THE (4) PURPOSES

OF

PUNISHMENT

1)  RETRIBUTION: Backward Looking; Vengeance; Free Will

2)  DETERRENCE:  Cost v. Benefit;  Assumes Rational Actor;

a.  General - Makes an example of D

b.  Special - Seeks to deter the specific D

3)  INCAPACITATION:  Keeping D housed; predicting actions

4)  REHABILITATION:  Assumes people want to/will change;

                     Supposed benefit to society

ACTUS REUS

Is a VOLUNTARY POSITIVE ACT:  Undefined, but involuntary

defined as:  reflex/convulsion; movement while asleep or KOd; hypnosis; because the BRAIN IS NOT ENGAGED.  However, if D knows he's epileptic and drives w/o taking meds and wrecks, then culpable.

Ex. D drunk at home, arrested.  Then charged with being drunk in public.  Not voluntary act to leave the house.

OR an OMISSION:  Generally Have No Duty To Help; but see

                 exceptions on next card.

ACTUS REUS:

Exceptions to the

No Duty to Act Rule

STATUTE:  Teachers/MD's have to act unless they can't do it safely.

STATUS RELATIONSHIP:  Parent-Child; H-W; Master-Apprentice; Captain to Passengers; Innkeeper-Drunk Custonmers

CONTRACTS:  Daycare; Security Guards; Elder Care; Lifeguard

VOLUNTARILY ASSUME:  Rescue

PUTTING ANOTHER INTO PERIL:  ex. Abused kills self; Abuser culpable. D hits V with shovel, doesn't take to hospital.

M.R. TERMINOLOGY:

Maliciously (CL)

Maliciously only means D realizes the risks their conduct creates and engages in the conduct anyway. (Reckless)

Ex. Regina v. Cunningham:  D almost asphyxiated woman when D removed gas meter off adjoining wall.  The word maliciously was used but it only meant that D, to be culpable, would have to had foresaw his acts might cause harm and acted.

M.R. Terminology:

Inentionally (CL)

1)  D had purpose to cuase a specific harmful result.

or

2)  Also can apply where D is aware of likely harm despite the harm not being her primary aim.

M.R. Terminology:

Willfully (CL)

1)  doing an act to violate the law

2)  also where D doesn't want to break the law but does anyway.

Example:  D has no complaint against the tax laws but doesn't file anyway.

M.R. TERMINOLOGY:

Purposely (MPC)

M.R. TERMINOLOGY:

Knowingly (MPC)

A D acts knowingly if D is virtually/practiaclly certain that their conduct will lead to a particular result.

Ex. D brings bomb on plane to destroy papers of another passenger.  D is virtually certain the plane's passengers will be killed as well, with regard to the death of the other passengers, D acted knowingly.

*See Jewell Doctrine

M.R. TERMINOLOGY:

Recklessly (MPC)

D acts recklessly if they REALIZE there is a substantial and unjustifiable risk that his or her conduct will cause harm but CONSCIOUSLY DISREGARDS THAT RISK. Consider/Dismiss risk.

It is a subjective standard; D must personally realize the risk and disregard it; this is the MINIMUM standard.

Ex. D drives 60mph past a school during school hours.  Although D doesn't intend to hit anyone he realized the risk it might happen and speeds anyway.

M.R. TERMINOLOGY:

Negligently (MPC)

D is negligent if they are unaware (clueless) and takes a risk that an ordinary person would not take.

Objective Standard:  SHOULD HAVE KNOWN

Ex. D is unaware that his child is suffering from a life-threatening illness and fails to seek medical treatment.  An ordinary person would have been aware of the risk and sought the care.  D has acted negligently.

M.R.

Strict Liability

Some crimes have no M.R. requirment.  Usually reserved for offesnes carrying minimal punishments with a high rate of prosecutions.

Public Welfare Offense:  illegal selling of booze; sale of adulterated food/drugs; violations of traffic regulations.

Defense:  D has to act involuntarily (no A.R.)

M.R. TERMINOLOGY:

Material Elements

If D needs to know it to be culpable, and D commits the crime without knowing it, then D is NOT CULPABLE.

An element that D NEEDS TO KNOW.

THE

JEWELL

DOCTRINE

(Ostrich Defense)

High Suspicion + Deliberate Ignorance = Knowingly MR

Jewell:  D caught crossing border with drugs in secret compartment.  D says didn't know about secret compartment; choosing not to investigate on a strong suspicion will get you to knowingly.

M.R.

MISTAKE OF FACT

Generally: D didn't have the necessary MR for the crime because D made a mistake/ignorant of fact D had to know.

Ex.CRIME: KNOWINGLY RECEIVE STOLEN GOODS. D buys goods that are stolen, but is unaware of this. D's ignorance doesn't rise to culpbable MR.

Ex.CRIME: KNOWINGLY EMPLOY AN ILLEGAL.  D knows employee is illegal, but thinks he's from Russia, not Mex.  D has culpable M.R., doesn't matter origin.

M.R. TERMINOLOGY:

Non-Material Elements

(Jurisdictional Elements)

(US v. Feola)

Feola:  D atempts to rob men that turn out to be FBI.  D charged with assaulting a federal officer.  D claims that they didn't know V's were FBI.  Court rejected this, you commit the crime you run the risk.

No MOF defense for jurisdictional elements.

M.R.

MISTAKE OF LAW

(Generally)

IS NOT A DEFENSE (for policy reasons/societal values.)

3 Exceptions:  1) D has been OFFICIALLY misled. (Estoppel)

               2) D doesn't have necessary M.R.

               3) D doesn't have reasonable notice of law.

M.R.

Mistake of Law:

ESTOPPEL EXCEPTIONS

D misled by official authority; if D relies on law and that law later turns out to be incorrect, D has MOL defense:

i. INVALID STATUTE: (see above)

ii. JUDICIAL DECISION: If state's highest court interpreted law to allow D's conduct then D can rely on that even if SCOTUS overturns it later.

iii. ADMINISTRATIVE ORDER: (see i. and above)

iv. OFFICIAL INTERPRETATION:  If state's highest authority, DA, interprets one way that allows your conduct, then D may have a defense. Cops don't count.

GENERAL

INTENT CRIMES

Are those that only require D to intend to commit the act.  Example: assault, battery, trespass.

SPECIFIC INTENT

CRIMES

Crimes that require a higher level of MR.  P must prove that D acted with specific purpose to cause the harm or while knowing the harm would result.

Example:  Burglary, the D must enter a building with the intent to commit a felony inside.

HOMICIDE

The unlawful killing of another human being.

A.R.=Killing: stabbing, shooting, strangling, poison, etc.

M.R.=Mental State:  Purpose(+); Malice (etc.); Gross Neg.

Human Being:  Non-embryonic fetus to extreme elderly.

A.R. + M.R. + Circumstance + Result = Homicide

DEGREES/LEVELS

of

HOMICIDE

M1:PREMEDITATION - Purpose (Carrol) "No time is too short."

              OR - Purpose + Design/Calculate (Anderson)

M2: WITH MALICE W/O Premeditation - Malice (3 Types)

Manslaughter: Killing w/o Malice. TWO TYPES                   1)Voluntary: Heat of Passion/Ext. Emo. Dist.                 2)Involuntary: Grossly Negligent Homicide

M1

PREMEDITATION: D intended to kill. Cool, deliberate thought.

               Sometimes requires NO amount of time.

Carrol: D acted deliberately or w/ PURPOSEFUL conduct, even if just a matter of seconds, is PREMEDIATION.  (Pros.)

Anderson: D acted purposefuly + PRECONCEIVED DESIGN.  Indicia of is 1) Planning activity 2) Motive 3) Manner

HOMICIDE TERMINOLOGY:

Premeditation

1)  Usually synonymous with M1.

2)  Sometimes premeditation only means a purposeful killing

    and completely ignores a time frame.  No time is too

    short.

3)  Or, as in CA, means that there must have been a

    preconceived plan that demonstrates:  manner, motive,

    planning, or cool formation of intent to kill.

DEFENSES TO

PREMEDITATION

1)  DIMINISHED CAPACITY - premed requires D to maturely and meaningfully reflect on the gravity of the crime.  Think psychological disorders.

2)  INTOXICATION - Intent to kill may be formed even when drunk.  However, if someone is blazed/wasted/high out of their minds enough this may preclude an MR finding for M1.

M2

A Murder WITH MALICE but W/O PREMEDITATION.

MALICE: 1) Intent to Kill - Inferred from D's actions/words.

        2) Intent to Cause Serious Bodily Harm - look at V's wounds

        3) Gross Recklessness - (MUST HAVE KNOWN) Conscious Disregard for Life

           STEP 1) Did D Realize the Risk (Must Have)?

                   If "Yes," then it's reckless.

           STEP 2) Was it "Gross"? (Social Utility v. MOR)

                   If "Yes," then it's GR (M2) [No=IVM]

      4) Felony-Murder: If death occurs during felony it is Murder

HOMICIDE TERMINOLOGY:

MALICE

1)  Callous disregard for human life.

Can mean:1)  Intent to kill the victim

         2)  Intent to cause GBH to victim

         3)  Gross indifference to risk of death/GBH to

             victim.

         4)  An intent to commit a felony that results in a

             death (F-M: Non-BARKRM)

M2

MALICE:

INTENT TO KILL

(EXPRESS MALICE)

Purposeful killing of V.

Motvie may be used to show ITK but is not dispositive.  Also take into acount use of dangerous weapon and bragging.

M2

MALICE:

INTENT TO CAUSE SBH

Intending to injure V in a way that could easily lead to death.

EX:If D intends to shoot V in the shoulder and instead hits V in heart, D has acted w/ Malice w/o ITK. ITCSBH is still enough for M2 here.

DETERMINING

GROSS RECKLESSNESS

STEP 1: Did D realize the risk (Must Have)?

        If answer is "yes," then it is reckless.

STEP 2: Was it Gross? (Social Utility v. MOR)

        Social Utility - Benefit to Society & Cost of Alt.

        Magnitude of Risk - Danger/Amount of Harm &

                            Likelihood

        If RISK OUTWEIGHS UTILITY THEN THAT = GR

        If UTILITY OF OUTWEIGHS RISK THEN THAT = IVM

MANSLAUGHTER

1)  MANSLAUGHTER IS THE KILLING OF ANOTHER HUMAN BEING WITHOUT MALICE.

VOLUNTARY AND INVOLUNTARY

IMPERFECT SELF-DEFENSE will become VM

VOLUNTARY MANSLAUGHTER

(GENERALLY)

1) a. Heat of Passion (provoked)

   b. EED (MPC)

   c. Imperfect Self-Defense (Honest/Unreason.)

2)Legally Adequate Provocation:

   a.Categorical

   b.RPP(3) OBJ,SEMI OBJ, MORE SUB

3)Insufficient Cooling Time

   a.Long Smoldering/Rekindling

HOMICIDE TERMINOLOGY:

PROVOCATION

1)  HEAT OF PASSION - something enrages D, must be LAP

2)  Usually applies to Voluntary Manslaughter

MANSLAUGHTER

VOLUNTARY (1)

ACTUAL HEAT OF PASSION

(PROVOCATION)

D must be so inflamed/enraged by provocation that he is not forming intent to kill with a cool, deliberate mind.

 MANSLAUGHTER:

VOLUNTARY (2) -

LEGALLY ADEQUATE

PROVOCATION (CATEGORICAL)

D doesn't need to be merely provoked, but must respond to a legally adequate provocation or where a RP would be similarly provoked.

CATEGORIES INCLUDE:

1)Extreme Assault/Battery Upon D

2)SUDDEN Discovery of Adultery by D

MANSLAUGHTER:

VOLUNTARY (2)

LEGALLY ADEQUATE

PROVOCATION (RPP - 3)

1)OBJ: Jurors look at the RP w/o any of D's characteristics.

2)SEMI-OBJ: Jurors look at the RP w/ some of D's traits (Age/Sex/Build)

3)MORE SUB: (MPC) Jurors look at POV of someone under the circumstances as D believes them to be.

MANSLAUGHTER:

VOLUNTARY (3)

INSUFFICIENT COOLING TIME,

LONG-SMOLDERING REACTION

& REKINDLING

1) ICT - too much time cannot have passed between knowledge on D's part and his act or else no HOP defense.

2) LSR - (MOD) If D has been repeatedly taunted by V after the initial provocative act, D may still qualify for HOP even hours or days after provocation.

3) REKINDLING - Even though D may have cooled off after the inital act, their HOP was rekindled by a reminder of V's initial act.

NOTE: 2&3 are not always exclusive.

VOLUNTARY MANSLAUGHTER

(MPC GENERALLY)

1)  Extreme Emotional or Mental Disturbance

2)  Reasonably Explained

HYPO:  D sees V wearing red tie, loses his shit, kills V.

       Under traditional red tie is not enough.

       BUT if D was abused as a kid by red tie wearer then

       MPC might label this a reasonable explanation.

MANSLAUGHTER:

VOLUNTARY (MPC)

EXTREME EMOTIONAL

DISTURBANCE

Closely related  to HOP killings, EED-like equivalent.

1)No Act of Prov Needed, sufficient if D suffered from a condition that caused him to react emotionally.

2)No Act, No Cooling Time

3)Words May Be Enough

4)But Need a REASONABLE EXPLANATION:Determined from the POV of a person in D's situation as D believes it to be. (Anger issues, idiosyncratic moral sensitivty not factors)

INVOLUNTARY MANSLAUGHTER

1) Gross Negligence, D not aware of risk but a RP would've been.  Becomes Gross when there is a high likelihood of harm or risk of harm, or little to no social utility of D's actions.

FACTORS:  Mag. of Risk - Foreseeability of Harm to V;

                         seriousness of harm

          Social Utility - Cost of not doing it; benefit to

          of Conduct        society

SHOULD'VE REALIZED THE RISK - OBJECTIVE RPP

DANGEROUS INSTRUMENTALITY

DOCTRINE

1)  Only applies to IVM

2)  Using a dangerous instrument in a negligent manner is

    automatically IVM.

3)  By using the DI you load up the Mag. of Risk so much to

    the point that it would seem there could be no Social

    Benefit/Utility for conducting yourself the way you did.

EUTHANASIA

Affirmatively unplugging a patient is a criminal.

BUT

Declining to connect a patient to a ventilator is only criminal if there is a specific duty to do so.

GOOD FAITH DEFENSE

FOR STRICT LIABILITY

When the D uses this the burden of proof shifts to them to prove that D used all good faith efforts to ensure legality.

Generally only applicable regarding the 1st amendment.

THE LAMBERT

EXCEPTION

Where D 1) is wholly passive 2) had no actual notice of law and 3) D's violation involves a regulatory offense, D may use Lambert.  Rare.

FELONY-MURDER

DOCTRINE

(BARKRM=M1)

1) No MR needed for murder if D caused the death during the commission/in furtherance of a felony.

Felony must be inherently dangerous in 1)  The abstract, a felony that can be often committed w/o risk to humans is NOT. AND 2) Dangerous as committed, essentially since a death resulted then this will be met.

2) If the aim of the felony is other than killing or SBH it qualifies for the F-M. Burglary-Arson-Rape-Kid-Rob-Mayhem

MERGER

DOCTRINE

1) If the underlying felony is an "integral part" of the homicide itself, the F-M doctrine won't apply.

   *If the felony is merely a step in the killing it merges

    with the resulting homicide.

THE

AGENCY THEORY

(Killings During

The Course Of A felony)

1)Traditionally, only deaths directly caused by the D or a co-felon qualified for F-M.

  *PC theory:D may be guilty of any death resulting from the

   unlawful activity. Guilt for Human Shield Ds.

EXCEPTION:A felon is not guilty of death of co-felon because killing co-felon is not in furtherance.

Unanticipated actions by a co-felon not in furtherance of the common goal of the felony do not get F-M.

FELONIES

(From Start To Finish)

Felonies begin with the preparation

AND

Felonies end only when D's are in custody or have reached a position of "temporary safety.

Ex. D cleaning gun before bank robbery, gun goes off killing next door neighbor.  D guilty of murder.

THE

UNLAWFUL ACT/

MISDEMEANOR-MANSLAUGHTER

DOCTRINE

1)Unintentional killings commited during an unlawful act automatically constitute manslaughter.

2)The unlawful act shows that D acted w/o caution.

3)Used as a substitute for MR in an IVM charge.

F-M DOCTRINE and

THE DEATH PENALTY

(TISON)

1)  If the facts demonstrate that D had major participation in a felony + reckless indifference for human life and a killing occurs, the death penalty is a possibility

MPC and FELONY-MURDER

MPC rejects traditional F-M and instead it creates a rebuttable presumption of extreme indifference to human life when a death occurs during a felony.

CAUSATION

1) An intended death that occurs in an unintended way or an unintended death resulting from D's action raises causation.

2) An issue presented to the jury.

3) If the result that occurs is too far removed from D's acts D not likely to be held liable.

NOTE:  A break in causation can undo F-M.

CAUSATION

ANALYSIS

1) "But For": (Any Link in the Chain, easy to meet)

2) Then PC: Is the But For Sufficiently Direct?

            a) Foreseeability - D doesn't have to foresee

                                the type of harm, just that

                                harm is likely.

3)  Intervening Acts: Superseding breaks the chain.

                     Acts of Nature: Routine (Rain) doesn't.

                                     Freak (EQ) does.

                     Medical: Incompetent treatment doesn't.

If D can foresee the IA the less likely chain will break.

GENERAL

ANALYSIS

AR->MR->RESULT->CAUSATION->POP

VULNERABILITY

OF VICTIM

Eggshell:  D takes V as he finds him.

Refusal of Treatment: If V refuses medical treatment due to religiious beliefs D still culpbable.

TRANSFERRED

INTENT

Not a causation issue, if all the elements are there (AR+MR+RESULT) then it doesn't matter that you killed someone else.

Ex. You mean to shoot A, a jerk, but you kill B, the POTUS.  MPC would punish your MR while most Jx would go with the level of harm you caused, here you would be punished higher for killing POTUS.

PROXIMATE CAUSE

FACTORS

1) Foreseeable that V would take drastic action to escape

2) Who had more control over the situation?

3) Who should society hold responsible?

4) Any reason to find a break in the chain?

ATTEMPT/INCHOATE

CRIMES

Attempt is the crime of trying to committ another crime; an incomplete crime.

Elements of Attempt:

             MR: Purposefully/Specific Intent

             AR: FS-LS-DP-UQ-SSSCI(MPC*)

NOTE:  No result needed.  Attempt is crime without result.

PUNISHMENT

FOR

ATTEMPT

MAJ: Jx punish intent less.

CA - not more than 1/2 of the term for the completed offense.

MIN/MPC: Since MR is main focus MPC punishes most crimes to same extent.

NOTE: Attempted F-M non-existent.

ELEMENTS OF

ATTEMPT:

1) MENS REA

1) Requires highest level of intent:        PURPOSEFULNESS (goal/aim) (Knowingly not enough  but can be used to prove PURPOSE)

2) MIN/MPC: Purpose or Belief that D's conduct will cause harm.

EXAM:  Argue that the act MUST have been the purpose.

ELEMENTS OF

ATTEMPT:

ACTUS REUS

(GENERALLY)

The following determine whether D was merely preparing or crossed the line into attempt.

1) FIRST STEP

2) LAST STEP

3) DANGEROUS PROXIMITY (MAJ)

4) UNEQUIVOCALITY TEST/RIL

5) SUBSTANTIAL STEP STRONGLY CORROBORATIVE OF

   INTENT (SSSCI - MPC/MAJ)

ELEMENTS OF ATTEMPT:

ACTUS REUS

1) FIRST STEP TEST

1) A D's first step towards committing a crime is insufficient to establish AR.  Considered mere preparation in most Jx.

IS NOT:  Buying matches for arson or calling a bank for their hours

NOTE:  Exception for poisoning.

ELEMENTS OF ATTEMPT:

ACTUS REUS

2) LAST STEP TEST

1) D not guilty unless he had done all he could do to commit a crime and was stopped by external force. "Bad luck" for D. CLOSELY LINKED to FACTUAL IMPOSSIBILITY: Meaning D on cusp of crime but couldn't complete for some "bad luck" reason.

Ex. D points gun at V's head, pulls trigger.  Gun jams.  Under LS D guilty.

ELEMENTS OF ATTEMPT:

ACTUS REUS

3) DANGEROUS PROXIMITY TEST

Lies somewhere beyond FS but before LS. The closer to completion/danger the more likely AR will be met.

Factors:

    1) How much of the crime has D completed

    2) How much more of the crime left to do

    3) Why didn't the harm occur

    4) Amount of harm likely to result

    5) Gravity of that harm

ELEMENTS OF ATTEMPT:

ACTUS REUS

4) UNEQUIVOCALITY TEST/RIL

This merges AR with MR - the only people who do the act you did are the kind who intend to rape/kill/etc.

Jury is instructed on the D's acts alone to determine if there is some other lawful explanation for the conduct.

ELEMENTS OF ATTEMPT:

ACTUS REUS

5) SUBSTANTIAL STEP STRONGLY

CORROBORATIVE OF INTENT

(MPC)

Focuses on what the D has done toward completing the crime, not what is still left to be done. D's actions must be viewed in the context of other evidence that might show purpose.

Even a small step can be a substantial step when combined with other evidence of intent.

DEFENSES

TO ATTEMPT

(GENERALLY)

1) ABANDONMENT/RENUNCIATION: D REPENTS AND DESERTS THE EFFORT TO COMMIT THE CRIME MUST COMMUNICATE THIS TO OTHER D.

2) IMPOSSIBILITY:  D HAS DONE EVERYTHING POSSIBLE TO COMMIT THE CRIME BUT UNEXPECTED FACTUAL/LEGAL CIRCUMSTANCES PREVENT CRIME FROM OCCURRING. (NOT A DEFENSE)

DEFENES TO ATTEMPT:

ABANDONMENT/RENUNCIATION

CL: not a defense, LS was needed at CL, D unlikely to A/R at LS.

MPC: Fully and Voluntary renunciate - IS NOT: D postpones for more opportune moment.  IS NOT:  Fear of getting caught.

Voluntary:  D must experience a sincere change in heart.

CAV: Complete A/R, Abandon efforts, Voluntary renunciation

DEFENSES TO ATTEMPT:

FACTUAL

IMPOSSIBILITY

Not a defense. Had the circumstances been as D believed them to be, would there have been a crime?

If "yes" then D guilty of attempt and no defense allowed.

Examples:

    1) Pickpocket picks an empty pocket.

    2) Shoot gun, turns out to be defective

    3) Trying to infect another with disease though D turns

       out not to be infected

    4) Shooting V's home and they turn out not to be there

    5) Having sex with dead person unknown to D

DEFENSES TO ATTEMPT:

"TRUE" LEGAL

IMPOSSIBILITY

When D consciously tries to violate a law that doesn't exist in the Jx. A complete defense.

Examples:

    1)D performs an abortion D thinks is unlawful when in    fact abortion is not illegal in that Jx.

    2)D smokes weed thinking it's illegal. . .

    3)D has sex with minor believing it to SR when in fact no SR in that Jx.

DEFENSES TO ATTEMPT:

MPC AND IMPOSSIBILITY

Not a defense.

1) If the circumstances were as D believed would D be guilty? If yes, then no defense.

2) (Mitigation) Dismiss if the act was not too dangerous.

Example: D fishes on pier thinking its illegal.  It is.  But D's act is not too dangerous and a defense may be allowed.

ACCOMPLICE LIABILITY

EXAM: D is guilty of _________ because he is an Accomplice.

At CL there were 4 categories.  Modern Law holds that the first 3 of the 4 will all suffer the same punishment.

ACCOMPLICE LIABILITY:

COMMON LAW CATEGORIES

1)Princ. in 1st Degree (Perpetrator of the crime)

2)Prin. in the 2nd Degree (being present/nearby - lookout/driver)

3)Accessory Before the Fact (planner/procurer)

4)Access. After the Fact (hides felons)

Under modern law only #4 still gets a lesser punishment.

ACCOMPLICE LIABILITY:

MENS REA

1) Purpose to help achieve goal/aim (have to know what D is doing is helping)

2) Purpose that the crime succeed

ACCOMPLICE LIABILITY:

MENS REA HYPO

Boba Fett hears that Darth Vader has set out to kill Fett's enemy, Jabba the Hutt. Fett goes along to enjoy the show.

Q:Is Fett guilty of aiding/abetting?

A) Fett is not guilty of aiding and abetting becuase he only intended to enjoy the show; Fett did not assist or encourage Vader in the crime.

Note:  Mere presense is insufficient to trigger accomplice liability unless that presence is the agreed upon form of encouragement.

ACCOMPLICE LIABILITY:

MENS REA HYPO

Fett goes with Vader to see Vader destroy Jabba.  During the crime Fett cries out, "Turn him into Bantha fodder!"

Q:Is Fett guilty of aiding/abetting?

A) You bet your asteroid, kid.  Because Fett's words were directed at Vader during Vader's beatdown Fett could be found to have the purpose of encouraging Vader to commit the crime.

Note:  In Hicks, the words were directed at the V not the perpetrator.

ACCOMPLICE LIABILITY:

MENS REA HYPO

Fett goes with Vader to see the beatdown and vows to make certain Vader succeeds.  Vader makes Jabba dead.

Q:Is Fett guilty of aiding/abetting?

A) Though Fett has the MR he doesn't have AR - unless he takes an action to help whether it be words, accomplice liability is not triggered here.

ACCOMPLICE LIABILITY:

MENS REA HYPO

Fett tags along with Vader and tells him on the way to see Jabba that he will help him if necessary.

Q:Is Fett guilty of aiding/abetting?

A) Fett is guilty of aiding/abetting because he has the purpose to help Vader as evidinced by his prior arrangement to be present.

ACCOMPLICE LIABILITY:

FEIGNED ACCOMPLICE/UC COP

1) Acting/pretending to be an accomplice in order to catch the bad guy in the act doesn't trigger AL.

2) UC cop/informant who participates in the commission of a crime in an attempt to apprehend the principal is not guility of aiding/abetting.

ACCOMPLICE

LIABILITY:

PURPOSE V. KNOWLEDGE

To be guilty as an accomplice a D must not only know that his acts may assist the commision of a crime but must also have the specifc purpose of having the crime succeed.

ACCOMPLICE LIABILITY:

ACTUS REUS

1) Any aid or encouragement; a positive act or an omission when there is a duty to act.

Note: Mere presence might be enough for to trigger AL if the presence is your way of helping/encouraging.

A person can aid a crime w/o the principal's knowledge of that help.

ACCOMPLICE LIABILITY/CONSPIRACY:

PROTECTED CLASS OF

PERSONS (Gebardi)

1) If a statute is designed to protect a certain class then those persons may not be charged with aiding and abetting in the commission of a violation of that statute.

Example:  Child Labor Laws. If a kid K's his service he won't get in trouble for it.

Conspiracy: Gebardi Rule

ACCOMPLICE LIABILITY:

ABANDONMENT/WITHDRAWL

DEFENSE

CL:No defense.

MPC:  Defense if:

           1)D terminates his role prior to the commission of the offense AND EITHER

           2)deprives the crime of its effectiveness OR

           3)tells the cop timely/prevents the crime

CONSPIRACY

(GENERALLY)

The mere agreement between 2 or more people to commit a crime. Punishes conduct at the earliest possible stage; no substantial step needed; a separate crime takced on.

Elements:

1)D must have agreed to commit a crime WITH

2)The intent to have the crime succeed.

3)SOME Jx require one of the conspirators must have committed an overt act toward the commission of the crime.

CONSPIRACY:

THE WHARTON RULE

If the crime requries two people and all you have are two people doing the crime, then no conpiracy.

Example: Mobster bribes City Father, they won't be charged with conspiracy because bribery necessarily involves two people.

Exception: Unless the legislature wants otherwise. Wharton not presumed.

CONSPIRACY:

UNILATERAL/BILATERAL RULE

Unilateral (MPC): D can be charged with conspiracy even if the person D conspired with turns out to be a cop. (hitman)

Bialteral (CA/Fed): Have to have two people commit the conspiracy.

DURATION OF A

CONSPIRACY

1) A conspiracy remains in effect until it has been abandoned or until its objectives have been achieved.

ABANDONMENT

OF A

CONSPIRACY

A conspiracy is abandoned when none of the conspirators is engaging in any action to further the facilitate the crime.

WITHDRAWL/RENUNCIATION

OF A

CONSPIRACY

CL: D must take affirmative acton to announce his withdrawl to all other conspirators, sometimes has to notify PD. However, D would still be guilty of the initial agreed-to conspiracy.

MPC: Withdrawl: tell co-felons or tell cops he is out; once this is done D no longer culpable.

Renunciation: if D thwarts the crime he can even alleviate himself of the original conspiracy.

CONSPIRACY:

PINKERTON LIABILITY

Conspirators are responsible for each other's criminal acts during the course of and in furtherance of the conspiracy even if they don't directly participate in or are unaware of them.

Different from Accomplice because there you have to be aware.

CONSPIRACY:

ACTUS REUS

1)  Is the agreement.  Can be expressed or implied.

Concerted action: inferences can be drawn by the concerted manner to achieve a common object.

CONSPIRACY:

OVERT ACT REQUIREMENT

An Overt Act is any legal or illegal act done by any of the of the conspirators to set the conspiracy into motion.

CONSPIRACY:

MENS REA

1) Knowingly Agree: D has to know that he is agreeing to join a conspiracy.

2)Purpose for Crime to Succeed.

CONSPIRACY:

DETERMINING PURPOSE

(STAKE IN THE VENTURE)

1)Grossly Inflated Prices: If D is charging the baddies at a higher rate for their services, then MR met.

2)No Other Legitimate Use: Like assembling a prostitution yellow pages.

3)Disproportionate Volume: Too much supply than legit OR most of D's business is through illegal sales.

CONSPIRACY:

CHAIN CONSPIRACY

The person on the bottom/top is responsible for all others up and down the chain.  Squeeze the little guy to get the big guy.

Conspirators perform different along a single distribution line. (Narcotics.)

CONSPIRACY:

WHEEL CONSPIRACY

Conspirators have a common/vested interest in having the middle man succeed despite not knowing who the other conspirators are.  They only need to realize that this operation only works with other people pitching in. Spokes can be shown by having the last guys input be the new guy's down payment.

(6) JUSTIFICATION

DEFENSES

(GENERALLY)

1) D did the right thing in a difficult situation.  Justification Includes:

              1) Self-Defense

              2) Defense of Others

              3) Protection of Property

              4) Law Enforcement

              5) Necessity (Choice of Evils)

              6) Euthanasia

JUSTIFICATION DEFENSES:

NECESSITY:

SELF-DEFENSE

1)Honest & Reasonable Fear of SBH (serious felonies: robbery)

    Reasonable CL: a reasonable person in the D's situation

    Reasonable MPC: "Belief"

2)Imminent Threat:CL-Here and Now - RP standard -MPC (SUBJ)

3)Proportional Force to Threat

4)D can't have been the initial aggressor.

5)Retreat:CL no duty to retreat. Modern Law says you must try to retreat first if you are going to use Deadly Force.

 JUSTIFICATION:

NECESSITY:

SELF-DEFENSE

THE INITIAL AGGRESSOR RULE

Aggressor: first person to escalate confrontation.  Is someone who starts to use deadly force w/o having the requisite honest and reasonable fear of SBH.  Distinguishable from instigator.

 JUSTIFICATION:

NECESSITY:

SELF-DEFENSE

IMPERFECT SELF-DEFENSE

If D has an honest BUT unreasonable fear of Death/SBH, then crime mitigated to VM.

JUSTIFICATION:

SELF-DEFENSE

DUTY TO RETREAT RULE

CL: No duty to retreat.

Mod: If resorting to deadly force must retreat, however, if D can't retreat to safety then no duty.

Castle Rule: No retreat in your own home. Some Jx require to retreat if attacker is lawful co-resident.

JUSTIFICATION:

NECESSITY:

SELF-DEFENSE

FACTORS IN DETERIMING

HONEST & REASONABLE FEAR

Reasonableness of a RP in the D's situation.

Factors:

        1)Attacker's Size

        2)D's past experiences

        3)Attacker's action/words

 JUSTIFICATION DEFENSES:

NECESSITY:

SELF-DEFENSE

FEAR OF DEATH OR SBH

CL:Had to be strict standard.

MPC: Includes serious felonies like robbery, kidnapping, rape.

JUSTIFICATION:

DEFENSE OF OTHERS

CL: MAJ-Reasonable belief force is justified. MIN-You have to be right. You stand in the shoes of the attacked.

MPC/MAJ: Reasonable belief that force is necessary, subjective standard. "Even if there was a problem with self defense, reasonable belief allows the defense."

EXAM: Apply SD standard to person being attacked, if they qualify for SD, then so is D.

JUSTIFICATION:

DEFENSE

OF

PROPERTY

CL: Deadly force could be used to prevent any felony regarding humans or property.

MOD: Some felonies are not life-threatening so deadly force can only be used to protect human life.

 JUSTIFICATION:

NECESSITY DEFENSE:

CHOICE OF

LESSER EVILS

D commits a crime because it is the lesser of two evils. 

ELEMENTS:1)Actual Choice of Evils-break the law or something

           worse will happen.

         2)No Apparent Lawful Alt.-Defense of Last Resort.

           For escape, show Lovercamp

         3)Must Choose Lesser Harm-Objective Standard

         4)Imminent Threat

         5)D can't create own necessity-

         6)No Contrary Legislation-Civil Disobedience

JUSTIFICATION:

NECESSITY:

CONTRARY LEGISLATIVE INTENT

DIRECT CIVIL DISOBEDIENCE

Protesting a law by breaking that law.

Fails because:

      1)Harm isn't imminent

      2)Other lawful alt.

      3)Society has already said what is a

        lesser evil.

EX.Needle exchange programs, legislature has decided this isn't allowed.

JUSTIFICATION:

NECESSITY:

CONTRARY LEGISLATIVE INTENT

INDIRECT CIVIL DISOBEDIENCE

D violates a law that is not itself the object of protest.

Ex. D is against US involvement in El Salvador, D invades the IRS and vandalizes it.

Fails because there are lawful alternatives.

NECESSITY:

PRISON ESCAPE

LOVERCAMP

D can claim necessity if:

1)Actual Choice of 2 Evils

2)No apparent lawful alt.

3)Harm/Threat is Imminent

4)D chooses lesser harm

5)SURRENDER IMMEDIATELY UPON REACHING SAFETY (goes to lawful alt.)

NECESSITY:

MPC STANDARD

CL said you had to be right.

MPC allows "I thought I was right." No mention of imminence.

Mod CL says RP in shoes of D must:

Actually Choose the lesser harm

NECESSITY DEFENSE:

HOMICIDE

MAJ:No Necessity for intentional homicide.

Exception: D allowed to kill attacker and his accomplices if being attacked.

MIN/MPC: Necessity permitted if D takes fewer lives to save more.

EXCUSE DEFENSES:

(DIID - GENERALLY)

D's conduct will be excused where, though D made a bad choice, he did so without free will:

1)Duress

2)Insanity

3)Intoxication

4)Diminished Capacity

EXCUSE DEFENSES:

DURESS AT CL

D can claim duress if another person's use of force compelled them to violate the law.

1)Threat of Imminent Death/SBH

2)Threat to D or people close to D

3)Such a threat that RP would yield

4)D did not bring duress upon self.

5)Duress is no defense to murder (CA)

EXCUSE DEFENSES:

DURESS AND THE MPC

1)Type of Harm: the greater the crime D commits, the greater the threat must've been.

2)Threat to ANY person allowed

3)A person of Reasonable Firmness: would they be able to resist threat? (More Sub than CL)

4)Can't bring duress upon self

5)No murder restriction

NOTE:  IMMINENCE NOT A REQUIREMENT.

EXCUSE DEFENSE:

INSANITY

D is excused from commiting a crime if D was legally insane during the crime.

ISSUES:

1)Competency to Stand Trial (@Trial)

2)" For Execution: Can't DP the insane.

3)Insanity (@Crime) Defenses for Trial

  a)Disease or Defect

  b)Tests

EXCUSE DEFENSES:

COMPETENCY TO

STAND TRIAL

Elements: Whether D has sufficient ability to

    1)Consult with Attorney AND

    2)To rationally understand the proceeding against him.

If judged incompetent, D held until they can stand trial. Or if they don't get better, commit them.

EXCUSE DEFENSES:

 INSANITY

DISEASE & DEFECT

Disease: any abnormal condition of the mind which substantially affects mental or emotional processes and impairs behavior.

Ex. Post-partum. Multiple Personality. PTSD (sometimes).

EXCUSE DEFENSES:

INSANITY CL TESTS

1)D presumed to be sane.

2)At time of crime D suffered from mental disease or defect

3)D did not know:

  a)Nature and Quality of his acts, OR

  b)D's acts were wrong.

4)Deific Command Rule

5)Irresistable Impulse Test

EXCUSE DEFENSES:

M'NAGHTEN STANDARD

D  is insane if at the time of time of the crime:

1)D had disease or defect of the mind AND

2)D did not know:

   a) the nature and quality of his acts (does not understand his own physical action)

   b) that his acts were wrong (morally wrong from society's POV; doesn't know why it's wrong)

EXCUSE DEFENSES:

FACTORS OF DISEASE & DEFECT

1)Clear symptoms

2)Does Medical community support the disease as a defense?

3)Did D bring condition upon self/Easily faked

4)How many cases covered?

5)Policy reasons to exclude defense for the disease, social stigma

6)Mental history of disease/person

EXAM: after these are enumerated by you say "assuming it is/isn't . . . would it satisfy Insanity Tests"

EXCUSE DEFENSES:

DEIFIC COMMAND

CL: If D acts in response to "the voice of God" then defense allowed.  However, if D acts because his religious beliefs say he must, then no defense.

EXCUSES:

INSANITY

IRRESISTABLE IMPULSE

CL: If D would have committed the act even in the presence of a Cop, then insanity allowed. 

D unable to stop self, insanity renders D w/o choice between right or wrong.

EXCUSE DEFENSES:

INSANITY UNDER MPC

1)D presumed insane

2)At crime D under mental disease or defect

3)D did not have SUBSTANTIAL CAPACITY (extreme but not total) to:

  a)Appreciate criminality (knows its wrong, but not why) OR

  b)Confrom conduct to law (irresistable impulse)

EXCUSE DEFENSES:

(3) TYPES OF INVOLUNTARY

INTOXICATION

1)Unwitting: D unaware what he's ingesting. (Spiked punch)

2)Coerced: D forced at gunpoint to drop acid.

3)Pathological: meds/alcohol produce excessive effect. (takes asprin which makes D hallucinate)

EXCUSE DEFENSES:

VOLUNTARY

INTOXICATION

Generally only used as a defense to SPECIFIC INTENT crimes (premeditation).  Same as Brawner DC test.

Allowed for Burglary With Intent to Assault but not for Burglary.

EXCUSE DEFENSES:

INTOXICATION AND

THE MPC

Involuntary:Defense allowed if not self-induced and causes D to not know what he's doing or can't resist the impulse.

Voluntary:Can be used to negate MR except for reckless/neg. crimes.

EXCUSE DEFENSES:

DIMINISHED CAPACITY

Can't form the MR.

Brawner: Take from Specific to General.  Like M1 to a lesser degree homicide. If there is no lesser crime, no diminished capacity.

SOME JX: No Diminished Capacity.

MPC:Allowed to negate MR for any crime, specific or general. General will mitigate to nothing.

Unilateral - Can Conspire on your own.

Bilateral- Takes Two To Tango.