Convictions of implied malice murder require finding that defendant intended to do some act dangerous to human life (not the same as express intent to kill) Can’t find that there was agreement to kill when intent is implied People v. Lauria Defendant runs telephone operating service – question is whether he knew/had knowledge of prostitution sufficient for conviction of conspiracy (is knowledge enough?) Court says that there isn’t enough evidence to infer defendant had intent to promote their activities: He didn’t charge them proliferated rate Prostitutes didn’t account for majority of his clients There was still possibility they were using the service for legitimate purposes not enough to find purpose ** you can infer knowledge when there is dangerous offense (serious crime exception) Actus Reus for Requires agreement to participate in the criminal enterprise Unilateral Approach Conspiracy Actual aid is NOT required (unlike accomplice liability) state wants to punish those who have genuine criminal Act of agreement proven through circumstantial evidence intent Most jurisdictions require overt act in furtherance of conspiracy committed when person agrees to proceed conspiracy in criminal manner may be relatively minor and still in the preparatory potential for abuse state plays active role in creating offense phase (ex. Telephone call) becomes chief witness in proving crime at demonstrates firmness of criminal intent closer to mere preparation potential for to manufacture crime elements of unilateral conspiracy satisfy Bilateral Approach solicitation/attempt, still allows for some must be agreement between two or more people punishment of defendant when “conspiring” agreements must be genuine with undercover police officer. seeking to address criminality if only one person is in agreement no actual threat of criminal activity Person is guilty of conspiracy with another Ex. v. Pacheco person/persons if, with purpose of promoting or facilitating its commission, he:
Convictions of implied malice murder require finding that defendant intended to do some act dangerous to human life (not the same as express intent to kill) Can’t find that there was agreement to kill when intent is implied People v. Lauria Defendant runs telephone operating service – question is whether he knew/had knowledge of prostitution sufficient for conviction of conspiracy (is knowledge enough?) Court says that there isn’t enough evidence to infer defendant had intent to promote their activities: He didn’t charge them proliferated rate Prostitutes didn’t account for majority of his clients There was still possibility they were using the service for legitimate purposes not enough to find purpose ** you can infer knowledge when there is dangerous offense (serious crime exception) Actus Reus for Conspiracy Requires agreement to participate in the criminal enterprise Actual aid is NOT required (unlike accomplice liability) Act of agreement proven through circumstantial evidence Most jurisdictions require overt act in furtherance of conspiracy may be relatively minor and still in the preparatory phase (ex. Telephone call) demonstrates firmness of criminal intent closer to mere preparation Bilateral Approach must be agreement between two or more people agreements must be genuine seeking to address criminality if only one person is in agreement no actual threat of criminal activity Ex. v. Pacheco Unilateral Approach state wants to punish those who have genuine criminal intent conspiracy committed when person agrees to proceed in criminal manner potential for abuse state plays active role in creating offense becomes chief witness in proving crime at potential for to manufacture crime elements of unilateral conspiracy satisfy solicitation/attempt, still allows for some punishment of defendant when “conspiring” with undercover police officer. Person is guilty of conspiracy with another person/persons if, with purpose of promoting or facilitating its commission, he:
Criminal-Law-Ocen-20143.docx