DA's literally only have 3 jobs...
The three basic elements needed for criminal liability
1. Actus Reus
2. Mens Rea
3. Causation
What are the exceptions to "ignorance of the law is never a defense"?
1. Knowing & Willful violations (CL) / Statute says so (MPC)
2. Official Reliance
3. No fair notice
Explain the difference between the instantaneous and non-instantaneous jurisdictional views of premeditation & deliberation
1st Degree: Homicide when it is done so with Malice Aforethought + Premeditation & Deliberate
Premeditation & Deliberation- jurisdictions are split on what will suffice
Instantaneous decision- any amount of time to reflect on decision / intent to kill prior to moment of killing will suffice (Maestas guy attacks in car) (Carol hub shot wife while sleeping)
Non-instantaneous decision- must be evidence of time to plan and reflect
1st degree: Evidence of preconceived plan (Anderson lil girl brutal kill)/ ruthless & calculating killer (Guthrie kitchen panic attack)
2nd degree: evidence of rash & messy crime (Anderson lil girl brutal kill) / killer who loses control (Guthrie kitchen panic attack)
What is the defense to actus reus omissions?
IMPOSSIBILITY DEFENSE: ∆ cannot be held criminally liable for failing to perform an act that was impossible to perform as it negates the actus reus (Likine child support
CL- Impossibility is only a defense when ∆ has acted in good faith, explored all reasonable options for the act they are obligated to do, and could not do so through no fault of their own. (Likine child support)
MPC 2.01(1) Physically capable = impossibility defense
What is the big difference between accomplice liability in common law and MPC?
MPC only requires intent to aid + attempt to aid. Common law requires intent to aid + ACTUAL aid.
A woman bought and moved into a home with a large garden that the previous owner had planted. One of the plants in the garden was a rare plant native to rainforests. The plant’s leaves, when dried and smoked, have powerful narcotic effects.
The state where the woman lives follows the Model Penal Code and has a statute that prohibits the “knowing possession of narcotic material.” A prosecutor wishes to charge the woman for violation of this law.
What must the prosecutor prove with respect to mens rea in order to succeed?
Both that the woman knew that she possessed the plant and that she knew that the plant had narcotic effects.
MPC §2.02(4): TRANSITIVE RULE: when mens rea is not specified for each element, read any mens rea stated to apply to each element UNLESS a contrary purpose plainly appears
An elderly grandmother with failing vision asked her grandson to retrieve her blood-pressure medication from the medicine cabinet and dispense two pills. The grandson did as instructed, and the grandmother ingested the pills. Unbeknownst to the grandson, he had retrieved the wrong pills and had dispensed antibiotics to which his grandmother was allergic, causing her to die from anaphylactic shock.
Under the Model Penal Code (MPC), what is the effect of the grandson’s mistake?
No criminal liability.
The grandson made a mistake of fact - he was mistaken about what kind of pills he was giving his grandma. If a jury honestly believes him, then he would not have any requisite mens rea for liability as he thought he was providing her with safe medication.
A man lived adjacent to the state fairgrounds, which were separated from his backyard by a chain-link fence on the man’s side. The state fair ran for one week a year, during which time a barn was used to showcase livestock on the fairgrounds near the man’s backyard. People entering and exiting the barn were easily observable from the man’s backyard. The man regularly set up tin cans in front of the fence and shot at them for target practice. The first day that the state fair was underway, the man set up the cans and took his target practice as usual. However, one of the bullets passed through a can and struck a person exiting the barn on the fairgrounds, killing the person.
What level of homicide is the man guilty of?
Involuntary homicide (negligence/recklessness)
What are the elements of attempt under CL & MPC?
CL = MR: intent + AR: focus on what is left for ∆ to do (dangerous proximity, unequivocal, last act)
MPC = MR: Intent + AR: Substantial Step- focus on what ∆ has done = Attempt
How do to extend liability to other crimes under common law accomplice liability and conspiracy?
1. accomplice liability = doctrine of natural & probable consequences
2. conspiracy = co-conspirator liability
A truck driver was driving down the highway when a motorcyclist cut her off. Enraged, the truck driver sped up and pulled alongside the motorcycle. The truck driver knew that a motorcyclist would be very afraid of being hit by a large truck and likely take evasive maneuvers if a truck was heading towards the motorcyclist. Accordingly, in an attempt to frighten the motorcyclist but not to actually hit the motorcycle, the truck driver jerked her wheel to the side and swerved very close to the motorcycle. In a panic, the motorcyclist attempted an evasive maneuver but veered off the road and crashed. The motorcyclist died from injuries sustained in the crash.
In pursuing a criminal charge against the truck driver for causing the motorcyclist’s death, which of the following is the most culpable level of mens rea that the prosecutor will be able to establish against the truck driver?
Recklessness
A hunter was taking target practice at a closed shooting range. Unknown to him, a hiker had become lost from a nearby trail and had wandered onto the range behind the targets. Assuming that the range was clear, the hunter fired his gun at a target. However, the hunter's bullet struck the hiker, injuring him.
How will you defend the hunter against criminal liability?
In a jurisdiction that follows the majority common law approach to criminal law, an arsonist burned down a victim’s home while the victim was away on vacation. When the victim returned home a few days later and saw what had happened, the victim was overcome with grief. The victim rushed into the remains of the house to search for anything that had survived the fire. In the process, the victim slipped, struck a dangerous pile of rubble, and was killed.
The arsonist was caught and charged with arson but not with the murder of the victim under the felony-murder rule.
What is the most likely reason why not?
The death did not occur during the course of the predicate felony.
Name and define the four mens rea terms
1. Purposeful
2. Knowingly
3. Recklessness
4. Negligent
A hardware store clerk and a long-time regular customer often casually chatted while the customer paid for his items. On one occasion, the customer remarked about being dissatisfied with his job and his marriage. A few weeks later, the clerk sold the customer rat poison, rope, and industrial strength garbage bags. Shortly thereafter, the customer’s wife’s body was found tied up and hidden in a large garbage bag. The coroner’s report identified in the wife’s body high levels of an anticoagulant, which is the common active ingredient in rat poison. The customer was prosecuted for and acquitted of the wife’s murder.
Was the clerk an accomplice to the wife’s murder?
No - the clerk did not intend to aid the customer in any crime despite the fact that it appears she maybe did.
An investigation found that many packages of a particular brand of chocolate chip cookies were contaminated with a dangerous chemical. The manufacturer of the cookies was prosecuted for violation of a federal regulation prohibiting “the introduction into interstate commerce of any food that is adulterated or contaminated.” The applicable federal statute states that violation of this regulation may be prosecuted as a strict liability misdemeanor.
1. Which of the following is most likely to be an important issue in the prosecution of the manufacturer?
2. Why might this be considered a strict liability crime?
1. Whether the manufacturer introduced the contaminated packages into interstate commerce. (MR is not relevant to SL, so you are focusing on Actus Reus)
2. Heavily regulated industry & high risk of harm to society (Balint)
A woman pointed a gun at a man and pulled the trigger. However, just as she pulled the trigger, the man bent over to tie his shoe. The bullet passed over the man but hit a third person who was nearby, killing him.
The woman was charged with a murder offense in a common law jurisdiction.
If the jury believes the woman honestly thought the gun was not loaded, what outcome?
Not guilty - this is a mistake of fact. She was mistaken about a fact in the real world: whether the gun was loaded. If she thought the gun wasn't loaded, then she doesn't have the requisite mens rea of intent to harm.
A hacker gained access to a computer network in order to steal bank account numbers. Unbeknownst to the hacker, the network also controlled the local power grid. The hacker was unsuccessful in stealing bank account numbers, but the hacker’s intrusion shut down the power grid, and several people were killed as a result. Hacking into a computer network is a felony in the jurisdiction.
Is the hacker likely to be charged with first-degree murder based on the felony-murder rule?
No, because computer hacking is not the kind of felony that is typically found to be “inherently dangerous” or that is typically listed as a statutorily enumerated predicate felony for the felony-murder rule.
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.
Assuming the prosecutor can establish the prima facie case, is the woman likely to be successful in raising an abandonment defense?
A girlfriend and boyfriend went shopping together. The girlfriend tried on a blouse that she loved but could not afford. The boyfriend whispered to her, “Roll it up and stick it in your bag,” and the girlfriend did so. The boyfriend then had a change of heart and realized that he was wrong to encourage his girlfriend to steal. He quietly told her, “I think you should put it back.” But the girlfriend wanted the blouse and headed toward the exit, where she was apprehended by a store clerk. The girlfriend was charged with shoplifting, and the boyfriend was charged with shoplifting under a theory of conspiracy.
In a jurisdiction that follows the Model Penal Code, would the boyfriend likely be successful in raising an withdrawal defense?
No because he did not take affirmative action to thwart the success of the crime
A defendant was charged with negligent homicide based on the following facts. The defendant drove while intoxicated, colliding with another motorist who was speeding. Neither party was severely injured in the collision. Both parties exited their vehicles on the side of the road and waited for the police to arrive. Several minutes later, the other motorist decided to walk back into the road to retrieve his cell phone, which had flown out of the car and landed in the road during the collision. While in the road, the motorist was struck by a truck and severely injured. The truck driver did not notice the motorist in the road because she was texting while driving. The motorist was transported to the hospital. The motorist would have survived his injuries, but he received negligent medical care at the hospital and died.
How would defend on the element of causation?
Defendant was not the proximate cause of the motorists death. It was not foreseeable that the motorists would die in this way - walking into the road to retrieve their phone.
In an effort to fix a rodent problem, Rat City enacted a statute that (1) Required all food waste be stored in lidded containers made of plastic or metal and (2) prohibited the outdoor use of any waste container without a lid. Jade places a box of Meagan’s old teeth on the sidewalk, without a lid.
1. If Jade knew about the statute but believed her house was outside of Rat City city limits, what defense is she raising?
2. If Jade knew she was placing Meagan’s teeth on the sidewalk within Rat City city limits, but did not know it was illegal to do so, what defense is she raising?
3. If Jade was aware of the statute and her location within Rat City, but believed the statute only applied to food waste, as noted in subsection 1 of the statute, what defense is she raising?
1. Jade is claiming a mistake of fact - she is mistaken about where she is in the real world. This is a defense if it negates mens rea.
2. Jade is claiming ignorance of the law. This is never a defense unless an exception applies.
3. Jade is claiming a mistake of legal element. She is confused about how "waste" is defined in the statute which is a legal element.
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?
The death of the first passerby.
Agency- only deaths the ∆ is responsible for are those done by his agents (Majority view- (Canola rob jewelry store)/(Washington rob gas station))
When is impossibility a defense to an attempt charge?
It's generally not. .
IMPOSSIBILITY: If the circumstances were as ∆ believed them to be (subjectively), and thus, they took a substantial step toward commission of crime under those facts then objective impossibility is not a defense. (Darr stolen jews sting)
AR- If the question is to actus reus impossibility, and ∆ believes he has done everything necessary to commit the crime and if things had been as ∆ believed them to be the crime would be executed 🡪 objective impossibility will not serve as a defense. (Darr stolen jews sting)
However it can be if. . . objective + subjective
MR- HIGH BAR: If the question is to intention and (1) it was objectively impossible and (2) jury believes ∆ did not intend to do it, thus making it subjectively impossible then it could potentially serve as a defense (Grizzle “I knew it wasn’t a 13 yr old”)
An electronics store employee was planning to rob the store after hours. The night of the robbery, the employee called one of the store’s security guards, who was a casual friend, and falsely told her that he had forgotten to reconcile his cash register at the end of his shift that night and was worried about getting fired. The employee asked the guard if she would temporarily disable the surveillance cameras so he could enter the store, reconcile his cash register, and leave undetected. The guard agreed. After the guard disabled the surveillance system, the employee entered the store and stole five high-end cell phones. When police apprehended the employee for the theft, he implicated the guard as an accomplice in exchange for the government’s promise of leniency.
Is the guard criminally liable for the theft? Argue both sides.
No - he did not intend to aid a crime. He had no venture in the crime.
Yes - he intended to aid the act of breaking and entering the store, actually did so by disabling cameras, and it was foreseeable that the guard might steal something.