**Go Back and read all Chapter Approaches in Gilberts Summaries** JUSTIFICATION DEFENSES

Conduct which is otherwise criminal becomes socially acceptable, and therefore not punishable, under the specific circumstances of the case. Reasonable person standard. All Justification Defenses will contain 1.) a necessity component 2.) a proportionality component 3.) a reasonable belief rule that overlays the defense. Mistake of Fact: At CL, the mistake of fact must always be honest and reasonable to keep your defense of justification. At MPC, the test is conscious disregard. At Common Law, we look for reasonableness. Under MPC, we look to see if someone was reckless or negligent to see if they can keep their defense (see MR under Self Defense for explanation on effect of mistake)

NECESSITY COMMON LAW

- must be faced with clear & imminent danger - with a direct causal relationship between act and harm averted, -no other legal option (other applicable defense) -harm caused is lesser of two evils -no legislative intent to penalize the act under those specific circumstances (If the leg. Has said its not a harm, you cant claim necessity to avoid the harm) - abortion - must have clean hands (not placed himself in the peril) -Limited to emergencies created by natural forces, protection of people & property (NOT reputation or economics), and non-homicidal acts.

MPC
- is justified if he believes his conduct is necessary to avoid harm to himself or others, -the harm is greater than act avoided, and; -there is no legislative intent to criminalize in such circumstances marijuana. BASICALLY THE SAME AS CL, EXCEPT MORE LENIENT ON HOMICIDAL ACTS.

Regina v Dudley and Stephens: there is no necessity to save ones own life SELF DEFENSE AR + MR + Not Self Defense = Guilty COMMON LAW objective / MPC- subjective test reasonable test
-If V reasonably believes that force is necessary to protect from imminent use -Force is allowed if V believes it to be immediately necessary. (A person may

of unlawful force by , he may use reasonable force to repel the attack. -Deadly force may only be used when there is a reasonable belief of imminent deadly force. (Never in defense of property.) cant use it unless you reasonably believe its going to be used on you. Use the reasonable objective test. -No Duty to Retreat : Slight Majority Deadly force may be used in response when there is a reasonable belief that imminent deadly force is about to be used. Minority V must retreat if aware of location of complete safety. Exception to the Minority Duty to Retreat is No Retreat within his own dwelling place or cartilage (surrounding land). In your home: Majority- you can use deadly force to prevent a felony (non-deadly) in your home, but not trespass misdemeanor. Now we have a Make My Day Law: which basically says that you can use deadly force for anything in your home. Fla. Uses this. However, its still a minority rule. No Escalation Rule: An aggressor cannot claim self defense and he is required to retreat regardless of where he is. If the aggressor wishes to desist and regain his right to self defense, he must actually communicate to his victim that he is no longer a threat. Ex: A attacks B. When B fights back, A runs and hides behind a bush. When B finds him and resumes fighting, A cannot claim self defense just because he ran away. He must tell B he is no longer a threat.

use force if they believe a cop intends to use excessive force during arrest.) Not the same thing as imminent. -Deadly force is only available when V believes it to be imminent to protect from death, serious bodily injury, forcible rape or kidnapping. (basically the same as CL, but use a subjective test, no reasonable requirement) -If a person knows he can avoid the danger, he has a Duty to Retreat if he KNOWS he can have complete safety by retreating (this rarely happens, how often can you know there is complete safety) -Castle Exception: However, there is no duty to retreat from his home (even a co-dweller) or workplace (***except when the aggressor is a co-worker) -MPC 3.06 Inside your home: You can use nondeadly force to prevent trespass and misdemeanors. Only Deadly force for a deadly force threat. -Escalation Rule: If someone attacks you with battery and you use DF, you no longer have a self def. claim. You escalated the crime. Youre not the aggressor, but you are the DF aggressor. The original aggressor can now claim self def. against you and use DF. Must be in the same encounter, cant come back later. -If you are entitled to self defense, but injure innocent people in the process, you cannot use self defense against those that you recklessly endangered. Ex: you are being mugged at gun point, so you fire a whole clip at the muggers in the subway, thereby killing innocent bystanders. No Self Defense as to the bystanders. Effect of Mistake: Mitigates the mistake. If non reckless, non negligent, youre not guilty. If reckless or negligent, you will be found guilty of a reckless or negligent crime. AR + MR + reckless disregard = guilty of reckless or negligent crimes (neg. homicide) The test is Reckless, Conscious Disregard: If it is a purpose or knowing crime, you will not be guilty. For reckless, guilty if R, for Negligent, guilty if N. -If the mistake is reckless, use the Imperfect Justification Doctrine: Not a complete defense, but mitigates an reckless mistake to manslaughter instead of murder. Ex: charge is attempted murder. Under CL if mistake is unreasonable, you will be convicted of attempted murder. If under MPC, youre recklessly wrong, you are not convicted of attempted murder, but whatever reckless crime the court can come up with like aggravated battery. -Excessive use of defensive force: If one uses excessive

deadly force is force which is likely to cause death or serious bodily injury. Ex: if you fire a gun and intentionally miss, its still deadly force.

Not entitled to Defense if you Injure innocent people, just like the MPC, but here its because you would be unreasonable in your actions if you injured bystanders.

force where only moderate force is justified, the crime will be manslaughter instead of murder b/c the person is acting in the heat of passion and lacks the malice aforethought for murder.

Effect of Mistake: All of Nothing. Honest and Reasonable as to self defense. Must be honest and reasonable mistake to keep justification of self defense. AR + MR + reasonable mistake = Justified. If mistake is unreasonable, then hes guilty. (murder is a specific intent crime, so for the AR and MR, the mistake need only be honest. For the self defense portion, it must be honest and reasonable, regardless of the MR applicable) YOULL ONLY BE CONVICTED FOR MISTAKE OF FACT IF YOURE WRONG AND UNREASONABLE.

People v. Goetz: Test is reasonable. If it did not have to be reasonable, people could set their own standards for violent crimes.
Something can cause deadly force without being a deadly weapon. A bat is not deadly weapon, but a hit to the head can be deadly force. A hit to the leg is not. LOOK FOR THE LIKELYHOOD OF SERIOUS INJURY, GIVEN THE CONTEXT. Objective: Subjective: -Physical attributes (me vs. Mike Tyson), geography of scenario (subway, street corner) -knowledge, context (things that everyone knows. Everyone knows how dangerous the subway is) -background, experiences (Ive been mugged before, I know what its like) -mental attributes eg temper, skittish -victims of abusive relationships

DEFENSE OF OTHERS Common Law

MISTAKE:

MPC
A third person is justified in defending another if in the circumstances as he believes them to be,

Alter Ego Rule A third person is justified to defend another to the extent that the V is justified in acting in self-defense. If V isnt really justified in defending himself than neither is Q who comes to his rescue. Modern Rule Justified if it appears necessary to a reasonable person. If D makes and honest and reasonable mistake in the defense of another, then D has justification defense for use of force against A.

-the V would be justified in self-defense, -D believes his intervention is necessary and -uses no more force than is necessary, and uses force as though the threat were to himself MISTAKE: Reg. rule applies negligent mistake = negligent crime, reckless mistake = reckless crime charge

DEFENSE OF PROPERTY
Must first make a request to desist, then you can use NON-DEADLY force to prevent the unlawful taking away of property. To retake personal prop. There must be fresh pursuit. CL AND MPC ARE BASICALLY THE SAME.

Common Law
Under NO circumstances may a person use deadly force to protect property. Only reasonable force to retain rightful possession. Non-deadly force can be used to recapture property promptly (fresh pursuit) after dispossession.

MPC
-Non-deadly force is allowed if person believes the interference is unlawful -the property is his own or someone other than the thief - non-deadly force is necessary to prevent the carrying away, once gone, call the police. CL AND MPC ARE BASICALLY THE SAME

You can re-establish fresh pursuit if you see the thief later and he DOES NOT claim that he has possession. If he says yeah, come take it, I stole it you can use non-deadly force. If he says its his and not yours, you cant use non-deadly force.

EXCUSE DEFENSES
Based on the moral culpability & ability to possess the requisite mens rea. Recognizes that the has caused some social harm but that he should not be blamed or punished for such harm. (e.g. Duress, Insanity, Diminished capacity, Intoxication, Mistake of fact, Mistake of law)

DURESS
COMMON LAW
may be acquitted of any crime EXCEPT Murder if: - was issued a specific imminent threat of death or serious bodily injury (cant just be property, like danger to an animal or a

MPC
1.) it is an affirmative defense that the actor engaged in the conduct charged b/c he was coerced to do so by the use of, or a threat to use, unlawful force against his person or a 3rd person, which a person of reasonable firmness in his situation would have been

laptop) of himself or a 3rd party (unless the threatened act is completed) and; - reasonably believed threat was genuine, imminent, & impending, and; - there was a lack of reasonable legal alternative to otherwise avoid the threatened harm &; - has clean hands. A very few states will allow duress to mitigate homicide to manslaughter.

unable to resist. TEST: Given the nature of the forcible threat, would a reasonable person choose to commit the crime rather than face the harm inflicted? 2.) Defense unavailable if actor recklessly or negligently placed himself in a situation in which it was probable that he would be subjected to duress. 3.) Not a defense for a woman acting on the demand of her husband, unless she was truly coerced. 4.) Not a defense where Justification applies, as justification defense supersedes excuse.

If you have another alternative (such as calling the police) you cant use the defense as its not imminent. *Duress is not available for Homicide

A person of reasonable firmness in his situation would have been unable to resist the unlawful coercion. *MPC gets rid of imminence & *allows for the defense to be used in Murder/ Homicide cases

(reasonable firmness basically means reasonable) MISTAKE: If you recklessly put yourself in a position to suffer duress, you can be convicted of ALL CRIMES. They want to punish you for disregarding the harm. ENTRAPMENT: Common Law Subjective Test: Majority rule -focused on Ds state of mind -Did Govt agents induce D to commit a crime for which he had no predisposition? Are you normally a drug dealer? Then youve not been induced to commit something for which you have no predisposition. Objective Test: Minority rule 5

MPC Objective Test: -focused on deterring police misconduct -2.13(1): for purpose of obtaining evidence of an offense, encourages D to commit the offense by a) lying to induce Ds belief that conduct is lawful (TEST: was there lying?)or b.) using methods of persuasion creating a substantial risk the offense

will be committed by persons other than those ready to commit it (TEST: would people who wouldnt normally do this commit this crime because of persuasion?) CRIMES AGAINST THE PERSON RAPE:
Common Law- focus on female consent Sexual Intercourse by a male with a female not his wife, constitutes rape if it is committed: 1.) Forcibly (actual) or threat of force (constructive); 2.) by means of certain forms of deception; 3.) While V is asleep or unconscious; or 4.) under circumstances in which V is not competent to give consent (drugged, too young, retarded) Requires Proof of Resistance: -force or threat by D -Non-consent by V Fraud in the Inducement: a male may use any deceptive technique to induce a woman to consent to sex. If the woman is consenting, even if she is mistaken, its not rape. Fraud of Factum: OBGYN obtains permission to insert an instrument in woman its really his penis. Extortion: Obtaining anything of value from another person by non-forcible threat. Not a sex crime: Have sex with me or Ill fire your boyfriend. You would be guilty of both extortion and rape if you followed up with ok, well then have sex with me or Ill break your legs. Marital Rape: Under traditional law a man MPC focus on male conduct / aggression A male is guilty of rape if acting purposely, knowingly, or recklessly regarding each of the material elements of the offense, he has sexual intercourse (under MPC this is defined broadly as oral, vaginal, or anal) with a female under any of the following circumstances: 1.) the female is less than 10 years old 2.) female is unconscious 3.) He compels the female to submit be force or by threatening her or another person with imminent death, grievous bodily harm, extreme pain, or kidnapping; or 4.) he administers or employs drugs to impair females mental state -Does not require proof of resistance Marital Rape: rule has been abolished, a man is not privileged to rape his wife Felony in the first degree: 1.) Def inflicted serious bodily injury to victim or another in the course of the rape; or 2.) female was not a voluntary social companion who had previously permitted him sexual liberties In all other circumstances, the offense is a felony in the second degree. No Fraud of Factum: Under MPC fraud of factum does not constitute rape, rather it is

could not rape his wife, but today most states have abolished this rule Statutory Rape: Elements are 1.) sex and 2.) age -Strict Liability on age under 13 (no MOF defense) -General Intent age 13-16, and D is 4+ years older -Above the age of 16, you will have to prove adult elements of 1.) non consent and 2.) force Rape Shield Provision: accusers sexual history is inadmissible except in narrow conditions (another source of evidence, prior conduct with D such as history of relationship) However, the Defs sexual history IS admissible. Termination of Consent: Sex must cease immediately when consent is terminated Incompetence to consent: some persons are legally incapable of giving consent. Mens rea: General Intent Defense: Mistake of Fact: must be honest and reasonable. Should have known negligence mens rea. Intoxication unavailable as a MR defense. Ex: NG if D entertained a genuine and reasonable belief that the female voluntarily consented LIABILITY FOR THE CRIMES OF ANOTHER

classified as Gross Sexual Imposition. Mens Rea: Reckless Consciously Disregards Defenses: Mistake of Age Woman is spouse

COMPLICITY aka accomplice liability Circumstances under which a person who does not personally commit a proscribed harm may be held accountable for the conduct of another person with whom he has associated himself. That is, their accomplice. D must have directly or indirectly encouraged or facilitated the commission of the offense. This is how we hold Bob guilty for watching and not stopping Tom from committing murder the doctrine of complicity. COMMON LAW MPC

Common Law

MPC 2.06

Principal in the 1st degree Personally does the crime by their own act or the act of an innocent agent. Unless this person has an accomplice, dont discuss him as the principle in the 1st degree. Just say guilty of arson. Principal in the 2nd degree either incite or abet the crime and either physically or constructively present at time of commission(lookout) Accessory before the fact-not present for AR but provided pre-crime assistance or encouragement Accessory after the fact-assists / comfort / receive a known felon in order to hinder their arrest

Principal: perpetrates felony Accomplice (principle in 2nd and accessory before the fact under CL): incites or abets with requisite intent) Not a party to felony (accessory after fact)

D is guilty for own conduct or conduct of another for whom D is legally accountable Legally accountable (a) for Ds innocent agent, (b) by offense itself, or (c) when D is an accomplice A is Os accomplice if (a) with purpose of promoting or facilitating the commission of the offense: O must commit the act. If not, use 5.01(3) A solicits O to commit it A aids or agrees to aid or attempts to aid O in planning or committing it A fails to carry out legal duty to prevent O

Modern law (CL & MPC) rejects complicity liability for accessories after the fact; instead charge obstruction of justice or related offenses (e.g. MPC 242.3)

Without conspiracy cl will acquit you if you fail. If you do conspire and the crime fails, you are guilty of conspiracy, not attempt. D cannot be convicted as an accomplice where the guilt of a principal has not been shown.

AR: aiding and abetting

5.01(3): a person who engages in conduct designed to aid another to commit a crime, which would establish his complicity under 2.06 if the other person committed the crime, is still guilty of attempt even if the principle does nothing. You are guilty of your own conduct, even if the principle flakes and doesnt carry out the crime. 5.05(3): Doctrine of Merger: D may only be convicted of one crime, which should be the furthest along the line of chronology that was committed. Solicitation merges into Conspiracy, Conspiracy to Attempt, Attempt to Completed Offense.

MERGER: CL Does NOT merge conspiracy. It will remain even if you add other charges. There is no solicitation under CL. It will be conspiracy, then attempt, which will merge into completed offense.

AR: aiding and abetting MR: intentionally aids the primary party to commit the offense charged. i.) intent to assist the primary party ii.) the intent that the primary party commit the offense charged Defenses: Justification: if the primary is justified, then the accomplice is justified as well -IF the primary is not guilty, the accomplice cannot be held guilty, unlike MPC which holds one accountable for their own conduct. -A is not an accomplice to B if A terminates complicity prior to Bs crime (including an attempt by B) -wholly deprives it of effectiveness ( that means to take away whatever your assistance was going to be, taking back the gun that you provided) OR tells police (timely warning or proper effects to prevent) SAME AS MPC

MR: with the purpose of promoting or facilitating the commission of the offense. Purpose for conduct and circumstance, only reckless for results. N.B. : the principal will be subjected to reckless if there are no MR words in the crime. However, the accomplice will be subjected to purpose as to circumstance and conduct, and reckless only to the results. You have to have at least the same, if not higher, MR then the principle. He as reckless, you have purpose. Defenses: -D may not be convicted if he is the victim of the offense -If conduct is inevitably incident to the commission of the offense -abandonment: terminates his participation before the crime is committed, and if he i.) neutralizes his assistance; ii.) gives timely warning to the police, or iii.) or in some other manner attempts to prevent the commission of the crime Under MPC, you can be an accomplice to a worse crime than your primary. For example: you trick B into killing C in a fit of rage. He has a defense for murder I and is only charged with murder II, but you are guilty of malice aforethought and will be charged with Murder I

Liability is derivative, you may only be charged with the same crime as your primary.

INCHOATE CRIMES (INCOMPLETED CRIMES) Use Doctrine of Merger to determine if D is guilty of Solicitation, Conspiracy, Attempt, or Complicity (completed offense). ATTEMPT COMMON LAW MPC ACTUS REUS -Physical Proximity: Must be almost redhanded. What is left to be done? You need a lot to prove this one. If youre waiting for the victim, youre not guilty ACTUS REUS - Requires: (i) an act constituting a substantial step in the course of conduct intended to result in the crime, and (ii) that the act be strong Corroboration of the defs

-Res Ipsa Loquitor: What have they already done? The devil may lose late in the hour. Whats in your head?

criminal purpose, although it need not establish purpose By itself. Are we pretty sure the Devil is going to win? This test requires the least. a.) List of Potentially Sufficient Acts: the MPC lists a number of acts that are not to be held insufficient as a matter of law. These acts include: (i) Lying in wait, searching for, or following the contemplated victim of the Crime; (ii) Enticing or seeking to entice the contemplated victim of the crime to go To the place where the crime is to be committed; (iii) Reconnoitering (observing=casing) the Place where the crime is to be Committed. (iv) Unlawfully entering a structure, vehicle, or enclosure in which the crime Is to be committed; (v) Possessing materials to be employed in the commission of the crime, if Those materials are specifically designed for the unlawful use or serve no Lawful purpose to the def; (vi) Possessing, collecting, or fabricating materials to be used in the Commission of the crime at or near the place at which the crime is to be Committed, where this serves no lawful purpose of the def; and (vii) Soliciting an innocent agent to engage in conduct constituting the crime And a willingness to commit the crime.

MENS REA: The mens rea of attempt has two components (i) the intent to commit the acts or cause the result constituting the target crime; (ii) and the intent necessary for the target crime. Common Law: Attempt requires a specific intent even if the crime attempted does not!

DEFENSES TO ATTEMPT: Impossibility: Only true legal impossibility is defense: Def sets out to do something which he believed would, if completed, constitute a crime but which was not in fact made criminal by law. The persons only misunderstanding concerns the law. Such a person has not demonstrated a willingness to do things prohibited by the law. Ex: if I think aspirin is illegal, you cant arrest me for attempted possession of narcotics, because its not really illegal despite what I think. Belief about law is irrelevant. People v Dlugash: man shoots a dead body. D thinks that the man is alive, though he is already dead. This is mixed legal and factual impossibility. ii.) Factual Impossibility: Def has set out to do something that would, if accomplished, constitute a crime, but because of factors of which he is unaware, there is no chance he will succeed in doing these things. His actions nevertheless demonstrate his dangerousness, and factual impossibility is universally rejected as a defense to attempt. Belief about facts is no defense. Abandonment: even voluntary abandonment is no defense: Abandonment is NEVER a defense

MENS REA: MPC: does not raise the mens rea of the circumstance, only conduct and result. So, the facts dont matter. If you hit someone and didnt know they were a cop, youre still guilty of aggravated battery. The circumstance is just recklessly. Same thing for value of a ring, or age of a minor in stat. rape. No attempt to commit crimes requiring nonintentional result: If a crime requires a mental state less than intent, there is no attempt. The mens rea requirement would automatically increase the requirement for the object crime above what was

10

intended. Ex: if the crime mens rea is recklessly (driving) you cannot be convicted of attempt, because that requires a higher mens rea.

Defense to Attempt: 1.)Impossibility: No Defense. It doesnt matter if theres a mistake, because we are always punishing him for what he thought. If a woman thought she was smuggling French lace into England, but the lace was really English, shes still guilty. She thought it was French. Also, Drywall case. You thought it was coke, even if it was drywall. Youre guilty. 2.) Abandonment: possible defense: Cares about whats in your head. Permits a def to avoid liability by proving voluntary abandonment, subject to two conditions: 1.) Abandonment must have been entirely voluntary. Cannot be motivated by risk of Apprehension or detention, or something that merely increased the difficulty of Committing the crime. 2.) Abandonment must have been complete. Cant just be a decision to postpone the Crime for a later date, or another victim. If you do these two things, the TRUE CHANGE OF HEART, you are guilty of NOTHING.

Thoughts

preparation

MPC MPC

RI

Prox. Attempt

Completed

Common Law Strict Liability Same

Conduct (act) Circumstance (facts)

Purpose Same read in recklessly

11

Result

Purpose

Same

SOLICITATION COMMON LAW

MPC

CONSPIRACY Both an inchoate offense and a complicity doctrine (makes you responsible for crime committed by others) An agreement by two or more persons to commit a criminal act or series of criminal acts, or to accomplish a legal act by unlawful means. Agreement + to do what+ by whom = conspiracy COMMON LAW Two or more persons 1.) intend to agree; and 2.) intend that the object of their agreement be achieved Agreement must be bilateral: must be at least two people. There must be an overt act in cl. Its one thing beyond the agreement itself to corroborate the agreement. Like mapquesting directions to the bank that you have agreed to rob. For an exam q., find the overt act and tell him what it is. Meeting of minds + intent = conspiracy MR = specific intent toward the contemplated crime and additional crimes that occur IF the additional crime was reasonably foreseeable in furtherance of the conspiracy OR natural and probable consequences or crimes intentionally aided and abetted. THEREFORE YOU NEED SPECIFIC INTENT + FORESEEABILITY. You can be held accountable for crimes in furtherance committed by your partners, even if you didnt have specific intent for further crimes. This is not so under the MPC. There are two tests: MPC A person is guilty of conspiracy with another person to commit a crime if with the purpose to promoting or facilitating its commission he: a.) agrees with such other person that they will engage in conduct that constitutes such crime or an attempt or solicitation to commit such crime; OR b.) agrees to aid such other person in the planning or commission of such crime or of an attempt or solicitation to commit such crime. MR = purpose (stake in the venture), just like common law, as to ALL ELEMENTS: circumstance, conduct, results Additional Offense: There is no liability for additional crimes, unlike CL Ex: D1 and D2 conspire to burn down a building for insurance money. In the fire an occupant dies. They will be guilty of murder because of their reckless indifference to human life, but not guilty of conspiracy to commit murder bc the object of their agreement was not to take human life. YOU WONT BE GUILTY OF CRIMES IN FURTHERANCE UNDER THE MPC; CAN ONLY BE GUILTY OF THE CRIME YOU INTENDED TO

12

Knowledge: makes all people who know equally guilty of crime. You neednt intend to help, but if you know youre guilty. Sometimes, this will be called Facilitation, only some states have it, where you would be guilty for facilitation of the conspiracy, not guilty of the actual crime. Ex: you knowingly give money to Al Qaida. But you arent intending to do what they choose to do with the money, and you have no stake in the crime. So youre only facilitating Intent / State: Intentionally helping or personally benefitting Ex: O, an undercover police officer, agrees with D to murder V. O has the requisite intent to form an agreement, but not the specific intent that a murder be committed. O is NG of conspiracy. Therefore, D will not be convicted either, because there must be two or mor persons. Pinketon Rule: Once youre in a conspiracy, youre on the hook for any other crimes that foreseeably occur. Look to see how foreseeable something was.

COMMIT, UNLIKE COMMON LAW WHICH HOLDS YOU GUILTY FOR ANY OTHER FORESEEABLE CRIMES. AR: the agreement. No of charges goes by the number of agreements like CL. The object is what they agree to. Agreement may be unilateral. MERGER: Conspiracy DOES merge Defenses: Impossibility (factual or legal) is not a defense Withdrawal: still guilty of conspiracy charge, but cut off future liability for other charges by conspirators. Renunciation / Abandonment: Is affirmative defense that will erase all liability (even conspiracy charge) if conspirator: renounces her criminal purpose and -thwarts the success of the conspiracy. (cannot happen under CL, always guilty of conspiracy once you join) Must be complete and voluntary, just like abandonment of attempt. TEST Q: If you only thwart bc youre scared of getting caught, youre still guilty. She has to NEGATE THE DANGER OF THE GROUP TO BE SUCCESSFUL in her defense.

CL will not MERGE conspiracy with other Inchoate offenses. No Solicitation at all. So you would be guilty of conspiracy + the other charge. Makes sentence bigger. AR: the agreement to commit the offense. How many agreements are there? The number of counts of conspiracy is based on the number of agreements there were, not the number of things they agree to do. Ex: conspiracy to distill and sell shine. There is only one agreement, not 7 agreements for all the tax laws they will violate. Who is a member of the agreement? This will appear on the test. The jury can decide how many there are, its a question of fact. What are the objects of the agreement?

You cannot be charged with conspiracy to violate a law that was enacted for your protection. Ex: prostitute cannot conspire to violate the Mann Act

13

Defenses: Impossibility (factual or legal) is not a defense Withdrawal: still guilty of conspiracy charge, but no future liability. Must advise conspirators or tell police. BASICALLY SAME DEFENSES AS MPC, BUT MPC HAS RENUNCIATION. Once you join the conspiracy, you can never erase your liability. However, under MPC if you thwart, then youre not guilty of anything at all.

The two generally overlap, and both appear in one scenario HOMICIDE: there are multiple forms of homicide
CRIMES AGAINST THE PERSON COMMON LAW The killing of a human being by another human being Either Murder or manslaughter AR: causing the death of a human being Year and a Day rule: D may not be prosecuted for crim. Homicide unless the victim dies within a year and a day of the act inflicting injury. If a person is kept alive artificially, go by the date of Brain death. Mistake of Fact: there are 3 different ways this can come up in homicide case -Mens rea: leads to acquittal. did D intend to cause death of human being? Maybe thought he was shooting a deer, not a person. This is a complete defense if its an honest mistake. If honest but UNREASONABLE you would be guilty. (guy was wearing bright orange when you shot him) -Self Defense: downgrades. If youre wrong

CRIMINAL HOMICIDE MPC

Unjustifiably and inexcusably takes the life of another human being purposely, knowingly, recklessly, or negligently. No Year and a Day Rule There are three forms: murder, manslaughter, and (unlike CL) negligent homicide.

Mistake of Fact: same as CL for self defense: If your mistake was reckless, youre convicted of reckless homicide. If it was negligent, then convicted of negligent homicide.

14

about your justification of self defense: If youre reasonable, not guilty. **Imperfect Justification: if your mistake was honest, but unreasonable in self defense and a homicide results, you will only be guilty of manslaughter, not murder. COMPLETED HOMICIDE is the ONLY exception. Attempted murder would still be guilty. Normally, for all others crimes, you would be guilty if your mistake was unreasonable. If you think its self defense, even unreasonable, the worse you can be convicted of for a completed homicide is manslaughter. -Provocation: downgrades. murder or manslaughter? If you kill in heat of passion, murder will be mitigated to manslaughter. Honest and reasonable= voluntary mans. Unreasonable = murder

Causation only matters for results elements, up to jury to decide which but for cause was the proximate cause But for cause + proximate cause -dependent intervening cause = homicide by D -independent intervening cause = not homicide by D (instead homicide by intervenor) Ex: you stab someone and at the hospital the evil doctor (but for) doesnt treat him so he dies (evil doc is proximate cause). Doc is an independent intervening cause, the doc is liable for murder. If the ambulance gets caught in a traffic jam on the way and the patient dies bc he cant get to the hospital the traffic jam might be foreseeable. Might not be.

15

Infection= dependent, responsible Evil dr. =independent, not responsible Traffic = dependent maybe Ex: I stab someone, he is stabbed by another person further down the street, and then hes run over by a car. Three but for causes. Who is responsible? Was the stab wound survivable, was the second, was the driver able to avoid the man? Or did he hit on purpose? The jury must make a judgment call about which of the but for causes is the proximate cause. Then the other but for causes are off the hook. -If you try to kill someone and only inflict a survivable wound and the second person shoots him (which is going to be fatal), car hits him, but not negligently, evil doctor deliberately lets the guy die. Dr. was trying to cause death, but death had already been caused. Shooter is guilty of murder, driver guilty of nothing, dr. guilty of attempted murder (the guy was already dying), the original stabber is guilty of attempted murder. Only one proximate cause, other but for causes cant be murder.

INTENTIONAL MURDER COMMON LAW Killing of a human being by another human being with malice aforethought MALICE is: 1. The intention to kill a human being 2. intention to inflict grievous bodily injury on another 3. an extremely reckless disregard for the value of human life 4. the intention to commit a felony during the commission or attempted commission of

MURDER MPC felony 1st degree Actor unjustifiably, inexcusably, and in the absence of a mitigating circumstance, kills another: 1.) Purposely or knowingly; OR 2.) recklessly under circumstances manifesting extreme indifference to the value of human life.

* No felony murder under the MPC!!!

16

which a death results. See below. -1st degree: 1.specific intent to kill 4. Felony murder -2nd degree: 3.depraved mind (extreme indifference) 2.Specific intent to cause great bodily harm

FELONY MURDER: imposes murder liability when i) the felony is inherently dangerous (does the ar of the felony involve a risk of death to people? Robbery, arson, rape, making drugs) and has an independent felonious purpose unrelated to risk of vs death (cant charge felony murder for crimes that were already about violence ie; manslaughter, battery) has to be dangerous, but non-homicidal, which is arson-also ar to burn, robbery, also ar to steal, etc. ii.) a death results as a natural and probable consequence of its commission -from the actions of a felon in furtherance of the felony If a policeman or fireman dies at the scene its felony murder bc it was foreseeable they would show up. So, if you are beating someone and they die, its manslaughter. If you are robbing someone and they die, its felony murder.

Will apply whether negligently, recklessly, accidently, or unforeseeably. Its strict liability so long as there is a felony murder rule. If death is caused by one of the felons, FM makes all co-felons guilty of murder.

17

Even if youre the accomplice that stays at home and isnt even at the scene.

What if the death is caused by someone else? -FM cannot apply, due to agency rule which says FM can only occur in commission of crime by one of the felons. -complicity (and conspiracy) only applies to crimes committed by fellow criminals (the bystander that committed the murder wasnt part of the original gang) -AND this includes depraved mind murders by a co-felon (like starting a gun battle with the police) However, if you start the fight, youre responsible for any deaths as depraved mind murder review ANtick case. This does not dispel with the malice requirement, but rather transfers the intent to commit the felony to the malice required for murder. The Res Gestae Requirement: things done to commit 1.) must be a close proximity of time and distance between the felony and the homicide Ex: an officer dies in pursuit of the robber. FM liability begins when the felony is attempted and ends after immediate flight from the felony murder. Fla. Has attempted felony murder when no death actually occurs. 2.) have a causal aspect (would the thing that killed have happened if they werent committing a crime? Ex: airplane crash would happen even if illegal cargo wasnt on board).

VOLUNTARY MANSLAUGHTER COMMON LAW An unlawful killing of a human being by

MANSLAUGHTER MPC- felony 2d degree a.) recklessly kills another; or

18

another human being WITHOUT malice aforethought.

V.M. uses provocation to mitigate murder, its not a defense, just lowers the sentence.

b.) kills another 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. (THIS IS LIKE CL PROVOCATION)

An intentional killing committed in sudden heat of passion as the result of adequate provocation. -Voluntary: specific intent to kill but provoked by the victim 1. in fact provoked 2. legally adequate form of provocation: battery, assault, or witnessing your spouse committing adultery. 3. objectively reasonable homicidal rage (would other people reasonably do the same?) 4. no cooling off period If you kill someone bc they threatened your kid, spouse, etc. even though its not legal defense of others, the charge will be mitigated because kid, spouse fit the 4 above.

Unlike CL, liability cannot be founded on negligence, they have to be at least reckless (conscious disregard).

Murder and Manslaughter may both be reckless. The difference is that its murder if done with extreme indifference to the value of human life and manslaughter if not.

Does Not Count: -Mere Words (unless they constitute assault) -gestures (flipping someone off) -trespass to property -misconduct by a servant -Breach of K

19

INVOLUNTARY / unintentional MANSLAUGHTER NEGLIGENT HOMICIDE COMMON LAW 2d degree -Involuntary: general intent toward causing death (drunk driving, pretty low risk youll kill someone)

MPC felony 3d degree

Criminal homicide constitutes negligent homicide when it is committed negligently

(cant have attempted unintentional murder-doesnt make sense)

Always think What is the risk of death? Then charge accordingly: no crime, gi manslaughter, depraved mind murder.

DEPRAVED MIND MURDER: extreme recklessness. wickedness. An extreme indifference to the value of human life. The accused does not intent to kill, but malice is implied bc there is a wanton and willful disregard for the likelihood that the natural tendency of the defs behavior is to cause death or great bodily harm. as good as intended to kill his victim Ex: intentionally shoots gun in crowded room, drives at high speed in rain while drunk, plays Russian roulette. May also be evidenced by an omission: failure to feed children, fostering dogs aggression and failing to secure them. GENERAL INTENT MANSLAUGHTER: reckless or negligent. causing substantial and unjustifiable risk of death. Ex: purposely wrecking someones car, or drunk driving which is ALWAYS manslaughter. Whats the risk?

NO CRIME (NOT INTENTIONALRESPONSIBLE ONLY FOR AR, THERES NO MR): probability of death is miniscule.

20

Punches someone and they die. Guilty of battery, but not manslaughter.

INSANITY DEFENSE Common Law When is this excuse triggered? MNaghten /Cognitive Test: were mental faculties so substantially impaired that he didnt know what he was doing? -Do you have a defect of reason, such that the defendant didnt know either the nature of what he was doing or that his acts were wrong? Did you think you were acting on instructions from god? Have actus reus but not mens rea. Gotta be something pretty close to out of your mind. Devil told me to do, hes an alien, etc. You know what youre doing, but you think youre right to do it. Control /Volitional: Person knows they are wrong, but unable to control themselves due to their illness. An irresistible impulse.

MPC Uses a combo of both CL tests.

-Due to a mental illness, the D lacks the substantial capacity to either appreciate the criminality of what he was doing or; - to conform his behavior to the law.

Know def of rape, and cl and mpc homicide. Gotta know the elements and grades yourself. Otherwise, hell give you the statute

21