criminal law - exam 4

CJUS345

inchoate crime

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 commit a crime

inchoate crime which is considered the closest to actually carrying out the 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

• can be committed by one person alone

• criminal offense of urging someone to commit an unlawful act. the crime of encouraging or inducing another to commit a crime or join in the commission of a crime.

criminal facilitation doctrine

when an individual knowingly aids another, but truly does not have a separate intent to aid in the commission of the underlying offense

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

insanity

an insane person; applies when, because of a diagnosed mental disorder, the Δ could not understand the criminality of their actions or was unable to “act within the confines of the law.”

mistake of law

defense where the Δ claims he or she did not know the law at the time of the crime. Generally, ignorance of the law is not an excuse to break it. However, there are limited circumstances where not knowing the law may apply. This defense applies when a law has not been published, when the Δ relied upon a law that was subsequently deemed unconstitutional, when the Δ relied upon a judicial decision that was later overturned, or when the Δ relied upon an interpretation of law by a qualified public official. Again, a jury or judge will only find that mistake of law applies where the mistake was reasonable.

mistake of fact

available when a Δ misunderstands a fact that negates an element of the crime. The mistake must be both an honest mistake and one that is reasonable under the circumstances. may arise in situations where a Δ is charged with larceny, but at the time the Δ took the property, the Δ reasonably believed the property was his. In order for this defense to apply, the jury or judge must find that the mistake is reasonable based on the facts present at the time of the crime

accomplice

aid and abet another in the commission of a crime when they assist or facilitate that person in committing the crime; someone who knowingly and willingly associates with others in the commission of a criminal offense and who intentionally assists another person in the commitment of a crime.

• held criminally liable/responsible for their actions

• typically at the scene of the crime

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

affirmative defense

defense in which Δ admits to the existence of all of the necessary legal elements for criminal liability, but offer one or more legally recognized reasons why s/he should nonetheless be acquitted

• ex) withdrawal and abandonment

true defense

defense that, if proved, results in Δ’s acquittal, even though the prosecutor has proved the Δ’s guilt beyond a reasonable doubt

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

• justified use of reasonable force by one who is not an aggressor, when the actor reasonably believed it was necessary to defend against what s/he reasonably perceived to be an unlawful and imminent physical attack

necessity (or lesser harm)

defense in which a person, faced with a choice between two different courses of action chooses the lesser of the evils, as long as the harm produced is less than the harm that would have occurred without the action.

• reasonably believing that using deadly force is necessary to stop that danger.

accessory

one who aids or abets in the commission of a crime without being present when the crime is committed

• accessory before the fact

• accessory after the fact

conspiracy

sometimes called enterprise; is a partnership in a crime, defined as an agreement between two or more people to achieve a criminal purpose or to achieve a lawful purpose using unlawful means

• 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

conspirators

two or more people who agree to commit a crime

natural and probable consequence doctrine

doctrine that holds an accomplice liable not only for the offense s/he intended to facilitate or encourage, but also for any natural and foreseeable additional offense(s) committed by the principal in whom s/he is an accomplice

irrestible impulse

defense that fails to find a person criminally responsible if mental illness prevents the person from controlling their behavior

• irrestible impulse test: insanity test that permits a verdict of not guilty by reason of insanity if the judge or jury concludes that the accused had a mental disease that kept themselves from controlling their conduct.

strict liability

whereby a person can be convicted of a crime without having any requisite mental state or intention to commit the crime; crimes where intent doesn't matter; the act alone is enough for a conviction.

diminished capacity

used to describe 2 circumstances in which a mental condition short of insanity will lead to an acquittal or lessened charges: (1) where the accused raises the condition as a failure of proof defense, and (2) a true partial defense, whereby the crime of murder can be mitigated to manslaughter.

• in louisiana this does not constitute legal insanity

overt act

an activity that in some way moves a conspiracy into motion; an open, manifest act from which criminality may be implied, essential to establish an attempt to commit a crime

innocent agent (or instrumentality)

an object, animal or person who cannot be culpable under the law, such as an insane person or a child, that is used by a principal to commit an offense

• a person, animal or inanimate object that cannot be culpable under the law because of an inability to form intent, but that is used by a principal to commit a crime

• when a person, and that person physically commits the criminal act but does not act with criminal intent because s/he was coerced, forced or tricked into committing the act they will not be held liable

consent defense

defense most often used when a Δ is accused of a s3xual based crime. The Δ may claim that the victim consented to the conduct. must be given knowingly and voluntarily, by someone old enough and competent enough to give consent. A person who is under the age of this, mentally incompetent or intoxicated often cannot legally give consent. may be difficult to prove where the victim claims s/he did not give this to participate in a certain event.

• defense, in certain circumstances, in which the victim agrees to the actor’s conduct

• negates an element of the offense

bifurcated (trial)

division of a criminal trial into 2 parts

• (1) the first part leading to a verdict of guilty or not guilty

• (2) the second relating to another issue, such as the sanity of the accused or the penalty phase of a death penalty case

alibi

consists of evidence that Δ was somewhere other than at crime scene and not physically present at scene when it was committed; Δ does not have to prove an this 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

abandonment (and withdrawal)

affirmative defense to the crime of attempt that exists only if the defendant voluntarily and completely renounces their criminal purpose; means that the burden is on the Δ to show that he or she met all of the requirements for a successful withdrawal from the crime.

• arises when a Δ asserts that he or she never completed, or was not involved in, a criminal act because he or she did this from the act prior to it happening

• For most crimes, except conspiracy, a criminal Δ can establish that he or she successfully did this from a crime by showing that he or she stopped participating in the crime prior to its ultimate commission and either that any actions undertaken by the Δ prior to abandoning the crime did not contribute to the successful completion of the crime or that the Δ notified the police of the planned crime as soon as possible in order to attempt to prevent the crime from taking place.

mass murder

defined as "4 or more murdered during an event with no "cooling-off period" between the murders”

intoxication

disturbance of mental or physical capacities resulting from introduction of any altering substance into the body

• Generally, however, voluntary intoxication does not excuse criminal conduct. (Involuntary intoxication, where applicable, tends to excuse more behavior.) When a Δ is voluntarily intoxicated, meaning he voluntarily ingested substances like alcohol or drugs, the Δ can use his intoxication to negate the mens rea element of the crime

accompliace liability

accountability of one individual for the criminal act(s) of another.

• 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.

3 + 2 elements of crime

1. actus reus

2. mens rea

3. concurrence

4. identity

5. defendant must be at scene of crime

2 main types of defenses

1. legal

2. factual

common defenses

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

• a person can be held responsible for the actions of another (common in organized crime)

accompliace liability vs vicarious liability

accomplice liability holds individuals responsible who affirmatively aid & abet a criminal act with a purposeful intent.

vicarious liability holds individiuals liable based on their relationship with perpetrator of the crime

criminal conspiracy theory

differs from accomplice liability in that to be guilty of conspiracy, the perpetrator must actually agree to the ongoing criminal enterprise, not just to single crimes

insanity defense

defense applies when, because of a diagnosed mental disorder, the Δ could not understand the criminality of their actions or was unable to “act within the confines of the law

• generally invoked when a Δ, (1 )due to a diagnosed mental disorder, couldn’t comprehend the criminality of their actions, (2) they did not have the required intention to commit the crime or (3) was unable to “act within the confines of the law”

  • can be viewed that the Δ essentially admits to committing the act yet denying responsibility because the Δ lacked the capacity to act with criminal intent at the time.”

legal insanity rule louisiana uses

M’Nughten Rule

ways innocent agent can be non-responsible

1. Insanity, an insane person

2. Infancy or being younger than the minimum age at which one is considered able to form intent (in many States under the age of 7 in others under 16 to 18-but still can be adjudicated through the juvenile justice system)

3. Those under duress (against one’s will).

big 4 constitutional rights

1. right to counsel

2. right to remain silent

3. right to peer jury

4. right to confront your accusers

castle doctrine vs stand your ground

• castle doctrine: applies in your home, if you are already inside

• stand your ground: (also called "line in the sand" or "no duty to retreat" law) applies outdoors and only changes one element of the justification for the use of deadly force.

stand your ground

2 party types in louisiana

1. principals

• principals in the 1st degree

  • principals in the 2nd degree

2. accessories

• accessories before the fact

  • accessories after the fact

principals in the 1st degree

person who actually carried out or committed a crime

principals in the 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

inchoate crime - attempt ; LRS 27

§27. Attempt; penalties; attempt on peace officer; enhanced penalties

• A. Any person who, having a specific intent to commit a crime, does or omits an act for the purpose of and tending directly toward the accomplishing of his object is guilty of an attempt to commit the offense intended; and it shall be immaterial whether, under the circumstances, he would have actually accomplished his purpose.

• B.(1) Mere preparation to commit a crime shall not be sufficient to constitute an attempt; but lying in wait with a dangerous weapon with the intent to commit a crime, or searching for the intended victim with a dangerous weapon with the intent to commit a crime, shall be sufficient to constitute an attempt to commit the offense intended.

self-defense ; LRS 19

§19. Use of force or violence in defense

• (a) When committed for the purpose of preventing a forcible offense against the person or a forcible offense or trespass against property in a person's lawful possession, provided that the force or violence used must be reasonable and apparently necessary to prevent such offense.

• (b)(i) When committed by a person lawfully inside a dwelling, a place of business (POB), or a motor vehicle (MV) as defined in R.S. 32:1(40) when the conflict began, against a person who is attempting to make an unlawful entry into the dwelling, place of business, or motor vehicle, or who has made an unlawful entry into the dwelling, place of business, or motor vehicle, and the person using the force or violence reasonably believes that the use of force or violence is necessary to prevent the entry or to compel the intruder to leave the dwelling, place of business, or motor vehicle.

justifiable homocide - LRS 20

§20. Justifiable homicide

• A. A homicide is justifiable

  • (1) When committed in self-defense by one who reasonably believes that he is in imminent danger of losing his life or receiving great bodily harm and that the killing is necessary to save himself from that danger.

  • (2) When committed for the purpose of preventing a violent or forcible felony involving danger to life or of great bodily harm by one who reasonably believes that such an offense is about to be committed and that such action is necessary for its prevention. The circumstances must be sufficient to excite the fear of a reasonable person that there would be serious danger to his own life or person if he attempted to prevent the felony without the killing.

  • (3) When committed against a person whom one reasonably believes to be likely to use any unlawful force against a person present in a dwelling or a place of business, or when committed against a person whom one reasonably believes is attempting to use any unlawful force against a person present in a motor vehicle as defined in R.S. 32:1(40), while committing or attempting to commit a burglary or robbery of such dwelling, business, or motor vehicle.

  • (4)(a) When committed by a person lawfully inside a dwelling, a place of business, or a motor vehicle … when the conflict began, against a person who is attempting to make an unlawful entry into the dwelling, place of business or motor vehicle or who has made an unlawful entry into the dwelling, place of business, or motor vehicle, and the person committing the homicide reasonably believes that the use of deadly force is necessary to prevent the entry or to compel the intruder to leave the dwelling, place of business or motor vehicle. (b) The provisions of this Paragraph shall not apply when the person committing the homicide is engaged, at the time of the homicide, in the acquisition of, the distribution of, or possession of, with intent to distribute a controlled dangerous substance in violation of the provisions of the Uniform Controlled Dangerous Substances Law

defense justification ; LRS 21-22

§21. Aggressor cannot claim self-defense

• A person who is the aggressor or who brings on a difficulty cannot claim the right of self- Δ unless he withdraws from the conflict in good faith & in such a manner that his adversary knows or should know that he desires to withdraw & discontinue the conflict.

§22. Defense of others

• It is justifiable to use force or violence or to kill in the defense of another person when it is reasonably apparent that the person attacked could have justifiably used such means himself, and when it is reasonably believed that such intervention is necessary to protect the other person.

5 main parties to crimes

1. principal in 1st degree

2. principal in 2nd degree

• accomplices

• accessories

3. accessory before the fact

4. accessory after the fact

5. conspirators

accomplices

are present at the actual crime and could be prosecuted even if the principal is not charged or convicted

accessories

assist principle before/after crime & is generally not present at actual crime. subject to lesser penalties than an accomplice or principal.

acts done as a result of negligence or recklessness

cannot be considered as an attempt to commit the crime as there is no intention to commit it

jurisdictions distinguish between accomplices and accessories

an accomplice is typically at the scene of the crime and accessories are not but contribute to the success of the crime before or after the fact

accomplice liability lacks…

actus reus

LE officers can…

provide opportunities for Δ’s to commit crimes without committing entrapment.

when is it justifiable to use force, violence or deadly force in the defense of others

when it is reasonably apparent that the person attacked could have justifiably used such means himself, and when it is reasonably believed that such intervention is necessary to protect the other person.

fact of an intoxicated or drugged condition of the offender at the time of the commission of the crime is…

immaterial, except as follows (specific conditions)

• (1) Where the production of the intoxicated or drugged condition has been involuntary, and the circumstances indicate this condition is the direct cause of the commission of the crime, the offender is exempt from criminal responsibility. (

• 2) Where the circumstances indicate that an intoxicated or drugged condition has precluded the presence of a specific criminal intent or of special knowledge required in a particular crime, this fact constitutes a defense to a prosecution for that crime

acts done as a result of negligence or recklessness…

cannot be considered as an attempt to commit the crime (as there is no intention to commit)

when is a homicide is justifiable

when it is reasonably believed to be necessary for self-defense, defense of others, or the prevention of a violent felony or unlawful forced entry. Homicide is considered justifiable in four primary scenarios outlined in LRS 14:20 subsection A (1) through (4):

1. self defense: Committed in self- Δ by someone reasonably believing they face imminent danger of death or great bodily harm and that deadly force is necessary. Homicide is not justifiable if one claiming self-Δ is taking part in illegal drug transaction or distribution.

2. preventing a forcible entry: Committed to prevent a violent or forcible felony endangering life or causing great bodily harm, where deadly force is reasonably perceived as necessary.

3. defense against a burglary or robbery: Committed against an intruder during an actual or attempted burglary or robbery of a dwelling, business, or vehicle, where the occupant reasonably believes the intruder is likely to use unlawful force.

4. unlawful entry (castle doctrine): Committed by a lawful occupant of a dwelling, business, or vehicle against an unlawful intruder, where deadly force is believed necessary to prevent entry or compel departure

4 categories of criminal defense strategies

1. innocent of the crime

2. violation of constitutional rights

3. self-defense or defense of others

4. insanity plea

most powerful criminal defense asserted but sometimes the hardest to prove

innocence

Person who helps the criminal avoid arrest or trial after the crime is committed

Accessory after the fact

Morgan drives the getaway car to help his friend get away from a robbery he committed

Principal in the 2nd degree

Person who helps plan or encourage the crime but is not present during its commission

Accessory before the fact

Jack heard his friend wanted to perform a robbery but had no weapon, so he let him borrow his Glock.

accessory before the fact

Taylor hides his friends' stolen goods at his “off-grid” camp to help keep it away from police

Accessory after the fact

Person who commits the actual elements of a crime.

Principal in the 1st degree

Jamie disables his job’s alarm system the night before his friend plans to rob it

Accessory before the fact

Person who helps with the crime while being present at the scene.

Principal in the 2nd degree

Alex robs a store while pointing a gun at the workers

Principal in the 1st degree

Mia encourages her jealous friend to hurt someone but doesn’t help

Accessory before the fact

Taya helps her boyfriend sell jewelry he stole for some extra money. She is the principal in the first degree in the crime of possession of stolen things.

true

Parties to a crime are classified into four main groups.

false

Zach told his friend, Danny, he would give him some money to drive him to beat up and rob someone who owed him some money. Danny agreed as long as he could stay outside as a watchguard and have no part in the dirty work. In criminal law, both Zach and Danny will face the same criminal punishments.

true

In criminal law, an accomplice after the fact can have a lesser charge than the principal in the first degree

false

Marcus drives the getaway car while his friend robs a convenience store. He is a principal in the second degree for a crime of robbery.

true

parties to a crime ; LRS 23, 24, 25

• §23. Parties classified Parties to crimes are classified as:

  • (1) Principals; (2) Accessories after the fact

• §24. Principals: All persons concerned in the commission of a crime, whether present or absent, and whether they directly commit the act constituting the offense, aid and abet in its commission, or directly or indirectly counsel or procure another to commit the crime, are principals.

• §25. Accessories after the fact: An accessory after the fact is any person who, after the commission of a felony, shall harbor, conceal, or aid the offender, knowing or having reasonable ground to believe that he has committed the felony, and with the intent that he may avoid or escape from arrest, trial, conviction, or punishment.

  • An accessory after the fact may be tried and punished, not withstanding the fact that the principal felon may not have been arrested, tried, convicted, or amenable to justice.

    • Whoever becomes an accessory after the fact shall be fined not more than five hundred dollars, or imprisoned, with or without hard labor, for not more than five years, or both; provided that in no case shall his punishment be greater than one-half of the maximum provided by law for a principal offender