Is there an act: Must be voluntary sleepwalking, unconsciousness, seizures, reflexes, convulsions. Liability of omissions?

s? Statutory duty, D created peril, special relationship, and voluntary assumption of care. Theft Larceny: aking! Brought into control "arrying away split! o "#$ma%& re'uires asportation. o M("$min& no asportation. (roperty! o "#& tangibles, movables, not pets, not information o MD& intangibles, trade secrets, pets, energy ) M(" real expansive. *f another! o +usiness partner$ spouse split ,ot at "#, modern courts say yes o "an steal your own stuff o deprive permanently! o -ntent can be formed at any time cannot be taken back o +arrowing okay unless .one for property/s useful life 0xpose to unreasonable risks (lace unreasonable conditions on property/s return. o "laim of right -f you think it is yours no intent 11 ,eed only be honest o o pay for taken goods -f D intends to give e'ual value for a fungible good no intent M("$ma%& only fungible goods, reasonable believe they are for sale, or on display for sale. Defenses to larceny: 2oluntary intoxication diminished capacity, honest mistake of fact. Larceny of lost property: #arceny 3 4i5 intent at the time of discovery to deprive permanently6 4ii5 at time of taking there was reasonable clue to true owner. 7ave to be at the time #ater forming intent or discovering clue 8 no liability 9orming intent at taking and then changing mind 8 liability Mistaken deliver larceny #arceny 3 4i5 knowledge of mistake at the time of delivery$taking6 4ii5 intent to deprive permanently at the time of taking. "ontainers & if it/s a container then time of taking 8 delivery6 if it is not supposed to be a container then time of taking 8 discovery MPC on lost and misdeliverd larceny: : person, who comes into control or property of another that he knows to have been lost, mislaid, or delivered by mistake is guilty of theft . . . if he fails to take reasonable steps to restore the property to the true owner. Larceny by trick D uses deceptive means to obtain possession, but not title, of another/s property ,o transfer of title 2 must think they are only handing over possession Embezzlement: 4i5 9raudulent6 4ii5 appropriation6 4iii5 of property6 4iv5 of another6 4v5 by one entrusted with possession. 9raudulent split o ;intent to deprive< does not allow barrowing. ": o ;intent to deprive perm.< allows barrowing, but no substitution. :ppropriation use inconsistent with owner/s expectations or unauthorized. False pretenses

4i5 a misrepresentation by the D6 4ii5 of a present or past material fact6 4iii5 w$ the intent to defraud the victim6 4iv5 where the victim relies on the misrepresentation in6 4v5 transferring title to some property Must transfer title 2 must honestly rely not reasonable Split on future fact o "#& statements about the future are not sufficient o M("$ma%& clearly false statements about one/s present intentions or about what one knows will happen in the future are misrepresentations of present facts, not future facts. opinions do not count unless made by an expert w$ superior knowledge. ! heft crimes are now consolidated! A ravated property crimes !obbery: larceny 3 4i5 by force or threat of imminent force6 4ii5 from the person or immediate presence and control of the person -s threat of force imminent ) if not think extortion "laim of right split o "#$ma%& yes a defense o Min& no defense unless actually prove it was your property 4heirloom5 ype of force split o "#$M("& has to be actual force or threat of serious force o Min& trivial force is sufficient iming of force split o "#& at the time of taking, force used to escape didn/t count o M("& force used in attempt, taking, and in flight :rmed robbery o "#& possession of actual weapon even if concealed. E"tortion 4i5 the use of a threat6 4ii5 in an attempt to obtain 4in some %x actually obtaining56 4iii5 property of another or action by another. Sufficient threats in ":& to injury someone person or property; to accuse the victim or his family of a crime to expose the victims deformity or disgrace; to expose a secret. "laim of right split o Ma%& no defense 11 Min& a defense o M("& not a defense to threats of physical force is a defense if threat is to tell a secret, civil action, accuse of crime ) threat must be directly tied to property. Political e"tortion: 4i5 money or influence6 4ii5 is obtained or attempted to be obtained6 4ii5 under color of office 4pretense that office is entitled to the benefit by virtue of the office. Must be 'uid pro 'uo, a mere expectation of a benefit is insufficient #ribery: something of value corruptly offered or demanded with the intent to be influence an official/s actions or be influenced& "#& limited to public officials, Mod& expanded to official action, but not political Mens rea 8 corrupt intent i.e. to be influenced +oth parties are guilty, ,ot a defense that benefit was not obtained or duress$extortion. M("/s = sufficient agreements >. : benefit in exchange for the receiver/s discretion as a public official ?. : benefit in exchange for the receiver/s vote, or use of office @. : benefit in exchange of a violation of a known legal duty #$r lary CL: breaking and entering the dwelling house of another person at night with the intent to commit a felony Modern: the unlawful entry of a building or structure with the intent to commit a crime 0ntry& any part of body6 and w$ out consent o Ma%& enter w$ intent inconsistent with conditional consent of owner

M("& must actually trespass, cannot commit burglary in a store generally open to the public o "#& had to be a house you had not right to enter ype of crime needed& o "# felony o M(" any crime o ": felony or petty larceny Mens rea Specific: #arceny, burglary, solicitation, robbery, false pretenses 7onest mistake of fact 2oluntary intoxication is evidence General: 7onest and reasonable mistake of fact negates MPC: purpose, knowledge 4practically certain if event in future, high probability if existing fact5 reckless, negligent. Mistake of fact must be A culpability re'uired by the crime ,egligent crime re'uires reasonable mistake Beckless crime re'uires reasonable mistake %trict liability crimes Strict liability public welfare crimes, no mens rea required, only the act Penalties will be low Vicarious liability as long as empl. is acting within the scope of employment, Corporate liability split over the employee Ma%& must be acting on behalf of corp. w$in scope of employment, but no need for authorization Min$M("6 act must be authorized, re'uested, or recklessly tolerated by high management$exec. o Mistake of la& as a defense: >. Chen mistake of law negates a specific element of the crime ?. Chen the law is not published @. Beasonable reliance on a statue later declared invalid =. Beasonable reliance on %udicial decisions later overruled 4appellate level 5 D. Beasonable reliance on government official in the position to interpret the law E. !ambert, crime is pure omission, and no ob%ective indicators exist that would give D notice of statute/s existence. D has burden of showing by a preponderance of evidence. 'omicide Common la& M$rder malice aforethought 1. -ntent to kill >st degree if ($D ?. -ntent to cause grave bodily harm @. 0xtreme recklessness 4depraved heart5 a. Must have conscious awareness b. "f you tal# about this tal# about involuntary manslaughter =. 9elony murder a. >st if listed 4burglary and robbery are listed in ":5 6 ?nd if inherently dangerous Premeditation and deliberation o $arol% can be meet in an instant o &nderson% need evidence of planning activity, cool calculated performance. o 'iminished capacity defense ,ot in ":. (ol$ntary mansla$ hter 4 brings down intent to kill$S+-$ and 0x. Beck5 >. Beasonable provocation 4would reasonable person be provo#ed( a. "#& being assaulted, unlawful arrest, family is attacked, adultery. b. Minority sympithtic provocation from point of view of %ury ?. D acted in the heat of passion ) was he provo#ed, and did not cool off( @. here was no time to cool off Invol$ntary mansla$ hter if you talk about this you have to talk about reckless murder o social utility of D/s conduct Magnitude of risk posed

o 9oreseeable of risk posed Becklessness or .ross negligence. -f no conscious awareness of risk, you can/t go with murder Felony m$rder Must prove felony, mens rea for felony. Did felony end before murder. 1st degree if listed% burglary, arson, rape, robbery 2nd degree if inherently dangerous% determined by the court -n the abstract 4":5 v. :s applied 4ma%5 o -f not inherently dangerous no felony murder ) go to reckless murder or involuntary manslaughter Merger rule: if felony is assault it can/t be basis for felony murder charge ": ) independent purpose test and includes +urglary w$ intent to commit assault may merge Did someone besides D actually cause the death? (roximate cause& if death was foreseeable, in the realm of possibilities :gency rule& person who caused death must be a co1felon. 4ma%$":5 Model penal code and homicide Murder: purposefully, knowingly, or recklessly under circumstances manifesting extreme indifference to the value of human life. 4does not grade murder5 Becklessness is presumed if D is attempting or committing robbery, burglary, rape, kidnapping. shifts burden on D to rebut Manslaughter: 7omicide otherwise murder but committed under the influence of extreme mental or emotional disturbance, for which there is a reasonable explanation. Beasonableness is determined from the viewpoint of a person in the actor/s shoes. Becklessly, and they also have egligent homicide )eath penalty *+, statesMust ha!e: first degree6 and aggravating factors outweighing mitigating factors Furman v !eorgia: %ury/s can/t have unchecked discretion. "oc#et: %ury must be able to weigh all mitigating factors, individualized sentencing Procedure: Must be over >F 4roper(, not for rape, "annot be insane, or retarded :ccomplice eligible only if& they were extremely reckless, and participation was ma%or, could foresee lethal force would be used tison. "ggra!ating: killing cop, ? deaths, history of violence, for financial gain Mitigating: clean record, under duress, minor role, child abuse, broken home. stat$tory rape age of consent: typically >E, >F in ": MPC: corruption of a minor, if under >E and = years older. Split on mista#e of fact as a defense: Ma%& no it is a strict liability crime ":$min& yes if honest and reasonable mistake forcef$l rape common la$: 4i5 sexual intercourse6 4ii5 by a man6 4iii5 not her husband6 4iv5 against a women6 4v5 w$out her consent6 4vi5 by force6 4vii5 against her will 4utmost resistance CL procedure: corroboration6 timely notice6 hale/s charge 4rape is easy to accuse, hard to disprove5 Marital rape: use to be uncriminal o Most states have done away with this rule, or now punish it under separate statutes. Modern: 4i5 sexual intercourse6 4ii5 w$out consent6 4iii5 by force, or threat of force6 or fear or serous force. :ctus reus 8 some force or threat of force o (enentration is not sufficient Ber#owit* Mens rea 8 to have sex w$out consent o +plit over mista#e of fact defense ": must be honest and reasonable Attempt

>. ?.

:n intent to do an act or cause a result which constitutes a crime :n act in furtherance of that intent that goes beyond mere preparation #ast proximate step test common law Substantial step test strongly corporative of criminal purpose o #ying in wait, unlawful entry, casing the %oint o Solicitation alone is insufficient Merges with completed crime. "an/t be charged with both Defense of abandonment: "# 8 no def M(" 8 defense if complete and voluntary Still liable for crimes committed along the way "an abandon after last prox step if criminal step is avoided "an/t once D puts in motion forces causing crime G can/t stop them. Defense of impossibility: only a defense to attempt (ure& a mistake as to the law not a fact, always a defense #egal& if D did everything he wanted to do there would not be a crime o #ook for mistake of identity 9actual& conse'uences sought be D are criminal, no defense M("& no defense, if D/s conduct would have constituted a crime if the attendant circumstances were as he believed them to be 4ma%H %olicitation 0ncouraging, re'uesting, or advising another person to commit a crime Cith the intent that the crime be committed Merges once you have an attempt or a conspiracy. Split over communication& "# 8 yes M(" 8 no Split over group solicitation& some courts say yes others no Split over type of crime& "# 8 felonies6 M(" 8 any crime mod 8 listed crimes. "bandonment defense: not at common law, but M(" says yes if Iou persuade the person not to commit the crime6 or *therwise thwart the commission of the crime Must be complete and voluntary accomplice liability players: principals in >st and ?nd are present, and before the fact .ives aid or encouragement M(" attempting to give aid *mission can be aid, if duty to act and fail to act with intent to aid (rincipal must be guilty of crime, though not convicted. Mens rea: -ntent to give aid or encouragement to the principal with the -ntent that the principal commit the offense split& ma%& purposeful wanting the crime to be committed, minority& knowing is enough if& crime is serous, or aid is critical. #iable for all crime that are the natural and probable consequences of the initial crime they assisted. ,ot an accessory if participation is inevitable incident to commission of crime accessory after the fact 4i5: felony has been committed by the recipient of aid6 4ii5 D knows the felon committed the crime6 4iii5 D aids the felony6 4iv5 with the purpose of hindering his apprehension. *bstruction of %ustice today "bandonment defense: must effectively withdraw all aid and encouragement in a timely manner or give the police notice in time to prevent the crime Does not have to be voluntary, Still liable for crimes committed along the way. M(" otherwise ma#e proper effort to prevent crime Conspiracy >. :n agreement between two people ?. Cith the intent to enter into the agreement @. :n over act in furtherance of the agreement 4not at "#, but ma%ority5 =. (urpose to promote the unlawful act that is the ob%ective of the conspiracy D. Jnowledge that ob%ect is unlawful 4minority5 ,P$s unilateral approach agreeing is sufficient Does not merge, procedural advantages. Mens rea: ? elements, intent to agree and intent to promote unlawful ob%ect +plit% ma%ority re'uires purposeful, but minority will allow knowing if& >. ?.

Serious felony is ob%ect *B D has stake in venture. $harton rule: if crime needs ? no conspiracy, re%ected by M(" %in#erton doctrine: D is liable for the crimes of the co1conspirators if foreseeable and in furtherance of the ob%ective of conspiracy, re%ected by M(" %ithdra$ defense: an incomplete defense ) only ends pinkerton liability $ommon law% must tell all co1conspirators you/re out. *r affirmative acts inconsistent with the ob%ect of conspiracy if that would put all on notice ,P$% either tell all the co1conspirators, or tell the police -vert act jx& if withdraw comes before overt act, complete defense. &enunciation: complete defense 11 ends all liability $ommon law% must thwart the success of the conspiracy, must be complete and voluntary 4 though need not be sole cause of thwart5 o Some %x allow substantial attempt to thwart or calling police ,P$% actually thwarts the conspiracy voluntary and complete. !IC. : conducting the affirms of an enterprise through a pattern of racketeering activity 4? crimes in >K years which are connected but separate5. )efenses insanity M&'aghten: a cognitive incapacity to tell right from wrong *B the person did not know the nature and 'uality of their conduct. Split& courts differ as to whether D must fail to understand his actions are wrong in a moral or legal sense D must think he is acting correctly due to his mental illness not his religion. (rresistible impulse: a volitional prong Durham: but for D/s mental illness M%C% at the time of crime as a result of mental disease or defect D lacks substantial capacity either to appreciate the criminality of his conduct or to conform his conduct to the law. self defense: a person is %ustified in using force against another when they reasonable believe they are under the threat of immediate serious bodily harm. -mminent ) proportional ) reasonable Duty to retreat, not at "#, modern$M(". defense of d&ellin "#& allowed deadly force to be used Modern trend& a reasonable belief that intruder will use any force against the occupant %ustifies the use of deadly force Anderson. CA: deadly force is okay if occupant reasonable believes intruder is going to commit a forcible felony or use deadly force Prevention of felonies: :t common law you could use any force. oday, deadly force is only %ustified if there is reason to believe the felon poses a threat to community. )$ress D is coerced to commit a crime by the use of imminent threat of death or bodily harm. ,o reasonable chance to escape "annot have placed self in position. M("& a person of reasonable firmness would be unable to resist. ,ot a defense to homicide, unless M(" Entrapment: (rohibits law enforcement from instigating a criminal act by persons otherwise innocent in order to lure them to its commission and to punish them. +ubjective% inducement must be but for case of act, D must not be predisposed to commit crime -bjective% inducement would cause an ordinary person to commit the crime ,ot a defense to murder

into"ication: -f involuntary always a defense if it negates Mens reas. -f voluntary only evidence of lack of specific intent crimes )i.e. murder. M("& only admissible evidence of purpose$knowledge crimes o .etting drunk is reckless so not admissible to reckless crimes. /ecessity 4i5 D was faced w$ choice btw$ ? evils6 4ii5 he acted to prevent the lesser one6 4iii5 reasonably anticipated a direct causal relationship btw$ his acts and the harm to be avoided6 4iv5 he had no legal alternatives. ,o defense if D creates situation leading to choice between two evils ,ot a defense if legislature had said harm was not an evil. ,ot a defense to murder, expect M(" lovercamp test. 4>5 specific threat of death, rape of grave bodily harm 4?5 not time to complain, or complaints have been futile6 4@5 no time to access the courts6 4=5 escape must be non violent6 4D5 must report to authorites upon reaching a point of safety.