c




 
 

 
Theories of Punishment: Incapacitation (cannot commit further crimes if imprisoned); Special Deterrence (thief);
General Deterrence (society); retribution (vent society͛s sense of outrage/need for revenge); Rehabilitation (conform
criminal behavior to societal norms); Education (society of what is right/wrong)
Merger: CL: misdemeanor½ felony; no merger of offenses of the same degree
Modern Times: Generally, no merger except: solicitation/attempt½completed crime and lesser included
offenses into greater offenses
Elements of a Crime: actus reus, mens rea, both at the same time, harmful result, but-for cause


 must be a voluntary act (conscious exercise of will) or an act of omission(failure to act/negative act)
Rationale: involuntary acts are not deterred by punishment
½p Got a product of actor͛s determination(a pushed b into c, b not at fault)
½p Reflexive or convulsive acts (epilepsy does not count)
½p ^hile unconscious or asleep (unless actor brings about the involuntary behavior through voluntary actions)
Martin v. State: Martin was taken from his home onto a public highway and charged with public drunkenness. Case was
dismissed because act means voluntary act, and Martin did not voluntarily go into the public.
State v. Utter: ͞Dad, don͛t͟ Father killed his son while drunk and claimed there was no act on his part b/c he was
unconscious. Court determined that because he voluntarily got drunk and brought about the state in which he killed his
son, there was not defense.
Omission: Generally, not legally bound to act but three requirements for when person is legally bound
1. Legal Duty to Act created by: statute, assumed contractual duty, relationship, voluntary assumption of care,
so secluding the person so as to prevent others from aiding them(Jones v. United States) May also be a duty if
person created the risk of harm(creation of peril)
2. Knowledge of facts giving rise to a duty½ has to be aware that there is a need for action (i.e. has to know that
kid is drowning)
3. Reasonably possible to perform: no legal duty to perform if doing do would put own life at risk
eople v. Beardsley: Husband got drunk with another woman while his wife was away and woman took drugs on top of
her drinking that caused her to pass out and ultimately die. Man passed off the woman to another to take care of her
and was charged with her murder. Court determined that he had no legal duty to the woman relating it to two friends
getting drunk; not like if she had been his wife or child.
 Rationale: Omissions: More difficult to assess why someone refrained from acting; where do you draw the line
in requiring people to act; well-meaning bystanders can make problems worse by ͞helping͟; hinders freedom by forcing
ppl to act(American law is about prevention and not about compelling good Samaritan-ism)
Barber v. Supreme Court: A doctor who stops giving treatment upon request by family is accused of murder and
conspiracy. Main question was whether there was a duty to act. In this case treatment was ineffective b/c patient will
never recover substantial brain function. The court says the physician has no duty to act once the treatment is found to
be ͞disproportionate͟ (treatment shown to be ineffective)
 guilty mind; a guilty or wrongful purpose; a criminal intent
Specific Intent: where the definition of the crime requires doing of the act w/a specific intent or objective
½p Prosecution must prove existence of that particular intent to prove guilt of that crime
½p Malice crimes are not crimes of specific intent that are open to specific intent defenses
General Intent: awareness of all the factors constituting the crime( ȴ needs not be certain, simply aware of high
likelihood that factors exist (can be inferred from the act)
Transferred Intent: If ȴ intended harmful result to a particular person or object and in trying to carry it out, caused a
similar result to another person or object, intent will be transferred from intended person to one actually harmed
(generally applies to crimes like homicide, battery, arson, etc. but not to attempt)
eople v. Conley: High school kids having a party, one group approached the other and demanded beer, they said no;
Conley attempted to swing wine bottle at head, hit another kid in the face, causing him to fall to the ground. Aggravated
assault, intent to hit kid 1 transferred to kid 2; intent to purposefully/knowingly cause great bodily harm/permanent
injury was inferred from the surrounding circumstances, wine bottle, no warning, and force of the blow
Culpability/MPC:
Intentionally: At CL, basically the equivalent of MPC ͞purposely͟ and ͞knowingly͟ in one.
Purposely: it͛s their conscious object to do the conduct or cause the result.
 Knowingly: aware that the result is ͞practically certain͟ to follow. (Encompasses idea of willful blindness)
Recklessly: consciously disregard a substantial and unjustifiable risk.
Gegligently: should be aware of a substantial and unjustifiable risk. There is no subjective fault. (Violation of
statute or ordinance may be evidence of negligence)
State v. Nations: ȴ hires a girl who is underage to dance and charged w/child endangerment; requires knowingly under
Missouri law which doesn͛t encompass willful blindness unlike MPC:acquitted b/c did not actually know; only acted
recklessly
United States v. Morris: found guilty of fraud and abuse act for accessing government computers and causing them to
crash/freeze. Statute punished all who intentionally access govt. computers and damages them; looked to procedural
history to uncover the meaning of ͞intentionally͟ ʹstill found guilty
Morisette v. United States: repurposed bomb casings and sold them; accused of stealing them based on statute, claiming
it did not have specific intent requirement like CL larceny; court found, absent contrary indication, CL source of law
would be followed as to the requisite intent of the statute
Strict Liability: ones that don͛t require awareness of all of the factors constituting the crime. Mistake of fact is not
available defense.
Garnett v. State: Garnett was young retarded man who was 20 and convinced by his 13yo old friend (who claimed to be
16) to go up to her room and then they had sex; convicted of statutory rape b/c strict liability; Some states allow mistake
of fact defense statutorily, otherwise not normally available for strict liability crimes
Mistake/Ignorance of Fact: affects criminal guilt only if it shows that the ȴ did not have the requisite intent for the crime
½p Reasonability: malice, general intent crimes: has to a mistake a reasonable person would have made under the
circumstances
½p Specific Intent Crimes: any mistake of fact negates the crime(reasonable or not) if it negates the specific intent
of the crime
eople v. Navarro: took four wooden beams under the belief that they had been abandoned as worthless and owner
would not mind if he took them; acquitted b/c his belief negated the specific intent to permanently deprive the owner
of the boards as required by the law(statute did not require reasonability of his belief)
State v. Blurton: Blurton was convinced that he was an agent in an undercover operation that required taking some stuff
from ^almart but told it would be returned; participated and acquitted b/c did not have the specific intent to
permanently deprive ^almart of its goods
Moral v. Legal ^rong:
½p Moral ^rong: Regina v. Prince: guy took unmarried 14 yo girl thinking she was 18: even if mistake of fact is
reasonable, intentional commission of immoral act is sufficient for requisite blameworthiness to justify
conviction [contrary to the rule of natural justice]
½p Legal ^rong: ȴ͛s conduct, based on the facts as he believes then to be, constitutes a crime, may be convicted of
more serious crime than one actually committed
Mistake/Ignorance of Law: Generally, not a defense that unaware of the law. [May negate if mental state required
certain belief as to some collateral aspect of the law]
eople v. Marrero: arrested for possession of an unlicensed firearm in a G club in violation of G penal code. Claimed
he thought his interpretation of the law was correct; court claimed ignorance of the law was no excuse
Exceptions:
½p law/statute prohibiting the conduct was not published or made reasonably available prior to the conduct
?ambert v. CA: on trial for failing to register as a convicted person; won b/c there was no due process of law as she had
no prior notice of the statute
½p reasonable reliance on statute of judicial decision(even if later over-ruled/deemed unconstitutional)
½p reasonable reliance on official interpretation: officials include those charged by the law to interpret, administer,
enforce the law [not defense at CL]
½p reasonable reliance on advice or private counsel: not a defense but may negate a mental element like
knowingly/purposefully violating the law
· 


Murder: Unlawful killing of another w/malice aforethought; malice can be express or implied (no degrees at CL)
½p Malice Aforethought: CL: (1) the intent to kill, (2) intent to cause grave bodily harm, (3) recklessness (depraved
heart), or (4) the intent to commit a felony (felony-murder rule).
 ½p Deadly ^eapon: implies an intent to kill and includes any instrument or part of the body used in a manner
calculated or likely to produce death or serious bodily injury
Modern Law: Degrees of Murder: All murders are in the second degree unless:
½p deliberate and premeditated(and sometimes, willful): premeditate=to think about before hand; deliberate=to
measure and evaluate the major facets of a choice or problem= 1st degree felony murder
½p by statute that makes certain types of murder, murder in the first degree
Premeditiation/Deliberation: mental factors, so determined on circumstantial evidence.
½p Some things to look for(fromState v. Jackson):
@p ^ant of provocation by deceased
@p Conduct and statements of ȴ before and after killing
@p Threats/declarations of ȴ before and during
@p Ill-will or previous difficulty between parties
@p Dealing of lethal blows after deceased has been felled/rendered helpless
@p Evidence that killing was done in a brutal manner
State v. Guthrie: dishwasher gets teased by his coworker and then snaps: Problem w/jury instructions in that they do not
allow the distinction with first and second degree murder and thus ruled that murder in the first degree required
intentional, deliberate, and premeditated killing (any period of time(no min)=sufficient)
Midgett v. State: child abuse to death; mens rea was not sufficient for first degree murder and past history of abuse
could not be counted; fathers intent was to continue to abuse him, not kill him- no evidence of premeditation or
deliberation which is required for the crime of first degree murder
State v. Forrest: father was critically ill and hospitalized, son went to hospital with a gun and killed his father, claiming
that he had promised to not let him suffer; shot him 4 times in the head and never denied doing it; he argued
insufficient evidence of premeditation and deliberation(but had a gun and time)
Manslaughter: CL- the unlawful killing of another human being without ͞malice aforethought͟.
Voluntary-upon a sudden quarrel or heat of passion
½p Heat of Passion Defense: requirements for mitigation from murder to manslaughter: (1) Adequate provocation,
(2) heat of passion, (3) lack of opportunity for the passion to cool, and (4) causal connection between
provocation, passion, and act.
@p At CL, words alone never constitute adequate provocation. However, words adequate if
accompanied by conduct indicating a present intention and ability to cause the ȴ bodily harm--
threatening pose, saying "I am going to kill you", etc
@p At CL, adequate provocation almost always involved unlawful conduct on part of the provoker. Ex.
include while being subjected to serious battery or threat of deadly force. Adultery can help a case
at CL, seen as manslaughter not muder; murder if only fiancé(more to do with wife=property aspect)
͞reasonable man͟ standard½ Three factors :
(1) the gravity of harm that foreseeably would result from the ȴ͛s conduct;
(2) the probability of such harm occurring; and
(3) the burden to the ȴ of desisting from the risky conduct.
Girouard v. State: wife tried to provoke her boyfriend by saying she was cheating on him; in middle he leaves to go to
the kitchen and comes back with a knife hidden behind a pillow; waits for her to rant some more and then stabs hers 19
times; after takes a shower, tries to commit suicide; but then calls the police: issue was: if her words were enough to
incite a reasonable man; Court said no.
Involuntary (unintentional killing(unjustified risk-taking): in the commission of an unlawful act not amounting to
a felony, or in the commission in an unlawful manner, or without due caution and circumspection, of a lawful act
which might produce death.
½p Gegligent conduct- wanton or reckless disregard of human life= involuntary manslaughter of the gross
negligence variety--> Life-endangering acts so reckless that they manifest a wanton indifference to human life -
murder of the depraved heart variety
Berry v. Superior Court: guy has a fighting dog chaining in his yard, behind a fence, protecting his marijuana plants; two
year old wandered over to where the dog was and was killed by the pit bull; The court concludes that there is sufficient
evidence that the ȴ knew the dog could harm human beings. Goes to trial. In California, the ȴ must be shown to have
had knowledge of the ͞high degree of risk,͟ or in other words, they must be shown to be reckless, in order to be charged
with murder as opposed to manslaughter. Go one claims that there was intent to kill. Berry took an unjustifiable
risk. The expected harm (pL) exceeded the benefit of keeping the dog in the neighborhood (B). A reasonable person
would not take such a risk. If the reason for taking the risk is socially useless or unacceptable, then any risk is
unjustifiable.
State v. Hernandez: drove drunk and got into an accident that killed someone. He was charged with involuntary
manslaughter. At trial, stickers and pins with pro-drinking slogans were presented as evidence over his objection. He was
convicted and he appealed on the basis that the pins and stickers should not have been admitted into evidence.
Evidence is admissible so long as it goes to show that the ȴ had the mens rea necessary for the particular offense
charged. The ȴ argues that the evidence in dispute speaks only to his character rather than his awareness of risk. His
awareness of risk was not at issue because the prosecution charged him with a crime that does not require such
awareness. (evidence inadmissable by majority rule)
State v. Williams: baby tooth-ache case- turned into gangrene-pneumonia-death: parents of a child who died of an
infection they failed to treat were charged with manslaughter based on their negligence. In ^ashington, manslaughter is
any homicide committed with simple (as opposed to gross) negligence. Furthermore, homicide is excusable if it is
committed accidentally while ͞doing any lawful act by lawful means, with ordinary caution͟. The standard of negligence
that had to be proven in this case was civil negligence, or in other words, tort-level negligence, not gross negligence.
½p Doctor w/appropriate consent: performs extremely risky surgery to save the life of a patient: not a reckless act͙
Felony Murder Rule: a killing, even accidental, committed during the course of a felony constitutes murder. Malice is
assumed by law from the intent of the underlying felony
CL: only certain felonies included: murder, rape, sodomy, mayhem, robber, larceny, arson, burglary, and all else
was a misdemeanor; ȴ must be guilty of underlying felony; underlying felony must be independent from the
killing element (i.e. no felony-murder for manslaughter)
Majority: foreseeable result of the commission of the felony
Inherently Dangerous: (1) Does the primary element of the offense necessarily involve danger to human life? (2)
Do the factors elevating the offense to a felony render that offense dangerous to human life? There are two
alternative ͞inherently dangerous͟ standards: a felony is considered inherently dangerous if (1) it is ͞dangerous
in the abstract͟ or (2) it is dangerous based on the facts of the case.
eople v. Fuller: Under California law, all murder that is committed while committing another felony is considered first
degree murder. ; death caused during a high speed car chase: felony-muder does not apply in this case b/c robbing a car
not inherently dangerous
eople v. Howard: high speed chase after police asked guy to pull over; drove w/o lights during the chase and into down-
town at high speeds and ended up killing a woman; had stolen the vehicle earlier in the day; charged and convicted with
murder and evading a police officer; Supreme Ct of California held not an inherently dangerous crime and thus felony
murder not applicable
½p Once felon has reached a place of temporary safety and then commits murder: not felony-murder
½p liability for murder cannot be based upon the death of an accomplice from resistance by victim or police pursuit
State v. Sophophone: felony-murder conviction for death of co-felon by the lawful act of a police officer. Held not
responsible for the death b/c he had already been captured when his co-felon ran and got shot in-so-doing
½p killing of an innocent party by victim or police :
@p Agency Theory: not guilty unless caused by ȴ or agent of the ȴ
@p Proximate Cause: can be liable b/c the death is a direct consequence of the felony
c



Gregg v. Georgia: convicted of armed robbery and murder; Is the imposition of the death sentence prohibited under the
Eighth and Fourteenth Amendments as "cruel and unusual" punishment? GO
Excessiveness is determined by unecessary and wanton infliction or pain AGD punishment must not be grossly out of
proportion to the severity of the crime
Constitutionality: Under Furman it is ruled constitutional to have the death penalty; Under ^oodson- mandatory death
penalty is unconstitutional
½p Aggravating circumstances judges AGD jury can determine:
½p ^hereas jury has unlimited power to determine mitigating circumstances
½p Mentally retarded cannot be executes= cruel and unusual punishment
Racial Discrimination Issues: McKleskey v. Kemp:McCleskey, a black man, was convicted of murdering a police officer in
Georgia and sentenced to death. In a writ of habeas corpus, McCleskey argued that a statistical study proved that the
imposition of the death penalty in Georgia depended to some extent on the race of the victim and the accused. Held:
statistical data did not prove anything, so conviction constitutional under equal protection clause
 unlawful carnal knowledge of a woman by a man, not her husband, w/o her effective consent
Marital Relationship: under CL and MPC woman must not have been married to the man who committed the act for
there to be rape½ Most states have dropped this requirement for couples who are estranged/separated or abolished it
completely
½p The general intent of rape is the intent to have intercourse--the mens rea is the carnal part and not so much the
against will part which is more something that needs to be proven
½p Can make it specific intent by constructing the mens rea for rape as an intent to get carnal knowledge and the
intent to do it against their will; then would just have to prove that did not know it was against the will
½p Rape as a General Intent Crime= was there an intent to have sex with someone and it turned out that it was
against her will? They have to show that there was a good faith belief and that this belief is a reasonable one to
have
½p Rape as a Specific Intent Crime= was there an intent to have sex with someone against her will? Much harder to
prove; all they have to show is that there was a good faith belief that the sex was consensual
Force/Resistance:
½p Utmost resistance requirement- no one could be prosecuted for rape unless it could be proved that the victim
provided the max level of physical resistance from the moment that the assault started; used the only way to
prove force; Verbal resistance is resistance
State v. Alston: ex-boyfriend stalks victim and walks with and eventually has sex with her-she claims rape. If an act of
sexual intercourse is by both force and against the victim͛s will, it constitutes rape even if the victim gave consent to the
ȴ for previous acts of sexual intercourse. The court finds there is sufficient evidence that the sex was against the victim͛s
will, but it finds insufficient evidence that the sex was forced. The court finds that there were acts of force and threats
of force, but the court considers them unrelated to the act of sexual intercourse. The court seems to suggest that it is
necessary for the victim to resist the act of sexual intercourse in order for it to be rape.
Commonwealth v. Berkowitz: college girl goes up to the room and chats up an aquaintance; he proceeds to have sex
with her and she starts saying no softly- he takes it as her moaning- he thought one thing, she called it rape:
½p Under the rule of Rhodes, the judgment of whether forcible compulsion or the threat of forcible compulsion
occurred is to be judged on the ͞totality of the circumstances͟.
State of New Jersey in the Interest of M.T.S.: 17 yo boy lived with girl and her family, claimed flirting between then and
goes upstairs to have sex with her in the middle of the night; she claims she was asleep when he slid into her; he claims
they had been making out; force is the force of sex: [A]ny act of sexual penetration engaged in͙without the affirmative
and freely-given permission of the victim͙constitutes the offense of sexual assault. Therefore, physical force in excess
of that inherent in the act of sexual penetration is not required for such penetration to be unlawful.
Lack of Effective Consent:
½p intercourse by force: no Q as to lack of consent
½p intercourse by threats, placing victim in fear of great and immediate harm= rape
@p failure to ͞resist to the utmost͟ is still rape if prevented from resistance by threat
½p inability to consent= unconscious by effect of drugs or intoxicating substances; victim͛s mental condition(so
insane/retarded as to be unable to give consent
½p consent garnered by fraud is generally not rape
@p rape if victim fraudulently caused to believe act is not sexual intercourse(i.e. medical procedure)
@p not rape if victim is persuaded that ȴ is husband- b/c still consent
eople v. John Z.: 17yo laura goes to see her boyfriend who has his other friend there : both boys removed her clothes
and proceeded to "play with her" and then she and her boyfriend had sex and later his friend came in and had sex with
her; she never told him no and stated at trial she never said no, but did tell him she needed to go and he kept asking for
more time; court held: rape occurs during consensual intercourse as soon as victim expresses objection and attempst to
stop the act and ȴ continues forcibly
Commonwealth v. Sherry: Four doctors carry a woman to a car, take her to a cabin and proceed to have sex with her.
The defense of mistake of fact requires such a mistake to be reasonable and in good faith.
Statutory Rape: below the age of consent; mistake of fact (as to age) is not a defense b/c there is no intent in a strict
liability crime
R   Attempt, Assault, Solicitation, Conspiracy
Attempt: act done w/intent of committing crime but falling short
Elements: 1) specific intent to commit the crime; 2) overt act in furtherance of the crime
½p Can you have the specific intent to attempt an unintentional homicide. Under common law the answer is no,
under the MPC the answer is yes--as long as you had the mens rea necessary for the completed crime, you can
be charged with an attempt of that crime. So if you acted recklessly, you can be charged with a attempted
reckless homicide (usually attempted voluntary manslaughter)
McQuirter v. State: followed woman and her children around; later arrested and convicted of attempt to assault
w/intent to rape: ^here do you draw the line?
Intent: requires specific intent; cannot attempt a negligent crime(logically impossible); attempt to commit a strict
liability crime requires intent to bring about the proscribed result even though SL generally have no intent requirement
Overt Act: must commit an act beyond mere preparation
½p Proximate Step Test: how close ȴ came to completing the crime (what steps are left)
½p Substantial Step Test: substantial step(what steps already taken) in a course of conduct planned to culminate in
the commission of the crime. ^ill not qualify unless strong corroboration of the actor͛s criminal purpose.
½p Res Ipsa Loquitor(speaks for itself: the cinematic w/o sound rule)
½p MPC Test: like substantial step: takes the facts as the ȴ believes them to be
Defenses: legal impossibility is always a defense if the act would not constitute a crime under any circumstance;
factual impossibility is not a defense simply b/c factually impossible for ȴ to commit the crime or so all the
things that had been intended. Most States/MPC hold that had the circumstances been as they thought them to
be, would have committed the crime.
½p Legal: Impossibility due to the fact that what the defendant intended to do is not illegal even though the
defendant might have believed that he or she was committing a crime. - A legal impossibility might occur, for
example, if a person goes hunting while erroneously believing that it is not hunting season. This type of legal
impossibility is a defense to the crimes of attempt, conspiracy, and solicitation. Ͷ Also termed impossibility of
law; true legal impossibility. [ Impossibility due to the fact that an element required for an attempt has not
been satisfied. This type of legal impossibility might occur, for example, if a person fires an unloaded gun at
another when the crime of attempt requires that the gun be loaded. This is a defense to the crime of attempt.
½p Factual: Impossibility due to the fact that the illegal act cannot physically be accomplished due to a circumstance
unknown to her; such as trying to pick an empty pocket. Factual impossibility is not a defense to the crime of
attempt.
eople v. Gentry: bf poured gasoline over gf and it caught fire when she went near the stove; he tried to snuff it out;
attempt to kill requires a specific intent to kill, which he did not have
Bruce v. State: is there ͞Attempted Felony Murder͟? Guy tries to rob a guy with a gun and store owner bumped the ȴ
and gets shot in the stomach. Go, b/c felony murder has no intent and attempt requires that there be a specific intent
eople v. Thousand: Guy who chats with a "minor girl" over the internet and has explicit conversations and images of
genitalia. Dismissed because it was an impossibility as ͞Bekka͟ was an old cop. Supreme Ct. overturned saying that may
was charged w/attempt for which impossibility was not a defense. Dissent states that under CL, impossibility was a
defense and interprets the state͛s statute to allow it as well. MPC states, facts as he believed them to be=illegal
Abandonment: MPC: withdrawal is a defense but only if: it is fully voluntary and abandonment is complete (not
postponing the crime for later), renunciating the criminal purpose
Commonwealth v. McCloskey: attempted prison breach, cut the wire and had filled a laundry bag, ready to go. Despite
steps taken, he was still in the prison yard when he changed his mind and went back to doing his laundry work.
Assault:
½p Battery- willful application of force which is offensive(lack of consent) and unlawful--no intent to be offensive is
required
½p Assault- at common law was attempted battery: harm not necessary, simply an intent: focuses in on fear and
abilityi

 to follow through
State v. Boutin: bottle is not really a long range weapon and thus perhaps not a huge threat(ability not very high); Lets
say he has a gun but it is unloaded but he believes it is: under common law: ability does not exist(objectively doesn͛t
have bullets) though the intent exists; but it is attempted murder at common law. Under MPC facts as you believe
them to be so it is an assault and attempted murder: assault would be the lesser included offense.
Solicitation:
 Elements: asking/inticing/advising/inducing/urging/commanding another to commit a felony with the specific
intent that the person solicited complete the crime. Completed at time solicitation is made.
Defenses:
½p Factual impossibility is not a defense, culpability measured by the circumstance as she believed them to be.
½p withdrawal/renunciation not a defense b/c crime complete upon asking
½p Exemption from intended crime is a defense: protected class by the law
Conspiracy: agreement between two or more persons to accomplish some criminal or unlawful purpose or to
accomplish some lawful purpose by unlawful means. Complete upon agreement (offer and acceptance)
½p does not merge w/completed crime pursuant to the conspiracy[solicitation does merge into this]
½p each conspirator may be liable for acts of the other so long as:
@p crimes were committed in furtherance of the objective of the conspiracy
@p crimes were a ͞natural and probable consequence͟ of the conspiracy(foreseeable)
½p CL: conspiracy is an earlier crime(at agreement rather than substantial step) b/c secret activity is potentially
more dangerous to society and is more difficult for one person to stop it once an agreement has been made
inkerton v. United States: brothers indicted for violations of Internal Revenue Code; Idea of continuous conspiracy-
doesn͛t need to be directly involved in the acts furthering the conspiracy; simple a partner in the conspiracy to be
convicted of all crimes committed by others in furtherance of the conspiracy
Elements: agreement; intent to enter into agreement; intent to achieve objective of conspiracy
½p agreement: must agree to the same objective by mutual action; need not be express; can be shown by concert
of action by parties of conspirators over a period of time under circumstances showing they were aware of
purpose and existence of the conspiracy
@p initial agreement to engage in multiple crimes= one conspiracy
@p Chain Conspiracy= series of agreements part of a single large scheme where all parties of sub-
agreements(links) are interested in the goal= one large conspiracy
@p Hub and Spoke: one common member enters into many subagreements(spokes) that are similar
with different people that are reasonably independent of each other. =multiple conspiracies
öp If members know of one another, then they have conspired together and are liable for
each/other͛s crimes.
@p two or more parties:
öp CL: requires meeting of the minds͙two guilty minds for there to be a conspiracy to commit
a crime
öp MPC: required only one guilty mind(unilateral approach) ȴ must simply agree, other person
need not have a criminal intent; need more than one crime(act) to be a conspiracy
@p Protected class: person w/in that class cannot conspire to commit the act(i.e. 14 yr old for statutory
rape)
½p Mental State- Specific Intent: need an intent to agree and intent to reach objective (each ȴ has to intend it
under CL meeting of the minds)
@p Intent to facilitate a conspiracy: mere knowledge not enough to be considered a part of the
conspiracy unless person has a stake in the venture(acquiring rare item for them; selling item at
higher than normal price, etc); thus may become a member of the conspiracy
@p no conspiracy to commit a strict liability crime b/c conspiracy requires an that there be an intent and
SL has none, simply illegal[can͛t you simply conspire to commit an illegal act?)
eople v. Swain: conspiracy is a specific intent crime; implied malice in this case does not require an intent to kill; thus
cannot conspire to commit it
eople v. ?auria: telephone message service believed to be center of prostitution ring; knew some of his customers were
prostitutes byt only had knowledge of the illegal use of the service and did not have nay intent to further than use; thus
not conspirator
Commonwealth v. Cook: two bothers chatted up girl and went down path w/her; she fell and one raped her while the
other did nothing to stop it. Got conspiracy b/c no evidence of prior agreement; could be accomplice though
½p Overt Act: some states require that it be in furtherance of the conspiracy; for others mere preparation is
enough; traditionally, complete on agreement
Termination of a Conspiracy:
½p Defenses:
 @p factual impossibility not a defense
@p ^ithdrawal:
öp CL: not a defense b/c conspiracy complete upon agreement
öp MPC: voluntary withdrawal is a defense id ȴ thwarts the success of the conspiracy(by telling
police or something)
½p Defense to Subsequent Crimes:
@p ^ithdrawal: must perform an affirmative act that notifies all members of the conspiracy and must
be given in time for them to abandon their plans (note: if provided material assistance, must
attempt to neutralize the assistance; would still be an accomplice otherwise)
eople v. Sconce: Formed conspiracy w/friend to kill a woman; hired a convict to do so but changed mind and told
convict not to do it. But, conspiracy complete upon agreement unless rejection/repudiation of conspiracy to all
members; here he only told the convict and not his friend.
 





Modern Law: all parties to the crime can be found guilty of the criminal offense
½p principal: one who actually engages in the act/omission w/requisite mental state [anyone who acts through an
innocent/irresponsible/unwilling agent is the principal
½p accomplice= aids, counsels, encourages
½p accessory after the fact(ML= harboring a fugitive, aiding escape, or obstructing justice): receives, relieves,
comforts, or assists another knowing he has committed a felony, in order to help felon escapes arrest,
conviction, trial (felony must have already been completed)
Mental State:
½p CL: must have given aid, encouragement, counsel w/ the intent to aid, encourage, counsel the principal in the
commission of the crime
½p Most Courts: mere knowledge w/o a stake in the venture is insufficient for intent to aid(stake= getting an illegal
item for them, charging more for an item they need)
Scope of Liability: just b/c not principal doesn͛t mean not an accomplice
Exclusions/Exceptions:
½p protected class
½p ^ithdrawal: must be complete before any in chain of events leading to commission of crime are committed
@p if encouraged, need to repudiate encouragement
@p if assisted by producing some material to principal at least must attempt to neutralize the
assistance( taking material back)
@p or can report to the authorities/take action to prevent the commission of the crime
State v. Hoselton: lookout kid at the barge while he friends stole; did not know they had intended to. State must show
that he had criminal intent to steal, but here evidence showed he was not really acting as lookout and thus no implied
intent to steal½ not an accomplice
Rile v. State: two men opened fire in unsuspecting crowd but unable to determine whose gun actually hurt people. Still
an accomplice b/c had intent to promote/facilitate another person͛s conduct
State v. ?inscott: ȴ and another went w/sawed off shot gun to go rob a concaine dealer they knew; plans changed and
other guy broke the window and fatally shot the dealer. Court established that death was foreseeable from plans to rob
but that had ȴ known death would result, he would not have participates in robbery. However, foreseeable
consequence of robbery, not violation of due process as not fundamentally unfair.
Gatural/Probable Consequence: Did primary party commit offense or inchoate version? If yes, was secondary
person an accomplice in commission of offense? If yes, did primary party commit any crime beyond target
offense? If so, reasonably foreseeable consequence of original criminal acts encouraged/facilitated by
aider/abettor?
State v. Vaillancourt: appealed guilty verdict for attempted burglary via accomplice liability by accompanying to location
and watching. Appealed and won from a conviction of attempted robbery via accomplice liability. Court requires more
that knowledge or mere presence at scene of crime is not enough to convict. Accompaniment and observation = "mere
presence". Dissent alleges that mere presence is not enough but that in this case, there exists the requisite mens rea
and that the term accompaniment implies moral support and encouragement and thus can be construed as aiding in the
crime.
State v. Helmenstein: (banana case): contended that he was asleep through the whole even and thus not an accomplice
but he helped to think up cover-up stories and thus accomplice
eople v.Genoa: police and Genoa agreed to purchase cocaine but police never intended to complete the crime.
Underlying crime was never committed, thus cannot be held as an accomplice to it. A legal impossibility.
United States v. ?opez: bf gets helicopter to held gf escape from prison as she claimed her life was being unlawfully
threatened by the prison authorities: result depends on is necessity/duress was excuse of justified as one can be
extended to bf and other cannot.
eople v. McCoy: can aider/abettor be guilty of offense greater than what the actual perp did? Sometimes yes, b/c of
characteristics unique to actual perp that don͛t apply/excuse the accomplice.
eople v. Brown: attempted burglary, claims to have abandoned but court felt had taken a substantial step by kicking
door to the building and thus too late to withdraw
 
Failure of Proof: not all elements proven
Offense Modification: satisfied all element but did not create harm/evil sought to be prevented by statute
Justification: condoned by society; extends to others because the act is not illegal
Excuse: not condoned by society; does not extend to others b/c the act itself was illegal, but something about ȴ
excuses the crime
Gon-Excupatory Public Policy: to make society rule smoother; like statutes of limitation or certain immunities
atterson v. NY: G statute w/affirmative defense of extreme emotional distress requiring defense to have BIP was held
to be constitutional b/c did not require ȴ to disprove any enumerated element of the crime(but malice was an implied
one as dissent points out)
Self-Defense: (Justified)
Gon-Deadly Force: can use such force as reasonably appears necessary to protect oneself from the imminent
use of unlawful force; not duty to retreat
Deadly Force: may use if:
½p 1) ȴ is without fault; if not person who was the aggressor
½p 2) ȴ is confronted w/unlawful force; unlawful force constitutes a crime or tort
½p 3) ȴ threatened w/imminent death or great bodily harm; ȴ must reasonably believe that faced w/said threat if
does not prevent it w/deadly force. Danger must be a present one(not sometime in the future)
Retreat:
½p Majority: no duty to retreat
½p Minority: retreat only if can be made in complete safety
½p Got necessary if: attack in victim͛s home; attack occurs while victim is making a lawful arrest; assailant in process
of robbing the victim
Right of the Aggressor to use self-defense: if withdraws(effectively removes himself from fight and
communicates to other person intent to remove himself, regains right to self-defence) or if sudden
escalation(victim of initial aggressor escalates a minor fight to one w/deadly force)
United States v. eterson: windshield wipers case whereby victim came by ȴ͛s house to take wipers off broke-down car.
ȴ protests, went back to his house got a gun, while Keitt had gone back to car and was about to leave. He came to yard
and told Keitt that he would shoot, Keitt got a lug wrench in return and walked toward ȴ, at ten feet: shot him, killing
him. Peterson was aggressor so lost right to self-defense. Castle doctrine, thus does not apply.
eople v. Goetz: based on prior experiences, believed that when youth asked him for money, that the youths intenede to
rob him. They asked, he shot all of them and even shot upon seeing one still alive with unregistered gun. Had intended
to murder all of them but still eventually acquitted on the basis that his belief was reasonable based on his past
experiences
State v. Norman:(B^S: learned helplessness) ȴ left house. got gun, returned, loaded the gun, and shot husband twice in
the head while he was sleeping. Had long history of verbal/physical abuse and often threatened to kill her. Court
decided that characteristics of B^S, jury could find that sleep was a brief hiatus in reign of terror. At new trial found that
the threat was not believed to be imminent by ȴ and thus acquittal on self-defense reverse. Eventually convicted of
voluntary manslaughter.
Defense of Others:
Relationship:
½p majority: no relationship required
 ½p minority: person aided must be member of ȴ͛s family, or servant/employer of ȴ
Status of Person Aided:
½p majority: so long there is a reasonable appearance for the right to use force
½p minority: step into shoes, if person aided doesn͛t have the right, ȴ does not have the right
eople v. Kurr: ȴ argues on appeal that she killed her bf in defense of her unborn children; was held as appropriate
defense and thus reversed and remanded for new trial.
Defense of Property:
Dwelling:
½p Gon-Deadly Force: to extent that person reasonably believes that such conduct is necessary to prevent or
terminate another͛s unlawful entry/attack upon the dwelling
½p Deadly Force: generally okay in two situations:
@p tumultuous(riotous/violent) entry and person reasonably believed that use of force is necessary to
prevent a personal attack upon him or another within the dwelling
@p felony- person reasonably believes someone is entering w/intent to commit a felony in the dwelling
Other Property:
½p Gon-Deadly Force: from unlawful interference of property in one͛s possession but not if request to desist would
be enough to stop perpetrator; need for force must appear reasonably imminent; cannot be used to regain
property that had been unlawfully taken
½p Deadly Force: never justified if it is just property; only if in conjunction w/another privileged use of force(self-
defense, defense of others, defense of dwelling, etc.)
eople v. Ceballos: trap gun mounted in garage in protection of his property; actually lived above the garage and the
garage was not considered to be a part of his dwelling. Issue of proportionality; burglary is not always a forcible and
atrocious crime and thus deadly force not appropriate. Difference between stopping an entrance and stopping them
after they have entered--argument is that better able to assess the level of threat after they have already entered.
Gecessity/Choice of Evils: criminal conduct is justifiable if, as a result of pressure from natural forces, ȴ reasonably
believed that conduct was necessary to avoid some harm to society that would exceed harm caused by the conduct.
Objective determination; cannot be based on a good-faith belief that conduct is necessary
½p not available if the ȴ is at fault for creating the situation that required the choice between evils
Nelson v. State: truck was stuck in muck and afraid of damage to his roof; took equipment to remove his truck w/o
permission and damaged it; argued that test for necessity should be subjective; its not- totally objective, was the danger
of damage to his car somehow greater than the damage he did to the equipment͙needed for society: no to both
Duress: excuse: not guilty of offense, other than homicide, if performs otherwise criminal conduct under threat of
imminent infliction of death or great bodily harm, provided it is a reasonable belief that such harm/death will be
inflicted on himself, family, and sometimes to some third person: an immediate threat of death or serious bodily injury,
a well-grounded fear that the threat will be carried out, no reasonable opportunity to escape
Queen v. Dudley and Stephens: duress/necessity not defenses to murder
Contento-achon: swallowed balloons of concaine to bring to US upon threat to his life and the lived of his family.
Considered sufficient to present duress which may excuse him from crime of unlawful possession w/intent to distribute
State v. Unger: on an honor farm, escaped under threat of sodomy by fellow inmates; more of case of necessity

Other Defenses: mistake of fact, mistake of law; consent

Consent: generally not a defense unless it goes toward an element of the crime(consented to have sex not rape;
consented to take a ride not kidnapping)
Intoxication: excuse
Voluntary: self-induced via intentional taking, w/o duress, of substance known to cause intoxication; don͛t need
to intend to get intoxicated, simply intend to take it
½p Specific Intent Crime: may be evidence that intoxication prevented formation of the requisite intent, when ȴ
charged with crime that requires purpose(intent) or knowledge (can͛t purposely get drunk as an excuse)
½p Got a defense for Malice/Recklessness/negligence or strict liability crimes
½p Can lower 1st degree(premeditated) murder to 2nd degree murder but not reduce 2nd degree to manslaughter
[Rationale: all murders are 2nd degree unless prosecution can prove deliberate and premeditation½
reckless/depraved heart murders]
 Involuntary: results from taking a substance that is intoxicating 1) w/o knowledge of its nature, 2) under direct
duress imposed by another, 3) pursuant to medical advice while unaware of intoxicating effect
Commonwealth v. Graves: robbery, burglary leads to murder: intoxication is not used as excuse or exoneration, simply
removes the ability to meet the intent requirement which is an element of the crime. Thus, the prosecution is unable to
prove an element of the case. Failure of proof.
Insanity: excuse
M͛Gaghten Rule: entitled to acquittal if proof established
½p Elements: 1) disease of the mind 2)caused a defect of reason 3) such that ȴ lacked the ability at the time of his
action to either:
@p know the wrongfulness of his actions, or
@p understand the nature and quality of his actions
½p Application: false beliefs- need to ask if acts would have been criminal if the facts were as he believed them to
be; belief that acts are morally right is not defense unless person lost capacity to recognize that the act is
regarded as wrong by society; loss of control is not a defense
Irresistable Impulse Test: ȴ acquitted if proof established that his crime was the ͞product of mental disease or
defect͟; it is a product if it would not have been committed ͞but-for͟ the mental disease/defect
Product Test(Durham): issue of experts taking over the role of the jury as factfinder--> the expert basically stated
that the mental illness made something possible or impossible
MPC: proof shows that he suffered from a mental disease/defect and as a result lacked substantial capacity to
either: 1) appreciate the criminality(wrongfulness) of his conduct; OR 2)conform his conduct to the requirement
of law
Burden of Proof: MPC and some courts(prosecution must prove not insane beyond a reasonable doubt;
some(defense must prove insanity by preponderance of the evidence); Fed(ȴ must prove insanity by clear and
convincing
Post-Acquittal: committed until cured either automatically or by jury determination; confinement beyond that
of accused crime is not violation of due process
Mental Conditon during Criminal Proceedings: Incompetency to Stand Trial: due process grants that a ȴ cannot
be tried, convicted, sentenced if, as a result of mental disease/defect, he is unable to 1) understand the nature
of the proceedings against him; 2) assist his lawyer in preparation of his defense
½p ȴ cannot be declared incompetent w/o hearing or notice
½p criminal proceedings suspended until ȴ regains competence
½p cannot be executed if unable to understand nature and purpose of punishment(some states called by warden or
jury)
Diminished Capacity: ȴ may assert, as a result of mental defect, short of insanity, did not have the requisite mental state
required for the crime charged½ most states only allow for specific intent crimes

 
Larceny:
Elements: 1) Takes possession 2) of the personal property 3) owned/possessed by another 4) by means of
trespass 5) w/intent to steal 6) asportation
False Pretenses:
Elements: 1)false representation 2) in order to defraud 3) Reliance on that false representation

Larceny by Trick:
Elements: