Criminal Law Outline PDF

# CRIMINAL LAW OUTLINE ## I. The Criminal Law Process - A. Actus Reus - Voluntary Acts (State v. Utter) - A willed bodily movement that does not include sleepwalking, hypnosis, states of unconsciousness, or seizures. - Conditioned responses in response to a certain stimulus...

# CRIMINAL LAW OUTLINE ## I. The Criminal Law Process - A. Actus Reus - Voluntary Acts (State v. Utter) - A willed bodily movement that does not include sleepwalking, hypnosis, states of unconsciousness, or seizures. - Conditioned responses in response to a certain stimulus are not admissible and not a defense. - B. Omissions - The failure to act or the absence of an act. - Can only be an omission if the defendant had a legal obligation. - Statute - Relationship - Parent-child relationship - Lifeguard - Doctor - Does not include friends because there is not a legal duty. - Contract - Teacher-student contract - Creation of harm or peril - The defendant has a duty to remediate or stop the harm and the failure to do so is punishable. - Can also be punishable for primary crime and omission, i.e., beating someone up and not calling 911. - Where one has voluntarily assumed the care of another and secluded them from others being able to render aid. - Bystanders - Bystanders are not criminally culpable unless they have a duty to act. - Prosecutors stretch bystander argument by stating bystanders encouraged the crime. - C. Mens Rea - COMMON LAW APPROACH - General Intent - Defendant intended to perform the prohibited act but did not intend to produce or cause any specific result. - Specific Intent - Defendant intended to perform the prohibited act and intended to bring about or produce the prohibited result. - Doctrine of Transferred Intent - The intent follows the bullet. The intent to perform an act (kill a person by a gunshot) would still apply even if the bullet kills an unintended victim. The harms must be similar in nature. - MODEL PENAL CODE APPROACH - Purposefully - It is the defendant’s conscious objective to act a specific way or cause a specific result. - Example: The defendant wanted to kill the victim, so he planted an explosive in his car. - Knowingly - If a defendant is aware of his conduct and knows his conduct is practically certain to cause such a result. - Recklessly - A defendant is aware of a strong possibility the result will occur and the risk of nature and conscious disregard from the standard and conduct that an ordinary person would observe in the Defendant's situation. - Consciously disregards a substantial and unjustifiable risk. - Negligently - A defendant might be unaware of the substantial and unjustifiable risk but still acts. He should have known. Still a gross deviation from the standard of care, but the defendant was likely unaware. - Willful blindness - a defendant deliberately avoids acquiring incriminating information. Like an ostrich burying its head in the sand. Still can be convicted for acting knowingly. - Strict Liability Offenses - Mens rea is usually irrelevant to these offenses. Examples are weapons or medical and environmental regulations. - C. Mistakes - Mistake of Fact - Will absolve defendant of the crime if it negates the mens rea required for the crime. - Mistake must be reasonable for most jurisdictions. - MPC allows for mistake of both reasonable and unreasonable mistakes. - Mistake of Law - Occurs if defendant mistakenly believes his conduct is not a crime when it is. - Mistake of law is usually not recognized as defense. - Exception: a mistake can be a defense if a defendant reasonably relies on a statute or court decision the court later held is invalid. - Exception: a mistake of law can be a defense if a defendant reasonably relies on a government official for the interpretation of the law, i.e., attorney general. This does not apply to private attorneys. - Exception: a mistake of law can be a defense if the law has neither been published nor reasonably available to the defendant. - D. Causation – A Two Step Process - Actual Cause or Cause in Fact - But-for test - Whether the result would have occurred but-for defendant's actions. If it were not for defendant's actions, would the result have occurred anyway? If the answer is yes, no causation. - If the result would not have occurred but for defendant's actions, there is causation because defendant's actions were the actual cause. - Substantial factors test - When there is too much causation (too many causes leading to the same result), replace the but-for test with the substantial factors test. - Were the defendants actions a substantial part in producing the intended result, regardless of if the event would have occurred anyway? - Acceleration theory - Did the defendant's actions accelerate the result? - Example: defendant is pushed from a roof and a second perpetrator shoots and kills a victim while he is already falling from his death. Second perpetrator is a cause because he accelerated the death. - Proximate Cause - If the result is reasonably foreseeable, the defendant's actions are a proximate cause. - Intervening agents who act negligently - Normal (foreseeable) agents will not break the causation chain. - Example: a defendant puts someone in the hospital who later dies from negligent medical care (assuming the result was foreseeable and normal) - Abnormal intervention is unforeseeable and will break the causation chain. - Would a reasonable person foresee the intervention occurring? If yes, the defendant is still responsible for the results occurring after the intervention. - Responding agents - If the second intervening agent is responding to the situation caused by the first actor, the causal chain is not broken, and the first actor is still responsible. - Example: defendant assaults and chases a boy into the street, and the little boy is struck by a car and killed, the causal chain is not broken because the intentional act of the boy running into the street was a response to the situation caused by the defendant. - Coincidental agents - The causal chain is broken, and the first actor will not be responsible. - Example: Assailant (someone who physically attacks another person) robs and assaults a victim and then leaves him on the sidewalk. Another person finds him on the ground and kills him, the causal chain is broken because of the coincidence of the second person's actions. ## II. Offenses - I. Intentional Murder - The unlawful killing of a human being with malice aforethought. - Malice aforethought: - The intent to kill. - The intent to cause serious bodily injury. - Reckless indifference to the value of human life. - Imputed mens rea if the death results from the commission of a felony. - A. COMMON LAW APPROACH - Implied Malice Murder - Malice – evil and wicked intent. - A killing that occurred while a person was committing a felony offense. - Death resulting from an action that displayed a depraved indifference to human life (depraved heart murder). - Malice aforethought is the mens rea. - Abandoned and malignant heart. - Express Malice Murder - An intentional killing in which the actor desired the death of the victim. - Recklessness – big R. - B. GRADING JURISDICTIONS - First Degree Murder (grading jurisdictions) - Killing with malice aforethought and with premeditation and deliberation. - Certain killings involving vulnerable people or killings committed while a defendant is in custody. - Premeditation - The defendant fully forms the specific intent to kill the victim for a time (even if for a moment) before the act. - Deliberation - The defendant reaches the decision to kill after reflecting on the nature of the act and its likely consequences (even if for a moment). The defendant weighs the pros and cons. - The time required for premeditation and deliberation - The law does not make it specific how much time is required. Some courts say even for a few seconds. - An appreciable period of time - Prior calculation and Design - The intent to commit the crime occurred prior in time to the actual execution of the crime (prior calculation). - Pursuant to some degree of planning (design). - Second Degree Murder (grading jurisdictions) - Any killing with malice aforethought that does not qualify as first-degree murder. - Defendant does not have the intent to kill but acted with reckless disregard. - C. MODEL PENAL CODE APPROACH - The unlawful killing of another human being with - Purpose - Knowledge - Recklessness with extreme indifference to the value of human life must have both. - Extreme indifference to human life. - II. Manslaughter - The unlawful killing of a human being without malice. - A. Voluntary Manslaughter - COMMON LAW APPROACH - requires that the killing arise from an adequate provocation provoking a sudden and intense emotional state. - Requirements for Provocation - Adequate provocation (can be used as a lesser charge from murder to manslaughter if the below are present) - Mutual combat - Sudden discovery of spousal adultery - Extreme assault of the defendant - Injury or serious abuse of close relative - Illegal arrest of the defendant - Words are not enough for adequate provocation. - Killing in the heat of passion. - The killing must occur during a heat of passion. - Examples include shock, rage, or fright. - Performed suddenly before reasonable opportunity for passions to cool. - Cooling off period occurs when passion has subsided allowing for deliberation or reflection. Voluntary manslaughter does not apply if reasonable person would have cooled off or if defendant has actually cooled off. - There is no fixed cooling off period. - Causal connection between provocation, passion, and killing. - MODEL PENAL CODE APPROACH - Kills a person under circumstances that would ordinarily constitute murder, but which homicide is committed as the result of extreme mental or emotional disturbance for which there is a reasonable explanation or excuse. - Extreme mental or emotional disturbance – (EMED/EED) - No adequate provocation necessary. - No specific provocative act. - No cooling off period. - Words alone are okay. - B. Involuntary manslaughter - An unintended killing by a defendant based on the defendant's unjustifiable risk-taking behavior. - Required mental state is recklessness – the defendant was aware of the risk. - A gross deviation from the standard of conduct that a law-abiding person would observe in the actor's situation. - Reasonable person would not have taken the same risk. - Example: if a food company executive knows that his peanut butter is tainted with a potentially lethal strain of salmonella but tells his subordinates to “ship it anyway,” a jury could conclude that the risk was so substantial and unjustified that the executive should be convicted of involuntary manslaughter. - C. Misdemeanor Manslaughter Rule - Permits a conviction for involuntary manslaughter if the defendant commits an underlying misdemeanor that results in death. - Underlying misdemeanor is required for mens rea. - Prosecution is not required to independently demonstrate defendant acted with recklessness. - Must have proximate cause between misdemeanor and death. - III. Negligent Homicide - An unintended killing by a defendant based on the defendant's negligence without a conscious disregard of the risk. - Ordinary negligence - The defendant's deviation was a substantial and unjustifiable risk. - Gross negligence - A gross deviation from the standard of care that a person under the same or similar circumstances would use. - Unlike manslaughter where reckless mens rea is required, mens rea of negligence is all that is needed. - A defendant's risky behavior caused the death, but the defendant did not consciously disregard the risk. - Example: Car accidents. - A deviation from the standard of care that a reasonably prudent person would use in the same or similar circumstances. - IV. Felony Murder - Allows a defendant to be convicted of a felony that results in someone's death. - Guilty of murder because he committed a triggering felony that resulted in death. - Independent felony or merger limitation - Triggering felony must be on its own apart from the resulting death or killing. The felony cannot merge into the resulting killing. - One way of determining whether the underlying felony is independent is by asking whether the felony would merge into the more serious offense of murder. In this case it would, because a perpetrator who shoots and kills someone cannot be convicted of both assault with a deadly weapon and murder. - If the perpetrator is convicted of murder, the assault charge drops because it merges into the more serious offense of murder. - Inherently dangerous felony limitation - Triggering felony must be inherently dangerous to human life. - Burglary - Arson - Robbery - Rape - Kidnapping - In furtherance of the felony limitation - Killing must be performed in furtherance of the felony. - Example: defendant escapes from police after robbing a bank and runs over an innocent bystander – the resulting death would be in furtherance of the felony. - The felony's beginning and end points. - The victim's death was set in motion by the defendant's behavior. - V. Rape - A general intent crime. - The prosecution must prove the defendant intended to engage in an act of sexual intercourse with the victim, not that the defendant intended the intercourse to be nonconsensual. - COMMON LAW APPROACH - Carnal knowledge of a woman, not the spouse of the defendant - Forcibly - Without her consent - MODEL PENAL CODE APPROACH - A male has who has sexual intercourse with a female not his wife is guilty of rape if: - He compels her to submit by force or by threat of imminent death, serious bodily injury, extreme pain, or kidnapping to be inflicted on anyone; or - He has substantially impaired her power to appraise or control her conduct by administering or employing without her knowledge, drugs, intoxicants, or other means for the purpose of preventing resistance; or - The female is unconscious; or - The female is less than 10 years old. - Force - Jurisdictions require the perpetrator accomplish the act of sexual intercourse with force or threat of physical force. - Intrinsic Force - The force required to accomplish the penetration. - Extrinsic Force - Any other force used to overcome the resistance or impose the attacker's will upon the victim. - Force is not always required. Some jurisdictions have abolished the force requirement. - Resistance - Utmost resistance at common law - Can be physical or verbal. - Threats of Force - All jurisdictions recognize threats of force as sufficient force. - Reasonable fear or apprehension regarding the victim's safety. - Non-physical threats do not constitute rape. - Reasonable apprehension – requires a subjective component and objective component. - Subjective component - a sincere fear - Objective component – the fear was objectively reasonable. - Consent - Sexual intercourse occurred without the victim's consent. - Common law - Required that the victim physically resist her attacker to manifest her lack of consent. - Modern law - Lack of consent is satisfied if the victim: - Manifests non-consent or does not manifest consent. - Non-consent can be express through physical resistance. - Verbal expression - Other conduct - Is incapacitated and therefore cannot consent. - sleeping, unconscious, or otherwise physically unable to give consent. - Lack of competence to consent. - Mental and cognitive conditions - Insane, mentally disabled, or mentally incompetent - Age - Below a certain age to give consent as a matter of law - Intoxication - A person who becomes involuntarily intoxicated is not necessarily deemed incapable of giving consent. - If intoxicated is so severe that the person is incapacitated or rendered incompetent, then the person may be incapable of giving consent. - A person incompetent by involuntary intoxication cannot give effective consent. - Victim's lack act of consent is key to a rape conviction. - Communicative act - The victim saying yes. - Most jurisdictions require - State of mind - Whether the victim wanted the encounter. - Opens up possibility for defendant to argue mistake of fact, but most jurisdictions require whether the victim consented, not if the defendant knew the state of mind of the victim. - Rape by Fraud - Fraud in the inducement - If the perpetrator deceives the victim as to whether the intercourse is actually occurring. - Example: a doctor may have intercourse with a patient and trick the patient that the intercourse is some medical procedure. - Not sufficient for rape liability. - Fraud in the factum - If the perpetrator tricks the victim into giving consent to what the victim knows to be sexual intercourse. - Example: a doctor may have intercourse with a patient and trick the patient that the intercourse is some medical procedure. - Common law: sufficient for rape liability. - Jurisdiction specific: some have expanded liability for fraud in the factum. - Statutory Rape and Lack of Capacity - Rape with a person who is below the legal age of consent. - Courts cannot rely on the nature and relationship between the parties but must whether the victim's thought process was sufficiently unencumbered to allow for meaningful consent to occur. - Romeo and Juliet Laws - Texas – It is an affirmative defense to prosecution under section 21.11 that the actor: - Was not more than three years older than the victim and of the opposite sex; - Did not use duress, force, or threat against the victim at the time of the offense; and - At the time of the offense, was not required to register as a sex offender; or - Was not a person who had a reportable conviction or adjudication for an offense under this section. - VI. Battery - A general intent crime - Defined as the harmful or offensive physical conduct with another. - Defendant must engage an in unlawful application of physical force; - Whether direct or indirect, the application of physical force must be unlawful or unjustified. - Force used for self-defense would not constitute as battery. - Resulting in either a physical injury or an offensive touching; - Bodily injury satisfies the result requirement. - Offensive touching can mean an unwanted kiss, throwing a disgusting liquid on a person's body. - Acting with purpose, knowledge, or recklessness to cause the prohibited result. - Consent can sometimes be a defense to battery. - Non-injurious and slight physical contact such as a kiss or a handshake. - Consent to medical treatment - Voluntary participation in sports where physical contact is normal and expected. Not a defense to violent acts that that exceed what is reasonable in context of the sport. - Degrees of battery - Simple battery - Aggravated battery - Aggravated assault - Felony batteries - Result in serious bodily injury - Are carried out using a deadly weapon. - Deadly weapon is an object or device that is designed to cause physical injury, such as a knife or gun. - Or any object that is used in a manner that can cause death or serious bodily injury. - Are accompanied by an especially harmful intent, such as to kill or maim. - VII. Assault - An attempted battery or intentionally placing someone in reasonable apprehension of an imminent bodily harm or offensive contact. - Any action other than words alone, that threaten to injure the victim. - Attempted battery - A substantial step toward completion of battery on another with the specific intent to commit the battery. - Reasonable apprehension/fear - Defendant acts with the specific intent to place the victim in reasonable apprehension of bodily harm or offensive physical contact. - Requires specific intent to cause the victim to apprehend an imminent battery. Does not require an intent to carry out the battery. - Must be reasonable fear/apprehension- unreasonable fears will not suffice to prove assault. - Example: a man and roommate drinking in a bar. Man raised beer at roommate who is abnormally jumpy and believed man was raising glass of beer to strike the roommate. - Reasonable person would not have seen the man's actions as imminent battery, so no charge for assaulting roommate. - VIII. Kidnapping - The unlawful confinement and movement of a victim by threat or use of force or by deception. - Minority of jurisdictions: specific intent crime - Majority of jurisdictions: general intent crime - Confinement - Restricting the victim's freedom of movement in all directions so the defendant is unable to leave a specific location of the perpetrator's choosing and usually unable to interact with the rest of society. Must be more than incidental to some other crime. - (or, in some jurisdictions) Movement - Asportation - The slightest movement of a victim by the perpetrator as long as the movement was not integral to the commission of another crime. - Example: forceable removal of a victim from a seat of a car to the sidewalk might not count as asportation because that is an integral element of carjacking. - The duration of the movement. - Whether the movement occurred during the commission of a separate offense. - Whether such movement was an inherent part of that separate offense. - Whether the movement itself presented a significant danger to the victim independent of the danger posed by the separate offense. - Threat or use of force - Deception - IX. Property Crimes - A. Larceny - The trespassory taking or carrying away of the personal property of another with the intent to deprive the owner permanently of the property. - Trespassory takings - Taking occurs if the defendant exercises control over the property. - Trespassory if the defendant takes the control without the owner's consent. - Takes place when a defendant takes property from a person who has a superior right of possession over the property. - Right of possession is the right to exercise dominion and control over the property. - Carrying away - Requires that the defendant carry the property away. Even the slightest movement of property will suffice, so as long as every portion of the property has moved. - If the item was not moved, defendant cannot be convicted of larceny. - Of the personal property of another - The material taken must constitute private property. - Intellectual property, patents, copyrighted material, etc. are considered property as well. - Not required that the victim has an absolute right to the property that is stolen. Some possessory interest is enough. - Example: A thief steals someone's property, the first thief has the property stolen from the second thief. The second thief is guilty even though the first thief did not own the property. - With the intent to deprive the owner permanently of the property - Perpetrator must act with the intent to deprive the victim of their enjoyment of the property. - If the perpetrator borrows the victim's car with the intent to return the next day, perpetrator has not stolen the car. - The defendant's awareness of the victim's ownership status is important to consider. - A defense: - The perpetrator was unaware of the property or service was that of another. - Acted under an honest claim of right to the property or service. - He had a right to acquire or dispose of it as he did. - B. Larceny by trick - Taking possession of the property of another by knowingly making false representations as to material facts or making false promises with the intent to defraud and permanently deprive the owner of their property. - Example: Sammy Sneaky buys himself an official looking polo reading “valet” and stands outside a parking lot before an Astros Game. Vickie Victim is running late to the game and gives Sammy her keys to valet her car. Sammy steals the car. - C. False pretenses - The obtaining title to property of another through a knowing misrepresentation of a past or present material fact with the intent to defraud. - Example: Nancy Nonprofit claims to be raising funds for crime victims. Danny Dogooder gives a $50,000 necklace to Nancy to auction off for the charity. The charity never existed in reality, and Nancy takes the money and necklace and goes on vacation. - D. Extortion and blackmail - The obtaining or attempting to obtain property or some other pecuniary benefit by threatening the victim with some future harm. - Financial harm - Reputational harm, revealing a secret, true fact about the victim that would expose the victim to shame or contempt. - Legal harm, such as accusing (falsely or not) the victim of committing a crime. - E. Embezzlement - The unlawful conversion or misappropriation of the tangible personal property of another by one who is already in lawful possession of that property with the intent to permanently deprive. - The victim consents to the transfer of the property to the actor for a particular use, but that condition is violated by the actor. - F. Robbery - Taking property from the person or presence of another by force or intimidation at the time of the taking. - G. Burglary - COMMON LAW APPROACH - The unlawful breaking or entering of a dwelling, at night, with the intent to commit a felony in the dwelling. - MODEL PENAL CODE APPROACH - No breaking and entering together requirement – only entering – at night and dwelling of another enhances punishment but is not required proof to establish burglary – with the purpose to commit a crime therein. - H. Arson - COMMON LAW APPROACH - The burning a dwelling of another with malice (intent or extreme recklessness). - MODEL PENAL CODE APPROACH - Starting a fire or causing an explosion to a building occupied structure with the purpose to destroy. ## III. Inchoate Offenses - I. Attempt – Focus on Actus Reus – Only requires one person – a specific intent crime - A criminal need not commit a crime to be convicted. - Complete attempt: Defendant takes the last step necessary to commit a crime but still fails, law calls that a complete attempt. - Incomplete attempt: Defendant starts the crime but is caught by police before he can finish the effort. - A. Requirements for a punishable attempt: - Defendant has the specific intent or purpose to bring about the crime. - The defendant must engage in the conduct and must intend to bring about the crime. - Heightened mens rea is thought to compensate or balance the lower act requirement. - Justification: Harm associated with the crime never materializes because it is only an attempt and not a completed offense. - MPC (applies only to conduct and not result): A defendant must purposely engage in conduct that would constitute the crime. - MPC (applies only to conduct and result): When a particular result is an element, the MPC requires that the defendant act with the purpose of causing or with the belief that he will cause such result. - For attendant circumstances, defendant only needs to act with the culpability otherwise required for commission of the crime. - He takes sufficient steps toward committing the crime to satisfy the jurisdiction's actus reus test. - Dangerous proximity test - asks whether the defendant was dangerously close to consummating the offense – proximity being a causal concept and not a geographic/location concept. - Unequivocality test - whether the defendant’s conduct unequivocally demonstrates the defendant's intent to commit the crime – an actus reus requirement that loops back and refers to the mental element. - MPC substantial step test - requires that the defendant engage in a substantial step in the course of conduct planned to culminate in his commission of the crime. - A person is guilty of attempt to commit a crime if, acting with the kind of culpability otherwise required for commission of crime, he - Purposefully engages in conduct which would constitute the crime if the attendant circumstances were as he believes them to be; or - When causing a particular result of the crime, does or omits to do anything with the purpose of causing or with the belief that it will cause such result, without further conduct on his part; or - Purposely does or omits to do anything which, under the circumstances as he believes them to be, is a substantial step in a course of conduct planned to culminate in his commission of the crime. - C. Defenses may apply if: The crime is impossible to complete OR - Factual impossibility: occurs when the objective of the defendant is proscribed by the criminal law but a circumstance unknown to the actor prevents him from bringing about that objective. - usually not a defense because involves a factual element that prevented the defendant from completing the crime. Pick pocket – there was nothing in the pocket. - Factual impossibility is usually not a defense because it simply involves a factual element that prevented the defendant from completing the crime. So, if the perpetrator pulls the trigger but his gun jams, he is still guilty of attempted murder even though it was factually impossible to achieve the desired result. - Legal impossibility: sometimes considered a defense and sometimes isn't. - Pure legal impossibility: where the defendant thinks his conduct is illegal but isn't. - If the defendant walks in a public park at 10:00 p.m. after what he believes to be the curfew, he cannot be convicted of attempted trespassing if the curfew is really 11:00 p.m. - Hybrid legal impossibility: If the defendant's goal was illegal but commission of the offense was impossible due to a factual mistake by regarding the legal status of some factor relevant to conduct. Hybrid because it includes a legal and factual aspect. - Has largely been abandoned by jurisdictions. - Modern approach is to disallow impossibility defenses unless they are pure legal possibility. - MODEL PENAL CODE APPROACH: actor is guilty of attempt if he purposely engages in conduct which would constitute the crime if the attendant circumstances were as he believes them to be. - The defendant abandoned the effort. - Applies if the perpetrator voluntarily and completely renounced his criminal purpose. - Must be voluntary and not out of fear of apprehension. - Example: If perpetrator abandons a robbery after the victim fights back or because police are responding, he cannot claim abandonment. He was motivated by fear of apprehension by law enforcement SO will not be voluntary abandonment. - Result of repentance or genuine change of heart cannot use as a defense. - Not when need something to commit the crime but stopped. - Circumstances that increase possibility of getting caught. - Remorse is not abandonment. - Attempts always merge into their completed offenses. - Once a crime is brought to fruition, the attempt legally disappears, and the actor can no longer be convicted for both the attempt and the completed offense. - MODEL PENAL CODE APPROACH – applies only to conduct and result elements. - A defendant must purposely engage in conduct that would constitute the crime. - When a particular result is an element, the MPC requires that the defendant act with the purpose of causing or with the belief that he will cause such result. - II. Conspiracy - An agreement, express or implied, between two or more individuals to commit a criminal act or series of criminal acts. - One agreement = one conspiracy - Will be factually rich cases that required inferences. - Common law – at least two people to commit the underlying act. Majority approach. - MPC – at least one person to commit the underlying act. Minority approach. - A. Elements include: - Agreement to commit a crime. - The signature element of the crime of conspiracy. - Once the agreement is formed, the conspiracy has been committed. - The agreement itself is the criminal act of the offense. - Specific intent or purpose to achieve the goal or object of the conspiracy. - MODEL PENAL CODE APPROACH: The purpose of promoting or facilitating its commission. - Often inferred based on the relevant facts and his behavior. - Overt act in furtherance of the conspiracy. - Mere bad thoughts are not penalized. - No requirement in drug conspiracy cases, money laundering cases, or price-fixing conspiracies or first and second degree felonies. - The defendant need not commit the act. It is enough for one member of the conspiracy to commit the act. - Renunciation - Liability is not extinguished when a defendant stops pursuing the objective. - The defendant must fully renounce the conspiracy under circumstances manifesting a complete and voluntary renunciation of his criminal purpose. - Means either contacting the police or otherwise depriving the conspiracy of its effectiveness. - Some jurisdictions require only reasonable efforts. - Federal courts refuse to recognize the defense entirely. - Merger - Conspiracy does not merge with the completed offense. - Liability for conspiracy does not disappear once conspiracy is successfully completed. - MODEL PENAL CODE APPROACH: Actor cannot be convicted of more than one offense if one offense consists of a conspiracy or other form of preparation to commit the other. - B. Conspiracy Liability - Pinkerton Doctrine - Liability does attach if the co-conspirator committed a crime that was reasonably foreseeable to the defendant. - Conspirators are liable for crimes that: - Form part of the conspiratorial agreement (fall within the scope of the prior agreement.) - Stray beyond the conspiratorial agreement but were nonetheless a reasonably foreseeable consequence of that agreement. (outside of the scope of the agreement) - Scope of the Conspiracy - Overlapping conspiracies - Chain Conspiracy - If the distribution consists of an overlapping connection of smaller conspiracies, a defendant is only liable for the crimes committed by co-conspirators. - Wheel Conspiracy - If the court defines the distribution ring as composed of a single, large conspiracy, the defendant is responsible for all of it. - III. Solicitation - Enticing, advising, inciting inducing, urging, or otherwise encouraging another to commit a target offense. - The specific intent or purpose to ask and actually commit a crime. - Completed once the verbal request is made. - Jokes, half-hearted suggestions, or insincere requests are not sufficient because the defendant does not truly desire that the other individual commit the crime. - Does not require an overt act. - Focuses on the actus reus and mens rea alone. - Merger - Merges into the completed offense. - Solicitation is based on the asking while conspiracy is based on the agreement. - MPC - Completely and voluntarily renounces criminal intent. - Persuades or prevents the other party from committing the offense. - Knowledge plus some benefit is requisite mens rea for purpose. - MPC says failed communication is solicitation. - Common law says that failed communication is not solicitation. - Requests for assistance by defendant are not solicitation under common law. - MPC says that specific conduct for requests could be solicitation. - The act of solicitation by itself does not equal an attempt-MPC and common law. - IV. Accomplices - COMMON LAW APPROACH - Principals - First degree principals: physically performed the actus reus of the crime. - Second degree principals: intentionally assisted – were simply present at the scene and aiding and abetting the fact to be done. - Presence could be literal or constructive. - Literal – at the scene. - Constructive – were distant from the scene but constructively present due to their importance in the scheme. During the commission of a crime. - Accessories - Before the fact: were distant from the scene of the crime but still concerned in the commission prior to the act. - After the fact: aided after the crime's commission, such as help disposing the body or evading capture and detection. - Cannot be tried before principal. - Cannot be convicted if principal isn't convicted. - Cannot be convicted of higher degree of crime than principal. - MODERN LAW APPROACH - Principals - The person who possesses the required mens rea and commits the actus reus of the offense. The person who directly commits the crime. - Accomplices - The person who knowingly provides aid, assistance, or encouragement to the principal, with the specific intent that the principal successes in committing the crime, typically