Criminal Law PDF

Criminal Law **Introduction:** [Owens v. State] [Facts]: Owens was convicted for driving while intoxicated under state transportation article which prohibits drinking and driving on public roads, but was found sleeping in his vehicle behind wheel with 3 open beer cans and lights on. O. claims leg...

Criminal Law **Introduction:** [Owens v. State] [Facts]: Owens was convicted for driving while intoxicated under state transportation article which prohibits drinking and driving on public roads, but was found sleeping in his vehicle behind wheel with 3 open beer cans and lights on. O. claims legal insufficiency of evidence and that they can't prove he was driving. [Rule]: Conviction on circumstantial evidence alone is not enough to be sustained unless circumstances are inconsistent with a reasonable hypothesis of innocence. Here, circumstantial evidence suggests that driving occurred previously so he can be convicted (origin of police call for suspicious vehicle and unlikely that appellant would consume alcohol and bring empty cans with him.) [USA v. Reffitt: ] [Facts]: R. is charged with five counts for participating in the Jan. 6th riots and the State argues for a maximum sentence given his role as a leader and the physical video evidence. R. admits to one claim, but evidence for others is insufficient, and asks for a lenient sentence based on his character as "bragging doesn't equal guilt." [Rule]: Under 18 U.S.C. section 3553(a): punishment should be provided taking into account the nature and circumstances of the offense, history, and characteristics of the defendant. Goals of sentencing are retribution, deterrence, incapacitation, and rehabilitation so R. is sentenced to 7.25 years given his role as "leader," his continued effort to overthrow US govt, his lack of remorse and his prior convictions. [USA v. Brewer:] [Facts:] Brewers convicted of defrauding Navy for \$6 million contracting operation during sentencing guidelines, the court recommended 108+ months and 70+ respectively for Mr. and Mrs. But Mr. has significant medical issues that render him immobile and has other severe physical ailments and Mrs. is his primary caretaker. [Rule:] Under 18 U.S.C. section 3553(a): punishment should be provided considering the nature and circumstances of the offense, history, and characteristics of the defendant. Court does not think that sentencing will act as general deterrence as white collar crimes repeatedly happen, but Mr's age and general health weigh significantly as his rehabilitation will cost govt. lots of money and the incapacitation will be achieved by conditions of probation. [USA v. Madoff: ] [Facts:] Defendant convicted of a number of financial fraud crimes from his decades-long pyramid scheme which resulted in upwards of \$13 billion in losses. D. requested a lesser sentence as he turned himself in and consented to forfeit all of his money, claiming the reputational losses were significant as deterrence and he shouldn't spend the rest of his life in prison. [Rule:] Under 18 U.S.C. section 3553(a): punishment should be provided considering the nature and circumstances of the offense, history, and characteristics of the defendant. Court said that sentencing needs to be the strongest possible message to act as a general deterrence given scope of the crimes but Madoff's life expectancy was 13 years, so the sentencing of 150 years was largely symbolic as an act to restore trust in financial institutions. **Elements of Crime:** [State v. Utter: ] Facts: D was convicted of manslaughter for stabbing his son who was heard saying "Dad, don't" and seen walking out of the apartment having been stabbed, saying "Dad stabbed me." D. testifies that he has no recollection of the event as he was drinking earlier in the day, but claims conditioned response defense as when someone comes up behind him, he attacks them (which has happened twice before.) Rule: An Act = voluntary act, an unconscious act is not voluntary so it's not an act (ex. sleepwalking, hypnosis, reflex, seizures, PTSD) but voluntarily induced consciousness (ex. Drunkenness) cannot be a complete defense and needs additional facts. The court agreed that it could have been provided as a defense but there was not enough substantial evidence as no one at the scene has a memory of what happened (he says he doesn't recall anything.) [Commonwealth v. Pestinikas: ] Facts: Defendant was found guilty of murder in 3^rd^ degree for starving Kly who was an older man with whom they entered a contract to care for and provide food, water, and shelter in exchange for \$300 a month. They forced Kly to sleep on the porch, did not feed him, prevented him from receiving care from nurses, and concealed him from his family when they asked. Rule: M.P.C. 2.01(3): omission of an offense may not be based on an omission unaccompanied by action unless 1) omission is expressly made sufficient by law OR 2) by a duty to perform the omitted act is otherwise imposed by law. Defendants had a duty to act under the contract of care so their omission was sufficient to support a conviction for criminal homicide. [State v. Davis: ] Facts: Defendant was convicted of 2^nd^ degree sexual assault for his participation in his son raping a woman while Defendant sat next to them on the bed as the act occurred. Defendant knew the victim and they had a close family relationship, but when the act was occurring he stepped out of the way and told her not to worry as the act occurred. Rule: Bystanders generally do not have a duty to act but can be found culpable for not acting when 1) interference was a duty or 2) they operated as an encouragement to or as protection for the perpetrator. Here, the defendant was not a passive bystander, his actions of lying next to the victim and his familiar association with the defendant are sufficient actions to make him culpable. [People v. Wong: ] Facts: Wongs were convicted of manslaughter as they were both full-time caretakers for an infant that lived with them and was found to be unresponsive after a lengthy crying fit. The court determined equal culpability, as one of the defendants must have violently shaken the baby and the passive defendant is equally responsible under omission theory for failing to assist. Rule: Penal Law §15.10, an individual's criminal liability can be predicated on "omission," defined as a failure to perform an act for which a duty of performance is imposed by law. Here, both individuals had a duty to care for the infant, but the nature of the death is not immediately or physically apparent to the other caretaker (the baby could've just appeared to be sleeping) and since it is unclear who was the causation, both convictions must be reversed. [United States v. Jewell: ] Facts: The defendant was convicted of possession as he had 110 pounds of marijuana found in a secret compartment in the trunk of his vehicle but claims that he was not aware that it was there. Rule: Willful blindness can be found only where it can be said the defendant actually knew, deliberate ignorance and positive knowledge are equally culpable. Here, the court found it likely that D. knew about the secret compartment and purposely avoided positive knowledge to avoid responsibility in case of discovery. [Young. v. State: ] Facts: Defendant was found guilty of aggravated child abuse for hitting her child with telephone cord, resulting in 17 separate marks. The defendant claims she blacked out and moved for acquittal under an incorrect definition of malice acts (court used legal definition of malice as "wrongfully, intentionally, without legal justification or excuse." Rule: Actual malice means ill will, hatred, spite or evil intent. Court sided with precedent which used the defendant's definition of actual malice. [US v. Bailey: ] Facts: Defendants were a group of inmates at a federal detention facility who were charged with escaping federal custody without permission. They claimed that they left voluntarily and knowingly to escape the not normal conditions of confinement that they were experiencing (frequent beatings and trash fires, guards were allowing conditions to continue, one received in adequate medical attention for seizures.) Rule: 18 U.S.C. § 751(a): requires proof that D. left federal confinement voluntarily without permission, Defendants wanted to add that confinement refers to the normal aspects of punishment so they didn't have mens rea. Here, the court found that the mens rea referred to their decision to attempt to leave and acting "knowingly" was sufficient. [State v. Olsen: ] Facts: The defendant was convicted of felony manslaughter for driving a tractor and turning left into an oncoming car killing the driver. The defendant claimed "I didn't see it" but the witness testified that the incoming crash was imminent. Rule: Awareness can be established if defendant acts in a manner that indicates reckless disregard for the safety of others. Here, the state must introduce evidence that would show D. was aware of the dangerous nature of his conduct; he is negligent as he was unaware of the risk but should have been. [Staples v. US:] Facts: The defendant was indicted for unlawful possession of an unregistered machine gun which had been modified using M-16 parts converting it to an automatic weapon, but claims he had only operated it semiautomatically and his ignorance of firing capability should shield him from criminal liability. Rule: National Firearms Act 26 USC §5801-5872: machine gun as one that automatically shoots more than one shot, and makes it a crime punishable by up to 10 years in prison to possess one that is not registered but does not state the required mens rea. The court states while dangerous items place owners under obligation to inquire into compliance, the Govt. would be imposing criminal sanctions on the class of people whose mental states make their actions innocent as the majority of gun owners are lawful owners. The defendant is only liable for unregistered possession if the government proves that he knew the gun was capable of automatic firing. [People v. Navarro: ] Facts: D. was accused of stealing wooden beams from a construction site as either the beams had been abandoned as worthless and there was no objection to his taking them OR they had substantial value and he had no right to steal them. Rule: Mistake of Fact "If no specific intent or other special mental element is required for guilt of the offense charged, a mistake of fact will not be recognized as an excuse, unless it was based on reasonable grounds. Because theft is a specific intent crime, a mistake of fact negates the needed mens rea. Here, to convict, we must know if D himself knew it was someone else's property and was his intent to deprive someone else of that property. [State v. Sexton: ] Facts: Defendant was in the parking lot looking at a gun with a friend, which he was told was empty, but went off and killed his friend. D was charged with reckless manslaughter. Rule: A belief that the gun is loaded or unloaded does not negate culpable mental state for the crime of manslaughter. Under the MPC approach to the mistake of fact, D must demonstrate that the mistake was reasonable, and it negated the required culpable mental state for the offense. Here, he was found to be reckless, and a mistake of fact can be considered as a defense. [People v. Weiss: ] Facts: Under the belief that they had been deputized as N.J. secret service agents and arrest was made under the "authority of law," Defendants seized and confined Wendel in connection to the kidnapping of the Lindbergh baby. Rule: Penal Code § 1250: "person who willfully seizes... another with intent to cause him without authority of law to be confined... against his will is guilty of kidnapping." Court ruled that the mens rea attaches to "with the authority of law" as willful intent to seize a person without authority is the essential issue. Here, if they believed they were operating in good faith within the law, there could be no intent to act without the authority of law. [People v. Marrero: ] Facts: D. was convicted on the mistaken belief that he could carry a weapon with legal impunity under the peace officer statute. D. claims mistake of law defense because his belief in legal conduct was founded upon an official statement of law in the statute itself. Rule: Individual interpretation is not a mistake of law defense. In situations where the government has unintentionally misled an individual to what is legally permissible, an individual shouldn't be punished, but if the government is not responsible for the error it is not afforded a mistake of law excuse. [Oxendine v. State: ] Facts: D. was convicted of manslaughter for killing his 6 year old son from beating him after his girlfriend had committed similar acts less than 24 hours prior. State provided two theories of causation 1) a combined direct effort (between both parties) 2) An aggravation theory, but doctors could not determine which event directly caused the death as they couldn't separate the effects of injuries. Rule: 11 Del. C. § 261: causation as antecedent but for which the result in question would not have occurred. Contribution without acceleration is not sufficient causation for manslaughter. Here court held that Doctor's testimony can't prove that 2^nd^ injury accelerated death. Causation has to hasten the death. [People v. Jennings: ] Facts: Defendant was found guilty of 1^st^-degree murder of his 5-year-old son but evidence and testimony show that both parents were abusive. Autopsy claimed the main cause of death to be "combined drug toxicity" but other contributing causes were acute and chronic abuse and neglect. Rule: The defendant's act must have been a substantial factor contributing to the result of his death. If the defendant's act of torture were concurrent causes of the death, it is no defense that the conduct of some other person contributed to the death. Here, there was sufficient evidence from which a reasonable jury could have concluded that torture was at least a substantial factor. [State v. Smith:] Facts: The defendant was convicted of assault and involuntary manslaughter after hitting victim, Biser, on the side of the head which resulted in traumatic brain injury. Victim became apathetic and did not take necessary diabetes medication afterward which resulted in his death due, Defendant claims that while he might have been the 'but for' cause, he did not proximately cause the death because of unforeseeable events that occurred. Rule: If it is unforeseeable, a coincidence will break the chain of legal causation. Here, the failure to medicate was a response to act, that was not abnormal and unforeseeable as self-inflicted harm attributed to weakened conditions are normal occurrence so it cannot be an intervening cause. **Homicide:** [Taylor v. State] Facts: The defendant was convicted of malice murder and aggravated battery when he hit the victim with his car causing death days later Police also found a yellow envelope with defendant's name on it containing various legal documents from a year long dispute but D. claims that he did not form intent to kill the victim. Rule: Malice murder "Crimes which are defined as requiring that the defendant intentionally cause a forbidden bad result are usually interpreted to cover one who knows that his conduct is substantially certain to cause the result whether he desires the result to occur.... Show by evidence where no considerable provocation appears and where all circumstances show a malignant heart." Evidence was sufficient to show intent to kill the victim (express malice.) [State v. Guthrie: ] Facts: Defendant stabbed his coworker in the neck and killed him after a coworker was joking around and snapped him in with a dishtowel several times and Defendant has deep insecurity about his nose. D. confessed to murder and said he had a panic attack and doesn't remember stabbing the victim. Rule: Murder as unlawful killing of another human being with malice aforethought. Elements that separate 1^st^ and 2^nd^ degree murder are deliberation and premeditation (in addition to formation of specific intent to kill.) Court mentioned that there should be a sufficient period to permit the accused to consider the plan to kill, any interval of time before forming intent and the execution of that intent is sufficient to support conviction for 1^st^ degree. [Commonwealth v. Carroll] Facts: Carroll murdered his wife and found guilty of 1^st^ degree after shooting her in the head after a lengthy argument about his ability to take a job position. D testifies that he doesn't remember grabbing the gun but they frequently fought and she beat their children, so he was doing it to protect them. Rule: Whether the intention to kill and the killing were within a brief space of time or a long space of time is immaterial if the killing was intentional, willful, deliberate, and premeditated. Here, the court found the evidence shows the legal impossibility of premeditation. [Girouard v. State: ] Facts: D. killed his wife (they were married for two months and had strained relationship) after getting into a verbal altercation in which she threatened to report him to his boss and get him court martialed. He stabbed her 19 times and was convicted of 2nd degree murder. Rule: Rule of Provocation 1) must have been an adequate provocation 2) killing must have been in the heat of passion 3) must have followed before there had been reasonable opportunity for passion to cool. 4) must have been a causal connection between provocation, passion, and fatal act. Here, words do not fit into a provocation category so it was not an adequate provocation to be downgraded to voluntary manslaughter. [State v. Castagna] Facts: D. was one of several defendants convicted for their role in mob beating and murder of victim (D was charged with 2nd degree agg. Assault). All the defendants were in a bar and chased the victim to a bridge where they physically beat him and used racial slurs before one of them dropped a rock on his head, killing him. D's claim that they were provoked as there was testimony that the victim allegedly attacked two of the defendants prior. Rule: Rule of Provocation 1) must have been adequate provocation 2) killing must have been in heat of passion 3) must have been sudden, killing must have followed before there had been reasonable opportunity for passion to cool. 4) must have been a causal connection between provocation/passion/fatal act. Court found that there was adequate provocation under "serious abuse or injury towards a family friend" and the mob frenzy prevented the cool down period. [State v. White] Facts: D. was charged with attempted murder of her ex-husband after chasing him in her car into a building and hitting him. D claimed the extreme emotional distress defense due to financial struggles of her divorce, health issues related to him cancelling her insurance, and his refusal to pay child support, which culminated in a triggering event of her seeing him on the phone (which he lied about having). Rule: Extreme Emotional Distress Defense was when 1) defendant was acting under influence of extreme emotional distress 2) for which there was a reasonable explanation or excuse. Court here held that the external triggering event is required but does not need to be contemporaneous with loss of self control (loss is determined by the reasonable person standard -- whether a reasonable person in the same situation would have reacted in a similar way). Defense was found to apply to defendant [People v. Kolzow:] Facts: D. was charged with (reckless) murder of her baby after leaving him in the car all night in order to sleep undisturbed. D sat in driveway until stepmother left for work and then went inside, claimed to set an alarm, and fell asleep but when police arrived they found the window was cracked. The neighbor says that they had seen her do this previously 6x. Rule: Her actions were reckless as she took a substantial and unjustified risk in leaving her child in the car all night. There was no justifiable reason for leaving the child in the car and locking the car/rolling down windows shows that it was not a mistake/she was planning to leave child in car. Reckless mens = guilty of involuntary manslaughter. [People v. Knoller] Facts: D. was training a dog that attacked and killed the victim in the hallway of their apartment complex, was charged with 2nd degree murder and involuntary manslaughter. D claimed that there was no way they could have forseen the dog acting this way but there were 30+ prior incidents with the dogs and the vet warned them of the dogs actions as the dogs would be a huge liability in a household. Rule: Implied malice murder requires awareness that defendant's conduct will result in death of another (wanton disregard for human life and act involves high probability that it will result in death). Here, the court found that the threat of harm or serious bodily injury was not enough to support charge for implied malice murder, must have been awareness that actions could cause death. [People v. Snyder] Facts: D. was convicted of depraved indifference murder for suffocating her daughter resulting in her death. D had previously attempted to induce apnea by suffocating her child in order to receive child support and state benefits, but didn't necessarily intend to cause death. Rule: Depraved indifference murder is when the D. acts with a conscious objective to harm by engaging in a brutal or prolonged course of conduct. Here, D is found guilty when actions reflect cruelty, brutality or callousness and combined with utter indifference to life of victim, was acting with extreme recklessness by intentionally harming her children. [People v. Chun] Facts: D. was a passenger in the van which committed a drive by shooting which killed passengers in other van. D admitted he shot at the van in order to scare them but did not have intent to kill, was found guilty of second degree murder Rule: Felony Murder doctrine: assaultive felonies merge with homicide and cannot be used for felony murder charge (assaultive is threat of immediate physical injury.) D. cannot be charged with felony murder as shooting at occupied vehicle in assaultive in nature. [People v. Howard] Facts: D. engaged in high speed car chase in a stolen vehicle with two police officers which resulted in hitting another vehicle, killing one of the passengers. Rule: Inherently dangerous felony: must be non assaultive and inherently dangerous to qualify for Felony murder charge. Grand theft was not inherently dangerous, but according to CA Vehicle Code § 2880.2: fleeing a police officer and vehicle is driven with disregard towards safety of persons while three or more violations occur is assaultive so felony murder does not apply here. [State v. Stewart] Facts: D's son died after 52 days and died from dehydration while D was engaged in a "cocaine marathon" for 3 days. D was indicted on 2nd degree based on the theory of felony murder (the underlying felony was wrongfully permitting the child to be a habitual sufferer.) Rule: If a statute can be violated in a manner that does not endanger human life, then the felony is not inherently dangerous to human life. Here, the underlying felony was not inherently dangerous (either in the abstract or in its manner of commission -- in looking at facts of part of the case) so could not be convicted on felony murder. [People v. Hernandez] Facts: D's planned to ambush man and rob him, but the man turned out to be an undercover police officer. D's got into a shootout with the police officers, one D drew his gun and police began firing and killed another police officer in the process. Ds were charged with felony murder because their actions were the proximate cause of death. Rule: Proximate cause theory: D's have to be the proximate cause of the death of a third party for felony murder. Mens rea is imputed from the underlying felony. Here, it is foreseeable that police would thwart a crime, engage in whatever means necessary, simply implausible to not foresee a bullet going astray. Fatal result must be the sufficient direct and foreseeable result of D's acts as felony murder. [State v. Sophophone] Facts: D with others to break into a house, police were called and engaged in chase, one D was on ground, raised his gun up and fired at officer who returned fire, killing him. Rule: Agency approach, theft is not inherently dangerous and bulglary is non assaultive and inherently dangerous. Here, D cannot be charged with felony murder as it was lawful act by police officer. (Rule of Lenity- if ambiguity in guilt, court should construe ambiguity towards defendant) [People v. Traughber] Facts: D hit another car and killed driver in effort to avoid hitting sign that had fallen in the middle of road. D swerved to the right, the other driver swerved to the left and then D swerved back into the lane colliding with the other car. D was charged with negligent homicide. Rule: Negligent homicide is unaware of the risk, but a reasonable person would be aware of the risk of their actions. Here, court judged reasonableness standard based on D's experience as a truck driver. Found not guilty of negligent homicide as it was not a situation he caused, emergency situation that D reacted to, allows for wider range of reasonable actions to result. [State v. Small] Facts: D left her two children home alone at night unattended when a fire started from the stove, causing her daughter to die. D was charged with second degree murder. Rule: D engaged in a criminally negligent act that resulted in child's death but was not a direct act of killing. Court found her guilty of negligent homicide. [State v. Biechele] Facts: D was tour manager for band and had lit off fireworks inside the nightclub venue which killed 100 people. Was charged with two hundred counts of manslaughter and did not have a permit to operate under the firework statute. Rule: In order to be guilty of misdemeanor manslaughter, D commits misdemeanor, and unlwaufl act is proximate cuase of someone's death, there is no reckless mens required just mens rea for misdemeanor. Here, the unlawful possession was proximate cause of misdemeaor manslaughter. **Crimes against People & Property:** [State v. Carswell] Facts: D. was observed taking air conditioner out of window base and entering a room which previously had been broken into earlier in the evening. D was charged with felonious breaking and entering, as larceny. Rule: Larceny is the wrongful taking and carrying away of personal property of another without their consent, with intent to deprive owner of his property and to appropriate it to the taker's use fraudulently. Here, a bare removal was sufficient asportation of the object to satisfy the "taking" element present in larceny. D had control of the item and were able to move it. [US v. Villalobos] Facts: D was charged with extortion for threatening party to pay his client back the money that was owed in exchange for lying and impeding the federal investigation against them. Rule: Extortion is induced by wrongful use of actual or threatened force or use of fear. All threats are wrongful if made with intent to induce fear. Here, means to obtain the property were unlawful (by threats to cooperate or impede the investigation) and were wrongful under the circumstances. Negotiation is not extortion, but the place of unlawful threate makes it extortion. [Marsh v. Commonwealth] Facts: D stole jewelry from his girlfriend and pawned it but told her he would get it back once he was paid. D was charged with larceny.. Rule: Larceny requires that a person take another's property intending to use it temporarily. The intent at time of taking is what matters, only temporarily borrowing it w/o conditions would show that he aimed to return it unconditionally within a reasonable time. Here, D did not have the substantial ability required to return the jewelry and his stated intent to return it was not sufficient. [People v. Peck] Facts: D was found guilty of aggravated battery to Police officer, D was belligerent and spit on him hitting his face, glasses, cheek Rule: Spitting is offensive and insulting in nature and can sustain a conviction for aggravated battery [State v. Birthmark] Facts: Son came back from a party drunk and was verbally threatening his mother and brother, says he didn't mean to cause them reasonable apprehension of bodily harm Rule: D's intent doesn't matter, need to prove mens rea for conduct not for result [State v. Boodoosingh] Facts: Man was about to hit another man with a baseball bat when person intervened. Attempt = intent to bring about target crime and must have taken a substantial step towards it. Rule: Guilty of assault if D committed attempted battery or intended to cause fear. [Rusk v. State: ] Facts: Man met woman at a bar, she offered to drive him home. Once he got to her home, he forcibly grabbed her keys from her and threatened her to go upstairs with him. Rule: By force or threat of force -- element here wasn't sufficient, the victim's fear overcomes her will to resist must be reasonable fear. If she would have resisted, he would have harmed her or faced with such resistance, he would have used force to overcome it. [Commonwealth v. Lopez] Facts: Man took young woman into woods and forcibly raped her against a rock. Stated that he wasn't aware it wasn't consensual. Rule: Rape is general intent crime and mens rea doesn't attach to attendant circumstance, rape doesn't require Defendant to be aware of lack of consent, has been limited to consent in fact with no required mens rea. [Boro v. Superior Court] Facts: Doctor tells woman she has serious contagious disease, she can treat it with expensive treatment or by sex with someone who has been injected with serum and can cure her. Rule: Fraud in the inducement: she is induced into having sex with someone under false pretenses. There is a threat of force, so debated line between factum/inducement. **Inchoate Crimes:** [People v. Rizzo: ] Facts: Four men make plan to rob man for payroll (mob guy), drive around looking for him with guns but don't find the man. Rule: Common Law, Dangerous proximity test to completing the crime. Mere preparation is never enough. The danger of success was very great and they would have if they would have found him = Incomplete attempt. [People v. Gentry:] Facts: D and his girlfriend are fighting in the apt. D pours gasoline on his girlfriend and she catches on fire. Sentenced to attempted murder Rule: Specific intent to kill is necessary element of crime of attempted murder, you can't attempt a reckless result crime aka reckless homicide. BUT you can attempt reckless conduct as long as crime is in terms of conduct (ex. Theft, assault, fraud = nothing attached to the outcome) [State v. Reeves:] Facts: Two teenagers plan to poison their teacher, bring it to school, tell other students about plan on the bus, ask an upperclassmen to be getaway driver. Teacher walks in on them giggling and leaning over desk, ultimately find poison in purse. Rule: MPC, Substantial Step = conduct does not constitute a substantial step unless the person's entire course of action is corroborative of the intent to commit the offense. Having poison near coffee cup at school for purpose of committing crime (unsure about intent) [People v. Dluglash] Facts: Man is charged with attempted murder, shot gun at person but evidence is uncertain as to if person was alive or dead at the time that he shot him. Rule: MPC, Factual Impossibility is not a defense because at that moment he intended to kill the man. Basic premise is that what was in the actor's own mind should be standard for determining dangerousness to society. [State v. Smith] Facts: D is HIV+ and is in custody when he threatens to kill jail guards by biting one of them. He is charged with attempted murder but claims impossibility defense. Rule: MPC, Factual impossibility is not a defense. Concurrence of mens rea at time of actus reus, only matters what D thought in that moment. Voodoo Rule: so inherently unlikely to result or culminate in the commission of the crime that such conduct does not present public danger. [Ross v. Mississippi: ] Facts: D went to victims home and was about to rape her but she told him she had a daughter so he left. Was charged with attempted rape. Rule: Abandonment defense requires voluntary and independent action to stop illegal act. Motivation to stop cannot be resistance from victim, fear of getting caught, intervening cause, desire to delay crime. Here there was no physical resistance or external intervention, perpetrator changed his mind so all good. [State v. Pacheco] Facts: D makes agreement with undercover police officer, charged with conspiracy to commit 1^st^ degree murder and deliver controlled substance. Rule: Common Law, requires genuine agreement between two people, and Unilateral agreement does not count. [USA v. Valle] Facts: D engaged and made a plan to kidnap three women online, discussed dates, lied about possessing torture devices but never took action. Rule: D did not have desire to engage in the conduct, requires specific intent to engage in the target crime of kidnapping. Here, judge found inconcievable that dates for planned kidnappings would pass without follow up or inquiry and doing all these actions online shows lack of purpose. [US v. Shabani] Facts: D was charged with conspiracy to distribute cocaine and filed a motion to dismiss for not committing an overt act. Rule: MPC, Unilateral conspiracy without an act: the agreement itself can be the act. [US v. Abu Gayth] Facts: agreed with Osama Bin Laden to appear in videos and claim that US will go down Rule: Speech can be an act and satisfy the overt act requirement. Here, he entered into agreement with Bin Laden's team. Doesn't matter that crime wasn't completed. Telphone calls can be overt act, but could be evidence of underlying agreement if between conspirators. [Commonwealth v. Nee] Facts: D approaches other conspirators about school shooting and conducts planning towards the event, later goes to police to turn in other conspirator Rule: MPC, No renunciation defense as it must be complete and voluntary, D did not admit their own involvement (had an agreement, overt act, and the mens rea so question is if they did enough to renounce their goal) [People v. Breton] Facts: D wanted to kill man who bought drgus from him and now agrees to testify against him, asks hitman to do it. Rule: MPC, Unilateral agreement is sufficient for conspiracy. Here he intended to kill the man and sought out hitmen to commit act for him, doesn't matter that hitman was undercover agent. [State v. Cotton] Facts: D is charged with sexually assaulting 14 year old stepdaughter, in jail he writes letter to his wife to prevent her from testifying. Inmate gives letter to authorities. Rule: CL, Offense of solicitation requires communication to reach be sent and reach effective vs. MPC, it doesn't matter if communication succeeds = shouting into the void counts. [People v. Superior Court (Decker)] Facts: D solicited hitmen to kill his sister and any friends or people who witnesses. Rule: Guilt of solicitation and D went further by completing the agreement to kill, finalizing the plan and paying the hitman. D took direct act for attempted murder by agreeing that would. Could be a conspiracy to murder depending on jdx. [People v. Rowe] Facts: D was upset that she didn't get her dream house, so she harassed the new owners and posed as the woman on dating websites saying she wanted to be raped. Rule: Under MPC, not guilty of solicitation. But would be guilty of attempt to solicit innocent agent to engage in conduct constituting element of crime, but it does satisfy attempt liability under substantial step. Innocent Instrumentality rule: soliciting innocent agent doesn't count for solicitation, does satisfy attempted solicitation under MPC. **Linking Liability** [Rosemond v. US] Facts: D charged with using a gun to aid and abet drug trafficking crime, person actively participates with knowledge. Rule: Accomplice must intentionally purposely/knowingly do some act of assistance with the intent including purpose/knowledge for the Principal to commit the crime. Knowledge that target crime will occur = advanced knowledge, enables him to make relevant legal/moral choices. Advance knowledge = knowledge at the time the accomplice can do something with it aka walk away. [State v. VT] Facts: Being present isn't enough for the act of accomplice, need to have the mens rea at the same time and can't be after the crime has been committed. Here, he didn't steal anything himself and didn't encourage anyone to do so. Rule: Every person acting with the mental state required for the commission of an offense who directly commits the offense, who solicits, requests, commands, encourages, or intentionally aids another person to engage in conduct shall be held criminally liable as a party for such conduct. [State v. Tally] Facts: Man seduced sister of two men. Brothers looked to exact revenge and were known to be coming but Judge Tally didn't intervene/prevent the attack on the man. Rule: MPC, Causation isn't necessary to be complicit, assistance doesn't have to be a cause of the prohibited result of act. Presence + action = encouragement of the principal, ineffectual assistance rule is not a defense. [Waddington v. Sarausad] Facts: Facts showing awareness of capping, of escalating violence beyond fists. He drove slower by the group as passenger shot and killed a student, D says he didn't have mens rea. Rule: Person is an accomplice in commission of crime, if with **knowledge** that it will promote or facilitate the commission of the crime, he or she either (1) solicits, commands... another person to commit the crime or (2) aids or agrees to aid another person in planning or committing the crime. No N+P doctrine, not "in for a dime, in for a dollar [US v. Alvarez] Facts: Whether Murder of agent can be attributed to C+ H+ P through Pinkerton. Murder of the agent was a reasonably foreseeable consequence of drug trafficking conspiracy -- designed to sell Large quantities of drugs so they should have been aware that some people would be carrying weapons. D was not minor participant. Rule: If Pinkerton applies, everyone up and down the conspiracy is responsible for all the crimes committed in furtherance of the conspiracy and those additional crimes that are reasonably foreseeable. [People v. Bruno] Facts: 88 defendants involved in 4 distinct groups, there was no cooperation or communication between groups, but each group knew about others must be involved given the nature of drug trade Rule: One large conspiracy because everyone knew there were other parts of the drug trafficking beyond the ones they weren't involved in; importers knew there had to be retailers, retailers knew there had to be buyers etc. Hub and spokes model: All D's knew or should have known that there are other D's working in the drug distribution enterprise, even retailers should have known [Kotteakos v. US] Facts: Individual committed loan fraud with a bunch of different people, attempting to bring it as one singular conspiracy. Rule: Separate conspiracies, D's in conspiracy don't have reason to know that there are others involved. [US v. Schweihs] Facts: Daddino is guilty of extortion after he was kicked out of the conspiracy, but he didn't do anything to disavow/defeat it Rule: He did not withdraw from the conspiracy because withdrawal requires more than cessation of activity, requires some affirmative action which disavows or defeats the purpose of the conspiracy. **Defenses** [State v. Norman] Facts: Horrific abuse for 20 years and in three days leading up to killing, several efforts to escape including through suicide attempt, D gets a gun and kills husband while he is sleeping. Charged with 1^st^ degree murder and found guilty of voluntary manslaughter Rule: Law of self defense required D claiming homicide was justified, inherently lawful by reason of perfect self defense that she reasonably believed at time of killing that she would have immediately suffered great bodily harm. Here, not self defense because not imminent if happening tomorrow. [US v. Peterson] Facts: D is in his house and sees V and two others attempting to steal windshield wiper blades off of D's car, D confronted V and then went back into his house and reappeared with a gun, then shoots V in the face. Rule: Aggressor is not allowed to use self defense. One who is aggressor is first person to use deadly force/threat of deadly force = affirmative unlawful act reasonably calculated to produce affray foreboding injurious or fatal consequences is an aggression which nullifies right of homicidal self-defense [People v. Riddle] Facts: D and two friends are hanging out in backyard, near D's garage, D shoots V eleven times in the leg with automatic rifle, ends up dying. Rule: Castle Doctrine doesn't apply because the garage was not part of the dwelling. No duty to retreat when attack is underway, even in Retreat to the Wall JDX [People v. Goetz] Facts: NY Penal Code set out that one may use physical force upon another to the extent that he reasonably believes such to be necessary to defend himself when other person is attempting to commit robbery... Rule: CL allows for Hybrid Reasonable Person: blurs objective into subjective, reasonableness must be based on the circumstances D is facing or his situation, here that included his trauma factors tailored for his experience [People v. Elmore] Facts: two types of mistaken beliefs: factual mistakes and delusional mistakes. Defendant who makes factual mistake misperceives the objective circumstances, Delusional defendant holds belief that is divorced from circumstances. Rule: Unreasonable self defense claim may be dependent on circumstances but could be guilty of manslaughter, jury has to agree that is genuine and reasonable, innocent mistakes are not guilty. [Dudley v. Stephens] Facts: 1^st^ degree, intentional homicide, why does CL not allow murder to be excused due to necessity Rule: Contention that it was anything other than murder was "dangerous, immoral and opposed to all legal principles" [US v. Ridner] Facts: D's brother seems suicidal, brother holding shotgun shells, different brother committed suicide years ago, Police arrive, D runs and is topped with ammunition. Rule: Court says necessity doesn't apply as he is missing imminent threat or fear of death and failed to cease illegal conduct as soon as possible [US v. Bailey] Facts: crime is escape, better to escape than creul and inhumane punishment, but should've come back to turn themselves in. Rule: Necessity doctrine: Failed on -- ceases illegal act as soon as possible after harm is avoided [US v. Schoon]*:* Facts*:* civil disobedience, arrested for trespassing on government property. Rule: Court says a clean sweep of failing to meet factors, court believes that they are using it "for attention" [Sanders v. State:] Facts: D killed his grandfather and attempted to killed his grandmother to cover it up, then fled and pulled phone off the wall to prevent her from calling for help, then went on the run for 20+ years, had been diagnosed previously as not sane. Rule: Applying M'Naghten: He understood nature and quality of the acts at the time, but not sure if D knew killing was wrong. Didn't know first killing was wrong but then realized and needed to cover it up, so he killed grandmother -- compromise verdict to say he wasn't sane for 2^nd^ killing. [State v. Crenshaw:] Facts: Man was a member of Moscovite faith, Issue of if he failed to know the moral wrongfulness of his act as he didn't think it was immoral but rather his duty. Rule: Defining moral wrong: D who knows the action is wrong, wrongfulness is based on society's morals = objective standard. **Decree exception:** very limited in scope to God speaking to you, mental disease or defect causing you to do some action but here God didn't tell him anything, it was just a religious duty. Legal wrong is always objective (the law), Moral wrong is always objective, except under DD exception [Pollard v. United States:] Facts*:* D was police officer who committed multiple robberies after the death of his wife, but they weren't logical. Rule: Irresistible impulse is volitional test: actus reus has little sliver of volitional acts. Must be a mental disease or defect (guilty under M'Naughten because he's aware of his act and it's wrongful) but under irresistible impulse, the mental process is causing you to do things. Make reasonable assumptions based on the facts [US v. Contento-Pachon:] Facts: D was threatened to be a drug mule, ingested 130+ bags of cocaine, said he was threatened by man who claimed he would kill his wife and daughter. Rule: Elements of duress: 1) immediate threat of death 2) well grounded fear that threat will be carried out 3) No reasonable opportunity to flee 4) sometimes demand turning yourself in. Here, judge should have instructed jury on durres defense, as its up to the jury to determine if he was *actually* under a legitimate threat. Willingness of agent doesn't matter, law focuses on what threats are legitimate and what threats are more voluntary. [Commonwealth v. DeMarco]: Facts: D gets charged with perjury and wants to use duress, menacing to the guy due to threats of the BB gun, choking threatened to take away benefits. Rule: Test for Duress + reasonable person standard = reasonable firmness: consider stark tangible factors which differentiate D from another. Do not focus on particular characteristics of temperament, intelligence, moral fortitude, bravery. Here, reasonable person will have the circumstances of mental disability. Court rejected the common law application; main difference is not having to threaten death or serious bodily injury, just person of reasonable firmness.