Sie sind auf Seite 1von 13

INTRODUCTION

A. Criminal vs. Civil Law


1. Criminal:
a. Crime; condemned by community; prosecutions by state; prison, execution, fine
2. Civil:
a. Tort; brought by individuals; fine or court order
3. Robert Black prosecuted criminally and civilly when he went inside restaurant and
someone shot his wife
B. Double Jeopardy
1. Cannot be tried for the same crime twice
C. State Crimes:
1. Murder
2. Rape
3. Robbery
4. Arson
5. Larceny
6. Etc.
D. Federal Crimes:
1. Mail Fraud
2. State Crimes that Cross Federal Lines
NATURE, SOURCE, AND LIMITS OF CRIMINAL LAW
A. Henry Hart:
1. Crime is community condemnation
2. Difference between civil and criminal wrongs
B. Legislature:
1. Defines what the law is; judges follow legislatures rules
C. Courts
1. Interpret criminal statutes
D. Model Penal Code
1. Fictional Code
2. Goal: rationalize criminal law and make it scientific
3. Focuses on treatment of offenders
4. Many states have adopted parts of the MPC
1. None have adopted all of it
5. MPC eliminates 1st degree murder
a. No states have followed this
E. Change of Venue
A. i.e. Rodney King trial transferred to a more favorable county
F. Felony vs. Misdemeanor
1. Felony: +1 year in jail
2. Misdemeanor: < 1 year in jail
G. If Penalty is Over 6 months in Jail Can CHOOSE jury or bench trial
a. Jury: usually 12 persons (sometimes as small as 6)
1. Community representation
b. MO Constitution: unanimous verdict to acquit or convict
c. US Constitution: do not need unanimous verdict if substantial majority
H. Voir Dire
a. Peremptory Challenge: attorney does not need to provide a reason to dismiss a
potential juror
a. 9 challenges in capital cases
b. 6 in cases resulting in imprisonment

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.

THE CRIMINAL PROCESS


A. The Order of Trial:
a. Prosecution presents case first state has burden of proof
b. Defense presents their case only has to raise reasonable doubt, does not have to
prove innocence
c. Prosecution rebuts
d. Defense rebuts
e. Closing Arguments
f. Judge instructs jury on the law after closing arguments

RIGHT TO JURY, PROOF OF GUILT, PRESUMPTION OF INNOCENCE


A. 6th Amendment
a. Guarantees right to trial by jury
b. Either party can demand a jury trial
B. Owens v. State: D found intoxicated in running vehicle, beer in his lap. Convicted with a DUI.
1. Rule I: Driving on a public highway while intoxicated is illegal
2. Rule II: If reasonable hypothesis of innocence exists then no conviction
3. Holding: Evidence of three partially consumed beer cans plus suspicious vehicle report
were inconsistent with reasonable hypothesis of innocence and therefore sufficient to
convict.
4. tie breaker instead of beyond reasonable doubt

JURY NULLIFICATION, PROSECUTORIAL DISCRETION, CHARGE STACKING


A. Jury Nullification: jury can ignore the law and instructions from judge and acquit the D
1. Cannot appeal an acquittal
2. D can be charged on another crime, but not the one they were acquitted of
3. WHY jury nullification? Criminal law is a reflection of what community condemns. We
trust community > state
B. State v. Raglund: Judge told jury they MUST convict if they found D was in possession of a
weapon. D appeals. Jury CAN convict, but they dont have to.
1. Rule: US Constitution right to trial by jury is violated here
2. Holding: it is not unconstitutional for a court to not inform a jury of its power of
nullification
3. MO: judge not allowed to mention jury nullification.
C. To Avoid Nullification: Change of Venue
1. When you fear jury is going to convict even though there is a reasonable doubt
1. i.e. Rodney King: arrested and brutally beaten by police trial moved to a more whitepopulated court and police were acquitted for beating King.
2. Riots AFTER police acquitted conscience of community
D. Nolle Prosequi
1. when the prosecutor dismisses a complaint; they dont have to prosecute a case if they dont
want to
E. 575.260
1.
F. 575.300

Page 2 of 13

THEORIES OF PUNISHMENT I: INTRODUCTION


A. Charge Stacking: D can be convicted of several offenses arising out of the same transaction
1. Prosecutor decides what to charge D with
2. Armed Criminal Action (571.015) can be added to almost any crime to add more
punishment to criminal offenders who use dangerous weapons, poses a special threat and
they should be punished more severely
B. 557.001
C. 557.016
D. 557.021
E. What Cannot be Stacked?
1. Lesser included offenses
2. General v. Specific conduct (reckless driving + running a stop sign)
3. Offenses based on inconsistent facts
F. Utilitarianism: deter society (condemnation) forward looking
1. 4 Goals:
a. General Deterrence: knowledge that punishment will follow crime deters people
from committing crimes; reduces future violations
b. Individual Deterrence: fear if someone repeats an act, he will be punished again
c. Incapacitation: removing offenders from society (i.e. with jail or death)
d. Reform: rehabilitation punishment will correct them
G. Retribution: to punish criminals (deterrence) backward looking
1. Negative Retribution: the innocent must never be punished
2. Positive Retribution: the guilty must always be punished
3. Assaultive Retribution: very negative view of retribution; its good to hate; death penalty
justifiable (Stephen)
4. Protective Retribution: criminals have the right to be punished; way to pay debt; NO death
penalty! (Morris)
5. Equilibrium: Punish to restore equilibrium (Hampton)
H. Retribution v. Utilitarian:
1. McClellan blogs about attraction to young girls but does not touch them
a. U: punish now; take them out of society
b. R: cannot punish until he commits an actual crime
THEORIES OF PUNISHMENT II: APPLICATION
A. Queen v. Dudley: 3 men kill and eat another boy at sea in order to survive
1. Rule: necessity can reduce murder to manslaughter
2. Retributive: killed someone punish OR no malice, no other choice no punishment
3. Utilitarian: good men no reason to punish OR community would be outraged punish
4. Holding: the killing was necessary. Death penalty to 6 months
B. People v. Du: D shoots V in back of head after she tries to steal OJ from store; punches D but
puts OJ back on counter.
1. Rule: if no sentencing objectives are served, judge can suspend sentence
2. Holding: Ds sentence suspended because she is a good person and no reason to
punish/remove from society (suspension in rare)
3. Retribution or Utilitarian: Utilitarian because shooting a minor for stealing OJ is
disproportionate and she gets off free
4. Indeterminate Sentencing: D goes to jail not knowing how long hell be there, except within
broad parameters; judge decides how long
5. Determinate Sentences: Legislature decides. D knows how long hell be in prison
C. 557.011: Authorized dispositions
D. 557.016: Classifications of offenses (Class A, B, C, and D felonies & Misdemeanors)
E. 557.021:

Page 3 of 13

CONSTITUTIONAL LIMITS ON PUNISHMENT: LEGALITY


A. Commonwealth v. Mochan:
B. Keeler v. Superior Court:
INTERPRETATION OF CRIMINAL STATUTES
A. In Re Banks: D convicted under NCs peeping tom statute
1. Rule: statutes must be clear and unambiguous
a. A law is void for vagueness if it:
i. Does not give fair warning (you dont know its criminal)
ii. Invites arbitrary enforcement
iii. Prohibits legitimate behavior
2. Holding: statute making it a crime to peep secretly is not unconstitutionally vague (it is
sufficiently definite to give fair notice) and is not overboard (it does not proscribe legitimate
conduct)
B. Ambiguous Statutes
1. If statutes are ambiguous, courts go to legislative history. If still unclear, see how the courts
have interpreted the statute.
C. Overly Broad Statutes
1. Overly broad statutes make legal conduct illegal
D. Vague Statutes
1. Vague statutes are unconstitutional because they violate due process
E. Doctrine of Lenity
1. Statutes should be read in favor of the accused
F. Chicago v. Morales: Chicago enacted Gang Congregation Ordinance
1. Rule: Vagueness may invalidate a criminal law if:
a. Does not limit police discretion (overly broad)
b. Does not provide fair notice of illegal conduct
2. Holding: Statute in this case is vague and overly broad and violates due process
G. Muscarello v. United States:
1. Rule:
2. Holding:
ACTUS REUS
A. Actus Reus
1. The voluntary act element of a crime. Inaction or mere thinking is not punishable
B. Martin v. State: police carried a drunk D to hwy and arrested him for being drunk in public
1. Rule: to be convicted of a crime, you must commit a voluntary act
2. Holding: D not guilty for being drunk in public because involuntary
C. Voluntary Intoxication
1. Voluntary Intoxication is NOT a defense
D. Omissions: People v. Beardsley: 2 drinkers, both drunk, one takes morphine and dies
1. Rule: one must have a legal duty to act:
a. Statute imposing a duty
b. Spouses
c. Special relationship: parent-child, employer-employee, employer-customer
d. Created risk of harm
e. Voluntary assumed care of another
f. Contractual duty
2. Holding: no special relationship here just friends having an affair

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

A. 562.036: accountability for conduct


B. 562.041: principals and accessories accomplices. Everyone charged equally. If you help police
you are no longer an accomplice. Vs are NOT accomplices. proper effect needed to back out and
be guilt-free
C. Riley v. State: D and another fires gun into crowd
1. Issue: what mental state does accomplice need?
2. Rule: D aids or attempts to aid another person in or attempting to commit an offense with
intent to promote or facilitate the commission of the offense
a. No need for purpose of ultimate offense, just purpose for conduct
3. Holding: D may not have had purpose to injure, but he had purpose to shoot gun; D is guilty
of 1st degree assault through accomplice liability
D. MO: D guilty for crime which he could reasonably anticipate
E. Indication of Accomplice:
1. Presence at scene of crime
2. Flight
3. Association
4. Encouragement
F. State v. Barnum: D egged her friends on to hurt V. Lets kill her. Run her over with van
1. Rule: mere encouragement is enough to convict. Only 1 person with mental state needed
2. Can infer from natural and probable consequences that D wanted the beating to happen
G. Etc.
1. If someone abandons the conspiracy, but notifies the conspirators, the crime for that person
ends, but he is still guilty. Statute of limitations starts now. If no one prosecutes person in
THREE years, then they are free.
2. If crime is COMPLETED, it goes from conspiracy to accomplice liability
ASSAULT
A. 565.050: 1st degree = attempt to kill (attempted murder)
B. 565.060: 2nd degree = sudden passion, deadly weapon, recklessly, intoxicated, firearm (5)
C. 565.070: 3rd degree = apprehension of danger
D. State v. Heitman: Cop shoots robber who aims gun at other cop
1. Issue: Did D have purpose or intent to kill cop?
2. Rule: D must have purpose AND substantial step to be guilty
3. Holding: D aimed gun (substantial step) and no other lawful reason (purpose) = guilty
E. State v. Kruger: D shoots wife multiple times in parking lot after restraining order
1. Rule: difference between 1st and 2nd degree assault = serious v. physical injury
HARASSMENT
A. Harassment
1. Lesser included offense of assault
2. About to attack someone
B. 565.090: knowledge (reckless) to frighten, intimidate, cause emotional distress. Use coarse
language. (subsections 1-6)
KIDNAPPING, FELONIOUS RESTRAINT, FALSE IMPRISONMENT
A. 565.100: lack of consent: less than 14yo or incapacitated
B. 565.110: kidnapping: remove or confine with 5 different possible purposes
1. Class A Felony: held for ransom; used as shield/hostage; interferes with government
2. Class B Felony: in commission of a felony; physical injury or terrorizes V
C. 565.120: felonious restraint: restrain with knowledge
D. 565.130: false imprisonment: restrain without risk or purpose but with knowledge
E. 565.140: defenses to false imprisonment
F. State v. Williams: D pushes V in car, assaults/attempts to rape her, tells her to drive to alley

Page 11 of 13

1. Issue: confinement of V incidental to attempted rape?


2. Rule: D must increase risk of harm or danger by confining/moving in order to kidnap
a. Beer bottle D used to hit V can be a dangerous instrument
3. Holding: D confined V in car and moved her by telling V to drive guilty of kidnapping
G. White v. State: D steals car with kid inside. Did D have purpose of kidnapping?
1. Rule: must have purpose to commit commission of felony, not final offense
2. Holding: D had purpose to steal car, knew kid was inside guilty of kidnapping
STEALING
A. 570.030: appropriation of property/services of another with the purpose to deprive him of it,
either without his consent or by means of deceit or coercion
1. Evidence of mental state:
a. Refusing to pay for service at hotel/restaurant
b. Leaving hotel/restaurant without paying
c. Removing baggage from hotel suspiciously
d. Bad check
e. Reproducing a sales receipt, price tag; altering price tags; removing price tags, etc.
2. Class B Felony = > $25,000
3. Class C Felony = > $500
4. Class A Misdemeanor = < $500
5. Class C Felony: if actor appropriates ANY amount of meth (even under $500) if for
production, distribution, etc.
B. 570.080: Knowledge: practically certain. Belief: should have known; suspicious (cannot be
convicted of stealing AND receiving)
C. State v. Chapman: X went to Wal-Mart, put VCR in cheap hose reel box, X told D which box it
was in; D went inside and bought same box
1. Issue: Did D have purpose to deprive Wal-Mart of VCR?
2. Rule: must have purpose to deprive
a. Does not need to know what they are depriving store of but know they are stealing
something
3. Holding: D acted with purpose to deprive Wal-Mart of VCR Guilty
D. State v. Martin: D steals car from a getaway and leaves it in an abandoned parking lot but steals
things inside the car
1. Issue: Did D have purpose to permanently deprive V of his car?
2. Holding: statute silent on permanently even if D took car for an instant guilty
ROBBERY
A. Mental State = Purpose
B. 569.020: 1st degree robbery
C. 569.030: difference between 1st and 2nd degree: if just forcible stealing, its 2 nd degree
D. Harling v. State: D walks into store with hand in pants; this is a robbery, would you like to
make it a homicide
1. Rule: (4) Displays or threatens the use of what appears to be a deadly weapon or dangerous
instrument. Not actual force needed. Reasonable perception of a weapon
a. Taking property from person without force ALWAYS a felony (stealing or robbery)
2. Holding: D seemingly had a weapon in his pants guilty of robbery
E. State v. LaRue: D enters stepmoms house; hits her, cuts phone line, catches her money when she
throws it at him and leaves her without getting her help (will die within the hour)
1. Issue: does the force have to be used at same time of stealing? NO
2. Holding: because D used force, D guilty of robbery and not just stealing
BURGLARY
A. 569.140

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