criminal law 1

• 1. Recklessness
• 2. caused Death

• - Rule- DJ violated when remedy sought by prosecution would require a retrial of D.
• - Prosecution may still appeal acquittals
• - Decina: P sought re-entry of Decina's trial ct conviction, thus not DJ not violated
• -Think about in every case

• - Standard review for a claim of insufficiency of the evidence is "Plain Error"
• - If D claims facts not strong enough to support conviction, decision to be reversed based on..
• - evidence taken in light most favorable to the prosecution, no rational jurur could have convicted the defendend
• -very hard standard to overcome
• -only gross plain error.

• 1. basic act AND
• 2. Future act or consequence

• - Voluntary Intox IS a defense!
• - Any belief in inconsistent with an element of the crime will defeat liability

• - 1st degree murder
• - Express Malice 2nd degree murder
• - burglary
• - theft
• - Solicitation
• - all attempts
• - Whitfield

Basic/blunt act

(no future contemplated act or consequence beyond)

• - voluntary intox IS NOT a defense
• - A belief must be REASONABLE to defeat liability

• - Implied Malice 2nd degree murder
• - involuntary manslaughter
• - voluntary manslaughter
• - rape
• - arson
• - kidnapping
• - simple assault
• - assault with deadly weapon
• **these are all blunt acts

every action is that is not voluntary, involuntary or mixed is "ordinary" and does not require classification.

• - RULE: unconscious person not acting. but liable via knowledge of risk in proportion to risk that materialized.
• - Decina- Knew he could have SZ while driving, and that risk could cause a death. (risk proportional)
• - Cogdon- knew she could sleep walk, but didn't think she would kill in her sleep. (risk not proportional)

• -RULE: No criminal responsibility to act UNLESS following elements met..
• 1. Duty to act
• 2. breach
• 3. mental state
• 4. causation

• - special relationship
• - contract
• - Statute
• - Voluntary Assumption of Care*
• * Flippo

• - Reckless: involuntary manslaughter
• - intent to kill: murder
• - malice: murder

• 1. 1st Degree Felony Murder
• 2. Premeditation and deliberation

• 1. Perpetration or attempted perpetration of a numerated felony
• 2. Death of a victim*
• * Stamp- death need not be foreseeable (strict liability)
• * eg. Honeyman - HA death during robbery

• - Burglary
• - Arson
• - Rape
• - Robbery
• - Kidnapping
• - CA: mayhem and train-wrecking
• - BARRK

• - all for 1 and 1 for all
• - Cabaltero - Principle and accomplices are all killers
• - even if they kill one of their own.

• - Perpetration by Means
• - if malicious felon survives, all share his malice*
• * Caldwell
• - if malicious felon dies, then others only guilty of underlying 3.01 offense*
• * Antick

• - shoot back case: you are responsible for initiating gun fight as principle murderer.
• - responsible for causing police to shoot, and any resulting deaths
• - Cervantes- intervening superseding event removed his liability

• - both utilize rule for conviction
• - sentencing differs:
• *MPC: can only sentence for 1 felony
• *CA: can sentence for a 3.01 offense AND murder

• -1. premeditation - how, when, planning to do it
• 2. deliberation - weather to do it
• - Anderson - no planing or motive as manner was violent and random , thus not first degree.

• 1. Second degree Felony Murder
• 2. Express Malice Second Degree Murder
• 3. Implied Malice Second Degree Murder

• - Non BARRK felony
• - death occurs
• *need not prove malice

• 1. Offense can be done too easily, and is not inherently dangerous enough
• *eg. Williams- conspiracy to possess methedrine without a Rx
• 2. Offense is too dangerous: Purely assaultive.Merger Doctrine
• *sarun Chun

• - The offense must have an independent, non assaultive purpose, or the offense will merge with the killing and felony murder rule will not apply.
• - eg. Sarun Chun- shooting at an occupied vehicle is very assaultive and dangerous, thus must try for murder, not felony murder.

• - intentional
• - death occurs
• - not premeditated
• - Anderson -

• - not intentional
• - death occurs
• - Extreme Recklessness: high probability that D's actions will cause death.
• - Watson - driving extremely recklessly while drunk (not a defense) implied malice though not expressed.

• 1. Recklessness (ordinary)
• * D's actions create a high probability will cause death, but not extreme probability
• 2. Causes death.
• - Watson, Decina, Flippo

• 1. Heat of Passion
• 2. Imperfect Self Defense
• - RULE: VM negates malice and reduces murder to manslaughter

• - combines partial excuse with Justification.
• - excuse is D's , justification is something victim did.
• - Spurlin: peggy was provoker and partially to blame, but Scott did not provoke, so murder.

• CA elements
• - 1. must be a provoker
• - 2. Provoker must be one killed
• - UNLESS- mistake, accident, victim aiding and abetting killer
• MPC
• - Extreme emotional disturbance
• - no need for CA elements
• * broad view, lower standard.

• 1. D believed deadly force was necessary
• 2. Deadly force was not necessary AND
• 3. Belief that DF was necessary was unreasonable
• - Villanueva - instructions on imperfect self defense must be given sua sponte if evidence exists.
• ** perfect self defense would be deadly force IS necessary or was reasonable to believe so. Goetz

• CA/MPC
• - imperfect SD mitigates murder to manslaughter

• NY
• - no middle ground, imperfect SD = murder; perfect = acquittal.

• - Accident = unintentional = unforeseen incidental
• - if unforeseeable then reasonable and not negligence
• - if foreseeable, then unreasonable and guilty of negligence.
• - like provocation, imperfect self defense mitigates murder to manslaughter in CA/MPC, even for otherwise intentional or extremely reckless killing

• 1. Attempts
• 2. Solicitation
• 3. Conspiracy
• *SAC
• *inchoate means undeveloped
• * must also remember Complicity and Accomplice Liability if more than one person.

• - Bond: look at facts and physical appearance to determine if D had Specific Intent to commit crime
• - Attempt makes any crime Specific intent
• - voluntary intox is a defense, any belief inconsistent with elements of crime will defeat liability
• - Mere preparation not an attempt
• - MPC - substantial step toward commission (easy)
• - CA: unambiguous manifestation of intent to commence unless stopped (harder than MPC)
• * Decker: solicitation + subsequent conduct = attempt
• - Last proximate act - nothing left to be done
• * think as sliding scale using "acts"

• 1. Legal Impossibility
• 2. Factual Impossibility

• - if what D was trying to do was legal, then no attempt
• - "man was never on the thing"
• - eg. can't attempt poaching alligators, if no law exists prohibiting the killing of alligators.

• - a non delusional mistake = attempt; i.e. man tricked by undercover cop, or tried to kill decoy
• - delusional mistake = no attempt; something wrong with him; i.e delusional beliefs, shot at post thinking it was a man

• CA
• - 50% off completed offense sentence

• MPC
• - 100% of completed offense,
• - exception: 1st degree felonies
• * only reduces punishment of attempted serious offenses, like 1st degree murder.

• 1. ask another to commit a crime with
• 2. Specific intent that person commit the crime
• * i.e not joking around

• 1. Agreement by 2 + to commit a crime
• 2. with Specific intent to commit crime
• 3. An overt act in furtherance of the agreement

• - all members responsible for Natural and Probable Consequences of the conspiracy
• - Zielesch - killing cop was natural and probable
• - take your assassin as you find him

• 1. Knowledge
• 2. Intent
• 3. Aid or encourage
• * Beeman: lacked intent
• * above for 3.01 offense

• - excess liability
• - rear actor vicariously liable for surplus acts that are natural and probable consequences of the 3.01 offense
• - Prettyman: wife encouraged

• 1. Hayes Approach:
• -Accomplice Liability is Derivative.
• - if front actor excused, then rear is excused
• 2. Grafting Approach:
• - Graft front act with rear intent
• - accomplice needs his own excuse or justification
• - eg: McCoy: Lakey's conviction stands despite McCoys reversal.

***do both approaches on Exam!!!

• CA:
• - Sentencing for Solicitation or Conspiracy AND intended offense
• - can get sentenced for 2 convictions

• MPC
• - Can only sentence for 1 convictions
• - either Solicitation, Conspiracy OR intended crime. no combo