Accomplice actus reus
the actor took "some positive act in aid of the commission of the offense."
Accomplice mens rea
kowingly helping someone who is going to commit a crime
Mere presence rule
even presence at the scene of a crime followed by flight is not enough action to satify the actus reus requirement of accomplice liability.
Liability for someone else's conduct: accomplice (before and during) and accessory (after)
Accomplice- felonies. The punishment for the accomplice is the same for the person who actually committed the crime. Accessory-misdemeanors-A much less serious offense because accessories are looked at as obstructors of justice, not as felons.
Liability for someone else's conduct:Vicarious liability
Vicarious liability transfers the actus reus and the mens rea of one person to another person-or from one or more persons to an enterprie-because of their relationship. Most vicarious liability involves business relationships, such as employer-employee, manager-corporation, buyer-seller, producer-consumer, and service provider-recipient. Can also relate to holding parents liable for their childrens crimes.
State v. Ulvinen
Did she murder her daughter in law? Deals with the issues of accomplice actus reus in connection with Helen Ulvinen's participation in her son David's murder of his wife, Carol. Helen was a look out while david dismembered her body in the bathroom.
State v. Chism
Was he an accessory after the fact? Wesley's favorite case
criminal liability for trying to commit crimes
Last proximate rule
means that your acts brought you as close as possible to completing the crime.
Actus reus of attempt
crossing the "critical" line between preparation and acts that signal the beginning of the attempt.
People v. Kimball
Did he intend to rob the store? -Attempt
Substantial steps test (model Penal Code)
was designed to accomplish three important goals: (1) replace (or at leastdrastically reform) the proximity and unequivocality tests with a clearer and easier to understand and apply test. (2) Draw more sharply (and push back further toward preparation) the lon between preparation and beginning to attempt the crime (3) base the law of attempt firmly on the theory of neutralizing dangerous persons not just preventing dangerous conduct.
Two elements of actus reus for the substantial steps test
(1) "substantial steps" toward completeing the crime and (2) steps that "strongly corroborate the actor's criminal purpose." In other words, the code requires that attempt are determined to commit it.
Examples of substantial steps
(1) lying in wait, searcing for, or following the contemplated victim of the crime (2) enticing, or seeking to entice, the contemplated victim of the crime to go to the place conmtemplated for it;s commission. (3) reconnoitering, or "casing", the place contemplated for the commission of the crime (4) unlawful entry of a structure, vehicle, or enclosure in which it is contemplated that the crime will be committed.
Young v. State
did he take substantial steps to rob the bank? -substantial steps
a legal impossibility occurs when actors intend to commit crimesn and do everything they can to carry out their criminal intent, but the criminal law doesn't ban what they did.
a factual impossibility occurs when actors intend to commit and try to but some fact or circumstance-an extraneous factor-interrupts them to prevent the completion of the crime.
State v. Damms
was it factually impossible to kill his wife? factually impossible, extraneous factor-did he know the gun was unloaded? -factual impossibility
Defense of voluntary abandonment
when people who clearly intend to commit crimes take enough steps to carry out their intent, and then change their mind and voluntarily abandon the scheme
the crime of agreeing with one or more people to commit a crime is further removed from actually committing a crime than attemps to commit crimes
Conspiracy actus reus
consists of two parts: (1) an agreement to commit a crime (in all states) and (2) an overt act in furtherance of the agreement (in about half of the states)
Conspiracy mens rea
US v. Garcia
Did he "agree" to assult three crips members with a deadly weapon? -conspiracy
the crime of trying to get someone else commit a crime
Elements of soliciation
(1) the actus reus-words commanding, urging or encouraging another person to commit a crime (2) the mens rea-specific intent (purpose) to induce another person to commit a crime (3) Circumstance-if any required by statute
Words used in state statute concerning the act of solicitation
advises, commands, counsels, encourages, entices, entreats, importunes, intices, induces, instigates, procures, requests, solicits, or urges
State v. Cotton
Did he solicit his wife to bribe or intimidate a witness?-solicitation
killing a person with "malice aforethought", malice-meant with specific intent or killing on purpose, and probably with some amount of spite, hate or bad will. aforethought- meant the acts were planned in advance of the killing
killing a person without malice or aforethought, the ulawful killing of another which may be either voluntarily upon a sudden heat, or involuntarily where one had no intent to do anotherany personal mischief
2 kinds-premeditated, deliberate, intent to kill murders and felony murders. Actus reus-voluntary act of killing another person. Mens rea- purposely or knowingly or extremely recklessly
Significance of aggravating or mitigating factors
Aggravating factors-criminal history, if the crime is considered heinous, atrocious, or cruel; pecuniary gain-to hurt the defendant. Mitigating factors-age, no criminal history-to help the defendant.
Duest v. State
was the murder heinous, atrocious, or cruel? told a witness he was going to a gay bar to "roll a fag" -first degree murder
Aggravating circumstance of "heinous, atrocious or cruel"
could qualify murderer for death penality instead of life in prison
Second degree murder
unintentional murders, which are second degree murders, include the "implied malice" crimes created by the common law judges that still exist in common law and by statute:
unintentional deaths that occur during the commission of some felonies are called felony murders. Actus reus- voluntary act of killing. Mens rea- intent to commit a qualifying felony-felony murder doesnt require the intent to kill or inflict serious bodily harm
Voluntary manslaughter is about letting your anger get the better of you in the worst possible way-killing another person. Actus reus-voluntary act of killing another person. Mens rea-intent to kill or inflict serious bodily harm. *Circumstance-killing in sudden heat of passion and adequate provocation or honest (but not reasonable) belief that the killing was in self-defense.
Voluntary manslaughter-*Adequate provoction
the trigger that sets off the sudden killing of another person. 4 types- (1) Mutual combat (fighting), (2) Assual and battery, (3) Trespass, (4) Adultery
Actus reus- voluntary act or omission, Mens rea-unintentional killing. 2 kinds- (1) criminal negligence manslaughter- includes both recklessness and negligence, (2) unlawful act manslaughter-also called misdemeanor manslaughter-for deaths that occur during the commission of unlawful acts.
just below murder in seriousness even if victims suffer no physical injury, because they violate intimacy and personal autonomy
Reasons the cj system has not done well with unarmed acquaintance rape
(1) victims arent likely to report unarmed acquaintance rapists, or they don't recognize them as rapes, (2) when victims do report them, the police are less likely to believe the victims than they are the victims of aggravated rape, (3) prosecutors are less likely to charge unarmed acquaintance rapists, (4) juries are less likely to convict unarmed acquaintance rapists, (5) unarmed acquaintance rapists are likely to escape punishment if their victims don't follow the rules of middle-class morality.
Force and resistance rules
the "force" part of the rule wasn't satisfied if victims consented to sexual intercourse. In practice, the prosecution didn't have to prove that the vicitms consented, they had to prove that they didn't consent. This is where the "resistance" part of the rule comes in. Victims had to prove they didn't consent by proving they resisted the force of the accused rapists. The amount of resistance to prove lack of consent has changed over time.
Utmost resistance standard (force and resistance rules)
according to this standard, to show they didn't consent, victims had to resist with all the physical power they possesed.
Reasonable resistance rule (force and resistance rules)
according to this rule, the amount of resistance depends on the totality of circumstances in each case- the rule followed in almost all states today.
Elements of mondern rape law
define rape as intentional sexual penetration by force without consent. 3 elements- (1) Actus reus-sexual penetration by force or threat of force, (2) Mens rea- intentional sexual penetration, (3) Circumstance-nonconsent by the victim.
Two definitions of force
(1) extrinsic force- requires some act of force in addition to the muscular movements needed to accomplish penetration. The amount of force required varies according to the circumstances of particular cases. (2) intrinsic force- requires only the amount of physical effort necessary to accomplish penetration.
Commonwealth v. Berkowitz
Did he have sexual intercourse by force? Extrinsic force? -rape
State in the interest of M.T.S.
Did he have sexual intercourse by force? -nonconsent, -intrinsic force. 15 year ol girl and 17 year old boy
Threat of force requirement
the prosecution has to prove the victim experienced two kinds of fear: (1) subjective fear-the victim honestly feared imminent and serious bodily harm, (2) objective fear-the fear was reasonable under the circumstances
Bodily injury crimes- battery and assult
battery is an unwanted and unjustified offensive touching. Body contact is central to the crime of battery. An assult is either an attempted or threatened battery, depending on how the statute defines it. The essential difference between assualt and battery is that assult requires no physical contact; an assult is complete before the offender touches the victim.
involves intentionally scaring another person by following, tormenting, or harassing him or her. Actus reus-voluntary acts, including following, pursuing, spying, and/or harassing and/or threatening, acts have to occur more than once. Mens rea-commit actus reus purposely and causing result purposely or recklessly or negligently.
State v. Hoying
Did he cyberstalk her? -stalking
Personal restraint crimes
Kidnapping is taking and carrying away another person with the intent to deprive that person of personal liberty. False imprisonment is a lesser form of personal restraint then kidnapping, but the heart of the crime remains depriving others of their personal liberty. It's a lesser offense because there's no asportation requirement; the deprivation of liberty is brief; and the detention is less stressful.
Kidnapping element of asportation
the heart of kidnapping consists of seizing and carrying away (asportation of) the victim.
People v. Allen
Did he move her a "substantial" distance? -kidnapping?