DIAMOND CRIMINAL LAW OUTLINE – FALL 2016
Chapter 4: The Act Requirement
Voluntary Acts: pp. 141-143; pp. 147-156
Voluntary Acts
MPC
Sleepwalker
Omissions
Jones v. U.S.
Chapter 9: Theft: pp. 479-561
Introduction
Larceny
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
MPC
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
Embezzlement
People v. Talbot
False Pretenses
Chaplin v, United States
Theft: Consolidation of the Property Acquisition Offenses
MPC
Cal. Penal Code
Chapter 10: Aggravated Property Crimes: pp. 563-617
Robbery
State v. Mejia
Extortion
State v. Harrington
U.S. v. Jackson
McCormick v. U.S.
Bribery
State v. Bowling
Burglary
People v. Gauze
Chapter 5: Mens Rea: pp. 171-230
Introduction
MPC
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
Intoxication
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
Introduction
Francis B. Sayre, Mens Rea
MPC
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
Perspectives
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
Introduction
Attempt
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
Solicitation
State v. Schleifer
People v. Quentin
Model Penal Code
Chapter 13: Accomplice Liability: pp. 703-736
Introduction
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
Introduction
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)
Theft
Larceny:
The history and elements of larceny and the type of property that can be stolen
Lund v. Commonwealth (1977)
Issue:
Rule:
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.”
Conclusion:
“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.
