Crim Cheat Sheet
- Justification for Punishment
- Retribution
- Deterrence
- Specific deterrence
- General deterrence
- Incapacitation (protection)
- Reform/Rehabilitation
- Constitutional Protections
- Principle of Legality
- Void for vagueness doctrine
- Fair warning/notice
- prohibition against retroactive laws
- Privacy
- Actus reus
- Must be voluntary (excludes automatism)
- Omissions as an “Act”
- legal duty to act:
- statute
- contractual r’ship
- status r’ship
- voluntary assumption of care
- creation of peril
- knowledge of facts giving rise to duty
- reasonably possible to perform
- Mens rea
- General intent (i.e. statutory rape, assault in CA)
- strict liability
- vicarious liability
- acting w/in scope of employment
- superior agent
- Specific intent (i.e. solicitation, attempt, accessory, conspiracy, assault in NY, larceny, robbery, burglary)
- Elements:
- intent
- knowledge
- recklessness
- negligence
- Concurrence of actus rea & mens rea
- Causation
- Proportionality
- Criminal law v. civil law
- Moral stigma
- No statute of limitations
- No contributory negligence
- Strict proximate causation requirement
- Scarce use of SL
- Concern w/ moral harms to self/others
- Accessory
- Before or during the act
- Actus reus
- causal significance
- includes omissions if purpose is to facilitate a crime
- except in NY – must convict under facilitation instead
- Mens rea
- Knowledge
- mere knowledge not enough unless:
- “stake in venture”
- intent
- mere presence not enough, must be evid of encouragement
- NY – must have same mens rea as principal (includes negligence)
- US, CA – liable for all reasonable foreseeable acts of principal (US v. Fountain; People v. Luparello)
- same punishment as principal, but may be get mitigation (20.15)
- UK – accessory can even get higher punishment (Regina v. Richards)
- Exclusions from liability
- Members of protected class
- Police officers acting w/in scope of duty (35.05(1))
- Withdrawal (40.10)
- Repudiation [of encouragement]
- Neutralization [of material assistance]
- Notify authorities (prior alts impossible)
- Must occur before commission of crime is unstoppable
- After the Fact (205.50, 205.65)
- Usually lower punishment
- Facilitation – if accessorial liability won’t work
- Facilitates commission of a felony
- Causal significance
- Inchoate Offenses
- Solicitation
- Merger if crime is consummated
- Actus reus – inciting, counseling, advising, inducing, urging or commanding
- Mens rea – Intent that person solicited commit the crime
- Generally no withdrawal/renunciation defense
- If acts go far enough, may be attempt
- Attempt
- Merger if crime is consummated
- Conspiracy
- No merger, however:
- Gebardi Rule
- Wharton Rule (i.e. adultery, dueling, sale of contraband, incest, bigamy)
- Narrowed by Ianelli v. US
- liability for consummated offense if:
- crimes committed in furtherance of objs of the conspiracy
- crimes were “natural & probable consequence” of the conspiracy
- elements:
- intent
- can be inferred from conduct
- mere knowledge not enough, unless (see People v. Lauria)
- stake in venture
- no legit use of goods
- disproportionate to any legit demand
- agreement
- express or
- concert of action
- hearsay exception
- unilateral conspiracy (not necessarily in Fed – US v. Escobar de Bright)
- overt act
- Fed: Pinkerton rule - an overt act of one partner may be the act of all without any new agreement specifically directed to that act
- NY (& most states): No to Pinkerton; while co-conspirator’s act can be evid of D’s conspiracy, can’t impute D w/ liability absent showing of mens rea
- US cts split on whether certain crimes necessitate overt act
- Most states will do away w/ overt act if crime is substantive enough (BUT NOTNY)
- constitutional restrictions (i.e. free speech)
- chain (one large) conspiracy
- all members are interested in same obj (essential features, broad scope)
- spoke (multiple) conspiracies
- each member is self-interested; no stake in other spokes
- Proportionality
- Fed: sentence cannot be higher than target crime
- CA: sentence can be higher than target crime
- NY: sentence is less than target crime w/ one exception (105.17)
- Termination
- abandonment – statuteof limitations runs when conspiracy is terminated
- concealment – not suff to make part of conspiracy unless exists direct evid that parties specifically agreed, prior to commission of the crime, that they would act in a certain way to conceal the crime
- Defenses
- impossibility – no defense
- withdrawal – generally no defense
- Fed: co-conspirator must affirmatively notify all members in time for possible abandonment
- NY: co-conspirator must affirmatively prevent commission of the crime (40.10(4))
- RICO
- enterprise
- pattern
- conduct & participation
- operation & mgmt test
- Attempt
- Merger w/ consummated offense
- Specific intent (no neg)
- SL – reqs intent to commit the SL crime
- Overt act – beyond mere preparation
- NY: Proximity test – dangerously close to success (People v. Rizzo)
- UK: first step [in poison case] (R v. White)
- CA: equivocality test – acts bespeak intent
- Most Fed: substantial step test – strongly corroborative of intent
- Defenses
- Abandonment – generally no defense
- Withdrawal – only if:
- fully voluntary – not because of diff or risk of apprehension
- complete abandonment for purposes of renunciation
- NY: complete & voluntary renunciation w/ abandonment or prevention (40.10(3))
- Substantive crimes of preparation
- Burglary (14o.35)
- Assault under CA(NOT IN NY)
- Excuses
- Duress (Art. 40)
- Imminent danger w/ no reasonable opportunity to get out
- Unlawful force upon him or 3d person
- Reasonable person could not resist
- Homicide:
- UK: no defense
- US: jury question
- no defense if one intentionally or recklessly puts oneself in the situation (i.e. gang membership)
- Intoxication
- Any substance (i.e. alcohol, drugs, medicine)
- Defense when negatives element of a crime
- Voluntary intoxication
- defense limited to specific intent crimes
- not available if done purposely to establish the defense
- not defense to crimes requiring malice, recklessness, neg or SL
- Involuntary intoxication – like insanity
- lacks knowledge of substance
- substance taken under direct duress
- substance taken pursuant to medical advice, while unaware of intoxicating effect
- UK – no exculpation; this is diminished capacity, therefore only mitigation (Regina v. Kingston)
- Insanity
- M’Naughten Rule (The Standard)
- mental disease/ defect
- some jurisDs exclude sociopath/psychopath
- lacked requisite intent at the time to:
- understand nature/quality of actions
- know wrongfulness or actions
- delusions – liable if, even assuming D’s situation, would still be a crime
- irresistible impulse test
- unable to control actions or
- conform conduct to law
- Durham test
- product of mental disease/defect – free reign to shrinks
- ALI test
- mental disease/defect
- lacked substantial capacity to:
- appreciate wrongfulness of conduct or
- conform conduct to law
- burden of proof
- affirmative defense (40.15)
- NY: preponderance of the evid (25.00(2))
- Fed: clear & convincing evid
- Sentence
- commitment until cured
- can be longer than max period of incarceration (including indefinite)
- mental condition at time of criminal proceedings
- incompetency to stand trial
- unable to understand nature of proceedings
- unable to assist in preparation of his defense
- incompetency at time of execution
- unable to understand nature & purpose of punishment
- bifurcated trial (CA)
- Automatism (epilepsy, seizure, sleepwalking)
- Induced condition (similar to intoxication; no mental disease/defect)
- UK: no defense; must plead insanity
- Diminished Capacity(medical condition short of insanity)
- exists mostly in UK, where don’t have voluntary manslaughter
- appliesto specific intent crimes only
- Justification
- Self Defense
- Nondeadly force – person only entitled to use force as reasonably appears necessary
- Deadly force
- w/o fault
- attacker using unlawful force (deadly weapon)
- threat of imminent death or great bodily harm
- retreat rule (35.15(2)(a)), not necessary if:
- cannot be made in complete safety
- attack occurs in victim’s home
- attack occurs while victim is making lawful arrest
- assailant is the process of robbing victim
- Right of aggressor to use self-defense
- withdrawal – removes from fight & communicates intent to remove oneself to other party
- sudden escalation – initial victim escalates minor fight into one of deadly force w/o chance for aggressor to withdraw
- defense of another
- some Fed: alter ego rule (People v. Young)
- CA: imperfect self-defense
- D covered even if reckless or negligent
- defense of one’s dwelling
- deadly force generally ok
- CA: may only use deadly force if there is reasonably belief of imminent harm
- BWS
- controversial; definitely no defense if hire a hitman
- crime prevention
- deadly force can only be used in case of a dangerous felony involving risk to human life (35.30(4)(b))
- effectuation an arrest
- police officer
- deadly force is reasonable only when felon threatens death or serious bodily harm & such force is necessary to prevent escape
- private person
- nondeadly force
- crime in fact committed
- reasonable belief person has in fact committed the crime
- deadly force
- person harmed actually guilty of the crime
- resisting arrest
- ok w/ deadly force if necessary, if does not know person is police
- once know it is police; can’t resist
- Necessity (choice of evils)
- Legitimacy of means
- Favorable balance of evils – objective test
- Entrapment
- Criminal design originated w/ law enforcement
- D not predisposed to commit the crime prior to initial gov contact
- Homicide
- Murder
- Intent to kill (malice aforethought in CA)
- presumed if using deadly weapon
- Depraved heart
- awareness of the risk
- gravity of the harm is high
- probability of harm is high
- no legit purpose
- Felony Murder
- Person must be guilty of underlying felony
- Felony must be independent of killing
- CA: merges burglary w/ assault; NY, UK does not
- Foreseeability of death
- Termination of felony once felon has reached place of “temporary safety”
- CA: FM limited to inherently dangerous felonies
- Redline view (NY):
- no liability for murder based upon death of co-felon from resistance by victim or police pursuit
- Agency theory (CA):
- D or cofelon must have caused the killing (no liability for killing by victim or police)
- Proximate cause theory (NY)
- Rather than agency rule, D is liable for killing no matter who did it, as long as it was a foreseeable risk of the felony
- Voluntary manslaughter
- Provocation
- sudden & intent such that ordinary person would lose control
- in fact provoked
- not sufficient cooling time
- D in fact did not cool
- Adequate provocation
- serious battery or threat of deadly force
- discovering spouse in bed w/ another person
- Inadequate provocation
- mere words
- Diminished responsibility
- NY: emotional disturbance (as person believed circums to be)
- UK: looks at reasonable person objectively
- Involuntary manslaughter
- Criminal (gross) negligence
- high level gravity of the harm
- high probability of the harm
- Recklessness
- negligence
- awareness
- Misdemeanor-manslaughter rule, limitations:
- malum in se v. malum prohibitum
- inherently dangerous
- death foreseeable or natural consequence of unlawful conduct
- Non-predicate felony under FM
- Deliberation & premeditation (NOT IN NY)
- CA – necessary for 1st degree
- planning activity
- prior r’ship showing motive
- nature/manner of killing evidencing preconceived design
- Causation
- Simultaneous acts – each sufficient cause for liability
- Preexisting condition – D takes victim as he finds him
- Rape
- Old CL rule
- Absence of material r’ship (separation may not suffice)
- Force
- CA: broader conception than NY (i.e. violence, duress, menace, fear of unlawful bodily injury on person or another)
- Penetration
- Lack of consent
- Presumed under statutory rape
- Sex by force/threats
- Incapable of consent (i.e unconsciousness)
- Fraud in the factum (not in the inducement)
- Defense
- D must prove he either knew D was absent
- Otherwise, reckless for being willing to proceed wilily-nilly