Full social harm sough to be prevented has not yet occurred The
b b b b b b b b b b b
Classic Inchoate Crimes:
b b b
Attempt
Solicitation
b
Conspiracy
b
Accomplice liability is not crime but rather a doctrine
b b b b b b b b
1/28/16
Solicitation
• Inducing (inciting, counseling, advising, urging, commanding) another to commit a crime
b b b b b b b b b b
• With intent that the other commit the crime
b b b b b b b
• Offense is complete at the time the request is made – there is no requirement of
b b b b b b b b b b b b b b b
agreement or any response
b b b b
• No requirement of an act in furtherance.
b b b b b b
Under MPC, lack of receipt of a letter asking to kill does not impact whether there is solicitation.
b b b b b b b b b b b b b b b b b
Other jurisdictions are split.
b b b b
Under common law, receipt of the letter would matter.
b b b b b b b b
Solicitation by itself does not generally amount to an attempt
b b b b b b b b b
• Majority view: solicitation is preparatory and not an attempt b b b b b b b b
• Minority view: may be a step towards commission under some circumstances as where
b b b b b b b b b b b b
defendant identifies
b b
Defenses
• Factual impossibility is not a defense (as when the defendants has attempted to buy
b b b b b b b b b b b b b
drugs from a police officer)
b b b b b
• Culpability is measured from the solicitor’s point of view. If the solicitor’s intent b b b b b b b b b b b b
was that the other commit the crime – that is sufficient b b b b b b b b b b
• Withdrawal or renunciation is not a defense b b b b b b
• Note, the MPC does recognize this defense, if the solicitor prevents the crime. b b b b b b b b b b b b
• Exemption from intended crime is a defense. b b b b b b
Conspiracy
1. An agreement between 2 or more persons
b b b b b b
2. To commit a crime b b b
3. AND (modern majority rule) some overt act in furtherance of such agreement/plan
b b b b b b b b b b b
b Requires intent to agree and intent to commit the crime.
b b b b b b b b b
Defenses and Merger b b
• Factual Impossibility is not a defense b b b b b
• Withdrawal is not a defense b b b b
, • Not that MPC makes withdrawal a defense if defendant thwarts the conspiracy b b b b b b b b b b b
• Merger-at common law conspiracy merged with crime, but this is not the case under b b b b b b b b b b b b b
modern majority rule
b b b
• Note this is different from solicitation and attempt which do merge with the completed
b b b b b b b b b b b b b
crime.
b
Prosecutors love a good conspiracy b b b b
• Inchoate- so no actual crime need to be prove b b b b b b b b
• Guilty by association when trying co-conspirators together b b b b b b
• Some statues do not require an overt act b b b b b b b
• Greater flexibility as to venue b b b b
• Evidentiary rules make statements by co-conspirators an exception to the hearsay rule b b b b b b b b b b b
• Pinkerton rule-allows prosecutors to charge one co-conspirator with crimes committed by b b b b b b b b b b
another co-conspirator if the crime was during and in furtherance of the conspiracy and
b b b b b b b b b b b b b b
reasonably foreseeable.
b b
Wharton’s Rule b
• Might think of this as the “plus one” rule b b b b b b b b
• Where the crime by its nature requires two people, you cannot charge the two people with
b b b b b b b b b b b b b b b
conspiracy. b
• Adultery, bribery. Bigamy, drug sale – where statute makes both guilty of a crime b b b b b b b b b b b b b
2/2/16
Accomplice Liability b
• Aiding and abetting = accomplice b b b b
• Accessory before and accessory after the fact – no distinction in Arizona b b b b b b b b b b b
• With the purpose of promoting the commission of the offense, a person aids or
b b b b b b b b b b b b b
agrees to aid in planning, committing or attempting to commit an offense.
b b b b b b b b b b b b
2/4/16
Roadmap
State the conclusion to your client’s legal question.
b b b b b b b
Describe the governing rule
b b b b
Dispose of the obvious and uncontroversial (if necessary) Map
b b b b b b b b
and assess the remaining arguments (if necessary) Conclude
b b b b b b b b
again (optional, but strongly encouraged)
b b b b b
• Note this will looking something like a CREAC, but hold back at the E! b b b b b b b b b b b b b
Where do you need a roadmap?
b b b b b
• Brief answer is a very broad overview that serves a roadmap function. Think of this as ab b b b b b b b b b b b b b b b
preview of coming attractions. b b b b
, •
Discussion - at the start of the discussion section b b b b b b b b
• This roadmap can be a little more detailed than the one in the Brief Answer b b b b b b b b b b b b b b
• You will include citations here b b b b
• In general, also have a roadmap whenever a I/CREAC has nested sub-I/CREAC’s
b b b b b b b b b b b
• More than one issue or sub-issue? You need a roadmap. b b b b b b b b b
Result Crimes
b
No murder without result (death) • b b b b
•
Burglary – breaking and entering the dwelling house of another, at night, with b b b b b b b b b b b b
intent to commit a felony therein. b b b b b b
Defendant must have caused (or risked) the result
b b b b b b b
• Cause in fact b b
• Was the Defendant’s conduct the “but for” cause? b b b b b b b
• Was Defendant’s conduct a substantial factor in causing? b b b b b b b
• Requires the government to prove that but for the actions of the defendants the b b b b b b b b b b b b b
result would not have happened when it happened.b b b b b b b b
• Proximate cause b
Compare to Torts b b
• Actual cause – “but for” or was the D’s conduct a substantial factor?
b b b b b b b b b b b b
• Proximate cause – was it foreseeable? b b b b b
• Purpose – to apportion liability b b b b
Criminal
Actual cause – “but for”
b b b b
Proximate cause: all natural and probable consequences – unless an intervening, superseding cause
b b b b b b b b b b b b
breaks the chain of causation
b b b b b
Purpose: decide whether we should punish D for causing the harm No
b b b b b b b b b b b
contributory fault
b b
2/18/16
Crimes Against the Person b b b
Homicide – the killing of another human being. By another (think of this as the umbrella rule term for
b b b b b b b b b b b b b b b b b b
taking a human life)
b b b b
Elements to A Criminal Homicide
b b b b
(1) Non mental Elements b b
a. Death of a human being b b b b
b. By another b
c. Casual link between the conduct (the killing) and the result (a death) b b b b b b b b b b b
(2) Mental Elements b
b b b b b b b b b b b
Classic Inchoate Crimes:
b b b
Attempt
Solicitation
b
Conspiracy
b
Accomplice liability is not crime but rather a doctrine
b b b b b b b b
1/28/16
Solicitation
• Inducing (inciting, counseling, advising, urging, commanding) another to commit a crime
b b b b b b b b b b
• With intent that the other commit the crime
b b b b b b b
• Offense is complete at the time the request is made – there is no requirement of
b b b b b b b b b b b b b b b
agreement or any response
b b b b
• No requirement of an act in furtherance.
b b b b b b
Under MPC, lack of receipt of a letter asking to kill does not impact whether there is solicitation.
b b b b b b b b b b b b b b b b b
Other jurisdictions are split.
b b b b
Under common law, receipt of the letter would matter.
b b b b b b b b
Solicitation by itself does not generally amount to an attempt
b b b b b b b b b
• Majority view: solicitation is preparatory and not an attempt b b b b b b b b
• Minority view: may be a step towards commission under some circumstances as where
b b b b b b b b b b b b
defendant identifies
b b
Defenses
• Factual impossibility is not a defense (as when the defendants has attempted to buy
b b b b b b b b b b b b b
drugs from a police officer)
b b b b b
• Culpability is measured from the solicitor’s point of view. If the solicitor’s intent b b b b b b b b b b b b
was that the other commit the crime – that is sufficient b b b b b b b b b b
• Withdrawal or renunciation is not a defense b b b b b b
• Note, the MPC does recognize this defense, if the solicitor prevents the crime. b b b b b b b b b b b b
• Exemption from intended crime is a defense. b b b b b b
Conspiracy
1. An agreement between 2 or more persons
b b b b b b
2. To commit a crime b b b
3. AND (modern majority rule) some overt act in furtherance of such agreement/plan
b b b b b b b b b b b
b Requires intent to agree and intent to commit the crime.
b b b b b b b b b
Defenses and Merger b b
• Factual Impossibility is not a defense b b b b b
• Withdrawal is not a defense b b b b
, • Not that MPC makes withdrawal a defense if defendant thwarts the conspiracy b b b b b b b b b b b
• Merger-at common law conspiracy merged with crime, but this is not the case under b b b b b b b b b b b b b
modern majority rule
b b b
• Note this is different from solicitation and attempt which do merge with the completed
b b b b b b b b b b b b b
crime.
b
Prosecutors love a good conspiracy b b b b
• Inchoate- so no actual crime need to be prove b b b b b b b b
• Guilty by association when trying co-conspirators together b b b b b b
• Some statues do not require an overt act b b b b b b b
• Greater flexibility as to venue b b b b
• Evidentiary rules make statements by co-conspirators an exception to the hearsay rule b b b b b b b b b b b
• Pinkerton rule-allows prosecutors to charge one co-conspirator with crimes committed by b b b b b b b b b b
another co-conspirator if the crime was during and in furtherance of the conspiracy and
b b b b b b b b b b b b b b
reasonably foreseeable.
b b
Wharton’s Rule b
• Might think of this as the “plus one” rule b b b b b b b b
• Where the crime by its nature requires two people, you cannot charge the two people with
b b b b b b b b b b b b b b b
conspiracy. b
• Adultery, bribery. Bigamy, drug sale – where statute makes both guilty of a crime b b b b b b b b b b b b b
2/2/16
Accomplice Liability b
• Aiding and abetting = accomplice b b b b
• Accessory before and accessory after the fact – no distinction in Arizona b b b b b b b b b b b
• With the purpose of promoting the commission of the offense, a person aids or
b b b b b b b b b b b b b
agrees to aid in planning, committing or attempting to commit an offense.
b b b b b b b b b b b b
2/4/16
Roadmap
State the conclusion to your client’s legal question.
b b b b b b b
Describe the governing rule
b b b b
Dispose of the obvious and uncontroversial (if necessary) Map
b b b b b b b b
and assess the remaining arguments (if necessary) Conclude
b b b b b b b b
again (optional, but strongly encouraged)
b b b b b
• Note this will looking something like a CREAC, but hold back at the E! b b b b b b b b b b b b b
Where do you need a roadmap?
b b b b b
• Brief answer is a very broad overview that serves a roadmap function. Think of this as ab b b b b b b b b b b b b b b b
preview of coming attractions. b b b b
, •
Discussion - at the start of the discussion section b b b b b b b b
• This roadmap can be a little more detailed than the one in the Brief Answer b b b b b b b b b b b b b b
• You will include citations here b b b b
• In general, also have a roadmap whenever a I/CREAC has nested sub-I/CREAC’s
b b b b b b b b b b b
• More than one issue or sub-issue? You need a roadmap. b b b b b b b b b
Result Crimes
b
No murder without result (death) • b b b b
•
Burglary – breaking and entering the dwelling house of another, at night, with b b b b b b b b b b b b
intent to commit a felony therein. b b b b b b
Defendant must have caused (or risked) the result
b b b b b b b
• Cause in fact b b
• Was the Defendant’s conduct the “but for” cause? b b b b b b b
• Was Defendant’s conduct a substantial factor in causing? b b b b b b b
• Requires the government to prove that but for the actions of the defendants the b b b b b b b b b b b b b
result would not have happened when it happened.b b b b b b b b
• Proximate cause b
Compare to Torts b b
• Actual cause – “but for” or was the D’s conduct a substantial factor?
b b b b b b b b b b b b
• Proximate cause – was it foreseeable? b b b b b
• Purpose – to apportion liability b b b b
Criminal
Actual cause – “but for”
b b b b
Proximate cause: all natural and probable consequences – unless an intervening, superseding cause
b b b b b b b b b b b b
breaks the chain of causation
b b b b b
Purpose: decide whether we should punish D for causing the harm No
b b b b b b b b b b b
contributory fault
b b
2/18/16
Crimes Against the Person b b b
Homicide – the killing of another human being. By another (think of this as the umbrella rule term for
b b b b b b b b b b b b b b b b b b
taking a human life)
b b b b
Elements to A Criminal Homicide
b b b b
(1) Non mental Elements b b
a. Death of a human being b b b b
b. By another b
c. Casual link between the conduct (the killing) and the result (a death) b b b b b b b b b b b
(2) Mental Elements b
