Spreadsheet: b947cd50-7445-4ea2-957b-76daab627e23
Sheet: Sheet1

Unnamed: 0 | IN GENERAL | NEW YORK | CALIFORNIA | ENGLAND | FEDERAL
INTENTIONAL MURDER
INTENTIONAL KILLING | 1. AR -- Must have death 2. MR -- Must have intent (includes transferred intent) | 125.25 |  | Malice Aforethought
MITIGATION |  | Reckless Homicide -- If aid in suicide w/o duress or deception | Diminshed capacity (see below) - for negating of mental state | Partial Responsibility for Intentional murder (factor negates mental state)
EMOTIONAL DISTRESS/ PROVOCATION | 1. Reasonable person would lose control 2. Loss of control causes to act 3. Not within reasonable cooling time 4. Actor hasn't cooled | 1.  Reasonable person standard, highly individualized (GOETZ) - but not extended to everything in defendant's particular state (CASASSA - alcoholism - NO, age - YES, obsessions - No, IQ - no)  [NAME] to [NAME] |  | Objective standard -- very high, sometimes lessened (CAMPLIN) | WORDS ARE NOT ENOUGH - Girouard (MD)
UNINTENTIONAL KILLING
[NAME] | Recklessness + Purposes in Hell ([NAME] racing, russian roulette, meant to kick the shit out of but killed) | 125.25 (2) - NY follows MPC   Need causal evidence (Warner-Lambert NO, Kibbe Yes)  Do vicarious liability for co-felons (Guraj) - 508 - implies malice based on recklessness | Extreme neglect can qualify (Burden) Co-felon dies, called suicide - not responsible - Antick  Do vicarious liability for accomplices - [NAME] - jabbering dude - imputes MR, implies malice |  | Fleming - drunk driving held to DH standard
Reckless | Negligence + Awareness  Purposes are in Newark | 125.15
Negligence | 1. Gross Deviation from standard of care 2. High probability 3. High gravity of harm  Highly individualized in context of punishment purposes | 125.1
Causation/Intervening Factors | Causation must be cause in fact + proximate cause NO =  1. [NAME] ([NAME]) -- Russian roulette -- Surviving party liable even though deceased is participant (DIFFERS FROM RACING because it involves some skill) 2. [NAME] (CA) -- No -- Not foreseeable -- police recklessness breaks chain - But For cause but not proximate 3. [NAME] (NY) -- Yes -- Guy sets fire on one floor + separate fire -- Does not break causal chain - Question is the harm within the risk? 4. Warner-Lambert (NY) -- No -- causal evidence, dangerous conditions but no proof 5. Kibbe (NY) -- Yes -- robbing dude - leave naked no glasses and then truck runs over: criminal negligence does not break chain 6. Need [NAME] by doctor to be considered interevening cause 7. Campbell (MI) -- Suicide is a voluntary act (if deceased is normal person) even if gave gun -- No there but Yes induced suicide by statute in NY (125.15.3) 8. [NAME] (IN) -- Suicide usually NO, but extreme terror or under-age (not free agent) YES 9. Root (PA) - Drag-racing breaks causal chain if dead party is participant but... 10. [NAME] (IA) -- if third-party is deceased, then homicide.
[NAME] | 1. In course of felony 2. Causation of death  SL argument for deterrence- extends MR from crime | 125.25 (3) 1. Predicate felonies -- (Includes attempt and flight) Robbery, burglary, kidnapping, arson, rape, sodomy, sexual abuse, escape from jail 2. Defenses -- Multiple parties where participant did not solicit the killing and did not know of weapon (can't have own weapon) 3. [NAME] can't be co-felon (but not killer) 4. Requires proximity - HERNANDEZ | 1.  All felonies apply by statute, but… 2.  common law restricts on low side by saying must be inherently dangerous (Phillips - grand theft, [NAME] - carry shotgun, must be burglary with deadly weapon to be FM) and… 3.  Restricts on high side by saying in merger doctrine that some crimes are so dangerous that they merge with murder -- should have MR (Smith - child abuse, aggravated assault, burglary w/ intent to assault merges) 4.  Agency rule -- Co-felon must be killer 5. Take victim as find them -- STAMP | Serne (1887) - UK abandoned
Accessorial Liability | Person must show MR and [NAME] 1. Solicitation + consummation 2. Mere presence is not enough - must have causal significance (HICKS) 3. Criminal negligence is lowest MR to get 4. Drag-racing - Get others using causal significance - ABBOTT  Intent must be interest must be in furtherance of act (Wilson - No intent to rob, only to call police, Gladstone - drug guy drawing map, no benefit from act - high volume of sales from illegal) | 20.05 - Principal getting off does not affect accessory  20.15 - Accessory must have same MR as principal  40.10.1 -- Requires complete renunciation and substantial effort to prevent | 642 -- Charged as principal  LUPARELLO - Need only reasonable foreseeability of act to get intent - IMPUTED MR FROM PRINCIPAL - Looser  Mitigated punishment from murder After-fact accessory for harboring - | ANDERSON & MORRIS - Can only be liable for own MR - 2 guys, 1 wants to beat up - 1 to kill…can't be held for killing | If accessory in crime against US (false id, mail fraud), charged as principal
INCHOATE CRIMES | Fantasy to Intent to Solicitation to Conspiracy to Preparation to Proximity to Attempts to Consummated offense
Trend is towards making punishment for the attempt equal to the consummated act -- Done in NY for serious crimes
Attempts | 1. Requires specific intent MR in those crimes (KRAFT)  2. Must have proximity - varies from jurisdictions | 110 - No factual or legal IMPOSSIBILITY defense - Voodoo murder  Most demanding proximity requirement - RIZZO  40.10.3 -- Abandoment if you renounce and avoid commission of crime - cut arson fuse | Similar to NY -- close to final act MILLER -- Must be at end of equivocable action No factual or legal IMPOSSIBILITY defense  No defense of abandoment | Final act is met, done everything except let crime take effect - STONEHOUSE | US v. [NAME] -- Looser rule than [NAME], thus proximate cause easier to get in Fed
Solicitation | Must be directed towards individual, exception for political message towards group  1. Intent that another commits crime, must start ball rolling 2. No defense that principal is not guilty of crime or prosecuted | 100.00 Must Start ball rolling (MUST BE "BUT FOR") + Intent  115.00 Facilitation - Believe probable that rendering aid to person committing crime, must in fact aid them No IMPOSSIBILITY DEFENSE  40.10.4 - Must actually be the one who prevents it
Reckless Endangerment |  | 120.25 -- Didn't have specific intent for crime - [NAME], bomb for political statement
Conspiracy | Requires: 1. Specific Intent 2. Agreement -- Implied consent by acts - Interstate Circuit 3. [NAME] act -- Can be an act of preparation  No proximity to consummation not required…doesn't merge  Ignorance of law is not a defense  Can't conspire for crime that requires multiple parties - GEBARDI - Follows from [NAME] rule  [NAME]:  Spoke (KOTTEAKOS - can't all be convicted, concurrence is not enough); chain (BLUMENTHAL - can all be convicted)  Prosecutorial Advantage: 1. Hearsay is admissible 2. Can choose any venue where part of it occurred 3. Juries are more easily confused with multiple D's 4. Easier to charge in the first place | 105-105.20  No PINKERTON rule - MCGEE  Requires MR - so no [NAME] (like FEOLA)  105.30 - Allows single-person conviction if others impossible to get NY follows GARCIA - Conspire w/ police officer unknown to you - POLICY REASON TO OVERRIDE LACK OF TRUE AGREEMENT  MUST ACTUALLY BE ILLEGAL | Accepts PINKERTON - LUPARELLO  LAURIA -- Knowledge is not sufficient to get intent, requires either  1) direct evidence or  2) inference based on special interest OR aggravated nature of crime | Group concert in moral or political dissent = conspiracy;   No mistake of law defense - so if believe is illegal, then is conspiracy - GOING TO GET PIZZA | KRULEWITCH -- Hearsay evidence is not admitted unless conspiracy is already proved but can hear the evidence to prove the conspiracy (CIRCULAR)  PINKERTON RULE -- All conspirators are vicarious liable (only accessorial) even if no MR or causal significance if the acts arising from conspiracty were foreseeable + in furtherance of conspiracy - BRIDGES - not retroactive  Allows inference of mutual understanding if no other explanation (INTERSTATE) or if "best" explanation   Mistake of fact , still can be convicted (FEOLA - didn't know were police officers, but conspiracy to get police officers; rejects Learned Hand's traffic light formulation)
RICO | Requires:  1. Two criminal acts by the individual,  2. Pattern of racketeering activity:  predicate acts are related to or in furtherance, pose threat of continued activity,  3. Investment of money in "enterprise": regular structure, can be criminal or mixed, must be proved apart from pattern,  4. Participation requires direction or operation of criminal acts (Reves v. Ernst & Young) 5. Participation requires agreement, but no overt act.?? "Dragnet of Liability" Replaces KOTTEAKOS
JUSTIFICATIONS | Prima Facie violation of criminal law, but because of other information - is allowed | ARTICLE 35 |  | No Justification Accepted in UK | Germany -- Allows excuse for excuse via coercion instead of necessity
Self-Defense | Requires: 1. Imminence, 2. Proportionality, 3. Necessity  Limitations: 1. Not allowed if provoke or initial aggressor 2. Retreat doctrine: exception if on own property, eg. If burglary in house - Abbot NO SPRING GUNS | 35.15.2ai Use of subjective standard (GOETZ).    No imperfect self-defense available If begin as aggressor, but then other escalates it with deadly force, must renounce and than can claim - Anti-MPC - 35.15 (b) - anti PETERSON | Imperfect self-defense -- Mere belief in threat v. reasonable belief | Excuse defense -- use objective test (BEDDOR STANDARD) | [NAME] - If start aggression, than can never claim self-defense  If A attacks B, and B defends and subdues A, escalates it - A can defend - Page 845
Battered Women's Syndrome                             aka                                                  Whiny Chick Syndrome | Still need all factors, but do in light of subjective standard re "reasonable battered woman" - goes to all element In KELLY - goes to imminence  Goes to self-defense, duress, necessity, insanity | BWS allowed in to prove honestly of belief AND reasonableness of self-defense | BWS is allowed in only to honesty of belief of elements - not relevant to reasonableness of self-defense - WORKS BECAUSE HAVE IMPERFECT |  | Prison rape (Allowed in - SCHROEDER) Battered children (IN) Hired killers for BW (No)
Defense of Another |  | Young -- Had to be in shoes of another, ex post - NY legislature overruled in 35.15 - reasonable ex ante Dangerous because can beat up cops if think protecting another
Defense of Andy | Must be reasonable, imminent threat to [NAME] not apply if attacker is pissed off girlfriend
Defense of Property | Deadly force rarely allowed - only if also threat to person | Deadly force is allowed in burglary of home (but this is danger to person) - 35.20 | Must be actual threat to person | No self-defense of property
Arrest | PD can use deadly force to protect self or others.  Must be felony, or misdemeanor that escalates. Differs from self-defense because here can shoot as retreating (called fleeing now), but must be right here where self-defense is reasonable belief  Citizen Arrest Options: 1.  Hillsman -- cops at funeral kill somebody, citizens start shooting at them -- convicted because must be right as to crime - STRICT LIABILITY | 35.27 -- "No Hit Rule" -- can't resist any kind of arrest with physical force, but can use self-defense if excessive force  35.30 -- PD can only use deadly force if felony involves danger or physical force, only use physical force if necessary to subdue fleeing misdemeanor  35.30.4 -- Follows HILLSMAN - must be actual predicate felony for citizen's arrest - Strict Liability if wrong - Want high standard when allowing people to take law in own hands | Can only use deadly force if in danger of serious bodily harm -- Not used for burglary
Choice of Evils:  Necessity | Given situation there was no choice, jury weighs: 1. Balance of evils 2. Legitimacy of means  SCHOON TEST: 1. That they choose lesser evil, 2. Acted to prevent imminent harm, 3. Reasonably anticipated a direct causal relationship between conduct and harm averted, 4. No legal alternatives to violating law  Objective standard, no "good faith" belief  Most courts follow LOVERCAMP but not UNGER - IL (REQUIRES EVERY ELEMENT)  Necessity involves natural or physical force whereas duress involves human force Duress involves coercive threat to crime, reasonable person could not resist - requires greater imminence | 35.05  Must go beyond civil disobedience (free speech protection should cover it) - neither direct or indirect | LOVERCAMP RULE:  [NAME] (see if admitted as testimony) BALANCING TEST  -- Do not need every element 1. Specific threat of imminent serious injury 2. No time or history of futile complaints to authority 3. Or to judges 4. No harm is caused by escape 5. Prisoner reports self to authorities after escape | No Necessity Defense | Coercion by the circumstances -- GERMANY - threat from any force  SCHOON - Direct v indirect civil disobedience
Euthanasia - active, aka assisted v passive | Passive:  Living Will:  Ok (in all states); No will: State by state guidelines allowed  Active: Rarely Ok - Barber v. Superior Ct -- Pulling plug ok if seen as omission instead of act - NOT SET IN STONE | 125.15 Manslaughter 2nd if intentionally cause or aid suicide |  |  | MO requires living will - Cruzan v MO Dept of Health - or "clear and convincing evidence" of intent
EXCUSES | Not justifiable, but deficient mens rea or actus reas
Duress | No coercion by the circumstances in US Can not intentionally or recklessly place themselves in situation - joining gang  1. Duress involves coercive imminent threat to person 2. Person of reasonable firmness could not resist and real person must believe threat | 40.00 -- Individualized -- Bar of imminence is higher in duress | ROMERO -- Individualized standard, so BWS comes in | INDIVIDUALIZE HIGHER THAN OUR STANDARD - Timid person  No duress to murder | FLEMING -- POW who submitted to other side under threats that others resisted…we hold to higher standard for being an officer  TOSCANO -- Says imminence covers pending threats also   HYPOS: Drive over somebody or I'll kill you -- is this duress (not in NJ)? Yes, necessity? No,  [NAME]'s brakes stop and runs down two people...no duress defense, no necessity, yes coercion by circumstances in Germany
Intoxication | [NAME] v. People - Leningrad drunk defense to specific intent  yes negligent/recklessly liable for general intent crimes | Reckless endangerment fills gap of leningrad drunk person who harms -- 120.20 | Leningrad drunk creats negligence -- CA will not use drunkeness to impute awareness, so no recklessness | If can formulate intent, then guilty - if leningrad drunk - no intent | STASIO -- LD not defense if voluntary in NJ for specific intent, but [NAME] in IND disagrees
Insanity | Competency… at time of crime to stand trial to be put to death  No cultural defense for insanity - CRENSHAW - muskovite Irresistable impulse - not used much, Durham - 100% power to psychiatry - no prongs, ALI - MPC approach - adds in control prong to test - was most common but [NAME] changed this |  |  | M'NAGHTEN  1. Mental disease and defect -- Must be psychosis, not neurosis 2. Lack of knowledge that doing act -- cognitive prong, either of a) act, b) legality/morality 3. Disease must cause act  Objection is all cognition, no control prong - capacity to conform to law  PMS is defense | LYONS -- Back to M'Naghten, take out volition STRASBURG - WA - Attempt to outlaw insanity failed but... KORELL - MT - Can outlaw as long as leave in for lack of MR GUIDO - NJ - BWS for insanity - let in testimony - not recognized by most jurisdictions JONES -- Gives def of Civil Commitment from Addington: Psychosis, Likely to harm self or others - not necessarily committed harm, Clear and Convincing evidence, Criminal Commitment (JAIL): MR, [NAME], [NAME], Beyond reasonable doubt.  Criminal (INSANITY) Commitment - Like civil commitment, but only preponderance of evidence. Lower standard is allowed because has shown to be violent before. Confinement may go on until has been proved to be safe. [NAME] -- If no longer insane, then let out MCQUILLAN -- GBMI - MI PTSD, postpartum, MPSD are in general admissible\
Autonamatism | [NAME] and others deny [NAME] |  |  | External/Internal division -- hypoglycaemic - external (QUICK) - autonamatism, hyperglycaemic - internal (HENNESSY) - insane
Diminished Responsibility | In US, no exculpate, just mitigate | Not defense | Yes/NO??? | UK - can in rare cases be exculpating | WILCOX -- Majority View - Rejected Brawner because had liberal insanity SIKORA - NJ -- Don't want to broaden insanity defense, dangerous line - revolt against psychiatric testimony
Entrapment | Must be police officer's suggestion     Person not otherwise to commit crime | 40.05
Addiction |  |  |  |  | Robinson - Arrested for status of being addict - Court rejects this as far over line Moore - Leventhal opinion - How can it be mental disease if so much volition involved? Powell - Defendant says has addiction, must be drunk in public -- Court says can do this in private
Mistake of Law/Fact | Mistake of fact negates MR                  Mistake of law only a defense if there is a reliance on official statement |  | LAMBERT - registration, mistake of law defense for passive crimes
Other Crimes
Rape | Strict Liability | Necessity defense -- lesser of two evils:  it was her or [NAME]'s mom, should have seen her…
Robbery | [NAME] | 160.00 - Forcible stealing, in course of larceny, threatens physical force
Burglary | trespass in dwelling with intent to burgle | 140