is an element of the crime.
What is Cheek v. United States 1991, Supreme Court (498 U.S. 192) ["mistake of law"/"mens"]?: Facts: D believed he no longer had to pay taxes; D voluntarily stopped paying. Holding: Trial court incorrect when instructing only an objectively reasonable misunderstanding of the law negates the requirement of willfulness.
What is the rule under Cheek v. United States 1991, Supreme Court (498 U.S. 192) ["mistake of law"/"mens"]?: Rule: specific intent must be proven in tax laws, this means "voluntary, intentional violation of a known legal duty." It requires proof that: (i) the law imposed a duty on D; (ii) D knew of his duty; and (iii) D voluntarily and intentionally violated that duty
What is the rule under Bryan v. United States 1998, (524 U.S. 184) ["mistake of law"/"mens"]?: Rule: willfulness was evident by Dâ€™s actions even though it canâ€™t be proven that he knew the specific statute he was violating
What was United States v. Albertini 1987, US Court of Appeals 9th Circuit (830 F.2d 985) ["mistake of law"/"mens"]?: Schema: Judicial decisions having ex post facto effect. Facts: Dâ€™s conviction is overturned by 9th Circuit; D resumes acts; Dâ€™s first conviction is granted cert. Holding: Albertini had official reliance on an â€œofficial pronouncementâ€ by the 9th Circuit and so had a defense to liability based on a mistake of law.
What was the rule under United States v. Albertini 1987, US Court of Appeals 9th Circuit (830 F.2d 985) ["mistake of law"/"mens"]?: Rule: There is an exception to the mistake of law doctrine in circumstances where the mistake results from Dâ€™s reasonable reliance upon an official but mistaken or later overruled statement of law.
What was Lambert v. California 1957, Supreme Court (355 U.S. 225) ["mistake of law"/"mens"]?: Schema: Ignorance of laws imposing a duty to act. Facts: D had no knowledge of requirement to register; D did not register; D had not â€œon noticeâ€. Holding: That D has a defense under the â€œignoranceâ€ doctrine because the city hadnâ€™t properly put D â€œon noticeâ€
What was the rule under Lambert v. California 1957, Supreme Court (355 U.S. 225) ["mistake of law"/"mens"]?: Rule: Actual knowledge of the duty to register or proof of the probability of such knowledge and subsequent failure to comply are necessary before a conviction under the ordinance can stand.
What are the three types of homicide?: Justifiable, excusable, criminal
What is a justifiable homicide?: Authorized by law, such as when committed in execution of a sentence of death, in preventing an escape, or in pursuit of a dangerous fleeing felon
What are three types of excusable homicide?: Accidental, self defense, and some marginal cases
What is an accidental homicide?: An excusable one: committed while performing lawful act with due care and without any intention of hurting the other
Generally, what is criminal homicide?: Killing of another human being without 1) justification or 2) excuse. 3) Classifications are "murder" and "manslaughter."
What is the general definition of murder?: Unlawful killing of a human being with malice aforethought
Three forms of malice aforethought: 1) Intent to kill, 2) intent to inflict serious injury, 3) a depraved heart
Generally, how do we determine intent to kill when we are evaluating malice aforethought?: Exists from conduct unless there are mitigating circumstances
Generally, how does intent to inflict serious bodily injury play a role in malice aforethought?: Conduct coupled with an intent to cause serious bodily harm but without an intent to kill, which causes anotherâ€™s death, constitutes murder
Generally, how does a depraved heart play a role in malice aforethought?: Reckless conduct that a (reasonable person) would realize creates a high degree of risk of death or serious bodily injury which actually causes the death of another may constitute murder
What is the rule for murder in the first degree? (think about choice points too): All homicide with malice aforethought: (i) felony-murder (usually heinous felonies), or (ii) willful, deliberate, and premeditated.
What is â€œwillfulâ€ in the context of premeditated murder?: Defendant must actually intend to kill.
What is â€œdeliberateâ€ in the context of premeditated murder?: Defendant must be possessed of a cool mind that is capable of reflection.
What is the term â€œpremeditatedâ€ in the context of premeditated murder?: Must in fact reflect before his act of killing. Dâ€™s state of mind is decisive during the length of time between the formation of the idea to kill and the actual killing.
How to prove state of mind for â€œwillful, deliberate, and premeditatedâ€?: The existence of these elements must be determined from the defendantâ€™s conduct in light of the surrounding circumstances.
How can I *presume* premeditation in first degree murder?: Homicides perpetrated by poison or torture or after lying in wait for the victim, etc., are presumed by common law to have been premeditated.
What are the three principal cases for murder in the first?: 1) Commonwealth v. Carroll (PA 1963)-D shoots wife in head claims no premeditation; 2) State v. Guthrie (WV 1995)-D kills coworker because of nose sensitivity; 3) People v. Anderson (*CA* 1968)-man kills girl by stabbing 60 times, no proof of premeditation
Briefly, what are the four rules of the Carroll court (Pennslyvania, first degree murder trial)?: 1) intent to kill can be inferred from actions, 2) this included aiming for victim's head, 3) an irresistable impulse doesn't excuse it, 4) amount of time between forming intent and the act is immaterial
What does the Carroll court tell us about how we can determine intent to murder (Pennslyvania, first degree murder trial)?: The intent to kill can be inferred from the actions
What does the Carroll court tell us about irresistable impulses (Pennslyvania, first degree murder trial)?: An irresistable impulse is not an excuse for murder
What does the Carroll court tell us about the amount of time needed to form intent (Pennslyvania, first degree murder trial)?: The amount of time is immaterial
What was the holding of the Carroll court (Pennslyvania, first degree murder trial)?: A person may be convicted of first degree murder when acting out of an â€œirresistible impulseâ€, conviction affirmed
What is the common law rule for second degree murder (Pennslyvania, first degree murder trial)?: In most states, murder not falling within the first degree murder category is second degree murder.
What are the three forms of second degree murder (Pennslyvania, first degree murder trial)?: No premeditation, felony-murder (where not enumerated in 1st degree), wanton disregard for human life
What was the fact pattern in Carroll (Pennslyvania, first degree murder trial)?: D argues with wife; Dâ€™s wife goes to sleep; D remembers gun; D takes gun off shelf; D shoots wife twice in head; lousy cover up
What is the rule in the Guthrie case (West Virginia, first degree murder trial)?: Amount of time between the intent to kill and the actual killing is not important, but some time must pass in order to prove reflection and calculation on the intent. This means there must be an opportunity for some reflection on the intention to kill after it is formed.
What was the fact pattern in the Guthrie case (West Virginia, first degree murder trial)?: D has body dismorphic disorder; D overreacted to some provocation; D pulled knife from pocket and killed V
What was the holding of the Guthrie court (West Virginia, first degree murder trial)?: Premeditation must occur sometime before crime to constitute first degree murder, judgment reversed
What is the rule in the Anderson case (California, first degree murder trial)?: Premeditation and deliberation fall into three categories: (1) a planning activity that leads to the killing, (2) prior relationship or conduct with the victim that might lead to a motive, (3) facts about the nature of the crime that are particular or exacting that prove D committed the act in â€˜preconceived designâ€™.
What was the fact pattern in the Anderson case (California, first degree murder trial)?: D attacks daughter of woman; stabs her over 60 times; random knife wounds; alone in house with victim
How does premeditation separate first and second degree murder?: Those murders committed with the intent to kill but lacking premeditation and deliberation are of the second degree.
Discuss â€œintentionâ€ and the difference between first and second degree murder.: Both first and second degree murder include "intentional" homicide. Since it may actually be impossible for the mind to function in a way so that an intentional homicide occurs without at least some premeditation, the only difference between first and second degree murder exists in the degree of the premeditation (a difficult distinction to make).
What happens if a homicide does not involve premeditation?: then a conflict between second degree and intentional (voluntary) manslaughter inevitably arises
What is the biggest separator between voluntary manslaughter and second degree murder?: The amount of provocation, the more there is the more compelling the case for manslaughter.
What degree of liability does killing with â€œwanton disregard for human lifeâ€ earn?: Killings that indicate the defendant's wanton and willful disregard for human life are also second degree murder.
What is the role of â€œwanton disregard for human lifeâ€ in murder?: Might seem like negligence, but to be second degree murder Dâ€™s act must be sufficiently wanton to imply malice.
Can character of D play a role in reducing murder from 1 to 2?: Yes
Can criminal negligence, even of a wanton nature, be first degree murder (why or why not?)?: NO, because it precludes premeditation.
What is the rule for provocation? (think about choice points too): That which causes a (reasonable person) to lose his normal self-control. Provocation defense is available only if the offender moves quickly (i.e., succumbs to the provocation right away); too much delay can lose the defense
What are the traditional circumstances leading to provocation?: Extreme assault and battery upon D; mutual combat; illegal arrest; injury or serious abuse of a close relative; or sudden discovery of a defendant's spouse committing adultery
What are the three principal cases for provocation?: 1) Girouard v. State (MD 1991)-too much badgering by wife but words alone cannot be provocation; 2) Maher v. People (MI 1862)-D shoots man in bar he thinks is having affair, reasonable; 3) People v. Casassa (NY 1980)-"extreme emotional disturbance" not completely subjective
What is the rule in the Girouard case (Maryland, provocation trial)?: Words are not sufficient to raise provocation
What is the fact pattern in the Girouard case (Maryland, provocation trial)?: D underwent a barrage of insults, personal, sexual, and career from wife; D pulled out knife; D stabbed wife 19 times
What was the holding of the Girouard court (Maryland, provocation trial)?: Mitigating factors of provocation should be limited only to traditional circumstances. Conviction upheld.
What are the two rules in the Maher case (Michigan, provocation case)?: 1) provocation need not be committed in D's presence, 2) adequate provocation is that which would provoke a reasonable person (not w/ cooling time)
What does Maher tell us about "adequate provocation" (Michigan, provocation case)?: Adequate provocation is that which would provoke a reasonable person, before a reasonable time has elapsed for the passion to cool, and is the result of temporary excitement.
According to Maher, does provocation have to happen in D's presence (Michigan, provocation case)?: NO
What is the fact pattern in the Maher case (Michigan, provocation case)?: Facts: D sees wife and man go into woods; D was told that they were having sex by a friend; D goes into a bar not long afterwards; D shoots lover in head.
What was the holding of the Maher court (Michigan, provocation case)?: Provocation need not be committed in Dâ€™s presence, judgment reversed
What is the rule of the Casassa case (NY, provocation)?: There are two elements to â€œextreme emotional disturbanceâ€: (1) an act done under the influence of extreme emotional disturbance and (2) a reasonable explanation for the disturbance as viewed by a person in D's situation under the circumstances as D believed them to be.
What is the fact pattern of the Casassa case (NY, provocation)?: D was obsessed with V; D tried to advance his adoration; D rejected him time and again; D killed V
What was the holding of the Casassa court (NY, provocation)?: The defense of extreme emotional disturbance cannot be completely subjective. Conviction upheld.
What is the rule for manslaughter?: Catch-all category includes homicides not bad enough to be murder but too bad to be of no criminal consequence
What is the rule for involuntary manslaughter?: Intentional homicide under extenuating circumstances (heat of passion) that mitigate but do not justify or excuse the killing
What is the "heat of passion" rule?: Elements of heat of passion are 1) reasonable provocation, 2) D must have been in fact provoked, 3) reasonable person so provoked would not have cooled off, 4) D must not in fact have cooled off during that interval
What is the involuntary manslaughter rule?: Unintentional homicide committed without excuse, justification, or malice. and may result from lawful act in a negligent manner
What term would you use to describe the level of negligence required for criminal liability under involuntary manslaughter?: You could use the term "gross negligence" as opposed to "ordinary negligence"
What are the two tests offered by the outline for "gross negligence" under involuntary manslaughter?: One of the two: 1) D's conduct must involve a high degree of risk of death or serious bodily injury, in addition to the unreasonable risk required for ordinary negligence and 2) Whatever the degree of risk required, the defendant must be aware that his conduct creates this risk. NOTE: if both elements are present then it is almost at the level of recklessness
What are Bond's four dimensions for evaluating involuntary manslaughter?: 1) Awareness or unawareness of risk, 2) scope of risk: think of this in relation to probability, 3) probability of risk: think of this in relation to scope, 4) justification (if any) for running risk
What were the three principal cases for involuntary manslaughter?: 1) Commonwealth v. Welansky (MA 1944)-bar owner makes mistakes and kills many, guilty, 2) State v. Williams (WA 1971)-Indian parents let child die, criminally liable, 3) State v. Barnett (SC 1951)-a car is inherently dangerous so simple negligence is all you need
Briefly, what are the three rules in Welansky (Mass., involuntary manslaughter)?: 1) if you control business environment then your failure can make you criminally liable, 2) if you know facts leading to danger then you know the risk even if you feign ignorance, 3) risk of fire in public place makes D more than grossly negligent
What is the fact pattern in Welansky (Mass., involuntary manslaughter)?: D is in hospital; D is convicted of manslaughter; D permitted defective wiring, overcrowding, no means of escape; D spent almost all his time at the club personally
What was the holding of the Welansky court (Mass., involuntary manslaughter)?: A person may be convicted of manslaughter for permitting hazardous business conditions, judgment affirmed
What is the rule of the Barnett case (SC, involuntary manslaughter)?: Because of the inherent danger of a car, simple (not gross) negligence is all you need to establish for criminal liability under manslaughter
What is the rule under Williams (WA, involuntary manslaughter)?: Williams was weird because Washington state lowered the standard from gross negligence to ordinary negligence so Williams was clearly convicted.
What are two cases that can help you understand difference between murder and manslaughter?: 1) Malone (PA 1946)-kids playing russian roullete, shooter convicted of murder, 2) Fleming (4th Circuit, 1984)-drunk driver convicted of murder
What is the rule in Malone (diff. between man and murder, PA)?: D proves malice by acting with gross recklessness (for which he must reasonably anticipate death)
What is the fact pattern in Malone (diff. between man and murder, PA)?: Malone (D), age 17, was convicted of second degree murder for killing his friend, age 13, during a game of "Russian poker." D and the victim were on friendly terms; both had consented to play, neither intending harm to the other. D appeals, contending that he is only guilty of manslaughter.
What is the holding of the Malone court (diff. between man and murder, PA)?: Malevolence toward the victim is not an essential element of malice, judgment affirmed
Briefly, what are the three rules of the Fleming court (diff. between man and murder, federal)?: 1) malice demonstrated by dangerous driving, 2) don't need intent to kill but intent to act with gross recklessness, 3) not all drunk driving is murder, but this one is
How did Fleming demonstrate malice to qualify for murder (diff. between man and murder, federal)?: Malice was demonstrated when his driving showed reckless and wanton conduct that is a gross deviation from a reasonable standard of care.
Are all drunk driving homicides murder (diff. between man and murder, federal)?: Not all drunk driving homicides are murder, Flemingâ€™s conduct in this case was especially egregious because his driving was so dangerous
What does Fleming tell us about the need for "intent to kill" in murder (diff. between man and murder, federal)?: Donâ€™t need to show intent to kill, just need to show intent to engage in grossly reckless behavior
Was attempt a crime at common law?: Yes
What is the rule for attempt?: 1) A *specific intent* to commit a crime (mens) and (2) an act in furtherance of that intent (actus), which goes far enough toward completion of the crime.
What is the mens rea rule for attempt?: Need to show (1) the intent to commit the acts or cause the result constituting the crime; and (2) the intent necessary for the completed crime.
Just how strict is the specific intent requirement in attempt crimes?: Very. For example, in Jones v State (689 N.E.2d 722) there was a drive by case. He was convicted of murder for the two people he killed but not attempted murder of the people who were only wounded. His acts were very reckless but he lacked the specific intent to murder the people he only wounded.
Why do we set such a high intent standard in attempt crimes?: One answer is moral: one who intended to commit a criminal harm does a greater moral wrong than one who does so recklessly or negligent.
Could you have an attempted felony-murder?: No.
Can you have attempted manslaughter?: Maybe an attempted voluntary manslaughter, but definitely not attempted involuntary manslaughter. By definition you canâ€™t have specific intent when the crime requires recklessness.
What is the one case under mens rea for attempt?: Smallwood v. State 1996, Court of Appeals, Maryland - rapist has HIV, tried for attempted murder
What was the fact patterns of the Smallwood case (attempt mens rea, Maryland)?: D knew he had HIV; D knew he should use condom; D raped 3 women at gun point; D convicted of assault with intent to murder;
What was the holding of the Smallwood court (attempt mens rea, Maryland)?: Conviction overturned, the trier of fact may not infer an intent to kill solely on the fact that D exposed his victims to HIV
What is the primary rule from the Smallwood court (attempt mens rea, Maryland)?: The intent required in assault with intent to murder and attempted murder is the specific intent to murder
Besides mens rea and actus rea, what is another topic under attempt?: Abandonment
What is the rule for actus rea in attempt?: An act that goes "far enough" toward a crime. Whether D has done enough in furtherance of his intent to have committed attempt is not subject to any precise rule.
What are the six tests for actus in attempt?: 1) the last step, 2) physical proximity test, 3) control over all dispensable elements, 4) â€œprobably desistanceâ€ test, 5) "equivocality", 6) the MPC way
What is the traditional approach to solving the actus problem in attempt crimes?: D needs to go beyond â€œpreparationâ€ into â€œperpetrationâ€ but this is too imprecise to be practical in most situations
What is the â€œlast stepâ€ test for actus in attempt crimes?: "the accused must have taken the last step which he was able to take along the road of his criminal intent."
What is the â€œphysical proximityâ€ test for actus in attempt crimes?: Conduct must by physically proximate to the intended crime
What is the â€œcontrol over all indispensable elementsâ€ test in attempt crimes?: Nothing must be left undone that would prevent the defendant from committing the crime.
What is the "probable desistance" test for actus in attempt crimes?: To find an attempt only when the act is such that in the ordinary course of events it would lead to completion of the crime in the absence of intervening outside factors.
What is the "equivocality" test for actus in attempt crimes?: A.k.a the â€œres ipsa loquiturâ€ test. An act amounts to attempt only if--when considered alone--it firmly shows the actor's intent to commit the crime.
What are the three cases for actus under attempt?: 1) People v. Rizzo (NY) - D can't find the guy he wants to rob, 2) McQuirter v. State (Md.) - black man in south accused of rape, 3) US v. Jackson (Ca?) - bank robbers get very close to robbing bank
What is the fact pattern in Rizzo (actus/attempt NY)?: D and four others wanted to rob V; Ds drove to many places trying to find him; Ds were captured after police started to follow; the V never appeared anywhere
What was the rule of Rizzo court (actus/attempt NY)?: D intended to commit the crime but was not close enough to the act to qualify
What was the fact pattern of the Jackson case (actus/attempt Federal)?: D and other wanted to rob a back; Ds got heavily armed; Ds cased bank multiple times; Ds altered license plate; Ds saw FBI and tried to escape; Ds convicted of attempted bank robbery
What was the holding of the Jackson case (actus/attempt Federal)?: D can be convicted of attempt when he did not commit last proximate act necessary for the crime
What was the rule of the Jackson court (actus/attempt Federal)?: â€œLast proximate actâ€ sufficient but not necessary
What is â€œlocus penitentiaeâ€ under attempt/abandonment?: An opportunity to repent, to change oneâ€™s mind. Basically, it is an abandonment defense in an attempt crime.
What is a typical requirement for the abandonment defense in attempt crimes?: â€œCircumstances manifesting a voluntary and complete renunciation of the criminal purposeâ€
What are the four different levels of complicity (accountability) at common law?: 1) Principal of the 1st degree, 2) principal of the 2nd degree, 3) Accessory before the fact, 4) Accessory after the fact
What was principal in the first degree under common law accountability (plus, give example)?: This is one who actually commits the crime, or who gets an innocent third party to do it for him. For example, A may give poison to B (who does not know it is poison) to give to C. A is guilty of murder; B is not a party to the crime because she is an innocent agent.
What is the definition of a principal of the second degree under common law accountability (plus, give example)?: A principal in the second degree is one who is present when the crime is committed and who aids in its commission (for example, the driver of the getaway car).
What is a principal of the second degreeâ€™s â€œconstructive presenceâ€ of under accountability?: Not actual presence at scene of crime. She acts with a common design with the one who commits the criminal act and aids that person (as by keeping lookout), or is situated so as to be able to help him in committing the crime.
What is a principal of the second degreeâ€™s â€œaiding and abettingâ€ under accountability?: To be guilty as a second degree principal, the defendant must make some "substantial contribution" to the commission of the crime by aiding or encouraging its commission.
What is the definition of one who acts as an accessory before the fact under common law accountability?: Absent at the time the crime is actually committed but who procured, incited, counseled, advised, encouraged, or commanded that the crime be committed.
What knowledge is required of one who acts as an accessory before the fact under common law accountability?: Knowledge is not sufficient. There has to be some actual encouragement that it be committed.
Does an accessory before the act have to share in the proceeds of the crime (if any) under common law accountability?: No.
What is an accessory after the fact under common law accountability?: A person who, knowing that a felony has been committed, aided, assisted, comforted, or received the felon.
Does a failure to notify police about a felony that has been committed make one liability as an accessory after the fact under common law accountability?: No.
What is the derivative principle under common law accountability?: A principal of the second degree or an accessory could not be convicted unless the principal in the first degree had already been convicted: no crime existed until this point.
How are distinctions between principals and accessories drawn under common law accountability?: Distinction between first and second degree principals is recognized for all crimes. But only in felonies are distinctions made between principals and accessories (all persons involved in misdemeanors are treated as principals)
How was punishment apportioned in common law accountability between principals and accessories?: Little distinction was made in the punishment given to the various parties to a crime.
Under modern accountability law, what are the different levels of complicity?: Principal and accessory
How are principals distinguished under *modern* accountability law?: A roll up of common law accessories before the fact, first, and second degree principals. One may "commit a crime" (by aiding and abetting) that he is technically incapable of committing. So, for example, a husband can aid another man to rape his wife and be guilty of rape.
Who are accessories in modern accountability law?: Anyone who conceals a felony or aids a principal to help them avoid arrest, if you know someone committed the felony
What level of intent is usually required to hold someone liable as an accomplice?: What level of intent is usually required to hold someone liable as an accomplice? Specific intent
What are the two competing public policies when holding people liable as accomplices?: 1) Donâ€™t want to convict people for crimes they didnâ€™t mean to intend, but on the other hand 2) if you put criminal conduct in motion or assist then you should share in criminal liability.
What are the four principal cases for mens rea in complicity?: 1) Hicks v. United States (Supreme 1893)-three men on horses, one shot; 2) State v. Gladstone (WA 1980)-pot dealers on campus; 3) People v. Luparello (Feds 1987)-Los Angeles gangster wants to find lover and martin dies; 4) United States v. Xavier (Fed 1993)-doesn't know brother is a felon
What was the fact pattern in the Hicks case (complicity/mens Supreme Court)?: Hicks (D) and Colvard (V) riding horses together; Rowe (P) raised shotgun twice and D laughs; D tells V to â€œtake off hat and die like manâ€; P shoots V; D and P ride off together
What was the holding of the Hicks court (complicity/mens Supreme Court)?: A person cannot be convicted when words encouraged murder but that was not his intent.
What was the rule of the Hicks court (complicity/mens Supreme Court)?: Words can make you complicit if you mean for them to spur on an action, but that isnâ€™t your intent then they cannot be sufficient to make you criminally liable.
What was the holding of the Gladstone court (complicity/mens WA)?: D cannot be guilty of aiding and abetting when he does nothing in association or connection with P
What was the rule of the Gladstone case (complicity/mens WA)?: The aider and abettor need not be present at the commission of the crime, but to be guilty he must do something in association or connection with the principal
What was the fact pattern of the Luparello case (complicity/mens Fed.)?: Luparello (D) is trying to find former lover by way of Martin (V); D told friends he wanted info â€œat any costâ€; Dâ€™s friends without he presence kills V in first degree; D charged and convicted of murder
What was the rule of the Luparello case (complicity/mens Fed.)?: You can be convicted for more than the "intended" crime because aiders and abettors should be responsible for the criminal harms they have naturally, probably, and foreseeably put in motion.
What was the holding of the Luparello case (complicity/mens Fed.)?: D is liable for unplanned and unintended acts of coconspirators
What was the fact pattern in the Xavier case (complicity/mens Fed.)?: Facts: Franklin and Clement (D) Xavier see enemy in store; D leaves and comes back with another guy and a gun; D convicted of aiding and abetting ex-felonâ€™s possession of a firearm.
What is the holding of the Xavier court (complicity/mens Fed.)?: D cannot be criminally liable without knowledge, or reason to believe, in possessorâ€™s status as ex felon
What is the rule of the Xavier court (complicity/mens Fed.)?: Allowing liability without requiring proof of knowledge would circumvent the knowledge element of the statute and would "abrogate congressional intent [of this statute]"
What is the loose rule for actus in complicity?: The materiality of the aid is critically important. Direct causation is not required as long as mens is satisfied. The threshold is hard to find however.
What were the two cases for actus in complicity?: 1) Wilcox v. Jeffrey (GB) - Jazz magazine writer is guilty of aiding? and 2) Attorney General v. Tally (Ala 1894) - judge Tally interferes with a telegram

Start Studying!

Deck Info

Number of cards 248