Difference between revisions of "Crimes"

From Criminal Defense Wiki
Jump to navigationJump to search
Line 48: Line 48:
 
* '''Imposibility''' - Defendants have often asserted the defense of impossibility to attempt. Several variations of this defense have been argued:  
 
* '''Imposibility''' - Defendants have often asserted the defense of impossibility to attempt. Several variations of this defense have been argued:  
 
** '''Factual Impossibility''' - Although factual impossibility was once recognized as a defense to an attempt crime, it rarely recognized as a defense any longer. As an example, the issue of factual impossibility arises when a police officer uses counterfeit marijunana during a drug operation. Even if the defendant had purchased the drugs, no crime would have existed because the marijuana was counterfeit.  
 
** '''Factual Impossibility''' - Although factual impossibility was once recognized as a defense to an attempt crime, it rarely recognized as a defense any longer. As an example, the issue of factual impossibility arises when a police officer uses counterfeit marijunana during a drug operation. Even if the defendant had purchased the drugs, no crime would have existed because the marijuana was counterfeit.  
 
 
** '''Pure Legal Impossibility''' - If a defendant attempts to achieve a crime, yet the crime does not exist, then legal impossibility is a defense to any prosecution. For instance, imagine an individual who attempts to shoot a deer, falsely believing that the hunting of deer is illegal. This individual would be attempting a crime yet even if the act was completed, no crime would have occured.
 
** '''Pure Legal Impossibility''' - If a defendant attempts to achieve a crime, yet the crime does not exist, then legal impossibility is a defense to any prosecution. For instance, imagine an individual who attempts to shoot a deer, falsely believing that the hunting of deer is illegal. This individual would be attempting a crime yet even if the act was completed, no crime would have occured.
 
* '''Crimes to which doctrine does not apply''' - A defendant cannot be found guilty of attempted conspiracy, attempted aiding.
 
* '''Crimes to which doctrine does not apply''' - A defendant cannot be found guilty of attempted conspiracy, attempted aiding.

Revision as of 10:40, 16 June 2010

Following is a list of common crimes that defendants are charged with:

Elements of a Crime

As a general rule, every crime has four elements:

  1. Actus Reus (Voluntary Act)
  2. Mens Rea (Culpable Mental State)
  3. Concurrence of Actus Reus and Mens Rea
  4. Damages

Crimes Against the Person

  • Murder
  • Felony Murder
  • Manslaughter - Voluntary
  • Manslaughter - Involuntary
  • Assault
  • Battery
  • Mayhem
  • Rape
  • Kidnapping
  • Human or Sex Trafficking

Crimes Against Property

  • Arson
  • Blackmail
  • Burglary
  • Embezzlement
  • Extortion
  • False Pretense
  • Larceny
  • Receiving Stolen Property
  • Robbery
  • Trespass

Crimes Against the State

  • Treason
  • Possession or sale of controlled substances
  • Prostitution

Attempt

An individual may be culpable for the crime of attempt if they have the appropriate mens rea, even if they fail to complete the required actus reas of the crime. The central question in attempt liability is how much actus reus is required to trigger attempt liability. The test will vary from jurisdiction to jurisdiction:

  • Substantial Step Test - This test, promoted by the Model Penal Code, would require the fact finder to determine if the defendant had taken a "substantial step in a course of conduct planned to culminate in [the defendant']s commission of the crime."[1]
  • Res Ipsa Loquitur Test - This test asks whether the individual's attempt is manifesty obvious from the facts.
  • Dangerous Proximity Test' - This test asks whether the defendant's actions were in "dangerous proximity to success," or when an act "is so near to the result that the danger of success is very great."

There are several defenses to accomplice liability:

  • Imposibility - Defendants have often asserted the defense of impossibility to attempt. Several variations of this defense have been argued:
    • Factual Impossibility - Although factual impossibility was once recognized as a defense to an attempt crime, it rarely recognized as a defense any longer. As an example, the issue of factual impossibility arises when a police officer uses counterfeit marijunana during a drug operation. Even if the defendant had purchased the drugs, no crime would have existed because the marijuana was counterfeit.
    • Pure Legal Impossibility - If a defendant attempts to achieve a crime, yet the crime does not exist, then legal impossibility is a defense to any prosecution. For instance, imagine an individual who attempts to shoot a deer, falsely believing that the hunting of deer is illegal. This individual would be attempting a crime yet even if the act was completed, no crime would have occured.
  • Crimes to which doctrine does not apply - A defendant cannot be found guilty of attempted conspiracy, attempted aiding.
  • Criminal Negligence - When the required mental state is criminal negligence, it is impossible for the defendant to "attempt" the crime. For example, a person cannot attempt involuntary manslaughter, because intent to act negligently is a logical contradiction.

Conspiracy

Accomplice Liability

An individual may be culpable for the crime of another if he intentionally abbets, encourages, solicits, advises or procures the commission of the crime by physical conduct or psychological influence. Generally, a failure to prevent another from committing a crime will not trigger accomplice liability. However, that ommission could be a factor in determining whether psychological influence existed.

Under the Pinkerton Doctrine [2] an accomplice can be liable for the criminal acts of another as long as the criminal act falls within the scope of the conspiracy or is a foreseeable consequence of a conspiracy.

In the United States, the mens rea requirement for accomplice liability is normally purpose, though some courts state that knowledge will suffice. The Model Penal Code states that accomplice liability will exist if a defendant assists another "with the purpose of promoting or facilitating the commission fo the offence [3]. If the primary actor can be convicted because the mens rea requirement is only recklessness or negligence, then the same level may apply to accomplice liability.

There are two primary defenses to accomplice liability:

  • Protected Class Exemption - First, if the accomplice is a member of the class the crime is intended to protect, accomplice liability does not exist. For instance, a 13 year old girl will not be culpable for statutory rape under an accomplice liability theory.
  • Abandonment - An accomplice may abandon a conspiracy and thereby eliminate accomplice liability. In order to do so, the accomplice must generally 1) notify the principal that he or she is withdrawing from the conspiracy and 2) take some action to neutralize whatever steps he took to assist in the crime.

Solicitation

An individual may be culpable of solicitation if he or she encourages another to commit a particular offense. Solicitation is a specific intent crime in the United States. The solicited individual need only attempt to complete the crime for solicitation to exist.

There is one primary defense to solicitation:

  • Renunciation - In order to use this defense, the defendant must 1) renounce intent for principal to commit crime and 2) discourage or otherwise stop principal from completing crime,

Example: A person is guilty of solicitation if:

  1. his purpose is to promote or facilitate the commission of a substantive offense; and
  2. with such purpose, he commands, encourages or requests another person to engage in conduct that would constitute the crime, an attempt to commit it, or would establish the other person's complicity in its commission or attempted commission. [4]

International Law Crimes

Notes