Criminal Law - Fall 2006

MURDER 1
MURDER 2
Premeditation  Specific Intent to Kill  VOL MAN
S.I. Great bodily injury  VOL MAN
Willful and Wanton  INVOLUNTARY MANSLAUGHTER
Enumerated Felony  Felony Murder

First degree murder into 4 classes:

• Murder perpetrated by means of poison, lying in wait, imprisonment, starving, or
torture.
o When poison is used premeditation and deliberation is irrelevant
• Murder perpetrated by any other kind of willful, deliberate, and premeditated
killing
• Murder committed in the perpetration or attempted perpetration of certain
enumerated felonies
• Murder committed in the perpetration or attempted of any other felony committed
or attempted with the use of a deadly weapon

Premeditation = reflecting on the consquences of taking the life of another. (This can happen in a
heartbeat, don't get caught up in the time.)
Murder 1:
• Specific intent to kill with Premeditation (from #1 of murder 2)
• Enumerated felony (from #4 of murder 2)
Murder 2:
• Specific Intent to Kill
• Specific Intent to cause great bodily injury, seriously hurt
• willful wanton disregard
• Felony Murder
Manslaughter:
• Specific Intent to Killed can be vol. manslaughter
• Specific Intent to cause great bodily injury, seriously hurt can be vol.
manslaughter
• Reckless disregard --> involuntary manslaughter
Death Penalty:
• Murder 1 + Special Circumstances
• felony murder
Murder during robbery = enumerated felony --> Murder #1

Murder mitigated to manslaughter:

1. Extreme assault or battery upon the defendant.
2. Mutual combat.
3. Defendant’s illegal arrest.
4. Injury to serious abuse of a close relative or the defendant’s.
5. The sudden discovery of spouse’s adultery.

Voluntary Manslaughter steps

1. Do we have either murder scenarios. a) specific intent to kill (premeditation?), b)
specific intent to cause bodily harm.
2. Did this person subjectively succumb to the emotions of this situation?
(overcome with emotion)
3. Would a reasonable person react the same way under the same circumstances?
Any overriding emotions qualify for vol man.

Not voluntary manslaughter in burning bed cases (like beating husband always beats wife so later she
kills him cuz shes fed up). Because not in throws of overriding emotions at that time, must be in throws of
overriding emotions at the time of act for vol man.

Invol Man
1. An act that would otherwise qualify as murder
2. Was there a cooling off period?
3. Would a reasonable person act in the same manner?
4. Gross deviation from standard of care (gross negligence)
5. (intentional act, gross negligence, absent the "malice")

Felony v. Misdemeanor v. Infraction

• Potential punishment - if potential punishment is greater than 1 year it is a felony. If potential has
a maximum of a year it is a misdemeanor. If it carries no custody time its an infraction.

Felony Murder:
• In the perpetration of an inherently dangerous felony.
o inherently dangerous felony but it wouldn’t involve death.
o Res Gestae, time from the act.
o Distance from the felony
• Independent of life threatening force.
• Foreseeable consequence of the felony

Felony = causation + perpetration

Rule: Must reach temporary place of safety before we stop considering it as fleeing (felony Murder).

Felony Murder Rule:

Rational of the rule: deterrence, handle on willful and wanton conduct. Deterrence from leaving bodies
behind when committing a felony.
Res gestea - (look up on blacklaw) fleeing felony
Murder 1: perpetration, inherently dangerous, independent of life threatening..and must be listed as one
of the acceptable felonies

Enumerated Felonies: Nasty 8 inherently dangerous for felony murder 1:

1. Robbery
2. Rape
3. Sodomy
4. Burglary
5. Arson
6. Mayhem.
7. Murder- someone else but you murder another person.
8. Manslaughter

Only ways to get to murder 1 from murder 2 is

a. felony murder or
b. premeditated intent to kill

willful and wanton conduct – more than gross negligence, gross negligence + the high degree of
awareness for the high potential of death together with don't care attitude and maybe viscousness.

Willful and wanton conduct:

 1. Gross Negligence + high degree of awareness for potential of death
2. Act presents Likelihood of death
3. no social utility in the act
4. A don't care attitude or hint of viciousness

Malice:
a. intention to kill
b. the intention to commit great bodily harm
c. the wanton and willful disregard of the likelihood that the natural tendency of
defendant’s behavior is to cause death or great bodily harm.

B.A.R.D.: Beyond a Reasonable Doubt.

1- Relatively high standard. Not exactly quantifiable.
2- Examples of jury instructions on BARD: (p 13) things in common: you have to be firmly
convinced of one’s guilt, impartially consider evidence on both sides, possibility is not enough.

Causation – must be both

1. “But for” is actors behavior actual cause of the bad result. Is it fair to hold them
liable?
2. Proximate Cause “legal” cause. Balancing test. Policy analysis/fairness
analysis.
1. Are there intervening actions?
i. Acts of god or nature
ii. Acts of a 3rd party, that accelerated or aggravated
iii. Acts or omissions by the victim

Rule: “the planned presence of a weapon necessary to facilitate a killing” is adequate evidence to allow
the issue of premeditation to go to the jury.

Rule: Words alone cannot be considered proper provocation to mitigate murder to manslaughter.

Rule: Murder should be reduced to voluntary manslaughter if the passion prompting the killing was due
to a provocation that would, in the mind of an average reasonable man, stir resentment likely to cause
violence, obscuring the reason and leading to action from the passion rather than judgment.

Rule: The encountering by a spouse of spouse in the act has been held to constitute sufficient
provocation to reduce a charge of homicide from one of the degrees of murder to manslaughter (absent
actual malice, like a previous grudge, revenge, or the like). Heat of Passion.

Rule: Where a driver’s recklessness manifests an extreme indifference to human life he can be
charged with murder even though the instrument by which he causes death is an automobile.

Rule: When an individual commits an act of gross recklessness for which he must reasonably anticipate
that death to another is likely to result, he exhibits that ‘wickedness of disposition, hardness of heart,
cruelty, recklessness of consequences, and a mind regardless of social duty’ which proved that there was
at that time in him ‘the state or frame of mind termed malice.’

Rule: There is a duty of care for the safety of business visitors invited to premises which the defendant
controls, wanton or reckless conduct may consist of intentional failure to take such care in disregard of
the probable harmful consequences to them or of their right to care.

Rule: Culpable negligence means negligence of a gross and flagrant character, evincing reckless
disregard of human life or of the safety of persons exposed to its dangerous effects…
Standard of ordinary caution: the caution exercisable by a man of reasonable prudence under the
same or similar conditions

TARP stands for the average reasonable person (regarding in throws of passion)

Cannot go from Specific intent for great bodily injury to premeditation

M#1
M#2
Premed
SI. Kill
Vol Man
SI. GBI

Willful & W
Invol Man
ENumFel
Fel Murder

A. Murder 1
1. Is there willful premeditation and deliberation (WDP)
i. Lying in wait?
ii. Poisoning – you have to plan it
B. Murder 2
1. With malice
2. Without premeditation and deliberation
3. Malice
1. Was there an intent to kill?
2. Was there an attempt to do great bodily harm?
3. Abandoned and malignant heart (willful wanton)?
C. Manslaughter
1. Voluntary
1. reckless homicides
2. heat of passion/extreme mental emotional disturbance
2. Involuntary
3. Vehicular Manslaughter
D. Felony Murder rule
1. Even if you didn’t have malice we are going to say you did bc you were
committing a felony at the time you did
2nd degree murder and voluntary manslaughter
2nd degree – malice wdp
Manslaughter – malice w/ mitigating circumstances, mental emotional distress

How we get to murder 1.

a. Specific intent to kill and premeditation
b. Felony murder And inherintely dangerous independent of life threatening force (murder 2) if its
enumerated felony it goes to 1.

Gross negligence = invol manslaughter.

1. Common law elements for provocation/heat of passion mitigation

1. Adequate provocation
i. Sufficient for provocation
1. Witnessing spouse in the act with someone else
2. Mutual combat
 3. Assault and battery
4. Injury to a relative
5. Illegal arrest
ii. Words alone is not sufficient unless accompanied by present intention and ability
to harm. Hair pulling is not enough harm.
2. In heat of passion (HOP) at time of killing
3. Must be a sudden heat of passion with no opportunity to cool off
4. Causal connection btw provocation, passion, and fatal act

(ct. does not want to reward people for ending domestic disputes in violence)

Second degree – malice

Involuntary manslaughter – w/o purpose

Felony Murder
• Formula: Felony + Death = Felony Murder
• 1st degree – enumerated, on list
• 2nd degree – non-enumerated
• Mens rea required for felony murder is: Did you intend to commit the felony?
• Actus reas for felony murder is: the act of the felony
• Causation – relationship btw felony and death
• Attendant Circumstances
• Reasons for felony murder…
1) Deterrence
2) Retaliation

MURDER 1
MURDER 2
Premeditation  Specific Intent to Kill  VOL MAN
S.I. Great bodily injury  VOL MAN
Willful and Wanton  INVOLUNTARY MANSLAUGHTER
Enumerated Felony  Felony Murder
----
After midterm
----
Battery - Unlawful application of force to the person of another or to the items closely associated to the
body.
Inappropriate touching - unjustified, unexcused, unconsented, offensive.

Battery, general intent crime (you intended to do the act, which resulted in unlawful touching)
Completed assault merges into battery.
----------
Can words be sufficient of assault? No must be a substantial step
Two types of assault:
1. Common law attempted battery theory: (Doesn't require awareness.)
a. Attempt to commit a battery (specific)
b. Substantial step to commit battery

2. Fear type assault:

a. Specific intent to create apprehension
b. Victim must be aware of defendant's act (actual awareness/apprehension)
c. Victims apprehension must be reasonable (Tarp apprehension)
------
2 types of rape cases:
a. Who did it?
b. Consensual?

Rape:
• Unlawful act of intercourse with a woman without her consent
1. Male and Female engaged in sexual intercourse
2. The 2 not married
3. Act of intercourse against the will of the female person
4. Such act was accomplished by means of force, violence, or fear of immediate and unlawful
violence.
a. Penetration, however slight, counts. Ejaculation is not required.

What does prosecution have to show? What is the burden?

Rape is about force. It is the essential element.
Prosecutor must show that this rape came about due to force (bodily or threats).
Is it that a reasonable person would recognize that she did not give consent, and this was gross
negligence?
Specific Intent crime? No subjective.
General Intent crime, would the average reasonable man have….
Did this man grossly deviate from the standard of care?
Must be Gross Deviation from the standard of care.
What if the woman genuinely believed he was going to hurt her, but it was an unreasonable fear?

Force:
Prove beyond a reasonable doubt that a man was criminally negligent in not recognizing no
consent.
Can Rape a Spouse Now.
---------------------
Kidnapping:
KIDNAPPING- WOBBLER-
Forcefully and unlawfully moving of a person into another place.
Aggravated false imprisonment
1. Confinement
2. Specific Intent- to confine & to move. (Doesn’t have to be from the outset).
3. Need the movement. Sufficient movement.
Some statutory schemes say any movement- but most not.

Awareness- when you become aware. Specific intent to confine- and is moving- does the moving
significantly increase the risk of harm? Yes.

Kidnapping: unlawfully confine, restrain or remove from one place to another, an other person 16 years
of age or over without the consent of such person if such confinement restraint or removal is for the
purpose of:
----------------
• Theft:
1. Larceny - the trespassory taking and aspertation (or carrying away) of the personal property of
another with the intent permanently deprive the owner of possession.
2.
3.
4. Force or threats robbery

• Larceny:
o Taking: contemplates the exercise of dominion and control (without legal right).
• Carrying Away:
 o Actually need the process of carrying away, carrying away movement. (not getting ready
to, actual carrying).
• Personal Property:
o Restricted to only personal property.
o Can intangibles be the proper subject of larceny? Common Law - No. Statute - Yes.
o Contraband? Yes while it has intrinsic value
• Of Another:
o Value of thing taken.
• With the intent to permanently deprive:
o If it is taken with the intent of dealing with it in a manner that would create a substantial
risk of its permanent loss to the owner.

• Abandoned property is not possessed so it cant be larceny

• Joint owner of joint property cannot commit larceny.

Larceny elements:
• Taking
• Carrying away
• Personal property
• Of another
• Trespass - gaining possession without legal rights
o Intent to specifically permanently deprive the owner
--------------------
Embezzlement:
• Fraudulent conversion of the property of another of one who is already in possession.

Ordinary employee v. trusted employee - trusted would be embezzlement

Custody v. possession:
An ordinary employee who receives property from his employer for some purpose of his employer
only has custody not possession. (if for some reason it follows that the person has only custody
he can commit larceny).

An ordinary employee who receives property from a 3rd person on behalf of her employer has
possession.

Ryan's rule: when the ordinary employee places in a receptacle for the employer, if its for temporary place
for employee to put there possession does not pass to employer as long as employee remains in actual
control of the situation.
----------------
Found- lost you are still looking for it.
Abandoned- you gave up your rights- you abandon ownership.
Abandoned cannot be the subject of larceny or embezzlement.
Lost- What kind or property it is. Rolex probably not abandoned.
Circumstances surrounding it. Fact drive analysis.
If lost property still belongs to someone it can be larceny or embezzlement.
Larceny- Bad intent?- Yes-Larceny by trick.
Do we treat the people different who try to find the owner.
Then no larceny.
Owner retains constructive possession of lost property- we don’t have larceny unless could have found
the owner or know the owner, must have the intent at the time they find the property.
Innocent intent, later conversion= not guilty.
What are reasonable efforts?
Talk about that on the exam.
Larceny by trick is the appropriation of property, the possession of which was fraudulently acquired.
Obtaining property by false pretenses is the fraudulent or deceitful acquisition of both title and
possession.
Tricking them into giving us title and possession. Difference is title is passing!
--------------
DEFINITION OF FALSE PRETENSES: Obtaining title and possession to property by means of a material
false representation with intent to defraud the victim.
1. Look and see of title has passed. Look to documents. Intent of the person giving
it up.
Question: when is the title passed- pick it up or get money. Look at the intent of the parties
question of fact.
2. Possession
3. Intent to defraud the victim.
4. The D must know that the statement is false or have a don’t care attitude as to its
truth. (general intent). I.e you don’t know that you don’t have that much money.
5. Must actually intend to defraud- Specific intent.
4.The false representation must be a lie rather than opinion or speculation and the material representation
must be one that is either past or existing.
5. Misresprentation must concern a material fact.
Claims 10,000 equity. Loans 2,000 but equity only 5,000 – doesn’t matter though-D
Would be influenced by the fact that 10,000 they wouldn’t do it otherwise- P
Whats the bottom line: majority rule- material if it is the controlling inducement for the victim to turn over
the property.
6. There must be actual reliance by the victim.- Subjective reliance. Was this victim duped NOT TARP.
Did the victim actually deceived.
---------------------
Receiving stolen property - Felony for any person, to buy have or receive any goods which shall have
been stolen or feloniously taken knowing the same to have been stolen or feloniously taken
----------------------
Robery: (aggrevated larceny) [it’s a felony]
1. Must be taken from victim's person or presence
2. Taking must be accomplished through force or intimidation

• Presence can mean within his control as such that he could have prevented the taking if not for
the force and intimidation
• Presence is if its close enough to the victim to prevent the taking

• Even in the absence of opposition if the item is attached the person or clothing that creates
resistance however slight or if there is a struggle to keep it, it is a robbery.
-----------------
Burglary - the night time breaking and entering of the dwelling of another with the intent to commit a
felony or theft therein.
Dwelling - if the last dweller intends to return and live there.

Can a servant burgle a masters home? Servant not a dweller. Servant can burgle a persons home.
Servant or guest with restricted authority is guilty of breaking if he or she exceeds that authority.
Yes you can burglarize hotel rooms.
If you are invited in are you breaking? Invite defines where they are to go, so they are not breaking but if
they do other things, Yes.
Need a little force to be breaking, even a little bump.
High fence, he opens fence gate, no breaking because of curtiledge.
Closed screen porch, opens screen door and front door is open. This is breaking.
Find all doors open but then you open dining room door, that is breaking.

Entering - pushed in a pane of glass is that entering? Needs to enter the plane of the house, so no.
If using the tool to facilitate later entering it is not entering, when you use tool to do the theft it is entering.
In california we need entry into a building.
Tool to consumate entry - entry
Tool to facilitate entry - not entry.

• Nighttime - if we are able to distinguish a persons features it is not nighttime

• Intent - (must be formed before) Any felony or any theft
• Breaking - sufficient force
• Entering - any part of the body or any tool (used to consumate the offense) enters the plane of
the building

• If someone is drunk, show that they did a lot of rational things to show that they thought about it.

• Burglary - Nighttime breaking and entry of a dwelling house with the intent to commit and theft or
felony therein

• On final, if no statute is given, use common law. If statute is given may delete part of it (like
nighttime, or breaking)

Buy have or receive goods that have been stolen or feloniously taken, knowing the same to have been
stolen or feloniously taken.
-------------------
Review:
• Rape: Unlawful act of sexual intercourse with a woman without her consent
o Don’t need positive consent from woman
o Need to show force is an essential element (or threats of force)
o Was the defendant criminally negligent in not figuring out that this was against the will of
the woman (because she was incapable or incapacitated).
o Victims fear must be reasonable
• False Imprisonment: is it FI to stop someone from going in one direction? No because they have
other directions - intentional unlawful confinement of another person.
o Specific intent crime (to confine)
o Victim need not be aware
• Kidnapping: forcibly and unlawfully moving a person into another place
o Same confinement as FI
o Specific intent to confine AND move
o Ascertation and movement
o Did compelled movement increase risk of other crime, was the victim in more vulnerable
position
• Mayhem: mame, disfigure, dismember (must not be total, substantial loss of use is enough)
o Grossly negligent
• Property Crimes:
o Larceny: crime against possession (not title)
• Is about value of item.
• Taking = exercised dominion and control over that property
• Carrying away = removed or severed from owners possession (typically viewed
from where the item was situated, so like taking an item off a shelf in a store)
• Personal property of another: (real property = no)
 Of another:
• With the intent to steal
• Trespass: without legal right to take it (if you think its your own and sell it, its still
trespass, had no right to take it even if you thought it was your own).
o Larceny by trick: larceny with a twist, fraud causes consent.
• Intent to permanently deprive when you take makes it trespass.
 o Embezzlement: does the person already have possession.
• Employee/employer box: is this an ordinary or trusted employee? Is the ordinary
employee acting on the behalf of the boss?
• When 3rd party gives to employee, employee gets possession
• When employer gives to employee, employee gets custody (so if he takes, its
custody)
• All about person already having property and then fraudulently converting it.
• Ryan's rule: if you (employee) place in a container for a temporary purpose of
yours you don’t give possession back to employer. (employers property and
employers receptacle)
• Trusted v. ordinary
 Trusted if has been given a great deal of authority, deals with money
o False pretenses: possession + title
• Title is moving here as well as possession.
• Consists of obtaining title and possession of an item
 Intent?
 Possession
 Intent of fraud, know statement is false or have don’t care attitude about
fraud.
 Intend to fraud
 Lie about something currently or previously existed
 Misrepresentation must contain a material fact
• Lie is material if it is the controlling reason for turning over of
property
 Reliance - was this why he turned it over
o Receiving stolen property - must know its stolen
o Lost property is still in constructive possession of person who lost it
o Abandoned property - look at circumstances and value
• Robbery:
o Larceny +
o Must be taken from person or presence
• Could victim have done something about that.
o Taking must be accomplished by force or intimidation
• Intimidation must be immediate

----

• Attempt - specific intent to commit an act which if successful would be a crime in conjunction with
the perpetrating act done persuant to that intent
o Specific intent to commit target offense
o Sufficient substantial step (act in furtherance).
• Punished with half of whatever attempted crime is.

• Preparation v. perpetration:
o Perpetration is a direct movement towards committing it.
• Proximity v. Blameworthy
o Was this wrong all by itself
o Was the D's act too remote to be considered
• Attempt (Model Penal Code)
o Lying in Wait.
o Enticing or seeking to entice the victim.
o Unlawfully entering a structure or vehicle in which the crime is to be committed
 o Possessing materials to be used in perpetration of the crime at or near the place where
the crime is to be committed where it serves no lawful purpose to possess.

The abandonment not motivated by circumstances earlier apparent.

Attempt, specific intent + step in futherance.

-----------------
Solicitation - at common law defendant is guilty if he counsels, incites, or induces another to commit or
to join in the commission of an offense (specific intent to commit target offense is mens rea, so this would
be urging someone). Offense usually has to be a serious crime.
Consummation of attempt we don’t file attempt and solicitation.

Solicitation goes on to attempt and conspiracy, solicitation is lesser and so we drop it and focus on
greater crime. If target offense is COMPLETED the defendant can be convicted of solicitation and the
crime.
---------------------
Conspiracy - an agreement for unlawful purposes.
Need more than one person
Unlawful act, or lawful act accomplished by unlawful means.
Specific intent to combine with another
Specific intent to perform the unlawful act

Can still file conspiracy even if we have consummation of offense

Common Law there was no act required in addition to the specific intent to commit target offense.

Modern trend - Also requires an overt act in furtherance of the conspiracy.

Not follow the common law rule, for our class we want the OVERT act (so conversation is not enough).

• Each member of conspiracy is liable for those crimes committed by all other members which were
a reasonably foreseeable result of the conspiracy and done in furtherance of it

In cases of lesser crimes we typically do not impute … no real dividing line (lesser to greater)

Once the conspiracy is completed can anyone get out of the conspiracy (no target offense yet)? Have an
act in futherance. Common law rule is you cant withdraw from conspiracy.

So if you withdraw, if there is communication to the coconspirators of withdrawal before target offense has
been committed then no criminal liability.
Split authority: can withdraw sometimes
1. Its free and voluntary actions
2. Without outside influence
3. No1 is harmed or endangered
--------------------
Duress: A person of reasonable courage having no reasonable alternatives must be facing an immediate
threat of death or great bodily injury by a third person to the accused or her family.

Duress cannot be a defense in a homicide case

Necessity: like self defense, duress, in that you can walk away from this crime.
Can use Necessity as a defense If there is immediate threat of death or serious bodily injury brought on
by extreme circumstances which compel them to act in a way they normally would not act.

What are extreme circumstances and extreme viewed by whom?

------------------
Self defense - privilege to use such force as reasonably seems necessary to defend against unlawful and
immediate force

1. subjective
2. Belief must be objectively reasonable
3. Immediacy requirement
4. Can use no more force than necessary to stop the person from inflicting the harm

Deadly force can only be used if defendant reasonably believed that other person was about to inflict
death or serious bodily harm and that deadly force was necessary to prevent the harm

Rape = great bodily injury

5. Defendant stands in place of being assisted. However if assisted person has no right, neither
does the 3rd party good Samaritan.
--------------------------
Alcohol - is alcohol ever a defense? No, intoxication is not a defense. Voluntary intoxication is not a
defense to a charge based on acts committed while so intoxicated.
Intoxication NOT a defense, just an obstacle that a prosecutor must overcome to prove all the elements of
her case. (like for any mental elements that come up, awareness)

How drunk? Must prostrate the senses.

----------------
Insanity: Don't execute the insane because we are punishing blameworthy parties and they arent
blameworthy is they cant recognize different between right and wrong.

INSANITY: 1. show at the time of the act as a result of a mental disease or defect the accused is not able
to appreciate the wrongfulness of that conduct (must show mental disease and then show that ability to
reason is defective. His condition ). 2. His Condition from this disease prevented him from knowing and
understanding the nature and quality of his act or that the act is wrong. (distorted view of reality makes
them unable to distinguish right from wrong).

Irresistible impulse, part of volitional test - whether or not the mental disease impairs the person self
control.
Didn’t have capacity to exercise control
If at the time of such conduct and as a result of mental disease or defect the defendant lacks substantial
capacity to either appreciate wrongfulness of his conduct or to conform his conduct to law.

Not complete lack just substantial capacity

Reduces the burden

Defense has burden of proof

-----------------------
Motive: Reason- Never Prima Facia case.
It just helpful.
Intent: Mental decision to achieve some goal.
Larceny- Specific Intent.
Property from another.
Specific intent to take property that you know is someone else.
Specific intent to deprive another!
Knowingly- doesn’t have to be specific intent.
Knowingly is with positive knowledge and awareness of the high probability of the existence in the facts in
question.
(like W &W).

DEFENSES
Defense of mistake of fact- would TARP have believed that was a reasonable mistake.
Mistake of law- more problematic.
Divorce Case.
Is an honest reasonable belief sufficient- NO.
Generally- no.
Most laws are a codification or morality.
Probably because its wrong, we don’t want
people open up cases and people are presumed to know the law.

MENS v ACTUS
Even if you act like a reasonable person.
INVOL MAN- Mental element- Mens Rea- General Intent Crime- awareness that life could he jeopardized.
Actus reas- physical element- Continuing to drive knowing that you about to fall asleep
Blackout prone- drives- knowing that he has blacked out.
Didn’t know- no crime.
Has warning signs before- she doesn’t say.

Rarely have strict liability cases.

-----------------
Causation - if crime requires proof of result the defendant's conduct must be shown to have been the
legal cause of that result.
------------------
Mistake of Fact - will prevent criminal liability if it shows def. lacked a mental state essential to the crime.
-----------------
Mistake of Law -
1. Defendant lacked the requisite mental state
2. Had state but believed his conduct was no proscribed by law.
-------------------
Rescue Statutes (are in a minority of areas) - generally require that one who knows that another is
exposed to grave physical harm give reasonable assistance to the other if this can be done without
danger or peril to themselves or interference with important duties.

2. When someone stands in some sort of status

3. Where one has assumed a contractual duty to take care of another
4. One who has voluntarily assumed the care of another and so secluded the care of another to
prevent others from rendering aid.

When statute imposes a duty. (Parent/Child).

Status Relationship to another- parent/child, adult child/senior parents
Contractual Duty to care for another- Nanny.
Voluntarily assumed the care of another

so secluded as to prevent others from rendering aid (invalid brother and sister, MISERY).

-----------------------------------------
DA needs to clarify why a case should be a certain category (1st degree or 2nd) and why its NOT another
category.

Closing Arguments
5 parts
1. Our grab – First words are precious need to grab attention of jurors. Make sure
you have a good opening.
2. The Law – Pick out 2,3,4 good points/law and make sure jurors know what they
are. Take complicated ideas and make them accessible to the public/jurors. For example
in Ollens you need to EXPLAIN specific intent to kill and premeditation. Use everyday
 examples, or examples from life/the bible/other things regular ppl deal with and relate
them to the case and the rules you're trying to explain. Review reasonable doubt.
3. Plug evidence from trial into the law.
4. Rebuttal. Explain why other guys story doesn't fit and doesn't hold water.
5. Conclude, just state precisely what it is you want them (jurors) to do.

Simply because someone tells a story doesn’t mean that story causes reasonable doubt. Does that story
make sense? Is it reasonable, if not throw it out.

Closing:
1. Grab your audience, one sentence.
2. Law, give them 2-4 pieces of law and explain them.
3. Integrate the facts into the law
4. Don't ignore problems, address them.
5. Conclude

No Case Names for Crim Law (yes for crim pro)

If theres a body go through list, can file for something else.

-----
Force yourself to the other side- say however it could be argued. SO you can refute that.
Pose the question was her conduct criminally negligent first.
Then tell the rules.
Don’t try and force an opinion- together come to the conclusion.
Stand in a another person’s way- false imprisonment. – no reasonable way out.
You have to be aware
Is it a specific intent crime? YES very specific