Vous êtes sur la page 1sur 3

Is th er e an ac t: Must be voluntary ≠ sleepwalking, La rceny by t ric k D uses deceptive means to obtain expose the victim’s deformity or disgrace; to expose a

unconsciousness, seizures, reflexes, convulsions. possession, but not title, of another’s property secret.
• Liability of omissions?  Statutory duty, D created peril, • No transfer of title  V must think they are only handing • Claim of right split
special relationship, and voluntary assumption of care. over possession o Maj: no defense -- Min: a defense
T hef t Em bezzle men t: (i) Fraudulent; (ii) appropriation; (iii) of o MPC: not a defense to threats of physical force is a
defense if threat is to tell a secret, civil action,
La rceny: property; (iv) of another; (v) by one entrusted with possession.
accuse of crime – threat must be directly tied to
• Taking? Brought into control • Fraudulent split property.
• Carrying away split?
o “intent to deprive”  does not allow barrowing. CA Poli tica l e xtor tio n: (i) money or influence; (ii) is obtained
o “intent to deprive perm.” allows barrowing, but no or attempted to be obtained; (ii) under color of office (pretense
o CL/maj: requires asportation. that office is entitled to the benefit by virtue of the office.
o MPC/min: no asportation. substitution.
• Must be quid pro quo, a mere expectation of a benefit is
• Property? • Appropriation  use inconsistent with owner’s insufficient
o CL: tangibles, movables, not pets, not information expectations or unauthorized.
o MD: intangibles, trade secrets, pets, energy – MPC Brib er y: something of value corruptly offered or demanded
real expansive. False pr eten ses with the intent to be influence an official’s actions or be
• Of another? (i) a misrepresentation by the D; (ii) of a present or past influenced:
o Business partner/ spouse split  Not at CL, modern material fact; (iii) w/ the intent to defraud the victim; (iv) where • CL: limited to public officials,
courts say yes the victim relies on the misrepresentation in; (v) transferring • Mod: expanded to official action, but not political
o Can steal your own stuff title to some property • Mens rea = corrupt intent i.e. to be influenced
• To deprive permanently? • Must transfer title • Both parties are guilty,
o Intent can be formed at any time cannot be taken • V must honestly rely  not reasonable • Not a defense that benefit was not obtained or
back duress/extortion.
o Barrowing okay unless • Split on future fact • MPC’s 4 sufficient agreements
 Gone for property’s useful life o CL: statements about the future are not sufficient 1. A benefit in exchange for the receiver’s discretion
 Expose to unreasonable risks o MPC/maj: clearly false statements about one’s present as a public official
 Place unreasonable conditions on property’s intentions or about what one knows will happen in the 2. A benefit in exchange for the receiver’s vote, or
return. future are misrepresentations of present facts, not use of office
o Claim of right future facts. 3. A benefit in exchange of a violation of a known
• opinions do not count unless made by an expert w/ legal duty
 If you think it is yours no intent -- Need only be
honest superior knowledge. Bur gla r y
o To pay for taken goods ! Theft crimes are now consolidated! CL: breaking and entering the dwelling house of another
 If D intends to give equal value for a fungible Ag g ravated p rope r ty cri mes person at night with the intent to commit a felony
good no intent Rob be r y: larceny + (i) by force or threat of imminent force; Modern: the unlawful entry of a building or structure with
the intent to commit a crime
 MPC/maj: only fungible goods, reasonable (ii) from the person or immediate presence and control of the
believe they are for sale, or on display for sale. person • Entry: any part of body; and w/ out consent
• Defenses to larceny: • Is threat of force imminent – if not think extortion o Maj: enter w/ intent inconsistent with conditional
• Voluntary intoxication diminished capacity, honest • Claim of right split consent of owner
mistake of fact. o MPC: must actually trespass, cannot commit
o CL/maj: yes a defense
La rceny of lost p rope r ty : Larceny + (i) intent at the time o Min: no defense unless actually prove it was your
burglary in a store generally open to the public
of discovery to deprive permanently; (ii) at time of taking there o CL: had to be a house you had not right to enter
property (heirloom)
was reasonable clue to true owner. • Type of crime needed:
• Have to be at the time • Type of force split o CL  felony
• Later forming intent or discovering clue = no liability o CL/MPC: has to be actual force or threat of serious
force o MPC  any crime
• Forming intent at taking and then changing mind = liability
o Min: trivial force is sufficient o CA  felony or petty larceny
Mis tak en deliv er lar cen yLarceny + (i) knowledge of • Timing of force split
mistake at the time of delivery/taking; (ii) intent to deprive o CL: at the time of taking, force used to escape didn’t
permanently at the time of taking. count Mens rea
MPC: force used in attempt, taking, and in flight
• Containers: if it’s a container then time of taking =
o Specific: Larceny, burglary, solicitation, robbery, false
• Armed robbery pretenses
delivery; if it is not supposed to be a container then time of
taking = discovery
o CL: possession of actual weapon even if concealed. • Honest mistake of fact
• Voluntary intoxication is evidence
Ex tor tio n (i) the use of a threat; (ii) in an attempt to obtain
MP C on los t and misdel iv er d la rceny: A person, who General:  Honest and reasonable mistake of fact negates
(in some jx actually obtaining); (iii) property of another or action
comes into control or property of another that he knows to have MPC: purpose, knowledge (practically certain if event in
by another.
been lost, mislaid, or delivered by mistake is guilty of theft . . . if future, high probability if existing fact) reckless, negligent.
he fails to take reasonable steps to restore the property to the • Sufficient threats in CA: to injury someone person or
• Mistake of fact must be < culpability required by the
true owner. property; to accuse the victim or his family of a crime’ to
crime
 Negligent crime requires reasonable mistake
 Reckless crime requires reasonable mistake o social utility of D’s conduct Magnitude of risk posed MPC: corruption of a minor, if under 16 and 4 years older.
Stri ct lia bi lit y c rimes o Foreseeable of risk posed Split on mistake of fact as a defense:
Strict liability  public welfare crimes, no mens rea required, • Maj: no it is a strict liability crime
• Recklessness or Gross negligence.
only the act • CA/min: yes if honest and reasonable mistake
• If no conscious awareness of risk, you can’t go with murder
• Penalties will be low force ful r a pe
Felon y mu r de r
Vicarious liability  as long as empl. is acting within the common law: (i) sexual intercourse; (ii) by a man; (iii) not her
Must prove felony, mens rea for felony. Did felony end before
scope of employment, husband; (iv) against a women; (v) w/out her consent; (vi) by
murder.
Corporate liability split over the employee force; (vii) against her will (utmost resistance
1st degree if listed: burglary, arson, rape, robbery
• Maj: must be acting on behalf of corp. w/in scope of 2nd degree if inherently dangerous: determined by the • CL procedure: corroboration; timely notice; hale’s
employment, but no need for authorization court charge (rape is easy to accuse, hard to disprove)
• Min/MPC; act must be authorized, requested, or
recklessly tolerated by high management/exec.

In the abstract (CA) v. As applied (maj) • Marital rape: use to be uncriminal
o If not inherently dangerous no felony murder – o Most states have done away with this rule, or now
go to reckless murder or involuntary punish it under separate statutes.
Mistake of law as a defense:
manslaughter Modern: (i) sexual intercourse; (ii) w/out consent; (iii) by force,
1. When mistake of law negates a specific element of the
Merger rule: if felony is assault it can’t be basis for felony or threat of force; or fear or serous force.
crime
murder charge • Actus reus = some force or threat of force
2. When the law is not published
3. Reasonable reliance on a statue later declared invalid • CA – independent purpose test and includes Burglary o Penentration is not sufficient Berkowitz
4. Reasonable reliance on judicial decisions later overruled w/ intent to commit assault may merge • Mens rea = to have sex w/out consent
(appellate level?) Did someone besides D actually cause the death? o Split over mistake of fact defense
5. Reasonable reliance on government official in the position • Proximate cause: if death was foreseeable, in the  CA must be honest and reasonable
to interpret the law realm of possibilities
6. At tem pt
Lambert, crime is pure omission, and no objective •Agency rule: person who caused death must be a co-
1. An intent to do an act or cause a result which constitutes a
indicators exist that would give D notice of statute’s
felon. (maj/CA) crime
existence.
Mod el penal cod e an d ho mici de 2. An act in furtherance of that intent that goes beyond mere
• D has burden of showing by a preponderance of
Murder: purposefully, knowingly, or recklessly under preparation
evidence.
circumstances manifesting extreme indifference to the value of
human life. (does not grade murder)
• Last proximate step test  common law
Homicide
• Recklessness is presumed if D is attempting or committing • Substantial step test strongly corporative of criminal
Commo n law Mur der  malice aforethought
robbery, burglary, rape, kidnapping.  shifts burden on D purpose
1. Intent to kill  1st degree if P/D
to rebut o Lying in wait, unlawful entry, casing the joint
2. Intent to cause grave bodily harm Manslaughter: o Solicitation alone is insufficient
3. Extreme recklessness (depraved heart)
a. Must have conscious awareness • Homicide otherwise murder but committed under the • Merges with completed crime. Can’t be charged with
b. If you talk about this talk about involuntary influence of extreme mental or emotional disturbance, for both
manslaughter which there is a reasonable explanation. Reasonableness is Defense of abandonment: CL = no def MPC = defense if
4. Felony murder determined from the viewpoint of a person in the actor’s complete and voluntary
• Still liable for crimes committed along the way
a.1st if listed (burglary and robbery are listed in shoes.
• Can abandon after last prox step if criminal step is
CA) ; 2nd if inherently dangerous • Recklessly, and they also have Negligent homicide
avoided
• Premeditation and deliberation
• Can’t once D puts in motion forces causing crime & can’t
o Carol: can be meet in an instant Death penal ty (36 sta tes) stop them.
o Anderson: need evidence of planning activity, cool Must have: first degree; and aggravating factors outweighing Defense of impossibility: only a defense to attempt
mitigating factors
calculated performance.
Furman v. Georgia: jury’s can’t have unchecked • Pure: a mistake as to the law not a fact, always a defense
o Diminished capacity defense? Not in CA. discretion. • Legal: if D did everything he wanted to do there would not
Volu nta r y mans laug hte r ( brings down intent to kill/SBI/ Locket: jury must be able to weigh all mitigating factors,
be a crime
and Ex. Reck) individualized
o Look for mistake of identity
sentencing
1. Reasonable provocation (would reasonable person be
Procedure: Must be over 18 (roper), not for rape, Cannot be • Factual: consequences sought be D are criminal, no
provoked) insane, or retarded defense
a. CL: being assaulted, unlawful arrest, family is
attacked, adultery. • Accomplice eligible only if: they were extremely reckless, • MPC: no defense, if D’s conduct would have constituted a
b. Minority  sympithtic provocation from point of and participation was major, could foresee lethal force crime if the attendant circumstances were as he believed
would be used tison. them to be (maj_
view of jury
Aggravating: killing cop, 2 deaths, history of violence, for
2. D acted in the heat of passion ( was he provoked, and did financial gain So lici ta tion
not cool off) Mitigating: clean record, under duress, minor role, child abuse, 1. Encouraging, requesting, or advising another person to
3. There was no time to cool off broken home. commit a crime
In volu nta r y mans laug hte r 2. With the intent that the crime be committed
• if you talk about this you have to talk about reckless sta tuto r y r a pe • Merges once you have an attempt or a conspiracy.
murder age of consent: typically 16, 18 in CA
Split over communication: CL = yes MPC = no
Split over group solicitation: some courts say yes others no
• Common law: must tell all co-conspirators you’re out. • Cannot have placed self in position.

Split over type of crime: CL = felonies; MPC = any crime Or affirmative acts inconsistent with the object of • MPC: a person of reasonable firmness would be unable to
mod = listed crimes. conspiracy if that would put all on notice resist.
Abandonment defense: not at common law, but MPC says • MPC: either tell all the co-conspirators, or tell the • Not a defense to homicide, unless MPC
yes if police
• You persuade the person not to commit the crime; or Entrapment: Prohibits law enforcement from instigating a
• Otherwise thwart the commission of the crime

Overt act jx: if withdraw comes before overt act,
criminal act by persons otherwise innocent in order to lure them
• Must be complete and voluntary complete defense. to its commission and to punish them.
Renunciation: complete defense -- ends all liability
ac comp lice lia bili ty
• Common law: must thwart the success of the
• Subjective: inducement must be but for case of act, D must
players: principals in 1st and 2nd are present, and before the not be predisposed to commit crime
fact conspiracy, must be complete and voluntary ( though
need not be sole cause of thwart) • Objective: inducement would cause an ordinary person to
• Gives aid or encouragement MPC  attempting to give
o Some jx allow substantial attempt to thwart commit the crime
aid or calling police • Not a defense to murder
• Omission can be aid, if duty to act and fail to act with
intent to aid • MPC: actually thwarts the conspiracy voluntary and
• Principal must be guilty of crime, though not convicted. complete. intoxication: If involuntary always a defense if it negates Mens
Mens rea: Intent to give aid or encouragement to the principal RIC O : conducting the affirms of an enterprise through a reas. If voluntary only evidence of lack of specific intent crimes
with the Intent that the principal commit the offense pattern of racketeering activity (2 crimes in 10 years which are –i.e. murder.
split: maj: purposeful wanting the crime to be connected but separate). • MPC: only admissible evidence of purpose/knowledge
committed, crimes
minority: knowing is enough if: crime is serous, or aid o Getting drunk is reckless so not admissible to
is critical. reckless crimes.

• Liable for all crime that are the natural and probable Defenses Necessity (i) D was faced w/ choice btw/ 2 evils; (ii) he acted to
consequences of the initial crime they assisted. insanity prevent the lesser one; (iii) reasonably anticipated a direct
• Not an accessory if participation is inevitable incident to M’Naghten: a cognitive incapacity to tell right from wrong OR causal relationship btw/ his acts and the harm to be avoided;
commission of crime the person did not know the nature and quality of their conduct. (iv) he had no legal alternatives.
accessory after the fact (i)A felony has been committed by • Split: courts differ as to whether D must fail to understand • No defense if D creates situation leading to choice between
the recipient of aid; (ii) D knows the felon committed the crime; two evils
his actions are wrong in a moral or legal sense
(iii) D aids the felony; (iv) with the purpose of hindering his • Not a defense if legislature had said harm was not an evil.
• D must think he is acting correctly due to his mental
apprehension. • Not a defense to murder, expect MPC
illness not his religion.
• Obstruction of justice today
Abandonment defense: must effectively withdraw all aid and
Irresistible impulse: a volitional prong • lovercamp test. (1) specific threat of death, rape of grave
Durham: but for D’s mental illness bodily harm (2) not time to complain, or complaints have
encouragement in a timely manner or give the police notice in MPC: at the time of crime as a result of mental disease or been futile; (3) no time to access the courts; (4) escape
time to prevent the crime defect D lacks substantial capacity either to appreciate the must be non violent; (5) must report to authorites upon
• Does not have to be voluntary, criminality of his conduct or to conform his conduct to the law. reaching a point of safety.
• Still liable for crimes committed along the way.
• MPC  otherwise make proper effort to prevent crime self defense: a person is justified in using force against
another when they reasonable believe they are under the threat
Cons pir ac y
of immediate serious bodily harm.
1. An agreement between two people
• Imminent – proportional – reasonable
2. With the intent to enter into the agreement
3. An over act in furtherance of the agreement (not at CL, but • Duty to retreat, not at CL, modern/MPC.
majority)
4. Purpose to promote the unlawful act that is the objective of defense of dwelling
the conspiracy • CL: allowed deadly force to be used
5. Knowledge that object is unlawful (minority)
• Modern trend: a reasonable belief that intruder will use any
• MPC’s unilateral approach  agreeing is sufficient force against the occupant justifies the use of deadly force
• Does not merge, procedural advantages. Anderson.
Mens rea: 2 elements, intent to agree and intent to promote • CA: deadly force is okay if occupant reasonable believes
unlawful object intruder is going to commit a forcible felony or use deadly
Split: majority requires purposeful, but minority will allow force
knowing if:
• Serious felony is object OR D has stake in venture. Prevention of felonies: At common law you could use any
Wharton rule: if crime needs 2 no conspiracy, rejected by MPC force. Today, deadly force is only justified if there is reason to
Pinkerton doctrine: D is liable for the crimes of the co- believe the felon poses a threat to community.
conspirators if foreseeable and in furtherance of the objective of
conspiracy, rejected by MPC
Duress D is coerced to commit a crime by the use of imminent
Withdraw defense: an incomplete defense – only ends
threat of death or bodily harm.
pinkerton liability
• No reasonable chance to escape