All Criminal Law One Pagers

True or False: Manslaughter occurs when there’s an intentional killing

True

Common Law: Manslaughter

Unlawful killing of a human being by another human being without malice aforethought

Common Law: Voluntary Manslaughter

An intentional killing in which defendant takes a life in “sudden heat of passion” as a result of “adequate provication”

True or False: Could Diminished capacity may lead murder to be changed to manslaughter

True

Common Law: Manslaughter: Provocation (4 Parts)

• Provocation must “inflame the passion of a reasonable man and tend to cause him to act for the moment from passion rather than reason”

• Most jurisdiction find that words alone are insufficient

• Killing must occur in sudden heat of passion - defendant could not have had reasonable time to cool off

• Consider a defendant’s personal characteristics IF it is relevant in measuring the gravity of the provocation

MPC: Manslaughter - Extreme Mental or Emotional Disturbance

• The defendant kills under the influence of an “extreme mental or emotional disturbance” for which there is a “reasonable explanation or excuse”

• Reasonableness of actions should be determined from the perspective of a person “in the actor’s situation under the circumstances as he believes them to be”

• Words alone can qualify

• No provocation requirement

MPC: Manslaughter - Extreme Mental or Emotional Disturbance - Excuse

Excuse is for the emotional disturbance not for the act itself

MPC: Recklessness

Reckless conduct that does not manifest an extreme indifference to human life is manslaughter

• Can’t include subjective (ex: disability)

• Provocation stems from the situation

Common Law: Two kinds of involuntary manslaughter

• Killing another person in a criminally negligent manner (ex: low educated parents not taking child under the doctor until it’s too late)

• Unlawful Act doctrine (misdemeanor-manslaughter) (ex: pushes someone in battery - they’re drunk, the person hits their head, and they die)

Common Law: Two kinds of involuntary manslaughter - Criminally Negligent

Defendant should be aware, but is not aware, that his conduct creates a substantial and unjustifiable risk of social harm

Common Law: Two kinds of involuntary manslaughter - Unlawful Act Doctrine (Misdemeanor-Manslaughter)

Deaths that occur during unlawful acts that do not trigger the felony-murder rule fall within the unlawful act doctrine

• Not a felony

Common Law: Two kinds of involuntary manslaughter - Unlawful Act Doctrine (Misdemeanor-Manslaughter) - Limitations

• Some apply to all misdemeanors

• Inherently wrong/dangerous misdemeanors

MPC: Recklessness (2 Parts)

• Reckless conduct that doesn’t manifest an extreme indifference to human life is manslaughter

• Recklessness involves the defendant being aware that he is taking a substantial and unjustifiable risk to human life

^^ Does it pose a threat to human life

• Doesn’t manifest to extreme indifference to human life (thin life)

MPC: Negligent Homicide

A criminally negligent killing (MPC definition of negligence)

Common Law: Homicide: General Principles

• Homicide: the killing of a human being by another human being

• Criminal homicide: Homicide committed without justification (ex: self-defense) or excuse (ex: insanity) (justification/excuse = defenses)

Common Law: Human Being: General Principles

• An unborn baby is not considered to be a human being until the baby is born alive (controversial, states often reject this)

• A person is legally dead when the circulation of blood stops and functions of respiration and heart pulsation permanently cease (some states may add brain dead)

^ Human being definitions for purpose of homicide

Common Law: Murder: General Principles

• Murder: A killing of a human being by another human being with malice aforethought

Common Law: Murder - MALICE: General Principles

• Malice: unjustifiably, inexcusably (going to the above defenses), and in the absence of any mitigating circumstances (manslaughter), killing a person with any one of four mental states

• ^ Defendant’s burden of proof (to show excuse)

  • Intent to kill a human being

  • Intent to inflict grievous bodily injury on another

  • Extremely reckless disregard for the value of human life (“depraved heart”)

  • Intent to commit a felony during the commission or attempted commission of which a death occurs, even accidentally (the “felony murder rule”)

Common Law: Murder - AFORETHOUGHT: General Principles

The malicious mental state must exist at the time of the homicide, rather than afterward

Common Law: Murder - INTENT TO KILL: General Principles

• Defendant purposely or knowingly took another’s life (review how Common Law defines those terms)

• Intent to inflict grievous bodily injury on another human being is sufficient

Common Law: Murder - INTENT TO KILL - STATE SHOWS INTENT: General Principles

• Inferred from circumstances

• Deadly weapon rule: Jury can infer intent to kill if defendant intentionally uses a deadly weapon directed at a vital part of the human anatomy

MPC: Criminal Homicide - General Principles

• Criminal homicide: Taking the life of another human being purposely, knowingly, recklessly, or negligently

MPC: Criminal Homicide - THREE CATEGORIES - General Principles

• Criminal homicide divided into three categories

  • Murder

  • Manslaughter

  • Negligent homicide

MPC: Human Being - General Principles

• Human being: a person being born alive

• Jurisdictions can determine when one ceases to be alive

MPC: Murder - Killing is Commited:

1. Purposely

2. Knowingly

3. Recklessly under circumstances manifesting an extreme indifference to the value of human life

True or False: Some people combine the PA Model with Common Law

True. It came out of concern because of the death penalty.

True or False: Degrees are for PA Model

True. If degrees are brought up in a Common Law hypo, then also refer to PA Model information

PA Model: First Degree Murder

• First degree murder: willful, deliberate, and premeditated

  • Willful: Intentional

  • Premeditated: To think about beforehand (momentary)

  • Deliberate: To measure and evaluate the major facets of a choice or problem - “cool, calm, thinking”

• Jurisdictions may merge premeditated and deliberate

Common Law: Depraved Heart Murder

Defendant’s conduct manifests an extreme indifference to the value of human life.

Ex: mischievous shooting/putting gun to head

True or False: Depraved Heart Murder - The accused doesn’t intend to kill.

True. The accused doesn’t intend to kill, but the malice & conduct is so extraordinarily dangerous, and consequences aren’t cared about and should amount to murder because of indifference to human life due to the known risks in actor’s behavior.

MPC: Extreme Recklessness

• Criminal homicide constitutes murder when it is committed recklessly under circumstances manifesting extreme indifference to the value of human life

• Intent to commit grievous bodily injury

PA Model - Depraved Heart Murder/Extreme Recklessness

Although 2nd degree murder statutes vary greatly, many involve an extreme indifference to the value of human life

Common Law: Murder During a Felony

A person is guilty of murder if he kills another person, even accidentally, during the commission or attempted commission of a felony

Common Law: The State must establish ______ to prove felony murder

• Every element of the underlying felony (ex: proof burglary occurred)

  • Even fleeing from felony can count as felony

• Every element of murder (except mens rea)

Common Law: Some jurisdictions limit the scope of felony murder: Inherently Dangerous Felony limitation -

• Typically, this is limited to situations in which the facts of the case make the commission of the felony inherently dangerous

• Sometimes, this is only limited to situations involving felonies that, regardless of the individual facts of the case, are inherently dangerous

Common Law: Independent felony limitation

• The felony that is the predicate for the felony murder rule must be independent of the homicide

• A felony that is not independent merges with the homicide

  • Trying to keep felonies separate; action beyond felony

Common Law: Res Gestae limitation

There must be a causal connection between the felony and the death (ex: robbing clerk & customer unaware of robbery dies via heart attack)

Common Law: Killing by a Non-Felon

!Anyone but defendant resisting the killing!

• Agency approach: A felon is only responsible for homicides committed by a person acting as the felon’s agent (ex: robbery, good guy kills one of the robbers, other robber isn’t liable_

• Proximate causation approach: A felon could be responsible for a homicide committed by a non-felon if the felon proximately caused the homicide (liable if death = foreseeable)

  • Circumstantial!!

Common Law: Felony murder can occur:

after the underlying offense was complete but before the defendant reached a place of temporary safety (ex: fleeing from the crime)

MPC: Murder during a felony

• No felony murder provision

• Reckless indifference to human life can (jury not required - likely would be) be inferred by the jury if the person causes the death during the commission of a particular felony:

  • Robbery

  • Arson

  • Burglary

  • Kidnapping

  • Felonious escape (jurisdictionally circumstantial)

  • Rape

  • Deviant sexual intercourse by force or threat of force

• Relate to Intent & Accomplice

True or False: Not every felony = felony murder.

True. It varies per jurisdiction. Robbery will likely be on the list and is inherently dangerous

True or False: Most jurisdictions won’t merge crimes

True

Common Law: Merger

A conspiracy does not merge into the completed offense that is the object of the agreement

MPC: Merger

• Generally a conspirator cannot be convicted of both conspiracy and the target offense(s)

• However, a conspiracy to commit multiple crimes does not merge with a simultaneous conviction for only one of those crimes

Common Law: Co-Conspirator Liability

The “Pinkerton Doctrine”: Co-conspirators are held culpable for the criminal acts of their co-conspirators undertaken in furtherance and within the scope of the conspiracy

Reasonably foreseeable results matter

More involved & present with complicity

Conspiracy - vicarious liability

There is a line on how far one can go before they can/can’t get charged/limits on Pinkerton

MPC: Co-Conspirator Liability

Rejects Pinkerton

Tacit Agreement

Circumstantial evidence: typically because no formal agreement; may not snitch, have to go off of circumstantial evidence

Agreement: General Rules

• Agreement is a “meeting of the minds”

• Agreement does not need to be in writing or even verbally expressed

• Agreement can be implied from parties’ actions

• Conspiracy will look like events were choreographed

Common Law: Parties to an Agreement - Wheel

Hub: In the center is one person or group

Spokes: Person/group conducts illegal dealings with various other persons or groups

Rim: There must be a community of interests between the spokes, creating a shared conspiracy among all parties

Common Law: Parties to an Agreement - Chain

• Contains multiple layers of personnel

• The nature of the chain creates a community of interests among parties, so it can be treated as a single conspiracy

One conspirator may not know much about an unconnected link

Can start as a chain and turn into a wheel

MPC: Parties to an Agreement

If a person guilty of conspiracy knows that the person with whom he has conspired has, in turn, conspired with another perosn or persons to commit the same crime, the first person is also guilty of conspiring with the other person or persons, whether he knows their identity

Ex: A & B agree to smuggle narcotics, B has to find retailers. B finds C & D (separate retailers), neither C or D know about each other.

Note: Has to be the same crime

Common Law: Number of Conspiracies

There are the same number of conspiracies as there are agreements

Note: Lowkey impractical and unfair

MPC: Number of Conspiracies

• Only one conspiracy between parties, even if there are multiple criminal objectives, if the objectives are:

  • Part of the same agreement, OR

  • Part of a continuous conspiratorial relationship (conspiracies to commit multiple crimes)

Common Law: Overt Act

No overt act is required - the conspiracy is committed once the agreement is made

MPC: Overt Act

• An overt act is required to prove the crime of conspiracy except for first and second degree felonies

• The overt act does not need to constitute a substantial step in furtherance of the target offenses

Any act = sufficient

Most jurisdictions require #1

Common Law: Renunciation

No renunciation under common law because the conspiracy is complete once the agreement is formed

MPC: Renunciation

A person is not guilty of conspiracy if he renounces his criminal purpose and thwarts the success of the conspiracy under circumstances manifesting a complete and voluntary renunciation of his criminal purpose

Similar to solicitation but different because of intent

Common Law: Solicitation

Intentionally invites, requests, commands, or encourages another person to engage in conduct constituting either a felony or a misdemeanor that involves a breach of the peace or obstruction of justice

MPC: Solicitation

A person is guilty of solicitation if they intentionally invites, requests, commands, or encourages another person to engage in conduct constituting either a felony or misdemeanor.

MPC: Solicitation- Renunciation Defense - Soliciting party must:

• Completely and voluntarily renounce his criminal intent; AND

• Persuade the solicited party not to commit the offense or otherwise prevent him from committing the crime

Common Law: Conspiracy: Unilateral-Bilateral Jurisdictions & Mens Rea

An agreement between two or more persons to commit a criminal act or commit a lawful act by unlawful means

MPC: Conspiracy: Unilateral-Bilateral Jurisdictions & Mens Rea

A person is guilty of conspiracy with another person or persons to commit a crime if with the purpose of promoting or facilitating its commission he:

a. Agrees with such other person or persons that they or one or more of them will engage in conduct which constitutes such crime or an attempt or solicitation to commit such crime; or

b. Agrees to aid such other person or persons in the planning or commission of such crime or of an attempt or solicitation to commit such crime

Common Law: Unilateral-Bilateral Jurisdictions - Bilateral

Crime is committed when two or more persons agree to proceed in a prohibited manner

MPC: Unilateral-Bilateral Jurisdictions - Unilateral

Assess the defendant’s subjective, individual behavior in determining guilt

• No impossibility defense

Common Law: Wharton’s Rule

If a crime by definition requires two or more persons as willing participants, there can be no conspiracy to commit that offense if the only parties to the agreement are those who are necessary to the commission of the underlying offense

Common Law: Conspiracy: Mens Rea - Specific Intent - Conspiracy has two intent requirements

1. The parties intend to form an agreement

2. The parties intend to achieve the objectives of the agreement

Knowledge is not enough, purpose is required

Courts are split^

MPC: Conspiracy: Mens Rea

1. A person is not guilty of a conspiracy unless he acts with the purpose of promoting or facilitating the commission of the conduct that constitutes a crime

2. One who furnishes a service or instrumentality with mere knowledge or another’s criminal activities is not guilty of conspiracy

Common law: Abandonment

There’s no defense.

Some jurisdictions allow a defense, but it requires voluntary abandonment

Once you’ve committed the steps for attempt, no going back = criminally liable

MPC: Abandonment

Abandonment is an affirmative defense if defendant abandons efforts to commit crime or otherwise prevents the commission of the crime, under circumstances manifesting a complete and voluntary renunciation of his criminal purpose.

Complete = no going back another day - needs 100% stopping

Voluntary = not voluntary if motivated by circumstances that halt the crime

Getting caught doesn’t mean voluntary

Common Law: Impossibility (3 Types)

• Factual impossibility - Not a defense

  • The defendant intends to commit an offense, but it is impossible to commit because of factual circumstances of which the defendant is unaware

• Legal impossibility - Defense

  • Pure legal impossibility: defendant engages in lawful conduct that she incorrectly believes is unlawful (thinking you’re doing something illegal but not)

• Hybrid legal impossibility: Defendant’s goal is illegal, but the commission of the offense is impossible due to a mistake by the defendant regarding a legal status of some factual circumstances relevant to the conduct

  • Ex: Homicide = killing someone. But shooting someone who’s dead, well, they’re dead.

  • Can’t accomplish something because they misunderstood the status of what they were trying to do/the conduct

  • Modern trend

MPC: Impossibility

• Person is guilty of attempt if, while acting with culpability otherwise required for commission of crime, he purposely engages in conduct that would constitute the crime if the circumstances were as he believes them to be

• Factual impossibility - not a defense

• Hybrid legal impossibility - not a defense

• Pure legal impossibility - defense

• Attempt merges with completed crime - won’t be charged with attempt of ____ and ____, just ____.

Common Law: Mens Rea - Two Intents

• The intent to commit the act that constitutes the actus reus

• The specific intent to commit the target offense

Want to do particular action

Attempt sometimes requires a higher level of mens rea than what is necessary to commit the target offense

MPC - Attempt - Mens Rea

• Completed; dealing with criminal conduct (5.01(1)(a)): Purposely engages in conduct that would constitute the crime

• Completed; dealing with criminal result (5.01(1)(b)): Acts with the purpose of causing or with the belief it will cause the criminal result

• Incomplete (5.01(1)(c )): Purposely does an act constituting a substantial step

• Acting with the kind of culpability otherwise required for commission of the crime

Common Law - Actus Reus

• Physical Proximity Doctrine: Act must go so far that it would result or apparently result in the actual commission of the crime it was designed to effect, if not extrinsically hindered or frustrated by extraneous circumstances

^ PA Court Language

^ What’s left to be done, not what has already been done

• Dangerous Proximity Doctrine: Conduct must be so near (close to completion) to the result that the danger of success is very great

  • Proximity to Completion - how much is left

  • Severity of the threatened harm (murder = heavier)

  • Degree of societal harm filled by defendant’s conduct

    • ^^^Those 3 are factors, scale them

• Probable Desistance Test: Defendant is “past the point of no return”

  • Probable wouldn’t stop unless for outside forces

• Res Ipsa Loquitur (Unequivocally) Test: At the moment the defendant stopped progressing toward completion of the offense, it was clear that the defendant had no other purpose than commission of the crime

  • Purpose when committing last step

  • No relation to torts

MPC - Actus Reus

• Completed; dealing with criminal conduct (5.01(1)(a)): Purposely engages in conduct that would constitute the crime if the attendant circumstances were as he believes them to be

• Completed; dealign with criminal result (5.01(1)(b)): When causing a particular result is an element of the crime, does or omits to do anything with the purpose of causing or with the belief that it will cause such result without further conduct on his part

• Incomplete (5.01(1)(c )): Purposely does or omits to do anything that, under the circumstances as he believes them to be, is an act or omission constituting a substantial step in a course of conduct planned to culminate in his commission of the crime

  • Substantial step: Must be strongly corroborative of the actor’s criminal purpose

Actus reus is likely not hard to establish; completed the attempt up to final step(s)

Corporate Agents: Common Law

• A corporate agent, through whose act, default, or omission the corporation committed a crime, is individually guilty of the crime

• A corporate agent who was not directly involved in the criminal activity is generally not vicariously liable for the actions of his subordinates

Common Law: Powerlessness Defense

If the defendant did not possess the actual power and control to keep the criminal activity from taking place, he will not be found criminally liable

MPC - Corporate Agents

• A person is legally accountable for any conduct he performs or causes to be performed in the name of the corporation or an unincorporated association or in its behalf to the same extent as if it were performed in his own name or behalf

• Whenever a duty to act is imposed by law upon a corporation or an unincorporated association, any agent of the corporation or association having responsibility for the discharge of the duty is legally accountable for a reckless omission to perform the required act to the same extent as if the duty were imposed by law directly upon himself

Common Law - Corporations

• Corporate defendants may be liable for the unlawful acts of agents or employees if conduct is within the scope of the employee’s authority

• Corporations can be held liable for actions done by employees

• A person can be held guilty

True or False: You are not guilty of being an accomplice, but of the crime

True

Common Law: Categories of parties in Common Law

1. Principals in the first degree (perpetrators)

2. Principals in the second degree (aided and present)

3. Accessories before the fact (aided before the crime but not present)

NOTE: Merge those first thre into principal offense

4. Accessories after the fact (aided after the crime was completed)

Common Law: Actus Reus - Conduct must actually assist in the commission of the crime

• Assist: Soliciting or encouraging another person to commit the crime or aiding in the commission of the crime

Note: You can be criminally liable for solicitation itself

How to Assist:

• Physical Conduct

• Psychological Influence

• Omission (only if there’s a duty to stop a crime)

Common Law: Mens Rea - An accomplice must possess two mental states ←- BOTH

• Intentionally engage in the act of assistance

• Act with the level of culpability required for the underlying crime

Common Law: Defenses

• Legislative-exemption rule: A person cannot be convicted as an accomplice in his own victimization (ex: “consensual” statutory r8pe)

• Abandonment: A person is no longer an accomplice if he subsequently abandons the criminal endeavor by (1) communicating his withdrawal to the principal, and (2) making a good “Bonafide” faith to neutralize the effect of his prior assistance

MPC - Actus Reus

• Solicit the offense;

• Aids, agrees to aid, or attempts to aid in the commission of the offense; or

• Fail to attempt to prevent the offense (if there is a legal duty to do so)

MPC - Mens Rea

• Must act with the purpose of promoting or facilitating the commission of the offense

• If person is an accomplice in commission of conduct that causes a criminal result, he is an accomplice in the result if he has the level of culpability regarding the result required in the definition of the offense

MPC - Defenses

• Legislative-exemption (same as common law)

• Inevitable incident (inevitably part of something that is a crime) (ex: prostitution)

• Abandonment: (1) Termination, and (2) Neutralizing assistance, giving timely warning to authorities, or making a proper effort to otherwise prevent the crime

Accomplice can be guilty of attempt!

Causation - Common Law: Year-and-a-Day Rule

In early common law, death had to occur within a year and a day after defendant’s acts

Causation - Common Law: Actual Cause

• But for defendant’s actions (or omission), would the harm have occurred when it did? (Does it matter that the actor caused harm to the victim?)

• Multiple actual causes (settled with considering whether harm would have occurred when it did)

• Concurrent Sufficient Causes - Ask “Was defendant’s conduct a substantial factor in the resulting harm?”

Causation - Common Law: Proximate Cause

• Direct cause - were there any actual causes between defendant’s actions and the result?

• Intervening causes - was the response (an actual cause that arose after defendant’s act or omission but before the resulting harm) intended reasonably foreseeable, or sufficiently related to defendant’s initial act?

  • If yes —> Dependent: A normal or involuntary response to, or result of, defendant’s actions that generally does not relieve the defendant of liability

  • If no —> Independent: Not a normal response or result that generally relieves the defendant of liability

Ex) A doctor’s negligence is reasonable foreseeable

True or False: Must have both Actual Cause AND Proximate Cause under Common Law?

True, must have both and must analyze both.

MPC - Actual Cause

• But for defendant’s actions, would the harm have occurred when it did?

• Requires greater specificity in defining the result (death by) ex: bullet to the head

MPC - Proximate Cause - General Rules

• Purposely/knowingly - Result must be within purpose or contemplation of the actor

• Recklessly/negligently - Result must be within the risk of which actor was aware of should have been aware

MPC - Proximate Cause - Exceptions

• Result differed because a different person/property was injured (similar to transferred intent)

• Result differed because purposed/contemplated/probably injury was more serious than that caused

• Result differed, but the actual result was the same kind of injury as what was purposed/contemplated/probable AND result is not too remote or accidental to have a bearing on liability or gravity of offense

Common Law: A defendant is not guilty if his

mistake of fact negates the mens rea of the crime

Common Law: Specific Intent

A defendant is not guilty of a specific-intent crime if his mistake of fact negates the specific intent element of offense

• No requirement it has to be reasonable

Common Law: General Intent

A defendant is not guilty of a general intent offense if his mistake of fact was reasonable

Exceptions: Moral wrong doctrine and legal wrong doctrine (illegal under another statute)

Noe: Unreasonable guilt

MPC: A mistake of fact is a defense to a crime if the mistake

negates the mental state element required in the definition of the offense

Exception: This defense does not apply if the defendant would be guilty of a lesser crime if the facts had been what he believed them to do

Mistake of Law: General Rule

Ignorance of the law is no excuse

Mistake of Law: General Rule Exceptions

• If knowledge of law is an element, lack of knowledge negates the element

• If there is no fair notice of the law, mistake of law can be a defense

• Reasonable/justified reliance doctrines: