1.
1.... Crimes
1.2 Crimes
against the habitation
2.2 EXCUSES
– come after volition – apply to Strict Liability
3.2 Intentional
Infliction emotional Distress
3.5 Res
Ipsa Loquitur – sed quid in infernos dicet?
4.
4 Procedure
One who provides services may/may not be an accomplice. If he gets an abnormally high price or derives most of his business from the criminals, he becomes an accomplice.
CL Burglary requires breaking and entering the dwelling of another at night to commit a felony.
Entry can be a tool provided the tool is used to commit the felony.
Breaking can be by constructive force, e.g. fraud, threat. Can be to a closed part of the dwelling.
Intent to commit felony must exist at time of entry.
Modernly breaking can be merely entry without consent. In some jurisdictions entry to a store with intent to steal is entry without consent. B & E can involve an innocent agent.
CL malicious burning dwelling house of another
Killing of one by another.
|
|
Intent to Kill |
Implied Malice |
Risk Creation |
Other Crimes |
|
M1 |
Premeditation & Deliberation Reflection on Intent to kill NTTS/reasonable time/PMM |
x |
x |
Enumerated Felonies |
|
M2 |
Intent to kill can be inferred from use of deadly weapon on vital organ |
Intent to do grievous bodily harm |
Recklessly ignore risk Extreme indifference to human life |
Intent to commit a felony |
|
VM |
Intent to kill derived from Provocation and Heat of Passion Legally sufficient provocation No time to cool |
Provocation |
x |
Misdemeanor Manslaughter |
|
IV |
x |
x |
Gross negligence Minority: negligence with deadly weapon |
x |
Felony murder enumerated list per CL: rape, sodomy, robbery, burglary, arson, mayhem, larceny
Counsel, incite, induce another to commit a crime.
When Wimp wrote his request intending it to be communicated to another person, solicitation took place. The person who receives the request does not need to be specified. Solicitation can be addressed to a crowd (State v. Schleifer). The request does not even need to reach anyone, as long as the writer intended it to reach someone. MPC 5.02 (2).
Agreement 2 or more people illegal goal.
Modern: overt act often required.
Majority: null if only 1 person believes
Minority: complete even if only 1 person believes
|
Offense |
Act |
Intent |
|
Larceny |
Wrongful taking property from possession of another |
Intent to permanently deprive owner of possession |
|
Embezzlement |
Conversion of property by one already in possession |
Intent to defraud |
|
False Pretenses |
Wrongful taking title to property by misrepresentation to the owner |
Knowledge of falsity of the misrepresentation and intent to defraud the owner |
|
Robbery |
Wrongful taking or property from victim’s person or presence by violence or intimidation |
Intent to permanently deprive owner of possession |
|
Extortion |
Obtaining or attempting to obtain property by threats not sufficient to constitute robbery |
Intent to obtain property through wrongful threats |
|
Receipt of Stolen Property |
Acceptance of property after it has been wrongfully taken from another |
Intent to deprive owner of property known to be stolen |
Under CL Larceny was the trespassory taking and carrying away of the personal property of another with intent to deprive.
Gained possession and converted subsequently.
Requires misrepresentation of material fact
Robbery is larceny by force. Larceny requires intent to permanently deprive. When Mel took the briefcase he believed he was taking his own brief case. He did not have intent to deprive the victim of the victim’s brief case. (people v. Butler)
Immanent Threat (& not aggressor), proportional force, necessary & reasonable, no op to retreat – deadly (debatable)
Duty 28 states; no duty 21; jury 2
MPC requires retreat
Justice Holmes – this is a matter for the jury not the judge
One of the factors to be considered by jury in deciding whether actions were reasonable
Retreat: not required unless completely safe, must know it exists; split co workers, roommates
Greater harm, no alternative, imminence, not caused by defendant, harm not need by serious bodily harm
Driven not by human coercion, choice of lesser evil, objective.
Is there prima facie case, is it unjustified, is there an excuse.
Duress Entrapment and Mistake despite best efforts impossible for actor to comply (withstand threat of pain, withstand pleasure, lack of knowledge)
Insanity and Infancy depend on attributes of actor.
Threat, Fear, Imminent Danger, Bodily HARM
Majority: No defense to intentional homicide.
MPC accepts duress as defense for murder “… personal of reasonable firmness would be unable to resist…”
Duress: necessity, threat to the person (not property) which person of reasonable firmness would not be able to resist, direct response to the demand; did not recklessly place self in position
Criminal intent was product of improper police behavior.
Subjective: (majority) not valid defense if this defendant was predisposed to commit the crime. Act must have created a substantial risk that it will be done by person not disposed.
Objective: (Minority) valid if outrageous police conduct instigated the crime. (Due process issue)
MPC forgives ignorance of law in some situations
Consent can negate an element or it can be a defense
Is an element of the crime acting w/o consent?
Consent to surgery
Bodily harm – except sports, medical
Doesn’t count if victim is manifestly incapacitated
Ditto – fraud in the factum
Not negated by fraud in the inducement
Cognitive: appreciate the criminality
Volitional: conform his conduct to reqmnts of law
Under 7 no, under 14 rebuttable presumption no
Voluntary intoxication is not a defense at common law unless it has reached the point of insanity in which case the defense is insanity
Unreasonable interference with use of land – not trespass.
Whether a nuisance is actionable depends on the objective standard of how it would affect a reasonable person coupled with the relative harm to each party depending on the outcome.
Intentional act, an outrageous statement, and severe emotional distress.
Broke a rule or statute
Just because the defendant violated a statute or rule does not require that the finder of fact decide that the defendant is negligent. The finder of fact can use this information in deciding whether there was negligence.
Statement, publication, extrinsic facts, colloquium, innuendo, special damages
Libel: harm presumed; Slander D must prove unless slander per se
|
|
D: Media |
D: Private |
|
P: Public Figure |
P must prove D knew stmt was false or acted in reckless disregard for truth |
P must prove D knew stmt was false or acted in reckless disregard for truth |
|
P: Private Figure |
Fault must be .GE. negligence |
Slander: P must prove damages unless CLUB |
Literary criticism: While it is true that literary criticism is an expression of opinion, expressions of opinion can be actionable if they contain implications of fact. “In my opinion X is a child molester” is actionable. The mere fact that this writing is an expression of opinion does not mean that the writing is not actionable or that recovery is not possible.
Defense when Plaintiff is public figure. No defamation unless Defendant acted with reckless disregard of the truth.
“The Court held that a "public figure" who was not a public official could also recover damages for a defamatory falsehood, whose substance made substantial danger to reputation apparent, on a showing of highly unreasonable conduct that constituted an extreme departure from the standards of investigation and reporting ordinarily adhered to by responsible publishers.”
§ 328D Res Ipsa Loquitur
(1) It may be inferred that harm suffered by the plaintiff is caused by
negligence of the defendant when
(a) the event is of a kind which ordinarily does not occur in the absence of
negligence;
(b) other responsible causes, including the conduct of the plaintiff and third
persons, are sufficiently eliminated by the evidence; and
(c) the indicated negligence is within the scope of the defendant's duty to the
plaintiff.
(2) It is the function of the court to determine whether the inference may
reasonably be drawn by the jury, or whether it must necessarily be drawn.
(3) It is the function of the jury to determine whether the inference is to be
drawn in any case where different conclusions may reasonably be reached.
Trespass requires intent to enter the land and is not excused by a mistake regarding whether actor has a right to enter the land.
Applies when no issues of fact to dispute, or no proper cause of action specified.
Proximate cause is a term used to describe whether the courts are prepared to hold one liable for the particular consequences of his act. If his act is deemed proximate cause of a result, then he is held responsible for the result, and in negligence case he is held liable for the event.
His act is proximate cause if it is an actual cause and is direct and naturally related to the event, close in time and space and if there is no superceding intervening cause to break the flow of causation.
A superceding intervening cause is an actual cause that occurs after defendants act and which is independent of defendant and unforeseeable by defendant. Negligent acts are typically considered foreseeable while criminal acts are typically considered unforeseeable.
In a pure comparative fault system, plaintiff must bear a percent of the damages equal to his percent of fault.