PS232 Criminal Law Exam 2 Study Guide PDF

PS232: Criminal Law Examination 2 Study Guide Chapter 7: Homicide Justifiable homicide: (1) homicide that is permitted under the law (2) a killing justified for the good of society (3) the killing of another is self-defense when danger of death or...

PS232: Criminal Law Examination 2 Study Guide Chapter 7: Homicide Justifiable homicide: (1) homicide that is permitted under the law (2) a killing justified for the good of society (3) the killing of another is self-defense when danger of death or serious bodily harm exists (4) the killing of a person according to one’s duties or out of necessity but without blame Excusable homicide: a killing conducted in a manner that the criminal law does not prohibit, also a killing that may involve some fault but is not criminal homicide Criminal homicide: refers only to those homicides to which criminal liability may attach, any homicide that is not classified as justifiable or excusable may be considered criminal Defining death: cessation of all vital functions, cessation of respiration, cessation of circulation, and impossibility of resuscitation Year and a day rule: no defendant can be convicted of murder unless the victim dies by the defendant’s act within a year and a day of the act, if the death does not occur within this period, the law will conclusively presume that the death is the result if intervening causes Malice aforethought: the intention to kill or harm, which is held to distinguish unlawful killing from murder, (1) the conscious intent to cause death or great bodily harm to another person before a person commits the crime, such malice is a required element to prove first degree murder, (2) a general evil and depraved state of mind in which the person is unconcerned for the lives Elements of murder: mens rea- the intent to kill or cause grievous bodily harm, actus reus- the physical act of killing another person, concurrence- the act and intent must occur together, causation- there must be a direct link between the accused’s act and the victim’s death, harm- the victim must be harmed Model penal code and murder: the MPC defines murder as causing the death of another human being purposely, knowingly, or with extreme recklessness Degrees of murder: first degree murder is a willful, deliberate, and premeditated unlawful killing, second degree murder depending on the jurisdiction, either (1) a murder committed during the perpetration or attempted perpetration of an enumerated felony, such as arson, rape, robbery, or burglary, or (2) any murder not classified by statute as first degree murder, where third degree murders are found, they are usually (1) murders that are committed willfully and deliberately are premeditated, (2) murders committed during the perpetration or attempted perpetration of an enumerated felony, such as arson, rape, robbery, or burglary, and (3) all other types of murder Felony murder: anyone who is accused of committing a violent felony to be charged with murder if the commission of that felony results in the death of someone M.P.C. and felony murder: the MPC does not include the felony murder rule, but it does allow for a presumption of extreme indifference to human life when a felony is committed, this presumption can be used to charge someone with felony murder  Voluntary manslaughter: an unlawful killing of a human being, without malice, that is done intentionally during a sudden quarrel or in the heat of passion, also a killing committed without lawful justification, wherein the defendant acted under a sudden and intense passion resulting from adequate provocation Involuntary manslaughter: an unintentional killing for which criminal liability is imposed but that does not constitute murder, also the unintentional killing of a person during the commision of a lesser unlawful act, or the killing of someone during the commision of a lawful act, which nevertheless results in an unlawful death Negligent manslaughter: the killing of another person through gross negligence Simple negligence vs. gross negligence vs. recklessness: simple- a failure to exercise the level of caution that a reasonable person would in a similar situation, gross- a more extreme type of negligence that involves a conscious disregard for the safety or lives of others, considered more harmful that ordinary negligence, recklessness- a reckless person knows that an act has a high chance of harming others, but disregards that danger and commits the act anyway What counts as “adequate provocation”?: something needs to be seen for a voluntary manslaughter charge, such as seeing your spouse cheating on you. There cannot be a cooling off period, must be “heat of passion” People v. McCarthy (1989) - pg. 249 in book Commonwealth v. Schnopps Vacco v. Quill (1997) Chapters 5-6: Defenses to Crimes (Chapters 5-7) Justifications vs. Excuses ○ Justification: defendant admits they did the crime but argues that they did it for the right reasons ○ Excuses: defendant admits the deed was wrong but argues that they are not criminally responsible due to a condition Affirmative defenses: an answer to a criminal charge in which a defendant takes the offensive and responds to the allegations with his or her own assertions based on legal principles, affirmative defenses must be raised and supported by the defendant independently of any claims made by the prosecutor, affirmative defenses include justifications and excuses Self-defense: a defense to a criminal charge that is based on the recognition that a person has an inherent right to self-protection and that to reasonably defend oneself from lawful attack is a natural response to threatening situations Elements of self-defense: ○ The defendant is the victim of an unlawful act (triggering condition) ○ The defendant did not provoke the attack ○ The defendant actually and reasonably believes that he/she is in imminent danger of bodily harm ○ The defendant only uses the amount of force needed to repel the attack ○ The defendant has taken all reasonable measures to retreat  Changes in self-defense law, started by Florida ○ Florida came out with a “Stand Your Ground” law which allows people to use deadly force in certain situations to defend themselves against violent crimes. This removed the “Duty to Retreat” law in many states, where if the victim is able to retreat, they should, but if they can’t, they can defend themselves. Public duty: A defense to a criminal charge, such as assault, that is often codified and precludes the possibility of police officers and other public employees from being prosecuted when lawfully exercising their authority Necessity: a defense to a criminal charge that claims that it was necessary to commit some unlawful act in order to prevent or avoid a greater harm Consent: a justification, offered as a defense to a criminal charge, claiming that the person suffering an injury either agreed to sustain the injury or before the activity was undertaken U.S. v. Thomas (1994) - pg. 149 Duress – justification or excuse? Why? ○ Duress is a condition under which one is forced to act against one’s will. It is an excuse rather than a justification because it excuses a person from criminal liability as it is reasonable for the person who committed the crime to have succumbed to the threat or coercion that was the cause of the criminal act. Voluntary vs. involuntary intoxication ○ Voluntary intoxication: the individual willingly participated in ingesting substances to make them intoxicated ○ Involuntary intoxication: the individual did not voluntarily participate in ingested substances (being drugged, forced to ingest alcohol) Mistake of fact: misinterpretation, misunderstanding, or forgetfulness of a fact relating to the situation at hand; belief in the existence of a thing or condition that does not exists Mistake of law: a misunderstanding or misinterpretation of the law relevant to the situation at hand Age: A defense that makes the claim that certain individuals should not be held criminally responsible for their activities by virtue of youth (juvenile delinquency proceedings) Entrapment: an improper or illegal inducement to crime by enforcement agents, also a defense that may be raised when such inducements occur Subjective vs. objective test for entrapment: subjective- focuses on the defendant’s predisposition to commit the crime and whether law enforcement pressured the defendant against their will, the defendant’s criminal record is admissible to prove their predisposition, objective- a legal standard that focuses on the actions of law enforcement rather than the defendant’s predisposition to commit a crime (burden of proof) Jacobson v. United States (1992) - child porngraphy Montana v. Egelhoff (1996) People v. Tolbert (1996) Madera v. State (2006) U.S. v. Calley (1975)  State v. Toscano (1977) - duress -pg. 172 Syndrome-based defense enhancements What are syndromes and what kind of defense do they provide? A syndrome is a collection of symptoms that appear together, often signifying a particular medical or psychological condition, a “syndrome defense” is used when a defendant argues that their actions were influenced by a recognized psychological syndrome, such as battered woman syndrome, which can mitigate their culpability Problems with syndrome-based defense enhancements Competency to stand trial: a finding by a court that the defendant has sufficient present ability to consult with his lawyer with a reasonable degree of rational understanding and that the defendant has a rational as well as factual understanding of the proceeding against him or her Misperceptions of the insanity defense Insanity as a legal and social concept: the insanity defense refers to a defense that a defendant can plead in a criminal trial, the defendant admits the action but asserts a lack of culpability based on mental illness, it is classified as an affirmative defense, rather than a partial defense M'Naghten Rule: a rule for determining insanity that asks whether the defendant knew what he or she was doing or whether the defendant knew that what he or she was doing was wrong Irresistible impulse test: a test for insanity that evaluates defense claims that at the time the crime was committed, a mental disease or disorder prevented the defendant from controlling his or her behavior in keeping with the requirements of the law Durham (product) rule: a rule for determining insanity that holds that an accused is not criminally responsible if his or her unlawful act was the product of mental disease or mental defect Importance of John Hinckley: Wreaking havoc on the criminal justice system. He was the one that shot Regan (the president) Hinckley didn’t even go to jail because of insanity. Guilty but mentally ill (GBMI) - they go to prison but guaranteed mental health treatment NGRI vs. GBMI: Not Guilty by Reason of Insanity (NGRI) and Guilty but Mentally Ill (GBMI). They are both legal terms that relate to a defendant's mental state at the time of a crime M.P.C. – Substantial capacity test: a rule in criminal law that says a person is not responsible for a crime if they have a mental illness that makes it hard for them to understand that what they did was wrong or to follow the law Consequences of insanity defense: a test developed by the American Law Institute and embodied in the MPC that holds that “a person is not responsible for criminal conduct if at the time of such conduct as a result of mental disease or defect he lacks substantial capacity either appreciate the criminality (wrongfulness) of his conduct or to conform his conduct to the requirements of the law Diminished capacity defense: a defense based on claims of a mental condition that may be insufficient to exonerate a defendant of guilt but that may be relevant to specific  mental elements of certain crimes or degrees of crime, also called diminished responsibility Miller v. State (1996) and temporary insanity: the prosecution mentions to the jury that there is no temporary insanity in that state but the Court said it doesn’t matter. In order to claim insanity, it has to be the defendant’s mental state at the time of the crime, temporary insanity doesn’t matter Cooper v. Oklahoma (1996): States must let criminal defendants avoid trials if it is more likely than not that they are incompetent The Dusky rule - defines the criteria for determining whether a defendant is competent to stand trial. Which means the person must be able to rationally understand the proceedings against them and consult with their lawyer with a reasonable degree of rationale. Can you distinguish incompetency to stand trial from insanity at the time a crime is committed? If the defendant is considered incompetent, there is no trial, and no conviction. The insanity defense has nothing to do with a defendant's current mental status. To be found not guilty by reason of insanity, a judge or jury must evaluate the defendant's state of mind at the time of the offense. People v. Unger (1977) Chapter 4: Inchoate Crimes Why is it necessary that an offender take a “substantial step” toward the commission of a crime? It is necessary to require a "substantial step" before plans become a criminal attempt because a criminal conviction typically involves an actual intent. Just thinking about a crime would not qualify as a criminal act, it’s only a thought. A substantial step would show an actual intent to commit the crime and would allow for a possible conviction. Why are courts hesitant to punish a person for “evil thoughts” alone? Courts are hesitant to punish a person for "evil thoughts" alone because for the simple reason that they are just thoughts. Just because a person has evil thoughts it doesn’t give the courts a right to punish them for those evil thoughts. We all have thought about something evil and never acted on that thought. Do we deserve to be punished just because we thought about it, no because we did not act upon that thought we had. Attempt - Elements of attempt include: Specific intent: Must act purposely. All inchoate crimes are specific intent crimes. One cannot commit criminal attempt recklessly, negligently, or with strict liability ○ An overt act toward commision: Not “mere preparation” for a crime ○ Failure to consummate the crime: why did the crime fail? ○ Legal Impossibility: Occurs when the actions which the defendant performs would not constitute the a crime ○ Factual Impossibility: A defense that some extraneous factor or outside force made it impossible to complete the crime (not a good defense) Solicitation: the encouraging, requesting, or commanding of another person to commit a crime  Conspiracy: an agreement between two or more people to commit or to effect the commission of an unlawful act or to use unlawful means to accomplish an act that is not lawful Merging of inchoate crimes: if a suspect is charged with committing a specific crime, they cannot also be charged with attempt and solicitation of that same crime MPC’s definition of inchoate crimes: a substantial step taken toward committing a crime, with the intent to commit that crime, the MPC substantial step test has two parts; (1) the defendant must take substantial steps toward completing the crime and (2) the defendant’s actions must be strongly corroborative of their criminal purpose Defining “overt act”: an action which might be innocent itself but if part of the preparation and active furtherance of a crime, can be introduced as evidence of a defendant’s participation in a crime (an act done openly and from which the criminal intention of the act is clear) Pinkerton Rule: a doctrine holding that all conspirators are liable for the acts of co-conspirators that are taken in furtherance of the conspiracy Wharton’s Rule: a rule applicable to conspiracy cases holding that an agreement by two persons to commit a particular crime cannot be prosecuted as a conspiracy when the crime is of such a nature as to necessarily require the participation of two persons ****Tennessee v. Reeves (1996): two middle school girls, Tracie Reeves and Molly Coffman, plotted to kill their teacher with rat poison, but they got caught before they could execute it. The court ultimately ruled that their actions constituted attempted murder, establishing that a "substantial step" (MPC) towards committing a crime, even if not fully carried out, can be considered an attempt under Tennessee law. They were found guilty of attempted 2nd degree murder. Lawyer argued that there were more steps needed to be taken to actually put the rat poison in the drink. Plurality requirement – conspiracy: if one of the parties did not actually enter into an agreement, both “conspirators” must be acquitted because there could not have been an agreement without the agreement and consent of both parties (a conspiracy must involve two or more people) Unilateral vs. bilateral rule for conspiracy: Unilateral rule: In a conspiracy there’s at least one individual with criminal intent. Bilateral rule: At least two guilty persons are required Wheel vs. chain conspiracies: Wheel- involves one individual, or a small group of individuals, conducting illegal transactions with various other co-conspirators (spokes) chain- refers to several conspirators participating in a single conspiracy, each conspirator is responsible for a single act and has a different role in the overall crime or conspiracy (the sale of narcotics) Duration of a conspiracy: in the U.S. the general statute of limitations for conspiracy is five years, however, some conspiracy statutes have their own limitations Pinkerton v. U.S. (1946): Brothers Walter and Daniel Pinkerton were charged with violating the Internal Revenue Code by illegally selling whiskey; while Walter committed the substantive crimes, Daniel was only involved in the conspiracy. Parties to Crime: Accomplice and accessory liability - an accomplice is typically present at the scene when a crime is committed and an accessory is not  Misprision of felony: a crime that occurs when someone knows about a felony but doesn’t report it to the authorities Vicarious liability: the criminal liability of one party for the criminal acts of another party Defenses to inchoate crimes ○ Abandonment: The defendant can argue that they completely and voluntarily stopped all actions in furtherance of the crime. This includes reporting the crime to the police or other authorities, or trying to convince co-conspirators to stop ○ Legal impossibility: The defendant can argue that what they were charged with intending to do is not actually a crime. For example, if someone attempts to purchase marijuana in Colorado, but doesn't know that it's legal there, they can't be charged with attempting to purchase an illegal substance ○ Factual impossibility: The defendant can argue that circumstances made it impossible to complete the crime. For example, if someone intends to commit arson but the building is demolished the next day, they can argue factual impossibility ○ Entrapment: The defendant can argue that a law enforcement officer coerced them to commit a crime they had no prior knowledge of or intent to commit ○ Voluntary and complete renunciation of criminal intent: The defendant can argue that they voluntarily and completely renounced their criminal intent ○ Belief that circumstances increase the probability of detection or apprehension: The defendant can argue that they believed circumstances increased the probability of detection or apprehension ○ Decision to postpone criminal conduct ○ Feigned agreement: The defendant can argue that the agreement made to commit a crime was fake “Accused: Guilty or Innocent” - Bryan Steven Lawson shot his wife, Chandra Lawson, and was charged with 1st degree murder and reckless endangerment - On bail for 250,000, doesn’t have a life sentence - Abusive relationship, defense is arguing self-defense - During an argument, his wife hit him continuously and almost hit him with a baseball bat - Almost every time they had an argument she would hit and punch him in the throat, and used a baseball bat around 10 or 15 times - Together for 10 years and she abused on him the whole time; threatened him with death multiple times - Wife had a 12 gauge hanging on the wall in their room, pistol behind their couch - He maintained that he shot her but there was a reason why he shot her - One time he threatened to leave but she put a pistol in her mouth and said she would kill herself - Wife was addicted to fentanyl (Substance abuse and bipolar condition) - Bryan has to tell the jury why they had a security system in apartment (got the cameras for safety) - Retrieved pistol in pocket to defend him and sons life  - He got addicted to drugs after having to take strong medicine because of procedures done on his foot, stopped using drugs after he had kids - Chandra had a son, Liam, from a previous relationship who he loved since he met him - 8:07 tells him she wants to bash his brains in and have his mother clean it up and says she’ll kill her and their son after - Says no one is entering the door without dying - Retrieved pistol from behind the couch around 8:31 to protect him and their son (didn’t want his son’s life in danger) - Shot Chandra while she was hitting him - Said he regrets doing it and he didn’t want to kill her. If there was another way to save his and his sons life he would’ve done it - A friend of the couple called the police 5 hours after he was arrested and said Chandra and Bryan’s son was his; Bryan was not Brayden’s biological father - Court issued a “No Contact” order before and during Bryan’s trial so he can’t see Brayden - Offered him a plea deal for voluntary manslaughter, he would serve 15 years and only be in prison for around 20% of the term. He would serve around 3 years and then be offered parole - Doesn’t know what he wants to do because of Brayden - This is a good self defense case - He plead guilty and took the plea deal to protect his son and family 40 multiple choice 2 questions worth 10 points each Incompetency is your mental state the trial is about to start Insanity is about mental state at the time of the crime Miller v. state - the prosecution mention to jury that there is no temporary insanity in that state Ones chapter 5 and ones chapter 4 Videos: 3 categories of murder - Murder - Involuntary manslaughter - Voluntary manslaughter (people vs. mccarthy)