Crim Law

• 1. K
• 2. HB
• 3. L/UL

killing of a human being lawfully/unlawfully

• 1. UK
• 2. HB
• 3. M, E/I

Unlawful killing of a human being w/ malice aforethought, either expressed or implied

a legal term reflecting a particular human-endangering state of mind.

doesn’t need to be directed at a specific person

• 1. i to K
• 2. i to GBH
• 3. DH/WD- conscious disregard for awareness/ unjustifiably high risk for human life
• 4. FMR- BAR RM KS

Burglary, Arson, Rape, Robbery, Mayhem, Kidnapping, Sodomy

• if they reach a place of safety then no FMR rule applies
• Exception- Merger Doctrine-

Whinny Pretty Tiny Lying Bitches Cant Cut it

Willful/ premeditated/ Deliberate, Poision, Torture, Lying in wait, Bombing/ explosives, Certain enumerated felonies (BAR RM KS), Child Molestation.

Burglary, Arson, Rape, Robbery, Mayhem, Kidnapping, Sodomy

• includes all other kinds of deaths with malice,
• or
• insufficient evidence to establish: deliberation/premeditation or during the commission of an inherently dangerous felony which doesn’t belong in the certain enumerated felony categories

• 1. UIK
• 2. HB
• 3. W/o M
• 4. HOP/AP or ISD

unlawful intentional killing of a human being without Malice in the heat of passion based on adequate provocation or done in good faith but unreasonable belief in self defense.

• AP- so great to inflame the passion of a reasonable person and cause him to act from passion rather than reason
• HOP- to act from passion rather than reason

need causal connection between provocation, passion, and the act

ISD- honest but unreasonable belief in the need for self-defense

• 1. UK
• 2. HB
• 3. W/o M
• 4. W/o I to K

• -criminal negligence- gross deviation from a reasonable standard of care
• -unlawful act

Malium in se- (wrong in itself) must be causal connection between unlawful act and the death Non-dangerous Felony- causal connection between unlawful act and death

@CL- Misdemeanor

• 1. A
• 2. B (UA, F, P)

attempt to commit a battery (Unlawful Application of Force to the Person of another)

• -must INTEND to commit a battery
• -victim does NOT need to be AWARE of assault

• 1. IPA
• 2. A
• 3. IB

• intention Placing of Another in Apprehension of an Immediate Battery
• (Unlawfull Application of Force to the Person of another)
• -Victim MUST be AWARE of assault
• -intent to harm is not required, just intent to communicate a threat to inflict harm + apparent ability to do so.

• 1. UA
• 2. F
• 3. P
• Unlawful Application of Force to the Person of another

Mens rea- touching must be without consent

examples: spitting, kisisng, squeezing, throwing an object, cutting clothes off, exposing a helpless person to the inclement weather

• consent removes “unlawful” element unless:
• -coerced/obtained by fraud
• -given by one not legally capable of consent (minor/disability)
• -not recogbized by law (social harm, GBH)

• @CL-
• 1. UCK
• 2. WNW
• 3. W/o C
• 4. AW x F/F

Unlawful Carnal Knowledge, w/ Woman Not his Wife, Without Consent, Against her Will by using Force/Fear

• -submission must be reasonable
• -any penetration, however slight, is sufficient
• -@CL one can rape his own wife if he aids another in the rape
• -Modern Law- includes wives

-Defense- Good faith and reasonable belief in consent

• 1. SI
• 2. AW
• 3. F/F-IBI V

Sexual Intercourse Against Will by Force, Violence, Duress, menace or Fear of IBI

unlawful sexual intercourse with a willing person under the age of consent

• 1. IUC/R
• 2. oA
• 3. W/o C

Intentional Unlawful Confinement or Restraint of Another person without his consent

may be accomplished by physical barriers, physical barriers, threat of force, or assertion of authority which results in submission.

• (@CL-M)
• 1. FA /SA
• 2. M/W/C
• 3. tx 1C-2C

the forcible abduction/ stealing away any man/woman/child from his/her country and sending them to another

Modern- (F) aggravated if for the purpose of extortion for ransom

• Defense- Consent.
• Defense to consent: legal/ physical/ mental disability, at time subject to coercion/ threats/ fraud.

• (@CL)
• Maliciously depriving another of the use of his members as may render him less able in fighting/defending/annoying his adversary.

-some states require intent to maim/ disfigure/or unlawful act which it’s a likely result

• Modern- Malicious maim/disfiguring of another
• ^ in some states specific intent is required, intent may be inferred from a deliberate act/ calculated to produce such a result.

(@CL-M)

fighting by previous agreement with deadly weapons.

“seconds” can be aiders/ abettors

BETDONI

the Breaking and Entering into the Dwelling Of Another in the Nighttime, with intent to commit a Felony

slightest force used to gain entry.

• -can be a breaking if use force to gain entry into an inner door.
• -breaking is constructive if gained by fraud/ artifice, false pretenses, or conspiracy.
• -Breaking out is insufficient.

slightest penetration of the threshold by the body.

@CL- an object attached to the body is not entry unless the tool is used for more than gaining entry but for criminal (felonious) purpose.

• -B&E must be contrary to the will and consent of the occupier.
• -Use of fraud/trick is trespassory.
• -B&E to inner doors can be trespassory.

usual place of sleep, occupied at least once, any building under the curtilage of the main house

• 2. 30 minutes after sunset and before sunrise
• 3. insufficient light to permit the countenance

must intend when breaking and entering to commit a felony

• -forming intent afterwards is insufficient.
• -burglary is complete on B&E w/ required intent even if felony (any theft @CL) is not committed or is abandoned.

• 1. E
• 2. S
• 3. I

Any person who enters a structure with intent to commit grand/ petit (petty) larceny, or any felony is guilty of burglary.

• 1st degree- residence
• 2nd degree- any other kind of of structure

• 1. M
• 2. B
• 3. D
• 4. oA

Malicious Burning of the Dwelling house of Another

Malicious- burning must be done voluntarily, without excuse/ justification

• Burning- part of the structure must be physically damaged by fire.
• -Discoloration by heat or blistering of paint, is not enough.

Dwelling- same as CL Burglary

Modern- Of Another element was eliminated.

• (@CL)
• 1. T
• 2. T
• 3. CA
• 4. PP
• 5. oA
• 6. IPD

Trespassory Taking and Carrying Away of the Personal Property of Another with the Intent to Permanently Deprive

T- Trespassory; larceny by trick if acquired fraudulently

• -doctrine of continuing trespass- property borrowed w/o permission w/ intent to return, still trespassory
• -bank gives you +$ and you don’t know, not T
• if posession was acquired innocently but later a change of mind, still no larceny bc no trespass
• -not trespassory if taken to get reward (p.8)**
• -trespassory if taken until reward offered, larceny

T- Taking- capture.

• -must obtain dominion and control of property
• -if taking by another hand for the thief, same as thief’s hand

• Carrying Away- Asportation,
• to go someplace with property

• -slightest movement is sufficent
• -property does not need to be removed from the premises

PP- Personal Property

• -must be subject of ownership
• -must have some value
• -illegal property in deficance of the law is not subject to larceny
• -but property of inherent value can be subject to larceny
• -wild animals- generally not
• ^exception- killed on owner’s soil and person returns later such that killing and taking is not a continuous act

oA- of Another

• -can be your own property if a lien is placed on property
• -dead person’s property is still that “of Another”
• -if no one never had possession then not of another and can’t be subject of larceny

IPD- w/ Intent to Permanently Deprive

must have IPD at time of Taking/ carrying Away, or during continuous trespass

• IPD if:
• -abandons property to make recovery by owner unlikely

• No IPD:
• 1. even if taken under (mistaken) claim of right
• 2. if intending to return property/ like quantity
• 3. if wrong property taken by mistaken belief / authority/ consent

• 1. T
• 2. T
• 3. CA
• 4. PP
• 5. oA
• 6. PoF
• 7. IPD

Trespassory Taking and Carrying Away Personal Property of Another where possession was obtained by Fraud with Intent to Permanently Deprive

• General Rule- V expects to regain possession, then larceny by trick.
• V intends to give possession and title, then false pretenses.

Grand Larceny- +$400

fraudulent conversion of Personal Property by a person to whom possession of property was entrusted by/for the owner.

conversion- requires serious act of interference with the owner’s rights.

obtaining possession and title to property by means of a material false representation with intent to defraud.

• -false promise or failure to correct a false impression generally insufficent
• -D must know of falsity and intend to deceive and IPD V of property
• -V must rely on misrepresentation and party w/ property based on it.
• -D must obtain possession and title
• -if representation, false when made, becomes true before anything obtained in reliance theron, crime of false pretense is not committed

Majority- fraud is about something to be done in the future, then no false pretenses.

Minority- a promise made without intention to perform is a misrepresentation of an existing fact

• 1. D has custody only (or less control) and steals property
• = Larceny

• 2. D has possession only and steals property
• = Embezzlement

3. D by fraud obtains possession only of property = Larceny by Trick

• 4. D by fraud obtains possession and title of property
• = False Pretenses

• 1. T- Trespassory
• 2. T- Taking
• 3. CA- Carrying Away
• 4. PP- Personal Property
• 5. oA- of Another
• 6. w/ IPD- w/ Intent to Permanently Deprive
• 7. V/I - by Violence/ Intimidation

The trespassory taking and Carrying Away the Personal Property of Another w/ Intent to Permanently Deprive by Foce/ Fear / Violence/ Intimidation

• -threat of future harm is insufficent
• -if property is close enough to person to be w/i their control, that they could’ve prevented the taking had it not been due to F/F, then property has been taken
• V/I must related to immediate harm to V, family member, person who is present or on property

• 1. F
• 2. T
• 3. PP
• 3. PoA
• 4. P/IP
• 5. AW
• 6. F/F

the Felonious Taking of Personal Property in the Possession of Another from his Person or Immediate Presence and Against his Will by Force or Fear

• -employee can be victim of store’s property
• -force/fear used to escape or defend against recapture of property is sufficient

under person’s control

any act which prevent’s the recovery by the owner

• -must be “stolen” property, and retain it’s character at the time it is received
• -once restored to owner, it ceases to be stolen
• -must be received w/ knowledge either:
• 1. knows it to be stolen
• 2. believes it to be stolen
• 3. has suspicions aroused and refuses to investigate further for fear of discovering it is stolen

the malicious destruction of/ damage to, the property of another, whether real or personal.

• CL-M
• ML-F, depending on value

fraudulent making of a false writing having apparent legal significance

knowingly offering as genuine, one known to be false.

unlawful making, in the similtude of the genuine, of any false money, or of any false obligation or other security of the U.S/ any foreign government.

corrupt collection of an unlawful fee by an officer under the color of office, with no proof of threat/ force/ duress required.

statutory blackmail

• a.) unlawful extraction of money or other value by means of an unlawful threat
• or
• b.) unlawful threat made for that purpose

both parties to the illicit intercourse are guilty of the offense if either are married to a third party.

illicit intercourse which is not adultery

depends the state

contracting a second marriage during the existence of a prior martial relation or marrying more than one spouse at the same time.

marriage or sexual intercourse without marriage, between persons related within the degrees which marriage is prohibited by law.

• illicit sexual intercourse obtained by a man with a woman whom he has induced to surrender her chastity by a promise of marriage.
• Or for some states a promise or some other seductive art.

• “bestiality”- carnal copulation with a beast, and
• “buggery”- copulation per annum

common lewdness of a person for gain

paid procurement of a person as an inmate of a house/ prostitution.

Procurer is often referred to as a pimp.

aka white slave traffic law, penalty for interstate transportation of a person for prostitution or other immoral purpose.

• that which is offensive to public sensibilities.
• Material that deals sex in a manner that appeals to prudent interests.

same as obscenity + anything outrageously disgusting

a writing, book, or picture, of such obscene nature that it shock’s the public sense of decency

+ public utterance of obscene/profane language in such a manner as to annoy the public

misconduct that disturbs the the peace/ tranquility of the community

• meeting of 3 or more persons w/ intent to:
• a.) commit a crime by force or violence OR
• b.) execute a common design, L/UL, in a manner likely to cause courageous person to apprehend a breach of peace

Entry/ detention by force/intimidation + another crime (assault) A B / IPA -A- IB

malicious publication of durable defamation.

defamation: slander-oral, libel- written

corrupt conveyance or receipt of a private price for official action.

corrupt behavior by an officer in the exercise of the duties of his office or while acting under the color of his office.

concealment and/or nondisclosure of the known felony of another.

attempt- to prove attempt you need:

• 1. specific intent formed to commit the crime
• 2. performance of some sufficient act towards commission of the crime
• 3. failure to consummate the commission of the crime

• -need intent + substantial step towards putting the intent into effect
• -act(s) must be close to the commission of the crime
• -prep consists of devising/ arranging the means/measures necessary for the commission of the offense
• -attempt is the direct movement after preparations have been made

-substantial step- purposely does/omits anything, under the circumstances he believes to be, a substantial step in a course of conduct planned to culminate the commission of the crime.

abandonment- intent + substantial step = attempt, regardless if he abandons

• A. Legal Impossibility (Defense to Attempt)
• D’s acts, if accomplished the way D believes it to be, would not be criminal.

• Examples of Legal Impossibilities and no crime committed:
• -accepting goods believed to be stolen but aren’t
• -offering a bribe to a juror but he isn’t a juror
• -hunter shooting what he believes to be a deer, (stuffed), out of season.

• B. Factual Impossibility
• (NOT a defense to Attempt)

where D believes he is committing a crime but circumstances unknown to D renders consummation of intended conduct physically impossible.

• Examples of factually impossible situations:
• -firing a gun at a bed thinking it was occupied by a man, attempted murder
• -possessing a substance thinking its narcotics, attempted possession
• -inserting instrument into a woman to perform an abortion, attempted abortion, even if she isn’t pregnant
• -trying to kill a dead man

CL- UL to cousel, incite, or solicit another to commit an illegal act

ML- Limited to serious offenses BAR RM KS + Murder

• -crime doesn’t need to be completed
• -if other party agrees to it, conspiracy
• one who solicits/conspires with another to commit a felony and w/drawls before crime committed can be guilty of solicitation and conspiracy but not the actual crime (committed)

agreement between 2 or more people w/ specific intent to commit a crime

• CL- agreement is sufficient
• ML- requires overt act to further the crime

• -agreement can be inferred from the conduct of the accused
• -D must have knowledge of the conspiracy and intend to join/associate w/ objectives of the conspiracy
• -Pinkerton’s Rule- co-conspirator is criminally responsible for all substantive crimes performed by a co-conspirator when:

• 1. conspiracy is continuing and the offense is in furtherance of the conspiracy
• + 2. crime is natural and probable consequence of the conspiracy
• if the partnership in crime continues, partners act for eachother

• -withdrawal- not a defense bc it is completed on the agreement and an overt act is committed. Unless (ML) w/drawal before overt act is committed.
• -continuing offense- not the agreement but the resulting combination endures from a few seconds to a few years.
• -rule of consistency- if all alleged conspirators are acquitted but one the last one can not be charged w/ conspiracy.
• -Wharton’s rule- prohibits convictions for both substantive offense and conspiracy to commit that offense if substantive offense necessarily requires the participation and cooperation of 2 persons, unless more than 2 people are involved.

one who aids/abets/encourages/counsels another to commit a crime.

They are responsible for any crimes counseled on or that were committed if foreseeable/probable factors: -presence at the scene/ companionship before/after the offense

CL distinction between principals/ accessories:

Principal 1st degree- one who commits the crime by own hand/inanimate agency/ innocent human agent.

Principal 2nd degree- by reason of A&A, not present actually/constructively at moment of perpetration

Accessory before the fact- by reason of A&A, present actually or constructively at the moment of perpetration

• Accessory after the fact- w/ knowledge of the
• other’s guilt renders assistance to a felon in the effort to hinder detection, arrest, trial, or punishment.

-not doing which you have a duty to do

• Failure to act will constitute a breach of legal duty where:
• a. statute imposes duty of care for another
• b. one stands in a certain status relationship to another
• c. one has assumed contractual duty to care for another
• d. one has voluntarily assumed the care of another and so secluded the helplessness person as to prevent others from rendering aid.
• e. one puts another in a position of helplessness or peril

to be criminally responsible, a person’s act must be the actual and proximate cause of the harm inflicted.

• -proximate cause- is the cause which through it’s natural and foreseeable consequence , unbroken by any sufficient intervening cause, produces the injury which would not have occurred but for that cause.
• -a party by his wrongful conduct creates a condition of peril, his action found to be the proximate cause of resulting injuryeven though later events caused the injury, may also be negligent- if expected to naturally follow
• -if one inflicts a wound on another, inadequate medical treatment contributing to V’s death is no defense, unless grossly improper and maltreatment is the sole cause of death. If grossly improper care then it can be considered unforeseeable intervening cause and discharges liability for homicide.
• -Substantial factor standard- more than one cause of injury/death. Substantial factor is more than trivial/remote factor, and does not need to be the only factor.
• -Contributory negligence- not a defense, only relevant if constituted a superseding intervening cause of the accident.

when a man meaning one wrong does another unmeant, he is punishable unless specific intent is required.

-does not apply if no harm done.

• if one intends injury, such a mental element constitues mens rea, in effort to accomplish this end he inflicts harm upon a person other than the one intended, still guilty of the same crime, had his aim been more accurate.
• -Tx intent does not apply to those not harmed

• CL-
• 1. Under 7 years old- no criminal capacity
• 2. 7-13 years old- rebuttable presumption of no criminal capacity
• -criminal conviction requires proof of precocity of established appreciation of the wrongfulness of the act
• -Considerations: was the kid “street wise”, did he know what he was doing?

3. 14 and over- has criminal capacity

D is presumed sane at the time of an offense but mental disease/defect is important at various points in a criminal case.

if at the time of actus reus the accused’s mental state is of such character and degree as to negate criminal responsibility, he is entitled to an acquittal.

• M’Naghten Rule- a person is insane if at the time of committing the act he was laboring under such a defect of reason, from disease of the mind, as not knowing the nature and quality of his act. Or if he did know it, that he did not know it was wrong.
• a. Cognitive incapacity
• b. Moral incapacity
• c. other tests: Irresistable Impulse Test, Durham-Product Rule,

• Model Penal Code- ALI rule
• if during criminal proceedings, accused is so disorderly by mental disease that he is incompetent to stand trial or assist his attorney, the accused is committed to a proper hospital to remain until his reason is restored at which time he is to be returned for trial.

• -original view- deadly force is privileged if it reasonably seems necessary to prevent an unlawful entry
• - deadly force is privileged to prevent entry only if circumstances have created a reasonable apprehension of death / GBH

Duress- not guilty, unless homicide, if he perfo