Criminal Law

Dudley v. StevensNecessity (extreme hunger) does not justify murder. Starving sailors eat the flesh of one of their own.

Led to questions of why punish? 1) Retribution 2)Deterrence 3) Rehabilitation 4) Incapacitation

2+3+4 = utilitarian, forward looking, 3 = humanitarian, 1 = back looking

Lawrence v. TexasA law classifying homosexual intercourse as illegal sodomy violated the privacy and liberty of adults to engage in private intimate conduct under the 14th amendment. Two men arrested after found to be engaged in sodomy.

-Morals have changed, justices said in the past they got it wrong, not always simple what morality is-The defendants in the case had an interracial relationship -Over criminalization: If laws are too broad, then there is potential for discriminatory enforcement-People can engender disrespect for the law-Resources are diverted

Commonwealth v. MochanCourt can uphold a conviction for misdemeanor based only in common law. An act that outrageous decency and injurious to public morals is a misdemeanor under common law. An arrest made for making very indecent phone calls.

Legality: vague/ambiguous common law crimes transfer law making ability from legislature to judiciary, separation of powers issue-Nowadays, we followed the dissent, only legislature makes criminal law-Need concepts of notice, consistency, and fairness

United States v. BergmanReputation and age may be taken into account, but court will still punish for general deterrence and to not depreciate the seriousness of crime. A good man in his old age committed Medicare fraud.Martin v. StateConvictions require a voluntary act. Drunken man arrested and taken by police to a highway where he was arrested for public drunkenness.

Voluntary is required because that is part of the purpose of punishment

People v. NewtonUnconsciousness is an allowed defense to homicide. Newton’s shot in stomach and supposedly became unconscious and then killed a police officer.

Main issue was that jury did not get to decide the unconsciousness issue.Cogdon case – woman acquitted after axing her daughter to death when asleep.Decina case – woman liable for knowing and not taking epilepsy pills, leading to an epileptic attack and crashing

Jones v. United StatesOmission of a duty owed to another may be liable for homicide. Critical issues of fact must be passed on to the jury. Defendant failed to take care of a 10 month illegitimate baby who died.

-Policy: We have a right to personal freedom, but also the freedom to waive that freedom and assume a duty.

Pope v. StateMoral duty w/o legal duty to act precludes liability. Pope watched as a mother abused the mother’s child (both living with her), leading to their death.

Misprison of felony is an old common law statute, and that criminal law should be made by the legislature.People v. Beardsley – No legal duty to help a mistress who overdosed on pills.

Barber v. Superior CourtEuthanasia is an omission (of treatment) and not liable for murder. A doctor has no legal duty to continue futile life support. Family asked doctors to take patient in vegetative state off life support.Regina v. CunninghamRedefining, malice requires 1) intent to do the particular kind of harm or 2) recklessness despite forseeability of harm. Appellant stole a gas meter, releasing noxious gas and endangering his future mother-in-law.

-malicious = reckless-unlawful = there’s no defenseRegina v. Faulkner – Conviction quashed; a sailor stealing run from ship but burned the entire ship. He could not be guilty of acting maliciously (recklessly) unless he considered the risk of a fire and disregarded it.-culpability – how criminally responsible, is tied to your mental state

State v. HazelwoodNegligence is when one fails to perceive an unjustifiable risk that a result will occur. Criminal negligence requires greater risk, and you don’t need to be aware of the risk. Conviction reinstated; captain (was drunk) ran ship into reef and spilled oil.

-Applied only ordinary negligence (not criminal), since criminal punishment should be imposed only when conduct is something society can deterSantillanes v. New Mexico – defendant cut 7 year old nephew’s neck. Applied criminal negligence.

United States v. JewellWillful blindness is not an excuse (for not looking in a known compartment regarding possession). Knowledge established if aware of a high probability of existence. Defendant was convicted of knowingly transporting marijuana in a car from Mexico to the US.

-Willful blindness – ostrich defense-High suspicion + intentionally avoid = knowingly (a legal fiction)

Purposely – w/ intent toPurposely/Knowingly – Specific IntentRecklessly – General IntentMotive – the why

Regina v. PrinceNo statement of mens rea in a statute can be strict liability (instead of recklessly). Some acts are wrong and forbidden in itself. Defendant a girl under 16 from her father and claimed he didn’t know the age.

AR (taking) + MR (knowingly) + Circumstance [1) unmarried, 2) w/o dad’s consent, and 3) under age 16]-Did not know 3), but knew 1) + 2), but 1) + 2) argued not inherently wrong (in 1875)-1) + 2) = material, 3) = jurisdictional-Case is mistake of fact, if it’s a material element (something you need to know) and you don’t know it, you are not guilty-What you need to know is what makes your conduct

wrong-If it’s jurisdictional element, we don’t care

United States v. FeolaKnowledge of victim’s official identity must be proved to convict on conspiracy to assault officers. Defendants tried a narcotics rip off and charged with conspiring to assault and assaulting federal officers.

AR (assault) + MR (knowledge) + Circumstance [1) person 2) federal officer], crime to knowingly assault fed. officer-To see if it is a material element, in this order, look at 1) language of statute 2) legislature intent 3) policy (to provide maximum protection, or conduct was wrong)-Policy (from dissent) – different crimes should have different punishments, if they are punished different then they should know of it and can be deterred-Jurisdictional = prosecutor does not have to prove defendant knew it

Morissette v. United StatesDefendant must have knowledge of the facts that made conversion wrongful. Strict liability does not apply where the offense is not a public welfare offense. Mere mission of mens rea from statute does not make it strict liability (general presumption is against it), it doesn’t mean anything. Junk convicted of taking bomb casing and argued he did not know it belonged to government.

Jurisdictional vs. Strict liability-Argued didn’t need to know it was government property – strict liability part-General rule – crimes require mens rea-Exceptions – strict liability (S/L)-For S/L, you look at 1) statutory language 2) legal history-S/L crime indicia – public welfare (health & welfare, highly regulated areas, small penalties, not like common law crimes (mala prohibitum), high volume-Criticism – making criminals out of regulatory crimes

Staples v. United StatesIf a statute doesn't mention a mens rea requirement, the Court must infer intent of legislature and can impute a mens rea. Strict liability is generally reserved for crimes with light punishments (not the 10 years imprisonment here). Defendant possessed unregistered firearm, claimed he did not know it was automatic.

-charged with possession of unregistered firearm-government argued it was a strict liability crime for “unregistered”-argued S/L here can overdeter-defense to S/L, S/L can knock out mens rea, but you can argue actus reas-MPC rejects S/L because it’s all about culpability and mens rea

State v. GumingaCriminal penalties of imprisonment under vicariously liability violate due process, but may be liable to fines/suspensions. Strict liability carried too heavy of a penalty for this conviction. Waitress delivered alcoholic beverages to minors and employer was charged.State v. BakerDefendant argues despite strict liability

(no mens rea needed) on speeding he had no actus reus due to cruise control malfunction. In placing the cruise control to the "on" position, defendant had an actus reus. Defendant was convicted of speeding, but his cruise control was stuck in the accelerate position.US v. Central District of CA (Kantor)Reasonable mistake of fact should be allowed as a defense in strict liability due to 1st amendment and policy reasons. Congress is analyzed to have preferred the law of no minors in sexually explicit visuals to allow a reasonable mistake defense. Three people are convicted of making a porno with a minor (Traci Lords).

-Court finds middle ground here-Defendants argue S/L here would violate 1st amendment rights-Prosecutors said statute language + legislature intent said it should be S/L-Based on statute language, legis. Intent, and policy it is S/L, but result seems unfair, called it counter intuitive-Defense has burden of good faith, but still S/L-court was bothered by how statute disturbed 1st amendment, and 10 year punishment

People v. MarreroMistake of law is not a defense even if one acts in reasonable reliance upon an official statement of the law. A federal correction officer was arrested at a club for carrying an unregistered weapon which he thought was allowed.

-general rule: mistake of law = not defense, policy reason (would open floodgates, legal chaos, exceptions swallow rule, laws based on society’s morals)-cultural defense – Generally are no defense, may be given sympathy in sentencing, mercy when prosecutors decide who to prosecute-in Gardner, misreading and found guilty-in Weiss, negates material element of crime = not guilty-in Liparota, food stamp crime, knowing using it in unauthorized manner, he needs to know it is unauthorized by law, if not the mens rea is negated-“knowing transporting versus “knowing transporting…the defendant identifies, adds mens rea to 2nd part

Cheek v. United StatesA mistake in law may be a valid defense if it is reasonable and in good faith. Defendant convicted of not filing taxes and claimed he honestly believed he didn’t have to.

Exceptions to mistake of law: 1) negates material element 2) estoppel theories - no fair theories, right to rely on law established at the time, sort of ex post facto a) “official” mistake of law, b) judicial decision, c) admin order, or d) official interpretation 3) Lambert exception w/ a) no notice, b) for a regulatory offense c) omission-purposes of punishment don’t work w/o notice-an unreasonable but good faith belief can negate the mens rea, just have to be honest, unreasonable may affect credibility but prosecutors must prove mens rea

-if you know the law but disagree with it, does not negate exception 1) negates mens rea-“willfully” means “knowingly” in this case

Lambert v. CaliforniaKnowledge of a statute is generally required to convict someone of a notice offense (a passive act). Defendant, a felon, was convicted of failing to register pursuant to a California statute requiring registration.

-without authority/unauthorized, key indicator of mistake of law exception 1) negating element of the defense

HomicideCommonwealth v. CarrollA brief space of time is immaterial if the killing was in fact intentional, willful, deliberate and premeditated. Premeditation only requires defendant acted deliberately or purposely. Defendant pleaded guilty to the murder but he argued he suffered a psychiatric disorder and killed impulsively.

-homicide is in common law (C/L) is “unlawful killing of another human being”-A.R. = kill, M.R. = ??? (it depends), Circum – Another human being-Fetus = may be a human being, it depends, legislatures decide-in C/L:-1st degree murder: premeditation (Carrol – purposely, Guthrie – prior calc. or design, pre-existing reflection, preconceived design)-2nd degree murder: catch all - malice-Voluntary manslaughter (VM) – heat of passion, provocation doctrine-Involuntary manslaughter (IM) – negligence

Premedication/preconceived evidence (California standard): 1) planning, facts what was done prior to killing, 2) motive, prior relationship and conduct w/ victim, and 3) manner of the killing

State v. GuthrieThere must be some length of time that lapses between the intent to kill and the actual murder. Defendant had psychiatric problems and stabbed coworker after coworker hit him in the nose (a sensitive body part).

-in MPC:Murder, Manslaughter, and Negligence Homicide

People v. AndersonPremeditation and deliberation is required for first degree murder, despite shocking nature of the crime. A preconceived design is required instead of an explosion of violence for 1st degree murder. Defendant stabbed (60 times) and killed a 10 year old girl many times as he chased her around the house.Girouard v. State Provocation/Heat of Passion (HOP) requires

Verbal provocation alone is not enough to mitigate a charge of murder to manslaughter. Defendant stabbed his wife 19 times after his wife taunted him.

1) actual HOP (subjective)2) legally adequate provocation (objective), categories – extreme assault/adultury3) inadequate cooling time, this is related to 1)

Maher v. PeopleIt is a question of fact (for the jury) whether the defendant was provoked by knowledge of an adulterous relationship between his spouse and the victim. This provocation may include anything that causes ordinary men to act rashly. Defendant, after learning that his wife was having sexual intercourse with the victim, walked into a saloon and non-fatally shot the victim in the ear.

-Here HOP defines 2) as whether reasonable person (RP) would have been provoked, contrary to the categorical approach-this gives jury discretionary power

Categorical (more objective) RP (middle), Camplin EED (more subjective), Cassassa-more subjective = greater chance defendant wins-EED gives reasonable person emotional qualities-RP gives them physical characteristics (age/gender/size)-defense wants subjective, prosecutor wants objective

-Gounagias case – instead of cooling, time can do the opposite-Approaches regarding non-provoking victims-Mauricio – you get to use HOP regarding non-provoking victims, other jurisdictions get to say no, and that person who provoked had it coming

People v. CassassaExtreme emotional distress (EED) requires 1) act under the influence of EED (subjective), and 2) a reasonable explanation or excuse for the defendant's EED (objective). Defendant stalked then killed his ex-girlfriend and claimed extreme emotional disturbance.

-RP – look at physical characteristics-EED (from MPC) – allows to look at emotional characteristics-Many jurisdictions only prefer to keep physical characteristics-Much gray area regarding emotional/physical (alcoholism, battered women syndrome, senility, homosexuality, race)

Commonwealth v. WelanskyA criminal (instead of civil) liability exists for unintended homicide depends on 1) a higher likelihood of harm, 2) risk of a particularly serious harm, and 3) actual awareness, or greater likelihood of awareness, of that harm. A fire broke out in the night club due to the lack of available exits, a great number of people died and owner found guilty of involuntary manslaughter.

-court says gross negligence and reckless is the same-Court was bothered by: -easy prevention, owner’s interest first, high chance of harm, type of danger-Social utility of conduct vs. Magnitude of risk (not a formula, an approach)-Social utility – benefit, cost of alternatives-Magnitude – high likelihood of harm, type of danger was seriousSocial Utility-Benefit to society-Cost of alternatives

Magnitude of Risk-type of danger of harm-likelihood of harm

-these factors use to help determine gross negligence

People v. HallReckless manslaughter requires one to recklessly cause death of another. One must disregard a substantial and unjustifiable risk. Specific facts of case hold he was skiing too fast, creating a substantial and unjustifiable risk. Defendant flew off a knoll while skiing. He collided with victim who died.

-ask if it was substantial and unjustifiable risk-ask if it is gross (ask the same question again)

-both criminal negligence and recklessness require gross negligence-if you use reckless, you still have to use substantial and unjustifiable risk

-dangerous instrumentality doctrine – use dangerous instrument in negligent manner, it is automatically involuntary manslaughter (car, knife, fireworks, gun), does not apply to murder 2, only ti involuntary manslaughter

-contributory negligence is not a defense, crime is against society-see that there are a lot of risky activities we do, but is it an substantial and unjustifiable risk, and any good reason (unjustifiable risk)

State v. WilliamsUnder Washington statute, crime committed if death if proximate result of only simple or ordinary negligence. Ordinary negligence requires caution exercised by a man of reasonable prudence under similar conditions. Child died after parents did not supply necessary medical attention.

-didn’t get to argue social utility, where there was a reason for what they did-pushing negligence to the limit

-this case is the exception, it shows dangerous of purely objective standard-he didn’t realize the risk and he should have (step 1)-substantial and unjustifiable risk (step 2)

Commonwealth v. MaloneMalice there is an act intentionally done by the defendant, in reckless and wanton disregard of the consequences. So long as the act itself was intentional, it is irrelevant that the death of the victim was unintended. If there is malice, one is liable for murder. Defendant kills his friend while playing russian roulette.

Malice – not wickedness or evil-Intent to kill (not premeditated)-Intent to cause GBH (grievous bodily harm)-Gross recklessness (implied malice)

-magnitude of risk outweighs the social utility for this game

United States v. FlemingA drunk driver can be convicted of murder, even where there is a separate vehicular manslaughter statute. Malice may be established by reckless and wonton conduct that is a gross deviation from a reasonable standard of care. Defendant was speeding and driving

-Are drunk driving cases murder 2 or involuntary manslaughter-defense argues he’s so drunk he didn’t realize the risk, prosecution counters that he drove so crazily for so long he must have realized the risk-the driver’s state of mind at the time of the crash is argued, or stretch that mens rea has already been formed

recklessly while drunk when he crashed. -regarding being stoned/intoxicated, prior notice – whether defendant realized the risk

Regina v. SernéIn common law, malice aforethought can be defined as killing of another by an act done with an intent to commit a felony, or done with knowledge that act will probably cause the death of some person.Defendant burned down his house for money, and his two sons died in the fire.

People v. Stamp – Robber found strictly liable via felony murder when the shopkeeper he robbed died of a heart attack.-Can argue felony murder is a bad luck doctrine-MPC creates a presumption regarding felony murder-judge here wants to narrow the doctrine of felony murder-felony murder parallels misdemeanor-manslaughter rule

People v. PhillipsOnly felonies as are in themselves inherently dangerous to human life can support the application of the felony-murder rule. Grand Theft (theft by deception) is not inherently dangerous to human life. An 8 year old child died after a chiropractor failed to cure her eye cancer since he deceived them to not go through surgery and use his method instead.

Limitations: 1) inherently dangerous, since in those the person did realize the risk-prosecutor tries to name it cleverly as grand theft medical fraud-look at the inherently dangerous in the abstract or as committed-defense wants abstract that a felony can be committed without anyone getting hurt, if you look at it as committed since someone died-all BARKRM are inherently dangerous even in the abstract

Another limitation: What is the predicate felony?People v. StewartWhether a felony is inherently dangerous to human life is a question of fact for the jury. Defendant goes on a 2 to 3 day cocaine binge, during which time her child dies of dehydration due to negligent care.

-this court believes that a better approach is to consider the facts and circumstances of the case-in the abstract you need high likelihood it is inherently dangerous-felony as committed approach, this is really no limitation at all

Hines v. StateA felony is inherently dangerous when it is dangerous per se or by its circumstances creates a foreseeable risk of death. A guy mistook his friend for a turkey and shot him dead.

-Uses either in the abstract or as committed, either standard can be applied, an objective view-Lots of ways a felon can possess a firearm or hunt, but court looks at this circumstances

People v. BurtonFelony murder can apply to crimes even if the rule itself already requires a deadly weapon. The felonious purpose is the key factor to felony murder. Defendant killed a person in the course of committing an armed robbery.

-if you commit a manslaughter is that automatically a murder, no we can’t do that, cannot use bootstrapping-ex: underlying felony (conscious disregard of child’s life), already had to prove malice -if felony is just part of the action of killing, it is not an independent felony, just prove what the person did

-felony was never meant for people who kill, but to deter people from killing negligently-does it merge? Depends on if there’s another purpose other than the killing

State v. CanolaA felon cannot be charged with felony murder for the death of a co-felon, caused by the act of one other than the felon himself or those associated with him.Defendant is charged with felony murder when a co-felon was shot and killed by a jewelry store owner during an armed robbery

-FM limited to deaths during the course of the felony and in furtherance of the felony (limits scope)-During felony (time), planning or escape-Whose acts is felony responsible for?-Agency theory – death caused by co-felons (not guilty)-Shield cases (proximate cause of felons’ acts), this is the proximate cause theory, however this makes it okay for non-felons to shoot-court adopt the agency theory

-Won’t apply FM to death of co-felon, his death was justified, we want to protect the innocent, but life matters even if he’s a felon

Tison v. ArizonaMajor participation in the felony committed along with reckless indifference to human like satisfies the Emmund culpability requirement (for the death penalty). While trying to break a relative in jail, defendants’ partners shot down an innocent family that stopped to help them when their car broke down.

-can get death penalty for felony murder if they have a major participation in the felony committed and reckless indifference to human life

People v. AcostaProximate cause looks at whether the result highly extraordinary and foreseeable. Defendant stole a car and police chased him for over 40 miles. He was accused of murder resulting from two helicopters that collided during the chase.

Causation - Who do we want to hold responsible?-transferred intent, if you have bad aim you are still responsible-MPC focuses on culpability, hold for lesser crime, common law would hold for greater crime

People v. ArzonConduct doesn’t have to be sole and exclusive factor in the victim's death. One is criminally liable if his conduct was a sufficiently direct cause of the death. Defendant set fire a building to prevent druggies from using it. Fireman who tried to rescue died but from a second fire that appeared independently.

Superseding intervening cause breaks chain, dependant intervening cause does not

People v. Warner-Lambert – gum company w/ dust not held liable for explosion because lacking sufficiently direct cause and for policy reasons, also did not know what caused the explosion

People v. CampbellSuicide excludes homicide; giving a person a gun to kill himself is not murder.

-the deceased had free will and choice to kill himself or not

The defendant must have the present intention to kill to commit murder (hope that another will suicide insufficient).Defendant helped a man who slept with his wife suicide by giving him guns and ammo.People v. KevorkianMerely providing the means with which a person kills themselves is not enough. Death must be a direct and natural result of a defendant's act to hold him liable.Doctor assisted two women in committing suicide by providing the apparatus for them.

-No proximate cause here due to the acts of the victims-victim had the free choice to kill himself

Stephenson v. StateDefendant’s acts and conduct that rendered deceased distracted and mentally irresponsible combined with criminal treatment, he may be found guilty of murder for the suicide. Defendant sexually assaulted a girl and took her back to his home. She tried to suicide when captured and died later from many causes.

-victim was rendered irresponsible by the wound, and lacked the will to choose, then defendant liable

Commonwealth v. RootA conviction for manslaughter requires conduct to be both reckless and a sufficiently direct cause of the death of another. Competitor died in the course of a drag race.

Related additional perpetrators – more than one person can be the cause, who is guilty (if one person stabs then second shoots in the head) depends on the jurisdiction and how argued

- this case considered “complimentary human action”-rejected tort concept of proximate cause

State v. McFaddenReckless and voluntary participation in a drag race does not itself bar one from being convicted of involuntary manslaughter. Ordinary proximate cause principles should be used to determine causation in a criminal prosecution. Defendant’s competitor crashed in a drag race and killed third parties.

-Difference between this case and Root, a 6 year old died and someone has to be responsible

Commonwealth v. AtencioPersons who participate in a game of Russian roulette can be convicted of manslaughter for the death of one of them. Defendants played Russian roulette and someone died.

-could be found to be mutual encouragement in a joint enterprise-policy – blame the defendants, they are playing deadly games and need rehabilitation

Smallwood v. StateAttempted murder requires a specific attempt to kill. Additional evidence is required to support an intent to kill, exposing rape victims to a risk of HIV alone is insufficient. Defendant raped several women. He was aware that he was HIV positive and did not use a condom.

Attempt: AR + MR ≠ No Result, an inchoate crime-purposes of punishment apply to punishing attempt-some jurisdictions punish the same attempt as the crime, and some jurisdictions punish less (1/2 as the crime), there are arguments for and against how to punish attempt-court says he required a mens rea of purposely, set this high mens rea since no harm caused, want to be sure there’s culpability-MPC 5.01(1)(b) – adds a “knowing plus,” if you believe people will die, it is close enough for attempt-for jurisdictions that doesn’t use the “year and a day” rule, the attempts are punished the same as the crime so it doesn’t matter-Though we can’t get him for attempted murder, still liable for rape, assault-if you don’t need to know it for the completed crime, you don’t need to know it for attempt-there is generally no attempted felony murder/misdeamnor manslaughter

People v. RizzoIn determining what acts constitute attempt, the law considers acts so immediately near to its accomplishment that in all reasonable probability would have led to the crime itself without interference. Defendant was driving with three accomplices looking for a guy with $1,200 but didn’t and was arrested for attempted robbery.

Actus reus, how much do you have to do?-difference between mere preparation and attempt-approaches: 1st step (not used), last step (not used), dangerous proximity (what have they done, and what’s still left), unequivocality test (res ispa loquitur, merging intent and act), MPC 5.01(1),(2) – substantial step strongly corroborative of intent, combining unequivocality and dangerous proximity test,-argue all 5 steps on exam-MPC and dangerous proximity is the most prevalent (and important) steps

-abandonment/renunciation not recognized in common law (attempt didn’t happen until the last step, and if you’ve taken the last step there was no turning back)-but as actus reus is pushed back, MPC allows an affirmative defense 1) voluntary (true change of heart, not of fear or looking for better opportunity) and 2) complete renunciation

McQuirter v. StateThe jury must be satisfied beyond a reasonable doubt that defendant intended to have sexual intercourse. Social customs

and racial differences were allowed here. A black man was convicted of an attempt to commit an assault with intent to rape. A white woman testified he was following her but stopped once she went in a house.United States v. JacksonAttempt requires 1) act with same culpability as the crime charged with attempting, and 2) conduct that constitutes a substantial step towards commission. Defendants conspired to rob a bank and one conspirator was captured and ratted them out. Defendants were arrested on their way to the bank.People v. JaffeIf a person intends to commit an act that would not be a crime if complete, the person cannot be convicted of an attempt (impossibility doctrine). Defendant is charged with attempting to receive stolen goods but the goods were not stolen.

-Factual impossibility is not a defense, still guilty of attempt-Legal impossibility is a defense, and not guilty

-Called this case legal impossibility by the court, but other courts have gone the other way, legally impossible to complete the crime, not illegal to take the goods-Or fact is that the goods are not stolen

People v. DlugashOne is guilty of attempt when engaging in conduct to effect the commission of a crime. Factual or legal impossibility is not a defense if crime if the crime was committed as such person believed them to be. Defendant shot the victim in the head. The victim was shot earlier in the chest and might have been alive.

-This court calls it factual impossibility, this case was a lot more dangerous than Jaffe-Under MPC, impossibility is not a defense, if circumstances as D believed them to be, you would have crime, with an exception of mitigation, when there’s no danger the court can mitigate the crime using impossibility-if you believe something will happen but don’t have the purpose you don’t have attempt

People v. LuparelloIntent to encourage or facilitate an offense committed is not required for an aider/abettor. Defendant not only guilty of crimes encouraged, but those that may foreseeably result. Defendant got a married woman pregnant who left with her husband. Defendant and his friends planned to beat the husband up but his friends killed the husband.

Aiding and abetting, complicity, accomplice, solicitation are all the same thing, they help people commit crimes, guilty of the same crime (accomplice liability is a theory of liability)-helping someone to do it, or causing someone to do it results in liability-court here says it does not have to be the exact crime you had purpose for, it could be reasonably foreseeable (this is majority)

Wilcox v. JefferyWhen someone encourages another in the commission of an illegal act, they satisfy the actus reus of accomplice liability.

-encouragement is enough for actus reus-help does not actually have to make a difference-principals don’t need to know you’re helping-guilty of what the principals are guilty of (analyze

Defendant was convicted of unlawfully aiding a jazz musician get employment in the UK, because he went to the concert and paid for a ticket.

principals first, so you know what accomplice are liable for)-if principals is not guilty, accomplice may be guilty, depending on why principals are not guilty (diplomatic immunity, not found, dead)-if you have a duty to act, omission suffice for actus reus

Hicks v. United StatesAn accomplice must intentionally aid, abet, or encourage the principal in order to be found guilty. Defendant was present when shooter killed. Witnesses said he encouraged the shooting while defendant claims he didn’t.

-do not have to convict the principal to convict the accomplice-but if the principal is found not guilty, the accomplice can be found guilty, we allow for inconsistent juries (if the same jury then not allowed), you still look at the elements for accomplice

State v. GladstoneThere must be a nexus between the individual accused and the party whom he is charged with aiding and abetting. Defendant did not have any marijuana, but offered the name of someone who did have marijuana to an undercover agent.

-defendant can argue he was indifferent and didn’t care about the weed being sold-some courts hold that purpose required for lesser crimes and knowledge suffices for major crimes (minority)

-Regarding negligence crime, as long as you have the same mens rea as the principal, then the accomplice only needs negligence if principal only need negligence-MPC, for accomplice liability, you need to have only the same culpability as the principal-Regarding strict liability – to be an accomplice, only need the purpose to do the acts that lead to the strict liability, if the principal didn’t need to know, neither did the accomplice

-can be an accomplice to an attempt, analyze the primary actor first-when accomplice liability is a separate crime, it is a conspiracy,

United States v. AlvarezMere participation or association in an offense can be conspiracy. Knowledge of all details of conspiracy or joining the conspiracy at its inception is not required for liability. Alvarez was going to be at the unloading site in the US when others conspired to smuggle 100,000 pounds of marijuana from Colombia by air.

-conspiracy is an inchoate crime-defense using 1st amendment, right of association-conspiracy requires an agreement between 2 or more qualified people-concerted action – agreeing to a conspiracy by action or performance

Gebardi v. United States Bilateral rule – both can be prosecuted

Acquiescence by the woman transported was not intended to be punished for conspiracy. No liability for conspiracy when there’s a recognized rule of justice or policy exemption. Defendants indicted for conspiring together to transport a woman from one state to another to engage in sexual intercourse.

Unilateral rule – only one can be prosecuted (MPC -minority)

Garcia v. StateIt is no defense that person the accused conspired with was a police informant. A unilateral approach to conspiracy was taken, where culpability of the actor determined liability. Defendant convicted of conspiracy of murder when the only person defendant conspired with was a police informant.People v. LauriaConspiracy requires both knowledge of illegal use and intent to further that use. Intent can be inferred from knowledge 1) when purveyor has a stake in the venture, 2) when no legitimate use for the goods/services exists, 3) when volume of business is disproportionate, or 4) when supplier knows the equipment supplied will be used for felonies. Lauria ran an answering service that prostitutes used.

-Intent can be established by 1) direct evidence of intent to participate or 2) by inference through his special interest in the activity or aggravated nature of the crime-knowledge + more = inference of purpose

Conspiracy gives prosecutor benefits of evidence, venue (forum shop), easier to prove, point fingers, extends statute of limitations just for the conspiracy

-Conspiracy to cover up usually seen as a separate conspiracy, a cover up can also show purpose of a crime

Pinkerton v. United StatesWhen a defendant joins a conspiracy, all defendants still part of the conspiracy are liable for substantive crimes committed to advance that conspiracy. Defendant convicted for violating the tax code and claimed his brother who lived with him committed substantive acts.Kotteakos v. United StatesThough defendants may all be engaged in a similar criminal enterprise, they are not necessarily involved in the same criminal conspiracy. Defendants are guilty only of separate conspiracies they participated in. Defendants are convicted as part of a conspiracy to fraudulently procure

-Wheel conspiracy, the rims were missing here (interest in others to succeed creates rims)-To connect the rims, for the guy in the middle to stay in business, everyone has to participate

government loans, where government argued there were 8 separate conspiracies with one common person.United States v. BrunoWhen each link knew that the other links were necessary components in the scheme of distribution and were all parts of a single undertaking, there is one conspiracy. Defendants were indicted along with 86 others for a conspiracy to import, sell, and possess narcotics and argued it was a series of conspiracies rather than one.

-Chain conspiracy

-United States v. Borelli – a wheel and chain conspiracy-again can argue that even the local drug dealers are competitors, they are tied to each other’s success since the importer needs all of them to stay in business

People v. GoetzSelf defense is not purely subjective. The actor must not only have the subjective belief that deadly physical force is necessary, but those beliefs must also be objectively reasonable. Goetz shot 4 young men on a train (who had screwdrivers for theft on them) after they asked him for money.

United States v. Peterson – defines self defense 1) when necessity begins and before it ends, 2) necessity appears necessary, 3) must exist a threat of unlawful and immediate deadly force 4) believed by the defendant

State v. KellyEvidence relating to battered spouse syndrome was relevant in determining whether a reasonable fear of danger existed for a self-defense claim. Kelly (who had battered woman syndrome) killed her husband with scissors.

-standard for imminence should not be here and now, but reasonable person who lives life of battered woman would believe it is imminent

State v. NormanSelf defense requires imminent danger of death of great bodily harm. Defendant did not have a reasonable belief the husband would kill her in the near future. Wife suffered years of abuse and shot husband while sleeping.State v. AbbottOne cannot use deadly force in self defense if the actor knows that he can avoid the necessity of using such force by retreating to safety. Neighbors get into a fight, in which their families joined in with hatchets, knives, and pitchforks.United States v. PetersonWhen a person provokes or is the initial aggressor, he can not later claim self

defense. Deceased was stealing windshield wipers from defendant. Defendant went inside to get a gun, approached the deceased as he was about to leave, and shot the deceased who charged at him with a wrench.People v. CeballosDeadly force could not be used solely for the protection of property. The character and manner of the alleged burglary did not reasonably create a fear of great bodily harm and therefore there was no cause for the use of deadly force. Defendant set up a trap gun to prevent burglaries in his garage, and a burglar was killed.

Life > Property

Tennessee v. GarnerA cop chasing a suspect may use deadly force only to prevent escape if the officer has probable cause to believe that the suspect poses a significant threat of death or serious physical injury to the officer or others. Cop shot the suspect as he was climbing a fence to escape. The cop could see the suspect was unarmed. The suspect only took 10 dollars and a purse.People v. UngerNecessity can be an affirmative defense to the crime of escape. Relevant factors include 1) threat of death, rape, or serious bodily injury, 2) no possibility of a complaint to authorities, 3) no time for courts, 4) no evidence of violence used in escaping, 5) prisoner immediately reports to authorities after escape to a safe position. Defendant tried to escape after he walked off of an "honor farm" while serving a sentence for auto theft and claimed necessity since other inmates threatened to kill and rape him.United States v. SchoonThe necessity defense is inapplicable to cases involving indirect civil disobedience. Defendants appeal their conviction (stemming from a protest) for obstructing the activities of the IRS office and failing to comply with the order of a

-distinction between direct and indirect civil disobedience is a red herring-MPC – More lives > fewer lives

federal officer.Public Committee Against Torture v. State of IsraelThe General Security Service (GSS) does not have the authority to torture in certain ways, and that judgment for this will be suspended for a year.

Necessity for torture cannot be pre-authorized, you cannot say you should torture in advance

State v. ToscanoWe hold that duress is an affirmative defense to a crime other than murder, and that it need not be based upon an alleged threat of immediate bodily injury. Defendant was convicted of conspiring to defraud insurance companies and argued duress for the safety of his family.

-No economic defense of duress

M’Naghten’s CaseThe M’Naghten Test is an insanity test. A defendant is not culpable if at the time of the criminal act if as a result of a mental diseases, he did not know the nature of the act he was doing or did not know what he was doing was wrong. Defendant believed he was the victim of an international conspiracy and shot a guy.

-know the name of this case

Blake v. United StatesMPC adapted, where a substantial (rather than complete) lack of capacity was required for the insanity defense either to appreciate the criminality or to conform his conduct to the requirements of law. Defendant robbed a bank and pleaded insanity.United States v. LyonsA person is not responsible for criminal conduct on grounds of insanity only if at the time of that conduct, as a result of a mental disease or defect, he is unable to appreciate the wrongfulness of that conduct. Defendant was convicted of several narcotics violations and claimed that he was unable to conform to the law due to a drug addictions.

-abandoned the volitional prong (irresistible impulse) part of the MPC

State v. CrenshawThe court concluded that the defendant knew his acts were morally wrong and illegal and thus his personal belief cannot

Insanity doesn’t mean there was no mens rea, there was just no culpable mens rea

exculpate him. It is society’s morals and not the individual’s morals that are the standard for judging moral wrong. Defendant brutally murdered his wife after he suspected that she had been unfaithful. He claimed he did it because he followed the Moscovite faith.State v. GuidoThe court would not fault defense counsel, defendant, or defendant's witnesses because the psychiatrists changed what their understanding of what the law means by disease. Defendant was so distraught in her marriage that she decided to end her life but at the last second shot her husband. Psychiatrists first said defendant was sane but after meeting the defendant said she was insane.State v. CameronWhat is right and wrong refers to knowledge of a person at the time of committing an act that he was acting contrary to the law. A narrow exception is made when a party performs an act he knows is legally and morally wrong but believed the act is ordained by God because of a mental defect. Defendant stabbed his stepmother over 70 times and used the insanity defense.United States v. BrawnerThe court found a rule that permits the introduction of expert testimony as to abnormal conditions if it is relevant to negate, or establish the mens rea. After examining the test of legal insanity as a complete defense, the court considered whether mental health evidence should be admissible apart from its bearing on the insanity issue.

Spot insanity issue – someone drooling, taking medication, seeing a doctor, acting weird-does he have a disease or defect, assuming he has a disease or defect-M’Naghten standard, common law additions, MPC standard-voluntary intoxication – can be used to specific intent crimes, and drops from higher intent crimes to lower ones

Clark v. ArizonaDue process does not prohibit Arizona's use of an insanity test stated solely in terms of the capacity to tell whether an act charged as a crime was right or wrong. The state could also constitutionally limit a defendant's evidence of mental defect to

-this case – why fearful of diminished capacity, worried about battle of the experts-Brawner – why they want to use diminished capacity

only what is relevant to that insanity test.A man with paranoid schizophrenia killed a police officer who pulled him over.People v. HoodThe court held that on re-trial the court should not instruct the jury to consider evidence of defendant's voluntary intoxication. Voluntary intoxication can be a factor for specific intent crimes but not general intent crimes. Defendant, while resisting arrest, grabbed the officer's gun and shot the officer twice in the leg.Regina v. KingstonIf a defendant is secretly drugged causing loss of self control and forms an intent he wouldn’t have formed, the defendant should be exculpated. Penn lured defendant over to his place and drugged him, causing defendant to abuse a boy sexually.United States v. RussellGovernment agent's active participation in criminal conspiracy was not entrapment. Law enforcement officers may participate in the procedural commission of certain crimes such as drug manufacturing, so long as they do not implant criminal designs in the minds of the accused. A federal agent locating a meth lab helped supply lab proprietors an ingredient.

-stayed with predisposition standard here-prosecutors loved entrapment, since it is a loaded standard and allows them to bring in extra evidence

People v. BarrazaCalifornia’s objective test for entrapment (unlike the Supreme Court) seeks to deter overreaching police conduct and looks to see if officer’s actions would induce a normally law-abiding person to commit the crime. Defendant’s character and predisposition is irrelevant.Police kept calling a man and got him to give her a note about getting heroin.Gregg v. GeorgiaThe imposition of the death penalty does not, automatically, violate the Eighth and Fourteenth Amendment. If the jury is given standards, the death sentence may be constitutional. If the death penalty is

Death penalty – bifurcated trial-arbitrary: race, location of killing (death penalty for rural killing, unlikely for urban killing),-does not apply to mentally retarded, minors-whether it applies to child rape is open

mandatory with no provision for mercy, then it is unconstitutional. A jury found Gregg guilty of armed robbery and murder and sentenced him to death.

-syndromes can be used to motivate or as an additional aggressor and used offensively rather than defensively

Thursday – 12-5pm, Friday 10:30 to 11:30 am,Part 1 - 70 minutes MC, 50 questions, 5 min break,Part 2 – Question 1, 90 minutes, Question 2, 60 minutes, Question 3 – 45 minutes (Part A more time, B less time)

-FM – analyze the felony (AR + MR + Circumstances), assuming they are, analyze the limitations, merger, does the felony require malice, discuss malice, during the course of, in furtherance, who caused the death, agency theory, proximate cause, provocative act doctrine, who dies

-Insanity – must mention the disease or defect is a legal term-Regarding M’Naghten – talk about hallucinating versus wrong-Regarding MPC – “conform” part, can refer to irresistible impulse part-If there is a mental illness, you have to talk about insanity, diminished capacity, and maybe intoxication

Outline to Hypo 21) disease or defect, symptoms, history,

medication versus unclear diagnosis, number of odd people, easily faked, can be brought upon himself since he can drink to reduce medication effectiveness

2) M’Naghten, D is presumed sane at time of the crime, did not know nature or quality of acts or act is wrong, Buford goes to work, does immigration work (whether one is normally insane can be used as an argument, did not know nature because “he thinks he’s in a different universe/hallucinating), for not know his act was wrong – thought he was better than society

3) Lacks substantial capacity, does not simply have to be insane al the time

4) Diminished capacity, attempt = specific

intent, but nothing to drop to5) Voluntary – drinking it, not involuntary

Accomplice liability, conspiracy, and think about felony murder

1. Sue twice in criminal/tort law?2. State v. Hazelwood (oil spill) – ordinary negligence applied, is that crim/civil?3. Criminal negligence, super negligence = more than reasonable person?4. No mens rea listed = no possibility for mistake of fact, law?5. You can transfer intent (purpose), can you transfer knowingly/recklessly?6. People v. Marrero (calling a girl) overrule MPC2.04 regarding mistake of law, law is

vague? A federal correction officer was arrested at a club for carrying an unregistered weapon which he thought was allowed.

a. Why do we even have to look at legislature intent, if they don’t make the laws clear, how can people follow them?

7.8. Note…physician removes heart when patient is brain dead, but law defines death as

cessation of heart function, conviction for intentionally killing patient?9. Punishment for strict liability = cruel and unusual punishment? You’ve done nothing

wrong.10. Jurisdictional vs. Strict liability? Morsette case, knowing taking casing of air force, or

staples case, proving “unregistered” firearm is jurisdictional or strict liability.11. Strict liability, not like common law crimes, must be mala prohibitum? Common law

crimes are… mala in se?12. Knowingly when strong suspicion and avoids learning the truth, reckless or knowledge?13. Mens rea – multiple personality disorder

14. When do we use MPC vs. common law, strict liability or something since there’s two opinions for everything

15. Where does the reasonable person play into criminal law, mental physical disabilities, children, professionals, is it different from the reasonable person in tort law

16. What do you mean when you have us say “the law giveth, taketh away”17. Causation?18. Can lawyers and law students sit on the jury?19. Every injury caused that does not lead to a instantaneous death = omission?20. Omission requires physical capability? Use impossibility/insanity as defense? Fear

insufficient?21. Try your best to do duty and fail?22. Does every crime require social harm (actual dmg not needed)?23. Technical defense, when waiving jury = issue of law instead of issue of fact?24. Can mistake of fact apply to negligence (or reckless), since mistake of fact works even if

belief is unreasonable, while negligence…is based on a reasonably care, also negligence requires no intent

25. What you need to know is what makes your conduct wrong, does that include morally wrong conduct, or… also legally?

26. Marrero case, don’t all personal misreadings of material element statute negate the mens rea (unless strict liability, or you misread jurisdictional element),

27. Ignorance of the law is not a defense, but since it negates material element exception, then ignorance of all material elements is a defense

28. Regarding jurisdictional elements, under common law you’re held for the greater crime even w/o mens rea, but under MPC you’re held for the lesser crime (since it rejects MPC)?

29. Regarding strict liability there is no mistake defense…at all30. Killing non-provoking victims, is there mistake of fact defense? no31. Welansky case, owner prosecuted for club fire, does it matter he was not really in charge

of everything. What if his employee’s blocked the exits, replaced the material with flammable things over series of years and he didn’t really know?

a. Is he being held criminally vicariously liable?b. Can you be criminally liable for the criminal acts of third parties, a patient of a

doctor tells the doctor he will call someone, doctor does nothing and someone dies

32. From today regarding involuntary manslaughter, you ask in step one if there’s a substantial and unjustifiable risk, what is the same question? Step one you look at negligence, then you look at if it’s gross

a. (magnitude of harm > social utility then it’s gross?)33. Intent to kill (malice) vs. purpose (Carrol standard murder 1)34. Mastery of the law?35. Look at Alice hypo

36. Set a trap, and I know it, and it’s murder?, take something from the left of the podium37. What is your glannon guide? – in the library38. Let’s say you were drunk driving, and you get home safely. The police for some reason,

was talking to the bartender or some other source who said you drank and then drove. Can they go to your door and arrest you?

39. Clarify on what atmosphere of malice constitutes for the provocation act doctrine – create the atmoshphere

40. When looking at homicide do we also have to separately look at mens rea, or is like analysis of the varying levels of homicide already include mens rea

41. Mens rea of knowingly, is that murder 2?42. For a state that punishes the same for the attempt and the crime, can you get a death

penalty for attempt?43. Practice midterms…and sample student answers?, like 20 or well 19 years would be nice44. When you’re provoked and you kill the wrong person, most courts do not recognize

manslaughter when you’ve killed the wrong person under heat of passion right?a. Why don’t they use transferred intent under common law?

45. Why is illegal arrest a legally adequate provocation?

46. Oh and to double check, adultery as a legally adequate provocation applies to women too right in theory even though always male?

47. Distinction between a manslaughter with a long smoldering (when talking about a cooling time), if you’re long smoldering isn’t that sort of like first degree murder? You’ve clearly premeditated the murder during this “smoldering time where anger built up?

a. I mean since a good number of murderers have a “motive” and therefore make an argument they “provoked” whoever to kill

48. Under the extreme emotional disturbance standard, can’t that apply to a good number of 1st degree murders, since when you premeditate someone, you’re automatically are considered under an emotional disturbance (otherwise you wouldn’t kill someone), isn’t technically everyone who’s murdering (1st degree at least) someone under an emotional disturbance and had a reason

a. Like in the Carroll case, when he shot his wife, he clearly had a reason and he was obviously under extreme emotional disturbance

49. Generally, regarding felony murder, do we still look at causation? Is it simply no mens rea needed or complete strict liability? I know courts look at proximate cause when looking at who’s acts and the agency theory,

50. If you attempt to kill someone, and they’re injured and paralyzed or something and kill themselves later, you’re generally liable? Or is that something arguable?

51. Regarding the arson hypo, fire breaks out from a spark, do you have a legal duty to put out the fire?

52. Why is it a year and a day rule, why not just a year?a. If you want to infect someone with HIV, then you’re not liable for murder? HIV

takes many years to kill53. 2 ppl shoot, each bullet would have killed in an hour, but with 2 bullets they both die in 5

minutes, regarding actual causation, do we look at but for their death? Or but for their death in 5 minutes?

54. 2 people shoot at a guy with an arrow, but only one arrow hits, and they use the same type of arrow, are they both responsible?

55. So when death is obvious (A shoots B) what do you say about proximate cause?56. Complimentary human action, does that break the link or does it just depends?, arguable57. Diff between mistake of fact and factual impossibility? Try to shoot the deer, but turned

out to be a man versus trying to shoot the man but it was a deer58. Voodoo is factual impossibility?

a. How do we analyze impossibility if technically all legal impossibility can be factual impossibility?

59. If someone is guilty under the dangerous impossibility doctrine for simply being negligent, what do we have to analyze, just that a reasonable person should have known the risk?

60. 3344Regarding shield cases, can that be argued as kidnapping and thus an inherently dangerous felony?

61. Attempt, it only merges with the actual crime when the crime is complete right?a. If you try to rob and someone dies, you are still guilty of attempted robberty,b. But if you kill someone are you liable for assault/battery?

c. How about if you’re guilty for 1st degree murder, can you be guilty of an attempted second degree murder?

62. Attempted conspiracy?a. IS the person making an offer to commit a crime guilty of conspiracy? What if the

other person joking says “I agree” but the offeror didn’t realize it, is he still guilty of conspiracy

b. Every conspiracy would also be an accomplice, you have helped by agreeing, it automatically helps the offeror since he’s reassured he has people helping him

c. Can you be guilty of a conspiracy under accomplice liability, you helped someone commit conspiracy by say giving them a contact information to someone

63. If two people commit the crime, they’re both guilty because they actually did commit the crime, but they would also each be guilty under accomplice liability for committing the crime? So there is basically two ways for them to commit the crime?

a. Is it possible for the principal to be guilty for a crime under accomplice theory? Isn’t he helping others?

b. Can’t you have two principals, and thus each principal is helping the other out?64. Under conspiracy, and one of the co-conspirators is guilty of an attempt, can you be

guilty of that too?65. Estoppel theories as an exception to mistake of law, what constitutes an administrative

order?a. How high enough does a government official have to be?b. I know we can’t rely on the opinions of cops, but why not? But they’re the ones

that arrest you? You can violate plenty of laws but they ultimately decide whether you’re in trouble or not and are at the beginning of the criminal justice system

66. Mistake of law can be used as a defense for strict liability crimes? –only for no notice67. When talking about limitations of felony murder that must be in furtherance, it only

refers to acts of cofelons right? Use all approach68. Lacking one element of self defense, what exactly is one element or two to mitigate to

manslaughter, can you mitigate from 1st to 2nd degree, or from VM to IM? What if ur missing two elements of SD, generally only for honest but unreasonable

69. If you shoot someone, and accidentally kill someone else, transferred intent applies right? Do you still get an attempt for the person you tried to kill?

70. If you ask us what crimes have we been committed, do we not mention defenses, and if you ask us for what defenses can be asserted, that means only affirmative defenses of justification/excuses, does it include like mistake of fact/law?

71. At common law, why wasn’t abandonment allowed as a defense for accomplice liability 72. What happens when there’s characteristics of both a wheel and chain conspiracy? Do

courts look at it as several conspiracies or is it a case by case basis on exactly how the conspiracy works

73. the initial aggressor you’re still allowed to use nondeadly force right?, doesn’t mean give you initiate a fight if you just wanted to hurt someone with nondeadly force and throw a few punches

74. How does strict liability work for accomplice liability? And attempt? Courts split? MPC rejects

75. For the merger doctrine, where the felony must have a purpose other than murder, there can’t malice or it merges, does that include the gross recklessness definition of malice? (exam)

76. How do research assistants for professors work?77. For felony murder inherently dangerous limitation, you look at the statute in the abstract

versus the act in the abstract?78. Do you have sample student answers or at least grading rubrics for the sample exams on

the library? 1999, fall 2001, spring 2001, spring 2003, and any more since you’ve been teaching like 20 years

79. Glannon guide, named after Joseph Glannon?80. Does drunk driving generally (in real life) end up as murder 2 or involuntary

manslaughter or is that something that totally depends and is arguable81. Choice of evils for necessity – does the evil basically limited to death or serious bodily

harm or serious property harm82. Can you also bring in experts for battered woman syndrome cases when the duress

defense is used (we talked about it for self defense), but there’s like an imminence/reasonableness factor for duress

83. Is intoxication a type of diminished capacity?84. Under the MPC, diminished capacity can be a full defense? If it drops from a general

defense down to like nothing?85. Is diminished capacity kind of like imperfect insanity defense, if you’re missing elements

for insanity it drops down to diminished capacity86. Does every duress case lead to a colorable issue of necessity? Is there always necessity

when there is a duress, because under duress you are forced to choose between someone dying and… you commiting a crime (someone dying), every duress situation gives you a choice of evils

87. When choosing lesser evils, you have to choose the least most evil right? Like if you had to choose between like destroying 5 houses, 4 houses, and 3 houses, you have to choose the 3 houses right? You can’t be like I chose the 4 houses over the 3 because my house was in the 3?, better yet choose between 5 and 3 and 3, and your house is one of 3

88. Does the federal approach to entrapment strongly favor the prosecution since if the defendant commited the crime, then you automatically have a strong argument that he was predisposed to commiting the crime?

a. Can entrapment be used for strict liability crimes? Or does it matter which approach is taken?

89. Provocation Act doctrine where defendant creates an atmosphere of malice, that also applies if one of your co-felons starts the shooting right?

90. In determining whether it is specific or general intent crime, one of the things we look at was the historical name, what does that mean?

a. Is there is a jurisdictional element in the statute, does that generally mean it is more of a general intent crime?

91. Where there’s an insanity problem, do we have to prove that the defendant is competent to stand trial

92. If you know with virtual certainty that people will die, the only levels of murder that suffice would be gross reckless for murder 2 and involuntary manslaughter right?

93. If you’ve taken the last step for attempt, that satisfies all the other tests as well.94. Irresistible impulse test – do we look at whether the defendant had no control at all? Or

just that he had no control even with police there, since a police could be at his elbow, but he wanted to shoot the guy regardless of whether he was going to get caught

95. Law enforcement defense, can only be used by police?96. Can you argue you thwarted the crime by going to the police?97. Can I get participation points for moving the podium?