CALIFORNIA CRIMINAL LAW ESSAY WORKSHOP PROFESSOR CHRISTOPHER IDE-DON UC DAVIS SCHOOL OF LAW

Transcription

1 CALIFORNIA CRIMINAL LAW ESSAY WORKSHOP PROFESSOR CHRISTOPHER IDE-DON UC DAVIS SCHOOL OF LAW CHAPTER 1: SUMMARY OF ISSUES; SUBSTANTIVE LAW A. Summary f Issues 1. Hmicide Cmmn law Intent t kill Intent t inflict great bdily injury Reckless indifference t unjustifiably high risk t human life Felny murder: freseeable death caused in cmmissin f inherently dangerus felny 1st degree deliberate and premeditated 2nd degree statutrily created categry & cmmn-law murder Vluntary manslaughter adequate prvcatin arusing sudden/intense passin in mind f rdinary persn, D actually prvked, n sufficient time fr rdinary persn t cl ff, and D did nt actually cl ff Invluntary manslaughter criminal negligence r unlawful act 2. Defenses Insanity M Naghten, Irresistible Impulse, Durham, & MPC Self Defense Intxicatin Vluntary and Invluntary 3. Other Crimes Criminal Battery Kidnapping 4. Theft crimes Larceny Burglary Rbbery Receipt f stlen gds

2 5. Party liability Accmplice liability Accessry after the fact 6. Inchate Crimes Cnspiracy Attempt B. Hmicide Exam Tip 1: There are tw types f hmicide questins. One will ask yu t discuss if the defendant can be cnvicted f murder r f any lesser-included ffense. The ther type f questin will specifically ask yu t discuss first degree, secnd degree murder, and (smetimes) vluntary manslaughter. Exam Tip 2: Imprtant: Fr bth types f questins, yu shuld discuss the fllwing issues in this rder: Cmmn Law Murder, First Degree Murder, Secnd Degree Murder, Vluntary Manslaughter, and Invluntary Manslaughter. Cmmn-Law Murder At cmmn law, murder is the unlawful killing f a human being cmmitted with malice afrethught. Malice afrethught will be fund if the killing is cmmitted with any f the fllwing mental states: Intent t kill, Intent t inflict great bdily injury, Reckless indifference t unjustifiably high risk t human life (Depraved-Heart Killing), r Felny Murder. Intent t Kill T be fund guilty, D s cnduct must be the actual and prximate cause f V s death and D must have intended t kill V. Exam Tip 3: Lk fr ambiguus facts n the exam that will require a mre in depth discussin f actual/prximate cause r intent t kill. D nt assume that the causatin and intent t kill are met. Intent t Inflict Great Bdily Injury T be fund guilty, D must nly pssess the requisite intent t inflict great bdily injury upn V Themis Bar Review, LLC CA Criminal Law Essay Wrkshp

3 Reckless Indifference T be fund guilty, D must demnstrate a reckless indifference t an unjustifiably high risk t human life. Felny Murder Rule (FMR) Exam Tip 4: Yu shuld nly discuss the felny murder rule if the facts present a killing that ccurs during an inherently dangerus felny. A hmicide by itself des nt trigger the FMR; there must be a separate felny in the fact pattern. Under the FMR, D can be fund guilty fr the unintended and freseeable killing that is prximately caused by r during the cmmissin r attempted cmmissin f an inherently dangerus felny. Traditinally, burglary, arsn, rbbery, rape and kidnapping are cnsidered t be inherently dangerus felnies. Here, D is guilty f the underlying felny f. Exam Tip 5: T earn full credit, yu must state the underlying felny that ccurred and analyze the elements f the felny. Example: If rbbery is the underlying felny, yu have t state that rbbery is the underlying felny and then analyze each element f rbbery. The killing f the Victim was freseeable because In additin, V s killing was prximately caused by the [insert inherently dangerus felny] because CA Criminal Law Essay Wrkshp 2016 Themis Bar Review, LLC 3

4 Death f a c-feln Under the Redline dctrine, a defendant is generally nt guilty f felny murder when a victim r a plice fficer, acting in self-defense r trying t prevent the escape f the defendant r his c-feln, kills the c-feln. Instead, the killing by the victim r the plice fficer is cnsidered justifiable hmicide. Exam Tip 6: This issue is nly triggered if a plice fficer r the intended victim f the felny kills a c-feln f the defendant wh was participating in the crime with the defendant. Pint f Safety If the killing ccurs after the cmmissin f the felny is cmplete and the defendant has reached a place f safety, the FMR will nt apply. Exam Tip 7: Only discuss pint f safety if the facts indicate that the felny has been cmpleted and the defendant is n lnger fleeing. Fr example, if a rbbery has been cmpleted and the defendants have successfully escaped, a killing that ccurs after this pint in time wuld nt fall under the FMR, because there is n underlying felny in prgress. Exam Tip 8: After discussing cmmn law, yu need t address 1st Degree, 2nd Degree, Vluntary Manslaughter, and Invluntary Manslaughter. First-Degree Murder 1st degree murder is a statutrily created categry f murder that is premeditated and deliberate. Oftentimes, a jurisdictin will als characterize FMR as a 1st degree ffense Themis Bar Review, LLC CA Criminal Law Essay Wrkshp

5 Premeditated A murder is premeditated if the defendant had enugh time t reflect n the idea f, r plan the killing. The amunt f time needed fr premeditatin may be brief, even a mere secnd f reflectin is sufficient. Deliberate Deliberate means the defendant made the decisin t kill in a cl and dispassinate manner. Felny Murder Rule Exam Tip 9: The felny murder rule analysis fr Cmmn Law is the same as the felny murder rule analysis fr First-Degree Murder. Yu can say see abve fr the felny murder analysis. Secnd-Degree Murder Exam Tip 10: 2nd degree murder is the statutry versin f cmmn law murder. Yu d nt have t repeat the analysis here. Since yu already discussed cmmn law murder abve, yu can say: Secnd-degree murder is the statutry versin f cmmn-law murder, including the FMR. See the cmmn-law murder analysis abve. Exam Tip 11: Althugh the call f the questin may nly ask abut 1st r 2nd degree murder, yu shuld als cnsider the lesser ffenses f vluntary and invluntary manslaughter. Vluntary Manslaughter In rder fr D t be fund guilty f the lesser ffense f vluntary manslaughter, there are fur elements. There must be a prvcatin that wuld aruse a sudden/intense passin in the mind f an rdinary (reasnable) persn. CA Criminal Law Essay Wrkshp 2016 Themis Bar Review, LLC 5

6 Defendant must have actually been prvked There must nt have been sufficient time fr an rdinary (reasnable) persn t cl ff D did nt actually cl ff Invluntary Manslaughter T be fund guilty f invluntary manslaughter, D must have been criminally negligent. Defenses (Only discuss the defenses that apply) Insanity M Naghten Rule Exam Tip 12: The fur insanity rules are nt the same, s yu yur analysis f each rule will be slightly different, depending n the elements f the rules. Under the M Naghten rule, the defendant is nt guilty if, because f a defect f reasn due t a mental disease, the defendant did nt knw either (i) the nature and quality f the act r (ii) the wrngfulness f the act Themis Bar Review, LLC CA Criminal Law Essay Wrkshp

7 Irresistible Impulse Test Under the irresistible impulse test, the defendant is nt guilty if he lacked the capacity fr self-cntrl and free chice because mental disease r defect prevented him frm being able t cnfrm his cnduct t the law. Durham Rule Under the Durham rule, a defendant is nt guilty if the unlawful act was the prduct f the defendant s mental disease r defect and wuld nt have been cmmitted but fr the disease r defect. Mdel Penal Cde Test The Mdel Penal Cde cmbines the M Naghten and irresistible impulse tests. The defendant is nt guilty if, at the time f the cnduct, he, as a result f a mental disease r defect, did nt have substantial capacity t appreciate the wrngfulness f the act r t cnfrm his cnduct t the law. Intxicatin There are tw states f intxicatin, vluntary and invluntary. Vluntary intxicatin invlves the vluntary ingestin f an intxicating substance. It is a defense t mst specific intent crimes if the defendant did nt have the state f mind t frm intent due t intxicatin, but it is nt a defense t murder. Invluntary intxicatin is the invluntary ingestin f an intxicating substance, such as with duress, withut knwing f its nature, prescribed by a medical prfessinal, etc. It is a defense t murder. CA Criminal Law Essay Wrkshp 2016 Themis Bar Review, LLC 7

8 Self-defense Self-defense is the use f reasnable frce t prtect neself at a reasnable time. Deadly frce may nly be used t prtect against the use f deadly frce. Unreasnable self-defense is a defense available t ne wh engages in gd faith but unreasnable selfdefense. It is a mitigating defense which takes a murder charge dwn t vluntary manslaughter. Other Crimes Criminal Battery Criminal battery is the intentinal unlawful applicatin f frce t anther persn. Battery is a general intent crime, s intent will be fund thrugh intentinal cnduct and/r criminal negligence (cnduct that carries a high risk f harming thers). Kidnapping Kidnapping is the unlawful cnfinement f a persn against that persn s will cupled with either mvement r cncealment f that persn. Theft Crimes Exam Tip 13: The exam facts can be relevant fr mre than ne type f theft crime; be sure t discuss all relevant theft crimes. Burglary Burglary is the breaking and entering f the dwelling f anther at nighttime with the specific intent t cmmit a felny therein. Exam Tip 14: Be sure t address all elements f burglary, including a clear statement f which felny the defendant is intending t cmmit therein. Exam Tip 15: Remember that the cmmn-law rule fr burglary requires that the building be a dwelling, and that the breaking crime ccurs at night. Yu can mentin bth the cmmn-law rule and mdern rule fr dwelling and at night. Larceny Larceny is the trespassry taking and carrying away f the persnal prperty f anther, withut his cnsent, with the specific intent t permanently deprive the wner f the prperty at the time f the taking Themis Bar Review, LLC CA Criminal Law Essay Wrkshp

9 Exam Tip 16: Fcus n the elements f lack f cnsent, and the intent t permanently deprive at the time f the taking. The taking and carrying away elements can be met by the slightest mvement. Rbbery Rbbery is a larceny by frce r intimidatin when the taking f prperty is frm the victim r in his presence. Exam Tip 17: If yu have already discussed Larceny, yu can say see abve fr larceny discussin and then fcus n the frce/intimidatin and frm the victim/in his presence elements. Receipt f Stlen Prperty Receipt f stlen prperty requires receipt r cntrl f stlen prperty, with the knwledge that the prperty was wrngfully taken, with the intent t permanently deprive the wner f the prperty. Exam Tip 18: Knwledge can be express r implied under the circumstances and includes circumstances where the defendant is "willfully blind" t the fact that the prperty has been stlen. Party liability Accmplice Liability A persn is liable as an accmplice if he aids r abets a principal prir t r during the crime with the intent fr a crime t be cmmitted. Exam Tip 19: Be sure t clearly explain what the accmplice did t aid/abet the principal and why the accmplice had intent fr the crime t be cmmitted. The accmplice is liable fr the crime itself and all ther freseeable crimes that might ccur. Exam Tip 20: Be sure t discuss whether each crime that ccurs is freseeable. An accmplice is nly liable fr crimes that are freseeable. If an unfreseeable crime ccurs, she will nt be liable under an accmplice liability thery. CA Criminal Law Essay Wrkshp 2016 Themis Bar Review, LLC 9

10 Accessry After the Fact An accessry after the fact is ne wh aids a feln t avid apprehensin after the felny is cmmitted, and t be guilty the persn must knw the felny was cmmitted. Inchate Crimes Cnspiracy Cnspiracy is an agreement between tw r mre peple t accmplish an unlawful purpse plus specific intent t agree and cmmit the criminal bjective. There must als be an vert act in furtherance f the cnspiracy. Exam Tip 21: There is n dctrine f merger applied t cnspiracy. A defendant can be cnvicted f cnspiracy t cmmit a crime and the underlying crime itself (as well as any crimes cmmitted in furtherance f the cnspiracy). Fr example, a defendant can be liable fr cnspiracy t cmmit rbbery and rbbery itself (and any ther crimes in furtherance f the cnspiracy). A cnspiratr is liable fr the cnspiracy and a c-cnspiratr s substantive crimes in furtherance f the cnspiracy. Exam Tip 22: Be sure t discuss whether each crime that ccurs is in furtherance f the cnspiracy. If a crime is cmmitted that is nt in furtherance f the cnspiracy, the defendant will nt be liable under a c-cnspiratr thery. Attempt Attempt requires the specific intent t achieve the criminal act and a substantial step (mere preparatin t cmmit the crime is nt enugh) in the directin f the cmmissin f the act r dangerusly clse t the cmmissin f the act. Exam Tip 23: The crime f attempt is subject t the dctrine f merger, s if the defendant successfully cmmits the underlying crime, the attempt merges int the cmpleted crime, and the defendant is nly liable fr the cmpleted crime. She is nt liable fr attempt and the cmpleted crime Themis Bar Review, LLC CA Criminal Law Essay Wrkshp

11 Criminal Law Exam Questin July 2011, Questin #1 Vicky perates a successful retail cmputer sales business ut f the garage f her huse. Vicky tld Dan that she intended t g n vacatin sme days later. Dan subsequently infrmed Eric f Vicky s intended vacatin and f his plan t take all f her cmputers while she was away. Eric tld Dan that he wanted nthing t d with taking the cmputers, but that Dan culd brrw his pickup truck if Dan needed it t carry the cmputers away. While Vicky was scheduled t be away n vacatin, Dan brrwed Eric s pickup truck. Late that night, Dan drve the truck ver t Vicky s huse. When he arrived, he went int the garage by pushing a partially pen side dr all the way pen. Vicky, wh had returned hme early frm her vacatin, was awakened by nise in her garage, pened the dr cnnecting the garage t the huse, and stepped int the garage. When she saw Dan lading cmputers int the back f the truck, she stepped between Dan and the truck and yelled, Stp, thief! Dan pushed Vicky ut f the way, ran t the truck, and drve ff. He immediately went t Fred s huse where he tld Fred what had happened. In exchange fr tw f the cmputers, Fred allwed Dan t hide the truck behind Fred s huse. What crimes, if any, have Dan, Eric, and/r Fred cmmitted? Discuss. State Bar f Califrnia. Reprinted with permissin. CA Criminal Law Essay Wrkshp 2016 Themis Bar Review, LLC 11

12 ISSUES CHECKLIST I. D S CRIMES Burglary Breaking Entering Dwelling f Anther At Nighttime Intent t Cmmit a Felny Larceny Trespassry Taking And Carrying Away Persnal Prperty f Anther With Intent t Permanently Deprive Rbbery Persn r Presence Frce r Intimidatin Battery Cnspiracy II. E S CRIMES Cnspiracy Accmplice Liability Burglary and Larceny Rbbery Battery III. F S CRIMES Accessry After the Fact Receiving Stlen Prperty Themis Bar Review, LLC CA Criminal Law Essay Wrkshp

13 I. DAN S (D) CRIMES Burglary Burglary is the breaking and entering f the dwelling f anther at nighttime with the specific intent t cmmit a felny therein. Breaking Breaking is accmplished by using frce t create an pening int a dwelling, such as by shattering a windw r kicking in a dr. Here, pushing a partially pen side dr all the way pen cnstitutes a breaking because a breaking may be slight. Entering Entering ccurs when any prtin f the defendant s bdy r an instrument used by the defendant t gain entry crsses int the dwelling withut permissin thrugh the pening created by the breaking. In this case, D entered Vicky s (V) prperty when he went int the garage. Dwelling f Anther A dwelling is a structure regularly ccupied fr habitatin. It need nt be ccupied at the time f the breaking, but it must nt be abandned. All states have statutes that expand the type f structure t include nn-dwellings, such as businesses, buildings, r cars, and surrunding areas, such as yards. Here, D brke int the garage f V's huse. V did nt sleep in her garage, but she did cnduct her cmputer business ut f her garage and frequently spent time in there. Additinally, the garage was cnnected t the huse by the dr that V entered when she heard the nise. Thus, the garage is part f V's dwelling huse, and this element is met under the cmmn law definitin f burglary. [Nte the discussin f the mdern rule] The element is als met under a mdern statutry definitin because a garage wuld be cnsidered a structure in its wn right. At Nighttime Nighttime ccurs during the perid f darkness between sunset and sunrise. The cmmn law required that the breaking and entering ccur during nighttime. [Nte the discussin f the mdern rule] Mdernly, n states require that all frms f burglary be cmmitted at night, althugh mre severe penalties may be impsed n nighttime burglaries. In this case, D entered V s garage late at night, which easily qualifies as the perid f darkness between sunset and sunrise, s this requirement is met even thugh it is unnecessary tday. Intent t Cmmit a Felny At the time f the breaking and entering, the defendant must have the intent t cmmit a felny inside the dwelling. In this case, D had the intent t cmmit larceny f V's cmputers when he entered her garage, as will be explained belw. Evidence f this intent is shwn by D infrming Eric (E) that he planned t take all f V s cmputers while she was away n vacatin. Further, D brrwed E s pickup n the night f the burglary in rder t carry the cmputers away nce he had taken them. Thus, D had the intent t cmmit a felny within V s garage. Since all f the abve elements are satisfied, D cmmitted burglary. CA Criminal Law Essay Wrkshp 2016 Themis Bar Review, LLC 13

14 Larceny [Addressing each element in a separate paragraph will help yu avid missed elements/sub-issues and shw the graders that yu knw hw t pair the relevant facts with each element.] Larceny is the trespassry taking and carrying away f the persnal prperty f anther with the intent t permanently deprive that persn f the prperty. Trespassry The prperty must be taken withut the wner s cnsent. In this case, we can infer that D was taking the cmputers withut V s cnsent because he drve t her huse late at night and entered the garage by pushing pen a side dr rather than using a key. Additinally, when V saw D lading the cmputers int the back f the truck, she stepped between D and the truck and yelled, Stp, thief! indicating that he did nt have her permissin t take the cmputers. Therefre, D s taking was trespassry. Taking The taking requirement is satisfied by any trespassry remval f the prperty frm the wner s pssessin int anther s cntrl. Here, D tk the cmputers nce he remved them frm V s garage and laded them int the back f the truck. And Carrying Away The carrying away requirement is satisfied by even a slight mvement f the prperty. Here, D drve ff with the cmputers in the truck, s this element is met. Persnal Prperty f Anther The prperty taken must be persnal, nt real, prperty and be in the pssessin f smene ther than the defendant. This element is satisfied because D tk V s cmputers, which are persnal prperty that were in V s pssessin at the time D tk them. With Intent t Permanently Deprive Larceny is a specific intent crime. Thus, the intent t permanently deprive the wner f the prperty must be present at the time f the taking. There are n facts in this case t indicate that D had any plan t return V s cmputers t her. Bth his cnversatin with E and his act f pushing V ut f the way s he culd drive away with the cmputers indicate intent t keep them permanently. Further, he gave Fred (F) tw f thse cmputers in exchange fr the ability t hide the truck behind F s huse. Thus, D had intent t permanently deprive V f the cmputers. Fr the reasns discussed abve, D cmmitted larceny Themis Bar Review, LLC CA Criminal Law Essay Wrkshp

15 Rbbery Rbbery is larceny by frce r intimidatin when the taking f the prperty is frm the persn r presence f the victim. As explained abve, D cmmitted larceny f V s cmputers. Persn r Presence The prperty taken must be n the victim s persn r within the victim s reach r cntrl (i.e., in the presence f the victim). In this case, V was present in the garage when D laded sme f her cmputers int the truck. In fact, she stepped between D and the truck as he was attempting t flee with the cmputers, which indicates that she was present when her prperty was taken. As such, this element is satisfied since the cmputers were taken frm within a very clse prximity t V. Frce r Intimidatin D may first claim that there was n frce r intimidatin because he neither threatened V nr carried a weapn with him t cmplete the larceny. T satisfy this requirement, hwever, the defendant need nly use mre frce than the amunt necessary t effectuate taking and carrying away the prperty. Here, when V stepped between D and the truck, D likely culd have reached the truck by ging arund her. Instead, D pushed V ut f the way, which is mre frce than necessary t effectuate the taking and carrying away as he had already taken the cmputers int his pssessin and placed them int his truck. In additin, D may argue that he did nt accmplish the taking by frce because he already had the cmputers in his pssessin befre V cnfrnted him. He will say that the frce was nly used t effectuate his escape, and nt the rbbery itself. Hwever, because the rbbery wuld nt have succeeded but fr the physical frce t the victim, it's likely t satisfy the requirement f frce. D cmmitted rbbery. Battery [Battery is a straightfrward issue here and the facts are nt ambiguus, s a single paragraph f analysis is apprpriate here.] Battery is the unlawful applicatin f frce t anther persn that causes bdily harm t that persn r cnstitutes an ffensive tuching. Here, D physically shved V ut f the way as he was escaping. Althugh the facts d nt indicate that V was harmed, the tuch was ffensive because D was an intruder in V s hme, as ppsed t an invited guest, and she was trying t stp him frm cmmitting a crime against her. Therefre, D cmmitted battery. Cnspiracy Cnspiracy is an agreement between tw r mre peple t accmplish an unlawful purpse with the intent t accmplish that purpse. There must als be a legal r illegal vert act in furtherance f the cnspiracy. The prsecutin may attempt t argue that D cnspired with E t cmmit burglary since he discussed his plans with E in advance and E laned him his truck fr the purpse f taking the cmputers frm V. Hwever, as will be addressed belw, it is nt clear that E had the specific intent fr the burglary t be CA Criminal Law Essay Wrkshp 2016 Themis Bar Review, LLC 15

16 cmpleted. If E lacked the requisite intent t accmplish the burglary, then D can nly be cnvicted f cnspiracy in a jurisdictin that recgnizes unilateral cnspiracy. II. E S CRIMES Cnspiracy See rule abve. The issues are whether E had the intent t enter int an agreement with D t accmplish an unlawful purpse and if E intended fr the illegal bject t transpire as planned. Here, the facts suggest that E lacked that intent, s he is likely nt guilty f cnspiracy. The prsecutin will argue that E's decisin t lan his truck t D knwing that D intended t use it t burglarize V's business is evidence that E cnspired t cmmit that crime. Hwever, E specifically tld D that he wanted nthing t d with taking the cmputers [Cunter-argument.]. Althugh the prudence f nnetheless letting D use his truck t cmmit the rbbery is questinable, the facts d nt prve that E intended t participate in the burglary r that he shared D's gal fr the burglary t succeed. He may have been indifferent t the theft being cmmitted r even favrable t the idea, but this is nt persuasive evidence that he intended fr D t succeed in the burglary. Since the prsecutin will have the burden t shw intent beynd a reasnable dubt, this is unlikely t be a persuasive argument. Therefre, it's likely that neither D nr E culd be cnvicted f cnspiracy. Accmplice Liability [Nte the difference between Cnspiracy and Accmplice Liability: Cnspiracy is a separate crime in itself that required the agreement between tw r mre peple t cmmit a crime. Accmplice Liability is fund if a persn aids r abets anther persn (n agreement between the tw peple is required, nly aiding/abetting is required) with the intent fr a crime t be cmmitted. A principal is the persn whse acts r missins are the actus reus f the crime, in ther wrds, the perpetratr f the crime. A persn is liable as an accmplice if he aids r abets a principal prir t r during the crime with the intent fr a crime t be cmmitted. The accmplice is liable fr the crime itself and all natural and prbable cnsequences f the crime. Burglary and Larceny In the case at hand, D was the principal because he was the ne wh actually perpetrated the crimes listed abve. E aided D prir t D cmmitting the crimes because he allwed D t brrw his pickup s that D culd carry the cmputers away. Althugh E may argue that he did nt have the requisite intent fr any crimes t be cmmitted and pint t the fact that he said he wanted nthing t d with taking the cmputers, his actins cntradict such a cnclusin because he laned D his truck fr the express purpse f cmpleting the crime. Further, withut E's participatin in laning D his truck, it's nt clear that D wuld have been able t cmmit the crimes. Therefre, if it was freseeable that D wuld cmmit burglary and larceny, E is liable. In this case, E knew that D intended t enter V's business and take her cmputers. This means he was persnally infrmed f D's intent t cmmit larceny and burglary. In fact, he specifically tld D that he culd use his truck if D needed it t carry the cmputers away. Therefre, E is liable as an accmplice t burglary and larceny Themis Bar Review, LLC CA Criminal Law Essay Wrkshp

17 Rbbery E will argue he is nt an accmplice t the rbbery f V because it was unfreseeable [Nte that an accmplice is nly liable fr crimes that are natural/prbable cnsequences f the crime that they intend t aid/abet] that V wuld be hme and therefre that D wuld take anything frm her persn r presence. He will claim that he thught V was n vacatin, and that the mst he culd be guilty f is burglary and larceny. On balance, this argument is likely t fail. E had n persnal knwledge f V s travel plans, and by agreeing t lend D his truck fr the purpses f escaping with V's cmputers, he assumed the risk that D might have erred in determining V's travel plans. Further, because the business was in V's garage, it wuld be freseeable that smene might be either n V's prperty fr business purpses, such as a huse sitter r smene else besides V that was living there. As such, the presence f anther persn was reasnably freseeable, and s was the rbbery f the cmputers frm that persn's presence. E is therefre guilty f rbbery as an accmplice. Battery Similarly, E will argue that it was nt reasnably freseeable that D wuld cmmit battery against V because he didn't knw that V wuld be present. Fr the reasns discussed abve, this argument will likely fail. A hme invasin always carries with it inherent risks that smene will be present. Breaking int a business carries the same risks because, while peple are nrmally at hme at night sleeping, businesses ften hire security persnnel t guard the premises at night. It was freseeable that V r anther persn might be there during the burglary, and that D might use frce against them in rder t effectuate his escape. As such, E is guilty as an accmplice t battery. III. F S CRIMES Accessry After the Fact An accessry after the fact is ne wh aids r assists a feln in aviding apprehensin r cnvictin after the felny is cmmitted. T be guilty the persn must knw the felny was cmmitted. In this case, F knew that the cmputers had been stlen earlier that evening because D drve t F s huse immediately after leaving V s huse and tld F what had transpired. Nnetheless, in exchange fr tw f the cmputers, F agreed t let D hide his truck n his prperty. This actin aided D in cvering up the crime and aiding detectin. Hiding the getaway vehicle that V had seen D driving away increased the chances that D wuld get away with the theft f her prperty, and therefre F acted as an accessry after the fact. CA Criminal Law Essay Wrkshp 2016 Themis Bar Review, LLC 17

18 Receiving Stlen Prperty Receiving stlen prperty is a statutry crime that requires receiving cntrl f stlen prperty with knwledge that the prperty is stlen and with the intent t permanently deprive the wner f the prperty. D specifically infrmed F that the cmputers were stlen, but F agreed t take tw f them in exchange fr hiding D's truck. The knwledge requirement is met here because F had firsthand knwledge f the cmputers' stlen status but agreed t take them int his pssessin. Further, there are n facts t indicate that F planned t return the cmputers t V. F has received stlen prperty. Themis Bar Review. All rights reserved. [END OF HANDOUT] Themis Bar Review, LLC CA Criminal Law Essay Wrkshp