ClassNotesCriminalLawGivelber2

LawSchool | RecentChanges | Preferences | Edit

(Sponsored Links, Helps Support Bandwidth Costs)


Difference (from prior major revision) (author diff)

Added: 1046a1047,1093

Thursday, April 25, 2002 (Class 45) (Assignment 46)




* Is pulling a knife in a fight in a crowded bar sufficiently reckless or indicative of abandoned and malignant and heart?
* Same issue as Alvarez: any time someone pulls out a weapon in a middle of a tense situation, could be found to be reckless or indicative of abandoned and malignant heart.
* See Taylor v. Superior Court [477 P.2d 131] 1970 (cb500).
* Also argument that Riley should have retreated, and because he didn't lost his ability to plead self-defense.
* Belief has to be reasonable, and response has to be reasonable, for self-defense to work.

Armored Car (Problem 2)




* Always examine each defendant's liability individually.
* First look at Holgate:
* Conspiracy Crime
** Under Model Penal Code § 5.03, Holgate is guilty of crime of conspiracy independent of whether there is actual agreement (unilateral conspiracy):
** 5.03(1)(a): (a) agrees with such other person or persons that they or one or more of them will engage in conduct that constitutes such crime or an attempt or solicitation to commit such crime; or
* Attempted Larceny/Theft? vs. Attempted Robbery
** Did Holgate attempt to commit theft by deception?
** Model Penal Code takes subjectivist view of events were as defendant believed them to be--Holgate believed the bank to have money for pick up even if it didn't.
** Then, did Holgate take a substantial step? Disabling car would probably count as a substantial step.
* Robbery
** Model Penal Code defines robbery as use of force in the course of committing a theft.
** Default mens rea requirement under Model Penal Code for robbery is recklessness.
** Was Holgate reckless in activity that lead to the use of force?
** Other argument is that robbery includes 'purposely' in some elements, thus 'purposely' should apply to all elements of robbery.
* What crime did Holgate commit in killing Gustave?
** If it was attempted robbery, crime is murder, because of homicide committed in the course of robbery.
** If crime was attempted theft, crime could be manslaughter.
* Best to start with primary actor, and then move to secondary actors'
* Look at Moe:
* Conspiracy
** Did Moe agree to crime?
** Was being sarcastic, thus may not have actually agreed, thus not guilty of conspiracy.
** He gave his clothing size, however, which would suggest substantial step. Can't be guilty of conspiracy, however, if he didn't agree.
** On the other hand, if he hadn't feigned agreement, none of this would have happened.
** If he neither intended to agree nor intended to assist, he could not be guilty as accomplice, because he did not have requisite purpose.
** Act of encouraging Holgate could constitute reckless conduct sufficient for manslaughter.
** Might just be able to convict of manslaughter on broadened notions of causation.
* Then look at Curly:
** Was drunk at time of agreement. Would have to be so drunk that he didn't have purpose to agree.
** Under Model Penal Code, guilty of subsequent crimes to act of crime if he can be treated as accomplice in those crimes (no Pinkerton rule). Since he slept through day, hard to make the argument that he was actually an accomplice.
* Finally, look at Wanda:
** Look to People v. Lauria. Is this a situation where knowledge plus charging more for uniforms gives person stake in venture that makes it a crime?
** Need something more than just supplying something that is used in crime.

* On Wednesday review session, will do second question.




Tuesday, March 5, 2002 (Class 22) (Assignments 22-23)

McCleskey? v. Kemp

(continued)

[481 U.S. 279] 1987 United States Supreme Court (cb555)

Rape


Wednesday, March 6, 2002 (Class 23) (Assignment 23)

Brown v. State

[106 N.W. 536] 1906 Wisconsin Supreme Court (cb1081)

People v. Dorsey

[429 N.Y.S.2d 828] 1980 New York State Supreme Court (cb1087)

People v. Warren

[446 N.E.2d 591] 1983 Illinois Supreme Court (cb1093)

People v. Barnes

[721 P.d 110] 1986 California Supreme Court

State v. Smith

[554 A.2d 713] 1989 Connecticut Supreme Court

Question to ask: even with these different standards, would there be actually different results in these cases?

New York holds on to word 'resistance'; unless it is totally within the eyes of jury, might make it somewhat harder to get conviction in Smith and Barnes, although you can find elements of resistance in those cases.

Would have no problem getting conviction in Dorsey in Connecticut or California, however.

Deal with MTS and Fisher tomorrow.


Tuesday, March 12, 2002 (Class 25) (Assignment 25)

'Taking' Element of Theft

Lund v. Commonwealth

[232 S.E.2d 745] 1977 Virginia Supreme Court (cb1034)

People v. Sattlekau

[140 N.Y.S. 805] 1907 New York Supreme Court (cb1037)

Mail Fraud

Durland v. United States

[161 U.S. 306] 1896 United States Supreme Court (cb1043)


United States v. King

[860 F.2d 54] 1988 2nd Circuit Court of Appeals (cb1045)

United States v. Regent Office Supply

[421 F.1d 1174] 1970 2nd Circuit Court of Appeals (cb1047)

United States v. Starr

[816 F.2d 94] 1987 2d Circuit Court of Appeals (cb1047)

United States v. Walters

[997 F.2d 1219] 1993 7th Circuit Court of Appeals (cb1048)

Carpenter v. United States

[484 U.S 19] 1987 Supreme Court

Extortion

People v. Dioguardi

[203 N.Y.S.2d 870] 1960 New York Court of Appeals (cb1053)

State v. Harrington

[260 A.2d 692] 1969 (cb1059)

Blackmail

For tomorrow, Heather's row is 'on'.


Thursday, March 14, 2002 (Class 27) (Assignment 27)

McCormick? v. United States

[500 U.S. 257] 1991 United States Supreme Court (cb1063)

Evans v. United States

[504 U.S. 255] 1992 United States Supreme Court (cb1068)

United States v. Albertson

[971 F. Supp. 837] 1997 District Court of Delaware (cb1068)

Robbery

Burglary

Self-Defense

People v. La Voie

[395 P.2d 1001] 1964 Colorado Supreme Court (cb576)

For next class, Bob to Christina are 'on'.


Tuesday, March 19, 2002 (Class 28) (Assignments 28-29)

People v. La Voie

(continued)

[395 P.2d 1001] 1964 Colorado Supreme Court (cb576)

State v. Leidholm

[334 N.W.2d 811] 1983 North Dakota Supreme Court (cb581)

Julie to Rob are 'on' for next class.


Wednesday, March 20, 2002 (Class 29) (Assignments 29-30)

People v. Goetz

[497 N.E.2d 41] 1986 New York Court of Appeals (cb610)

People v. Abbott

(cb616)

United States v. Peterson

[483 F.2d 1222] 1973 United States Court of Appeals DC Circuit (cb618)

Tennessee v. Garner

[471 U.S. 1] 1985 United States Supreme Court (cb624)

Tomorrow Cathleen to Darren are 'on'.


Thursday, March 21, 2002 (Class 30) (Assignments 30-31)

Tennessee v. Garner

(continued)

[471 U.S. 1] 1985 United States Supreme Court (cb624)

People v. Couch

[439 N.W.2d 354] 1989 Michigan Court of Appeals (cb629)

People v. Ceballos

[526 P.2d 241] 1974 California Supreme Court (cb631)

The Queen v. Dudley & Stephens

[14 Q.B.D. 273] 1884 Queen's Bench Division (cb637)

Beth to Elizabeth are 'on' for next class, on 'duress'.


Tuesday, March 26, 2002 (Class 31) (Assignments 31-32)

People v. Unger

[362 N.E.2d 319] 1977 Illinois Supreme Court (cb649)

State v. Warshaw

[410 A.2d 1000] 1980 Vermont Supreme Court (cb655)

State v. Crawford

[861 P.2d 791] 1993 Kansas Supreme Court (cb664)

Michelle to April for tomorrow's class (first insanity class).


Wednesday, March 27, 2002 (Class 32) (Assignments 32-33)

United States v. Contento-Pachon

[723 F.2d 691] 1984 9th Circuit Court of Appeals (cb673)

Williams v. State

[646 A.2d 1101] 1994 Maryland Court of Appeals (cb675)

State v. Hunter

[740 P.2d 559] 1987 Kansas Supreme Court (cb677)

Insanity

People v. Serravo

[823 P.2d 128] 1992 Colorado Supreme Court (cb689)

Nicole to Helen are 'on' for tomorrow.


Thursday, March 28, 2002 (Class 33) (Assignments 33-34)

Three places in Criminal Justice system where mental situation comes into play:

Anyone who raises NGI defense has already passed competency test. Issue of forcing defendant to take anti-psychotic drugs in order to be competent to stand trial.

People v. Serravo

(continued)

[823 P.2d 128] 1992 Colorado Supreme Court (cb689)

Smith v. State

[614 P.2d 300] 1980 Alaska Supreme Court (cb712)


Tuesday, April 2, 2002 (Class 34) (Assignments 34-35)

Jordan Weaver Case

    1. Except as provided in Subsection (4) of this Section, intoxication of the actor is not a defense unless it negatives an element of the offense.
    2. When recklessness establishes an element of the offense, if the actor, due to self-induced intoxication, is unaware of a risk of which he would have been aware had he been sober, such unawareness is immaterial.

Diminished Capacity

Jenny to Tara are 'on' for tomorrow.


Wednesday, April 3, 2002 (Class 35) (Assignment 36)

People v. Murray

[15 Cal. 160] 1859 California Supreme Court (cb765)


Thursday, April 4, 2002 (Class 36) (Assignment 36)

McQuirter? v. State

[63 So. 2d 388] 1953 Alabama Court of Appeals (cb769)

People v. Rizzo

[158 N.E. 888] 1927 New York Court of Appeals (cb772)

United States v. Jackson

[520 F.2d 112] 1977 2d Circuit Court of Appeals (cb776)

United States v. Buffington

[815 F.2d 1292] 1987 9th Circuit Court of Appeals (cb777)

Walters v. Maass

[45 F.3d 1355] 1995 9th Circuit Court of Appeals (cb778)

People v. Staples

[6 Cal. App. 3d 61] 1970 California Court of Appeals (cb780)

Rebecca to Larry are 'on' for Tuesday.


Tuesday, April 9, 2002 (Class 37) (Assignment 37)

Impossibility

Booth v. State

[398 P.2d 863] 1964 Oklahoma Court of Criminal Appeals

People v. Dlugash

[363 N.E.2d 1155] 1977 New York Court of Appeals (cb809)


Wednesday, April 10, 2002 (Class 38) (Assignment 38)

Accomplice Liability

State v. Ochoa

[72 P.2d 609] 1937 New Mexico Supreme Court (cb823)


Thursday, April 11, 2002 (Class 39) (Assignment 39)

State v. Ochoa

[72 P.2d 609] 1937 New Mexico Supreme Court (cb823)

Gains v. State

[417 So. 2d 719] 1982 Florida Appellate (cb834)

State v. Tally

[15 So. 722] 1894 Alabama Supreme Court (cb838)

People v. Beeman

[199 Cal. Rptr. 60] 1984 California Supreme Court (cb851)

Wilson v. People

[87 P.2d 5] 1939 Colorado Supreme Court (cb861)


Tuesday, April 16, 2002 (Class 40) (Assignments 40-41)

Wilson v. People

[87 P.2d 5] 1939 Colorado Supreme Court (cb861)

State v. Hohensee

[650 S.W.2d 268] 1982 Missouri Court of Appeals (cb865)

State v. Etzweiler

[480 A.2d 870] 1984 New Hampshire Supreme Court (cb866)

State v. Foster

[522 A.2d 277] 1987 Connecticut Supreme Court (cb869)

United States v. Short

[493 F.2d 1170] 1974 9th Circuit Court of Appeals (cb870)

Yusuf Hawkins Case


Wednesday, April 17, 2002 (Class 41) (Assignments 41-42)

People v. Sadacca

[489 N.Y.S.2d 824] 1985 New York Court of Appeals (cb885)

United States v. Ruffin

[613 F.2d 408] 1979 2d Circuit Court of Appeals (cb886)

Commonwealth v. Donoghue

[63 S.W.2d 3] 1933 Kentucky Supreme Court (cb902)


Thursday, April 18, 2002 (Class 42) (Assignment 42)

Griffin v. State

[455 S.W.2d 882] 1970 Arkansas Supreme Court (cb905)

United States v. Cepeda

[768 F.2d 1515] 1985 2d Circuit Court of Appeals (cb907)

United States v. Rahman

[189 F.3d 88] 1999 2d Circuit Court of Appeals (cb909)

People v. Lauria

[251 Cal. App. 2d 471] 1967 California Court of Appeals (cb914)

United States v. Feola

[420 U.S. 671] 1974 United States Supreme Court (cb923)


Tuesday, April 23, 2002 (Class 43) (Assignment 43)

Pinkerton Doctrine

United States v. Diaz

[864 F.2d 544] 1988 7th Circuit Court of Appeals (cb926)

United States v. Alvarez

[755 F.2d 830] 1985 (cb930)


Wednesday, April 24, 2002 (Class 44) (Assignments 44-45)

Kotteakos v. United States

[328 U.S. 750] 1946 United States Supreme Court (cb949, 952)

Blumenthal


Thursday, April 25, 2002 (Class 45) (Assignment 46)

Armored Car (Problem 2)



LawSchool | RecentChanges | Preferences | Edit

(Sponsored Links, Helps Support Bandwidth Costs)

This page is read-only | View other revisions
Last edited April 28, 2002 1:47 pm ET (diff)
Search: