Related Research Articles
Solicitation is the act of offering, or attempting to purchase, goods and/or services. Legal status may be specific to the time or place where it occurs. The crime of "solicitation to commit a crime" occurs when a person encourages, "solicits, requests, commands, importunes or otherwise attempts to cause" another person to attempt or commit a crime, with the purpose of thereby facilitating the attempt or commission of that crime.
Furman v. Georgia, 408 U.S. 238 (1972), was a landmark criminal case in which the United States Supreme Court invalidated all then existing legal constructions for the death penalty in the United States. It was 5–4 decision, with each member of the majority writing a separate opinion. Following Furman, in order to reinstate the death penalty, states had to at least remove arbitrary and discriminatory effects in order to satisfy the Eighth Amendment to the U.S. Constitution.
Justification is a defense in a criminal case, by which a defendant who committed the acts asserts that because what they did meets certain legal standards, they are not criminally culpable for the acts which would otherwise be criminal. Justification and excuse are related but different defenses.
The rule of felony murder is a legal doctrine in some common law jurisdictions that broadens the crime of murder: when someone is killed in the commission of a dangerous or enumerated crime, the offender, and also the offender's accomplices or co-conspirators, may be found guilty of murder.
An attempt to commit a crime occurs if a criminal has an intent to commit a crime and takes a substantial step toward completing the crime, but for reasons not intended by the criminal, the final resulting crime does not occur. Attempt to commit a particular crime is a crime, usually considered to be of the same or lesser gravity as the particular crime attempted. Attempt is a type of inchoate crime, a crime that is not fully developed. The crime of attempt has two elements, intent and some conduct toward completion of the crime.
Exculpatory evidence is evidence favorable to the defendant in a criminal trial that exonerates or tends to exonerate the defendant of guilt. It is the opposite of inculpatory evidence, which tends to present guilt.
Brady v. Maryland, 373 U.S. 83 (1963), was a landmark United States Supreme Court case that established that the prosecution must turn over all evidence that might exonerate the defendant to the defense. The prosecution failed to do so for Brady, and he was convicted. Brady challenged his conviction, arguing it had been contrary to the Due Process Clause of the Fourteenth Amendment to the United States Constitution.
In re Winship, 397 U.S. 358 (1970), was a United States Supreme Court decision that held that "the Due Process Clause protects the accused against conviction except upon proof beyond a reasonable doubt of every fact necessary to constitute the crime charged." It established this burden in all cases in all states.
Robert I. Weisberg is an American lawyer. He is an Edwin E. Huddleson, Jr. Professor of Law at Stanford Law School, and an expert on criminal law and criminal procedure, as well as a leading scholar in the law and literature movement.
Patterson v. New York, 432 U.S. 197 (1977), was a legal case heard by the Supreme Court of the United States that stated that the Due Process Clause Fourteenth Amendment did not prevent the burdening of a defendant to prove the affirmative defense of extreme emotional disturbance as defined by law in the state of New York.
Leland v. Oregon, 343 U.S. 790 (1952), was a United States Supreme Court case in which the Court upheld the constitutionality of placing the burden of persuasion on the defendant when they argue an insanity defense in a criminal trial. This differed from previous federal common law established in Davis v. United States, in which the court held that if the defense raised an insanity defense, the prosecution must prove sanity beyond a reasonable doubt, but Davis was not a United States constitutional ruling, so only limited federal cases, but not state cases. Oregon had a very high burden on defense, that insanity be proved beyond a reasonable doubt. At that time, twenty other states also placed the burden of persuasion on the defense for an insanity defense.
Stephenson v. State, Indiana Supreme Court, 179 N.E. 633, is a criminal case involving causation in criminal law, significant for its political and legal consequences. In 1925, David Curtiss Stephenson, leader of the Ku Klux Klan in Indiana abducted Madge Oberholtzer, injured her, and repeatedly raped her. She ingested poison and later died. Publicity for the case may have reversed ascendency of the Klan nationally. The case is legally significant in that it found "if a defendant engaged in the commission of a felony such as rape... inflicts upon his victim both physical and mental injuries, the natural and probable result of which would render the deceased mentally irresponsible and suicide followed, we think he would be guilty of murder".
John Kaplan was a legal scholar, social scientist, social justice advocate, popular law professor, and author. He was a leading authority in the field of criminal law, and was widely known for his legal analyses of some of the deepest social problems in the United States. He was known for his work linking sociological research with legal policies, and limiting academic legal theory with real-world sociological data. He was an advocate for ending criminal prohibitions on private behavior such as drug use, arguing that these laws only made any problems worse.
Doctrines of attribution are legal doctrines by which liability is extended to a defendant who did not actually commit the criminal act. Examples include vicarious liability, attempt to commit a crime, and conspiracy to commit a crime.
State v. Lyerla, Supreme Court of South Dakota, 424 N.W.2d 908 (1988), is a criminal case in which it was found that an attempt to commit a crime with an element of recklessness is a logical impossibility; specifically, that attempted second degree murder is logically impossible.
People v. Stone, Supreme Court of California, 46 Cal. 4th 131, 92 Cal. Rptr. 3d 362 (2009), is a criminal case in which the court set precedent for a theory of liability that a defendant is guilty of a single attempt to murder when multiple potential victims are in the kill zone and no one is killed, but if the intended target is not killed and an untargeted person in the kill zone is killed, defendant is guilty both of attempted murder of the target and is guilty of murder of the untargeted person killed.
Concurrent intent is when there is a specific intent to commit one crime, and at the same time (concurrently) an intent to commit another. An example is when a perpetrator plants a bomb or shoots an automatic weapon in a crowded place, with an intent to kill a specified target, the perpetrator can be found to have a concurrent intent to kill others who are not specifically targeted, but who are in the kill zone. Cases defining concurrent intent in common law include People v. Stone (2009) and People v. Bland (2002), each of which involve a drive-by shooting into a crowd.
People v. Bland, 28 Cal. 4th 313 (2002), is a United States criminal case interpreting attempted murder. The defendant fired multiple shots into a car with three people, killing the driver, and injuring the other two. The evidence showed he intended to kill the driver, but did not specifically intend to kill the others. The court wrote "The crime of attempt sanctions what the person intended to do but did not accomplish, not unintended and unaccomplished potential consequences." However, the court found a person could concurrently intend to kill more than just the person targeted, both the target and others in the "kill zone" of the shots, such as when a person sets off a bomb targeting a person who is surrounded by others, who would be guilty of murder of everyone killed by the blast.
The People of the State of California v. Superior Court (Decker), 41 Cal. 4th 1 (2007), is a criminal case decided by the Supreme Court of California that distinguished between solicitation and attempt.
The Omnibus Clause or Omnibus Provision in the federal law of the United States is a section of 18 U.S.C. §1503 according to which "anyone who corruptly... obstructs or impedes, or endeavors to influence, obstruct or impede, the due administration of justice", is guilty of the crime of obstruction of justice.
References
- ↑ "Binder, Guyora - LC Linked Data Service: Authorities and Vocabularies". Id.loc.gov . The Library of Congress.
- ↑ Wilder, Emily (August 24, 2021). "A Police Officer Killed Jacob Harris, But His Unarmed Friends Were Charged With His Murder". BuzzFeed News .
- ↑ VanSickle, Abbie; Aspinwall, Cary (October 25, 2022). "Fetterman and Oz Battle Over Pennsylvania's Felony Murder Law". The Marshall Project.
- ↑ "Controversial felony murder rule under microscope after Lake County shooting". Dailyherald.com . August 15, 2019.
- ↑ Vella, Vinny (November 21, 2021). "Fanta Bility was killed by police. So why were two teens charged with murder?". Inquirer.com .
- ↑ Keegan, Harrison. "How you can be convicted of murder in Missouri without killing anyone". News-leader.com .
- ↑ Binder, Guyora. "Id.loc.gov" (PDF). Archived from the original (PDF) on February 22, 2016.
- ↑ "If He Didn't Kill Anyone, Why Is It Murder?" . NYTimes.com .
- ↑ Dewan, Shaila (February 2, 2021). "People Died at the Capitol. Will Rioters Be Charged With Murder" . NYTimes.com .
