Crimin Law Midterm Outline PDF

CRIM LAW MIDTERM OUTLINE DO IT FOR EVERY PERSON AND DO IT FOR EVERY CRIME COMMITTED, relevant cases, notes, Defenses: (ONLY APPLICABLE) Mistake of Law- Define it… Examples… Apply Mistake of Fact- Define it… Examples… Apply Renunciation/ Abandonment - Define it… Examples.. Apply Accompli...

CRIM LAW MIDTERM OUTLINE DO IT FOR EVERY PERSON AND DO IT FOR EVERY CRIME COMMITTED, relevant cases, notes, Defenses: (ONLY APPLICABLE) Mistake of Law- Define it… Examples… Apply Mistake of Fact- Define it… Examples… Apply Renunciation/ Abandonment - Define it… Examples.. Apply Accomplice Liability and Stake in the Venture are concepts in criminal law that deal with how individuals can be held criminally responsible for their involvement in crimes, even if they did not directly commit the crime themselves. Accomplice liability occurs when an individual aids, encourages, or assists another person in the commission of a crime. An accomplice can be held criminally liable for the crime committed by the principal offender, even if the accomplice did not directly commit the criminal act. To establish accomplice liability, the following elements are generally required: Actus Reus (Action): The accomplice must take some action to aid, abet, encourage, or assist the principal offender in committing the crime. This can include providing tools, information, or any other form of assistance. Mens Reus (Intent): The accomplice must have the intent to aid in the commission of the crime. It is not enough to simply be present at the scene; the accomplice must intend to assist in some way. Foreseeability: In some cases, the accomplice may be held liable for crimes that are a foreseeable result of the initial crime, even if they were not part of the original plan. This can extend accomplice liability to additional or secondary crimes. An accomplice is criminally liable for the same offense as the principal offender, and this liability can extend to the same degree of punishment. Stake in the Venture The concept of a stake in the venture refers to whether an individual has a personal interest in the outcome of the criminal activity. In other words, it assesses whether the accomplice has a "stake" or involvement beyond mere assistance, such as benefiting from the success of the crime. Courts sometimes use this concept to assess whether someone is more than a passive participant in a crime. Financial or personal gain: If an individual stands to benefit materially or otherwise from the crime, this shows they have a stake in its success. Active involvement: Someone who takes active steps to ensure the crime’s success, rather than passively assisting, may be seen as having a greater stake. Risk-taking: If the individual shares the risks inherent in the crime, such as exposure to law enforcement, it can suggest a higher level of involvement. Together, these concepts allow the law to hold people accountable for their role in a crime, even if they weren't the ones physically committing the offense. "Accomplice  liability" addresses the legal responsibility, while "stake in the venture" examines the degree of involvement or benefit in the crime. Accomplice Liability Mens Rea “Two mens reas” acting simultaneously 2. The intent to act itself. 3. The secondary actor must act purposefully to encourage, counsel, hire, command, induce, or procure the primary. a. Note: by virtue of this, sometimes the accomplice is going to have a higher culpable mental state than the principal – that is ok! 4. principal – someone who was actually present at the scene of the crime and either committed the dirty deed or assisted at the scene of the crime. 5. USED TO BE: Accessory before the fact and Accessory after the fact 6. primary and secondary do not have the same mens rea Mens Rea for aiding and abetting: a. Secondary party intends to assist primary party engage in conduct that forms the basis of the offense, and b. S has the level of culpability required for the offense mere prescence is not enough to prove accomplice liability of the secondary actor. R: It must be shown that a person’s words were intended to encourage and aid the perpetrator of the crime, not that they merely had that effect. C: Hicks v. United States: Two men on horses, one of the men shot and killed a third man. The second man laughed during it and told the deceased to “take off his hat and die like a man.” The man meant to use the words that he did but it is unclear that he intended the words to encourage the man to shoot and kill the other. R: Mere communication to the effect that another might or probably would commit a criminal offense does not amount to aiding and abetting. Rather, the secondary actor needs to (1) associate themselves with the venture, (2) wish to bring about the crime by their actions. (KNOW THIS) C: State v. Gladstone: An undercover officer approached the defendant and asked him where he could buy weed. The defendant drew the undercover cop a map, showing him how to get to Thompson’s house. There was no evidence of communication between the defendant and Thompson. The defendant was charged with aiding and abetting in the unlawful sale of marijuana. The defendant had no stake in the venture so the judgment was reversed. (KNOW STAKE IN THE VENTURE) R: A basic principle of accomplice liability is that the defendant must intend to facilitate the offense, this intent element can only be fulfilled when a person is _____actively participating______________ in the criminal venture with full knowledge of the circumstances constituting the crime. C: Rosemond v. United States: Defendant was in the car during a drug sale which turned into a gun fight. Defendant was convicted under § 2 of Title 18, Section 924 (c) providing that, “any person who during and in relation to any crime of violence or during drug trafficking, uses or carries a firearm.” Defendant appeals claiming that he did not know that someone was carrying a gun. In this case the defendant did not have full knowledge of the circumstances. Mens Rea for Result and Attendant Circumstances R: If someone is in full knowledge of a principal’s gross negligence and participates in procuring the principal acting in a gross negligent manner, they can be charged as an accomplice in a manslaughter arising from the principal’s ___criminal negligence______________________. C: State v. McVay: Defendant was charged as an accessory in a manslaughter prosecution arising out of an explosion that occurred on a Newport-bound steamer which killed several passengers. He was convicted. R: Under accomplice liability, the accomplice does not need to intend a specific result, it is enough that they intentionally __aided the principal actor___________________ in the commission of the crime. Intent applies to the accomplice’s actions not the results. C: Commonwealth v. Roebuck: Defendant assisted in luring a victim to an apartment complex where the victim was eventually shot and killed. Although the defendant did not pull the trigger, he was charged as an accomplice. The defendant appeals arguing that he cannot be an accomplice to an unintentional killing. He was convicted. Note: Under McVay and Roebuck, it is clear that the accomplice must have specific intent to further the underlying conduct committed by the principal. But for the result, the accomplice only needed to have the mens rea required for the result element of the substantive offense. R: Multiple defendants can be charged with depraved indifference to murder committed by one defendant if each defendant ___intentionally aided__________________ the defendant who committed the murder. C: People v. Russell: Three defendants battled one another in a shootout in the center of a housing complex. A school principal was shot and killed, and the ballistic evidence could not prove whose bullet killed him. They were all prosecuted under a theory that they all aided and abetted one another. All were convicted because they created the zone of danger and it did not matter that the court could not determine what bullet killed him.  The Natural and Probable Consequences Doctrine The Natural and Probable Consequence Doctrine states that a person is not only guilty of the offense they intended to facilitate or encourage, but also of any _____reasonably foreseeable_____________________ offenses committed by the primary actor. Only 20 states clearly endorse the natural and probable consequences theory! M.P.C. rejects the natural and probable consequences theory for accomplice liability. M.P.C. requires a purposeful mens rea, when another crime is committed, the accomplice cannot be liable because the second crime is beyond the purpose the accomplice possessed. R: A defendant may be found guilty as an aider and abettor of a co-conspirator of a crime he intended to facilitate or encourage and for any additional crime which was ______________naturally, probably, and foreseeable______ put into motion. C: People v. Luparello: In an attempt to locate a former lover, the defendant enlisted a friend to discover her whereabouts at “whatever cost” from her current husband, Martin. The friends were armed with a gun and a sword and went to Martin’s house. One of the men shot him, killing him. The defendant was charged with murder. The court used the reasonably foreseeable doctrine and said that he set these acts in motion and therefore, it was foreseeable that this might happen. But the natural and probable consequence test (narrower) would examine that the manner of the killing without trying to persuade him to give information the second time was not natural and probable. If he was to beat him to death while trying to get information, that would be different, but he outright shot him. Accomplice Liability - Actus Reus One who __participates________ in an inherently dangerous and unlawful activity shares the culpability of the person who actually commits the crime. Participation means either proving physical or physiological assistance to the primary actor. Physical Here, have a gun! Under common law the aid has to be successful Under the MPC aid just has to be attempted and that is enough, NEED A SUBSTANTIAL STEP  An example would be an individual standing guard during a bank robbery. This is physical aid because he is physically (constructively) present and keeping people out of the bank. Psychological You can do it! An example is encouraging the actor to commit the act. “I will support you any way you need, I will be outside, but I will be able to aid you with whatever you need.” These are words of encouragement and are enough to be considered aid. This can look like: encouraging, counseling, hiring, commanding, inducing, or procuring the primary actor in performing the criminal conduct There is derivative liability in which criminal responsibility of the accomplice depends on the criminal responsibility of the primary. ____prescence alone___________________ does not satisfy the actus reus requirement But for causation is _not required___________________ to satisfy aiding and abetting R: Encouragement is enough for accomplice liability under some circumstances. R: With accomplice liability, causation does not have to be proven, therefore, involvement can be quite minimal and fulfill the actus reus requirement of accomplice liability. C: Wilcox v. Jeffery: An American saxophone player played a concert in London which violated the country’s “Aliens Order of 1920.” The defendant was a British reporter who was covering the concert, the player’s arrival at the airport, and purchased a ticket for the performance. He also wrote an article about the performance in a magazine. The reporter was found guilty of aiding and abetting the player’s violation of Order 1920. He appealed and lost. NO CAUSATION FOR ACCOMPLICE LIABILITY The Relationship Between the Criminal Liability of the Parties R: For there to be accomplice liability, the two actors must share a ___common motive and common design. (Remember, the actors have two different distinct mens reas but they ultimately work together towards the effectuation of the overall crime). C: State v. Hayes: Defendant tried to get Hill to rob a store with him. Hill, a relative of the store owner, agreed to do so, really just setting the defendant up to be arrested in the act. Defendant helped Hill climb through a window, into the building, to effectuate the robbery. Defendant also gave Hill some bacon through the window as well. Defendant was charged with burglary and larceny, but was not convicted. The primary actor was Hill and he had no mens read. The secondary actor was Hayes. But because the primary actor lacked intent, there was no crime, so there is no criminal  responsibility from Hill. Again the secondarys criminal responsibility depends on the primary’s. MENS REA— THE CULPABLE MENTAL STATES The requirement of mens rea reflects the commonsense view of justice that blame and punishment are inappropriate in the absence of choice. The kind of mental awareness or intention that must accompany the prohibited act, under the terms of the statute defining the offense. COMMON LAW TERMINOLOGY: Courts will interpret “malice” and other vague or ambiguous mens rea language to require that the defendant was aware his actions posed a substantial risk of causing prohibited harm. Mens Rea (willful blindness/ strict liability) Define - Mens rea is a culpable mental state that a person must have committing a crime… There are 4 potential mens reas… The Mens Rea in this case is _______ … And that means … KEEP IN MIND - STRICT LIABILITY/ READ IN MENS REA R: Malice means either (1) an actual intention to do the particular kind of harm that was in fact done; or (2)reckless disregard of a foreseeable risk that harm should result. C: Regina v. Cunningham: The defendant ripped a gas meter out of an unoccupied home without turning off the gas. The gas leaked into the house next door, and a woman was partially asphyxiated. He was indicted under a statute prohibiting a person from “unlawfully and maliciously” giving or causing another person to take poison in a manner that endangers his or her life or causes serious injury. MENS REA CONTINUED; MISTAKE OF FACT M.P.C. § 2.04 Ignorance of mistake as to a matter of fact or law is a defense if: 1. The ignorance or mistake negates the purpose, knowledge, belief, recklessness, or negligence required to establish a material element of the offense OR 2. The law provides that the state of mind created by ignorance or mistake constitutes a defense MISTAKE OF LAW M.P.C. § 2.04(3) Mistake of Law generally is _not_ a valid defense even if reasonable; however, it can arise when: ○ The statute or other enactment defining the offense is not known to the actor and has not been published or otherwise reasonably made available prior to the conduct alleged; OR  ○ The actor acts in reasonable reliance upon on official statement of law, that is afterward determined to be invalid or erroneous, contained in: A statute or other enactment; A judicial decision, opinion or judgment; An administrative order or grant of permission; or An official interpretation of the public office or body charged by law with responsibility for the interpretation, administration, or enforcement of the law defining the offense. R: Mistake of law defenses do not apply when the defendant misinterprets what conduct the statute allows. C: People v. Marrero: Corrections officer was arrested for carrying a loaded firearm. Marrero believed that he was a “police officer” under an exception to a statute, thus, allowing him to be in the possession of a loaded firearm. He was not exempt from prosecution for the unlawful possession of a gun. Policy Considerations in Marrero: The Court doesn’t want to encourage ignorance, the Court is worried about the judicial economy. There are an infinite number of good faith and bad faith mistakes of law defenses that could be brought if used in situations like this one. WHEN MISTAKE OF FACT APPLIES (mens rea defense) R: A defendant’s honest, mistaken belief as to the victim’s age is not a defense. C: Regina v. Prince: Defendant was convicted of taking an unmarried girl out of the possession and against the will of her father. The jury found the girl was 14 at the time, but she told the defendant that she was 18. The defendant honestly believed this to be true, and his belief was reasonable. Note: The traditional approach to statutory rape, imposing strict liability, is beginning to erode with some states allowing mistake of fact to be an affirmative defense in limited situations (victim is over the age of 14, “Romeo and Juliet” exceptions, etc.), but only when the mistake is reasonable. However, as a general matter, the majority of states hold that mistake of fact to a victim’s age is not a valid defense in statutory rape cases. Mala in se: morally wrong crimes Morale Doctrine: if you do something immoral, you are taking the risk of it being illegal R: Reasonable mistake as to the victim’s age is not a defense to a charge of committing a crime against a child of tender years (this jurisdiction considers tender years to be under the age of 14).  C: People v. Olsen: Statutory rape case of a case 13-year-old that told the defendant that was 16 years old. compare to R: It is a defense to a criminal offense that the defendant had an honest belief regarding an essential element of the criminal act. The prosecution must prove the absence of a genuine belief. C: B. v. Director of Public Prosecutions: A 15-year-old boy asked a 13-year-old for oral sex. He believed she was older than 14. Note: Here, the court rejects the holding in Prince. A Note Case: Garnett v. State, 332 Md. 571, 632 A.2d 797 (1993) ○ Facts: An adult man with significant cognitive delay is told that the girl is 16 years old, and he believes it. They have intercourse. ○ Takeaway 1: the Court acknowledges the inherent unfairness but contends that the protection of children supersedes. ○ Takeaway 2: The Court holds that courts should not read a mens rea requirement into a statutory rape law unless the legislature clearly intended one to apply. General v. Specific Intent General Intent Crimes: The prosecution simply has to prove the defendant meant to do an act prohibited by law. o The majority of crimes are general intent crimes. Specific Intent Crimes: The prosecution has to prove that the defendant intentionally committed the act and to cause the particular result when committing that act. o Pro Tip: a specific intent crime is any crime that has “the intent to…” in it. Generally speaking, these crimes are first-degree murder, inchoate offenses (attempt, solicitation, conspiracy), assault with intent to commit a battery, and theft offenses.  M.P.C. § 2.02 (2) (a), for reckless its this “gross deviation,” “depraved heart” OPAQUE RECKLESSNESS awareness of some risk but failing to appreciate how substantial that risk is. Types of Mens Rea There are four main levels of mens rea in criminal law, each corresponding to different degrees of mental culpability: 1. Purpose (Intent): ○ The defendant intends to bring about a specific result. They act with the purpose or desire for the consequence to occur. ○ Example: A person plans to kill someone and then shoots them with the intent to cause death. ○ Use: Typically applied in crimes like first-degree murder, where the act must be deliberate and premeditated. 2. Knowledge: ○ The defendant knows that their actions are almost certain to bring about a particular result, even if the result isn't their primary goal. ○ Example: A person plants a bomb in a building intending to destroy property, knowing that people inside will likely be killed, even if killing them wasn’t their specific goal.  ○ Use: Often applied in cases where the defendant is aware of the likely consequences of their actions, such as in crimes involving dangerous substances or weapons. 3. Recklessness: ○ The defendant consciously disregards a substantial and unjustifiable risk that their actions will result in harmful consequences. ○ Example: A person drives at high speed through a crowded area, aware of the risk of hitting someone but not caring enough to avoid it. ○ Use: Found in cases like manslaughter, where the defendant didn’t intend harm but acted with a reckless disregard for the safety of others. 4. Negligence: ○ The defendant fails to be aware of a substantial and unjustifiable risk that their conduct will result in harm, but a reasonable person in the same situation would have been aware of the risk. ○ Example: A parent leaves their child in a hot car, not realizing that this could lead to serious injury or death. A reasonable person would have known the risk. ○ Use: Negligence is common in civil cases but can also apply to criminal cases like criminal negligence or involuntary manslaughter. Choosing the Appropriate Mens Rea Different crimes require different levels of mens rea, and the appropriate one is determined by the nature of the offense. Statutes typically specify which level of mens rea is required, but courts sometimes need to interpret or infer it based on the context of the crime. 1. Purpose (Intent) ○ Use when: The crime involves deliberate, planned actions intended to bring about a specific result. Examples include premeditated murder or theft, where the person acts with the goal of committing the crime. ○ Example: For first-degree murder, the prosecution must prove that the defendant specifically intended to kill the victim. 2. Knowledge ○ Use when: The crime involves a high probability of harm, and the person is aware that their actions are likely to cause the prohibited result, even if that result is not their main objective.  ○ Example: Drug trafficking laws often use knowledge as the mens rea. The defendant may not intend to personally sell drugs but knows that transporting them will lead to illegal sales. 3. Recklessness ○ Use when: The crime involves disregard for known risks. The person does not necessarily intend harm but acts in a way that creates a significant risk of harm, and they are aware of this risk. ○ Example: In a case of reckless driving leading to someone’s death, the defendant didn’t mean to kill anyone but knew their actions posed a serious risk to others. 4. Negligence ○ Use when: The crime involves a failure to perceive a risk that a reasonable person would have seen. This standard applies when the person should have known better, even though they didn’t consciously disregard the risk. ○ Example: In cases of criminal negligence, like leaving a dangerous substance within reach of a child, the person didn’t intend harm, but a reasonable person would have been aware of the danger. How to Decide Which Mens Rea Applies 1. Check the Statute: ○ Statutes often specify the mens rea required for a crime. For instance, some statutes will say "knowingly" or "intentionally," which gives clear guidance. 2. Nature of the Crime: ○ Violent or intentional crimes like murder, robbery, or assault often require purpose or knowledge. ○ Lesser offenses or crimes involving risky behavior (e.g., reckless endangerment) often use recklessness or negligence as the standard. 3. Level of Awareness: ○ Ask whether the defendant was aware of the risks or consequences of their actions. If they were fully aware and wanted the result → purpose (intent). If they knew the result would likely happen but didn’t desire it → knowledge. If they disregarded a substantial risk → recklessness. If they should have known about the risk but didn’t realize it → negligence. 4. Circumstances and Context:  ○ Consider the context of the defendant's actions and whether they showed a conscious disregard for risk or failed to act as a reasonable person would have. Courts will interpret the mens rea depending on how egregious the behavior was in relation to the outcome. Example Applications First-Degree Murder: Requires purpose (intent) or knowledge, because it involves the deliberate decision to kill. Voluntary Manslaughter: Requires recklessness, where the defendant acts in a way that disregards a known risk of death but doesn’t premeditate the killing. Involuntary Manslaughter: Requires negligence, where the defendant's failure to recognize a risk leads to someone's death, such as in cases of grossly careless driving. In conclusion, the mens rea of a crime is determined by the nature of the offense, the defendant's mental state, and how much awareness or intent the law requires for that specific crime. Understanding the Prescribed Culpability Requirement Applies to All Material Elements (M.P.C. § 2.02(4)): This rule means that the mens rea (mental state) specified in a law should apply to all material elements of the offense, unless the law clearly indicates otherwise. In other words, if a statute prescribes a mental state, it generally governs each part of the crime. a. Example: If the statute says it is unlawful to knowingly enter a building at night while carrying a firearm, the word "knowingly" applies to both the act of entering the building and to the fact that the person is carrying a firearm. The person must "know" both facts for the offense to be complete. b. If a statute is silent on intent (i.e., no mens rea stated), then “write-in” a minimum of RECKLESSNESS (UNLESS it is a strict liability crime). R: Criminal statutes generally include a requirement that the person is aware that they are committing a crime, even if the statute does not explicitly contain such a mens rea requirement. In other words, NEGLIGENCE is not the correct minimum standard to read into statutes omitting a mens rea. C: Elonis v. United States: When the Defendant’s wife left him, he started posting threats to kill her, bombing the police department, and bombing their child’s kindergarten. He was charged with 18 U.S.C. § 875 (c), which did not contain any required mens rea. The district court instructed the jury to convict or not, based on the reasonable person standard (i.e., negligence). a. Note: Recklessness is the minimum we read in, we can read in higher levels! Actus Reus The fundamental element of actus reus is demonstrated either through a physically voluntary act or by a culpable omission to act. As the MPC indicates, one cannot be held criminally liable for physical acts that are not voluntary, i.e., not the product of volition or choice. Such involuntary conduct can include sleepwalking, acts done under hypnosis, acts done while physically unconscious (see the Newton case) or (as in the Martin case) acts physically forced by law enforcement. Such involuntary conduct is not culpable. Criminal liability always requires an actus reus, the commission of some voluntary act or omission that is prohibited by law. M.P.C. § 2.01(1). Justice Holmes Definition of Actus Reus: a willing contraction of a muscle. R: Criminal liability may only be imposed when the unlawful conduct is committed voluntarily. C: Martin v. State: The defendant was drunk in his home when officers came in and arrested him. Officers brought him to a public place and subsequently charged him with a statute prohibiting drunkenness in a public place. ○ Note: “voluntary acts” also include acts done in automation and on impulse. Involuntary Acts: R: Where not self-induced, unconsciousness is a complete defense. C: People v. Newton: During an altercation with the police, Newton was shot in the midsection. He then proceeded to shoot another officer three times. Newton claims to have no recollection of the night and provided an expert who testified that Newton was likely unconscious and in shock after being shot. Actus Reus: (omission): Define - Actus reus is voluntary contraction of a muscle. According to XYZ case hypnosis and unconsciousness are not voluntary acts… KEEP IN MIND - OMISSION TO ACTS Application - Here in this case John Jobert did XYZ and that is a voluntary act because XYZ and therefore that is his actus reus… Involuntary Acts under the MPC 1. Unconscious or asleep (Somnambulism) 2. Reflex or convulsion (Epilepsy) (unless aware and unwilling to mitigate) 3. hypnosis (rare but included in the MPC) Actions not Deemed Involuntary 1. Habitual acts 2. Acts done on impulse 3. acts that are done under duress (Duress is a separate defense) Omissions  MPC § 2.01(3) (3) Liability for the commission of an offense may not be based on an omission unaccompanied by action unless: (a) the omission is expressly made sufficient by the law defining the offense; or (b) a duty to perform the omitted act is otherwise imposed by law. R: In order for a defendant to be convicted of a crime involving the failure to act, the prosecution must prove that the defendant was under a legal duty to act. A moral obligation to act is not enough. C: Jones v. United States: The defendant was left with a family friend’s baby, who ultimately died when the defendant failed to care for him. The defendant was convicted of involuntary manslaughter for not providing the baby with proper care during the mother’s absence. R: Criminal liability can not be imposed upon an individual failing to fulfill a moral instead of legal obligation. C: Pope v. State: A three-month-old died when she was beaten to death by her mother in front of the defendant. The three-month-old and the mother were staying at the defendant’s home. The defendant did not do anything to prevent or mitigate the beating. Note: Defendant had no obligation because mother was still here, mother never gave her responsibility. Attempt Attempt is when someone tries to commit a crime but is unsuccessful in completing the crime. The sentences for attempted crimes are generally one step below the sentences of the completed crime. See N.Y. § 110.05. Attempt Elements 1. Specific intent to commit the crime this is the mens rea 2. Some actus (what actus reus suffices varies upon jurisdictions) Mens Rea Because attempt (inchoate crimes) requires specific intent to commit the specific crime, by default, the following crimes cannot be attempt crimes: Unintentional crimes (i.e., reckless or negligent crimes, involuntary manslaughter) Felony murder R: An attempt requires a purpose to produce the proscribed result, even when recklessness of some lesser mens rea would suffice for the conviction of the completed underlying offense. C: Smallwood v. State: The defendant was HIV+ and raped three women. The prosecution provided evidence that the defendant knew he was positive and how imperative it was for him to practice “safe sex.” Defendant was convicted of attempted murder and appealed. The judgment was reversed because the specific intent to kill was not satisfied. Actus Reus ATTEMPT–ACTUS REUS Ask: which jurisdictional test should be used when assessing the actus reus in an attempted crime… TEST DESCRIPTION EXAMPLE Last Approximate The person does everything needed for the Shoot the gun and the bullet does not hit the Act crime to happen except for the last act. person. (Common Law–no Anything before this last act, under longer used) common law, was purely preparation (making plans, maps, etc.). Dangerously Near The defendant must be in dangerous R: A defendant may not be convicted of Proximate Test proximity with regards to distance and attempt unless the defendant time to successfully completing the intentionally commits an act tending to crime the commission of a crime, which is so Remote acts are not enough for near to accomplishment of the crime attempt that in all reasonable probability the The test is in a small number of jurisdictions but it is also the test in crime itself would have been N.Y. committed but for timely interference. Policy Reasons: This test allows C: People v. Rizzo: Rizzo and three other time for abandonment of the plan by men intended to rob Charles. The four the actor and thus, ensures that someone taking steps towards a men, two of which had guns, drove crime is not punished for a step they around looking for Charles but they never may not have eventually taken found him. The police arrested all four men because they thought they were acting suspiciously. The four were charged with attempted first-degree robbery but found not guilty because they  were not dangerously proximate to success. Equivocality Test Looks at how clearly the actor’s acts speak to C: McQuirter v. State: A black man was their intent walking down the street in Alabama and If it can be innocently explained, it they charged him with attempted rape. is not an attempt. “[t]he unequivocal act toward the The judgment was affirmed based on the commission of the offense must context of the situation. There was no demonstrate that a crime is about to innocent way to explain his behavior. be committed unless frustrated by intervening circumstances” State v. Disanto, 668 N.W.2d 201, 207 (S.D. 2004) Criticisms: this ends up being the last step most of the time Substantial Step Used in the majority of states, MPC’s test, and R: An individual may be convicted of (MPC, majority) the federal test an attempted crime when they had the The actus reus can be broken down into two culpability of the crime he intended to parts: commit and took substantial steps that 1. Substantial Conduct in the corroborated the firmness of their furtherance of the completed crime criminal intent. in which the conduct has to C: United States v. Jackson: Men were show that you are trying to planning to rob a bank and did things like complete the crime obtain shotguns, ammunition, masks and 2. Strongly corroborative of the criminal purpose (the intent) affixed a fake license plate on the Measuring from the inception of the prospective getaway car. One of the men criminal venture, how far the actor went into the bank to begin the robbery has gotten to the crime’s but realized there were too many commission Accordingly, if there is ambiguity of witnesses inside, so he informed the what the intent of the actions are, others. They went back on a later date such conduct cannot be a and were arrested on the way by police, substantial step then who recovered the guns, ammunition, and masks. They were charged with attempted robbery of the bank.  EVALUATE OMISSION Five Ways to Impose Legal Duty Statutory Duty i.e., Good Samaritan Laws not on test Status Relationships Parent-child, o Courts usually have held mothers who are survivors of These 4 on test domestic abuse do have a legal duty to get their children out of the house. Goes back to the idea of statute (mother to child) Spouse-spouse; disabled children irrespective of age; de facto family members NOT siblings Contract paying a babysitter and a lifeguard (comes up in examples), police, doctor, teacher (big one) Voluntary If you start trying to save someone, then you stop trying to save them. Assumption Ex. A swims out to save B, A gets halfway out there and decides B just isn’t worth A’s energy. A turns around and lets B drown. Creation of Peril if u create the risk u r responsible (multiple choice question) james and joe are walking on a dock an james pushes billy in water. Who has a legal obligation to help him. Its the person that pushes him. Ex. A knocks B off the deck of a ship. A has the duty to rescue B. A teacher sees bruises on kid and teacher does not report it, comes home and brother kills him, teacher had a duty to act Note: Generally, courts have held that mothers who are survivors of domestic abuse do have a legal duty to get their children out of the house. DISTINGUISHING OMISSIONS FROM ACTS R: A physician is under no legal duty to continue futile life-sustaining support absent objection from a spouse. C: Barber v. Supreme Court: Two physicians were charged with murder and conspiracy to commit murder after they removed a respirator and feeding tube from a patient who was in a deep coma.  Note: The Court considers the doctors pulling the plug to be an omission of care rather than an act. Here, the Court engages in a “legal fiction” to ensure the physicians are not criminally liable. Legal Fiction: A fact assumed or created by courts which are then used in order to help reach a decision or to apply a legal rule (a workaround for the court to get the result they want). R: When a doctor withdraws life support, it is ___a lawful omission__________________, whereas euthanasia is an illegal, affirmative act treated as murder. C: Airedale NHS Trust v. Bland: The patient was in a vegetative state. The hospital administrator petitioned the family court to allow withdrawing life-sustaining feeding and antibiotics not constituting murder. WILLFUL BLINDNESS = KNOWLEDGE R: The mens rea of “knowingly” includes positive knowledge as well as willful blindness. A person is willfully blind when they (1) subjectively believe there is a high probability that a fact exists AND (2) THEY TAKE DELIBERATE ACTION TO AVOID LEARNING OF THE FACT. C: U.S. v. Jewell: Jewell entered the U.S. with 110 pounds of marijuana concealed in a hidden compartment. Jewell says he knew of the compartment but not that there were drugs inside. Bank robbery and has all this machinery, and landlord comes in and asks about machines, and bank robber says hes fixing the floors. Landlord did not report the situation and chose not to ask about robbing the bank. willful blindness can be a substitute for knowing ○ Hypo: Suppose you think you have rented your house to a drug gang, but to avoid confirming your suspicions, you make sure not to drive near the house, where you might observe signs of drug activity. Are you willfully blind? ○ Negligence is an objective standard (becomes a risk). Willful blindness instruction is heavier on utilitarian rights. Causation Elements of Causation 1. Factual (“But for”) a. The prohibited result would not have occurred but for the defendant’s actus reus 2. Proximate Cause  a. Satisfied when the intervening act was intended, the outcome was reasonably foreseeable, or the outcome was not too remote or accidental to hold the defendant responsible i. The act, in addition to being a but-for cause, must have a close relationship to the resulting harm a. Measured through foreseeability (objective, i.e, what a reasonable person could have foreseen the consequence) Causation: (is it a inchoate crime if it is do NOT talk about this) Define - Causation is but/for and proximate cause…Example… Application - Here because John Jobert did XYZ there is proximate cause… But for John Jobert setting the fire in the wrong place the whole forest would have never went on fire… Note: If you are having trouble with proximate cause in a complex fact pattern, it may be helpful to disregard any weird or crazy facts and look strictly at the defendant’s conduct and the outcome R: A defendant is responsible for all results that occur as a __natural and probable consequence____ of their conduct, even if they did not anticipate the precise manner in which they would occur. C: People v. Acosta: Defendant was in a high-speed police chase. Two police helicopters crashed causing the death of three passengers. The defendant was responsible for those deaths. HYPO: Suppose that one of the pilots pursuing the defendant had a heart attack and died, not because of the stress of the events but solely because of a blood clot that would have produced fatal results at the moment no matter what the pilot was doing. In such a case there is no reason to hold the defendant responsible for the death. NEGLIGENCE DOES NOT CUT THE CHAIN OF CAUSATION R: A defendant’s conduct does not need to be the sole or exclusive factor leading to a victim’s death. Rather, a defendant is criminally liable if his conduct is a ___sufficiently direct cause_____ of another’s death and reasonably related to it. C: People v. Arzon: Defendant set fire to a couch in an apartment building which spread. Another fire was started on another floor. The accumulated smoke from the two fires caused the death of a firefighter. It does not matter that there was another fire adding to it, if you set a fire, firefighters will come, it is natural and foreseeable someone might die in a fire. BREAKING THE CHAIN OF CAUSATION  Three Main Ways to Break Causation 1. Mere Coincidence 2. Outside the foreseeability sphere of the risk created by the defendant’s acts a. Nature b. Independent Third-Party Act (look at free will) 3. Recklessness in Response to Recklessness R: The chain of causation is broken by a third party’s independent rational act. C: People v. Campbell: The defendant told his friend to kill himself and gave him a loaded gun to do so. The friend killed himself. The defendant in this case did not kill another person. Inciting someone to kill themselves is not a homicide. R: A conviction for murder is proper if a defendant participates in the __final overt act__ that causes death of another but not if the defendant is merely involved in the events leading up to the commission of the final overt act. C: People v. Kevorkian: The defendant set up two killing machines for old and sick women in which they had to perform an action that killed them. The circuit court held that a person has a due process right to commit suicide, and the assisted suicide statute burdens that right. Note: Campbell and Kevorkian reflect generally prevailing American law in which one who successfully urges or assists another to commit suicide is not guilty of murder, at least as long as the deceased was mentally responsible and was not forced or deceived. MPC § 210.5(1) is similar to this. Note Case: Commonwealth v. Carter, 2016 Mas. LEXIS 384, at *24-25 (Mass. July 1, 2016) Girlfriend indicted for involuntary manslaughter after encouraging her boyfriend to commit suicide, who was in a delicate mental state. R: If a defendant inflicts both mental and physical injuries upon a victim which renders the victim mentally irresponsible and suicide follows, __the defendant is guilty of murder___. C: Stephenson v. State: Defendant kidnapped, imprisoned, and raped a woman. The woman snuck away and bought poison, ingested it, and died. Her suicide was a natural and probable consequence of the defendant’s criminal treatment and he was convicted. (this is an additional case to what is on the syllabus) Recklessness in Response to Recklessness R: ____Recklessness in response to recklessness may break the chain of causation_____. C: Commonwealth v. Root: Two men were racing and when they came to a bridge, the victim (one of the drivers) drove into oncoming traffic in order to pass the defendant. He was found guilty of involuntary manslaughter. R: The acts and omissions of two or more persons may work concurrently as the effective cause of injury an in such a case, each of the participating reckless acts or omissions is regarded as the ___proximate cause_______. C: State v. McFadden: Defendant and Matthew engaged in a drag race. Matthew lost control of his car and swerved into a lane of oncoming traffic where he hit another car, killing himself and a little girl in the car. The defendant’s car did not physically contact either of the cars. The defendant was convicted. R: Where there is mutual encouragement in a wanton and reckless joint enterprise, such conduct may be found to be a direct link in the death of another. C: Commonwealth v. Atencio: Three were playing Russian Roulette and one of them died in the process. The defendant (one of the friends in this case) was found guilty of manslaughter. Miscellaneous Notes on Causation All jurisdictions and MPC recognize transferred intent. An omission can suffice as a legal cause. The “eggshell plaintiff” (take the victim as they are) concept is recognized in criminal law. Affirmative Defenses Although the prosecution must prove every element of the crime beyond a reasonable doubt, the state is sometimes permitted to allocate the burden of persuasion on certain subsidiary issues to the defense. Exculpatory means something that tends to clear someone from alleged fault or guilt. For example, evidence that is favorable to a defendant in a criminal trial is considered exculpatory. The burden of proof is on the defendant to prove an affirmative defense by a preponderance of the evidence. Affirmative Defense: “Yes, I did it, but for these reasons, I should face less harsh legal consequences.”  When the defendant presents an affirmative defense, they are essentially presenting a new issue. The defendant is allocating the burden of proving that he was actually acting pursuant to emotional distress. The defendant is not allocated the proof that he did not meet elements of the objective crime. Patterson v. New York: The defendant killed his estranged wife’s lover when he witnessed the two in the heat of passion. The defendant wanted to plead emotional distress as a mitigating factor that would reduce the murder to manslaughter. MPC on Statutory Rape: Child is younger than 10: strict liability offense Child is over the age of 10: mistake of age is an affirmative defense in which the defendant has the burden of proving the mistake was reasonable Note: No states follow the MPC on this STRICT LIABILITY Strict Liability: When liability is imposed without any prescribed level of culpability o Policy Behind Strict Liability Offenses: creates an affirmative duty to avoid acts harmful to public health or safety. In other words, the legislature views these crimes as so important to public welfare that they are going to impose liability without a mens rea. Mala in Se Crimes: morally wrong crimes Mala in Prohibitum: regulatory offenses Strict Liability: Define - it is when there is no mens rea… Application - Here in this case there is no mens rea… It seems to be a public welfare issue. The charge is little and it probably won't kill this mans reputation so he should be strictly liable… Strict liability is the situation where the prosecution does not have to prove any culpable mental state. No intent, no knowledge, no recklessness, no criminal negligence need be proven. The defendant can be found criminally liable just for the conduct proscribed by the statute or regulation and nothing more. Three Typical Instances of Strict Liability 1. crimes against children (examples: statutory rape, child pornography) 2. regulatory offenses (public welfare offenses), where the behavior is being regulated by criminal law, arising out of business practices, usually manufacturing and distribution,  where the innocent consumer is unable to protect against potential risks of potentially dangerous products. 3. When a statute indicates that it is a strict liability offense. Three Typical Instances of Strict Liability 1. crimes against children (examples: statutory rape, child pornography) 2. regulatory offenses (public welfare offenses), where the behavior is being regulated by criminal law, arising out of business practices, usually manufacturing and distribution, where the innocent consumer is unable to protect against potential risks of potentially dangerous products. 3. When a statute indicates that it is a strict liability offense. How to Identify a Strict Liability Offense ** For visual learners, see chart on TWEN** Is there a stated mens rea? ○ Yes… not a strict liability offense, apply the prescribed mens rea ○ No… could be! Keep going! Is the offense a public welfare offense (ex. public health laws, building codes, food and drug safety laws, etc.) ○ Yes… more likely strict liability, but keep going ○ No… probably not strict liability, but keep going What is the penalty for the crime? ○ High penalty (imprisonment for more than a year)... unlikely a strict liability offense, but keep going ○ Low penalty (imprisonment for less than a year)... most likely a strict liability crime, but keep going Would the conviction hurt the person’s reputation? ○ Yes… unlikely a strict liability crime, apply a minimum of recklessness ○ No.. more likely a strict liability crime **You don’t need to necessarily have all of these. Rather they are sort of weighed against each other. In these respects, when answering an essay question, you should discuss these points in explaining how you concluded whether the offense was one of strict liability or not.** M.P.C. on Strict Liability  M.P.C. generally rejects strict liability, stating that strict liability should generally not be used except in the smallest and pettiest offenses when its a low penalty. Rationale for Strict Liability Offenses: The actor is typically acting in an area where danger to the public is great Because they are working with something dangerous or potentially dangerous, they should take extra care in doing so Even if the defendant does not willfully violate the regulation, they are usually in the best position to prevent it R: In traditional common law crimes, where the courts have continually required a mens rea requirement for material elements of the offense, strict liability will not be imposed. C: Morissette v. United States: Morissette entered an Air Force bombing practice area and took bomb casings so he could sell them. He believed they were abandoned. He was convicted of violating 18 U.S.C. 641, which made it a crime to “knowingly convert” government property. At trial, the judge instructed the jury to interpret “knowingly” to apply just to Morissette’s intent to take the casings, disregarding whether Morissette knew that the casings were still government property. Breaking down Morissette with our Strict Liability Test: 1. Is there a stated mens rea? _yes___ 2. Was it a public welfare offense? _no___ 3. What was the penalty of the crime? ____less than 10 years_________________ 4. Would Morissette’s conviction hurt his reputation? A toss-up, generally, is not a socially condemnable crime in itself, but could be considered in terms of the length of the sanction. R: Absent a clear statement from Congress that no mens rea requirement applies, federal felony statutes should not be interpreted to eliminate the mens rea requirement C: Staples v. United States: Staples had an unregistered semi-automatic gun. A metal piece was worn down to the extent that the gun could fire automatically. The prison sentence was 10 years. VICARIOUS LIABILITY Vicarious liability is a substantial departure from the ordinary rule that a principal is not answerable criminally for the acts of his agent without the principal’s  authorization, consent, or knowledge. Accordingly, it is not common in criminal law, especially in offenses with high penalties. R: It is fundamentally unfair via the Due Process Clause for an individual to be convicted of a crime punishable by imprisonment for ___an act he did not commit___, did not have knowledge of, or give expressed or implied consent to the commission thereof. C: State v. Guminga: An employee at a restaurant served a minor alcohol. The manager did not know or condone the act. The maximum penalty under the statute was 1 year imprisonment or a $3,000 fine. Theories of Punishment Retribution: Focuses on: The individual (blameworthiness) Justification: Punishment is justified because the person deserves to be punished. Retrospective: Looks back at the act committed and punishes the offender based on their actions and culpability. ○ Key Features: Proportionality: Punishment should fit the crime (“Just Deserts”). ○ Equilibrium Theory: The punishment restores the balance upset by the crime. ○ Culpability: The level of moral blameworthiness determines the severity of the punishment. Just Deserts: The person "gets what they deserve." ○ Wild Justice: The idea of revenge or vigilantism, exemplified by the concept of "an eye for an eye," often cited in death penalty cases. Utilitarianism: Focuses on: Society Justification: Punishment is justified by the positive outcomes it can produce for society, particularly in the future. ○ Prospective: Looks forward to prevent future harm or crime. ○ Key Mechanisms: General Deterrence: Punishing one individual to deter others from committing similar crimes, based on the assumption that people act rationally. ○ Specific Deterrence: Punishment aimed at deterring the individual who committed the crime from re-offending. ○ Cons: Assumes a rational actor who: Knows the rules. Perceives the cost of violating the law as higher than the benefit. Can recall and apply this knowledge when deciding whether to commit a crime. Denunciation (Social Cohesion): Justification: Punishment serves to reinforce societal norms and demonstrate that the criminal act is contrary to the values and morals of society. Incapacitation: Justification: Punishment aims to remove dangerous individuals from society to prevent them from causing further harm.  ○ Examples: Punishing sex offenders or dangerous criminals to protect the community by keeping them isolated. Rehabilitation: Justification: The goal of punishment is to reform and improve the offender, making them safer for society upon their reintegration. ○ Focus: Bettering the individual for society's benefit. Each theory approaches the purpose of punishment from a different perspective, with some focusing on the individual’s blameworthiness (retribution), others on societal impact (utilitarianism and denunciation), and others on preventing future harm (incapacitation and rehabilitation). Deterrence Regina v. Dudley and Stephens: Four prisoners on a ship that becomes deserted for approximately two weeks. Two prisoners kill the youngest/weakest one on the boat and eat him. ○ Note: Dudley is not a good example of deterrence theory because the two prisoners would have died if they did not eat him. Again, it goes back to the idea that for deterrence to work, the actors must be rational. Starved and stranded, they could not adequately decide whether it was in their best legal interest to do so. When determining the appropriate sentence for a crime, the sentencing judge may consider when the punishment constitutes sufficient retribution for the gravity of the defendants crime. ○ United States v. Madoff: Madoff had a scheme that cost people lots of money. He was sentenced to 150 years. ○ The Madoff case is an example of retribution and deterrence. ○ United States v. Jackson: (another example) An inmate with a history of robbery was allowed to leave prison during the day to work. On his work release, he robbed a bank. Example of specific deterrence and an example of incapacitation. What theory of crime is least likely at play in Jackson?(rehabilitation) Solicitation Solicitation is a type of an inchoate crime BUT in most states, it is its own statutory offense so it is not analyzed like an attempt crime. Elements of Solicitation: 2. Had intent to promote or facilitate… 3. conduct that would constitute a crime or an attempted crime An example would be asking for someone to engage in acts for money (soliciting, prostitution). R: Solicitation, encouraging another to commit a crime, without an overt act moving towards the effectuation of a crime, is not an attempted crime. It is simply a crime of solicitation. C: State v. Davis: Defendant and Mrs. Lourie planned to have Mr. Lourie killed to collect the insurance money and so the two could live together thereafter. The defendant asked a friend to help him find a hitman, the friend hires an undercover cop (rookie move).The defendant gives the undercover cop $600 and photos to carry out the plan. In this case, it was just preparation and fell short of attempt, hence solicitation. It was an attempt to conspire. Legality The concept of legality in criminal law ensures that individuals are only punished for actions that are clearly defined as crimes by law before those actions take place. This principle protects individuals from arbitrary or retrospective punishment. Three Stages of Statutes Statutory Construction: This refers to the creation of criminal statutes, which is done by the legislature. The statutes define what constitutes criminal behavior and the penalties associated with it. Statutory Interpretation: This involves the understanding of what a statute criminalizes. Courts interpret the meaning of statutory language and apply it to specific cases. If a statute’s meaning is unclear, courts use various interpretative tools (canons of construction) to clarify its meaning. Statutory Application: This is the application of a statute to a criminal proceeding, meaning how the law is enforced in real cases, involving individuals accused of violating the statute. R: Due Process requires that criminal laws be adopted by the _legislature_ not the judiciary and __provide fair warning___ of prohibited conduct. C: Commonwealth v. Mochan: The defendant called a woman using lewd language, trying to persuade her to commit adultery. The issue here was whether or not the defendant could be charged for a common law crime that was not enacted into legislation. Here the defendant was convicted, but almost all jurisdictions have abolished common law offenses. R: The law gives fair notice when it uses __ordinary language____ that would make any lay person understand what conduct is illegal. C: McBoyle v. United States: The defendant was convicted of transporting an airplane from Illinois to Oklahoma that he knew was stolen. Court held that an airplane is not a “vehicle” within the meaning of the National Motor Vehicle Theft Act. The defendant won in this case since he was not on notice that “vehicle” included a plane. R: Judges must do their best in determining what the writers of ambiguous statues meant through an analysis utilizing the _____canons of construction______. Canons of construction are rules or principles used by courts to interpret the meaning of statutes  or legal documents. These guidelines help judges determine the intent of the legislature and clarify ambiguous or unclear language in laws. Canons provide a structured approach to interpretation and ensure consistency in how laws are applied. C: Yates v. United States: A fisherman caught an oversized fish and then threw it off his boat to prevent federal authorities from knowing he had the fish. He was charged with violating a federal provision that criminalized the destruction or concealment of any record, document or tangible object, to obstruct federal investigation. The defendant lost in this case because it found that a fish was a “tangible object.” R: Pursuant to the Due Process clause, the terms of a penal statute must provide ___fair notice___ of what conduct is prohibited. C: Keeler v. Superior Court of California: Man kicks pregnant wife in the stomach, killing the fetus. California, Penal Code § 187 criminalizes the murder of a “human being.” Keller won because it was not clear in the statute if a fetus counted as a “human being.” R: __Retroactive application___ by the judiciary of a change in the common law of crimes does not violate either the ex post facto clause or the Due Process clause unless the application is “unexpected and indefensible.” C: Rogers v. Tennessee: Defendant stabbed victim and victim went into a coma eventually dying of complications 15 months later. Tennessee, at the time, had a common law that a defendant could not be charged with murder when the victim dies a year and a day after the defendant’s infliction of harm. The court abolished the common law rule as outdated and the defendant was convicted. R: A criminal law is unconstitutional under the Due Process clause on vague grounds if it either _fails to give adequate notice_ of the prohibited conduct or __permits arbitrary and discriminatory__ enforcement of the law. C: City of Chicago v. Morales: City of Chicago enacted an ordinance criminalizing “loitering” in a public place with one or more other people. Under the ordinance, if a police officer observed someone the officer reasonably believed to be “loitering,” the officer could order the people to disperse. Anyone who did not follow the officer’s instructions was in violation of the ordinance. This law was determined to be vague, discriminatory, and arbitrary. The Doctrine of Legality The doctrine of legality is a fundamental principle of criminal law, ensuring fairness in criminal proceedings. It includes the following key aspects: 1. No Judge-Made Criminal Law: ○ Criminal laws must come from the legislature and not from judicial decisions. Common law crimes, once a feature of legal systems, have largely been abolished in favor of written statutory laws.  2. No Retrospective (Ex Post Facto) Application: ○ Laws must be established before the defendant commits the act in question. Retroactive criminal laws are unconstitutional as they violate due process. 3. No Unconstitutionally Vague Laws: ○ Laws must not be so vague that individuals cannot reasonably understand what is prohibited. Vague laws are problematic because they fail to give people adequate notice of prohibited conduct and allow law enforcement too much discretion, leading to arbitrary enforcement. ○ Laws that are vague are considered void for vagueness because they violate Due Process under the Constitution. This means that the criminal law must be written clearly enough to give ordinary people an understanding of what behavior is illegal. Impossibility (DEFENSE) Exam Note: Oftentimes, a case/problem contains facts that support both legal and factual impossibility which is why impossibility is challenging. A tip is to decide which facts or circumstances are most pertinent to the call of the question and decide whether legal impossibility or factual impossibility is the better fit because you might not have enough time to address both. Legal Impossibility One of the elements of the crime is not reached. Despite the defendant’s mental states, there is no criminal law that prevents the defendant’s conduct or result. Legal impossibility is __always_______ a defense. Ex. A intends to kill B but B is already dead. A is not criminally responsible for murder because there is no actus reus, he is already dead, thus the element is not fulfilled. R: A person ____cannot_______ be convicted of an attempt to commit a crime if the completed acts would not be a criminal offense. C: People v. Jaffe: Defendant attempted to purchase 20 years of cloth, believing it was stolen. However, the cloth had actually been recovered, returned to its owner, and presented for sale legally. Defendant was charged with a crime that a person who buys or receives any stolen property knowing it to have been stolen is guilty of criminally receiving such property.  Why cant A be found criminally responsible for attempted murder: There is no murder for attempted murder to be committed, the individual was not a live human being, could be found criminally responsible for maltreatment of a corpse. Clarification of Jaffe: A person who (1) buys or receives any stolen property (2) knowing it to have been stolen. The defendant was not convicted because a person who received LEGAL property under the misapprehension that it was stolen cannot be convicted of attempting to receive stolen goods. True Legal Impossibility When a person engages in activity they believe to be prohibited, but it turns out no such crime exists. Example: A person secretly carries $9,000 in their suitcase out of the country, thinking that this is a crime and not realizing that it is permissible to do so. Factual Impossibility Factual impossibility exists when a persons’ intended end constitutes a crime, but they fail to consummate the offense because of an attendant circumstance unknown to them or beyond their control. Factual impossibility is ___never_____ a defense, however the person can usually be charged with an ____attempt crime_________________. Man shoots a guy four times with a gun he thinks is loaded but it actually is not, could still be found guilty of attempted murder. R: A defendant cannot use that under the surrounding circumstances of the event, a crime was factually impossible to complete, as a defense to an attempt charge if the crime would have been committed had the circumstances been as the defendant believed them to be. C: People v. Dlugash: Defendant shoots a corpse that was already shot, believing the deceased person to be alive. The defendant is charged and convicted of attempted murder. Differentiating factual and legal impossibility Factual impossibility is said to occur when extraneous circumstances unknown to the actor or beyond his control prevent consummation of the intended crime meaning there is requisite intent  Legal impossibility is said to occur when the intended act, even if completed, would not amount to a crime and just leave the person with a guilty conscience. Type of Manslaughter Mens Rea Key Features Examples Voluntary Intent to kill or - Killing in the "heat of - A spouse kills their Manslaughter cause serious harm, passion" due to partner’s lover after but mitigated provocation. discovering them together. - No cooling-off - Killing in a heated period. argument. - Imperfect self-defense. Involuntary Unintentional, due to - Unintentional killing due - A driver texting Manslaughter negligence or to gross negligence or while driving causes recklessness reckless conduct. a fatal crash. - Unlawful act that leads to - A parent leaves a death (misdemeanor child in a hot car, manslaughter). leading to the child’s death. Criminally Gross - Unintentional killing due to - A contractor Negligent negligence or the failure to recognize or ignores safety Manslaughter recklessness disregard a substantial risk of standards, leading to harm or death. a fatal accident. - Reckless driving causes death. Unlawful Act Unintentional, - Death resulting from - A shoplifter Manslaughter resulting from a committing an unlawful accidentally (Misdemeanor misdemeanor or act (typically a causes a fatal Manslaughter) low-level unlawful misdemeanor) that is accident while act inherently dangerous. fleeing. - Death resulting from a simple assault.