 WATCH OUT IF THE CRIME IS “ATTEMPTED …” - THEN INTENT IS NEEDED

CRIMINAL LAW MURDER
• Murder: To be guilty of murder, one must unlawfully kill another human being with malice aforethought which may be (i) intent to kill; (ii) intent to inflict great bodily injury; (iii) reckless indifference to an unjustifiably high risk to human life (depraved heart); or (iv) the intent to commit a felony.
• At common law, the crime of attempted murder requires both a specific intent by the actor to kill the victim and an act that puts the D in close proximity to completing the crime (For MPC, it must be a “substantial step” rather than close proximity).
• If you intend to kill A but kill B instead, you cannot be guilty of the ATTEMPTED murder of B.
• If you want to kill A, but shoot at B thinking it is A, and you wound C, you are guilty of the attempted murder of B (MBE 1992)
• You are liable for murder if your act was not only the “but for” cause, but also a natural and foreseeable result – the “proximate” cause.
• Accidental killing committed during the course of a felony is common law murder.
• Common law murder is wanton and reckless.
• No crime if you systematically deprive child of food, don’t call doctor, child would have died from malnutrition in a few months, but child’s cause of death is cancer.
• Russian roulette is a killing with “abandoned and malignant heart” b/c it exhibits a recklessness indifference to the “very high” risk of death or serious injury.
• Depraved heart murder - willful and wanton disregard of an unreasonable or unjustifiable human risk.
• Shooting an automatic weapon into the air in a room full of people is murder because it is conduct involving a substantial or very high degree of risk to human life and is unjustifiable under the circumstances.

• Involuntary manslaughter is Criminal or gross negligence manslaughter (falling asleep at the wheel) or Misdemeanor manslaughter – killing while committing malum in se misdemeanor or unemunerated felony (not a BARRK felony).
• Voluntary manslaughter requires passion or provocation
• Adequate provocation can reduce murder to voluntary manslaughter. Being subjected to a serious battery is adequate provocation, getting hit in the face with an umbrella, or seeing wife in bed with another man and losing control
• Manslaughter if you kill someone while acting recklessly under an unreasonable apprehension of danger (JULY 1991)
• Manslaughter least likely to be the underlying felony for felony murder when compared against attempted rape as the underlying felony. (MBE 1992)
• Spouses/Proprietor-Customer/School-Pupil have a duty to rescue if they learn of the peril. Failure to fulfill that duty knowing it would mean almost certain death is the equivalent of homicide committed with malice.

OTHER CRIMES

• Larceny: At common law, larceny is the taking and carrying away of the personal property of another by trespass (i.e. wrongfully) with intent to permanently (or for an unreasonable time) deprive the other of his interest in the property.
• Larceny occurs if you intend to deal with the property in a way that involves a substantial risk of loss to the owner (e.g. holding on to it until you get a reward).
• For larceny, pay attention to situations where title is transferred by false representations – this is not larceny.
• You can pass title to money. Someone tricks you into buying something.
• Larceny by the use of an innocent agent – when you trick someone to steal something for you
• Larceny if you steal marijuana from someone (MBE 1992)
• Can commit larceny by taking property from someone who doesn’t have rightful possession (stealing from a thief)
• If you find property, and there are sufficient clues to ownership, it is larceny if you keep the property
• Thinking your conduct is not a crime is not a defense to larceny

• Larceny by trick: Obtains possession of property by lies and then fraudulently converts it
• Larceny by Trick: False promise is a crime whereby a person obtains property falsely based on an intentional misrepresentation of present or past fact. (JULY 1991)

• False Pretenses: By lying, one obtains title along with possession of property
• False Pretenses is obtaining title to property of another, by intentional false statement of facts (FEB 1991)

• Embezzlement: illegal conversion of property over which D had lawful possession (Embezzler has lawful possession (not title), AND Illegal conversion). Embezzler does not have to benefit at all
• Embezzlement: (1) fraudulent, (2) conversion of, (3) the property, (4) of another, (5) by one who is already in lawful possession of it.
• Pawn shop that sells item before they are allowed to is guilty of embezzlement (MBE 1992)

• Common law forgery is creating a false document with apparent legal significance with intent to defraud (i.e. a deed, but a forged Thomas Jefferson letter is not forgery since it has no legal significance)

• Burglary: At common law, burglary is a breaking and entering of the dwelling of another at nighttime with the intent of committing a felony therein.
• Intoxication is a defense to burglary (MBE 1992)
• Fraudulently entering a hotel room at night to steal is a constructive breaking and therefore burglary.
• If you reasonably think you are entering a house you have consent to enter, no burglary (MBE 1992)
• Use of force or intimidation to gain entry is considered a breaking.

• Arson: At common law, arson is the malicious burning of the dwelling of another. Must act with the intent or knowledge that the structure will burn, or with the reckless disregard of an obvious risk that the structure would burn.
• If you want to burn down a building, then inadvertently start a fire, but don’t put it out because you want the building to burn, you are guilty of arson (JULY 1991).
• On MBE, arson definition usually assumes structure, rather than dwelling.
• Arson if you burn a building that has a homeless person sleeping inside. (FEB 1991)

• Solicitation occurs when the defendant, with the intent that another person commit a crime, entices, advises, incites, orders or otherwise seeks specific other person to commit a crime
• Solicitation merges into attempt
• Solicitation: solicitor must intend that a criminal offence be committed (can’t be guilty of solicitation of murder if you give someone a gun knowing the gun is unloaded)
• For a mens rea of malice, you do not have to show intent to injure/kill, just recklessness.

• Accomplice: At common law, to be convicted as an accomplice, a person generally must have given aid, counsel, or encouragement with the intent to aid or encourage the principal in the commission of the crime charged.
• Words of encouragement coupled with criminal intent will suffice for accomplice liability (MBE 1992)
• Mere presence, coupled with silent approval and intent is insufficient for accomplice liability (MBE 1992)
• When criminal wants poison to kill someone and you give him antibiotic that kills anyway, giving is insufficient for accomplice liability (MBE 1992)

• Robbery: At common law, robbery consists of (i) a taking (ii) of personal property of another (iii) from the other’s person or presence (iv) by force or intimidation (v) with the intent to permanently deprive him of it.
• If you robbing a store, and customer comes in and fires gun to stop you but kills clerk, you should be found not guilty of felony murder because you are not responsible for the acts of the customer (JULY 1991)
• If you are robbing a store, and clerk faints and hurts head and then you run out with no money, you are only guilty of attempted robbery, and not assault or robbery (FEB 1991)

• Attempt requires the SPECIFIC INTENT to commit the crime.

• Conspiracy: An agreement between two or more parties to commit a crime. Requires 1) Agreement (does not have to be expressed), AND 2) Intent to agree, AND 3) Intent to pursue/achieve unlawful objective (i.e. not unlawful if you conspire to rob your own house)
• Withdrawal from a conspiracy is an affirmative act where you notify all the members of the conspiracy and is done in time for them to have the opportunity to abandon their plans.

• Extortion is obtaining property from another by means of threats to physically harm the victim or property.
• A corporation can be held vicariously liable for the acts of its agents committed in the scope of their employment, including criminal acts.
• Strict liability crime to employ minors will make supervisor criminally liable because he exercises control over hiring and employ even though he himself is an employee for the company (FEB 1991)
• Receipt of Stolen Property: D must know that the property is stolen at the time when the property comes into his/her possession.
• Search warrant directed at a multiple-occupancy structure will ordinarily be held invalid if it describes the premises only by street number or other identification common to all subunits located within the structure. But, if the building in question from its outward appearance would be taken to be a single-occupancy structure and neither the affiant not other investigating officers nor the executing officer knew or had reason to know of the structure’s actual multiple-occupancy character, then the warrant is not defective.
• For a finder of lost or mislaid property to be guilty of larceny: (1) the finder must, at the time of the finding, intend to steal it, and (2) the finder must either know who the owner is or have reason to believe that he can find out the owner’s identity.
• “Continuing Trespass”: one who takes another’s property intending only to use it temporarily before restoring it unconditionally to the owner may nevertheless be guilty of larceny if he later changes his mind and decides not to return the property after all.
• Human Shield Exception: if the felon is using the victim as a human shield and the victim is killed by the police or someone else, then the felon is guilty of felony murder

DEFENSES
• Consent of victim does not excuse, mitigate or reduce the level of a criminal homicide.
• If basis for provocation is reasonable, homicide is mitigated to voluntary manslaughter.
• If basis for provocation is unreasonable, homicide is NOT mitigated to voluntary manslaughter.
• Try to challenge a strict liability statute as unconstitutionally vague if it does not apprise a D of which acts are proscribed.
• Voluntary Intoxication is no defense to strict liability crimes. No defense that negates intent is permitted for strict liability crimes.
• Voluntary Intoxication is no defense to crimes involving recklessness
• Voluntary intoxication will never reduce murder to manslaughter but it may reduce a 1st Degree Murder to a 2nd Degree if it negates D’s premeditation, deliberation, or intent to kill.
• Person acts “knowingly” when he knows his conduct will necessarily or very likely cause such a result.
• Under M’Naughten, D is entitled to acquittal if the proof establishes that: (a) a disease of the mind; (b) caused a defect of reason; (c) such that the D lacked the ability at the time of his actions to either: (1) know the wrongfulness of his actions; or (2) understand the nature and quality of his actions. E.g. Did not know act was morally wrong. If you are tested on this, it will concern D’s insane delusions – need to determine: if the facts were the way D believed them to be, would they provide D with a valid defense.
• D’s insane delusions brought on by intoxication may be a defense to murder if you killed because voices told you to kill (MBE 1992)
• D’s insane delusion that only way to prevent his wife from destroying the world was to kill her is a defense to murder under insanity defense (MBE 1992)
• Durham rule – act is a product of a mental disease or defect (broader than M’Naughten)
• MPC: substantial capacity test – whether, as a result of the defect, he lacked the capacity to appreciate the wrongfulness of his conduct
• Factual impossibility is not a defense to attempt, but legal impossibility is. If the D does something thinking it’s a crime, but it isn’t, he can’t be charged w/ attempt no matter how culpable he is. (FEB 1991)
• It is constitutional to eliminate insanity defense or to require D to prove insanity by preponderance of evidence
• If a statute defines a crime in a way that necessarily involves more than one participant, and it provides for the liability of only one participant, it is presumed that the legislative intent was to immunize the other person from liability as an accomplice.
• As a valid defense to a general intent crime (i.e. rape, battery, kidnapping, false imprisonment), a mistake of fact must be honestly entertained, be based upon reasonable grounds, and be of such a nature that the conduct would have been lawful and proper if the facts had been as they were reasonably supposed to be.
• Mistake of law no excuse to larceny.
• Accessory After the Fact: not subject to accomplice liability and is not guilty of the substantive crime but is guilty of the separate crime of obstruction of justice.
• Jury can find a person guilty of accessory after the fact if person moved with another to prevent the other’s conviction of a crime. (JULY 1991)
• Under common law (Majority), deadly force may be used when a person reasonably believes deadly force is about to be used against him (No need to retreat).
• Self Defense: can use reasonable force when attacked – no duty to retreat. No crime if the reasonable force kills the person (MBE 1992)
• Provocation: 1. Adequate provocation 2. Heat of passion 3. Lack of opportunity for the passion to cool 4. Causal connection between provocation, passion, and act