cRIMINAL law

I. JURISDICTION AND GENERAL MATTERS	
A. JURISDICTION	
B. SOURCES OF CRIMINAL LAW	
C. THEORIES OF PUNISHMENT	
D. CLASSIFICATION OF CRIMES	
E. VAGUENESS AND OTHER CONSTITUTIONAL LIMITATIONS	
F. INTERPRETATIONS OF CRIMINAL STATUTES	
G. MERGER	
1. Common Law	
2. Modern Law - No Merger	
3. Rules Against Multiple Convictions for Same Transaction	
II. ESSENTIAL ELEMENTS OF A CRIME	
A. ELEMENTS OF A CRIME	
B. PHYSICAL ACT	
1. Omission as an “Act”	
C. MENTAL STATE	
1. Specific Intent	
2. Malice - Common Law Murder and Arson	
3. General Intent - Awareness of Factors Constituting Crime	
4. Strict Liability Offenses	
5. Model Penal Code Analysis of Fault	
6. Vicarious Liability Offenses	
7. Enterprise Liablity - Liability of Corporations and Associations	
D. CONCURRENCE OF MENTAL FAULT WITH PHYSICAL ACT	
E. CAUSATION	
III. ACCOMPLICE LIABILITY	
A. PARTIES TO A CRIME	
1. Common Law	
2. Modern Statutes	
B. MENTAL STATE - INTENT REQUIRED	
C. SCOPE OF LIABILITY	
1. Inability to Be Principal No Bar to Accomplice Liability	
2. Exclusion from Liablity	
IV. INCHOATE OFFENSES	
A. SOLICITATION	
1. Elements	
2. Defenses	
3. Merger	
B. CONSPIRACY	
1. Elements	
2. Liability for Co-Conspirators’ Crimes	
3. Termination of Conspiracy	
4. Defenses	
5. Punishment - No Merger	
6. Number of Conspiracies in Multiple Party Situations	
C. ATTEMPT	
1. Elements	
2. Defenses	
3. Prosecution for Attempt - Merger	
V. RESONSIBILITY AND CRIMINAL CAPACITY	
A. INSANITY	
1. M’Naghten Rule	
2. Irresistable Impulse Test	
3. Durham (or New Hamshire) Test	
4. A.L.I. or Model Penal Code Test	
5. Procedural Issues	
6. Post-Acquittal Commitment to Mental Institution	
7. Mental Condition During Criminal Proceedings	
8. Diminished Capacity	
B. INTOXICATION	
1. Voluntary Intoxication	
2. Involuntary Intoxication	
3. Relationship to Insanity	
C. INFACY	
VI. PRINCIPLES OF EXCULPATION	
A. JUSTIFICATION	
1. Self-Defense	
2. Defense of Others	
3. Defense of a Dwelling	
4. Defense of Other Property	
5. Crime Prevention	
6. Use of Force to Effectuate Arrest	
7. Resisting Arrest	
8. Necessity	
9. Public Policy	
10. Domestic Authority	
B. EXCUSE OF DURESS	
C. OTHER DEFENSES	
1. Mistake or Ignorance of Fact	
2. Mistake or Ignorance of Law - No Defense	
3. Consent	
4. Condonation or Criminality of Victim No Defense	
5. Entrapment	
VII. OFFENSES AGAINST THE PERSON	
A. ASSAULT AND BATTERY	
1. Battery	
2. Assault	
B. MAYHEM	
C. HOMICIDE	
1. Common Law Criminal Homicides	
2. Statutory Modification of Common Law Classification	
3. Felony Murder	
4. Causation	
D. FALSE IMPRISONMENT	
E. KIDNAPPING	
1. Aggravated Kidnapping	
VIII. SEX OFFENSES	
A. RAPE	
1. Absence of Marital Relationship	
2. Lack of Effective Consent	
B. STATUTORY RAPE	
C. CRIME AGAINST NATURE	
D. ADULTERY AND FORNICATION	
E. INCEST	
F. SEDUCTION	
G. BIGAMY	
IX. PROPERTY OFFENSES	
A. LARCENY	
1. Possession	
2. Intent to Permanently Deprive	
3. Abandoned, Lost, or Mislaid Property	
4. “Continuing Trespass” Situation	
B. EMBEZZLEMENT	
1. Distinguish from Larceny	
2. Fraudulent Intent	
C. FALSE PRETENSES	
1. “Larceny by Trick” Distinguished	
2. The Misrepresentation Required	
D. ROBBERY	
1. Distinguish Larceny	
E. EXTORTION	
1. Distinguished Robbery	
F. RECEIPT OF STOLEN PROPERTY	
1. “Possession”	
2. “Stolen” Property	
G. THEFT	
H. FORGERY	
1. Fraudulently Obtaining Signature of Another	
2. Uttering a Forged Instrument	
I. MALICIOUS MISCHIEF	
X. OFFENSES AGAINST THE HABITATION	
A. BURGLARY	
B. ARSON	
1. Damage Required	
2. Related Offense - House burning	
XI. OFFENSES INVOLVING JUDICIAL PROCEDURE	
A. PERJURY	
B. SUBORNATION OF PERJURY	
C. BRIBERY	
D. COMPOUNDING A CRIME	
E. MISPRISION OF A FELONY	

I.	JURISDICTION AND GENERAL MATTERS
A.	JURISDICTION
Generally, a state has jurisdiction over a crime if: any act constituting an element of the offense was committed in the state, an act outside the state caused a result in the state, the crime involved the neglect of a duty imposed by the law of the state, there was an attempt or conspiracy inside the state to commit an offense outside the state.
B.	SOURCES of criminal law
There is no federal common law of crimes; all federal crimes are statutory.  A majority of the states retain common law crimes.  The modern trend is to abolish common law crimes either expressly by statute or impliedly by the enactment of comprehensive criminal codes.
C.	theories of punishment
Theories justifying criminal punishment include incapacitation of the criminal, special deterrence of the criminal, general deterrence of others, retribution, rehabilitation, and education of the public.
D.	classification of crimes
There are two clases of crimes: felonies and misdemeanors.  Felonies are generally punishable by death or imprisonment for more than one year; other crimes are misdemeanors.
E.	vagueness and other constitutional limitations
Due process requires that a criminal statute not be vauge.  There must be (i) fair warning (i.e., a person of ordinary intelligence must be able to discern what is prohibited) and (ii) no arbitrary and discriminatory enforcement.  The Consititution places two substantive limitations on both federal and state legislatures - no ex post facto laws and no bills of attainder.
F.	interpretations of criminal statutes
Criminal statutes are construed strictly in favour of defendants.  If two statutes address the same subject matter but dictate different conclusions, the more specific statute will be applied rather than the more general.  The more recently enacted statute will control an older statute.  Under new comprehensive codes, crimes committed prior to the effective date of the new code are subject to prosecution and punishment under the law as it existed at the time the offense was committed.
G.	merger
1.	Common Law
At common law, if a person engaged in conduct constituting both a felony and a misdemeanor, she could be convicted only of the felony.  The misdemeanor merged into the felony.
2.	Modern Law - No Merger
There is no longer any merger except that one who solicits another to commit a crime may not be convicted of both the solicitation and the completed crime (if the person solicited does complete it).  Similarly, a person who completes a crime after attempting it may not be convicted of both the attempt and the completed crime.  Conspiracy, however, does not merge with the completed offense (e.g., on can be convicted of both robbery and conspiracy to commit robbery).
3.	Rules Against Multiple Convictions for Same Transaction
Double jeopardy prohibits trial or conviction of a person for a lesser included offense if he has been put in jeopardy for the greater offense.  However, a court can impose multiple punishments at a single trial where the punishments are for two or more statutorily defined offenses specifically intended by the legislature to carry separate punishments, even though the offenses arise from the same transaction and constitute the same crime.
II.	essential elements of a crime
A.	elements of a crime
A crime almost always requires proof of a physical act (acts reus) and a mental state (mens rea), and concurrence of the act and mental state.  It may also require proof of a result and causation (i.e., that the act caused the harmful result).
B.	physical act
Defendant must have either performed a voluntary physical act or failed to act under circumstances imposing a legal duty to act.  An act is a bodily movement.
1.	Omission as an “Act”
Failure to act gives rise to liability only if:
1.	There is a specific duty to act imposed by law;
2.	The defendant has knowledge of the facts giving rise to the duty to act; and
3.	It is reasonably possible to perform the duty.
A legal duty to act can arise from a statute, contract, relationship between the defendant and the victim (e.g., a parent has duty to protect child from harm), voluntary assumption of care by the defendant for the victim, or the creation of peril for the vitim by the defendant.
C.	mental state
1.	Specific Intent
A crime may require not only the doing of an act, but also the doing of it with a specific intent or objective.  The existence of a specific intent cannot be inferred from the doing of the act.  The major specific intent crimes and the intents they require are as follows:
1.	Solicitation: Intent to have the person solicited commit the crime.
2.	Attempt: Intent to complete the crime.
3.	Conspiracy: Intent to have the crime completed.
4.	First degree premeditated murder: Premeditation.
5.	Assault: Intent to commit a battery.
6.	Larceny and robbery:  Intent to permanently deprive the other of his interest in the property taken.
7.	Burglary: Intent to commit a felony in the dwelling.
8.	Forgery: Intent to defraud.
9.	False pretenses: Intent to defraud.
10.	Embezzlement: Intent to defraud.
2.	Malice - Common Law Murder and Arson
The intent necessary for malice crimes (common law murder and arson) sounds like specific intent, but it is not as restrictive; it requires only a reckless disregard of an obvious or high risk that the particular harmful result will occur.  Defenses to specific intent crimes (e.g., voluntary intoxication) do not apply to malice crimes.
3.	General Intent - Awareness of Factors Constituting Crime
Almost all crimes require at least “general intent,” which is an awareness of all factors constituting the crime, i.e., defendant must be aware that she is acting in the proscribed way and that any required attendant circumstances exist.  The defendant need not be certain that all the circumstances exist; it is sufficient that she is aware of a high likelihood that they will occur.
a)	Inference of Intent from Act
A jury may infer the required general intent merely from the doing of the act.
b)	Transferred Intent
The defendant can be liable under the doctrine of transferred intent where she intends the harm that is actually caused, but to a different victim or object.  Defenses and mitigating circumstances may also usually be transferred.  The doctrine of transferred intent applies to homicide, battery, and arson.  It does not apply to attempt.
c)	Motive Distinguished
Motive is the reason or explanation for the crime; it is different from intent to commit the crime.  Motive is immaterial tosubstantive criminal law.
4.	Strict Liability Offenses
A strict liability or public welfare offense is one that does not require awareness of all of the factors constituting the crime; i.e., the defendant can be found guilty from the mere fact that she committed the act.  Common strict liability offenses are selling liquor to minors and statutory rape.  Certain defenses, such as mistake of fact, are not available.

REQUISITE INTENT FOR MAJOR CRIMES

Specific Intent	General Intent	Malice	Strict Liability	
1.	Solicitation
2.	Attempt
3.	Conspiracy
4.	First Degree Premeditated Murder
5.	Assault (Attempted Battery)
6.	Larceny, Robbery
7.	Burglary
8.	Fogery
9.	False Pretenses
10.	Embezzlement	1.	Battery
2.	Rape
3.	Kidnapping
4.	False Imprisonment	1.	Common Law Murder
2.	Arson	1.	Statutory Rape
2.	Selling Liquor to Minors	

5.	Model Penal Code Analysis of Fault
The M.P.C. eliminates the common law distinctions between general and specific intent and adopts the following categories of intent:
a)	Purposely, Knowingly, or Recklessly
When a statute requires that the defentant act purposely, knowingly, or recklessly, a subjective standard is used.
(1)	Purposely
A person acting purposely when his conscious object is to engage in certain conduct or cause a  certain result.
(2)	Knowingly
A person acts knowingly when he is aware that his conduct is of a particular nature or knows that his conduct will necessarily or very likely cause a particular result.  Knowing conduct satisfies a statute requiring willful conduct.
(3)	Recklessly
A person acts recklessly when he knows of a substantial and unjustifiable risk and  consciously disregards it.  Mere realization of the risk is not enough.  Thus, recklessness involves both objective (“unjustifiable risk”) and subjective (“awareness”) elements.  Unless the statute specifies a different degree of fault or is a strict liablity offense, the defendant must have acted at least recklessly to be criminally liable.
b)	Negligence
A person acts negligently when he fails to be aware of a substantial and unjustifiable risk, where such failure is a substantial deviation from the standard of care.  To determine whether a person acted negligently, an objective standard is used.  However, it is not just the reasonable person standard that is used in torts.  The defendant must have taken a very unreasonable risk.

STATE OF MIND

Mens Rea	State of Mind Required	Objective or Subjective Test?	

Common Law
	
Specific Intent	Intent to engage in proscribed conduct	Subjective	
General Intent	Awareness of acting in proscribed manner	Subjective	
Malice	Reckless disregard of a known risk	Subjective	
Strict Liability	Conscious commission of proscribed act	Objective	

MPC Fault Standards
	
Purposely	Conscious object to engage in proscribed conduct	Subjective	
Knowingly	Awareness that conduct is of a particular nature or will cause a particular result	Subjective	
Recklessly	Consciously disregarding a substantial known risk	Subjective	
Negligently	Failure to be aware of a substantial risk	Objective	

6.	Vicarious Liability Offenses
A vicarious liability offense is one in which a person without personal fault may nevertheless be held liable for the criminal conduct of another (usually an employee).  The trend is to limit vicarious liablity to regulatory crimes and to limit punishment to fines.
7.	Enterprise Liablity - Liability of Corporations and Associations
At common law, a corporation does not have capacity to commit crimes.  Under modern statutes, corporations may be held liable for an act performed by: (i) an agent of the corporation acting within the scope of his office or employment; or (ii) a corporate agent high enough in hierarchy to presume his acts reflect corporate policy.
D.	concurrence of mental fault with physical act
The defendant must have had the intent necessary for the crime at the time he committed the act constituting the crime, and the intent must have actuated the act.  For example, if D is driving to V’s house to kill her, he will lack the necessary concurrence for murder if he accidentally runs V over before reaching the house.
E.	causation
Some crimes (e.g., homicide) require result and causation
III.	accomplice liability
A.	parties to a crime
1.	Common Law
At common law, parties to a crime included the principal in the first degree (person who actually engaged in the act or omission that constitutes the offense), principal in the second degree (person who aided, commanded, or encouraged the principal and was present at the crime), accessory before the fact (person who assisted or encouraged but was not present), and accessory after the fact (person who, with knowledge that the other committed a felony, assisted him to escape arrest or punishment).

At common law, conviction of the principal was required for conviction of an accessory and the charge must have indicated the correct theory of liablity (i.e., as principal or accessory).
2.	Modern Statutes
Most jurisdictions have abolished the distinctions between principals in the first degree and principals in the second degree or accessories before the fact.  All such “parties to the crime” can be found guilty of the principal offense.  For convenience, however, think of the one who actually engages in the act or omission as the principal and the other parties as accomplices.

Note: An accessory after the fact (one who assists another knowing that he has committed a felony in order to help him escape) is still treated separately.  Punishment for this crime usually bears no relationship to the principal offense.

MODERN ACCOMPLICE LIABLITY

Defendant	Conduct	Liablity	
Principal	Person who commits the illegal act	Liable for principal crime	
Accomplice (includes common law accessory before the fact)	Person who aids or encourages principal to commit the illegal conduct	Liable for principal crime if accomplice intended to aid or encourage crime	
Accessory After the Fact	Person who aids another to escape knowing that he has committed a felony	Liable for separate, less serious crime of being an accessory after the fact	

B.	mental state - intent required
To be guilty as an accomplice, most jurisdictions require that the person give aid, counsel, or encouragement to the principal with the intent to encourage the crime.  In the absence of a statute, most courts would hold that mere knowledge that a crime will result is not enough, at least where the aid given is in the form of the sale of ordinary goods at ordinary prices (e.g., a gas station attendant will not be liable for arson for knowingly selling a gallon of gasoline to an arsonist).  However, procuring an illegal item or selling at a higher price because of the buyer’s purpose (e.g., charging the arsonist $100 for the gallon of gas) may constitute a sufficient “stake in the venture” to constitute intent.
C.	scope of liability
An accomplice is responsible for the crimes he did or counseled and for any other crimes committed in the course of committing the crime contemplated to the same extent as the principal, as long as the other crimes were probable or foreseeable.
1.	Inability to Be Principal No Bar to Accomplice Liability
One who may not be convicted of being a principal may be convicted of being an accomplice.  Example: At common law a woman cannot be convicted of being the principal in a rape but can be found guilty as an accomplice if she aids the principal.
2.	Exclusion from Liablity
a)	Members of the Protected Class
Members of the class protected by a statute are excluded from accomplice liablity.  Example: A woman transported across state lines cannot be an accomplice to the crime of transporting women across state lines for immoral purposes, since she is within the class protected.
b)	Necessary Parties Not Provided For
A party necessary to the commission of a crime, by statutory definition, who is not provided for in the statute is exclude from accomplice liablity.  Example: If a statute makes the sale of heroin illegal, but does not provide for punishment of the purchaser, he cannot be found guilty under the statute as an accomplice to the seller.
c)	Withdrawal
A person who effectively withdraws from a crime before it is committed cannot be held guilty as an accomplice.  Withdrawal must occur before the crime becomes unstoppable.
1.	Repudiation is sufficient withdrawal for mere encouragement.
2.	Attempt to neutralize assistance is required if participation went beyond mere encouragement.

Notifying the police or taking other action to prevent the crime is also sufficient.
IV.	inchoate offenses
A.	solicitation
1.	Elements
Solicitation consists of inciting, counseling, advising, urging, or commanding another to commit a crime, with the  intent that the person solicited commit the crime.  It is not necessary that the person solicited respond affirmatively.
2.	Defenses
It is not a defense that the person solicited is not convicted, nor that the offense solicited could not in fact have been successful.  In most jurisdictions, it is not a defense that the solicitor renounces or withdraws the solicitation.  However, it is a defense that the solicitor could not be found guilty of the completed crime because of a legislative intent to exempt her (e.g., a woman cannot be found guilty of soliciting a man to transport her across state lines for immoral purposes).
3.	Merger
If the person solicited commits the crime solicited, both that person and the solicitor can be held liable for that crime.  If the person solicited commits acts sufficient to be liable for attempt, both parties can be liable for attempt.  If the person solicited agrees to commit the crime, but does not even commit acts sufficent for attempt, both parties can be held liable for conspiracy.  However, under the doctrine of merger, the solicitor cannot be punished for both the solicitation and these other offenses.

INCHOATE CRIMES

	Solicitation	Conspiracy	Attempt	
Culpable Conduct	Solicitation of another to commit a felony	Agreement between two or more people to commit a crime	Performance of an act that would be a crime if successful	
Mental State	Specific intent that person solicited commit the crime	Specific intent to: (i) enter into agreement; and (ii) achieve objective	Specific intent to commit the particular crime attemtped	
Overt Act	No act (other than the solicitation)	Act in furtherance of the conspiracy	Act dangerously close to success (MPC - substantial step test)	
Merger into Completed Crime?	Yes	No	Yes	
Withdrawal a Defense?	Generally No	No, except for further crimes of co-consipirators	Generally No	

B.	conspiracy
A conspiracy is an agreement between two or more parties to commit a crime.
1.	Elements
A conspiracy requires (i) an agreement between two or more persons; (ii) an intent to enter into the agreement; and (iii) an intent by at least two persons to achieve the objective of the agreement.  A majority of states now also require an overt act, but an act of mere preparation will suffice.
a)	Agreement Requirement
The parties must agree to accomplish the same objective by mutual action.  However, the agreement need not be express; it may be inferred from joint activity.
(1)	Implications of Requirement of Two or More Parties
A conspiracy at common law must involve a “meeting of minds” between at least two independent person.  This requirement presents the following issues:
(a)	Husband and Wife
A husband and wife can conspire together.
(b)	Corporation and Agent
There can be no conspiracy between a corporation and a single agent acting on its behalf.  There is a split of authority as to whether the agents of a corporation can be deemed co-conspirators with the corporation.
(c)	Wharton Rule
Under the Wharton Rule, where two or more people are necessary for the commission of the substantive offense (e.g., adultery, dueling), there is no crime of conspiracy unless more parties participate in the agreement than are necessary for the crime (e.g., because it takes two people to commit adultery, it takes three people to conspire to commit adultery).  Exception: The Wharton Rule does not apply to agreements with “necessary parties not provided for” by the substantive offense; both parties may be guilty of conspiracy even though both are necessary for commission of the substantive offense.
(d)	Agreement with Person in “Protected Class”
If members of a conspiracy agree to commit a crime designed to protect persons within a given class, persons within that class cannot be guilty of the crime itself or of conspiracy to commit that crime.  Likewise, the nonprotected person cannot be guilty of conspiracy if the agreement was with the protected person only.
(e)	Effect of Acquittal of Some Conspirators
Under the traditional view, the acquittal of all persons with whom a defendant is alleged to have conspiracy precludes conviction of the remaining defendant.  In some jurisdictions following the traditional view, a conviction for conspiracy against one defendant is allowed to stand when the alleged co-conspirator is acquitted in a separate trial.
(f)	Model Penal Code Unilateral Approach
Under the M.P.C. “unilateral” approach, defendant can be convicted of conspiracy regardless of whether the other parties have all been acquitted or were only feigning agreement.
b)	Mental State - Specific Intent
Conspiracy is a specific intent crime.  Parties must have: (i) the intent to agree and (ii) the intent to achieve the objective of the conspiracy.
c)	Overt Act
Most states require that an act in furtherance of the conspiracy be performed.  An act of mere preparation is usually sufficient.
2.	Liability for Co-Conspirators’ Crimes
A conspirator may be held liable for crimes committed by other conspirators if the crimes (i) were committed in furtherance of the objectives of the conspiracy and (ii) were foreseeable.
3.	Termination of Conspiracy
The point at which a conspiracy terminates is important because acts and statements of co-conspirators are admissible against a conspirator only if they were done or made in furhterance of the conspiracy.  A conspiracy usually terminates upon completion of the wrongful objective.  Unless agreed to in advance, acts of concealment are not part of the conspiracy.
4.	Defenses
a)	Impossibility
Impossibility is not a defense to conspiracy.
b)	Withdrawal
Generally, withdrawal from the conspiracy is not a defense to the conspiracy, because the conspiracy is complete as soon as the agreement is made and an act in furtherance is performed.  Withdrawal may be a defense to crimes committed in furtherance of the conspiracy, including the substantive target crime of the conspiracy.
(1)	When Withdrawal Effective
To withdraw, a conspirator must perform an affirmative act that notifies all members of the conspiracy of her withdrawal.  Notice must be given in time for the members to abandon their plans.  If she has also provided assistance as an accomplice, she must try to neutralize the assistance.
5.	Punishment - No Merger
Conspiracy and the completed crime are distinct offenses; i.e., there is no merger.  A defendant may be convicted of and punished for both.
6.	Number of Conspiracies in Multiple Party Situations
In complex situations, there may be a large conspiracy with a number of subconspiracies.  In such situations, it is important to determine whether members of one subconspiracy are liable for the acts of another subconspiracy.  The two most common situations are:
a)	Chain Relationship
A chain relationship is a single, large conspiracy in which all parties to subagreements are interested in the single large scheme.  In this case, all members are liable for the acts of the others in furtherance of the conspiracy.
b)	Hub-and-Spoke Relationship
In a hub-and-spoke relationship a number of independent conspiracies are linked by a common member.  Although the common member will be liable for all of the conspiracies, members of the individual conspiracies are not liable for the acts of the other conspirators.
C.	attempt
1.	Elements
Attempt is an act, done with intent to commit a crime, that falls short of completing the crime.
a)	Mental State
To be guilty of attempt, the defendant must intend to perform an act and obtain a result that, if achieved, would constitute a crime.  Regardless of the intent necessary for the completed offense, an attempt always requires a specific intent (i.e., the intent to commit the crime).  Example: To be guilty of attempt to commit murder, defendant must have had the specific intent to kill another person, even though the mens rea for murder itself does not require a specific intent.
b)	Overt Act
Defendant must commit an act beyond mere preparation for the offense.  Most courts follow the “proximity” test, which requires that the act be “dangerously close” to successful completion of the crime (e.g., pointing a loaded gun at an intended victim and pulling the trigger, only to have the gun not fire or the bullet miss its mark is sufficient, but going to the store to purchase bullets or even driving to the intended victim’s house is insufficient).
(1)	Model Penal Code Test
The M.P.C. requires tha the act or omission constitute a “substantial step in a course of conduct planned to culminate in the commission of the crime” that strongly corroborates the actor’s criminal purpose.
2.	Defenses
a)	Impossiblity of Success
(1)	Factual Impossiblity No Defense
Factual impossibility (i.e., that it was factually impossible for defendant to complete the intended crime) is not a defense to attempt (e.g., it is not a defense to attempted robbery that the intended victim had no money with her).  This includes impossibility due to mistake in attendant circumstances (e.g., it is no defense to a charge of attempted receipt of stolen goods that the goods were no longer stolen because defendant purchased them from an undercover police officer).
(2)	Legal Impossiblity Is a Defense
Legal impossiblity (i.e., that it is not a crime to do that which defendant intended to do) is a defense (e.g., defendant going fishing in a lake in which he erroneously believed fishing was prohibited cannot be convicted of attempted violation of the fishing ordinance).
b)	Abandonment
Abandonment is not a defense.  If defendant had the intent and committed an overt act, she is guilty of attempt despite the fact that she changed her mind and abandoned the plan before the intended crime was completed.
3.	Prosecution for Attempt - Merger
Attempt merges with the completed crime.  Thus, a defendant cannot be found guilty of both attempt and the completed crime.  Also, a defendant charged with a completed crime may be found guilty of attempt but a defendant charged only with attempt may not be convicted of the completed crime.
V.	resonsibility and criminal capacity
A.	insanity
There are several formulations of the test to be applied to determine whether, at the time of the crime, the defendant was so mentally ill as to be entitled to acquittal.
1.	M’Naghten Rule
Under this rule, a defendant is entitiled to acquittal only if he had a mental disease or defect that caused him to either: (i) not know that his act would be wrong; or (ii) not understand the nature and quality of his actions.  Loss of control because of mental illness is no defense.
2.	Irresistable Impulse Test
Under this test, a defendant is entitled to acquittal only if, because of a mental illness, he was unable to control his actions or conform his conduct to the law.
3.	Durham (or New Hamshire) Test
Under this test, a defendant is entitled to acquittal if the crime was the product of his mental illness (i.e., crime woiuld not have been committed but for the disease).  The Durham test is broader than either the M’Naghten test or the irresistible impulse test.
4.	A.L.I. or Model Penal Code Test
Under the Model Penal Code test (which represents the “modern trend”), a defendant is entitled to acquittal if he had a mental disease or defect, and, as a result, he lacked the substantial capacity to either:
1.	Appreciate the criminality of his conduct; or
2.	Conform his conduct to the requirements of law.
5.	Procedural Issues
a)	Burdens of Proof
All defendants are presumed sane; the defendant must raise the insanity issue.  there is a split among the jurisdictions as to whether a defendant raising the issue bears the burden of proof.
b)	When Defenses May Be Raised
Although the insanity defense may be raised at the arraignment when the plea is taken, the defendant need not raise it then.  A simple “not guilty” at that time does not waive the right to raise the defense at some future time.
c)	Pretrial Psychiatric Examination
If defendant does not raise the insanity issue, he  may refuse a court-ordered psychiatric examination to determine his competency to stand trial.  If defendant raises the insanity issue, he may not refuse to be examined by a psychiatrist appointed to aid the court in the resolution of his insanity plea.
6.	Post-Acquittal Commitment to Mental Institution
In most jurisdictions, a defendant acquitted by reason of insanity may be committed to a mental institution until cured.  Confinement may exceed the maximum period of incarceration for the offense charged.
7.	Mental Condition During Criminal Proceedings
Under the Due Process Clause of the United States Constitution, a defendant may not be tried, convicted, or sentenced if, as a result of a mental disease or defect, he is unable (i) to understand the nature of the proceedings being brought against him; or (ii) to assist his lawyer in the preparation of his defense.  A defendant may not be executed if he is incapable of understanding the nature and purpose of the punishment.
8.	Diminished Capacity
Some states recognize the defense of “diminished capacity” under which defendant may assert that as a result of a mental defect short of insanity, he did not have the mental state required for the crime charged.  Most states allowing the diminished capacity defense limit it to specific intent crimes, but a few states allow if for general intent crimes as well.

DEFENSES NEGATING CRIMINAL CAPACITY

Defenses	Elements	Applicable Crimes	
Insanity	Meet the applicable insanity test (M’Naghten, Irresistible Imulse, Durham, or ALI/MPC)	Defense to all crimes	
Intoxication			
- voluntary	Voluntary intentional taking of a substance known to be intoxicating	Defense to specific intent crime if intoxication prevents formation of required intent	
- involuntary	Taking intoxicating substances without knowledge of its nature, under duress, or pursuant to medical advice	Treated as mental illness (i.e., apply appropriate insanity test); may be a defense to all crimes	
Infancy	Defendant under age 14 at common law; under modern statutes, defendant under age 13 or 14	Common Law: Under age seven, absolute defense to all crimes; under 14, rebuttal presumption of defense.
Modern Statutes: Defense to adult crimes but may still be delinquent	
Diminished Capacity
(some states)	As a result of mental defect short of insanity, defendant did not have the required mental state to commit the crime	Most states with this defense limit it to specific intent crimes	

B.	intoxication
Intoxication may be caused by any substance (e.g., drugs, alcohol, medicine).  It may be raised whenever intoxication negates one of the elements of the crime.  The law usually distinguishes between voluntary and involuntary intoxication.
1.	Voluntary Intoxication
Intoxication is voluntary if it is the result of the intentional taking without duress of a substance known to be intoxicating.
a)	Defense to Specific Intent Crimes
Evidence of “voluntary” intoxication may be offered by defentant only if the crime requires purpose (intent) or knowledge, and the intoxication prevented the defendant from formulating the purpose of obtaining the knowledge.  Thus, it is often a good defense to specific intent crimes.  The defense is not available if the defendant purposely becomes intoxicated in order to establish the defense.
b)	No Defense to Other Crimes
Voluntary intoxication is no defense to crimes involving malice, recklessness, negligence, or strict liablity.
2.	Involuntary Intoxication
Intoxication is involuntary only if it results from the taking of an intoxicating substance without knowledge of its nature, under direct duress imposed by another, or pursuant to medical advice while unaware of the substance’s intoxicating effect.  Involuntary intoxication may be treated as a mental illness, and the defendant is entitled to acquittal if she meets the jurisdiction’s insanity test.
3.	Relationship to Insanity
Continuous, excessive drinking or drug use may bring on actual insanity and thus a defendant may be able to claim both an intoxication defense and an insnaity defense.
C.	Infacy
At common law, there could be no liablity for an act committed by a child under age seven.  For acts committed by a child between ages seven and 14, there was a rebuttable presumption that the child was unable to understand the wrongfulness of his acts.  Children age 14 or older were treated as adults.  Modern statutes often modify this and provide that no child can be convicted of a crime until a state age is reached, usually 13 or 14.  However, children can be found to be delinquent in special juvenile or family courts.
VI.	principles of exculpation
A.	justification
The justification defenses arise when society has deemed that although defendant committed a proscribed act, she should not be punished because the circumstances justify the action.
1.	Self-Defense
a)	Nondeadly Force
A person without fault may use such force as reasonably appears necessary to protect herself from the imminent use of unlawful force upon herself.  There is no duty to retreat.
b)	Deadly Force
A person may use deadly force in self-defense if (i) she is without fault; (ii) she is confronted with “unlawful force”; and (iii) she is threatened with imminent death or great bodily harm.
(1)	Retreat
Generally there is no duty to retreat before using deadly force.  The minority view requires retreat before using deadly force if the victim can safely do so, unless: (i) the attack occurs in the victim’s home, (ii) the attack occurs while the victim is making a lawful arrest, or (iii) the assailant is in the process of robbing the victim.
c)	Right of Aggressor to Use Self-Defense
If one is the aggressor in the altercation, she may use force in defense of herself only if (i) she effectively withdraws from the alteraction and communicate to the other her desire to do so, or (ii) the victim of the intial aggression suddenly escalates the minor fight into a deadly altercation and the intial aggressor has no chance to withdraw.
2.	Defense of Others
A defendant has the right to defend others if she reasonably believes that the person assisted has the legal right to use force in his own defense.  All that is necessary is the reasonable appearance of the right to use force.  Generally, there need be no special relationship between the defendant and the person in whose defense she acted.
3.	Defense of a Dwelling
Nondeadly force may be used to prevent or terminate what is reasonably regarded as an unlawful entry into or attack upon defender’s dwelling.  Deadly force may be used only to prevent a violent entry made with intent to commit a personal attack upon an inhabitant, or to prevent an entry to commit a felony in the dwelling.
4.	Defense of Other Property
a)	Defending Possession
Deadly force may never be used in defense of property.  Nondeadly force may be used to defend property in one’s possession from unlawful interference, but may not be used if a request to desist or refrain from the activity would suffice.
b)	Regaining Possession
Force cannot be used to regain possession of property wrongfully taken unless the person using force is in immediate pursuit of the taker.
5.	Crime Prevention
Nondeadly force may be used to the extent that it reasonably appears necessary to prevent a felony or serious breach of the peace.  Deadly force may be used only to terminate or prevent a dangerous felony involving risk to human life.
6.	Use of Force to Effectuate Arrest
Nondeadly force may be used by police officers if it reasonably appears necessary to effectuate an arrest.  Deadly force is reasonable only if it is necessary to prevent a felon’s escape and the felon threatens death or serious bodily harm.
a)	Private Persons
A private person has a privilege to use nondeadly force to make an arrest if a crime was in fact committed and the private person has reasonable grounds to believe the person arrested has in fact committed the crime.  A private person may use deadly force only if the person harmed was actually guilty of the offense for which the arrest was made.
7.	Resisting Arrest
Nondeadly force may be used to resist an improper arrest even if a known officer is making that arrest.  Deadly force may be used, however, only if the person does not know that the person arresting him is a police officer.
8.	Necessity
It is a defense to a crime that the person reasonably believed that commission of the crime was necessary to avoid an imminent and greater injury to society than that involved in the crime.  The test is objective; agood faith belief is not sufficient.
a)	Limitation - Death
Causing the death of another person to protect property is never justified.
b)	Limitation - Fault
The defense of necessity is not available if the defendant is at fault in creating the situation requiring that he choose betwee two evils.
c)	Duress Distinguished
Necessity involves pressure from natural or physical forces; duress involves a human threat.
9.	Public Policy
A police officer (or one assisting him) is justified in using reasonable force against another, or in taking property, provided the officer acts pursuant to a law, court order, or process requiring or authorizing him to so act.
10.	Domestic Authority
The parents of a minor child, or any person “in loco parentis” with respect to that child, may lawfully use reasonable force upon the child for the purpose of promoting the child’s welfare.

JUSTIFICATION DEFENSES

Defense	Amount of Force Allowed	
	Nondeadly Force	Deadly Force	
1. Self-Defense	If reasonably necessary to protect self	Only if threatened with death or great bodily harm	
2. Defense of Others	If reasonably necessary to protect person	Only if threatened with death or great bodily harm	
3. Defense of Dwelling	If reasonably necessary to prevent or end unlawful entry	Only if person inside is threatened or to prevent felony inside	
3. Defense of Other Property	If reasonably necessary to defend property in one’s possession (but if request to desist would suffice, force not allowed)	Never	
5. Crime Prevention	If reasonably necessary to prevent felony or serious breach of peace	Only to prevent or end felony risking human life	
6. Effectuate Arrest			
Police	If reasonably necessary to arrest	Only to prevent escape of felon who threatens human life	
Private Person	If crime in fact committed and reasonable belief that this person committed it	Only to prevent escape of person who actually committed felony and who threatens human life	
7. Resisting Arrest	If improper arrest	Only if improper arrest and defendant does not know arrester is a police officer	
8. Necessity	If reasonably necessary to avoid greater harm	Never	

B.	Excuse of duress
It is a defense to a crime other than a homocide that the defendant reasonably believed that another person would imminently inflict death or great bodily harm upon him or a member of his family if he did not commit the crime.
C.	other defenses
1.	Mistake or Ignorance of Fact
Mistake or ignorance of fact is relevant to criminal liability only if it shows that the defendant lacked the state of mind required for the crime; thus, it is irrelevant if the crime imposes “strict” liablity.
a)	Reasonableness
If mistake is offered to “disprove” a specific intent, the mistake need not be reasonable; however, if it is offered to disprove any other state of mind, it must have been reasonable mistake or ignorance.
2.	Mistake or Ignorance of Law - No Defense
Generally, it is not a defense that the defendant believed that her activity would not be a crime, even if that belief was reasonable and based on the advice of an attorney.
a)	Exceptions
The defendant has a defense if: (i) the statute proscribing her conduct was not published or made reasonably available prior to the conduct; (ii) there was reasonable reliance upon a statute or judicial decision; or (iii) in some jurisdictions, there was reasonable reliance upon official interpretation or advice.
b)	Ignorance of Law May Negate Intent
If the defendant’s mistake or ignorance as to a collateral legal matter proves that she lacked the state of mind required for the crime, she is entitled to acquittal.  this rule applies only to those crimes in which the state of mind required involves some knowledge of the law.  Example:  A defendant cannot be found guilty of selling a gun to a known felon if she thought that the crime the buyer had been found guilty of was only a misdemeanor.
3.	Consent
Unless the crime requires the lack of consent of the victim (e.g., rape), consent is usually not a defense.  Consent is a defense to minor assaults or batteries if there is no danger of serious bodily injury.  Whenever consent may be a defense, it must be established that: (i) the consent was voluntarily and freely given; (ii) the party was legally capable of consenting; and (iii) no fraud was involved in obtaining the consent.
4.	Condonation or Criminality of Victim No Defense
Forgiveness by the victim is no defense.  Likewise, the nearly universal rule is that illegal conduct by the victim of a crime is no defense.
5.	Entrapment
Entrapment exists only if (i) the criminal design originated with law enforcement officers and (ii) the defendant was not predisposed to commit the crime prior to contract by the government.  Merely providing the opportunity for a predisposed person to commit a crim is not entrapment.
a)	Unavailable If Private Inducement or If Material for Crime Provided by Government Agent
A person cannot be entrapped by a private citizen.  Under federal law, an entrapment defense cannot be based upon the fact that a government agent provided an ingredient for commission of the crime (e.g., ingredients for drugs), even if the material provided was contraband

EXCULPATORY DEFENSES

Defense	Applicable To	When Available	
Justification (self-defense, defense of others, defense of property, necessity, etc.)	Usually crimes of force (e.g., battery, homocide)	Nondeadly Force may usually be used if reaonably necessary to avoid imminent injury or to retain property;
Deadly Force may be used only to prevent serious bodily harm	
Duress	All crimes except homicide	Defendant reasonably believed that another would imminently harm him or a family member if he did not commit the crime	
Mistake of fact	Crimes with a mental state element (i.e., all crimes except strict liablity)	For specific intent crimes, any mistake that negates intent; for other crimes, only reasonable mistakes	
Mistake of law	Crimes with a mental state element and statutory crimes	Mistake must negate awareness of some aspect of law that the crime requires or must be due to: statute not being reasonably available, reasonable reliance on statute or judicial interpretation, or (in some states) reasonable reliance on offical advice	
Consent	Crimes requiring lack of consent (e.g., rape) and minor assaults and batteries	Applicable only if: consent is freely given, the party is capable of consenting, and no fraud was used to obtain consent	
Entrapment	Most crimes, but not available if the police merely provide the opportunity to commit the crime	Criminal design originated with the police and the defendant was not predisposed to commit the crime before contact with police	

VII.	offenses against the person
A.	assault and battery
1.	Battery
Battery is an unlawful application of force to the person of another resulting in either bodily injury or an offensive touching.  Simple battery is a misdemeanor.  A battery need not be intentional, and the force need not be applied directly (e.g., causing a dog to attack the vitim is a battery).  Some jurisdictions recognize consent  as a defense to simple battery and/or certain specified batteries.
a)	Aggravated Battery
Most jurisdictions treat the following as aggravated batteries and punish them as felonies: (i) battery with a deadly weapon; (ii) battery resulting in serious bodily harm; and (iii) battery of a child, woman, or police officer.
2.	Assault
Assault is either (i) an attempt to commit a battery or (ii) the intential creation - other than by mere words - of a reasonable apprehension in the mind of the victim of imminent bodily harm.  If there has been an actual touching of the vitim, the crime can only be battery, not assault.
a)	Aggravated Assault
Aggravated assault (e.g., with a deadly weapon or with intent to rape or maim) is treated more severely than simple assault.
B.	mayhem
At common law, the felony of mayhem required either dismemberment or disablement of a bodily part.  The recent trend is to abolish mayhem as a separate offense and to treat it instead as a form of aggravated battery.
C.	homicide
1.	Common Law Criminal Homicides
At common law, criminal homicide is divided into three categories:
a)	Murder
Murder is the unlawful killing of a human being with malic aforethought. Malice aforethought exists if there are no facts reducing the killing to voluntary manslaughter or excusing it (i.e., giving rise to a defense) and it was committed with one of the following states of mind:
1.	Intent to kill;
2.	Intent to inflict great bodily injury;
3.	Reckless indifference to an unjustifiably high risk to human life (“abandoned and malignant heart”); or
4.	Intent to commit a felony (felony murder).
Intentional use of a deadly weapon authorizes a permissive inference of intent to kill.
b)	Voluntary Manslaughter
Voluntary manslaughter is a killing that would be murder but for the existence of adequate provocation. Provocation is adequate only if:
1.	It was provocation that would arouse sudden and intense passion in the mind of an ordinary person, causing him to lose self-control (e.g., exposure to a threat of deadly force or finding your spouse in bed with another are adequate);
2.	The defendant was in fact provoked;
3.	There was not sufficent time between provocation (or provocations) and killing for passions of a reasonable person to cool; and
4.	The defendant in fact did not cool off between the provocation and the killing.
(1)	Imperfect Self-Defense
Some states recognize an “imperfect self-defense” doctrine under which murder may be reduced to manslaughter even though (i) the defendant was at fault in starting the altercation; or (ii) the defendant unreasonably but honestly believed in the necessity of responding with deadly force (i.e., defendant’s actions do not qualify for self-defense privilege).
c)	Involuntary Manslaughter
A killing is involuntary manslaughter if it was committed with criminal negligence (defendant was grossly negligent) or during the commission of an unlawful act (misdemeanor or felony not included within felony murder rule).
2.	Statutory Modification of Common Law Classification
In some jurisdictions, murder is divided into degrees by statute.  A murder will be second degree murder unless it comes under the following circumstances, which would make it first degree murder:
a)	Deliberate and Premeditated
If defendant made the decision to kill in a cool and dispassionate manner and actually reflected on the idea of killing, even if only for a very brief period, it is first degree murder.
b)	Felony Murder
If a murder is committed during perpetration of an enumerated felony, it is first degree murder.  The felonies most commonly listed include arson, robbery, burglary, rape, mayhem, and kidnapping.  In these jurisdictions, other felony murders are second degree murder.
c)	Others
Some statutes make killings performed in certain ways (e.g., by torture) first degree murder.
3.	Felony Murder
Any death caused in the commission of, or in an attempt to commit, a felony is murder.  Malice is implied from the intent to commit the underlying felony.
a)	Felonies Included
At common law, there are only a handful of felonies (e.g., burglary, arson, rape, sodomy, etc.).  Statutes today have created many more felonies, but the felony murder doctrine is limited to felonies that are inherently dangerous.
b)	Limitations Upon Liability
There are several limitations upon this rule:
1.	The defendant must be guilty of the underlying felony.
2.	The felony must be distinct from the killing itself (e.g., commission of aggravated battery that causes a victim’s death does not qualify as an underlying felony for felony murder liability).
3.	Death must have been a foreseeable result of the felony (a minority of courts require only that the felony be malum in se).
4.	The death must have been caused before the defendatn’s “immediate flight” from the felony ended; once the felon has reached a place of “temporary safety,” subsequent deaths are not felony murder.
5.	In most jurisdictions, the defendant is not responsible for the death of a co-felon caused by resistance from the felony victim or the police (although the defendant may be responsible for similar deaths of third parties).
(1)	Misdemeanor Manslaughter
Note similar limitations upon misdemeanor manslaughter.  Generally, the misdemeanor must be “malum in se,” or if the misdemeanor involved is not malum in se, the death must have been a foreseeable result of commission of the misdemeanor.
4.	Causation
The defendant’s conduct must be both the cause-in-fact and the proximate cause of the victim’s death.
a)	Cause-in-Fact
A defendant’s conduct is the cause-in-fact of the result if the result would not have occurred “but for”  the defendant’s conduct.
b)	Proximate Causation
A defendant’s conduct is the proximate cause of the result if the result is a natural and probable consequence of the conduct, even if defendant did not anticipate the precise manner in which the result occurred.  Superseding factors break the chain of proximate causation.
c)	Rules of Causation
An act that hastens an inevitable result is still the legal cause of that result.  Also, simultaneous acts of two or more persons may be independently sufficient causes of a sigle result.  A vitim’s preexisting weakness or fragility, even if unforeseeable, does not break the chain of causation.
d)	Limitations
(1)	Year and a Day Rule
For a defendant to be liable for homicide, death of the victim must occur within one year and one day from infliction of the injury or wound.
(2)	Intervening Acts
Generally, an intervening act shields defendant from liablity if the act is a coincidence or is outside the foreseeable sphere of risk created by the defendant.  Note that a third party’s negligent medical care and the victim’s refusal of medical treatment for religious reasons are both foreseeable risks, so the defendant would be liable.
D.	false imprisonment
False imprisonment consists of the unlawful confinement of a person without his valid consent. It is not confinement to simply prevent a person from going where she deires to go, as long as alternative routes are available to her.  Note also that consent is invalidated by coercion, threats, deception, or incapacity due to mental illness, retardation, or youth.
E.	Kidnapping
Modern statutes often define kidnapping as unlawful confinement of a person that involves either (i) some movement of the victim, or (ii) concealment of the victim in a “secret” place.
1.	Aggravated Kidnapping
Aggravated kidnapping includes kidnapping for ransom, kidnapping for the purpose of commission of other crimes, kidnapping for offensive purposes, and child stealing (the consent of a child to her detention or movement is not of importance because a child is incapable of giving valid consent).
VIII.	sex offenses
A.	rape
Rape is the unlawful carnal knowledge of a woman by a man, not her husband, without her effective consent.  The slightest penetration is sufficient.
1.	Absence of Marital Relationship
Under the traditional rule, a husband cannot rape his wife, but most states today either reject this rule entirely or reject it where the parties are estranged or separated.
2.	Lack of Effective Consent
To be rape, the intercourse must be without effective consent.  Lack of effective consent exists where:
1.	Intercourse is accomplished by actual force;
2.	Intercourse is accomplished by threats of great and immediate bodily harm;
3.	The victim is incapable of consenting due to unconsciousness, intoxication, or mental condition; or
4.	The victim is fraudulently caused to believe that the act is not intercourse.
Note that consent due to other types of fraud (e.g., perpetrator persuading victim that he is her husband or that he will marry her) is effective.
B.	statutory rape
This is carnal knowledge of a female under the age of consent; it is not necessary to show lack of consent.  A showing of reasonable mistake as to age or a showing of voluntary consent is irrelevant since statutory rape is a strict liablity crime.
C.	crime against nature
A crime against nature (sodomy) consists of anal intercourse, oral stimulation of the sexual organs of another, or intercourse with an animal.
D.	adultery and fornication
Adultery is committed by both parties to secual intercourse if either is validly married to someone else.  It is often required that the behaviour be open and notorious.  Fornication is sexual intercourse or open and notorious cohabitation by unmarried persons.
E.	incest
Incest consists of marriage or a sexual act between closely related persons.
F.	seduction
Seduction consists of inducing, by promise of marriage, an unmarried woman to engage in intercourse.  The Model Penal Code does not require chastity or that the female be unmarried.
G.	bigamy
Bigamy is the common law strict liablity offense of marrying someone while having another living spouse.
IX.	property offenses
A.	larceny
Larceny consists of:
1.	A taking (obtaining control);
2.	And carrying away (asportation);
3.	Of tangible personal property (excluding realty, services, and intangibles, but including written instruments embodying intangible rights such as stock certificates);
4.	Of another with possession;
5.	By trespass (without consent or by consent induced by fraud);
6.	With intent to permanently deprive that person of her interest in the property.
1.	Possession
The property must be taken from the possession of another.  If the defendant has possession of the property at the time of the taking, the crim is not larceny, but may be embezzlement.
a)	Custody vs. Possession
Possession involves a greater scope of authority to deal with the property than does custody.  Ordinarily, low level employees have only custody of an employer’s property and so are guilty of larceny for taking it.  A bailee, on the other hand, has a greater scope of authority over an owner’s property and so is not guilty of larceny for taking it, but may be guilty of embezzlement.
2.	Intent to Permanently Deprive
Generally, larceny requires that at the time of the taking defendant intended to permanently deprive a person of her property.
a)	Sufficient Intent
An intent to create a substantial risk of loss, or an intent to sell or pledge the goods to the owner, is sufficient for larceny.
b)	Insufficient Intent
Where the defendant believes that the property she is taking is hers or where she intends only to borrow the property or to keep it as repayment of a debt, there is no larceny.
c)	Possibly Sufficient Intent
There may be larceny where the defendant intends to pay for the goods (if the goods were not for sale) or intends to collect a reward from the owner (if there is no intent to return the goods absent a reward).
3.	Abandoned, Lost, or Mislaid Property
Larceny can be committed with lost or mislaid property or property that has been delivered by mistake, but not with abandoned property.
4.	“Continuing Trespass” Situation
If defendant wrongfully takes property without the intent to permanently deprive (e.g., without permission borrows an umbrella), and later decides to keep the property, she is guilty of larceny when she dcides to keep it.  However, if the original taking was not wrongful (e.g., she took the umbrella thinking it was hers) and she later decides to keep it, it is not larceny.
B.	embezzlement
Embezzlement is:
1.	The fraudulent;
2.	Conversion (i.e., dealing with the property in a manner inconsistent with the arrangement by which defendant has possession);
3.	Of personal property;
4.	Of another;
5.	By a person in lawful possession of that property.
1.	Distinguish from Larceny
Embezzlement differs from larceny because in embezzlement the defendant misappropriates property while it is in his rightful possession, while in larceny the defendant misappropriates property not in his possession.
2.	Fraudulent Intent
Defendant must intend to defraud.
a)	Intent Restore
If the defendant intends to restore the exact property taken, it is not embezzlement.  However, if the defendant intends to restore similar or substantially identical property, it is embezzlement, even if it was money that was initially taken and other money - of identical value - that he intended to return.
b)	Claim of Right
As in larceny, embezzlement is not committed if the conversion is pursuant to a claim of right to the property.  Whether defendant took the property openly is an important factor.
C.	false pretenses
The offense of false pretenses is:
1.	Obtaining title;
2.	To personal property of another;
3.	By an intentional false statement of past or existing fact;
4.	With intent to defraud the other.
1.	“Larceny by Trick” Distinguished
If the victim is tricked - by a misrepresentation of fact - into giving up mere possession of property, the crime is larceny by trick.  If the victim is tricked into giving up title to property, the crime is false pretense.
2.	The Misrepresentation Required
The victim must actually be deceived by, or act in reliance upon, the misrepresentation, and this must be a major factor (or the sole cause) of the victim passing title to the defendant.  A misrepresentation as to what will occur in the future is not sufficient.  A false promise, even if made without the present intent to perform, is also not sufficient.
D.	robbery
Robbery consists of:
1.	A taking;
2.	Of personal property of another;
3.	From the other’s person or presence (including anywhere in his vicinity);
4.	By force or threats of immediate death or physical injury to the victim, a member of his family, or some person in the victim’s presence;
5.	With the intent to permanently deprive him of it.
1.	Distinguish Larceny
Robbery differs from larceny because robbery requires that the defendant use force or threats to obtain or retain the victim’s property.  Thus, pickpocketing generally would be larceny, but if the victim notices the attempt and resists, the taking would be robbery.

PROPERTY CRIMES

Crime
	Activity	Method	Intent	Title	
Larceny	Taking and asportation of property from possession of another person
	Without consent or with consent obtained by fraud	With intent to steal	Title does not pass	
Embezzlement	Conversion of property held pursuant to a trust agreement
	Use of property in a way inconsistent with terms of trust	With intent to defraud	Title does not pass	
False Pretenses	Obtaining title to property	By consent induced by fraudulent misrepresentation
	With intent to defraud	Title passes	
Robbery	Taking of property from another’s presence	By force or threat of force	With intent to steal	Title does not pass	

E.	extortion
Common law extortion consists of the corrupt collection of an unlawful fee by an officer under colour of office.  Under modern statutes, extortion (blackmail) often consists of obtaining property by means of threats to do harm or to expose information.  under some statutes, the crim is complete when threats are made with the intent to obtain property; i.e., the property need not be obtained.
1.	Distinguished Robbery
Extortion differs from robbery because in extortion the treats may be of future harm and the taking does not have to be in the presence of the victim.
F.	Receipt of stolen property
Receipt of stolen property consists of:
1.	Receiving possession and control;
2.	Of “stolen” personal property;
3.	Known to have been obtained in a manner constituting a criminal offense;
4.	By another person;
5.	With the intent to permanently deprive the owner of his interest in it.
1.	“Possession”
Manual possession is not necessary.  The defendant possesses the property when it is put in a location designated by her or she arranges a sale for the thief to a third person (i.e., “fencing”).
2.	“Stolen” Property
The property must be stolen property at the time the defendant receives it.
G.	theft
Under many modern statutes, some or all of the above property offenses are combined and defined as the crime of “theft.”
H.	forgery
Forgery consists of the following:
1.	Making or altering (by drafting, adding, or deleting);
2.	A  writing with apparent legal significance (e.g., a contract, not a painting);
3.	So that it is false; i.e., representing that it is something that it is not, not merely containing a misrepresentation (e.g., a fake warehouse receipt, but not an inaccurate  real warehouse receipt);
4.	With intent to defraud (although no one need actually have been defrauded).
1.	Fraudulently Obtaining Signature of Another
If the defendant fraudulently causes a third person to sign a document that the third person does not realize he is signing, forgery has been committed.  But if the third person realizes he is signing the document, forgery has not been committed even if the third person was induced by fraud to sign it.
2.	Uttering a Forged Instrument
Uttering a forged instrument consists of: (i) offering as genuine; (ii) an instrument that may be the subject of forgery and is  false; (iii) with intent to defraud.
I.	Malicious mischief
Malicious mischief consists of:
1.	The malicious;
2.	Destruction of or damage to;
3.	The property of another.
Malice requires no ill will or hatred.  It does, however, require that the damage or destruction have been intended or contemplated by the defendant.
X.	offenses against the habitation
A.	burglary
Common law burglary consists of:
1.	A breaking (creating or enlarging an opening by at least minimal force, fraud, or intimidation; if defendant had the resident’s consent to enter, the entry is not a breaking);
2.	And entry (placing any portion of the body or any instrument used to commit the crime into the structure);
3.	Of a dwelling (a structure used with regularity for sleeping purposes, even if used for other purposes such as conducting a business);
4.	Of another (ownership is irrelevant; occupancy by someone other than defendant is all that is required);
5.	At nighttime;
6.	With the intent to commit a felony in the structure (felony need not be carried out to constitute burglary).
Modern statutes often eliminate many of the “technicalities” of common law burglary, including the requirements of a breaking, that the structure be a dwelling, that the act occur at nighttime, and that the intent be to commit a felony (i.e., intent to commit misdemeanor theft is often enough).
B.	arson
Arson at common law consits of:
1.	The malicious (i.e., intentional or with reckless disregard of an obvious risk);
2.	Burning (requiring some damage to the structure caused by fire);
3.	Of the dwelling;
4.	Of another.
1.	Damage Required
Destruction of the structure, or even significant damage to it, is not required to complete the crime of arson.  But mere blackening by smoke or discolouration by heat (scorching) is not sufficient.  Mere charring is sufficient.
2.	Related Offense - House burning
The common law misdemeanor of house burning consisted of: (i) a malicious; (ii) burning; (iii) of one’s own dwelling; (iv) if the structure is situated either in a city or town, or so near to other houses as to create a danger to them.
XI.	offenses involving judicial procedure
A.	perjury
Perjury is the intentional taking of a false oath (lying) in regard to a material matter (i.e., one that might affect the outcome of the proceeding) in a judicial proceeding.
B.	subornation of perjury
Subornation of perjury consists of procuring or inducing another to commit perjury.
C.	bribery
Bribery at common law was the corrupt payment or receipt of anything of value for official action.  Under modern statutes, it may be extended to nonpublic officials, and either the offering of a bribe or the taking of a bribe may constitute the crime.
D.	compounding a crime
Compounding consists of agreeing, for valuable consideration, not to prosecute another for a felony or to conceal the commission of a felony or the whereabouts of a felon.  Under modern statutes, the definition refers to any crime.
E.	misprision of a felony
At common law, misprision of a felony consisted of the failure to disclose knowledge of the commission of a felony or to prevent the commission of a felony.  Under modern statutes, misprision is no longer a crime, or if it remains a crime, it requires some affirmative action in aid of the felony.