Crim Law.txt

• Physical act
• Mental state
• Causation (actual and proximate)
• Concurrence (of physical act with mental state)

• Insanity
• Intoxication
• Infancy
• Self-defense
• Duress
• Entrapment

• Any state where an ACT TOOK PLACE that was part of the crime, OR
• Any state where the RESULT of those acts took place

• PROSECUTION must prove EACH ELEMENT
• BEYOND A REASONABLE DOUBT

1) COMMON LAW

• PROSECUTION must DISPROVE each element of a defense once raised
• BEYOND A REASONABLE DOUBT (except where INSANITY is raised as defense—then must disprove by PREPONDERANCE of evidence)

2) NEW YORK LAW

• DEFENSES: PROSECUTION must DISPROVE each element of defense by beyond a reasonable doubt
• AFFIRMATIVE DEFENSES: ∆ must PROVE each element of defense by preponderance of evidence

1) PUNISHABLE by more than 1 YEAR

2) MAXIMUM punishment cannot exceed 1 YEAR in prison

1) NO CRIME without a PHYSICAL ACT (as a general rule)

2) ACT = VOLUNTARY bodily movement ("voluntary" includes acts under coercion or duress)

1) FAILURE TO ACT can be basis for criminal liability (in limited situations)

2) ELEMENTS (need all 3)

• LEGAL DUTY to act (e.g., statute, contract, status (i.e., parent-child, spouse-spouse), voluntary assumption of care, ∆ creates peril)
• KNOWLEDGE OF FACTS giving rise to the legal duty; AND
• ABILITY TO HELP (minimal ability, e.g., crying-out for help)

1) DESIRE to do the ACT and the desire to ACHIEVE A RESULT

2) 11 SPECIFIC INTENT CRIMES

• Assault
• Murder-1
• Larceny
• Embezzlement
• False Pretenses
• Robbery
• Forgery
• Burglary
• Solicitation
• Conspiracy
• Attempted crime

1) ACTING INTENTIONALLY or with RECKLESS DISREGARD as to an obvious or known risk.

2) COMMON LAW MALICE CRIMES

• Murder
• Arson

1) GENERAL AWARENESS of the factors constituting a crime—desire to achieve a specific result not necessary. Note: Jury may infer GI simply from the doing of the act

• 2) EXAMPLES
• Battery
• False imprisonment
• Kidnapping
• Forceable rape

1) SIMPLY DOING THE ACT results in a crime—no mental state needed!

• 2) TWO TYPES of strict liability crimes
• Public welfare (e.g., selling alcohol to minor, selling contaminated food, corrupting the morals of a minor)
• Statutory rape

1) ANY MISTAKE of fact, even an unreasonable one, is a defense

2) only a REASONABLE MISTAKE of fact is a defense

3) NEVER A DEFENSE

1) GENERAL RULE. Mistake of law is NOT A DEFENSE

2) EXCEPTIONS (mistake of law IS a defense)

• Statute expressly requires KNOWLEDGE of the law as an element of the crime
• Statute was NOT PUBLISHED
• ∆ REASONABLY RELIED on a statute or judicial decision that was DECLARED UNCONSTITUTIONAL or OVERRULED; OR
• ∆ REASONABLY RELIED on an official interpretation or advice from someone charged with ENFORCEMENT, administration, or interpretation of the law***

***erroneous advice from a private attorney is not a defense

When it is the ∆'s CONSCIOUS OBJECT to accomplish a PARTICULAR RESULT—i.e., the ∆ MEANT to do reach the result

When ∆ is AWARE of what he is doing

When ∆ is AWARE of a substantial and unjustifiable risk, and CONSCIOUSLY DISREGARDS that risk

***requires showing of ∆'s subjective knowledge

When ∆ SHOULD HAVE KNOWN about a substantial and unjustifiable risk

***Objective standard. ∆'s subjective knowledge is irrelevant

No mental state required (similar to common law)

1) MISTAKE OF FACT is a DEFENSE IF the mistake NEGATES the required mental state

2) APPLICATION—for crimes of

• PURPOSE, KNOWLEDGE, or RECKLESSNESS—a mistake of fact (EVEN AN UNREASONABLE one) is a defense
• NEGLIGENCE—only a REASONABLE mistake is a defense
• STRICT LIABILITY—never a defense

NEVER—no exceptions (still a crime, even if ∆ doesn't know about the law)

BUT-FOR TEST

• ∆ is an "actual cause" if the bad result would not have a happened BUT-FOR the ∆'s conduct
• NOTE: an ACCELERATING CAUSE is an actual cause

1) PROXIMATE CAUSE if the bad result is a NATURAL AND PROBABLE consequence of the ∆'s conduct

• 2) KEY CONCEPTS
• Foreseeability
• Fairness

3) THIN-SKULLED VICTIMS—∆ will be proximate cause even if victim's PRE-EXISTING WEAKNESS contributed to bad result

4) INTERVENING CAUSES—∆ will NOT be proximate cause if an UNFORESEEABLE INTERVENING EVENT causes the bad result

YES—surgeon's negligence was foreseeable result, even if it was an intervening cause

1) ∆ must have MENTAL STATE at the time he engages in the ACT

• 2) Concurrence issues most frequently arise as to the crimes of-
• Larceny
• Burglary

1) ELEMENTS

• The UNLAWFUL
• application of FORCE to another
• resulting in either BODILY INJURY, or OFFENSIVE TOUCHING

2) GENERAL INTENT

1) ATTEMPTED BATTERY, or

• 2) the INTENTIONAL creation
• OTHER than MERE WORDS
• of a REASONABLE APPREHENSION in the mind of the victim
• of IMMINENT BODILY HARM

Mental state: SPECIFIC INTENT (to bring about desired result)

An assault or battery will be more serious if one of the following is added

• a WEAPON is used
• the victim is a CHILD, elderly, handicapped, or otherwise VULNERABLE, or
• the intent is to commit a ROBBERY or RAPE

• INTENT
• to cause SERIOUS PHYSICAL INJURY
• to ANOTHER PERSON

***memorize ASSAULT-2. Can make into A1 or A3 by adding or subtracting aggravating or mitigating factors

Assault-2, plus use of a WEAPON

Intentionally causing PHYSICAL INJURY to another person

An "attempted" assault in NY. Merely creating a "reasonable apprehension" WITHOUT an intent to actually injure

1) ELEMENTS

• the UNLAWFUL
• CONFINEMENT of a person
• without CONSENT

2) GENERAL INTENT

1) ELEMENTS

• False imprisonment
• that involves MOVING the victim or CONCEALING the victim in a secret place

2) GENERAL INTENT

3) AGGRAVATED KIDNAPPING—add one of the following

• purpose is to collect RANSOM
• purpose is to commit ROBBERY or RAPE
• victim is a CHILD

1) ELEMENTS OF 2ND DEGREE

• UNLAWFULLY
• RESTRAINING someone
• without their CONSENT, and
• with KNOWLEDGE that the restriction is UNLAWFUL (i.e., mistake of law IS a defense)

2) ELEMENTS OF 1ST DEGREE

• Second degree unlawful imprisonment, PLUS
• risk of SERIOUS PHYSICAL INJURY

1) 2ND DEGREE ELEMENTS—Abducting someone

2) 1ST DEGREE ELEMENTS—2nd degree, PLUS one of the following

• RANSOM
• RESTRAINT of victim for > 12 HOURS with intent to RAPE, injure, or ROB the victim
• DEATH of the victim

• 1) ELEMENTS
• SEX
• without the victim's CONSENT
• accomplished by FORCE, THREAT of force, or when the victim is UNCONSCIOUS

2) GENERAL INTENT

1) SEX with someone UNDER AGE OF CONSENT

• 2) REQUIRED MENTAL STATE
• Majority Rule: Strict liability (no mental state required)
• MPC/Minority: REASONABLE mistake of age IS a defense

3) NY AGE OF CONSENT = 17

1) DEFINED—person HELPS THE PRINCIPAL commit the crime by AIDING or ENCOURAGING the principal

2) REQUIRED MENTAL STATE

• MBE: INTENT that the CRIME be committed
• NYBE: INTENT to AID PRINCIPAL'S conduct

• 1) GUILTY OF
• All crimes that he AIDED or ENCOURAGED, and
• All other FORESEEABLE crimes committed along with the aided crime

2) STILL GUILTY as an accomplice

• MERE PRESENCE
• MERE KNOWLEDGE of crime†
• MEMBERS OF THE PROTECTED CLASS (e.g., victims)

†though knowledge in NY can make someone guilty of "CRIMINAL FACILITATION"

1) WITHDRAW

• DISCOURAGE crime, if he/she only ENCOURAGED the principal, but must
• NEUTRALIZE assistance OR PREVENT the crime from happening, if he/she AIDED the principal

• 2) RENOUNCE
• make SUBSTANTIAL EFFORT to prevent principal from committing the crime
• AFFIRMATIVE defense (i.e., ∆ must prove by preponderance of evidence)

1) ELEMENTS—∆ must

• ASSIST principal who has committed a FELONY
• with KNOWLEDGE that felony has been committed, and
• with the SPECIFIC INTENT to help principal AVOID arrest or conviction

2) "HINDERING PROSECUTION"

1) ASKING someone to commit a crime, with the INTENT that the crime be committed

2) SPECIFIC INTENT (desire that other person commit the crime requested)

3) COMPLETION UNNECESSARY—Crime is in the ASKING (Person asked need not actually complete the requested crime or even agree for ∆ to be guilty)

1) ELEMENTS

• ILLEGAL AGREEMENT between 2+ people to commit a crime, plus an
• OVERT ACT in furtherance of that crime (even if minimal)

2) SPECIFIC INTENT to accomplish conspiracy's objective

3) COMPLETION UNNECESSARY—Crime is in the illegal agreement and overt act

1) ONE-PERSON CONSPIRACY?

• COMMON LAW: No. Must have at least 2 guilty minds
• NY/MPC: Yes. ∆ may be guilty, even if other parties are acquitted or just pretending to agree

2) VICARIOUS LIABILITY FOR CRIMES OF CO-CONSPIRATORS?

• COMMON LAW: YES, if crimes (i) FURTHERED conspiracy, and (ii) were FORESEEABLE
• NY RULE: NO VICARIOUS LIABILITY

1) MAJORITY DEFINITION

• Conduct that is a SUBSTANTIAL STEPS towards the crime, and
• STRONGLY CORROBORATIVE of a criminal purpose

2) NY DEFINITION—Conduct that gets DANGEROUSLY CLOSE to commission of the crime

3) SPECIFIC INTENT to commit the attempted crime (Note–can't be guilty of unintentional crimes (e.g., recklessness, negligence, felony murder))

• 1) NOT A DEFENSE TO ATTEMPTED CRIME
• A claim that it was impossible to complete the crime because of outside forces is NOT A DEFENSE to an attempted crime
• ∆ isn't innocent, merely because things didn't go his/her way—still specifically intended to commit a crime

2) YES (defense to attempted crime)

• Impossible to commit crime if acts aren't illegal
• ∆'s sincere belief that acts are illegal doesn't transmute them into a crime

1) NOT A DEFENSE (except that ∆ is no longer vicariously liable, once he leaves a conspiracy)

2) CAN BE A DEFENSE, but only if

• ∆ VOLUNTARILY and COMPLETELY renounces the crime, AND
• renunciation is based on a genuine CHANGE OF HEART (i.e., new found morality)

1) LESSER OFFENSE MERGES with the greater offense (i.e., charged only with greater offense)

2) MERGER OF INCHOATE OFFENSES depends on the offense

• ATTEMPT: lesser offense MERGES with completed offense
• CONSPIRACY: NO MERGER (i.e., can be charged with conspiracy AND other crimes)
• SOLICITATION: Lesser offense MERGES with greater offense under COMMON LAW, but NO MERGER under NY LAW

1) ASKING someone to commit a crime, with the INTENT that the crime be committed

2) SPECIFIC INTENT (desire that other person commit the crime requested)

3) COMPLETION UNNECESSARY—Crime is in the ASKING (Person asked need not actually complete the requested crime or even agree for ∆ to be guilty)

1) ELEMENTS

• ILLEGAL AGREEMENT between 2+ people to commit a crime, plus an
• OVERT ACT in furtherance of that crime (even if minimal)

2) SPECIFIC INTENT to accomplish conspiracy's objective

3) COMPLETION UNNECESSARY—Crime is in the illegal agreement and overt act

1) ONE-PERSON CONSPIRACY?

• COMMON LAW: No. Must have at least 2 guilty minds
• NY/MPC: Yes. ∆ may be guilty, even if other parties are acquitted or just pretending to agree

2) VICARIOUS LIABILITY FOR CRIMES OF CO-CONSPIRATORS?

• COMMON LAW: YES, if crimes (i) FURTHERED conspiracy, and (ii) were FORESEEABLE
• NY RULE: NO VICARIOUS LIABILITY

1) MAJORITY DEFINITION

• Conduct that is a SUBSTANTIAL STEPS towards the crime, and
• STRONGLY CORROBORATIVE of a criminal purpose

2) NY DEFINITION—Conduct that gets DANGEROUSLY CLOSE to commission of the crime

3) SPECIFIC INTENT to commit the attempted crime (Note–can't be guilty of unintentional crimes (e.g., recklessness, negligence, felony murder))

• 1) NOT A DEFENSE TO ATTEMPTED CRIME
• A claim that it was impossible to complete the crime because of outside forces is NOT A DEFENSE to an attempted crime
• ∆ isn't innocent, merely because things didn't go his/her way—still specifically intended to commit a crime

2) YES (defense to attempted crime)

• Impossible to commit crime if acts aren't illegal
• ∆'s sincere belief that acts are illegal doesn't transmute them into a crime

1) NOT A DEFENSE (except that ∆ is no longer vicariously liable, once he leaves a conspiracy)

2) CAN BE A DEFENSE, but only if

• ∆ VOLUNTARILY and COMPLETELY renounces the crime, AND
• renunciation is based on a genuine CHANGE OF HEART (i.e., new found morality)

1) LESSER OFFENSE MERGES with the greater offense (i.e., charged only with greater offense)

2) MERGER OF INCHOATE OFFENSES depends on the offense

• ATTEMPT: lesser offense MERGES with completed offense
• CONSPIRACY: NO MERGER (i.e., can be charged with conspiracy AND other crimes)
• SOLICITATION: Lesser offense MERGES with greater offense under COMMON LAW, but NO MERGER under NY LAW