Thank you for visiting the LawyerWare.com Outline Archive.
Please note that the following outline has not been checked for accuracy (either
substantive or grammatical), and should be used only as a general guide. Always supplement
prepared outline materials with your own research. Don't assume that everything in this
outline is correct. Check everything. Although we obtained this outline from a reputable
source, we cannot guarantee that it is correct. Use it as a starting point and add to it
liberally. THE FOLLOWING IS A STUDY AID TO BE USED BY LAW STUDENTS ONLY. IT IS NOT
INTENDED TO BE, AND SHOULD NOT BE CONSTRUED AS, LEGAL ADVICE OR COUNSEL. IF YOU HAVE ANY
QUESTIONS ABOUT ANY OF THE ISSUES DISCUSSED BELOW, PLEASE CONTACT AN ATTORNEY LICENSED IN
YOUR JURISDICTION.
For a free, confidential referral to an attorney in your area, please click here
CRIMINAL LAW OUTLINE
I. THE PRINCIPLES OF CRIMINAL PUNISHMENT:
A. The reasons for punishment:
1. Deterrence:
a.
General: To teach others that crime does not pay and thus punish those that break law.
b.
Specific: D. is punished in order to deter him from committing future crimes.
c.
Stigma: That you will be labeled a criminal in the view of society.
2. Incapacitation: By
incarceration D. will be prevented from committing any further crimes.
(1) Intimidation: Punishments remind D. that it is unpleasant so he
won't commit the crime again.
3. Rehabilitation: Things
done to the offender for SOCIETY'S sake and not the offender. Ex. Counseling. Reforming
the D.
a.
Criminal justice system never gave the rehabilitation system.
4. Retribution: That the
"wicked" deserve to be punished b/c he are responsible for his action and pay
their debt to society.
a.
Revenge theory: That the D. pays for the he crime has committed to society.
b.
Expiation: That the criminal gives something back to society. I.E. what he took.
5. Denunciation; Expresses a
statement about the offense. Basically, society will not stand for such behavior and a
penalty declares that it will not be tolerated.
a.
That sentences should only "match" crime. And that only criminal laws should be
labeled as such.
b.
People should not have to worry about being entangled w/ the law if they purposely do not
choose to commit a crime.
B. Professors statements: CRIMINAL over CIVIL:
Criminal has the punishment of incarceration and stigmatization.
1. There is a trade off
between a police state and no crime and a free society. Where there is crime so we seek a
middle ground.
2. Note conflicts w/in the
law. Sometimes const. laws like religion and freedom of speech clash w/ statue law. Cant
kill dogs or wife in the name of religion. Also while we have the freedom of speech can't
say things that will provoke violence.
II. CULPABILITY
A. Requirement of a Act:
1. The Need for ACTUS REUS:
This is a VOLUNTARY ACT which is overt and physical.
a. A
VOLUNTARY ACT is a WILLED MUSCULAR CONTRACTION or BODILY MOVEMENT BY THE ACTOR. IT HAS
CONSCIOUS CONTROL BY THE ACTOR
(1) Knowing that one has epileptic seizures while driving a car is a
VOLUNTARY ACT. SAME IS TRUE FOR DRINKING.
b.
OMISSION: A person is NOT GUILTY of a crime for failure to act, UNLESS THERE WAS A LEGAL
DUTY TO DO SO and NOT A MORAL OBLIGATION.
(1) EX. A baby sitter has a type of contractual obligation to protect
the child she is caring for.
(2) Parents must provide for their minor children. (Sometimes a statute
will create this obligation.) BUT LEROY LUNCH BUCKET HAS NO LEGAL DUTY TO HELP A DROWNING
PERSON.
B. STRICT LIABILITY: An offense is strict liability
in nature if the act to the offense is committed WITHOUT A GUILTY MIND.
1. Example: Statutory Rape is
a strict liability crime. It is not of importance that the age of the V. was unknown at
the time.
2. A good faith argument or a
"simple mistake" defense will not prevent conviction. Requiring a guilty mind in
all crimes is impractical, rather it is important to have law that will strictly protect
society.
a.
Note that in People v. Hutching p. 118, that the D. was not convicted for an open
container in his car b/c the appellate ct. stated that to do so based on strict liability
would be contrary to the basis of the criminal justice system. Since the D. has no
knowledge what so ever to do so would punish him for his neighbor's sins. Remember this is
based on particular statutes.
3. Also Public Welfare
crimes: Selling misbranded articles, adulterated foods, impure drug. This is an example of
legislative intent. Trying to PROTECT THE LARGER PUBLIC. It is not important that the
actor had no guilty mind, rather that he was placing society at risk.
C. CULPABILITY AND THE GUILTY MIND: GENERAL: The
element of Mens Rea established what D. must have been thinking at the time the act was
committed for criminal liability to attack.
a.
Traditional Mens Rea:
(1) General intent: Describes the requirement of any sort of culpable
mental state for a crime; requires proof of either: purpose, knowledge, recklessness, or
perhaps gross negligence.
(2) Specific Intent: Requires purpose or perhaps knowledge.
1. Model Penal Codes--States
of Mind
a.
Purpose: A DESIRE to engage in certain conduct or cause a certain result.
b.
Knowledge: An AWARENESS that something will occur or does exist.
c.
Recklessness: An AWARENESS of a SUBSTANTIAL AND UNJUSTIFIABLE RISK that something will
occur or does exist.
d.
Negligence: A situation in which a person SHOULD HAVE BEEN AWARE of a substantial and
unjustifiable risk that a certain result would occur or that a certain circumstance would
exist.
e.
Compare: Recklessness requires a conscious awareness of the risk involved. Negligence
involves circumstances in which a REASONABLE PERSON would have been aware of the risk.
2. Mens Rea General: That the
actor committed the offense w/ a vicious will, and an evil mind.
(1) Specifically, if the person commits the act of the offense w/ the
particular mental state provided in the definition of the offense.
3. Transferred Intent: One is
Responsible for unintended results.
4. Generally, an actor must
have INTENDED THE HARM DONE, however if D. intends one person and does SIMILAR HARM to
another person, D will be treated as if she had intended the result which actually
occurred to the other person. This is b/c the intent transferred and liability will
attach.
5. CONCURRENCE OF THE ACTUS
REAS AND THE MENS REA:
a.
The act and the intent must happen together for there to be a crime. (Unless the law is of
strict liability, then no intent need to be shown.) This act and intent lead to a result,
this is the harm caused.
(1) EX. Regina V. Faulkner . The CT held that the D. was not guilty of
arson b/c he did not have any mens rea at the time the fire was started.
6. MISTAKE OF FACT AND
MISTAKE OF LAW
a.
Generally, an actor is not guilty of a crime if her MISTAKE OF FACT negates the mens rea
of the offense charge.
b.
Ex. State v. Guest p. 139, here the D. was charged w/ statutory rape, yet he thought the
V. was of age. This is usually a strict liability law. Yet here the D. was acquitted b/c
of mistaken fact. He REASONABLY believed that the V. was of age.
7. Mistake of Law: Usually a
"mistake of law" is not an excuse to a crime. IGNORANCE IS NO EXCUSE.
a.
EXCEPT when the reliance is later held unconstitutional or information is given by a
official whose job it is to interpret the law. Judge. BUT it will never stand as a defense
that the information was given by a PRIVATE ATTORNEY INCLUDING A "STATE
ATTORNEY." HOPKINS V. STATE. P.166
8. CAPACITY FOR MENS REA: In
some states, evidence of mental problems NOT amounting to insanity, may be introduced to
prove that the ACTOR DIN NOT HAVE or COULD HAVE FORMED the specific intent necessary for
the crime charged.
9. EX. People v. Wetmore
P.174 Here the D. because of he "Mental" problems could not have forms the
intent for a PC 459 charge. He thought the apartment which he was using actually belonged
to him.
10. INTOXICATION:
a.
Involuntary intoxication: This is getting drunk under duress or not knowing that something
can get you drunk.
b.
This can only be used as a defense in a crime that requires the state of mind which is
PURPOSELY OR KNOWINGLY.
11. AFFIRMATIVE DEFENSE: This
means that the D. must come back and UNDUE the evidence presented by the jury. This is in
STRICT LIABILITY CASES.
NEGATIVE DEFENSE: Here the D. says that the prosecution DID NOT PROVE THEIR CASE. The
prosecutor has the burden of proof on the elements of the case. THIS IS IN ALL CASES
EXCEPT STRICT LIABILITY.
III. HOMICIDE: (Common Law) "The killing of a human being by
another human being. NOTE; in common law a fetus is not a human. Keeler v. Superior ct.
1. Justified: Those authorized by law i.e war or justified self-defense.
2. Excusable: Those in which
the killer is not necessarily w/out fault but circumstances do not justify infliction of
normal punishment.
3. Criminal Homicide: ALL OTHER KILLINGS
A. INVOLUNTARY MANSLAUGHTER: An UNINTENDED KILLING IS INVOLUNTARY
MANSLAUGHTER IF IT IS:
1. Caused during the
commission of an UNLAWFUL ACT not amounting to a FELONY OR
2. IS THE RESULT OF CRIMINAL
NEGLIGENCE.
a.
This offense "blurs" into the "depraved heart version" of reckless
murder.
(1) EX. When poor-uneducated parents did not take their seriously ill
child to the hospital b/c they were unaware of the seriousness of the illness, they were
NEGLIGENT. (Had they known, it would have been reckless murder.)
(2) Commonwealth V. Welansky: Locked fire exits.
B. Misdemeanor Manslaughter: Unintentional killings
by the commission of an unlawful act is involuntary manslaughter, as long as the unlawful
act is not a FELONY. The act must be unlawful but need not be criminal. EX. Driving a car
w/ an expired CDL.
C. Corporate: Different rules, not jail just fines.
D. Vehicular Manslaughter: Killings used w/ a car.
Were placed under manslaughter b/c 2nd degree laws were to strict.
E. VOLUNTARY MANSLAUGHTER: An intentional
unjustified, inexcusable killing, which is ordinarily MURDER, constitutes manslaughter (or
VOLUNTARY MANSLAUGHTER) IF IT IS COMMITTED IN A "SUDDEN HEAT OF PASSION."
1. This provocation must have
been enough to cause a reasonable person to LOSE CONTROL AND ACT RASHLY W/OUT REFLECTION.
2. D. Must have been provoked
and the PROVOCATION CAUSED THE DEATH.
3. The time between the
provocation and the killing MUST NOT HAVE BEEN LONG ENOUGH FOR THE PASSION OF A REASONABLE
PERSON TO COOL OFF.
4. D. must not have actually
cooled off during the interval.
5. ELEMENTS OF ADEQUATE
PROVOCATION:
a.
Reasonable provocation: The provocation must have been enough to cause a reasonable person
to act in the same way is provocation that would render a person of ordinary self control
incapable of the cool reflection that would constitute murder.
(1) WORDS ALONE ARE NOT ENOUGH BUT VIOLENT AND PAINFUL BLOW AND SEEING
A SPOUSE COMMIT ADULTERY.
(2) Also, a fight in which both parties enter into.
6. As long as D. REASONABLY
BELIEVES THAT THE PROVOCATION WAS ADEQUATE, HE WILL USUALLY GET A MANSLAUGHTER CHARGE. EX.
D. REALLY THOUGHT THAT HIS WIFE WAS HAVING AN AFFAIR.
7. MPC: Extreme Disturbance:
the MPC would reduce a 187pc to a manslaughter if the killing was committed "UNDER
THE INFLUENCE OF EXTREME MENTAL OR EMOTIONAL DISTURBANCE FOR WHICH THERE IS A REASONABLE
EXCUSE.
F. MURDER: Murder is the UNLAWFUL KILLING OF ANOTHER
BEING W/ MALICE AFORETHOUGHT:
1. Intend to kill: The intent
must be inferred from D's conduct e.g where D. intentionally uses a deadly weapon on
another (Deadly weapon doctrine.)
2. Intend to commit serious
bodily injury: Proof that D. intended to inflict serious bodily injury, even though there
was no conscious desire to cause death, will support a murder conviction.
3. Extreme indifference to
human life: Actions are reckless and simply don't care about the lives of others.
4. Intent to commit a felony
likely to cause death.
If murder occur while D. intended to commit a felony, MALICE AFORETHOUGHT APPLIES.
NOTE: Malice aforethought is a term of art and really is referring to
the above 4 elements
G. FIRST DEGREE MURDER: Killings acted w/ the
premeditation and deliberation.
1. Felony murder rule:
Automatically 1st degree if committing rape, arson, robbery, or kidnapping,
2. Killings by poison, bomb,
lying in wait, and torture.
a.
Making a thought before taking human life and a definite decision to kill.
b.
Some amount of time must pass between formation of the design to kill and actual execution
of the design to establish that reflection and consideration amounted to deliberation.
H. SECOND DEGREE MURDER:(Alaska Statute) "He
intentionally performs an act that result in the death of another person under
circumstances manifesting an extreme indifference to the value of human life. This is
Unpremeditated Murder.
1. Felony Murder Rule: Does
apply in 2nd degree murder. A killing will be a felony murder if it was caused w/ the
intent to commit a felony.
a.
Limitations upon Felony 187 rule:
(1) The death which occurs must be a foreseeable consequence...A death
is usually view as foreseeable.
(2) Dangerous felonies: A number of states limit application of the
rule to dangerous felonies. Some say it must be inherently dangerous while others say that
the felony involved a significant risk to human life.
(3) Independent Felony; Some courts require that the felony be
INDEPENDENT OF THE KILLING. If the underlying felony was the very means by which the V's
death occurred the felony MERGES INTO THE KILLING AND NO FELONY MURDER EXISTS.
(4) Requirement that one of the felons DIRECTLY CAUSE DEATH: Majority
says that the FMR does not apply when a V is killed by a resisting V. or pursuing police
rather then the D. However the killing may still be murder.
2. Duration of Felony for the
FMR: The killing must be caused DURING the perpetration or attempted perpetration of the
felony. However, in some states, a death CAUSED after the technical completion of the
felony may still be felony murder.
a.
Compare: Middle view: This view would make any killings caused during the IMMEDIATE FLIGHT
FROM THE CRIME FELONY MURDER. Immediate flight ends when the felons have reached a place
of temporary safety.
3. Extent of Liability: Each
Felon is liable for those killings by his co-felons which were NATURAL AND PROBABLE RESULT
OF THE FELONY EVEN IF THERE WAS AN AGREEMENT NOT TO KILL.
4. MPC Scheme: Modern
statutes tend to redefine homicide offenses by utilizing the different states of mind
defined by the code:
a.
MURDER: The MPC defines a 187 as a killing committed PURPOSELY, KNOWINGLY, OR RECKLESSLY
under circumstances manifesting EXTREME INDIFFERENCE TO THE VALUE OF LIFE.
b.
MANSLAUGHTER: The MPC established a single manslaughter offense which is a KILLING
COMMITTED RECKLESSLY or under the influence of EXTREME MENTAL OR EMOTIONAL DISTURBANCE for
which there is a reasonable excuse.
c.
NEGLIGENT HOMICIDE: The MPD creates a new homicide offense of negligence homicide, i.e. a
killing committed NEGLIGENTLY.
d.
HOMICIDE CAUSED DURING OPERATION OF A CAR: Other modern statutes often contain a separate
offense for death caused in the negligent operation of a motor vehicle or by operating a
car in an unlawful manner.
IV. THE ATTRIBUTION OF CRIMINALITY
A. CAUSATION
1. In general: If a crime is
one which by definition requires proof of a result, D's conduct must be shown to have been
the LEGAL CAUSE OF THAT RESULT.
2. FACTUAL CAUSATION: (But
For Causation) The Prosecution must show that BUT FOR THE D'S ACTIONS, THE RESULT WOULD
NOT HAVE OCCURRED WHEN AND AS IT DID.
a.
Speeding up result; Where D. has simply speeded up an INEVITABLE RESULT, MOST COURT FIND
FACTUAL CAUSATION. Ex. Shoot someone moments before falling to their death, shooter is the
legal cause of death.
b.
EXCEPTION-Concurrent sufficient cause: The one exception to the general "but
for" requirement applies when 2 factors acting concurrently cause a result and either
alone would have been sufficient to cause that result. Both will be considered factual
causes.
3. PROXIMATE CAUSATION; In
addition to factual causation, there must be proof that D. is the proximate cause of a
result. Generally, proximate cause is present when the result occurs as A NATURAL AND
PROBABLE CONSEQUENCE OF D'S ACT AND THERE IS NO INTERVENING FACTOR SUFFICIENT TO BREAK THE
CHAIN OF CAUSATION.
a.
Intervening factor: An intervening factor is one set in motion AFTER D's act. Therefore a
preexisting condition will not break the chain of causation.
b.
Unforeseeable: The intervening factor must have been UNFORESEEABLE BY THE D. AT THE TIME
OF THE ACT.
c.
Sole direct cause: The intervening factor must also be the sole major cause of the result.
4. "Legal"
Causation
B. ATTEMPTS:
1. In General: Taking steps
toward the completion of a crime, if done w/ the REQUISITE INTENT, may be a crime itself.
2. Elements of Attempt:
Attempts consists of a SPECIFIC INTENT TO COMMIT A CRIME AND AN ACT IN FURTHERANCE OF THAT
INTENT WHICH SUFFICIENTLY APPROACHES THE COMPLETION OF THE CRIME.
a.
Mens Rea: 2 components:
(1) The intent to commit the acts or cause the results constituting the
crime; and
(2) The intent necessary for the completed crime, (e.g. attempted 187
requires the intent to cause death.) NOTE: that intent is sometimes necessary element of
attempts to commit a strict liability crime.
b.
Actus Reus: An act which progresses sufficiently towards commission of the attempted
offense. A number of criteria have been used or suggested to determine whether D's act is
enough such as:
(1) Act must go beyond the "PREPARATION" and into the zone of
"PERFORMANCE."
(2) D. must have committed the last proximate act before the commission
of the offense.
(3) D. must have obtained control over all factors indispensable to the
commission of the crime.
(4) D's conduct must be physically proximate to the intended crime.
(5) D. must have gone SO FAR THAT THE ORDINARY COURTS OF EVENTS (w/out
interference) THE CRIME WOULD BE COMPLETED.
(6) The act it self must show UNEQUIVOCALLY THAT D. INTENDED TO
COMPLETE THE CRIME.
(7) The MPC would require that the conduct constitute a SUBSTANTIAL
STEP STRONGLY CORROBORATIVE OF D'S INTENT TO COMPLETE THE CRIME.
3. IMPOSSIBILITY AS
"DEFENSE:" It is generally agreed that FACTUAL IMPOSSIBILITY, the inability of
D. to carry out her intention because of factors unknown to her-- DOES NOT PREVENT
LIABILITY FOR ATTEMPT. However, traditionally, it is a defense that D's intended activity
would not constitute a crime. GET EX
a.
Inherent or obvious impossibility; Apparently, there is no criminal attempt if it is
blatantly obvious that D's chosen methods could not result in the attempted crime. EX: Try
to kill by voodoo or breaking into a safe w\ a toothpick
4. Effect of
"Withdrawal" or ABANDONMENT: Traditionally, once an attempt is complete, D.
CANNOT avoid liability by abandoning his plans. The MPC would establish a defense of
complete and fully VOLUNTARY ABANDONMENT. Note that even if not a defense, evidence of
abandonment may be used to show that D. lacked the requisite intent.
5. Punishment: Attempts are
usually punishable by a lessor penalty than that for the complete crimes. Double Jeopardy
rules preclude a conviction for both an attempt and the completed crime.
a.
"Attempt like crimes:" Some authorities urge that attempts to commit
"attempt-like" crimes (459, and 242) should not be punished. Yet, convictions of
this type have been upheld.
b.
Solicitation as attempt: Although there is conflicting authority, the better view is that
mere solicitation, w/out more is not an attempt.
6. SOLICITATION: At common
law, a person is guilty of solicitation when he intentionally invites, requests, commands,
or encourages another person to engage in conduct constituting either a felony or a
misdemeanor involving a breach of the peace or obstruction of justice.
a.
Modern Statutes: The modern trend is to limit the crime of the solicitation of the
incitement of serious offenses (187, or rape) and to provide a lesser penalty that of the
crime imposed. NOTE: THE MPC TREATS SOLICITATION AS SERIOUSLY AS THE TARGET CRIME. So if
one solicits a 211, then his punishment will be the same as a 211.
(1) Special Problems of Solicitation:
(a) Uncommunicated Solicitation: (An intermediary fails to deliver the
message) is generally a crime, although some jurisdictions limit the charge to attempted
solicitation.
(b) Renunciation: It is unclear whether a solicitor can escape
liability by withdrawing before the solicited act is committed.
(2) Relations to other crimes:
(a) Accomplice liability distinguished: If the person solicited commits
the target crime, the solicitor is liable as a party to that crime IN ADDITION TO HE
LIABILITY FOR SOLICITATION.
(b) Conspiracy Distinguished: Conspiracy may follow a solicitation; but
an agreement is NOT REQUIRED FOR SOLICITATION.
(c) ATTEMPT DISTINGUISHED: If the solicitor GOES BEYOND mere
incitement, he may incur liability for attempt.
(d) Merger of solicitation w/ attempt or conspiracy: Solicitation is a
LESSER INCLUDED OFFENSE of attempt or conspiracy, and thus, a solicitor CANNOT BE
CONVICTED OF BOTH CRIMES.
7. Impossibility:
a.
The Common law distinguished between FACTUAL AND LEGAL impossibility. THE LATTER WAS A
DEFENSE TO AN ATTEMPT; THE FORMER WAS NOT.
b.
FACTUAL IMPOSSIBILITY: This exists when the D's actions WOULD HAVE RESULTED IN THE
COMMISSION OF THE TARGET IF THE FACTS HAD BEEN HOW THE D BELIEVED THEM TO BE.
(1) Ex: Id D, a pickpocket, puts her hand into an empty pocket, she is
still guilty of attempted theft even though it was factually impossible to commit the
target offense.
c.
While common law courts failed to distinguish then, there are 2 varieties of LEGAL
IMPOSSIBILITY;
(1) The 1st version involved TRUE OR PURE LEGAL IMPOSSIBILITY: This is
when a D. engages IN LAWFUL CONDUCT THAT SHE INCORRECTLY CONSTITUTES AS A CRIME.
(a) Merely b/c one engages in a behavior which they believe is criminal
does not make it violate the law.
(2) The more typical case of LEGAL IMPOSSIBILITY occurs when D's goal
is actually illegal BUT commission of the offense is IMPOSSIBLE DUE TO A MISTAKE BY D.
REGARDING THE LEGAL STATUS OF SOME FACT RELEVANT TO D'S CONDUCT.
(a) Ex. X steals property. Before he can pass it on to D, who fences
the stolen prop, the cops retrieve the prop from X. This now makes the prop
"UNSTOLEN." The cops want evidence on D, so they tell X to deliver the prop
anyway and D. will BELIEVE IT IS STOLEN.
D. CANNOT BE CONVICTED OF RECEIVING STOLEN PROP B/C THE PROP IS NO LONGER STOLEN. SINCE
THE COPS RETRIEVED THE PROP IT IS NO LONGER STOLEN.
C. COMPLICITY: Concerns multi-party criminal conduct.
Specifically, when one that does not actually commit the crime is accountable for
another's acts. 2 theories: First, a person is accountable for the actions of another when
if he is an ACCOMPLICE in the crime's commission. Second: He is accountable if he
conspired w/the other person.
1. Accomplice Liability:
General Common law principles.
a.
(Subject to further clarification) A person is an ACCOMPLICE in the commission of a crime
if he INTENTIONALLY ASSISTS ANOTHER PERSON TO ENGAGE IN THE CONDUCT THAT CONSTITUTES AN
OFFENSE.
b.
Accomplice liability is derivative in nature. That is, AN ACCOMPLICE OBTAINS HIS LIABILITY
DIRECTLY FROM THE PRIMARY PARTY TO WHOM HE PROVIDED ASSISTANCE TO.
(1) A, an ACCOMPLICE, is GUILTY OF THE CRIME THAT HE INTENTIONALLY
ASSISTED P TO COMMIT.
(a) Ex: If A intentionally assists P to rob a bank by driving a
get-away car, A is guilty of robbery. If P is arrested in the bank attempting robbery, A
is guilty of attempted robbery instead. Or, if P is stopped before his actions reach the
"attempt stage," A is GUILTY OF NO OFFENSE.
2. Accomplice liability:
Common law terminology
a.
There are 4 common law categories.
(1) PRINCIPLE IN THE 1ST DEGREE: He is a person who, w/ the requisite
MENS REA, personally commits the offense or uses a INNOCENT INSTRUMENT TO COMMIT IT.
(a) He is the person that shoots the gun and kills the V. or;
(b) He coerces or dupes another to commit the offense.
(2) PRINCIPLE IN THE 2ND DEGREE: He is the one who INTENTIONALLY
ASSISTS THE PRINCIPLE IN THE 1ST DEGREE TO COMMIT THE OFFENSE AND WHO IS ACTUALLY OR
CONSTRUCTIVELY PRESENT DURING THE COMMISSION.
(a) The get-away driver.
(3) ACCESSORY BEFORE THE FACT: He is the one who INTENTIONALLY ASSISTS
IN THE COMMISSION OF THE OFFENSE, BUT WHO IS NOT ACTUALLY OR CONSTRUCTIVELY PRESENT DURING
ITS COMMISSION.
(a) Ex: A is an accessory before the fact if he intentionally furnishes
P w/ a gun for a murder but is not present at the time of the crime.
(4) ACCESSORY AFTER THE FACT: He is the one who INTENTIONALLY ASSISTS A
PERSON HE KNOWS HAS COMMITTED A FELONY TO AVOID ARREST, TRIAL, OR CONVICTION.
(a) An accessory after the fact does not assist in the commission of
the crime. HE ASSISTS THE FELON TO AVOID BEING BROUGHT TO JUSTICE.
3. General Principles under
common law (JUST TO REMEMBER)
a. An
accessory before the fact COULD NOT BE TRIED FOR AN OFFENSE BEFORE THE PRINCIPLE WAS
PROSECUTED.
b. An
accessory before the fact could not be convicted if the principle was ACQUITTED
c.
Usually, particularly under homicide, an accessory could not be convicted of a more
serious crime or a higher degree of an offense for that which the principle was convicted.
4. Accomplice Liability:
"Assistance:
a. A
person ASSISTS in an offense if he solicits, encourages, or commands another person to
commit a crime, OR if he aids in its commission.
(1) A person can aid an offense by FURNISHING AN INSTRUMENT FOR THE
CRIME OR BY SERVING IN A SECONDARY ROLE IN ITS COMMISSION.
(2) A person can also aid a crime by an omission.
b. A
person in NOT an accomplice in the commission of an offense unless his actions or
omissions IN FACT ASSIST IN THE COMMISSION OF THE CRIME.
c. If
the accomplice aids in the commission of the offense, HE IS CRIMINALLY LIABLE ALTHOUGH HIS
ASSISTANCE WAS TRIVIAL. An accomplice is liable even if the crime would have occurred
w/out his assistance, i.e., he is guilty although his assistance DID NOT cause the
commission of the offense.
(1) Ex: If A does something, like open a window to a BLD. which B could
have done himself, A will be liable.
