Escolar Documentos
Profissional Documentos
Cultura Documentos
LEGALITY:
ACTUS REUS:
The actus reus is the physical component of Martin v. State Martin is convicted of being
the crime. It happens out there, in the physical drunk on a public highway. It turns out that
world. The mens rea (or guilty mind) deals he is arrested at home and taken out onto the
with the state of mind the actor had in road. He says that the statute implicitly
committing the actus reus. Actus Reus = requires him to voluntarily go to a public place
Voluntary Act + Social Harm while drunk.
MENS REA:
3) Recklessly 2.02(2)(c)
- Subjective Analysis
D consciously disregarded a substantial or
unjustifiable risk that the material element
exists or will results
Gross deviation from a standard that a
reasonable person would have observed
4) Negligently 2.02(2)(d)
- Objective Analysis
- Defendant should have been aware of
the risk that the material element exists
or will result from his conduct.
- Gross deviation from a standard that a
reasonable person would have observed
COMMON LAW:
1) Intentionally (Purposely / Knowingly)
- It was the actors conscious object to engage in
the conduct.
- D was virtually certain that the harm would
occur
- D knew or believed that a material fact existed.
- Purposely and Knowingly are Combined
- Willful Blindness
- D was aware of the high probability that a
circumstance may exist, and failed to investigate
that risk or was deliberately ignorant
Generally knowledge of a laws existence and People v. Marrero Mistake of law may
understanding of its meaning is not a required negate intent but it is not a defense to a strict
element of an offense, unless the statute itself liability crime.
says to the contrary (e.g., statute specifically Cheek v. United States Cheek was indicted
says you must have knowledge, recklessness, for failing to file and tax evasion. In his
or negligence in regard to the law)(MPC defense, he argued that he sincerely believed
2.02(9); 2.04(1)) he didnt have to pay his taxes and he acted
o Exception: if the definition of the crime without the mens rea required for the crimes.
itself requires knowledge of the law A claimed good-faith belief need not be
and you didnt know it, then you lack reasonable in order to be considered as a
one of the necessary elements for the defense.
offense (MPC 2.04(1)) People v. Weiss Weiss claims that he thought
o Exception: No defense for personal he had authority of law. How Weisss mistake
misunderstanding of the law, but differs from that of Marrero Duress might
reasonable reliance on an official be relevant to the question of whether the
statement of the law from a public mistake was reasonable.
official or some other source. Balin
A casual or unofficial Morissette
interpretation of the law from a Lambert felon charged with no registering
public official is no good.
Common law = Ignorance of the law is no
defense.
o Rationale = the excuse of mistake of
law encourages ignorance of the law;
interest in persuading people to learn
the law outweighs that individuals
interests
Statute specifically says you must have
knowledge, recklessness, or negligence in
regard to the law
MISTAKE OF FACT:
Solicitation
Rules: State v. Davis (p. 637)
o Solicitation alone is not enough to Church (p. 639)
constitute as an attempt (b/c no
resulting harm, therefore different level
of sentencing)
o Solicitation is part of preparation
(separate crime)
Attempt
Complete attempt = offender does everything R v. Eagleton
necessary to complete the crime but they fail People v. Rizzo (p. 618)
(e.g. you shoot someone but they dont die). King v. Barker (p. 617)
Incomplete attempt = offender gets stopped McQuirter v. State (p. 622)
short from completing the attempt. o McQuirter was arrested for attempt to
Attempt needs purpose (mental state) commit an assault with intent to
Actus Reus for Attempt: rape. Assault, at common law, was an
o In general, attempt = when someone attempted battery. So, we can parse
takes a substantial step towards the this crime as attempt to attempt a
commission of an offense with the battery with intent to rape. This is a
intent to commit that offense. triple inchoate crime!
o At common law, this was a United States v. Jackson (p. 631)
misdemeanor, no matter what the People v. Johnston (p. 622)
target offense was. Today, attempt to United States v. Joyce (p. 635)
commit a felony is a felony. Ross v. State (p. 622)
Standards:
o Dangerous Proximity
This is Holmess test: theres no
attempt unless the danger of The Model Penal Code is strongly distinguished from
success is very great. the common law in that most of the common law tests
o Unequivocal Act look back to see how close the defendant has come to
An act isnt an attempt until it completion. The Model Penal Code test asks how far
ceases to be equivocal. This is the defendant has gone from the thought process. If
an objectivist test. the defendant has taken a substantial step towards
o The Last Step committing the crime, even if there is a lot more to be
A criminal attempt only occurs done, you can convict. Therefore, its much easier to
when the actor has performed convict under the Model Penal Code than at common
all the acts they believe are law.
necessary to commit the target
offense.
Rules:
o Passing mere preparation and
committing the attempt = crime
o Changing mind while preparing = not
guilty
o Changing mind after committing an
attempt = still guilty
o Attempt = lower sentencing (to
encourage not following through)
Impossibility
Legal Impossibility = actions which the Jaffe The Jaffe court said that Jaffes act
defendant performs or sets in motion, even wouldnt have been a crime if it had been
if fully carried out as he desires, would not completed. That is, we wouldnt otherwise
constitute a crime. punish someone for receiving non-stolen
Factual impossibility = when the objective of property. The Jaffe explanation is a
the defendant is proscribed by the criminal traditional way to explain legal
law but a circumstance unknown to the impossibility.
actor prevents him from bringing about that
objective.
At common law, factual impossibility is no
defense, while legal impossibility is a
defense.
Conspiracy
Mental States for Conspiracy: People v. Luparello (p. 682)
o Intent to agree to commit a legal act in o Rule = If foreseeable even beyond
an illegal manner or an illegal act in a scope of principals intent, then still
legal manner liable
o Intent to achieve objective Vaden v. State (p. 694)
Rules: States v. Hayes (p. 693)
o Conspiracy is a separate crime (no People v. Lauria (p. 713)
merge) Pinkerton v. United States (p. 723)
o Chain Conspiracy People v. Russell (p. 680)
o Wheel Conspiracy Roy v. United States (p. 684)
o Overt Act Requirement Defendant United States v. Garcia (p. 710)
must have committed an act beyond
Kotteakos v. United States (p. 740)
mere preparation for the crime
United States v. Alvarez (p. 732)
o Whartons Rule 2 people cant be
Gebardi v. United States (p. 751)
conspirators where they agree to
o Rule = Statute can protect person
commit crime that necessarily requires
charged with criminal conduct in
participation of both, unless more
violation of act
people are involved
o Undercover Agents Cannot have Garcia v. State (p. 754)
conspiracy with an undercover agent o Rule = cant conspire with an
o Pinkerton Rule All other conspirators undercover cop (cannot conspire with
are liable for any crimes committed in someone who does not agree with you
furtherance of the conspiracy or agrees with you fraudulently)
Interstate Circuit, Inc. v U.S. (p. 707)
Girouard v. State Words = adequate
provocation if they are accompanied by the
threat of bodily harm. Why? Social policy we
dont want domestic disputes to end in the
killing of a spouse. In Girouard, the
provocation is not words alone because the
victim jumped on the defendant and pulled his
hair. But at common law, words alone are
never adequate provocation to partially justify
or partially excuse homicide.
Casual Facilitation
Casual Facilitation = Conspiracy by Conduct State v. Gladstone (p. 664)
Acting in furtherance of the activity/crime People v. Lauria (p. 713)
o I.e. providing things needed to o Relevance: awareness of criminal
commit the crime nature of the enterprise (stake in
Doctrine of Willful Blindness (Conscious venture, substantial increase in
Avoidance) business)
o Doctrine used to prove knowledge
o If they didnt know they are
committing a crime, but you help them
commit it, you may still be guilty
o Mens Rea can be found in conduct
o A reasonable person would perceive the
risk that something criminal is taking
place
DEFENSES
1. Justification
a. Self Defense
i. Reasonable belief of imminent and serious bodily harm
1. Force must be proportional to the threat
ii. Doesnt apply if:
1. Retreat is possible
a. Exception = Castle jurisdiction dont have to retreat if at home
2. Defendant is the aggressor
iii. Self-Defense On/Off Theory
1. Excessive Force = Off
2. Committing a crime = Off
2. Excuse
3. Duress
4. Intoxication
5. Mental Disorder
6. Diminished Capacity
Intoxication
Must be so drunk you cant appreciate the Voluntary Intoxication Cases:
offensiveness of conduct People v. Hood
Voluntary Intoxication State v. Stasio
o Common law is not a defense Montana v. Egelhoff
o Now can be a defense to a specific Involuntary Intoxication Cases:
intent crime
Involuntary Intoxication
Diminished Capacity
McNorton Standard: Davis
o Because of mental disease they lack McNorton
ability to discern the reasonableness of
conduct and cannot conform conduct to
requirements of law (cannot control
conduct)
o Lacks capacity to appreciate
wrongfulness of conduct
Inability to know right from
wrong
Irresistible Impulse Psychiatric Defense
(added to McNorton case)
o If conduct comes from irresistible
impulse, then not guilty
o Irresistible Impulse = akin to
provocation
o MPC does not like Irresistible Impulse
Defense
As a result of mental disease or
defect, defendant lacked
substantial capacity to
appreciate wrongfulness of
conduct and conform conduct to
requirements of law (control
conduct)
MPC requires specific proof of
mental defect
Bursting Bubble Presumption
o Before Sanity is not presumed if D
offers scintilla of evidence presumed
sanity disappears and prosecutor must
prove defendant was sane
o Now Presume everyone is sane and
D has burden of proving that he is not
sane by preponderance of evidence.
Prosecutor must prove he is not