Homicide
What is voluntary manslaughter?
Voluntary manslaughter is (1) murder committed in the (2) heat of passion upon (3) adequate provocation, and a (4) reasonable person would not have cooled off between the provocation and the killing.
What is the MAIN difference between larceny by trick and false pretenses?
Larceny by trick= POSSESSION
False Pretenses= TITLE
Does Attempt CL recognize abandonment?
Common Law doesn't recognize abandonment, however, may be circumstantial evidence that the defendant's act did not go beyond mere preparation or that s/he did not have the specific intent to commit the completed crime in the first place.
Solicitation is...
What is the aalterp defense?
Defendant is able to offer evidence of both motive and opportunity by an alternative perpetrator.
What is depraved heart murder?
This kind of murder involves "recklessness and something more," and is often described as an aggravated form of recklessness with indifference to the value of human life.
What is larceny?
A trespassory taking and carrying away of [tangible] personal [movable] property of another with intent to steal [permanently deprive]
Elements of Conspiracy CL
1. Two or more persons agree
2. To commit a criminal act
3. [Overt act in furtherance of the agreement]
4. Specific intent to agree and knowledge of crime
What are the 5 Proximity Tests recognize Attempt in CL?
1. Physical Proximity: whether the act is sufficiently proximate distance to the intended crime
2. Dangerous proximity: if the act has gone beyond "mere preparation", the factors one looks at are: "the nearness of danger, the substantiality of harm and the apprehension felt."
3. Indispensable element:What remains to be done by the perpetrator in order to complete the crime
4. Probable desistance: The accused's conduct must pass that point where most people, holding such an intention as the accused holds, would think better of their conduct and desist
5. Unequivocally or res ipsa loquitor: Accused's conduct from preparation to perpetration constitutes a step towards the commission of the intended crime, and the doing of the act can have no other purpose than the commission of that crime.
What are the elements of Necessity CL?
What are the two inherently dangerous approaches?
Abstract approach: In assessing whether the felony is inherently dangerous to human life, we look to the elements of the felony in the abstract, not the particular facts of the case.
On the facts approach: if the felonies conduct, under all of the circumstances, made death a foreseeable consequence, it is reasonable for the law to infer from the commission of the felony under those circumstances
Elements of Receiving Stolen Property
1. Receive
2. Stolen property
3. with knowledge that it has been stolen
4. with intent to deprive the owner permanently
Who recognizes this defense: MPC, CL, Both, or Neither
1. Hybrid Legal Impossibility
2. Factual Impossibility
3. Inherent Factual Impossibility
4. Pure Legal Impossibility
1. CL
2. Neither
3. Both
4. Both
What is the pinkerton jurisdiction under conspiracy CL?
A conspirator can be held vicariously liable for crimes committed by a co-conspirator if those crimes are reasonably foreseeable and occur during the course of and durtherance of the conspiracy, even if the conspirator did not directly agree to or participate in the specific crime
List and define the four major categories of defenses...
1. Justification: ∆ admits responsibility for the act but claim that under the circumstances the act was not criminal– conduct benefitted society and requires a trigger, necessity and proportionality (T.N.P)
2. Excuses: actor is not responsible for the conduct– admits conduct harmed society but actor is blameless for whatever reason.
3. Alibi: defendant was able to provide a credible statement about their whereabouts at the time of the crime that is verified by a witness
4. Procedural Defenses: prosecution failed to meet its burden
Three armed kidnappers seized a victim on a busy street. The victim put up a struggle and pushed the first kidnapper into traffic, where he was killed by a passing car before the victim was subdued. A passerby attempted to help the victim but was shot and killed by the second kidnapper. As the kidnappers made their escape, they exchanged gunfire with a police officer, who missed the kidnappers but hit and killed a second passerby. During the gunfight, the victim managed to escape from the kidnappers and disappeared into the crowd. The kidnappers, now without their captive, escaped to their hideout, where they argued amongst themselves about what had gone wrong. The argument became heated, and the third kidnapper shot and killed the second kidnapper.
If the third kidnapper is later apprehended and the jurisdiction follows the agency approach to causation, which death could result in a charge of murder under the felony-murder rule?
a. The death of the second kidnapper.
b.The death of the first passerby.
c. The death of the second passerby.
d. The death of the first kidnapper.
b. The death of the first passerby.
A woman saw a hand drill in a pile of other items and trashcans at the curb outside her neighbor’s house. It was the day that the city collected trash in the neighborhood, and everyone in the neighborhood had similar piles at the curb to be picked up. The woman took the drill home, intending to use it for a project and then give it away to someone else who could use it.
Larceny is defined in the jurisdiction as “the trespassory asportation of another’s personal property with the intent to permanently deprive that person.”
Which part of this definition of larceny is most in doubt under these facts?
a.Whether the woman’s intent was to “permanently” deprive the neighbor of the drill.
b. Whether the woman’s taking of the drill amounted to “asportation.”
c. Whether the drill was “another’s” property.
d. Whether the woman’s taking of the drill amounted to “asportation.”
c. Whether the drill was “another’s” property.
A married woman decided to kill her husband to receive the proceeds of his life insurance policy. The woman suggested to her husband that they go hiking in a nearby state park the next weekend, when she planned to push the husband off a cliff. She picked up a map of the park in preparation for the hike and revealed her plan to a friend. The day before the planned hike, the woman read in the newspaper that the state had increased the number of rangers on patrol throughout the park. Worried that she could get caught, the woman decided to abandon her plan. Her friend subsequently informed the police of the woman’s plan to kill the husband. The woman was charged with attempted murder.
Under the Model Penal Code, assuming the prosecutor can establish the prima facie case, is the woman likely to be successful in raising an abandonment defense?
a. No, because the woman only changed her mind after new information revealed to her that it would be difficult to execute her plan without being caught.
b. No, because the woman did not inform the police of her criminal purpose once she changed her mind.
c. No, because the woman did not inform the police of her criminal purpose once she changed her mind.
d. Yes, because there could be an innocent explanation for why the woman obtained the map of the state park.
a. No, because the woman only changed her mind after new information revealed to her that it would be difficult to execute her plan without being caught.
A man wished to go out with friends one night, but he believed his wife would object. He crushed up some sleeping pills and put them into his wife’s dinner, and the wife quickly fell asleep. The man justified his actions to himself, noting that his wife had been putting in long hours at work recently and not getting enough sleep. The man went out with his friends, and upon his return home five hours later, he found his wife unconscious and struggling to breathe. Panicked, the man called 911. Hospital staff determined that the wife had fallen into a coma, which she emerged from two weeks later.
In which of the following jurisdictions, if either, would a prosecutor likely establish the requisite mens rea for an attempted murder charge against the man?
a. Only in a jurisdiction that follows the common law.
b. In neither jurisdiction.
c. In both jurisdictions.
d.Only in a jurisdiction that follows the Model Penal Code.
b. In neither jurisdiction.
A woman sold heroin out of her apartment. A regular customer who was out of money decided he would show up at the woman’s house and scare her into giving him free heroin. He brought an unloaded gun with him just to scare her in case she gave him any problems. When the customer got to the woman’s house, he pulled out the unloaded gun and said he would shoot her if she didn’t give him heroin. The woman said she didn’t have any heroin, which was true, but the customer insisted he would kill her if she didn’t give him the drug. Fearing for her life, the woman told the customer that she would go to the kitchen and get whatever she had left. The customer followed her to the kitchen. Once in the kitchen, the woman reached into a drawer and pretended to get drugs, but instead pulled out a knife and stabbed the customer in the stomach. The customer bled to death, and the woman was subsequently charged with his murder. The jurisdiction follows the common law.
If the woman argues that she acted in self-defense, what is the likely verdict?
a.Guilty, because the woman had “unclean hands” in getting herself into the altercation by selling heroin.
b. Not guilty, because the woman’s belief that the customer was going to kill her was genuine and reasonable.
c.Guilty, because the customer’s gun was not loaded, so the woman was not threatened with death or serious bodily harm.
d. Guilty, because the woman was required to attempt to retreat before using deadly force.
b. Not guilty, because the woman’s belief that the customer was going to kill her was genuine and reasonable.
One of the partners in a small business discovered that the other partner had stolen money from the business. The honest partner confronted the dishonest partner about the theft and threatened to call the police. Terrified by the prospect of being arrested, the dishonest partner grabbed the nearest object, a heavy vase, and threw it at the honest partner. The vase struck the honest partner in the head, killing him. The dishonest partner was arrested in a Model Penal Code (MPC) jurisdiction.
Which of the following considerations is dispositive of whether the dishonest partner could be convicted of murder?
a. Whether the dishonest partner had an adequate cooling-off period after the honest partner threatened to call the police.
b. Whether the dishonest partner intended to cause grievous bodily harm by throwing the vase at the honest partner.
c.Whether the honest partner's threat to call the police was adequate provocation.
d. Whether the dishonest partner consciously disregarded a known risk that throwing the vase would result in killing the honest partner.
d. Whether the dishonest partner consciously disregarded a known risk that throwing the vase would result in killing the honest partner.
A drug dealer had hidden a stash of illegal drugs in the dealer’s bedroom closet. A housemate of the dealer regularly stole small quantities of drugs from the dealer’s closet stash and used them.
Does the housemate’s conduct satisfy the requirements for common-law larceny?
a.Yes, because the housemate used the drugs.
b. Yes, because the dealer had hidden the drugs in the dealer’s bedroom closet.
c. No, because the dealer illegally possessed the drugs.
d. No, because the housemate was not a trespassor in the house.
a. Yes, because the housemate used the drugs.
A defendant was charged with attempted aggravated robbery based on the following facts. The defendant entered a convenience store with a gun, intending to intimidate the clerk into giving him the contents of the cash register. However, the store’s security guard thwarted the robbery. Upon retrieval of the defendant’s gun, it was discovered that there was a single bullet in the chamber.
The state criminal code defined aggravated robbery as robbery committed with a loaded gun. The state followed the common-law approach to the mens rea required for a crime of attempt.
The defendant conceded that he was guilty of attempted robbery but contended that he could not be convicted of attempted aggravated robbery because he believed that the gun was unloaded.
What must the state prove concerning the defendant’s mental state to convict him of attempted aggravated robbery?
a. Only that the gun was actually loaded, regardless of the defendant’s beliefs.
b. That the defendant was reckless as to whether the gun was loaded.
c. That the defendant was negligent as to whether the gun was loaded
d. That the defendant actually knew that the gun was loaded.
d. That the defendant actually knew that the gun was loaded.
A woman was married to an abusive husband and lived in constant fear. The woman possessed a strong belief in magic powers. The woman gathered some of her husband’s hair and nail clippings and combined them with clay to make a doll. The woman then stabbed the doll with a pin, intending to cause her husband’s death. The woman was wracked with guilt and confessed her actions to the police. The state in which the woman could be charged follows the Model Penal Code (MPC).
Which of the following best explains why the woman is not guilty of attempt under a theory of inherent impossibility?
a.The woman did not have a specific intent as to how the husband would die.
b. The woman’s conduct would not constitute a crime even if it resulted in the outcome she desired.
c. The woman was factually mistaken about whether she could cause her husband to die by sticking a pin into a doll.
d.The woman’s conduct was so unlikely to cause the commission of a crime that it did not constitute a public danger.
d. The woman’s conduct was so unlikely to cause the commission of a crime that it did not constitute a public danger.
A husband had been regularly physically and emotionally abusing his wife throughout their 20-year marriage, despite numerous interventions by law enforcement and social services. While the wife was hospitalized for injuries resulting from her husband’s latest beating, the wife hired a person to kill her husband. The would-be killer was arrested on his way to kill the husband and confessed the plot to the police. As a result, the wife was charged with conspiracy to commit murder.
Does the wife have a viable common-law self-defense claim?
a.No, because the wife was not in imminent danger.
b.Yes, because the wife had no reasonable, legal alternative.
c.No, because courts do not recognize claims of self-defense to conspiracy to commit murder.
d.Yes, because battered-spouse syndrome justifies the wife’s actions.
c.No, because courts do not recognize claims of self-defense to conspiracy to commit murder.