* Criminal Law * 

​

​

1. ** Actus Reus & Mens Rea 

   1. Actus Reus 

      1. Failure to Act 

         1. Definition: Failure to Act will constitute an Actus Reus (i.e., action or conduct which is a constituent element of a crime) and give rise to liability only when the law imposes a duty to act and the D is in breach of that duty

         2. Thus, generally Failure to Act is not always a punishable act in that the act failed to prevent harm, unless the three elements are met: ** 

            1. There is a "specific duty"  

               1. under the "Statute ( = Law)" which requires action 

               2. under the "Contractual Agreements" that are relied upon by others (e.g., Lifeguard agreement, Air Traffic Control agreement)

               3. under the "Special Relationship" between the parties, such as parent-child, spouse-spouse, and employer-employee

               4. by "Voluntarily Assuming the Duty of Care" for someone else and "Failing to reasonably perform the duty" one has voluntarily begun (i.e., If a person started to help another person, but in the middle leave without making any progress in making the situation better, the person will be liable for Failure to Act) 

               5. where the D has created the peril (e.g., shooting someone)

               6. where the conduct D has made is considered wrong by the society and the remedy could be given only through the criminal justice system ** 

            2.  D has knowledge of the duty to act

            3. It is reasonably possible to perform that duty

   2. Mens Rea ​( = Criminal Intent) 

      1. Specific Intent Crime​

         1. ​Specific Intent Crime requires not only doing an unlawful act, but the doing of it with an additional subjective intent or objective. Specific intent crimes are usually indicated by the use of such words as intentionally, knowingly, purposely, or willfully, that you had a particular purpose (i.e., cause a specific harm to another) in committing the crime. Generally, if you did not act with the required intent, then you cannot be convicted of a specific intent crime

         2. Examples of specific intent crimes are:

            1. Burglary;

            2. Theft ( = Larceny);

            3. Conspiracy & Solicitation; 

            4. False Pretenses;

            5. Forgery;

            6. Embezzlement;

            7. Robbery;

            8. Child Molestation; and 

            9. Murder (most jurisdictions call this First Degree or Premeditated Murder) ** 

      2. General Intent Crime

         1. General Intent Crime requires merely you intended to perform the act. Namely, general intent refers to your state of mind at the time of the crime was committed. Unlike Specific Intent Crime, General Intent Crime does not require to prove that you had a particular purpose (i.e., cause a specific harm to another to achieve your objective) in committing the crime

         2. Examples of general intent crimes are:

            1. Assault;

            2. Battery;

            3. Rape;

            4. Manslaughter (also referred to as Second Degree Murder);

            5. Arson; and

            6. DUI ** 

      3. Malice Crime: Crimes involving death or great bodily injury (e.g., murder, arson)

      4. Statutory Crime: Violations of specific state or federal statutes, which involve either property offenses or personal offenses (e.g., DUI, selling alcohol to a minor, bigamy, statutory rape)

​

  2. Accomplice Liability (Aid & Abet) 

1. Definition: D with specific intent that the crime be committed,  aids & abets,  counsels  or  encourages the principal (i.e., a person who is primarily responsible for a criminal offense) before or during commission of the crime 

   1. Note that presence alone is never enough to be an accomplice. A person must have been actively involved in committing the crime

2. Liability – The crime itself and all other foreseeable crimes that was committed by the principal **

3. Exclusion from Accomplice Liability 

   1. Withdrawal

      1. A person who effectively withdraws cannot be held guilty if withdrawal occurred before the crimes became unstoppable  

   2. Repudiation:  

      1. Repudiation is a sufficient withdrawal when the D made a mere encouragement to the principal to commit the crime at issue. In this case,  attempt to neutralize (i.e., notifying the police) is required for the repudiation to be effective **

​

  3. Inchoate Offenses 

1. Attempt

   1. Definition: For the D to be guilty of Attempt, there must be specific intent of an overt act that is beyond mere preparation, and  substantial step must be taken towards the completion of target offense

   2. Merger: Attempt merges with the target offense (If the D is convicted of the completed offense, then the D cannot be convicted and punished for both the attempt and the completed offense) (e.g., The D cannot be convicted for both "robbery" and "attempted robbery", but can be convicted for only "robbery")

   3. Defenses

      1. Legal Impossibility – When the D did, or intended to do acts that would not constitute a crime if committed,  that is a defense because the act is not illegal

      2. Factual Impossibility – When the D did, or intended to do acts that would be factually impossible for the D to complete his or her plan, is not a defense, if the act is illegal    

      3. Abandonment -  Abandoning the act is not a defense if the D had the specific intent and committed an overt act ** 

2. Conspiracy

   1. Definition by Elements 

      1. An agreement between two or more persons (i.e., various people can be part of a conspiracy even if they have never met and do not personally know each other);

      2. The parties need to enter into an agreement;

      3. There must be a meeting of the minds under the agreement; and

      4. Achieve the objective of the agreement

         1. When achieving the objective of the agreement, there needs a slight overt act in furtherance of the unlawful purpose (e.g., making a phone call to recruit people for the targeted crime, showing up at the place you agree to commit the crime, or buying equipment that will be used for the targeted crime) ** 

   2. Merger: Conspiracy does not merge with the target offense (i.e., the D can be charged with both conspiracy and the target offense)

   3. Liability: Each conspirator will be liable for all crimes of their co-conspirators, if crimes were committed in furtherance of the conspiracy and were reasonably foreseeable

   4. Defenses

      1. Withdrawal – Generally, withdrawal cannot be a defense to conspiracy because conspiracy is complete as soon as the agreement is made and an overt act in furtherance of the unlawful purpose is performed  

         1. Exceptions: However, if the conspirator (1) inform all co-conspirators of his intent to withdraw; and (2) notify the other members to abandon their criminal plans within a reasonable time (i.e., usually the night before), the withdrawal is effective 

            1. The conspirator who actually does successfully withdraw will not be liable for any future crimes of co-conspirators that the conspirator was not involved in, yet still will be liable for any reasonably foreseeable crimes which have already been committed in furtherance of conspiracy where the conspirator was involved in **

3. Solicitation 

   1. Definition​: Solicitation (i.e., the act of requesting and trying to obtain something from someone) of another to commit a felony 

   2. Mental State: Specific intent that the person solicited for another person to commit the crime is needed

   3. Merger: Solicitation merges into the crime of conspiracy (i.e., If the D is convicted of the completed offense, then the D cannot be convicted for both the solicitation and the completed offense)

   4. Defense: Withdrawal is not a defense **

​

  4. Defenses

1. Insanity – A person being insane is a defense to all crimes, including strict liability crimes in Criminal Law. Thus, if the D satisfies one of the tests below, the D will have an insanity defense to reduce his or her sentencing

   1. M’Naghten Test 

      1. The D, an insane person, cannot differentiate right from wrong 

      2. The D needs to prove that at the time of his or her conduct, as a result of a mental defect, the D lacked the ability to "know the wrongfulness of his or her act, or understand the nature and quality of his or her act"

   2. Irresistible Impulse Test 

      1. The D cannot resist his or her impulse 

      2. The D needs to prove, as a result of a mental defect, the D was "unable to control his or her act, or conform his or her conduct to the law" **

   3. Durham Rule 

      1. The D needs to prove that the conduct of the D is the “product” of mental illness

      2. This rule is the easiest insanity test for the D to satisfy he or she is insane 

   4. ALI Model Penal Code Test (ALI = American Law Institute) 

      1. This rule is generally a combination of M’Naghten Test and Irresistible Impulse Test

      2. The D needs to prove the D lacked the substantial capacity to either “appreciate the wrongfulness of his or her conduct (M'Naghten Test)” or “conform his or her conduct to the requirement of law (Irresistible Impulse Test)” 

2.  Intoxication - Intoxication defense is a defense a D may claim diminished responsibility on the basis of intoxication. With regard to punishment, if the D proves that he or she was actually intoxicated, it may be a mitigating factor that decreases a prison or jail sentence **

   1. Voluntary Intoxication – The D needs to prove that the D knowingly and voluntarily ingested

      1. Note that Voluntary Intoxication is a defense to specific intent crimes (see above) yet not a defense to general intent crimes (see above)

   2. ​Involuntary Intoxication – The D needs to prove that the D not knowingly or voluntarily ingested, such as:

      1. The D was forced to ingest,

      2. The D was unaware that he or she was ingesting, or

      3. The D ingested pursuant to a medical advice 

         1. Note that Involuntary Intoxication has a same legal effect as Insanity (see above), which is a defense to all crimes, including strict liability crimes under Criminal Law

3. ​Infancy

   1. Generally, under the age of 7, there is no criminal liability; and under the age of 14, there is a rebuttable presumption (i.e., an assumption made by a court that is taken to be true unless a party comes forward to contest it, and prove that the assumption is actually not true. For example, a D in a criminal case is presumed innocent until proved guilty) of no criminal liability unless the infant is proved guilty by the other party **

4. Self-Defense

   1. ​Non-deadly Force: A person without fault may use non-deadly force (e.g., hit, strike, trespass) as self-defense as reasonably necessary to protect himself or herself from the immediate threat 

   2. Deadly Force: A person without fault may use deadly force (e.g., firearms, bladed weapons, explosives, and vehicles) as self-defense if:

      1. he or she is confronted with unlawful force, and

      2. he or she is threatened with imminent death or great bodily harm

   3. Duty to Retreat

      1. Duty to retreat is a legal requirement that even though a person is threatened with an unlawful force and threatened with imminent death or great bodily harm, the threatened person cannot harm the D in self-defense using deadly force when it is possible to instead retreat to a place of safety. However, there is a continued debate in the legal community as to whether or not the D has a duty to retreat before using deadly force 

         1. ​Perspective of the Majority: The D does not have a duty to retreat before using deadly force

         2. Perspective of the Minority:  The D does have a duty to retreat if he or she can retreat safely​ ** 

            1. However, both the majority and minority perspectives agree that the D has no duty to retreat if:

               1. he or she is inside his or her home

               2. the retreat would endanger a third party

               3. the victim is the victim of violent felony 

               4. he or she is a police officer

   4. Use of Force by Initial Aggressor: Initial aggressor (i.e., a person who physically attacked first) cannot claim right of self defense by use of force unless:

      1. Withdraw – Initial aggressor has withdrawn and communicated the withdrawal to the other party

      2. Escalator – Initial aggressor may self defend himself or herself if the other party escalates the fight through a deadly response 

5. Defense of Others 

   1. D has the right to defend others if he or she reasonably believes that the person assisted has the legal right to use force in his or her own defense **

      1. No preexisting relationship is required 

      2. Reasonable mistake of fact Defense: D making a mistake of the person who D tried to defend, reasonably appeared to be attacked, but in fact was not being attacked. In this case, reasonable mistake of fact can be a defense to D, a defense that implies the D used force to protect the person

6.  Defense of Dwelling 

   1. Deadly force may never be used to defend a property

      1.  Note that a person may use deadly force to protect himself or herself while in his or her home

7. Defense of Personal Property

   1. Non-deadly force may be used to defend personal property in his or her possession from an unlawful interference

      1. Yet, the non-deadly force may not be used if a request to desist (i.e., ask the perpetrator to give up the property) would suffice

   2. Deadly force may be used if there is an imminent danger of great bodily harm or death  **

8. Mistake of fact  

   1. Example) When D leaves the room, he or she takes the cell phone of P, truthfully having confidence that it was his or hers. This is a mistake of fact

      1. Malice crime (see above) or General intent crime (see above) – Reasonable mistake of fact is a defense

      2. Specific intent crime (see above) – Any mistake, even unreasonable, is an available defense

      3. Strict liability crime (see above) – Mistake of fact is never a defense

9. Mistake of Law

   1. Example) D truthfully has confidence that he or she does not have to come to a complete stop at the "stop" sign when there are no other cars at the intersection, when he or she must come to a complete stop. This is a mistake of law. In almost every case, D will not be allowed to argue that her or she did not know the law. That is, mistake of law cannot be a defense 

      1. Mistake of law is no defense 

         1. Exceptions – When the Statute was enacted after the crime was committed  **

10. Crime Prevention

    1. Non-deadly force may be used as a defense to the extent that it reasonably appears necessary to prevent (i) a felony, or (ii) serious breach of the peace

    2. Deadly force may be used as a defense only to terminate or prevent (i) a dangerous felony involving risk of human life

11. Use of Force to Effectuate Arrest

    1. Using a reasonable force is a defense when used by officers to effectuate an arrest  

    2. Using a deadly force is a defense when it is reasonable to prevent the escape of the felon, and to prevent the felon threatening death or serious bodily injury to others

       1. Private Person using non-deadly force: Private person using a non-deadly force to make an arrest is a defense if a crime was in fact committed and has reasonable grounds to believe the person arrested committed the crime

       2. Private Person using deadly force: Private person using deadly force is a defense only if the person arrested was actually guilty of the offense **

12. Resisting Arrest

    1. Using a non-deadly force is a defense when resisting an improper arrest: Non-deadly force may be used to resist an improper arrest even if a known officer is making that arrest 

    2. Using a deadly force is a defense when resisting an improper arrest: Deadly force may be used only if the person does not know that the person arresting him or her is a police officer (i.e., deemed to be a problematic issue)**

13. Necessity 

    1. The D interfering with the real property or personal property of the P is a defense when it is reasonably and apparently necessary to avoid threatened injury to:

       1. Public – When the D acts for the community as a whole or a significant group of people to protect them from any threat or danger ( = complete/absolute defense)

          1. Example) The police are chasing a dangerous criminal and he or she decides to hide out in the back yard of P where they eventually apprehend the D. The police could assert the public necessity defense if P tries to sue the police for trampling his or her garden and the rose, and here because public necessity is an absolute defense, the police does not need to pay for any damages incurred during his or her break in 

       2. Private – When the D invades property of P to avoid a threatening emergency situation, and to protect an interest of his or her own. And during this emergency, if there was a destruction or serious injury incurred upon the P, the D must pay for any injury/actual fault he or she caused on the property ( = limited defense) **

          1. Example) The D is caught in a blizzard while hiking. The D knocked on a cabin door for help, but no one answers. The D break into the barn next to the house to stay safe and ride out the storm. D could assert the private necessity defense and will not be liable for “trespass to land”, yet must pay for any damages that is incurred during his or her break in

       3. Notes

          1. As long as the emergency situation continues, the private property owner must let the D remain on the property until the threatening emergency situation has passed

          2. The owner of property can be held liable for the additional damages to the D if they wrongfully eject the D in an emergency causing injury upon the D

          3. Necessity applies only to property torts (i.e., trespass to land, trespass to chattels, conversion) **

14. Duress

    1. The D reasonably believed that another person would imminently inflict death or great bodily harm upon him or her, or a member of his or her family if he or she did not commit the crime

       1. Note that Duress is defense to all crimes except homicide

15. Consent 

    1. Unlike torts, in criminal law, consent is a defense when the crime requires lack of consent of the victims (e.g., rape, assault, battery) 

    2. The consent (i) must be done voluntary, and (ii) the consenter must be legally capable of consenting (i.e., not intoxicated or insane)

16. Entrapment 

    1. A law enforcement officer inducing a person to commit a crime that the person would have otherwise unlikely or unwillingly to commit

       1. Two elements must be satisfied:

          1. the criminal design was induced by the law enforcement officers, and 

          2. the D was not predisposed to commit the crime prior to the contact by the law enforcement officer

             1. Note that merely providing the opportunity for a predisposed person to commit a crime is not an entrapment **

​

  5. Homicide

1. Definition of Homicide: Unlawful killing of a human​ both legal and illegal acts

   1. Voluntary Manslaughter

      1. Definition: A killing that would be murder but for the existence of adequate provocation

         1. Adequate Provocation

            1. Definition: A conduct or circumstances sufficient to deprive a reasonable person of self-control 

            2. There are four factors that must be met for the D to have the adequate provocation (i.e., which will reduce his or her sentencing from homicide to voluntary manslaughter) 

               1. The behavior of the victim would have created a sudden and intense heat to provoke a reasonable person

               2. ​The D must actually have been provoked by the conduct of the victim

               3. When the D acted, he or she has not yet personally cooled from the heat

               4. When the D acted, a reasonable person also would not have cooled from the heat ** 

      2. Defenses

         1. Imperfect Claim of Self-Defense

            1. This defense is applicable if the D incorrectly yet honestly believed in the necessity of responding with a deadly force

         2. Diminished Capacity 

            1. This defense is applicable, if the D had a mental defect short of insanity when the crime was committed. Thus, in this case, the D will not have the mental state required for the crime charged **

   2. Involuntary Manslaughter

      1. Definition: An unintentional killing that results either from criminal negligence or misdemeanor manslaughter

         1. Criminal Negligence

            1. Definition: An act of extreme deviation from a reasonable standard of care (i.e., how a reasonable person would act in the same situation) putting another person at risk of injury or death

               1. Note that Criminal Negligence is different from Depraved Heart (i.e., this will be explained in details later soon) in that the act was not outrageous enough or there was no awareness of the high degree of risk of human life 

         2. Misdemeanor Manslaughter 

            1. Definition of Misdemeanor: A criminal offense that is less serious than a felony, and are generally punishable by a fine and incarceration in a local county jail to less than a year

            2. Definition of Misdemeanor Manslaughter: A criminal homicide that happens during the commission or attempted commission of a misdemeanor **

   3. Common Law Murder 

      1. Definition: Unlawful killing of another with malice aforethought

         1. Note that the difference between Homicide and Murder is Homicide includes both legal and illegal acts, while Murder includes only illegal acts  (i.e., legal acts are generally homicide that happen during war)

            1. Malice Aforethought

               1. Intent to kill

               2. Intend to do serious bodily harm

               3. Depraved Heart ( = Gross Recklessness): Acting with reckless indifference to an unjustifiably high risk of human life

               4. Felony Murder

                  1. Definition of Felony: A grave crime for which the punishment in federal law may be death or imprisonment for more than one year

                  2. Definition of Felony Murder: A criminal homicide that happens during the commission of or attempt to commit an inherently dangerous felony 

                  3. Defenses to Felony Murder

                     1. The D has a defense to the underlying felony

                     2. The D is not liable for the death of a co-felon as a result of resistance by the victim or the police 

      2. Types of Murder 

         1. 1st Degree Murder 

            1. Definition: An unlawful killing that is both willful and premeditated (i.e., planned) **

            2. Types of 1st Degree Murder:

               1. committed with  premeditation and  deliberation (i.e., deliberation could be brief), or

               2. committed during the commission of an enumerated felony (e.g., kidnap, rape, robbery, burglary)

            3. Defense

               1. Voluntary Intoxication (see above)  **

         2. 2nd Degree Murder 

            1. Definition: An unlawful killing that lacks premeditation, is intended to cause only bodily harm, and demonstrates an extreme indifference to human life 

            2. Types of 2nd Degree Murder

               1. the killing was the result of an act that was intended to cause serious harm, or

               2. the killing was done impulsively, in a time of high emotion

                  1. Example) a person and another person are walking in opposite directions down the street. A person bumps into another person and continues walking. The person gets angry, pulls out a gun and shoots the other person. The person can be convicted of second degree murder as he or she had intent to kill, but it was not premeditated

            3. Defense

               1. Self-Defense (see above) **

      3. Causation of Murder  

         1. Actual Cause ( = Cause in Fact) 

            1. Definition: The first event of the act by the D which caused harm to a person, and without the act by the D, the result would not have occurred

         2. Proximate Cause 

            1. Definition: The primary cause of the injury that caused harm to a person by the D. It is not necessarily the closest cause of the first event that caused harm 

               1. Note that the difference between the "actual cause" and "proximate cause" is ​actual cause is the first event that led to harm, while proximate cause is not the first event that led to harm, however, it is an act by the D which led to a foreseeable consequences without intervention from anyone else 

               2. Thus,  if an unforeseeable intervening act, that was not done by the D, or it was done coincidental or after the act of the D, has led to harm P, it could break the chain of causation between the D and the harm, lessening the guilt of the D  **

                  1. Example)​

                     1. Actual Cause: A driver who was texting while driving, struck a person who was crossing the street and injured the person (i.e., here the driver is the "actual cause" of the injury of the person) 

                     2. Proximate Cause: While a driver was driving, he or she saw a sudden jaywalker step into the street, and to avoid the jaywalker, the driver turned right, and while turning right struck a person who was crossing the street, injuring the person. Here, the “actual cause” of the injury of the person, is the driver who turned right; however, were it not for the jaywalker, the driver would not have struck the person. Thus, the jaywalker would likely be considered the “proximate cause” of the injury of the person. Thus, the driver will be liable under “actual cause”, and the jaywalker will be liable under “proximate cause” for the injury caused to the person, which will lessen the the guilt of the driver **

  6. Crimes​​

1.  Abduction

   1. Definition: Unlawfully kidnap and confine a person as to the act of the person, or conceal the person in a secret place **​

2. Larceny ( = Theft) 

   1. Definition: Wrongful taking and carrying away of tangible personal property belonging to another person with rightful possession without consent with intent to permanently deprive the rightful possessor of the use of the property **

   2. Analysis of the factors

      1. wrongful taking

         1. wrongful taking could be stealing or misrepresentation of fact (i.e., telling the fact under deceit is called ‘larceny by trick’) 

      2. carrying away

         1. just a little transfer of a property is enough (i.e., does not have to actually carry the property to another place)

      3. tangible personal property

         1. any property that is visible 

      4. of another person with rightful possession

         1. the person who actually has possession to the property can take action against the D under larceny 

         2. the person who has custody to the property cannot take action against the D under larceny

            1. Note that the difference between 'possession' and 'custody' is that the former has complete dominion of the property while the latter has the duty of care as to the property

      5. without consent 

         1. consent acquired by fraud is invalid

      6. with intent to permanently deprive the rightful possessor 

         1. the intent must exist at the time of the taking 

         2. however, if the person who took the property had the intent to return it back soon, then it is not within the extent of larceny (i.e., even if the property was damaged or destroyed, if the person had the intent to return it back soon, there is no larceny)

         3. additionally, if the person who took the property had the intent to (a) borrow the property, (b) keep the property as a repayment of debt, or (c) mistakenly thought the property was his or hers, there is no larceny 

         4. yet, if at later point, the person who took the property realized the property is not his or hers and decides to keep the property anyway, the person is guilty under larceny ​

            1. Examples)

               1. Larceny: Theft of artwork from an exhibition, theft of a wallet by pickpocketing, etc. Here both cases of the D will be guilty under Larceny because both the D committed theft 

               2. Larceny by Trick: H convinces L to let H borrow the car possessed by L, yet H has no intent to return the car to L. Here H is guilty under Larceny by Trick because H tried to convince L to transfer the possession of L through deception **

3. Embezzlement

   1. Definition: Fraudulent conversion of personal property of another by a person in lawful possession of the personal property of another for unintended purpose 

   2. Analysis of the factors

      1. fraudulent

         1. the person must have intended to defraud at the time of the conversion 

      2. conversion 

         1. conversion is taking a property of another, who is the possessor of the property, that is inconsistent with the intent of the possessor of the property

      3. of personal property of another

      4. by a person in lawful possession of the personal property of another for unintended purpose

         1. there is no need to prove that the person personally benefitted. That is, as long as the person had the intent to fraudulently convert the property, the person is guilty under embezzlement 

         2. however, if the person had the intent to restore the exact property converted, there is no embezzlement 

            1. Note that the difference between “larceny” and “embezzlement” is that in the case of larceny, the person who takes did not have the possession of the property, while in the case of embezzlement, the person who converted had the possession of the property

            2. Example) Forging checks (i.e., the employee writes company checks or makes electronic payments to oneself), Cashing customer checks (i.e., the employee endorses and cashes customer checks payable to the company, then keeps the funds), Theft of customer card data (i.e., an employee who takes phone orders may later use the credit card data of the customer to charge personal purchases online, or a gas station manager could use a skimmer device to skim card data from terminals), Using a company credit card for personal use (i.e., using a company credit card for personal use can turn into huge embezzlement examples when combined with falsified accounting records) **

4. Rape 

   1. Definition: Unlawful carnal knowledge without his or her effective consent 

   2. Rule

      1. Even a little penetration is a completed crime 

      2. A husband can rape his wife if the couples are separated 

   3. Defense: Consent

      1. Lack of effective consent

         1. Actual force 

         2. Threats of immediate great bodily harm

         3. Incapable to consent (e.g., the victim is unconscious due to drug or alcohol)

         4. Fraudulently cause the person to accept that the act is not intercourse 

   4. Statutory RapeDefinition: Carnal knowledge of a female under the age of consent 

      1. Note that, under statutory rape, consent by the victim is not a defense 

5. False Pretense

   1. Definition: In order to obtain title to personal property of another, a person makes an intentional false statement of past or existing fact with intent to defraud the other 

   2. Analysis of factors:

      1. to obtain a title (i.e., an ownership of the property) 

      2. to personal property of another 

      3. a person makes an intentional false statement of past or existing facts (i.e., intentional false statement of future facts is not enough to rise to false pretenses)

      4. with intent to defraud the other 

         1. Example) Former county official who promises to provide certain services for a client charged with drunk driving if the client paid him or her funds, is guilty of false pretenses when he or she falsely pretended to be able to aid the client in avoiding prosecution and fines for driving drunk; or When a broker misrepresents the value of certain assets to get a windfall in a stock transaction, he or she is guilty of false pretense

            1. Note that in order for the D to be found guilty under false pretense, the fact that has been misrepresented must be important to the case, and the victim has to have relied on the misrepresentation

            2. And the difference between “larceny by trick (see above)” and “false pretense” is that the former is, the victim is tricked into transfer the “possession of a property” while the latter is, the victim is tricked into transfer “both the possession and the title to the property

6. Robbery

   1. Definition: Wrongful taking of personal property of another from the other person or presence by force or threats of immediate death or physical injury with intent to permanently deprive of it from the other person

   2. Analysis of the factors:

      1. wrongful taking

      2. of personal property of another

      3. from the other person or presence 

      4. by force or threats of immediate death or physical Injury

         1. threats may be made to the victim, family or other person in the presence of the victim 

         2. the degree of force is irrelevant. As long as the D used any type of force (e.g., nudge, push, kick, use deadly force), he or she will be guilty under Robbery if all the other factors meet 

         3. threats of future harm do not create robbery (e.g., I will hit you later) 

      5. with intent to permanently deprive of it from the other person

         1. Note that for a D to be guilty under robbery, the victim must have been taken his or her property by the D because the victim felt threatened. However, if the victim did not feel threatened by the D, and still the D took the property of the victim, the D may be guilty under attempted robbery **

7.  Forgery

   1. Definition: Falsely making or altering a writing with apparent legal significance with intent to defraud 

   2. Analysis of the factors:

      1. falsely making or altering (i.e., editing or deleting)

      2. a writing with apparent legal significance (i.e., a contract or a deed)

      3. with intent to defraud (i.e., the P does not need to be actually defrauded in order for the D to be guilty, because the intent of the D to defraud is a requisite for the D to be guilty under forgery)

         1. Example) Fraudulently causing another party to sign a document that the party does not realize he or she is signing is also forgery 

8. Burglary 

   1. Definition: Breaking and entering into the dwelling house of another at night, with the present intent to commit a felony there in

   2. Analysis of the factors:

      1. breaking in 

      2. entering into (i.e., as long as any part of the body is crossed into the house, this factor is satisfied)

      3. by force (i.e., breaking in is required to be accomplished by use of force)

      4. of a dwelling house 

      5. of another 

      6. at night 

      7. intent to commit a felony or theft inside (i.e., this intent must have existed at the time of the breaking and entering. That is, if the intent to commit a felony or theft was formed after the D broke in or entered into a dwelling house, there is no burglary) 

         1. Note that the felony or theft the D was trying to commit inside, does not need to be completed. As long as the D had the intent to commit the felony or theft at the time of the breaking and entering, the D will be guilty under burglary 

9. Arson

   1. Definition: Intentional and reckless burning of the dwelling house of another 

   2. Analysis of the factors:

      1. intentional and reckless (i.e., disregard of an apparent risk)

      2. burning (i.e., this requires the part of the house to be charred. The part of the house to be damaged or discolored by heat or fume cannot be regarded as burning in the case of arson)

      3. dwelling house 

      4. of another (i.e., however, if D burned his or her house, yet created danger to other houses nearby, then the D could be convicted of arson as well) **

10. Receipt of Stolen Property 

    1. Definition: Receiving possession and control of a stolen personal property known to have been obtained in a manner constituting a criminal offense by another person with the intent to permanently deprive the interest from the other person

    2. Analysis of the factors:

       1. receiving possession and control 

       2. of a stolen personal property (i.e., the personal property must be stolen at the time the D received it)

       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 interest of the possessor of the personal property 

11. Forgery

    1. Definition: Falsely making or altering a writing with apparent legal significance with intent to defraud 

    2. Analysis of the factors:

       1. falsely making or altering (i.e., editing or deleting)

       2. a writing with apparent legal significance (i.e., a contract or a deed)

       3. with intent to defraud (i.e., the P does not need to be actually defrauded in order for the D to be guilty, because the intent of the D to defraud is needed for the D to be guilty under forgery)

          1. Example) Fraudulently causing another party to sign a document that the party does not realize he or she is signing is also Forgery 

​

​

                                                                                                   - The End -  

​

​