Select Page

Criminal Law
University of California, Hastings School of Law
Diamond, John L.


Chapter 4: The Act Requirement

Voluntary Acts: pp. 141-143; pp. 147-156

Voluntary Acts




Jones v. U.S.

Chapter 9: Theft: pp. 479-561


The History and Elements of Larceny and the Type of Property that Can Be Stolen

Lund v. Commonwealth
Oxford v. Moss
Cal. Penal Code

The Property “of Another”

Henry v. State

The Asportation and Caption Requirements

State v. Carswell

Extensions of Larceny

Lost or Mislaid Property

Brooks v. State

Mistaken Delivery

U.S. v. Rogers

Larceny by Trick

State v. Robington

The Specific Intent to Deprive Another of Property Permanently

People v. Kunkin
Mason v. State


People v. Talbot

False Pretenses

Chaplin v, United States

Theft: Consolidation of the Property Acquisition Offenses

Cal. Penal Code

Chapter 10: Aggravated Property Crimes: pp. 563-617


State v. Mejia


State v. Harrington
U.S. v. Jackson
McCormick v. U.S.


State v. Bowling


People v. Gauze

Chapter 5: Mens Rea: pp. 171-230



Levels of Culpability

The Common Law: General vs. Specific Intent

State v. Peery

The Model Penal Code

U.S. v. Villegas

Defenses Based on Mens Rea

Mistake of Fact

Gordon v. State

Mistake of Law

People v. Wendt
U.S. v. Barker

Exceptions to Mistake of Law Doctrine
Claim of good faith on an official’s authority

Lambert v. California


U.S. v. Williams

Chapter 6: Strict Liability and Public Welfare Offenses; Vicarious and Corporate Liability: pp. 231-237; pp. 242-255

Public Welfare Crimes and Vicarious Liability

Commonwealth v. Koczwara

Corporate, and Corporate Officer, Liability

State v. Adjustment Department Credit Bureau

Chapter 7: Homicide: pp. 257-345; People v. Chun, pp. 20-31 (in 2015 Supplement) (replacing People v. Robertson in casebook); pp. 355-386; pp. 394-404


Francis B. Sayre, Mens Rea
Cal. Penal Code

Intentional Homicide

Distinguishing 1st-degree and 2nd-degree Murder: Premeditation

Commonwealth v. Carroll
People v. Anderson

Voluntary Manslaughter: Heat of Passion

Maher v. People
State v. Thornton

Unintentional Homicide

2nd-Degree Murder: Depraved Heart/Extreme Indifference

Commonwealth v. Malone
People v. Knoller

Involuntary Manslaughter: Criminal Negligence/Recklessness

Commonwealth v. Welansky
Commonwealth v. Feinberg

Felony Murder

The Policy Issues Surrounding the Felony Murder Rule

Nelson E. Roth, The Felony-Murder Rule
David Crump, In defense of the Felony Murder

Limitations on the Felony Murder Doctrine

Inherently Dangerous Felonies

People v. Howard

The Merger Doctrine

People v. Robertson

The Agency Doctrine

State v. Sophophone

The Death Penalty

The History and Constitutionality of the Death Penalty

McCleskey v. Kemp

Death Penalty Procedures
(Notes on pg. 394)

Chapter 8: Rape: pp. 405-426; pp. 440-470; pp. 426-440

Statutory Rape

People v. Hernandez
Garnett v. State

Forcible Rape


The violence against women act of 1991
Nancy s. Erickson, Final Report: Sex bias…
Lorenne mg Clark, Rape: The price of coercive sexuality
Angela p. harris
Robin d. weiner
Richard posner
Mary sigler
Katherine baker

Actus Reus

State v. Rusk
Commonwealth v. Berkowitz

Mens Rea

Director of Public Prosecutions v. Morgan
Reynolds v. State

Chapter 12: Attempt and Solicitation: pp. 659-701



Issues in Attempt
The Elements of Attempt

United States v. Jackson

Abandonment as a Defense

People v. Staples

Legal and Factual Impossibility

People v. Dlugash
People v. Thousand


State v. Schleifer
People v. Quentin
Model Penal Code

Chapter 13: Accomplice Liability: pp. 703-736


Wayne R. LaFave

The Extent of Participation Necessary

United States v. Buttorff
Wilcox v. Jeffery

The State of Mind Necessary

State v. Gladstone

Withdrawal of Aid

Commonwealth v. Huber

Accessory after the Fact and Obstruction of Justice

The Starr Report: The Official Report of the Independent…

Chapter 14: Conspiracy: pp. 737-783

The Breadth and Elements of Conspiracy

The Agreement

Williams v. U.S.

The Requisite mens rea – “purpose” or “knowledge”

People v. Lauria

Overt Acts

Yates v. United States

The Scope of Conspiracy Liability

The Pinkerton Doctrine

Pinkerton v. United States

The Structure of Conspiracies

Chain Conspiracies

United States v. Bruno

Wheel Conspiracies and Conspiracies with Multiple Objectives

Kotteakos v. United States

Withdrawal, Renunciation, and the Duration of the Conspiracy

People v. Sisselman

Rico and Conspiracy

United States v. Horak

fining the offense; or

(b) a duty to perform the omitted act is otherwise imposed by law.

(4) Possession is an act, within the meaning of this Section, if the possessor knowingly procured or received the thing possessed or was aware of his control thereof for a sufficient period to have been able to terminate his possession.

Parental liability for a child’s crime (pg. 151)

Omissions by police officers (pg. 152)

The model penal code (pg. 153)

Good Samaritan Laws (pg. 153)

Charging a cost for one’s assistance (pg. 154)

Failing to report a crime (pg. 154)

Misprison of Felony (pg. 155)



The history and elements of larceny and the type of property that can be stolen

Lund v. Commonwealth (1977)



Analysis: P is a student at VPI. For his PhD dissertation, he stole computer cards and keys to use the computer without paying for the time himself, although he would have probably be given the computer time if he asked for it. He is convicted of grand larceny, but he is found innocent because the print-outs had no ascertainable monetary value since they’re just paper, and using computer time is not considered “goods and chattels.”


“At common law, larceny is the taking and carrying away of the goods and chattels of another with intent to deprive the owner of the possession thereof permanently.”

Oxford v. Moss (1978)

Issue: Whether confidential information can amount to property within the meaning of the Theft Act 1968 or not.

Rule: Theft Act 1968: “A person is guilty of theft if he dishonestly appropriates property belonging to another with the intention of permanently depriving the other of it…”

Analysis: A student borrowed an advance copy of an examination paper, copied the questions and then returned the paper. The Divisional Court held that he was not guilty of theft on the basis that information could not be stolen. Clearly the paper on which the exam questions were typed was property belonging to Liverpool University, but there was no evidence that the defendant intended to permanently deprive the University of it. He took confidential information, which isn’t physical property, so you can’t permanently deprive someone of information merely from reading it.

Conclusion: Moss wins, Oxford loses.