mens rea: intent to commit the crime
actus reus: getting close...
NYPL 110: attempts to crime
think babck to forrester -- if the father survived, would he have been convicted of attempted homicide? yes; had both t
think back to the dogs case, the whipple manslaughter -- what if diane whipple had not died? would knowler be convicted of attempted homicide? did she have the intent to commit a crime? if intent means mental state, she did - but if it means intent, she did not (didn't wish to kill anyone).
what about if dean simons shot at jacob to show what a great shot he is and missed. would he be convicted of attempted murder? no. why not?
- reckless conduct but reckless endangerment: it could have but didn't kill someone, but there is no intent to kill anyone (reckless endangerment is a much less serious crime)
is there such a thing as attempted manslaughter? yes and no...
there is voluntary and involuntary manslaughter!
gentry.
he poured gas all over her
mens rea: recklessness
actus reus: gas
causation: but for and prox cause
what if you were on the jury, would you believe that she walked over to the stove?
let's say that he poured gas on her withan intent to scare her, throws a match at her and says, "jump" to make her scared. she doesn't jump. what is he charged with? murder, probably depraved heart
IL uses common law definition of murder.
at common law, murder is malice aforethought:
the four mental states
1. intent to kill
2. intent to inflict great bodily harm
3. extreme recklessness
4. felony murder
had ruby hill died, the state could have gotten any of these four definitions.
but since they're going for attempted murder, the prosecutor must show that gentry had intent to kill ruby hill.
got purposefulness, recklessness and negligence. but need two other mental states...
hypo.
dean simons is a major supplier of drugs. meghan wants to buy. dean simons is going to sell her 1k of coke. what is he doing? possessing, potentially possession with an intent to distribute. is meghan in possession? no. when meghan has it, what is the mental state? does meghan think it's coke? no. so knowledge is the mental state of possession. what is the mental state of the possession interest? the mental state of the attempt...
do we want to punish meghan for the attempted possession of narcotics? yes. why? because she intends (conscious object) to possess and distribute.
the mental state for the underlying crime -- knowingly
the mental state for the underlying act (?)-- purposefully
bruce v. state
what can we get him with felony murder? no - no intent for felony murder
what are the arguments for/against?
Utilitarian
FOR: to make people commit felonies less dangerously
AGAINST: doesn't give any incentive to people to stop once they've started because their culpability will already be so high
FOR REBUTTAL: in attempt cases, you are close to the injury but you don't have it ultimately
Retributive
FOR: the harm isn't present (the victim didn't die)
AGAINST: you're not any less culpable just because the person didn't die
why do we want to punish attempts?
we want to deter dangerous people.
why not punish attempts?
because there's no harm.
but let's think of the utilitarian effects...
for example, stat rape situation: why did we punish garnett even though he didn't know the girl was 13?
the statute's policy is that we want to deter people from social harm. but for attempted engagement in the conduct prohibited by strict liability, the mental state is purposefully
NYPL and common law - since there's no harm, we're going to go after people for choosing conduct (i.e. intending to engage in the crime) that is dangerous/deterrable.
so in NYS, if hte prosecutor could prove that garnett intended to have sex with the underage girl, he could have been
MPC - since the underlying crime doesn't have a mental state, neither does the crime.
n.b. -- when doing problems on the exam, divide the world into intentional and unintentional
INTENTIONAL UNINTENTIONAL
murder murder depraved felony
mans purposefully recklessly
neg hom negligently
people v. rizzo
actus reus.
what's the problem with thoughts?
1. proof problems
2.
the challenge in defining the actus reus in attempt:
balancing the utilitarian effect of saving lives (that's awesome) with all the problems that can come up if cops intercept too soon (practical and philosophical problems)
dangerous proximity test: was the defendant 1) close enough to 2) commit serious harm
MPC substantial step
strongly corroborated with criminal purpose
actus reus: questions come up at incomplete attempts
culpability
because in rizzo they knew that he was not there
1. 2:55pm - anne decideds to kill bob, who lives 20 miles away
2. 3:00 pm - anne loads her gun
3. 3:30 pm - anne sets off for bob's house with the gun
4. 3:55 pm - anne arrives at bob's house
5. 3:56 pm - anne aurveys the area
6. 4:00 pm - anne returns to her car
7. 5:15 pm - anne lies in wait with the gun
8. 5:20 pm - bob does not arrive home at the expected time
9. 5:35 pm - anne leaves, bob arrives home five min later
No comments:
Post a Comment