Crim Law Hypo Review - Summary Intro To Criminology PDF

Preview

Summary

Fact pattern was given on a different sheet but the most important details of the hypo are summarized. Professor has a very broad view and some answers branch off. Very speedy and not the best grammar good for a quick look. ...

Description

1. Is A responsible for death of B a. (YES) Transferred Intent- Which Homicide- Murder 2. Justified Self Defense 3. Felony Murder- because its robbery (under mpc) listed as one of the crimes, It’s Foreseeable. If A and B just entered store and pushed him, not homicide at all. a. California- a and b are shoplifting, not inherently dangerous (crime on its face is dangerous) in the abstract is NO. In regard to tripping and dying 4. Stealing petty cash - waxed floor a. No felony murder, just stealing. b. California- not inherently dangerous c. Spilling wax on the floor when fleeing crime- Reckless Manslaughter- gross deviation, conscious disregard. 5. Lookout, and partner sexually assault instead of robbery a. Cannot be charged with sexual assault in NY or MPC, Not Foreseeable b. California- (Luparello - natural and probable consequences) A cant be charged unless that rule is proved c. Pinkerton- reasonably foreseeable in furtherance of the conspiratorial objective. Same end result goal for aiding and abetting- match principal’s intent d. NEW YORK AND MPC DON’T FOLLOW PINKERTON 6. Lawyer and drug dealer client- investing in fitness advice a. B is charged with money laundering- What can A (lawyer) be charged withProsecutor has to prove up state of mind and the act- for aiding and abetting he’d have to establish if there was a nexis or affirmative act (intended to aid that led to specific result) Answer- Can’t Be charged with Anything. b. If A asks where is the money coming from, and B says you don’t want to know- A could be charged with Criminal facilitation (helping w/o even knowing exact crime) or money laundering. c. AIDING AND ABETTING IS A THEORY NOT A CRIME, willful blindness way to prove up 7. A (lawyer) B (drug dealer)- B flips houses all cash- A knows- A charges $750 when going rate is $450. a. If B gets charged money laundering. A can get charged with money laundering and conspiracy because of meeting of the minds and stake in the outcome, demonstrates intent to participate in the crime. 8. A drives car- brakes need replacing, can’t stop and hits pedestrian a. A can be charged with- NOTHING, no mens rea. Would have to show that she should have known the risk or knew the risk and has to be Gross Deviation from a reasonable person. Or you meant to do what you did. 9. A knows brakes are bad and drives anyway a. Could be charged with vehicular manslaughter if you can prove it is a gross deviation. (can show it) almost gets into an accident but continues to drive to get to an appointment. 10. A drives car- bad brakes- hates everyone- kills someone

a. California Gross, New York - Depraved Indifference. MPC Extreme Indifference, to the value of human life. If you can’t prove that than its Reckless 11. A knows brakes are bad- sees enemy in crosswalk- steps on brake but don’t work a. Vehicular Manslaughter- knew brakes didn’t work and acted negligent or reckless but prove a gross deviation, unintentional homicide. Cali?- MPC? 12. A decides to kill enemy by driving into him and makes it look like an accident. a. Charge is Murder- intended to kill and did kill. MPC- Murder (no degrees), NYMurder 2nd, Cali Murder 1. 13. A runs over enemy but not badly- calls ambulance. EMT arrives late and B dies. a. A can be charged with- If you can’t prove causation (necessary element) unless reasonably foreseeable in Cali (thats debate). Proximate cause? 14. Runs over B badly- EMT gives wrong blood- autopsy determines had catastrophic injuries. a. The doctor not the sole contributing factor- died because of injuries. b. If died from wrong blood- that's superseding cause. But for the accident, is it foreseeable that someone could get wrong blood. 15. A is landlord- inspects weekly- 40 people- fire doors cause drafts- A hires people to insulate doors- A inspects fridays- Thursday fire- 3 dead. a. Is it negligent homicide? No criminal state of mind. Not a gross deviation. Did not intentionally shut the doors- did not intend, know, or purpose, or risk it, or fail to perceive. Purposeful, intentional, reckless, negligent- no matching of intent to result. 16. ^^^^^ hires “fly by night” sealers- not licenses, bonded, but really cheap. A has feeling he should take a look but puts it off. a. Is it a gross deviation? 17. A sees Rita- emotionally disturbed, hates red hair. A hates Lolita and tells her to dye her hair so Rita attacks her and dies a. Can A be charged?- Yes with murder, A was sufficiently direct cause. Intended harm and factually created peril by orchestrating the acts that ended in Lolita dies. Rita could get mitigated MPC (EED)[ first has to prove she suffers from something and reasonable person with that disorder would act the same] down but not A. Nothing in California for mitigation (provocation, heat of passion, triggering event and cool off period) 18. (statute stated before hypo) A owns a bookstore- has some special art books- Japanese Manga that contains nudity and sells to someone he thought was 21 but 14 a. Can A get off?- Can mistake of fact be a defense. Issue could be strict liability because it involves a minor and would preclude mistake of fact defense. Element of knowledge ( in wording of the crime, with knowledge of content/ harmful to minors) {knowledge is in the statute so it can be applied to each element of the crime} If he has no knowledge of what he sold he can get off. Problem with statute for being to broad. 19. A, B, C, D decide to chug vodka under 3 minutes for a prize. D draws short straw. Passes out and EMT is called, dies at hospital from alcohol poisoning.

a. Can A, B, C be charged and what in New York and why? Criminally Negligent Homicide (should have perceived the risk). Reckless (top most) Homicide ( aware of the risk and ignored the risk). Acted in concert, same mens rea, But for Causation, encouragement. NOT Depraved indifference like russian roulette. 20. A is purse snatcher. A wants to get closer to man to steal bag. Before stop she begins to make a move and undercover cop arrests her. a. California- Can she be charged and with what?- Is there enough for ATTEMPT (empty pocket for pickpocket is just attempt), Equivocal Conduct- step to show its unequivocal that the intent was theft. NEW YORK- dangerous proximity what more has to be done. MPC- Substantial step what has been done and cross line. Mens rea and actus rea for attempt, just identifying target isn’t enough for. 21. A has machine gun, uses it as hammer on fence. A makes popping sound pointing gun at neighbor. A is charged with criminal possession. a. Prosecution can’t prove intent. Specific Intent crime, possession (knowing) and intent to use. 22. Purse snatcher sets up trap to jump people during morning and evening rushes by sticking out foot. She trips someone and is actually a friend so she helps her up but grabs her bag and gets arrested. a. Does she have a defense?- ISSUE, did she abandon? MPC has to be pure motive not convenience. 23. A is kleptomaniac, switches old wallets with new wallets. Does steal wallet. a. Does she have a defense. No actus reus, can’t control herself- doesn’t work by putting herself in a store where she could steal. 24. Wallet she thought she put back to steal was actually her own wallet a. Defense- Mistake of fact, she didn’t steal. Factual Impossibility is never complete defense and could be charged with attempt. Mistake of fact could also be putting wallet down to pay and taking wrong wallet. 25. A and B are law students and get into argument. A throws punch B ducks and A hits C in the face and he falls back and dies. a. Can A be charged with homicide? Yes because of transferred intent- with intent to cause physical injury and cause the death. 26. A and B are married. A has affair with C. A is intoxicated. See’s B with baseball bat. A gets in her car and runs over C by accident. a. What can A be charged with? Intoxication not a defense unless it negates an element of the crime but can never negate reckless or negligent. But does she have a duress argument- NO its irrelevant. 27. Before A gets into the car, B comes close I hate you and flings knife a. A uses deadly force as defense. Exception- honest belief of imminent death or physical harm and made attempt to retreat of place with complete safety. 28. Bat and stab when he is leaving a. Manslaughter

29. A gets into car and B screams i hate you. A takes out knife he screams again. B takes out gun and shoots A. California heat of passion. MPC, EED and honest but mistaken belief to mitigate to manslaughter , New York- Same thing as MPC 30. C sees B take a gun out of pocket, he rushed over and shoots B dead. Could argue defense of others and transferred intent. But also maybe no immense and in New York he would have no defense, MPC would be mistaken but honest belief....