Criminal Threat - Criminal Law - Solved Past Paper, Exams of Criminal Law

Download Criminal Threat - Criminal Law - Solved Past Paper and more Exams Criminal Law in PDF only on Docsity! ID: CrimLaw_LS$2_Chang_Final_2011FL chang ID: (Exam Number) Exam Name: CrimLaw_L$2_Chang_Final_2011FL Instructor: Chang Grade: Page 1 of 1 Exam taken with Soffest v2445 ID: CrimLaw_LS2_Chang_Final_2011FL Chang 1) soc====2 Start of Answer #1 (4796 words) ======== Criminal law is derived from the common law, the constitution, statutory law, and the model penal cade (MPC). The constitution provides due process of law, notice, Megs, and equal protection of the laws to all people under the Sth and 14th ye &Gmendments. Therefore, a defendant (D) is innocent until proven guilty. The principle ee of legality provides notice and fairness to Ds by stating that there is no crime without law, and no punishment without law. Therefore, for a D to be charged with a crime, it must actually be a crime first. Statutes that are ambiguous or are over or under inclusive will be void for vagueness under due process. The !enity doctrine states that where a law is ambiguous (he courts will narrowly construe it, and in favor of the D. The state has the burden of proof to prove all the elements of a crime. They must all be proven by the standard of beyond a reasonable doubt, which is almost near certainty. A D may raise an affirmative defense and thus has the burden of proving that defense usually by a preponderance of th€ evidence (50%). Otherwise, s' imes (including federal), for insantiy it might be by a clear and convingiftg eer, Once, a D is proven guilty, then the 8th amendment prohibits cruel and unusual punishment that is excessive, offends human dignity, or goes against contemporary societal standards. From here on out, most crimes will be analyzed under the CL and modern variations. Section 101 Criminal Threat—Chia Page 1 of 16 (Question 1 continued) ID: CrimLaw_LS2_Chang_Final_2011FL Chang engage in conduct constituting a crime as outlined in 300. There is no evidence as to if D was joking, unless she just meant it as an insult. However, no reasonable person would send a violent video and expect it to be taken jokingly. Since, the violence in the video is at the very least a misdemeanor, D will have intended for E to engage in the violence which would be a crime, and thus her intent and action of doing so would satisfy that she encouraged E to engage in that conduct. Thus, the state will probably be successful in this charge of a misdemeanor. 6 Statute of 300--usually solicitation is a serious chine, because it shows how one person can have such evil thoughts and the encouragement of another to engage in criminal conduct as a result of those thoughts/intents, is serious enough and is more likely that a crime will be committed. Thus, usually criminal law views solicitation as a felony, because of its seriousness and likelihood that it will result in a crime. Therefore, this crime as a misdemeanor might not be up to par with criminal law. Solicitation—Errol The state will want to charge E with solicitation under the CL. Sol under CL is the intent to solicit, ask, entice, induce, and (MPC encourage) another commit a crime, with the intent that the other commit the target crime. CA requires communication, but the MPC does not. Here, Errol asked Flynn to make the street drug so Chia wofla lose consciousness. Thus there is a solicitation to commit a battery (unlawful application of force wilfully or in anger to another), because slipping Chia a drug would gonstitate an 0 application of force. However, there might be sol to commit rape, yet there is no direct rt evidence that E intended for F to commit the crime. Even though F “thought” it was so that they could three have sex together, the state might have trouble proving that E Page 4 of 16 (Question 1 continued} ID: CrimLaw_LS2_Chang_Final_2011FL Chang intended for his solciitation to be sol to commit rape. If he the state did find that he intended to commit rape, as usually drug inducing street drugs are usually used for that purpose, then since Flynn agreed there might bea conspiracy and sol would merge into that consp. Also, the sol of battery would niérge to conspiracy when Flynn agreed. Accomplice, Liability for E and F iLook liabilty is a form of derivative liabilty and accomplice in their assitance to principals of a crime will be liable for all the crimes committed by the principal. The accomplice attaches himself to the P and thus they are agents of each other "1c are one. Thus, the accomplice's liabilty is derived from the principal's conduck Bie determined when there is an intent to assist, aid, abet, or encourage another with the requisite intent that the assistance aid the prinicpal in his conduct that would constistute a crime, and assistance in fact must be given. When E asked F to make the street drug, F agreed and made it. Thus, F knew that E would commit a crime, possibly rape, ecarleath thought they would all have sex together. He assisted by making the gfug, * co is physical conduct necessary to satisfy the element of actual mes Flynn distracted Shelby, while E slipped the drug in her drink, another assistance pth Oy “Or 6) consequences of each other. THus under the N and P doctrine, they will only be liable any crimes that E and F commit they must also have the requisite mens rea that is required for the crime committed and will only be liable for all natural and probable for crimes committed that are natural and probable in view of the first. A crime must be committed, although neither have to be convicted, in order for an accomplice to be liable. Page 5 of 16 (Question 1 continued) ID: CrimLaw_L$2_Chang_Final_2011FL Chang Conspiracy to commit rape of C The state will seek to charge both E wae ean to commit rape of C. here must be an agreement, with the intent to agree fo commit lateral agreement is required. In CA and other jx, they sometimes allow for unilateral in certain circumstances such as undercover law entorap Bt” However, when E solicitied F and F agreed, there was a bilateral agreement. They both must have the intent to achieve the objective of the conspiracy. The objective for Flynn was that E, F, and C would all have sex together. However, with the drug, it could feasonably be deduced that both E and F although did not explicitly conspire to commit the rape of C, with the use of the drug, most would think that means date rape. Especially, there is the intent to use the drug for C to lose consciousness and "lose her memory of the events", which is usually what a street drug wolffao. Thus, it could be inferred they both had the intent to achieve the objective of drugging C to rape her and commit other violent acts (battery/those in the video). Modernly, there js-a third element of an overt act in furtherance of the conspiracy, whic! A be just a slight act. Modemly, they might be held liable for conp, because they did end up drugging "C", even though it was "S". Although, they did not intend to follow S or drug S, it does not matter, because their "mistake of fact" defense would not work, because it was not reasonable (general intent rape) AND it cannot be used for a mistaken victim. (Transferred intent) Ln. 4 Under the Pinkerttin Doctrine, conspiratorial liabilty extends to all co-conspirators for all crimes committed in furtherance of the conspiracy and for all crimes that are Page 6 of 16 (Question 1 continued) ID: CrimLaw_LS2_Chang_Final_2011FL Chang Shelby’'s age other thatn she is a teenager, so she might have the capacity to consent, therefore she is considered a woman (def at the CL). Granger might be male, based on his name and for this puyfose, otherwise rape wouldn't work under CL. Modernly, statutes are ee neutral. The by force requirement is either by extrinsic force (CL physical resistance by woman required) or intrinsic (min enough force to do the act itself). The maj use the force as force that would overcome the consent of a reasonable woman. Constructive force is threat of force by threat of fear of death/GBI or fear enough to preclude resistance. Granger was “having sex with the unconscious Shelby". There is no evidence of extrinsic force for CL, but modernly unconsiciousness is used for both force under maj and min and for lack of consent (fourth element). Some min even require affirmative consent, of having a woman say yes. Therefore, modemly Granger would have raped S since he did not receive consent and forced her to do so through her unconsciousness. If she is under the age of consent, force and consent would not matter, and he would be liable for stat rape, because it is a partial SL w —_—— —_———___— crime. (der is the unlawful killing of human being with malice aforethough and without mitigation, justification, or excuse. A human being is born alive at CL and is dead at cL at the cessation of resp function. Modemly, viable fetuses are alive and brain dead can be death. Malice aforethought is met in one of four ways, intent to kill, intent to inflict great bodily injury, depraved heart, or felony murder rule. When Granger pulled out his knife and stabbed Errol, could be intent to inflict GBI. ALthough Errol did not die right een aaa then. Instead he died after he was hit with the baseball bat by F. Thus, G will argue Page 9 of 16 (Question ¢ continued) ID: CrimLaw_LS2_Chang_Final_2011FL Chang lack of causation. caylcion is established by actual and proxim, ctual cause is but for cause and when there are two people that might e actual cause of the death there are three categories to look at. (Sub factor, but for, & acceleration). The state will want to prove that E was a sub factor in bringing about the death of E, because E died from his “injuries", which probably include both his stabbing and his head injury from the baseball bat. Each act (stab, bat) were both probably a sub factor. Therefore, but for G's stabbing, E might not have died. However, there also has to be voted ssa G must b ximate cause of E's death, meaning that it was foreseeable “ee were the legal cause of E's death. F's baseball hit was either an interverfing act, which would not break the causal chain of liabilty or a re ecneden which would break the causal chain. 3rd party criminal acts are usually superceding, so G will argue that F's act was superceding and not foreseeable, because gross neg} is not foreseeable. However, itis arguable, because it is possible that the baseball bat maybe was not the cause of actual death, but the stabbing was. If so, then G will be on the hook. G's Defenses a G will argue for self defense. SelPdefense is a rightijustified defense. G must have an actual and reasonable belief of unlawful imminent deadly force (GBi/death). There was no reasonable belief here, because E just pushed G, and did not have have a deadly weapon. Therefore, there was framinent threat of deadly force, and to use SD the use of deadly force must be necessary and proportionate. And G's use of a knife is deadly force meeting E's non deadly force. Therefore, this defense is imperfect. Imperfect privilege is a partial defense to murder, so if G is liable for murder under Page 10 of 16 {Question t continued) ID: CrimLaw_LS2_Chang_Final_2011FL Chang causation, he might be able to mitigate it down to voluntary manslaughter through his imperfect self defense. Attempted Rape of S by F (& &) Criminal Attempt is a crime where there is an intent to commit the target crime (rape) and an overt act beyond mere preparation. F had the intent to rape S when he started unzipping his pants. (Gl crime of rape, intent to commit actus reus). E also had the intent when he pushed G out of the way so "he couldhave a turn with S”. (Also AL). An overt act is satisfied by geftain 8 tests. Last act (CL—pulling the trigger of gun absolute last act), Last proximate act (reasonable minds differ-pulling out gun), dangerous proximity {dangeorusly close, nearness of danger, greatness of harm), indispensable wa (must have all elements of crime to commit, no victim=no. attempt), probable gesistante test (past the point of no return), res ipsa ston movie), abnormaf step test (a step no reasonable law abidign person would take), and MPC substantial wa (lays out conduct qualitfying attempt lying in wait, material possession). Under the probable desitance test, F was probably past the point of no return. Attempt is when a D is past the point of no return and past the point of a place where the reasonable person would stop. F was unzipping his pants as he stood over Shelby, which is pretty close and no reasonable person would get that far as to standing over her with pants unzipped. Under the res ipsa test, the D's conduct must substantially corroborate is criminal intent to commit the crime. At6re, if people were wathcing a silent movie, F's conduct of unzipping his pants ai nding over Shelby, would make people believe that he was attempting to rape her. Especially, because she was unconscious. Therefore, F will be Page 11 of 16 (Question 1 continued) ID: CrimLaw_LS2_Chang_Final_2011FL Chang substantial risk of death. In the abstract (CA/MIN), rape might not always include a sub tisk of death, and FMR must be established under causation. F' Defense of Insanjty (all crimes) Insanity if’an affirmative defense. There are five tests for determining insanity at the time of the crime committed. igthen is where the D has a mental disease or defect and lacks the abilty to either understand the nature and quality of action or know the wrongful ness (legal/moral). vane ie test is used in conjunction with MN test and states that a D was aa his conduct to law or unable to control his actions. The smal min test Durem test is that the D's,conduct in committing crime was a product of his mental disease. The MPC “nah capacity test states D has a mental disease/defect and lacks the substantial capacity to either-conform his conduct to law or know the wrongfulness of actions. Federal canton Act tests says the D has a severe mental disease and is unable to appreciate the quality/nature of actions or wrongfulnes&é f the MN test, F must have a mental disease or defect. The facts state that F's psychiatrist diagnosed him with several sleep/sex disorders. However, a mental disease must be proven by the production of medical expert testimony. The facts state that F's condition is controversial among experts, so it is arguable whether he actually suffers from a mental disease. If it is found he does, then F must prove that he lacked the ability to either understand the nature of his actions or know the wrongfulness of his actions. Under the “understand nature of his actions", if F's disease is considered a defect, then his disease has nothing to do with his comprehension of “Sg He knows its wrong moraily and he knows that the crimes he has committe: a egal wrong). And, Page 14 of 16 (Question 1 continued) ID: CrimLaw_LS2_Chang_Final_2011FL Chang his disease does not cause him to have bad comprehension, therefore he probably understands what the nature of his actions might cause to people (Rape has serious efffects on victims). So, F should hope he is in a jx that uses the irres impulse test in conjunction with MN, if he is found that his condition is actually a mental disease. The Il test would allow him to use insanity defense, because his conditions cause him not to be able to control his actions or conform them to law (at least for rape), because he is asleep when he performs those sexual acts. Therefore, F might be successful only if he is found to have a mental disease, AND if the jx allows for II test as well as MN. F must also be read trial, assist in his own defense, under stand mr: rational and factual understanding of the proceedings, and be able to have the ability te counsel rationally with his attorney. Otherwise, civil committment. piety Self Defense against E's choking of a pe F will also want to use the self défense. When E flew into a rage and started choking F, F got the baseball and hit E. F must have an actual and reasonable belieft of imminent death or GBI. Choking would satisfy this factor. The use of force must be necessary and proportionate (argubale baseball bat necessary?). F must not be the initial aggressor. Unfortuntaely, F was, because he was trying to rape E, so E had the right to self defense, not F. F would have to either withdraw by de escalating the situation, which he did not or regain the right by being met with deadly force when F used non deadly force. This might be arguable because F was trying to rape E (or not by mistake if lovers) and E responded with deadly force of choking. Therefore, F might have regained the right. There is a duty to retreat at CL and min, but only if safe to do so and it was not safe here. Page 15 of 16 (Question 1 continued) ID: ° CrimLaw_LS2_Chang_Final_2011FL Chang Attempted Murder of F by E (choking) Probably not. Self Defense from Rape. Death Penalty Under FMR/F's felonies, F might be open to a death sentence. For FMR, a co- felon must have a substantial part and be reckless in bringing about the death. However, F was the trigger person and not an accomplice, so he might be subject to this sentence. However, if he is found to be insane, the 8th amendment prohibits the death penalty for the insane. wo ip ssa===== End of Answer #1 ==== Page 16 of 16