criminal law outline

Solicitation

Solicitation is defined as the asking, inducing or enticing another individual to commit a crime.

Merger

Under the merger doctrine, the crime of solicitation merges with conspiracy. An individual cannot be guilty of solicitation if the crime is the object of the conspiracy. A person cannot be guilty of both conspiracy and solicitation. If conspiracy is proven solicitation will be merged under both traditional and modern jurisdictions.

Conspiracy

Conspiracy is defined as an agreement between two or more individuals to commit a crime.

Agreement

Here you would talk about the facts that led you to believe that there was an agreement between the individuals.

Object of the conspiracy

Here is where you would discuss the crimes.

Attempt

Attempt is defined as having the intent to commit a crime and taking a step beyond mere preparation toward the completion of the crime. There are several tests to determine if an attempt was actually committed.

The Last Act

This is under common law and rejected by almost all jurisdictions as of date. This test says that in order to complete an attempt the individual must have taken the last step necessary for the completion. EX. Firing the gun.

Last Proximate Act

In order to prove attempt under this theory you must show that the individual took the last proximate act in committing the crime. EX. Aiming of the gun.

Res Ipsa Loquitor

Under this test attempt can be proven if it can be shown through the defendants conduct alone. Attempt is only proven if the actions of the defendant are taken without his words and it can be inferred through his actions his subjective intent.

Substantial Step Test

This test proves intent if you can show that the defendant took a substantial step towards the commission of the crime. A substantial step might be not just getting a gun to rob a place but actually going to a bank and trying to rob the place only to find out that they are closed and its impossible.

Abnormal Step

Under this test attempt may be proven if in fact the defendant took a step that a reasonable person in the same situation may not have taken. EX. Taking a gun to school.

Reasonable Desistance Test

This test is proven if the defendant has passed the point of no return on the crime. Essentially the defendant has already taken all of he necessary steps to the crime and cannot desist.

Dangerous Proximity

Defendant must be within dangerous proximity of committing the crime.

Indispensible Element

The defendant must have control over an indispensible element of the crime. Go to kill A but can’t find A there is no attempt on A.

ATTEMPTED MURDER
****** MUST SHOW THE MALICE ITK, OTHERS ARE GENERAL INTENT******

Defense to Attempt
Impossibility

Overt act

An overt act is an act that is a step towards the commission of a crime. It is not as strong as of a standard as that of attempt. Talk about whether you think that was an overt act.

Multiple Conspiracies

The Wheel Causation

Here you have a ring leader and a bunch of individuals that are under the ring leader committing the crime. This is only viewed as one single conspiracy if the individuals no of the others existence and know that they have a community of interest. Otherwise it is viewed as multiple conspiracies.

The Chain Causation

Under this there is only one viewed conspiracy if the individuals knew of each others existence. The issue here is whether there was a community of interest. Multiple would be the conspiracy of the drug lord and the middle men and then the middle men and the addict.

Withdrawal

The withdrawal of an individual must be communicated to the other parties within the conspiracy. Ex. Driving off and leaving them is a clear form of withdrawal. Withdrawal if proven will absolve the individual from liability of any further acts committed after the individual withdrew. However, withdrawal is not a defense to the conspiracy itself.

Liability

Talk about liability of each party.

Termination

Apparent Safety Doctrine

Impossibility

Defendant ahs done everything possible to commit the crime but due to extenuating circumstances no crime has been committed.

Legal Impossibility Cannot commit the crime because the crime does not occur

Factual Impossibility Cannot commit the crime because the defendant has a mistake to a crucial element. Shooting a pillow or raping a dead woman.

Aiding and Abetting

Principal—the individual who is doing the crime

Accessory—the individual who is helping or encouraging the commission of the crime. This individual does not have to be present at the scene.

Accessory After The Fact

This is the individual who helps the defendant hide or hides a key element so that the defendant does not have to face criminal culpability.

THEFT CRIMES

Larceny

The trespassory taking and carrying away of the personal property of another with the intent to permanently deprive them thereof.

This deals with any issue where the property is in Possession of another.

Embezzlement

The fraudulent conversion of the personal property of another entrusted in the defendant’s control with the intent to deprive them permanently there of.

This deals with any issue where the property is in the defendant’s CUSTODY. BREAKING THE BULK

If the defendant breaks the bulk it is larceny because he is steal the personal property of another. If he takes the whole thing it is embezzlement because it was in his custody. The truck case.

HIGH LEVEL EMPLOYEE

Embezzlement because the property has been entrusted in the defendant’s custody.

LOW LEVEL EMPLOYEE

Larceny because it was in the possession of the owner and not entrusted to the defendant.

Claim of Right Defense

An individual may have a claim of right defense if the property is truly theirs.

Larceny by trick

Fraudulently obtaining possession to the personal property of another with the intent to permanently deprive them thereof.

Ex. Renting a car with the intent to never return it. They wanted it back.

Larceny by False Pretenses

Fraudulently obtaining possession and title to the personal property of another with the intent to permanently deprive them thereof.

They don’t want it back

INHERENTLY DANGEROUS FELONIES

BUGLARY

The breaking and entering of the dwelling house of another during the nighttime with the intent to commit a felony there in.

ARSON

The malicious burning of a dwelling house

RAPE

Unlawful carnal knowledge of a woman, by a man who is not her husband, without her consent.

KIDNAPPING

The unlawful confinement and movement of an individual or the secretion of an individual

SEXUAL OFFENSES OTHER THAN RAPE

ROBBERY

The trspassory taking and carrying away of the personal property of another from that person’s presence through the use of force, fear, or intimidation, with the intent to permanently deprive them there of.

MAYHEM

A type of battery that results in a disfigurement to the body.

HOMICIDE

Homicide is defined as the unlawful killing of a human being by another human being

Issues in Homicide

GIVE A PARAGRAPH IF THE KILLING IS NOT OUT RIGHT AS TO WHY IT IS A KILLING.

Year and A date Rule

The year and a date rule states that if an individual dies after year and a day form the initial act the defendant is absolved from any criminal culpability. In California it is three years and a day. LOOK FOR COMATOSE VICTIMS, OR LIFE SUPPORT.

No Dead Body

Must be able to prove that the individual was alive and that they were a human being. Use the facts

Corpus Delecti Rule

At common law the defendant’s statements alone were not enough to convict. There must have been corroborating evidence in addition to the confession or admission in order to convict the defendant.

Causation

There are two ways in which causation may be proven to hold a defendant liable:

Cause in Fact

But For Test

Under this test the defendant must have been the “but for” cause of the harm. But for the defendants actions the harm would not have occurred.

Substantial Factor Test
Under this test it can be shown that even if the defendant was not the “but for” cause he was a substantial factor in the harm, causation can be proven.

Hastening the Death

If you hastening or quicken the death of another you will still be held responsible for that persons death.

Proximate Cause

Direct Cause

To prove direct causation the defendant’s actions must have been the only conduct that resulted in the harm.

Intervening Causes

Intervening causes do not break the chain of causation. Here an intervening cause would be a cause such as a doctor that had to give the individual medical treatment and gave them the wrong blood type. Will this is an intervening cause and the doctor might also be held at fault it does not break the chain of causation.

Superseeding Causes

A superseding cause is a cause that will break the chain of causation. While a medical attention is not usually given as a causation breaker if in fact the doctor acted with gross criminal negligence it might be deemed a superseding cause.

Also a superseding cause would be the victims own actions. Or a car hits them after

***APPARENT SAFETY DOCTRINE*** Did the individual reach a place of safety already.

Foreseeability

Argue whether it was foreseeable that it would happen in such a manner

Born Alive/Viable Fetus

Born Alive is the common law rule that in order to be held liable for the death of a fetus the fetus must have been born alive

Modernly the ruling is that is the fetus is viable at the time of killing a person will be held responsible for feticide. To be viable it must be able to survive outside of the womb.

Omission to Act
1. Family Relationship
2. Contractual Relationship
3. Defendant voluntarily assumed care
4. Defendant caused the peril
5. Sometimes by Statute

HAVING ESTABLISHED ANY HOMICIDE ISSUES THE DEFENDANT MAY BE HELD CIRMINAL CULPABLE.

Murder

Murder is the killing with malice aforethought

Malice

Malice is defined as one of four man endangering states of mind; intent to kill, intent to inflict great bodily injury, wanton and reckless disregard for human life, and the felony murder rule.

Intent to Kill

Deadly Weapon Doctrine Intent to kill can be inferred through the use of a deadly weapon

Intent to Inflict Great Bodily Injury

Wanton and Reckless Disregard for Human Life

Natural and Probable Consequences Rule A reasonable person would expect the natural and probable consequences of their actions.

Felony Murder Rule

The felony murder rule makes a killing that occurs during any of the inherently dangerous felonies a felony murder. The inherently dangerous felonies are: burglary, arson, rape, kidnapping, other sexual offense, robbery, and mayhem.

Talk Causation here if it is applicable. SEE Causation Analysis above.

*********************Talk about CLASS OF VICTIMS***********************

First Degree
1. Intent to kill coupled with premeditation and deliberation
a. Premeditation
i. The individual thought about the killing, actively reflected on the though of killing before acting on heir thoughts.
b. Deliberation
i. Cold blood non provoked killing
2. By Statue
3. Felony Murder Rule
a. By operation of law all felony murders are in the first degree.
4. Special Killings
a. Lying in wait
b. Torture
c. Bombing
d. Poisoning

Second Degree

All killings that are not in the first degree

Voluntary Manslaughter

1. Heat of passion
a. Must have Been Provoked
b. No cooling off period
2. COERSION
3. DIMISHED CAPACITY
a. Due to a mental disease or defect that individual lacked the mens rea to commit the crime.
4. IMPERFECT SELF DEFENSE
a. An honest but unreasonable belief to a material fact of the situation that the defendant had even though the belief is unreasonable.
i. EX. D unreasonably but genuinely believes that V is about to attack him so he shoots V first.

Involuntary Manslaughter

Gross criminal negligence

DEFENSES

Intoxication

There are two forms of intoxication voluntary and involuntary.

Voluntary intoxication is never a defense. However, it may be used to negate the mens rea for a specific intent crime. However, if the intent to commit the crime is formed before the intoxication not allowed.

Involuntary Intoxication is a defense. A person can suffer from involuntary intoxication due to an unexpected reaction to a prescription drug, taking something that they did not know was intoxicating.

Necessity

The defense of necessity is available when a defendant has committed a crime that is less harm than the crime that would have occurred. IE. Hurricane Katrina, speeding through a red light to get an injured person to the hospital. NATURAL FORCES, not like duress

Defense of Habitation

Non Deadly Force: Allowed

Deadly Force: Common Law: allowed. Actual and Reasonable NECESSITY against unlawful or forcible entry Modern Law: allowed. Actual and Reasonable BELIEF, that the intruder is going to commit a felony or harm the defendant or the occupants of the house.

There is not threat of immanency like there is with self defense.

Defense of Property

You may NEVER use deadly force in protecting against one’s property.

Self Defense

Non deadly force: to defend against almost all acts of unwanted force.

Deadly force: only if the force is deadly or there is a threat of great bodily injury to you

Force must be reasonable and not excessive.

At common law there was a duty to retreat if you could do so in complete safety. This is no longer recognized, and there was never a duty to retreat in your own home.

Insanity

Insanity is an affirmative defense that excuses the actions of a defendant due to a mental disease or defect.

Give a paragraph about the buzz words as to why you think this was insanity.

There are four tests that are used to determine if an individual was and is insane. If a person is found to be insane they are not absolved of the crime instead they are sentenced to a mental institution.

M’Naghten

Also known as the right/wrong test. Here the defendant must suffer from a mental disease or defect and not have the mental capacity to understand the nature and quality of their actions and not know that their actions are wrong.

This is the strictest insanity test.

Irresistible Impulse Test

Defendant suffers from a mental disease or defect and cannot control or conform their conduct.

American Legal Standard

Here the defendant is deemed insane if the defendant suffers from a mental disease or defect and lacks the understanding to appreciate the nature and quality of his actions, that his actions are wrong, and lacks the ability to conform his actions.

This is a much less strict test that the M’Naghten.

Durham Test

Also known as the products test and the but for test. Here the defendant suffers from a mental disease or defect and but for the defect the defendant would not have committed the crime. The harm/crime is a product of the defendant’s mental disease or defect.

Infancy Under 7= not allowed
7-14= generally not allowed but may enter evidence to show that they have the subjective mindset to know the difference between right and wrong.
Above 14= tried as an adult.

Defense of Others

At common law the other individual had to be a family member in order for the individual to protect against them. Modernly, an individual can protect a complete stranger.

“Stand in the Shoes” This doctrine holds that if you were to stand in the shoes of the victim and they had the right to sue self defense that you have the right to protect them. MINORITY

“Reasonable Appearance” If it appears that the individual has the right to invoke self defense privileges you have the right to also use them to protect that individual. MAJORITY

Law Enforcement

Crime prevention and Termination Actual and reasonable belief that the crime is being committed or is about to be committed.

DEADLY FORCE
Common Law: only for a felony
Modern Law: crime is dangerous or atrocious felony

Arrest
Common Law: reasonable force justified for making an arrest or prevent escape of someone in custody.
DEADLY FORCE: FELONIES ONLY

Duress

Defendant chooses to commit the crime because they lacked free will—they had an actual and reasonable belief of imminent threat of great bodily injury or death. The defense of duress is available when an individual is being coerced or forced to commit the crime. Individuals that are a part of gang hazing are not included. If the defendant was not in an immediate fear of death or bodily injury the individual would not have committed the crime.

SPECIFIC INTENT CRIMES

Solicitation
Assault
Conspiracy
Murder in the First
Attempt
Larceny and Robbery
Burglary
Forgery
False Pretenses
Embezzlement

GENERAL INTENT CRIMES
Burglary
Arson
Rape
Kidnapping
False imprisonment
Involuntary manslaughter
Depraved Heart Murder

Mistake

Of Law

Defendant had a mistake as to a part of the law.
Generally no EXCUSE.

Exceptions: Relied on a statute or judicial decision Relied on an official’s interpretation Statute not readily available Attorney’s CAN’T be relied on

Of Fact

Defendant had a mistake as to a fact of the case.

Specific Intent Crimes—only to negate intent
General Intent Crimes—mist be reasonable

Used for mental state crimes