Beruflich Dokumente
Kultur Dokumente
Page 1 of 13
c. 2 if no imprisonment
Proof of Guilt: Prosecutor must prove beyond a reasonable doubt
a. In Civil: more probable than not
J. To make an arrest, police need probable cause
I.
Page 2 of 13
Page 3 of 13
Page 4 of 13
E. Bystander Effect
1. Kitty Genovese Case: she screamed for help and no one came or called 911; everyone thought
someone else would help
2. NO duty to help V if you are a bystander with no legal duty to act
F. 562.011: Voluntary Act
MENS REA
A. Actus Non-Rule
1. An act does not make the doer of it guilty; unless intent is criminal
B. Mens Rea
1. Mental State: to be guilty, one must have guilty mental state
C. Regina v. Cunningham: D stole gas meter for Ps home, gas leaked, P poisoned
1. Rule:
a. Malice requires either [1] an actual intention or [2] recklessness
b. Reckless: knowledge or risk but acting regardless
2. Holding: D not guilty because intent was stealing not poisoning
D. People v. Conley: D threw bottle at 3rd party, hitting P and causing injury
1. Rule: a person intends to accomplish a result when his conscious objective is to accomplish
the result. Conduct, NOT result.
2. Holding: intent can be inferred from natural and probable consequences. D guilty.
E. Transferred Intent
1. Intent can be transferred from 3rd party to P
F. Mens Rea Needs:
1. Purpose: you intend the actual result
2. Knowledge: aware of conduct, attendant circumstances, result or practically certain to cause
result
3. Recklessness: conscious disregard of substantial and unjustifiable risk
4. Negligence: you did not know but should have known
G. 562.016: Culpable mental state
H. 562.021: Culpable mental state, application
STRICT LIABILITY just have to prove conduct, no mens rea required
A. Staples v. United States: D had an unregistered gun that was modified to be fully automatic.
Statute silent on mental state.
1. Rule: there has to be mens rea
2. Holding: guns are not always dangerous D not guilty if no mens rea
B. 562.021(3): If no mental state mentioned, D just have purpose or knowledge
C. Garnett v. State: 20yo mentally challenged man sleeps with 13yo girl
1. Rule: no mens rea needed for statutory rape (exception to the rule)
2. Holding: D guilty because no mental state needed to prove guilt
D. 562.026: Culpable mental state, NO mens rea required
E. 566.032: Statutory rape is 1st degree V < 14yo, D is 18+
F. 566.034: Statutory rape 2nd degree V < 17yo, D is 21+
G. 566.023: Marriage is a defense
H. 569.150: No mental stated needed for 2nd degree trespassing
I. Mistake of Fact
1. NOT a defense for 1st degree, YES a defense for 2nd degree
MISTAKE
A. People v. Navarro: D took wooden beams he thought to be abandoned
1. Rule: honest mistake of fact is a defense if belief is genuine
2. Holding: if mistake negates intent, there is a defense even if its unreasonable D not guilty
Page 5 of 13
B. People v. Marrero: Federal prison guard arrested for carrying unlawful firearm. He thought
because he was a prison guard, it was lawful
1. Rule: Mistake of law does NOT relieve criminal liability
2. Holding: mistaken interpretation of law not a defense D guilty
C. 562.031: Mistake of law only applies if: statute not published or law later deemed invalid
CAUSATION
A. Cause-In-Fact Test (Actual Cause)
1. But-For Test: harm would not have occurred but for Ds conduct.
2. Substantial Factors Test: 2 Ds both act independently, each of which alone is sufficient to
bring about the prohibited result
B. Oxendine v. State: P and girlfriend both abuse boy. Boy dies.
1. Rule: if a non-lethal injury accelerates death, that is a cause of death.
a. Acceleration = causation, a but-for cause
b. Prosecution has burden of proof
2. Holding: Here, prosecution failed to prove acceleration. D not guilty.
C. Prima Facie Case
1. Alleges facts adequate to PROVE the underlying conduct
D. Proximate Cause
1. Extends liability back to D even though events have occurred in between
a. Two Part Test:
i. Was Vs death foreseeable?
ii. Could V easily do something to extricate himself, i.e. point of safety?
E. Intervening Cause
1. An event that happens after the D acts and before V suffers the harm. It interferes with
causation
F. Apparent Safety Doctrine
1. Once P reaches safe zone, D is no longer proximate cause.
G. People v. Rideout: D hits Ps car. P reaches point of safety then goes back to road, gets hit by
another car and dies.
1. Rule: once V has reached point of safety, causal chain has broken
a. A superseding cause relieves D of liability
2. Holding: if D could have foreseen harm, he is still on the hook. Here, D not guilty because P
had reached point of safety
MURDER/HOMICIDE No Statute of Limitations for Murder
A. People v. Eulo: D shoots V, V becomes brain-dead
1. Rule: Death is termination of life
a. Death: when respiration and circulation are artificially maintained, and there is a
total and irreversible cessation of all brain function, death occurs
2. Holding: Death occurs when brain function has irreversibly ceased. D guilty.
B. State v. Spears: D brutally kills grandma after deliberation
1. Rule: 1st degree murder requires knowledge + deliberation
a. Deliberation: an act done in cool reflection; can take place in an instant
b. Deliberation inferred by: natural and probable consequences of actions, multiple
wounds, multiple weapons.
2. Holding: D deliberated and is guilty because he used multiple weapons and talked about it
with his wife.
C. 565.020: 1st degree murder: knowledge + deliberation
D. 565.032 [skim]
E. Midgett v. State: D brutally beats and kills son (history of abuse)
1. Rule: deliberation necessary for 1st degree murder
2. Holding: D intended to hurt, not kill, son. D not guilty of 1st degree but guilty of 2nd degree
Page 6 of 13
F. State v. Forrest: D shot and killed his sick and dying father
1. Rule: 1st degree murder = knowledge + deliberation
a. Single Wound = deliberation when: shot in back of head, Vs hands tied, V is
kneeling, etc.
2. Holding: D guilty of 1st degree because he deliberated (multiple wounds, statements made
post-killing to nurse, etc)
G. 565.021: 2nd degree murder: knowledge + purpose, no deliberation. and Felony Murder
VOLUNTARY MANSLAUGHTER, ARMED CRIMINAL ACTION
A. Girouard v. State: D stabs wife 19 times after an argument
1. Rule: Manslaughter = adequate provocation + sudden passion. Words alone NOT adequate
provocation.
a. Examples of Provocation:
i. Discovering spouse in sexual act with another person
ii. Mutual combat
iii. Assault & Battery
iv. Injury to Ds relatives or 3rd party
v. Death resulting from resistance of illegal arrest
b. If Cooling Off Period then NO Provocation Defense
2. Holding: Wifes words were not adequate provocation; D guilty of murder, not manslaughter
B. State v. Battle: D & Girlfriend followed/taunted by V, D shoots/kills V.
1. Rule: Sudden Passion + Adequate Cause = Manslaughter
a. Sudden Passion: passion directly caused and arose out of provocation by V
b. Adequate Cause: cause that would reasonably produce a degree of passion in a
person of ordinary temperament sufficient to substantially impair his capacity for
self control
2. Holding: adequate provocation here, D not guilty of murder, but maybe manslaughter
C. 565.023: Voluntary manslaughter: death would be 2 nd degree murder EXCEPT that death
occurred in sudden passion arising from adequate cause or knowingly assisting in commission of
murder
D. 571.015: Armed Criminal Action: you can only be convicted of one homicide charge so this is
added to increase jail sentence. Mental state not mentioned in statute but IT IS required
INVOLUNTARY MANSLAUGHTER
A. People v. Moore:
B. People v. Knoller:
C. 565.024:
1. 1st degree involuntary manslaughter:
a. [1] recklessly causes death of another person; or
b. [2] while in an intoxicated condition operates a motor vehicle or vessel in this state
and when so operating, acts with criminal negligence to cause death of any person.
2. 2nd degree involuntary manslaughter: D acts with criminal negligence to cause the death of
any person
D. State v. Williams: D parents didnt take sick child to hospital and baby dies
1. Rule: D guilty of 2nd degree involuntary manslaughter if he acts with criminal negligence to
cause death
a. This case occurred in state with stricter standard; usually just requires ?
2. Holding: Ds guilty of 2nd degree manslaughter due to negligence
E. Infer/Should Have Known
1. Infer from Natural and Probable Consequences 2nd degree murder/1st degree involuntary
manslaughter
2. Should Have Know Negligence/2nd degree involuntary manslaughter
F. Should Have Known
Page 7 of 13
FELONY MURDER
A. People v. Fuller: D commits burglary, chased by cops, accidentally kills 3rd party
1. Rule: any death caused in the perpetration of a felony is murder
a. In MO: Felony Murder = 2nd degree murder
b. Mental State: May not have had mental state for murder but there was the required
mental state for burglary, so it counts as felony murder.
2. Holing: D guilty of felony murder
B. State v. Bouser: D commits child abuse, child dies, D convicted on 2nd degree felony murder
1. Holding: D can be charged with child abuse and felony murder
a. Potential problem: charging murder and assault is V dead or not?
b. In MO: you can stack ANY felony with felony murder
C. 565.021(2): Felony Murder (part of 2nd degree murder)
RAPE
A. State v. Alston: very apathetic P alleges rape by ex-boyfriend D
1. Rule: Rape requires force. Constructive force = threat of force = sufficient. Mere lack of
consent is 2nd degree rape.
2. Holding: Not sufficient evidence of force here. D not guilty of rape
B. 566.030: sexual intercourse by forcible compulsion = rape
C. 566.031: sexual assault is NOW 2nd degree rape; has sexual intercourse knowing person did not
give consent
D. 566.040 No longer exists
E. State v. Ogle: Upon Ds return to Ps home, D forces her to have sex.
1. Rule:
a. Forcible Compulsion: either [a] physical force that overcomes reasonable resistance
or [b] a threat, express or implied, that places a person in reasonable fear of death,
serious physical injury or kidnapping of himself or another person
b. Serious Physical Injury: physical injury that creates a substantial risk of death or
that causes serious permanent disfigurement or protracted loss or impairment of the
function of any bodily member or organ.
2. Holding: case remanded because jury was not instructed on definition of serious physical
injury had definition been added, there WAS sufficient evidence of rape here.
DEFENSE OF PERSONS
A. US v. Peterson: D shot V after V stole windshield wipers from Ds car
1. Rule: self-defense applies only when there was a threat and defender believed he was in
imminent danger and Ds response was necessary to save himself. If you can retreat, you
must retreat.
a. Castle Doctrine: you have no duty to retreat from your dwelling (i.e. your home)
b. In MO: extends to all your property: yard, farm fields, etc.
c. Aggressor: the aggressor cannot claim self-defense; one becomes the aggressor by
increasing the level of force (from a fist fight to a gun fight)
2. Holding: D reached point of safety (went inside the home) but then came back out with a
gun; D became the aggressor (V returned to his car ready to leave) and CANNOT claim selfdefense
B. People v. Goetz: D shot 4 boys on the subway who he thought were about to rob him
1. Issue: Is reasonably believes objective or subjective?
2. Holding: Jury Nullification Goetz acquitted
C. 563.031: Use of force in defense of persons
BATTERED SPOUSE SYNDROME & DEFENSE OF PROPERTY
Page 8 of 13
A. State v. Norman
B. State v. Boyett
C. Battered Spouse Syndrome
1. Even though abuse did not happen on the night in question; history of abuse is enough for
fear of imminent bodily harm
D. People v. Ceballos: D sets trap gun to protect his home; V is shot
1. Rule: a person is not justified in using deadly force to protect his property from burglary
a. In MO: due to the castle doctrine, you can shoot anyone, anywhere on your property
2. Holding: self-defense does not apply for trap guns
E. 563.033:
F. 563.031:
G. 563.031(2): Use of force in defense of persons a person may not use deadly force unless he
reasonably believes the deadly force is necessary to protect himself
H. 563.041: Use of physical force in defense of property
NECESSITY & DURESS
A. Nelson v. State: Ds vehicle stuck, D steals government vehicles to free his truck and damages
them
1. Rule: necessity only available when someone commits a crime to avoid a greater harm
a. Elements of NECESSITY:
i. The act must have been done to prevent a significant evil
ii. No adequate alternative
iii. Harm caused must not be disproportionate to harm avoided
2. Holding: Necessity defense fails here no significant evil, other alternatives available
B. US v. Contento-Pachon: D forced to bring cocaine into US
1. Rule: duress another individual forces D to commit crime
a. Elements of DURESS:
i. An immediate threat of death or serious bodily injury
ii. Fear threat will be carried out
iii. No reasonable opportunity to escape
2. Holding: Yes, D acted under duress. D did NOT act under necessity because it usually
evolves from an act of nature
C. 562.066: Entrapment
D. 562.071: Duress not available for murder
E. 562.076: Intoxicated or drugged condition only a defense if involuntary and deprived of
capacity to appreciate the nature of his conduct
F. 563.026: Necessity not available for murder
G. Not Defenses to Murder. You can use deadly force in self-defense
H. In MO: cannot commit violent crime in necessity
INSANITY an affirmative defense
A. 552.020: a criminal trial may not proceed if D lacks mental fitness to stand trial
B. US v. John Hinckley: assassination attempt on Reagan
1. Rule: if D cannot conform their action to the law, they can go free, even if they knew what
they were doing was wrong
C. Insanity Post-Hinckley:
1. New language of 562.086
D. State v. Wilson: D thought V was controlling his mind and killed V.
1. Rule: D can claim insanity when he lacked substantial capacity to understand intellectually
and emotionally that his act was wrong
a. If you think what you are doing is wrong, you DO NOT get the defense
2. Holding: D not guilty by reason of insanity
Page 9 of 13
E. 562.086: New Language D, as a result of mental disease or defect, was incapable of knowing
and appreciating the nature, quality or wrongfulness of his conduct
F. 552.010: Diminished capacity evidence of mental disease or defect is admissible to prove that
D did or did not have a particular mental state
ATTEMPT
A. People v. Gentry: D and V drinking in apt, D spilled gas on her, she caught fire and suffered
severe burns
1. Rule: specific intent to kill is necessary for the crime of attempted murder
a. Criminal Attempt Involves 2 Intents:
i. Actors conduct was intentional
ii. Intent to cause the complete offense
2. Holding: jury improperly instructed here; should not have included all four mental states
B. Bruce v. State: D starts to rob Vs store; V ducks into D, D shoots and kills V
1. Issue: is attempted felony murder a crime?
2. Rule: specific intent for felony (robbery), no mental state for murder
3. Holding: attempted felony murder is NOT a crime because unjust to charge someone with
attempted murder when they have no intent to kill or commit ANY murder
C. State v. Reeves: Two 12yo girls plot to kill their teacher by rat poison
1. Issue: how much conduct is required to prove attempt? Substantial step, mere preparation,
or overt act?
2. Rule: According to Dupuy, overt act.
a. In MO: substantial step, not overt act
b. Impossibility is NOT a defense (i.e. can still be charged with attempt to steal when
there is nothing to steal)
3. Holding: there was a substantial step, Ds guilty.
D. Impossibility NOT a Defense
E. 564.011: attempt
CONSPIRACY
A. An Inchoate Crime
1. Crime does not have to be completed to be guilty
B. Elements
1. Overt Act + Agreement
a. Overt act need not be physical, it can be phone calls, circumstantial evidence or even
silence
2. Ds need not know other conspirators as long as he knows others are involved
3. If D backs out but overt act is completed, D is guilty
4. D cannot be charged with conspiracy to commit crime + the crime
5. MO: solicitation = conspiracy
C. 564.016: must have overt act + agreement
D. Defense to Conspiracy
1. Renunciation Stop the Crime; cannot simply abandon the plan
E. State v. Mace: D hires S to kill someone. D does not physically give S gun
1. Issue: Can you conspire with someone who is NOT going to go through with crime (doesnt
have the purpose)?
2. Rule: MO statute is not plural, only one person needs to have the purpose
3. Holding: D satisfies the requirement for agreement even though the other party was an
informant and had no intent to carry out conspiracy
F. State v. Ray: D tried to rob Burger King with 2 friends. Ex-girlfriend worked there
1. Rule: State can use circumstantial evidence to prove agreement
ACCOMPLICE LIABILITY
Page 10 of 13
Page 11 of 13
Page 12 of 13
B. 569.150
C. 569.160: enter or remain unlawfully with purpose to commit crime (any crime)
D. 569.170: difference between 1st and 2nd degree = attendant circumstances (i.e. D unharmed or no
one inside)
E. State v. Washington: D is seen leaving a garage with leaf blower and weed trimmer
1. Issue: Is garage an inhabitable structure?
2. Rule: burglar must unlawfully enter an inhabitable structure and for 1 st degree, must be
connected to home and put innocent person at risk/in dangerous situation
a. Inhabitable structure: where people live, also ships, trains, vehicles, places of
employment, places to assemble, overnight accommodations
3. Holding: garage not inhabitable structure; D guilty of only 2 nd degree burglar
F. State v. Gibbs: D enters residence to sell/do drugs and runs when cops come
1. Issue: purpose to steal? Unlawful entry?
2. Holding: can infer from evidence D had purpose to steal guilty of 2nd degree burglary
ARSON
A. 569.040: starting a fire or causing an explosion; damaging a building/inhabitable structure
1. Knowledge, reckless = D knows risk of someone being inside, starts fire anyways
2. With Meth = no need for knowledge of starting fire; just purpose to make meth
B. 569.050: difference between 1st and 2nd degree reckless
C. State v. Simmons: D throws a bottle of gas to Vs porch; porch catches fire
1. Issue: Does porch constitute as an inhabitable structure?
2. Rule: inhabitable structure: where people live, also ships, trains, vehicles, places of
employment, places to assemble, overnight accommodations
3. Holding: setting part of wooden structure on fire counts as arson. Porch, linoleum, and
outside frame of door were burnt. D guilty of arson
D. Fee v. State: D tries to make meth explosion 2 people die
1. Issue: must D have knowingly caused an explosion/fire?
2. Rule: in making meth, knowledge is not required, just purpose to make meth
3. Holding: can infer from natural and probable consequences D was trying to make meth D
had purpose to make meth D guilty of 1st degree arson
POSSESSION
A. 195.202: possessor or has under control a controlled substance. Mental state not clear
B. 195.211: distributing, delivering, manufacturing or attempting to. Purpose
C. State v. Bacon: Cops enter Ds residence, finds lots of pot and cocaine everywhere
1. Issue: Did D possess the controlled substances given the shared residence?
2. Rule: Actual Possession = drug on Ds person. Constructive Possession = D has power and
intention to control substance. CAN use circumstantial evidence
3. Holding: D has constructive possession of pot in master bedroom, but NOT of cocaine on
kitchen floor or pot in garage. No evidence D controlled kitchen/garage.
D. State v. Cox: D stopped for traffic violation. D offers search of car. Cop finds 4.5lbs of pot
1. Issue: sufficient evidence to show D had intent to distribute?
2. Rule: manner of packaging, amount, large amounts of cash infer intent to distribute
3. Holding: sufficient evidence to show D had intent to distribute pot was compressed, that
amount would have taken an average user years to use.
Page 13 of 13