Criminal Law (Alexander) Fall 2016 Short Outline

1. Burdens of proof
MPC 1.12
No person can be convicted of an offense unless each element of the offense is proved
beyond a reasonable doubt.
a. Prosecution must prove beyond a reasonable doubt every element of an offense.
MPC broadly defines “element”
b. Defenses:
defendant has burden to prove by preponderance of the evidence
c. Denial:
prosecution has burden to disprove the denial beyond a reasonable
d. even if the prosecution has the burden of proof, defendant may have burden of
e. permissive presumptions (presumed fact)
all that is needed for a permissive presumption is a rational connection (51%
or greater) between the proven fact and the presumed fact
prosecution has proven the proved fact, and the defendant has not produced
evidence to the contrary, so it is ok to presume the permissive presumption
defendant would have to present counter evidence compelling enough to
defeat the prosecutions fact
f. mandatory presumptions
unconstitutional when they would make the defendant prove or
disprove an elemental fact of the crime
incompatible with the presumption of innocence
a. permissive presumptions are ok because the jury MAY presume the fact but does
not have to.
b. Mandatory presumptions are unconstitutional because the jury HAS TO presume
the fact in absence of evidence to the contrary. Essentially shifts burden to the
defendant  unconstitutional
This is different than strict liability because with mandatory
presumptions the statute will say that there is a requisite mens rea and
actus reus, but only requires prosecution to prove actus reus 
unconstitutional. Strict liability only requires that the prosecution prove
the actus reus, but actus reus is the only requirement of the crime
2. Voluntary act: MPC §2.01
a. A willed physical act; a willed muscular contraction or bodily movement by the
actor. Liability for the commission of an offense may not be based on an omission
unaccompanied by a voluntary act unless the omission is expressly made sufficient
by the law defining the offense or a duty to perform the omitted act is imposed by
b. Not guilty of an offense unless his liability is based on conduct which includes a
voluntary act (woman on cruise ship, pitches her across room with knife)
You can have an involuntary act as part of a voluntary act, just go back
to the last voluntary act and decide if it was culpable
Voluntary acts are constitutionally required condition for criminal punishment
You cannot punish someone for status. i.e. cannot punish someone for
being an addict, but you can punish them for possessing drugs.
Habits are voluntary acts
Strict liability and voluntary acts: disregards mens rea. Only matters that the actus
reus occurred
The following are not considered voluntary:
Reflex or convulsion
Bodily movement while unconscious or asleep
Conduct during hypnosis (does not address brain washing)
Bodily movement that is not a product of the effort or determination of the
Possession is a voluntary act if the possessor knowingly procured or received the
item or was aware of his control for a sufficient period of time to have been able to
terminate his possession. MPC does not define sufficient amount of time
Prosecution must prove voluntary act, but the defendant has burden to produce
negating facts
Insanity in regards to voluntary acts
Affirmative defense
Defendant has burden of proof by a preponderance of the evidence
Omission: no duty to act unless duty is imposed by law. liability for the commission
of an offense may not be based on an omission unaccompanied by action unless the
omission is expressly made sufficient by the law defining the offense; or a duty to
perform the omitted act is otherwise imposed by law.
One who is the culpable cause of harm must rescue
One who is the innocent causation does not have a duty to act.
Status based duty to act: spouse, parent. Lover/ roommate doesn’t
Contract based duty to rescue. Victim doesn’t need to rely on or even
know about it. i.e. lifeguard that drowning swimmer doesn’t know
Voluntary assistance has duty to continue it
Bystander with ability to intervene does not have any duty
3. General Requirements of culpability: MPC §2.02
a. Minimum requirements of culpability: a person is not guilty unless they have acted
purposely, knowingly, recklessly, or negligently, as the law may require, with respect
to each element of an offense
b. Purposely
A person acts purposely with respect to a material element of an offense
when his conscious object is to engage in conduct of that nature or cause
a result, and if the element involved attendant circumstances he is aware
of their existence or believe or hopes they exist
A person acts knowingly with respect to a material element of an offense
if the element involves the nature of his conduct or attendant
circumstances, he is aware that his conduct is of that nature or that such
circumstances exist, and if the element involves a result of his conduct,
he is aware that a result is practically certain to occur because of his
A person acts recklessly with respect to a material element of an offense
when he consciously disregards a substantial and unjustifiable risk that
the material element exists or will result from his conduct. Actors
conduct involves a gross deviation from the standard of conduct that a
law abiding person would observe in the actor’s situation.
A person acts negligently with respect to a material element of an
offense when he should be aware of a substantial risk that the material
element exists or will result from his conduct. Risk must be of such a
nature and degree that the actors failure to perceive it involves a gross
deviation from the standard of care that a reasonable person would
observe in that actors situation.
Conditional purpose: an element of an offense is established although such purse is
conditional, unless the condition negates the harm.
Transferred intent in re purpose: Mean to shoot A but you shoot B, still purposeful
Willful blindness: when a person seeks to keep themselves unaware of a situation to
avoid criminal liability. courts usually treat this as knowing
Risk believed in for recklessness must be substantial and unjustifiable. In reality,
probability of the risk does not matter, the unjustifiability does.
Whether the risk is substantial or unjustifiable is a matter of law
Purpose + knows to a practical certainty that his actions at least increase probability
of killing victim = guilty
Purpose + knows a practical certainty he will kill = guilty
No purpose + knows to a practical certainty chances are increased = reckless
No purpose + knows to a practical certainty he will kill= knowing
No purpose + believes there is a risk above 0 he will kill= reckless
No purpose + no belief (but belief is incorrect) = negligent
4. Strict Liability: MPC § 2.05
a. No culpability needs to be proven
b. Justification for strict liability is that most people in the defendant’s situation are
taking an unjustified risk. i.e. statutory rape, death during the commission of an
armed robbery.
5. Mistakes: MPC § 2.04
a. Ignorance or mistakes as to a matter of fact or law is a defense if:
i. The ignorance or mistake negatives the purpose, knowledge, belief, recklessness,
or negligence required to establish a material element of an offense OR
The law provides that the state of mind established by the ignorance of
mistake constitutes a defense.
b. Defense of ignorance or mistake is not available if the defendant would be guilty
of another offense had the situation been as he supposed
c. Mistakes are mistakenly labeled by the MPC as defenses. They are actually
i. With a defense, you admit the elements of the crime but provide reasons as
to why you committed them
With a denial, you would say you did not commit the crime because you
lacked the required mens rea. Burden is on the defendant to produce
this, but prosecution has the burden to prove you did not make that
d. Mistakes do not negate purpose
Purpose has to do with whether something is your conscious object. You
want to kill someone, don’t think it will actually work, but it does. Your
mistake has not negated your purpose
e. Mistakes negate knowing
Knowing is practically certain that something will occur. If you do not
think something will occur, but it does, you cannot have done it
knowingly. May have been reckless or negligent
f. Mistakes do not negate recklessness
Recklessness is an actor acting on a belief with the probability that
certain harm will occur and there is no justification for taking the
action. Risk of something occurring is either 1 or 0. Just because you
have made a mistake estimating the risk of something, doesn’t mean
you have no behaved recklessly
Russian roulette with a 100 chamber gun. Didn’t think that the chamber
had the one bullet in it, but it did. Mistake was made, but it was still
g. Mistakes may or may not negate negligence
Negligent actor is always going to be mistake is some sense. A reasonable
mistake cannot be negligent, so if the mistake made is reasonable, then
they are not negligent.
h. Mistake of jurisdiction: MPC 1.13 strict liability. Often not an element of a crime
that you know you are in a particular jurisdiction
6. Causation and Concurrence: MPC §2.03
a. Conduct is the cause of a result when
The result in question would not have occurred but for the conduct
The relationship between the conduct and result satisfies any additional
causal requirements
b. When purposely or knowingly causing a particular result is an element of a
crime, the lement is not established if the actual result is not within the purpose
or contemplation of the actor unless:
The result differs only in that a different person or property is injured; OR
The result involves the same kind of injury as that intended and is not too
far remote
c. When recklessly or negligently causing a particular result is an element of an
offense, the element is not established if the actual result is not within the risk of
which the actor is ware or should have been aware unless:
The result differs only in that a different person or property is injured; OR
The result involves the same kind of injury as that intended and is not too
far remote
d. When causing a particular result is a material element of an offense for which
strict liability is imposed, the element is not established unless the actual result
is a probable consequence of the actor’s conduct
e. When there are two sufficient causes there is no sufficient cause
Courts will often suspend necessary cause requirement and punish both
(this is a fudge)
f. A but for cause may be established, but the causal sequence may be such that
we don’t want to attribute the result to the defendant’s conduct
g. Intervening causes break the causal chain
There can be culpable and nonculpable interventions
h. Culpability is not the focus of cause. Focused on linkage of the action to the
i. Deviant causal chain: if a result is desired from ones conduct, but it comes about
in a different way, still guilty of the crime. If A wants to kill B by poisoning him,
and he instead slips and falls in it, A is still guilty of homicide.
j. When mens rea to kill does not occur at the time of the actual killing, attempted
homicide. Shot V to kill him, thought he was dead so you push him over a cliff,
and that is actually what killed him  attempted homicide
7. Defenses: MPC § 3.01
a. Justifications: affirmative defense. Did the right thing in the situation.
Objective justifications: acts that are truly justified under the law,
exceptions to the law.
- Burden of proof is on the defendant as it is not an element of the
- Cannot have competing justifications: if Y attacks X, and X defends
himself, Y cannot defend against X
- 3rd parties may intervene on behalf of justified parties
subjective justifications: actor believes they are objectively justified but
they are mistaken
- should actually be considered an excuse, as the actor is not justified
- 3rd parties may not intervene on behalf of subjectively justified actors
- someone can resist you
- if the justification is mistaken, the mens rea for the crime committed is
borrowed from the mens rea of the mistaken justification. i.e. if you
negligently believe in the justification, then you are guilty of the crime
at a negligent level
b. excuses: different from a justification because you are not claiming you did the
right thing, but you have an excuse.
3rd parties may not assist
8. Choice of evils: MPC § 3.02
a. Conduct the actor believes is necessary to avoid harm or evil to himself or
another is justified provided that:
The harm or evil sought to be avoided is greater than that sought be
prevented by the law defining the offense charged; AND
The law defining the offense does not provide exceptions or defense
for the specific situations involved; AND
A legislative purpose to exclude the justification does not plainly appear
b. When the actor was reckless or negligent in bringing about the situation
requiring a choice of evils, this justification is unavailable. Mens rea swap
c. Lesser evils justification does not require that you desire the lesser evil, only that
you believe it and pick the lesser evil
d. When you create the harm that requires a lesser evils defense, you now have an
affirmative duty to aid.
When you do aid, you do not get the full justification. You are guilty at
the level of culpability in which you caused the necessity for the lesser
a. Negligently break the damn, have to divert river and flood
V’s farm, killing V  guilty of negligent homicide
e. In order to get lesser evils defense, you have two be choosing between two evils
recognized by law.
Cannot trespass on abortion clinic claiming you are stopping homicide.
Abortion is legal.
f. Cannot use an innocent person as means to produce the more desired result
(eating the cabin boy on a ship). Using a person as a means to save a greater
number of people is not a lesser evil
g. Mercy killings are not allowed as a lesser evil at the risk that people will invoke
mercy killings when it really wasn’t
9. Intoxication: MPC § 2.08
a. Intoxication is not a defense unless it negatives an element of the offense
b. When recklessness establishes an element of the offense, if the actor, due to
self-intoxication, is unaware of a risk which we would have been aware of had he
been sober, such unawareness is immaterial
c. Intoxication itself does not constitute mental disease
d. Intoxication which is not self induces or is pathological is an affirmative defense
if because of the intoxication, at the time of the conduct, the actor lacks a
substantial capacity either to appreciate the criminality of his conduct or to
conform his conduct to the requirements of the law
e. Definitions
- Disturbance of mental or physical capacities resulting from the
introduction of substances into the body
Self-induced intoxication:
- Intoxication causes by substances which the actor knowingly introduces
into his body, the tendency of which he knows or ought to know causes
intoxication, unless he introduces them pursuant to medical advice
- Intoxication grossly excessive in degree, given the amount of the
intoxicant, to which the actor does not know he is susceptible
f. Involuntary intoxication itself is not a defense, must also have insanity element
Voluntary intoxication + mens rea = guilty
Voluntary intoxication + no mens rea = reckless
Involuntary intoxication + mens rea = guilty
Involuntary intoxication + no mens rea = not guilty
- If you still appreciate the criminality of your action at the time it is
committed, then the fact that the intoxication was involuntary is
10. Duress: MPC § 2.09
a. An affirmative defense that the actor engaged in the conduct because he was
coerced to do so by use of, or threat of use of, unlawful force against his person
or the person of another, which a person of reasonable firmness in his situation
would have been unable to resist
b. Defense is unavailable if the actor recklessly placed himself in a situation in
which it was probable that he would be subjected to duress. Also unavailable is
he was negligent in placing himself in such a situation, wherever negligence is
sufficient to establish culpability for the offense charged
c. Coercion doesn’t have to be coercing you to commit the target crime. Coercing
you to do X, so you must commit a crime in order to avoid X
d. This is not a justification, it is an excuse
e. Must be a threat of force, or bodily harm. Cannot be something like blackmail
that would only damage reputation. Also it has to be unlawful. Could cause
bodily harm, but if it is not also unlawful, then you do not get the defense
f. Acting on the coercion must be immediately necessary
11. Self-defense: MPC § 3.04
a. The use of force in self-defense is justifiable when the actor believes that such
force is immediately necessary for the purpose of protecting himself against the
use of unlawful force
b. The use of force is not justified:
To resist arrest which the actor knows is being made by a peace officer,
even if the arrest is unlawful; OR
To resist force by the occupier or owner of property, where the actor
knows that the person is doing so to protect the property
This does not apply if:
- the actor is a public officer performing his duties (or a person assisting
him); OR
- the actor has been unlawfully dispossessed of the property and is
making a justified reentry; OR
- the actor believes that such force is necessary to protect himself
against death or serious bodily harm
c. the use of deadly force is not justifiable unless the actor believes it is necessary
to protect himself against death, serious bodily harm, kidnapping, or rape. Nor is
it justifiable if:
the actor, with the purpose of causing death or serious bodily injury,
provoked the use of force against himself; OR
the actor knows he can avoid the necessity of using deadly force with
complete safety by retreating or by surrendering a possession of a thing
or by complying with a demand, except that
- the actor is not required to retreat from his dwelling or place of work,
unless he was the initial aggressor
d. self-defense is a justification
e. it is always pre-emptive in nature: anticipating a further attack that has not yet
f. Doctrine of proportionality: you can use deadly force in self-defense to protect
yourself against only certain harms. Harms that are less than those, you cannot
use deadly force to protect against
Retreat requires you to give up a right that is not proportionate to the
killing of the assailant
Necessity requires you give up the force you would like to use if you can
do it by other means
g. Self-defense requires you to give up a lesser right when possible. If you can give
up a lesser right and avoid killing someone in self-defense, then you must do so
h. If assumption that force or deadly force was immediately necessary was
reasonable, then you get the defense. If your belief was reckless or negligent,
then you are prosecuted at the level of negligent or reckless.
The model penal code swaps the mens rea because your culpability
level of your belief should replace the culpability level of the action
The common law does not do this
i. Threat under the model penal code does not need to be imminent, but the use
of force must be immediately necessary
When is the use of force immediately necessary? Usually, the sooner
you act the more likely it is that your force will be effective
j. Under common law, the threat must be imminent
k. Shooting a firearm in someone’s direction is deadly force, it doesn’t matter
where you were aiming or what you actually hit
l. The model penal code does not necessarily require that the deadly force be used
in the present occasion to justify self-defense. You can make inference about
future conduct based on past behavior
m. Deadly force to protect property is not ok
n. A shield/ hostage is no different than a bystander, so any harm you inflict on
them is likely negligent or reckless
In individual who kills or injures an innocent person may be liable for
negligently or recklessly killing that person. Prosecution would have to
show that they took an unjustified risk
o. Past experience matters in predicting the danger that you are facing. It is the
evidentiary basis from which you predict what is going to happen to you.
p. When you are attacked in a way that is not going to cause you serious bodily
injury or death you cannot use deadly force even if it is the only means you have
of preventing the attack
q. You have to believe that you are being attacked and need to use self defense in
order to get the justification.
Under MPC: If your belief in the need for self defense is mistaken: if
belief was reasonable but mistaken, you are still justified; if belief was
negligent, or otherwise, then you sub the mens rea- negligent belief
negligent homicide
Under common law, if your belief is mistaken, if it is not reasonable,
then it is a regular homicide
r. Defense of property: you can fire without warning under 3.06 if you think an
armed and dangerous person is entering your property
s. In defense of property, can only set up a spring gun if it is protecting your person
on you property. You have to be on the premises for the gun to be set up.
12. Mental Disease or defect: MPC § 4.01-4.03
a. a person is not responsible for criminal conduct, if at the time of the conduct, as
a result of mental disease or defect, he lacked the capacity either to appreciate
the criminality of his conduct or to conform his conduct to the requirements of
b. mental disease or defect does not include an abnormality manifested only by
repeated criminal or antisocial conduct
c. evidence that the defendant suffered from a mental disease or defect is
admissible whenever it is relevant to prove that the defendant did or did not
have a state of mind which is an element of the offense
d. mental disease or defect excluding responsibility is an affirmative defense
e. 4.01 must be proven by the defendant by a preponderance of the evidence
f. sociopaths/ psychopaths are not excusable under 4.01.
13. Attempts: MPC § 5.01
a. A person is guilty of an attempt to commit a crime if, acting with the kind of
culpability otherwise required for the commission of the crime, he:
Purposely engages in conduct that would constitute the crime if the
attendant circumstances were as he believed them to be;
When causing a particular result is an element of a crime, he does or
omits to do something with the purpose of causing or with the belief
that it will cause such a result without further conduct on his part; OR
Purposely does or omits to do anything which, under the circumstances
as he believes them to be, is an act or omission constituting a
substantial step
b. Conduct is not considered a substantial step unless it is strongly corroborative of
the actor’s criminal purpose
Lying in wait, searching for, or following the contemplated victim
Enticing or seeking to entice the contemplated victim to go to the
contemplated place for the commission of the crime
Unlawful entry where it is contemplated that the crime will be
Possession of materials which are to be used in the commission of the
crime, which are designed for unlawful use or serve no lawful purpose
under the circumstances
Soliciting an innocent agent to engage in conduct designed to aid
c. Renunciation: when the actors conduct would otherwise constitute an attempt,
it is an affirmative defense that he abandoned his effort or otherwise prevented
its commission in a way that manifests a voluntary renunciation
d. Two kinds of attempts
Completed attempts
MPC 5.01(1)(a): D purposely engages in conduct which would
constitute the crime if the attendant circumstances were as he believed
them to be
Incomplete attempts
- MPC 5.01(1)(c): D does or omits something which, under the
circumstances as he believes them to be, constitutes a substantial step
in a course of conduct to culminate in the commission of the crime
* 5.01(1)(b) straddles both complete and incomplete attempts
- complete attempt: when causing a particular result is an element of a
crime and you have done everything to cause the result but you fail:
shoot but miss
- incomplete attempt: you have done everything you need to do to
complete the attempt but you could still stop it. Light thefuse on a
bomb, you don’t have to do anything else, but you could still stop it.
“Lit fuse” attempts
e. factually impossible attempts: there is a law, you know what the law is, and
believe that you are violating it, but you are mistaken as to a fact. Guilty under
knowing that hunting season starts October 15, believing today is the
14, and going hunting anyway. Made a mistake about a fact, i.e. what
the date is.
f. legally impossible attempts: there is no such law that you think you are violating.
Cannot punish an attempt for something that is not illegal.
Believe that hunting season starts on October 16, knowing today is the
15 and going hunting anyway, when in fact hunting season starts on the
15. Made a mistake about what the law is.
14. Solicitation: MPC § 5.02
a. A person is guilty of solicitation to commit a crime if with the purpose of
promoting or facilitating its commission, he commands, encourages, or requests
another person to engage in specific conduct which would constitute a crime or
an attempt a crime, or establish his complicity in the commission or attempt
b. It is immaterial that the actor fails to communicate with the person he solicits to
commit a crime if his conduct was designed to effect such communication
c. It is an affirmative defense that the actor, after soliciting another person to
commit a crime, voluntarily persuaded him not to do so or otherwise prevented
the commission of the crime
d. When you are guilty of soliciting a crime you are generally also guilty of an
attempt under 5.01(3), but you can only be punished for one
e. 5.02(1) includes soliciting attempts. You don’t solicit attempts, you solicit crimes,
but if it fails and becomes an attempt, you solicited the attempt
cannot solicit someone to pickpocket a pocket you know to be empty
f. solicitation has a mens rea requirement (purpose) and an actus reus
requirement (encourage, request, or command)
double mens rea: you have to have the mens rea of purpose in that you
want them to commit the crime, and the mens rea for the target crime
that you want them to commit
solicitor does not care about the solicitees mental state while
committing the target crime
must have purpose of promoting or facilitating the target crime
actus reus requirement does not require that the command be explicit
if you have purpose that the target crime be committed, chance of
success dos not matter
you can encourage someone to commit a crime without them knowing
that it is your purpose- oblique solicitation
if you are indifferent, you lack purpose
unless condition justifies the crime, the conditional purpose does not
negate criminality. May allow time for solicitor to change their mind
15. Conspiracy: MPC § 5.03
a. A person is guilty of conspiracy with another person or persons to commit a
crime if with the purpose of promoting or facilitating its commission he:
Agrees that one or more of them will engage in conduct which
constitutes a crime, or an attempt or solicitation of the crime; OR
Agrees to aid in the planning or commission of a crime or the attempt
or solicitation of the crime
b. If a person guilty of conspiracy knows that a person with whom he conspired has
conspired with another person or persons to commit the same crime, he is guilty
of conspiring with them also, whether or not he knows their identity
c. If a person conspired to commit a number of crimes, he is guilty of one
conspiracy so long as the multiple crimes are the object of the same agreement
or continual conspiratorial relationship
d. It is an affirmative defense that the actor, after conspiring to commit a crime,
thwarted the success of the conspiracy, voluntarily renouncing criminal purpose.
e. If an individual abandons an agreement, the conspiracy is terminated as to him
only if when he tells his coconspirators of his abandonment or informs law
enforcement of the conspiracy and his participation
a. Close connection to solicitation. Conspiracies are usually preceded by
solicitation. If a solicitation is accepted, you get a conspiracy
b. Actus reus of a conspiracy is the agreement
c. MPC treats an attempted agreement as an agreement. Under Common law,
you need an actual agreement (compliance of all parties)
d. Under MPC, if one party is found to be innocent, others can still be found
guilty. Under common law, if one party is found innocent, all are innocent
e. Mens rea of conspiracy
i. Purpose of promoting or facilitating the actus reus of the target
crime. Mental state surrounding the commission of the crime does
not matter. You don’t care if the person committing the crime has the
mens rea or not.
f. Agreements do not need to be verbal, can be manifest by conduct
g. Agreement does need to be transparent. Need reflexive mutual
transparency. Mere knowledge is insufficient
h. Cannot conspire to kill someone recklessly, but you can conspire to be
reckless in a way that may kill someone
i. A conditional purpose that does not negate the harm of the crime is
immaterial, even if the conditional purpose is extremely unlikely
j. Factual impossibilities do not get you out of conspiracy
16. Liability for the conduct of another; complicity
a. 2.06(2) innocent instrumentality
b. 2.06(3) a person is an accomplice
c. complicity is not a crime, it is a way of being criminally liable for the conduct of
d. complicit not only by aiding, but also by attempting to aid
e. 5.01(3): if you do something that would make you an accomplice under 2.06, and
the principle doesn’t carry out the crime, you are guilty of an attempt
f. Principle: the person who, with the requisite mens rea:
Physically commits the acts that constitute the offense; OR
Commits the offense by use of an innocent instrumentality
g. Accomplice: a secondary party is an accomplice in the commission of an offense
if he intentionally assists the principle to engage in the conduct that constitutes
the crime.
Assists includes many forms of conduct: aiding, abetting, encouraging,
soliciting, or advising in the commission of the offense
h. changes from the common law
under MPC, to be complicit, the principle has to carry out the actus reus
but he doesn’t have to be guilty. If principle cant be convicted, the
accomplice still can be. i.e. if principle has a justification but accomplice
does not.
under MPC, an attempt to aid can make you can accomplice. Under
common law, you actually have to aid
i. Cannot convict victim/ receiving party of crime an accomplice. You don’t convict
statutory rape victim as an accomplice to commit statutory rape. You don’t
convict drug purchaser as an accomplice to sell drugs.
j. mere knowledge that your aid will be used to commit an offense is not sufficient,
the actor must have the purpose to promote the actus reus of the crime
k. if you are an accomplice, you are guilty of the crime that is committed or an
attempt if no crime is actually committed
l. getting out of a 5.01(3) attempt
take back all aid, OR
give timely warning to law enforcement
purpose doesn’t have to be the ultimate purpose, may be an intermediate
conspiracy does not make one guilty as an accomplice under MPC, solicitation
does. BUT usually a conspiracy is solicited.
If commission of crime X is promoted, but crime Y is committed, does this
At what point do you say the crime solicited wasn’t the crime
Crimes that occur in the commission of the solicited crime under MPC:
D is not an accomplice to crimes he did not solicit committed in the
commission of the crime he did solicit
UNLESS the crimes are a strict liability element of the crime solicited
(like with arson and homicide).
Crimes that occur in the commission of the solicited crime under common law:
Pinkerton makes every conspirator complicit in every crime committed
in the furtherance of a conspiracy
If you solicit crime a, and crime b is committed and it is a lesser part of crime a,
then you are complicit in crime b
Related flashcards
Create Flashcards