Two Types of Criminal Law
Criminal and Civil Law Joanne Lorenz PL1110 January 8, 2012
Deborah Perez Izquierdo
Criminal and Civil Law
The first of two different types of Law in New York State is Homicide or the capital murder statute, according to lexus nexus Designed as a capital murder statute, N.Y. Penal Law § 125.27 begins with intentional murder as its predicate. The statute goes on to list 13 aggravating factors (including factor vii, which generally tracks felony murder under N.Y. Penal Law § 125.25(3)), any one of which raises the crime to first degree murder. It has been called intentional murder plus. Therefore, intentional murder plus includes intentional murder. In the vocabulary of N.Y. Crim. Proc. Law § 1.20(37), it is impossible to commit intentional murder plus without at the same time committing intentional murder.
My second choice of law of NY State is statute N.Y. Penal Law § 155.45(1), relating to pleading in larceny cases, provides that, except where it is an element of the crime charged that property was taken from the person or obtained by extortion, an accusatory instrument is sufficient if it alleges that defendant stole property of the nature or value required for the commission of the crime charged without designating the particular way or manner in which such property was stolen or the particular theory of larceny involved. N.Y. Penal Law § 155.45(2) provides that proof that the defendant engaged in any conduct constituting larceny as defined in N.Y. Penal Law § 155.05 is sufficient to support an accusatory instrument for larceny other than one charging larceny by extortion.
The reason that I have chosen these two types of statues in New York is that they usually are crimes that usually occur together, usually homicide or intentional murder is a murder that is committed during the process of another crime. I believe that the homicide is the more persuasive because it has to be argued that the crimes were
Deborah Perez Izquierdo
Criminal and Civil Law
The first of two different types of Law in New York State is Homicide or the capital murder statute, according to lexus nexus Designed as a capital murder statute, N.Y. Penal Law § 125.27 begins with intentional murder as its predicate. The statute goes on to list 13 aggravating factors (including factor vii, which generally tracks felony murder under N.Y. Penal Law § 125.25(3)), any one of which raises the crime to first degree murder. It has been called intentional murder plus. Therefore, intentional murder plus includes intentional murder. In the vocabulary of N.Y. Crim. Proc. Law § 1.20(37), it is impossible to commit intentional murder plus without at the same time committing intentional murder.
My second choice of law of NY State is statute N.Y. Penal Law § 155.45(1), relating to pleading in larceny cases, provides that, except where it is an element of the crime charged that property was taken from the person or obtained by extortion, an accusatory instrument is sufficient if it alleges that defendant stole property of the nature or value required for the commission of the crime charged without designating the particular way or manner in which such property was stolen or the particular theory of larceny involved. N.Y. Penal Law § 155.45(2) provides that proof that the defendant engaged in any conduct constituting larceny as defined in N.Y. Penal Law § 155.05 is sufficient to support an accusatory instrument for larceny other than one charging larceny by extortion.
The reason that I have chosen these two types of statues in New York is that they usually are crimes that usually occur together, usually homicide or intentional murder is a murder that is committed during the process of another crime. I believe that the homicide is the more persuasive because it has to be argued that the crimes were
References: People v. Miller, No. 131, 2 No. 132, COURT OF APPEALS OF NEW YORK, 2006 NY Slip Op 1194; 6 N.Y.3d 295; 845 N.E.2d 451; 812 N.Y.S.2d 20; 2006 N.Y. LEXIS 156, January 5, 2006, Argued , February 16, 2006, Decided People v. Johnson, [NO NUMBER IN ORIGINAL], Court of Appeals of New York, 39 N.Y.2d 364; 348 N.E.2d 564; 384 N.Y.S.2d 108; 1976 N.Y. LEXIS 2622, February 11, 1976, Argued , April 6, 1976, Decided