Documente Academic
Documente Profesional
Documente Cultură
Crim Law
Prof Brooks
I.
II.
III.
IV.
A.
B.
C.
D.
A.
B.
C.
D.
E.
A.
B.
C.
D.
E.
A.
B.
C.
D.
A.
B.
C.
D.
E.
F.
V.
VI.
VII.
VIII.
IX.
Crim Law
Prof Brooks
C.
D.
E.
F.
G.
H.
I.
Necessity....16
Defense of Property......16
Defense of Others..17
Duress......17
Entrapment...18
Intoxication...18
Insanity....19
A.
B.
C.
D.
A.
B.
C.
D.
E.
F.
G.
H.
I.
J.
K.
L.
M.
N.
X.
XI.
Chapter 1: INTRODUCTION
I.
A
Jury Nullification
1.
Butler asks for African Americans to use jury nullification as a tool of self-determination, and an operational
strategy to confront what he perceives to be pervasive racial inequities in the criminal justice system
Black jurors have a moral obligation to exercise their power in the best interests of the black community.
Crim Law
Prof Brooks
Jury nullification was created to combat tyranny. Juries are represented by a community and if they decide to
nullify, then they are in a sense the people overruling the tyranny of an unjust law.
2.
Butler Analysis
a
Non-violent
i
Victim: Option to nullify, but still no presumption. Apply a contextualized judgment. Left solely to
jury discretion.
ii
Victimless: In favor of nullification. Presumption in favor of it. Every presumption may be weighed
and disproved
Violent
i
ii
No presumption for nullification unless someone can prove to the jury that nullification should happen,
then it should happen.
3.
Kennedy: People should not take the law into their own hands, or we become a government of men as a
replacement to a government of laws
II.
A
Theories of Punishment
1.
Blame or condemnation
Authority to punish
Established a rule
Bentham: Pain & Pleasure are our masters, all government acts should provide a social good
2.
All punishment is pain so there must be justification for all punishment and thus not be:
3.
4.
Intensity
Duration
Certainty or Uncertainty
Specific Deterrence: Changing future actions of offender (calibrating to certain level, not beyond)
General Deterrence: Are we punishing sufficiently to send a message to society in order to provide incentive
not to commit crimes
Crim Law
Prof Brooks
Rehabilitation: Punishment may help reform criminal, lessening desire to commit crime and become a
happier, more productive person.
d
C
Retributivism
1.
Generally
a
Moral Actor: Moral wrongs by a person exercising free will creates guilt that can only righted by a
punishment
Proportional: Punishment should never be greater than what is deserved, even if it would deter many.
Justice: The punishment of individuals restores the equilibrium of benefits and burdens in society
Assaultive Retribution (Prof. Murthy): a "we should treat criminals as rather like noxious insects to be ground under the
heel of society".
Protective Retribution: The wrongdoer has a right to be punished and absolved of their guilt.
Positive Retributivist
1.
2.
A wrongdoer must be punished for his culpable wrongdoing, even if it deters no future crime
Negative Retributivist
1.
Principle of legality: A person may not be convicted or punished unless her conduct was defined as criminal by statute.
1.
No Subjective Power: They should be crafted so that they don't delegate policy making to policemen, judges,
and juries
c
B
Lenity Judicial interpretation should be biased in favor of the accused (tie goes to the )
Statutory Interpretation
1.
Frankfurter (Judicial Restraint) Judges should not be looking to substitute their policy preferences in place of what
the statute says. Always conscious of the legislative function.
Ex Post Facto: Clause of the construction disallowing retroactive legislation or expansion of existing statutes; due
process clause: retroaction judicial lawmaking
Components of a Crime
1.
2.
Material Elements
3.
Non-material Elements
Statute(s) of Limitations
Jurisdiction or Venue
Justification or excuse
Crim Law
Prof Brooks
Act the actions that are necessary to prove the culpability/guilt of the crime. (usually verbs)
2.
3.
C
Attendant Circumstances context elements, circumstances that surround the 's acts that are required for culpability'
Voluntary acts must be voluntary and must actually cause the result
1.
Common Law - Some type of physical movement or physical activity, voluntary, or involuntary. Can include
Failure to act
a
Dad was convicted of manslaughter because he voluntarily acted by consuming alcohol. He argued it
was an involuntary response, but this didn't fly with the court
ii
iii
iv
Manifests a drunken condition, boisterous or indecent, loud and profane discourse (Act)
Omissions: "Negative Acts" - People v. Beardsley - took his mistress to a hotel room, drinking party, she
overdosed on morphine tablets, he had no duty to act
i
2.
Creation of Danger - if you create the risk of harm, then you create the duty to care.
Distinguishing Acts from Omissions (Barber v. Superior Court) "Although there may be a duty to provide life
sustaining machinery in the immediate aftermath of cardiac-respiratory arrest, there is no duty to continue its use
once it has become futile in the opinion of qualified personnel
3.
Result Crimes: The law punishes because of an unwanted outcome such as the death of another person or the
destruction of a dwelling house.
Conduct Crimes: The law prohibits specific behavior, such as driving under the influence of alcohol or
solicitation to commit murder.
2.01(1) Voluntary Act - Any act performed by actor except for reflex or convulsion; a bodily movement during
unconsciousness or sleep; conduct during hypnosis; a bodily movement conscious or habitual.
Crim Law
Prof Brooks
2.
3.
2.01(3) Possession - Knowingly possess something or received something or be aware that you posses something
with sufficient time to ditch it.
V.
A
Definition: Mens Rea - guilty mind; guilty or wrongful purpose; a criminal intent (the actor's state of mind)
1.
Mens rea is always a subjective assessment of what the actor was actually thinking
2.
3.
MPC
1.
What mens rea am I supposed to prove with regard to the actus reus in the particular statute?
2.
3.
If mens rea is prescribed for one material element in the statute, then it shall be applied to all material elements in
the statute. - MPC 2.02(4)
Satisfies Knowledge Mens Rea: A law that will punish you like you did know, even though you didn't know.
(Conceptually, it would fall somewhere between recklessness and knowledge)
2.
Strict Liability
1.
MPC 2.05 - If there is a strict liability statute, then only Negligence must be proven. MPC 2.05(2)(b)
2.
3.
MPC jx;s only: If a statute doesn't specify the level of culpability, read recklessness
a
4.
E
If it's a strict liability statute (it will specifically say this in this statute), then read in negligence
MPC 2.02(4) If a statute doesn't distinguish between the elements of the crime, then apply all elements
Mistake of Law/Fact: It is simply you looking at the mens rea requirement and the statutory requirement.
1.
Every negligence case is a mistake case, we're simply asking whether it was reasonable or unreasonable
2.
If it's MPC, it must be grossly negligent (not the same negligence as in torts)
2.
Direct Cause: The act causes the result without involvement of any intervening factor.
Generally
a
Every event that happens between the act and the result is an intervening cause that needs to be analyzed to
see if it is a superseding cause that breaks the causal chain
b
2.
Policy decision to remove unjust culpability for all the results of a person's acts
Crim Law
Prof Brooks
Contribution to the Social Harm (The act was small compared to the intervening act which relieves of
culpabilit) (De Minimis)
Responsive (shoot victim, victim goes to hospital, hospital is negligent, victim dies) is proximate cause
VERSUS
ii
Coincidental (shoot victim, victim goes to hospital, crazy man in emergency room stabs victim 35
times, victim dies) is not proximate cause
3.
iii
's mens rea (intent to commit a crime will almost always establish proximate cause)
iv
vi
The Velazquez Test - Drag Racer (Common Law) Policy Question of culpability --> was it fair to put the cause on
? (beyond the scope)
4.
Purposely/Knowingly: Element is established if result is within the purpose/contemplation of action. Also if:
i
You intend to injure one person, but in fact injures another, or if harm actually caused is less severe
than what you intended.
ii
Result is the same kind of injury or harm that you intended, but is not too remote from action to be
foreseeable.
Recklessly/Negligently: Element is established if actor is aware or should have been aware of result. Also if
i
Same as 1a
ii
Same as 1b
Introduction
Intentional Killings
1.
Common Law Murder: Unlawful killing of a human being with malice aforethough
a
Intent to Kill: Awareness that the death of another would result from one's actions, even if the actor
had no particular desire to achieve such a consequence.
ii
Intent to inflict grievous bodily harm: knowledge that conduct would cause serious bodily injury was
generally assimilated to intent and deemed sufficient for murder if death of another actually resulted
iii
Depraved Heart: Causes the death of another in a manner exhibiting a wanton and willful disregard of
an unreasonable risk to human life with a base of antisocial motive
iv
b
Felony Murder Rule: Strict liability for homicide committed during commission of a felony
A premeditation (some measurable time) and Deliberation (reflection on the killing) = the time interval
between initial thought and action is enough to be a Second Look (Midget and Forrest)
A
The conduct and statements of the D before and after the killing
Crim Law
Prof Brooks
Threats and declarations of the D before and during the course of the occurrence giving rise to the
death of the deceased
2.
The dealing of lethal blows after the deceased has been felled and rendered helpless
Evidence that the killing was done in a brutal manner (CA courts say quite the opposite)
ii
A felony murder committed when the felony is inherently dangerous or listed by statute
iii
iv
ii
In the commission of listed felonies, a may be presumed to have extreme indifference to have value
of human life. A judge will then allow this presumption to go to a jury (unless the wholly negates the
presumption) to be able to establish that the defendant had a general extreme indifference to the value
of human life (murder).
3.
Recklessness (manslaughter)
ii
control
A
Objective analysis of the gravity of the provocation and the loss of self-control response
1.
Discover Adultery
2.
Mutual combat
3.
4.
5.
Crim Law
Prof Brooks
Most courts have been unwilling to consider any of the 's psychological
ii
Many jurisdictions have no distinction between reasonable person for HoP inquiry
iii
If yes Step 3: Would reasonable person not have a "cool off" between provocations and killing
iv
If yes, Step 4: Trial judge must inform jury of the HoP defense and the jury decides steps 1-3's
ii
If yes, Step 2: The trial just must inform the jury of the defense and the jury"
A
Decides whether a reasonable explanation or excuse exists for the 's EED
1.
Jury examines the EED from the 's perspective, regardless of inaccurate perceptions.
2.
Peculiar temperament
Tendency to extremism
3.
e.g. was the "white" father who believed black people had an infectious disease and
when he saw his daughter with a black person he killed them.
Unintentional Killings
1.
Common Law
a
In general: Felony (already in progress) + Killing (while committing the felony) = Murder
ii
People v. Fuller
A
iii
Debate
iv
Limitations
A
2.
When the felony is assaultive in nature then the felony merges with the homicide and
cannot be the basis of a felony murder
Crim Law
Prof Brooks
State v. Sophophone
The Agency Approach: F/M does not apply if person who caused death was not a felon
The Proximate Causation Approach: If the felon and felonious act set the death in motion
1.
People v. Knoller
i
ii
iii
Supreme Court
iv
vi
Thomas: a , for a base, anti-social motive and with wanton disregard for
human life, does an act that involves a high degree of probability that it will
result in death
vii
Phillips: An act, the natural consequences of which are dangerous to life, which
act was deliberately performed by a person who knows that his conduct
endangers the life of another and who acts with conscious disregard for life.
2.
Common Law:
i
ii
iii
MPC
1.
Intent to Cause Grievous Bodily Injury: MPC places it under recklessness with
indifference
2.
Extreme Indifference
a
3.
Criminal Negligence
a
State v. Hernandez
i
Objective Standard
ii
State v. Williams
i
ii
2.
Step 2: Is it a murder?
10
Intent to kill
ii
iii
iv
Depraved Heart
3.
Step 3: If murder then premeditated and deliberated? If yes, then First Degree Murder
4.
5.
Proportional
A
ii
Duty to retreat
A
iii
Initial Aggressor
A
iv
6.
Crim Law
Prof Brooks
Imminence
Homicide: MPC
a
Step 2: Is it a murder?
i
Committed recklessly under circumstances manifesting extreme indifference to the value of life
Step 3: Was the homicide during commission of, or an attempt to commit, or flight after committing, or
attempting to commit robbery, rape or deviate sexual intercourse by force or threat of force, arson, burglary,
kidnapping or felonious escape.
i
These create "presumption" of reckless with indifference which allows the prosecution to submit
murder to jury
ii
d
Committed recklessly
ii
Rape
11
1.
Crim Law
Prof Brooks
Common Law
a
Elements
i
Sexual Intercourse defined as "Any penetration, however slight, admission not required" e.g. CA Penal
Code 263
ii
With a woman
iii
iv
Red light traditional victim focus where it must be proved that the victim revoked consent
Green light modern approach where the must prove consent was obtained
By force or fraud:
A
To establish the requisite force for rape the was required to prove:
1.
The use or threat of force likely to cause death or serious bodily injury;
2.
A kidnapping, OR
3.
Historically: Rape is a "crime against the purity or chastity of a woman." Thus, "thus
burden on protecting that chastity fell on the woman, with the State offering its protection
only after the women demonstrated that she has resisted sufficiently." MTS, pgs 439
2.
Modern: Active resistance the only way objectively to establish the crime independent of
the victim's word?
3.
Disregards substantial evidence that resistance can increase risk of further physical harm
or death
Several Jx's (jurisdictions) have abandoned any resistance requirement, and instead define
force as a "forcible compulsion," which keeps the focus on the 's conduct
2.
Some states still retain some form of a resistance requirement, sometimes requiring a
"reasonable resistance"
vi
Marital Rape Exception: A General Rule until 1970s, and now abandoned in all 50 states but remnants
remain in the form of:
Rape: MPC
1.
Elements
a
Sexual intercourse "any penetration, however slight, admission not required." MPC 213.0(2)
12
Crim Law
Prof Brooks
force or threat of imminent death, serious bodily injury, extreme pain or kidnapping, to be inflicted on
anyone OR
ii
he substantially impairs her power to control her conduct (e.g. giving her drugs, intoxicants, etc.) OR
she is unconscious OR
iii
e
MPC 213.6(2) whenever the definition excludes conduct with a spouse, the exclusion shall be deemed to
extend to persons living as man and wife, regardless of the legal status of their relationship
Force or Fraud
i
ii
MPC 213.1(2)
2.
3.
1st degree felony unless the and the victim had been previous sexual companions, then even if the raped her, it
is a second rape (less culpable)
If you have violated the statute, then you have committed rape
2.
3.
The rationale used to be to protect the chastity of young females and now it is to prevent teen pregnancy
Increases if:
a
Victim is unconscious
Use of narcotics/alcohol
Prevents the from harassing and humiliating the victim with evidence of either her reputation for chastity or of
specific prior sexual acts
2.
This type of evidence generally has no bearing on whether the victim consented to sexual conduct with the at the
time in question
3.
4.
This promotes effective law enforcement because victim won't fear slander in courts
Withdrawn consent
1.
Traditional rule: Post penetration withdrawal of consent does not convert lawful intercourse into rape, even if the
male uses force of threats of force after consent is withdrawn. (Still commonly used)
2.
Modern rule: once consent is withdrawn the use of force or threat of force is considered rape
Generally
1.
Failure of proof
2.
3.
Justifications: Where all the elements are met and the harm is achieved, however, the harm is outweighed by the
need to avoid even greater harm or to further a greater societal interest.
13
4.
Crim Law
Prof Brooks
Excuses: All the elements are met and the harm is achieved and the act is not justified, however, the , because of
their condition at the time of the offense suggests that she she has not acted through a meaningful exercise of free
will and therefore is not an appropriate subject for criminal liability
5.
B
Threat is unlawful
Proportional
A
ii
Duty to retreat
A
iii
Initial aggressor
A
iv
A
d
2.
ii
iii
iv
MPC 3.04
a
Elements
i
ii
iii
To protect oneself
iv
Death
Kidnapping
Rape
ii
14
Is a public officer
2.
Is retaking property
3.
Believes force is necessary to protect himself from death or serious bodily injury
iii
iv
Actor can retreat with complete safety, surrender possession, or by complying with demand however:
A
Crim Law
Prof Brooks
At home or work,
2.
3.
4.
Actor is an officer
Common Law
a
Causation: Defendant must reasonably believe that greater harm would be avoided from committing the crime
in question
Is there a reason to believe that the legislature didn't want necessity to be used in this situation?
2.
MPC 3.02
a
Mens rea of the crim must be greater than mens rea for creating the necessity (Recklessness & Negligence)
Available for homicide though a tough sell (has to be one dying for many)
Common Law
a
2.
MPC
a
Dispossessed of a home
ii
Person is committing arson, burglary, robbery, felonious theft, or property destruction AND
A
The use of force other than deadly force to prevent the commission or the consummation of the
crime would expose the actor or another in his presence to substantial danger in serious bodily
harm.
ii
15
Crim Law
Prof Brooks
iii
iv
Or the actor believes that it is so urgent because to get back the property would be an exceptional
hardship to postpone the entry or re-entry until a court order is obtained
Limitations
i
Use of force is justified only if the actor first requests the person whom such force is used to desist
from his interference with the property, unless
ii
iii
Common Law
a
Alter Ego: if you were in their shoes, could you use deadly force?
Reasonable belief: did you reasonably believe that using deadly force to protect the 3rd person was necessary?
2.
MPC 3.05(1)
a
Alter Ego: if you were in their shoes, could you use deadly force?
Necessity: choice of evils. Necessity justifies your behavior because you have chosen a lesser harm to spare a
greater harm
3.
b
4.
Limitations
i
ii
iii
MPC 3.02
a
The legislature has not expressly excluded 's conduct from the defense of necessity
Defense not available to offense charging negligence or recklessness if 's negligence or recklessness created
the greater harm or in assessing necessity of choice
Duress: Excuse
1.
Common Law: With duress, we forgive the actor because the actor engaged in criminality under duress through
coercion lacking freewill. But the social harm is not negated (excuse)
a
b
2.
committed offense only because of an unlawful threat of imminent deadly force against or another person.
i
Non-deadly threats insufficient at common law, no matter how significant the non-deadly harm
ii
iii
iv
MPC 2.09
16
Crim Law
Prof Brooks
ii
ii
's conduct unless a person of a "reasonable firmness" also would have succumbed.
See also MPC Section 2.09(3): Eliminates Common Law presumption that a woman acting at her husband's
command is coerced
d
G
Entrapment Excuse
1.
Common Law
a
Traditional Standard: the government induced a to commit the crime for the purpose of prosecuting a
Inducement = more than tempting opportunity - the gov't official must draw the into committing the crime
must not have been predisposed to commit the crime - a willing criminal cannot be "induced"
Rationale: The gov't properly may employ artifice and design to snare careless or eager criminals, but not to
lure an innocent person into criminality
Criticism: Renders voluntary choice to commit crime lawful because the Government make the choice
attractive.
2.
MPC 2.13: Follows common law rule, with two important considerations:
a
Not a defense to charges involving injury or threat of injury to a person other than the actor offering the
inducement
Intoxication Excuse
1.
2.
In some Jx, voluntary intoxication, if severe, may be admissible as evidence relevant to intent
Involuntary:
a
Common Law:
i
Defense to all crimes if the intoxication temporarily cause you to act insane because you were drugged
you were unable to understand the nature and quality of your conduct
ii
Unless, the intoxication negates the mens rea for a specific intent crime
A
Crimes requiring you act knowingly, purposefully, conscious object you may have a complete
defense to these crimes
B
iii
Intoxication of the actor is not a defense unless it negates an element of the offense (mens rea)
(like the CL)
B
I
Insanity Excuse
1.
Common Law
17
M'Naughten Test: Defendant insane if, at time of crime due to mental disease or defect,
ii
Crim Law
Prof Brooks
Insanity defense is retributive in nature because if a person does not have moral agency then the person cannot
be considered blameworthy
2.
MPC 4.01
a
Lacked the capacity to appreciate the criminality of his conduct of conform his conduct to law
X.
A
An attempt constitutes a discrete crime from the substantive crime, but the attempt merges with the
substantive crime if the attempt proves successful.
2.
Common Law
a
Actus Reus
Dangerous Proximity Test: Commits the actus reus of the crime when the has come dangerously
Mens Rea
i
Intent: conscious object to engage in the act constituting the actus reus of the attempt crime AND
A
Attempted Murder: Only specific intent to kill will satisfy the mens rea necessary for attempted murder. No
attempted great bodily harm murder, attempted depraved heart murder, or attempted negligent involuntary
manslaughter
3.
MPC 5.01(1)(ac)
a
Actus Reus
Substantial Step Test MPC 5.01(1)(c) is guilty of attempt when he takes a "substantial step" toward
the crime
Shift focus from how close the came to committing the crime to what the has accomplished to
ii
Limitation: The substantial step must "strongly corroborate" 's criminal purpose
Mens Rea: Criminal attempt requires the mental culpability to satisfy the substantive crime, AND:
i
Conduct crime: defendant purposely engaged in conduct that would constitute the crime if the
attendant circumstances were as he or she believed them to be.
ii
Result crime: defendant engaged in any act or omission with purpose of causing the result, or belief his
or her act or omission would cause that result.
18
Crim Law
Prof Brooks
Incomplete attempts: defendant purposely engaged in any act or omission that, under circumstances as
defendant believed them to be, constituted a substantial step in a course of conduct planned to
culminate in the crime.
4.
Defenses to Attempts
a
impossible
A
Man engages with 17 year old, believing her to be 16, she is actually 17, and the legal age is 17 =
factual impossibility
Legal: 's objective does not constitute a crime
ii
A
iii
iv
B
Conspiracy
1.
2.
3.
Common Law
a
Plurality Rule: Must have at least two people agree and in some Jx a person cannot be
ii
Overt Act: An act that affects the object of the conspiracy or that has a tendency to further the
objective
A
Doesn't have to be an unlawful act, could be a completely innocent event (e.g. a phone call to set
up a meeting)
ii
Pinkerton Rule: each member of a conspiracy is liable for all crimes committed by other members of the
conspiracy:
4.
ii
Abandonment
i
Must actually help legal authorities to stop the target offense to claim a defense
ii
If you join a conspiracy midway through, you are only liable for the actions that occur after you joined.
MPC: 5.03 requires an agreement by the defendant, therefore someone can be convicted of conspiracy even if the
other person is acquitted.
a
Must do something that thwarts the success, ex. Informing police, that come and prevent crime
19
No plurality requirement; overt act requirement for conspiracy to commit felony below 2 nd degree
i
Crim Law
Prof Brooks
Abandonment
i
ii
Must actually help legal authorities to stop the target offense to claim a defense
iii
If you join a conspiracy midway through, you are only liable for the actions that occur after you joined
Solicitation
1.
2.
3.
Common Law/MPC
a
ii
iii
Act of solicitation with required mens rea establishes the crime of solicitation, even if the request
is refused.
iv
Attempted solicitation
MPC says that even if the person doesnt hear the solicitation or it wasnt received, the
solicitation
D
Accomplice Liability
1.
Common Law
a
2.
XI.
Encourage, solicit, importune, command, request, aid, etc., another persons crime
Mens Rea :
i
ii
iii
Aid, agree, or attempt to and such other person in planning or committing it; or
Have a legal duty to prevent the commission of the offense, fails to make proper effort so to do;
Having a legal duty to prevent the commission of the offense, fails to make proper effort so to do, or
RULE PROOFS
Retribution
20
Crim Law
Prof Brooks
Under retributivist justifications for punishment there must be guilt in order for punishment to be justified, and if guilt does
exist then punishment should be made,
Utilitarianism
Under utilitarian punishment theory, punishment is an evil, which is only just, is there is greater good to be produced from the
punishment. The good gained comes in the forms of specific deterrence, general deterrence, rehabilitation, or incapacitation.
Murder
(CL) Murder at common law is the unlawful killing of a person by another human being with malice aforethought. The
element of malice aforethought can be met through: (1) the intent to kill; (2) the intent to inflict serious bodily injury/harm; (3)
depraved heart/indifference; or (4) felony murder, i.e. murder that occurs during the commission of a felony.
(MPC) Under the MPC murder is the criminal homicide committed purposely, knowingly, or with extreme indifference to
human life. Murder is a result of crime which requires that the result of death to be proven to be actually caused and
proximately caused by the defendant.
Murder #1
(CL) Most jurisdictions break murder into two degrees; first-degree murder and second-degree murder. First-degree murder is
the unlawful killing of a human being with malice aforethought, along with either premeditation and deliberation, or and
enumerated felony that meets the Felony Murder Rule. Felony Murder exists when the death of a person occurs during the
commission of an inherently dangerous felony. (Howard) At common law this included Burglary, Arson, Robbery, Rape, and
Kidnapping.
Manslaughter
(CL) Under the common law manslaughter is established when the defendant is
(MPC)
Attempt
(CL) Under the common law, attempt is a specific intent crime, where the defendant must (1) specifically intent to commit the
under lying crime; and (2) intend to commit the acts that constitute the actus reus of the attempt. The actus reus of an attempt is
one that comes dangerously close to completing the crime. Often referred to as the dangerous proximity test, which extends
the requisite proximity for an attempt based upon the seriousness of the intended crime, mere preparation is insufficient for
attempt
Conspiracy
21
Crim Law
Prof Brooks
A conspiracy occurs where two or more people agree to commit an unlawful act and at least one performs an overt act in
furtherance of the agreement.
Accomplice Liability
Accomplice liability occurs when a person either aids, abets, or assists a person in the commission of a crime.
Insanity Defenses
The four major insanity approaches used by most jurisdictions are: (a) MNaghten Test; (b) Irresistible Impulse Test; (c) and
the MPC Test
(a) MNaghten Test
Under the MNaghten Test, a defendant may be found not guilty by reason of insanity if his actions were the product of a
mental disease of defect such that he did not know right from wrong or was unable to understand the nature of his actions.
-
22
Crim Law
Prof Brooks
Step 5: Apply one or more of the four types of Analysis to the problem:
1.
Reasoning by Analogy: Case law suggests that these facts (would/would not) satisfy the (element)
2.
Balancing Test: The following factors weigh in determining whether the (element) is satisfied
3.
Judicial Test: Courts have applied the following test to prove whether the (element) is satisfied.
4.
Policy: The underlying policy of the rule (is/is not) furthered by its application in this scenario. (Cite policy)
State issue with current determinative facts (e.g. Here, we are told that Mel desired to commit homicide and
formulated a plan to kill.)
Paragraph 3: TRANSITION/CONCLUSION
-
State v. [Defendant]
Crime 2:
Paragraph 1: ISSUE/RULE
Issue statement. Rule proof paragraph. Court will likely find that
Paragraph 2: ANALYSIS
-
State issue with current determinative facts (e.g. Here, we are told that Mel desired to commit homicide and
formulated a plan to kill.)
Paragraph 3: TRANSITION/CONCLUSION
-
23