CRIMINAL LAW Karl lived with Martha, Martha’s son Sonny, and their dog. One morning, Karl told Martha about his plan to steal from the house of Barry Rich. Karl’s plan was to go to Rich’s house with Martha and the dog. Karl planned to pretend the dog was lost and pretend he was trying to find the dog’s home. Karl planned to let the dog escape into Rich’s house. Karl asked Martha to come with him. He wanted her to chase after the dog in Rich’s house in order to distract Rich while Karl went to Rich’s bedroom to look for jewelry. At first, Martha told Karl she would not help. Karl then looked at her and said, “You’d better do what I say or Sonny is going to be badly hurt.” In response, Martha agreed to help Karl. That afternoon, Karl and Martha went to Rich’s house with the dog. When Rich opened the door, Karl let the dog run into the house. As planned, Martha ran after the dog and distracted Rich while Karl went to the bedroom. In the bedroom, Karl found a valuable diamond ring and put it in his pocket. The ring is worth $5,000. While Karl was in the bedroom, the dog ran past Rich and knocked him down. Rich hit his head on a table and died. 1. With what crimes can Karl reasonably be charged and what defenses can he reasonably raise? Discuss. 2. With what crimes can Martha reasonably be charged and what defenses can she reasonably raise? Discuss. STATE V CARL MURDER The killing of one human being by another with malice aforethought. Homicide The killing of one human being by another. The killing of one human being. Here, the facts show that Rick was killed. Therefore, we have a homicide. By another Here due to the dog, Rich fell and hit his head. Actual Cause But for Karl, planning to rob Rich he would not have died as, when, and how he did. Therefore, we have actual cause. Proximate causeThis may be direct cause as there was no intervening act between the defendant’s act and the victim’s death. Here, the facts show that the dog knocked Rich down, which resulted in him hitting his head. It is foreseeable that death could occur while they tried to steal the jewelry. Therefore, we have proximate cause. With malice Malice can be shown by the intent to kill, intent to commit serious bodily harm, wanton conduct, or the felony-murder rule. Intent to Kill Here, when Karl and Martha went to Rich’s house, they did not intend to kill Rich. Therefore, Karl may not be found guilty of Malice through intent to kill Intent to commit serious bodily harm Here, the facts do not show that Karl intended to cause great bodily harm. Therefore, he may not be found guilty of Malice through intent to commit serious bodily harm. Wanton Conduct Wanton conduct consists of acts that 1) have a very high risk of death; 2) little or no social value; 3) were performed intentionally; and 4) the defendant is aware of the risk. Here, the facts show that Karl acted intentionally upon entering Rich’s home, which shows little or no social value. Entering his home under the circumstances has a very high risk of death due to the foreseeability of Rich protecting his home. He was aware of the risks, hence the reason he solicited the help of Martha. Therefore, he may be found guilty of Malice through wanton conduct. FELONY MURDER If a death is caused during the perpetration of a felony, malice is implied. The facts did show that Rich did fall and hit his head during what is considered an inherently dangerous crime. Karl was at the scene of the crime when the death occurred, which means he was not at a place of temporary safety. Therefore, the courts may find Malice through felony murder. Here Karl may be found guilty of Second-degree murder through wanton conduct. Defenses There are no known defenses to the above charges. Involuntary Manslaughter: A homicide without malice while committing a wrongful act. Homicide As defined above. Malice Malice can be shown by the intent to kill, intent to commit serious bodily Here, a death occurred during the commission of a misdemeanor because Karl was stealing the jewelry from Rich’s house. It’s considered reckless to burglarize someone’s home as the risk of someone dying is foreseeable. Therefore, Karl may be charged with involuntary manslaughter. SOLICITATION Requesting, urging, or tempting someone to commit a crime with the intent that the solicitee commits the crime. The facts show that Karl solicited the help of Martha to use the dog as a distraction to enter Rich’s house while he obtained valuables. Therefore, Karl may be charged with solicitation. MERGER Solicitation merges into the completed crime. CONSPIRACY TO COMMIT BURGLARY Agreement by two or more persons to commit a crime with the intent that the crime is committed. Two Guilty Minds For Karl to be liable there must be two or more parties that have the specific intent to commit the crime. Here, Karl got Martha to agree with him to enter Rich’s home to obtain valuables. Therefore, Karl may be liable for conspiracy. ASSAULT A criminal assault is an act by the defendant to intentionally cause reasonable apprehension in the plaintiff of immediately receiving a battery. Act by the defendant Here, Karl threatened to bring harm to Martha’s son if she did assist him in burglarizing Rich’s home. To intentionally cause reasonable apprehension. Here, Karl intentionally caused apprehension in Marta when he made threats against her son. Therefore, Karl may not be charged with Assault on Martha. BURGLARY Common law Burglary consists of the trespassory breaking and entering of the dwelling house of another at nighttime with the specific intent to commit a felony. Trespassory There are no facts to show that Karl had Richs permission to enter Breaking and Entering Here, breaking will be satisfied if there is moving aside of any obstacle, however slight. Entering is accomplished by fraud or threat of force. The facts tell us that Karl entered the home of Rich using fraudulent methods, by using the dog to gain entry. Therefore, this element is satisfied. Dwelling House A dwelling house must be used with regularity for sleeping purposes including other structures within the curtilage. The facts show that Karl entered Rich’s home. In the Nighttime The fact tells us that Karl entered the home during the morning time. To commit a felony therein The facts show that Karl entered the premises with the specific intent to steal rich Jewelry The facts indicate we do not have common law Burglary as the crime was committed during the daytime. Therefore, Karl may not be charged with common law Burglary. MODERN BURGLARY Modern Burglary is Entry into any structure with the intent to commit a crime therein and eliminates the nighttime requirements. Here, Karl entered their home of Rich with the specific intent to commit larceny. Therefore, Karl may be charged with modern Burglary. LARCENY Trespassory taking and carrying away the personal property of another with the intent to permanently deprive or steal. Trespassory There are no facts to suggest that Karl got permission to enter Richs’ home Taking The facts shows that Karl found a diamond ring and placed it in his pocket and walked away. Carrying away The facts shows that Karl walked away with the ring allowing him to have dominion over the ring. Personal Property The $5000 ring is personal property- moveable tangible property Of another The ring is the property of Rich With specific intent to permanently deprive. The facts show that Karl had the intent to take the ring and leave the property, to sell. Therefore, Karl may be guilty of Larceny. STATE V MARTHA CONSPIRACY As defined above Here, the facts tell us that Martha did not agree to help Karl with larceny, however, he threatened her son after which she felt compelled to follow through. She did agree and assisted in completing the crime. Therefore, she may be found guilty of Burglary. DEFENSE Duress A defendant commits a crime in response to the threat of serious bodily harm or death. Here, Martha may argue that Karl, threatened her son’s life should she refuse to aid him in committing the crime. Therefore, the court may not charge her with conspiracy under the Duress defense. LARCENY As defined above Here the facts shows that Martha did use the dog as a mode of distraction which allowed Karl to obtain the jewelry. Therefore, Martha may be found guilty of Larceny, however, the courts may not charge her if her Duress defense stands. COMMON LAW BURGLARY As defined above As stated above there was no common law burglary MODERN BURGLARY As defined above Here the facts show that Martha did enter the home of Rich with the specific intent to commit larceny. However, Martha may not be charged with burglary if her Duress defense holds. MURDER Homicide with Malice As defined above As the facts show, there was an actual killing, however, if the court rules in favor of the Duress defense, Martha may not be charged with Murder. DEFENSE DURESS As defined above Here the facts show that Martha’s son was threatened if she did not comply with Carter’s request. Therefore, duress may be a valid defense and she may not be charged with burglary. ACCOMPLICE LIABILITY An accomplice may be liable for all crimes aided and all that were foreseeable. The facts show that Martha did commit burglary by allowing the dog to enter in Rich’s home as a means of distraction. Her specific intent to commit the crime was in response to saving her son from being injured. DEFENSE DURESS As defined above Here Duress may be a valid defense if one is forced to complete a crime due to threat or force of threat. Martha may not be charged with being an accomplice as her son was threatened. Therefore, Martha may not be charged as an accomplice
