Crim Checklist

8/2/2019 Crim Checklist

1/23

Mens reao Guilty mind -

Premeditated Intent & planning Intentional/Purposely Intended the purpose of the act Knowing Aware of consequences of the act (substantial certainty) Reckless aware of substantial and unjustifiable risk, but acted anyway Negligence reasonable person would have been aware that substantial

and unjustifiable risk

Strict Liability (no mens rea)o CodesTPC and MPC the same.

TPC 6.03 MPC 2.02

A person does not commit an offense unless he intentionally,knowingly, recklessly, or with criminal negligence engages in

conduct as the definition of the offense requires.

Actus Reuso Criminal act

Past Voluntary (act must be voluntary) Wrongful or potentially harmful Conduct Specified In advance By statute

o CodesTPC and MPC the same. TPC 6.01 MPC 2.01

A person is not guilty of an offense unless his liability is based onconduct that includes a voluntary act

o Omission Failure to act can itself be a crime A statute imposes a duty to care One stands in certain status relationship to another One has assumed a contractual duty to care for another One has voluntarily assumes care of another and so secluded the helpless

person as to prevent others from rendering aido CodesTPC and MPC the same.

TPC 6.01(c) MPC 2.01(3)

A person who omits to perform an act does not commit anoffense unless a lawprovides that the omission is an offense or

otherwise provides that he has a duty to perform the act.


2/23

o Possession The act can be possession

Actual physical possession, as in holding something in the hand. Constructive possession

o No actual possession, but control and dominion overobject

o Power and intention to exercise control over an object notin ones actual possession

Joint possessiono One object possessed by multiple people at the same time

Control is key concepto CodesTPC and MPC the same.

TPC 6.01(b) MPC 2.01(4)

Possession is a voluntary act if the possessor knowingly obtains orreceives the thing possessed or is aware of his control of the thingfor a sufficient time to permit him to terminate his control

Homicideo MurderTPC and MPC same

A person commits criminal homicide if he intentionally, knowingly,recklessly, or with criminal negligence causes the death of an individual

TPC 19.01 MPC 210.1

o Murder 1 Intentional Premeditated Or in the commission of a felony specified by statute (robbery, rape,

arson, burglary, etc.)

o CodesTPC and MPC the same TPC 19.02 (b) (b) A person commits an offense if he:

(1) Intentionally or knowingly causes the death of an individual; (2) Intends to cause serious bodily injury and commits an act

clearly dangerous to human life that causes the death of anindividual; or

(3) Commits or attempts to commit a felony, other thanmanslaughter, and in the course of and in furtherance of the

commission or attempt, or in immediate flight from the

commission or attempt, he commits or attempts to commit an act


3/23

clearly dangerous to human life that causes the death of an

individual.

MPC 210.2o Murder 2

Non-mitigated murder Not premeditated

o CodesSame as Murder 1o Manslaughter

Murder that is mitigated by circumstances Provoked murder Victim or someone acting with victim must be source of provocation Is the cause adequate jury question

o CodesTPC and MPC sameTPC reckless element usually for involuntarymanslaughter

TPC 19.04 (a) A person commits an offense if he recklessly causes the death

of an individual.

MPC 210.3o Involuntary Manslaughter

Recklessly causes the death of another person Recklessis aware ofa substantial and unjustifiable risk; and disregard

of that risk is a gross deviation from the standard of an ordinary person

o CodesSame as Voluntary Manslaughtero Negligent Homicide

Negligently causes the death of another person Negligentought to be aware of risk not thinking about it, forgetful,

failing to take precautions but werent thinking clearly

o CodesTPC and MPC the same TPC 19.05 MPC 210.4

(a) A person commits an offense if he causes the death of anindividual by criminal negligence.

o Extreme Indifference Intent to kill is absent, but actors utter depravity warrants punishment

over and above what is available for manslaughter

Jury can factor in gross disregard or callous indifference in sentencing. No extreme indifference murder in Texas, but lots of overlap between

laws


4/23

Texas doesnt have to sort out whether something is extremeindifference or not

Examples Throwing rocks off a bridge Opening the lion cage at the public zoo

Courts dont want extreme indifference to be used as a catch-all formurder when you cant prove intent, so they limit it

MPC 210.2(1)(b)o Intoxicated Manslaughter strict liability

TPC 49.08 operate a vehicle while intoxicated; and by reason of that intoxication causes death

oFelony Murder

If a death occurs during the course of a felony, the prosecution does nothave to prove intent to kill

If reached place of temporary safety, felony is over no more FM Transfers intent to commit felony to the murder as well Others involved can be charged with murder as well Requires a logical nexus and a continuous transaction

Must be a relationship between the killing and the felony, and thefelony must be ongoing at the time

Deaths so far outside the realm of possibility dont count as felonymurder

TexasDeath must be in furtherance of the felony AND an act clearlydangerous to human life (something beyond the felony).

Doesnt mean helping the felony Means logically connected to the felony

o CodesTPC and MPC different Texas has additional requirements MPC 210.1(b)See Murder 1 TPC 19.02(2)(b)(3)

o Intent Dont forget about transferred intent

o Codes TPC 6.04(b)

A person is nevertheless criminally responsible for causing a resultif the only difference between what actually occurred and what

he desired, contemplated, or risked is that:

(1) a different offense was committed; or


5/23

(2) a different person or property was injured, harmed, orotherwise affected

Causationo But for absent defendants conduct, result would not have occurred

If the consequences would not have naturally occurred but for thepersons act, or

If the consequences of the act could have been reasonably foreseeno Proximate Cause some other causes that contributes to the result for which

defendant is not to blame

A cause which played a substantial part in bringing about X Key intuitionwas sequence of events foreseeable, natural,

probable, or was it unexpected and bizarre

o Responsive versus Coincidental Intervening cause in response to Ds act

Negligent medical care, police / fire fighter Did the intervening case arise because of Ds action? Probably more responsible

Intervening cause is coincidental Did you hit someone and knock them down and then a horse out

of fucking nowhere came over and stomped them to death?

Probably less responsibleo CodesTPC and MPC the same

TPC 6.04(a)

A person is criminally responsible if the result would not haveoccurred but for his conduct, operating either alone or

concurrently with another cause, unless the concurrent cause was

clearly sufficient to produce the result and the conduct of the

actor clearly insufficient

MPC 2.03Attempt

o Attempted X = Intent to commit X + Acts beyond mere preparationo Must have an act that tries but fails to commit crimeo Mere preparation is not enough - there must be an overt act to establish

attempt

o Mens rea - act with intent to commit another offenseo Actus reus - beyond mere preparationo Legal impossibility versus factual impossibility

Legal - the completed act would not be criminal (good defense)


6/23

Factual - the crime is impossible of completion because of physical orfactual condition unknown to the defendant (not a defense)

o Where crime could not be completed, will we still punish for attempt? No Pure Legal Impossibility ? Hybrid Legal/Factual Impossibility Yes Factual Impossibility

o CodesTPC and MPC differentTexas specific intent / MPC same intent TPC 15.01

a) A person commits an offense if, with specific intent to commitan offense, he does an act amounting to more than mere

preparation that tends but fails to effect the commission of the

offense intended.

(d) An offense under this section is one category lower than theoffense attempted

MPC 5.01Solicitation

o Intent that a capital felony or felony of the first degree be committedo Texas requires a felony for solicitation, MPC does noto TPC 15.03

A person commits an offense if, with intent that a capital felony or felonyof the first degree be committed, he requests, commands, or attempts to

induce another to engage in specific conduct that, under the

circumstances surrounding his conduct as the actor believes them to be,

would constitute the felony or make the other a party to its commission.

(b) A person may not be convicted under this section on theuncorroborated testimony of the person allegedly solicited and unless

the solicitation is made under circumstances strongly corroborative of

both the solicitation itself and the actor's intent that the other person act

on the solicitation.

(c) It is no defense to prosecution under this section that: (1) the person solicited is not criminally responsible for the felony

solicited;

(2) the person solicited has been acquitted, has not beenprosecuted or convicted, has been convicted of a different

offense or of a different type or class of offense, or is immune

from prosecution; (3) the actor belongs to a class of persons that by definition of the

felony solicited is legally incapable of committing the offense in an

individual capacity; or

(4) the felony solicited was actually committed.o MPC 5.02


7/23

(1) DEF of Solicitation: In promoting or facilitating a crime onecommands/encourages/requests another person to engage in specific

conduct which would constitute such crime/attempt to commit such

crime or would establish his complicity in its commission/attempted

commission

(2) Uncommunicated Solicitation: Immaterial under Subsection (1) thatactor fails to communicate with the person he solicits to commit a crime

if his conduct was designed to effect such communication.

(3) Renunciation of Criminal Purpose: It is affirmative defense that actor,

after soliciting another person to commit a crime, persuaded him not to

do so or otherwise prevented the commission of the crime, under

circumstances manifesting a complete and voluntary renunciation of his

criminal purpose.

Conspiracyo

Accomplice liability doctrineo Inchoate crimeo Conspirators must intend that object crime occur

Knowledge of crime alone not sufficient Aid not necessary

o It is a crime in and of itselfo Requires both:

An agreement between one or more persons to engage in conduct thatwould constitute a felony

Usually an agreement between one party and cop will not sufficesince a cop is not actually part of the conspiracy

o Unless hes a dirty bastard One of the conspirators performs an overt act in pursuance of the felony

o Pinkerton rule Each conspirator liable for reasonably foreseeable acts of co-conspirators committed in furtherance of conspiracy.

TPC 7.02 If, in the attempt to carry out a conspiracy to commit one felony,

another felony is committed by one of the conspirators, all

conspirators are guilty of the felony actually committed, though

having no intent to commit it, if the offense was committed in

furtherance of the unlawful purpose and was one that should

have been anticipated as a result of the carrying out of theconspiracy.

o A conspiracy ends when: There is an agreement between the parties to end it The target crime of the conspiracy is complete If only one individual abandons the conspiracy, only that person is

released from liability for crimes committed after that point


8/23

Still liable for crimes committed before that pointo CodesTPC and MPC largely the same must prove conspirators intent that

object crime occur

TPC 15.02 A person commits criminal conspiracy if, with intent that a felony

be committed: (1) he agrees with one or more persons that they or one or more

of them engage in conduct that would constitute the offense; and

(2) he or one or more of them performs an overt act in pursuanceof the agreement.

o (b) An agreement constituting a conspiracy may beinferred from acts of the parties.

(c) It is no defense to prosecution for criminal conspiracy that:o (1) one or more of the coconspirators is not criminally

responsible for the object offense;

o (2) one or more of the coconspirators has been acquitted,so long as two or more coconspirators have not beenacquitted;

o (3) one or more of the coconspirators has not beenprosecuted or convicted, has been convicted of a different

offense, or is immune from prosecution;

o (4) the actor belongs to a class of persons that bydefinition of the object offense is legally incapable of

committing the object offense in an individual capacity; or

o (5) the object offense was actually committed. MPC 5.03

o Conspiracy liability TPC 7.02

(a) A person is criminally responsible for an offense committedby the conduct of another if:

o (1) acting with the kind of culpability required for theoffense, he causes or aids an innocent or nonresponsible

person to engage in conduct prohibited by the definition

of the offense;

o (2) acting with intent to promote or assist the commissionof the offense, he solicits, encourages, directs, aids, orattempts to aid the other person to commit the offense; or

o (3) having a legal duty to prevent commission of theoffense and acting with intent to promote or assist its

commission, he fails to make a reasonable effort to

prevent commission of the offense.


9/23

o (b) If, in the attempt to carry out a conspiracy to commitone felony, another felony is committed by one of the

conspirators, all conspirators are guilty of the felony

actually committed, though having no intent to commit it,

if the offense was committed in furtherance of the

unlawful purpose and was one that should have beenanticipated as a result of the carrying out of the

conspiracy.

Complicity

o Doctrine of accomplice liabilityo Not a crime - a way of committing a crime

P commits offense A acting with the intent to promote the crime Is guilty along with P

oMens rea - intends to promote or assist the crime

Must show actual intend to promote or assisto Mere knowledge of the crime is not enougho A knows P's criminal purpose + intends to aid = accomplice!o Dont forget

Even if direct perpetrator is not guilty somehow Accomplice can still be guilty

o CodesNo MPC TPC 7.02 see conspiracy liability

Defenses

Mistake of facto Mistake of fact can be a defense mistake of law cannoto A mistake is a defense if it negates the requisite mental state

Texas says the mistake must be reasonable beliefo Mistake of law versus mistake of fact

FactI thought she was over 18 LawI didnt know she had to be over 18

o TPC 8.02 (a) It is a defense to prosecution that the actor through mistake formed a

reasonable belief about a matter of fact if his mistaken belief negated the

kind of culpability required for commission of the offense. (b) Although an actor's mistake of fact may constitute a defense to the

offense charged, he may nevertheless be convicted of any lesser included

offense of which he would be guilty if the fact were as he believed.

o MPC 2.04 Same as TPC


10/23

Mistake of lawo Typically not an excuseo TPC 8.03

It is no defense to prosecution that the actor was ignorant of theprovisions of any law after the law has taken effect.

(b) It is an affirmative defense to prosecution that the actor reasonablybelieved the conduct charged did not constitute a crime and that he

acted in reasonable reliance upon:

(1) an official statement of the law contained in a written orderor grant of permission by an administrative agency charged by law

with responsibility for interpreting the law in question; or

(2) a written interpretation of the law contained in an opinion ofa court of record or made by a public official charged by law with

responsibility for interpreting the law in question.

Involuntarinesso An act must be voluntary TPC 6.03

MPC 2.02 Intoxication

o MPC 2.08 Intoxication of the actor is not a defense unless it negates an element of

the offense

o TPC 8.04 Voluntary intoxication does not constitute a defense to the commission

of crime

Justificationo Belief is objectively reasonable

Not you just thought it was, some objective standard appliedo Something positive for society violating an unjust lawo Because of actual circumstances, the crime is justifiedo TPC 9.02

It is a defense to prosecution that the conduct in question is justifiedunder this chapter

o MPC 3.02 Defensive force Texas has no duty to retreat in a place where you have a legal right

to be

o Threat must be imminento Present, not future dangero Response must be reasonableo TPC 9.31

Reasonably believe force is immediately necessary


11/23

o MPC 3.04 Duty to retreat if possible

Necessityo Lesser of two evilso MPC 3.02o TPC 9.22

Conduct is justified if: (1) the actor reasonably believes the conduct is immediately

necessary to avoid imminent harm;

(2) the desirability and urgency of avoiding the harm clearlyoutweigh, according to ordinary standards of reasonableness, the

harm sought to be prevented by the law proscribing the conduct;

and

(3) a legislative purpose to exclude the justification claimed forthe conduct does not otherwise plainly appear

Excuseo Because of perceived circumstances, the crime is excusedo Necessity, duress

Duresso Due to human compulsiono Texas requires threat of deadly force or serious injury for duress defenseo MPC requires only forceo MPC 2.09o TPC 8.05

(a) It is an affirmative defense to prosecution that the actor engaged inthe proscribed conduct because he was compelled to do so by threat of

imminent death or serious bodily injury to himself or another.

(b) In a prosecution for an offense that does not constitute a felony, it isan affirmative defense to prosecution that the actor engaged in the

proscribed conduct because he was compelled to do so by force or threat

of force.

(c) Compulsion within the meaning of this section exists only if the forceor threat of force would render a person of reasonable firmness

incapable of resisting the pressure. (d) The defense provided by this section is unavailable if the actor

intentionally, knowingly, or recklessly placed himself in a situation in

which it was probable that he would be subjected to compulsion.

(e) It is no defense that a person acted at the command or persuasion ofhis spouse, unless he acted under compulsion that would establish a

defense under this section.


12/23

Abandonmento For accomplice liability doctrines once you abandon a conspiracy, you are not

liable for any more crimes committed after that point

o TPC 15.04 (a) It is an affirmative defense to prosecution under Section 15.01 that

under circumstances manifesting a voluntary and complete renunciationof his criminal objective the actor avoided commission of the offense

attempted by abandoning his criminal conduct or, if abandonment was

insufficient to avoid commission of the offense, by taking further

affirmative action that prevented the commission.

(b) It is an affirmative defense to prosecution under Section 15.02 or15.03 that under circumstances manifesting a voluntary and complete

renunciation of his criminal objective the actor countermanded his

solicitation or withdrew from the conspiracy before commission of the

object offense and took further affirmative action that prevented the

commission of the object offense. (c) Renunciation is not voluntary if it is motivated in whole or in part:

(1) by circumstances not present or apparent at the inception ofthe actor's course of conduct that increase the probability of

detection or apprehension or that make more difficult the

accomplishment of the objective; or

(2) by a decision to postpone the criminal conduct until anothertime or to transfer the criminal act to another but similar

objective or victim

o MPC 5.03(6) For conspiracy only

o MPC 5.01(4) Attempt

o MPC 5.02(3) Solicitation

In Texas, most inchoate crimes are punished one category lessTheories of punishment

4 primary theories of punishment Deterrence Incapacitation Retribution Rehabilitation

Limits on punishment Retributive limit (desert) Fairness (notice, due process) Other limits (resource constraints, human and societal costs)


13/23

Cases

Just Punishmento Kansas v. Hendricks

Facts: Committed released offender to rehab under Sex Offender Act Rule: Constitutional since it provides for civil commitment

o Ewing v. California Facts: Sentenced under 3-strikes law to life for stealing golf clubs Rule: Balancing sentence versus criminal historyno gross

disproportionality allowed

Actus Reuso Jones v. US note case pg. 111

Facts: Bitch took in neighbors kid and didnt feed it Rule: State may punish for omission, but it must be legal, not moral, duty

o Commonwealth v. Pestinakas Facts: Failed to feed and water old person after making oral contract Rule: Can sustain murder with so clear a breach of promise to support

malice

Possessiono US v. Maldonado

Facts: Cocaine was placed in the guys hotel closet after drug deal Rule: Constructive possession intent to control and knowledge of it

o Manzella - TWEN Facts: Conspiracy to sell drugs

Rule: No possession conviction as he never had control over drugso In re RothwellTWEN

Facts: Heroin concealed in postcard sent to prisoner, prisoner lost goodbehavior days

Rule: No evidence of possession, actual or constructive no controlo US v. Jenkins pg 119

Facts: Charged with possession when he was simply near drugs on a table Rule: Dominion & control not established by mere proximity

o State v. Lewis pg 120 Facts: Selling drugs within a 500-foot drug free zone around a park Rule: Some logical relationship to establish constructive possession

o US v. Lane pg 120 Facts: Momentary handling of a gun established possession? Rule: No must be able to control what happens

o US v. Shafferpg 122 Facts: Distributing child porn over Kazaa even though its passive distribution Rule: Yesjust because you dont actively do anything doesnt mean its not


14/23

Voluntarinesso People v. Newton

Facts: Carrying gun on plane when plane diverted to NYC even though planenot scheduled to be in US airspace

Rule: Criminal act must be voluntarythis wasnt (no intention going to USA)o State v. Alvarado TWEN

Facts: Guy was arrested with pot and charged with jail contraband when hegot taken to jailsaid it wasnt voluntary

Rule: Could have thrown it away or mentioned it chose to keep hold of ito Martin v. State

Facts: Drunk guy taken to road by cop and charged with public drunkenness Rule: Voluntary appearance is pre-supposedthis wasnt voluntary

o People v. Grant Facts: Guy prone to seizures assaulted cop during arrest said it was

automatism and not voluntary Rule: No conscious control = not responsible

o People v. Decina pg 139 Facts: Epileptic seizure while driving and killed four people Rule: Consciously chose to drive knowing he had seizures = responsible

Status Crimeso Robinson v. California

Facts: Convicted of being a narcotics addict Rule: Cant criminalize a status like addict can only criminalize drugs

o Powell v. Texas pg. 143 Facts: Violated public intoxication statute said he was an alcoholic and not

voluntary

Rule: Statute criminalizes being drunk in public, not being an alcoholico US v. Hudson & Goodwin

Facts: 1812 case indicted for libel against POTUS & Congress Rule: No statute criminalized itNo penalty without law

o State v. Egan Facts: Charge with common-law offense of nonfeasance Rule: Need a statute proscribing conduct (in place at time before time of

crime) before you can have a criminal prosecution

o Rogers v. Tennessee Facts: Convicted of murder appealed under ex post facto b/c court

invalidated rule and a day when it convicted him

Rule: Courts interpret common law rules and apply themo Keeler v. Superior Courtpg. 160

Court held that statute had traditionally not included a fetus in the definitionof living person when it comes to murder, and even if they changed the

meaning, they couldnt apply it because of Ex Post Facto rules


15/23

Specificityo Chicago v. Morales

Facts: Challenged anti-gang ordinanceloitering too vague a term Rule: Law cannot be so vague that a person of ordinary intelligence cannot

figure out what is legal and illegal

Guilty Mindo People v. Dillard

Facts: Violated statute against carrying loaded guns Rule: Strict liability statutedont need to know gun is loaded

US v. Balinto OK for Congress to make illegal to sell narcotics even if seller

doesnt know they are illegal narcoticso Morissette v. United States pg. 184

Facts: Charged with knowingly converting government property

Rule: Theft requires a mental intent to take property not yours thought itwas OK to take the stuff (thought they were abandoned)

o Lambert v. California Facts: Statue in LA that requires felons who are in LA for more than 5 days to

register with the police

Rule: Status crime criminalizes being an felon / also violates due processno notice

Culpabilityo Regina v. Faulkner

Facts: Tried to steal rum, accidentally burned the ship down (1877) Rule: Liable only for collateral crime to intended crime if it is natural and

probable consequence of intended crime

o Regina v. Prince Facts: Guy took a 16-year-old away from Dad, thought she was 18 (1875) Rule: Statutes that dont require mens rea make knowledge of facts

irrelevant

Mistakeo State v. Guestpg. 225

Facts: Prosecution wants court to read the statutory rape statute as a strictliability offense

Rule: Court says no, there needs to be a defense of reasonable mistake offact

o People v. Bray Facts: Out of state guy who might be felon buys gun not supposed to if

felon

Rule: In strict liability, lack of knowledge of facts needed for criminal intentexculpates defendant


16/23

o US v. Baker Facts: Claimed not guilty of trafficking in counterfeit Rolexes because he

didnt know Congress enacted new law criminalizing it

Rule: Ignorance of the law is no excuseo Hopkins v. State pg. 236

Facts: Got OK from state attorney to erect sign in yard, then busted for it Rule: Advice of an attorney does not generally constitute a defense

Closer you get to an official statement, the better your chances ofdefense are

o Cheek v. US Facts: Not guilty of tax evasion because he believed taxes were

unconstitutional

Rule: Subjective misunderstanding of tax law is defense Only applies to tax law

o Commonwealth v. Twitchell

Facts: Nutso religionists relied on official statement of law in letting their kiddie because of their idiotic beliefs

Rule: Mistake of law can be a defense when relying on official statementsinterpreting the law by the state agency charged with interpreting the law

o Prosecuting CIA Agents TWEN Acts in reliance on official interpretation of law must be reasonable

reliance

Capacity for mens reao Hendershott v. People

Facts: Not allowed to present evidence of mental condition that mightnegate mens rea

Rule: Since mens rea is an element of the crime that is required to beestablished, you cant under due process block a defense that might prove

the lack of mens rea

Since presumption of innocence is inherent, presumption of lack ofmens rea is as well.

o State v. Cameron Facts: Voluntary intoxication as a defense? Rule: Yes, in some statesNot in Texas

Causationo Regina v. Martin Dyos

Facts: Guy hit someone in the head might have caused the death, mightnot

Rule: If the death could have occurred anyway, not liableo Hubbard v. Commonwealth

Facts: Jailor suffered fatal heart attack trying to subdue prisoner Rule: Liability only when death was probable and natural consequence of act


17/23

o Commonwealth v. Rhoades Facts: Firefighter died battling fire set by defendant Rule: Ones act must be the proximate cause of death in a natural and

continuous sequence of events without which death would not have

occurred

o Commonwealth v. Root Facts: Auto race on a highway caused death of one driver other drive

charged

Rule: More direct causal connection than tort proximate cause neededo US v. Hamilton

Facts: Guy pulled out feeding tubes got ass beat, unable to act rationally Rule: Even if wound isnt fatal, can be homicide if it sets in motion chain of

events

o Stephenson v. State Facts: Abducted a woman who poisoned herself because of being a captive Rule: Responsible for all consequences of a criminal program

Victim didnt have rational capability / choices to think through act. Defendants conduct was the proximate cause, even though she

committed suicideo People v. Kevorkian

Facts: El Suicido El Doctor Rule: Have to actually commit the act that kills the person

Death must be a direct and natural result of the defendants act Kevorkian didnt actual do the final act that caused death key word

is directo McDaniel Documents TWEN

Facts: SMU student killed by drugs and dealer refused to get her help Rule: Uh, yeah enjoy jail

Homicideo Francis v. Franklin

Facts: Guy shot someone escaping from jail Rule: Cannot tell a jury a defendant must disprove intent prosecution must

prove it

o US v. Watson Facts: Police chased a guy who corned cop, put him on floor, then shot him Rule: Premeditation can happen over a matter of days or seconds

o People v. Walker Facts: Killed a dude in a fight mutual combat Rule: Murder in heat of passion is manslaughter

o Ex Parte Fraley Facts: Killed a guy who killed his son months before Rule: Cooling-off period ordinary person would have calmed down


18/23

o Rowland v. State Facts: Killed his wife after seeing her commit adultery Rule: Manslaughter, not murder

o State v. Yanz Facts: Killed guy he thought was boffing his wife might have been mistake Rule: A mistaken belief is OK if its reasonable jury question

o Reed v. State Facts: Woman shot other woman she thought was banging her husband Rule: Husband can kill, but not wife old law

o People v. Berry Facts: Strangled wife after repeated sexual frustration and tale of adultery Rule: Prolonged taunting and provocation can be heat of passion for jury

o People v. Tapia Facts: Junkies killed their dealer who threatened them Rule: Fear can also be a triggering emotion for sudden passion mitigation

Unintentional Homicideo Commonwealth v. Welansky

Facts: Nightclub owner blocked off access to fire doors with tables peopledied

Rule: Considered disregard may be sufficient for recklessness to getmanslaughter

o Hunter Shoots Woman pg. 396o Porter v. State pg. 398

Facts: Driver ignored stop signs and blew through at 60MPH Rule: Not a gross deviation because signs were in the boonies

o Mayes v. People Facts: Glass thrower who threw stuff at his daughter and set wife on fire Rule: Callous disregard was so bad that they are going to treat his awful

behavior with intent to kill

o Berry v. Superior Court Facts: Dog mauled neighbors kid dog was a fighting dog Rule: Life-endangering conduct which is done knowingly can be murder, not

manslaughter

o Commonwealth v. Dorazio pg. 408 Facts: Former boxer beat up a guy who died later of brain FUBAR Rule: Serious bodily harm murder normally requires assault with deadlyweapon but nature of assailant made fists deadly in this case

Felony Murdero People v. Stamp

Facts: Fat guy died of heart attack during robbery likely caused by robbery Rule: Felony murder applies to all deaths, not just strictly foreseeable


19/23

o People v. Hickman Facts: Officer killed by another officer in the pursuit of a bank robber Rule: FM applies - defendants set in motion the chain of events that led to

the death

Only a few jurisdictions would follow thiso People v. Gladman

Facts: Killed a cop while fleeing from robbery Rule: As long as you are fleeing or havent reached a place of temporary

safety, felony is ongoing when felony ends, so does FM

o Loredo v. State Dumbest burglars ever Couldnt steal safe or TV in a McDonalds Ended up setting fire to the McDonalds

Felony burglary Act dangerous to human life burglary? no; store was empty, hard

to convince a jury

o Setting fireo Lomax v. State

Felony DWI Normally not a felony, but Lomax had prior DWI

Dangerous act driving recklessly Felony DWI doesnt require mens rea; strict liability Felony murder without any culpable mental state?

Court says Texas felony murder statute requires no mens reao People v. Cavitt

Facts: Two men plotted with a woman to rob the home of her stepmother -tied her up and before she could free herself, she diedpossible someone

else killed her

Rule: Must be a relationship between the killing and the felony, and thefelony must be ongoing at the time

o State v. Chambers pg. 441 Facts: Stole truck felony / drinking and crashed killed people Rule: Any felony can be a predicate felony

o State v. Shock Facts: Convicted of murder for beating boy to death Rule: Predicate felony cannot be something that is an element of the offense

itself

Justification Defensive Forceo People v. La Voie

Facts: Attacked in his car by 4 guys on his way home blasted them Rule: One reasonably in fear for safety may use deadly force


20/23

o People v. Gleghorn Facts: The arrow in the back case pure awesome Rule: If you defend yourself from an attack and beat the guy unconscious,

you cant keep beating him

o State v. Leidholm Facts: Woman who had a tumultuous relationship with her husband stabbed

him while he slept

Rule: Person acts in self-defense if, under the circumstances perceived bythat person, such acts are necessary to prevent imminent harm

o People v. Goetz Facts: Subway killer thought he was being robbed and shot the 4 boys

robbing him

Rule: Use of force in self-defense must be objectively reasonableo Tennessee v. Garner

Facts: Cop killed a fleeing burglary suspect who was running away and scalinga fence

Rule: Cant use deadly force to prevent escape unless there is good-faithbelief that suspect poses serious threat of death or injury to other

Otherwise, violates right against unreasonable search and seizureo People v. Ceballos

Facts: Defendant set a trap gun to ambush the thieving little shits who weretrying to steal his stuff

Rule: Can be held criminally / civilly liable for trap guns under homicidestatutes

Justification Necessityo Queen v. Dudley & Stevens

Facts: Shipwreck survivors kill and eat a younger, weaker kid in their raft sothey dont die

Rule: Cant kill an innocent person to save your lifeo People v. Unger

Facts: Escaped from minimum-security jail because of threats of death Rule: Defense of necessity / compulsion available in escape cases where

evidence can raise it

o State v. Warshow Facts: Dirty hippies protesting nuclear power plant wouldnt let workers in,

asked to leave, didnt, got arrested claimed necessity, saying nuke power isbad

Rule: Uh, nonot imminent danger, you stupid bearded jackasseso US v. Kabat

Facts: Peace hippies broke into ICBM silo & broke stuff Rule: Suck it hippies! You had specific intent


21/23

Justification Duresso State v. Crawford

Facts: Crackhead goes on a crime spree, says he was forced into doing itbecause he owed money to a crack dealer who threatened his son

Rule: Duress requires imminent threat to person being coercedo State v. Hunter

Facts: Hitchhiker picked up and made to do naughty things - accused offelony murder, not allowed to raise duress defense

Rule: Duress is a defense to felony murder not homicide itself though Attempt

o State v. Lyerla Facts: Fired into pickup truck that was messing with him on road Rule: No attempted 2nd-degree murder that requires recklessness

o People v. Rizzo Facts: Set out to rob someone, arrested before they could

Rule: Attempt requires act tending but failing to commit crime no acto People v. Staples

Facts: Math nerd tried to rob bank while wife away but gave it up Rule: Decision to postpone crime is not abandonment

o People v. Lubow Facts: Guy suggested diamond fraud scheme Rule: Guilty of solicitation if you

Ask someone to do it and Intend they do it

o Booth v. State Facts: Purchased coat he believed to be stolen but had been recovered Rule: Cant be convicted of attempt when attempt wouldnt have been a

crime

o Lawhorn v. State Facts:Guy in custody broke out and broke into a house jailor quit chasing Rule: Cant be convicted of burglary with intent to commit felony escape

escape was already done with by the time he broke in somewhere (when

guard quit chasing)

Complicityo State v. Ochoa

Facts: Wild Bunch case shootout behind the courthouse Rule: When one in a group becomes aware that deadly force is being used,

he becomes an accessory (aider / abettor) if he continues to act with the

group

o State v. Walden Facts: Present when boyfriend hit her kid assault conviction Rule: Parents have legal duty to help their kid


22/23

o State v. Tally Facts: Tally prevented transmission of potentially life-saving telegram Rule: Interference counted as abetting

o People v. Beeman Facts: Gave others information about how to rob but claims didnt want

robbery to occur Rule: Aider / abettor must act with both knowledge of the crime and intent

to facilliate

o US v. Giovanetti Facts: Rented house to guy who ran gambling ring tried for aiding /

abetting

Rule: Must know assisting in the crimewillful ignorance isnt a defense, butMUST have evidence showing defendant knows he might be involved in

something shady and takes steps to make sure he doesnt find out

Willful ignorance can stand in for knowledgethen jury can inferintent from there

o State v. Etzweiler Facts: Etzweiler gave his keys to his drunken friend to go home, drunken

jackass gets in wreck and kills two people both were charged with negligent

homicide

Rule: Intended to aid, but had no intent to help kill people must sharespecific intent

o State v. Fosterpg. 760 Facts: 2 guys held a 3rd guy 1 of the original 2 left to go get a 4th person and

left his partner with a knife to guard the guy with kidnapee ended up dead

Rule: Jury could find intent to aid or failure to perceive a substantial risk ofharm

o States v. Shortpg. 761 Facts: Guy drove another guy to rob a bank robber used gun which is

aggravated robberydriver didnt know he had a gun

Rule: Cant be held liable for aggravated robbery aggravation requiresintent to use a gun and aiding / abetting requires intent to commit crime

being charged with

o People v. Sadacca pg. 773 Facts: Swindled jeweler by pretending to be someone else Rule: Use of an innocent agent counts as causation

o US v. Straach pg. 778 Facts: Straw-man purchase of guns from a gun dealer Rule: Can be liable seller, buyer, or both

o US v. Moore pg. 779 Facts: Kid wanted to buy a gun his mom and neighbor helped him


23/23

Conspiracyo State v. Verive

Facts: Convicted of conspiracy AND attempt to obstruct justice Rule: Conspiracy is focused on collusive nature / attempt on the act

o Griffin v. State Facts: Griffin attacked cops after an accident other people around

participated

Rule: A conspiracy may be inferred when two or more people pursue sameunlawful object

o US v. Cepeda pg. 802 Facts: Had drug paraphernalia in the apartment accused of conspiracy to

distribute

Rule: No agreement was foundcould have been someone elses drug stuff,or for personal use

o US v. Rahman pg. 804-05

Facts: Crazy Jihadist mullah conspired to attack America Rule: Not necessary to prove personally performed acts only necessary to

prove joined in the illegal agreement

o US v. Recio Facts: More drug dealers and conspiracy stuff Rule: A conspiracy does not automatically end when its objective becomes

impossible to achieve

o People v. Lauria Facts: Answering service owner knew some of his clients were hookers Rule: Supplier doesnt necessarily become part of conspiracy by supplying

things

o US v. Gallishawpg. 819 Facts: Loaned guy machine gun used in bank robbery Rule: No conspiracy without mens rea for substantive charge

o US v. Feola pg. 820 Drug dealers planned to rip off sellers turns out they were cops, but one

dealer pulled a gun all charge with assault & conspiring to assault federal

officers

o US v. Diaz Facts: Convicted of conspiracy to use firearm during drug crime Rule: Should have known a gun was possible = conspiracy

o States v. Alvarez pg. 826 Facts: Drug dealers all charged with death of u/c cop when one dealer shothim

Rule: Shooter clearly implied to others he was willing to use deadly force,and being drug dealers, its reasonable to assume that one of them was

armed

o US v. McVeigh pg. 828o Fortier-MvVeigh Conspiracypg. 829

Crim Checklist

Documents

Transcript of Crim Checklist