Professional Documents
Culture Documents
Possession:
Possession is an act if:
knowingly procured OR
knowingly received the thing OR
was aware of control for sufficient period
of time
Omission:
Liability for the commission of an offense
may not be based on an omission
unaccompanied by an action unless:
Omission is expressly made sufficient by
law defining offense
A duty to perform the omitted acts is
otherwise imposed by law
Mens Rea
Common Law
Criminal Negligence
Gross lack of competency
Gross inattention
Criminal indifference
Gross deviation = recklessnessaware of
substantial risk created by conduct and
disregards that risk (Peterson)
Homicideneg. homicide if acted with
criminal negligence (State v. Howard)
Subjective Test
Specific Intent Crime:
Requires actual intention to do more than
actus reus, not just general
blameworthiness
General malevolence is not an attempt to
commit a crime even if it results in an
substantive crime
Malice aforethought specific intent to
kill (Shea)
General Intent Crime:
Intent to commit an act, serves as actus
reus
(See above)
Knowledge
Common Law
Model Penal Code
Majority subjective test
Subjective test
Minority objective test
Deliberate ignorance and Positive Knowledge
If one is aware of high probability of
have equal culpability
existence of a particular fact, unless he
Knowingly is not limited to positive
actually believes it doesnt exist, he is still
knowledge, but includes the state of mind
culpable
of one who does not posses positive
If there is a high probability of existence,
knowledge only because it consciously
knowledge is established
avoided it.
Willful blindness (Jewelmarijuana)
Willfulness
Common Law
Intentional or deliberate a voluntary,
intentional violation of a known legal duty
(Cheek)
It means no more than that the person
charged with the duty knows what he is
doing. It does not mean that, in addition,
he must suppose that he is breaking the
law.
Strict Liability
Common Law
Malum prohibita
Statutory rape, bigamy
No need to show culpable mental state
(Transferred Intent)
Murder
Common Law
4 ways to satisfy mens rea requirement:
Intent to kill
Intent to commit serious bodily injury
Reckless/extreme indifference to value of
human life (depraved heart)
Intent to commit dangerous felony
no bootstrapping allowed (felony must be
independent)People v. Wilson
Premeditation
No set time required, only that intention occurred at time of killing or beforehand
(Schrader)decision overruled in so far as it suggests that premed and delib could come
into existence at time of killing
If there is assault by both parties and sudden emotion, it becomes voluntary manslaughter
Court in Forrest gives 6 circumstances used to determine premeditation
o Want of provocation on part of dead
o Conduct and statements of defendant before and after killing
o Threats and declarations of defendant before and during course of occurrences
giving rise to killing
o Ill-will or previous difficulty between defendant and victim
o Dealing of lethal blows after deceased rendered helpless
o Evidence that the killing was brutal
Manslaughter
Common Law
Voluntary:
Intent to kill, but in the heat of passion
with no malice aforethought
Objective test for sufficiency of
provocation
4 requisites
1) acts in response to provocation which
would cause a reasonable man to lose
his self-control (actualmere words are
not enough)
2) heat of passion
Negligent Homicide
Committed negligentlyought to have
been aware of the risk; inadvertent;
objective
Attempt
Common Law
Intent to commit a crime + performance of an
act toward its commissions + failure to
commit the crime
the attempt is the direct movement
towards the commission after the
preparations are made
Dangerous Proximity Test:
looks at what is left to be done
if the last proximate act is done, always
sufficient, yet not always required
focus on the actors actions
beyond mere preparation
must have culpability to commit a crime
there can be no attempt of negligent homicide
Legal Impossibility:
when s actions sets in motion, even if
fully carried out as he desires, would not
constitute a crime (Oviedo)
courts look at objective acts performed to
determine criminality without reliance on
accompanying mens rea
COMPLETE DEFENSE
Factual Impossibility:
Objective of is proscribed by criminal
law, but a circumstance unknown to the
actor prevents him from bringing about
that objective
Never a defense
Hybrid Impossibility: (Brickey)
Objective is criminal, but there is a factual
mistake as to the legal status of the goods
(shooting at a tree stump, shooting a dead
man)Booth, Rojas
No hybrid defense
Solicitation
Common Law
Requesting someone to commit a crime
Communication not required of conduct
indicates solicitation
No corroboration needed
No overt act required
Falls short of an attempt
A substantive crime in and of itself
Solicitation merges into conspiracy
In some jurisdictionsattempted
solicitation
Abandonment
Common Law
Involuntary abandonment never a defense
Conspiracy
Common Law
An agreement between 2 or more persons to
do either an unlawful act or a lawful act by
unlawful means
Agreement + Objective + Mens Rea
It is not necessary that each conspirator
agree to commit the substantive object
crime; also not necessary to have tacit
agreement between co-conspirators
All members of conspiracy may be liable
for the substantive crime even if
committed by only one member, without a
new agreement
Once agreement made, no withdraw from
conspiracy, only from substantive offense
Whartons Rule: an agreement between 2
people to commit a particular crime cannot be
prosecuted as a conspiracy when the crime
necessarily requires the participation of 2
persons for the completion
Pinkerton Rule: criminal act must be
foreseeable and done in furtherance of the
conspiracy for all members to be found guilty
of substantive crime without any liability
Some jurisdiction require actual action:
mere preparation may be okaybut more
than knowledge, promotion of venture
If tried in same trial, need two for
conviction; if separate trials, can have just
one conspirator
Accomplice When:
Solicits another person to commit crime
Aids/agrees/attempts to aid in planning or
committing
Has legal duty to prevent commission of
crime but fails to do so
Conduct by law establishes complicity
Ignorance or Mistake
Common Law
Mistake of Law:
Never a defense (traditional view)
Follow MPC (modern view)
Mistake of Fact:
Defense only for specific intent crimes
must lack mens rea for crime
Must be an honest mistake
Mistake of age is no defense
Intoxication
Common Law
Model Penal Code
Voluntary Intoxication:
Voluntary Intoxication:
Not a defense but may be used if it negates
Defense if it prevents an accuse from
specific intent
having the required state of mindbut not
always a complete defense
Inadmissible to negate general
Does not negate recklessness or criminal
intentnegligence
negligence
Involuntary Intoxication:
Involuntary Intoxication:
Presence or threat of force/duress
Defense if intentionally ingests a
substance, but mistakenly believes that it
is not intoxicating