Bucy/Pierson-CrimLaw-Fall-2010
What the pros (plaintiff) should charge:
The CL is sufficiently broad to punish as a misdemeanor any act that directly injures the public to such an extent as to require the state to interfere. Mochan
How P proves Conduct:
There must be some wrongful conduct not just a status such as addicted to the use of narcotics. Robinson
Criminal Negligence requires duty, breach, causation, and damages. Failure to act can satisfy the conduct element if there is a legal duty to act. Generally one has no legal duty to rescue or render aid to another in peril absent a special relationship inducing reliance or preventing assistance from others. She knew he was drunk, she took him away from public to her private home, took charge, gave him a spoon to inject. Oliver
4 ways a legal duty can be imposed, a breach of which can subject one to liability for resulting harm are 1) statutorily imposed 2) special relationship 3) assumed a contractual duty 4) voluntarily assumed care secluding the helpless person as to prevent others from rendering aid. Jones
Given the circumstances of a person accustomed to getting drunk and who voluntarily came along with D, she had ample experience in her affairs. The fact that she was in his house doesn’t create the legal duty. Beardsley
How the P proves Intent:
Transferred intent – where D intended to commit a crime with respect to a particular person, and as a consequence, a different person was harmed in the same or similar manner as originally intended, the D’s intent is transferred to the latter.
MPC 2.02
Knowledge of a fact is established if a person is aware of a high probability of its existence, unless he actually believes that it does not exist. Willfully is satisfied if a person acts knowingly.
Jewell – conscious avoidance of positive knowledge is equivalent to acting knowingly.
R- consciously disregards a sub and unjustifiable risk and considering his purpose and circumstances known to him it is a gross deviation from what a reasonable person in his situation would do.
N- should be aware of a sub and unjustifiable risk & considering circumstances known to him it is a gross deviation from what a reasonable person in his situation would do.
Non MPC:
To do an act with intent to commit one crime cannot be an attempt to commit another crime. Thacker
A criminal statute is not required to have a mental element. In such a case, the D will not be able to put forth evidence of mistake, intox, insanity etc. Olshefski
Charging Attempt: Transferred Intent
1. intent to commit a specific offense
2. Sub step toward commission of that offense (has the conduct gone far enough).
No defense that the attempt was factually or legally impossible under the circumstances it could have been committed had circumstances been as D believed them to be.
Not liable if manifest voluntary and complete renunciation of his intent he avoided commission of the offense by abandoning his criminal effort or by taking further affirmative steps if abandonments not enough. D has burden to raise this issue.
Attempt conduct:
It is sufficient to be a sub step if the acts taken in furtherance of the intent constitute a dangerous proximity to success. The more serious the crime, the closer the D has to get to committing the crime, because the D is more likely to withdraw remorsefully. Paluch
D must take a step so substantial that had D’s efforts not been frustrated, he or she would have committed the crime. although found with gloves, bullets, a gun and an atm card for a bill trap, the robbery was in the future and the D’s never made a move toward the victims or the bank to accomplish the crime. Harper
Attempt Intent:
Attempted murder does not ex
nowledge element. A co-conspirators possession of a gun during a large drug deal may be imputed to other co-conspirators through Pinkerton even though they never possessed it. Diaz
A conspirator’s participation in a conspiracy is presumed to continue until all activity relating to the conspiracy is ceased. To withdrawal from a conspiracy the defendant must 1) take affirmative steps to defeat the conspiracy; and 2) either make reasonable effort to communicate these acts to his co-conspirators or disclose the scheme to law enforcement. Mere cessation of criminal activity is insufficient. Young
Defenses:
D must produce some evidence of their defense to get the instruction to the jury.
The D never has to prove his defense beyond a reasonable doubt
Entrapment
1) def not predisposed to commit crime (at the time of first gov contact)
2) gov provided a favorable opp/induced D to commit the crime
404b allows pros to introduce into evidence similar bad acts to prove predisposition
Admission of predisposition is fatal to the defense. Gov can afford D opportunities (supplying chemicals) to commit the crime, unless the government actually implants the criminal design in the mind of the defendant. Russell
Where the government has induced, the prosecution must prove beyond reasonable doubt that the defendant was predisposed to commit the crime prior to first gov contact. Evidence of predisposition to do what once was lawful is not sufficient to show predisposition to do what is now illegal. Jacobson
