criminal law - exam 4

CJUS345

parties to a crime

classified into two main groups

1. principal

2. accessories

five main parties to a crime

1. principal in 1st degree

2. principal in 2nd degree

3. accessory before the fact

4. accessory after the fact

5. conspirators

principals in 1st degree

person who actually carried out or committed a crime

principals in 2nd degree

(an "aider & abettor") was a helper who was present at a crime scene but in a passive role, such as acting as a "lookout”

accessory before the fact

individual who aided and abetted in the commission of the crime prior to its being committed, but is not actually present at the time the act is committed nor present at the crime scene

accessory after the fact

someone who, knowing that a felon has finished committing a crime (usually the crime has to be a felony), helps, aids and abets the felon avoid arrest or trial. In most states, accessories after the fact face far less punishment than accomplices or principals

conspirators

two or more people who agree to commit a crime

accomplices

aid and abet another in the commission of a crime when they assist or facilitate that person in committing the crime

• held criminally liable/responsible for their actions

LA Rev St. Title 14 §23 - §25

accomplice liability

lacks actus reus; the accountability of one individual for the criminal act(s) of another; also referred to in common law as complicity, does not constitute an independent criminal offense

• criminal law holds an accomplice accountable to the same extent as the principal actor

• to prove that a Δ is an accomplice, the government must prove that s/he intentionally aided in the commission of a crime. This means that the Δ must realize that the principal is going to commit a crime and that the accomplice intends to help the crime succeed.

accomplice intent

criminal intent element required for accomplice liability varies, depending on the jurisdiction; many jurisdictions, the accomplice must act with specific intent or purposely when aiding or assisting the principal. Specific intent or purposely means the accomplice desires the principal to commit the crime. The MPC follows this approach and requires the accomplice to act “with the purpose of promoting or facilitating the commission of the offense” (MPC §2.06(3) (a)).

• In other jurisdictions, if the crime is serious and the accomplice acts with general intent or knowingly or has awareness that the principal will commit the crime with his or her assistance, intent to further the crime’s commission could be inferred. In other jurisdictions, only general intent or acting knowingly that the crime will be promoted or facilitated is required, regardless of the crime’s seriousness.

• actus reus of accomplice liability is satisfied by even a relatively insignificant degree of material or psychological assistance.

• Mere presence Rule: Provides that being present and watching the commission of the crime is not sufficient to satisfy the actus reus requirement of accomplice liability

actus reus of accomplice liability

the laws respond to this by requiring, for accomplice liability, some act or conduct that contributes to the commission of the crime. This contribution may arise either through an affirmative act or by an omission

• affirmative act: can either be physical assistance or psychological influence. Of course, physical assistance in the commission of the crime is the clearest form of accomplice liability

• omission act: failure to act to prevent another from committing a crime-known as an omission-can be a basis for complicity if the person has a legal duty to act or intervene. An omission must be accompanied with the intent to facilitate the actor in accomplishing the crime

criminal conspiracy

the agreement or combination of two or more persons for the specific purpose of committing any crime; provided that an agreement or combination to commit a crime shall not amount to a criminal conspiracy unless, in addition to such agreement or combination, one or more of such parties does an act in furtherance of the object of the agreement or combination

vicarious liability

Individuals may be held liable based on their relationship with the perpetrator of a crime. It imposes liability on an individual for a criminal act committed by another. They act and you are responsible

entrapment

when police, for the purposes of instituting a criminal prosecution against a person, induce an otherwise innocent person to commit a crime that s/he had not contemplated

• when officers or agents of the government, for the purposes of instituting a criminal prosecution against a person, induce an otherwise innocent person to commit a crime that s/he had not contemplated

pinkerton doctrine

doctrine that holds a person associated with a conspiracy responsible for any criminal act committed by a co-conspirator if the act is within the scope of the conspiracy and is a foreseeable result of the criminal scheme

inchoate crime

a type of crime that is committed by taking a punishable step towards the commission of another crime; also known as incomplete crimes, because they do not require the completion of the intended crime

3 basic inchoate crimes

1. attempt

2. conspiracy

3. solicitation

attempt to xcommit a crime

is the inchoate crime which is considered the closest to actually carrying out the crime. Attempt to commit a crime involves trying to commit the crime but failing to complete the intended actions. Threats and challenges can also be considered as an attempt to commit the crime

conspiracy to commit a crime

defined as a partnership in a crime. An agreement between 2 or more people to commit a crime

• involves agreeing to commit a crime. A conspiracy to commit a crime can be charged in addition to the crime itself. Therefore, a person can be charged with murder and conspiracy to commit murder at the same time

solicitation to commit a crime

crime of asking another person to commit a crime. Even if the person who is solicited does not commit the crime, the person soliciting may be charged with solicitation

general rules for inchoate crimes

1. A person cannot be charged with an inchoate offense and the actual crime at the same time. For example, a person cannot be charged at the same time with attempted murder as well as murder. However, conspiracy is an exception to this common rule. Accordingly, a person can be charged with murder and conspiracy to commit murder at the same time.

2. To be convicted of an inchoate crime, it must be proven that the person to be convicted had the specific intent (mens rea) to commit or contribute to the actual crime.

3. Inchoate crimes must involve some outward action or a substantial step in the completion of the crime. The person to be convicted should have done some act in furtherance of the crime.

2 main types of defenses

1. legal

2. factual

legal insanity rule louisiana uses

M’Naughten Rule

most powerful defense but sometimes hardest to prove

innocence

common defenses

factual defense

1. no crime has been committed: In order to convict one of a crime you must prove all of the elements of the crime. The Δ will be acquitted, if they can show that an element was lacking and no crime was committed.

2. defendant did not commit the crime; alibi defense: consists of evidence that Δ was somewhere other than at crime scene and not physically present at scene when it was committed. A Δ does not have to prove an alibi in every case in order to be found not guilty of a crime, but any evidence that the Δ did not commit the crime helps at trial. DNA evidence is circumstantial and is often used to show Δ’s presence at the scene of the crime or lack of

legal defense

1. Defendant Committed a Criminal Act, but the Act Was Excusable or Justified: A criminal Δ may admit to committing a crime, but prove that it was excusable.

• self-defense: defense commonly asserted by someone charged with a crime of violence, such as battery, assault with a deadly weapon or murder. The Δ admits that she did in fact commit the crime, but claims that it was justified by the other person's threatening actions

2. Defendant Committed a Criminal Act, but is not criminally responsible for their Actions: nfluence of drugs/alcohol, Intoxication, insanity, entrapment, duress or necessity. LA Insanity Defense: Courts use several insanity tests. LA uses the M'Naughten rule, (Δ’s are considered not guilty by reason of insanity if at the time of the crime they were unable to distinguish right from wrong. (See discussion below on insanity Δ). Entrapment cannot be effectively raised as a defense where Gov’t merely affords the opportunities or facilities the commission of the crime or only engages in the “mere fact of deceit”

other legal defenses

• intoxication

• mistake of fact

• mistake of law

intoxication